super-joey

This is one of those episodes I definitely recall watching when I was a small boy. Seeing KITT get bashed into oblivion left an indelible mark on my psyche. Thankfully, in the second half of the episode, he gets brought back in a "new and improved" form.

I may be among the few but I do NOT like the "super pursuit mode." It ruins the simple yet perfect lines that caused creator Glenn A Larson to choose that make and model in the first place. And that silly breaking system with the red flaps popping out... Ugh. Even as a kid, I hated these changes. I don't mind Bonnie tinkering with KITT and each season has seen improvements. But his LOOK has always stayed basically the same. You don't go messing with an icon's look. Even if it's only when he's in a particular mode. No, no, a thousand times, no.

Having said that, I'm now going to seemingly contradict myself: I actually do like KITT's new convertible top. When his top is down, KITT looks even sleeker! Very nice.

The "B story" about Jennifer Knight trying to shut down the whole operation was interesting. Even though her misguided motives were understandable (from a psychological point of view) she was played with such a haughty relish by Mary Kate McGeehan that you can't help but laugh out loud when Michael comically leaves her handcuffed and gagged.

This episode also introduced us to RC3, who was a likable character but, admittedly, an unnecessary addition to the cast. He adds little to the series. Perhaps if they had kept him at his post as driver of the semi, he would have worked better. But he seems to spend most of his time in the trailer, even when the truck is in motion. So who is driving????

Overall, this was a fun and, as I said above, memorable episode.

A quick question:

Q: On a scale of 1-10, how hot did Janine Turner look in that red dress?

A: That's an easy 10.

This series had a lot of good-looking gals, but they were often dressed in bulky, ugly 1980s outfits. That red dress was a very welcomed change of pace.

Anyway!

The bad guys set a very efficient trap for KITT. I was impressed. Though I felt so sorry for KITT as he begged Michael for help. It reminded me of that scene in "Junk Yard Dog" (season 3, episode 14) when poor KITT sank into a pool of acid while begging Michael to save him. Apparently I still have all my childhood affection for KITT because such scenes hurt my heart. Still, it's good drama. I liked this plot and very much enjoyed the suspense.

This episode is memorable for 3 reasons:

1- The semi gets hijacked. That's one of the few things I recalled even from my childhood viewing of this episode in the 1980s.

2- The Ferret. Okay, it looks goofy. But I like when the villainous schemes involve a weaponized vehicle or other road worthy terror. It simply makes more sense for Michael and KITT to go up against such challenges.

3- Last but certainly not least: Julie Ronnie's performance as Erika! Does anyone doubt that a lonely computer geek would hack his own grandmother for the mere opportunity to put his hands on this girl's shoulders for a couple seconds? She's the most important "bad guy" of the episode, serving as the catalyst for everything and I bought it, hook line and sinker.

And here are a couple extra tidbits just for fun...

The actor who eventually played Nick on Family Ties (Scott Valentine) appears as one of the villains.

And the fella who would eventually voice Roger Rabbit (Robert Fleischer) plays a funny hitchhiker. Okay, he's not funny in a laugh-out-load sort of way but funny in that corny Knight-Rider-humor sort of way.

This movie was filmed at Loyola University in Chicago, a Catholic research university run by Jesuits, an order of priests known for their devotion to education, science, history, etc. Science and religion; both words are carved into the stone face of the building where much of the movie's action takes place. This is fitting because the film is partially an exploration of both these things and how they need not be mutually exclusive.

The characters are likable and interesting, played by fine actors who make them feel real. They explore, make mistakes, learn from those mistakes, atone for their wrongs, tell their stories and try to do better. That's life in a nutshell, isn't it?

Indeed, this movie is about what it means to be human. We are, as Andrei Tarkovsky once pointed out, that which is scientific, spiritual and artistic. Those three things separate us from the animals. To deny a part of that "triangle" leaves one incomplete; not embracing the totality of the human experience. Am I overthinking it? Probably. But it says something that a movie about medical students exploring death can elicit within me such powerful thoughts and strong emotions. In addition to that, the film has some fantastic cinematography and taut storytelling.

Other reviewers have pointed out that, in real life, the girls admitted their photographs were fake. So why does the movie say they were genuine? Well, actually the movie does not say that. Watch very closely. While some of the characters think the photos were real, there is a scene where it is made clear that the photographs were, in fact, faked.

The film merely maintains that the fairies *themselves* were real. Not the photos. Apparently the girls were unable to get photos of the actual fairies so they faked photos instead. That's the movie's point of view.

The idea, I suspect, was to tell the true story but without spoiling it for the kids in the audience.

Now, of course there are other alterations to historical facts... But that's typical for any movie based on a true story. Still, it's a fantastic tale with fun performances from the likes of Harvey Keitel and Peter O'Toole to name just a couple. It's also got a great tone, spirit and a really good soundtrack. Fairy Tale was one of my favorite movies of 1997.

Watch for a true cameo appearance (uncredited small role) by Mel Gibson.

In 1978, John Carpenter unleashed a horror classic. The story continued a couple years later when he co-wrote/co-produced (and composed the music for) Halloween II. It was a great sequel that picked up where the first movie left off.

Ah, remember how that first movie ended? The camera cuts to various locations where the story had taken place as the breathing of Michael Myers takes over the soundtrack. What an ending! It seemed to say, "The shape is still out there." He's unstoppable. Right?

Well, not according to this new 2018 sequel which ignores Halloween II and claims to be the "true" sequel. Now we're told Michael was recaptured that same night before killing anyone else.

Wait. What? So the boogeyman was... recaptured? That sort of ruins the magic of that classic ending to the original movie. I don't buy that Michael got shot 6 times, plunged out of a 2nd story window, walked away, then got recaptured.

No. The original movie made it clear. The shape is out there. Stalking. Prowling. Murdering. It took the events of the 1981 sequel to bring him down. Shooting both his eyes out and setting him ablaze. In my mind, THAT is what happened that night.

But if we are to accept the events of Halloween II, Michael and Laurie Strode are not brother and sister, as that film revealed. I know, I know. John Carpenter has stated in interviews that he never really wanted to do the brother/sister thing. Okay. Whatever. But he still co-wrote/produced the movie that introduced that idea into canon. It seems odd to wipe it out 37 years later. At least Halloween: H20 had the decency to keep Halloween II in the canon so the brother/sister relationship remained.

Furthermore, the entire legacy of Dr. Loomis (who returned in 4 sequels to battle Michael) is wiped from canon! Reduced to only the one meeting in 1978 that, we're now told, ended with this unlikely "recapture" idea.

Okay, okay. I've said my bit about the frustrating, constantly changing canon of the Halloween films. But what about Halloween 2018? Is it at least a good movie?

Well, it had some very good moments. All the sequels have had good moments. I'm not sure that justifies wiping everything else out and claiming this as the "true sequel." It's not THAT good. It's not a better Part II than Halloween II (1981). In my opinion, it's not even a better sequel than "Return of Michael Myers." Yet it callously wipes them out and acts superior. It's not.

You get a few suspenseful, well directed scenes. You get some of the better "funny banter" in this franchise's history (which improves the scenes with the teenagers, whose dialog in past movies ranged from okay to poor). And you get maybe one or two good kills (and a bunch of forgettable ones).

That's about all the good I can say. I left feeling dissatisfied, despite really wanting to love the movie. I paid top price for the best possible screening, hoping it would turn out to be the masterpiece critics and "early screener" fans were claiming it to be. But having seen it, I wonder if a lot of fans aren't "Phantom Menacing." After all, Carpenter is involved again as one of several producers and one of three composers. They were going back to the original sours and ignoring the lousy Rob Zombie remake. Great!

As a result, many fans were proclaiming this "the best sequel" several months before it even came out!

So we're supposed to cum in our pants because Carpenter endorsed it. I wanted to cum! But I didn't. Other fans did but maybe after the novelty wears off, they'll realize it was a premature ejaculation. See if you still think it's a "bona fide classic" in ten years. Remember, MANY fans said the same about H20 when it came out. It was, "Finally, a real sequel!" Where are those fans now?

Finally, I just gotta say this: Those critics who are saying this movie "broke new ground" are clueless. It is NOT the first slasher movie to feature strong female leads with no man rescuing them. I can name SEVERAL classic slashers where the lone surviver was female. It's a common trope. The "final girl." So those saying, "Finally" and, "It's about time" are just ignorant of the genre.

Having said that, it was obvious that the filmmakers went out of their way to make sure there were NO strong male characters in this. Not one. Hell, one boy even dresses in drag while his girlfriend dresses as the man. I get it. Men suck. Women are strong. Boys don't need role models. Only women do. Fine. Thank you, Hollywood, for giving us this message for the 1,000th time. And thank you media/critics for ONCE AGAIN acting as if its groundbreaking.

This film falls firmly into a familiar category... A lonely young person befriended by a talking non-human. But if you go into it hoping for something on the level of E.T. you will be disappointed. A.R.C.H.I.E. feels more like a pilot episode of a TV series from ABC's old TGIF lineup in the 90s.

It's simple. It's innocent. It means no harm. Kids will like it. Adults won't be offended by it... and might even somewhat enjoy it thanks to the opportunity to hear Michael J Fox's voice. Ever since he was diagnosed with Parkinson's, he has done very little acting. So anyting from him is always welcome. Besides, sometimes fart jokes are funny.

I absolutely adore slasher franchises. I wish they still made Friday the 13th and Elm Street movies every year like they did in the 1980s but nooooooo. It was a long wait for Hatchet 4 (aka "Victor Crowley") but I'm glad the franchise is back. I hope there's a part 5 soon. Next year would be awesome but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway, I love Kane Hodder in the title role and the rest of the cast is clearly having a blast. The tone of this movie is infectious and fun. I smiled ear to ear the entire time. There are a couple of kills that should make any highlight reel of best slasher deaths. I love the characters and dialog. The plot and pacing are perfect. What's not to like?!

I know the reviews here are mixed. So what? Look at the reviews and star ratings for almost ANY classic slasher from the 80s and you see the same thing. All the classic Friday the 13th or Elm Street movies score around 5 or 6 stars and have only 50% positive reviews. Nothing new. It's indicative of nothing except what horror fans have always known: We are not in the mainstream. Again, so what? To those who love the Hatchet movies (and we are many) this movie is a welcomed return. May there be many more!

I have a couple songs on my iTunes that I haven't played since 2009. Not because I don't like them, but because the last time I played them was the day my dog died, with whom I was very close. I know if I play those songs again, the date will update and whatever psychological "connection" I have with the day will be lost.

Likewise, there was a house I lived in for 4 years with a person I loved dearly. To this day I dream about that house; Peering in through the windows and saddened that I don't see her and I in there together. In the dreams, it's usually empty or occupied by someone else. I often wonder, if I ever DID go back there, would it seem the same? Or different? Did we take the "magic" with us when we both moved on?

One more story.... I have a friend who loved the movie "Jaws" so deeply that he went to Martha's Vineyard where it was filmed and buried something dear to him at one of the spots where the movie was made. It meant something to him, just to know a "part of himself" would always be there. That friend has since passed away.

Anyway, if you identify with these sorts of stories, "A Ghost Story" might be a poignant experience for you. Especially if you have often asked the age-old question: Does it all have MEANING?

Werner Herzog said the need to tell our story is what separates humans from cows in the field. But WHY do we feel this powerful need? Why do we have such deep connections with people, places and things? Why do we keep objects (tucked away in locked boxes) that we feel somehow "define" us? And, in the end, does any of it matter?

This movie will touch some people deeply. Others, it won't. Neither are "wrong." It's just one of those movies that's not for everyone.

Now, a word about the infamous pie eating scene...

I like the scene because the character had just returned from a funeral and was fighting tears the entire time she gorged herself. I identified with her and thought of times when I had similar experiences. It was an almost meditational scene. I was absorbed by both the movie and my own memories.... BUT if you find the scene too long, don't worry. Much of the second half of the movie is told through montage and actually moves much faster. Just be patient and let this movie wash over you.

Unlike all other slasher franchises from the 70s and 80s that have rebooted "for a new generation," this one keeps moving forward and manages to stay utterly creative. The Chucky movies are one big, continuing story since 1988. Don Mancini has had a hand in every one of them. He wrote parts 1-4 and then, for parts 5-7, he took over as director as well. His latest, Cult of Chucky, adds something completely new and unexpected to the saga but does not forget the past. Heck, there's even a reference to Kent Military Academy (the location for part 3). I really enjoyed this movie! Brad Dourif returns again as the voice of Chucky and has some fun dialog to spout. His daughter reprises the role of "Nica" and continues to impress. The memorable music is by Joseph Loduca who got his start with The Evil Dead in 1981. Cult of Chucky is fresh but faithful to the franchise.

On the plus side, I don't have to bother adding yet another monthly payment to the too many I already have. This show was disappointing. The characters were not interesting and the situations were not engaging. I would give it another shot if it were to be on TV next week but-

In spite of its attempt to appeal to geeks by CONSTANTLY pandering with sci-fi references, this is ultimately a good example of what happens when a talented cast gets little to do. That's not to say there aren't funny moments. There are! (Especially from Eden Sher.) But the overall experience feels empty. It's yet another teen movie version of Animal Farm with very little imagination and not even a clear idea of how the "losers" take over the school. I had at least hoped for a fun, cathartic story about getting revenge on the "mean girls" but even that angle is subverted. The filmmakers force us to feel sorry for the people we'd rather love to hate and suck the fun out of it. Yet the "geek vs chic revolution" story continues, even after we're left with no side to root for. I get it… That was the point. Okay. But it was very unsatisfying. Again, it wasn't awful or un-watchable. Just… "eh."

Mean Girls 2 is a mixed bag. There were some good ideas but they were rarely presented in an effective way. Let me break it down for you...

THE ACTING...

1- Jennifer Stone... I'm not into "Wizards of Waverly Place" so I was pleasantly surprised by how likable she was. And her comic timing was as good as a seasoned pro. Frankly, they should have cast her in the lead. She could have carried the movie and kept the audience more engaged.

2- Meaghan Martin, as the lead protagonist, was a disappointment for me. Her facial expressions and line delivery often made her sound snotty, even in scenes where she was supposed to be friendly! Sometimes she accidentally came off as looking or sounding stuck-up. I think they should have cast her as one of the mean girls. She did not have me rooting for her as much as I should have. That's a BIG negative in a movie like this.

3- Maiara Walsh played the head of the "plastics" and thus is the top mean girl. (If you're over 21, take a shot of whiskey every time she wears a strapless dress in this movie. You'll be sloppy drunk before the halfway point.) She definitely played the part of a spoiled brat very well. Though something about the shape of her face and eyes made her appear softer than the part required. Maybe she and Meaghan Martin should have switched roles?

The rest of the acting was good, in that "cute" sort of way. Nothing to stand up and cheer about but nothing to hurt the movie either.

THE REVENGE FACTOR...

Many pranks are played on the snobs. One of them gets vomited on. Another gets her face dyed green. Etc. But somehow the scenes don't work very well. Maybe because the characters don't seem properly humiliated by the pranks. I mean, your face is dyed green and you're reacting like it's only a minor inconvenience? She's more concerned about getting a ride to school than with what the other students are going to say about her green face! Thus the prank falls flat. Yet we're told it was a success.

And the girl who gets vomited on (I won't say who gets it) reacts the way you'd expect... she's grossed out! But there's not a lot of laughter or even any comments from the crowd that witnesses it. People should at least be going, "Ewww" and pointing. If you're going to pay a bunch of teenagers to be extras in a movie, make them earn it! Tell them to REACT. Getting vomited on at a crowded party should have some lasting social ramifications. In this movie, however, one gets the feeling that everyone will forget about it after a few seconds.

The final comeuppance (which I won't give away) works to a certain degree. At least justice is served. Unfortunately it seems to come too easy and feels clichéd. I recalled similar endings in other movies ("Cruel Intentions," to name just one.)

THE HUMOR...

Most of the comedy in Mean Girls 2 is "cute humor"... It's never hilarious. Rarely will you laugh out loud. Mostly you will just smile. I think some of the comedy was probably funny on paper but something always spoils it. Sometimes it's poor timing. Sometimes it's an over emphasis on cuteness. Often it's because the tone is simply too over-the-top to feel like any of this is happening to real people. To be fair, the original movie had the same problem.

I just don't buy into the notion that 3 girls could have an entire student body shaking in their boots. Simply portraying the mean girls as bullying snobs would be fine. That would work. Why do movies like this always feel the need to go over-the-top and make the mean girls out to be more feared than the Nazi Party in 1938 Germany? It doesn't increase the comedy. It just feels corny.

CONCLUSION: This movie will have many haters. The title "Mean Girls 2" will generate enough curiosity that many people will watch it. But those who loved the original will probably hate this sequel automatically. And those who don't care about the original won't care about this one either.

Having said all that, it's really not a bad movie. There are some good ideas... They're just presented in a very mediocre way. I didn't love it. I didn't hate it. I'm just, "eh" about the whole thing. And I suspect the director was too. She did a great job with the film, "She Gets What She Wants" but seemed to lack that same spark here.

I wanted to have fun but found myself constantly saying, "Oh if only they had done it THIS way or THAT way, it would be way better."

Let me just start by saying that Daniel Craig remains a good choice for Bond. The film-makers hit the nail on the head when they cast him 3 years ago. But QUANTUM OF SOLACE is not a good Bond movie. How can they be so good at choosing the right actor but so bad at choosing the right story, script and director? The cinematography and editing make it impossible for us to truly appreciate the action and stunts. You find yourself squinting, hoping to make out what's going on. You WANT to enjoy the action sequences but the film-makers won't allow you to. Why do they spend millions creating an action sequence only to hide it behind bad camera-work and editing? Such a waste.

Speaking of waste: They've got this perfect Bond (Daniel Craig's impeccable portrayal) yet they have no clue how to build a movie around him. Some say it's an effort to return Bond to his roots. Okay, let's examine Bond's roots for a moment then...

The Ian Fleming novels were great. But if you are looking for a realistic presentation of what it's like to be a spy, you don't read Fleming. You read Tom Clancy! What Fleming gave us was the fantasy of what we WISH it was like to be a spy. Fast cars, beautiful women, fine dining, fun story and plotting, Etc. Those books were male oriented fantasies. (Not to say women can't enjoy them too, but they were geared primarily toward men.) There was a touch of "comic book" to the Bond novels. And the best, most classic 007 movies are the ones that understand that. QUANTUM OF SOLACE drops the fantasy elements entirely. We're left with a movie that does not transport us. We can't get lost in it the way we can when we watch THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or GOLDFINGER or FROM Russia WITH LOVE or any of the great classics of the franchise.

It's a shame too! Because I thought CASINO ROYALE was on the right track. What happened? You can be darker and grittier without trying to be Bourne or Clancy. Just look at LICENCE TO KILL and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (or CASINO ROYALE for that matter).

In summery, this movie might please the Internet fans who post on the message boards. (They get excited when Bond strays from fantasy.) But message boards do not represent a proper cross-section of what the average fan wants to see. Hopefully the producers will stop turning to the boards for ideas and get Bond back to what he does best.

(And please note: the question below asks if this review was helpful to you. It does not ask if you agree with me. So please don't click "no" just because you disagree.)

I won't call Juno "great" but I did enjoy it. It's a simple movie but there's no rule that says every indie film has to be complex. This movie had something that not every movie has... It had characters I CARED about and I wanted to know what would happen to them. That alone puts it a cut above at least half the trash that's released these days.

Along the way we get some funny (though low key) dialog. I didn't find the pop culture references bothersome as some reviewers here did. The fact is, if you listen to how people talk, our conversations ARE often infused with pop culture references. That's life.

And speaking of life, there are many reviewers here who seem angry at this movie for its supposed pro-life stance. This is nonsense. Yes, Juno decides not to have an abortion and gives her baby up for adoption instead. This has caused shouts of "neo con" from some people. Huh? Just because somebody chooses to have their baby, they are a neo con? I thought the essence of "pro choice" was that you get to CHOOSE. Are you "pro choice" or pro abortion?

If you are bothered by a story about a pregnant teenage girl giving her baby up for adoption, ask yourself why. Is it because you are disturbed by the idea of a pregnant teen? Join the club. Everyone is bothered by teenage pregnancy (to some degree) and this movie deals with that. Even Juno is bothered by it.

But if you're offended because she didn't choose abortion, you are reading too much into it. I don't think this movie was trying to make any sweeping political or social statements. It's not a movie ABOUT her choice between adoption and abortion. That's just 1 scene! And it's sad that a fictional character can't choose adoption without pissing people off. Just calm down and enjoy the freakin' movie.

Pros...

1- Ford is still Indiana Jones. His age does not hurt this movie. Loved him!

2- The music was very good.

3- Some of the action was exciting.

Cons...

1- The characters are good but their interaction was often dull (and laden with boring dialog). I missed the human element that was present in the other Indy films. Do you recall his interaction with Shorty in Temple of Doom? Or with his father in Last Crusade? Well, Crystal Skull has nothing even close to that. Not even in the same ball park.

2- There wasn't enough UNIQUE action. For the most part we get car chases and fist fights. The other movies offered us things we'd never seen before: Like the giant boulder in Raiders or the mine car chase in Temple of Doom. Where was that creativity in Crystal Skull?

3- We get very few truly indelible images or moments. Nothing like the pit of snakes in Raiders. (The CGI ants didn't cut it for me.) Most of the images in Crystal Skull are forgettable.

But it gets worse . . .

4- The plot is very tedious. We get a lot of dull talk talk talk about the crystal skull and its history. We listen to many conversations about hieroglyphics, maps, etc. Most of the dialog felt bogged down with boring exposition and explanation. If the characters didn't have to explain something boring every couple minutes, they'd have nothing to say! The "object" in these movies should never be the driving force in the dialog or story. It should just be a tool.

Look at Temple of Doom... Was that movie ABOUT the rock? No. It didn't spend 70% of its running time talking about the rock and trying to convince the audience of its importance.

Look at Last Crusade... The Holy Grail was merely a device to advance the plotting. But the movie was not ABOUT the Holy Grail. It was about Indy and his father. It was about their adventure.

Part 4 should have taken a lesson from its predecessors and not made the object (the skull, of course) the central focus. It's merely a macguffen and should not be taking up this much screen time. It's not fun to feel like you're in history class while watching an Indy movie.

5- The ending to Crystal Skull was atrocious. It was a lot of flashy images and loud sounds but no substance. I understood the endings to the other movies and found them satisfying. God smites Nazis? Yay! I dug that. But the ending to Crystal Skull left me scratching my head and asking, "What was that about?" Conclusion . . .

A fair action/adventure movie. Nothing more. And I'm not saying this because my expectations were too high (as many will no doubt presume). I say this because the movie did not deliver a coherent, satisfying story. It had great characters/actors but didn't know what to do with them.

Preface: When Steven Spielberg made CLOSE ENCOUNTERS he briefly considered making a military man or police man the central character. He changed his mind because he felt that it's difficult for the audience to identify with men in uniform in positions of authority. When you're making a sci-fi or fantasy film, you're already asking the audience to suspend reality so the least you can do is give them a down-to-Earth character they can identify with. Having said that . . .

Many of the newer Godzilla movies feature stories about military organizations defending the Earth against Godzilla. Not only are the central characters authority figures in uniform but they are often sullen, "business first" types too. This makes things rather dull. Besides, Godzilla has become a beloved icon after all these years. We like him and find it hard to side with the folks planning to destroy him. Ya know? That's why I love GODZILLA VS THE SEA MONSTER. The central characters are just average joes. They go out to a dance contest one night and end up on a remote island adventure. It stimulates my imagination. I mean, if these ordinary guys can end up on such an adventure, maybe there's hope for me. (Or not.) Anyway, the characters are fun and engaging.

As for the fights between Godzilla and the sea monster, I enjoyed both of them. Tennis anyone? Yeah, they actually bop a huge rock back and forth a few times. And ya know what? I smiled the whole time. I even laughed out loud when one of the boulders went "out of bounds" and took out a tower.

In addition, you get Godzilla VS a terrorist organization equipped with guns and their own air force. Watching the "big G" swat the planes down like flies was great.

Other fun things: Two men getting impaled by the sea monster, a hot girl wearing only bikini for 2/3 of the movie and plenty of good INTENTIONAL humor.

Warning: The old VHS release of this movie featured an American dub that was outstanding. Whereas the DVD uses the original dub that has less-than-perfect voice acting. Not so good.