flackjacket Reviews

The Philadelphia Experiment (1984)

Great story, horrible execution.

[1/10 · 28 May 2016]

This movie was a great concept, but unfortunately, it ruins all suspension of disbelief due to the fact that the haircuts were not even close to the regulation of the time.

Were regulation 1940's military haircuts so unacceptable at the time this movie was filmed that the actors couldn't comply?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer long hair. But if you're going to make an accurate movie from that time period, than have the guys suck it down and get a haircut from that era. It will grow back in a few months.

This movie reminds me of an episode of the Partridge Family, where Bert Convey portrays a captain in the Navy. But his hair is nowhere near regulation.

So fake. Get a grip, get a 1940's haircut, or a regulation military haircut if you're going to portray somebody in the military. Otherwise, you look fake as Hell.

The Odd Couple: Together Again (1993 TV Movie)

This was sad and disturbing to watch.

[1/10 · 17 May 2016]

Wow, they should have let good enough alone. I was a fan of the TV show, and today they aired this movie on Decades TV. So I watched it.

It's as if they pulled Jack Klugman out of his hospital bed and forced him to do this movie. It's just sad to see him in such bad condition, as he can barely talk.

And the scene where Felix is trying to get him to sing is the worst. Jack is obviously sick as Hell and they amplify it by forcing him to sing? WTH?

Why? Why would they do this? The TV show was timeless and classic. But whoever decided to exploit Jack in order to make a movie is sick in the head.

Car 54, Where Are You? (1961–1963)

Pure crap.

[1/10 · 20 March 2016]

Wow, what an utter pile of steaming poop. Decades is showing a weekend "series binge" of this show, which I've never seen before. I usually like the old black and white shows, but this is pure crap. First is the annoying theme song, "Car 54 where are you?" The obvious answer based on the helium induced vocals would be, "Pushing in someone's stool."

Joe E. Ross's character is like a three stooges reject, with his constant annoying, "Ew, ew, ew." And Fred Gwynne is a total idiot. Sad to say, he looked better with all the makeup he wore on the Munsters. They really should take all of the episodes of this train wreck, soak them in gasoline and set them on fire.

That Girl (1966–1971)

The Mother of False Eyelashes

[1/10 · 27 December 2015]

It has been said: "The decision to leave the couple engaged at the end of the run was largely the idea of Thomas herself. She did not want to send a message to young women that marriage was the ultimate goal for them and she was worried that it would have defeated the somewhat feminist message of the show."

And also: "The final episode was originally going to have Ann and Donald getting married but Marlo Thomas (who was an executive producer of the show as well as the star) refused, claiming that it sent the message to young girls that a woman's main goal in life was to be married."

And yet, for five years, she portrayed her independent feminist character as a paranoid, eternally confused, insecure woman (with a sore throat) who constantly needed the help of her father and boyfriend in almost every episode. But God forbid she send the wrong message by getting married.

Feminist message? I think not. But rather, pure hypocrisy masked in the largest false eyelashes known to mankind.

Cold Turkey (1971)

Biting the hand that feeds

[1/10 · 13 December 2015]

Or more specifically, mocking all that made them rich and famous.

It's no surprise that Norman Lear would make a so-called "comedy" mocking the military, democracy, church, capitalism, big government and the "stereotypical" Americans he always targeted. That's just what he did. And ironically, that's how he made a living in a capitalist nation of democracy made possible by the military and the working class Americans he loved to mock.

But what amazes me is that Dick Van Dyke, Bob Newhart and Tom Poston would have any part of this film.

Let's see, first there's Dick Van Dyke: Mister dance around with cute animated Disney penguins. Mister chitty chitty bang bang inventor, loving father and heroic rescuer of imprisoned unwashed children. Mister comedy writer, middle class American father who spoiled his ungrateful son ad nauseam. Made rich and famous in films and shows that made profits out of the pockets of everyone this film mocks.

Then there's Bob Newhart: Mister stand up comedian with "funny" dry humor one ended phone conversations. Mister surrounded by middle America crazies Chicago psychologist. Mister Vermont inn owner, how-to-book writer surrounded by middle and lower class Americans. Like Van Dyke, also made rich and famous in shows that made profits out of the pockets of everyone this film mocks.

And finally there's Tom Poston: Mister frequent "celebrity guest" on game shows spanning back to the 50's. Mister insufferable deadpan reaction. Mister handy-man at a Vermont inn on Newhart. Like Van Dyke and Newhart, made rich and famous in films and shows that made profits out of the pockets of everyone this film mocks.

This film completely changes my opinion of all of them. Especially Newhart and Poston. For some reason I've always found Van Dyke annoying and unfunny. Maybe it's his nasal infected sounding voice, the dopey look on his face, or just the fact he just isn't funny or believable in any role he's been in.

My advice - unless you enjoy seeing actors mock and give the finger to the very people that made them famous, to the system that allowed them to become rich, the military establishment that kept their ungrateful asses free, then avoid it. Better yet, copy it to a VCR tape, wipe your butt with it, then take it outside and set in on fire.

Because, after all, it is a steaming pile of hypocritical crap.

The Big Green (1995)

Predictable Disney Sugar-Coated Goat Droppings

[1/10 · 28 November 2015]

I really tried to like this movie. Lord knows I tried. After all, it was broadcast free on a local TV station and the cost of admission was zero. So I endured the animated intro that was completely disjointed from the rest of the film that followed.

I suffered through the obvious clichés of downcast misfits and insufferable moppets who were predictably going to somehow unite and overcome the mean over the top enemy coach. I resisted vomiting with the overdone insinuated affair of the teacher and the sheriff.

I held back severe diarrhea after seeing one too many scenes of the typical "misfits who will win" cliché overweight kid who had visions of ninjas and so forth as he tried to protect the goal. And despite the much expected screwed up drunken dad, and all the soon to be healed by sports parent/kid relationships, I hung in there.

But then when they got to the scene of these insufferable misfit moppets, and soon to be heroes attempting to mow the "big green", with sped up film, only to be followed by the scene of the ever lovable kids and whacked-out parents having a sweet sugar-coated love fest in the mud and rain in slow motion for added effect. That's when I lost it.

It was as if someone had induced diabetes by pouring a 2 pound bag of sugar coated doggie diamonds down my throat. Or more accurately, goat poop. Yes, to add to the whole predictable Disney over-sweetened saccharin sickness of this film, there's a goat mascot... just in case the rest of the film didn't put you in a coma.

Anyway, if you haven't seen this movie, thank God.

The Man in the Iron Mask (I) (1998)

Brooke DiCaprio?

[1/10 · 11 November 2015]

This movie was recently aired on a local TV station. I was passing by the channel and figured I'd watch it since I missed it in the theater. That, and there wasn't anything else on worth watching.

I guess at first I thought it odd that someone would cast Brooke Shields as King Louis XIV, but wanted to watch to see if she was somehow able to pull it off.

About 20 minutes into the film I thought her acting was a little odd, even for her. So I checked the movie info on screen and discovered it wasn't Brooke Shields, but rather, Leonardo DiCaprio.

After that, all suspension of disbelief was gone. It was replaced with utter amazement at how much DiCaprio looked like Shields.

Sherrybaby (2006)

Unprecedented

[1/10 · 15 August 2015]

This movie paved a new road to a previously unknown art form. Something I've never seen before on screen, or in real life.

As many have pointed out - it has sub par acting, poor script writing and looks as if it was directed by a high school media student who gets bad grades. But that's all been done before.

There was one thing that this movie had that no other movie before ever had. That is, the art of audible smoking.

I've known a lot of smokers over the years, both male and female, young and old. And I've never seen (or should I say heard) any of them smoke the way the lead "actress" of this film does. This audible smoking technique runs throughout the film, but the most notable example is the scene in her brother's kitchen where she is standing in front of the wall phone.

There's the loud inhale, a brief pause, and then the louder exhale carefully skewing the mouth sideways so as not to blow smoke at the cameraman.

Another example is when the biker enters her room. Once again, the loud inhale, a brief pause and then the louder sideways exhale.

I've been on earth for over half a decade. Like I said, I've known a lot of smokers. But I've never seen or heard any of them smoke like this.

The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (1952–1966)

How did these talentless people get a TV show?

[1/10 · 3 May 2015]

There are a lot of annoying clichés from 50's TV shows. There was Beaver and Wally who always started every sentence with the word "Gee" followed by the name of the person they were talking to. "Gee Wally", "Gee Beav", "Gee Dad", "Gee Mom". Then there was Dennis The Menace's over use of the exclamatory "Jeepers!" and Mister Wilson's over use of the phrase "Great Scott!".

Then there's Patty Duke's horribly fake British accent and the fact a hot dog would make her lose control. I don't know, I get the picture of her have spasms in the middle of the road twitching uncontrollably while flailing her hands around as shown in the opening. Thank God nobody ever gave her a hot dog.

And worse yet, are the ungrateful self-absorbed kids on Father Knows Best. The oldest daughter Princess, mean and narcissistic, the son Bud ever stupid lacking confidence, and finally the youngest Kitten, forever whining, complaining, and crying.

Sure there were some great shows back then, like The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy. Both had live audiences, so they had to be funny. But the shows with the canned laugh track always contained one or more annoying clichés.

And then there's The Adventures of Ozzy and Harriet. Granted it was free of any annoying clichés, but even worse, it was annoying from beginning to end. A father who never goes to work and who smirks and silently chuckles after every line knowing that's where the laugh track would be inserted. Two sons who act as if they overdosed on sleeping pills. And a supporting cast including Harriet, that apparently were "phoning in their lines" opposite a cue card.

This show is the epitome of bad sitcom via fake laugh track. It set the precedent for all bad sitcoms to follow. Finally, who are these people and how on Earth did they get their own show? I don't know, but there's one redeeming factor. If you ever need to induce vomiting and don't have any mustard and milk, just play Rick Nelson's "Garden Party", you know, the one where he looks like he's about to pass out, and you'll puke instantly.

Grace Under Fire (1993–1998)

Grace Under The Influence

[1/10 · 24 April 2015]

The other night the TV was on in the next room, loud enough that I could hear it. At first I thought it was an episode of Mama's Family with a special guest appearance by Carol Burnett as Eunice. Although, it sounded like she had a severely bad sinus infection.

But when I went in the room, I saw it was not Eunice with a sinus infection, or Mama's Family, but a show I had never seen before called "Grace Under Fire". So I watched it, even though I found Grace to be highly irritating and unbearable.

The only one redeeming factor to this show is Dave Thomas. However, the rest of it is a steaming pile of obnoxious crap. I asked myself, how could anyone stand more than 30 seconds of Brett Butler's congested sinus voice? And for that matter, who the Hell is Bret Butler and who in their right mind would give her a sitcom?

I guess somebody at a network board meeting said, "Wouldn't it be hysterical if we took an unknown drug addicted alcoholic 'comedienne' with severe congestion and wrote a sitcom around her?" To which someone unfortunately replied, "I love it!" Hence this "show".

Turns out that what's even sadder than this show is the reality behind it, why it was canceled and why Brett Butler never was able to land a role anywhere afterwords. From what I've read, apparently this drug addicted alcoholic exposed her sagging breasts to the little boy who had the role of her son, forcing his parents to pull him from the show, and more than likely scarring him for life.

Sick, no? This, along with her continued drug abuse and alcoholism, was why the show was canceled. This untalented annoying "comedienne" had the ultimate gig, but was so blurred, high, sick and perverted that she blew it all. Therefore, I find this show not only unwatchable, but offensive.

One Day at a Time (1975–1984)

One Barf At A Time

[1/10 · 7 April 2015]

Unfortunately, they started playing reruns of this show on Antenna TV today. I had forgotten about it until now. Like "Alice" I had blocked it out of my mind due to the fact that it sucked to high heaven.

First problem with this fake puke inducing "sitcom" is Bonnie Franklin with her lame "bob" Patty Duke haircut. Second is Mackenzie "Let me snort that for you" Phillips. Third is the cliché Pat Harrington Jr., who is apparently supposed to be funny based on the laugh track, but never is. And speaking of laugh tracks, that would be fourth in the problems with this show. But, fifth, and most repulsive, is the character David "I need a man bra" Kane.

How can anyone find Pat Harrington Jr. funny? How can anyone believe Bonnie Franklin as the character she so desperately tries to portray? How can anyone stomach more than 5 seconds of Mackenzie "Let me shoot that in my arm" Phillips? How can anyone not want to throw a brick at their TV the second Richard Masur enters the scene?

Several reviews say how this show didn't age well. Truth is it sucked back then and still sucks to this day. It actually set the standard for suck, by which all other shows are measured. In reality, the only reason it lasted as long as it did is because there were enough teenage geeks and losers that had a crush on Valerie Bertinelli to keep the ratings up. But I'm not sure why, because her tomboy character wasn't exactly one that would desire a male, if you know what I mean.

King of the Hill (1997–2010)

Undoubtedly the Worst Cartoon in the History of Mankind

[1/10 · 7 April 2015]

I don't even know where to begin to describe how pathetic, annoying and lame this show is. But if there was an award for most annoying TV show on earth, this show would win above and beyond all others.

It seems the concept is to surround Hank Hill with the most annoying characters ever conceived. They've succeeded. They've also managed to make the central character just as annoying.

Like Beavis and Butthead, the artwork looks like it was drawn by a right-handed 1st grader using his left hand with his eyes closed. Hank looks like my ass upside-down with eyes and Bobby looks like a human turd.

Then there's the voices. Did they put an ad in the paper calling for people with voices that can make people's skin crawl? I can't understand how people can watch this show and not vomit. Hank sounds like an idiotic douche, his wife's voice and accent makes me want to jump off a bridge, Bobby's voice sounds like he just swallowed sand and Hank's highly annoying live-in niece's voice could probably cause blindness.

Watching this show is like watching a contest to see who can annoy the Hell out of you the most. And in most cases they all win. That boy ain't right, that boy ain't right, that boy ain't right, pro-pain, pro-pain, pro-pain, piggy hell, piggy hell, piggy hell. This show, it's characters, the voices and the "drawings" have brought suck to a new level.

Amadeus (1984)

An insult and mockery of a musical genius.

[1/10 · 26 March 2015]

Wow. I've just read dozens of pages of rave reviews about how this movie was awesome, the best, amazing, and yes, even incredible. Are you serious? Most likely this is because they were no doubt impressed by the score which featured masterworks by one of the greatest musical geniuses in all of history. Or, perhaps this was their first exposure to music of this caliber.

But to anyone who knows the real historic truth about Mozart, these raving positive reviews are the equivalent of these uniformed reviewers wearing a t-shirt that says in big bold letters: "I know absolutely nothing about music history".

Of course, any complete novice of classical music would be impressed by a totally fictional and insulting movie about Mozart simply because of the music. And the obvious fact, they don't realize that what they are watching is pure fiction, ignorant to that it is revisionist history, and to anyone who knows who Mozart really was, an offensive insult.

In reality it's a film that exploits Mozart's music in order to win over the uninformed, and then proceeds to fill their heads with a mockery of who the man really was. The result is the masses, who know nothing about Mozart, go away impressed by his music but believing a fictional mockery as the truth. It uses his creative works to perpetuate a mockery of the genius who composed them. Sad, really sad.

Doogie Howser, M.D. (1989–1993)

Simply unbelievable.

[1/10 · 25 March 2015]

I only recently saw this show for the first time when Antenna TV started to show it in reruns. After a few times, I was eventually able to get past the opening theme song, which sounds a lot like a generic ring-tone on a cheap cell phone.

Once past that hurdle, I watched an episode. I thought at first, due to the raving reviews, that maybe it was just a bad episode. So I tried to watch it again.

I guess the problem for me is "suspension of disbelief" which is critical for enjoying any play, movie or TV show. I find it impossible to suspend disbelief and enjoy this show. First of all is the premise that some young skinny kid is accepted as a doctor in a hospital. It might be more believable if at least the patients were in disbelief, or at least pretended to be a bit surprised.

But even if that were the case, there's Max Casella playing the role of "Vinnie Delpino". I was born and raised in New Jersey. Maybe people that aren't from the area can buy into his extremely fake Italian-American accent, but when if you grew up here, you too would also be a little sickened by how extremely fake he sounds. Turns out, Max Casella is from Washington DC. So it's no wonder his accent sounds almost like a stereotyped mockery of New Jersey Italians.

For this reason alone, his "Vinnie" character is extremely annoying. And "Vinnie"? Really? Why not go for the gold and use the name "Antney"? I can see how the people who wrote and directed this abomination would completely miss the fact that "Vinnie" is like nails on a chalkboard every time he appears. They live in California and most likely think people from New Jersey actually say "New Joisey". Truth is, they don't. In fact, I've yet to meet somebody who says "Fah get abowt it". And so far the only person from New Jersey I know of that says "How ya doin?" is Wendy Williams.

Sorry to go against all the positive accolades of the other reviews, but this show is not unlike smelling fresh vomit in that it makes you want to vomit too.

Alone in the Wilderness (2004 TV Movie)

A camera can't follow you if you're alone.

[2/10 · 27 February 2015]

Ah, yes... the classic PBS fund raiser film, pulled out of the attic, dusted off and hyped for far more than it is to get donations. Every pledge break, the local PBS hosts redundantly chant about how this man was "alone". They detail how this man was not only capable of making a spoon from a log, but was able to set up a camera and film his amazing skills at the same time.

And yet, there are so many shots where the camera is obviously being held and controlled by another human. It follows along side him as he walks. It zooms in. It even pans side to side. And yet the masses are convinced he was "alone". Yeah, I could see buying into the concept that he set up the camera on a tripod on the beach, hit record, then got into a canoe and paddled away. And that afterward, he'd have to paddle back, shut off the camera and dismount it for the next shot. But when you get to the scenes where the camera is following along side of him as he walks, all authenticity of being "alone" is destroyed.

Then there's the incorrect speed of the film. Some of the shots from the magical walking, panning, zooming "tripod mounted camera" are faster than real time. Common for old movie cameras when the batteries were low. Batteries... batteries in the wilderness, But why wasn't this corrected when the video was mastered? It just makes him look goofy when he walks. I could be wrong, maybe he really did walk that way... possibly from the lack of toilet paper when you're "alone" in the real, raw, hard wilderness.

Cut to another pledge break and the host will drone on about how this film appeals to so many people, because, face it, we all imagine what it would be like to just leave it all behind and go survive "alone" in the wilderness. Seems it wouldn't be too rough if you had some dude stop by in a plane all the time and drop off food, supplies, "all natural" waterproof roofing materials, plants and obviously camera batteries. So... why make hinges out of a gas can if your plane buddy could bring them for you next time he stops by with batteries? If somebody spent time and money flying supplies out to you, wouldn't they need to be paid? If so, where do you get cash in the wilderness? Maybe you could borrow it from the magical walking camera.

A few more questions... What's with the narration? Why is there always a long pause after every time he says "I"? Why is the word "I" always prolonged? How can you not be killed by that bear you spent time locking out during the many weeks when there was no cabin? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy hinges from the airplane dude than destroy a gas can? Who brings a gas can to the "wilderness" if there's no gas powered engines?

Anyway, it's sad that PBS insists on making this film more than it is. If they'd stop trying to hype that he was actually alone, that he went above and beyond setting up all the camera shots and especially that he left it all behind, it would be more tolerable. After all, it does have one redeeming quality in that the almost mantra like speech patterns can be used to induce sleep, maybe even a coma.

Christmas Belle (2013 TV Movie)

Make the "music" stop... please, make it stop.

[1/10 · 14 December 2014]

This movie is one-of-a-kind, in that it's the only movie I've ever watched where the "music" never stops and is far too loud to be background music. If you love listening to painfully sad slow piano and strings while trying to watch a movie, you'll love this film. It's like having the radio tuned to the easy listening station with the volume on 11, while watching a poorly scripted movie on the TV with the volume on 1.

Here's a basic rundown of the storyboard... 30 seconds of stale uneventful dialog (with loud background music) followed by 5 minutes of location shots and actors giving thoughtful heartfelt looks or running shirtless through the field (with even louder background music). Repeat throughout the rest of the movie.

On the good side, it would be useful for inducing a coma.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Guess Who Has A Fake Accent

[1/10 · 9 March 2014]

This film was recently broadcast on a local station. Since I was only 4 when it was released, I had never seen it before, although I was familiar with the title and the overall premise which was considered controversial back then. So I decided to watch it. I figured a well known film with Sydney Poitier and Spencer Tracy trying to make a cultural point would be worth the time.

But the believability failed on many levels. Spencer Tracy looked old enough to be the girl's grandfather rather than her father. All race issues aside, this couple wanted to get married and had known each other for less than 2 weeks. What was the point of the Monsignor Ryan character? He could have easily been written out without affecting the story at all.

But the biggest problem is Hepburn. I'd think the real question on Prentice's parents mind wouldn't be, "Why is my son marrying a white girl?" Or, "why is my son marrying a girl he just met?" Or, "Why is there a Monsignor in the script?" Or even, "Why is Weezie working here?". The obvious question would be, "What country is your mom from and exactly what accent is that?".

Back in the day, Sesame Street did a bit called, "one of thee things is not like the other". And while watching this film the question yells at you from the screen, "What country is this lady from?". Two American families, one with an American maid living in America... but Hepburn's fake accent throughout this film is like an eternal blaring cat pee stain on a hand woven rug. Bad enough her voice sounds like she sucked down a can of helium, but that accent is like finger nails on a chalk board. And, BTW, why does she keep shaking her head "no" all the time?

A Few Good Men (1992)

A Few Good Eyebrow Closeups

[1/10 · 9 March 2014]

First let's start with Jack Nicholson. He simply plays himself, mean, slightly deranged, demented and angry. Demi Moore's role is totally pointless, other than you can't have a Tom Cruise movie without a female in a supporting role.

Just search Rich Hall's stand-up routine on Youtube about Tom Cruise movies for a better explanation... "He's a cocktail maker, a pretty good cocktail maker too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't make cocktails anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better cocktail maker.... Then he's a race car driver, a pretty good race car driver too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't race cars anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better race car driver... Then he's a jet pilot, a pretty good jet pilot too. Till he has a crisis of confidence and can't fly jets anymore. Then he meets a good looking woman who talks him into being a better jet pilot... Then he was a sports agent...

Anyway, I'm glad the screen I watched this on was only 32". Even at that size, the constant incessant series of closeups of his eyebrow (singular) were so extreme, one could count the hairs. I can't imagine having to witness his eyebrow on the big screen.

But this film does leave food for thought. It makes you step back and ask yourself... Why doesn't somebody buy Tom Cruise a pair of tweezers? Why doesn't he buy a pair? Why wouldn't an actor who makes millions not be able to afford a hot wax to clean things up a bit?

Come Back to the 5 & Dime Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean (1982)

Painfully Annoying

[1/10 · 24 February 2014]

I'm totally amazed at the number of reviews raving about this film. Almost all of them express the opposite of what I was unfortunate enough to watch. This film is painful, boring, confusing, confined and lacks any definable plot or purpose.

A synopsis of the film is this: stick a bunch of deranged and sickly looking women in one stage set, have them drone on about enigmatic themes with an occasional off-topic line that makes them seem like escaped mental patients. Good times huh? But wait there's more. Add in some visions, delusions of a bloody faced kid appearing in windows and reflections.

It's one of those films that you keep wondering if it will ever make any sense, but it never does. I guess some people see that as artsy or great film making. I see it as annoying and at times unbearable. Showing this film at Gitmo would be more torturous than water-boarding.

1 out of 10, because -25 isn't an option.

A Letter to Three Wives (1949)

An Anti-climatic Collection of Oddities

[5/10 · 1 January 2014]

I was drawn into watching this movie because it was a mystery. Three wives get a letter from a woman saying she left town with one of their husbands, yet all 3 have to spend the day on a boat full of poor kids wondering via flashbacks if it was their husband. It seemed to be a unique spin on the classic 40's mystery. Actually more unique than I first thought.

Of course there was the 40's stereotypes, when women were "broads" and men were "big gorillas" or "mugs". And of course, both sexes were always dressed to the teeth. But if this portrayal of the high life in the 40's were accurate, the entire generation would have died before 1950 of alcohol poisoning from drinking martinis every few minutes, or of lung cancer from chain smoking filterless cigarettes.

But as I continued to watch, the first thing I noticed was "one of these things is not like the others". That being the casting of Paul Douglas as one of the husbands. 3 woman, considered hot by 40's terms and one of their husbands looks like Larry, Moe and Curly's dad? Seriously miscast and a blaring flaw in the believability of the film. I get that she married him for his money, but Moe's dad? Not buying it.

Then, it got really strange. Suddenly, during the flashbacks, you hear sound effects that sound exactly like the auto-tune effect used by today's pop stars. At first I thought I was imagining it, or maybe somebody slip acid into my coffee. But there it was, auto-tune in a 40's flick, apparently achieved via "talk box", which I thought wasn't available till Walsh and Frampton used it in the 60's. Anyway totally unexpected, yes, ahead of it's time, but at the same time extremely freaky.

But the plot drags along until you lose track of how many cigarettes and martinis are consumed. You keep waiting for one of the wives to call their husband a "big lug"... or for one of husbands to say "why I oughta" or "why you" and give Paul Douglas a double eye poke or maybe hit him in the head with a lead pipe followed by a boink sound effect. Better yet a boink sound effect using auto-tune.

Then as the story winds down in eager anticipation awaiting to find out which big lug left his wife to run away with some unknown dame who only has a name, you pretty much know the ending. But at the same time you never really know due to the vagueness of Moe's dad. Was he making up his confession to cover for who they led you to believe it was? Or, was he really just a "big gorilla" whose dame (aka:broad) forgave him? The world may never know (or be able to consume that amount of alcohol and nicotine) but the glass that falls over for no reason and breaks at the end may only help add to the mystery rather than solve it.

Mommie Dearest (1981)

Caterpillar Eyebrows and Crappy Acting.

[1/10 · 14 November 2013]

Obviously it took a ton of makeup to make Faye Dunaway look like the repulsively ugly Joan Crawford. Every time I see a Joan Crawford film, I wonder in bewilderment, were people blind in the forties? How in the world did this woman ever land an acting role, regardless of how deranged or insane the character might be?

Just google Joan Crawford and hit images. You'll see some of the most frighteningly ugly portraits in the history of Hollywood. Was this before they invented tweezers? Did the makeup artist think 1/2" thick eyebrows would help her look more demented? As if that was even possible?

Then you watch this film and find out that in real life Joan Crawford was a complete mental case. I guess that explains the fact her face could shatter a mirror. Also explains all the demented characters she played were not a matter of acting, but just being herself. If you're crazy to the bone and ugly as a steaming pile of dog feces, than playing that type of character requires no acting skills. Just show up on the set drunk, use a magic marker to apply fake eyebrows and just be yourself.

Then when you get home you can abuse the Hell out of your daughter. If there was any justice, Joan Crawford would have died of old age in jail. She had no talent, looked like Satan took a dump on her face and beat her with an ugly stick, she treated her kid like an animal, and couldn't act her way out of a loosely tied Walmart bag.

As far as this movie goes, portraying her pathetic life and horrid motherhood, it sucks to the same level as Crawford. Which is fitting. What better way to portray the life of a piece of crap than hire lame actors for the roles of mother and daughter. Top it off with bad directing, a 1st grade level script and surround it all with unknown supporting actors.

A crowning achievement in all that is lame.

Tough Enough (1983)

Acting skills? Not so much.

[1/10 · 1 November 2013]

I saw this movie for the first time today on broadcast TV. I watched, or rather, suffered through, the entire thing. And the whole time I kept thinking to myself - this would have been a really great movie if the lead actor could actually act. I didn't know his name, figured he'd never act again and that this must have been some kind of low budget B movie that blew their budget on sets rather than real actors... that and the fact that dude with the big mustache from the Quaker Oats commercial played the dad.

Each line he spoke was flat, fake, stiff and sounded like it was being read off a cue card by freshman who just signed up for the high school play. Or, a beginner, that didn't know how to get into character and didn't know how to feel the line. To be honest, he almost sounded drunk. It was especially noticeable, almost painful, in the first part of the film. But thankfully, the film has less lines for him in the last half, after it turns into a series of Rocky style fight scenes.

So that's why I was amazed when I came here and saw how many reviewers said the biggest flaw, the "actor" who played the lead role, is what made the film great. I was also amazed that he continued acting after this film and somehow became famous. Maybe it was the fight scenes where he didn't have any lines? Abs over acting skill? I don't know, but I know bad acting when see it. I originally came here to point out to aspiring actors, that if they need a prime example of how to NOT deliver a line, watch this film.

Irreconcilable Differences (1984)

A monument to bad women's hairstyles at best

[1/10 · 4 October 2013]

...and oversized glasses. First of all, this may have worked (at least a little better) if the story was told in chronological order… instead of starting near the end and continually using flashbacks to lame scenes of the past during the overly sweet testimony of Drew Barrymore. Which was almost enough to cause diabetes.

Worst yet was the casting. Okay, I get Drew Barrymore as the overly sweet cute little kid. But Shelley Long and Ryan O'Neal? By the way, what's up with her left eye? It seems as if it's on delay and always takes a second to align with where her right eye is looking.

At first I thought, wow she's not even close to his league. How could they cast them as a couple. But after seeing their "wake up after a reunited one night stand" scene, and seeing that apparently Ryan O'Neal had no nipples, I realized maybe they are a good match. Defects in common.

Finally, how could anyone in the 80's find Shelley Long's hairstyle attractive. It looks like she cut it herself, with dull scissors and her eyes closed.

One of the worst films I've seen. Annoying flashback script, bad casting, sickening sweet kid and an unbearable haircut. But at least now the world knows Ryan O'Neal has no nipples.

Like Father Like Son (1987)

A lethal combination of suck.

[24 September 2013]

I suffered through this film in jaw dropping disbelief.

First of all, who would cast Dudley Moore and Kirk Cameron in the same film? Seriously? It's like mixing oil and water and just doesn't work. Especially if your cast Kirk Cameron as Dudley Moore's son. Who thought that would be believable? Hey, let's take two of the worst actors in the world that are complete opposites and cast them as father and son.

Then, to add to the puke factor, there's the 80's hair band background music. As if Cameron as son and Moore as father wasn't enough to induce projectile vomiting they pushed it one step further with the lame soundtrack.

Then there's the story line, the script. Were they taking mind altering drugs when they wrote this? If so, it was something that caused complete stupidity.

The Arsenio Hall Show (2013–2014)

Unfunny, disinterested and creepy.

[1/10 · 22 September 2013]

So he gets another shot, most likely because he won Trump's Apprentice. I get that. But I've watched a few episodes and came to the realization of why his first show was canceled back in the 90's.

First of all, as in the past, his monologues just aren't funny.

Secondly, even if it's not the case, he just comes off as self-absorbed and totally disinterested when he's interviewing a guest. It always seems like his mind is elsewhere and that he's thinking about something other than the guest or what they are saying. For God's sake, look them in the eye, instead of acting like you're annoyed by the guest and have to really pee bad.

Thirdly, not sure why, but for some reason and for lack of a better word, he's just creepy.

Anyway, I know there's no way to undo his natural born creepiness, but if he wants to stay on the air, I suggest he should watch some old Carson to see how to actually interview somebody and come off as interested and engaged in the conversation.

Otherwise, this show faces the same demise as his first. Cancellation.