wmschoell-67025's reviews

Making CinemaScope productions of Broadway revues was certainly a rare occurrence in the 1950's, but New Faces was quite successful and it was supposed that it would transfer well to the screen. Well ... the trouble is the material and some of the players. The two performers who get the most screen time are Eartha Kitt and Robert Clary, Kitt (of Anna Lucasta) was a very talented actress, but her voice was not always exactly euphonic. Clary, best-known for a supporting role on the sitcom Hogan's Heroes, must have had an uncle or somebody else who backed the show, for his appearance in this is inexplicable. He does number after number but betrays no great singing talent nor comedic ability. You'll be reaching for the fast forward button!

Fortunately there are a few more talented people in the movie. Paul Lynde (of Bye Bye Birdie) does a hilarious routine on going on a disastrous vacation in Africa. Singers Virginia Wilson and June Carroll do a couple of numbers each. Carol Lawrence (A View from the Bridge) and Alice Ghostly (Rodger and Hammerstein's Cinderella) also appear, the latter doing a forgettable skit with Lynde. The rest is decidedly a mixed bag. "Penny Candy" is an awful number that seems to go on forever; Kitt is at least given a fairy decent song with "Santa Baby," and "Love is a Simple Thing" is the most memorable tune; the dancers excel during this number. "You Can't Chop Your Papa Up in Massachusetts" -- about Lizzie Borden -- is meant to be cute and whimsical but is simply an exercise in bad taste. In the barely existing backstage plot, Ronny Graham tries to get Virginia's father to fork over the money for the show. Harry Horner also directed Vicki, a murder mystery set in the theater world.

In this film noir spoof set in 1947 and shot in black and white a private eye goes to see a client (Lesley Anne-Down) who fears her life is in danger and sure enough she is shot to death not much later. Suspects include her nerdy son, sexy daughter, the fired gardener and butler, and a chubby femme fatale named Mona who is a sultry singer in a nightclub. This should all be great material for a hilarious satire but the movie is slow and dull and shockingly unfunny, with only a couple of mild chuckles throughout. Occasionally the dialogue is clever, but more often cliched. The stylized performances aren't especially amusing either, defeating the whole purpose of the movie. The climax is a little bit interesting, but not enough to save the movie. Pretty much a must to avoid!

Supposedly a docu-drama about a "Bunny Man" terrorizing Fairfax, Virginia, with re-enactments and interviews with silly people who supposedly had encounters with this man, who wore a raggedy bunny suit and carried an ax. This almost plays like a parody. Especially hilarious is a woman from the historical society named Cindy, who asks "could this be the same man from 100 years ago -- it could be." Duh? Is she as dumb as a bucket of rocks? This is so bad it's embarrassing. The re-enactments aren't badly staged, but they amount to very little. All this does is prove how utterly gullible people can be -- and stupid! The people interviewed for this show are probably now embarrassed to go out in public, especially in Fairfax!

This was shown on TV years before Stonewall and Gay Lib and is sort of a mini-version of TEA AND SYMPATHY. A man thinks he's homosexual because he doesn't act like his macho meathead brother. Haven't seen this in quite awhile but I don't believe the notion that there would be nothing wrong if he WAS gay is ever brought up. In that respect it's become terribly dated although probably in tune with attitudes of the time. The fifties and sixties -- this was 1963 -- were problematic times to deal even obliquely with the subject of homosexuality. The shrink assures the fellow that he's no homosexual but just a different sort of men, which isn't too helpful if the character was actually gay.

Are all men monsters? You would think so from watching this show, which has deteriorated from a must-watch, suspenseful program into a predictable hour wherein you know even before you start watching that in a dispute between a man and a woman, the man is instantly guilty. Yes, in the real world, probably 8 or 9 times out of 10 the person raped or molested is telling the truth and the man IS guilty, but L&O SVU used to explore those gray areas and some of its most memorable episodes dealt with "victims" who had an agenda (the gay vocal coach accused of molesting little boys when their big sisters coached them out of revenge; the former basketball star accused of rape by women who turned out to be paid by his girlfriend's racist father). But although some of the recent episodes are well done enough, there are never any twists, and it's gotten worse since the #metoo movement. What's the point of watching when you know the outcome going in? Where are the fascinating "twisted" storylines of yesteryear? Mareska Hargitay is a fine actress and her Olivia is an interesting, often admirable character, but she acts as if she is ALWAYS RIGHT and I'm always afraid her face will get permanently stuck in that persistent smirk of hers. Hopefully 2021 - 22 will be the final year for this show and everyone can go on to something more interesting. You had a good run. Enough is enough.

Judge Judy is back and there have been minor changes. Byrd, who really didn't add much to the show, is gone, and there's a new, friendlier bailiff that so far I have not seen much of. Judy has two young ladies on either side of her on the bench: her grand-daughter, a law clerk or student, who is little more than a bump on a log; and a court reporter who types away and once in a blue moon is asked to read something back that somebody said during testimony. Neither add a damn thing to the show. The program is entertaining if the case is interesting and deadly dull if it is not. Judy has more than enough money to support herself, her husband, her children, and all of her grandchildren for the rest of their lives and years beyond, so why doesn't the woman just retire?