input: This rather poorly named western series won an Emmy for best syndicated program and is certainly an interesting series. It was produced by Republic, the studio which did action better than anyone, and they put their best into it. Each episode was built around a real historical figure of the old west. A railroad detective named Matt Clark, similar to the later Elliot Ness with the gangsters of the 1920's and 30's, managed to become involved with almost every notorious western outlaw between the middle of the 1800's and WWI. The series' best asset was Jim Davis. Tall, rugged, ruggedly good looking, in prime shape, with an authentic western accent, and great riding skills which made him utterly convincing in the action scenes, Davis was every inch the western hero. He was teamed with two lovely and active co-stars, Mary Castle as "Frankie" during the first season, and Kristine Miller as "Jonesy" during the second. Each worked well with Davis.

What separated this show from its contemporaries and much of what came later was the professionalism invested in the action scenes. Ace action directer William Witney directed 30 episodes. Franklin Adreon the rest. Both filmed the action with polish. Republic's vast store of stock footage from serials and B's was utilized to give scope. The level of individual episodes rose or fell with the quality of the guest stars brought in to the play the outlaws. Among the really good ones were Marie Windsor as Belle Starr, Lee Van Cleef as Jesse James, Fess Parker as Grat Dalton, Jean Parker as Cattle Kate, and Joe Sawyer and Slim Pickins as Butch Cassady and "The Smilin' Kid". The cream of the western up and comers, Pickins, Parker, Denver Pyle, James Best, and Richard Jaeckel, honed their craft. B veterans with decades of experience under their belts, Harry Woods, Glenn Strange, Kenneth MacDonald, Earle Hodgkins, Steve Darrell, and Chief Yowlachie, provided the old leather feel of vintage westerns.

The weakness of the concept was that there are only so many famous western outlaws. By the second season the famous figures were becoming a mite obscure for all by the most dedicated history buff. Nevertheless, a few of the later shows were a match for any, due to the guest stars. Henry Brandon portrayed rustler Nate Champion, and former Republic star Don Barry was outstanding as small-time outlaw Milt Sharp.

Western fans or history buffs will want to see this.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The 100 black and white half-hour episodes of the early situation comedy "Mr. Peepers" were originally broadcast from 1952-55 on NBC. Like a lot of baby boomers this and "Ding Dong School" are my earliest memories of television. Since both ran later in syndication it is hard to tell how many of these memories are actually tied to the original broadcasts.

"Mr. Peepers" is worth checking out for more than its nostalgia value. It represents a very different style of situation comedy than shows like "The Honeymooners" and "I Love Lucy". The genre could have gone in two different directions in those days and ended up taking the loud abrasive path of those two shows; which is probably why they still seem contemporary.

"Mr. Peepers", which was differentiated by its intelligent restrained tone, may appear slow and dull in comparison. But it's really more a matter of adjusting to the different style. Once you get into the characters it will win over most intelligent viewers. Credit should be give to the show's producer, Fred Coe, a key figure in early television whose dramatic anthologies are also worth checking out ("Philco Television Playhouse", "Lights Out", "Playhouse 90", "Producers Showcase", "Playwrights 56", "Fireside Theatre", etc.) even on kinescope.

"Mr. Peepers" offered a much more gentle style with Wally Cox (to be the voice of "Underdog" a few years later) in the title role, Robinson Peepers, a mild-mannered high school science teacher. His glasses were his trademark and a symbolic link to his name and role as a passive observer.

The series provided Cox with an outstanding supporting cast. Tony Randall played his brash best friend, history teacher Harvey Weskit. Jack Warden played Frank Whip, the loud gym teacher whose mild bullying gave the show most of its conflict elements.

There is some love interest competition involving the school's nurse, Nancy Remington (Patricia Benoit), with viewers quickly aligning with Mr. Peepers who seems a much better match for the gentle Nancy. Their on-screen marriage near the end 1953-54 season captured national attention, an early version of the "Who Shot J.R.?" frenzy.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original "War Games" if you are feeling nostalgic.

I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative