Take 3: Playing with Fire (1985) Review

On July 4, 2026 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

Have you come across a movie that fell into your lap at the right place and time? That’s what happened before I reviewed the 1985 television film, Playing with Fire. This is a movie I not only had never seen, I had never heard of. But that changed when I listened to the Telehell Podcast episode, ‘The Top 8 Darkest Moments in Kids TV Cartoons’, as the upcoming episode about Playing with Fire was advertised at the end of the episode about the darkest moments from kids TV cartoons. According to Telehell’s episode, ‘Prologue of Fire (“Playing with Fire” PREVIEW)’, the 1985 movie was considered “lost media” up until 2024. As someone interested in the subject of “lost media”, I think it’s worth celebrating when a sought-after piece of “lost media” like Playing with Fire not only gets found, but is also archived on Youtube. For any “lost media” that was eventually found, however, one has to wonder why it was “lost” in the first place? In this review of Playing with Fire, I hope to find an answer to that question!

*Playing with Fire* (1985) poster created by New World Television, Zephyr Productions, and National Broadcasting Company (NBC)

Things I liked about the film:

Characters who subvert expectations: In Playing with Fire, Mike Harris is a friend of the protagonist, David. Based on his personality and appearance, Mike would be considered a “bully” in other ‘80s entertainment media. Throughout the 1985 movie, he teases David, pulls pranks, and doesn’t seem to take school seriously. But when David starts a fire in a trash can (because he was upset Mike wouldn’t play basketball with him), Mike pulled David away from the fire as well as encouraged David to pull their school’s fire alarm in order to get help. Mike even warns a fellow student named Pamela about David’s issues. These actions and choices help Mike subvert expectations, showing the audience how, despite his initial introduction, he actually cares about David’s wellbeing.

Entertainment media from the ‘80s that revolves around younger characters will sometimes feature a school principal who is a stickler for the rules. This creative decision may be made to either emphasize how much “cooler” the younger characters are or to show how the principal is holding the younger characters back from being themselves. But in Playing with Fire, Principal Sweeney subverts those aforementioned expectations. In a meeting between Principal Sweeney and David’s parents, Principal Sweeney acknowledges how intelligent David is. He’s also brutally honest about how it’s the responsibility of David’s parents to help David with his problems. Principal Sweeney even puts David on probation in an attempt to assist David in resolving his issues. Because of the subversion of expectations, Principal Sweeney is presented as a character who actually prioritizes the wellbeing of all his students.

The role of Fire Chief Walker: Throughout Playing with Fire, Fire Chief Walker tries to solve the mystery of who started a series of fires around his neighborhood. He wants David to admit he’s responsible for creating the fires. But Fire Chief Walker doesn’t want David to tell the truth in order to arrest him. Instead, he believes David is worth saving. Fire Chief Walker encourages David’s family to seek out family counselling, in order to help them solve their personal problems. He also encourages David to talk to his parents about how he feels, acknowledging how David is causing fires for a reason. It would have been easy for the creative team behind Playing with Fire to show their protagonist simply facing the consequences of his actions. Instead, the role of Fire Chief Walker shows how there is more than one way to solve a problem, with a way being getting to the heart of an issue to resolve it as well as preventing it from escalating.

Showing the reasons behind the behavior: The synopsis for Playing with Fire on IMDB gives David the label of “teenage arsonist”, due to how often he starts fires. The creative team behind the movie could have focused on David’s problematic behavior in order to give their project “shock value”. But instead, the script emphasizes the reasons behind the behavior. Sparks fly (literally and figuratively) due to David’s parents having marital issues. These issues cause a domino effect in David’s life, from failing grades at school to becoming easily angry. Starting fires is a manifestation of David’s unresolved feelings toward the problems within David’s parents’ marriage. By showing the reasons behind David’s behavior, the creative team behind Playing with Fire gives their audience a reason to empathize with David and his family.

Campfire with marshmellows and shooting stars image created by macrovector at freepik.com.

What I didn’t like about the film:

David as a static character: As I already mentioned in this review, showing the reasons behind David’s behavior gives the audience a reason to empathize with David and his family. But for the majority of Playing with Fire, David remained a static character. He doesn’t come to terms with his decision to start fires until an hour and forty-seven minutes into an hour and fifty-five-minute movie. This means he spends more time remaining bitter and angry about the problems in his life instead of transforming his life for the better over the course of the story. I recognize resolving problems like David’s takes time. But the static status of David held back his character development.

Fire related scenes feeling like PSAs: David starts multiple fires over the course of Playing with Fire. While these moments are frightening due to how dangerous they are, it felt like the story shifted to present a somewhat subtle PSA (public service announcement) about fire safety. One way this feeling is achieved is how causes of fire or safety measures are heavily emphasized. In a scene where David causes his first fire within his home, his mother asks him how the fire started. David explains how an overloaded electrical socket was likely the cause, followed by a close-up shot of an overloaded electrical socket. This approach to the fire related scenes made the overall movie kind of seem like an “afterschool special”.

The disappearance of Mike and Pamela: Like I mentioned earlier in this review, Mike is a friend of David who actually cares about his friend’s wellbeing. Pamela is also a friend of David, someone who kind of understands how David feels due to her parents’ divorce. Both of these characters were interesting. While Mike was subverting expectations, I wanted to see where Pamela’s character development went as the story progressed. But Pamela and Mike disappear from the story after about the film’s halfway point. Even though Pamela returns toward the end of Playing with Fire, she’s only on screen for almost four minutes. I wish Mike and Pamela played a more consistent role in the story, as they could have represented what to do if someone is afraid to speak up or doesn’t know how to help a loved one.

Breaking heart image created by Kjpargeter at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/broken-heart-valentine-background_1041991.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Kjpargeter – Freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

In the introduction of my review, I said I hoped to find an answer to the question of how Playing with Fire became “lost” in the first place. Now that I’ve seen the movie for myself, I think the movie just, simply, fell through the cracks of time. The way I feel about the 1985 movie is similar to the way I felt about the 1988 television film, Dance ‘Til Dawn; it didn’t go above and beyond enough to be considered good or great, but it wasn’t offensive enough to be bad or even disappointing. While there were elements of Playing with Fire I liked, such as how showing the reasons behind David’s behavior gives the audience a reason to empathize with David and his family, there were flaws that held the movie back from being a stronger picture. Some of these flaws include keeping David a static character for the majority of the movie, fire related scenes feeling like somewhat subtle PSAs, and Mike and Pamela disappearing from the story. At best, Playing with Fire is ok. It seems like the creative team behind the 1985 presentation had their hearts in the right place. But, at worst, the film feels like an hour and fifty-five-minute PSA about fire safety. There was even a video message at the end of Playing with Fire where Gary Coleman (the actor who portrayed David) explains the dangers of arson. With everything said, it’ll be interesting to hear what the consensus what will be for the movie on the Telehell Podcast.

Overall score: 6-6.1 out of 10

Have you seen Playing with Fire? Is there a piece of “lost media” you’d like to see become discovered? Let me know in the comment section!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

If you want to check out the podcast episodes I referenced in this review, visit the Youtube channel, Telehell Podcast, and listen to the episodes, ‘The Top 8 Darkest Moments in Kids TV Cartoons’ and ‘Prologue of Fire (“Playing with Fire” PREVIEW)’.

We Now Conclude Commencements of The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon

On June 14, 2026 By 18cinemalane2 Comments

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.

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

Comparing with the Critics – Best of 1986 – The Fly

On June 10, 2026June 11, 2026 By 18cinemalane4 Comments

This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.

Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

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!

Movie award essentials image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background psd created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

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 59^th 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.

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.

Scared audience image created by Katemangostar at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/terrified-friends-watching-horror-movie-in-cinema_1027311.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/people”>People image created by Katemangostar – Freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

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.

This review was brought to you by

Sally Silverscreen

Comparing with the Critics – Worst of 1986 – King Kong Lives

On June 9, 2026June 9, 2026 By 18cinemalane5 Comments

This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.

Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

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 Lives* poster 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!

Heart image created by Dashu83 at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Backgroundimage created by Dashu83 – Freepik.com</a>. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/happy-valentines-day-and-heart-card-with-happy-valentines-day-and-heart_1747001.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

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!

Heartbeat image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/medical-logo_763775.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/logo”>Logo vector created by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

Speaking of Brian Kerwin and Linda 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!

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.

Adhesive bandage image created by aopsan at freepik.com. Background photo created by aopsan – www.freepik.com

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.

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.

This review was brought to you by

Sally Silverscreen

We Now Commemorate 40 Years of “Eddie Munson’s Year” With The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon!

On June 6, 2026June 10, 2026 By 18cinemalane12 Comments

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 40^th 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!

18 Cinema Lane – Comparing with the Critics – Worst of 1986 – King Kong Lives, Comparing with the Critics – Best of 1986 – The Fly

Silver Screenings — Joyful Anarchy: Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)

MovieRob –– The Eddie’s Year Blogathon – Clockwise (1986), The Eddie’s Year Blogathon – Beverly Hills Madam (1986), The Eddie’s Year Blogathon – Link (1986), The Eddie’s Year Blogathon – The Whistle Blower (1986)

Moon in Gemini – The Eddie’s Year Blogathon: Ruthless People

The Wonderful World of Cinema – The Many Treasures of ‘True Stories’ (David Byrne, 1986)

Dubsism – Story Time With J-Dub Episode 18: How Some Guy Named Roy Ended Europe’s Longest War

Movies Meet Their Match – Movie Review: Labyrinth (1986)

Taking Up Room – Pretty In Pink

Comparing with the Critics – 1986 – Introduction

On May 28, 2026 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

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.

You Still Have Time to Join The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon!

On May 9, 2026 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

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 6^th-9^th, 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.

Celebrating 40 Years of “Eddie Munson’s Year” With The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon

Thank You for Being a Friend of The Golden Double Double Feature

On May 7, 2026 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

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!

Have fun on the lanai!

Sally Silverscreen

Take 3: The Little Match Girl (1987) Review (Golden Double Double Feature Part 4)

On May 2, 2026 By 18cinemalaneLeave a comment

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.

Announcing The Golden Double Double Feature!

*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.

Adorable Santa image created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/christmas-background-with-funny-santa_1324597.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

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 21^st, 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.

Thank you for being a friend!

Sally Silverscreen

Comparing with the Critics – Worst of 1980 – When Time Ran Out…

On April 17, 2026 By 18cinemalane9 Comments

This review is from my series, Comparing with the Critics. If you’d like to learn more about the series, click on the link below.

Introducing my new series, Comparing with the Critics!

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 6^th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration. Two years later, I’m doing it again; participating in the 7^th 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.

Image of Hawaiian poster created by Freepik at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/poster”>Poster vector created by freepik – http://www.freepik.com</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

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.

The 7th Golden Boy Blogathon: A William Holden Celebration banner created by Emily from The Flapper Dame and Virginie from The Wonderful World of Cinema

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.

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.

This review was brought to you by

Sally Silverscreen

1. Out of the movies from Rue McClanahan’s filmography, why did you select The Little Match Girl?

2. In The Little Match Girl, Rue portrays Frances Dutton. How is Frances Dutton similar or different from Blanche?

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?

4. Was there anything about The Little Match Girl you liked or didn’t like?

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?

6. Did you develop any thoughts and/or questions while watching this film?

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?

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?

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?

10. After watching The Little Match Girl, is there anything you can take away from your movie-viewing experience?

9. The Little Match Girl was released on December 21^st, 1987 (within the third season of The Golden Girls). Do you think the show had any impact on the movie?