Q: Famous was "famous" for their tension and release style of cartoon where the semi-main character is in terrible peril, only to be rescued by the hero at the last second. This particular Casper is the only one I can remember where death actually takes a hand. But even in death, there is still a happy ending.

The constant in Famous Studios cartoons is that "virtue always triumphs". Popeye always gets to his spinach in time, Baby Huey always out-foxes the fox, Little Audery always "learns her lesson". And some FS cartoons ARE really dark and depressing.

You have to give them credit. as much as I love Looney Tunes and "Tom and Jerry" I don't think anyone was putting out a better cartoon product at that time than Paramount. Color, animation, music (the great Winston Sharples), editing, voices. They were consistent and a glowing example of the best that the art form had to offer.
A: positive
Q: Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the "Cape Fear" remake, a small role in "Goldeneye", "Walking Tall"). And I even liked Baker in "Mitchell", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.

"Final Justice" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the "cowboy frontier justice" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than "Mitchell". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.

That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to "B" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout!

This is a guy we are supposed to admire?

The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.

On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.

In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.
A: negative
Q: The Matador is better upon reflection because at the time one is watching it, it seems so light. The humor is always medium-gauge, never unfunny but never gut-busting. The story is a very simple thread. The characteristics of the plot are often recycled features, namely the unscrupulous bad guy in need of a pal and the straight-laced glass-wearing good guy in need of security in life team up and learn from each other and somehow complement each other's lifestyles. I also find the bullfighting parallel to the story unnecessary, as it is a simply cruel thing and the symbolism is hardly potent enough to carry itself. However, it really is a good film, because though it seemed so thin and unaffecting at the time, it wasn't. It has a subtle way of connecting with the audience.

I believe the reason it slowly but surely gives the audience something to take with them is because though it's a formula that is nothing new, even most of the humor, both main characters, virtually the only characters in it, are somehow met and gotten to know. Forget calling them real. That's not at all what I mean. What I mean is that though Pierce Brosnan's filthy, womanizing, boozing hit man is a detached comical character, he's grasped firmly by the writer and definitely by Brosnan, who is aggressively communicating how much he enjoys his breath of fresh James Bondless air. Greg Kinnear's character seems quite the same in his detached scriptedness, but he's given certain very unexpected footnotes that for a moment due to the film's lightfootedness pass us by but then hit us only a moment later. We then realize the film is not simply Analyze This or Planes, Trains and Automobiles told stalely over again. Its truly saying something.

The film's climax is of a sort that wants to partially be a thriller with twists. But with its lightness, how can that possibly be the focus of the film, though the plot has been leading up to it? No, the focus is what Brosnan and Kinnear get out of their unlikely relationship to each other. Strangely, The Matador is a film about regret and loneliness. Brosnan deals with loneliness and regret every day, and though we don't understand why Kinnear is so lenient and accepting with Brosnan continually interrupting his life, it's slowly understood that Brosnan is salvaging Kinnear from a more down-to-earth version of his own feelings as a means of redemption. The very last scene of the movie stays with me. It, I think, is where the film's subtle side-stepping impact finally begins to seep.
A: positive