Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on March 4th, 2009
What happens when a television series depends on a title character, but that character is completely uninteresting? The answer is you get a 6 episode run, and then you’re over. That’s exactly the story with Canterbury’s law. I have no doubt that Julianna Margulies is a better actress than she showed on this show. I mean, she has to be, right? Margulies walked through her role as lawyer Liz Canterbury. The character had tons of potential. She was a bit of a rebel. She wasn’t afraid to bend…all right, break … the rules for her client. That kind of a maverick character usually means high ratings. But not if the actress playing the part refuses to invest anything into playing the character.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on March 4th, 2009
Juliette (Thomas) has spent the last 15 years in prison for the murder of her 6 year old son. She has been expectedly abandoned by her family while locked up. When it is finally time for her to be released, the only one willing to even talk to her is her estranged sister, Lea (Zylberstein) who takes her into her home. Lea has a family of her own now. She is married with two adopted Vietnamese children.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on March 3rd, 2009
“Did you pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?... Have you ever been to Poughkeepsie?... When you were in Poughkeepsie, you sat on the edge of the bed, didn’t you? You put your fingers between your toes and you picked your feet…. If I can’t bust you on this other thing I’m going to bust you for picking your feet in Poughkeepsie.”
There can be no argument on this point. The 1970’s was a golden age for the cinema. When you think about the iconic characters and films the decade produced, it’s hard to contradict the point.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on March 2nd, 2009
The French Connection had one of the best film endings a show of this kind could ask for. There was absolutely no need for a sequel. Obviously the success of the first film laid the groundwork for another adventure. In reality the case was rather left open, so there was certainly room to follow up the action. The problem is that none of the elements from the first film remain in the second beyond Gene Hackman’s portrayal of Popeye Doyle and the return of Fernando Rey as the villain Charnier. Friedkin would not return to direct, and even though he was replaced by an even greater director in John Frankenheimer, not much of the original crew remained.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Michael Durr on March 2nd, 2009
Autism is commonly defined as a brain development disorder characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior. Sometimes, due to that lack of social interaction and repetitive behavior, the people affected develop a special skill or heightened senses. The results can be amazing. However, in film, autism is rarely shown as what it truly is, a disorder. To find a film that not only embraces the special skill as well as show the difficulty it takes to exist and function normally is pretty rare.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on February 27th, 2009
This is actually a very charming situation comedy that harkens back to the days of The Cosby Show, but is actually far more honest and less about one liners. While everybody loves the Cos, the show got cluttered and rarely dealt with real life issues in any serious way. In My Wife And Kids, I get the sense of a real family here. The cast makes it work, but credit the writers for coming up with a comedy that did not rely on one liners. Don’t get me wrong, the jokes are there, and they sometimes fly fast and furious, but one always feels there’s more to any given scene or situation. The show is completely family friendly. I’m a little sorry that I stumbled on it after it was already gone.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on February 27th, 2009
Season two marks the actual first complete season of Nash Bridges. It’s time for the show to deliver on the high octane, high attitude it was to be famous for. This was also the year that both of the main actors reunited with their former partners. Tommy Chong and Philip Michael Thomas both guested on the episode Wild Card. The show paid homage to both of the former partners. Chong plays a pot dealer, and Thomas plays a hotshot gambler friend of Nash's who likes to dress up like the Vice characters did . It was a pretty sweet episode on top of everything else.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on February 27th, 2009
While nowhere does anyone actually say it, Caroline In The City is obviously inspired by/ripped off from the popular newspaper comic strip Cathy. Each episode, for a time anyway, would begin with an animated scene from one of the “Caroline” strips. The topic mostly deals with the pitfalls of being a single New York City girl. From these roots there was an often awkward attempt to create a warm and fuzzy romantic comedy that never seemed to find its own focus, let alone footing. It didn’t help matters that the title character was played by Lea Thompson, best known for her role as Michael J. Fox’s mom in the Back To The Future films.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on February 27th, 2009
Family Ties is likely remembered most as the series that launched the career of Michael J. Fox. There’s no question that he owes a great debt to Alex Keaton. It’s almost a bit awkward now to watch him as this young, extremely conservative teenager after Fox has spent so much of his life as a liberal poster boy in the last couple of elections. Politics aside, it’s hard not to credit his performances in Family Ties and the Back to the Future films for launching him into a well deserved lucrative career.
Posted in: Disc Reviews by Gino Sassani on February 27th, 2009
I get worried when I see box art make claims like they have on the recent release of Dorothy Mills. It claims that this film is a contemporary take on The Exorcist. The problem is that we don’t really need a contemporary take on that classic film. It’s a bit pretentious and arrogant to think that this low budget affair can come close to reproducing what that film did back in the 1970’s. Why can’t the folks who make these kinds of films allow the film to stand on its own and aspire to something unique and exciting for its own merits?