Don Movie Reviews

This movie offers a chance and shows Elvis is able to deliver a serious role. Heavy drama and making a statment. A good western and good for the family.

"Flaming Star" was a deeply moving picture that shows what Elvis would have really gone if it wasn't for the reoccuring musical comedy roles...but I'M NOT COMPLAINING! I like all of Elvis' movies. This is one that is little too violent, although Elvis probably appreciated a dramatic role. The acting done by Elvis is superb, and so is Barbara Eden's and Dolores Del Rio's. Elvis only sings two songs and that's it. Very violent since it deals with fighting indians and arrows hitting people in the back and blood surging out. That's not for me, but the only reason it's good is the acting and of course, Elvis.

What a first class film. After the worrying opening sequence with Elvis singing " A Cane & A High Starched Collar" with one chaps dancing partner being a chair, we open up to a classic Western. With excellent picture quality, Elvis' performance is totally believable as a man torn between two sides. Only criticism is the huge amount of wasted space on the DVD which could have a least have had a documentary perhaps showing deleted scences, I would have loved to see Elvis singing "Summer Kisses, Winter Tears" or "Britches". Ho-Hum! Perhaps there will be a special collectors edition one day.

Teenagers have a difficult time in coping with their sense of identity and relationship with their family. This problem is increased two-fold for sixteen year old Suzanne. Left in Hungary as an infant while her parents and older sister escaped to America, Suzanne is attempting to come to terms with who she is and what she has in common with this family of strangers.

Based on a true story, American Rhapsody explores the consequences of well meaning actions that alienate a child from its parents. Magrit and Peter are well meaning parents who leave Suzanne behind in order to escape from the harsh Stalinist regime. Taking an infant with them would cause more problems. So they plan their escape and make sure that Suzanne will follow. Alas, the best laid plans fall apart and it won't be until six years later that their child is reunited with them. Magrit finds that leaving that infant behind has resulted in far more deeper problems than anticipated.

In this movie we see the guilt and sorrow of parents who have to leave their child. The resentment and dynamics of leaving one family to another is readily played out is this drama. You can understand Suzanne's pain and anger. You will sympathize with the mother burdened by guilt and is determined to protect this child.

This is a remarkable story with great actors portraying those real life people who had to endure such agony. The story is not a "downer" but lends hope to a family's quest for freedom and a better life for their children. It also shows the mistakes that parents make in attempting to protect their children from the reality of growing up.

I loved this movie, because it reflects what trully happened to the vast majority of Hungarian families. I'm one of them too, and my parents also suffered the pain and sadness of leaving some family away, and we trully relate with this movie.

Any one who deals with foster children or orphans should see this film. It aptly depicts the emotions of being taken from your parents and thrust into a new environment.

I'm giving it a 4 because Sean Penn is in it although he does play the perfect rookie cop. Young dumb and full of .... This was directed by Dennis Hopper of all people and it's a great film. The more I watch it the more I see the detail of the streets that was put into it. No wonder the cops always had to shake down the theaters when this movie was playing. If you don't know anything about gangs cause you've been living in a cave this movie will help you out. Ice T did the sound track-word

A VETERAN POLICE OFFICER [ROBERT DUVALL] IS FORCED TO WORK WITH A YOUNG KNOW IT ALL COP [SEAN PENN] IN L.A.'S CRASH UNIT. HOWEVER, THEY ARE CAUGHT UP IN A DEADLY GANG WAR. AS TIME PASSES, THEY BEGIN TO RELIZE THAT THE ONLY WAY THEY WILL STAY ALIVE IS IF THEY COME TOGETHER. VERY GOOD MOVIE THAT DEPICTS WHAT IS HAPPENING TOO MUCH AMONG GHETTO AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH. VERY GOOD PERFORMANCES BY THE LEADING STARS. ONLY THING THIS MOVIE COULD'VE WENT WITHOUT IS THE ROMANTIC SUBPLOT BETWEEN SEAN PENN AND MARIA CONCHITA ALONSO. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, A FANTASTIC ACTION MOVIE ABOUT STREET GANGS.

Very good effort by Duvall, Penn and Hopper, with a wretched soundtrack by Herbie Hancock. Its a classic coming of age story set in modern LA - entertaining and powerful. There is a lesson to be learned from this movie, and that's always the sign of notable cinematic achievment.

Any fan expecting the same excitement from the first S&TB movie may be disappointed with this installment. Part II is a much slower paced movie without the 'outlaw bootlegger' twist. The estranged love-affair between Bo & Carrie drags the movie down to a crawl that not even the turbo-charged TA can help speed up.

As you may remember, the first movie left off with Bandit betting on a clam chowder run from Boston to Atlanta. They should have continued on with that premise.

The movie reeks of 'Cannonball Run' antics with Dom Deluse sidekicking for Reynolds through the second half the movie. The backwoods feel is gone this time, along with the cleaverness.

Absent from the DVD are extras like deleted scenes (there must be some out there, they found enough extra footage from the first S&TB for TBS to broadcast), which is one of the main reasons people buy/rent DVDs.

However, if you like Gleason in the first one, there's plenty more of 'Beautiful Buford' in part II...and even more in part III where he becomes the main player (not literally, but S&TB 3 was almost released as 'Smokey IS the bandit' with Gleason playing the bandit and Buford...but that's a whole other review.)

Smokey and the Bandit II? A rental, but don't expect this DVD at Blockbuster anytime soon...

So this movie was different than the first Smokey and The Bandit. Was it really? If it's fast cars wanted, this has just the same as the first. If it's chase scene spectacular, this is just as much. If it's "bubble gum machines" getting wasted in a pile of heep by semis, this movie has just as much if not more so than the first as well. The same Burt Reynolds style, the same Jackie Gleason style, pretty much the same movie with a twist. Instead of hauling bootlegged beer, it's a pregnant elephant headed toward the Republican convention in Texas. Dom Deluise is hilarious in this second installment, making an added character for additional humor. Jerry Reed continues being the sensible one of the cast, always being the mediater in solving a problem as usual. If a person truly liked and is a real fan of Smokey and The Bandit original film, they would like this just the same. True, not the same as the first but equally as good even with the slight differences.

"Daddy, look at that big ugly alligator.", "That reminds me, I gotta call your moma tonight." THIS MOVIE IS FUNNY!!!
The first thing I noticed about SMOKEY and the BANDIT 2 was the quality of the digital transfer to DVD. It is done so well, I felt like I was watching a movie made a year ago(aside the old cars and clothes).
I'm 36 and this movie brought back tons of memories. "Son, why isn't your gun loaded?", "It's too heavy when I put bullets in it, Daddy." This movie is full of hilarious one liners. I found myself to be in a great mood after watching this movie. There's a semi-sentimental tone that is, at times alittle cheesy but still, touching and not too overboard.
Everyone is fantastic in this movie. Even the gas station attendant is brilliantly funny. I really can't think of one negative thing to say about SB2.
It's as good, if not better than, the first BANDIT. I give it 2 thumbs up and a MUST SEE for anyone who loves to laugh.

Denzel and Lisa Nicole Carson [who played Carla in ER opposite Peter Benton's character] heat up the screen with their... love making doesn't really quite apply here, but let's stick that I suppose. Tom Sizemore delivers a stellar performance. The film has a sleek, stylized quality to it. Period piece. Denzel delivers as he does time and time again. A good movie, but be prepared for violence and serious sexual content.

'Devil in a Blue Dress' quickly creates a very appealing misé en scene that's constructed upon upbeat and sunlit scenery. Combined with director Franklin's dexterous dolly movements and smooth camera techniques that follow the always-charismatic Denzel Washington around the culturally diverse streets of 1948 Los Angeles, it makes you want to throw your imagination into its storyline for a few hours. With brooding and insidious male characters, beautiful and mysterious female characters, voiceover narration by the protagonist, and a gradually revelatory, detective-like storyline we get the sense that we're watching a more-colorful-than-usual film noir. There's no question that it couldn't have been setup much better; it's too bad that it slowly-but-surely dissipates away into the realm of conventionality.

As far as underrated acting goes - Tom Sizemore is spectacularly sleazy as the coldhearted DeWitt Albright and Maury Chaykin is his usually creepy self as the political Matthew Terell. Easy Rawlins (Washington) is a familiar character - he's a man who will do just about whatever he has to do in order to earn some cash, although he's proud of his dignity and won't sell himself short. He's also more amiable and compassionate than the average man is, which is what ultimately differentiates him from the bad guys of the story. The lesser-seen element here, however, is that he also happens to be Afro-American. It's refreshing to see a film concentrate upon this culture without trying to dictate too many things to us about it - race is an element of this film, but it's not a particularly prominent or overblown one.

A myriad of different characters are introduced - sometimes it seems as if the film is actually relying upon the appearances of new characters in order to progress the plot, and even then some things aren't made very clear. I understand that the writers were simply trying to convey the sheer volume of the situation that Easy has gotten himself into, but its lack of tautness just gets annoying after a while. And there is a cool aura of mystery surrounding the plot until you realize that it's simply going down the all-too-familiar cinematic road of political corruption. The final theme of an average man achieving complacency through oppression is well communicated, but couldn't it have been done in a slightly more interesting/original/unique way?

It's summer in Los Angeles, 1948. Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins (Denzel Washington) returned from World War II a few years ago to a land of opportunity. He got a job, a mortgage and a home of his own. But now he has lost his job and is determined not to lose his house. A friend introduces Easy to a sleazy character named DeWitt Albright (Tom Sizemore) who ostensibly is trying to locate the former girlfriend of mayoral candidate Tom Carter (Terry Kinney) so that the couple may be reunited. Desperate to keep making his mortgage payments, Easy accepts the job of finding the girlfriend, a woman named Daphne Monet (Jennifer Beals). His search causes him to be suspect in several murders and arouses the interest of the rival candidate for mayor, Matthew Teran (Maury Chaykin). Easy finds that he is not the only person looking for Daphne Monet and that no one is exactly who he, or she, appears to be. As motives become less clear and the trail becomes more murderous, Easy calls on a childhood friend named Mouse (Don Cheadle), who has more experience in the criminal underworld and is more than willing to use force, for help. With the police, Albright, and Daphne Monet all demanding his loyalty, Easy must buy time and use his wits to unravel the mystery of Daphne's identity and uncover the scandals that will make or break the careers of two of the city's prominent politicians.

"Devil in a Blue Dress" is based on the detective novel of the same name by Walter Mosley. Screenwriter and director Carl Franklin has altered and simplified Mosley's novel for the screen and employed cinematographer Tak Fujimoto to create a stark and moody environment in sunny California. Fujimoto's cinematography looks great and is reminiscent of the film noirs of the 1940's, when the story takes place, and also does an excellent job of communicating the tone of the novel visually. The degree to which the film evokes the style of World War II era film noirs is striking considering that "Devil in a Blue Dress" is in color. This film isn't as sexy as the novel on which it is based, nor is it as effective in conveying Easy's desperation. It is, however, more tightly woven, more plausible, and more enmeshed in city politics. Don Cheedle's interpretation of "Mouse" couldn't be better. And the cinematography is a pleasure to watch. "Devil in a Blue Dress" a stylish and enjoyable neo-noir adaptation.

In Pursuit of Honor is a charade. Billed as a true story it isn't as the producer and writer later admitted. The costumes and props were semi-accurate. The horse furniture, weapons and personal equipment of the horse soldiers were right on with a couple of glaring exceptions. In 1935 enlisted men did not wear orniments on their campaign hats in the field and neither did officers. Those used in the film were grossly incorrect for any period. In 1935 EM wore knee length laced (engineer) boots with flexible uppers. The collar brass was too small, etc.

this was the kind of movie i grew with. it had a story and characters i could believe in. i cant seem to find any historical background on the storyline but that's not what matters. these were people dealing with issues of right and wrong. not of "whats in it for me". it dealt with the dirt and misery of commitment to an ideal. it was not full of sex and blood just for the schock value. the life of a calvary man was no picnic... when a person stands up for something that matters to them, it matters that they keep standing no matter what faces them at the end. that was the message i got from this movie and made me wish we had more movies like it. this was a wonderful change from car chases and blood just for bloods sake........maryann hughes

Those viewers with prior service, especially during wartime, will enjoy "In Pursuit of Honor" all the more.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was how admirably well Don Johnson carried off the roll of a battle hardened old boot. The director and writer "hollywoodized" some events and created a film which brought tears to this old sergeant's eyes. The depiction of General MacArthur is appropo; but the body of the movie is the plight of a small contingency of men against tall odds and direct orders.

Would this country ever destroy cavalry horses? We left behind "legions" of finely trained military dogs (K-9's) in Vietnam where a staple is canine flesh. The two main excuses I was told in the field were: budget cuts and the fear of spreading heartworms. There were innumerable instances which defied commonsense and ethics during the Vietnam War, errr, Conflict.

Reality check time. The era depicted in this film is a time of the United States history which has been clouded by agenda and spin. There were marches in the streets, payrolls were cut, veteran benefits were cut, pensions were cut, veterans were clubbed, millions were suffering for lack of food and housing (tons of federally stored milk, butter, and cheese were destroyed instead of being distributed to the needy), as told to me by my Grandfather who served as cavalry blacksmith during and after World War I. He later crosstrained into cooks. Either way, he said, there was no getting away from horses....:p

This movie is very entertaining because it has fun and almost parodies the typical westerns. MacLaine shines in this film and holds her own against Eastwood's more traditional persona. The humor really makes Two Mules for Sister Sara worth watching, even if you aren't overly fond of westerns. Eastwood & MacLaine work well together to make this a memorable movie.

Though a bit quirky at times, TWO MULES FOR SISTER SARA makes for great entertainment. This is mainly due to the pairing of Clint Eastwood and Shirley MacLaine; the two work surprisingly well (no, great) together, and form a hillarious duo. Do not be mislead by the DVD cover and back; Eastwood does NOT play his usual "Man With No Name", but rather a wandering nomad by the name of Hogan. One day he happens upon three men about to rape a young woman, and he of course plugs all three and saves her. Hogan is soon shocked to see that the woman is, in fact, a nun raising money for the Mexicans, and all the while on the run from the French. So the two pair up together, Sara in need of Hogan's protection and Hogan in need of her directions to a well-protected fort, where there is a safe full of over $1 thousand (I think). While the plot may not seem like much, what makes the movie so great is the constant bickering between the two superstars; seeing those two play off eachother is both fascinating and, at times, side-splitting. One can easily tell how this film served as a partial basis for the 1975 western ROOSTER COGBURN (AND THE LADY), in which John Wayne and Katherine Hepburn squarred off in a very similar fashion. One complaint I have about TWO MULES... is the score by none other than Ennio Morricone. Despite his brilliant music for Eastwood's MAN WITH NO NAME TRILOGY, his work here is far from impressive. But since the score is absent for most of the film, it is of little consequence.

After purchasing both "Universal Western Collection" editions of JOE KIDD and HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER, I was fearing more of the same here in terms of sound and picture. But luckily, this DVD is far superior in this sense. Unfortunately, there are even less extras present here than in those other discs; all you get is a trailer. But, as I said in my review for JOE KIDD, for $it's definitely worth it.

I compared both VHS and DVD and they trimmed out tons of scenes here and there for a total of 9 minutes cut on the VHS version. why did they trim those before? Some of the cut scenes include Sara and Hogan traveling, and some are scenes like in the saloon, and in the hideout with the rebels.
Also the DVD picture shows much more from side to side and a lot more on the top and bottom compared to the VHS version fans of the movie have had to live with for years. The quality of the picture is fantastic. This is probably the best improvement over VHS I have seen.
They also changed the cover from the old VHS version! It still looks great on the DVD, but the old VHS version showed the Mexicans and French fighting! why did they remove that? This is an action type western movie. If you see the cover it almost looks like it might be a romance movie. They should not have changed the cover.
There are a few times when Hogan shoves Sister Sara over a wall or into a tree by placing his hand on her rear, and she emits a female 'oooh!' They removed all those sounds and replaced them with grunting. I guess they thought that was objectionable, but it's amusing the way it was and they should have left it alone. The menu also has this annoying music playing also. Why did they pick that music? They should have used some of the music from the movie. However, a great film and an excellent transfer to DVD.

I've seen this movie twice on cable, Stars or Encore. Maybe HBO. It's a sweet little thing about love unconditional. I like that Lou Reed has a role, Not Lou Reed. Would buy this DVD just to see him on screen (Lou Reed rocks!). The film was good, but best was it introduced me to Pandora's Box, a play and then silent film starring Louise Brooks as Lulu. The play and movie are classics; Brooksie, was a classic beauty. She embodies everything that was the Jazz Age flapper.

What is the story about? Jazz saxaphonist, Izzy, is performing with his band and is shot(whether intentionally or accidentally is not clear) by what seems like a crazed man. There is no police follow-up. Obviously this is not important to the theses in the film.
Izzy recovers though he has lost one lung and no longer has the wind power to play the sax, and has lost the use of his right hand fingers, so he cannot key the sax. Am I supposed to think he's a man without an identity? After recovering, Izzy is walking home on a dimly lighted street and comes upon a man with a bullet hole in his forehead, a leather briefcase beside him. Again no mention is ever made of this murder as far as the police are concerned. When Izzy arrives home, he empties the satchel, finds a small box, in it a stone about the size of an egg that glows in the dark. Alongside the dead man there was also a paper napkin with a phone number written on it. Next day he dials the phone number and meets Celia a would be actress waitress.
When the stone glowed, I thought, "Oh, no! Not one of these stories." But I persisted. Izzy did not know Celia or her name, so when she says, "Yes, come on over," I know I'm in a reality different from mine . In the late 20th century a single young girl is going to let an unknown male visit her alone in her aparment. Celia thinks she knows Izzy because he identified himself on the phone and she is listening to a recording of his. Nothing like honesty and trust. Well, Celia holds the glowing stone in the dark of her apartment; and then Izzy does. They are transformed into lovers at first sight. Izzy happens to know the people producing the movie LULU for which Celia is auditioning for a part which she gets because Izzy called his friends. Celia goes to Ireland where the movie is being shot; Izzy will follow in three days__which become a long time.
Stanley Mar, the murdered man, was murdered because he had the stone. Now some toughs find Izzy in his apartment and imprison him in a seemingly abandoned building where he is interrogated in hope of revealing where the stone is. He doesn't reveal it, but the interrogator(daFoe) reveals all the nasty details of Izzy's life. Izzy doesn't reveal anything about the stone because he's protecting Celia who has it in Ireland. Although Izzy hasn't given daFoe a clue, daFoe nevertheless finds Celia in Ireland.
I can't tell you the denouement, but I think it is still in the realm of a reality different from mine. I am not a romantic, so the love story didn't capture me. I'm a materialist(philosophical), so the transformative power of the stone did not capture me. Perhaps the story is about the transformative power of love, but then so is Silas Marner, and no stones, just gold. Where does Aphrodite come in? Well, LULU is a remake of G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX(1928), which is a very sexy, provocative story, and so Celia is supposed to be in the role of Lulu(Pandora), a femme fatale . And this is why the ending is ambiguous for me__again the reality of the film vs. the reality outside one's mind. This one reqires the "willing suspension of disbelief."
Five stars for the acting, etc.

How do I describe this film? Let's just say it's the end that makes this film (I believe direct to video) most interesting. I have a theory about the life we lead and about each moment of that life. What is real and what isn't? How long a moment last? What may seem a second to the ordinary person, could be a whole lifetime to someone else. Whether it's the first thought in your head or the last thought before you blink out of existence. With that said, you might think that this film explores that. Perhaps, perhaps not. It's what you think that happened. It's what you get out of this picture. This is one of those films that warrants follow on discussions after you see it. Especially for those who may go on to psychological, or better yet, philosophical endeavors. Harvey Keitel plays a man who hasn't had such a pleasant life and he gets shot one day. During his recovery, he has a change of heart. He meets Mira Sorvino. Because he thinks he has met the perfect person things start to change for him and for her. It's gets to be your basic love story. Ah, but there is a twist (or is it really a twist). That is all I am going to say about this film. Rent it, catch it on cable and enjoy this well-made film. It may be slow for some, but I think the pay off (in my opinion only) is worth it.

I've always been a Peter Cushing fan and a huge fan of this film. I first saw this movie on a late night horror show presenter by the name of Sammy Terry (Indiana based I think...very young at the time). I loved it from the start.....biased because of Cushing/Zombi/Nazi I'm sure. I've read some of the reviews about the screen format. From what I've read it seems as if the movie is actually Open Matte widescreen as opposed to Anamporphic like the DVD suggest. You'll see examples of this with H.P. Lovecrafts Bride Of Re-animator.....the bonus of that film was that you could still watch it full screen as an option. I've just ordered this movie and if I find my assumption incorrect I will edit my review. Later my horror fan brothers!

Edit begins:
Yep as I suspected it is Open Matte.....much like the Evil Dead widescreen. Several B-movies are shot full screen and when they are shown in the theater the projectors actually have black bars at the top and bottom of the screen to make it fit the widescreen. So in most cases it is actually being show like it was originally was at the time of theatrical release.

P.S. Please don't give this movie one star just because you are unhappy with the DVD release. Rate the film itself...and then as a footnote to your review put any good/bad info about the quality of the release. Take a look, this classic film is getting an average of 3 1/2 stars. I even read one review where the reviewer said he would watch the DVD over the VHS, however according to his rating you wouldn't think he'd ever watch it again.

This isn't exactly your average buckets-o-gore, slow-moving (the zombies, not the movie) zombie film, but it's close enough and almost just as good. I say almost, because quite frankly, there could have been a little more gore...it wouldn't have hurt. The plot is the kicker. During World War II, the [Germans] experimented with making the perfect soldiers. They began their research from ancient stories of unstoppable warriors whose power comes from the ground...these soldiers are neither alive or dead, but they are rotting and can live under water all the live-long day, so I'm leaning more towards dead.
A group of tourists cruising the islands run aground a deserted island after going into what might be the Bermuda Triangle or a similar anomally and hitting the [German's] old sunken ship. They find an old hotel, inhabitted only by Peter Cushing, playing a not-quite-ex-[German]commander. The hijinks ensue as the zombies begin attacking the tourists. This is campy 70's horror at its best. Check it out.

John Carradine is a sour, crusty old sea captain on a pleasure boat for hire. He takes a group of tourists (among them, the lovely Brooke Adams) out for a cruise. They encounter a strange solar phenomenon and get lost. That night, the boat almost runs into a ghost ship. They have no idea that the derelict ship's crew of nazi zombies has risen from their watery grave! Severe engine trouble forces our merry band to flee to a nearby island. No Gilligan here! Peter Cushing is excellent as an old nazi-in-hiding who is the only one who knows what's actually going on. This is a genuinely creepy movie. There's no nudity, no gore, and very little profanity; and I still highly recommend it! ADDED BONUS: There's an extremely annoying guy in this movie! I found myself hoping for his quick demise. See if you can pick him out. Hint: He wears glasses and whines whenever he opens his mouth! Great flick! Prepare for a scare...

For a show that talked about respect for other life forms, The Man Trap comes across as a B-monster story with one goal being to kill the monster before it destroys you tale that was commen with many B-Monster pictures. It also really showed the limites to what Gene Roddenberry had to deal with in a weekly TV series. The budget was always pretty moderate to work with, so Gene did not have the resources to transform actors into alien beings every week. They just could not afford the creature make-up designs needed to make it look creditable. So they ended up meeting a lot of beings from different planets that looked human or humanoid, because of production deadlines and using what they had, on the script, set design, and casting. That plus a good music score. So for this first story where we actually meet an alien creature. It looks like a B-Monster suit that the wardrobe department put together at the last moment. Very fake and not very scary. It was a real setback for Gene Roddenberry because he wanted the Star Trek universe to look as good as possible. But this was not the way to do it. Thankfully such B-monster stories were never used again. However later in the series, we meet much more realistic aliens.

The Man Trap-This episode, in which we meet a salt-craving creature with shape-changing abilities, was the first Trek episode to air. While decent enough, it certainly is not an exceptional episode. While it is conceivable that this was the only episode completed in time, more likely it was selected because it was not what NBC had called 'too cerebral'. Other factors that NBC might have liked include the fact that it was largely planet-based and had an alien that 'looked like an alien.' While this episode does touch on loneliness, the subjectivity of beauty, and all creatures' right to survival, it does no more than touch on these themes. As an action episode, it's no more than passable, and again everything from the delivery of the lines to the music is slow, slow, slow (compared to even one year later). The episode is, quite honestly, most memorable for 1) the well-designed vampire, and 2) the shock-value of humans being preyed upon. (2.5 stars)

The Naked Time-This episode, in which a virus causes the crew to lose their inhibitions, was the best offering yet from the new show. The episode commences with an effective teaser, and the story unfolds at a good pace once aboard the Enterprise. The basic premise is a good one, since it enables the cast to both playfully embellish their roles and have some serious ruminations. The episode certainly has its share of action, and is one of the more creative 'Enterprise in danger' shows. We are also introduced to adult themes such as tradeoffs between duty and responsibility on the one hand and joyous, unconstrained intoxication on the other. Some of the soul-searching monologues are a bit much though for characters who weren't exactly our friends yet (this was the 3rd show to air), and as others have noted Nimoy-who seems to really need to believe in the material-was not terribly effective here. The same can (as usual) be said of Takei, and the inclusion of a 'drunken Irishman' character was also somewhat unfortunate. The boomerang premise is also kind of silly, but what the heck, enough hating; this is Star Trek, and it's a good episode. (4 stars)

"Man Trap" Dr. McCoy encounters his old flame. But is it really her?

"The Naked Time" A strange virus infects the whole crew & forces them to act strangely. Contains the WORST cost-cutting effect ever...a MANNEQUIN is used to act as a dead person