Reviews

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

The premise of the series:

James Spader plays Raymond Reddington, perhaps the greatest international criminal ever. He has been on the top of the FBI's most wanted list for over twenty years, and they never came close to capturing him.

So, one day he enters the federal building and gives himself up and makes a deal with the Justice Department. He will help them catch major criminals that are under the FBI's radar on the condition he his granted immunity and that he works with an obscure FBI profiler by the name of Elizabeth Kean.

The series works with a stellar performance by Spader and a good supporting cast and the many twists and turns provided by the writers.

Unfortunately, the writers failed on three points. The first two dealing with the Elizabeth Kean character. They made her vicious and corrupt. She should have been kept the one straight arrow among a cast of characters that all had skeletons in their closets. If that wasn't bad enough, they killed her off in season eight. The series wasn't the same without her.

The third and worst deals with the last season:

It was disappointing. It left us hanging with many unanswered questions.

In particular, the questions created by the bombshell the writers dropped around season five or six, they revealed that the man we knew as Raymond Reddington was an imposter. The real Raymond Reddington was dead.

So, this posed several questions: Who was Spader's character? Why was he willing to die to protect that secret? Why did he steal the identity of someone vilified as a traitor? Being that Elizabeth Kean was the daughter of the real Raymond Reddington, what was her connection to him (Did he take an interest in her out of guilt for murdering her father or did he promise her mother to protect her?)?

Also, the writers could have done a better job ending "Reddington", though Ressler and the hat was a nice touch. From the way the character was defined over the series, I think he would have found a more unique way to go out. Certainly not by being gored and trampled by a bull, who would want that?

A better ending would have been to make "Reddington's" death ambiguous. We wouldn't know if he died or if it was another clever maneuver on his part. A tag could even have been added. Agnes getting an anonymous gift years later, wondering who it was from and Cooper replying "I wonder."

Or, he could have just died in the hospital from the illness revealed earlier, his last words answering our questions.

If not for these, I would have given the series a ten.

It's supposedly based on the life of Walter O'Brien, a real person with one of the highest recorded IQ's.

The Walter O'Brien in the series is a genius with an IQ of 197. He heads a company called Scorpion comprised of other geniuses, Happy, a mechanical engineer, Toby, a psychiatrist, and Sylvester, a human mathematical calculator.

The team is rounded out by Page, a former waitress who is brought in for her people skills, to act as a liaison between the geniuses and normal people. Page is divorced with a son, who turns out to be a genius.

The Scorpion team does risky and near impossible jobs for companies and individuals but mostly works for Homeland Security under their handler Cabe Gallo.

As my title states, it is not a series about science but instead concentrates on the characters themselves and their interactions with others, some of which can be humorous. For instance, we find that Walter is willing to sacrifice his life to save others and as the series continues, we find a growing romantic relationship between him and Page. Also, Sylvester's germ phobia and the almost love hate relationship between Toby and Happy make things interesting.

The science is definitely not always correct. For example, there are scenes where they hack into a computer system in under a minute. Having been in IT, I can state that such a thing will not happen unless the hacker has ID's and passwords.

Though once again, it is not about science, but the people. The series has heart.

Season one was excellent. Season two dwelt too much on Walter's dying sister and dragged the series down somewhat. The third seemed to be bent on showing that Walter could be a big jerk. The fourth and current is back on track and very good.

If not for seasons two and three, I would rate "Scorpion" a ten. Though I gave it an eight, it is worth watching.

This review may contain spoilers ***

SEASON 7:

This series was originally fresh and creative but has really deteriorated.

The seventh season is little more than a reworking of season one's plot: a curse where everyone has lost their memories. The writers have obviously run out of ideas. It is so lacking that at times I switched to another channel's "Star Trek" reruns.

Worse still, it is wasting the talents of the cast, especially the considerable talents of Robert Carlyle. Perhaps, the writers noticed this too. For, they dedicated an episode to Carlyle's character, and as usual, he has given the series its most moving moments.

Seeing Rumplestiltskin's redemption and being with Belle has been the only good thing about season seven.

If there is no improvement, which seems likely, I will stop watching; for, I think season six should have been the last. Its ending would have been a good wrap up.

THE FOLLOWING ARE MY ORIGINAL REVIEWS STARTING FROM SEASON ONE TO THE LATTER ONES. I RECALL ORIGINALLY GIVING THE SERIES A RATING OF NINE.

Great TV series either come up with new ideas or a creative look at old ones. "Once Upon a Time" does the latter extremely well.

During the first season, I watched the first two episodes and then only watched off and on. However, I eventually got hooked! The jumping back and forth between Storybrook and the Enchanted Forest took some getting used to, and the commercial breaks caused more fragmentation.

Once I got used to the style of the series, it became a never miss show, and I eventually bought the season 1 DVD set to catch up on the missed episodes.

The twists the writers do with the fairy tale characters is great (who would think of Peter Pan as actually an evil old man?) and the actors do an excellent portrayal of them. Robert Carlyle has the plumb part as Rumplestiltskin. His scenes are the most memorable. Lana Parilla is also very good as the evil queen. They both can exude pure evil yet reveal sparks of former goodness.

Highlight episodes are "Skin Deep", a wonderful reworking of beauty and the beast and the season one finale "A Land Without Magic".

The second season continued the high quality of the first.

The third season stalled somewhat with the Peter Pan story line. Though a nice twist, Pan the villain and Hook mostly a good guy, and though it gave some good revelations about the characters (e.g. we find how Rumplestiltskin was scarred as a child, something that motivated his later actions), this plot went on too long. If not for this, I would have given the series a ten.

After wrapping up the Peter Pan story, the series has since got back on track.

In summary, "Once Upon a Time" is one of the better series on TV, and I highly recommend it.

UPDATE: As with most series, the later seasons are not as good as the early ones. I think this one needs to drop the Disney tie-ins. It lowers the quality.

Also, they are ruining Robert Carlyle's character. Rumplestiltskin was originally a good man who became the Dark One in order to save his son. The conflict between the good man and the darkness from the dagger made the character not only interesting but sympathetic. Now, he is being portrayed as someone who was always dark and power hungry -- major mistake.

Another thing, though I like the twists the fairy tale characters are given, making Little Red Riding Hood and Dorothy from the "Wizard of Oz" lesbians is going too far. A bit of the innocence of the original tales should be retained.

At this point, I am wondering if the series is still worth watching (and I have lowered my rating). I'll see with the upcoming season.

"Game of Thrones" is basically about four families involved in battles for the throne of the kingdom of Westros. They are: the Starks, a northern family, honorable and good; the Lannisters, cunning and ruthless (Tyrion being the exception, a good and clever man); the Baratheons, now practically extinct with the end of season five, and the sole survivor of the Targareons, Daenerys.

This last one is the daughter of the one known as the Mad King. He was overthrown by a coalition of the above three families. She is currently building an army to retake the Iron Throne and in addition has three dragons to aid her.

There are various plots and subplots that keep the viewer guessing and often unexpected twists and turns. So far after the five seasons I have seen, this has kept the series interesting.

The acting is very good, and I do not recall one bad performance. Peter Dinklage is especially excellent as Tyrion Lannister, making Tyrion the best character in the series. From season one, he immediately makes the character connect with the audience.

For a TV series, the special effects are well done and the computer generated images are mostly good. Add to that the great scenery, and an atmosphere is created that helps move the story along.

That was the good, now for the bad. There is excessive violence and cruelty. Considering that GOT is emulating a violent period in history, one can accept the violence, but the cruelty no! Children being crucified and burned alive adds nothing to the story. Especially the scene where Stannis Baratheon has his little daughter burned alive while she pleads to him and her mother, this scene was extremely disturbing! It just ruined the fifth season, and what did it really add? It only made me want to abandon the series!

Then, there is the writers' tendency to kill off or maim the heroes. Yes, I know that in real life heroes die and get maimed, but this goes to excess! Also, one does not watch and read fiction for reality. For that, one turns to the news!

With these criticisms considered, I wonder if GOT will end on a dark note, with evil triumphant. If it does, it will surely make the entire series meaningless.

I am rating "Game of Thrones" a seven, if not for the above flaws I would have given it a ten.

This is a series about time travel.

The pilot episode sets up the premise. A scientist unknown to the US government invents a time travel machine. It is hijacked by a group bent on changing history for their own ends which will likely be revealed in future episodes.

Fortunately, a prototype exists so a team can be sent back in time to stop them. A professor of history, a member of Delta Force, and one of the scientists are recruited. They go back to 1937, the time of the Hindenburg disaster. The villains delay the destruction so others can die with the original victims, but their plan is thwarted and lives saved. This, however, changes the present for the history professor.

Viewers also learn that the professor has some kind of tie to the main antagonist and to events, which hopefully will be also revealed.

The pilot ends with her receiving a phone call that she and the rest of the team are needed to stop another attempt to change history.

This is a good story at this point, but the writers had to overdo the social commentary. One expects some social or political comment nowadays in movies and TV series, but beating the drum at least three times is excessive. In everything today, one is inundated with so much propaganda that it quickly wears thin.

Also, while the writers had the black character mention famous blacks, they should not have had him say that O.J. Simpson getting away with brutal murders was OK. That is not only in bad taste, but offensive and racist. What if Goldman's parents were watching? It's like having a white character saying that the police shootings of black men are OK.

Which brings up the scene where the cops go to beat the black man, NBC is apparently trying to capitalize on the news stories regarding the police shootings. This is irresponsible. It can only fan the flames of hate and violence.

Sometimes, series take different directions than those outlined in the pilot. So, I will wait and see and check out the episodes that follow. Hopefully, the writers will concentrate more on story and less on preaching.

UPDATE:

I watched the second episode last night, hoping that it would be better than the pilot. It was not.

Episode two dealt with Flynn going back in time to change the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Flynn apparently wants to expand the number of people killed to include General Grant and the vice president.

The story was simple with only a shootout and Rufus being seen as not being a soldier. More certainly could have been done to make the story interesting.

Needless to say, they maintain history with only some minor changes occurring, and this episode reveals why Lucy's sister no longer exists.

Now, there were some things that the writers botched. For one, Wyatt gets shot in the midsection, at least badly enough that Rufus has to perform emergency surgery on him, yet we later see Wyatt getting into a fight without opening the wound. For another, Lucy states that with Lincoln, the vice president, and Grant all being assassinated, the Confederacy could rise back up. For a historian, she should know better; the South and its army were decimated to the point of being unable to fight.

Also in this episode, the writers continued to preach on their apparently favorite subject.

If anyone wants to watch a good story on time travel and the Lincoln assassination, they should watch the old "Twilight Zone" episode. It is one of the most thoughtful and well written stories on the subject.

As for time travel series, it is better to watch the old series: "The Time Tunnel" or "Voyagers", both more creative and better written.

I doubt if I will watch this series any further, so I am reducing my rating to one star, from five.

Based on the first season, I would have given it nine stars, but after seeing the (frustrating) direction the writers took during the second season, I dropped it to one! The first season was intriguing. You had sympathy for the characters and wanted answers.

However, the second season became more of a soap opera and revealed virtually nothing. I wanted the episodes to head in the direction of why the dead returned but was greatly disappointed instead. After several episodes I lost interest.

After it was cancelled, a fan wrote to the local TV critic inquiring about the ending, how the writers would have explained the dead returning. Well, it turns out that they never planned to reveal this, for they had no explanation!! Now, if you base an entire series on an incredible premise, you damn well better have an explanation! Not doing so is not only a disservice to the fans but is poor writing. That is THE reason for a one star rating.

Season one dealt with Rip Hunter, the time master, trying to eliminate Vandal Savage, who murdered Rip's wife and son.

I think this story line went on too long, but the writers wisely gave it a conclusion in the season finale.

Now for the characters, it is just hard to like the Hunter character, though they tried to make him sympathetic. The Kendra and Carter characters just slowed the story and were somewhat silly. Their departure was a good thing at the end.

The Atom is very likable and reminds you of Christopher Reeves. Also, Professor Stein is good. Snart and Mick also are good characters, too bad the writers killed Snart, bad move.

About Jefferson, the writers need to develop his personality. At this point, it's almost a generic one.

Though I am not enthusiastic about season one, I think the second one will be worth checking out. Sometimes a series does not hit its stride until later.

The series premise is that Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle team up to solve crimes.

The pilot episode certainly did not impress me, but I gave it a chance and watched episode two and found it just as bad.

Now, the real Conan Doyle claimed that his Sherlock Holmes character was based on a Professor Bell, but I have read that he himself had the same skill at observation and deduction. The series pays little attention to this attribute.

Though the actors gives it a good try, the writing is just not there.

I gave this one star because there was no option for no stars.

This series owes a lot to the 1990 series "The Flash", which in many ways was better. Perhaps, the series acknowledges this by casting the actor from the 1990 series as Barry's father, a nice touch.

For a TV series, the special effects are well done, though on rare occasions they are somewhat lame.

As for the writing, the story throws in some surprises and keeps you guessing.

Now, for the characters, Tom Cavanagh as Wells/Thawne has his character down pat. I have met people like that, people who make a deliberate attempt to appear as a good person yet are wolves in sheep's clothing. Also, Carlos Valdes is really good as Cisco, so good that one cannot picture anyone else in the part. In addition, Grant Gustin makes a likable hero.

Concerning Gustin's character, the writers have made Barry Allen too naive. Really, he was surprised when a crook did not keep his promise! He should be smarter. After all, Barry is 26 years old and works for the police. One would think that he would have learned something about the world with that background.

Then, the writers had Barry do something that was really irritating in the season one finale. After spending the entire season being obsessed with clearing his father and freeing him from prison and being traumatized by his mother's death, when given the chance to change all that, he does nothing!! When Wells asks why and states that Allen could have everything he wants, Barry replies he already had everything. That just demolishes what a good portion of season one spent building.

Then, there is Iris. As a previous reviewer stated, the I want to know everything attitude can make her obnoxious. Also, I think it was a mistake having her discover that Barry is the Flash. Some good subplots could have been worked into later stories.

Finally, Caitlin is likable and seems a better fit for Barry, the same could be said for Iris and Ronny.

Once again, regarding the season one finale, the writers set up the second season for some intriguing possibilities. With Thawne wiped out of existence by Eddy: Will Barry's mother be alive and his father free? Will the real Harrison Wells be around? Will Barry get his powers in another way? To sum it up, "The Flash" is a good series and worth watching, but it does need tweaking.

UPDATE:

Season two is on a par with the first. Though, one good change is that they softened the character of Iris.

Cavanaugh continues to give a good performance, making a good distinction between the evil Wells and the one from Earth II.

I still think that the writers need to wise up the Barry Allen character. Also, they need to follow more of a logical pattern. For instance, The Flash is fast, but on encountering a villain, he does not react fast when she unleashes a sonic blast. In other words, make The Flash more competent.

Finally, they should have Barry and Caitlin get together. It's just more of a fit and could make for some interesting stories.

SECOND UPDATE:

This series showed promise in season one, but has deteriorated with each successive season.

As I said before, the writers need to wise up Barry Allen. I don't expect a superhero to be perfect, but he should at least have a level of competence. For instance, the Flash encounters a super villain; he knows the villain's powers, yet he just stands there and lets the super villain attack him. What happened to the Flash's super reflexes?

Now, the current season has had too much emphasis on the relationship between Barry and Iris to the point that the series has become maudlin. It even led to the silly musical episode -- totally ridiculous.

Also, enough of the speedsters! There's the Flash, Kid Flash, Girl Flash, Reverse Flash, Zoom, and now Savatar. The series only needs one speedster, the Flash.

And, can't the writers be more creative when it comes to villains? Must they resort to speedsters?

As may be guessed, because of the above, I am lowering my rating to five stars.

"Grimm" has recently completed its fourth season and it has maintained the quality during all four seasons. The show is still fresh with the writers still coming up with unexpected plot twists.

Basically, Detective Nick Burkhardt is a descendant of the Brothers Grimm, and the creatures from their fairy tales and other fairy tales throughout the world are real. They are called Wesen and look like ordinary people but can change into these creatures. Nick, being a descendant known as a Grimm, can see them while the rest of us cannot when they change in an emotional moment (when they deliberately change, anyone can see them).

Being that Grimms also have supernatural physical abilities when it comes to battling Wesen, Nick uses them to bring the bad ones to justice.

The writers keep coming up with great creatures and good subplots, like the old royal families conspiring to regain power. Add to that the great cast of characters and the actors who portray them, and the series is a winner all the way!

UPDATE:

Season five really ended with a bang! It had a lot of action and an unexpected ending with Diana manipulating Renard to save Nick's life.

Though two criticisms: first, I can understand Nick befriending Adalind, but it does not make sense that he got romantically involved. After all, she was responsible either directly or indirectly for all the bad that happened to Juliette, Hank, and Wu, and his mother's death. Second, attacking Renard in his office seemed out of character. Throughout the series, Nick was more disciplined and thoughtful under pressure.

Now, I recall reading before season five that the writers were going to take the series in a darker direction. I hope they learned from the cancellation of "Constantine" and do not make it too dark. Also, the series should maintain its bits of intentional humor.

To sum up, it's still a very good series and I will be looking forward to season six.

Not just another cop show, but a series with a difference, the main character, Dr. Henry Morgan, is immortal.

He is the medical examiner, but because of his Sherlock Holmes like observational abilities and his knowledge of history, mostly gained through living it, he teams with Detective Martinez to solve crimes.

The stories are well written, the characters likable and the viewers get flashbacks into Henry's past. It all makes for something to look forward to on TV.

Unfortunately, ABC canceled it. The writers must have known it was coming for the last episode provided some resolutions, Adam being prevented from doing any more harm and Jo obviously will learn Henry's secret.

The one question not answered, the cause of Henry's immortality. I would have liked to see what the writers had in mind.

"Forever" is now gone, but it will be remembered as a series well worth watching.

The series had a novel idea, interpret history involving hostile extraterrestrials and the secret government agency fighting them.

This worked quite well. Though, some have criticized the series for styles and music being out of sync with the time periods or other mistakes (one glaring mistake is the footage chosen of a launch of Project Gemini -- shown was a Mercury capsule mounted on a Redstone booster). One has to remember that this was a TV series and as such, was subjected to a tight shooting schedule.

Now, like "The Invaders" (if I recall that series correctly), the major drawback was that the main characters made virtually no progress in their fight against the alien menace. A series needs forward momentum, otherwise the episodes become exercises in futility.

As for the ending episode, even though the series was abruptly canceled, it could have been better. A longer narration could have been added resolving all of the loose threads, e.g. saying Loenguard's son was the aliens big mistake which caused their defeat.

All in all, the series was based on an interesting and intelligent idea and if it had the aforementioned forward momentum, would have been one of the all time classics.

I originally saw this series when it first aired back in the late 1960's, later on a local television channel about 14 years ago, and now on the recently released DVD of the complete series.

It really holds up well. Some of the TV series back then were too topical or quickly became dated, not so with "The Mothers In-Law"! It is timeless comedy that still brings big laughs.

Whoever did the casting was a genius. There's Eve Arden who's talent certainly shows why she stayed popular. Always known for a smart remark in the movies, she continues to entertain in this series. Then, there's Kaye Ballard who makes up the other half of the two main characters. Her character is so strong that after all the years since the show originally aired, you still remember her catch phrase, "Oh Really!" and her character bragging about singing with the Ossie Snick Orchestra. Next, there's Roger C. Carmel, probably best remembered as Harry Mudd from the original "Star Trek" series, a great character actor and highly underrated. He is the perfect casting as Roger Buell (later played by Richard Deacon in the second season). He just fits the outlandish hats and stunts the character uses as a writer. Roger's foil is Herbert Rudley, a veteran of many movies and TV shows. Another piece of perfect casting, he is great as the more strait laced lawyer, often at odds with Roger. Add to this Jerry Fogel and Deborah Walley who are very likable and entertaining as the long suffering newlyweds and you have a cast that never fails to entertain.

In addition to a great cast, writers from the original classic, "I Love Lucy" utilize their talents with very funny scripts.

Though the show never fails to provide laughs, there are some episodes that really stand out. A few of them are:

"A Night to Forget" where Eve and Kaye get locked in a department store. They try to call their husbands for help but get a wrong number in Barcelona, Spain!

In "Through the Lurking Glass", Roger is writing for a TV show about the Masked Martian. So, he dresses up in the costume and jumps out at people in the park in order to gauge their reactions for his script. Naturally, he gets arrested and has trouble trying to explain since he is dressed up as a martian. So, he calls for help only to get Eve and Kaye coming in dressed like grasshoppers followed by Herb in an "Arabian Nights" type costume, then Jerry and Suzy dressed as a kangaroo and rabbit!

Then, there's "You Challenge Me to What?" Roger challenges Herb to a duel after his writing is insulted. The girls try to stop it only to be caught by the police dueling with swords in their hands!

"How Not to Manage a Rock Group", this episode has a guest appearance by the rock group, The Seeds, in this instance, called The Warts. They perform their classic "Pushin' Too Hard".

The "Mothers In-Law" is a classic show with talented writers and cast, a show that deserved a longer run and a must see of television comedy.

Finally! The complete first season of "The Phil Silvers' Show", often known just as "Sgt. Bilko", has been released on DVD.

Silvers was a comedic genius who perfected the personae as the quick witted fast talking con man, yet one with a good heart. Steve Martin is very talented and did a good job in the movie version, but he just did not reach Silvers' height.

Add to that a great supporting cast, and you have a great classic. Paul Ford plays Bilko's nemesis, Colonel Hall. He has a talent for delivering his lines for their greatest effect. For instance, in the episode where a chimp accidentally gets inducted into the army, he delivers possibly the funniest line, about no one ever remembering him for being at the top of his class at West Point or for all his medals of valor -- but remembering him as the man who opened up the military to the animal kingdom! The expression on his face is a howl!

Then, there are familiar faces like Allan Melvin (Sgt. Hacker from Gomer Pyle) and Harvey Lembeck (Eric Von Zipper).

In the first season, it becomes obvious that the series hit its stride very early. Just one great episode after another.

Do you want to know how to turn an incorrigible hoodlum into a model soldier? Bilko does, just involve him in an insane plan to rob Fort Knox! Or, how do you get a pretty debutante to want the homeliest man in the platoon? Or, why does a sergeant have his own private telephone when the commanding officer has to share his with 14 others? Or can one get busted and get his stripes back in 6 hours?

To sum up, this show is a great example of TV from its golden age. It has almost become a lost classic. Hopefully, the season one release will renew interest. The series certainly deserves it.

UPDATE: A few months ago, I bought the entire series on DVD, even though I already had season 1. Though season one was duplicated, it was worth it. The series maintains the laughs throughout every season. Not many sitcoms can claim such consistency.

Though I am a fan of "I Love Lucy" and "Seinfeld", the "Phil Silvers Show" outshines both of them.

Some highlights of the seasons two through four: Bilko finagling a promotion for Col. Hall, Bilko taking the advice of a psychiatrist and reforming his ways -- only no one in the camp can get any sleep worrying what he is up to, and Bilko getting back at a reporter from a scandal sheet which is trashing the army (after selling him mess hall menus and laundry lists as classified information, Bilko convinces the reporter that the platoon is part of a revolutionary cell dedicated to overthrowing the government, and with Col. Hall as the leader! Achtung!)

Once again, I highly recommend this series to anyone who loves comedy. It is a classic!

James Cagney is at the top of his game giving a machine gun like delivery of his lines, once again, demonstrating his status as a legendary star.

Add to this, a cast of good character actors, some familiar like Leon Askin and Red Buttons and some not so familiar. All in all a cast that helps makes a film that delivers laughs in rapid fire succession!

Included in this cast is Horst Buchholz who is especially funny as the loony communist. Now, someone mentioned that Jack Lemmon thought a regular comedian should have been put in that role. I think that would have made the character less funny. It needs the "serious" touch that Buchholz gives Otto that really makes his statements even more ludicrous and therefore even funnier. A good example is the scene where Otto makes his comments on Americanism while being dragged out of the room, "America, unemployment, discrimination, gangsterism, juvenile delinquency, but under our new 20 year plan, we will catch up with you!".

If any one has not seen this gem, my advice is look for it on TV, buy it, rent it, just watch it! You won't stop laughing!

I first saw this movie back in the 90's during the Christmas season on AMC when it was still a class act and liked it so much that I taped it when it was repeated and later transferred it to DVD.

The movie has a great cast from one of the best child actors (if not the best), Patty McCormick, to Dan Duryea, a very underrated actor and great as the harried studio publicity man. Also, the viewer will notice various character actors that later appeared on TV.

"Kathy'O" has a good story with a mixture of drama, empathy, and humor and as someone else said, should be aired every Christmas as a good family movie.

It's a shame it hasn't been released on DVD. I would certainly like to upgrade my copy.

UPDATE: This movie is a Christmas tradition. So after watching it in December, I decided to look up the "Saturday Evening Post" story on which it was based. While doing so, I ran into reviews by the critics at the time of the movie's original release, which prompts this edit of my original post.

First, the critics were disappointed that the caustic humor at the beginning did not continue throughout the movie. If this had been done, the movie would have lost its warmth.

Their second complaint was that they felt the story moved too slow. Really, the pacing was just right. It developed the characters, the cynical publicity man, the career woman who in her pursuit of success, neglected the other important things in life, and finally the neglected and unloved child.

Their final criticism was the ending, that it was too sweet, and disappointing that Kathy didn't do something like burn down the Christmas tree in the tradition of Patty's bad seed character. Really, the ending was perfect. It let the audience know that the child found people that loved and wanted her, that she would be happy. As to a bad seed type of ending, what would have been the point of the movie then?

This is a case where the critics truly got it wrong!