womper-90921
Joined May 2017
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
womper-90921's rating
"Angel" had {and has} a way of getting to the depths of my soul as few shows ever have. If youre not a believer who has a real faith, you likely cant relate. But for those who do, you can feel the genuine compassion that lies within this show.
It certainly helped that the show's creator, producer, and the three leads all had a professed faith in Christ. It brought a depth and authenticity to it that few programs could hope to exude.
During the course of the series, certain episodes had a way of hitting me deep in the gut. "Children" was certainly one of them. If you've ever worked with teens from broken homes, or those dealing with a myriad of other issues {as I have}, you get it. Those who are trying to just survive another day, having felt the hope of past dreams slowly removed from their current or future existence. Empty shells of their former selves who barely allow themselves to feel anything, if indeed they even remember how.
Street kids. Runaways. Dropouts. Little "adults" in a child's body who have fallen through the cracks of our culture, forced to experience far more than any child should ever have to. most only wanting one person to truly believe in them - as all the while we go about our lives, pretending not to see.
This episode is a powerful reflection of the true heart of this show, one that permeates and lingers long after the final scene. God knows we could use more shows today with the same heart that dont settle to only mindlessly entertain, but instead desire to have a lasting impact. "Angel" handles this with an understated subtlety, not pretending there are easy answers to save them all, but that with a little determined effort and a lot of empathy and compassion, maybe each of us can change the life of one. Or more than one. Because our reality is, this is what we were created to do.
It certainly helped that the show's creator, producer, and the three leads all had a professed faith in Christ. It brought a depth and authenticity to it that few programs could hope to exude.
During the course of the series, certain episodes had a way of hitting me deep in the gut. "Children" was certainly one of them. If you've ever worked with teens from broken homes, or those dealing with a myriad of other issues {as I have}, you get it. Those who are trying to just survive another day, having felt the hope of past dreams slowly removed from their current or future existence. Empty shells of their former selves who barely allow themselves to feel anything, if indeed they even remember how.
Street kids. Runaways. Dropouts. Little "adults" in a child's body who have fallen through the cracks of our culture, forced to experience far more than any child should ever have to. most only wanting one person to truly believe in them - as all the while we go about our lives, pretending not to see.
This episode is a powerful reflection of the true heart of this show, one that permeates and lingers long after the final scene. God knows we could use more shows today with the same heart that dont settle to only mindlessly entertain, but instead desire to have a lasting impact. "Angel" handles this with an understated subtlety, not pretending there are easy answers to save them all, but that with a little determined effort and a lot of empathy and compassion, maybe each of us can change the life of one. Or more than one. Because our reality is, this is what we were created to do.
Those 80s films. The edgy without being too raunchy comedies, the romances with the great soundtracks. So many memorable ones. Baby Its You an early 80s offering that somehow eluded me, until today. The time frame was right in the wheelhouse of my fleeting youth. The stars, likable enough. So off we went...
Where to begin? Spano is an attractive guy who's serviceable as an actor. And Arquette, she is a decent actress, not great - but she, to her credit, had that "it" quality, that something extra that always elevated her to the next level. She's one of those actresses who had a presence that drew you in and held you - normally. So where did this one go so very, very wrong?
First, the soundtrack is memorable enough. The setting is 1966, and most of the music reflects this. Most, I say, because someone involved with this one was obviously a big Springsteen fan. So suddenly 2 or 3 of his songs pop up, songs that weren't released until several years after the film's '66 setting. Just a minor quibble, compared to what lies ahead.
The emphasis of "Baby" revolves so much around the two leads that everyone else seems like a thrown in prop. No other character is really developed beyond being added for a scene or two, and with zero substance. But this doesn't begin to touch on the missteps here.
If you're going to have such a heavy focus on the two leads, they better be able to carry a film. That is only going to happen with {1} likable characters, and {2} great chemistry. Its evident right from the go that this one is going for the good girl/guy from wrong side of the tracks mix we've seen so many times before. Spano's "Sheik" {yes, really} is not even good at being bad. He's just a hot mess, all over the map emotionally. Nothing about him is remotely likable. This results in Arquette's Jill being a bundle of lost confusion. Her choices, her reactions to his latest misstep, are even more befuddling than what he did to cause it. None of her decisions follow any path of sane logic. So the chemistry between the two leads is literally non-existent.
As this one rolls along, and "Sheik" starts breaking down, defying school rules and authority {apparently because he can}, pulling a gun for no apparent reason, robbing a convenience store - or something - you're soon going to be wondering where its all headed, and more likely, how much longer you'll have to endure this wreck.
Maybe "Sheik" and Jill could have made this film work, if they had something/anything to work with. The writing is awful, the dialogue is often agonizing, the pacing all wrong, the characters {all of them} as dull as baked dirt, every one as directionless as you'll at some point realize this entire flick to be.
One quick example: "Sheik" during one of his aimless rants proclaims {not verbatim, don't hold it against me}, "There are only three things - God, Sinatra, and me!" And, well, that's as much of God as you'll ever see indicated in his life, in any shape or form.
As for the ending? There's really only two possible tracks for something this unimaginative {no, not that they wind up together, or don't}. I wont give it away - not that there's much to give - but if you make it until the end, chances are you'll be left shaking your head, wondering what you just witnessed. Even more, you're going to want those two hours back.
Oh, that one purpose I mentioned at the top? "Baby" should serve as a caution to any girl out there who thinks a bad boy is the way to go, as well as to any guy who wants to take that path to have his desires fulfilled: Just -- don't. Because its never going to lead to "happily ever after" - even if these writers here were far too clueless to even figure that much out.
But if you're one of those folks who's traveled this road in life and wound up in a destructive relationship, only to see it dissolve, or worse yet, are still entrenched in it, then maybe this one's for you.
Where to begin? Spano is an attractive guy who's serviceable as an actor. And Arquette, she is a decent actress, not great - but she, to her credit, had that "it" quality, that something extra that always elevated her to the next level. She's one of those actresses who had a presence that drew you in and held you - normally. So where did this one go so very, very wrong?
First, the soundtrack is memorable enough. The setting is 1966, and most of the music reflects this. Most, I say, because someone involved with this one was obviously a big Springsteen fan. So suddenly 2 or 3 of his songs pop up, songs that weren't released until several years after the film's '66 setting. Just a minor quibble, compared to what lies ahead.
The emphasis of "Baby" revolves so much around the two leads that everyone else seems like a thrown in prop. No other character is really developed beyond being added for a scene or two, and with zero substance. But this doesn't begin to touch on the missteps here.
If you're going to have such a heavy focus on the two leads, they better be able to carry a film. That is only going to happen with {1} likable characters, and {2} great chemistry. Its evident right from the go that this one is going for the good girl/guy from wrong side of the tracks mix we've seen so many times before. Spano's "Sheik" {yes, really} is not even good at being bad. He's just a hot mess, all over the map emotionally. Nothing about him is remotely likable. This results in Arquette's Jill being a bundle of lost confusion. Her choices, her reactions to his latest misstep, are even more befuddling than what he did to cause it. None of her decisions follow any path of sane logic. So the chemistry between the two leads is literally non-existent.
As this one rolls along, and "Sheik" starts breaking down, defying school rules and authority {apparently because he can}, pulling a gun for no apparent reason, robbing a convenience store - or something - you're soon going to be wondering where its all headed, and more likely, how much longer you'll have to endure this wreck.
Maybe "Sheik" and Jill could have made this film work, if they had something/anything to work with. The writing is awful, the dialogue is often agonizing, the pacing all wrong, the characters {all of them} as dull as baked dirt, every one as directionless as you'll at some point realize this entire flick to be.
One quick example: "Sheik" during one of his aimless rants proclaims {not verbatim, don't hold it against me}, "There are only three things - God, Sinatra, and me!" And, well, that's as much of God as you'll ever see indicated in his life, in any shape or form.
As for the ending? There's really only two possible tracks for something this unimaginative {no, not that they wind up together, or don't}. I wont give it away - not that there's much to give - but if you make it until the end, chances are you'll be left shaking your head, wondering what you just witnessed. Even more, you're going to want those two hours back.
Oh, that one purpose I mentioned at the top? "Baby" should serve as a caution to any girl out there who thinks a bad boy is the way to go, as well as to any guy who wants to take that path to have his desires fulfilled: Just -- don't. Because its never going to lead to "happily ever after" - even if these writers here were far too clueless to even figure that much out.
But if you're one of those folks who's traveled this road in life and wound up in a destructive relationship, only to see it dissolve, or worse yet, are still entrenched in it, then maybe this one's for you.
This episode was the next to last for The Big Valley. It dealt with a former lover of Heath who jilted him returning to the Barkley ranch. When she returns, the wounds are obviously still fresh for Heath. Yet it takes her little time to quickly draw him in to her little escapade. Well, after all, she's a stunningly attractive blonde. Imagine that.
I wont say any more about the episode. The show was still popular at this point but apparently was phased out {as were most Westerns around this time} to bring in a "new direction" for the network. Gotta keep up with the times, kids. So I would guess when these last episodes were taped, the cast and crew fully expected there to be a 5th season.
I want to comment on the age listing for the actress that plays Heath's ex-lover Sarah {Pat Delaney}. Follow me here. The storyline is that these two were lovers 5 years previous. Since that time she has met and married another man. This episode aired in April of '69. And yet Ms. Delaney's birth date on IMDb is presented as December 1, 1957. I checked Google, its the same there.
Really? That would make her 11 at the airing of this episode, and well, I guess Heath and her being lovers 5 years previous meant it was when the actress was 6. Umm, sure :) I would estimate Ms Delaney to be 20 at the youngest in this episode, more likely in her mid-late 20's. So her publicist or somebody is fudging on her date of birth - and by more than a year or two. Either that, or she's from that same alien origin as the girl in the first Species film. Rapid aging indeed.
I wont say any more about the episode. The show was still popular at this point but apparently was phased out {as were most Westerns around this time} to bring in a "new direction" for the network. Gotta keep up with the times, kids. So I would guess when these last episodes were taped, the cast and crew fully expected there to be a 5th season.
I want to comment on the age listing for the actress that plays Heath's ex-lover Sarah {Pat Delaney}. Follow me here. The storyline is that these two were lovers 5 years previous. Since that time she has met and married another man. This episode aired in April of '69. And yet Ms. Delaney's birth date on IMDb is presented as December 1, 1957. I checked Google, its the same there.
Really? That would make her 11 at the airing of this episode, and well, I guess Heath and her being lovers 5 years previous meant it was when the actress was 6. Umm, sure :) I would estimate Ms Delaney to be 20 at the youngest in this episode, more likely in her mid-late 20's. So her publicist or somebody is fudging on her date of birth - and by more than a year or two. Either that, or she's from that same alien origin as the girl in the first Species film. Rapid aging indeed.