Below are images from "BACK TO HANNIBAL: THE RETURN OF TOM SAWYER AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN", the 1990 Disney Channel television sequel to Mark Twain's 1876 novel, "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and his 1885 novel, "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn". Directed by Paul Krasny, the television movie starred Raphael Sbarge and Mitchell Anderson:
"BACK TO HANNIBAL: THE RETURN OF TOM SAWYER AND HUCKLEBERRY FINN" (1990) Photo Gallery
Below is an article about the dish known as "Johnny Marzetti":
"JOHNNY MARZETTI"
Until recently, I had never heard of the pasta dish called Johnny Marzetti. Honestly, I had stumbled across it, while reading an article about pastas on the Internet. Originated in the American Midwest, Johnny Marzetti consisted of noodles, cheese, ground beef or Italian sausage, and a tomato sauce with vegetables and mushrooms.
In 1896, an Italian woman named Teresa Marzetti and her family had immigrated to the United States and settled in Columbus, Ohio. Not long after their arrival, she and her husband Joseph started a restaurant called Marzetti's, located on High Street. Due to its location near the Ohio State University, Marzetti's became very popular with the university's students. I do not know exactly when Teresa Marzetti had created her famous casserole, but according to food critic John F. Mariani, she had created the dish in the 1920s and named it after her brother-in-law. But it is possible that Mrs. Marzetti had created the casserole a lot earlier.
Johnny Marzetti became popular with the Ohio State University students. Its fame later spread throughout Columbus, the state of Ohio and eventually the entire Midwest. The casserole eventually became a popular dish in the former Panama Canal Zone. The local Panamanians referred to it as "Johnny Mazetti", instead of Johnny Marzetti. The latter was even mentioned in an episode of the WB comedy-drama, "GILMORE GIRLS".
Below is a recipe for "Johnny Marzetti" from the Ohio Thoughts blog and the Ohio Historical Society:
Johnny Marzetti
Ingredients:
*3 tablespoons olive oil
*1 large onion, chopped
*3⁄4 pound mushrooms, cleaned and sliced
*2 pounds lean ground beef
*3 1⁄2 cups tomato sauce
*1 1⁄2 pounds cheddar cheese, shredded
*1 pound elbow macaroni, cooked and drained
Preparations:
*Sauté onion in oil until limp, about 3 minutes.
*Add mushrooms and fry until juices are released, about 5 minutes.
*Add beef and cook, stirring, breaking up clumps, until no longer red.
*Remove from heat and mix in tomato sauce and all but 1 cup of cheese.
*Transfer to greased 9- by 13-inch baking dish and add macaroni.
*Toss gently to mix. Scatter remaining cheese on top. Bake, uncovered, in 350-degree oven until browned and bubbling (35 to 40 minutes). Serves 10 to 12.
"ALICE IN WONDERLAND" (2010) Review
I never understood director Tim Burton’s decision to name his 2010 film, ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND”. I mean . . . why did he do it? His new movie was not another adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s 1865 novel, ”Alice's Adventures in Wonderland”. It was a sequel set thirteen years after the original story. So why use the shortened version of the title from Carroll’s original title?
Many of you might be wondering why I had just made a big deal about this movie’s title. For me, it represented an example of what I consider to be the numerous missteps that prevented me from embracing Burton’s 2010 film. Before I continue, I should confess that I have never been a Tim Burton fan. Never. I can only recall two of his movie that really knocked my socks off – 1994’s ”ED WOOD” and the 2007 Golden Globe nominee, ”SWEENY TODD”. I wish I could include ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND” in that category, but I cannot. The movie simply failed to impress me.
As I had stated earlier, ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND” was a sequel to Carroll’s original story. Thirteen years after her original adventures in Wonderland, Alice Kingsleigh has become a nineteen year-old young woman on the verge of accepting a wedding proposal from one Hamish Ascot, the son of her late father’s partner, Lord Ascot. Unfortunately, Hamish is a shallow and self-absorbed young man with very little character. Salvation arrived during Hamish’s very public marriage proposal, when Alice spotted a familiar figure – the same White Rabbit who had previously lured her to Wonderland – scampering across Lord Ascot’s estate.
History repeated itself when Alice fell down into the rabbit hole. However, she soon discovered that Wonderland (or Underland) had changed during her thirteen years absence. The Red Queen had managed to wreck havoc and assume control over most of Underland, thanks to her new ”champion” - a dragon known as the Jabberwocky. Only the realm of the Red Queen’s sister, the White Queen, has remained beyond the red-haired monarch’s reach. However, that situation threatened to change if the White Queen fails to acquire her own champion. A scroll called “the Oraculum” predicted that Alice will not only be the White Queen’s champion, but she will also defeat the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen’s reign of terror. But due to her stubborn belief that Underland was and still is nothing but a dream, Alice was reluctant to take up the mantle of the White Queen’s champion.
Judging by the plot I had just described, ”ALICE OF WONDERLAND” should have been an enjoyable movie for me. Granted, Linda Woolverton’s script seemed like a typical ”slay the dragon” storyline that has been used in numerous fantasies. But it still had enough adventure, intrigue and personal angst for me to find it appealing. So, why did it fail to light my fire? Production designer Robert Stromberg created an interesting mixture of Gothic and animated styles for the film’s visuals in both the England and Wonderland sequences. Anthony Almaraz and his team of costume designers created lush and colorful costumes for the cast. And Dariusz Wolski’s photography brought out the best in the movie’s visual styles.
”ALICE IN WONDERLAND” could also boast some first-rate performances from the cast. Johnny Depp gave a wonderfully complicated performance as the Mad Hatter. His Mad Hatter was an interesting mixture of an extroverted personality and pathos, punctuated by bouts of borderline insanity. The Red Queen might possibly be one of Helena Bonham-Carter’s best roles. She struck me as the epitome of childishness, selfishness and cruelty. Crispin was slick, menacing and subtly funny as the Red Queen’s personal henchman, the Knave of Hearts. Anne Hathaway’s delicious portrayal of the White Queen reminded me of a Disney princess on crack. I really enjoyed it. Both Tim Piggott-Smith and Geraldine James (who were both in the 1985 miniseries, ”JEWEL IN THE CROWN”) gave solid performances as Alice’s potential in-laws - the kindly Lord Ascot and his shrewish and bullying wife, Lady Ascot. And Alan Rickman gave voice to the Blue Caterpillar in a deliciously sardonic performance. Despite my positive opinion of most of the film’s technical aspects and performances, it still failed to impress me. Why?
First of all, the movie rested upon the shoulders of Australian actress, Mia Wasikowska as the lead character, Alice Kingsleigh. Before the release of this film, Wasikowska had received critical acclaim for her portrayal of a suicidal teen in HBO’s ”IN TREATMENT”. It seemed a pity that she had failed to be just as impressive as Alice in ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND”. Some people had labeled her performance as ”subtle”. I thought it was ”insipid”. Or perhaps just plain boring. I swear I have never come across such a bland and boring performance in my life. No only did Wasikowska managed to make Alice’s battle against the Jabberwocky seem dull, she still came close to putting me to sleep in her character’s moments of triumph in the movie’s finale. It is a miracle that I eventually became a big fan of hers over the years. Or perhaps her own natural talent in this film had been overshadowed by poor direction.
Tim Burton’s direction of ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND” proved to be just as uninspiring as Wasikowska’s performance. Actually, I found myself thinking of the 1992 movie, ”DEATH BECOMES HER”. I was not comparing the visual effects between the two movies. Or the plots. Meryl Streep had uttered a word in the 1992 movie that perfectly described my opinion of Burton’s direction. Flaccid. "FLA-A-A-A-CI-I-ID!" How did a director with Burton’s reputation managed to take a solid fantasy adventure and make it one of the most boring films in recent Hollywood history is beyond me. His direction lacked any pep. Or spark. I had felt as if I was watching a piece of limp lettuce in action. I even began to wonder if Burton’s dull direction had affected Wasikowska’s performance. Then I remembered that actors like Depp and Bonham-Carter managed to rise above his direction. I might as well dump the blame of Wasikowska’s performance on her shoulders after all. Fortunately for her, she managed to provide superior performances in the future . . . in superior productions. As for Tim Burton . . . what is there to say? His direction had simply disappointed me.
I might as well say something about the movie’s 3-D effects. They were not only disappointing to me, but also a waste of time and the extra cash I had to pay for the movie tickets. I did not care for the 3-D effects in ”AVATAR” and a few other films, but it was an example of technical wizardry in compare to the 3-D photography shown in ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND”. Speaking of ”AVATAR”, I have one last thing to say in regard to 3-D . . . "Damn you, James Cameron!". Seriously. I would like to take the man’s head and bash it through a wall for introducing 3-D to the movie going experience. In the two movies I have seen featuring 3-D effects, I have found them unimpressive. Worse, I had to pay extra for the tickets because movie theaters are more willing to show the 3-D versions of movies like ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND”, instead of the 2-D versions. For the cash.
In short, ”ALICE IN WONDERLAND” had all of the hallmarks of a solid and entertaining movie experience for me. It was the continuation of a classic fantasy adventure. Talented actors like Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham-Carter, Crispin Glover and Anne Hathaway gave first-rate performances. And I must admit that the movie’s production designs and photography gave it a unique visual style.
But all of that could not save a movie hindered by pedestrian 3-D effects, a dull and insipid performance by Mia Wasikowska and an even more insipid direction by Tim Burton. Frankly, I think it is a miracle that this movie managed to become a box-office hit. What is even more ironic is that Burton produced a sequel to this movie, six years later. Unfortunately, "ALICE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS" proved to be a box office flop. And ironically, I found that movie a lot more entertaining.
Below are images from "RIPLEY", the 2024 Netflix adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's 1955 novel, "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Created, written and directed by Steven Zaillian; the limited series starred Andrew Scott in the title role:
"RIPLEY" (2024) Photo Gallery
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
VIEWS ON THE STAR TREK FRANCHISE
Recently, Paramount Plus had announced that "STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS" would end after five seasons. "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" had already ended its fifth and final season during the spring of 2024 saw the final season. Will the endings of these two shows signal the end of the franchise, which began in 1966 with "STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES"? I do not know. But this question led me to contemplate my viewing history of the franchise and my personal opinions of those television shows that I had bothered to watch.
"Star Trek: The Original Series" (1966-1969
Set during the mid 23rd century, "STAR TREK: THE ORIGINAL SERIES" depicted the adventures of the Starfleet ship, USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) and its crew led by Captain James T. Kirk. This series lasted for three seasons and later, spawned an animated series in the 1970s and a series of movies between 1979 and 1991.
My father was a big fan of the series. I first saw it after it reached syndication. I might as well be honest. I did not like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" when I first saw the reruns as a kid. It took the 1980s movies for me to appreciate them. Somewhat. But even after all of these years, I do not have a high opinion of them in compare to some of the other shows. And after years of watching the Trek franchise, I really wish that the franchise's creator, Gene Roddenberry, had never created this rule that humanity had evolved in a space of 200 to 300 years. I found that illogical and in the end, I believe that it proved to be a problem for all future TREK productions. Also, I was not impressed by the series' third season. I still remain unimpressed. The writing for "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" seemed to have spiraled into a decline by this last season.
"Star Trek: The Next Generation" (1987-1994)
During the 1970s, Gene Roddenberry created an animated series for the franchise called "STAR TREK: THE ANIMATED SERIES". I never saw it. But I certainly saw the second live-action series, "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION". Airing between 1987 and 1994, this series depicted the adventures of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D), during the mid-24th century.
"THE NEXT GENERATION" proved to be easier for me to become a regular viewer. At least for several seasons. I did not like Season One that much. I found most of the writing less than stellar. Once the series had moved past Season One, I became a deep fan. However, there were times when I found Jean-Luc Picard and his crew a little hard to swallow. Like "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", I believe "THE NEXT GENERATION" had went a bit overboard in presenting Humanity as evolved. This was especially conveyed in its portrayal of the majority of the main characters as ideal Starfleet officers. I found it a bit off putting. And I also found it difficult to keep up with the series' last two seasons. Like the first season, I was not that impressed by them. Mind you, I believe Season Seven had provided one of my favorite episodes of the entire TREK franchise - namely (7.24) "Pre-emptive Strike". However, I found many others like the Season Six episode, (6.10-6.11) "Chain of Command", vastly overrated.
"Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993-1999)
Although familiar with both "THE ORIGINAL SERIES" and "THE NEXT GENERATION", the 1993-1999 series, "STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE NINE", was the first I had started to view on a regular basis. At least during its first two seasons. Then I became bored with the show and stopped. Why did I become bored with "DEEP SPACE NINE", I do not know. Several years had passed before I gave it another chance and eventually viewed it on a regular basis.
Unlike the other Trek shows, "DEEP SPACE NINE" was set aboard a space station that Starfleet was managing on behalf of the recently liberated homeworld of Bajor. The station, Deep Space Nine, also stood guard to a wormhole that led to the Gamma Quadrant and an alien empire. "DEEP SPACE NINE" was the first TREK series that Gene Roddenberry played no role in its creation. And the series proved to be the first one that starred a person of color, actor Avery Brooks, as Commander-later-Captain Benjamin Sisko.
For years, I thought "DEEP SPACE NINE" had the potential to be the best within the franchise. It featured multiple-arc narratives that permeated with politics and moral ambiguity. But I had noticed a few things. One, it reminded me too much of J. Michael Straczynski's science-fiction saga, "BABYLON 5". When I heard accusations that it had plagiarized the latter show, I was inclined to believe those accusations. I still do. More importantly, I think "BABYLON 5" handled its ambiguity and multiple story arcs a lot further and with better writing than "DEEP SPACE NINE". And once the series dove into the Dominion War arc during the last two seasons, I found it increasingly difficult to stick with the series. There were aspects of that arc that I enjoyed, but there were other aspects that I found frustrating . . . including the Dominion's occupation of Deep Space Nine in early Season Six. I also felt frustrated by the transformation of the Cardassian character Gul Dukat from a multi-complex villain to a one-dimensional antagonist by late Season Six. Despite being promising and a genuinely first-rate series, I do not believe "DEEP SPACE NINE" had ever really fulfilled its potential.
"Star Trek: Voyager" (1995-2001)
Like the previous TREK series, "STAR TREK: VOYAGER" made history with its own first. It became the franchise's first series to feature a woman as the lead character. Actress Kate Mulgrew was cast as Captain Kathryn Janeway, the commanding officer of the USS Voyager (NCC-74656). An alien named the Caretaker forced Voyager, Janeway and her crew into the Delta Quadrant, while they were searching for her Security officer, who had volunteered to act as a spy aboard a Maquis starship, commanded by a former Starfleet officer. As it turned, not only did the Caretaker draw Voyager into the Delta Quadrant, but also the Maquis crew. After a violent encounter with a race called the Kazon, the Maquis ship is destroyed and both crews merge under Janeway's command, as they set out to return to the Alpha Quadrant, some 70,000 light years away.
Unlike "THE NEXT GENERATION" or "DEEP SPACE NINE", I did not watch "VOYAGER" from the beginning. In fact, I had avoided the series like the plague for several years, due to the fandom's negative opinions of it and my own struggles to keep up with "NEXT GENERATION" and "DEEP SPACE NINE". But during the beginning of the series’ Season Five, a relative had convinced me to watch one of the series' episodes. I did . . . and became immediately hooked. While watching Season Five, I also began watching the show’s earlier seasons on Syndication. And I became even more of a fan. I can honestly say that "VOYAGER" was not the franchise's best series. But I thought it was still pretty damn good and viewed it just as good and bad as "NEXT GENERATION". Do not get me wrong. I thought "DEEP SPACE NINE" had the potential to be the franchise's best series. But I believe it had never lived up to that potential and in the end, struck me to be just as good as "NEXT GENERATION" and "VOYAGER".
"VOYAGER", like the other shows, had its share of flaws. Season One tried to portray most of its characters like those from "NEXT GENERATION". Once the series stopped trying to portray the Voyager crew like ideal Starfleet officers (aside from a few), and stamped them with their own brand of craziness and ambiguity, I managed to really enjoyed the series. I have also enjoyed the show's two-part episodes and their Holodeck/Holosuite episodes more than any other series. Aside from Season One, the only other series I am not that fond of was Season Six. That season had featured a handful of excellent episodes. But in the end, the series during its sixth season seemed to be going through the motions. Thank goodness I enjoyed the other five seasons, especially Season Seven. "VOYAGER" is the only TREK show in which I actually enjoyed the series finale.
"Star Trek: Enterprise" (2001-2005)
Following the end of "STAR TREK VOYAGER", the TREK franchise decided to create a series that served as a prequel to "THE ORIGINAL SERIES". Set in the mid-22nd century, during the 2150s, "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE" depicted the adventures of Captain Jonathan Archer and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise (NX-01), during the years right before the creation of the United Federation of Planets. "ENTERPRISE" proved to be the only TREK series that used a pop-influenced song as its theme.
In the end, I tried to enjoy "ENTERPRISE". I really tried to embrace this show. I had no problems with the series being a prequel to the other shows. I enjoyed the relationship between Enterprise's First Officer, Sub-CommanderT'Pol and its chief engineer Commander Charles "Trip" Tucker. I also liked the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Phlox. There were a handful of episodes that I enjoyed very much. I really enjoyed the Xindi story arc of Season Three. I just hated it ended with the ship being thrown back into Earth’s past . . . again. I loathed Season Four, but loved the Mirror Universe two-part episode, (4.18-4.19) "In a Mirror, Darkly". To this day, I regard it as one of the best TREK episodes I have seen. But overall, I never really became a fan of the series. It had failed to grab me the way the three TREK shows between 1987 and 2001 did. And when the media had announced its cancellation after four seasons, the announcement did not exactly come as a blow to me.
"Star Trek: Discovery" (2016-2024)
Despite the negative comments I had heard about "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", I was determined to watch the show. Eleven years had passed since the cancellation of "ENTERPRISE" and my curiosity had to be appeased. Like "DEEP SPACE NINE" and "VOYAGER" before it, "DISCOVERY" made history by its casting. The series featured the second female lead. However, it also featured the first woman of color as the lead. "DISCOVERY" also made history by featuring a biracial, LGBTQ couple as part of the cast.
I watched the first season of "DISCOVERY". And I loved it. The series started out in serialized form from Day One by following the narrative formula of "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" - a multiple episodes arc within one season. Most of the characters struck me as ambiguous, including the leading lady. I also loved how that first season set up the conflict between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. I do wish that leading character Michael Burnham had served as Discovery’s commanding officer from the beginning. Instead, her rank as a Starfleet Commander underwent changes, due to her role in the Federation-Klingon War. However, if Burnham had started out as Discovery's captain, I wonder if I would have enjoyed her Season One arc as much as I did. The casting of Martin-Green as the series' star proved to be controversial on many levels. Certain fans resented her position as the show's lead. They especially resented the revelation of her character, Burnham, as Spock's adoptive sister. These fans accused the showrunner of forgetting that the half-Vulcan/half-Human officer had never mentioned an adoptive sister in previous TREK productions. Yet, they had forgotten Spock's penchant for never discussing his family, unless circumstances forced him to do so.
Despite the hullaballoo over Burnham's character and the series' serialized arc, "DISCOVERY"'s Season Two featured another season-long arc - the Federation's conflict with a a rogue artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, this season featured Captain Christopher Pike as Discovery's temporary captain and the unnecessarily long presence of Spock, thanks to some contrived writing. Although many fans and critics enjoyed Anson Mount's portrayal of Pike, I found it dull and pretentious. Pike seemed to reek of what many regarded as the traditional Star Trek leading man, but without any real spark. Matters grew worse when the showrunner made the decision to send Discovery and the series into a new direction - namely 900 years in the future. Why? I had already written about that decision in another article. Needless to say, this decision changed the series' style and tone, making it difficult for me to enjoy the rest of the show's run. I tried to stick with "DISCOVERY" during its third and fourth season . . . and gave up. The only good that came from this period was Burnham's promotion to the starship's captain.
Other Trek Series (2020-Present)
Between the second and third seasons of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY", the franchise's showrunners released "STAR TREK: PICARD", a sequel to "STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION". Set around the beginning of the 25th century, the series focused Jean-Luc Picard dealing with his retirement from Starfleet and aging. I honestly thought this was going to be a limited series. Instead, "PICARD" lasted three seasons. Unfortunately. I enjoyed Season One, although I found the season finale badly written. I tried to give the series' second and third seasons a chance. Season Two proved to be some badly written mess involving time travel and an exploration of Picard's childhood. Season Three was more or less a convoluted nostalgia trip featuring "THE NEXT GENERATION" cast, the shapeshifting Changelings from the Dominion War and the Borg.
In 2022, the franchise released "STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS", a spin-off of "DISCOVERY". The series featured the adventures of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701), while under the command of Christopher Pike. The same Pike from Season Two of "DISCOVERY". The series managed to impress a great number of Trek fans and television critics. It had failed to impress me, aside from a handful of episodes. "STRANGE NEW WORLDS" seemed nothing more than an updated version of "THE ORIGINAL SERIES", only with the very dull Pike in command. Although it has not finished its run, I gave up on the series before the first season ended.
Conclusion
Although I had enjoyed Season One of "STAR TREK DISCOVERY" very much, a part of me wondered if it had been wise for the TREK showrunners to allow the franchise to continue. I am sorry, but I feel that aside from "DISCOVERY"'s first season, the franchise seemed like a ghost of its past. I think the franchise should have ended after the cancellation of "STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE". Or perhaps after "STAR TREK: VOYAGER" had ended its run, four years earlier. I believe author F. Scott Fitzgerald had been right when he had proclaimed in his most famous novel that one cannot repeat the past.
