Q: I watched mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: all the acting done in the first season has been really amazing. the first look you get of Max and Zach is through Geneva Locke and Chris Lazar or as i like to call them the minis. the minis do the best acting job that i have ever seen kids do. the main actors and actresses i.e. Jessica Alba Michael Weatherly etc. make you forget you are watching a fictional t.v. show they seem to make this show come alive. all in all this is the best show i have ever watched OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This adaptation of M.R. James's short story 'A View From A Hill' was first shown on British television in 2005, on the little watched digital channel BBC 4. I saw that it was being repeated again on BBC 4, and decided to give it a go, remembering the BBC's successful 1970's adaptations of other M.R. James stories including 'Whistle And I'll Come To You My Lad' and 'The Signalman'. Though not in the same class as these masterpieces, 'A View From A Hill' is nonetheless an enjoyable and at times suspenseful drama.

A historian arrives in a small rural village to look over the collection of a recently deceased collector of antique artifacts. Whilst out in the countryside, he sees an abbey that has been in ruins for hundreds of years. But what does this have in connection with an old pair of binoculars and a gruesome legend about the ominously named Gallows Hill? And what do the brusque country squire and his servant know about the situation? Whilst not scary in any way, I enjoyed this little production, and had the running time been longer than 40 minutes it could have become a truly great adaptation. As it is, it all feels a little rushed and a bit more exposition to set the mood would have been welcome.

I give it 7 out of 10. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: As an animated film from 1978, this is pretty good--generally well above the standard of the days when Disney hadn't done anything good in years (and Tolkien cared little for Disney anyway). It gets major points for innovative and careful camera work, applying cinematic techniques with relative success. The much-maligned rotoscoping actually works pretty well, especially with the Ringwraiths, and the opening narration. However, it is so drastically overused--possibly as a money-saving technique--that it detracts from the overall effect. The same technique that makes wraiths spooky and otherworldly doesn't fare so well in the Prancing Pony.

As for the adaptation of the story, it's actually quite good. We lose little bits here and there, minor details such as the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the Gaffer and the Sackville-Bagginses. We compress a few characters, such as revising Legolas as one of Elrond's household and an old friend of Aragorn's, but that's a rather wise decision for film. In books you have room to include the references to the larger world of the Elves and Middle-Earth's vast history. In film, you trade that for visuals and sound that convey the same elements in a different way. Nothing critical is truly lost here, and although I have minor quibbles about some of the changes, I'm generally pretty happy with it.

If only the dratted writers had managed to remember Saruman's name--he's frequently referred to as Aruman, a decision probably made to make him more distinct from similarly-named Sauron; it took me a second viewing before I was certain I hadn't misheard it. It's also annoying that Boromir is a bloody stage viking, and irritable from the start. However, Gandalf is excellent, and most of the rest of the voicework is excellent. If only John Hurt weren't too old to play Aragorn; I love his voice.

Of course, with the film ending at the midpoint of the story, there's a vast disappointment built in. What makes it far, far worse is the altogether miserable job done by the Rankin & Bass crew on the sequel. That they were permitted to do Return of the King after butchering The Hobbit remains a huge mystery; they seem more interested in bad songs than in proper storytelling. For all its faults, this film's heart is solidly in place and it tries very hard to accomplish a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that the upcoming series of films keeps as true to its vision... OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive