hkinkennon

We loved the '80s, then the '70s -- and then the '80s struck back with a vengeance. And now, a decade that is just *too* close for nostalgia -- the '90s! Some of the segments (like revisiting Twin Peaks, my fave show of all time) were fun, and it was nice to catch up on some of the cultural stuff I missed when I was in *graduate school* (Yes, I'm an old fart, compared with some here). Overall, however, the show feels forced and self-indulgent. At least they didn't try to shove a lot of porn down our throats this time.

And it's sad when the regulars, like Michael Ian Black, start joking about how this series is a career killer. Jumping ship might have been the smartest thing that Donal Logue could have done.

Note to VH1: please come up with some fresh new programming -- preferably something without Mo Rocca.

The only reason that this movie will be considered cinematically important in the years to come, is that it serves as a reference point when it comes time to make the REAL 9/11 drama, which IMO should be at least 20 years from now. A balanced dramatic depiction of that awful time will need the luxury of true historical introspection, and this film does not have it. It is too soon to make a dramatic movie about this event, and "Time of Crisis" shows the rush to capitalize on the nation's grief. Since the focus of the film is on the handling of the crisis by the White House, it strives to be another "Missiles of October", but fails miserably. To be honest, I can only review the first 1.5 hours, as the pace was so bad I had to switch to "Match Game" reruns. The film literally bogs down under its pretense and self-importance. Even though I didn't vote for GW Bush, I do think that he conducted himself fairly well that week. However, this film seeks to strive for canonization, and whatever you think of the President, the mere respect for the office demands better writing and more honest depiction. Had I watched the whole thing, I would be looking for the GOP seal of approval in the credits. As Bush, Timothy Bottoms does his best with the material, but frequently loses his accent and, at times, needs to be checked for a pulse -- he doesn't even get visually upset when told that the CIA and FBI computers don't network. John Cunningham is an eerie ringer for Donald Rumsfeld, and George Takei, arguably the most recognizable name in the cast (as transportation secretary Norman Mineta) needs to get a new agent. He deserves better jobs than this. If you want a REAL movie about this event, check out the TV documentary "9 11".

As somebody who actually lived through the '70s, VH1's special "I Love the '70s" is fun, but not all that it could have been. The show is profoundly lacking in research, playing fast and loose with dates (for example, Nadia Comaneci would have been a "fox" for 1976, NOT 1972). It also spotlights porn -- which was NOT mainstream, as it now pretends to be -- at the expense of bigger '70s phenomena. How can you present the disco decade without the Six Million Dollar Man, the Bay City Rollers, and the death of Elvis? Where are the Dittos jeans, chucka boots, and peasant blouses? The commentators are mostly holdovers from "I Love the '80s" -- while I loved Hal Sparks and Michael Ian Black in "'80s", their commentary is often forced in "70s", and Mo Rocca -- who is about as entertaining as a dose of heat rash -- is especially lacking. Should the producers choose to "strike back" with the '70s, I would advise them to choose more commentators that actually remember the decade. But even then, choose carefully: