yarborough Reviews

Star Trek (2009)

An Insult to Our Intelligence

[1/10 · 17 May 2009]

Just as the 3 "Star Wars" prequels ruined the Star Wars franchise (though I never liked it to begin with), this new "Star Trek" prequel is a damaging blow to the Star Trek movie franchise, and this prequel crap needs to stop now. The pathetic writers of this new Hollywood generation can't come up with any new, creative ideas, so they just keep going back in time (as they did with "Batman Begins") with established franchises, as if we need to see over and over again how the characters we love so much got their start. And the BIG problem with this new "Star Trek" movie is that they TOTALLY foul up the history of these characters and then insult our intelligence by having Spock (Prime - the older Spock) say that his actions altered the course of history (which, we learn, is why Kirk's father dies on the day of his birth this time around). What a lame, poor excuse for why the history of Mr. Spock, Captain Pike, Captain Kirk, Dr. McCoy and even Chekov is so radically different from what it is in the Original Series and its Original movies. What is different? For one, in TOS, Kirk first served under Captain Robert April on a different starship, and had years of experience as a first officer before becoming captain. In this movie, Kirk's serves with Captain Pike of the Enterprise first, right alongside Spock, and on his FIRST day of service he becomes first officer and then on the very same day is suddenly promoted to Captain! Quite a leap up the ladder! In TOS, Spock is supposed to have served under Captain Pike 13 years before he and Kirk meet. Also, Dr. McCoy suddenly becomes Chief Medical Officer on the very same day that Kirk suddenly becomes Captain. Wow, what a coincidence! This movie so ridiculously rushes the whole thing, but it's OK because Spock altered everything, right? In this movie, Chekov is on the bridge as navigator even BEFORE Kirk ever steps foot on the Enterprise. That means he has MORE experience than Kirk! So in TOS how did Kirk become Captain while Chekov was a lowly ensign? Oh yeah, Spock altered history. And Chekov is said to be 17 in this movie. When did he start at Starfleet Academy--when he was 13?! Finally, this movie has no intelligent (or even intelligible) story. It has a ludicrous story of the Romulans (who look like a biker gang in this movie) creating Black Holes out of planets. And this movie is all action and loudness with dizzying camera shaking, which totally goes against TOS's cleverness of playing on ideas rather than action. Abrams has no business in the "Star Trek" franchise, and I hope he never makes another "Star Trek" movie. But I guess as long as they make plenty of $$$$, it doesn't matter. That's more important than being faithful to the characters and history of the show, right?

Fireproof (2008)

A Rare Gem

[10/10 · 12 October 2008]

*** May Contain Spoilers *** "Fireproof" is an unpretentious and honest look into the complex obstacles that couples in marriage face, and it illustrates the incredible sacrifice that both partners must make in order to overcome those obstacles. Despite this very serious foundation for the movie, "Fireproof" manages to examine the obstacles in a comfortable, very entertaining and often funny way, thanks largely to a talented and colorful cast and a clever script that does not let up in heart. Kirk Cameron is very convincing and pleasantly funny in his role. The frustration he expresses as he tries to win back his wife's heart is often hilarious (reminiscent of his physical comedy from "Growing Pains") and, at the more serious moments, even tear-jerking. The movie boldly tackles situations such as extra-marital affairs and internet pornography addiction, which would certainly cause audiences to reflect on their own behavior and vices. The movie asks people to look at themselves and their own actions, and to seek ways to better themselves, and it does this delicate task in a very inspiring way. Those willing to self-critique will find the movie an excellent eye-opener. Those who are not so willing will probably find the movie uncomfortable. I found it to be engaging and truly the best movie I have seen come out in many years.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A Total and Complete Disappointment

[1/10 · 20 July 2008]

****WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS HERE*** This movie is a monumental disappointment. I had seen all five of the previous Batman movies on the big screen, and I watched as they kept getting worse and worse and worse. I hoped that this one would break the trend (and with all the raves surrounding Heath Ledger's "great" performance, I really thought it would), but it did not. This movie is so trite and so absurd, and what is most reprehensible is that it suggests that there is no Good vs. Evil anymore—as a matter of fact the movie closes with Batman himself being chased by the Gotham Police(!). And constantly throughout the movie Batman (now suddenly called "The Batman") is seen as being the reason behind all the murders, robberies, and destruction the Joker is perpetrating in Gotham City. By the way, Gotham City here does NOT at all look like the Gotham City that we know; it is Chicago pretending to be Gotham City, which is very boring. What happened to the stunning production design that Gotham City is supposed to have?!!

As for Heath Ledger, he makes a great impact in one of his first scenes in the movie (when his sudden killing of a gang member serves as the punch line to a joke), but after that scene the Joker's energy totally dwindles away and he becomes another smart-aleck, philosophical killer…and even downright boring. In an attempt to keep things entertaining with the Joker, the movie resorts to dressing him in a nurse's outfit (a cheap laugh).

To make a quick comparison, "The Dark Knight" is very much like "Live Free or Die Hard" (and a million other movies) in that everything is on the verge of complete destruction and chaos at the hands of a villain, and like Die Hard 4 (When are needless sequels going to stop?!!!!) it tries to replicate the feel of 9-11—a real-life tragedy that should not be incorporated into comic-book stories like Batman. Batman himself makes a pathetic showing in this film, as he is much clumsier and more ineffective against the villains than ever before. But then again, why should he even try when everyone is calling him a "vigilante killer"? When I was eight years old and saw the first Batman movie at the theater in 1989, seeing my favorite comic book character brought to life in such a stunning way was a dream-come-true. Had "The Dark Knight" been the movie that was released instead in 1989 (especially seeing Batman getting chased by the cops at the end), I would have been devastated. Now as an adult, I can honestly say I am disappointed.

Blaze Glory (1969)

Great Find

[7/10 · 15 March 2008]

I had the absolute joy of discovering this short film for the real-life daughter of the man who played the banker, Hawley Lawrence. She had not even known that this film (which has priceless footage of her long-departed father) even existed and we both received great joy (and lots of laughs) in seeing it. It is wacky, nutty, totally insane and really leaves you impressed with the incredible effort it took to do those special effects shots (especially the invisible horses!). I can't help but wonder if the makers of "Blazing Saddles" took a few ideas from this movie, which was released three years before it (in 1969). The scene that cracks me up most is when the stagecoach robbery begins and the hero title character is bathing nearby. He reaches out with twigs to get his costume before he can make his rescue attempt. Hilarious!

Miami Vice: Forgive Us Our Debts (1986) Season 3, Episode 11

Pefect Perfect Perfect. Amazing stuff

[10/10 · 8 March 2008]

I can't believe nobody has written a review on this masterpiece. So I guess I'll have to do it. I don't know where to start, except that only 3 can make an episode like this. Only 3! The other crappy seasons couldn't make an episode like this in a million years. This episode along with 3 was the only time Vice was a gritty, dark, realistic, and fascinating show. There's nothing special about the other seasons.

Forgive Us Our Debts is one of those many many episodes from 3 that is pure perfection. Just amazing to watch. The episode has such a strong, powerful story, unforgettable characters, slick, film noir cinematography and music that is sizzling as ever. Also two songs that heightens the suspense and atmosphere of the episode. This is the most realistic Vice episode ever. Crockett and Tubbs go against the most ruthless, sleaziest, and just downright dirty characters that's right out of real life.

The performances of Guy Boyd, Val Bisoglio, Bill Raymond, and DW Moffet are so realistic and amazing. Of course 3 has so many episodes that feature powerful performances by many great actors. Episodes such as When Irish Eyes Are Crying, Stone's War, The Good Collar, Shadow in the Dark, Streetwise, Down for the Count Part 1-2, and The Savage. Also many many more. You can't be 3. It's so PERFECT! The other seasons are garbage compared to 3.

This episode is one not to be missed. It's also got the biggest surprise upset I've ever seen in the history of film or television. The cinematography of the episode by Tom Priestley is gritty and very realistic stuff. Watching this episode you keep saying to yourself, " This is amazing stuff. The kind of the thing you don't ever see in the other four crappy seasons. Ever! This episode feels like and looks like a film noir/ murder mystery that deals with our hero's looking for missing evidence of a crime that took place six years before. The accused is also a few hours away from being permanently extincted by the electric chair. Like I said before amazing stuff.

The climax of this episode is the best ever in a Vice episode. Even though every climax in 3 is so great. This episode has the best climax. It starts off with a fade in of the prison and Boyd's character receiving his last meal, head being shaved all while thinking about the chair that waits him. You can feel the tension in him and on yourself watching this masterpiece. I can go on and on, but I don't want to give it all away. The entire climax lasts for a thrilling, pulse pounding 8 minutes. Another thing that makes the climax so perfect is the soundtrack that brings shivers down my spine. The song "Standing on the Outside", by Meatloaf from his Bad Attitude album in 84 is gripping and WOW!!

To sum it all up. This is the real Miami VICE. All of 3 is Miami VICE. The rest of the seasons are a bunch of colorful, kiddish, MTV Cops seasons. Stuff for the kids. 3 are for adults and people who respect stories and characters over cheesy, crappy stories that feature endless and endless of scenes of color and rock starts. That's what the other seasons are about and that's why they SUCK! Stick 3 with and only 3 and you will be shocked at how PERFECT it is, just like Forgive Us Our Debts. Amazing stuff!

Miami Vice: Viking Bikers from Hell (1987) Season 3, Episode 22

Pure Action Pure Excitiment Pure Fun Pure Vice !!!

[10/10 · 18 November 2007]

This episode kicks butt. Whoever doesn't like this episode needs to get their brain checked. It's so much fun to watch and the action is non-stop. The last reviewer from above I have one thing to say: What the hell is wrong with you? The episode starts with a bang and finishes with a bang. Another perfect episode from 3! 3 is so perfect in every way. It sweeps the other mediocre seasons under the rug and lets not even talk about the disastrous, pathetic, and completely awful season 4. Ouch! This episode also is not only perfect, but features the best antagonist of 3 Reb Brown. What a show he puts on. I love it. This is one hell of an episode that features wall to wall action. Also the cinematography is great, the music, the cast, the action, and everything else. A Gem! It's not a 10, but a 20! Perfect!

Miami Vice: Duty and Honor (1987) Season 3, Episode 15

Perfect in every way

[10/10 · 28 August 2006]

This episode from the greatest season ever of Vice SEASON 3 is so great. The episode alone has more plot and character substance than the entire Season 2. The Savage is very detailed story that is cleverly written and that is very intense. The episode also features probably the greatest actors that ever appeared in a Vice episode. The acting is flawless and features some great performances, especially from Micheal Wright who turns in a chilling performance as the serial killer/assassin known as The Savage. I don't want to give away any of the plot, because it's very exciting and it's just superb story. This episode is something none of the other seasons could of ever made. All the other seasons are very kiddish and no matter what everybody says SEASON 3, is the greatest of all time. Whoever doesn't like it, doesn't understand the importance of plot and characters. SEASON 3 is for adults, and this episode is no exception. It's a very gritty episode, that is highlighted with a dark and seamy tone. Just a perfect episode. Pure Vice, pure entertainment. Skip the other seasons, and watch SEASON 3. It's the only one that really matters.

Miami Vice: Cuba Libre (1987) Season 3, Episode 14

Everything you want in a Vice episode

[10/10 · 8 June 2006]

A very underrated episode. The people who don't like SEASON 3, are the people who don't understand the importance of plot, characters, drama, and a hell of a story. A gritty story, an intense story. That is what SEASON 3 is all about,and that is why it's the greatest season of Vice. There isn't one single bad episode, such as the other seasons, which have their share of bad episodes. Cuba Libre has a great story that centers around government politics, money, and set-ups. Also great action, music, and steamy settings. Everything you crave for in a Vice episode. The episode begins with a exotic party and ends with a shootout in the a jungle type atmosphere. Half or the story takes place in the jungle and the setting gives the episode such a realistic, steamy feel. You can see the perspiration on Don Johnson. The supporting cast is terrific as always is Jan Hammer's music and everything else about this great episode clicks nicely.

You Never Can Tell (1951)

Charming

[8/10 · 21 January 2005]

I first saw this movie as a teenager on AMC during a lazy afternoon and it was an unexpected pleasure. When I read the brief summary of the movie, which read something like: "A murdered dog comes back to life as a man to hunt his killer," I actually expected a somewhat hard-boiled detective movie, despite the obviously outrageous premise. And I had no idea who Dick Powell was. The movie turned out to be very light-hearted and I was thoroughly entertained. Many light-hearted comedies of that era (early 1950s) make the mistake of just throwing in a lot of cute scenes and dialog and, though this movie does feature such scenes, it also has a lot of quite clever humor that keeps even the more cynical viewer satisfied. Even the murder mystery plot has intriguing aspects. The movie has a kind of fantasy atmosphere throughout that I really enjoy, and Dick Powell was never more likable than he is here. This role was perfect for him (unlike his earlier role in "Murder My Sweet"--see my review). I highly recommend it for good family fun.

Murder, My Sweet (1944)

A big casting mistake.

[5/10 · 19 January 2005]

I taped this movie about four years before I finally brought myself to watch it entirely, and the reason for that was Dick Powell. Powell, of course, was a comedic actor/dancer in the years before this film, and was pretty good, but as a hardboiled detective he simply does not work--Powell does not have the toughness that the role requires and his physical build is a joke. As one other reviewer pointed out, the plot takes a backseat in Chandler stories, as this one does. Marlowe, here, meets two different clients at different times and it is all too predictable that their problems will intertwine, with predictably confusing and ultimately uninteresting results. As I watched the movie, I couldn't shake the idea that Powell was just pretending to be tough the whole time--his voice isn't even cut out for the narration. Also, almost all of the other characters are pure cardboard, with one exception: Claire Trevor. Trevor's performance is absolutely wonderful and our first glimpse of her in that white, bare-midriff dress is one of the most amazing sites in movie history. Powell ultimately took roles better suited for him, especially his light-hearted role as a detective in "You Never Can Tell."

Meet the Fockers (2004)

Trashy, Juvenile Comedy

[26 December 2004]

I just saw this movie yesterday and I was appalled at it. All of the humor in this movie is dirty, juvenile trash, with nothing the least bit clever or unique. The humor of this entire movie is every bit as shallow as the Focker/F***er pun that the title implies. It was particularly sad to see talented actors such as Robert Deniro and Dustin Hoffman try hopelessly to restart their now-pathetic careers with this sub-standard vehicle for Ben Stiller (who keeps repeating his "There's Something About Mary" role). The whole situation between Robert Deniro's character and the little baby nephew was just tedious and unfunny, and the fact that the movie tries to generate laughs by showing a baby picking up on foul language from others shows how low the writers went for humor. And Barbra Streisand is just outright annoying. Overall, this movie is just a jumble of desperate toilet humor, and sex jokes, and is a complete disgrace.

The Frogmen (1951)

A Minor Disappointment with A BIG Publicity Gimmick

[23 March 2004]

I didn't expect too much from this movie as I watched it for the first time, but it was even more minor than I originally thought. Widmark is a bland star for this one, as is Dana Andrews, but young Jeffrey Hunter does a decent job. However, the characters on the ship (which is the setting for the whole movie) are simply too immature and childish to be believable as navy men. Also, the story is simply not interesting (though it has a few intriguing moments) and the climax is sleepy and trite. On top of that, the underwater sequences are not impressive. But the biggest disgrace in this movie is the publicity stunt that was pulled for Robert Wagner. In the opening credits of this movie Wagner is billed fifth, with his name in huge letters, but he appears literally in no more than five seconds of the movie, has no lines, and can only be seen at a distance. Apparently, when this movie was made, he was nothing, but by the time it was released, he attained some popularity, so the company pulled a fast one on the young girls who hoped to see him in this movie. Years ago I noticed that a similar stunt was pulled for Wagner for the 1950 film "Halls of Montezuma" but to a lesser extent.

The Window (1949)

A Ridiculous Movie. This is no classic.

[1/10 · 17 February 2004]

I am a huge classic film buff, especially of the film noirs, but I have to say that this 1949 "thriller" is an absolute disgrace. I became interested in seeing the movie because it was made in the 1940s, because it starred two beautiful actresses (Barbara Hale and Ruth Roman) and because it features a colorful character actor, Paul Stewart. But I was incredibly disappointed at what I saw. The story kicks off with a little boy (Bobby Driscoll) witnessing a murder but, because of the exaggerated stories he always tells, not being able to convince anyone (including his parents) of it. The movie goes to great lengths to show us how badly no one will believe the boy, and the killers even know that no one will believe the boy, and the kid doesn't have a shred of evidence on the killers, but guess what idiotic, brainless, stupid thing the killers decide to do. They try to kidnap the boy!!! And the kidnap attempt is probably the clumsiest one ever filmed for the cinema!!! This is an example of a forced story that is so ridiculous it is beyond logic. And on top of all this, Barbara Hale looks so drab and dull in this movie that she didn't even make it worth seeing. Ignore this one.

The Division (2001–2004)

Reverse Discrimination; Defeats Own Purpose

[29 December 2003]

The Division does nothing more than tell us that in life the good guys are the racial/ethnic minorities and women while the bad guys are the white Christian males. In every single episode I have seen, the criminal is white and, most often, male, while the main team of detectives is an unrealistic assortment of racially diverse women and a Jewish man. If this is so true, why do people complain about a disproportionate amount of minorities in prison and white males on the police department? The San Francisco setting combined with the reverse discrimination makes the liberal agenda all too clear.

The Division does not solve or address any problems but rather reverses the old problems and creates more tensions.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)

Maybe a slight redemption

[17 November 2003]

In my March 2002 review of the ridiculous "Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom" I call this third installment somewhat of a redemption, but, after seeing the third one on DVD I would have to say that it is a very slight redemption. While "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is more sane than "Temple of Doom," it lacks the adventure of the first and second Jones films. I would say the third one is, overall, better than the second one, but it still isn't a good movie or even close to "Raiders," which itself isn't all that great. The big problem with "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" is that the plot is simply too thin, and after Jones teams up with his father the movie just becomes the Joneses constantly evading the Nazis who are on their tale, and the movie just goes from action scene to action scene with no development at all. To put it bluntly, this third Indiana Jones film is a near-disaster until the end at the Holy Grail, which makes the movie somewhat more interesting. To sum up the series, "Raiders" is an adventurous, light fantasy take on the archeology profession, "Temple" is an outrageously absurd, over-the-top, but highly adventurous take on archeology, and "Last Crusade" is a barely-adventurous, quite-absurd take on archeology. Make your choice.

Dragnet (2003–2004)

Canceled--thank you

[10 November 2003]

I wrote a comment for this show the day it first aired and I feel the same way now, after the show's cancellation, as I felt then, and that is that the show reeked, and I am so, so glad that it was canceled. I am a major fan (and scholar)of the original, black-and-white "Dragnet" and I was extremely disappointed when I saw this update of the show (though, I must admit, I expected it to be rotten). All Dick Wolf did when he created this version was give us a fourth version of "Law and Order," which we didn't need. Things were close enough to "Law and Order" in the first season, when there were only two regular cops on the show. But then, due to an utter lack of chemistry between the two worst possible choices for Friday and Smith (O'Neill and Embry), they got a new partner along with several more characters, including an attorney, which really made the show look like "Law and Order." In case Dick Wolf doesn't know it, none of the original Jack Webb "Dragnet" shows had a lawyer who hounded Friday and his partner for more evidence. And I hated how this new "Dragnet" only covered robbery-homicide division, something that every other cop show on TV covers now. If this new show had covered divisions like armed robbery, forgery, burglary-auto, and even juvenile (all of which the original "Dragnet" shows covered) this show, guaranteed, would have won its time slot. Thank you very much, ABC, for canceling this new, disastrous show.

Missing in Action (1984)

Quit Your Whining, Liberals--It's a Guy's Flick

[10/10 · 3 November 2003]

After reading all the Bin Ladens here claiming that "Missing in Action" is a "pseudo-patriotic", "racist" or jingoistic film, I thought I'd weigh in: "M.I.A." was made for the same audience that all overdone, action-packed, unreal, B-films are, AND for the same purpose--pure entertainment. I'm no mind-reader but the people watching "M.I.A" aren't doing it for a serious understanding of past social and political issues or controversies. They're watching it to see guys get beaten up with karate moves or shot up by M-60s, or to see completely naked women make total asses out of themselves by dancing around or strutting their stuff. I pity those who use their review of this film to make some grand, anti-American political statement. If you know what Norris flicks are like and you can't stand them, why the Hell did you pop this one in!?

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

Hugely disappointing.

[1/10 · 9 October 2003]

I first saw this movie last week after, literally, waiting two years (though I must admit those years seemed short). Anyway, I was hugely disappointed. My interest was stirred when I saw a magazine that talked about the 50 greatest TV shows of all time and, under the original Dragnet entry, it stated that the director of this movie learned a few things from the Dragnet show in filming this so-called "film noir." But that is an insult to Webb. This movie is simply horrible. It is very tediously directed, as is exemplified by the relentless and irritating breathing of the unrecognizable Cloris Leachman during the opening credits. Also, Mike Hammer in this movie is flat and boring--just plain tired. The idea that this movie is a film noir is outrageously absurd. Film noir's are supposed to be hard-boiled, dark, realistic, and starkly filmed. But the look of this movie is extremely bright, there is too much tenderness (particularly between Hammer and his annoying car-mechanic friend), and it becomes a sci-fi flick in the last few minutes. Also, the oh-my-God turn of events at the end of the film (with a lady that Mike Hammer first believes is innocent), is a total insult to the intelligence of the viewers. Finally, the way Mike Hammer escapes from the hotel after being drugged is a complete joke. Avoid this movie at all costs.

Silver River (1948)

Errol Flynn was desperate when he did this.

[21 August 2003]

By 1948 Errol Flynn's career was practically over, his health was fading fast, and he was known to have a bad reputation because of his drinking and womanizing. Such a shame for a guy who was untouchable in the 1930's, and had everything he wanted. But Errol Flynn had a reckless lifestyle off the camera and it ruined his own career by doing so. I guess Warner Bros. was trying everything to re-energize his career again, so Jack Warner had the great idea to team Errol Flynn, and Roaul Walsh together again, in a western with Ann Sheridan as his costar was a way to bring back his career. Nothing doing so, this film flopped, and Errol Flynn's career remained the same. Silver River is not the kind of film, that would bring your career back up or anybody else's. It's the kind of film you would want to avoid if you can. It's the least bit of entertaining, and the plot is as careless as it's script. Avoid this film at all costs. Errol Flynn aged considerably from his first western he ever made Dodge City to this one ten years later. He was a frighting 39 years old in this film, and looks more like he's around fifty. His age would just get worst and worst in the next ten years, and his films would become poorer and poorer. * out of ****.

Northern Pursuit (1943)

Title of film fools you.

[17 August 2003]

Saying the title of this film, Northern Pursuit, you think cool this film is all about pursuits and chases all over the north. Non-stop action, can't miss, should be a lot of fun to watch. The answer, WRONG!!Northern Pursuit is another disappointing Errol Flynn film after 1942, where he seemed to lose the magic touch of his previous film's. Errol is fantastic as always, but the problem is the rest of the weak cast, the boring script, and the slow-moving directing of Roaul Walsh. This film has no exciement, no thrills, just non-stop slow moving scenes. In making this film it's obvious the studio had in mind to have lighting strike twice, with the combination of Flynn/Walsh and Nazis. The same formula they had the year before this in the non-stop action packed Desperate Journey. No lighting, just cold, frigid ice and snow. This film could've really kicked ass if the script and directing was done differently. I recommend for you to skip this one, and watch Desperate Journey instead. *1/2 out of ****.

They Died with Their Boots On (1941)

Errol Flynn plays Custard perfectly.

[17 August 2003]

In this film Errol Flynn is the perfect person to play George Armstrong Custard. I don't know why I say this, because I've never seen another person ever play him before. But this role seems to be the prefect one for Errol Flynn. He shines at this role and plays Custard full of energy and wit. This role is almost as good as his Robin Hood role. The problem with this movie though is it's not a biography of Custard, but a brief telling of his life from West Point to Little Bighorn, and a little throw in of his wife. With all this featured in the film, it's just not enough to entertain. I think there are things that were missing to make this an excellent film. But sadly this is one Flynn film that just isn't taht good. The action sequences of short, and the talking scenes with his soilders, are way to long and at times very boring. I think there's just not enough action featured in this film, and the biggest action sequence of this film, the battle of Little Bighorn is way to short of a scene. Olivia DeHavilland makes a fine wife of Custard and it's nice to actually see Errol and Olivia actually play a married couple for once. Olivia looks just as beautful, but seems that she gained a liitle weight around her face. Her cheeks are a bit puffy in this film. I wonder if she did that for the film or it was a time where she went on an eating binge. The rest of the cast in this film are a bit annoying, but that's what you get in an Errol Flynn film, annoying characters, except of course not from Robin Hood. Overall, this film is way to long and boring. *1/2 out of ****.

Another Dawn (1937)

What was Errol Flynn thinking doing this muck?

[2/10 · 9 August 2003]

This is the kind of film that once you've seen it, you have no intention on ever seeing it again. Not even if it comes out on DVD with a picture that looks like it was made fifty years later, would still make you not want to see it. This is Hollywood of the 1930's at it's worst and Errol Flynn at one of his worst. An unpleaseant, worthless, total piece of garbage of a film. Errol Flynn must of been desperate to get work, or maybe wanted to do something that wouldn't require a lot of energy. In the previous two years he did two action packed films that probably took out all his strength and energy and probably wanted do something like this muck. I could sit here and put down this film for a very long time, but hell I'm not going to waste my time. I'll just say this and end this review. WARNING: Think twice before watching this!! This is as bad as it gets, well ... almost as bad as it gets. I rate this film * out of ****.

Virginia City (1940)

An average Flynn western, that could of been better if the cast was used right.

[7/10 · 8 August 2003]

Virginia City is another Flynn western that features lots of slam bang action and some amazing stunts for it's time 1940. Especially the scene where Flynn's character does a death deafying jump from one horse to another, or his dopey friend goes underneath the stagecoach and climbs back aboard the driver's seat. Now I know where Indiana Jones got his courage from in Lost Ark's classic truck scene. Another cool stunt envolves Flynn's character doing a free fall jump down a hill with a horse that is completely suicide. With all these dangerous stunts, the audience must think this is really a great film. Answer: no, an average film. Nothing more than that. Virginia City is better than Santa Fe Trial, but Dodge City is a hell of a lot better than the two combined. The problem with Virginia City is the scenes that don't envolve action are quite boring or just completely lag. The plot is thin and so is the leading lady that teams up with Errol Flynn. His weakest women since Another Dawn in 1937. Olivia DeHavilland would of been perfect for this role. Another problem of the film is the two goof boys that tag a long with Errol. Those two guys don't necessairly have to be in every single western Errol Flynn starred in. Another bad casting job is Bogart's character who portrays a Mexican bandit. That was a bad mistake of the filmmakers. It would of been great if Errol and Humphrey teamed up for this one. What a partnership they would of made. In the end great action sequences, but lousy plot and too many annoying characters. ** out of ****.

Footsteps in the Dark (1941)

A fun and delightful comedy/ murder mystery

[6/10 · 4 August 2003]

Errol Flynn is a very underrated actor when it comes to comedy. People just see him as a swashbuckler, dashing action hero. Not as a actor who could do any role from any type of genre. In Footsteps in the Dark he's very amusing and witty in his role as a person who lives a double life. In the day he's a insurance investigator, who goes by the name of Francis Warren and to his lovely wife a man who spends late nights at representative meetings. But in reality by night he's a crime solver/ murder investigator who what he sees he writes into his novels, and his latest book called by the same name of the film has raised eyebrows all over town and everyone is wondering who is this F.X. Pettijohn. When Francis' wife finds out the truth the sparks really begin to fly. Errol Flynn is absolutely hilarious in this role and Alan Hale, Brenda Marshall, William Frawley, and Ralph Bellamy do a fine job in backing up Errol. The movie has a lot of funny moments. Some of these include how Francis explains his way out of a jam with his wife and mother in-law. Others include Francis portrayal as a rich Texan named Tex, who Errol Flynn plays with a hick accent and an amusing cowboy walk, which can't be missed. Absolutely funny, it had me in tears. There is wrong thing though that i don't like about the film, and that is it's lack of crime solving clues and interrogation of suspects. It's not like Charlie Chan with it's clever crime solving. Their are a couple of clues here and there, but nothing clever though. Still the film is very delightful to watch and funny and I think it's much more entertaining to watch then other the Errol/ Brenda film they did together the year before this, The Sea Hawk. **1/2 out of ****

Gone with the Wind (1939)

A classic: sure, a masterpiece : NO!!!

[3 August 2003]

Gone with the Wind is probably the most overrated film ever made, right next to Citizen Kane. Don't get me wrong, the film was excellent in look and design. Put the two together, along with story and characterization and the outcome isn't quite the same. This whole movie is basically the life of Scarlett O'Hara before and after the Civil War and her sick and twisted many loves of Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler and other men. There is just way too much of Scarlett and her stubborness and greedy self included in this movie and so little of everyone else. Clark Gable is the top billed star in this movie, but if you add up everybody else scenes compared to his, he's about the tenth star. The film looks great in the beginning and also all throughout the entire picture. Magnificent directing, well structured and detailed art direction, and great costume design. Some great scenes are featured, the burning of Atlanta, the massive amount of extras of wounded Civil War solders and the errie and stomach churning scene of the war vet getting is leg amputated, by the use of shadows of the man's leg and tortured screams. Cleverly directed by the three directors who lent a hand in making this classic film. The problems this movie has that I think doesn't make it a masterpiece, is like I said before this is a film about Scarlett O' Hara, not Rhett Butler. I think love story's make good for classic's, but not masterpiece's. A masterpiece in my opinion are film's that aren't love stories, films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Adventures of Robin Hood, and Psycho. I wonder if Gone with the Wind was filmed in black and white, featured a lower budget and had no Clark Gable, would people still look at the film as great as they think it is now. I don't think so. Gone with the Wind has a great cast who did an extordinary job in bringing these characters to life. The ones who really catch your eye are Vivian Liegh and Clark Gable. Both do great jobs in portraying these complicated characters, especially Vivian Leigh. She defeintly deserved the oscar she recieved, but it's a shame Clark Gable didn't get one. He was snubbed. The person who played Mammie should of gave her oscar to him. I wonder how Errol Flynn would of done if he was chosen to play Rhett Butler, I think he would of played him probably more dashing, kinder and cooler. To sum it all up, a film for everyone to enjoy who are into classic's and love stories. **1/2 out of ****.