Hello everyone! Like any graduation ceremony, it’s time to conclude The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon. This year’s event was a success, as it had a similar turn-out to last year’s Food & Film Blogathon. I apologize for not publishing my book review of Stranger Things: Flight of Icarus by Caitlin Schneiderhan. I actually didn’t get to completely read the book, as I had other blogging projects to write and publish around the time of The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon. However, I was able to deliver my Comparing with the Critics reviews of King Kong Lives and The Fly. Those reviews, as well as the event’s other entries, showcased the creative storytelling 1986 had to offer. Through reading these entries, I was introduced to films that are new to me. I also learned something new and discovered interesting points about Eddie Munson I never thought of before. There will be a new blogathon on 18 Cinema Lane in 2027! The event’s details won’t be revealed yet, as I haven’t even chosen a theme. Until then, you can check out my upcoming reviews, editorials, and lists! To everyone who participated in The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon, thank you so much for your contribution.
The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by 21 Laps Entertainment, Monkey Massacre, Netflix, and Upside Down Pictures.
Out of the movies Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel picked in Siskel & Ebert & the Movies’ ‘Best of 1986’ episode, I believe Eddie Munson would choose The Fly. As I explained in my 1986 introduction of Comparing with the Critics, Eddie’s story teaches that, sometimes, there’s more than meets the eye. Plus, Eddie’s imagination and creativity not only works in his favor as a Dungeon Master, it’s also helped his friends during their time in the Upside Down. From the way Gene and Roger described The Fly in the aforementioned ‘Best of 1986’ episode, it seemed like a different kind of horror and sci-fi film. Roger claims “the poignancy” of The Fly “is interesting in a horror film”. Meanwhile Gene not only states “there was, if you think about it, a certain nobility to The Fly”, he also says “the movie is beautifully made”. Films from the horror and sci-fi genre are infrequently covered on 18 Cinema Lane. In fact, the only sci-fi and/or horror movies included in the Comparing with the Critics series, so far, are The Bride and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, which were both released in 1985. But what can be appreciated is the creativity and imagination woven into those two genres, whether it’s how the duel in the Thunderdome was filmed in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome or giving Viktor a “hero’s journey” in The Bride. Though The Fly ended up on Roger’s top twenty best films of the year list, it did earn a place on Gene’s ten best films of ’86 list at number ten. However, despite not seeing every or most of the movies from 1986, The Fly would not be on my list of the top ten best films of that year. I also don’t think the film would be on Eddie’s top ten best films list either.
The Fly(1986) poster created by 20th Century Fox, Brooksfilms, Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit, and SLM Production Group
While sharing his thoughts on The Fly, Roger tells Gene, “Goldblum, I think, deserves an Academy Award nomination”. While I agree with Roger’s sentiments on Jeff Goldblum’s portrayal of Seth Brundle, I also believe Geena Davis (who portrayed Veronica “Ronnie” Quaife) deserved a nomination from the Academy. Individually, Geena’s and Jeff’s performance was solid. From the tearful heartbreak Ronnie displays as Seth becomes unrecognizable to Seth’s erratic behavior over the course of the story, Jeff and Geena made their characters interesting to watch. But together, Geena and Jeff share very nice on-screen chemistry! In The Fly’s very first scene, Seth and Ronnie meet at a scientific event. Their interaction contains a sense of awkwardness, as they don’t yet know how they feel about the other person. But because Ronnie and Seth appear comfortable with who they are as individuals, the conversation isn’t embarrassing or cringey. Instead, it kind of comes across as flirty. Incorporating smiles, Seth’s widening eyes, and Ronnie’s glances away from Seth add to their growing feelings for each other. Even tilts of the head indicate how equally engaged they are in their interaction. The more I saw Seth and Ronnie together, the more I wished Jeff and Geena starred in another movie together portraying a couple!
Gene tells Roger during their discussion of The Fly how he doesn’t believe science fiction movies, but was able to believe The Fly. One of the reasons why, according to Gene, is “it has to do with makeup”. The Academy certainly agreed with Gene, as The Fly won the Best Makeup category at the 59th Academy Awards. I also agree with Gene and the Academy. The idea of a human transforming into a fly sounds pretty disturbing and grotesque. Through the makeup design of Stephan Dupuis and Chris Walas, that aforementioned transformation was brought to life on screen in a believably horrifying way. At the start of Seth’s transformation, he develops little hairs on his back and his face appears discolored. But as the story progresses, so does his transformation. Seth’s teeth become pointy before falling out. His fingers morph together as his hands turn into the feet of a fly. Seth’s body even develops lumpy growths that make him look like a complete stranger. What adds to the horrifying nature of the makeup design is not just how believable the transformation itself appears, but also how realistic the effects look.
The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by 21 Laps Entertainment, Monkey Massacre, Netflix, and Upside Down Pictures.
During their coverage of The Fly in the ‘Best of 1986’ episode of Siskel & Ebert & the Movies, Roger comments on the believability of the movie. He tells Gene how “the screenplay was written and acted smart”. Roger also appreciated how Seth wasn’t a scientist “who speaks in cliches out of the thirties”. To add to Roger’s compliments, I’ll say that I liked how the story’s scientific ideas were woven into the script. Throughout The Fly, the topic of teleportation is discussed by Ronnie and Seth. What started as a magazine interview turns into a collaborative book. Over time, the focused topic changes to genetic fusion between Seth and a fly. Ronnie’s discovery and Seth’s computer lead to this specific topic being brought up. The way these scientific subjects were written into the story, as well as the dialogue, sounded intelligent enough to make the characters seem like they knew what they were talking about. As a viewer, I wasn’t confused by these concepts or didn’t feel like homework before watching the movie was required.
As Gene sings the praises of The Fly, he refers to the movie as “a great adventure”. In my experience watching adventure stories unfold on screen, there’s usually a sense of urgency. This urgency can be the reason for reaching a particular destination, exploring a specific location, or finding a person or object. A featured scene from The Fly on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies’ ‘Best of 1986’ episode shows Seth revealing to Ronnie his continual transformation toward becoming a fly. That scene made me believe there would be a race against the clock to either slow down or reverse Seth’s transformation process. Sadly, the script did not provide a race against the clock because the movie lacked a sense of urgency. In fact, The Fly contains a slow-burn story where Seth slowly becomes a fly over the course of most of the film. The 1986 movie is one of those movies where the audience waits for the inevitable to happen. Because the title of the film, The Fly, gives the inevitable away, it makes the film itself predictable. This predictability removes some of the story’s suspense and intrigue.
Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television
In the introduction of this review, I stated how The Fly would not be on my list of the top ten best films of 1986. I also said I didn’t think the film would be on Eddie’s top ten best films list either. The reasons are the movie’s lack of urgency and predictability. I could honestly picture Eddie either falling asleep during the movie or leaving the theater during the film. As I said in my review, The Fly is a slow-burn story and its predictability removes some of the story’s suspense and intrigue. But I don’t believe The Fly is a bad movie. The individual and combined performances of Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis made their characters interesting to watch, as well as gave their characters nice on-screen chemistry. Chris and Stephan’s makeup effects effectively elaborated on the horrifying concept of a human becoming a fly. I also liked how the story’s scientific ideas were woven into the script. But despite all that praise, I didn’t like or love The Fly as much as Gene or Roger did.
In the 1986 introduction of Comparing with the Critics, I said Eddie Munson would see Roger Ebert’s and Gene Siskel’s warnings about King Kong Lives as a challenge. That’s because this movie was deemed so bad, no clips from it were featured on ‘The Worst Movies of 1986’ episode of Siskel & Ebert & the Movies. According to Roger and Gene, they received letters from King Kong Lives’ film company stating no clips of the movie were allowed to be shown on Gene and Roger’s national show, yet could be shown on their local show in Chicago. Wikipedia states the film company, DEG (De Laurentiis Entertainment Group), forbade the critics from showing clips on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies “unless they promised to give positive reviews”. Because neither Roger or Gene complied with DEG’s request, they used the experience as a warning to their audience not to see King Kong Lives, with Gene saying, “If you don’t believe me or Roger, believe the film company that, think about it, couldn’t find a single scene that it wanted you to see”. From my experience watching the “Best of” and “Worst of” episodes of Gene and Roger’s show, a featured movie with no clips presented for it is extremely rare. That’s why King Kong Lives not only became so memorable to me, but why I wanted to review the movie, wondering if it was truly that bad. But now that I’ve seen King Kong Lives, saying it’s so bad it justified the refusal of featuring clips on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies is a stretch.
King Kong Livesposter created by De Laurentiis Entertainment Group (DEG)
Gene claims King Kong Lives, which is a sequel to King Kong from 1976, “should have been a classy production”. I’m not sure “classy” is the right word to describe this film. What I will say is King Kong Lives is interesting. One of the factors that made the movie interesting was the use of suits to bring King Kong and Lady Kong to life. In order for King Kong to be saved, Lady Kong is incorporated into the story to provide a blood transfusion for King Kong. Over the course of the film, Lady Kong and King Kong develop a romantic relationship. Through the performances of Peter Elliott and George Antoni/Yiasoumi, King Kong and Lady Kong’s interactions became such a pleasant surprise! The blend of body language, tilts of the head, and movements of the eyes and mouth effectively expressed emotions, thoughts, and feelings without any dialogue. The actual construction of the suits allowed King Kong and Lady Kong to appear believably realistic. With all that said, I found Lady Kong and King Kong’s relationship adorable!
When Hank “Mitch” Mitchell (portrayed by Brian Kerwin) is introduced in King Kong Lives, he gives the impression of being hungry for money and fame. This is because Mitch agreed to give Lady Kong to the Atlantic Institute. But as the movie goes on, Mitch subverts expectations by showing how he genuinely cares about Lady Kong’s wellbeing. One example is Mitch’s observation of how King Kong appeared to be treated better than Lady Kong. He’s even concerned about the wellbeing of Dr. Amy Franklin (portrayed by Linda Hamilton). When Amy tells Mitch how she’s spent her evening keeping an eye on King Kong after his heart surgery, Mitch encourages Amy to get some sleep. Mitch’s empathy and compassion toward Lady Kong, Amy, and even King Kong made him such a likeable character!
Speaking of Brian Kerwin andLinda Hamilton, I’d like to take some time to talk about their performance. Over the course of King Kong Lives, Amy and Mitch’s attraction for one another grows. The on-screen chemistry between Linda and Brian was, in my opinion, very sweet. The relationship between Mitch and Amy felt genuine because of the combined performance of Brian and Linda. But, individually, they gave solid performances as well. When Lady Kong arrives at the Atlantic Institute through a plane trip, some photographers attempt to break into the plane to take Lady Kong’s picture. Mitch pulls those photographers out of the plane, taking note of how stressed Lady Kong appears. In that moment, Amy gains respect for Mitch as he puts Lady Kong’s needs before his own desires. When Mitch looks at Amy, she nods toward him, a look of understanding in her eyes. Later in King Kong Lives, Amy performs heart surgery on King Kong. As Mitch watches the operation unfold, he is consistently shown grimacing or appearing worried. From the look in his eyes to the movements of his mouth, Mitch’s reactions throughout the surgery appear believable. The examples I provided illustrate how both Linda and Brian put genuine effort into their performances!
The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by 21 Laps Entertainment, Monkey Massacre, Netflix, and Upside Down Pictures.
Prior to watching and reviewing King Kong Lives, I had never seen a King Kong movie. Therefore, my knowledge of the King Kong Cinematic Universe is very limited. Based on what I do know about King Kong, he is, sometimes, presented as a threat to humans. This depiction was chosen for the 1976 film, with clips from that film shown at the beginning of King Kong Lives. With that said, I was really confused why the Atlantic Institute would spend the time, energy, and money (seven million dollars to be exact) to keep King Kong alive? I was hoping an explanation would be provided through the dialogue. But, unfortunately, no explanations were included in the script. It seems like the creative team behind King Kong Lives expected their audience to already know why certain events were happening. But when certain things happen, such as a change in attitude toward King Kong, explanations that make sense within the world of that film’s story need to be shared. Lack of explanations in King Kong Lives is my biggest criticism of the movie.
During their discussion of King Kong Lives, Roger recounts his experience seeing the movie at a theater. He tells Gene about a swinging door located behind the theater’s back row of seats. The children who attended Roger’s screening of King Kong Lives found that swinging door more entertaining than the film itself because, according to Roger, “there was nothing on the screen that was even slightly entertaining to them”. Though I found the film interesting enough to keep me invested in the story, I can understand why those children would find the movie boring. When someone chooses to watch a King Kong picture, they typically expect King Kong to be destructive. While he was destructive in King Kong Lives, those moments were far and few between. From my limited knowledge of the King Kong Cinematic Universe, King Kong Lives tells a different kind of story from previous films, including its directly connected predecessor from 1976. I appreciate this newer approach to the lore of King Kong instead of repeating the same ideas. On the other hand, however, it seems like King Kong Lives’s creative team may have told a story that felt too different to the audience.
Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television
As a movie blogger, I totally understand Roger’s and Gene’s decision to refuse DEG’s request of showing clips of King Kong Lives on their Chicago show, but not their national show. In fact, I commend the critics for sticking to their morals and integrity. But DEG’s refusal to have clips of their film shown on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies did more harm to their film than good. Not only did this decision deny Gene’s and Roger’s audience an opportunity to choose for themselves whether they wanted to see the movie, it also made King Kong Lives, in my opinion, seem worse than it was. To me, the 1986 picture is a fine, interesting-enough presentation that kept me invested in the story. It took the King Kong lore in a newer direction than its predecessors, even addressing unique ideas, such as what it would take to save King Kong. But the lack of explanations left me confused why certain events were happening. In fact, the more I think King Kong Lives, the more questions I have about the King Kong Cinematic Universe. Are the King Kongs in the series’ later films a direct descendent of King Kongs from earlier chapters? Is there an overarching story woven into the series? Which events are officially a part of canon? Though these questions won’t get answers in this review, there is one thing I will say. King Kong Lives is another movie I disagree with the critics on.
Welcome to my “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon! 1986 is the year when Eddie Munson, from Stranger Things, had planned on graduating from Hawkins High School. This is the reason why Eddie’s fans refer to 1986 as “Eddie’s year”. Because 2026 is the 40th anniversary of “Eddie’s year”, this blogathon is commemorating the occasion! Participants of The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon wrote movie reviews and articles celebrating this special anniversary. So, without further ado, let the The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon begin!
The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by 21 Laps Entertainment, Monkey Massacre, Netflix, and Upside Down Pictures.
Any fan of Eddie Munson from Stranger Things knows 1986 is “Eddie’s year”. So, when I dedicated this year’s blogathon to the fortieth anniversary of “Eddie’s year” and since it’s been a while since I last reviewed a movie for one of my blogathons, I decided to make up for lost time by reviewing a “best” and “worst” movie for my Comparing with the Critics series! When it came to selecting titles to write about, I took a different approach; asking myself, “What would Eddie choose”? Had he received an opportunity to make a guest appearance on Siskel & Ebert & the Movies, I’m not sure how many of Eddie’s choices would overlap with Gene Siskel’s and/or Roger Ebert’s year-end selections. Based on the films Roger and Gene did pick, however, I think I know what Eddie would choose. If Eddie’s story teaches anything, it’s that, sometimes, there’s more than meets the eye. His imagination and creativity not only works in his favor as a Dungeon Master, it’s also helped his friends during their time in the Upside Down. So, for the Best of 1986, I have selected The Fly! As for the Worst of 1986, I have chosen King Kong Lives. I believe Eddie would see Roger’s and Gene’s warnings about the movie as a challenge.
Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television
Are you a fan of Eddie Munson from Stranger Things? Would you like to learn more about 1986? Do ’80s movies make you feel nostalgic? Then The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon is the event for you! Because the blogathon is taking place between June 6th-9th, you still have time to join! There’s also many topics to choose from, as I tried to make the event’s theme as broad as possible. If you’re interested in participating in The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon, click on the link below to learn more about the blogathon.
The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by 21 Laps Entertainment, Monkey Massacre, Netflix, and Upside Down Pictures.
When I chose the theme for this year’s double feature, I wanted to do something different from previous double features I’ve hosted by reviewing four films. With The Golden Girls featuring four main stars (Betty White, Estelle Getty, Bea Arthur, and Rue McClanahan) and with those stars possessing their own filmographies, I found a reason to seek out more of their projects. The movies I selected, Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Lost Valentine, Mask, Mame, and The Little Match Girl, are just as unique as the “golden girls” themselves! I was reminded why I like Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Lost Valentine when I decided to revisit it. Not only did I rediscover forgotten elements like the story’s humor, I, once again, came to appreciate what makes the film good. Mask was such a pleasant surprise because of how solid the movie is! It’s a biopic that brings something different to the genre’s table as well as genuineness. While I found both Mame and The Little Match Girl fine, I enjoyed the films for different reasons. Mame’s choreography and colorful palette helped make the film as entertaining as it was. Meanwhile, the cleverly written dialogue in The Little Match Girl allowed interactions between characters to be memorable. Now, as the sun sets on Miami and all the cheesecake has been eaten, I’d like to say thank you for being a friend of the Golden Double Double Feature!
The Golden Double Double Feature banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by Touchstone Television, Witt/Thomas/Harris Productions, 20th Television, and National Broadcasting Company (NBC)
Thanks for joining me for the fourth part of my Golden Double Double Feature! The majority of my review of The Little Match Girl is spoiler-free. If you’d like to learn more about why I chose this year’s double feature theme, you can check out the introduction in the link below.
The Little Match Girl(1987) poster created by NBC Productions and National Broadcasting Company (NBC).
1. Out of the movies from Rue McClanahan’s filmography, why did you select The Little Match Girl?
Unlike my decision to review Mask and Mame, I knew Rue starred in The Little Match Girl before selecting the movie for the Golden Double Double Feature. However, similar to when I wrote about Mame and Mask, I had heard of The Little Match Girl, but hadn’t seen it prior to this double feature review. I also knew the 1987 film was an adaptation of one of Hans Christian Andersen’s stories. When it comes to The Little Match Girl, though, I was surprised to learn how many times that story was adapted, including in the 1980s. Throughout my eight-year blogging journey, I have covered my fair share of Christmas movies, especially those of the made-for-TV variety. With all that said, I decided to give The Little Match Girl a chance!
2. In The Little Match Girl, Rue portrays Frances Dutton. How is Frances Dutton similar or different from Blanche?
From what I remember, Blanche Devereaux came from a wealthy, Southern background. This fact was brought up from time to time on The Golden Girls. Rue’s character in The Little Match Girl, Frances Dutton, comes from a wealthier background as well. However, Frances and Blanche possess a major difference. While Blanche is sassy, bold, and even flirty, Frances is the complete opposite. In The Little Match Girl, Frances is not only soft-spoken and tender-hearted, she also has a gentler persona. So, it was interesting to see Rue portray a very different character in the 1987 Christmas film.
3. According to The Little Match Girl’s poster, the movie is based on Hans Christian Andersen’s story of the same name. Is there any story from Hans’ bibliography you wish had received a film adaptation?
As I mentioned in answer number one, I was surprised to learn how many times The Little Match Girl was adapted, including in the 1980s. But there have been other stories from Hans’ bibliography that received adaptations, with The Little Mermaid being a notable one. Therefore, I’d like to see an adaptation of one of Hans’ more overlooked titles. For example, The Bell revolves around the mystery of a bell that only rings at sunset. With nature playing a major role in The Bell, an adaptation of this story could be presented as live-action, with the cinematography of natural landscapes stealing the show. However, I think The Bell could also work as an animated project.
4. Was there anything about The Little Match Girl you liked or didn’t like?
Screenwriting, including the dialogue, in made-for-TV movies can be hit or miss. In 1987’s The Little Match Girl, however, I found some of the dialogue cleverly written. One example is when Neville meets the titular little match girl, Molly. When he orders a coffee, Neville adds alcohol from his flask. After Molly asks Neville about the flask, he tells her its “courage”. Molly then responds by telling him, “It doesn’t come in a bottle”. Later in the film, Police Chief Murphy threatens to shut down a local newspaper if there are any reports of Fennel Street’s residents being forced to leave their homes before Christmas. Joseph, the newspaper’s editor, tells Murphy, “Why don’t you crawl back in my father’s pocket where you belong”? Murphy spats out his response to Joseph when he says, “Cause I’m too big”. Because of how clever these responses were, it made these interactions (and the scenes themselves) memorable.
Like I just mentioned in this review, Police Chief Murphy threatens to shut down a local newspaper if there are any reports of Fennel Street’s residents being forced to leave their homes before Christmas. Joseph wants to report this injustice in order to save the homes of Fennel Street’s residents. One tactic is placing Molly’s picture on the newspaper’s front page to draw empathy for the intended cause. But the movie’s viewers don’t know if this tactic worked. That’s because the viewers never see the newspaper with Molly’s picture on the front page in circulation. This is an example of telling instead of showing. It’s also an example of how the movie prioritizes the stories of the grown-up characters despite The Little Match Girl being the movie’s title.
5. As I mentioned in my review of 1974’s Mame, there were two Christmas episodes of The Golden Girls; ‘ ‘Twas the Nightmare Before Christmas’ and ‘Have Yourself a Very Little Christmas’. If the show had created more Christmas episodes, what type of story would you have proposed?
In The Golden Girls’ sixteenth episode from the fourth season, ‘Two Rode Together’, Dorothy and Sophia take a trip to Walt Disney World. This creative decision was part of a trend where various sitcoms would set aside a special episode showing their characters taking a Walt Disney World trip. Based on what I recall, I don’t think any of these episodes take place around Christmastime. So, I would propose an episode of The Golden Girls where the “golden girls” spend Christmas in Orlando. Walt Disney World at Christmastime has been known for its beautiful decorations. Plus, I can think of hilarious antics that could be written into a story like this. Since three of Walt Disney World’s parks were open during the lifespan of The Golden Girls, there are a variety of attractions that could be featured in the episode.
6. Did you develop any thoughts and/or questions while watching this film?
For this part of my review, I will spoil The Little Match Girl. If you have not seen this movie and are planning on watching it, skip ahead to question number seven.
Whenever Molly uses one of her matches, the flame sparkles. A snow angel she makes toward the beginning of the movie sparkles as well. In one scene, Molly explains to Joseph’s son, Jamie, that angels ride on shooting stars directly from Heaven if anyone in the world is in trouble. When Molly is discovered missing by Jamie’s grandpa, Haywood, it’s implied Molly was an angel the entire time. While this was an interesting plot twist, it’s a creative decision that left me with more questions than the movie was willing to provide answers for. Did Molly pass away prior to the events of The Little Match Girl or was she an angel that always existed in Heaven, similar to the angels from Touched by An Angel? How long has Molly been an angel? Has anyone known about Molly’s angel identity? The more I think about this plot twist, I more I believe there’s important lore missing from the script.
7. Throughout The Golden Girls, cheesecake became an iconic staple of the show. What would you say is the iconic staple of The Little Match Girl?
You would think I’d choose Molly’s matches, as the 1987 film is titled The Little Match Girl. But I’m selecting a candle instead. The residents of Fennel Street organize a protest at the Dutton family house, in an effort to save their homes. During the protest, they carry candles, with one of the protesters’ candles being lit by Molly herself. Toward the end of The Little Match Girl, Molly lights the candles of an angel themed Christmas decoration. But beyond the movie itself, candles are sometimes associated with Christmas décor; from candles in windows to candles placed on Christmas trees. Light is also a major theme of the Christmas holiday, such as the season of Advent and the Nativity Star. I’d even say light is a major theme of The Little Match Girl.
8. The Little Match Girl is a made-for-TV film. How does this movie compare to other Christmas television movies you’ve seen and even reviewed?
Looking back on the Christmas television films I’ve seen and reviewed, some of those titles featured at least one younger protagonist. But if I had to compare The Little Match Girl to another made-for-TV movie I’ve covered, it would have to be the 1999 film, If You Believe. Both stories possess a younger protagonist whose actions significantly impact the life of at least one of the story’s key characters. If You Believe and The Little Match Girl contain a sense of magical realism. These movies share the flaw of telling instead of showing as well.
9. The Little Match Girl was released on December 21st, 1987 (within the third season of The Golden Girls). Do you think the show had any impact on the movie?
In my review of Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Lost Valentine, I speculated why the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection may not have cast any of the “golden girls” (Rue, Bea, Estelle, and Betty) in their movies during The Golden Girls’ lifespan. One of those speculated reasons was how Hallmark Hall of Fame and The Golden Girls were broadcast on separate networks. According to IMDB, 1987’s The Little Match Girl was not only produced by NBC Productions, it was also distributed by National Broadcasting Company (NBC). As I mentioned in my Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Lost Valentine review, The Golden Girls aired on NBC. With that said, I don’t believe it was a coincidence for The Little Match Girl’s creative team to consider casting Rue in their movie.
10. After watching The Little Match Girl, is there anything you can take away from your movie-viewing experience?
Like I said in answer number one, I have covered my fair share of Christmas movies throughout my eight-year blogging journey, especially those of the made-for-TV variety. When it comes to 1987’s The Little Match Girl, I found the movie fine and serviceable. While there were strengths within the film, such as the acting performances and the cleverly written dialogue, the movie’s flaws held it back from being a stronger presentation. Despite the movie’s title being The Little Match Girl, the script prioritizes the stories of the grown-up characters. This creative decision kind of makes the title seem misleading, as I expected the story to focus more on the titular little match girl, Molly. Even though the plot twist was interesting, it left behind more questions than the movie was willing to provide answers for. In my opinion, it feels like important lore may have been omitted from the script. Reflecting on The Little Match Girl, as well as other Christmas films I’ve seen and reviewed, I can think of titles that are stronger than the 1987 picture. However, I can also think of movies that are weaker than The Little Match Girl.
The Golden Double Double Feature banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. Original image created by Touchstone Television, Witt/Thomas/Harris Productions, 20th Television, and National Broadcasting Company (NBC)
My first review for my Comparing with the Critics series was the 1976 picture, Network. Not only is this one of William Holden’s films, I reviewed Network for the 6th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration. Two years later, I’m doing it again; participating in the 7th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration and selecting one of William’s movies for my Comparing with the Critics series. As the title states, that film is 1980’s When Time Ran Out…. I had heard of this movie because it was featured in Sneak Previews’ ‘The Worst Movies of 1980’ episode. In this episode, the overarching theme, according to Gene Siskel, was examining “some of the year’s lousiest films in terms of what they reveal about what’s wrong with the American film industry”. When it came to When Time Ran Out…, the problem was “some producers, Irwin Allen being one of them, who have a very low opinion of the audience. They think they can fool the audience and rope them into the same story over and over again”. I will admit I don’t watch as many “disaster” movies as Gene and Roger Ebert did when they were hosting their show. But based on the “disaster” films I’ve seen (and even reviewed), I don’t believe When Time Ran Out… should be considered one of the worst movies of 1980.
When Time Ran Out… poster created by International Cinema and Warner Bros.
A Lifetime movie I remember liking is 2009’s The Christmas Hope. Though it’s been years since I’ve seen the film, I do recall the interconnectivity between the characters, with each connection becoming more intriguing as the story went on. Interconnectivity between characters is an aspect from When Time Ran Out… I liked. When the story starts, the cast of characters are introduced living their own lives and dealing with their own situations. William Holden portrays Shelby Gilmore, a man who owns multiple hotels, including the Kalaleu Gilmore. Paul Newman also stars in When Time Ran Out… as Hank Anderson, whose work on oil rigs leads him to suspect a local volcano may erupt. Hank’s story connects with Shelby’s story because Hank warns Shelby, as well as Shelby’s business partner, Bob Spangler, about the volcano’s potential eruption. Each character’s connection, along with the cast’s on-screen chemistry, kept me invested in the movie while waiting for the eruption of the volcano. I was not only interested in how each character’s path crossed, but also how the volcano and its aftermath would affect the characters.
Gene claims the problem with When Time Ran Out… is how “some producers” “think they can fool the audience and rope them into the same story over and over again”. As I admitted in this review’s introduction, I don’t watch as many “disaster” movies as Gene and Roger Ebert did when they were hosting their show. However, based on my experience watching When Time Ran Out…, I noticed how the story prioritized the characters’ reactions to the disaster instead of the spectacle of the disaster itself. While the erupting volcano is shown on screen, it isn’t sensationalized like one might expect from a “disaster” movie. The decision to prioritize characters’ reactions shows viewers how natural disasters can indeed have consequences. Some characters get hurt and even die, stressing how no one is invincible while nature has a mind of its own. The threat of a volcanic eruption alone can impact multiple industries, ranging from hospitability, natural resources, and scientific. When the story of When Time Ran Out… progressed, various responses to the eruption were on display. One example is how some of Kalaleu Gilmore’s guests are so desperate to leave the island, they board a helicopter and try to fly it themselves. Everything I just said made this “disaster” picture feel realistic.
During the segment about When Time Ran Out… in Sneak Previews’ ‘The Worst Movies of 1980’ episode, Roger says “the whole movie is made out of basic scenes we’ve seen dozens of times before”. Meanwhile, Gene criticizes the repetitive nature of When Time Ran Out…’s script as “cruel manipulation”, elaborating by saying “when the audience walks into a film like this and they see that there’s nothing there but that same old formula, I think they feel burned, I think they feel bad about movies in general.” While I agree with Gene and Roger that When Time Ran Out… possesses flaws, I disagree about the types of flaws the movie contains. I understand witnessing the connectivity between characters gave the script build-up to the inevitable volcanic eruption. However, the eruption itself took place at about the film’s halfway point, forcing the audience to wait half the movie for the eruption to happen. This creative decision also caused some of the characters’ resolutions to be wrapped up a little too conveniently for the sake of the run-time. I wish some more of the characters’ reactions to the eruption’s aftermath had been included in the script.
Comparing with the Critics banner created by me, Sally Silverscreen. TV show title cards created by WTTW National Productions, WTTW, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), Lifetime Television, Tribune Entertainment, Buena Vista Television, and Disney-ABC Domestic Television
In When Time Ran Out…, Shelby talks to Bob about “son of a famous father syndrome”, sharing how he always felt like he was under his father’s thumb. When his father passed away, Shelby says he felt a huge weight lifted off his shoulders. But when he found success, he believed it was hollow because his father wasn’t there to witness his success. Bob disagrees with Shelby’s view of success, saying how sweet success is. I find this discussion between Shelby and Bob ironic, as it takes place in a film Roger claimed was “a major box office flop”. When it comes to When Time Ran Out… itself, I found the film fine, intriguing, and interesting-enough. Due to the connections between the characters, I was invested in how they responded to the eruption and its aftermath. I also appreciate the creative team’s decision to adopt a more realistic approach to the eruption. That creative choice provides a strong reminder how unpredictable nature can sometimes be. Yes, When Time Ran Out… has its flaws. But because I don’t consistently watch “disaster” films, I didn’t pick up on the repetitiveness Roger and Gene did. Similar to when I reviewed Network, the 1980 picture is one I disagree with Gene and Roger on.
For this year’s Favourite TV Show Episode Blogathon, I decided to talk about a show I haven’t discussed in a while. Reflecting on the programs covered on 18 Cinema Lane, I made a surprising discovery. The last time I reviewed any episodes of Murder, She Wrote was all the way back in 2020, when I wrote about Van Johnson’s episodes of the show. To make up for lost time, I selected three episodes of Murder, She Wrote for the 12th Annual Favourite TV Show Episode Blogathon! But, for this year’s event, the episodes I chose correlate with the dates of the blogathon. In fact, each Murder, She Wrote episode is reviewed in order of the blogathon’s dates. Also, each episode review will cover what I liked about the episode, what I didn’t like about the episode, the mystery itself, the other factors from the episode, and my overall thoughts. So, now let’s begin this review of these episodes of Murder, She Wrote!
Name: The Dream Team
Season 11, Episode 18
Premiere Date: March 19th, 1995
Screenshot of ‘The Dream Team’ title card taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
What I liked about this episode:
Any time I’ve reviewed television show episodes, I have rarely addressed the dialogue as a strength of the episode. But in the case of this Murder, She Wrote episode, ‘The Dream Team’, the dialogue was cleverly written! Before attending a presentation about a development project from a company called Marina Americana, Jessica gives Seth some books about lighthouses. These books are intended to help Seth craft a strong argument for saving Cabot Cove’s lighthouse, which is an important landmark in the town. When Jessica brings up how the books could provide information for the hook of Seth’s argument, Seth says, “The hook I showed you last night will do just fine, thank you”. Sheriff Mort Metzger replies to Seth, “Maybe for the worm hanging from it”. At the presentation, Jessica’s nephew, Grady, reveals his colleague, J. Peter Carmody, plans to restore the lighthouse. Caught off-guard by this revelation, Metzger says, “Yeah, I think he [J. Peter Carmody] was rendered speechless by the Doc’s party trick; putting both feet in his mouth at the same time”. Along with being cleverly written, these quotes I brought up were hilarious!
What I didn’t like about this episode:
The beginning of a typical Murder, She Wrote episode will take the time to establish the characters and their potential motives. This creative decision gives the audience options in figuring out whodunit, as well as provide the story with red herrings. The establishment of characters and their motives in ‘The Dream Team’ took about half the episode. With the titular murder taking place at the episode’s halfway point, the audience is only given half the episode to help Jessica solve the case. Personally, I prefer stories that give viewers more time to figure the mystery out.
The mystery itself:
There are two interconnected stories in ‘The Dream Team’; the murder of a developer’s wife and the Marina Americana development project. But in this almost hour-long episode, more emphasis was placed on whether the development project would come to fruition. It also doesn’t help how, as I mentioned earlier, the audience was only given half the episode to figure the mystery out. In some Murder, She Wrote episodes, the guilty party will be revealed based on at least one small detail most viewers may miss. Though this was the case for ‘The Dream Team’, several smaller clues led up to the culprit’s reveal. Overall, I wish there was a balance between both stories and the audience was given more time to help Jessica solve the case.
The other factors from this episode:
As Seth explains his thoughts on the Marina Americana development project, Jessica expresses her impatience over how long Seth takes to get to his point. Seth then tells Jessica, “Now that you’re living in New York, you’re becoming as impatient as the rest of those people down there”. In several episodes of Murder, She Wrote, Jessica lived in New York, though this new living arrangement was only meant to be temporary. By having Seth address this part of Murder, She Wrote’s story, it was a good way to incorporate the show’s continuity.
While we’re on the subject of Seth, I want to address his desire to save Cabot Cove’s lighthouse. At the beginning of ‘The Dream Team’, Seth is against the Marina Americana development project because he fears the lighthouse will be destroyed. He goes so far as to create flyers in an attempt to make the developers feel guilty about risking the lighthouse’s future. However, the amount of time, money, and resources Seth puts toward those flyers could have gone toward actually restoring the lighthouse he claims to care about. If anything, Seth prioritizes talking about the problem instead of trying to solve it.
Grady is one of the developers of the Marina Americana development project. But when the fruition of the project is in jeopardy, so is Grady’s job. When he shares this information with Jessica, he says, “It’s so damn frustrating. I really believed in this project and, well obviously, so did a lot of other people”. What Grady said brings up an excellent point about how a neighborhood’s residents are not the only people impacted by any change within a neighborhood. In fact, I hadn’t come to this realization until I heard Grady’s quote.
My overall thoughts:
The way I feel about ‘The Dream Team’ is similar to how I feel about ‘The Legacy of Borbey House’; disappointment that Cabot Cove’s maintenance received precedence over the mystery itself. Also, like ‘The Legacy of Borbey House’, the entire first half of ‘The Dream Team’ was devoted to establishing characters and their potential motives. This left only half the episode for the audience to help Jessica solve the mystery. However, I did find the dialogue cleverly written. The examples I provided in this review were hilarious as well. I not only liked the inclusion of Murder, She Wrote’s continuity, I also found Grady’s quote thought-provoking. What I also found thought-provoking was the idea of Cabot Cove changing. As I watched ‘The Dream Team’, I thought about what would happen if Cabot Cove were a real town. Would it adapt with the times or would it stay frozen in time?
Screenshot of ‘Dead to Rights’ title card taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
What I liked about this episode:
In this episode of Murder, She Wrote, ‘Dead to Rights’, Jessica’s former researcher, Dana Ballard, is accused of murdering her new boss. A major reason for this accusation is how she constantly lies. Dana goes so far as to impersonate Jessica, as well as change Jessica’s answering machine message, in order to be selected for a new job. But one person who sees past Dana’s lying is Missy, the wife of Dana’s new boss, Ethan. During a conversation between the two women, Dana shows off a sweet, even a bit naïve, personality, acting as if she’s oblivious of Missy’s suspicions. When Missy confronts Dana about her suspicions, Dana effortlessly transforms into an irritated, manipulative woman. Because of the screenwriting and Molly Hagan’s (the actress who portrayed Dana) performance, the creative team behind ‘Dead to Rights’ did a good job at establishing Dana as a potential suspect. However, I would like to point out the script provides a reason for Dana’s lying; “borderline psychosis” (as Jessica put it).
What I didn’t like about this episode:
As I just mentioned in this review, Dana is accused of murdering her new boss, Ethan. While this gave Jessica a personal reason for solving the case, the majority of the story focused on proving Dana’s innocence. ‘Dead to Rights’ did a good job at establishing characters and their potential motives. However, this build-up became an afterthought as the episode progressed due to the aforementioned focus on the truth about Dana. Similar to ‘The Dream Team’, the guilty party in ‘Dead to Rights’ was revealed based on a small detail. Had the script provided a balance between proving Dana’s innocence and figuring out who was guilty, the story might have been stronger.
The mystery itself:
Like I’ve already stated in my review, most of the story focused on proving Dana’s innocence. I also stated how the mystery’s guilty party was revealed based on a small detail. Another aspect of the mystery I’d like to bring up is how Jessica works with a lawyer named Vincent to solve the case. Typically, Murder, She Wrote shows Jessica collaborating with police officers, detectives, or investigators when it comes to catching whodunit. So, seeing Jessica engage with the more legal side of the mystery genre was a good change of pace for her!
The other factors from this episode:
Some scenes in ‘Dead to Rights’ show a large train display the length of the entire wall in Ethan’s office. This train display not only surrounds a miniature town, a large painted backdrop of a desert landscape covered the wall behind the train display. Even though the train display and everything surrounding it was impressive, its inclusion in ‘Dead to Rights’ was random. None of the characters acknowledged the display itself. Plus, Ethan’s reason for the display being in his office was never provided.
Toward the beginning of the episode, on-screen text reveals how most of the story takes place in Portland, Maine. But in an establishing shot of a hotel’s exterior (implying that’s the hotel Jessica is staying at), Maine’s state flag is not displayed on the hotel. Instead, the state flags for Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. are prominently featured on the hotel’s exterior. In past reviews of Murder, She Wrote, I have complimented the show’s creative team for its location scouting because of how visually appealing the locations themselves have been. So, I’m surprised this film-making mistake went overlooked.
During Jessica’s and Vincent’s investigation, Vincent turns to a woman named Wanda for assistance. A few scenes show Vincent and Jessica visiting Wanda at her home. Her office/living room is filled with a collection of décor; from a cylindrical fish tank to a colorful pinball game. Because Wanda had such a quirky personality, the creative team behind ‘Dead to Rights’ did a good job utilizing these pieces of décor to paint a picture of who Wanda is. The décor itself also made Wanda’s home look like a cool space!
My overall thoughts:
At best, ‘Dead to Rights’ is an ok episode. But, at worst, the story was weaker than I had hoped. So much emphasis was placed on proving Dana’s innocence, the build-up of the characters and their potential motives became an afterthought as the episode went on. What I also found frustrating was how the guilty party was revealed based on a small detail I think most viewers might overlook. However, there are aspects of ‘Dead to Rights’ I liked. The combination of Molly Hagan’s performance and the screenwriting effectively established Dana Ballard as a potential suspect. The episode’s creative team did a good job showcasing Wanda’s personality through the set design. However, there were some questionable creative choices, like Ethan’s train display and the lack of Maine state flags on the hotel. Now I wonder what other production errors from Murder, She Wrote actually appeared on the show?
Rating: A 3 out of 5
As I point out in this screenshot, the on-screen text clearly states most of the story takes place in Portland, Maine. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
In this establishing shot, these flags would indicate the hotel is not located near Maine. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
Name: No Accounting for Murder
Season 3, Episode 19
Premiere Date: March 22nd, 1987
Screenshot of ‘No Accounting for Murder’ title card taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
What I liked about this episode:
One of the strengths of Murder, She Wrote has been the set design. This episode, ‘No Accounting for Murder’ is a perfect example of this statement! The accounting firm Grady works for is one of the most opulent looking businesses I’ve ever seen in entertainment media. The office of a colleague named Paul Carlisle boasts stunning design choices, including gold wallpaper that sparkled in the light, a white upholstered office chair, and gold décor. Even the accounting firm’s lobby fit the opulent style found in Paul’s office! Deep wood pillars and window frames provide a nice contrast to the light-colored carpet and wallpaper. Similar to Paul’s office, the sofa in the lobby was also upholstered. A gold table lamp adds a touch of elegance to the space. Once again, the creative team behind Murder, She Wrote knew what they were doing when it came to designing this particular set!
What I didn’t like about this episode:
When I reviewed ‘The Dream Team’ and ‘Dead to Rights’, I talked about how the characters and their potential motives were established within the story. But in ‘No Accounting for Murder’, some of the characters aren’t given a potential motive. The characters that do have a potential motive receive it as the story went along instead of toward the beginning of the episode. What also didn’t help was how the culprit was revealed because of a small detail mentioned by one of the characters. The fact only some characters were given a potential motive caused the script to lack red herrings.
The mystery itself:
There are two mysteries within ‘No Accounting for Murder’; the murder of one of Grady’s colleagues, Ralph Whitman, and the “ghost” inhabiting the accounting firm. Unlike the stories in ‘The Dream Team’, the stories in ‘No Accounting for Murder’ didn’t feel connected. In fact, each story felt like it belonged in their own separate episode. Personally, I thought the “ghost” story was more intriguing, as there were more mysterious elements to it. By the episode’s conclusion, however, I was disappointed by the unsatisfactory resolution of that story.
The other factors from this episode:
In ‘No Accounting for Murder’, Jessica works alongside Lieutenant Timothy Hanratty while trying to solve the case. In a car ride through New York City, Timothy brings up some of Jessica’s past cases and even wonders why she hasn’t received a gold badge from her own police department yet. Jessica replies by saying, “It’s just a quirk of mine, really. The way I see things, you know?” When Jessica said this, I thought about other detectives, both amateur and professional, from entertainment media. They seem to possess a gift for observation, picking up on little details buried among facts, clues, and speculation. What these characters bring to their respective tables is just extraordinary. Any time I’ve watched Murder, She Wrote, I believed Jessica just happened to be that good at being a detective. But after watching ‘No Accounting for Murder’, I now see Jessica possessing a brilliance, similar to other detectives from television and film.
Last year, when I reviewed the Touched by An Angel episode, ‘Sympathy for the Devil’, I brought up one of the most unintentionally funny moments of the show; when Ty Duncan called his son “Chicken Boy” as an insult. In the Murder, She Wrote, episode, ‘No Accounting for Murder’, an unintentionally funny moment took place during a confrontation between Paul and the murder victim’s wife, Lana Whitman. As an insult, Lana calls Paul an “arrogant horse’s batootie”. Because of how goofy this insult sounded, I ended up bursting out laughing.
While watching ‘No Accounting for Murder’, I spotted a familiar face among the cast of characters. Ron Masak portrayed a salesman named Marty Giles, who happened to be a potential suspect. Fans of Murder, She Wrote would recognize Ron as Sheriff Mort Metzger, one of the most beloved residents of Cabot Cove. This discovery was such a surprise for me, as I didn’t know Ron had portrayed other characters on Murder, She Wrote besides Metzger. This makes me wonder how often actors and actresses portrayed more than one character on Murder, She Wrote?
My overall thoughts:
Like ‘The Dream Team’ and ‘Dead to Rights’, ‘No Accounting for Murder’ was just ok. Even though I liked the accounting firm’s set design, I didn’t like how some of the characters didn’t receive a potential motive. I also didn’t like how the mystery stories felt disconnected. However, the “ghost” story was intriguing enough to keep me invested in the episode, despite its resolution being unsatisfactory. ‘No Accounting for Murder’ has made me see Jessica in a slightly different way, leaving me appreciative of what she has to offer to the mystery genre’s table. It was nice to see Ron Masak appear in this episode as well. But as I look back on the episodes of Murder, She Wrote I’ve written about, ‘No Accounting for Murder’ will not be reflected on as fondly as other episodes.
Rating: A 3 out of 5
Design details like the sparkling gold wallpaper and the velvety green curtains add opulence to the set. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
The opulence I mentioned while discussing Paul’s office is also reflected in the lobby of the accounting firm. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
What are your thoughts on these episodes of Murder, She Wrote? Are there any episodes you’d like to see me review? Tell me in the comment section!
18 Cinema Lane 