This is an excellent episode from "The Lucy Show", its finale almost a mini-musical in itself. The small-town "Main St." set is a refreshing change from the usual office/house environments. It's fairly elaborate and quite colorful. With Lucy leading the way, it actually does convey affection for the old-fashioned, small-towns of yore. I have only the vaguest recollection of seeing this episode when first aired in 1967 but had forgotten all the details. I clearly recalled Mel Torme's presence but he may've been in more than one episode of the series--I could be thinking of another. If you're a baby-boomer such as myself, you may like to view TV shows of years past thru the lens of history--that is to say, when this episode aired, many small-towns across the nation were in fact being threatened with extinction and/or reduced to ghost-town status as a result of all the freeway and interstate-highway construction going all, drastically changing the American landscape, not always with desirable consequences. This entry probably struck a very contemporary-chord with audiences of the day. Anyway, it's a fine episode from the series, something a little different, with the usual good lines, and cute, charming storyline. Ms. Ball is at her best here!
Reviews
7 Reviews
Paris Holiday
(1958)
Paris When It Fizzles
26 April 2020
Actually this Bob Hope movie is better than my review's title-caption indicates--I just couldn't resist using it, though the description is partially accurate. Well, where to begin? I just finished watching this film for the first time in at least 25 years, not recalling much about it, only a little, vaguely. "Holiday" generally is amusing, featuring Hope at his suavest and most appealing, in terms of his physical demeanor and comic-style . He's very smooth in this, as well as fashionably-dressed, quite a pleasure to watch both in his bodily movements and facial expressions. Although some aging is apparent, circa 1958, he remains at this time in his career still quite youthful-looking and energetic. The storyline is confusing and unfocused, mostly lost in the meandering goings-on. When circumstances dictate certain revelations and explanations, the movie becomes totally stagnant and extremely talky, with little-to-no-humor. What humor there is at these moments of verbal plot-exposition is in the way of small touches, i.e., facial expressions conveying this or that, mix-ups over language-translations, etc.--mildy amusing at most but not overly funny. I believe Hope's theory behind this personally-supervised film of his, simply was an attempt to capitalize on popular espionage films of the Cold War era, giving it a comical American-spin with Hope at the center of events, as he'd done before. However, on this go-round, he was trying to turn it into an extravaganza, cramming in way too much stuff, the movie running far longer than the plot, or comedy-potential, merits. Filmed in Technirama, "Holiday" probably was an attempt to compete with TV, to get audiences into theaters, as so many "big" movies of that decade attempted--all the lavish epics, wide-screen effects, etc. This was Ol' Ski-Noses' attempt at really "big comedy", something not truly achieved until the 60's with huge, splashy vehicles like "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World", "The Great Race", ""The Pink Panther", etc.--films with extensively star-heavy, popular casts, and which exhibited wit, style, and "big", delightfully funny comedy-concepts. None of these huge 60's comedy-movies relied on a single comic-star, like Hope, on which they'd succeed or fail. I'm a huge Hope fan but eventually even I got a little restless and slightly bored with the story, which just seemed to wander on and on--some scenes, even humorous ones, moving at a sluggish snail's pace. Fernandel adds very little to the movie, with very sporadic brief exceptions, and neither does Ekberg. Their marquee-names and presences are largely meaningless today. Martha Hyer, though, always classy, is fine as the State Dept. official whom Hope pursues without much success till late in the film. Bob's lines are pretty good, a few topically-dated, but not many. Several are quite funny indeed. The majority still work as they're primarily situational. While Hope's ambitions with "Holiday" are to be commended, it was just too much to expect for him to carry the entire movie on his name-recognition and popularity alone. Fernandel probably was meant to help carry the burden in this regard but his lack of English cancelled out much of this aspect. Ekberg no longer seems terribly awesome in terms of the kind of dated, statuesque, European sex-appeal she once represented. Although Hope has many lines of sexual-innuendo and double-entendres, no doubt considered cringe-worthy to modern-day women, I imagine many females of the current-era nevertheless would find Bob's cute and harmless lines in this regard to actually be quite funny, spoken in his uniquely delightful way, as this type of male-female humor in contemporary movies and society has totally vanished. Bob's suggestively-impish quips re: attractive women are like a breath of fresh air! Finally, then, what is one to make of "Paris Holiday"? Well, this movie, despite its plot and structural-flaws, remains a treat for admirers of Bob like me. He's a joy and delight to watch and listen to, just as much as ever. Throughout the film, he's engaged and "in-the-moment". There's no sense of boredom, embarassment, simply doing it for a paycheck, or indications that he knows "Paris" is going to be a flop. He performs confidently and most-engagingly in every scene he's in, which is almost all! There genuinely are funny lines and moments but the movie goes on too long, to no real purpose--the espionage/counterfeiting angle is totally muddled and forgettable even while watching, with Fernandel diluting what could've been swifter-pacing and sharper comedy overall. The helicopter-chase finale is wacky and funny but is over-milked, eventually, though regrettably, becoming rather tiresome, though Bob pulls it off with wry, wise-cracking aplomb. I'd say, in conclusion, "Paris Holiday" is for dedicated Hope fans only, such as myself. It won't thrill but manages still mostly to please--an overlong, largely incoherent attempt at late 50's, TV-competitive, "big comedy".
The Best of Friends
(1991 TV Movie)
Fine, Imaginative Drama--Humorous and Touching
30 March 2020
Where or how does one begin to praise such a production as this? With only 3 participants, not including the bizarre, and mercifully short, fantasy sequence, and minimalist, though perfectly adequate sets, the program is rivetting and delightful. I would caution that it's best-suited for relatively mature adults, as its likely to be over the heads of children. The aforementioned fantasy sequence, though tame and harmless, contains nudity but, beyond this, the subtlety and sophistication of it would escape the comprehension of the immature young, creating only bewilderment and embarassment. The play's not suited to the young anyway. It's beauty resides in hearing the wonderfully witty, insightful, and erudite dialogue, often on serious subjects, performed by 3 masters of the craft. I don't think I've ever seen John Gielgud play a more ebullient and likeable character, one with a real sparkle in his eye. Patrick MacGoohan is virtually perfect as George Bernard Shaw. Wendy Hiller, grande dame of British theater, is exquisite as the nun Sister Laurentia. One can feel the sincere friendship and respect their real-life counterparts felt for each other. The play moves right along and is imaginatively staged. All the actors are extremely natural and believable in their respective roles. I'm not sure why the fantasy-sequence, a visualization of Shaw's satirical book on traditional religion, deemed "blasphemous" by Sister Laurentia, who refuses to read or accept a copy, nevertheless seems somewhat out of place. Probably could've been portrayed without this odd detour. It's brief, though, and causes no harm to the whole. The incident leads to an estrangement between the nun and the Irish playwright of "Pygmalion"("My Fair Lady")fame. The story features many humorous, as well as touching moments, especially toward the end. Comprised of 4 parts(as I recall), each installment is easy to take and never tedious. It's a joy from start to finish!
Good Episode of "The Virginian" Supplemented by Peggy Lipton
27 March 2020
I won't summarize the plot of this 1966 episode of "The Virginian" as it can be found elsewhere. Some slight confusion over where this fits in the series' chronology. Randy comments to his pal Georgie Sam that Shiloh Ranch has been taken over by Morgan Starr, replacing former owner Judge Garth. The opening credits show the original inclusion of Lee J. Cobb as Garth. Upon his departure from the show, John Dehner took over as new owner Morgan Starr; however, as mentioned, Cobb still is shown in the opening credits of this episode. I remember the "The Virginian" with Dehner but don't recall if a new intro showed him instead of Cobb. Seems unlikely NBC would've kept showing Cobb in the intro after he left the series. So I'd need to research that. Anyway, the episode is fairly involving, more so than the other reviewers so far have indicated. There perhaps were some slow moments with people just staring at one another, usually done to heighten interpersonal drama, I believe, but this technique wasn't fatal. The episode maintains tension and uncertainty, the finale being especially suspenseful. The credits refer to Peggy Lipton as being "introduced" but I don't know if this literally was her first major appearance on TV or if she was given special promotion as a boost to her future career. She's seen to good advantage, young and quite beautiful. Her acting is subdued but effective, mainly in her romantic scenes with Randy, which are touchingly portrayed, especially at the conclusion. Boone himself, competent throughout the series, is pretty solid in his acting here, far-removed from his usual haunts back in Medicine Bow, with none of the usual cast present. Michael J. Pollard plays his usual simpleton-self, possibly one of the oddest, though still likeable and sympathetic, actors to emerge during that era. I've never been able to account for him. I found "Wolves", then, to be involving enough despite a relatively slight plot, which is helped by some skillful suspense and disagreeable bad guys toward the latter portion, the viewer not knowing how things are going to play out. Overall well-written with good dialogue, helped throughout by the easy-on-the-eyes presence of Miss Lipton.
PT 109
(1963)
Good But Overlong Naval Story
1 March 2020
Have finally seen this movie after hearing and knowing about it for decades. It's a good WWII naval drama laced with some wit and humor. As everyone knows, it chronicles JFK's PT boat service in the Pacific War. It's a good film that holds one's interest though longer than it need be to tell the central dramatic event of the future president's and his crew's heroism, which I won't reiterate here as it's well-known. I'll talk more instead about its minor drawbacks, viewed in today's context. Cliff Robertson, always a competent and reliable actor, is quite effective in the lead role of the PT boat commander; unfortunately, he has relatively little to do in this film, aside from appearing affable, smiling alot, and appearing stoic. Decades later, the Kennedy affiliation has lost its meaning. He could be playing ANY generic naval guy. Although it's of interest to history buffs like me, the fact he's portraying a future president doesn't really mean much anymore. It's just a name assigned to his character. We learn almost nothing of JFK's background or future potential hopes and dreams. On the other hand, if this approach had been taken, it may've come off as too heavy-handed and weighted toward JFK making statements about his future that he couldn't know or yet have formed. Sort of like old movies about Lincoln as a young man that show him as too deeply lost in thought much of the time, pondering the country's heritage and history, i.e., the sacrosanct "Founding", as well as present and future problems of the nation with deep psychological insights. So it's well that 109 didn't go "overboard" with this approach. The point is, though, that JFK's presented here as a rather bland, stand-alone guy with no 3-dimensional personality. Although Harvard and the book he wrote "While England Slept", plus some family-pull, are referred to, that's it on his background. Of course, he couldn't've foreseen his future, especially his tragic ending, but nothing of his hopes or dreams, or other areas of interest such as journalism, travel, writing, politics, etc., are ever brought up or illustrated. Again, Roberston could've been portraying anybody. Aside from this, it's interesting, also, that not a single female appears in the film. For this I was glad--no contrived romances, no wisecracking, flirtatious, or wary, male-savvy nurses breezing around, etc. The film today is hampered by an overblown musical score, with a thumping patriotic blaring that now comes off as corny and simplistic. Not only is it too loud, it's used too frequently. Other comical sound effects are employed early in the movie, overemphasizing humorous moments, which I find off-putting, childish, and rather embarassing to hear, thus calling attention to itself as a movie with a Hollywood-studio sound effects dept. behind it, rather than a transporting-back to a dangerous, scary time in the world's history. The color is too garish, in my opinion. The film may've been more effective in a grittier, more realistic black & white. Instead, it screams 1960's cinema technology--the biggest, best, and brightest, widescreen Technicolor grandiosity! The early portion of the story is, perhaps, too leisurely. You wouldn't know there was a war going on! In fairness, though, there's a Japanese air-strike that's done pretty well, both then and later. JFK's crew is difficult to differentiate from character-to-character. One can't keep track of the names and faces. Essentially, they all tend to blur together and look alike, but this is a factor common to alot of male ensemble war pictures. Several, though, are recognizable as familiar character actors. To me, this harms a film's credibility, especially one portraying an historical time period. One feels we're simply watching readily-available contract players grabbed from the back lot. The movie's main reason for existence, of course, is the harrowing ordeal the 109's crew underwent after their boat was smashed by a destroyer in the dead of night, leading to an engrossing fight for survival. Robertson's very good here, though, again, he could be portraying anybody. The smash-up scene itself is very well done, quite rivetting, jolting, and realistic in appearance. One wonders how JFK thought he could get the attention of a passing U.S. ship by swimming back out from their island haven, as a speck in the ocean in the dead of night but no matter. Finally, one can only imagine how a film like this would be received by a political party's opposition in today's highly-partisan media climate. The screaming and howling that would occur over a presidential candidate's blatant use of propaganda promoting his or her personal heroism in war! Doubtful if such a politically-motivated movie would be made today, what with American society's mixed-views on war, all the nuances therein, all the negatives, skepticism and suspicions about the military in general, and all the doubts we have regarding what patriotism even means today. It probably would be guffawed and lambasted by the audiences, reviewers, and overall media of the current, hyper-partisan era, on both sides of the aisle. While 109 revels in old-fashioned, blindingly pro-U.S. patriotism, common to the broadly-based, widespread acceptance of this kind of presentation and mindset of that generation, especially in movies about WWII, it now can be viewed in more detached fashion--as a time-capsule showing how this country once tackled its problems head-on and the entire society pulled together for the moral good. Despite its drawbacks, then, this movie is good but dated in its treatment. One comes away, though, nevertheless, with real admiration for JFK's leadership, bravery, and heroism(along with his men's) in this crisis--just could've been shorter and less overblown cosmetically-speaking in a purely cinematic sense.
Bleak House a Tough, Tedious Slog
6 December 2019
I recently have been on a major Dickens dvd binge, watching several of the early 80's BBC TV versions of "Oliver Twist", "The Pickwick Papers", and "Dombey & Son". About a year previously, I watched "Hard Times" and "Nicholas Nickleby". I was unfamiliar with all but "Twist" and "Pickwick", though I've never read any of the original novels upon which all the aforementioned titles are based. I've seen other TV and movie versions of several famous Dickens titles over the years, some from BBC, some from various studios. The current binge, though, has been as an antidote to pathetic regular TV and lack of worthwhile theatrical releases. I've been craving compelling plots, historical escapism, and fascinating characters. Knowing Dickens filled these requirements, I indulged myself. Bleak House was my latest excursion into a story I knew nothing about. Having just recently finished the excellent BBC TV movie version of Dombey & Son(again, about which I knew nothing), I was looking immensely forward to House. The first drawback that almost killed it for me were the several impossible-to-understand accents, a common factor in all these adaptations, a major hindrance to their enjoyment. It seemed the worst in Bleak House. Fortunately, most of the main, important characters were usually easy enough to understand. One good thing is that, as in many of these British literary films, one or more major characters are generally silent, saying very little. Mostly reaction shots and quiet, sparse dialog. My next major complaint, as has been mentioned by others, were the dismally dim and grungy settings. Despite historical accuracy and Dickens' original descriptions, visually these were extremely tedious and depressing to watch. They may work wonderfully on the printed page but are excruciating downers to sit through. In fact, there's virtually no color in the entire production. Sometimes I wonder if the endless human, animal, and carriage movement and congestion in the streets of London were as constant and chaotic as these films often depict, but especially so in House. My point being, aside from the grime and filth, such crowded, drab street commotion was just exhausting to watch. Episode 4 was the absolute worst for me. Incoherent accents, dark settings, and a complete standstill of plot, along with long, static, extremely talky scenes. Almost gave up on the series but forced myself to stick with it. I won't rehash the storyline but it IS convoluted and confusing. Sound quality is wildly uneven, too. One minute I had the volume up as high as it goes, the next minute, a character or music was so loud as to blast one's eardrums, necessitating an immediate turn-down, only to repeat the process almost continuously. Acting overall pretty good. I think Mr. Elliott takes the honors. I identified with him the most. The actor playing the man-child Skimpole very good, also. As much as I've always liked Diana Rigg, she didn't do much for me in this, spending most of her limited screen time staring at characters as they talk at her for what seems like forever--her face, emblematic of her regal detachment, completely immobile for lengthy periods of time, just staring. Not the most interesting use of a visual medium. A couple of lesser characters, maids, I think, were facially indistinguishable from each other, adding to confusion. The drama has its moments but they're sporadic. Convoluted plot, horrendously dark, grungy settings, and incomprehensible and/or irritating accents make Bleak House a long, tough slog. And yet the greatness of Dickens still comes through. On film, though, House is too labyrinthine and plodding, with largely unlikeable or uninteresting characters, and depressingly dim scenes that didn't translate well visually. Most surprising of all, for those who stick with it, is the very satisfying and moving conclusion(to me). Bleak House is a mixed bag in terms of this particular BBC version but is very bleak indeed to watch. Best advice is to skip, as it's not really worth the investment of time, even for a Dickens fanatic like me!
Dombey & Son
(1983)
Dickens at His Best in this Oft-Overlooked Novel
27 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Just finished watching this excellent BBC TV version for the first time. I'd
heard of "Dombey & Son" but knew nothing of the story prior to watching. It was a title I usually forgot all about as being in Dickens' opus. I recently read that "Dombey" is the author's least known work, except, perhaps, for his last, the unfinished "Mystery of Edwin Drood". I only have familiarity with the latter due to a 2-part radio production on the American channel Radio Classics, a series from decades ago called either Suspense or something else, I now forget. The radio version formulated its own ending based on clues that Dickens hinted at in his notes. I was intrigued and thoroughly enjoyed. It may be heard on internet via You Tube. Getting back to "Dombey". I was
totally absorbed with it, finding it extremely compelling. The fact that it was
totally fresh to me may've helped, plus the fact that, now that I'm retired, I've
rediscovered great authors and classic literature that I never had time for
before. Dickens has re-captivated and re-energized me for marvelous stories
and characters. Of course, I've long been partial to period pieces, the 19th-
century of Dickens' world being of particular fascination for me. I haven't read
the vast majority of his novels, only TV and movie versions(and radio) over the years, but only a small sampling of his output, the most famous titles, such as "Oliver Twist", "Great Expectations", "David Copperfield", etc., and, of course, "A Christmas Carol". In fact, just recently watched the BBC TV versions of "Twist" and "The Pickwick Papers" from the early 80's. Over the last couple of years, I've watched dvds of other titles unfamiliar to me, i.e.,"Hard Times" and "Nicholas Nickelby", both of which were enthralling. In my recent readings about Dickens(with whom I'm currently fascinated and obsessed--where did the stories come from?), "Dombey" was a title occasionally referred to, stimulating my interest in checking it out. I wasn't disappointed. The only downside was the usual difficulty in understanding some of the British accents. This was far from fatal, though, and basically affected nothing. As mentioned, very compelling plot, intriguing
characters, high-quality production. Dombey himself, though quite fascinating, was slightly tedious in terms of his cold, austere, mostly silent depiction, though he was never truly unlikeable. Again, he was fascinating.
Carker I found unlikeable, as he's meant to be, but I found the actor playing him, though good in the role, somewhat over-mannered in his sliminess,
something of a caricature, I guess, but not to the point of cartoonishness. He was much closer to realism than that, conveying insincerity and dishonesty pretty well. I never fully understood what he was up to, which didn't seem to be revealed until the final episode, only casually and briefly in passing. As a viewer, Carker's ultimate fate was totally satisfying. Overall, cast superb--Miss Tocks of particular note, then Mr. Bankstock, Saul Gillis, and especially Captain Cuttle. The young Paul Dombey, Jr. tragically affecting, too. The actress portraying his caring younger sister Florence was fabulous. I found Mr. Toots a rather extraneous, though clumsily likeable, character, of not much, if any, significance to the story. I thought something more was going to come of his infatuation with Dombey's angelic daughter Florence. Ah, Florence, now, there's an actress seemingly born to play the role! Unfortunately, I don't recall the real names of the cast, and am not rechecking. But Florence, long-suffering Florence, was excellent. I believe this actress played a similar role in the BBC TV version of "Oliver Twist", that I recently viewed. I always look forward to every scene in which she appears. She's totally natural and convincing as Florence, just as she was in "Twist"(was her name Ruth in that?). Excellent at conveying various emotions, sometimes more than one at the same time. Edith, her stepmother, good in the role, was an emotionless cipher. Her background relationship with her mother explained this, but it was very difficult if not impossible to have any real sympathy for her, as it no doubt was written. Her double-dealing with Carker, though, was quite plot-effective. Finally, I thought there was a very poignant ending, typically Dickensian, I believe. Yes, it was slightly rushed, I thought, but not seriously so. In some ways, by this point in a story, when the finale appears to be imminent, there's no real need to delve into every nuance of detail and character-motivation. Fate comes to a resolution, whether happy for all or not, on its own schedule. When the end has come, it's come, time to call it a day, all loose ends ready to be tied up. The final rapprochement between Dombey and Florence was beautifully and movingly portrayed, in my opinion. This was a great series, fully illustrating the staggering genius and imagination of Mr. Dickens, for whom I'm still exploring and reading much. Next up for me: the BBC TV version of "Bleak House"! (again, about which I know nothing, the way I prefer it to be for, as with "Dombey", a first-time exposure!)
Tell Your Friends