Reviews

Funny that a movie which has 'Summertime" in its title spends most of its duration in the Winter. No matter, this is a charming and quaint musical from MGM. Judy and Van are anonymous pen pals, who also happen to work together, each of them not knowing the other is their mystery 'friend'.

It's a little disconcerting watching Judy Garland, as lively as ever, in her second to last MGM musical from the studio's classic period. It's unfortunate she was dropped a couple years later, because even in this minor film, she is wonderful, using her talents to better the story with her cinematic personality and melodic singing. She had a gift for comedy and a talent for drama as well.

Van Johnson, in one of his few memorable musical film roles, is good as Judy's counterpart. His role seems more like a character Gene Kelly would have played, a bit of a 'smart Alec'. I think if Kelly were cast instead, there would have been more of a balance in this film, because as it is, much of the singing in this film comes from Judy...she really is the only singer in the whole cast. The songs, themselves, are period pieces which are pleasant enough. Aside from the title tune, there is the "Dreamland" number, which is nice, Judy's rousing "I Don't Care", and her amusing song with the Barbershop Quartet. The other actors in the cast are also good. Buster Keaton has a funny, but modest role as a shop worker, along with Spring Byington and S.Z. "Cuddles" Sakall, as the shop owner.

Overall, a pleasant film. Not quite what I would think of as a musical, as the songs are modest filler, not showstoppers. This is not on par with "On the Town" or "The Pirate", but it is enjoyable enough. Good costumes, charming sets, and lovely Technicolor contribute to the look of an antique hand-colored postcard. In that sense, it's something of a curio; amusing, but not quite a gem.

This late-period William Castle film is one of his pallid attempts at comedy. It's amiable, yet mediocre in its delivery. Sid Caesar (during one of the lesser parts of his career) plays the scapegoat for Robert Ryan's gang of hoods. Looking at the cast of this film, as well as the original publicity material, it's obvious that Castle was trying to make his own version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World". In addition to Caesar, there is also Dom Deluise, Kay Medford, Godfrey Cambridge, Marty Ingels, and Richard Pryor in his first film. Arlene Golonka is also present as the ditzy young dancer in the ridiculous feather get-ups.

The main problem with this film, is that the two main actors are totally unlikable. Ryan is unnecessarily mean to Caesar, and Caesar in turn, is too much of a wuss. The other actors all seem so oblivious to what's happening...like they are all doing their own stand-up routines instead of furthering the story. The script is OK, I think Castle just didn't know how to direct comedy.

On the plus side, though, this film has a very catchy theme song, composed by Vic Mizzy, and a funny sequence where a woman tries talking to a mannequin at a bus stop. It's a slight step up from Castle's "The Spirit is Willing", but that's not saying very much.

Clever, witty and charming musical, courtesy M.G.M. and the Arthur Freed unit, of which this was one of their last films. One of several musical remakes (of non-musical pictures) that the studio produced in the mid-late 1950s. This is one of the best.

Fred Astaire plays his usual character, the playboy-ish bachelor, in this case a film producer, wanting to use a Russian composer's music for his new film. Cyd Charisse plays Ninotchka, the Russian woman who comes to Paris to bring back the composer and three comrades who failed to return him to his native land. As the three comrades, Jules Munshin, Peter Lorre (holding onto a chair as he dances), and Joseph Buloff are a hoot, adding good comic relief in their "Too Bad" and "Siberia" numbers. Janis Paige is a jewel as the ditzy actress hired for the new film. She radiates with Astaire in the memorable "Stereophonic Sound" number, as well as in her own hilarious "Satin and Silk".

Charisse, (whose wooden acting is OK here), is lovely as usual and has a few excellent dances, including the sensual "All of You" (with Astaire), the lively "Red Blues", and the stunning ballet where she removes her old Russian garb, for her new Parisian silks. This was the second of her two pairings with Astaire, and though this is not the gem that "The Band Wagon" is, it still sparkles nonetheless.

A clever and classy musical, with some very topical humor. Great songs by Cole Porter (with the exception of the tacky "Ritz, Roll and Rock"...a poor punch at rock and roll). Excellent use of color and the Cinemascope frame help to make this one of the last great musicals of the 1950s.

A Hammer production, filmed at M.G.M., and released through Columbia. Sound confusing? Well, so is the plot to this attempt at out-psycho-ing "Psycho".

Kerwin Matthews is actually pretty good, in this tale of an American artist visiting France, who gets mixed up with both a young woman, and the woman's stepmother (notice she's a "stepmother"; hint, hint, wink, wink). For some reason I had an easier time believing Matthew's interest in the young woman, but not so much in her stepmother (whose high painted eyebrows, and puffy bouffant hair reminded me of Divine). Along the way Matthews learns of the older woman's husband, and how he committed a crime trying to protect his daughter years before. They try to help the husband escape from an asylum (so they can be together), and then the confusion starts.

Though the location footage, and stark black and white photography help this film create a good atmosphere, the direction is somewhat muddled, as is the dialogue, which at times I found difficult to follow. The French accents, in addition to some questionable dubbing make it hard to understand what they are saying. When I could understand the dialogue, it seemed forced and elementary; characters having to explain things that just happened, to further the story (and make sure that we get it).

Overall a slow start and a bunch of interesting twists in the latter half, but only a couple mildly startling moments. I found myself rather unsatisfied at the end. Perhaps this would have benefited by being directed by Freddie Francis...his collaboration with Jimmy Sangster that same year, for "Paranoiac", produced a much better film then this is.

Who knows? Who cares?! This movie is so painfully long and boring that I don't think any of the details really matter. If you haven't fallen asleep by the time the end credits pop up, you'd probably just as sooner forget them.

This film is an example of the very worst in 1950s musicals. Take a very tepid, airy script and vacuum-pack it with dull and forgettable song and dance numbers, and a bunch of dream sequences, and 'voila'! What you get is an extremely long, pointless film…the story could have been neatly tied up within an hour and a half (if that), but instead this film rambles on for over two full hours.

The romance angle between Astaire and Caron is strained, at best. Astaire's films from the 1950s are curious, and range from the sublime ("The Band Wagon"), to the bizarre ("Funny Face", and this). As an aging actor, he was constantly being paired up against young actresses as love interests. I can stretch my imagination to believe Cyd Charisse and Fred, but Leslie Caron, who looks to be about a third of his age? I don't think so. Caron, who was memorable in "An American in Paris", is only slightly better in this film. She still speaks very little, and apparently the producers must have thought this lent to her appeal. Her dancing is pleasant, but she has so little to do here, that even that talent is wasted.

As far as the music numbers, well, there's not much to choose from. I won't even go into the song "Egghead", where a bunch of sadistic college girls push around a sobbing Caron….ugh. The "dream sequences" are an ache to watch, namely one in which Caron comes out in one costume after another. None of these sequences lend anything to the script…they are agonizing. Of the music sequences we get that have some merit…the standard "Something's Gotta Give" (inserted, as if it alone makes the film credible), and something called "Sluefoot", where Caron dances with Astaire at a college dance. The latter is amusing only because it's so oddball and spontaneous that you can't help but remember it for it's sheer audacity.

Tacked along for comic support are Fred Clark, who is generally funny. Here he mostly spends the two hours screaming at Astaire. Too bad he didn't just yell "Cut!" at the beginning, and spare us the misery of seeing the rest of this mess. In addition, there is Thelma Ritter, who is totally wasted, sniffling into a tissue for most of the time. Add to all of this, pitiful DeLuxe Color and an incredibly lifeless usage of Cinemascope. If you think you would enjoy seeing an aging Astaire chase around a too-young Caron, interspersed with an occasional intruding music number, well then, perhaps you would enjoy this. If, however, you'd like to see a better movie, may I suggest…well…almost anything else.

Understandably the most popular 3-D movie to come from the 1950s, this wonderfully Gothic horror film is worth watching, even without the extra depth dimension. Vincent Price is marvelous as the sensitive artist-turned mad sculptor who closely guards his Chamber of Horrors, and chases around poor Phyllis Kirk, trying to recreate his beloved Marie Antoinette statue. Kirk is terrific in this, probably her best role. Carolyn Jones is a hoot as her ditzy friend. Paul Picerni is not half-bad as the boyfriend, and Charles Bronson is pretty funny, if nothing else, as the mute assistant to Price. There's plenty of fog and shadows, not to mention one pretty wild paddle-ball, all put together, for a very satisfying and fun movie. It's easy to see why this was such a hit in its time, and it remains today, not only one of the best 3-D films ever, but also one of the best horror films to come from its era. See it in 3-D, if you can, but by all means, see it!

The best scenes in this latest John Waters entry, are the ones early in the film, when the "neuters" are complaining at the local convenience store, about how smut is contaminating the neighborhood. Hearing Mink Stole and Suzanne Shepherd trying to outdo each other with one "shocking" discovery after the next, is pretty silly, and typical Waters buildup. The satire works here because it's still believable.

Of course, being a John Waters film, there is usually the point (of many points) where things start to go over-the-top, and that is where the film either makes it or not. This film almost works, up until the very end. The final "c-l-i-m-a-x" of the film, leaves much to be desired, I'm afraid. The basically one-note joke would have been fine, except that it starts branching out into pure silliness. Satire is funny when it's sharp, and biting. This one builds up momentum, and then just nibbles.

The cast is all well chosen. Tracy Ullman is the best asset as the typical housewife who gets "the itch". Johnny Knoxville was rather impressive as Ray-Ray, but his screen time is limited. Chris Issac is also good as Ullman's husband, and the usual Waters alumni are here and fun to pick out from the rest. Suzanne Shepard is also worth noting. The funniest line in the movie, was when someone refers to her as a "tranny bear".

Not a bad film, but not Waters' best. Fans are bound to like it, but I can see how it would be tough to take for those who aren't. One of the biggest gripes I had about this movie, was that a lot of the sex jokes, which should have been funny, come off as academic and condescending. If they have to be explained, why bother?

This early 60's horror film is one of the slowest moving ones ever. The film begins with an awesome title sequence...some flickering abstract lines, mixed with some deliciously eerie music. Following that (and before the story actually starts), we have one of the most dreadfully boring narrators ever in the history of film, explaining to us what a mask is, and that when the characters in the film put on the mask of the title, we are to do the same with our 3-D specs.

The story itself is a bore, painfully written and with some ludicrous, laughable acting (my favorite was the grumpy landlady). The 3-D sequences are something else entirely from the rest of this film. You'd think they came from a different movie. They are moody, eerie, well thought out and put together. Some of the in-your-face effects still don't work well (even in a theatre) but they are hokey good fun. However, once the non-stereo scenes come back on...they are redundant and increasingly annoying. Still, this is a cult classic by any standards, and you can't help but love it. Understandably, it has quite a following.

This cartoon seems to get better and better, every time I watch it. Bimbo the dog is seen by a policeman trying to steal a chicken, and hides in a graveyard. Once inside, the ghosts rise from their graves and teach him a lesson, singing him the title song.

The animation in this early Fleischer Talkartoon is distinctly primitive looking when compared to their later shorts. There are some very simple drawings here, but the timing, music and mood add so greatly to this toon, that you simply can't forget it. The theme in this one is very similar to the later, "Minnie the Moocher", which also uses a popular jazz song, but this cartoon goes a little bit darker. As Bimbo is menaced from the graveyard, inside an old barn, and out again, the drawings become more grotesque, more rubbery, and macabre. The final outcome, with the spooks chasing him into what looks like Hell, is quite creepy for a cartoon.

One of the great ones. This one seems to be difficult to view these days. It was included as part of the "Betty Boop Confidential" which toured theatres in 1995, but I have never seen a video release of it. It's worth tracking down. One of the best shorts of the 1930s, and of the Fleischer studio.

This is a typical "let's put on a show" musical from MGM, which would be nothing if it were not for the delightful pairing of Judy Garland and Gene Kelly. Gene is fantastic in this film. The material he has to work with is mediocre, but he does a superb job with it. His dance with the creaky floorboard and the newspapers is magical. His "Dig, Dig, Dig", is also a lot of fun, and is another example of his exuberance. He also looks particularly youthful and handsome. Hard to believe he was pushing 40 here.

Judy Garland, on the other hand, doesn't do so well in the looks department, clearly overweight for much of the picture. She actually looks older then Kelly (even though she was really 10 years younger). It was a little tough for me to believe the quick revelation of Gene's character falling head-over-heels for her. Regardless, Judy is bubbly, lively, and with a certain degree of emotion to her character that almost seems too real. She's crying and yelling, and showing frustration with just about anyone who crosses her path. Makes one wonder what things were like on the set of this film, when the cameras weren't rolling. All in all, she's fascinating to watch, and when she comes out at the end for her big finale of "Get Happy"...you will be.

The Technicolor photography is bright and happy as usual, and the costumes have 1950 written all over them...very, very cute. Phil Silvers is also worth noting as Kelly's comic sidekick. He was funny here, reminded me of their pairing in "Cover Girl".

A nice slice of mid-Twentieth Century Americana. Worth watching, particularly if seen on the Big Screen.

This experimental piece of work, from Henry Jaglom, is actually something of a gem, if not for it's unique direction, for the typically stunning performance from Tuesday Weld. Weld is wonderful in her characterization of a simple, juvenile young woman, caught in the limbo between innocence and adulthood. This film is from the period which I consider Weld's peak. She is beautiful, charming and completely earnest in her delivery.

Others in the cast are interesting at best. Orson Welles is good as the father figure in Weld's life. Philip Proctor is not much acting wise, but at least he has a pleasant voice. That seems to have helped his career in the years following this film. Jack Nicholson is his typical cocky, slimy character in this one. I didn't feel his acting was anything new here, but his presence makes for an interesting triangle relationship.

The editing is choppy, utilizing audio and image clips flashing by, altered, and repeated again. It would seem to get old after a while, and it does to some degree, but it's effective nonetheless. There are some good vignettes here and there throughout the film, namely a scene where Weld describes to Proctor the importance of telephone exchanges. Not every actress could pull this off well, but Weld does so with empathy and charm...brilliant! The Ouija board scene also stands out, as do the ones of Weld and Welles in Central Park Zoo.

A fascinating and surprisingly engaging film. If for no other reason, it's worth watching for Weld's performance.

There's only one real reason to see this film, and it's for Joan Crawford, who is a hoot in nearly every scene she is in. Though there is no real depth to any of the characters here, it does feature a pretty good supporting cast: Barry Sullivan, John Ireland...even Fay Wray turns up. Joan dishes out one nasty one-liner after the next...shredding apart the people around her. You can tell she must have had a lot of fun "playing" this role. Lucy Marlow is a little annoying as Jennifer, but her character gradually changes. Betsy Palmer as Carol, is pretty good. I wasn't too fond of the ending, it just seemed like it was tacked on, but that didn't keep me from enjoying the rest of the film. I'd watch it again, just because of Joan.

For a non-MGM musical from the 1940s, this is quite a memorable and enjoyable film. Rita Hayworth, at the peak of her career, is stunning, a vision of loveliness and in full Technicolor, no less! Gene Kelly, in one of his earliest films, is a good match for her, although his character is really something of a jerk. Phil Silvers provides good comic relief, without being too obnoxious, but Eve Arden, with her dry one-liners, is an even bigger hoot.

The music score is quite good for the most part...with only one sour note ("Poor John"). The haunting "Long Ago and Far Away" is beautiful, "Put Me to the Test" is a good number for the two leads, and "Make Way for Tomorrow" is a lively, fun number. Of course, credit must be given to Gene Kelly for his fantastic "alter-ego" dance sequence, which is without a doubt, the highlight of the film.

Definitely worth seeking out for fans of Gene or Rita...this is one of the great 40s musicals. Top stars, sumptuous color, and a pleasing score. Terrific!

This begins as a promising musical with two classy stars. Unfortunately, it turns out to be an extremely lifeless, boring enterprise, with some classic Gershwin songs just thrown in (and wasted) in the mix. Audrey Hepburn is lovely as the leading lady. She alone is the only reason I could see anyone wanting to seek out this film. Fred Astaire is really flat in one of his most uninteresting roles. He's just too old for her. Even though he played opposite younger female leads in some of his other films (Easter Parade, The Band Wagon), here the romance just isn't believable. When he kisses Audrey for the first time, and she subsequently breaks into song ("How Long Has This Been Going On"), well...it's just not inspiring or emphatic at all. It just seems forced.

In addition to this mismatched duo, there is Kay Thompson as the LOUD, brassy fashion head. She is just plain obnoxious, as can be evidenced from the very first scene ("Think Pink"). The set designs and costumes are very 1950s, which in some cases works to advantage. Other times not so much. The color photography in Technicolor and VistaVision is quite nice, and often lovely to look at.

So, if there are any reasons to see this film, it's for Audrey and the pleasing color. Also worth noting is model Suzy Parker, who appears in some of the opening sequences. Other then that, a pretty forgettable film.

Storywise, this film doesn't have much going for it, but then, too many Hollywood musicals (in the 40s and 50s) didn't have that much going for them in the script department. This one is a typical putting-on-a-show diversion. Then again, not many people went to musicals for the story, it's more about the talent being showcased. In that respect...there is some good quality talent to be had here.

Fred Astaire is good, but a little too old, in a role that would have been better off for Gene Kelly. Too bad he hurt his leg. He and Judy Garland were so great together in "The Pirate" (which came out the same year as this). Fred's "Drum Crazy" number is a great opener, and "Stepping Out With My Baby" is also rousing. Judy is good here, but I would hardly call this one of her better roles. She has some fun numbers with Fred (like "Couple of Swells"), but nothing that memorable. Peter Lawford has one forgettable song, and Jules Munshin (though he doesn't sing) has a funny bit as a waiter.

The real star of this film, for my money, is Ann Miller. Her "Shaking the Blues Away" is fantastic! Her character is snooty and unsympathetic, but that doesn't matter for her dancing, which is electric and vibrant. This picture is worth seeing for her alone.

A good, solid musical from MGM's heydey, with some really vivid, fantastic Technicolor. Worth seeing on the big screen if you can.

Yes, cute. That's about the best word I could use to describe this lite and fluffy little movie. As far as "gay" films go, this one doesn't offer up anything particularly new or exciting. There are no in-depth character analyses and no groundbreaking revelations. No heavy drama here, except maybe a drag queen carrying on about a failed romantic tryst.

Christian Campbell and John Paul Pitoc are charming as the leads. Tori Spelling is, well...she's Tori Spelling. You either like her or you don't. Steve Hayes is great as the older friend of Campbell's character...his scene where he reconciles with his ex is very funny. Miss Coco Peru...what can I say? Her entrance in the film is more memorable then anything else. Doesn't she look like Tori Spelling? Was that deliberate? I don't know, but it offers a weird, creepy twist to this movie. Her scene in the bathroom is terrific.

Not the greatest movie, and yet, it's still a cute movie in its own right.

Oh, poor Joan. What a way to end a long and varied film career. What was she thinking? Maybe too many soda bubbles went to her head? Who knows, but this is without a doubt, one of the all-time worst movies ever made. Not even of the so-bad-it's-good variety. This one is just awful. The gorilla-man character isn't even wearing a full-piece costume. What are those, leotards?! Gah!

If I can find anything amusing among all this dreech, it's British beefcake model, John Hamill in one of his sparse mainstream film appearances, and the 'classic' scene where a crowd buys Pepsis and watch Trog being captured. Warner Bros. allowed this to be released? Gah!

Upon first viewing this film, about a year ago (having wanted to see it for some time), I thought it was not only very depressing, but also painfully dated. A group of gay men get together for a birthday, and an unexpected (presumably straight) guest shows up, igniting hostility amongst the others. The fashions, viewpoints and technical delivery all seemed a wee bit stagnant.

Having recently rewatched this film, I can say that my opinion of it has changed considerably. Though the look of the film, is indeed characteristic of the time period, and the fashions are also passe, the characters are anything but obsolete. These people and their bitter mentalities continue to exist today, both in and out of the "gay community". In some ways this movie does play like a gay version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", with it's host turning the unassuming party into a game of "get the guests" (to use a phrase from VW). The script by Mart Crowley is sharp with stinging one-liners and thoughtful observations. There are some high comic moments in this film, but the latter half of it mellows down and keeps the level low, for the most part. The clausterphobic sets also add to the proceedings.

Kenneth Nelson, as the ringleader, Michael, is vibrant and really over-the-top almost. He is met in his venomousness by Leonard Frey as Harold. While it's amusing to watch them going at each other's throats, I feel that Larry Luckinbill and Keith Prentice are the more interesting of the actors, playing a couple, each of whom is very different from the other. Cliff Gorman is wild as the flamboyant Emory...his is probably the most stereotyped character of the lot, but he plays it with a good degree of dimension and sincerity, different then some of the lispy one-dimensional gay stereotypes seen in films up to that time. The other actors are also in good form, but I felt that Peter White's Alan, is a bit of a nuisance. I guess his dead-pan expressions, and generally confused look was needed for the part.

If you're a fan of "gay film", I would seek this one out as required viewing. It ranks high in my Top Five for that genre. A very solid piece of film making, and acting especially. Hardly as dated as it may seem.

As far as TV pilot films go, this one is stellar. While the "Night Gallery" TV series, which resulted from this, had a number of classic, unforgettable stories, it's often this opening feature that most people remember the best.

Of the three segments, I've always enjoyed the middle one with Joan Crawford, best. She does a great job. Super script too...such irony! The final segment is great as well, with Richard Kiley giving a powerful performance. Another classic ending. Roddy McDowell is also fine in the first segment, although aside from the creepy cemetery painting (I like how it keeps changing), this one was the least interesting to me, of the three stories.

A fine, fine production all-around. Great acting, awesome scripts, and terrific production levels for a TV special of the time. It's too bad the series itself, has not been remembered so well through the years, but this was a superb kick-off for it. Rod Serling is wonderful as usual, giving his characteristic dry, eerie delivery for each of the proceedings. Highly recommended!

If ever there were a powerhouse of a film, it's this one! Elizabeth Taylor gives the seminal performance of her entire career. She is electric from start to finish. Richard Burton is equally superb in his role, underscoring Taylor's furor with his own subdued vengeance. I think it only adds to the realism that they were actually married to each other at the time they made this film.

George Segal and Sandy Dennis are also fantastic in their roles. Dennis' facial expressions alone are worthy of her Oscar success for this film. The black and white photography is striking, and in addition to the fantastic acting, the dialogue is, of course, potent. The change of locale for a couple scenes (the front yard, diner, parking lot) doesn't take away anything from the claustrophobic feel of the film. Nichols' direction is right on the mark. The use of close-ups and angled camera shots contributes to this greatly, and Alex North's music also adds to the dreamy, night time atmosphere.

Definitely one of the high points of 1960s cinema, and one of the best adaptations of a stage play to a film. This is one of the greatest motion pictures ever made. A thrilling, roller coaster-ride of an experience, not relying on special effects or audacious visuals, but on the wit of sharp writing, grade-A acting, and careful production.

I have fond memories of watching this movie on TV when I was about 7 years old. Looking back on it now, it's pretty typical Disney family-fare from the early 60s. Hayley Mills is cute, as usual, as the older sister in the Carey family. Eddie Hodges is not bad either as her brother. Burl Ives is enjoyable. His "Ugly Bug Ball" sequence with little Jimmy Mathers is cute, corny and memorable. Deborah Walley is fun as cousin Julia, and it's fun to see her and Mills irritating each other. There are some cute songs in here, by the Sherman brothers, but you have to wonder what they were thinking when they wrote them. In addition to the aforementioned "Ugly Bug Ball", we have two of the oddest inclusions in the Disney catalog: "Femininity" (where Walley and Mills teach Wendy Turner how to act like a woman!) and "The Pink of Perfection" (Mills' and Hodges' duet, in reference to Walley's snooty character).

Harmless, good, clean fun for the most part, but not in the same league as "Mary Poppins".

Not quite as campy as one might think, despite the presence of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, as aging drama queens. In fact, Joan is remarkably restrained in her role in this movie. If you're expecting her to jump around and scream (a la "Mommie Dearest"), forget it. That aside, she is very good in her acting here, probably one of her best roles.

Miss Davis, on the other hand, is totally out of control, and that's what makes this movie so fun. Her 'imitations' of Joan are total camp, and very funny. Her character's downward spiral is really effective, and fascinating to watch. She really goes through a range of emotions, and tops herself in scene after scene. Her kicking Joan around the floor, is rather uncomfortable to watch. Makes one wonder how much of that was real acting.

The storyline with Victor Buono is kind of a bore. He's great as usual, that part just goes on a little too long. Though, despite it's over-two hour length, this film moves along at a rather brisk pace. If you're a lover of 'cult' films and horror/suspense, then yes, you should seek this one out. There's a reason why it's generally considered the 'grand dame' of camp films.

This little movie, from the end of the 1960s, is perhaps one of the finest "gay" films ever made. It certainly ranks among my Top Five favorites of the genre. Two straight guys wanting to avoid the draft for Vietnam, decide to play gay. Seems like a silly idea for a movie, and it is, but despite the premise and the usual stereotypes (typical of the period) it really is harmless and lots of fun.

The two lead male actors are fine, and their female counterparts do quite well too. The star of this show, however, is Michael Greer, who is superb as the "gay landlord". His character is pretty much an extreme stereotype, but so what? He plays it to perfection, and is probably the most interesting character in the whole film. The scene where he accuses an older woman of trampling his flower bed is the singular most funny scene in the whole movie, and it's all because of his delivery. Other nifty aspects about this film: the the 60s views of a gay bar (with the Tom of Finland-esque drawings along the walls), the views of L.A. from the time, and the really dated fashions/styles.

A fun movie, definitely worth a look if you like "gay" films as a genre, or just amusing "cult" type films.

Of the three series to spin-off of THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, this one is the best and most memorable. Valerie Harper played the Rhoda character to perfection on TMTMS, and here, she expands on that well-loved character, with a degree of depth, rarely found on sitcoms today. Rhoda Morgenstern went through a variety of challenges on this series...she moved back to New York, met Joe Gerard, got married...separated...divorced, and then went back to being a swinging single. It's too bad this show was cancelled without a real final episode...I've always wondered how they would have ended this, had they the opportunity to do so gracefully.

Along with Harper, was Julie Kavner, brilliant, as Rhoda's little sister, Brenda. Nancy Walker was also priceless as Ida, the mom. The best episode of this series has got to be "Rhoda's Wedding", the one-hour saga of how Rhoda almost doesn't make it down the isle, because ditzy Phyllis forgets to pick her up. In fact, the whole wedding storyline; Rhoda meeting Joe, the proposal, the shower, wedding and honeymoon, are some of the best-written comedy episodes. It's too bad Joe was written off the show, but "The Separation", is one of the most poignant, thoughtful, and well-acted episodes I've seen in a sitcom. Proof once again, as to the degree of depth that the characters on this show had.

I don't think this show was quite the same once Rhoda's divorce was final. The later episodes just lacked the earlier vibrance and fun, and I didn't like the storyline about Rhoda's father, Martin, leaving Ida. Still, this is a fine series, great acting, writing, and production, and there's no doubt about it that scarves were never worn the same way again.