Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Flipper: Flipper and the Mermaid (1965)
Season 2, Episode 1
7/10
New Recurring Character & New (bad) Version of Theme Song
29 December 2013
This is a pretty typical episode of Flipper (see other reviews for synopsis). I don't know why the IMDb ratings are so consistently in the 5-6 range. No, this isn't Citizen Kane, but come on, it's better than most of the current drivel on TV now..

... however... There are two things new to the series that are notable in this episode:

1 - A new character is introduced here; Swedish oceanographer Ulla Norstrand, who will be in 12 episodes. Will the romantic sparks fly?

2 - This episode is the first to have a new version of the theme song. This is one of those "old guys trying to write a 'hip' song". You know, syncopated-Sinatra-style singing (sung by Frankie Randall), mid-sixties-kinda electric guitar strumming, light horns. It kind of reminds me of the "I Dream of Jeannie" song. Pretty cheesy in my humble, and very biased, opinion. The opening song is longer due to additional lyrics. The closing song has TOTALLY new, and yucky-bad lyrics.

Flipper was never "hip". It was honest, genuine, sweet, and homey. This version of the song bugs me. The original version (all of Season 1) has been part of me since 1964 when I first experienced Flipper as a 6-year-old. This new, cheesy-jazz version of the theme song is in Episode 1-5 of season 2. Beginning with Episode 6, our beloved original version of the theme song returns. Yeah! NOT in every episode of season 2, thankfully.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
White Zombie (1932)
6/10
Even better on the Big Screen
7 November 2009
This review will be more about the print and theatrical experience than about the plot. Most people won't find this "useful", but hey, so what. Here's my two cents.

If you have the opportunity to see the Roan Group print projected in a theater, don't hesitate. Go see it.

I just saw this in the big screen last weekend and it is MUCH better in a proper theater with a crowd of enthusiasts than in the confines of your home, even with a big TV and 5.1. The audience I was in was comprised of about 150 kids and their parents. The kids had a great time as did I, who has seen the movie several times over the years in the washed out public domain video prints that have circulated forever.

The Roan Group print (same as the remastered DVD) is the one we saw, projected in 35 mm. It was obvious that there were two sources for this print. The vast majority of this appears to come from a very nice print with high contrast and sharp definition. The "fill-in" portions, apparently missing from the other source, are much more typical of a 75-year-old cheapie independent production shot in 11 days, i.e., scratchy, multiple generations removed from the negative, and faded. Thankfully there's not too much from that second source. There are a few jumps in the film (a few seconds at most) that could not be restored. Too bad, but no biggie.

The sound was problematic, veering from a comfortable volume when dialogue was speaking, to way too loud, almost to the point of distortion, when the music played or the bird squawked. I really don't think it was the theater's fault as their sound is always "just right".

Interestingly, for a movie this old (pre King Kong and Bride of Frankenstein) there was a whole lot of music and not as much dialogue as one usually gets in a film from this era. The music was rarely background to dialogue and was used almost exclusively to enhance the mood of the film. It was probably cheaper to do it this way, but who cares why. It works.

This is a really neat film full of great shots and creepy characters. Bela is fantastic, maybe his best performance on film. White Zombie hardly ranks up there with the Universal classics of the era, but it is positively time for a historical and critical reappraisal of this newly restored film.

It's good on video, but on the big screen, WOW!
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Winds of Kitty Hawk (1978 TV Movie)
7/10
A nice little TV movie. Entertaining and informative, but hardly accurate or complete
15 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A nice little TV movie. Entertaining and informative, but hardly accurate or complete.

I didn't even know of the existence of this film until I stumbled on it today on TV (Aug. 2009). Apparently this is the only dramatic film (i.e., non documentary) - excluding the Peanuts cartoon - that tells the Wright Brothers' story. I saw the whole thing from beginning to end. Overall a pretty good made-for-TV movie. I've thought for years that the Wright Brothers' story would make a fabulous major Hollywood film. It's such a great story. Unfortunately, this film omits many of the most interest parts of the story, the little bits that make their story incredibly interesting and "human", two brothers, and Charlie Taylor, working virtually alone invent the world's first flying machine.

Having read several dozen books on the Wright Brothers, including their own "Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" and having attended the 100 years of Flight celebration in Kitty Hawk I'm pretty familiar with the actual history of Brothers' achievement, and what a story it is.

As ccthemovieman-1 said, the film does have a "dream-like" visual quality to it. Soft focus abounds. Many of the actual Wright photographs are recreated within the story which gives the film a nice authenticity and subconscious familiarity (we've all seen many of these iconic images in our youth, but may not remember them.

All the high points of their story are told. All the players are there; Lilienthal, Langley, Chanute, The Tate family. However, Charlie Taylor, the builder of their engine, is conspicuously absent. Glenn Curtis and Alexander Graham Bell are portrayed as a team of thieves and rogues.

What's missing are the events that make the Wrights' story uniquely interesting: the arduous boat trip across to Kitty hawk, the first public display of flight in Dayton that the brothers may have flubbed intentionally to keep the press at bay, Gleanings in Bee Culture, the excitement of the initial French display of their plane in 1908, the feud with the Smithsonian, and so many more trivial moments that add spice and flavor to this uniquely American tale.

There are some historical inaccuracies, as you'd expect, but overall the story is mostly true and relatively complete with a nod to the basic science of flight.

I am curious. Did the filmmakers build real replicas of the Wright's machines or were they models? All the shots of actual flight look to have mannequins as pilots.

Definitely worth seeing, this movie is obviously two things, a product of the 70's and a made-for-TV movie, with all that that implies, both positive and negative.

This story needs to be told again - and with a much bigger budget. 15 years ago I would have cast Ralph Fiennes and Tom Hanks. The most interesting book, and most film-able, methinks, is One Day at Kitty Hawk, which as of today, Aug 2009, is listed here at IMDb as "in development" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213650/ . Let's hope it's a great movie.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed