Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

ThiefHott Too much of everything

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A_Different_Drummer I have read the other reviews and frankly they scare me. I understand how you can like something because it is nostalgic, or even, in the extreme case, like something bad because it defines a moment in your life (google "stockholm syndrome") but this parade of glowing reviews for this forgettable show sorta scares me. Here is the skinny: 1. The 60s was a crazy time. Things that made sense then would not make sense now. 2. The over-arching theme was re-invention. This is common throughout history. The flip-side of reinvention was the doctrine of Exceptionalism. Essentially, because we are here now, because we are the majority now, because we reinvented this now, it (ergo) must be great. Even if it was not. 3. The phenomenon in #2 is often referred to as "camp." Camp explains the stylized violence and goofy music and cardboard villains in shows like this one, and also Batman. 4. Those that actually watched these shows (eg - Batman) did not do so because they were actually exceptional, but rather because they were all that was available at the time. There was actually a term for this in the 60s, it was called "LOP" or "least objectionable program." One might theorize for example that if you had offered a viewer in the 60s an actual choice between the Hornet/Batman campy stuff and, say, ARROW, from this decade, they would choose the latter and eschew the former. BUT THERE WAS NO CHOICE. That is the key. 5. Those that attempted to watch this show -- the verb chosen suggests an effort and the fact it was cancelled suggests the effort mainly failed -- did so almost entirely because of Bruce Lee, who seemed to, among other things, levitate at will, and be able to knock out an overhead ceiling light with a single kick, much to the astonishment of the camera crew trying to film it. And many of his scenes had to refilmed several times to catch the action. (Lee would ultimately try out for Kung Fu and be passed over for a non-Asian actor with no martial arts training, and be bitter about this for years.)

flapdoodle64 Considering the cultural milieu in which this show was produced and the budgetary and technological limitations involved, this is probably the 2nd greatest not-for-laughs super-hero TV program ever produced, second only to George Reeves' Superman program.(It is superior to Reeves in terms of production values.) Although mostly formulaic, the stories were tightly plotted and disciplined, delivering good super-hero type action with a little drama, and with every episode having at least some kind of hook or gimmick to add to the fun.There are occasional quips or smart remarks, but the show was played completely straight and the Hornet and Kato were never made to look silly or ridiculous. In fact, Our Heroes actually looked cooler than most traditional superheroes in their masks and business clothes, since tights do not translate well onto the screen.Every episode had at least 1 fight scene, many having 2 or more fights, and many of the fight scenes were truly excellent when compared with other shows of this period. Often the fights involve multiple foes and transpire in warehouses, with the Hornet's hat miraculously staying on throughout the fight...these things played out like the wonderful fight scenes in old Republic movie serials, where the stunt-men kept their hats on by means of spirit gum.Speaking of the fights, every episode features Bruce Lee doing some great martial arts moves, and usually you can hear him yelling as he delivers the blow, to great effect, I might add.Generally, the cast was competent to excellent, with Van Williams being an acceptable Britt Ried but a most excellent and badass Green Hornet...he definitely seems to get into his role of intimidating criminals, which is great fun to watch.Bruce Lee's acting skills were probably not fully developed at this time, nonetheless, his Kato is good enough and he had a good screen presence.Those who like their heroes to display a lot of angst and conflicted emotions, who like extended shots of characters staring off into nothingness with vague expressions upon their faces, perhaps with cloying music rising in the background, such as can be seen on more modern television shows, will not like the GH. Emotions are underplayed on this show. It is a matter of some debate as to why a show this well-produced was a ratings failure and only lasted 1 season. I blame it on 3 things: 1. This show was broadcast opposite 'The Wild, Wild, West' which had premiered 2 years earlier and was a fantastically HUGE hit with young males, the exact demographic GH's producers sought. Opposite WWW, GH never had a chance for good ratings.2. For some reason, this show has a cheap-looking opening credits sequence, with a kind of slide show presentation and the corny voice of Batman announcer (and GH executive producer Bill Dozier) narrating the whole thing. I think viewers might have seen the credits and thought they were in for another Batman...and Batman was already losing viewers when GH premiered in 1967.3. At 1/2 hour per show, there was not enough time to develop villains into really baroque pulp-fiction type characters, such as on Wild, Wild West, nor was there time to develop the Hornet's relationship with his buddy Kato or his sexy secretary Miss Case, nor was there time to have more complex plots. Improvement along any of these lines would have made the show more successful.But taken as it is, as a half hour of straightforward, honest, non-camp superhero fun, satisfying our need for tough yet fair heroes, the Green Hornet stands alone as a gleaming artifact, sufficient in itself, tantalizing for what it could have been.

ctomvelu1 With the BATMAN TV show a runaway success in the 1960s, it was bound to spawn imitators. The only superhero show to follow, however, was "The Green Hornet," based on an old radio show and movie. Hollywood pretty boy Van Williams, who strongly resembled '60s heartthrob Fabian, played the masked supersleuth who chases down baddies in a souped-up Chrysler and with his sidekick, Kato, played by a very young Bruce Lee. The show was pretty awful, except for Kato's fight scenes, which is understandable for anyone who remembers Bruce Lee. In fact, as kids, we watched the show just to see Lee. Now the character is being made into a feature-length movie for 2010 release. Let's hope it improves on this short-lived TV series. If you catch any episodes of the old show, be patient and watch for Lee as he springs into King-fu mode.

c2kulik My husband and I love watching the Green Hornet reruns in the AM. Doesn't matter how many times we have already seen them, we just enjoy watching them over and over again.I was sorely disappointed when I unwittingly purchased the DVD's that were bootleg copies because the quality stunk. I would rather wait til they come out on DVD or VHS with good definition rather than the fading in and out which is so prevalent with bootleggers.I think the best part about the Hornet is figuring out which of the three masks Van Williams is wearing and in which episode. Or even the night and day thing of getting into the car. Or the time that the Hornet gets shot in the arm and amazingly he jumps in the car as the Hornet with the same vip and vigor he always displays, no pain in the arm or anything.They are a great source of enjoyment for all and will withstand the test of time, just like the Wizard of Oz.