Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Space: 1999: Devil's Planet (1977)
Secondary Crew?
It appears that the only familiar face in this episode is that of John Koenig. It looks like, while the other stars were filming a different episode (one where Koenig was out "exploring"), Martin Landau was filming this one with an entirely different crew, including a whole new set of people in the command center. Were they the evening shift? Some of these people appear in this next episode, so I can't say they're all new. But, no Tony? Helena? Interesting.
The episode is not bad, by second season standards, anyway. The actress who played Alizia seemed to relish playing a sadistic dominatrix. My only complaint is that I would have liked to see how the people in the penal colony dealt with finding out that Alizia had been lying the whole time.
The John Henson Project (2004)
He's happy to be back on basic cable!
If you are a John Henson fan, and want to pick up where you left off at Talk Soup, I urge you to watch the John Henson Project. It's great for those of us who long for the old days of TS. However, if you are not a JH fan, you may not be as highly entertained as I was with this show. But there are plenty of non-TS related laughs on the show, and I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it. JOHN HENSON RULZ!
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
No Austin stand-ins?
I really like the Austin Powers movies. Mike Meyers has an interesting sense of humor, and is not afraid to devote a large section of his work to toilet humor. But what really surprises me is how the Austin Powers trilogy is based rather heavily on Charles K. Feldman's Casino Royale (1967). Yes, while AP draws much from the Bond franchise movies, the campy-ness, Burt Bacharach and even Fat B***ard come from Casino Royale. I strongly suggest watching these movies back to back. Why the title? Look at Casino Royale, you'll know what I'm talking about, and probably think it doesn't make sense anyway.
The Presidio (1988)
Too many subplots
This movie had the potential for greatness. But, as other people have said, there are too many subplots going on, and it makes the movie seem watered down. The plot that was established in the beginning (the MP being shot) doesn't seem to be the focus of the rest of the movie.
HOWEVER, the reason why I like this movie is the funeral scene w/ Sean Connery. I LOVED it. I could watch that scene again and again. It made sitting through the rest of it worth the wait.
Zardoz (1974)
Wow, what an awful movie!
I have been reading some of the other comments regarding this movie. I'm glad some other viewers could get past the cheese to see the hidden subtext. I thought the movie was awful. I am an obsessive Sean Connery fan (for the moment), and have made a serious effort to watch all the movies that are available that he has been in, but this one was hard to get through. I was warned that this movie was bad. The only redeeming quality of this movie was Mr. Connery in red underwear. I realize some readers of this would not necessarily see that as "redeeming", but for me, it was. Or rather, it was the only reason why I watched it through to the end.
The ending was hilarious. Not that I want to give anything away, but I realize that there was "deep" meaning and irony in what was happening; it was just funny. However, there was a part that led up to the ending that angered me, and it made me glad for the ending. I can't say anymore, otherwise, I might spoil it for someone who searches for philosophy and the meaning of life in "B" sci-fi movies.
Having said all this, I know there will be another person after me, noting that early special effects don't look as convincing now as they did back then. I realize that. I happen to like sci-fi movies, including truly awful ones. But this makes an attempt at being serious, encouraging the audience to think, and only succeeds in making us laugh and cringe alternately throughout the movie.
American Playhouse: Overdrawn at the Memory Bank (1983)
9 part mini series?
I told someone that this was a 9 part mini series, based on what Pearl Forrester says just before sending Mike and the bots this movie (on MST3K). I don't know how true that is. I'm going to have to search for the un-MSTied version to analyze it.
Contrary to what other people's opinion is about Raul's acting, I don't think he did too hot as Aram Fingal. I think he was overacting in that role. As for Rick, it was better.
The names: As Servo sarcastically put it, "Yeah, Aram Fingal from San Juan, Puerto Rico." And what was up with "Appelonia James"? Even the actress who played her wasn't too thrilled with the name, seeing how she hesitated before saying it to Mr. Fingal.
And what was up with the Peter Laurie dude? I was expecting him to yell out "Steempy! You stupid bloated ee-diot!" at any moment. It sounded more like Billy West than the real Peter Laurie (sp?).
Anyway, did anyone else notice that the chair Aram sits in at the doppling place looks suspiciously like a dentist's chair?
The movie is shot on video, which I believe is typical of PBS productions of that time. I'm wondering if I saw this when it came out. The special effect remind me of how someone who tries hard to impress another person with their knowledge of something, when in fact they have no knowledge. What I mean is, they tried hard to appear high-tech and make it seem like this came naturally to them, when in fact, they end up looking hopelessly ridiculous.
Also, anyone with a thesaurus and a 7th grade educational level could figure out their futuristic techno-jargon. (Ex.: flavo-phibes? compustats? cinemas?)
And another thing -- what was the deal with the prejudice against anteaters? Did one of the writers get bitten (or licked) by one?
I liked the movie because I like listening to Raul's accent, and when he plays Rick, it reminds me of his role of Gomez -- smooth ladies' man. I also like how PBS tried to make it "mature" by letting Raul swear a little and by making references to his "one-handed exercises". (An example of our fine adult programming along with our regular mind-controlling children's drivel.)
I give this movie (or mini-series) a 2 for having some giggle factors in it, and the MST3K version a 9 for making it watchable in one sitting.