Posted by Daniel Frank at 9:27 PM

For some reason AMC and TCM are running mostly weak movies for their Bob Hope tributes. This is an odd decision as TCM has run better Hope movies before so I presume they hold the TV rights to it. If neither does, I can't believe they couldn't set up a deal to plug the DVD sets.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 9:19 PM

According to this article, Bob Hope is buried in the same burial ground as Jerry Colonna. What can one say but "Exciting, isn't it?"
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 9:14 PM

I also took Ma to see The Producers (the raison d'etre for the trip) which has gotten even better than the last time I saw it (my-then review here). Jason Alexander has grown in the role. In May, he was frequently doing a Phil Silvers impression; he has thankfully stopped doing that. Martin Short is still Martin Short but the Ed-Grimbley-isms have decreased. Any other Martin Short business he throws in is reasonable since he's playing a nervous, excitable guy and that's how he plays one. Definitely worth the dough-re-mi.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 9:08 PM

My mother was in town so I took her to Universal Studios. A new feature of the tour is the inclusion of video screens so that when they tell you a backlot was used in Sparticus we can see proof of that. To me, the best part of the tour was getting official confirmation that a generic cityscape was used in Bruce Almighty which confirmed the jokes my friend and I cracked while watching that picture.

I contimplated at one point that I should have tried a few years back to get a job as a Universal Studios tour guide. But I realize that I'd get fired for, every time the bus passes actual filming, doing the old Looney Tunes gag of "Quiet on the set. Quiet on the set. QUIIIIIIEEEEEEETTTTTTT!!!!!"

While a good time was had, one realizes why Universal constantly has to offer two-for-one deals. The park is wildly inefficient which is inexcusable considering Disneyland had been around for thirty years when Universal expanded from just a tour to a theme park. For example, they have a nice Lucille Ball exhibit but I had to hunt to find a semi-nearby store with I Love Lucy merchandise. Disney would, of course, have dropped us off in a Lucy store at the end of the exhibit. If they can't figure out how to get money out of people, how's the management of the rest of the park?

I do have to admit that the lady dressed as Lucy Ricardo who was hectoring us in line while we waited to buy tickets did a good imitation.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 3:12 PM

Stately Wayne Manor is up for sale for a measly 8 million dollars. Listed features do not appear to include "secret underground lair accessible via firepoles and servants elevator". As I do not know the ettiquette of house-buying I wonder if it's reasonable to ask that they include the firepoles' automatic costume-changer.

UPDATE: The LA Times has placed a correction in the article that the house is not the home of millionaire Bruce Wayne and his youthful ward Dick Grayson but merely looks like their house. Good thing I didn't plop down 8 mil on that shack.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 12:27 AM

I saw A Guide for the Married Man last night, a decent mid-sixties comedy where Robert Morse teachs Walter Matthau how to get away with committing adultery, illustrated with skits starring your favorite comedy stars. A few notes:

1. Having Matthau be the naif and Morse be his Virgil or his Professor Higgins was the exact opposite of the casting I expected when I heard this move's plot and cast. Surprisingly, it works. Trading typecasts like that doesn't always work (see Neighbors) (or better yet, don't see Neighbors)
2. This sex romp was directed by Gene Kelly of all people.
3. There comes a saturation point where a movie just has too damn many hot chicks. Even a young lady who was clearly supposed to be unattractive was sexy in a "Good Lord, without your glasses, you're beautiful" sort of way.
4. If AMC is going to have commercial breaks, they really need to learn how to choose good places for interruptions.
5. In keeping with the Lileks "Everything is Connected to Star Trek" theory, this films features Captain Pike and Majel Barret.

# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 11:39 AM

Speaking of Jerry Van Dyke, his character of Rob Petry's kid brother Stacey will be in the Dick Van Dyke show reunion that Carl Reiner has just finished writing.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 11:38 AM

Joel Stein (whose cancelled EW backpage column was celebrated in Slate) is taking over the Trio network. His choice of shows are My Mother, the Car, Battle of the Network Stars, and Pink Lady and Jeff. The last show, of course, means royalty checks for Mark Evanier! And that I need to get around to writing my review of the DVD boxed set.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 3:05 PM

I saw Chitty Chitty Bang Bang a couple of days ago. The interesting part was an until-now unaired scene where Caractacus Potts is condemned by the UN and various NGOs for unilaterally overthrowing the government of Vulgaria and for the looting that went on afterwards. Plus the various conspiracy theories on Indymedia that the only reason Potts defeated the king was so the Scrumptious Candy Company would get the lucrative candy contract for the newly freed children and accusations that Potts lied about the extant of Vulgaria's flying car program.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 2:57 PM

My brother, knowing my obsession with Robert Evans, sent me this article about the press conference for his new show. It turns out the blogosphere's own Cathy Siepp asked the question about whether the cartoon was done so he'd look younger (Details here).
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 4:16 PM

Oz Fact I Learned Today: Why does Dorothy when saying her good-byes say to the scraecrow that she'll miss him most of all? Why is she playing favorites? Apparently it's a holdover from a cut subplot establishing a romance between Dorothy and Hunk (the Kansas Scarecrow-analogue). (From Memories of Oz broadcast on TCM today.)

Speaking of cut Ray Bolger Oz footage, here is a sequence of the Scarecrow dance cut for time. Notice the song lyric "Perhaps then I'll deserve ya/And even be worthy orv ya" which lends support to the above hypothesis.


# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 10:36 PM

I don't know what overlawyered would think of this but...Activision is suing Viacom. Activison says its video game license for Star Trek is devalued because Star Trek currently sucks (Well, they coach it in a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo). Article here.

UPDATE: Here's what a lawyer friend had to say about the suit:

Activision signed a license with Viacom where they paid $20 million up front for rights to produce Star Trek games over ten years. None of the press coverage goes into the right detail, which is whether the license agreement requires Viacom to use "best efforts" to market Star Trek or just "commercially reasonable efforts." If the contractual language is "best efforts", then Activision probably has a case. That might seem like a "wacky lawsuit," but the critical difference is that it's an expression of freedom of contract: Viacom chose to bind itself to a particular standard of business conduct in exchange for money. Activision, having paid the money, is entitled to enforce the promise.It's really a dispute over money, rather than over "Star Trek." This is a vast oversimplification of what other issues might be involved, but I'm not prepared to say which party is in the right or wrong without looking at the contract.

I honestly didn't think it was a wacky lawsuit. I would argue that it's a dispute over money and Star Trek. Activision thinks Viacom is doing a lousy job with Star Trek and thus wants (and may be legally entitled to have) their license fee reduced. Of course Viacom's defintion of a lousy job may be that there aren't 2-3 new shows on the air.

This whole thing could have been avoided by doing a Captain Sulu show.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 10:21 PM

Larry King has co-written a mystery (and he reads the audio version too!). Here is an excerpt from Larry King's mystery:

Sherlock Holmes, now there was a detective!...Maybe we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of the butler being guilty. I know "the butler did it" is a cliche but things become cliche because they're true...This case is tough to figure out. What's not tough to figure out is the neverending appeal of Mr. Frank Sinatra...I've got a mystery for you: What happens to all my missing socks? We oughta call Charlie Chan in on that one!...

# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 10:08 PM

Roger Ebert's obituary of Buddy Hackett tells this story:

Hackett said he once thought he was on the edge of a great movie role. Martin Scorsese called him up and said he wanted to come over and talk to him about working in "GoodFellas."

"He comes over to the house," Buddy says, "and he tells me the scene. Ray Liotta is walking into the nightclub and the waiters seat him, and I'm onstage doing my act. So I ask, what do you want me to say? Where's the script? And Scorsese says there isn't any script. I'll just be in the background telling part of a joke. PART of a joke?"

Hackett's face grew dark.

"I stood up and walked over to the window. I invited Scorsese to stand next to me. 'Isn't that a beautiful lawn?' I said. He agreed that it was one of the most beautiful lawns he had ever seen.

" 'Take a real good look,' I told him, 'because you will never be back in this house again. Part of a joke! Get the f--- outta here!' "

The interesting thing is that Henny Youngman took that part and, thanks to his joketelling style, managed to fit ten jokes in that one minute role.

# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 11:26 AM

From the "What the hell?" department: In the Salon review of T3:

At this pace, the star will be 75 when "T5" comes out. But hell, why not? If Clint Eastwood can play action roles well past even the Republicans' idea of retirement age, surely Arnold can follow suit.) [emphasis added]

Did I miss some massive Republican conspiracy to raise the retirement age and ship off the elderly to work on oil pipelines or something? The last change to retirement age (at least Social Security-wise) was in 1983 and appears to have had bipartisan support.
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 12:26 AM

An interesting item in this obituary for Buddy Hackett is that he was asked to replace Curly after he suffered a stroke in 1946. This is the first I'd heard of this. This page of a website plugging a Stooge book seems to confirm this although it places the offer in 1952:

Then, in 1952, Curly's health takes a decided turn for the worse, and the Stooges come to grips with the fact that their beloved star is dying. More than ever, Shemp wants out of the Three Stooges. After seeing what has happened to his baby brother, Shemp realizes that the same fate awaits him if he keeps taking hits on the head. In an effort to appease Shemp, comedian Buddy Hackett is asked to take Curly's place. Hackett agrees to the idea, until he drops by a Stooges rehearsal and witnesses the boys hitting each other with pipes, wrenches and other pain-inducing tools. Hackett backs out of the deal, and Moe breaks it to Shemp that the elder Howard is going to have to remain a Stooge a little while longer, as no suitable replacement is forthcoming.

Although the book's self-description suggests that stuff in it should be taken with a grain of salt, it seems more likely to me that Moe would want Shemp before bringing in other folk in to the group.

Buddy Hackett's website and his album
# | |

Posted by Daniel Frank at 12:05 AM

Tonight the Romance Channel is running the Jerry Lewis movie Three on a Couch. This movie is the only film I can think of which I stopped watching because I could not buy into its comedic premise (to be distinguished from films like Boat Trip which I stopped watching because they weren't funny). The premise was simple: Jerry had an opportunity to move to Paris and wanted to take his fiancee with him. The fiancee refused as she was a psychologist who did not wish to abandon three of her patients. Jerry's pal suggests that what these three lady patients need to help them is a man; specifically they need Jerry to disguise himself as three men to help them gain back their confidence. Jerry scolds his friend for being dishonest and having no regard for the mental health of these three women. No, wait, he thinks it's a great idea. He does not actually say the idea is so crazy that it just might work but he might as well.

What is especially odd is that the friend (who is not particularly wacky) has the nutty idea. Now perhaps the friend suggested the idea because he knew it would get Jerry in trouble and he wanted to get into the pants of the fiancee. As the girlfirend was played by Janet Leigh, who could blame him? If that was his motivation, it was not very well established in the first half-hour of the picture.

The excellent Jerry Lewis biography King of Comedy by Shawn Levy notes that this film was one of Jerry's first attempts to do a more mature comedy. And this may have been the very problem. Jerry is not playing "The Kid" and does not act wacky unless disguised as one of the three boyfriends (or a boyfriend's twin sister). There are thus long stretchs of non-comedic behavior which perhaps made the flimsy premise stand out.

Levy also notes that the film is "more mindful...of its narrative obligations" which is perhaps my other problem: Such an idiotic premise is taken much more seriously by the film than it deserves.
# | |