TV.com

The Bottom Line: "Poor"

Sorry, but this rewrite of Serling's classic script just doesn't work. For one thing, Andrew McCarthy doesn't play his character as particularly sympathetic. Willever's character is a one-dimensional bully. The rest of the mob except for the somewhat quirky Phyllis are pretty forgettable.

The rewrite folks seem to have forgotten that the title refers to _Monsters_. The original not only had aliens as the source of the problems, but the neighbors were paranoid about aliens. Maybe the rewriters thought in these "modern" days that aliens wouldn't have the same resonance. Maybe they just wanted to make a comment about terrorism and the War therein.

This episode shares more with another original TZ episode: The Shelter. Like that episode, this one is non-fantastical and it has everyone turning into a jerk.

This remake also suffers the flaw of the original Monsters... in that they somehow try to portray each neighborhood as an island totally separate from the neighboring blocks. Just hop over the backyard fence, folks.

Overall, there seems little point in this remake. Unlike the remade Eye of the Beholder, they tried to do something different. They just didn't make much difference.

The Bottom Line: "Bad"

The problem isn't the vague political commentary, which is pretty minimal. It's anti-meat message is stronger.

The problem is there isn't really much to care about here. Mike and his family have minimal personality or background: anybody know what they do for a living or who they are? Why does Mike care so much about seeing the true history come out? Why is it more important to him then his family's safety? Who knows? Who cares?

And isn't it convenient that Mike just happens to know Harkinson, apparently the only person who can perfectly explain the Washingtonians, wants to help, and knows who to contact to get a SWAT team to come in and shoot the bad guys.

Part of the problem is that the director/writers don't know if they're aiming for suspense or comedy. Some of the early scenes with the Washingtonians, decapitating their victim, and outside Amy's window, are fairly creepy. Unfortunately, then the bad guys go blatantly over the top, pounding on the door and drooling around their wooden teeth. Why do these people go out in public dressed this way? How the heck do they maintain a secret society when they go out in public dressed like Revolutionary War soldiers every time someone finds a letter or a femur-fork?

Stripped of Little's original ending, the conclusion doesn't make a lot of sense: how does Harkinson find the feasting lodge? If he knew where it was, why has he been waiting all this time to call down an attack on it? Harkinson is just a deus ex mechina for what's basically a shaggy dog joke. Oh well.

Moderation Misunderstandings C

If you have specific questions you don't wish to discuss publicly, feel free to PM me.

If there's another misunderstanding topic you'd like to see, PM me directly rather than post off-topic here.

Misunderstanding C –What about my freedom of speech?

I'm speaking here on the basis of U.S. law. Your national standards may vary.

First of all, many folks claim they have a "First Amendment Right" to say anything they want. That's pretty specific. The 1A says basically the government can make no law regulating your free speech. However, TV.com isn't the government, and it doesn't make law.

"Freedom of Speech" is a bit trickier. The UN, for instance, has stated that humans have a fundamental right to free speech.

On the other hand, try going into the UN and asking to speak to the delegates, and claim that your right to free speech lets you do it. Even the most liberal Supreme Courts in U.S. history never let just anyone wander in to their courtroom and say anything they want, any time they want.

So "freedom of speech" can be regulated on public property. What about private property? On private property, owners' rights trump "freedom of speech." Why? Because you can always go somewhere else, including your own private property. No one can stop you from talking: however, they can stop you from talking on their property.

On TV.com, you can't start up your own threads on someone else's blog. You can't go into, say, The Mentalist forum and post a hundred Spongebob threads.

TV.com is private property. They invite guests in, they have them sign the Terms of Service, people agree to abide by it. If you don't follow those rules, TV.com can kick you out.

It's no different then if someone invites you into their house and you start saying stuff they don't like. They're not obliged to let you stay in their house and listen to you. And you can't force them to let you stay claiming "freedom of speech."

So, yes, on TV.com you can't say anything you want, any time and any place you want. The same reason that on your private property, people can't come in and say anything you want, any time and any place they want.

There is a heck of lot that you can say on TV.com, in the proper forum. And even more on your blogs. But even that isn't unlimited.

Anybody who believes in total, unfettered freedom of speech, well, great, I can respect that. Since you feel that way...

Please provide me with your address and house keys so I can come in and talk to you any time you want. Give me your calling card number so I can talk to anybody I want to, any time I want. Send me $100: I have some pamphlets I need to post around town. If you have a web site, give me the passwords and accesses so I can post what I want there, when I want it.

And if you don't do all of this, you're against freedom of speech.

Private citizens and companies aren't required to finance your freedom of speech or provide you with a soapbox. And if they do choose to give you a soapbox, they're allowed to set rules and regulations on when and how you can use that soapbox. That's what TV.com does, that's what most sites do in one form or another.

As far as TV.com, the standards are pretty simple: be nice to each other, be considerate, stay on-topic, and don't do anything illegal.

TV.com Looks...Kinda Weird

I mean...it looks swanky and all, but it's almost like it's too white. Know what I mean?

I also love that the Change Submission Type button has now disappeared completely from submission entries, and we have a new non-working "Push" button(I tried them on your Summary Subs Tinnie, ) Is it just Firefox, or is it the site? Also my Favorite Boards have disappeared from the "Community" (read: Forums) section.

I also seem to be having a problem rejecting submissions. A technical problem, not a moral or ethical problem. They just don't reject. So help me if I get a Message about leaving a sub in my queue for too long...I drink YOUR milkshake!

Granted I expected bugs, so no "Itz NEW, CHILL!" comments, please. And I'm sure they'll get everything up in a nice, orderly fashion.....

Also, posting blogs doesn't seem to work either, but I commented on a news storry just fine. I got this up through MovieTome.

Don't forget, tonight's the premiere of Season 4 of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia!! Make sure to watch the hilarity