Participating in this month’s Genre Grandeur feels, to me, like déjà vu. That’s because the theme is “Movies Featuring Reluctant Heroes”, the same theme (and month) when I participated in Genre Grandeur back in 2020. Back then, I reviewed the 2014 film, Captain Sabertooth and the Treasure of Lama Rama. That movie ended up being the most disappointing one I saw that year. For this month’s (and year’s) Genre Grandeur, I decided to select 2000’s Titan A.E., a title I actually have seen before. However, it’s been so long since I’ve seen it, I have vague recollections of the film. On my blog’s Year-Long Bingo Card, there are two squares labeled “Review an animated film” and “Science Fiction”. That, along with how Titan A.E. fits this month’s Genre Grandeur theme, gave me an excuse to revisit the 26-year-old movie!
Titan A.E. (2000) poster created by 20th Century Fox Animation, David Kirschner Productions, Fox Animation Studios, 20th Century Fox, and Walt Disney Studios
Things I liked about the film:
The use of color: As I said in the introduction of this review, I have vague recollections of Titan A.E. because it’s been so long since I’ve seen the film. Because of that, I’d forgotten how colorful this movie is. Using color, as well as understanding how to use color, can contribute to a movie’s visual appeal. With the creative team behind Titan A.E. possessing and executing that understanding, the film’s visual appeal was achieved! In one beautiful example, Cale and his team travel to a planet called Sesharrim. As they sail through the planet, they are greeted by a landscape of rich reds. The deep purple waters are right under bright yellow balloons of light. The combination of hues on Sesharrim created an environment promoting peace and serenity.
Incorporation of clever ideas: At the beginning of Titan A.E., Cale (the film’s protagonist and reluctant hero) receives a gold ring from his father before they part ways. Since that moment, Cale (as well as the audience) believes this ring is, simply, a treasured memento. But when he meets a character named Joseph Korso, Cale learns his ring provides a map to a life-saving spacecraft called Titan. Cale receives another surprise when he discovers his ring also contains a compass. The movie’s “MacGuffin” is Titan, as the characters spend most of the story looking for it. But in stories like Titan A.E., so much focus in placed on the “MacGuffin” itself, the bridge to the “MacGuffin” is usually overlooked. In the 2000 film, however, Cale’s ring becomes a tool used to help the characters reach their goal. The purpose of Cale’s ring was not only such a clever idea for a simple piece of jewelry, it’s just one example of the incorporation of clever ideas in Titan A.E.!
Blend of 2-D and 3-D animation: Titan A.E.’s claim to fame is blending 2-D animation (hand-drawn animation) and 3-D animation (computer created images). This major creative decision brought something unique to the table of animation, as well as film! What it also did was visually complement the story’s conflict. In the world of Titan A.E., the Drejs are a villainous group of aliens who want to control the universe by outnumbering the humans. The Drejs are presented as bright blue, 3-D animated characters, while the human characters were created with 2-D animation. In one example, after Cale meets Korso, the Drejs track Cale down. Because the majority of that scene is presented through 2-D animation, it forces the audience to focus on the Drejs, with their color and animated appearance highlighting their distinctness. But what that scene also shows is how the blend of 2-D and 3-D animation gave Titan A.E. visual depth.
The Drejs: Like I already mentioned in my review, the Drejs are a villainous group of aliens who want to outnumber the humans. But while I was watching Titan A.E., I never felt they were a strong threat to Cale and his team. That’s because the Drejs had such a limited presence in the film. In fact, their presence was so limited, it felt like the Drejs appeared in the movie for the sake of plot convenience. These flaws prevented the Drejs from being effective villains.
The run-time: According to IMDB, Titan A.E.’s run-time is an hour and thirty-four minutes. As I watched the movie, however, it felt a bit longer than its run-time. The reason for this is how a few scenes were unnecessarily drawn out. For example, a scene where Cale is driving a spacecraft in a non-dangerous environment seemed to last about five minutes. While the scene contained plot development, most of the scene felt like padding. Had that scene been trimmed down, its intended point could have been reached sooner. The script could have been a bit tighter as well.
Inconsistent character development: In any story, character development is an important component. This part of storytelling allows the audience to truly get to know the characters, which gives them a reason to stay invested in what the characters are doing on screen. When it came to the human characters in Titan A.E., I thought the character development was well done, as I learned more about them as the movie went on. But when it came to the alien characters, like Gune and Stith, I felt like I only became familiar with them. The inconsistent character development in Titan A.E. not only prevented me from truly getting to know every member of Cale’s team, the camaraderie between these characters wasn’t as strong as it could have been.
When a movie performs poorly at the box office, one of the potential reasons may be it was “ahead of its time”. If someone wanted to apply this reasoning to Titan A.E., I’d buy that reasoning at full price. As I mentioned in this review, the 2000 presentation is known for blending 2-D animation (hand-drawn animation) and 3-D animation (computer created images). Even though this creative risk hurt the film’s financial earnings, it did show the world the possibilities animation (let alone filmmaking) had to offer. It also showed how 2-D and 3-D animation can complete one another instead of compete against each other. Though looking at how the cinematic landscape has changed in twenty-six years, 3-D animation has become so common, 2-D animation has ended up becoming scarce. As for my opinion of Titan A.E., I thought it was a fine, interesting enough movie. But for all the reasons I brought up, I believe this film deserves more love and appreciation.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen Titan A.E.? Which underrated animated movie do you wish received more love and appreciation? Let me know in the comment section!
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.
April’s theme for the Genre Grandeur blogathon is “Courtroom Dramas”. Upon researching eligible titles for this review, I came across one I have heard of before. That title was 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution! Though this adaptation was recommended to me by Emily (from The Flapper Dame) and Eric Binford (from Diary of a Movie Maniac), it’s not the first time I’ve seen (and reviewed) any Witness for the Prosecution adaptation. Back in 2022, I wrote about 1982’s version from the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection. In that review, I criticized Wilfred (the film’s protagonist) spending more time on the story’s court case than the mystery wrapped around it. I believed that creative decision decreased the audience’s engagement. This is one of the reasons why I thought Hallmark Hall of Fame’s adaptation of Witness for the Prosecution was just ok. But will I feel similarly about the 1957 version of this story? In order to solve this mystery, you’ll have to read my review!
The acting: When I wrote about the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation of Witness for the Prosecution, I praised the acting performances of Diana Rigg, Deborah Kerr, and Beau Bridges. Not only did Beau and Deborah utilize a variety of expressions and emotions, Diana’s portrayal of Christine was consistent. The acting performances in the 1957 adaptation of Witness for the Prosecution were also a highlight! But if I could use one word to describe them, it would be “animated”. Throughout 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution, Wilfrid (the movie’s protagonist) is a grumpy man who stubbornly likes to do things his way. However, the strength of Charles Laughton’s portrayal prevented Wilfrid from becoming a one-dimensional character. In a scene where Wilfrid rides on an elevating stair chair, Wilfrid smiles with a sneaky look in his eyes, scheming a way to foil Miss Plimsoll’s plans. Meanwhile, Tyrone Power gave a very well-rounded portrayal of Leonard Vole! One of the best examples of this statement is when Leonard finds out about his inheritance from the murder victim, Emily Jane French. Leonard’s eyes become very wide as he excitedly reacts to his new-found wealth. This excitement can also be heard in his voice. Then, without hesitation, Leonard’s face falls as he realizes this recently discovered information gives him a motive for murder. Concern replaced excitement in Leonard’s voice and fear even found a reason to exist in his eyes.
As I just mentioned in this review, Diana Rigg’s portrayal of Christine in Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Witness for the Prosecution was consistent. This was also the case for Marlene Dietrich’s portrayal of Christine in 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution. But like I said in this review, the cast’s performances in the 1957 movie were “animated”. That animation was woven into Marlene’s portrayal as well. Throughout Witness for the Prosecution, Christine carried herself with a poised confidence, refusing to let anything get to her. A perfect example is when she outsmarted Wilfrid’s “monocle test”. During Leonard’s trial, however, Christine’s emotions burst into the courtroom. Sometimes, she yelled out her answers with an intensely serious look on her face. There was even a scene where tears spilled from her eyes. Marlene’s performance added enjoyment to my movie-viewing experience!
The set design: One of the strengths from 1982’s Witness for the Prosecution was the set design. In my review of that film, I described the court room as well as Wilfred’s office, with the latter being my favorite set in the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation. But in the 1957 version of Witness for the Prosecution, my favorite set was Emily Jane French’s living room! The room consisted of two closely situated spaces; a sitting area by a large window and a sitting area by a fireplace. The sitting area by the window featured at least one wicker chair, a hanging plant, and a magazine rack. Meanwhile, the sitting area by the fireplace proudly displayed African artifacts on the walls. The white walls surrounding the living room and the décor’s lighter hues helped the artifacts stand out. Mosaic tiles with a flower design added daintiness to the fireplace itself. Two matching wicker cabinets and a transparent shelf provided storage to the living room. The lower ceiling in the living room helped incorporate a sense of coziness. With everything I described, I wish Emily’s living room was featured more in 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution.
Showing as well as telling: A flaw I talked about in my review for Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Witness for the Prosecution was how dialogue heavy the story was. The emphasis of telling over showing left me disappointed. But this flaw was remedied in Witness for the Prosecution from 1957! Flashbacks presented how Leonard met Emily and Christine, which added context to the dialogue. Later in 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution, Wilfrid discovers evidence that could impact Leonard’s case. This discovery is actually shown on screen, with the mystery surrounding who gave Wilfrid the evidence and where that person got the evidence from providing intrigue. A handful of Wilfrid’s pills cleverly show the progression of time during Leonard’s case. Though the 1957 version of Witness for the Prosecution relies on dialogue, the creative decision to show and tell made the movie more engaging than Hallmark Hall of Fame’s adaptation!
Prolonged involvement: In my review of Hallmark Hall of Fame’s adaptation of Witness for the Prosecution, I was critical of Wilfred’s inactive detective role. The 1982 film placed more emphasis on showing Wilfred resolving Leonard’s case than solving the mystery surrounding the case. Witness for the Prosecution from 1957 still places emphasis on showing Wilfrid resolving Leonard’s case. But this time, he doesn’t officially get involved in Leonard’s case until about forty minutes into the hour and fifty-six-minute film. I understand any mystery movie, let alone a courtroom drama, requires build-up. However, in my opinion, the build-up in 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution lasted too long.
An underutilized character: Before Wilfrid officially becomes Leonard’s solicitor, Leonard meets Wilfrid with his solicitor, Mr. Mayhew. If Mr. Mayhew hadn’t given Wilfrid the information about Leonard’s case, Wilfrid would have never known about Leonard’s case. But after Wilfrid becomes Leonard’s solicitor, Mr. Mayhew disappears from the story. I was disappointed by his underutilization because he could have, somehow, continued contributing to Leonard’s case. This underutilization also does a disservice to the actor who portrayed Mr. Mayhew, Henry Daniell.
A predictable detail: Leonard is questioned about Christine when he first meets Wilfrid. During this questioning, Leonard shares an important detail about her that affects the movie’s later events. But as soon as Leonard brought this detail up, I knew how it would impact the story’s outcome. In fact, I saw a plot twist coming because that aforementioned detail about Christine was revealed earlier in the movie. Due to how soon Wilfrid (and the audience) found out about Christine’s detail, it kind of made the movie’s ending predictable.
In the introduction of this review, I asked if I’d feel similarly about 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution as I did Hallmark Hall of Fame’s version of the story. Now that I’ve seen (and reviewed) both adaptations, I can honestly say I like the 1957 film over the one from 1982! One improvement was the creative decision to show as well as tell, which added intrigue and engagement to the movie. It also helps how the purpose of Wilfrid’s “magical monocle” was brought up in the dialogue. Witness for the Prosecution from 1957 shares some of the same strengths as the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, such as the acting performances and the set design. However, the 1957 version of the story has its flaws. Because of how soon a detail about Christine was revealed, it kind of made the film’s ending predictable. I not only wasn’t a fan of how underutilized Mr. Mayhew became, I also didn’t like how Wilfrid got involved in Leonard’s case about forty minutes into the hour and fifty-six-minute movie. I’m glad I was recommended the 1957 production of Witness for the Prosecution! It gave me another chance to witness a different approach to one of Agatha Christie’s stories.
Overall score: 7.3-7.4 out of 10
Have you seen 1957’s Witness for the Prosecution? Are there any adaptations of Agatha Christie’s work you’d like to see me review? Please tell me in the comment section!
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!
I will admit I wasn’t familiar with Kenneth Williams as an actor before joining the Carry On Kenny! 100 Years of Kenneth Williams Blogathon. But like other blogathons I’ve participated in, I saw the event as an opportunity to expand my cinematic horizons. As I looked through Kenneth’s filmography, I discovered he starred in the 1984 made-for-tv movie, Aladdin and the Forty Thieves. Since I cover my fair share of television films, including those from the 1980s, I chose this production as my blogathon entry! When I recently wrote about Brigadoon, I said the fantasy genre was underrepresented on 18 Cinema Lane. I also said Brigadoon itself was a fine, pleasant presentation. With Aladdin and the Forty Thieves being the second movie from the fantasy genre to be reviewed this year, it almost seems like I’m making up for lost time. And now that I’ve seen the 1984 television film, I can say whether its stronger or weaker than Brigadoon.
Since Aladdin and the Forty Thieves doesn’t have an offical movie poster, I have to use this title card for my review. Title card created by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Things I liked about the film:
Kenneth Williams’ performance: Since Kenneth Williams is the reason why I chose to review Aladdin and the Forty Thieves, I’ll talk about his portrayal of Mustapha Drink. In the 1984 movie, Mustapha is a storyteller who shares a tale about two Mandarins named Wing and Wong. Throughout this tale, Kenneth utilizes facial expressions and vocal inflictions to bring the story to life. He even gives the characters distinct voices to add memorability to the tale. Even though Mustapha appeared in only one scene, Kenneth did a good job, acting wise, with the material he was given. I, honestly, wish Kenneth had been the narrator of Aladdin’s story, presenting the illusion he was reading a storybook to the audience.
The costume design: While we’re on the subject of Kenneth’s portrayal of Mustapha Drink, I want to talk about the movie’s costume design. As he told the tale of Wing and Wong, Mustapha wore a long blue jacket with gold trim and detailing. Whether he walked or sat, the jacket sparkled in the light. Mustapha also wore a long red gown boasting an intricate gold design. The elegance of his outfit allowed Mustapha to stand out, even though he appeared in only one scene. This is just one example of the attention to detail and effort that went into the costume design of Aladdin and the Forty Thieves!
Certain ways Aladdin’s story was adapted: I must confess the adaptation of Aladdin’s story I’m most familiar with is the Disney animated picture from 1992. With that said, it was interesting to see how Aladdin and the Forty Thieves adapted Aladdin’s story compared to Disney’s production. The 1984 film features two genies, Genie of the Lamp and Genie of the Ring. Though I think it was a missed opportunity not to have the genies interact with one another, it was still an interesting creative decision to have more than one genie solve the characters’ problems. Toward the end of Aladdin and the Forty Thieves, Aladdin and The Princess Balroubador receive a magic carpet as a wedding gift. From what I remember of the 1992 movie, the magic carpet was more of a sidekick for Aladdin. The iconic “A Whole New World” scene just wouldn’t be the same without the magic carpet. Though Aladdin and the Forty Thieves and the Disney film each approached the same story, they brought it to life in their own unique way!
The musical numbers: Before I selected Aladdin and the Forty Thieves for the Carry On Kenny! 100 Years of Kenneth Williams Blogathon, I had no idea it was a musical. So, you can imagine my surprise when Genie of the Ring started randomly singing and dancing. Though the musical numbers themselves weren’t bad, some of them seemed like they were added to the movie just for the sake of including a musical number. When Aladdin’s Chinese village was first introduced in Aladdin and the Forty Thieves, some of the residents sang “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah”. As I was watching this musical number unfold, I kept wondering what this song had to do with Aladdin and his story, especially considering the song itself was released in 1946. Creative decisions like this musical number left me confused of the creative team’s intent.
Unclear time period: Remember when I questioned the inclusion of “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” in Aladdin and the Forty Thieves, pointing out how the song was released in 1946? I brought this up to address one of the flaws of the 1984 television film; an unclear time-period. Based on the set and costume design, it appears the story takes place in Ancient China. Yet, in one scene, a vending machine not only served drinks, but also “hot & cold food”. Because of creative choices like the two I described, it makes Aladdin and the Forty Thieves look like it’s having an identity crisis.
The special effects: I know a television movie is, more often than not, going to receive a smaller budget. I’m also aware how cinematic technology from the 1980s is going to be different from today’s cinematic technology. But with all that said, I couldn’t look past the poor special effects throughout Aladdin and the Forty Thieves. One painfully obvious example is when, toward the beginning of the film, Abanazar transforms into a bird. This very fake-looking bird is superimposed over still photographs of landscapes, trying to present the illusion of traveling from one place to another. Making a movie isn’t easy and does require working within your means. However, I think using special effects hurt Aladdin and the Forty Thieves instead of helped it.
Have you ever watched a movie and wondered “what the heck did I just watch”? That’s what I was thinking when I saw Aladdin and the Forty Thieves. Was the 1984 movie supposed to be taken seriously or was it supposed to be silly, goofy fun? Why was it difficult to determine the story’s time period? It’s a shame this wasn’t a stronger picture because there are aspects of it I liked. Kenneth Williams did a good job, acting wise, in his role as Mustapha Drink. In fact, I think Kenneth should have been the one narrating Aladdin’s story. It looked like there was a good amount of effort and detail put toward the set and costume design. I even liked some of the ways Aladdin’s story was adapted in the 1984 film. But I have no idea what I was supposed to get out of Aladdin and the Forty Thieves. Therefore, I hesitate recommending it.
Overall score: 5.3 out of 10
Have you seen Aladdin and the Forty Thieves? Which adaptation of Aladdin’s story is your favorite? Let me know in the comment section!
I’ve been participating in Taking Up Room’s So Bad It’s Good Blogathon since the very beginning. Because I didn’t have a go-to “so bad it’s good” movie at the time, I have seen the blogathon as an opportunity to search for my “so bad it’s good” title, with the search itself becoming a saga on 18 Cinema Lane. In my review of Jesse James Meets Frankenstein’s Daughter, I learned to look for films that were built on a gimmick. Then, after watching Mount Hideaway Mysteries: Heartache and Homecoming, I learned to search for movies that are so bad, they are, at times, unintentionally funny. But for this year’s So Bad It’s Good Blogathon, I chose my selected title differently. I heard from several movie-related Youtubers that Kraven the Hunter possessed qualities that made the film “so bad it’s good”. Remembering their opinions, I picked the 2024 movie with an open mind, hoping I had finally found my “so bad it’s good” title. Though there were moments in the movie that were unintentionally funny, I can’t say Kraven the Hunter will earn the coveted title of “so bad it’s good”. To explain why I feel this way, I will compare the 2024 film to a movie that has been widely regarded as “so bad it’s good”; Mommie Dearest. Even though I will bring up the 1981 movie from time to time, it’s to emphasize the point that Kraven the Hunter didn’t really live up to its “so bad it’s good” potential.
Kraven the Hunterposter created by Columbia Pictures, Marvel Entertainment, TSG Entertainment, Avi Arad Productions, Matt Tolmach Productions, Film in Iceland, and Sony Pictures Releasing
When it comes to Mommie Dearest, I see the movie less as a “so bad it’s good” picture and more of a character study about family dynamics and the motivations behind them. However, I can recognize why the 1981 title is regarded as “so bad it’s good” in the eyes of many. One of these reasons is Faye Dunaway’s over-the-top portrayal of Joan Crawford. Her antics stand out against a backdrop that feels ordinary or mundane. Even her lines like “No wire hangers, ever!” and “Tina! Bring me the axe!” have become iconic because of Faye’s excessively dramatic delivery. But in Kraven the Hunter, the only memorable character is Sergei/Kraven himself, as he is the film’s protagonist. The rest of the characters weren’t given the context in order to stand out. Two of the movie’s villains, the Foreigner and Aleksei/Rhino, seemed interchangeable. They don’t have many discernible characteristics that allow them to embrace uniqueness. Even when Aleksei transformed into his alter ego, Rhino, it was for the benefit of the plot instead of helping Aleksei become a memorable character. Meanwhile, Sergei’s/Kraven’s father, Nikolai, tries to stand out within the story. However, these efforts feel forced, with his lines sounding less like conversation and more like lines found on the movie’s official merchandise.
From what I’ve heard over the years, Mommie Dearest was never intended to be a “so bad it’s good” presentation. In fact, it was meant to provide a chance for Faye to potentially earn an Oscar, let alone a nomination. Despite this good intention, the 1981 film shows its audience how good ideas led to bad results. The simpler reasons for the movie’s existence allow viewers to accept its “so bad it’s good” status at face value. As I watched Kraven the Hunter, however, I kept wondering what the point of the movie was supposed to be. When I brought the film up in my list of Ten Movie Trends I Don’t Understand, I said it was a Spider-verse villain movie without the presence of Spider-Man. But Kraven the Hunter doesn’t take the time to build up Sergei/Kraven as a legitimate threat for Marvel’s friendly, neighborhood superhero. Instead, Sergei/Kraven is reminiscent of Eric Draven and Ashe Corven from The Crow and The Crow: City of Angels; only inflicting violence on villains and criminals that deserve to face accountability. This makes some of the characters’ warnings about karma and the dangers of Sergei/Kraven becoming like his villainous father not make sense. Even the movie’s plot twist was so convoluted, it makes that part of the story pointless. Instead of seeing Kraven the Hunter as “so bad it’s good”, it was so confusing, I found it difficult to understand what the film was trying to say.
One of the most unbelievable moments from Mommie Dearest is when Joan took her daughter, Christina’s, role on the soap opera Christina starred on. While Christina (who was 27 at the time) was recovering from surgery, Joan temporarily starred on Christina’s soap opera as Christina’s character, even though Joan was much older than the character herself. Though this moment seems too good to be true, it actually happened. There’s even a New York Times article about this creative decision. The idea of Joan, who was 60 years old when she appeared on Christina’s soap opera, portraying a character that’s in her twenties seems “bonkers”, adding to Mommie Dearest’s “so bad it’s good” reputation. Kraven the Hunter, on the other hand, doesn’t really have any “bonkers” moments or situations. This is because the film takes itself a little too seriously as an action picture. The concept of a man possessing animalistic instincts, skills, and powers to defeat other characters could sound “bonkers” on paper. Even the idea of a man becoming a rhino seems like a silly gimmick. But the creative team behind Kraven the Hunter didn’t embrace the sillier aspects of the source material they were adapting. While there were moments in the movie that were unintentionally funny, as I mentioned in this review’s introduction, these moments were inconsistent.
According to IMDB, Paramount (the studio that distributed Mommie Dearest) took advantage of their audience’s fascination with Mommie Dearest by billing “the film as a camp classic”. People even “flocked to see the film armed with Ajax and wire hangers to actively “participate” with the film”, in a similar fashion to movies like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Like I mentioned earlier in this review, Mommie Dearest featured iconic lines like “Tina! Bring me the axe!” and “No wire hangers, ever!”. There are also memorable moments like Joan cutting Christina’s hair. People developed an interest in Mommie Dearest because it was memorably bad. But Kraven the Hunter lacks the memorability Mommie Dearest achieved. One previously mentioned contributor was the lack of stand out characters (besides Sergei/Kraven himself). Another contributor is how, in Kraven the Hunter, there are stretches of time where characters just talk between each other. If these dialogue-heavy moments had been evenly spaced out throughout the story or had the writing itself been a little bit stronger, maybe the dialogue could have added memorability to the movie. But the writing was so flat, it made Kraven the Hunter feel uninspired. The stretches of time featuring dialogue-heavy scenes not only affected the overall pace of the film, it also caused Sergei/Kraven to have less screen-time than the title of the movie would suggest.
Have you ever seen a movie that was just “meh”? That’s how I feel about Kraven the Hunter; too weak to be good or great but not outrageous enough to be bad or disappointing. When I participate in the So Bad It’s Good Blogathon, I expect my selected movie will not be as strong as movies I’ve actually enjoyed. But I hope my experience watching the film will, at least, be somewhat entertaining. While there were entertaining moments because they were unintentionally funny, I can’t say the same for the rest of Kraven the Hunter. The film as a whole was uninspired largely due to the writing. From most of the characters being unmemorable to stretches of time where dialogue-heavy scenes were emphasized, I found myself being underwhelmed, more often than not. But the biggest opportunity missed by the film’s creative team was not embracing the gimmick and its silliness from their project’s source material. If Kraven the Hunter’s creative team hadn’t taken their project so seriously, maybe my movie-viewing experience would have been similar to when I reviewed Tarzan in Manhattan last year. Or maybe finding my “so bad it’s good” movie requires an acquired taste I haven’t quite received yet.
As I said in my Comparing with the Critics review of Willow, the fantasy genre is underrepresented on 18 Cinema Lane. This is one of the reasons why I put “Review a movie from the Fantasy genre” on my Year-Long Bingo Card, so I could add more fantasy titles to my collection of movie reviews. Hamlette’s Soliloquy’s We Heart Fairy Tales Week Blogathon provided the perfect opportunity for me to accomplish this goal. It also gave me a reason to finally check out the 1954 movie, Brigadoon! Recommended by a reader named Becky, this is a title I had heard of, but had never seen. In fact, I knew very little about the film, like how the story takes place in Scotland. But now that I think about it, Scottish-related titles are also underrepresented on my blog. Only four movies having something to do with Scotland have been reviewed in the eight years 18 Cinema Lane has existed. These films have ranged in quality from fine, ok, or underwhelming. How will Brigadoon compare to these other movies? Let’s journey through this review to find out!
Brigadoonposter created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Things I liked about the film:
A colorful picture: According to the film’s poster, the color photography in Brigadoon was provided by a company called Ansco. The creative team behind the 1954 picture certainly took advantage of color photography’s incorporation, as Brigadoon is a very colorful film! Just in the opening number, “Down on MacConnachy Square” alone, the residents of the titular town boast attire in bright shades of orange, yellow, and red. Even the props add bursts of color to the number, from a stand of orange pumpkins to baskets of red flowers. Light colors are also woven into the scene. Some of them include lilac, blue, and green. These bold hues make Brigadoon feel like the perfect movie to watch during Springtime!
Van Johnson’s performance: In Brigadoon, Van Johnson portrays Jeff Douglas, who joins his friend, Tommy Albright (portrayed by Gene Kelly) on a trip to Scotland. Because Jeff is a man who needs to see things to believe them, he possesses a down-to-earth personality. This personality is effectively showcased throughout Van’s performance to the point Van ended up stealing the show! During the musical number, “Almost Like Being in Love”, Tommy expresses his love for Fiona (portrayed by Cyd Charisse). At one point, Jeff looks at his friend with genuine surprise. This combination of slightly dropped jaw, wide eyes, and even a small lean away from Tommy presents a priceless reaction. Van’s line delivery, as well as how the dialogue was written, also contributed to his scene stealing performance. When Tommy and Jeff are discussing Tommy’s upcoming wedding, Jeff tells his friend, “There’s nothing a woman hates more than her fiancée’s best friend. He knows all the secrets she’s going to spend the rest of her life trying to find out”. Jeff stated this in a matter-of-fact way paired with an easy-going flare. Though it’s only February, Van’s performance in Brigadoon is one of the best I’ve seen this year, so far!
The set design: Though Brigadoon takes place in the woodlands of Scotland, the movie was filmed at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios in California. Despite this, the set design was a consistent strength in the film! What appears to be painted backgrounds present the illusion Brigadoon is surrounded by tall, rolling hills. A mixture of foliage like trees, grass, and flowers create a peaceful tranquility that makes Brigadoon inviting. From time to time, vines can be seen growing on one of the village’s houses. There are even live animals, such as Highland Cattle and sheep, spotted by the characters. The combination of these creative choices allowed the set design in Brigadoon to give the audience an immersive experience!
A prolonged mystery: One of the reasons why I was interested in checking out Brigadoon was the mystery within the story. The synopsis on IMDB not only reveals the people of Brigadoon “harbor a mysterious secret”, the village itself is “not on the map”. While the truth behind the mystery is eventually discovered, that revelation didn’t come until about the film’s halfway point. For the first half of the movie, it almost seemed like the mystery was an afterthought. I wish the discovery of the mystery was gradually written into the script, to give the audience a chance to solve the mystery for themselves.
An unnecessarily long scene: Toward the end of the movie, Tommy and Jeff return home from Scotland. While at a bar, Tommy crosses paths with his fiancé, Jane. During their conversation, Tommy keeps thinking about Fiona from Brigadoon, especially when Jane says something that reminds Tommy of his Scottish trip. The whole scene was approximately ten minutes long. While I understand the creative team of Brigadoon’s point that Tommy left his heart with Fiona, the scene itself was too drawn out. To reach its intended point sooner, I believe this scene should have been trimmed down.
Harry’s subplot: For this part of my review, I will spoil Brigadoon. If you haven’t seen the movie and are planning on watching it, skip to the part of my review titled “My overall impression”.
One of the villagers of Brigadoon is a man named Harry. Throughout the movie, he’s unhappy because the woman he loves, Jean, is marrying a man named Charlie. Harry is so upset that he not only feels he no longer has a purpose, he also wants to leave Brigadoon. If Harry were to leave the village, it would cause the rest of the villagers to disappear. At one point, all of the men from Brigadoon search for Harry in order to prevent him from leaving. But Harry ends up dying while Jeff was bird hunting. Harry’s subplot was, in my opinion, underutilized, only providing conflict toward the end of the film. I also believe Harry’s subplot could have received a better resolution, especially considering Brigadoon was released at the very end of the Breen Code era. Maybe Harry and Meg, a shepherdess who was attracted to Jeff, could have healed each other’s broken hearts.
Now that I’ve finally seen Brigadoon, I have covered five Scottish-related films on 18 Cinema Lane. Like I said in this review’s introduction, the other four titles ranged in quality from fine, ok, or underwhelming. However, I found Brigadoon to be a fine, pleasant presentation! Though I didn’t talk much about the musical numbers in the 1954 movie, they were definitely one of the film’s strengths. Other strengths of the movie include the set design and the creative team’s use of color. But a major highlight was Van Johnson’s portrayal of Jeff Douglas, stealing the show and giving me one of the best performances I’ve seen this year, so far! Even though Brigadoon had its merits, it had its flaws too. I wish the mystery’s discovery had been gradually written into the script, so the audience could try to solve the mystery for themselves. I also believe Harry’s subplot should been better utilized, as well as received a better resolution. Brigadoon, as I’ve already said, is a pleasant presentation. In my opinion, though, there are musical movies I like more than this one.
Overall score: 7-7.1 out of 10
Have you seen Brigadoon? Are there any Scottish related films you’d like to see me cover on 18 Cinema Lane? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below!
Fans of Eddie Munson from Stranger Things would know 1986 is considered “Eddie’s year”. This is because 1986 is when Eddie had planned on graduating from Hawkins High School. As 2026 marks the 40th anniversary of “Eddie’s year”, I decided to commemorate the occasion by hosting The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon! When I published my editorial last Halloween about Eddie Munson and Harris Trinsky (from Freaks and Geeks) being two sides of the same coin, I called both of them “two sparkling, shooting stars”. This is the reason why I’m announcing my new blogathon today, with February 8th, 2026 being the 40th anniversary of the last sighting of Halley’s Comet. While we’re on the subject of Halley’s Comet, you can write about this astronomical event if you’re interested in participating in The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon. Or you can select any ideas from the following list:
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.
Eddie Munson and/or subjects related to him (music, Dungeons & Dragons, characters who didn’t get the opportunity to reach their full potential, etc.)
Events that took place in 1986 (such as the sighting of Halley’s Comet)
Projects from Joseph Quinn’s (the actor who portrayed Eddie Munson) filmography
Movies, tv show episodes, books, etc. that were released between 1966 and 1986 (those years represent Eddie’s lifespan that was featured on his headstone from Stranger Things’ fifth and final season)
Movies, tv show episodes, books, etc. from any year that debuted in March (bonus if the premiere date falls between March 21st to 27th, when the fourth season of Stranger Things takes place)
Books, movies, tv show episodes, etc. that either take place in Indiana or were filmed in Indiana (Eddie Munson is from Hawkins, Indiana)
How stories would be impacted if Eddie were included in the story (for example, would everyone know Eddie’s name if he showed up on an episode of Cheers?)
Eddie related merchandise, such as books
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.
If you’re joining The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon and found an idea you’re interested in writing about, please read the event’s official rules.
Please be respectful to the other participants and your chosen topic
Only new entries will be accepted
Because Eddie made his official debut in Stranger Things’ fourth season, participants can publish a maximum of four entries
No more than two participants can write about the same topic
Creativity and fun are encouraged
Entries must be submitted between June 6th-9th
If you plan on publishing your entry before or after the blogathon, please let me know as soon as possible
Share your entry idea in the comment section below!
Feature one of the four blogathon banners anywhere in your entry
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.
Participants of The “Eddie’s Year” Blogathon
— Sally from 18 Cinema Lane – Reviews of The Fly and King Kong Lives for my Comparing with the Critics series, book review of Stranger Things: Flight of Icarus by Caitlin Schneiderhan
— Ruth from Silver Screenings – Review of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986)
— Chloe the MovieCritic from Movies Meet Their Match – Review of Labyrinth (1986)
— Virginie from The Wonderful World of Cinema – Review of True Stories (1986)
— Rebecca from Taking Up Room – Review of Pretty In Pink (1986)
— J-Dub from Dubsism – Editorial titled ‘How Some Guy Named Roy Ended The Longest War In The World’ (April 1986)
— Debbie from Moon in Gemini – Review of Ruthless People (1986)
— MovieRob from MovieRob – Three movie reviews (titles TBD)
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.
As I explained in my recent review of A Circle of Children, I’m covering the sequel, Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II for the Film. Release. Repeat. Blogathon. Because I’ve been meaning to review the 1978 television film since 2022, I believed the blogathon was a great time to finally check the movie out! But as I also mentioned in my review of A Circle of Children, I haven’t found a made-for-tv movie from the 1970s I actually like. Whenever I’ve selected this particular type of film to write about, I find the film itself either fine, ok, or underwhelming. This is one of the reasons why I put “1970s Made-for-TV movie” on my Year-Long Bingo card, so I could, hopefully, find a television movie I enjoy from that decade. When I saw and reviewed A Circle of Children, I thought it was just ok. Will its sequel be better? Let’s begin this review to find out!
Lovey A Circle of Children, Part II title card created by Time-Life Television Productions and CBS
Things I liked about the film:
A smaller cast: In my review of A Circle of Children, I mentioned the film containing a large cast of characters. This is one of the reasons why the audience was forced to either only become familiar with the characters or not getting to know them at all. This flaw became remedied in Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II! In the 1978 sequel, the cast is much smaller. Even Mary’s class contains fewer students. Because the story has less characters to keep track of, it gives the audience an opportunity to truly get to know the characters. The audience also has more time to spend with characters like Mary’s students and even Mary’s boyfriend, Cal, because of a tightly written script.
Progression that’s written gradually: When I reviewed A Circle of Children, I talked about how Sarah’s sudden achieved progress taking place after being a static character for half the movie felt like it was written into the story for the sake of plot and time convenience. Even though I was happy to see Sarah achieving progress, I wish that progress was gradually woven into the script. It seems like the creative team behind Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II felt the same way I did, as Hannah’s/Lovey’s progression was gradual. Hannah/Lovey joins Mary’s class as an unruly child who is very unpredictable. But as the film goes on, Mary’s influence takes effect on Hannah/Lovey as she becomes more responsive, less violent, and even participates in class. The smaller cast size I talked about earlier certainly influenced this part of the story. It allowed Hannah’s/Lovey’s progression to receive emphasis instead of competing against other stories. The transformative power of Mary’s teaching abilities is also on full display because of the gradually written progression of Hannah/Lovey.
The dialogue: Like I said in my list of The Best and Worst Movies I Saw in 2025, how well-written the dialogue was in The Chalk Garden allowed me to remember what Laurel said about the term “good morning”. The quality of the screenwriting was also a strength in Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II! Some of the dialogue in the 1978 movie sounded profound without trying too hard to be philosophical. A great example can be heard during a conversation between Mary and a fellow teacher named Patty. Patty feels discouraged over the lack of progress from her students. Mary reassures Patty that her impact on the students has been positive, reminding Patty how hope comes from believing the children can learn something. Patty then tells Mary, “Yeah, but you can’t mop the floors with hope”. Mary experiences her own period of discouragement after Hannah/Lovey has an angry outburst involving paint. In a voice-over, Mary says, “For a moment, my dreams and plans for Hannah shattered. But paint is only paint and never worth a dream. Besides, a teacher’s dream dies hard”. The two examples I provided show how Mary’s and Patty’s frustrations and concerns were eloquently and thoughtfully written into the script.
How Hannah was introduced: As I’ve already said in this review, Hannah/Lovey joins Mary’s class as an unruly child who is very unpredictable. However, I found her introduction in Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II to be distasteful. As Mary walks down the hallway to retrieve Hannah/Lovey, suspenseful music plays over the scene. The music itself sounds as if it came straight out of a horror movie. The reveal of Hannah’s/Lovey’s face was prolonged because of specific camera angles that were utilized. When Hannah’s/Lovey’s face was finally revealed, a frozen close-up shot was presented to intentionally appear frightening. To me, the introduction I described felt sensationalized to the point of being counterproductive of what Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II was trying to achieve; making the audience feel empathetic toward Hannah/Lovey by looking past her horrific behavior. I truly believe there was a more tasteful way Hannah/Lovey could have been introduced in the story, especially compared to how some of the students were introduced in A Circle of Children.
Doris’ limited involvement in the story: A Circle of Children introduced Doris as the director of the Children’s School for Special Education. Though she appeared in only a handful of scenes, Doris’ role was pivotal as she literally and figuratively opened the door for Mary to the world of Special Education. Doris was one of the few characters from the first movie to return in the sequel. But she was given even more limited involvement in the second film. While she was still the director of the Children’s School for Special Education, her role in Mary’s story had a reduced significance. I wish Doris received more to do in Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II because I think she could have made a bigger impact.
Lack of further progression: I said earlier in this review how Hannah’s/Lovey’s progression was written gradually into the story. Even though this was one of the movie’s strengths, I didn’t like how there was a lack of further progression for two of Mary’s students. While Hannah/Lovey was improving her reading skills and Brian (from the first movie) was learning how to board the bus by himself, Rufus and Jamie were at a standstill in their education. With a smaller cast size I talked about in this review, there should have been room in the script to give Jamie and Rufus at least a small victory. At the end of Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II, Mary reveals through a voice-over what happened to her students. However, not showing Rufus and Jamie achieving further progression in the movie was a missed opportunity.
Sometimes, a sequel ends up becoming better than its predecessor. Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II just so happens to be one of those films! Some of the flaws of A Circle of Children were improved upon in the second chapter, such as containing a smaller cast and the script featuring a gradual progression for Hannah/Lovey. The sequel even had its own unique strengths from its predecessor, like how well-written the dialogue was. But despite these positive aspects, Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II did have its flaws. I believe there are more respectful ways Hannah/Lovey could have been introduced into the story, as her debut in the film was too sensationalized for my liking. I not only wish Jamie and Rufus had received further progression in the movie, I also wish Doris was given a greater significance in the script. But similar to what I said in my review of A Circle of Children, I’m grateful Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II exists at all. The 1978 film gives the audience a glimpse into what Special Education was like in the 1970s. It’s a made-for-tv movie that was spared from getting lost to time as well.
Overall score: 7.2 out of 10
Have you seen Lovey: A Circle of Children, Part II? Are there any made-for-tv movies from the 1970s you’d like to see me cover on 18 Cinema Lane? Please tell me in the comment section!
