johcafra
Joined Dec 2006
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.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews61
johcafra's rating
I truly can't say given the times and context of its original broadcast, but I must say I enjoy my fortuitous introduction to some remastered episodes from the Fifties of this CBS News production.
If they're not "live TV" they're certainly kept "in-camera" at the credited Hal Roach Studios. They had to have been filmed quickly too.
Besides a youthful Walter Cronkite (yes, I remember him) sitting behind a desk with a huge microphone to one side, clutching a thick script, and providing two intros and a summary in his inimitable style, we hear off-camera radio announcers handing off to each other in the traditional style as the "reporters on the scene".
We also watch the historical figures blithely if not gladly address "the fourth wall" in response to the reporters' questions. You'll recognize some faces, some to become famous and others as the established character actors that you'll need this database to help identify.
Judge the writing for yourselves, though keep in mind what can only be inferred as the goal. Each episode depicts an historical calendar date, a nice newsbeat touch that Cronkite partly resolves in his summary. The end credits include a disclaimer that everything "is based on historical fact and quotation." With CBS News in charge viewers could have no doubt of that.
Jack Pierce does makeup...recognize him? And some images linger, among them rocks and snowballs bouncing off the bewigged head of "Roy" Randell during the Boston Massacre and railings very nearly giving way in any age...
...but this was indeed the Golden Age of Television. I award an extra vote for audacity.
If they're not "live TV" they're certainly kept "in-camera" at the credited Hal Roach Studios. They had to have been filmed quickly too.
Besides a youthful Walter Cronkite (yes, I remember him) sitting behind a desk with a huge microphone to one side, clutching a thick script, and providing two intros and a summary in his inimitable style, we hear off-camera radio announcers handing off to each other in the traditional style as the "reporters on the scene".
We also watch the historical figures blithely if not gladly address "the fourth wall" in response to the reporters' questions. You'll recognize some faces, some to become famous and others as the established character actors that you'll need this database to help identify.
Judge the writing for yourselves, though keep in mind what can only be inferred as the goal. Each episode depicts an historical calendar date, a nice newsbeat touch that Cronkite partly resolves in his summary. The end credits include a disclaimer that everything "is based on historical fact and quotation." With CBS News in charge viewers could have no doubt of that.
Jack Pierce does makeup...recognize him? And some images linger, among them rocks and snowballs bouncing off the bewigged head of "Roy" Randell during the Boston Massacre and railings very nearly giving way in any age...
...but this was indeed the Golden Age of Television. I award an extra vote for audacity.
I can now tell my mother I finally viewed the film that inspired her to pursue a career in medicine.
Other users say what needs be said in detail, so I'll confine my review to some observations...
I half-expected the Minivers in lab smocks. I was proved wrong by both actors from start to finish.
Read the biographies on the credited co-screenwriters. Paul Osborn was perhaps better known as a playwright. You may know of On Borrowed Time, but his comedy Morning's at Seven literally walks around your head.
In the final scene between Madame Curie and Professor Perot try to take your eyes off of Greer Garson.
And once again a film prompts me to read more about its subject. That is a most uncommon and justly deserved result.
Other users say what needs be said in detail, so I'll confine my review to some observations...
I half-expected the Minivers in lab smocks. I was proved wrong by both actors from start to finish.
Read the biographies on the credited co-screenwriters. Paul Osborn was perhaps better known as a playwright. You may know of On Borrowed Time, but his comedy Morning's at Seven literally walks around your head.
In the final scene between Madame Curie and Professor Perot try to take your eyes off of Greer Garson.
And once again a film prompts me to read more about its subject. That is a most uncommon and justly deserved result.
(As a user I'd ended Part 3 with what I thought of Smith in the context of his predecessors before I saw him in character. This completes the cycle, so to speak.)
To borrow an agricultural phrase this episode is an attempt to shovel ten pounds of you-know-what into a five-pound bag. Sometimes that works in spite of itself, and in the 50th anniversary show I feel it does.
Smith grew on me, both as an actor and in the Doctor's characterization. When he was good, he was very, VERY good, but as many others observe he at times was only as good as what was handed to (or, more likely, thrown at) him. I'll pay him the same compliment I'd paid Christopher Eccleston: I'd like to see more of his work.
And perhaps more so than any other Doctor the chemistry between him and his Companions was palpable. I'm fine with making him more human if it furthers both character development and the arc, which I'll also admit appears heavily laden in Moffat's multiverse.
Finally, and said not so much as a die-hard Whovian but as someone who fortuitously has observed each and every Doctor at work and at play, I truly cannot guess what will happen next. I'm convinced that too is part of the arc, be it Moffat's or someone else's. Let's find out.
To borrow an agricultural phrase this episode is an attempt to shovel ten pounds of you-know-what into a five-pound bag. Sometimes that works in spite of itself, and in the 50th anniversary show I feel it does.
Smith grew on me, both as an actor and in the Doctor's characterization. When he was good, he was very, VERY good, but as many others observe he at times was only as good as what was handed to (or, more likely, thrown at) him. I'll pay him the same compliment I'd paid Christopher Eccleston: I'd like to see more of his work.
And perhaps more so than any other Doctor the chemistry between him and his Companions was palpable. I'm fine with making him more human if it furthers both character development and the arc, which I'll also admit appears heavily laden in Moffat's multiverse.
Finally, and said not so much as a die-hard Whovian but as someone who fortuitously has observed each and every Doctor at work and at play, I truly cannot guess what will happen next. I'm convinced that too is part of the arc, be it Moffat's or someone else's. Let's find out.