plantjen

I am thoroughly familiar with my six-year-old daughter's favorite shows on Disney Jr, Nick Jr and Sprout, and love most of them. This one, however, raises questions for my daughter and me both. Why would a child who talks like he is school-age not know how to color? Why is it an "emergency" for him to know how to color by the time his father comes home? Why haven't his PARENTS taught him how to color?? We voice similar questions with many other episodes. I think most of the things that Oso attempts to do are duties of parenthood…and are certainly more pleasant and rewarding than changing diapers, so why are the parents neglecting to perform these duties? On the other hand, I personally benefited from the episode on how to use chopsticks…which actually was a bit too advanced for the show's audience, I believe.

I think the repetition, colorful characters and catchy songs are great for its target preschool audience, but like other reviewers have said, they could have done a much better job making the show entertaining for the preschoolers' older siblings and parents. This is the standard that was set more than 40 years ago by Sesame Street.

Sometimes I chuckle at the Bond-inspired mission code names, but the humor is lost on my daughter, and I sometimes have difficulties explaining it to her—I don't want to be talking about a "golden gun" while we're watching a children's show about a teddy bear!

I am also not quite comfortable with the message the show sends to its young viewers. Oso is not very bright, clumsy, forgetful, and doesn't really help anyone. The writers carry this to an extreme. In fact, in most episodes, the child ends up showing HIM how to accomplish the task. That might be a great learning tool for the "rescuee", but why does Oso get a medal for bungling each mission? Rewarding children for trying their best rather than only for perfection is great, but is Oso really doing his best? He seems careless to me, and his efforts to learn seem half-hearted.

Over time and repetition (which we parents experience with years of all the children's' shows), I have found Oso's bungling and…well, I will say it: stupidity…so annoying, I often leave the room when Special Agent Oso is on.

I also agree with the other reviewer who commented that Paw Pilot's "floating head" is rather creepy. It doesn't bother my daughter, but it creeps me out every time I see it, for some reason.

I didn't really intend to watch this whole movie--it was on the channel my satellite dish was tuned to, when i turned off my DVD player after watching another movie, late at night. But after only a couple scenes, i was glued to it! I was so impressed with the characterization and the witty humor (unlike other films of its era, the humor was not corny at all, and was genuinely funny), and I just HAD to keep watching, even though I wasn't looking forward to the tears that this film (and its later version, An Affair to Remember), is reputed to bring to all who watch it.

The humor centering around the nosiness and gossip among the other cruise patrons, was especially funny and timeless.

I found Irene Dunn's character (Terry) to be extremely appealing and likable, with a very expressive and beautiful face (and, as someone else mentioned, those pearly whites are stunning!). Boyer (Michael), was quite believable as a playboy experiencing true love for the first time. You could see the love in his eyes when he looked at Terry, and when he listened to her sing. And all of his other emotions throughout the movie, whether happy or sad, were readable via his expressive eyes alone--no need for any other expression!

Of course, the children at the orphanage were too good to be true (typical for old movies), but they were so adorable and likable, and I could just feel the love and pride that Terry felt while working with them. It really seemed genuine.

I had always thought of these old movies as corny, but this one changed my perspective! Highly recommended for all ages!

This movie was excellent, all-around. I think the critics underrated it, and Pacino should have won an Oscar for this role. I think he does a lot more acting in this movie than he did in the Godfather movies. In the Godfather I, II and III, he did more staring and thinking than acting (although the acting he did do in those movies was fantastic).

I agree with some critics that some portions were a bit overly dramatic, and the cynicism and dark comedy were perhaps a bit overdone, but I think that adds (in a positive way) to the tone of the movie--the idea is to give you a feel for how overwhelming and chaotic and nonsensical the legal profession is! One professional review I read stated that the overkill I mentioned above distracted from the main storyline. I disagree. I think it supported the storyline completely. It provided a vivid illustration to back up what the storyline was trying to say.

I say to those critics--"relax! It's fiction rather than a documentary, and dramas are supposed to be dramatic!"