Reviews

I wasn't super-motivated to write a review on this one, but after coming here and seeing the ridiculous negativity, I decided to voice my dissent.

Plot In a Nutshell: A man and his pal try to rid themselves of two scammers while dealing with a ditzy housemaid, a nosy aunt, bumbling cops, a dogged reporter and a crazed butler, and at the same, trying to create a semblance of normalcy for when his fiancée and her father arrive. Good luck!

That sounds screwball, doesn't it? And it sure delivers on that score. One reviewer wrote that the film was confusing. I wasn't confused in the least. I found it very easy to follow. Someone else wrote that it doesn't make sense. It made sense to me. The only part one might argue is why the butler stuck around. But it was established at the end that the butler was clearly unbalanced, so you can't really apply logic to his decisions, can you?

I only watched this film because I recently read a book about the mysterious circumstances of Thelma Todd's premature death in the 1930s. So I try to check out any of her films I come across. And this turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It's barely over an hour, so it doesn't wear out its welcome. The two male leads have an engaging chemistry that makes their friendship believable. The plot, although clearly a bit silly, is also clearly meant to be that way. And there were several scenes that made me laugh so hard I had to rewind and watch them again!

All in all, I enjoyed this film thoroughly and did not at all find it a waste of my time.

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes, absolutely.

Boy are there a lot of negative, misguided, hateful reviews here. And boy could I not disagree more.

Plot In a Nutshell: A shy talent manager (Buster Keaton) causes havoc at MGM's studios while trying to find a job there for the woman he secretly loves (Anita Page).

Why I rated it a '7': Well for starters, I found it very entertaining. I laughed a lot through the first 2/3 of the film. The last third gets more serious and a few musical numbers are thrown in for good measure, with less opportunity for comedy. But overall I thought it was a solid film.

It can't be ignored, though, that most of the reviews here for this film are extremely negative in nature. Which would lead one to think that this film is terrible. Well, this is all subjective, right, but if one looks below the surface, you can see why there is a lot of (undeserved) negativity.

This is a 'talkie' - a film with sound, something still relatively new in 1930. All of the films Buster Keaton made before this were silent. Silent films are quite a different animal from talkies. It seems MGM was looking to exploit this new technology and wasn't interested in using Keaton in the same ways Keaton had been performing for the last 10 years - namely, a lot of incredible physical comedy where Keaton exhibited impressive dexterity when performing his own stunts.

This was not to be one of those films. It didn't have to be, because now there was sound. Now you can have a lot more dialogue-driven comedy, and that's what this film has. Oh sure, there are still bits of physical comedy, but nothing really like the death-defying stunts Keaton was known for in the 1920s. And to that I say....so what? This is just a different type of comedy. Watching it, I couldn't help but think of the early Marx Brothers films. In the scenes where Keaton is running loose and causing havoc all over the MGM lot, imagine Harpo doing the same thing. It works.

But there are many reviewers here crying in their milk because the Buster Keaton they wanted and expected to see isn't here. And for that ridiculous and childish reason, they then give this film a terrible grade and tell you it's awful. Well, I beg to differ. I thought it was just fine. It's like getting a glass of chardonnay when you expected merlot. Does that mean the chardonnay stinks? No. Not at all. But you wanted it to be something it wasn't, and so now you're going to complain about it and say it's bad? That's just silly and immature.

This film totally works as an early 1930s dialogue-driven comedy. If approached in that respect, you really should not be disappointed, at all.

7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

Most of the recent reviews here are down on this film, one calling it 'catastrophic' and another reviewer claiming to have not laughed once. Well, I don't know what film they watched. Sometimes there's just no accounting for taste.

Plot In A Nutshell: An elderly British aristocrat (Sophia Loren) recounts her earlier life and love affair with a petty criminal and budding anarchist (Paul Newman), while being pursued by a British lord (David Niven).

First off, this is a comedy and needs to be understood as such. Second, it's very much a British comedy, screenplay and direction by the esteemed Peter Ustinov. Not much slapstick. It's all in the dialogue. And while there are comedic situations throughout, I'd say the best lines are reserved for Niven's character, the British lord. Here are a few examples:

Lord Lendale (Niven) is trying to identify an assassin among a crowd of people. He picks out a man and asks Loren's character if he is right. "No," she says, "that's the Paris Chief of Police." Lendale replies "Oh, so close!" Lol how can you not laugh at that. Another time, Loren's character steals a valuable object from Lendale. Lendale readily forgives her and says "it's OK. I'm a duke, so that just means my ancestors learned to steal earlier than other people." Hilarious! If you don't find these lines funny, I don't know what to say. I was amused throughout this film and am glad I didn't listen to the naysayers here.

This is not an Oscar winner and it's not trying to be. It's a fun bit of satire and in that vein, I think Ustinov succeeded rather well. I'm not sure what other reviewers expected to see here.

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes, absolutely.

This film would really be better off using a fictional character in the lead role, instead of a historical one, as almost nothing in the story told here about Genghis Khan matches up to accepted history.

Plot In a Nutshell: Mongol tribal leader Temujin (Omar Sharif) tangles with sworn enemy Jamuga (Stephen Boyd) and gathers his strength in neighboring China while dreaming of uniting the various Mongol tribes into an insurmountable Horde.

Why I rated it a '6': as mentioned in my title, I found the film to be OK. Not great, not absolutely terrible. It tells a story about Genghis Khan's beginnings, but it's just a story. It diverges early and often from accepted history, and that unfortunately is a drawback. Watching this film you learn almost nothing about the real Genghis Khan, because virtually all of it is fantasy. If you can live with that, great. Just don't write a term paper about Genghis Khan based on this film is all I can say.

There are many comments in reviews here complaining about the cast, where almost all of the Mongol and Chinese roles are played by non-Asians. While that might be distracting for some, one must understand that movie making is a business. Sure you can stock this film with a bunch of Asian actors, and who in 1965 would go pay to see that? That's not how the business worked. John Wayne famously (or infamously) portrayed Temujin in a different film, and why? Because he was a box-office draw!

Elizabeth Taylor played the Egyptian Cleopatra. Kirk Douglas played the Thracian Spartacus. People would pay to see them, they didn't care what roles they were playing. Same with this film. So you have James Mason and Stephen Boyd and Eli Wallach and Telly Savalas in it. Actors people knew and might pay to see, as opposed to a bunch of unknown but more ethnically accurate ones they won't pay to see. This isn't a hard concept to understand here. Or shouldn't be.

I find it amusing that the same people who complain about the cast in this film have no problem with the cast speaking English in the film. None of these historical characters spoke a word of English. The reviewers here somehow don't complain about that, but do complain because they aren't ethnically Asian? Why doesn't it bother you that every character speaks fluent English, because that's even more off-base than their skin pigment. All of the reviewers complaining here want to see ethnically accurate actors, and then want them to very inaccurately speak English? Lol ok.

A huge negative in this film is the widespread abuse of horses in the battle scenes. It is obvious to the viewer that multiple 'trip wires' were used, causing waves of horses to fall violently while in full gallop and it's just painful to watch. It is highly likely more than one had to be put down as a result of those trip wires, and that's a sad thing to contemplate. If you are a horse lover, I would suggest forwarding over these scenes.

6/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Maybe on a rainy day. Not anytime soon.

This short film is a "soundie" from the 1940s. "Soundies" were short clips featuring musicians playing popular songs. Think of them as grandparents of the modern music video.

So, why rate something like this an 8? You gotta hear it! Produced in 1943, when World War II was very much still undecided, this song looks forward to the day when Adolf Hitler would be dead. It describes the celebratory mood that would prevail, not just in the USA, but worldwide. I imagine that sentiment was pretty accurate.

It is a product of its time - with the song title referring to the future day when Adolf Hitler would be dead - because at the time this was produced, he was very much alive, and wouldn't die until April of 1945.

But there are other indicators which make this film a time capsule. The singer, Toni Lane, refers to Americans eating horsemeat (not typical American cuisine for sure), mentions 'tearing up ration cards,' and looks forward to people being able to drive their cars without gasoline being rationed by the "OPA" - I had to look that one up. The OPA was an administration set up during WWII to regulate prices and ration resources like gasoline. These are all foreign concepts to the modern American, but they were evidently part of everyday life in the 1940s. Fascinating to contemplate.

So yeah, I totally recommend this. Not only for the funny lyrics about Hitler, but to get an idea of life on the home front during a major war. This is good stuff.

8/10. See it on YouTube.

The first Peanuts TV special, the well-known "A Charlie Brown Christmas," originally aired in 1965. 27 more followed by the time 1985 rolled around, when this special was made. "It's Your 20th" commemorates them, and celebrates their success and popularity.

This was already well-traveled material, as CBS and Charles Schulz previously produced anniversary specials in 1976 and 1979. They must have had decent ratings then, to go to the well here once again. Regardless, it's a trip down memory lane most Peanuts fans should enjoy.

Schulz explains the origins and his motivations for creating some of his characters. At one point the viewer is given a glimpse of the real voice actors for some of the gang. Schulz also reveals his inspiration for a few of his creative decisions, like why sports often feature in the specials, or current events like the '80s fitness craze. There is likely to be at least one fact revealed you didn't know before watching this (for me, it was learning that a typical 30-minute TV special requires 30,000 individual photos of animation cels). Yes, 30,000!

Overall I found it to be an interesting peek behind the curtain of the world of Peanuts.

7/10. Recommended for Peanuts fans. See it at the Internet Archive.

Most of the reviews here describe this little film as "amazing," "beautiful," "charming," and let's not forget, the ridiculously overused "a masterpiece!" Sure, pal.

Plot In A Nutshell: A Parisian family takes a day trip to the countryside, where two horny youths slobber over the women and plan their seduction.

Yes, that is the plot, and this is the "masterpiece" (cough cough) most of the other reviewers here are describing. In truth the film starts out rather well. It is partially a comedy and there are several jokes here making fun of the city folk, the elderly woman's apparent cluelessness, etc. It's fine for a while, actually. Amazing? Well, no. But it's fine.

Then we get to the point in the film where the two horny youths execute their seduction plans, and this film goes south in a big way. One character is constantly touching and groping his target, the daughter in the family, and persists in this behavior despite her repeated rejections. Finally he gives up on this approach and flat out sexually assaults her. Oh yes, what a charming and beautiful film! A few of the other reviewers here have pointed out this problem in the narrative, and how it is portrayed, but most gloss over it as if it never happened, or don't seem bothered by this criminal behavior and label it 'charming.' Right.

Unsurprisingly for a Renoir film, the female character, after being assaulted, decides this is a good thing after all and goes with it. Director Jean Renoir used the same exact story sequence in his earlier "Boudu Saved From Drowning" in 1932. Apparently Renoir was a big fan of sexual assault.

To each his own. The story had some amusing moments and some decent cinematography, but it all goes to hell for me with the 'charming' rape scene and its laughable aftermath. Calling this film a masterpiece is an insult to other films that actually are that. Just stop it.

5/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Nope.

BTW, this film had an 8.2 rating in 2010, now it's down to 7.5. Apparently people have begun to wise up a bit.

Admittedly, "The American Buffalo" can be tough viewing, especially part one. But as I mentioned in my review header, it's also essential viewing. We should not and cannot live in ignorance of the past.

As one might guess, this film is about the American Bison. A better title might have been "A Cautionary Tale" or "American Holocaust," as those capture more of the essence of the material. What we are given here is a history of the bison, but because Americans hadn't really encountered it much before 1800, it's really a history of its last 220 or so years. And what an ugly history it is.

At the dawn of the 19th century the bison numbered in the millions, by some estimates 10 million or more, and by the 1880s there were perhaps fewer than 1000 left. Part one goes into great detail explaining how greed, callousness, indifference, and just plain evil made this possible.

It's very difficult not to be angered by the revelations made here of the crimes committed at the time. One despicable individual, a certain Lord George Gore, killed thousands of animals, including bison, on a 3-year hunting expedition to the West, apparently getting a thrill out of the excessive blood he shed. Many more engaged in the carnage because, as is so often the case, there was money to be made. The majority of the bison were slaughtered purely for economic reasons, as their hides, tongues and other body parts could be converted into cash. Hunters would kill them by the hundreds, day after day, and leave their carcasses to rot all over the Great Plains. I can't think of a better word to describe this madness than "sickening." And as an American, it's utterly embarrassing.

Part two details the slow reclamation and salvation of the bison, such as there is. Through the efforts of various people (some more honorable than others), the film informs that as of today (2023), the species has rebounded to number roughly 350,000. A far cry from 10 million but enough to guarantee its future it seems.

Burns has made the film in his now-recognizable style. Photographs from the time period are intertwined with musical excerpts, diary entries and interviews with historians and witnesses or their descendants, including a healthy dose of recollections from Native Americans. At one point some journal entries from the Lewis & Clark expedition are read by a voice actor, and here Burns re-uses some music from his earlier Lewis & Clark documentary, a nice easter egg for those familiar with that excellent program.

A few times Burns goes on a seemingly irrelevant or non-essential tangent, like when he gives something of a biography of the Comanche chief Quanah Parker. Mildly interesting, but the film could have been made without it. These tangents are only a minor gripe, though. Overall there is a lot here to digest, and to ponder. I can only hope the journey of the American Bison, along with the near-extinction of the American Eagle in the 20th century, will serve as warnings and cautionary tales we absolutely must heed going forward.

9/10. Burns fills in another gap of the American Experience, and this time, does it painfully well.

Roughly 10 years after first appearing in the Peanuts daily comic strip, Snoopy's brother Spike finally makes his animated debut in this one.

Plot In a Nutshell: Snoopy announces his impending nuptials and the Peanuts gang scrambles to prepare for the ceremony, including welcoming his California-based brother to the festivities.

The main plot of this special is lifted from a series of strips Schulz wrote back in 1977. I guess he was running a little short on ideas. It opens with Snoopy acting as a guard dog for Peppermint Patty while her dad is away. When he's there, Snoopy meets and falls in love with a poodle named Genevieve, but she looks an awful lot like Fifi, the poodle who captured Snoopy's heart in "Life Is A Circus, CB." Anyway, the couple announces their wedding intentions and this serves as the catalyst for bringing Spike into the story, for he will act as Snoopy's 'best beagle' at the ceremony.

It was nice to finally see Spike on screen. Rerun, another rarely-seen character to this point, was mentioned as being tapped for the ring bearer, but he was not seen. Overall this was a solid if not spectacular Peanuts entry. However it was a welcome return to form after "It's Flashbeagle, CB" which wasn't so great imo. Worth a look.

7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Sure why not.

I knew something was off right from the start, as this film opens in 1774 and portrays James Madison as a member of the Virginia Assembly. Uh, that is incorrect. Madison was never a member of the House of Burgesses before it was dissolved. This would be only the first of a tidal wave of inaccuracies, misleading anecdotes and half-truths that populate this 20 minute mess of a short. It's kind of remarkable how much they got wrong in so brief a time.

Here are more lowlights:

• The Virginians are shown rallying to the support of Boston after it was learned the British closed the port there and suspended some civil liberties. This is true enough, but it's portrayed as if the British did this solely because they are evil and despotic. No mention is made of the Boston Tea Party, which occurred in December 1773, and which was the reason why the British took those punitive actions. To watch this, the British did it because they hate Americans and that's all.

• British troops are shown trashing property and printing presses in Boston. Nothing is mentioned, however, of the Sons of Liberty "tarring and feathering" Loyalists, or of their destruction of several houses of government officials. The Sons of Liberty mob "destroyed Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson's furniture, wrecked the garden, tore out the windows, walls, wainscoting, tiles and even tore down the cupola on the roof" of his house. But eh, let's not talk about that lol.

• The "Fairfax Resolves" of 1774 and the "Virginia Declaration of Rights" of 1776 are represented here as being one document. Not so fast guys.

• The film shows Governor Dunmore dissolving the House of Burgesses and then stealing the colony's gunpowder virtually on the same day. In reality, the House was dissolved in June 1774 and the gunpowder wasn't seized until April 1775. The film also shows Patrick Henry's "Liberty or Death" speech given as a response to the seizing of the gunpowder, but again, wrong. That speech was delivered in March of 1775, a full month before Dunmore ordered the gunpowder seized.

• The flag of the Culpeper Minutemen is shown at this juncture but that militia didn't form until July 1775.

• The pistol 'booby trap' set in the powder magazine by the "evil" British is a complete fabrication.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. This short film is an absolute travesty and little represents 'what actually happened.' Adding to the weirdness, George Washington, who was present for many of these events, was never shown in the film; meanwhile, James Madison, who wasn't, is given a prominent place. I'm awarding it a few stars for the early use of color, the costumes, and what appears to be location filming in Colonial Williamsburg. The rest is just terribly misleading and inaccurate 'history.'

3/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Definitely not. And contrary to what another reviewer wrote, our kids should not watch it either, lest they become as uneducated as we.

"It's An Adventure" is one of the lesser-known Peanuts specials of the 1980s (judging by its paltry vote total here). One reason for that may be its format. That is to say, this one doesn't tell one story, but rather contains several short skits. Some are just a few minutes long, others run closer to ten. There are eight individual stories in all and they are all unrelated. The total runtime (without commercials) adds up to nearly 50 minutes, double the length of a typical Peanuts program.

Why I rated it a '7': I found it relatively entertaining if not quite hilarious. The opening story, "Sack," about Charlie seemingly imagining a baseball where other spherical objects should be (sun, moon, ice cream scoop), has him wear a bag over his head and go to camp to be cured. OK. A little odd, but ok. Another story features Peppermint Patty and Marcie as caddies at a country club. Some of the others contain familiar themes, like Lucy flirting with Schroeder and Lucy trying to get rid of Linus's blanket.

For me the highlight of the show was "Kite." Here Charlie, in frustration, deliberately damages a tree that ate his kite. Fearing punishment from the EPA(!), he 'runs away from home' and winds up in a distant unfamiliar neighborhood where he befriends several young children. They ask him to be their baseball coach (little do they know of his ineptitude lol) and he is of course flattered by the request. All of these new characters were cool to see and were very cute, especially Milo. The title of this review is one of Milo's questions from the story. Like I said, it's probably the best one of the group, even it ends kind of abruptly.

This special originally aired in May 1983 and I wonder if it ever aired again. I suspect not. It's not even available on DVD from what I know, but you can find it online, like I did. Worth the effort for Peanuts fans for sure.

7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

Plot In a Nutshell: Two violent bank-robber brothers cross the southern border and take their hostages to a Mexican dive bar, only to find a rather sinister surprise when darkness falls.

Why I rated it an '8': This film is one wild ride. Part crime thriller, part horror film, part exploitation, part comedy. Throw in a good soundtrack and some imaginative camera shots (the woman in the car trunk in the intro, for example) and you have a pretty good recipe for fun.

This film is not meant to be taken seriously, but its idea of humor can be off-putting to some. Tarantino's character, in particular, comes off as wholly unsympathetic in his wanton displays of violence. Clooney looks better as the more reasonable, if still dangerous, younger brother. Harvey Keitel impresses as the hurt and dejected former minister who finds a new reason to return to his faith (and who wouldn't, in this situation) lol.

Roger and me: Roger Ebert liked the film and gave it 3/4 stars in his 1996 review. I'm with you, Roger. This is an easy film to watch, where you can turn off your brain and just enjoy the show.

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: This was my 2nd watch. I'm sure I will again down the road.

Plot In a Nutshell: A family man (Keanu Reeves) gives shelter to two seemingly lost young women caught in a rainstorm, realizing too late they are not as innocent and helpless as they first seemed.

Why I rated it a '7': This movie will likely get under your skin. It might even aggravate you. But boy is it effective in doing that, and so credit must be given.

As mentioned, the family man (Reeves) finds himself in way over his head when two pretty young things come knocking. He tries to hold his own but is soon overwhelmed by their aggressive sexual talk and behavior, as probably 99% of guys would be. When he finally makes a stand and it seems his ordeal is over, we learn it's really just beginning.

What makes the film effective is that most of what we see seems believable. We don't know why the girls are acting this way, but we don't have to know. Why did that dude go shoot up the school in Uvalde? Who the heck knows? But we know he did it. People do evil things all of the time. This is life. This is reality. Life is not a fairy tale.

I see several comments on here complaining about the ending. They wanted Reeves to "get justice." Well, again, this is reality. Good does not always win over evil. Things do not always end "happily ever after." Sorry. In real life, sometimes the bad guy does win. Deal with it. If you want fairy tale endings, then go back to watching Disney films, and leave adult films for the adults lol.

P. S. Getting real tired of reading reviews where someone writes "this is the worst movie ever." That is pretty much the most pathetic, exaggerated, unimaginative comment you could make. Do better.

"Is This Goodbye" has the Peanuts gang going through a bit of déjà vu, or at least, the viewer will likely feel that way. Charles Schulz ventures into a lot of familiar territory in this episode.

Plot In a Nutshell: Linus informs Charlie Brown that his dad's job has been transferred, and so their family is moving away. This of course leads to the title, namely, "is this goodbye" for the old friends?

Anyone who has seen "Snoopy Come Home" will recognize this plot element, as that film had the similar story-line of Snoopy moving away to return to a previous owner. In that one the kids held a going-away party for him, and in this one there is a going-away luncheon for Linus and Lucy. Again, very similar to SCH. Snoopy turns out to be the caterer for the luncheon, and so his cooking here brings back memories of his cooking adventure in the Thanksgiving episode.

That's not all. Sally continues her pestering of Linus, calling him her 'sweet baboo,' convincing herself Linus returns her affections and at one point even threatens to sue. All of that is very recognizable. Lucy flirts with Schroeder as usual, and Peppermint Patty continues to live in denial about her feelings for Chuck. There's really very little here that you likely haven't seen in some form already.

However, with the potential disappearance of Linus from Charlie's life, CB actually seems to take it pretty well. Yes at first he's upset and can't believe it's happening. But once it does he gets on with his life rather easily. He even remarks to PP that he's been sleeping just fine since Linus left. This feels like a lost opportunity for Schulz. The situation calls for a lot more anxiety, depression and melancholy than we actually get. Charlie's best friend moves away and really, he just takes it in stride. It does not pack the emotional wallop you might think it would. Kind of odd.

A few others wrote that this was an emotional episode but I don't agree. It SHOULD be, but as I mentioned, it's strangely short of that. There was a lot of crying, rightly so, when Snoopy went away; there isn't one bit of crying here lol. OK. Another reviewer mentions the score and thinks it's noteworthy, but again I disagree. There's nothing memorable about it. Sadly, after Vince Guaraldi died in the mid-1970s, all of the best Peanuts music died with him. Everyone knows the soundtrack to the Christmas special. I'm fairly certain nothing in this one will have you humming once its over.

Overall "Is This Goodbye" is a solid Peanuts entry that feels like it could been a little better with more focus on the rupture of Charlie's friendship with Linus, and the effect it has on each of them. We don't really get that for some reason. Good, not great.

Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

"The Crucible" uses the setting of the 1692 Salem Witch Trials to expose the dangers of conspiracy theories, group-think and hysteria. The historical story is well known: several townsfolk in a Massachusetts village of yesteryear were executed under suspicion of witchcraft. Laughable in today's world, not so much in the 17th century. How did this happen?

As the film shows, all it takes is a few motivated individuals to begin spreading a falsehood. That falsehood may find some fertile ground in other individuals willing to accept/believe what they're being told, for various reasons. Maybe they stand to gain something from it. Maybe it improves their position. Maybe it gets the focus off of them. Maybe it just makes them feel better, to believe in some wild conspiracy theory as a way to understand an unpleasant event or situation, rather than a more logical, but not very exciting explanation.

Whatever their reasons, believe in it they do, with catastrophic results. Winona Ryder does a great job of leading this group of malfeasants. Daniel Day-Lewis is among her eventual victims. Some of the actual history was altered for this film (and the play on which it was based), e.g., some of the characters' ages and relationships. But that's OK this time, because the film is not so much striving for historical accuracy as it is in acting as a critique on the dangers of conspiracy theories, and a warning against them.

Playwright Arthur Miller wrote the original story in the 1950s to bring attention to, and condemn, the actions of some who were attempting to eradicate suspected Communist "sympathizers" in the U. S. Many Congressional hearings were held to root out the 'guilty' and blacklist them, ostracize them, or worse. Eventually this movement died away but not before leaving an indelible mark, and a stain, on the nation.

Miller's story was about that era in history, but its lessons haven't yet been fully learned. One doesn't have to look far in today's headlines to find multitudes of people willing to believe in wild conspiracy theories about vaccines, election results, etc., and worse yet, to act on their convictions. From the Salem accusers to the Red Scare to the militant truth deniers of today, the old axiom has been proven true: "History doesn't repeat itself, but man often does."

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Definitely, yes.

"A Charlie Brown Celebration" is aptly named, as it really is just that: a celebration of what made the Peanuts comic strip popular. It is a bit different, though, for two reasons. The first is that it is an hour long, and all previous made-for-TV specials prior to this had been 30 minutes. The second is that there is no cohesive story or plot here. Rather, the entire program is made up of smaller skits, some as short as 10-15 seconds; others are several minutes. None could support an entire show, and so they ended up here. It's like if Charles Schulz pulled out his sketch book and transported several of his ideas from paper to screen at once.

"Celebration" is also noteworthy because it contains the first animated appearance of two minor Peanuts characters: Eudora and Truffles. "Who?" you may ask lol. Yeah me too. I had to look them up, but these two characters both appeared briefly in the Peanuts daily comic strip in the 1970s. And they both make an appearance here.

Another reviewer wrote that this is his or her favorite Peanuts special, but I have a hard time understanding that sentiment. It's entertaining for sure, but it lacks any truly heartwarming or sentimental moments that made the best Peanuts specials "special." What you get here is what you might expect. Sally still has a crush on Linus. Lucy still tries to shake Schroeder from his Beethoven obsession. Charlie still wants to kick the football. This is all fine and good, but your favorite? That seems a bit of a stretch.

So, overall, amusing and entertaining. As I said, about what you'd expect from a good (not great) Peanuts program. Peanuts fans should not be disappointed.

7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

"Someday You'll Find Her" has to be among the strangest and most bizarre of the Peanuts specials. The only one that rivals it in weirdness is probably "Play It Again, CB," but the 'creep factor' in this one makes it a tad worse.

Plot In a Nutshell: Charlie Brown becomes obsessed with a girl he sees for all of two seconds on TV, and enlists Linus to help him track her down so that he can profess his undying love. To a total stranger. That he saw on TV for two seconds. Yes, two seconds. Good grief, Charlie Brown!

This has to be a strong contender for "worst ever Peanuts special," if such an award were given. Somehow Charlie think it's perfectly OK to want to find out where this girl lives and just show up at her door uninvited and say he can't live without her. Linus tries to point out the absurdity of the situation but Charlie is having none of it, so he reluctantly agrees to help on this fool's errand. Woodstock and Snoopy tag along providing most of the levity in this one, what there is of it. (BTW this girl he saw on TV is NOT the "little red-haired girl," it's someone else, so one wonders whatever happened to that infatuation.)

It should go without saying that Charlie's obsessiveness is downright disturbing. Listen, pretty much everyone gets a crush on someone else growing up, but it's usually someone you know. Certainly someone you've met. I remember crushing on a girl in my 5th grade class and to this day I still remember the license plate number that was on her mom's car lol. But I knew who she was, we were in class together and in the school play together. Charlie, on the other hand, knows absolutely nothing about this stranger, yet is so smitten and insistent on finding her that his behavior at best can be labeled troubling, and at worst, creepy and irrational.

To top off this uncomfortable episode, Linus does something at the end of the story that seems to be completely out of his character. It left me scratching my head. There is usually enough going on in a Peanuts special to give it redeeming value, but "Someday You'll Find Her" certainly puts that idea to the test. It's really hard to like this one.

3/10. An irrational, obsessed Charlie Brown is not endearing. It's kind of embarrassing. And to think this was nominated for an Emmy! Would I watch again (Y/N)?: I don't think so.

So says Peppermint Patty to Charlie Brown when she calls to inform him that her school has been given the day off to attend a traveling circus. A day off from school? That seems very unlikely today, and doesn't really ring true for 1980, either. It wasn't a class trip. It was just a day off. OK. A bit of an odd premise for this one. The story could easily have the kids attending the circus on a Saturday. But I digress.

Plot In a Nutshell: Snoopy is forced into a traveling circus act when his attraction to a performing poodle leads him into trouble.

Yes so despite the mentions of PP and CB, this one is about 80% Snoopy. Most of the story centers on his attraction to a French poodle named Fifi, and how he is sort of 'dognapped' by the trainer and forced into a 'performing dog' circus routine. The rest of the Peanuts gang only drifts into and out of the story as it unfolds. Woodstock, usually inseparable from Snoopy, is MIA in this one.

Why I rated it a '7': It's relatively good if not particularly memorable. I'm pretty sure I saw this as a child but the only thing about it I remembered was Snoopy's crush on Fifi. Basically, it's a cute little story of puppy love that comes to an abrupt end when Snoopy and Fifi realize that their lives are just a little too different; he can't live in her world, nor she in his.

Watching it brought back memories of "Snoopy Come Home," as there are some slight similarities to parts of that story. "Life Is a Circus" managed to win an Emmy in 1981 for Outstanding Animated Program.

7/10. Short and bittersweet. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

Charles Schulz, creator of Peanuts, once spent a good deal of time in France during World War II when he was in the U. S. Army. For some reason, he decided that recreating a few of the small towns and a chateau in which he stayed would make for a good Peanuts film. The results are decidedly mixed.

Plot In a Nutshell: Charlie Brown and some of the gang visit France as exchange students, with Charlie and Linus being invited to stay at a mysterious, secluded old mansion. Who invited him, and why? Snoopy and Woodstock come along and provide most of the comedy relief.

Why I Rated It a '6': One of the main reasons people found Charlie Brown & company so enjoyable over the years was the setting Schulz used. Most Peanuts fans celebrated Christmas, Halloween and Thanksgiving, so making TV specials for those holidays, especially if they were good, is going to have a lot of appeal. Other topics, like the kids playing various sports, or Charlie having a crush on a little red haired girl, are again things to which most people can relate. But what is the appeal of some nondescript tiny French village no one's ever heard of? It seems the village and the chateau in the film were faithfully recreated from when Schulz was there in the 1940s, but who cares? They don't mean anything to anybody. Only to Schulz. No one's even heard of them, unlike if he chose to set part of the story near a famous landmark like the Eiffel Tower. But he didn't. So this comes across as something of a vanity project, which doesn't lend much to its appeal.

Even worse, this has to be the sloppiest Peanuts film I've seen so far. I wonder if the producers were under some sort of deadline to get this out on time. There are several pretty egregious mistakes here. Many of them are documented in the Goofs section, but here are a few examples. When Linus announces that Charlie and he will be going to France, many of their classmates congratulate him. Peppermint Patty is clearly spotted amongst the crowd. Charlie then goes home and gets a phone call from PP. She tells him she is going to France, and when he tells her that he's going as well, this is news to her. So who was the girl who looked exactly like PP in the classroom?

On the dinner menu Snoopy reads on the airplane, one of the entries is for "lamp" instead of lamb. At one point Linus is suddenly wearing a wrist watch, which he uses to declare they'll be late for school. He then puts his arm down, and when he raises it again, the watch is gone! Another scene shows the group heading through a metal detector at the airport, and Lucy (who is not going on the trip) is among them, and Marcie is missing. In the next shot, after Snoopy goes through, Marcie now appears and Lucy is gone. Sloppy, man.

The film is not all bad. I am a fan of Peanuts and there is enough of the Peanuts charm here to make it at least palatable. The interactions between Snoopy and Woodstock go a long way here. Outside of those two, though, much of the rest of the story is almost straight-up drama. Charlie really doesn't do anything in this one that usually got him in trouble, like buying the wrong tree or misspelling 'beagle.' He just goes on the trip and wonders who sent him the letter. That's it. It's a bit of a departure from what made Charlie who he was. So it's not all that surprising that Schulz didn't make another feature-length film after this. It doesn't really hold up to the Peanuts' relatively high standard.

6/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Maybe someday but not anytime soon.

This very short clip (6 minutes) is part of a series of educational films Charles Schulz and his team produced in the late 1970s, and the 2nd having to do with dental hygiene. The first of those was called "Tooth Brushing" and dealt specifically with that topic. This one focuses on flossing.

Although Peanuts is usually known for its humor, the purpose of "Flossophy" is not to amuse but to inform. As such, there aren't a ton of laughs here, but there are a few. Lucy instructs Charlie and Snoopy how to floss properly, and you can expect the usual facial expressions and sounds from Snoopy while she talks. There is also a side story involving Woodstock, a nest, and dental floss which serves as the comic relief.

This was made to be shown in schools so the target audience is children, but anyone can watch. And you might even learn something. Heck, I found out that I wasn't flossing at the proper angle!

See it on Youtube.

7/10. Short but informative, and mildly amusing.

"You Can't Cheat.." was a return vehicle for W. C. Fields after he spent a few years rehabbing from various ailments like back trouble and depression. Watching this today, it feels like he didn't miss a beat.

Funny Factor: This film is a comedy so the most important question to be answered is: is it funny? I am happy to report that it passes the grade for me. There is not much of a plot here, but the film really doesn't need it. One should not be looking for intricate plots and character development when the main purpose is to be amused. There is a minor romance angle between Fields's on-screen daughter and the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, but it's wisely kept to a minimum.

The film centers on Fields, who plays a cheapskate circus owner trying to put two kids through college. To pay their tuition he avoids paying anyone else, making him most unpopular with pretty much everyone in the picture. Two of those are Edgar Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Fields and McCarthy trade quips and insults throughout the film and it's some pretty witty stuff. This was apparently a continuation of a skit Bergen and Fields had begun on radio programs. This film was made to capitalize on the following they had begun to engender in that medium.

Why I rated it an '8': It had me amused throughout, and some skits were lol funny. Look for the ping pong match, probably the film's highlight. Fields also resorts to an ancient Egyptian-style chariot for transportation at one point, good for some laughs. I thought Bergen's ventriloquism was a tad weak, you can see his lips moving frequently, but I didn't let it bother me much.

Interestingly, fellow 1930s comedy legends The Marx Brothers also made a circus-themed film in 1939, "At The Circus." That film gets a little more bogged down in uninteresting plots than this one does.

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

The few reviews for this film don't describe it very well, so I'll take a shot. "The Gospel of Mark" is a movie, but it's also the literal reading of that New Testament book. There is a narrator, and much in the style of the film "Babe," he describes the action on the screen as you watch it unfold. And not just describes it, but actually reads the Gospel of Mark. So yes, the film contains the entire book of Mark being read by the narrator as the action unfolds over two hours. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

This does give it one huge upside - you can't say it's not biblical or it's not 'true to the book' - it absolutely is true to the book. It is the book! The downside - and I don't think it's much of one, really - is that even though there are actors in the film, it's really the narrator who speaks for them. You see Jesus and the other biblical figures played by actors, and they speak, but not in any language you can understand. The narrator speaks over them. In a way, it's like listening to an audiobook, but also watching it portrayed on screen at the same time.

In the DVD extras I learned that all four gospels were filmed simultaneously, and the same actors were used for all four. So in addition to this film, there are three more - the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. A pretty ambitious project. Certain filmed scenes are likely used for multiple productions, if they fit a given book's narrative, but there were also times where a certain event only appeared in one book, so then those scenes would be unique to just that film.

Also on the DVD, you are given two choices for the narration. You can choose either the New International Version for the narrator to read, or the Kings James version. There are different voice actors for the two versions.

So if you are looking for 'the most accurate" version of the Jesus story, look no further. As this is a literal reading of Mark, you can't get more accurate than this. And not only accurate, but surprisingly well done, too. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

8/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

I don't know how many reviews I've read on here telling me this film is the THE BEST version of the Jesus story or of the gospels. Well guess what? I don't agree. Now, it's got some good traits, it's not terrible by any stretch. The filming locations, even though they were in Italy and not the holy land, look rustic and feel biblical. The music, although somewhat offbeat at times, largely worked. The use of black-and-white photography made it feel old, as indeed the story is. And the choice of amateurs for actors sometimes worked well. Other times....not so much.

So for anyone who doesn't know, the entire film is populated with straight-up amateurs who in many cases never acted before, or again. An interesting choice and maybe it has its advantages, but I didn't see them. Several times people were smiling when they shouldn't have been. Other times they stood around expressionless when they should have been anything but. The actor who played Jesus was a 19-year-old Spanish student (not the 33 years of Jesus) and he was dubbed by an Italian actor to fit the rest of the film, which was in Italian. Yes, dubbed. It's also a little sloppy at times, as at the crucifixion scene, one can see an automobile driving in the distance for a few seconds, and we can be sure there were no automobiles in Jerusalem on that fateful Friday 2000+ years ago. Does this still sound like a masterpiece? I think not.

This film lacks the color, pomp and circumstance of the Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s and 1960s, and in that way it's a refreshing alternative. And there are some effective scenes, like the opening. No dialogue is spoken for a few minutes, just exchanged glances, yet the viewer can still sense what's going on in the characters' minds. It's so well done. I suspect Roger Ebert had this particular scene in mind when he wrote that the Gospel of Matthew was "one of the most effective films on a religious theme" he had ever seen. At times, it does reach those heights. But the weak, literally amateur acting also holds it back and can make the 150 minute runtime feel like quite the chore.

Several atheists have posted that they love this film, and seem to think that their very status as atheists must prove the film's greatness. I think the opposite. If an atheist loves a Jesus film, how good can it be? This is oil and water, they do not mix. That's like saying a bunch of Jews love a random film about Hitler. Really? If they do, that can only mean the film failed to show you the true essence of the man.

6/10. Has an interesting approach to the material, but I would have to say it is an acquired taste. And one I've not acquired. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Not very likely.

Art historian Tim Marlow hosts a quick but informative tour of the Easter story, told mostly through various paintings from antiquity. It must be noted that one should bring a familiarity of Jesus of Nazareth and Easter to a viewing of this program, as Marlow's intent is not to preach theology; rather, his aim is to show how the various events of the Easter story have been depicted artistically throughout history.

He accomplishes this well, spanning 1500 years or so, from 500 to 2000 A. D., but the majority of the pieces discussed range from 1300-1700 A. D. Some of the most famous works of art, like Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and Michelangelo's "La Pieta," are analyzed, but I would say the artist reviewed the most was Caravaggio. Marlow also dips into modern times and shows the viewer a few pieces likely unfamiliar to the majority of viewers, myself included. These tended to be perhaps too modern for the traditional art lover, but I don't blame Marlow for the effort.

Probably my only real complaint is the brevity of the program. It's broken into three parts (Betrayal, Crucifixion, Resurrection) and each one runs less than 25 minutes. Because Marlow covers so many works in each program, that means he can only linger a few minutes on any one of them before he moves on to the next. As interesting as his analysis was, it left me wanting more!

7/10. Interesting and informative. Could easily have been 3 hours without missing a beat. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.

Almost every review I've read here bashes this little film because the reviewers expected it to be something it's not. As it stars the famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy, it seems they expected this to be a comedy. Well, it's not a comedy. It's a public service announcement (PSA) explaining the importance of the timber industry and wood-based products to the war effort during WWII.

Does that sound funny? It's not, and again, it's not intended to be. It's meant to be educational, and in that respect, it succeeds. If you come to this film expecting it to be wildly entertaining just because L&H appear, you're going to be disappointed. But I would argue that this would be your fault, because you are putting an expectation on a film it was not intended to fulfill.

It's about 11 minutes, not 5 or 6 as many have stated. The first half has L&H teaming with Pete Smith as they discover how many everyday items they use contain some level of wood product. That part is about 6 minutes and the end of L&H's involvement. The next 5 minutes detail how wood is being used specifically for war materials, like wooden skies for alpine troops, reinforced wood for pontoon bridges, airplanes made entirely of wood (even the gas tanks), and other such examples. This was actually very informative and somewhat interesting. Funny? No. Interesting? Yes.

It's also a bit alarming from a military perspective. One scene showed U. S. troops on maneuvers and they were all wearing gas masks. Another clip showed horse-drawn carriages, presumably for munitions. Both of these are relics of World War I, yet this film was released in 1942. It soberly illustrates how unprepared the United States really was for the new war they had just joined.

So for reviewers here to say this is worthless, or that its only for L&H diehards, well, speak for yourself. It's not a bad little film if approached with the proper mindset.

6/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes.