ftgplus4 Reviews

Heavens to Betsy (2017)

Not your typical Christian movie

[6/10 · 17 August 2023]

Let me start out by saying I'm not a big fan of Christian movies -- not because I have anything against their usual messages, but I usually find them to be rather simplistic with limited filmmaking quality. But then, I'm not a big fan of movies in general these days anyway.

"Heavens to Betsy" isn't great cinema, but it does have a rather quirky sense of humor that's atypical of "Christian movies." Plot-wise it's sort of a cross between alternate-reality stories like "It's a Wonderful Life" (i.e., what if things had gone *this* way instead?) and "Bruce Almighty" (i.e., God wouldn't really do this to someone, but you might not blame him if he did).

This has a plot that keeps you watching to see what happens next, as twists are revealed to both the viewer and the main character. As Betsy reacts to her "alternate reality," though, one might wonder why it never occurs to the other characters to suspect she has amnesia, and never occurs to her to fall back on this as her own explanation.

My only other comment is that I ended up wishing the ending hadn't been as rushed as it is. (This is not the alternate ending, which I haven't seen.) I was left wanting to see, and not just hear about, how things were resolved.

Lightyear (2022)

Deserved its disappointing box office performance, but didn't have to

[5/10 · 24 October 2022]

At the beginning of "Lightyear," we're told that it's supposed to be the favorite movie of Andy from 1995's TOY STORY. But it is not at all believable as such, mainly because it is such a totally 2022 film (in more ways than one).

Overall, it's a reasonably engaging animated tale, with some more or less clever twists. My main issue with the basic plot is that it relies on the tired old trope of "incompetent motley crew pulls together and becomes great."

The most serious problem, though, is one that could have very easily been avoided. The filmmakers have made one controversial, "politically correct" choice, which is all the worse because it makes no sense in its context. A whole bunch of problems -- messing up a plot point, potentially confusing the kiddos, offending concerned parents, making people not want to see the film -- could have been avoided simply by having one minor, non-speaking character be a guy rather than a gal.

Sorry, Pixar, but if you were disappointed in the box office performance, it's your own fault for making a choice that alienated so much of your potential audience.

Wallace & Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death (2008)

Wallace & Gromit without the charm and fun

[3/10 · 22 August 2022]

This is the one Wallace & Gromit film I do not have in my collection. I watched it once and then got rid of it. Later, I decided to check it out again, and still felt the same: I never wanted to see it again.

Overall, the charm and fun of previous outings is just plain gone. And there are some specific things that don't sit well. One plot event (Gromit evading the villain in the nick of time) is so impossible, even by the series' usual cartoon logic, that it can only be explained as lazy writing. And the crude humor near the end is completely out of place. (Sure, there was a similar joke in "Were-Rabbit," which could have easily been left out, but here it's overemphasized and goes on too long.)

Just a few changes could have made this so much better, or at least acceptable. I consider this short to be a wasted opportunity. This is a shame, especially given that the ending -- with a new member apparently added to Wallace's household -- made me want to see what came next (assuming the continuity wouldn't have been abandoned).

Sorry, but I cannot recommend this to fans of the rest of the series.

Son of the Pink Panther (1993)

Begnini doesn't cut it

[2/10 · 10 February 2016]

It goes without saying, of course, that no other star of a Pink Panther movie can measure up to Peter Sellers. But of those who have tried, Alan Arkin is probably the best, followed by the rather bland Ted Wass.

As for Roberto Begnini? He's dead last.

The script to SON isn't that great to begin with; it barely has a laugh in sight, and the background story into which the star steps is rather messy and confusing (not like that's a first for PP films or anything). But Begnini's character doesn't do much to help things. He's annoying as anything, has an unconvincing and hard-to-understand accent, and -- above all -- is mostly just painfully unfunny. When he makes a fool of himself pretending to be a doctor, it's like the other actor in the scene didn't have to *try* to look completely unamused. And the idea of the princess being charmed by him throughout the film does not ring true on any level.

When Begnini comes close to being funny, it's due to physical humor rather than anything verbal. While Sellers' Clouseau was always funny verbally, with rarely a wasted word, Begnini talks and talks and just makes things worse in the process.

Additionally, this film refers back to earlier PP films while also ignoring what happened in them; other films in the series do this too, but not as badly. Clouseau's relationship with Ms. Gambrelli, and his eventual fate, are described as being completely different from what was portrayed before -- for no good reason.

By far the most satisfying aspect of this movie, and the only reason to watch it, is the character of Commissioner Dreyfus. The TV Guide review of the movie says it best: "SON is Dreyfus' reward after... years of suffering... at the capricious hands of chaos. He's less caricatured here than usual. He tics and twitches, he goes a little nuts, but he wouldn't be Dreyfus if he didn't. Nevertheless, he also has achieved a degree of inner placidity and wisdom that has come with age and, for once, allows him to effortlessly and decisively solve the case. For once, he gets to be the hero, and he even gets the girl... In terms of the greater scheme of the series... it is significant that Dreyfus makes his peace with chaos by marrying into it. It's hard not to wish him well."

Bottom line: Not even as good as CURSE OF THE PINK PANTHER, and neither as good nor as bad as TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER (depending on which parts of that movie it's being compared to). Serious PANTHER fans may want to check it out just to see how the series ends, at least for Dreyfus.

Roast-Beef and Movies (1934)

Of historical interest only

[3/10 · 11 June 2014]

"Roast-Beef and Movies" (1934) is notable for being the only film wherein Jerry "Curly" Howard acts without at least one other Stooge also being involved. But he doesn't really do a lot here and seems woefully out of place. He's shown as being part of a trio, but he doesn't seem to belong with the other two guys at all.

The dance numbers (left over from other films) do little beyond dragging things out, and their presence here makes no sense. Remove these and what you have left is still a bit dumb, but probably not much worse than the typical comedy fare of the era.

Bottom line: If "Curly" wasn't involved, there would be no reason for anyone today to be watching or talking about this short.

Weekend at Bernie's II (1993)

Stupid fun.

[5/10 · 24 May 2009]

OK, so the first Weekend At Bernie's was kind of stupid, and this one is even more stupid. So what? They're not pretending to be anything else. They're fun. And, when it comes right down to it, the humor is in better taste than what I've seen in a number of more recent comedies (even some so-called "family" ones). No potty humor, and no typical sex jokes.

I admit I wasn't expecting much from this one after what I'd heard, but I was pleasantly surprised -- especially by how completely this is NOT a rehash of the first film.

Not a masterpiece, but not nearly as bad as you've heard either.

Inherit the Wind (1960)

Stereotype

[1/10 · 18 September 2008]

In this day and age, you wouldn't think we'd put up with a film that incites hate against a group of people by using an unfair stereotype. We wouldn't put up with a work of Nazi propaganda that demonizes Jews, or a story that celebrates the lynching of a black man, or one that portrays gangs of "fags" preying on young men.

Well, it may sound extremist to say this, because we're not used to thinking in these terms, but such works would hardly be any worse than INHERIT THE WIND's portrayal of Christians is. WIND is especially harmful because so many people think it's a true story where only the names have been changed. But the actual Scopes Trial did not happen as WIND portrays it; in particular, the actions of WIND's "religious villains" are not based on reality whatsoever. People often mention the Scopes Trial to make a point, thinking WIND is an accurate account of it, but its actual events would not support their viewpoint at all. What the real trial mainly showed is the extent to which some -- in this case, those who used Scopes and Darrow -- will play dirty to achieve their end.

There's no telling how many seeds of bigotry WIND, whether as a movie or a play, has sown. No doubt it has contributed to the damage that EXPELLED has begun to try to clean up. If we really want to oppose works of fiction that promote intolerance, WIND should be at the top of the list. Whatever its merits may be in the areas of acting, production, etc., they are more than countered by its false and destructive message.

Bee Movie (2007)

Disappointing

[2/10 · 23 August 2008]

I'm a big fan of the old SEINFELD show, and it was hard for me to imagine Jerry trying something TV- or movie-wise that didn't work. But that's what happened here.

You might think that he's more accustomed to doing adult humor, but a lot of his comedy routines show great (and humorous) insight into the world of kids. Some of those routines were even boiled down to a really good kids' book (HALLOWEEN).

But he's just out of his element here. The result feels like someone has unsuccessfully attempted to copy the work of better animated-movie makers. The bee jokes feel forced, as if in a really bad attempt at channeling A BUG'S LIFE. Nothing about it seems to have really been thought out. It especially bothered me the way some things were just kind of left hanging, in that subtle way that bad writers often do. One example is how a character was treated like a total villain (the fat lawyer) yet turned out to be the one who was right (not that this point was in any way dealt with, or even made clear, like a good writer would have done).

I expected better from Jerry. Guess this just wasn't his thing. Skip this and watch something from Pixar and/or Disney instead.

Inspector Clouseau (1968)

Not all that bad...

[5/10 · 18 January 2008]

One has to keep in mind that, when this was made, only 2 other Clouseau movies existed, THE PINK PANTHER and A SHOT IN THE DARK. At that time it may not have been clear to the whole world that only Sellers could really play Clouseau. Maybe this movie helped prove that.

Anyway, it seems that Arkin's Clouseau starts with the character as he was in SHOT and takes him in a different direction than the '70s movies with Sellers would. Sellers' Clouseau at that point didn't yet have his totally ridiculous accent but sounded more like a real Frenchman, so it's only natural that Arkin would sound like one as well. Like Sellers' Clouseau, Arkin's is well-intentioned but with incredibly bad judgment, clumsy, prone to focus on what's not important, and easily thrown off course by a pretty face. Unlike Sellers' Clouseau, Arkin's is not only emotional but prone to panic, and is not only aware of but comes to mourn his ineptitude. It takes some time to get used to his voice, lower and thicker than Sellers. So, this is not the Clouseau we know, though the character here is well-defined and interesting in its own right.

The animated opening credits barely even try for the humor and charm of those in the Sellers films. The score by Ken Thorne (who scored the Beatles' "Help" and the Monkees' "Head") is the next best thing to Mancini, though.

Whatever complaints one might have about the plot and the directing (I won't repeat the ones already made, other than to note that the flow early in the movie is rather bumpy), I'll say this: the Pink Panther films made after this one came so much to rely on familiar formulas that it's actually refreshing how this film does NOT use them. There is no superior of Clouseau's being driven mad by Clouseau's ineptitude -- just one reacting to it like a real person would. The crime plot here is actually pretty interesting -- much more so than the theft of the Pink McGuffin that got so overused later. Sellers' Clouseau always sounded like a Frenchman among Englishmen, even when he was in France, which didn't make sense. So it was a good idea in this case to actually *put* him among Englishmen. (His malapropisms come off, quite logically, as due to his unfamiliarity with English.) And the rather obnoxious fantasy elements present in STRIKES AGAIN are nowhere to be seen here.

So, to sum up: Different from, and not as good as, most of the Sellers entries. But give me Arkin's Clouseau over Ted Wass' Clifton Sleigh.

A few highlights:

• The nicely choreographed scene in Braithwaite's office near the beginning ("And what makes you think I trust YOU?")

• The scene with the tape recorder in the graveyard.

• Clouseau "eavesdropping" on the gang's bank robbery plans.

Item of special interest: the use of an Amphicar as a getaway vehicle. Cool!

A Shot in the Dark (1964)

The template for the rest of the series

[9/10 · 2 January 2008]

Although THE PINK PANTHER was the first of the Clouseau series, this is the first movie where Clouseau is truly the central character. More importantly, this is the one where virtually all of the familiar elements of the Clouseau series started. In fact, one could say that the later movies -- RETURN, STRIKES AGAIN, REVENGE (we won't concern ourselves with the post-Sellers entries) -- were, in many ways, simply rehashes of this one. When it comes right down to it, what more really needed to be done with, say, Dreyfus or Cato than was already done here?

This is the best of the series. If you only see one PINK PANTHER-related movie, make it this one.

Curse of the Pink Panther (1983)

Maybe not the worst, but close

[4/10 · 1 January 2008]

While this is not quite the train wreck that TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER was, it's still a pretty weak entry in the PANTHER series. Ted Wass is bland and ineffectual; when I watch him here I keep thinking of how much better this movie could have been if most of his scenes were acted or directed differently. One of the few times he made me laugh was when he was doing the voice for his "instant companion."

The "new Clouseau" at the end was an interesting touch -- not convincing, exactly, but funny.

In hindsight, if Blake Edwards really wanted to wrap up the series after Sellers' death, I think it would have been better if he combined the "using deleted Sellers scenes" concept from TRAIL with the "searching for Clouseau" concept from CURSE into just one movie, and left it at that.

Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978)

Whether you like this will depend...

[7/10 · 31 December 2007]

If you thought THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN was the best of the Pink Panther series, you will probably not be impressed by this one. But if your favorite is A SHOT IN THE DARK, as mine is, my guess is that you'll like REVENGE.

I personally didn't enjoy STRIKES AGAIN all that much; to me it doesn't really fit in. As far as I'm concerned, it is REVENGE, not STRIKES AGAIN, that makes sense following RETURN OF THE PINK PANTHER.

By this fifth PINK PANTHER outing, they must have been running out of ideas. Even without the death of Sellers, it would have been unwise to try to continue the series. But while STRIKES AGAIN took the whole Dreyfus story line as far as it could without really adding anything to it, REVENGE actually manages to add a bit of a new twist to it: Dreyfus *thinks* Clouseau is dead, but then keeps *seeing* him. And Herbert Lom does great as Dreyfus, especially in the "funeral" scene. Nonetheless, it's clear that the Dreyfus character, like the Clouseau one, should have been retired after this.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

Not awful, not great, and not what I expected

[4/10 · 30 October 2007]

The problem with THE BLACK CAULDRON is not that it's dark. It's that it tries to do "dark" and doesn't do it well. THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME managed to be more dark and evocative than this.

From what I can tell, CAULDRON wouldn't have been better with the edited-out stuff left in, either. Some of that material would have just contrasted much too jarringly with the movie's inescapable, if diluted, "Disney-ness." (Having learned about some of said edited-out material, I'm amazed at the tone-deafness of the people responsible. They may have thought they were pushing the envelope, but even had this movie been better it was not the place for those kinds of attempts.)

The best part of this movie is that it doesn't have any songs. But some choices regarding characters just don't make sense. What is the "Horned King" supposed to be? Wouldn't he have been better as a deranged, power-hungry human in a creepy costume (which, as I've recently learned, is exactly what he was in the source book) than as some kind of unexplained skeleton-being? Gurgi is not only annoying and difficult to understand, but he seems entirely out of place in the "ancient" setting. The minstrel guy serves NO plot function whatsoever -- I hate Disney characters like that, even if they're funny!

The plot, whatever its faults (including the fact that there's no background or context provided for most of it), was reasonably involving. And I was pretty much OK with it until it got to the end, and Gurgi was miraculously brought back to life. Sorry, but that put the nail in the plot's coffin as far as I was concerned.

Trail of the Pink Panther (1982)

Starts out OK, but then...

[3/10 · 26 January 2007]

Oddly enough, this was the first Pink Panther film I ever saw. Thanks to its "flashback" scenes, I got interested in the PP series and eventually saw all the previous entries.

Although this film was clearly a bad idea from the beginning, the first half actually isn't too bad. I didn't realize, until it was pointed out, that all of Sellers' scenes were deleted (or reused) footage from previous films. I had thought (like some other people who've commented) that Sellers had actually filmed scenes for this movie but died before finishing; that's testimony that Edwards actually did a pretty good job of incorporating old footage into a new story.

Things start to go wrong when the Sellers footage runs out, at the moment Clouseau's voice is dubbed in with the worst imitation imaginable. Soon almost all pretense of a plot is dropped. Now we get pointless interviews with past PP characters that comprise a tribute (often unbearably corny) to Clouseau. He's discussed as if he's a movie character but the interviewees aren't; it all has nothing to do with how anyone would act if Clouseau were real or any of the "plot" were actually happening. "Flashback" scenes are over-explained, and one in particular (involving Cato) comes so totally out of nowhere as to be confusing and disruptive. Finally, the scene with the "grape treaders" was totally unnecessary. (At least it was easily edited out for TV showings.)

Not everything's bad, though. Herbert Lom is the best thing about this movie; he holds it together as well as could be expected. Showing scenes from Clouseau's early life was a good idea, even if it wasn't carried out well. The part with the dog guiding the old woman is original and funny. At the end plot points are left unresolved all over the place, but that's OK because we're being set up for a sequel.

One could say this movie shouldn't have been made. That's arguable, but it certainly could have been made better than it was.

Kook's Tour (1970)

Historical interest only

[3/10 · 20 January 2007]

This isn't really a Three Stooges film -- it's a travelogue that happens to feature the Stooges. As such, there isn't really much comedy in it. Nice scenery, but not much of anything funny. Moe's narration doesn't really add much -- it over-explained the jokes at times. And the long stretch focusing on Moose the dog really dragged. The almost stereotypical '60s "light comedy" soundtrack was grating at times.

But the sped-up parts were kind of funny at times. Many of the best lines were references to the Stooges now being retired. I've never cared much for Curly-Joe (not in comparison with the Howard brothers he replaced, anyway), but at least here he's no less funny than Moe and Larry get to be.

The old black & white footage at the beginning was kind of interesting. I assume this all must come from the Curly-Joe-era theatrical films (most of which I haven't seen); but whatever its origin, they managed to make it look convincingly (and appropriately) really OLD. If one didn't know better, one might think Curly-Joe had been with the Stooges for their entire long career! Which, by the way, was NOT the "50 years" they keep saying. I guess they wanted to use a nice, big, round number. "40" would have served that purpose AND it would have been accurate.

Freaks (1932)

Not a horror show -- oddly emotionally involving

[8/10 · 20 January 2007]

I'm not actually going to go into the plot that much, because there's no need to; but I put the "spoiler" warning there just to be safe.

Maybe it helped that I read quite a bit about this movie before actually watching it, but I really wouldn't classify it as a "horror" movie. No cheap gross-out stuff here. But it's definitely unique, especially for its time. And I found it oddly emotionally involving.

Unexpectedly, I did not find the "freaks" scary, and I don't really think we're supposed to. Much of the movie as a whole is spent letting us get to know the "freaks" simply as people, seeing how they cope with every day life and interact with other circus workers (normal and otherwise). While the story is rather heavy-handed about demonizing a couple of "normal" people (and even some of the ones who are good guys are rather dysfunctional!), it is wonderfully sincere and effective at humanizing the "abnormal" ones. I saw them not as "nature's mistakes" but as people who, though messed up by the fallenness of this world, were nonetheless created in God's image. I saw this especially strongly in the part where Mme. Tetrallini stands in the park with her "children" gathered around her. Is her affection for these oddities (which seems quite unfeigned on the part of the actress) supposed to strike the viewer as weird and disturbing? It doesn't strike me that way, nor do I think it should.

The worst part, as many have said, is the acting, particularly the readings of many lines. Some accents/voices make lines very hard to understand. Hans & Frieda aren't too convincing much of the time (and those "munchkin" voices don't help), though each has their best moment when imitating/mocking Cleo! Then there are some '30s expressions that don't make sense all these years later, and non-PC '30s humor like the one guy's stuttering. It's not entirely true, by the way, that none of the "freaks" were actors. Angelo Rossitto, the dwarf, was an actor with a decades-long career; you can tell he's a real actor, even when he's just standing there saying nothing. Some "freaks", of course, didn't do well even with a single line, while others, such as the living skeleton and the Siamese twins, actually handled small speaking parts well.

A couple of minor quibbles: (1) Although "Schlitzie" is cast as a girl, it's pretty obvious that he's a "he". Note that he joins the rest of the "boys" in the attack on the villains. (2) Although Josephine/Joseph has a good "half & half" walk (anticipating Steve Martin in "All Of Me"), "he/she" doesn't really have much that's "male" about "him/her". In particular, watch "his/her" supposed "male" side from the back during the "she likes you, but he don't" scene and tell me if that isn't a female body all the way! (I'd be less picky if this person hadn't been an actual circus "freak".)

As for the ending, I didn't even really find the "attack" scenes all that scary, although I'll never forget the sight of Johnny rapidly handwalking under trailers in the rain. The part about Cleo's fate is unsatisfying because it really doesn't ring true; maybe it would have worked better if there was more explanation of how she actually got where she ended up. (I guess some of that was edited out.) There has been some criticism about the final, "happy" ending, but I think it's unjustified. On the contrary, I find it works as an effective, cathartic release of everything the story builds up.

Some descriptions of the plot say that the rebellion of the "freaks" is brought on not just by the treatment of Hans, but also by Hercules' attempted rape of Venus. The movie actually had nothing about a "rape", though, so I don't know where that comes from.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988 TV Movie)

Good, but could have been better

[15 January 2007]

I used to enjoy watching these adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories; in fact, these are what got me reading the original stories in the first place. The best thing about them were the portrayals of Holmes (Brett) and Watson (Burke/Hardwicke). The worst thing was usually the liberties taken with the stories by the writers.

Their "Hound" is a fairly faithful adaptation. Where liberties are taken, it's usually for the sake of compressing the story. I haven't seen this for a while, but two things stuck out to me as being particularly off with it: (1) The actress playing Beryl seemed really wrong for the part. (2) Charles Baskerville's terrifying death was described wonderfully in the book ("...He was running, Watson - running desperately, running for his life, running until he burst his heart..."). But in this adaptation Charles' fleeing is handled so casually as to almost give the impression nothing important is happening. It could have been done so much better!

The Rose (1979)

What's the motivation?

[3/10 · 5 January 2007]

I saw most of "The Rose" on TV a few years after it came out. I don't know quite how much I missed (just the beginning, I think), and I won't claim to remember the parts I saw very well. But as for what I did see, I remember very clearly what my reaction to it was, and other comments show me that I'm not the only one to feel this way. I saw a lot of things done by the characters -- things that were loud, emotional, rash and sudden; things that had to have some very strong motivations behind them. But at no point was I able to tell WHY any character was doing what they did. And when a movie is full of actions that require definite motivations, but don't have them, that movie ends up being tiring, pointless and unsatisfying -- which is what "The Rose" is.

Cuckoo on a Choo Choo (1952)

Pretty strange!

[4/10 · 30 December 2006]

This is well known as one of the most controversial Stooges shorts. Some say it's the worst they ever did, while others defend it. What most agree on, however, is that it's really STRANGE.

I don't think it's particularly good or bad. In fact, I find it somewhat reminiscent of earlier Stooges shorts that satirized things that people today may or may not be familiar with. "Men In Black", "You Nazty Spy!" and "I'll Never Heil Again" were similarly satirical, and (more to the point) similarly surrealistic and plot-less. It also anticipates the different-in-a-not-so-good-way features of some Besser shorts, showing once again that Besser didn't make the Stooge train head downhill -- he merely hopped onto it when it was already heading that way.

Still, some parts did make me laugh -- at least parts near the beginning involving Shemp. The line "Horrible, but I like it!" was funny. So were the weird music & sound effects whenever someone took a drink -- or at least they were funny until they'd happened too many times.

The weirdest thing is the imaginary canary. The most nonsensical thing is Shemp, finding himself in trouble, calling out "Moe!" as in some other short -- but in this one Moe's character is some stranger he's barely noticed! The most unfunny thing is the blond lady, whose loud, annoying crying and running away didn't always have a coherent motivation. Then again, there isn't much coherent about this one anyway. And maybe there doesn't have to be.

Hot Ice (1955)

Vindication for Joe!

[4/10 · 22 December 2006]

If anyone thinks the quality of 3 Stooges shorts took an immediate nose dive when Joe Besser joined the team, they haven't spent enough time with some of the later Shemp-era shorts. For the most part, it's not that these are inherently bad -- it's that they're cheap reworkings, with much reused footage, of other (generally better) Shemp shorts from just a few years before.

This is a badly edited, badly dubbed reworking of the far superior "Crime On Their Hands", with some footage also taken from "Hot Scots". There is some newly shot footage which tries to bridge the occasional gap. For the most part it succeeds, even adding one fairly funny part (taking stuff out of the woman's purse), but it includes some of the tendency toward lame explanatory dialog that would later help bring down many Besser-era shorts. And the new ending is one of the most unpleasant in Stooge history. (Additionally, note that the new footage causes one really obvious jump cut in which Shemp's jacket abruptly goes from unbuttoned to buttoned.)

Skip this one in favor of "Crime On Their Hands", or at least see that one first.

Outer Space Jitters (1957)

When they told me Besser-era shorts were bad...

[1/10 · 19 December 2006]

For a long time I'd heard about how bad all the Joe Besser-era Stooge shorts were. So when I finally got around to seeing some of them, I approached them with low expectations. And for the most part I found that they were better than I expected. I didn't find Joe all that annoying, though I could see why others would.

Now I've seen "Outer Space Jitters", and I have to say... when I heard that the Besser-era shorts were bad, this is EXACTLY what I expected them to be like.

I found this short dumb and almost totally laugh-free (although a couple of the cheap jokes did hit their mark -- barely). In my opinion it's not Joe that ruins this (although his repeated "let's get outta here" lines are unnatural and annoying). This script would not have been helped by the presence of any other third stooge.

I'm happy to report that all Besser-era shorts are not like this one -- not by any means. And I'm glad this was not the first one I saw.

Quiz Whizz (1958)

First Stooge short I can remember seeing...

[3/10 · 19 December 2006]

In about 1981, long before I knew anything about the Stooges or their history, I happened to see a couple Stooge shorts on a friend's TV. I guess I wasn't paying much attention because I only retained a few things, including "Montgomery's wards" and the cigar-eating bit. (I remembered even less about the other short, which turned out to be "Sing A Song Of Six Pants.")

Fast-forward to 2006, when I start really checking out Stooge films for the first time. Before too long I try to see if I can find the titles & other info about the shorts I'd seen way back, particularly the "Montgomery's wards" one. I assume, without giving it a second thought, that both shorts were Curly ones. So I was kind of surprised that the "M.W." short turned out to be "Quiz Whizz", one of the few Besser ones. Well, now I've seen it again, and I can give it a proper review.

There is some funny stuff towards the beginning: Moe describing the "missing" Joe to police while looking at him ("Hair color? Skin!"); Moe unsuccessfully grabbing Joe by his (nonexistent) hair; Emil Sitka wearing the too-big hat. But the humor starts to peter out before long. Well, at least the writers had the sense to establish Joe's love of cigars in the first scene. Speaking of Joe, he's just as annoying here as he's (unjustly) reputed to be most of the time; it's like the writers knew audiences didn't like him and were trying to incorporate that into the humor.

P.S.: Does anyone else think it's ironic that childish Joe is the one whose "adult" vices seemingly threaten to blow the Stooges' cover?

Hoofs and Goofs (1957)

Better than I expected

[4/10 · 19 December 2006]

I've read many, many bad things about this short, and not much of anything good, so I started watching it expecting something really horrible. But it was better than I expected it to be -- not great, but not terrible either. Sure, it's pretty stupid; but Stooge humor often is (in a good way). This is just not their usual kind of stupid.

I tend to go pretty easy on Joe Besser because of the impossible odds he faced (trying to fill Curly & Shemp's shoes, being saddled with low budgets and uninspired scripts). Plus, I don't find his character too annoying like others do. I have to wonder how the original audiences of this short reacted, though, seeing him as a Stooge for the first time. Relative to some later shorts, he's not used all that well here, largely because (as often happens) he has to work with a bunch of lame explanatory dialog. I think his best bit here is when he knocks himself out with ether. I don't think his not getting hit is too much of a problem because (1) he gets abused in other ways, and (2) there isn't that much slapstick to begin with.

When this short made me laugh, it was with the little gags -- the horse belching, Moe "lip-syncing" to the neighs, etc. Oh, and the landlord's pretty good. On the down side, the horse's voice actress is stiff & unconvincing, and the "pregnant" angle is introduced abruptly and awkwardly.

Rusty Romeos (1957)

Don't get mad at me, Stooge fans, but...

[6/10 · 3 December 2006]

...I actually like this better than the original that it's a remake of, "Corny Casanovas". Maybe it's because I saw this one first, but mostly I think it's because I find a lot of the Stooges' violent slapstick (which there's less of here) *less* funny than other gags they do.

Nonetheless, it's obvious that Joe is not receiving as much slapstick as Larry. Even though the heavy hitting isn't my favorite part of a given Stooge short, the imbalance between Larry and Joe here is so obvious as to disrupt the flow of things. Joe practically has a target painted on his bald head at one point, for gosh sake!

While I can't say I prefer Joe to Shemp or Curly, I do think he gets an unfairly bad rap from fans. Barring his glaring lack of getting hit here, he fits right in. And, as always, he brings his own character to the part that isn't Shemp or Curly, but doesn't have to be. And he cracked me up with his head-polishing and ketchup-on-the-pancakes bits!

Personally, I question whether a *real* Stooge fan would bash a Besser short just because it's a Besser short...

Scheming Schemers (1956)

Not bad for a hodgepodge

[5/10 · 26 November 2006]

This is the first "Shempless Shemp Short" that I've had the chance to see. I must say that, if I didn't know beforehand -- and hadn't previously seen "A Plumbing We Will Go", "Half Wit's Holiday" and "Vagabond Loafers" -- I wouldn't have guessed that this was comprised of scenes shot at 4 different dates over a 16-year period.

While this short is fairly enjoyable in its own right, it has the additional, rather backhanded benefit of the games you can play while watching it. Spot the 1940 "Plumbing" footage. Spot the 1947 "Holiday" footage. Spot the 1949 "Vagabond" footage. Spot the new footage (in which Larry & Moe, sadly, have to talk about the deceased Shemp as if he were still there). Spot the fake Shemp (in just a shot or two). Spot the old dialog dubbed over new footage (Shemp's voice, in a fake Shemp scene). Spot the new dialog dubbed over old footage (references to the "ring" added to "Vagabond" footage).

It loses points for being a remake of a remake, for the "lost ring" plot not fitting naturally with some of the old footage, for trying too hard to compensate for Shemp's absence in new footage by saying his name more times than necessary, and for having previously unseen characters unaccountably show up (from the "Holiday" footage) so they can get hit with pies. But it gains points for managing to be as smooth and coherent as it is for such an unlikely hodgepodge.