Reviews

Since watching the first moments of this enchanting, beguiling, addictive program I haven't been able to put away the laundry, vacuum the floor or empty the dishwasher. Finding anything this bewitching to watch on TV is my idea of brain candy. And it's a mental vacation to boot because it fully engages my eyes, ears and imagination. Vikings is a rare gem. I'm halfway through the entire series and look forward to upcoming visually stimulating episodic treasures that have yet to be plundered. At first I thought it was a soap opera for guys with its overstated audio accents and battle scenes laden with overkill (literally), but I am not a guy and have found myself swept into the vortex of the Vikings as easily as a berserker joyously heading into battle. If you do decide to binge watch it, start at the beginning and don't make any plans for a week or two.

Just relax and remember this eye-opening film was produced in 1937 when things were not racially balanced like they are now, and it was acceptable for non-Asian people to portray the lead characters in this cinematic saga. Once you get past that concept, bask in the elaborately presented story that paints a very realistic picture of what it was like to survive during China's revolution, and how people migrated en masse to find food during times of famine, and ultimately died of hunger. I didn't care too much for Luise Rainer or Paul Muni before seeing this classic masterpiece, but the movie let me appreciate the full-fledged spectrum of the talent these people possessed. Definitely worth watching, especially for those who appreciate a reminder of how rough life was before modern day luxuries existed.

This intriguing 1969 fantasy is based on a Ray Bradbury novel of the same title. It unravels the story of two unlikely paths crossing on a hot, dusty trail, and features Rod Steiger as Will, the illustrated man, and a boyishly young Robert Drivas as Carl, who is subjected to Will's bizarre whims. The latter is hitching rides and walking to California to look for a job.

"They're not tattoos. They're skin illustrations. Don't you ever call them tattoos," Will barks at the younger man after exposing the full brunt of his body art to him. He admits to Will that a woman committed this heinous artistic act upon his body, and even though he didn't really want to end up covered in skin illustrations, he confesses that he did so to get "laid." Ouch. This tantalizing bit of trivia prompts a picture of a potentially painful sensual endeavor, depending on where the most recent skin illustration has been etched.

The seductive, sultry tattoo-creating female character, Felicia, is portrayed by Claire Bloom in this sci-fi-esque classic that ties the past and the future together through elaborate body art.

Some of the futuristic day-to-day life depictions in this three-star flick aren't far from today's technologies and philosophies. The hairdos and clothing worn in this 1969 interpretation of the "future" are also fairly accurate. Kudos to the costume and hair styling departments. Set-wise, these semi-sophisticated people of the future appear to live comfortably in an over-sized white bathroom at one point in this classic cinematic bedazzler.

The main character in "The Illustrated Man" lived in shame, self-conscious about the horrible, colorful notion of walking around covered from neck to feet in tattoos. How ironic that the opposite is true today. In fact, modern body art doesn't stop at the neck any longer. Certain brazen individuals even sport ink on their faces in the tattoo-laden world of this new millennium.

One can only wonder what the illustrated man would think of that?

Randolph Scott stands tall and stately with a smile dancing on his lips throughout much of this semi-moving movie, even though it's not a comedy.

Dapperly dressed, Scott pitches pistol features and benefits, befriends native Americans, and does his darnedest to make the old West a better place to sell repeating revolvers in this shoot-em-up flick.

Some interesting points center around the other actors and characters in this two-and-a-half-star 1950 western extravaganza.

Watching Alan Hale (Sr.) as the wayward sheriff is positively intriguing. There are a couple of scenes where his resemblance to his son is so apparent that it seems as though Gilligan's familiar cry of "Skipper" might pierce the dusty air of Bonanza City at any second.

In one somewhat intense bad-guy scene, Zachary Scott's pinkish flower-sprouting pajama-esque shirt is accessorized oh so tastefully with a sandy brown neck scarf, and a deliciously dazzling silver belt with a sterling home-on-the-range flair. It doesn't necessarily detract from the scene, but this pastel ensemble worth raving about doesn't necessarily enhance the uber masculine character he portrays in this film. Maybe the wardrobe staff forgot the film was in color, and not in the more commonly used black-and-white format.

Meanwhile, Ruth Roman learns the hard way why it's important to avoid marrying a guy who rides roughshod on the wrong side of the law. And speaking of odd couples, who would have guessed that she'd end up cinematically wed to Lloyd Bridges?

All in all, this classic tale of the old west warrants one solid uninterrupted viewing as it is at least worth its weight in lead.

When selecting old movies to record, the number of stars listed by the cable company often has a bearing on these choices. However, even though "The Penalty" was showing only two stars, the entire film belies this underestimated rating.

Beyond the natural ambiance of a black-and-white flick from 1941, this movie unfolds gradually, and culminates with a somewhat riveting climax, so it's certainly worth more than a mere two stars.

Edward Arnold, an often overlooked actor from film's early days, portrays a superb sampling of the ultimate bad guy. The one aspect of his character that makes him human is his relationship with his teenage son, a role brilliantly played by Gene Reynolds.

Add a dash of Lionel Barrymore as a crusty old farmer, and a smattering of sizzling young Robert Sterling, and you have created the recipe for a delicious old flick that will hold your attention and dangle in your thoughts like the aftertaste of a delectable dessert.

This film is definitely worth the investment of 80 minutes of viewing time.