Reviews

I'll grant that this was probably a brilliant adaptation of a Flannery O'Connor book, like everyone here has said. But I didn't read the book OR any other O'Connor work. I didn't know that a film made from a book required you to read the book first.

It certainly helps sometimes, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey. But whenever I have commented on a movie being faithful to a book, I have been told by more serious film buffs that a movie made from a book should stand on its own. And if it only reaches those who read the book first, that it has failed to truly deliver.

I suppose it's a great movie because I didn't understand it. Sure, the idea of a rabid, humorless zealot preaching for the Church of Truth Without Christ is hilarious. We expect someone "without Christ" to be venal and corrupt, but this guy is far truer to his version of faith than the other preachers are to a "real" religion.

But I didn't like or care about anyone here. What war did Hazel Motes fight in? There's no real sense of period here. And why can't he get a real job with his Army experience? And what the heck was that Enoch character all about?

If Motes was supposed to be a "Christ figure," he failed for me. It may be holy to accept the sufferings God sends your way, but suffering at your own hand shouldn't count. I wouldn't care to know him in real life, much less follow him.

I guess I'll have to read the book now....

I saw both of these TV specials as a kid. I was 8 when How the Grinch Stole Christmas! premiered and 12 when Horton Hears a Who premiered.

And I wondered then and wonder still As children do and adults will

If those kind Whos in the Grinch's show Are the same that Horton hears, you know?

Then this would mean to one and all That Whos are not the only ones small

And that big, gruesome, greedy Grinch Who seeks the Whos' Yule for to pinch Is towered over by an INCH!

Did Seuss mean for Whoville to be The same in either show we see?

I've pondered this and ponder still As adults may and children will

The Whos we meet in Grinch's show Are kindly folks we'd like to know

But those we see mock Dr. Whovey Are arrogant and not so groovy!

Seuss never linked the Whos for us So you may ask why I make fuss

I simply think his brain sublime Would create different pronoun rhyme If those Whos weren't the same, cor blime!

Or they would if they saw it. Alas, while Woody is still brilliant post-Soon-Yi, large segments of the audience left him over that. I tell my friends of this movie and they get interested. I tell them it was by Woody Allen and they ask if it's dirty.

I truly enjoyed seeing 1930s Hollywood musical numbers played in a 1990s setting with new spins on the old standards. And that Halloween costume and song of Chiquita Banana -- talk about product placement!

Being a Marx Brothers fan, I loved the French tribute to Groucho. But by the same token, I didn't like the after-the-fact treatment given to the title song. "Everyone Says I Love You" was first sung by the Marxes, first in fact by Zeppo, in HORSEFEATHERS. I know the song and waited and waited for the new film's stars to chime forth with it. But it's just a voice-over song for the end titles.

This movie should have been titled after the song Woody DOES make a good play of, "I'm Through With Love," a little-known Bing Crosby song. But nobody would have gone to a movie of that title.

Outside of that quibble, though, this was one hilarious flick! And it supplies a wonderful explanation for Republicans...:)

.

Marvel Comics loves to team its superheroes up far more than DC ever does. In the comics, this means frequent crossovers, enough to make you wonder whose book you're reading. On TV, it means guest heroes who don't have their own shows.

This often happens in the cartoons, but this TV movie -- the first of the post-cancellation Hulk specials -- was actually the first time Marvel tried it in live action. And it was only the second team-up of ANY live-action superheroes. (The first was Green Hornet guesting on the 1960s Batman show, an episode viewed more often than the actual Green Hornet series!)

I liked the Hulk series, even though his powers were limited for a TV budget. Bill Bixby's acting as Banner compensated for any change to the hero's motif. But he still was a gamma-charged powerhouse whose appearance was triggered by rage. Thor didn't survive as well with the Hulk's writers. He's not a Norse god here, just a revived Viking warrior. Donald Blake doesn't become Thor, he summons him from the hammer like a genie, with lightning instead of smoke. And Thor doesn't even get to fly. Or wear a red cape. And the acting doesn't compensate for these changes.

Apparently the writers were envisioning Thor as a "buddy" series spinoff. If Hulk was "The Fugitive," then maybe Thor would have been "Route 66"? I think the writers should have spent more time with comic book themes than with 1950s TV shows.