Change Your Image
jqdoe
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Trek: The Cloud Minders (1969)
An Ancient Story, Set in the 23rd Century
The story is old - as old as antiquity. A two-tiered society, which is actually two separate and very unequal societies. It goes back at least as far as Spartan citizens and Helots. Roman citizens and slaves. Plantation owners and African-Americans. H. G. Wells' Eloi and Morlocks. Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Jim Crow. And here, in this episode of Star Trek, we have City-Dwellers and Troglytes.
It's an entertaining enough episode, as there is much eye candy in terms of attractive females and special effects, including the floating city of Stratos. I have some quibbles with some of the actions of some of the characters which don't make a lot of sense (like folks doubting that an unseen gas can have deleterious health effects on people). But that is not unusual for Star Trek.
However I didn't really detect any new or original thoughts regarding the basic premise of a society divided into a large group of people doing all the hard work and a small elite group of people reaping all the benefits. So it makes the episode seem like little more than a rehash of old ideas, dressed up in the garb of science fiction.
As a result, I can only give the episode a 6/10. But I can understand how some folks will like it better than that, depending on their expectations. Watch it and form your own opinion.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Spanish Cross (1959)
The Stuff that Dreams are Made Of
As another reviewer has noted, this episode is an homage to "The Maltese Falcon," right down to the presence of a Kasper Gutman / Sydney Greenstreet ripoff in the character of Felix Karr (Jacques Aubuchon), echoing many of Greenstreet's lines from the movie. The Karr character even slips a Mickey Finn into someone's drink, as Greenstreet's character did in the Maltese Falcon.
As still other reviewers have noted, a highlight of the episode is a speech Mason delivers to his young soon-to-be client on some cramped basement stairs. Some very fine acting by Mr. Burr!
So here comes the (sort of) SPOILER.
Yet another reviewer says that you would never guess the murderer. I disagree. The script dropped clues everywhere. And if you still can't figure it out, remember that Sam Spade said that the Spanish Cross - I mean the Maltese Falcon - is "the stuff that dreams are made of." Then ask yourself: which character seems to so very desperately want/need that dream? When you answer that, you'll know who the murderer is.
A very nice episode which fans of film noir are likely to enjoy. Recommended.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Gilded Lily (1958)
Better than the Previous Episode. But not much.
So many things are not explained in this episode and do not make sense - starting with the basic setup in which the defendant (or is it his new wife?) is being blackmailed because the blackmailer knows that she had served a year in prison in the past. Why is that even a subject for blackmail? What is the blackmailer going to do with this information anyway? Her husband knows about it - and does not care. Yet that is supposed to be the motive for the defendant to have murdered the blackmailer.
Then a piece of planted evidence shows up in Tragg's car. Tragg doesn't even question how it got there or how he found out about it. Ridiculous.
The murderer is revealed out of nowhere at the very end, and confesses (or does he/she really?) out of court for absolutely no reason. How the murderer is even connected to the defendant or the victim . . . who knows? The motive is money (it usually is), but how did the murderer even know about this money? Again, who knows?
This would have been a one or two star review, except we get one of those brief end-of-the-episode scenes between Mason and Tragg that occur from time to time where we see, despite everything, how much they respect each other. And I'd like to think the writers want us to understand that, secretly, they like each other despite the numerous blow ups betwen them over the years. Genuine affection is shown here, I tell ya! It put a smile on my face, and it might do the same for you. And that smile alone was worth an extra two stars in this review.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Long-Legged Models (1958)
Gunplay
Whoever wrote this script never thought that years later folks would be able to play these episodes back over and over to carefully examine the plot. And when we do, we see how they played around with the three guns which are at the heart of the story in contradictory ways that made the "solution" to the murder totally impossible: namely, it was impossible for the murderer to have committed the murder with the gun which the police lab identified as the murder weapon.
Another reviewer here tried to address all this, but unfortunately there are some omissions/errors in the explanation in that review. And the script (especially new elements added in the postlogue) makes it essentially impossible to follow the various guns anyway, because of all the contradictions. So don't even try.
Fortunately, trying to follow the writer's three card monty game with the guns is unnecessary anyway, since we DO know three things for absolute certain and these three things are totally inconsistent with each other. ONE, we know who the murderer is. TWO, we know which gun the police lab identified as the murder weapon. THREE, we know that the murder weapon was the ONLY one of the three guns which the murderer never possibly had access to. It was completely impossible for the murderer to have committed the murder with the one of these three guns which the police lab said was the murder weapon - and which was shown in court to have initials scratched on it to easily distinguish it from the other two guns.
Lazy writing, or just thinking that a 1958 audience watching it once in "real time" would never be able to see the fast ones the writer was pulling? Who knows? But today we can play it back over and over just to make sure we don't miss any details. And when we do, we clearly see that the story has a giant hole in it that cannot be filled by any sleight of hand.
Nobody likes negative reviews, and they always generate downvotes, but I don't care - I'm calling it like it is. Most embarrassing Mason ever.
Dispatches from Elsewhere (2020)
Self Indulgent Garbage
Could not make it past 50 minutes. 50 minutes that I will never get back. I have never seen a more self-indulgent piece of garbage in my life. Jason Segal did it all - wrote, directed, produced, and starred in it. That was clearly a mistake, as it meant there was no one around to tell him when he was pretentious, full of himself, and needed to rein it back in. What was it about? I'm quite sure no one knows - including Mr. Segel himself. I wish I could give it zero stars - or better yet, negative stars. Heed my advice and don't waste your time on this boring drivel.
Godzilla (1998)
New York City. But Of Course.
The plot of this film is mind-numbingly stupid. Godzilla is created by a nuclear blast in the far, far eastern Pacific. So of all places on this entire planet, where does it go to wreak its havoc and lay its eggs. Why New York City, of course!
Not somewhere else nearby in the eastern Pacific. Not even some place on the Pacific coast of North or South America. Not even anywhere else on the Eastern seaboard between New York City and Panama where for some reason it crossed into the Atlantic. Not Honduras, or Florida, or South Carolina or Delaware or even New Jersey. No - New York City. Give me a break.
Law & Order: Happily Ever After (1990)
A Correction
Another reviewer wrote "District Attorney Adam Schiff played by Steven Hill getting the last word as he did so well - "either that or she is two and she wants what she wants when she wants it." Except it wasn't Schiff / Hill who said that. It was ADA Ben Stone, played by Michael Moriarty.
Star Trek: The Way to Eden (1969)
His Name Was Adam
As the man lies dead in Eden, next to a poisonous fruit, Spock offers this brilliant observation: "His name was Adam." I mean, just in case some stoned viewer somehow managed to miss the point they were driving home with all the subtlety of a jack hammer. I don't know which is worse: the antiquated 1969-time-capsule plot, or the embarrassing dialog. Or perhaps it's the ridiculous "alien" make-up, complete with your standard "cauliflower-ear" character.
Thank goodness for "The Omega Glory" or this would be the worst, most embarrassing, Star Trek episode ever. Yes, even including "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
If you have somehow missed this episode, do yourself a favor and keep missing it.
Bonanza: The Love Child (1970)
Michael Landon Writes and Directs the Ultimate Tearjerker
Michael Landon writes and directs a tale of sin, forgiveness, a broken family, a dying mother, and her child. I think it may be the saddest Bonanza episode I can recall, and not a dry eye will be found anywhere on screen or in front of it by the time it's over.
The plot itself is perhaps not original (and the only reason I gave 9 stars rather than 10), but the way this episode explores themes of family, forgiveness, absolute love versus conditional love, and death, is way above the norm. However what I really wanted to comment on were the direction and cinematography, which were a magnitude or more above the typical Bonanza episode - or any typical television episode of that era.
I think both the themes in this episode and the cinematography were influenced by "The Searchers" in particular.
Two scenes stood out to me.
The first one occurs about ten minutes in and we are treated to a framed shot of Will Geer which reminded me of the closing shot from "The Searchers" where we see once and for all how far John Wayne's character has isolated himself from his kin. The plot here is different, but it's the same theme - and a similar shot - for guest star Will Geer. You'll recognize the shot when you see it, and I think it was magnificent. Here Geer is literally surrounded by his family (and Ben Cartwright) but totally isolated from them.
The second one occurs a little more than 50 minutes in, and here we see a reverse zoom shot of Geer alone through an open door, in his cabin home, while a storm is occurring outside. Now he is not only emotionally isolated, but physically isolated as well.
Several other sophisticated photography techniques are employed in various other scenes, and the overall effect kicks this episode up a notch. It's like we're watching Michael Landon stretch his directorial muscles and see what he can achieve.
Bottom line: I highly recommend this episode not just for Bonanza fans, but for all fans of good cinema.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Carefree Coronary (1965)
This One Makes Me Sad
It's a good episode worth watching, but as others here have adequately covered the plot elements, I will not repeat that. I am just writing to note that this episode makes me sad. A little over halfway through the episode, Paul Drake keels over apparently suffering from a heart attack. It makes me sad every time I see that scene to realize that William Hopper would lose his life to a stroke at the relatively young of 55 just 4 and 1/2 years after this episode aired. RIP.
Blue Bloods: Burning Bridges (2014)
A Well Titled Episode
The writers surely knew what they were doing with this episode, and that was burning bridges. Another reviewer here demonstrated that by noting that she/he was done with this show after this episode.
Blue Bloods was one of - maybe the only - network television show which made any effort to portray the faith lives of families in any positive light. It is fairly obvious that the VAST majority of the folks in Hollywood and the networks are atheists, but there are literally a couple of hundred million Americans out here in flyover country who believe in God, and tens of millions who practice their faith in their lives, attend weekly church or synagogue services, etc. Everywhere but in the movies and on TV. Except Blue Bloods, where we see the family praying at dinner, where we have seen them in church, where they discuss their Catholic faith, and more. I am sure that was not a small part of the show's appeal to many in its loyal audience.
This episode takes on the issue of homosexuality. And it takes a decided position: if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, you are to be condemned. Even the whole Church is to be condemned. Even if the Church teaches its adherents to hate the sin but love the sinner, embraces homosexuals but not their homosexual behavior, does not support hate or government punishment or discrimination against homosexuals, etc. You must fully embrace homosexuality as perfectly acceptable to your God, or you must be condemned. As the lead character in this character condemns the Church here.
Yep, they burned bridges - and with more than the one viewer whose review here I noted above.
See ya.
Hawaii Five-O: Anybody Can Build a Bomb (1973)
Is McGarrett Stupid
This is the second episode in a row and third out of the last seven where it turns out that the brand new consultant or technical expert who they bring in to help with the investigation is actually a mole. Wouldn't you think that McGarrett would be on the lookout for that by now??? By this episode, that whole "twist" became quite tiresome.
Matlock: The Witness (1990)
Worst. Matlock. Ever.
How much disbelief is one expected to suspend?
We all know in the first few minutes who the killer is in this episode, because they show us. The "suspense" revolves around whether Michelle, trying this case in Matlock's absence, will uncover the killer and be able to prove their guilt in order to acquit her innocent client who was charged with the crime.
Late in this episode, Michelle comes into possession of an item of forensic evidence which proves beyond any doubt who the killer is. However, rather than turn it over to the police or the District Attorney and have her client immediately freed, she holds onto it so she can spring it on the guilty party while they are on the witness stand. Why? The ONLY reason for that is a dramatic one: so we can get this great dramatic "gotcha" scene on the witness stand. Ridiculous! No lawyer - not even a TV lawyer - would ever do that.
Look, we all know that TV shows about lawyers are totally unrealistic. And we are willing to suspend disbelief for the purposes of entertainment. But within the "rules" of their own universe, the plots and the character's actions should make some sort of sense. This episode doesn't. And as a result . . . it is a bad farce. Skip it.
Wagon Train: The Jasper Cato Story (1959)
Wagon Train Meets Les Miserables
So this one was pretty clearly an attempt to incorporate the story of Les Miserables into the Wagon Train universe, and I found that an interesting idea.
Unfortunately, the execution fell short in several places. For example, I think the viewer has to suspend disbelief to accept the story as to how the "Inspector Javert" character (a Boston police detective, named Jesper Cato) tracked the "Jean Valjean" character (a local printer and friend of Major Adams, named Jim Collins) across the country to the Wagon Train. Also, Collins had already been tried and acquitted of the crime in Boston, but for some reason the detective Cato believes that he can get him to confess and then retry him. No reason is offered for this implausible belief.
Still, the acting was strong and there were some nice story elements, like the way they used a ship's captain to play the role of the priest character in Les Mis.
So, given the other interesting features, I do not think that the logical implausibilities ruined the episode.
However, the resolution to the story did not make sense and was very unsatisfying and did ruin the episode. For some reason, after two years chasing down Collins, when the Boston detective finally has him in custody and ready to take him back to Boston . . . he changes his mind. At least in Les Mis, Javert has good reason to question his entire world view, after Valjean saved his life. Here . . . no good reason for this conversion is given. It is artificial and rings false. And it would have been SOOOOOO easy for them to set up a good reason for the change of heart. Heck, they could have copied Les Mis and had Collins save the detective's life. If not for the ending, I would have rated this episode a 7 or 8.
So . . . the idea was excellent, the journey was "OK," but the conclusion left a bad taste in the mouth and soured the whole affair.
The Twilight Zone: The Man in the Bottle (1960)
Very Depressing Episode
As other reviewers have noted, and is suggested by the Title, this is a Genie-In-A-Bottle story. Typically these stories do not go well for the one who frees the Genie and receives the wishes, and this episode is no different.
But what makes this story different, is that in the other Genie-In- A-Bottle stories that I can recall, the person getting the wishes essentially got a well-deserved comeuppance due to selfishness or arrogance or whatever. Here, however, the man who frees the Genie is such a good and kind soul that, before finding the Genie, he gave some money to a destitute, elderly, widow in desperate need, even though he could not pay his own bills and was on the brink of bankruptcy. He did not deserve what happened to him with this Genie, and to me it was just depressing to watch a kind-hearted man get cruelly kicked while he was already down.
I am not saying that every show needs a happy ending or anything like that. I just do not see the point of, or take any joy in watching, a kind-hearted and generous man get kicked around for no reason whatsoever.
If you are already in a sad or melancholy mood, I recommend you pass on this episode. It is not an episode that I will be watching again anyway.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Twice-Told Twist (1966)
Color Cannot Save a Patently Ridiculous Script and Some Bad Acting
If you are reading this review, then I think by now you are aware that this was the one and only episode of Perry Mason which was filmed and broadcast in color. Yeah, the quality of the color photography is not up to modern standards (or really even the standards of 1965). But it is still pretty cool to see the only color episode, and you might want to watch it for that alone.
Sadly, however, they committed one of their worst scripts to this episode. Among the worst of the many problems is the fact that the murderer had already escaped Scot-free and safely far away from Burger's jurisdiction (and from Mason), but for some flimsy reason agrees to return to Los Angeles . . . to show up in court . . . to be interrogated on the stand by Mason . . . and then to be unmasked as the killer. Just ridiculous. Who would do that?
The acting was also weak. Mason's client was unconvincing in his role. And to top it off, we get an American actress playing a Mexican woman, and delivering her lines with an Italian accent.
What a mess! IMO, this episode can best be summed up as:
Come for the color; stay for the train wreck.
Gunsmoke: The Moonstone (1966)
Tom Skerritt Shines
As others have noted, this is an exceedingly sad episode - with an ending that can bring tears to your eyes - so keep that in mind if you decide to watch it.
Talented character actor Mike Kellin plays Chad, a reformed outlaw- turned-farmer, who cares for his mentally-challenged younger brother, Orv, played by Tom Skerritt. Unlike another reviewer, I spotted Skerritt immediately. Also, his character is NOT mentally-ill, as someone else stated, but instead he is mentally-challenged / low-IQ. He is also sweet and naive, and most of all - dependent on his brother Chad.
The tragedy unfolds, as one might expect, when Chad's past catches up with him, and the ultimate dramatic conflict sets up between the tough consequences from Chad's rough past and the fragile nature of his brother Orv. I will leave it to the viewer to see how this all plays out.
IMO, the real reason to see this episode is Tom Skerritt. Among a collection of fine performances by a strong cast, he stands out and really shines. He owns the character and indeed, owns the episode, and the episode is worth watching for his performance all by itself.
Ice Sculpture Christmas (2015)
Zero Chemistry Produces One of Hallmark's Worst
Many, many problems with this movie. The lead actress was visibly quite a bit too old for the character she was playing. As someone who worked in the kitchen of an elite country club with a Cordon Bleu trained chef, I can promise you that the portrayal of that environment in this movie was laughable. And the whole ice sculpturing angle was never fleshed out and seemed to be nothing more than a gimmick.
But the biggest problem was that there was ZERO chemistry between the two love interests. None. For the first three quarters of the movie I kept waiting and thinking they were going to introduce another man to be her love interest, because she did not seem to have the slightest interest in the guy one way of the other. He seemed to just bore her and frankly I still have no idea how all of a sudden with about 25 minutes left, with nothing leading up to it and for no apparent reason other than the impending end of the movie demanding it, she suddenly decided that she loved him. And when it happened . . . it was totally unconvincing.
There are soooooooooo many better Hallmark Christmas movies. In fact . . . every single one that I have ever seen (at least a dozen) are much better than this one. Give this one a pass and try another instead.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Stuttering Bishop (1959)
An Obvious Killer + No Burger = A Mediocre Episode
It's never good when you can tell who the murderer is going to be before the murder even occurs. That was the case for me with this episode - and I bet it will be the case with you.
It is a shame that this episode did not turn out better, as it is based on one of Earl Stanley Gardner's better books, which in fact was made into a movie 22 years earlier (starring Donald Woods, another Canadian-American actor like Raymond Burr, as Mason). This episode includes a lot of changes to the earlier version, and the changes do not make an improvement in my opinion. In addition to too many obvious plot clues, I think some poor casting choices and uneven acting played a part in sabotaging this episode by making the killer so obvious so early.
I also missed Burger. I have no idea why they did not use him - his character appeared in the book and the earlier film version.
The story held up logically - better than many other episodes, in fact. But in the end, I was left feeling like this entire story could have been told in half the time with twice the entertainment. Not the worst Perry Mason episode by any means, but far from the best.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Jaded Joker (1959)
One of My Favorite Episodes
There is so much going on in this episode. Indeed, so much that the murder itself and the process of identifying the killer is almost secondary.
Bobby Troup (Emergency) does an outstanding job playing a late 50s Beatnik musician (Troup was an accomplished musician and composer who wrote some of the music we hear in the episode). There is a memorable scene between Troup's beatnik and Lt. Tragg, played out over a piano with suggestions of the presence of marijuana. How rare would that have been on TV in 1959? This scene could have been the highlight of many other episodes. Speaking of rare subject matter for late 50s TV, there are a few hints subtly sprinkled here and there that a relationship between two male characters perhaps extends beyond just friendship.
There is also a memorable courtroom scene where Mason invokes some complicated legal reasoning to convince the judge to allow a cross-examination which on first blush appears to be improper. In the same scene, Mason displays an impressive level of knowledge in the field of forensic medicine. It really is vintage Mason. Again, this scene could have been the highlight of many other episodes.
Then there is the confession scene, with some terrific, well- written, dialog.
And finally, in the last minute, as if depositing a cherry on the ice cream sundae which is this episode, Lt. Tragg treats us to a hilarious and unexpected display of his proficiency in the hipster lingo of the day. This is the highlight of the episode to me, and makes watching this episode worthwhile all by itself.
A very entertaining episode. Highly recommended.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Surplus Suitor (1963)
Saw This One Coming a MILE Away
** SPOILER BELOW **
This is the last of four consecutive episodes with guest lawyers taking over for Perry Mason, who is recuperating from some illness (as apparently, Burr was recuperating from surgery himself). Perry only appears in one scene, via telephone, and veteran actor Walter Pidgeon assumes the part of the guest attorney of the week, defending another innocent defendant against Hamilton Burger.
IMO, all four of these episodes are very weak, albeit each for different reasons. But in all of these cases, the story is just not very compelling.
In this case, the biggest problem is that the murderer is identifiable as soon as she/he takes the stand. I saw it coming a mile away - and I bet you will, too. There was no real purpose for this person in the story except to implicate the innocent defendant only to be later revealed as the killer. I have never found it so easy to confidently spot the killer so early in any other Perry Mason episode.
I wonder if these episodes would have been any better with Perry Mason / Raymond Burr. Do these episodes give us a chance to see what this series would have been like without Raymond Burr in the role he was born to play? Or did the producers knowingly pick out four of their weakest scripts as "throwaways" in Burr's absence?
I think it would have been more interesting perhaps if Hamilton Burger had defeated one or more of these guest attorneys, showing him as a victorious prosecutor and reinforcing to the viewer that Mason did not just win because Burger was such a bungler, but because Mason was just that great. But I don't know if audiences in 1963 would have accepted that kind of out-of-the-box thinking, and perhaps I am applying a 21st century viewer mentality to an early 1960s TV show.
However, I do believe that the ONLY interesting thing about these four episodes is to watch them and imagine how they would have looked with Mason/Burr as the defense attorney, and whether or not that would have been able to save them.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Avenging Angel (1966)
Lame and Dated
I love Perry Mason. However this episode was almost unwatchable.
I am sure that they were trying to attract a younger audience with the faux British invasion singer angle. But this was even cheesier than The Monkeys or The Partridge Family. At least those shows knew that they were corny, and did not really aspire to any more than some laughs. Not so this episode, which wants to be taken seriously. I don't believe many, if any, viewers could have taken it seriously when it first aired, and no one could take it seriously now, half a century later.
I actually felt embarrassed for all involved when I watched this episode. And none more so than the actor who played the clone of the lead singer of Herman's Hermits (the spell checker annoyingly keeps changing his name to Peter No one!). This poor fellow could not carry a tune in a paper bag.
This is an hour I want back. Do yourself a favor if you are tempted to watch this episode and go do something more fulfilling, like watching paint dry.
Star Trek: The Omega Glory (1968)
Worst. Star Trek. Ever
What a train wreck this episode is. If you are a fan of Star Trek and have somehow managed to avoid seeing this debacle, do yourself a favor and avoid it.
I have read all sorts of cockamamie explanations offered for this episode, and all of them defy logic. One theory you will read about in some other reviews is that the two tribes of Yangs and Kohns are descendants of two separate American and Chinese colonies that were sent here from Earth and forgotten about. One big problem with that is that we are told that at least one of the Kohns is 1000 years old. Which means that at least 1000 years before this episode, and probably a lot longer go than that, people on Earth would have had to have possessed the capability to transport colonies of people to distant planets. Yet the original Star Trek supposedly occurs somewhere around the mid 23rd century. Which means the ancestors of the Yangs and Kohns had to come from Earth no later than the 13th century - way before any capability for flight, and indeed before there was any U.S. Constitution (which figures prominently in this episode), or any Chinese Communists.
The whole thing is ridiculous - besides being little more than patriotic pablum.
It is an embarrassing mess which IMO is only entertaining for being unintentionally laughable.
Perry Mason: The Case of the Sad Sicilian (1965)
Worst. Mason, Ever.
I loves me some Perry Mason. I think I have seen every episode more than once.
But this episode is a giant stinker. I wonder if they knew how bad it was, and how far below the show's typical standards, while they were making it.
The acting is uneven. Some of the dialog is ridiculous. And the plot is a total disaster - especially the ending.
I am not going to waste your time or mine actually trying to describe this train-wreck of a plot. Suffice it to say that there are so many dead end paths at the end that have nothing to do with the real solution that I am convinced they were actually just padding or killing time to fill the hour time slot. No one in his right mind could have thought that all those feints made any sense.
Do yourself a favor. Skip this episode and move on to the next one.
Heaven Can Wait (1978)
Worst. Ending. Ever.
This movie has the WORST ending of any movie I have ever seen, period. It totally ruins what was up until then a charming and entertaining fantasy movie and makes you want to throw a shoe at your TV for all the time you wasted watching what went before. There is no other way to explain this than to describe the ending, so again , , , SPOILERS BELOW!
The ENTIRE movie centers around the effort to find a new body for the consciousness of Joe Pendleton (played by Warren Beatty), a QB for the LA Rams whose consciousness was mistakenly removed from his body many years too soon by a rookie angel who wrongfully assumed that he was about to be killed in an accident. The head angel, played by the great James Mason, takes over and finds the body of a freshly murdered millionaire to host Joe's consciousness temporarily, until a permanent replacement body is found. Eventually, the millionaire is murdered again, and Joe's consciousness is once again left without a home. However, Joe's backup QB for the Rams, Tom, "conveniently" dies during the Super Bowl, and head angel invites Joe's consciousness to inhabit Tom's body before anyone realizes that Tom is dead. Joe's consciousness inside Tom's body leads the Rams to a comeback victory, and is the Super Bowl hero.
So far, so good.
Then, the viewer gets a giant punch to the gut. The head angel informs Joe that he must return to his duties, and that after he leaves, Joe will have no memories of his life as Joe, or of his time in the body of the millionaire that he temporarily inhabited. He will just become Tom. The End.
Huh?!?!? We just spent almost two hours watching a journey to find a permanent home for Joe's consciousness. And at the end . . . Joe's consciousness is totally obliterated for no good reason that is explained to anyone! Heck, if Joe had just died in the accident at the start at least his consciousness would now be in heaven. But after two hours of this movie, it is as if Joe never existed. And if the Tom, the backup QB, really dies and his consciousness is in heaven, then how can Tom's consciousness also still be alive in Tom's body, since the consciousness in Tom's body is now "just Tom," with no more traces of Joe remaining.
What was the point of everything that happened in the movie?
Answer: Zero. Which, if you are smart, is how much time you will waste watching this abomination.