A year after her triumphant first special, "My Name Is Barbra", Barbra Streisand regrouped with her production team to produce this follow-up CBS-TV special in then-revolutionary color. First broadcast in March 1966, "Color Me Barbra" follows a similar format to its predecessor - three segments, the first two with unique concepts. The first takes place in the after-hours halls of the Philadelphia Museum of Art where dressed as a period maid, she roams the galleries and becomes part of the artwork through song. In various guises, Streisand expresses a variety of moods from the comedy schtick of the "Minute Waltz" to the melodrama of "Non C'est Rien" in a Modigliani painting to the beatnik-style frenzy of "Gotta Move" set to abstract art. My favorite moment in the special is when she transforms into a dead ringer of Queen Nefertiti while singing a haunting rendition of Rogers and Hart's "Where or When".

Opening with another comic monologue full of silly non-sequiturs, this time in French, the second segment is back in the studio for a brightly-colored circus medley where she interacts with animals, including her beloved poodle Sadie. She finds an appropriate context for "Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long" with a bevy of penguins and comically compares her profile to an anteater's with "We Have So Much in Common". As with the first special, the program ends with a riveting solo concert in which she sings some chestnuts, "Any Place I Hang My Hat Is Home", "Where Am I Going?" and "Starting Here, Starting Now" among them. Also included is the brief introduction she filmed in 1986, ironically dressed in all-white, when the special was first released on VHS. The juxtaposition of locale and song is even more effective than in her first special, and a 23-year old Streisand is in peak form.


Well, I fear that my review of this special won't heed much different observation than the others before me, but I literally just watched it- during a PBS membership drive- and frankly I'm too excited NOT to say anything. To really appreciate the enigma that is Barbra Streisand, you have to look back before the movies. Before the Broadway phenomenon of the mid-60's. When television was still a young medium, there was a form of entertainment very prominent on the air that is but a memory today: musical variety. Some musical shows were weekly series, but others were single, one-time specials, usually showcasing the special talent of the individual performer. This is where we get the raw, uninhibited first looks at Streisand. She had already been a guest performer on other variety shows including Garry Moore, Ed Sullivan, and scored a major coup in a one-time only tandem appearance with the woman who would pass her the baton of belter extraordinary: Judy Garland. In 1966, COLOR ME BARBRA introduced Barbra Streisand in color (hence the title), but copied the format of her first special a year earlier almost to the letter. In 3 distinct acts, we get an abstract Streisand (in an after-hours art museum looking at and sometimes becoming the works of art), a comic Streisand working an already adoring audience in a studio circus (populated with many fuzzy and furry animals), and best of all, a singing Streisand in mini-concert format just-- well, frankly, just doing it.

It amazes me that she still had the film debut of FUNNY GIRL yet to come, as well as turns as songwriter, director, and political activist. Here, she is barely 24 years old, doing extraordinary things because, as she puts it in her own on-camera introduction, 'we didn't know we couldn't, so we did.' The art museum sequence is shot in Philadelphia over one weekend immediately after the museum closed to the public on Saturday evening, and apparently done with only ONE color camera. Yet there are cuts, dissolves, and tracking shots galore, resulting in one rather spectacular peak moment-- the modern, slightly beatnik-flavored, "Gotta Move." After getting lost amongst the modern abstracts, jazz-club bongos begin, with Streisand emerging in a psychedelic gown and glittering eye makeup, doing the catchy staccato tune with almost androgynous sex appeal. It is not until Act 3, believe it or not, that the moment is matched or bettered by another feat: in the concert sequence, in a white gown and pearl earrings, Streisand recites the torchy "Any Place I Hang My Hat is Home," tearing into the final notes and revealing one of those climactic belts that makes you scream like a little girl even if you're 44 years old...and a guy. Just plain old great television. Check it out.


Three distinct and distant individuals' lives intersect with the brutal killing of one by another. The one-hour film only reveals the event that brings the three individuals together only after half the film is over. I have seen other segments of the "Dekalog" but this one struck me as the most sparse one in dialogue and yet most fascinating in structure.

The film opens with a law student practicing a mock plea of defense for a man charged with murder. Obviously the same arguments must have been repeated by the man as a full-fledged lawyer but this is never shown on screen (at least in the short 1-hr version of Dekalog 5). We are made to imagine that this must have been the case. A cab driver who is a misanthrope, has two facets to his character: the good side feeds a mangy dog, cleans his cab meticulously, picks up dirty rags thrown by people who lack civic sense, and remembers his wife while dying; the bad side frightens small poodles, refuses to give a ride to a drunk--probably worried that he will puke in the cab--and ogles at pretty girls. The repulsive protagonist who murders without mercy, drops stones from bridges on fast moving traffic, and pushes strangers into urinals without any provocation, is also a person who can make innocent young girls laugh. Kieslowski's film and the script thus present the good and the bad side of two of the three main characters.

Yet the film is not about capital punishment but more a treatise on killing. The Fifth Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is explored theologically--("Even God spared Cain...'), sociologically the tenderness of brutes to children and poor forlorn dogs, and psychologically (after effects of drunken night with a male friend that led to the accidental death of his sister, whose photograph he carries with him). What makes ordinary persons turn into killers--this is never fully explained but suggestions are legion.

In Kieslowski's world there is a pattern where events and people are interlinked in a cosmic sense (note the resemblance of clown to the killer, as it hangs from the mirror in the cab). Kieslowski and the young idealist lawyer seem to ask us to look at the Commandment literally and figuratively--why do we kill? Are the people legally killed truly bad? Is there a force beyond society (the drunken night that led to life of a girl) that makes us into abhorrent murderers?

It would be missing the forest for the trees to discuss the two detailed killings in the film--both without mercy. The film invites the viewer to contemplate why we are asked by God not to kill.

I understand a longer full-length version of the film was made by Kieslowski. But even this short 1-hr version is superb with its bleak and sparse script, intelligent editing, interesting cinematography and top-notch direction that provides much more than the sum of its parts.

This segment anticipates the more wholesome Dekalogs 6,7 and 8.


Having seen the full length film Kieslowski made out of this episode of "The Decalogue" years ago, came back to this viewer as we watched the complete ten vignettes. As with the other films, this one is loosely based on the fifth commandment, or, "Thou shalt not kill".

Kryzsztof Kieslowski, writing with Kryzsztof Piesewicz, took a look at the mind of a young man who commits a heinous crime in murdering an innocent person to vent his own frustrations. This installment has a Dostoyevskian character that kept reminding us about "Crime and Punishment", or at least some of the qualities of the novel are passed to the aimless youth who apparently has no redeeming qualities.

The story shows the young man as he roams the streets of the city without a clear idea of what to do, or where to go. The only tender moment he displays is when he visits the photographer's place to ask to have an old picture of his sister restored. Kieslowski leaves it up to fate to have the murderer board a taxi with the intention of robbing the driver, but it's his anger and frustration that get the best of this youth to kill a man that didn't deserve to die. The last moments of this criminal is one of the most gripping sequences in any film, past, or present.

The other element in the story is the relationship between the public defendant and the criminal. Nothing can prevent the court to condemn to death the young man. The lawyer feels at the end he has failed his client and goes to the judge to see where he went wrong. All he is asked by the young man is to retrieve the picture and send it to his mother.

Kieslowski's account of how he interprets the fifth commandment makes for a surprising film that will stay in the viewer's mind long after this episode is forgotten.


This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.

One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.

As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.

--PolarisDiB


Dekalog Five was an interesting viewing experience for me, because of the question Kieslowski seems to subtly ask the audience. Three men are the focus of this chapter, and Kieslowski present the two involved in murder with traits both good and bad (In one's case, almost overwhelmingly bad). With such vile characters, I found myself almost glad that they would receive some sort of punishment. However, when the time comes for the murder (And it's subsequent effect on the murderer), Kieslowski takes an interesting angle and seems to ask those of us who shared my view, "Are you not as guilty as this man?" This sort of indirect address of the audience makes the finale of Dekalog Five that much more profound as Kieslowski (As usual) doesn't stay within the literal confines of his theme. Just as the other parts of the Dekalog don't take their Commandment's theme in it's literal sense, neither does Dekalog Five. It asks us what is murder, who is more guilty of murder, and what should be the appropriate punishment, if any? It's a fantastic film and, typical of Kieslowski, absolutely stunning.


The Dekalog 5 may be considered a violent accusation against the death sentence, according to the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill": not by chance it puts the concept of a State fully complied with the provisions of an unjust law on the same plane as the figure of a Murderer. "But the law might not imitate the nature, it might correct it," states Piotr, the counsel for the defense, a real catalyst character, "the punishment is a form of vengeance aiming at returning evil for evil without preventing the crime. But in the name of whom the law takes its revenge? Really in the name of the innocent ones?". The horrifying and detailed sequences of the last half hour of a man sentenced to death give value to the uselessness of the deterrent function applied to the death penalty with the purpose of intimidating all potential criminals. "Desperate plights don't demand desperate remedies", Kieslowski says in his message, teaching us how unrighteous can be the act of disobedience to a commandment of God that judges punishment the same way as crime is judged. There are three different moral attitudes here: the innate sense of rebellion of the MURDERER aiming at rousing the hostile torpor of the surrounding environment; the strong sense of chronic indifference of the VICTIM inclined to laugh at other people's requirements; the deserving behavior of the COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE always ready to fight against adversity, in favor of human life. The struggle for life is ruthlessly vivisected all of the time; the characters are plunged into scenes of affliction and distress, in an urban landscape accented with greenish tones and seen in its own reflections through the windshield of a taxi. Everything in "Dekalog 5" conveys a dreadful sense of estrangement and isolation: descriptions of a waste undergrowth of violence and folly, scenes of precarious conditions of work, sinister appearances of buildings immersed in an anonymous aura of desolation, aimless wanderings through disenchanting environments. Jazek, the main character, is compelled to struggle with an opponent stronger than himself: a town completely wrapped in profound indifference, apparently hostile, deaf to all his mute calls for help, while a faded photo of a little girl in a first communion dress goes on gnawing his soul. He's irremediably directing his steps towards a disconnected route to damnation seen through the deformations of the 18 mm. wide angle camera lens aiming at distorting every details, altering the reality, making it fade out in remote and alien echoes. Kieslowski doesn't bring extenuating circumstances seasoned with honey-tongued tones of melodrama in favor of the defendant, differently from some Hollywood stereotypes like "I want to live" (by Robert Wise). He doesn't slip on the banana peel of useless pathetic scenes to extenuate Jazek's guilt and to mitigate the brutality of the crime, not interested at all in proximate psychological motivations to justify any display of extreme or violent behaviors and refusing to include any useless judicial proceedings. In other words, in Kieslowsky's opinion "a crime is always a crime": according to the principle of "par condicio" he puts the prosecutor on the same plane as the condemned man, using many signs or symbols to represent a society seen in the most sinister light. And we can't remain indifferent: even if we don't agree with him, Jazek's screams of anguish touch our hearts with pity in the same manner that Terri Schiavo's entreating eyes do.


'Identity . . . . I am part of my surroundings and I became separate from them and it's being able to make those differentiations clearly that lets us have an identity and what's inside our identity is everything that's ever happened to us' (Ntozake Shange qtd in "Fires in the Mirror").

Pieces like Decalogue V used to intimidate me. I felt that if I accepted them, than I would be compromising something. What I thought before really isn't worth getting into. I understand what Naturalism is trying to say. I experienced a tangible katharsis, and one that fell into existence piecemeal, and one that's still alive, that I still have to reckon with. It's still working inside me.

The film wasn't sympathetic, per se. It doesn't need to say that the death penalty is a wicked thing. There are certainly wicked people; whether or not they should die is for another film. What Decalogue shows is that good, beautiful people exists who kill other people when their society and primal urges jack them up.

The 'science' of naturalism is what has helped me to appreciate Decalogue V. It's not worth the writing space to go into why I would not let myself before, but I see now the worth in making art like this to 'make' people, or perhaps to make people do something.

There's a method to Lazar's compromise of his . . . light. Much of that meaning makes sense only in retrospect. This should not be too strange of an idea: after all, how much of respectable science does not gain meaning in retrospect. I wince when I say it, but Naturalism seems so much more productive and so much less nihilistic when I have the power to say to myself, 'this ruin, this process, this natural process, makes me want to buck the system.'

I do not think Naturalism is painting a doomsday portrait of humanity, telling us to give up our powdered wigs and head to the woods. Instead, I think that it is cataloging proofs and experiments, that we are, of course, free to ignore. We can ignore it all we want, if we want to give the Naturalists more corpses to bury.

For surely, despite their aesthetic specifically designed without sympathy towards their characters' likely and catastrophic fate, they are impassioned by readerly inaction and writerly snobisme. I do see the delightful risk in the hope that the audience will understand what's to be done with what they see. As has been mentioned, there's danger in the hopeless seeing their fate immortalized in stone. There's danger in the hopeful disparaging the Natural because it doesn't correspond to their world view.

And I don't think that the 'hopeful' need be either wealthy or fortunate. I have not seen it, but it seems that the film American Beauty proves the inadequacy of circumstance as a provider of vision or comfort. There are ascetics as well as gluttons as well as beggars who wonder where within themselves their humanity is, who grieve because they can't find anything that separates them from their landscape.

Landscapes can be powerfully and beautifully portrayed, but in reality, landscapes do not enact. They change, sure, and dramatically, but only by a large set of Natural law which no one truly have power over. But it cannot be changed itself.


A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully trying to defend and then console the accused.


It would be great if a discussion on this medium length film is initiated with a brief tale about hypocrisy of Hollywood people.It was in 1988 that Chuck Norris saw this film at Cannes International Film Festival.He made a silly remark by uttering that the senseless killing depicted in Dekalog 5 is far more effective than killings which have been filmed in his Hollywood films with him as a potent action star.He was speaking about an innocent taxi driver whose face is brutally disfigured in Kieslowski's film by a reckless psychopath who hits him cruelly with a big stone.There should be absolutely no justification for violence and its perpetrators in a dignified human society.This is the reason why Chuck Norris' statement appears as a cruel joke which defends violent means in a society which is increasing becoming restless.An honest reviewer would not be making a mistake if he/she states that Kieslowski's film "Dekalog: Dekalog,Piec (#1.5)" has universal connotations.This is because the events depicted in Dekalog 5 can happen in any part of world.The best lesson which Kielowski gives to us concerns levels of violence which are acceptable in a just society.This is the reason why the brutal slaying of an innocent cab driver is capable of causing a feeling of repugnance in us.We would not feel the same hatred for homicide when it appears in films featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger,Chuck Norris and Jean Claude Van Damme as they appear much too artificial.One can easily grasp that special effects and modern studio techniques can charm only toddlers but make no sense to serious film enthusiasts.Kieslowski also champions helplessness of human beings in rescuing fellow humans beings from the clutches of death and misery.This is particularly interesting as time and again it has been proved that strict laws and capital punishments have not been able to prevent homicide.


Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past, Night of the Demon) and written by Phillip Dunne (How Green was My Valley) Anne of the Indies is a quite interesting adventure pirate movie. Its main character of captain Anne Providence is based on a real woman-pirate Anne Boney who actually lived and sailed through 18th century's Atlantic.

The film begins with the sea battle where Anne's (Jean Peters) pirate ship attacks a trade ship that was on its way to Europe from the South America. As a result a treasure of great value is captured along with a handsome French officer Pierre La Rochelle (Louis Jourdan), who is taken prisoner. Anne ends up falling in love with him and apparently her feelings are reciprocated but it's only till she sets him free when she discovers that he has a beautiful young wife Molly (Debra Paget) with whom he pretty much in love with. Anne begins planning revenge on both of them but in an unexpected twist of fate ends up making a great sacrifice in order to save them instead. The pirate movie cliché figure of `Black Beard' also makes his appearance here, this time played by Thomas Gomez.

Though Anne of the Indies probably appears to be no more nor less than a revisiting of pirate movie clichés, it still has its classical moments in beautiful visuals and sea battle sequences filmed in Technicolor as well as in some aspects of the story and most of all in personal touches in directing of all of it by Jacques Tourneur. 7/10


I like the film, it´s the best pirate-movie I watched hitherto (forget silly Errol-Flynn-stuff and Pirates of the Caribbean). This movie is wonderful melancholic. I compare it with "Johnny Guitar" at the sea-side (but 3 years earlier), two women fighting for a man, where mad love might lead one.

The character of the female (anti-) heroine, Anne Providence, is superb, acting without compromise like a child, lost alone on her search for a own female identity in a real man´s world. She´s a quite strange movie-hero, not a funny pirate, as most of her companions in this genre, not making jokes all the time, fighting for the poor and good and only killing the stupid spanish or british soldiers or - better - sly governors, but she´s murdering all the poor prisoners of war, after she captured a ship (look careful at this at the start of the movie), she´s primitive (she can´t even read), she is desperated and she get´s an alcoholic, she looses all her friends as consequence of her obstinacy and she´s wearing rags most of the film. This film shows a pirate "hero" a little (!) bit as he (or in this case "she", but there has been a female "Anne" buccaneer, Anne Boney) might have been in brutal reality.

The film is quite short and the story is told in a breathtaking manner. Certainly, a film from the 1950s has no exciting special effects for present time viewers (the ships swim very obvious in a bath tube), but this real drama about love (that kills), trust, betrayal, revenge, hatred and sacrifice drives one crazy. Maybe, Anne is even supposed to be Judas Iskarioth and Jesus from Nazareth in one person, being betrayed by her friend (the french LaRochelle) as Jesus; after being disappointed by the friend, delivering him to a death penalty (as Judas); than getting remorse about this (like Judas, who commits suicide according to the gospel of Matthew); and in the end sacrificing herself for the rescue of the beloved enemy (as Jesus). But, even if you are not interested in this philosophical questions of guilt and atonement, the film brings a lot of (cheap) action as sword fights and burning (plastic) ships for a very short one and a half hour.


This movie was much better than I expected. ++++ Jean Peters actually does a passable job as a pirate and does decent work in her sword fights. (To the extent she may have a double doing the action, it's hard to tell...but Peters herself obviously is doing a good deal of it, and doing it well.) ++++ With a good and serious script, this could have been an excellent film. But it's basically cheesy. Still entertaining however. ++++ Not up to a regular Jacques Tournier film, but definitely above a regular Jean Peters film. Color is typical of this '50s time period, ie. too garish and not realistic. The actors for Blackbeard and her first mate and the drunken doctor were good. Louis Jordan was a bit weak. I don't think Debra Paget was right either. But certainly Jean Peters and Debra Paget were probably the two best looking female stars in the '50s.


This is one of several period sea-faring yarns of its era, which has the added distinction (although not in itself unique) of a female buccaneer at its center. At first, both leads – Jean Peters and Louis Jourdan – might seem miscast but they grow nicely into their roles eventually, thanks no doubt to the talented players (Herbert Marshall, Thomas Gomez and James Robertson Justice) who support them. Velvety-voiced Marshall is uncharacteristically cast as the ship’s obligatory philosophical lush of a doctor, and Gomez is suitably larger-than-life as Blackbeard The Pirate.

The cast is completed by Debra Paget as Jourdan’s wife, who incurs the jealous rage of the tomboyish titular character in whom Jourdan instills the first pangs of love (which, however, does not spare him the occasional flogging or sword-wound); incidentally, the film was the second exotic teaming of Jourdan and Paget in one year, following Delmer Daves’ BIRD OF PARADISE. The direct result of this unexpected softening of Anne’s character is her falling out with Blackbeard’s crew, and her unlikely climactic sacrifice in order to save the lives of the stranded Jourdan, Paget and Marshall.

While the film is not a particularly outstanding example of its type, Jacques Tourneur’s energetic direction and Franz Waxman’s grandiose score ensure an above-average effort that moves along at a brisk pace; incidentally, Tourneur had already done service in the genre with the superior Burt Lancaster vehicle, THE FLAME AND THE ARROW (1950). As usual with vintage Technicolor productions, the cinematography gives the film a sumptuousness that is invigorating. By the way, differing running-times are given for this film (81 or 87 minutes) and, for the record, the version I watched was the shorter one.


Sometimes it's hard to be a pirate...............but by golly Miss Jean Peters has a lot of fun trying - and it shows,particularly during her first spot of friendly swordplay with Blackbeard (Mr Thomas Gomez - eminently hissable)when the sheer joy of performing is plain on her face. With fifty years of hindsight Feminists seem intent on grabbing this movie as some sort of an anthem for the empowerment of women in a male - dominated society but I have serious doubts that either M.Tourneur or Miss Peters had any such concept in their heads at the time. It was an exciting,entertaining family film with absolutely no pretensions,hidden meanings or alternative agenda.It was fun. M.Louis Jourdan is both winsome and treacherous as her love interest. Mr Herbert Chapman is wise and philosophical as the wise and philosophical doctor.Mr James Robertson Justice is just a tad unbelievable as the bosun. But it is Miss Peters who stays in the memory.Wilfully adolescent,illiterate,tough but vulnerable,wonderfully agile,and ultimately,courageous,she is everybody's idea of a lady pirate. There was a definite window of opportunity for her in feisty costume roles - that she did not choose to seize it is a matter of some regret.


I saw this movie when I was very young living in Houston, Texas. I really enjoyed this movie, and I wrote to Jean Peters in Hollywood, and I told her how much I enjoyed seeing her in this movie. She sent me an autographed photo. This movie was directed by Jacques Tourneur, and besides Jean Peters in the starring role. It also stars Louis Jourdan, Debra Paget, and Herbert Marshall. It was released in 1951 in color and is 81 minutes long. Jean Peters was married to Howard Hughes. She also starred in "Viva Zapata" with Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, who won an Oscar for playing the role Zapata's brother (Marlon Brando starred as Zapata) (1952). And she also starred in "Captain from Castile" (1947) with Tyron Power. Since then I've been trying to find a place where it is available, but so far I have not been successful. Does anybody have any suggestions about where I can find and purchase this movie? It this comment contains spoilers, I am unaware of it.


The cast for this production of Rigoletto is excellent. Edita Gruberova sings Gilda magnificently and passionately. Luciano Pavarotti also sings splendidly. Vergara is a fine Maddalena; Fedora Barbieri is a famous older singer who sings the maid, Giovanna. Weikl sings Marullo; Wixell sings both Rigoletto and Monterone. As Rigoletto, Wixell is probably the most convincing acting singer in this hard-to-beat ensemble of great singers. Kathleen Kuhlmann in the Contessa. All principals are well-known and world-renowned.

This is an exciting Rigoletto visually as well as musically.

I have it on both laser disc and DVD. You should have it too!


Pavarotti and the entire cast are superb in this beautifully filmed opera by Giuseppe Verdi, the world's finest composer of operas. The coloratura soprano is particularly spectacular with her perfect pitch. The title role is well-enacted and well-sung. The entire production is as perfect as one could expect.

A masterpiece of cinematography!


I like the good things in life as much as anybody, I suppose, but until about five years ago, opera didn't figure into my entertainment choices. Oh, I made a few attempts to learn what all the fuss was about; I'd watched several television productions -- notably parts of Wagner's Ring Cycle on public television -- hoping to understand other people's fascination with the art form. And I knew I could like parts of various operas (I remember being surprised as a kid that I actually LIKED the snippets of "Madame Butterfly" in "My Geisha, and I enjoyed the opera scenes in "Moonstruck" and "Pretty Woman"), but unlike the characters in those films, I just didn't "get it."

Then in 1995 I saw a live performance of "Rigoletto" presented by the New York City Opera Company, and that night I "got it." What a wonderful, glorious pageant of color and music and raw Emotion! And I do mean Emotion with a capital E! The key, I think, is that the operatic music allows the performers to over-act freely and believably in a way that would seem silly if their words were just spoken. Everything hinges on the music, of course, and when the music is magical, as it is in "Rigoletto," an opera can be a magnificent entertainment.

A sympathetic family member gave me a laserdisc copy of the 1982 TV production of the opera, and I've found that since I can't see live performances of "Rigoletto" live on a regular basis, this video version is a fine substitute. Luciano Pavarotti is perfect in the part of the Duke; Ingvar Wixell is excellent as his mean-spirited court jester Rigoletto; and Rigoletto's beloved daughter Gilda is played by the somewhat plain-featured Edita Gruberova. The sets and costumes are lavish, and the location shots on the river late in the film bring a heightened sense of drama to the story that could never be matched on a stage.

If you've never seen "Rigoletto," or if you think you don't like or understand opera, I urge you to find this one on videotape and buy it or rent it. If you don't like this, if this production of "Rigoletto" doesn't make you appreciate the power of the art form of opera, well, just give it up and move on to something else. But I suspect, if you're new to opera as I was, that you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Bill Anderson


This is the sort of unknown and forgotten film one dreams about discovering in watching old videos. It is a superb comic gem with brilliantly funny writing, embedded in the marvellous array of characters, a wonderfully inventive and funny musical score, and witty, light direction from Montgomery himself. This is one to watch over and over. Montgomery is a bit part actor who finds himself assigned by his military reserve division to infiltrate a young debutante's home to discover the identity of her former beau, a suspected jewel thief. While the premise is rather preposterous, the results are hilarious. Montgomery is the befuddled plant, Ann Blyth is a marvel as the romantically obsessed, terribly earnest debutante and the parade of comic characterizations from veteran stage actress, Jane Cowl's lawyer mother to Lillian Randolph's take-charge maid - are all fabulous.

Oddly enough this only earned an Oscar nom for Sound, when it deserved top nods for Direction, Screenplay and Musical Score.

DO NOT MISS IT - it's one of Hollywood's best.


I was surprised, "Once More, My Darling", had not generated enough votes (at this writing) for a "user rating". It's a "screwy" comedy I have enjoyed many times over the years. Robert Montgomery's mission places him in some very improbable situations, and he's just the man for the job. He maintains his trademark "befuddled" look throughout the film and hysterically, too. Ann Blyth plays his precocious/eccentric pursuer, who assumes a relationship that does not exist. Her character is kooky enough to warrant the unearned nickname "Killer", but remains cute and cuddly.

Among the glut of "B" movies from the late 1940's and 1950's, "Once More, My Darling" is a standout. This one is worth looking for....


In this approximately 34-second Thomas Edison-produced short, we see Annabelle Moore performing the Loie Fuller-choreographed "Serpentine Dance" in two different fantastical, flowing robes.

Moore was one of the bigger stars of the late Victorian era. She was featured in a number of Edison Company shorts, including this one, which was among the first Kinetoscope films shown in London in 1894.

Loie Fuller had actually patented the Serpentine Dance, which Moore performs here in robes (as well as entire frames) that are frequently hand tinted in the film, presaging one of the more common symbolic devices of the silent era. Supposedly, the Moore films were popular enough to have to be frequently redone (including refilming). The version available to us now may be a later version/remake. Moore became even more popular when it was rumored that she would appear naked at a private party at a restaurant in New York City. She later went on to star as the "Gibson Bathing Girl" in the Ziegfeld Follies in 1907. She appeared there until 1912.

The short is notable for its framing of motion, which, especially during the "second half", becomes almost abstract. It somewhat resembles a Morris Louis painting, even though this is almost 60 years before Louis' relevant work.

You should be able to find this short on DVD on a number of different anthologies of early films.


Like all of the very earliest films, this "movie" is very, very short--lasting about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film. Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I think the red one depicted on the DVD "The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary Works" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and odd.

If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on Google Video (type in "serpentine dance").


Could this be one of the earliest colour films? It's actually the second. This is a very beautiful piece of film produced by Thomas Edison. This was one of many of his other films.

I think this is the most beautiful of any Thomas Edison films. It shows a girl dancing and moving her dress all around, which turns red with the film. It's just beautiful.

You are watching history when you watch this. You are watching what began to make movies of the day great! This may not have a plot, or anything very interesting, but this is the second colour film ever.

I recommend this to everyone, especially if you're teaching students about filming or something of the sort, you have to show them what began color films!


A pity, nobody seems to know this little thriller-masterpiece. Where bigger budgeted movies fail, "Terminal Choice" delivers lots of thrills, shocks and bloody violence. A little seen gem, that deserves being searched for in your local video shop. That anonymous guy beneath is quite right, when he says, you'll never trust hospitals again... it IS that effective ! Good ending,too, not really a twist, but it doesn't end the way one thought it would. Yep, that's Ellen Barkin in an early role...


"Hoppity Goes to Town" was the second and last full length animated feature made by Max and Dave Fleischer, who created a parallel universe to Disney. While Disney's films are well remembered today, both of the Fleischer films "Gulliver's Travels" and this one are forgotten.

"Hoppity" is a spellbinding original, not an adaptation like the first picture. That is a major plus, one would think. No, the critics, rarely on the Fleischers' sides to begin with, tore into them for this. Yes, the story is not as tight as "Gulliver", but how can you hate a film that flaunts itself so joyfully?

It is filled with great musical numbers and a very involving story, which would be a crime to reveal. The characters are lovable and charming and there is heart in this film.

The Fleischers' really outdid themselves here and never quite did so again. Most of their time would be devoted to one-reelers after this tanked at the box office. It's a shame they didn't continue making features. Who knows? Their next attempt may have become the masterpiece they were aiming for.

**** out of 4 stars


Leslie Carbaga's excellent book on the Fleishers tells the whole story of the Fleischer's big move of their entire animation unit to Florida, and their subsequent ejection by Paramount.

Mr. Bug Goes to Town didn't destroy the animation pioneers' credit with Paramount, although it's often told that way, and this was Paramount's favorite version of the story. According to Carbaga, the big studio, more than anything, wanted to get their mitts on the animation studio and ease the famously bickering brothers out of the picture altogether. Mr. Bug provided them the pretext to do just that. --The sad closing of a great quirky, innovative chapter in American animation.

I wanted to comment, also, that the film actually debuted December 4, 1941, not December 7. That may have been close enough to do the trick, anyway, in terms of national mood damaging the film's success. But another part of the legend of this troubled little film is that it was killed by having the bad luck to be in the theaters at the same time Dumbo (released October 23, 1941) was still doing very brisk holiday business. I haven't done the research into box office numbers, but I'd say that Dumbo's concurrent presence in theaters likely had an impact on Mr. Bug. Movie-going was at an all time high at this period, and successful films could go strong in theaters for months. -- Something unimaginable in these typically short-run, quick to-DVD days.


I first watched this in black and white, circa Christmas in the early Sixties, when it was shown on British television. I was absolutely hooked, and watched it over again whenever it was repeated on TV (possibly two or three times only, as it happens - if only we'd had video recorders then!).

As outlined by other contributors, the plot describes the return of Hoppity the Grasshopper, after a period spent away, to a Forties American city. He finds that all is not as he left it, and his good insect friends (who live in the 'lowlands' just outside the garden which belongs to a songwriter and his wife) are now under threat from the 'human ones', who are trampling through the broken down fence which prefaces the property, using it as a shortcut.

Insect houses are being flattened by their feet, and are also often burned by cast away cigar butts and matches. Old Mr Bumble and his beautiful daughter Honey (Hoppity's childhood sweetheart) are in grave danger of losing their Honey Shop to this threat.

To compound their problems, devious insect 'property magnate' C. Bagley Beetle has romantic designs on Honey Bee himself, and hopes, with the help of his henchmen Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito, to force Bumble to give him her hand in marriage.

Will the heroic and fearless Hoppity win the day, and manage to save the community of bugs from their dastardly fate, and especially his precious Honey from hers? Enjoy the classic songs ("Katy Did, Katy Didn't" is a superb, swinging, upbeat example), and the colourful visuals, as the tale unfolds.

Time has not blunted my fascination for this masterpiece of animation and story-telling, and I was much pleased to find that it had been released to video, although I later found out that it was in NTSC PAL format. Never mind, I sent off for the video immediately, and only then bought a portable TV/video combination (complete with NTSC playback).

I have enjoyed many nostalgic viewings since then, and have even discovered that the TV rights have switched from BBC (who informed me they were unlikely to ever show the film on any of their stations) to FilmFour, who have (at last!) been showing it on their digital stations in early 2007.

My granddaughter (aged three) was absolutely entranced while we watched it together - and this is a child who has been influenced by the digital age and the resulting computer-generated productions!

I would thoroughly recommend this film for any age, and especially the youngest of viewers.

Give Max Fleischer a posthumous Oscar!


Mr. Bug Goes to Town was one of those films that I grew up hearing about, however a copy could never be obtained until now. I just watched this film on DVD and thought it was a delightful and charming film, with wonderful animation, a good plot and great songs. If this film was made by Disney then the film would be considered a classic, however because it was made by a little known film studio that is long gone, the film has slipped through the cracks.

The film was made by the Max Fleischer studios at their Miami, FL studios and was released through Paramount Pictures. The film was to have had its premiere on Dec. 7th, 1941, the date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Though this probably did hurt the release of the film, the film did play at some movie theaters for up to a year as evidenced by doing some research. The film was called a family favorite by most of the major American newspapers. The film continued to be re-released about every year or so, usually around holidays like Easter, at least in major cities.

In the mid 1950s, this film was re-released under a new name "Hoppity Goes to Town," named after the lead character in the film.

The film is a true period piece, capturing a slice of Americana as it was back in the late 30s and 1940's. The animation is great, and many of the characters are very cute. The animation of the humans in the film is via the rotoscope process, meaning that actors were filmed and then that footage was traced over by animators, giving the movement a very real look.

The Fleishcher studios were one of several animation studios making animated cartoons back in the 30s and 40s. While some of the Fleischer characters like Betty Boop, Popeye and the Superman cartoons are better known, the work of the studio is more or less forgotten.

Almost as a whole the body of work of the Fleischer studios are in the public domain. All of the Superman cartoons are public domain, all but one of the "Color Classics" series are public domain, and the film "Gulliver's Travels" is also in the public domain. This film never appears to have been released in the US on VHS or DVD but was released in Europe. However some looking around on the internet can very quickly produce you with a copy. I recommend the search.


I have for years remembered a song "JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE" ("No. twenty moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air"). I couldn't find the song, but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of "Gullivar's Travels" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie.


Hello again, I have been thinking about this movie all my life. I saw it when I was 5 years old in Los Angeles, California in 1942. What a wonderful story of being good to one another, kindness, and charity. You forget it is the bugs relating to one another. It was just as if they were people. I love this movie and so do my adult children. Such beautiful color in this movie.I need to see this movie again. There is a story about an envelope in the movie, that I just can't remember the "why" of it.

Thanks for listening.


I have viewed this cartoon as a child, a father, and now a grand-father. It is my favorite cartoon. I love the characters, the great little tunes, and the very good drawings. I totally love the main song which comes up throughout the cartoon. I think it is a beautiful little cartoon. Everyone I have shown it to simply loves it. It is too bad it opened on such a bad day (Pearl Harbor bombing). If it wasn't for the bad timing it would have been a great success. I hope I can find a DVD of it because all the VHS tapes don't do it justice.

I think if anyone shows it to their child they will come up with the same result. They will just love it.


What I liked best about this feature-length animated film from 1941 is the great feel it gives for the early 1940s. It's the songs, the clothing, automobiles, buildings lingo of the day, etc. You feel like you've stepped back into time.

From reading some of the reviews here, I see this was a hard-luck film, being released a couple of days before the Pearl Harbor attack. Wow, no one would be interested in going to the movies for a feature-length cartoon during those eventful and shocking days, I'm sure. Too bad, because the folks missed some nice animation would have really impressed back then, almost 70 years ago. The colors are nice, drawings are good and story involving as we root for the bugs led by "Hoppity" and and his beautiful girl "Honey" to make it happily-ever-after and out of harm's way. It's also about all of them finding a grassy spot they can live and not worry about humans trampling them.

There is a nasty villain, though - "C. Bagley Beetle" - and two of his henchmen. Those helpers ("Swat, The Fly" and "Smack, the Mosquito") are comedians, complete with their Brooklyn-ese accents! The story is a familiar one where a nasty old man wants to marry the sweet young thing and uses unscrupulous means to force her hand. The good guy, meanwhile, has the decked stacked against him but in the very end, of course, prevails.

My favorite part - this will sound worse than what it was - was when good-guy "Hoppity" got temporarily electrocuted and he danced in black-and-white. That was fantastic animation!

You know, it's a good thing I didn't see this as a very little kid; I would have been afraid to play outside and squash all those nice bug-people! You never know what (or who) is in that grass beneath your feet!


Hoppity is a charming if slightly phycadelic animated movie that considering it was made in the 1941 has stood the test of time incredibly well. Now I have to admit I have a soft spot for 'HoppityGoes To Town' (as it is called in the United Kingdom) having watched a VHS version taped of the TV by our parents many times with my siblings.Imagine my surprise when I woke up this morning just in time to catch it on Channel Four (at 0615 never the less!) The film was just as delightful as I remembered it with the animation standing the test of time and a lovely moral tale which should appeal to parents and children alike. Maybe one day I to shall share this forgotten classic with children of my own. With a nice running time for kids (88 Min's)and a simple yet involving storyline there really is something for everyone in this tale of the little guy coming good. I really could see this being successfully remade in CGI. Take note Pixar.


"Mr. Bug Goes To Town" was the last major achievement the Fleischer studios produced. The quality of the Superman series produced at the same time is evident in this extraordinary film.

The music and lyrics by Frank Loesser and Hoagy Carmichael (with assistance by Flieshcer veteran Sammy Timberg are quite good, but not as much as the scoring of the picture by Leigh Harline who also scored Snow White for Disney. Harline's "atmospheric music" is superb, and a treat for the ears.

The layout and staging of the picture was years ahead of it's time, and once again the Fleischer's background artists outdid themselves. The techincolored beauty of the film cannot be denied, and while Hoppity the grasshopper is the star, the characters of Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito steal the picture. Swat's voicing by Jack Mercer (of Popeye fame) is priceless. Kenny Gardner (brother-in-law) of Guy Lombardo...and a featured vocalist in his band...does his usual pleasant job in the role of Dick Dickinsen.

The movie has been criticized for all the wrong reasons. The Fleischer Studios were animation experts par excellence and this shows very clearly in the finished product. The movie is tuneful, the story great for all ages, and the final scenes of the bugs scrambling for their lives upon a rising skyscraper is some of the best staging and animation of any animated film past and present.

Do not miss this wonderfully hand drawn film. Also don't fail to appreciate the title sequence with the most elaborate example of Max Fleischer's remarkable 3-D sterioptical process which took four months to construct and employed 16,000 tiny panes of glass in the "electrified" buildings of Manhattan.

Do not miss Mr. Bug Goes To Town...aka Hoppity Goes To Town. I'll wager you'll be bug eyed at the results!


well, i may be bias as i grew up watching a VHS copy of this film that is now ready to snap and have just spent the last couple of hours tracking down a DVD copy as a birthday pressie for my Dad. The film is so harmless and inoffensive it suits all ages.... much better than anything Disney ever made in my opinion (and i used to work in the Disney Store!!!). The characters are enjoyable and the award for best scene is a tie between the disrupted wedding (especially the musical talents of Swat, the fly. and Smack the mosquito), and the amazing night club scene. The musical numbers still have me humming 20 years after i first watched it. there is no other film that i can better recommend whilst baby-sitting, and in fact every child i know (thanks to my Hoppity loving parents) have seen this film, many times. It will always get top marks for its fabulous love story, a brilliant baddy and over all originality.


When HOPPITY GOES TO TOWN he discovers nothing but bad news for his little insect neighbors in the Lowlands. Can this honest, good-natured grasshopper save his sweetheart, Miss Honey Bee, from the machinations of the evil C. Bagley Beetle - and also lead his friends to a safe new home - before it's too late?

While not one of the great animated features (a very new art at the time this film was created) HOPPITY is an enjoyable film which should bring pleasure to uncritical viewers. Technically it is well made, with animation of a generally high quality. The movie's main drawback is that none of the characters really have any `heart' - they don't come `alive' on the screen in the way Jiminy Cricket did a year earlier in PINOCCHIO.

However, it is ultimately unfair to compare the Fleischer Studio output with that of Disney. Max & Dave Fleischer had their own star to follow; their contribution - and it would be a considerable one - would be in the realm of the one-reel cartoon. With their POPEYE and BETTY BOOP series they created alternate realities as viable as any produced by other cartoon studios. HOPPITY was their second experiment with feature length animation (after GULLIVER'S TRAVELS in 1939), and henceforth they would expend their energies again on the cartoon short subject. In fact, the first in the highly acclaimed SUPERMAN series was already in release.

HOPPITY'S story owes a great deal to Frank Capra, with it's energetic, go get em hero up against powerful societal forces. Indeed, the film's original title was MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN, which immediately puts one in mind of Gary Cooper or Jimmy Stewart and their Capraesque adventures.

Jack Mercer, famous as the voice of Popeye, here speaks for two very different characters, old Mr. Bumble & Swat the Fly. Movie mavens should be able to catch veteran voice actors Pinto Colvig & Mae Questel, both in uncredited roles.

The film has some pleasant songs supplied by Hoagy Carmichael & Frank Loesser, of which `Be My Little Baby Bumble Bee' is the most familiar. `We're The Couple In The Castle' is a fine romantic tune which deserves to be rediscovered.

It is unfortunate that the film's initial animation, with its sweep out of the heavens and past the in-depth New York skyline, is obscured behind the opening credits.


People who know me say I have a weakness for animated films.

To be fair, those people are HALF right My actual weakness is for exceptionally well-done animated films, such as this vintage family flick from Max and David Fleischer.

You may be thinking to yourself, "well if it's so great, why haven't I heard of it?" Fair question. This movie was released the same week as the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The unavoidably bad timing caused the film to sink into relative obscurity. Things are looking up, though, because it has finally been released on DVD under the title "BUGVILLE".

It's funny that the film went through all this, because it kind of mirrors the actual plot. Although some people claim that the movie is trying to send an environmental message (ugh), I personally think that the movie's main idea is perseverance through adversity and hard times (after all, the country had barely pulled out of the Depression at the time).

Our grasshopper hero, Hoppity, desperately wants to help his endangered community. Problem: each time he tries, whether through the ill-will of others or through simple bad luck, he fails miserably...and slowly begins to earn the disdain of the very people he's trying to save. Although he does his best to maintain a positive outlook, he occasionally breaks down and it's only through the encouragement and support of his friends that he gets back on his feet and fights the good fight. Just a healthy reminder that, when all is said and done, no one is really self-sufficient.

"Okay", you're saying. "It has a good message (two actually). Does that really make it EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-DONE?"

My answer: Partially.

It's not just the message that makes this movie special. It's the characterization. This is one of those films where you can just see the personality of each cast member in their animation. You almost don't even need the spoken lines. A good way to sum it all up is "energetic" or "lively". A lot of movies have used the selling point, "lovable cast of characters". Whenever I hear that line, it always makes me think of this movie.

Case in point, the bad guys: Swat the Fly and Smack the Mosquito. Many movies have "lovable" villains, but I don't think you'll find any as entertaining or endearing as these fellows. Forget that 3 Stooges Cartoon from the 60s. Swat and Smack are the closest thing to an animated version of Moe and Curly (but sadly not Larry) that you'll ever find. Virtually all of the funniest moments somehow involve this gruesome twosome. Yeah, they're rotten no-goodniks, but you still care about them. That's the kind of power you only see from a really talented writer, director, and crew.

The movie has two brief jokes revolving around racial stereotypes (Native Americans and Chinese). I don't think they were intended to be malicious; but they're there, regardless. They didn't bother me, but it'd be pretty unfair of me not to warn someone who potentially would be bothered by them.

So, if you share my weakness (and I think you do), give this one a go.


Normally I am a typical "creepy-crawly-hatin'" girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the "jitter-bugs" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love "We're a Couple in The Castle;" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.

This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.


There was a time when not all animation was Disney or Pixar. Its so nice to see this wonderful film again and I actually got hold of a good, reasonable copy on DVD. Be careful as its out of the public domain and there are some really bad copies around.I got a very good copy by a company called Flashbacks and its quite good. In the old days I watched it on black and white on TV and its magic to see it in colour. Very much better than some would have you believe. The songs are delightful and the colour is great. Interestingly the characters are really well developed which is odd in animated movies. I loved Hoppity and the villain Mr Beatle is a real cad. Its incredibly imaginative. The way inanimate objects like cotton reels, old tins become part of the environment and have new functions is great. The anthropomorhic use of insects is amazing considering the much malinged creatures most people sadly think are repugnant. Hopefully we may never step on an insect again! THe insects enemy is man. In reality of course its the insects that will survive. No matter how hard we try to rid ourselves of ants here in Australia they keep coming back. The battle has been lost and we have to live with them. There are several scenes that stand out such as when Hoppity and Mr Bumble are caught in a watering can, the great flood and the journey to the top of the building are all wonderful. Its also rather anthropomorphic but in a way thats charming. The human characters look very like the ones in Gulliver and its incredibly effective. The wedding scene looks beautiful. Its a crime this movie has not been hailed as a classic. The only jarring note for me is the occasions in the film when the characters slip into verse. Speaking verse spoils the narration and it was no needed, The verse is awful and spoils an other wise good script. Its great and kids will love it. Its a joy to look at. There's a very clever ending too.


Wow. I saw this movie and "Up" on the same day within an hour of each other at different theaters. I saw "Mr Bug" first, and was then totally disappointed in "Up"'s follow-up. What a beautiful and touching film! Movies of the 1930s and 40s to us nowadays can be irking with their melodramatic acting and dialog, but as animation the same melodrama and groaning humor can be wonderful. And the soft "organic" lines of 30s drawing AND the music just puts you in a nice comfortable mood and you can enjoy the show with all its little characters: ladybugs, grasshoppers, bees, snails, stinkbugs, flies, mosquitoes, beetles, crickets, and more each with all their own cute little (but not overbearing) idiosyncrasies. The interaction with the human world, from nemesis (cigar smokers, high-heel wearers, innocent kick-the-can playing kids) to the kind-hearted, and to the unknown destroyers, is realistic and fascinating. You care for the bugs, AND Dick and Mary. The protagonist Hoppity is not some perfect superman who comes to "set things right" but a starry-eyed optimist who leads everyone down the garden path (literally!), and every time you think it's going to end happily in 1930s style, along comes another roadblock...! I was on the edge of my seat much more than with "Up." I walked out of the movie theater grinning and chuckling: something that hasn't happened in a long long long long time!


While Disney have been THE animation studio for the past 70 years, there have always been rivals to their supremacy. When this review was written in 2009, for example, companies like Dreamworks and (to a lesser extent) Warner Brothers and Ardman, were bringing out animated movies that could be said to challenge the Disney dominance. Back in the beginning, in that late '30s and early '40s heyday when Disney was serving cinematic banquets like Snow White, Dumbo and Fantasia, the competition was provided by brothers Dave and Max Fleischer. Despite releasing two very commendable films, they never quite cornered the market  many attribute their downfall to the commercial failure of Mr Bug Goes To Town, released the same week as the attack on Pearl Harbour (which gave the American public something more significant to think about than going to the cinema to watch a cartoon!) That this film has faded into relative obscurity is a travesty.

In a patch of overgrown garden in the city a bunch of bugs are in dire danger. Humans use the land as a shortcut, discarding litter and cigars, and other hazards, right on top of the bugs' homes as they go. Honey-shop owner Mr Bumble (voiced by Jack Mercer) fears that the future is bleak, and wonders how he will ever be able to raise his daughter Honey (voiced by Pauline Loth) in more secure surroundings. A highly unscrupulous creature, Bagley C. Beetle (voiced by Tedd Pierce), offers to provide her a safer place to live if she will accept his hand in marriage, but Honey is much more interested in her childhood sweetheart, the perennially cheerful and optimistic Hoppity (voiced by Stan Freed). Hoppity believes that everything is about to be resolved for the better, but is left looking foolish when Bagley Beetle and his pair of comical sidekicks manipulate the crisis to their own devious end. Only at the very end, as their patch becomes the foundation for a huge new skyscraper, do the bugs switch loyalty back to Hoppity as they look to him to lead them a new, safe home away from the destructive influence of humans.

What really works in this film is the delightful characterisation  all the bugs are cleverly developed and designed for maximum audience appeal. The bumbling villains Swat the fly and Smack the mosquito (hilarious names, if you stop to think about it) are particularly memorable. Equally admirable is the storytelling drive  even the youngest of children can enjoy this story, while at the same time it skillfully conveys a message for older audiences about the way human carelessness can impact upon the survival of wildlife. Time has inevitably dated some aspects of the film, and when viewing it the audience needs to accept (and forgive) these occasional signs of general age and wear. But on the whole Mr Bug Goes To Town is an accomplished, funny and very slickly presented animation with a worthy message to boot.


This is a very modest, very lovely movie with a great score by Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser with a standout number, We're The Couple In The Castle, that is totally evocative of the period and harks back to Penthouse Serenade just as the opening premise (Hoppity's coming) may well have inspired Fred Saidy and Yip Harburg's opening (Woody's Coming) in Finian's Rainbow six years later. I totally agree with those posters who have noted that were the name Disney appended to this it would by now have achieved 'classic' status rather than have fallen into neglect. It's wonderfully inventive, never more so than when objects barely noticed in the 'real' world assume a much greater significance - both pro and con - in the insect world. Actually it IS a classic, albeit a minor one.


I was very disappointed when this show was canceled. Although i can not vote. I live on the island of Aruba. I sat down to see the show on tuesday. And was very surprised that it didn't aired. The next day i read on the internet that it was canceled.

It's true not every one was as much talented as the other. But there were very talented people singing.

I find it very sad for them.

That they worked so hard and there dreams came tumbling down.

Its a pity

Ariette Croes


I was really beginning to enjoy this show. It just started out slow and it wasn't given the chance it deserved. It is summertime so many people are not at home watching television. I know there are a few talent and singing competitions but I enjoy them as do many other. believe it or not when American idol is done for the year I miss it. Even though this was not American idol I thought it had potential. I feel bad for the singers on the show who wee really starting to grow on me. I wish they would reconsider and put the show back on. I think it was a hasty move to cancel. My only complaint about the show is I did not care to much for the judges.


I loved this show. Such talent; and I am so disappointed that it is canceled, after only just beginning. I looked forward to this show all week long. And so sorry for the people who were hoping to be The One. I would have loved to see who would have won. It just began, and in my opinion,it should not have been canceled. I hope these young artist have been viewed by talent scouts, and have the opportunity to reach their goals. I voted, and sat waiting for it to come on; never knowing that it was canceled. And I could not believe that it was. I am amazed that it had low ratings; because it was in my opinion one of the best reality shows on TV.


First off, I never got into Dr. Who until recently. Honestly, I never got the opportunity to watch any of the previous incarnations (pun intended) since it was never "big" here in the US as it is everywhere else.

That said, I must say (obviously) that after finishing the 2nd season, that this is one of the best sci-fi shows I've ever seen.

Now, I watch a lot of Sci-Fi shows from all over and this show stands out.

The first season was tops to begin with, with Christopher Eccleston in the title role and I thought he was terrific. Of course, so was the lovely Billie Piper who just adds such humanity and warmth to the character of Rose that no one could've done it better. Let's not forget Camile Coduri as Jackie and Noel Clarke as Mickey/Ricky who are just a blast to watch. Then there's David Tenannt. At first, I thought he was too gawky-looking to play the character (his ears!!), but after watching the 2nd season, he fits in just fine. His sharp acting and physical comedy is almost flawless. He's great with snappy dialog and can turn serious without batting an eye.

Aside from the great acting from the cast is the acting from most of the guest actors that have appeared. A lot of them are veteran actors but some are new to me and are damn fine.

The production and direction of the show is top notch. Occasionally, there'll be some cheesy effects here and there, but that's always been a factor in the original series and, like those episodes, is negligible.

My favorite thing of all about the series: The stories. Writing folks, is always the key to great entertainment. Russell T. Davies has written many of the episodes along with a few other writers and they have done an excellent job. They've managed to bring excitement, ingenuity, intelligence and fun with clever concepts and great dialog. I also appreciate the fact that they can breach the older Doctors' past story lines and enemies well (my friend explains much of this to me while we watch the show) and respectfully.

I won't mention anything about the 2nd season and how it ends since the Sci-Fi channel just started airing the 2nd season.

I wouldn't want to spoil it. It's so much fun and excitement. You'll never want to take your eyes away nor miss a word of dialog.

It really is that good.

PS: Thanks to the producers for Nicholas Briggs back! **EXTERMINATE!**


I remember being so excited on Saturday nights when I was a kid, waiting for Dr. Who. I thought it was the best show ever made. Then, I grew up, Dr. Who went off the air, and no one I knew had ever heard of it. Then I found out there was going to be a new series. I was a little nervous about it. Was it going to live up to the expectations I had carried around since I was little? Would they screw it up? Would the Dr. suck? Would his assistant suck? Would they create a more intimate relationship with the Dr. and his assistant? YES, NO, NO, NO, NO!!! This show is wonderful!! I love the new Dr. I love his assistant. I love the show. And I find myself excited on Friday nights now, waiting for the "new" episode. I'm just now seeing 2005 episodes, as I live in the States, so I'm a little behind the rest of you. I hope the next Dr. is as great as this one!


I never saw Doctor Who before (at least not in any focused way), so I was new to the concept. I have to say that the new show works very well. It's funny (it really also ought to say "Comedy" in the genre description; many plot turns are only acceptable because of their comedic value), it's well-written and it's making a meager budget go a long way. The human dimension is very strong and engaging, which is very rare in current TV shows.

I've seen the first eight episodes, and #6-8 were my favorites so far. Even types of stories that are all too easy to screw up (with time-travel, saving one's dead parents and that sort of stuff) works out amazingly well here.

Christopher Eccleston is a joy to watch as the witty and light-hearted though occasionally morose Doctor - if they can find a good replacement for him, I'll be quite surprised. But I'm willing to give the new guy a chance. There's little doubt, however, that the Eccleston episodes are going to go down in history as classics.

The relationship between the Doctor and Rose is particularly refreshing. The Doc is much more of a father figure to her than a romantic interest, and yet there are hints of romantic innuendo between them, which however is much more emotional and human than sexual.

A good show. The biggest drawback is the low budget - a show like this ought to have better special effects. And why they don't simply use some cheaper effects, I don't know. In this day and age, SFX don't have to cost a bundle - just look at the Star Wars: Revelations fan film.

8 out of 10.


It was September 2003 that I heard the BBC were going to resurrect DOCTOR WHO and make it " Bigger and better " but I'd heard these rumours in the press before and thought that's all they were - Rumours . But it was then mentioned that Russell T Davies was going to executively produce and write the show and then one Saturday afternoon in March 2004 Channel 4 news interviewed the actor cast in the title role - Christopher Eccleston . Yes that Christopher Eccleston an actor I've always been impressed by since watching his film debut in LET HIM HAVE IT and if he was getting interviewed on television it must have been true . As the months passed more and more information was leaked , Billie Piper was being cast , the Daleks would be returning and The Mill , the Hollywood effects company who had done the FX for GLADIATOR were contracted to do the special effects for the show . For several weeks before the first broadcast trailers galore heralded the return of the new series , massive billboards in London informed the public about the return of the show , tabloid newspapers carried massive photo spreads of the aliens appearing and Christopher Eccleston appeared on programmes as diverse as BLUE PETER , MASTERMIND ( Which had a special DOCTOR WHO night edition ) , THIS MORNING and Friday NIGHT WITH JOHNATHAN ROSS . In fact this new series of DOCTOR WHO must have been the most hyped programme in the history of British television , it had better be bloody good

So was it bloody good ? Undoubtedly it has been a major success with nearly every episode making the top ten shows in the TV charts . To give you clue of its rating success only one episode ( The Ark In Space episode two - Febuary 1975 ) from the old series had made it into the top five TV chart . The opening series episode made number three with two more episodes either beating or equalling the previous record and this is in an era where there's far more competition in terms of TV stations and choice . Let's laugh and cheer at the fact DOCTOR WHO stuffed HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME , CELEBRITY WRESTLING and mauled ANT AND DEC'S Saturday NIGHT TAKEAWAY . Of course much of the success is down to the breath taking visuals and the casting of a well known prestigious actor in the role . For the most part everything you see on screen here equals anything you'll see in a Spielberg / Hollywood movie . There's a Dalek invasion force numbering tens of thousands , exotic aliens , a 19th Century Cardiff that looks like a 19th Century Cardiff and night filming that is actually night filming and not done by sticking a dark filter over the screen . I promise you'll be hearing a lot more from the directors who worked on this series , Joe Ahearne especially will one day be in the Hollywood A list

There are some flaws to the new series of DOCTOR WHO and all of them should be laid at the door of Russell T Davies . It may be contentious whether the soap opera and post modernist elements are successful or not ( In my opinion they're not ) but what's not in dispute is that the weakest scripts are all written by RTD . As I mentioned in my review of CASANOVA he cheats the audience and he does the same thing here: when faced by armed soldiers pointing their guns at him The Doctor bellows " attack plan delta " which makes no sense to anyone in the audience but allows him to escape from a tight spot , a naked Captain Jack suddenly pulls out a laser he's been hiding and RTD scripts are full of these type of cheats and deus ex machina type endings . In fact the final episode is spoiled greatly by the ridiculous concept of what the " Bad Wolf " is which seems to have got RTD out of a tight spot more than The Doctor . And of the endings I'm trying to remember if any of them were actually down to The Doctor ? More often than it's a supporting character or the Doctor's companion who saves the day . The show is called DOCTOR WHO not ROSE TYLER so can we see the title character save the day please just like he did in the classic series ? One final point about the portrayal of the Doctor is the way he's written as a grinning loon . Eccleston is best known for his serious and gloomy roles and he's absolutely breath taking at scenes when he's showing grief , like the tear running down his face in the End Of The World but more often than not he's written as a " Tom Baker on speed " character . It's obvious why Eccleston hasn't done much comedy in his career - He's not very good at it

Am I starting to sound like I hate this show ? Sorry I didn't mean to but it's just that while some anticipations have been met or surpassed some others haven't and they're nearly all down to Russell T Davies who thankfully is contributing less in the way of scripts in the next series of DOCTOR WHO . Let's see more traditional stories of a human outpost being under threat from monsters like we saw in the 1960s and 70s , imagine a story like The Sea Devils with a massive budget directed by Joe Ahearne ! Oh and one last request - Can we see these " NEXT TIME " trailers scrapped ? They reveal all the best bits of next week's episode


I seriously enjoy Dr Who.

Seriously, don't just dismiss me as a "sci-fi person", because I'm not normally. I caught on because a friend got me hooked when they started watching it. It is actually really funny, and more often than not, it's fast-paced. All of my family watch it pretty much and that's a miracle.

Christopher Ecclestion is pretty good, but David Tennant is brilliant. I think it's because he made the Doctor so manic and it's just nice to have that little bit of eccentricity in a TV character again.

I don't know what it is about it, but everything manages to work like clockwork.

All I'm going to say is just try it. One episode (probably best if you don't pick the second half of a two-parter, though).


2005 will go down in 'Dr.Who' history as its most incredible year. Everything seemed to click; a first-rate new Doctor and companion, big audiences ( 10 million for the first episode and Christmas special ), major awards, critical acclaim and those idiots who spent years giggling at the Daleks' seeming inability to negotiate stairs were well and truly silenced. But then Christopher Eccleston dropped a bombshell, quitting after just one series. It looked like the honeymoon was over. Luckily, the public appears to have embraced his successor, the excellent David Tennant. On top of this the show boasts fine S.F.X., like the spaceship crashing into 'Big Ben' in 'Aliens Of London' and superb story lines such as 'Tooth & Claw', 'Army Of Ghosts/Doomsday'. The new 'Dr.Who' is basically the same as the old, only updated for the 21st century. Some fans have accused Russell T.Davies of 'ruining' the show. They need to remember that there was no show for sixteen years until he came along.


I get a kick out of the new Who fans who call it, excellent,Their entitled to that opinion but the new series isn't quite there yet, it's getting there. It's definitely good.

First the good things. The special effects are obviously better nearly 20 yrs later since the last episode of Doctor Who "Battlefield" was aired.

One thing the BBC has always liked is Doctor Who (except when they tried to cancel in the 70's and 80's). However, the anticipation and the pressure was great but I think the New series has passed the test it's good, it's still not excellent because it does have it's flaws. Some of the stories "Dalek" were very poor. I assume it was written in a couple of minutes by some idiot who never bothered to remake the Dalek character or never bothered to watch the old series.

"Aliens in London" was by far probably the best episode so far, it started a new storyline about Aliens which has lasted across several episodes including "Boomtown".

Now the other bad things, the companion, Rose, Billie Piper, isn't great. She's actually quite annoying but as is Dr. Who a young teeny bopper had to be eventually chosen and she got the part.

Christopher Eccleston is pretty respectable, he's started to catch his niche. He tried to play the character, straight then funny always missing the right punchline but he's taken it much more serious and it shows.

Continuity wise there still some issues that didn't get resolved well, Paul Mcgann was still the doctor before this but he didn't get put back.

Aside from that though the series overall is pretty good, I haven't missed an episode and it never gets boring, so I recommend any Doctor Who fan to check it out and see the new Doctor Who series.


As a child I was never in a situation where I could be introduced to Dr Who and though I had heard of the series in passing, I never really realized exactly what it was. It was, then, with some hesitation that i sat down to watch the ninth Doctor and his antics having be told that he was something like Arthur Dent (from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) but cooler. I can't believe what I've been missing out on, seriously, why had no one told me about this before? My entire childhood was deprived of Doctor Who adventures; me being a tremendous fan of most sci-fi and fantasy adventures. Honestly, i thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to any future episodes.

I have to admit that at first I was not so sure that Billie Piper would be the best actress but I'm happy to say that she did very well, i thought, and added a very realistic touch to the series. I think, actually, that was one of my favourite aspects of the series; the contrast between great alien conflict scenes contrasted with the infuriating normality of the South London Council Estate life. I'm always interested in instances where people's ideas about the world are drastically challenged and how people can take any situation and edit it in their minds so that it may fit in with their mundane lives. I also loved Christopher Eccleston. I haven't seen many of his films and I've never seen another actor as Dr Who, but I thought his portrayal of the Doctor was brilliant, immensely likable and yet dark enough to make you wonder. I find that many other characters with his sort of character history tend to be a bit two-dimensional; they have all the right emotions and actions, but they always seems slightly shallow. This Doctor, on the other hand, earned my loyalty with his stratified personality. I agree with some of the other comments that a higher budget for the special effects, aliens and whatnot, might have been a bit more effective. but then again, this isn't about special effects (though they help) from what I've read and heard from long-time Dr Who fans; it's the spirit of the whole things that really counts. And I don't think they did a bad job with what they had. I quite liked all the aliens but my favourite had to be the Daleks; if I ever knew anything about Dr Who before watching the series, it was that there were things in it that looked like upturned dustbins on wheels. Previous to watching, i was quite sceptical about these pepper-pots threatening the existence of humanity but some of them were quite scary! Which I loved,of course.

Overall, a good show. I look forward to future episodes with delight. The Doctor has a new fan.


I have just watched the season 2 finale of Doctor Who, and apart from a couple of dull episodes this show is fantastic.

Its a sad loss that we say goodbye to a main character once again in the season final but the show moves on.

The BBC does need to increase the budget on the show, there are only so many things that can happen in London and the surrounding areas. Also some of the special effects all though on the main very good, on the odd occasion do need to be a little more polished.

It was a huge gamble for the BBC to bring back a show that lost its way a long time ago and they must be congratulated for doing so.

Roll on to the Christmas 2006 special, the 2005 Christmas special was by far the best thing on television.


Doctor Who is amazing. It is everyones 'cup of tea'. It must be. The boys will like the monsters and the action and adventure and the girls will like the emotion and feelings that go around.

Billie Piper was extraordinary as Rose Tyler. She was so emotional and made Rose so real.

David Tennant is also so witty and funny and it is so enjoyable to watch.

But now Billie has left and Rose is stuck on a parallel universe with her on-off boyfriend Mickey and her mother and father (he died when Rose was a baby but this Pete Tyler is from the Parallel universe). It will be very strange with Martha being the new companion, as I have only ever seen it with Rose (Apart from the Runaway Bride with Catherine Tate).

Freema better be good!!!

But nobody can beat Rose!!!


i watched all of the doctor who episodes that my local PBS station played while growing up.(got introduced to the doctor by way of John Pertwee)as well as "camera copies" of doctor who sent to America by UK fans to their US counterparts. i had a great time w/ the show, but it never seemed to take itself seriously - i mean as seriously as a sci-fi show about a time traveler could be. i went to the CONs, did the costume bit (doctor#5,6 and Tegan were my costume characters), loved it. then it all came to a sudden halt. program politics and lack of interest and funding turned doctor who into a 25year old antique that drifted into the ethos.

when i heard that the sci-fi channel had picked up the new doctor, my first thought was, "cool, now my 11 year old son can see what i've been babbling on about all these years, and know what the heck a TARDIS is" (i have several phone boxes and TARDISes of various sizes around the house)i didn't expect the excellent quality of story, character development and f/x. i was to say the least - pleased. for the first time, i found a doctor that wasn't a curmudgeon, a clown, a fop, a trip-head, a pussy, or a jerk. Christopher Eccleston is by far the most believable doctor to date.now, now, calm down tom baker fans! don't get me wrong, i loved almost every doctor and his quirks, but Christopher gave something to the doctor that he'd never had before - real word believability. i'm just sad that he decided against another season. i'll try out David Tennant as i would any other doctor, but now the bar has risen...

bad wolf rules!!!!!

2008 update - i love David tennant! his "mod" persona is something that my generation remembers, my son's generation can deal with, and fashion gestapo can relax! he's a little more human than christopher, but not as humas as other former doctors. i miss rose, i dig martha, and what were they thinking with donna noble!?!? it's still the best ride on TV


Okay, I grew up on Who, but haven't loved a Doctor since Tom Baker. Christopher Eccleston made me love Who again and I'll be furious with him forever for leaving.

The writing is grand, the acting superb, the directing (which was dreadful in the old days) is just fantastic. I was very skeptical about this programme, and watched it merely out of being forced, but am now a huge fan and love it (I have a ringtone of a Dalek screaming "Exterminate" then).

A few of the things I love about the new programme -- 1) people actually notice when Rose (Billie Piper) disappears off the planet. Some of the old shows an assistant would drop off for a while, and then come home like nothing has happened, no one noticed. 2) Chris Eccleston's doc loves Rose -- romantic or not will be debated, but there is no doubt that 9 loves and cares about his companion. He'd destroy the world if he had to to save her, which the old show was lacking -- often a doctor wouldn't care if he never saw his assistants again. 3) They talk and think like real people -- when Rose is shown something outlandish or new (such as aliens) she acts like a real person would -- gobsmacked. I never liked it when an assistant from the old show, who never saw anything alien, would just fit right in and adapt instantly. I want to see the surprise on Rose's face when she sees a plastic dummy come to life. She gives that to me.

The few things I don't like about this series: 1)nearly everything happens on earth (London or Cardiff) and I was sort of hoping for a more off-world sort of show. 2) That Eccleston left so quickly, he really made the show brilliant.

But I can let those few things go -- I far more enjoy the series than I ever expected to, so I don't mind if they have stuff set on earth.

Just don't take this show seriously -- it's fun, it's smart, it's entertaining, but it's not a super-serious heavy duty show. It's pure fun, and pure British, and I can't get enough. Watch it with an open mind, and just put your brain into neutral and enjoy!

ps -- don't watch series 2 or later. series 1 was brilliant, the first few episodes of series 2 were good, but don't watch it once it gets to Love and Monsters. Utter rubbish, completely destroys the show.


Honestly, I don't really understand why there has been so much controversy about this show. It embraces the elements of the original, while expanding on them. The storytelling has been updated and, while some of the episodes seem to be a bit "Fast", that is a good thing.

Christopher Eccleston is perfect in the role. Easily as good as Tom Baker.

Rose is one of the best companions, on par with Sarah Jane Smith or Leela.

I like the concept that the timelords have been destroyed - No more politicking with the Doctor acting as president emeritus. And it adds something to the character to be the only one left.

The SFX are outstanding - especially in comparison to the original.

Take it from me (And I was a huge Dr Who geek - I actually took notes while watching the show all the way from Dr Number 1 to Dr Number 8. I tossed the horrible movie out of cannon, personally) this is the best sci fi show on TV right now, possibly ever. Watch it and buy the DVD.


As soon as the credits rolled on Saturday night you could feel it in the air that the doctor was most definitely back!

Watching those iconic moments where Christopher Eccelston met Billie Piper was the beginning of a huge long adventure.

With this new series it brings with it substences in which the previous version of the show lacked. For instence, the emotion between the Doctor and his companion which they seemed to dismiss in the old series, as well as the doctor actually falling in love with a companion and receiving her love in return. Yet as we know, the doctor shall forever remain lonely as the end of Season 2 proved, he could not stay with a companion forever. Watching those moments, your eyes filling with tears as the doctor says his final farewell to the only companion he has ever loved, were moments beautifully written and acted.

This show however proved it can live on as the doctor meets many other companions along his lonely yet exciting journey through his never ending life.

Openeing new doors and secrets every episode it's a sure show for the family to enjoy...

As Christopher Eccelston once described the show... "The journey of a lifetime."


Unlike most people who've commented, I was born after the last Sylvester Mccoy Episode and so couldn't have compared the two centuries of doctor who at first. I thoroughly enjoyed it when Christopher Eccleston took control of the TARDIS and the continuation of the series. I have, since then, seen old episodes of Doctor Who and some where great, but, like the doctor, the series needed to regenerate to continue. The 21st century doctor who's are great, I thought Martha was great, almost a match for the doctor and if Jack's appearance is anything to go by, she's going to be brilliant when she cameos in series 4 or 5.

Speaking of Jack, the spin of, Torchwood is also brilliant and you should watch both of these programmes (though this is definitely more suitable for kids). However, if you insist that this isn't the same and just isn't Doctor Who, please, just stay in your basement.

10/10


I'm a next generation person...i've never saw the original doctor who but i have heard about the series that sparked a great fan base in the past and still making its mark in the 21'st century; the new "Doctor who" started in 2005 but for those that live here in the states like myself we pretty much see it as new episodes on sci-fi channel or BBC America; from season one we are introduce to a new player Rose Tyler (Billie piper) and a pretty cool new doctor played by Christopher Eccelson (misspelled last name sorry). these two go on some many amazing and very extremely dangerous missions to save the world...every now and then they have companions from rose's ex-boyfriend mickey to the now ever present Jack harkness (who can now be seen on the spin off "Torchwood"). From season one to season two the pace is just about right...the stories can be from the outlandishly weird to the most action packed paced driven but either way its one rollercoster ride from the start of the theme song which is very catchy.

in season two he becomes different and changes and now the new doctor (David Tennant) continues the fight to save the world with rose and from this point there can be some that say some of the season wasn't as good but i have to disagree and it was sad to see rose and the doctor part ways but it leaves the opening "companion" role to Martha (played by the very sexy Freema Agyeman) who helps continue the fight to save mankind...season three now is more on the action/adventure level and sometimes on the emotional but not as much as the first two seasons; here the relationship between the doctor and Martha is fitting but the attractiveness CAN be rushed into at times and the obviousness comes into play that she's NOT rose Tyler being that you experienced her company in the first two seasons and not in the third season it can be a bit awkward it was for me cause you get use to rose and her ways and now to see someone who at times don't really question the doctor on an emotional level but all the same makes the pace very exciting for viewers which keeps you at the edge of your seat.

all in all this is one thrill ride of a television show i would give it more but there are some flaws to this show as well that i can't mention cause its sometimes hard to pick up but just one does which is the doctor and Martha's relationship is rushed and not leveled on the get to know you base; I've seen good shows on British TV but this is by far one of the coolest sci-fi adventures for the old and new generation to experience but you don't have to take my world for it...step into the tardis and join the adventure.


I write this after just seeing the latest episode broadcast in the UK, and to me it must be a tough job to keep up the standard. The last episode shown called "Blink" has elements of Gothic horror all to do with statues that aren't quite what they seem. The Doctor and Martha don't appear much, but that doesn't detract from a well crafted episode. The general standard has built to a high level and the last three episodes, the two parter with "The Family" and the latest have to me been the best that the current team have ever done.

It's not just David Tennant holding it together, the whole supporting cast week in, week out are helping as well. For those awaiting series 3 abroad, the wait is is well worth it.


i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking


I LOVE Dr WHo SO much! I believe that David Tennant is the best Dr the show has ever had and Billie Piper the Best companion! I liked the way the Dr and Rose had such a connection and a great relationship and the Dr came close a few times to expressing his love for rose! It sadly came to an end after only 2 seasons. I will miss watching rose heaps and think that the show will not be the same without Rose! But David is still there to make me laugh and make me happy to watch him play this fantastic role! I rate this show 110% it is FANTASTIC! The graphics and monsters in this show are wonderful and every storyline is different but somewhat connected and i have actually learned somethings about love, the world and relationships from this show. Therefore it must be one of the most fantastic shows of all time!


First off, I have been a fan of the show back when my PBS station started showing it back in 1981. I learned many things about the show and the people who were in or contributed to the show.

This latest installment of Doctor Who made a great impression on me. The original series, aka classic series, was made fun of by the bad special effects and/or wobbly sets. Well, this is NO MORE TRUE. The special effects are awesome, but what is even better is the writing. You get a chance to learn more about our beloved Doctor and maybe a bit of a reason why he loves the planet earth so much. Without giving too much away, it is a very worthwhile series to watch. Christopher Eccelston brought a side of the Doctor that we never get to see, a bitter and angry one but yet lovable at the same time.

A MUST SEE!