electrictroy Reviews

The Guns of Navarone (1961)

False history

[4/10 · 29 June 2019]

(1) no island named Navarone

(2) the Germans did NOT have giant gun buried in any mountain in Greece

(3) It wasn't even German territory. The Italians controlled Greece (they didn't have giant mountain guns either)

A lot of people think this is an actual historical event, but nothing even close to Guns of Navarone happened during the Greek campaign.

As for the narrative, it is weak with poorly developed characters, inconsistent logic, and Bbling Inept Germans (in reality the Germans were every bit the equal of the British-American invasion force)

.

The Buddy Holly Story (1978)

Horribly inaccurate

[2/10 · 25 August 2017]

This movie introduces various things that never occurred. For example Buddy gets in a concert fight that never happened. Also some members of the band are portrayed as racist, frequently using the "N word", when they never used such language.

A biography should be as accurate as possible, whereas this movie is largely fiction .

Hatari! (1962)

Animal cruelty

[2/10 · 25 July 2017]

I realize this represents hunting in the 1950s, but I still find it objectionable. They could have used darts filled with tranquilizers to capture the animals humanely.

Also the plot is nearly non-existent (so was the script, since most of the scenes are ad-libbed). I won't be watching this movie a second time .

Crusade (1999)

Why TNT killed Crusade (they wanted out of the contract)

[9/10 · 17 July 2009]

I'm not going to review the show but in brief: I consider Crusade equal to the original Star Trek's first thirteen episodes. Because it was an exploration ship and had that unusual otherworldy music, for me watching Crusade evokes the same sense of "wonder" and "mystery" and "danger" as the original Trek did. What happened to Crusade is approximately equivalent to if Babylon 5 ended after "Signs and Portents" where the Shadow Ambassador Mr. Morden first unveiled himself. Crusade was a 5-year-story about Earth and the Shadows, but was unfortunately cut short.

Also the recommended airing order is episode 103 (Racing the Night), 101, 102, 104, 105, and so on. IMHO it makes more sense story-wise to follow this production order, rather than following the TNT/DVD order. (The same is true for Star Trek TOS.)

So anyway quoting J.Michael Straczynski (jms):

It was after episode five. We'd gotten minimal notes from TNT, pretty much along the lines of the Warner Bros notes we had in our first season of Babylon 5, so things were going pretty swimmingly. Then, out of nowhere, they gave us the shutdown so they could look at the show. That wasn't a small sign, it was more like an explosion going off on the set.

.....It was only after I had left that I ran into TNT executives who had been working there at the time, who said, 'We're sorry about what happened.' I asked them under promise of confidentiality, and what it came down to was they had done a multi-year audience survey, and finally got the results in right around the time we were shooting episode 5, and it said that the TNT audience does not like or want or respond to SF.

What I was told is that when they saw those figures come in, they decided that they wanted to get out of the contract and use that money to buy repeats of Law & Order, which their survey indicated would be a good buy for them. It you look at the trades for that time, they were kind of surprised when TNT came in on this bidding war and nailed it. Everyone thought their budget for the year had been allocated, so where was this money coming from? By sheer coincidence, the money they paid is equal to what they were going to pay for a full season of Crusade.

Plus they didn't want to have to pay for the first 13. By trying to say it wasn't the show they ordered, they were trying to get out of paying anything and stick Warners with the bill. That was the purpose of the notes that came through. They could say, 'We gave them notes, and they wouldn't do them.' No, because they were egregious and wrong and I couldn't do them, but at the time, I knew none of this.

And as one TV person told me after the fact, "Had you done every single note that they asked you for, they would have found some other reason to get out of that contract." They were trying to paper their way out of the deal, which makes me even gladder that I stood up when I did. - jms

In my opinion:

TNT sounds like a bunch of shysters: (1)Sign a contract (2) Change your mind (3) And manufacture excuses not to pay for the 13 episodes produced.

Witness for the Prosecution (1982 TV Movie)

A poor copy of the original

[1/10 · 23 January 2009]

I watched Witness for the Prosecution on the "This" movie channel hoping it would be just as good as the original, but unfortunately not.

It plays like a TV episode instead of a movie, and the acting is very stilted. Even the way they move feels like watching robots in motion rather than a natural performance. I don't know who to blame - the directors or the actors - but in either case the actors look like actors, not real people experiencing real events.

I recommend you get the original movie which DOES feel natural. Charles Laughton does a brilliant job as the lawyer.

Even if you have to rent it, the original movie is better than this "free" TV version and worth the expenditure. PBS sometimes runs the original on weekends, so maybe you can catch it then.

The Little Colonel (1935)

Shirley's Best Movie

[10/10 · 23 May 2007]

Personally, I think this is Shirley's best movie. It's got a good story (rare in children's movies), my favorite actor (Lionel Barrymore), great acting from a 5-yr-old child (Shirley), great dance numbers with Bojangles, lots of servant put-downs of their masters (as when Bojangles calls his master a fool)

and also lots of humor, as when Shirley throws the chess set onto the floor, strikes an angry pose, and tells her Grandpa, "You're a bad man!". I smile every time I see that. The little 5-yr-old girl put the 70-something old guy in his place.

If you've not yet seen the Little Colonel, I recommend you buy or rent it now. It's a great introduction to the actress Shirley Temple, and you can see why she was the number one star in 1936, 37, and 38.

King Kong (2005)

KING KONG - an insult to the viewers' intelligence

[1/10 · 26 February 2007]

It was like watching a Computer Demo..... lots of cool effects, but not much to stimulate my higher reasoning centers. It was, frankly, insulting. The girl should have been dead & ditto most of the men.

• Take a mouse, gerbil, or other small animal. - Hold it in your fist w/ the head sticking out. - Now swing your arm around as if you were King Kong. - What do you have? - A dead rodent with a broken neck. <---- That's what would have happened to Miss Darrow, had she been subjected to the trauma portrayed in the movie. She would have NEVER survived the abuse of King Kong swinging her to-and-fro.

• Now take another small animal. - Locate a herd of stampeding buffalo or cows. - Throw animal into the herd. - What do you have? - A squashed rodent resembling a pancake. <----- That's what would have happened to the Men in the expedition, when they were running through the middle of those stampeding dinosaurs. They would never have survived. They would have been stepped upon & either killed outright, or severely maimed.

These are just two examples of MANY in the movie where Human Beings are abused & yet somehow survive. (What? Are they made of rubber?) I was hoping to find a movie superior to the original version. (It has high ratings on IMDb.com.) Same fun story, but with better effects. Instead, I found my suspension of disbelief mangled, crushed, and destroyed. NONE of those characters would have survived the trauma & punishment the film-makers put them through. The girl should have been a lifeless body with a broken neck. The men: squashed by the stampeding dinosaurs.

Human beings are fragile. They are not made of rubber where you can throw them, swing them, and expect them to survive undamaged, unscratched, and not a spec of dirt. Human beings are not that tough.

Jurassic Park 1:

That was one aspect that Stephen Spielberg got right when he did his "giant monster" movie. When a person got tossed against a tree... he died. When a girl was shocked by electricity, she bled. And she limped from internal damage to her body. When they crawled through the mud, they got dirty.

JP1 was believable. King Kong was not. KK seems to view its audience as gullible, easily deceived, and brainless...... too stupid to spot the obvious flaws shown on the screen. An insult to the Viewers' intelligence.

Victor/Victoria (1982)

This movie offers little beyond the surprise twist.

[2/10 · 28 January 2007]

Surprise!

• The stage character "Victoria" is actually a man named Victor.

• Nope. The man Victor is actually a woman (hence why her stage portrayal is so feminine).

• Neat.

But beyond that, I don't think this movie offers anything else. The music is mediocre, and the plot is almost non-existent. Subtract the female/male/female twist & what have you got left?

Very little.

Won't be watching this one a second time. I thought the whole movie was rather dull & uninteresting.

The Last Man on Planet Earth (1999 TV Movie)

I thought it was a good story, but not without some flaws

[10/10 · 15 January 2007]

The following contains general spoilers (example: Star Wars is about spaceships), but no specific plot details.

.

One flaw: Some awkward acting... probably the result of a small budget & not having enough money to do retakes. Otherwise, I thought it was a decent sci-fi story. Certainly better than 99% of Sci-Fi Channel's "original movies".

The premise is that there was a war, and (presumably) American scientists developed a virus to kill men. The virus was intended to be used to kill the (presumably) Arabic soldiers who were 99.9% men. And it worked brilliantly.

Unfortunately the virus, as viruses tend to do, mutated from a safe non-contagious form into an airborne form. And thus the virus spread via the air to Europe, then America, and then the whole world & wiped out 97% of the male population.

What was left was a world run by women. And thus the movie begins.

During the next two hours we get to see a female-run society that is supposedly "better" than the previous male-dominated society, but in reality has many of the same flaws like prostitution, corruption, and a tendency to kill. Overall a good movie that makes the viewer think about the possibilities.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Watch Jesus of Nazareth first - this movie second

[10/10 · 25 September 2005]

"The Passion" won't make any sense without knowledge of the story. All you see is a man getting tortured, because Mel Gibson fails to develop his character. Which is the great flaw of this movie... it requires a fore-knowledge of the story. Without that knowledge, it falls flat.

So instead I recommend you watch Jesus of Nazareth first. This is a 6-hour TV miniseries, available on DVD or the History Channel, which very, very powerfully portrays the life of Jesus - his birth, his years of preaching, the torture, and the resurrection.

Then, knowing the story, you can watch The Passion. That way you'll feel you're watching a MAN on the screen, and not just an image. And most importantly, you'll feel the passion/suffering that Jesus experienced.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

The *Bible* is fiction - This movie is closer to Reality

[10/10 · 24 September 2005]

Yes, the Bible is fiction. There was a man named Jesus, which we can accept as fact. However the books of the Bible which describe Jesus were written *~100* years later. These stories were distorted. For example one claimed the child-Jesus held out his hand & killed his playmates (a miracle). Another story said Jesus chose Mary Magdalene as his "favored disciple". Still another recorded one of Jesus' speeches & he sounded like a confusing mystic.

In the end, the Jesus-portion of the Bible was created 200 years later! The Church took all these contradictory stories, kept the versions they liked and threw out the stories they did not like. End Result: What we see is not an accurate record, but a "cleaned-up" version with much embellishment & hearsay ("my wife's grandfather says his best friend saw Jesus...") of dubious accuracy.

So the result is that we have a *mythical* Jesus, just as we have a mythical King Arthorianus (roman general in britannia).

.

In contrast I think Last Temptation is very close to what really happened. It's still fictional, but it tries to recreate an historically-accurate tale (docu-drama):

• an average guy with moving speeches who drew crowds - who was uncertain of his role (it took him ~15 years between adulthood & the start of his mission) - and probably *did* sound like "just another confusing mystic" to those who heard him

The Church gave us the Gospels... a cleaned-up sales brochure of mostly hearsay w/ the apocryphal parts removed. In contrast, this movie attempts to remove the sales pitch, and look at the real man behind the myth.

troy

Gabriel Over the White House (1933)

How A Republic Falls to an Emperor

[10/10 · 12 September 2005]

Circa 20 b.c., there was another government similar to our own - the Roman Republic. That government was ruled by a Senate which was picked via elections... not exactly the same, but similar to our American Senate & House (Congress). That democratic Republic ceased to exist when a man declared himself "Emperor".

It was that history Benjamin Franklin had in mind when he said, immediately following the Convention that gave birth to the U.S. Constitution: "You have a Republic... if you can keep it." Franklin and the other Founders knew well the dangers of a repeat of Roman history.

.

That brings us to this movie - This movie shows America in 1933, during the worst of the Great Recession. It shows the fall of the American Republic to a president as Emperor, not in name, but in acts. He suspends Congress & suspends democratic Law-Making, and becomes a modern-day Emperor. Exactly what the American Founders feared.

Those who have seen this movie may ask, "So what? He performed good acts & brought the country out of the depression." The answer lies in Germany where this film became reality. The German democratic Republic fell... taken over by a man who was Emperor, not in name, but in act... and who appeared to be a good man serving the People. But that man suspended democracy, took absolute control, and killed thousands of his own citizens.

Just like the Emperors of Rome.

When this movie was made, I'm sure a lot of people thought President = Emperor = Dictator was a good solution to the 1930's Recession. But now hindsight shows us, via looking at Germany, how dangerous it is to suspend democratic Rule and hand too much control to one man.

I gave this movie a 10, not because I approve of Dictatorship, but because it shows how easy it is to slide down the slippery slope from American Freedom to Presidential Tyranny. It's a warning to future generations.

GoldenEye (1995)

CONTRIVED - where's the plot???

[1/10 · 31 August 2005]

The movie is is basically just Bond moving from one "blow-up scene" to another, to see how many billions of dollars in equipment & buildings he can destroy.

Subtract those scenes and what have you got? About 15 minutes of real story.

Pathetic.

(sigh) I have nothing more to add, but IMDb requires I type in 10 lines, so let me add: *Pierce Brosnan did an excellent job as Bond.* It's not his fault the script was so shallow (in fact, Brosnan recently said in an interview: "I quit Bond... I grew tired of saying silly lines in silly scripts"). But Brosnan's acting skills are very good & remind me of the excellent Sean Connery. Watch Brosnan's performance in Die Another Day.

Overall, I rate this movie Goldeneye as the one of the worst of the series (about equal to Moonraker). Goleneye is the kind of movie you get when you substitute Special Effects, and forget to include the story.

troy

The Living Daylights (1987)

One of the Best Bonds

[10/10 · 31 August 2005]

Watching the Living Daylights, I can see that Dalton was *far* superior to Roger Moore. Moore was just a clown, looking for his next joke. When Moore wanted to quit after 1979's Moonraker, they should have let him go.

But Dalton brought a serious side to the role. You can see that he's determined to get the job done, and realizes he could be dead any minute, so he focuses on the mission and not clowning. Just like Sean Connery did back in the 60's.

---> As for the actual story, that too is serious & well-written. One of Bond's long-term enemies, Russian KGB Commander Pushkin, has crossed the line and is actively killing off agents. (To quote the movie "He's gone mental like Stalin.") Bond is tasked to search out & kill Pushkin, but Bond refuses because he knows Pushkin & knows he'd never cross the line like that. Instead, Bond suspects someone else inside the KGB is setting up Pushkin for a fall.

And thus begins a long adventure to discover the mystery man behind the killings. And like I said earlier, Dalton does an *excellent* job in this role. I highly recommend his movies. 10/10

Licence to Kill (1989)

This time It's Personal for Bond

[10/10 · 31 August 2005]

Watching the Living Daylights & now License to Kill, I can see that Dalton was *far* superior to Roger Moore. Moore was just a clown, looking for his next joke. When Moore wanted to quit after 1979's Moonraker, they should have let him go.

But Timothy Dalton brought a serious side to the role. You can see that he's determined to get the job done, and realizes he could be dead any minute, so he focuses on the mission and not clowning. Just like Sean Connery did back in the 60's.

---> As for the actual story, that too is serious & well-written. And it's more-or-less a sequel to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". In that earlier movie, Bond's wife is killed by an evil agent, and in this movie you can see that Bond is still upset about the death... as though it just happened a few months ago. (Someone hands him a bride's garter, which symbolizes coming marriage, but Bond rejects it. He's still hurting from his loss.)

As though depression about his dead wife wasn't enough, his best friend Felix Liter has been viciously attacked, laying in a hospital's critical care ward, and Felix's just-married wife has been murdered. (Notice how it's a near-identical to what happened to Bond in OHMSS.) These three deaths/near-deaths drive Bond over the edge, he resigns as a secret agent, and proceeds to seek revenge against the man who killed Felix's wife.

And thus begins a long adventure to discover the mystery man behind the killings. And like I said earlier, Dalton does an *excellent* job in this role. I highly recommend his movies. 10/10

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Better than Octopussy - Connery is brilliant

[10/10 · 27 August 2005]

Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.

I've heard many people claiming that the "official movie" Octopussy is far superior. Well, I just watched Octopussy. Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be "good" in any sense of the word? Suddenly Bond has super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.

---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's "unofficial" Never Say Never Again: It doesn't have the same polish due to its independent film status (less money), but at least you can believe that Connery is a real spy in real danger.

The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a "day off" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.

As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.

Highyly recommended.

Octopussy (1983)

Octopussy = Bond the Superman = Complete Farse

[1/10 · 25 August 2005]

Background info - The movies Octopussy & Never Say Never Again were both made the same year, 1983, and so naturally people compare them. Moore vs. Connery. Bond vs. Bond.

The "official" movie Octopussy starts off reasonably with a decent story, but then careens off-course, and starts to feel waaaay too long. In addition, the movie moved from semi-realistic portrayal of a spy to a cartoonish, unbelievable farse.

For example in the final scene, Bond is riding an airplane at 100 miles an hour (impossible---the wind would blow him off), using his feet to force the plane to ground, and then jumping off at some 60 miles an hour (again impossible---try jumping out of your car---you'd end up with a shattered body). How is that octopussy scene supposed to be "good" in any sense of the word?

Prior to this movie Bond was just a human being with skills. Now suddenly he's got super-human strength & a titanium body. And he does all these stunts at the ancient age of 56??? Complete crap. Unbelievable. Farse.

---> Now let's contrast the above scene with Connery's "unofficial" Never Say Never Again: The movie starts off with Bond showing his age (he is 50 after all) and being sent off for recuperation. Entirely believable. But of course, there's no such thing as a "day off" for a world-famous spy, and Bond quickly finds himself a target, even inside the hospital. From that point the story spins off into another adventure, with Bond trying to locate his attempted killers and ultimately foiling an attempt to steal nuclear weapons.

As usual Sean Connery did a brilliant job, and avoids the over-the-top/unbelievable stunts. This movie feels like a natural successor to Connery's last film, 1971's Diamonds Are Forever... the old style of Bond... before the franchise got silly.

BOTTOM lINE: Given the choice between purchasing these two 1983 movies, I'd choose the Connery film. Octopussy was a cartoonish farse.

troy

Lexx (1996–2002)

This has to be the dumbest show on sci-fi TV

[21 August 2005]

I give it an "A" for originality. But for actual story-telling, it gets a "D".

The show is mind-numbingly boring. Even when the producers came up with a good idea, like season 3's Fire and Water planets (hell and heaven), they drag down the good idea with lousy, non-interesting stories that put the viewer to sleep. It's a case of too many episodes, and not enough plot to fill those episodes, which leads to many moments of nothing happening. Boring.

The other seasons can be summarized like this: - Season 1 - Lexx vs. Divine Shadow for control of the universe --- season 2 - Lexx vs. Mantrid for control of the universe --- season 3 - Visiting Fire and Water planets --- season 4 - Visiting Earth - Lexx vs. alien probes

I don't recommend watching Lexx.

Starship Troopers (1997)

An insult to the book

[3/10 · 19 August 2005]

The original novel was filled with great political commentary and thought-provoking characters.

The movie turns that into "bugs bad; kill". For action, the movie's okay, but you won't feel any need to rewatch it. It's like watching a Sci-Fi Channel Original - nothing's there. There's nothing hidden underneath the CGI except the director's blank thoughts.

BTW a couple people said this was a satire and/or attack against Naziism. Actually, it's neither for or against. It's filmed as a virtual clone of Hitler's "Triumph of the Will". I have no idea why the director chose that as his model. Maybe he thought it would be "cool" to mimic Hitler's propaganda films? It's not clear.

An Affair to Remember (1957)

The original movie "Love Affair" is much better

[4/10 · 18 August 2005]

I've seen "An Affair to Remember" twice.... after seeing Sleepless in Seattle circa 1992, and again a few months ago. I didn't enjoy the film either time. It had a good ending, but the 115 minutes prior to that were loooong and booooring. Incredibly dull.

Today I saw the original black-n-white "Love Affair" with Irene Dunne. MUCH better. The dialogue & acting are better, and the length is just over an hour..... it gets right to the point, doesn't waste precious viewer's time, and you still get the same powerful ending.

I'd skip the remake, and go for the original movie. It's much more enjoyable.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

I don't know if I liked it or not

[6/10 · 16 August 2005]

On one hand, this Bond movie has the most powerful ending of the whole series. Very sad. And Lazenby did a fine job as a Double-O agent.

On the other hand, the words coming out of his mouth - "golden balls"??? - made it hard to imagine this as the James Bond of the previous 5 films. It didn't sound like the words that Bond would say. Another problem with the movie was the length. I enjoy Bond-style fighting and action, but 2.5 hours is pushing it, and I found myself wondering when the story would finally end.

Bottom Line - Even if Sean Connery had played the role, this movie would be a mixed bag of good & bad pieces.

Thunderball (1965)

Sean Connery's Favorite Bond Film

[9/10 · 13 August 2005]

Apparently a lot of people don't like this movie? Well after seeing Thunderball last night, I have to disagree. It's as good as From Russia With Love or Dr No. Perhaps even a little better.

Without rehashing the plot, I'll just say - I *really* enjoyed the underwater scenes. It's refreshing to see battles taking place with scuba gear and arrows, instead of the overdone guns-firing routine we see day-after-day on TV cop shows. The underwater scuba gear, subs, and arrows add something new & different to enjoy. Plus, the overlying music does a great job of adding to tension.

And of course, the Bond women - not just one, but a set of three - a blonde, a brunette, and a redhead - all looking stunningly beautiful in their bikinis (or nothing at all).

Still not convinced? Well as I put in the title, Sean Connery considers this his personal favorite. If Mr. Connery recommends it, it's worth at least one viewing in my opinion. Go watch it now. ;-) troy

First Wave (1998–2001)

In a word: B-O-R-I-N-G

[8 August 2005]

Thanks to the Sci-Fi Channel's 8-hour daily marathons, I have been catching up on old shows, including First Wave. Sad to say, I am now on the third and final year of the show, and I have not enjoyed the ride. First Wave reminds me of the X-Files, minus the talented actors, skilled writers, or interesting stories (they're boring). I *tried* to like the show, but my mind kept wandering, because the stories were dull.

I notice from other comments, people became "addicted" to the show's continuing storyline, and kept tuning in each week to see what came next. That's fine, but there are better shows to get addicted to. These shows also feature continuing story lines, but with much deeper plot lines:

The New Galactica Star Trek DS9 Babylon 5

I would watch these first, and ignore First Wave.

troy

The French Connection (1971)

A *boring* ride

[1/10 · 30 July 2005]

I'm 30-something... grew up with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, et cetera.... but I also enjoy the classics like Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane. They are slow-paced, but filled with tons of nuance and depth, and you can watch them again and again. Every viewing reveals something new, that you missed the first time.

The French Connection doesn't have that depth. To me, it looks like the special effects blockbuster of 1971. Chase scene. Guns firing. Men running. Tough guys. Subtract all that, and what's left??? Not much. A middling story with shallow characters that leave me asking, "Who cares?" (Similar to Independence Day.) .

I know, some people say, "But it was fresh in 1971." I'm sure it was. But *truly* great stories will still be fresh hundreds of years later. That's what separates the fad from the masterpiece.

I don't think French Connection qualifies as a masterpiece. It was a fad. Like the hula hoop or bell-bottom pants, it made a brief splash, and then was overshadowed by later, better stories. It's not surprising that the younger generation would find these fads boring or silly.

If you see French Connection on TV, try to find something else to do with those two hours.

troy

Herbie Fully Loaded (2005)

Nice try, but no success

[2/10 · 14 July 2005]

Here's how I'd rank the Herbie movies:

#1 Herbie Rides Again --- #2 The Love Bug --- #3 Herbie - Fully Loaded (new movie) ... Dead Last - Herbie in Monte Carlo & Herbie Goes Bananas

The new movie was not as good as the 60's originals, but it was better than the horrible 80's versions. Those 80's flicks were dull.

I wish they had shown more of Herbie. Most of the time, he just sits there. That's all. He doesn't do the stunts he was famous for in the 60's version like climbing bridges or splitting in half. It's ironic... 2005 has CGI & advanced effects, but the 1960's movies actually did more stunts, even with the primitive stop-motion photography.

I think a key thing that was missing - a comedian. It's hard to laugh when you don't have a funny man like Buddy Hackett on screen. Instead we just see two lead actors, who are not funny in any way. I don't recall laughing even once during this flick.

troy