I am extremely biased when it comes to Survivor and especially this phenomenal 1984 AOR classic. Survivor’s music is like magic to me – it’s capable of instantly putting a smile on my face and lifting my spirits. I don’t think I can objectively review this album, because to me, this pure gold, titled “Vital Signs” has absolutely no weak point and it was definitely 100% matching what I love and seek for in music. So, I will just try to explain why I love this album so much and why is it one of the most essential albums of the 80s.

Dave Bickler, Survivor’s initial vocalist, had to be replaced due to vocal problems. Jimi Jamison joined the band and with his outstanding vocal abilities completely blew the roof off everyone. I often refer to him as the greatest rock vocalist. It’s such a shame that we lost him.

Every song, featuring on “Vital Signs” is an absolute melodic rock hit. It’s definitely not as hard as their previous albums; however that’s not a bad thing. On the contrary, the effective formula that combines peaceful acoustic guitar, gentle and emotional vocals, calming riffs and tender melodies is what make the album so brilliant. Harmony, instruments, rhythms, lyrics – they go together in such an unimaginably good style that for a moment there we forget that this is in fact a very commercially-crafted album. And here, I should say that there’s nothing wrong with being commercial, as long as what you do is tasteful and beautiful. “Vital Signs” (along with other 80s rock albums such as Bon Jovi’s “Slippery When Wet”, Def Leppard’s “Hysteria”, TOTO’s IV and many more) is one of the examples of a commercial but fabulous album!

Let’s talk about the songs.

The slow “The Search is Over” is the song that made me completely fall in love with Jimi’s voice. The lyrics are bringing you nothing but hopes and a strong desire to find your destined love. The lines “You followed me through changes and patiently you’d wait…’Till I came to my senses through some miracle of fate” are melting my heart…

“Popular Girl” is my favourite song from the record – it’s catchy, uplifting and so easy to sing along with. Most importantly, it creates a visual story inside your mind when you listen to. You can always recognize a good song if it activates your imagination. “She walks down the street, knocks ’em dead on their feet with a casual nonchalance…When she’s breaking your heart, she’s the state of the art…” – I mean this is just incredible!

“It’s The Singer Not The Song” is a track I truly wish more people would listen to and appreciate as much as I do. I mean, lyrically speaking this song just beats all the others on the record. “It’s the man behind the music…It’s the singer not the song” is an unforgettable line.

“High on You” was one of the first Survivor songs I’ve ever listened to. Needless to say it was love at first listen. I knew I would become a huge fan of the band from the first note… Romantic, harmonious and filled with such beautiful words and lovely keyboards – no wonder this song became one of Survivor’s major hits. “Piercin’ eyes, like a raven, you seemed to share my secret sin. We were high before the night started kickin’ in…” is my favorite line from the track…

Then we have the gentle “I Can’t Hold Back”; the building-up energizing “First Night”; the hard-rocker “Broken Promises”; the sweet ballad “Everlasting” and my second favorite song from the record – “I See You in Everyone” which even after the 1000th listen still gives me the chills…

Many people consider Survivor as a two-hit band (those two hits being “Eye of the Tiger” and “Burning Heart” from Rocky) but think again, fellas! Survivor are so much more than that. Also, after all those years I still cannot understand the constant comparison with Journey. Yes, both of those bands are the absolute “American-favourites”, however Survivor’s style and attitude is completely different and let’s not fight on who’s a better singer – Jimi or Steve, because “Vital Signs” makes it quite obvious, I think…

“Vital Signs” is a must-listen and a must-have record if you are a fan of melodic hard rock from the 80s. God bless Jimi and his one-of-a-kind voice…I truly miss you…

The hotly anticipated sequel to Top Gun, the 1986 movie that made Tom Cruise a star, is raking in cash, great reviews, and even Oscar buzz. Don’t be fooled — it’s the same glorified military recruitment video that the original was.

Is it even worth reviewing a grotesque pop culture phenomenon like Top Gun: Maverick?

Seems like everyone’s on board with this thing. Its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival concluded with a five-minute standing ovation. It’s breaking box office records. It’s been greeted with raves from almost every major film critic. And it’s no doubt on track to generate an even bigger military “recruitment bonanza” than the first Top Gun in 1986, which is only fair — the Pentagon worked closely with the filmmakers and poured a lot of resources into these two Top Guns.

And now entertainment journalists are floating the possibility of Academy Awards for Top Gun: Maverick. Not just nominations for the editing, sound, sound effects, and original song — all of which the ’86 Top Gun received. They’re talking Best Picture, and Best Actor for perpetual star Tom Cruise, or at least a career-capstone honorary Oscar, presumably for saving Hollywood.

Is it any use pointing out that the first Top Gun was a ludicrous piece of shit? That it was a functioning part of the Ronald Reagan administration’s insane military buildup and aggressive pro-war policies of the 1980s? Or that in a 1990 interview, playing dumb about the obvious way the Navy made use of the film, Tom Cruise refuted the idea of ever making a sequel?

Cruise: OK, some people felt that Top Gun was a right-wing film to promote the Navy. And a lot of kids loved it. But I want the kids to know that that’s not the way war is — that Top Gun was just an amusement park ride, a fun film with a PG-13 rating that was not supposed to be reality. That’s why I didn’t go on and make Top Gun II and III and IV and V. That would have been irresponsible.

But that was then, this is now, and Tom Cruise is about to turn sixty and wants to be a star forever. So a sequel to Top Gun looked good, not only to him but to the desperate film industry mavens trying to figure out some way to get audiences back into theaters en masse. The result is Top Gun: Maverick, every bit as vile and idiotic as the first film, but slicker, better edited, featuring more gripping action scenes, and now awash in tears of nostalgia for the 1980s when Hollywood was booming and “It’s Morning in America” was a slogan people actually believed in.

Of course, it wasn’t morning. It was a grim twilight with a hard polluted rain pouring down. And now it’s midnight, and we’re at it again with another Top Gun. Plus the new movie is somehow even more ludicrous than Top Gun I, which I didn’t think was possible.

It’s all about Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a US Navy test pilot who just won’t play by the rules, so he never gets promoted any further no matter how highly decorated and superhuman he is. We first see him in what seems to be his own personal airplane hangar, caressing his plane. Then he walks over to the living room installed right next to the plane — chairs and table and Turkish carpet and the whole domestic scene — which makes it look like he married his airplane, or at least they’re living together in a loving and committed relationship.

Then there’s the usual trouble with the Navy brass who can’t handle how Maverick won’t go by the book. First it’s Rear Admiral Ed Harris — hey, Ed, aren’t you a committed political lefty or something? — and then it’s Vice Admiral Jon Hamm trying to ground Maverick. But they can’t permanently sideline Maverick as long as his pal Admiral Val Kilmer, aka “Iceman,” protects him.

It seems Tom Cruise insisted that Val Kilmer be given the chance to return in the sequel, which makes for one big tearjerker reunion scene in the middle of the movie with the “Iceman” character, who once said adoringly to Maverick at a climactic moment of Top Gun, “You can be my wingman anytime.” If you’ve seen the autobiographical documentary Val, you know that Val Kilmer is in rough shape due to throat cancer and that he’s continued to earn money for many years after his career peaked by going to movie-nostalgia conferences and events and endlessly signing old Top Gun posters with the quoted line of dialogue every male fan asks him to write, “You can be my wingman anytime.”

Which is poignant in a whole different way, because Kilmer was a talented actor, and it’s a shame that he’s caught in the ’80s nostalgia trap too, primarily remembered for his small role as a preening flyboy in such a dumb film. Well — at least he’ll get a big paycheck out of Top Gun: Maverick.

As I felt my eye-twitch return while watching Top Gun: Maverick, I wondered if anyone else was dreading the idea that, as the entertainment industry remakes everything, there’ll be an ever-increasing focus on 1980s films, beyond even Firestarter, Dune, Blade Runner, Ghostbusters, and Road Warrior sequels or the death march of Batmans and Star Wars. If there has to be a wave of nostalgia, must it be for the 1980s, when there was also a wave of nostalgia for the 1950s, two of America’s most sickening decades when so much of our doom was sealed?

But like I said, there’s so much cheering and applause for Top Gun: Maverick, it drowns out any objections.

Anyway, more plot: Maverick gets in enough trouble that he’s sent to Top Gun training school as a teacher, an assignment he doesn’t want and isn’t qualified for but succeeds at brilliantly. He’s got to train a best-of-the-best-of-the-best squad to fly a mission so impossible, it’s laugh-out-loud funny. The mission involves attacking a nameless country, blowing up their uranium supplies before they can weaponize them, and flying away before they can counterattack. But every aspect of the mission requires the kind of absurd, supernaturally skilled heroics that form the basis of Tom Cruise’s star image — only in this film, he has a team of little Cruise-lings who all have to do as he does in order to perform miracles too.

It goes without saying that nobody is concerned in any way with the geopolitics of this, the question of the validity of the intelligence, the risk of instigating a war, and so on. The big concern is over which of the strutting young flying aces such as “Hangman” or “Warlock” or “Payback” will make the cut to do the mission, especially whether it will be “Rooster” (Miles Teller), son of “Goose” (Anthony Edwards) who died saving Maverick back in the first Top Gun.

As might be expected, Top Gun: Maverick sets out to make the salivating fans happy by recreating a lot of eye-poppingly awful scenes and moments from the first movie. There’s the opening scene of sunlit aircraft reverently tended by stalwart military men to the blaring notes of “Danger Zone.” Instead of homoerotic bonding over a beach volleyball game, in the sequel there’s homoerotic bonding over a beach football game, with two female flyers thrown into the mix and making no difference whatsoever. Thirty-six years later, Maverick still wears his aviator shades and his leather jacket and rides his Kawasaki Ninja GPZ900R motorcycle to his would-be girlfriend’s house, only it’s not Kelly McGillis playing her anymore. As McGillis notes, “I’m old and I’m fat, and I look age-appropriate,” so there’s no chance she’d get invited to return.

Instead, glamorously stick-thin Jennifer Connelly is on hand to provide the love interest. She’s a good match for Cruise, in that both have tight, gym-ripped, freeze-dried looks topped with salon-tousled masses of hair. They can both pass for a hot version of forty, in artful make-up and good light, which are the conditions in much of the movie. In the final scene, he walks out to embrace her where she’s lounging by a gratuitously fancy vintage silver Porsche that has never appeared in the film before but has to be there to remind fans of the vintage black Porsche that was the girlfriend-car in the first film. Connelly and Cruise look precision-made to perform in car ads together.

But never mind the car ad, which director Joseph Kosinski is highly qualified to do after his Halo 3 and Gears of War commercials. He’s really proven himself by making a very long, kinetic military recruiting ad. Whether it can beat the first Top Gun–instigated 500-percent increase in naval aviation recruitment remains to be seen:

“The movie came out on Friday and [we] haven’t seen a giant uptick yet just because it’s the weekend,” said Navy recruiter Lieutenant Caitlin Bryant. “But we’re looking forward to it.” Bryant says there was a noticeable bump even after the trailer first came out.

The session-hardened musicians already made a name for themselves with their debut release, but after the poor commercial performance of the succeeding catalogs, Hydra and Turn Back, Toto was pressured to make a redemption record or face the risk of being dropped by the current label, Columbia Records. Thus, they turned to the first album’s formula, tweaked the multi-genre format, and hired the help of outside artists like the Eagles bassist Timothy B. Schmit. Toto also opted to support the sole vocal work of Bobby Kimball by having the other members sing on various tracks as well.

Toto IV was a well-balanced album that featured the band at peak musicianship, with a more polished approach on orchestration and production. Top cuts in the album include the shuffle beat classic “Rosanna”, powered by Jeff Porcaro’s modified groove and features a jazz-rock arrangement. The power ballad “I Won’t Hold You Back” has Steve Lukather take charge of the emotive vocals as it plows through a sullen progression. The funky “Waiting For Your Love” is perfect for a disco-dance bop, and the titanic anthem – often overplayed – “Africa” has a sing-along chorus that made it such a pop classic throughout the years.

Toto IV just came in time to swoop the band’s hindquarters from total failure, and it’s no wonder that Toto got critical acclaim for its full-fledged musicianship and themes.

Gordon Brewer visits Japan, to gauge the state of the Japanese software industry. With Nintendo having already demonstrated that a Japanese corporation can quickly dominate the US video games software market, should the big American business software developers be worried? Gordon speaks with Charles Elliot of Goldman Sachs, Nintendo’s resident design genius Shigeru Miyamoto, Kazuhiko “Kay” Nishi of ASCII, author Thomas Zengage, Bill Totten of Ashisuto and Ken Sakamura – the Tokyo University Professor behind Japan’s ambitious TRON project. This clip is from The Money Programme, originally broadcast 25 March, 1990.

I recently realized that I haven’t reviewed some of the most enjoyable books that I’ve read in the last year or two. Since I take my blog more seriously now, I’ve been making posts more frequently in the last year. Another reason for this is that I had things on my mind that I wanted to write about. In addition, I’ve been putting more thought into my posts so that they don’t resemble a YouTube comments section. After I found out that my channel and my blog are considerably more popular than I had thought, I’ve been trying to keep my bad jokes and my somewhat silly statements to a minimum in my posts because it seems that many people like my posts or that they’re at least interested in what I post. I still run my blog mostly for myself, but, since it turns out that I have many followers, I’ve been taking the blog more seriously in the last two years. The first book that’s worth mentioning is Harold Lamb’s ‘Genghis Khan: The Emperor of All Men’. It’s the first book by Lamb that I finished reading. Actually, I listened to the audiobook on Audible. Like Lamb’s other books, it’s very interesting to read and it’s very well written. Lamb himself liked to read a lot. When he attended Columbia University, he skipped many of his classes because he spent much time reading for pleasure at the library. Lamb’s book about Genghis Khan is obviously better than Jack Weatherford’s ‘Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World’, which has become quite popular since it got published in 2004. Well, almost any history book that got published in the 20th century is better than the history books that got published after the 20th century came to an end. Naturally, Weatherford’s book, like most other modern books, isn’t that well written, and it also contains a bit of propaganda that the American establishment approves of. It’s not a terrible book, and it contains some useful information, but it’s still worth noting that it pales in comparison to Lamb’s book, for example. When I was a teenager, I read a few books about Genghis Khan that got published in the 1970s and the 1980s at my local library. I can say that they too are better written and better illustrated than Weatherford’s book. Unfortunately, these excellent books aren’t promoted or sold now because they’re old and because their content isn’t something that the establishment approves of anymore. Therefore, you can only find them at some libraries now or you might be lucky enough to find them for sale on the internet. After I finished listening to Lamb’s book about Genghis Khan, I began listening to his two books about the Crusades. In these two wonderful books, Lamb went over the entire history of the Crusades. He even wrote about the Northern Crusades, the sack of Constantinople, and the Albigensian Crusade. Here’s a part of what Lamb wrote about the latter. “Innocent called for a crusade against the heretics. They had rebelled against the authority of the Church, they should be suppressed by the soldiery of the Church. Indulgence from sin was offered those who volunteered, and even the merchants and money-lenders of the north hastened to subscribe funds – for which they were richly repaid with cloth, and wine and grain gathered from the plundered fields of the south. The army of invasion was formed under such redoubtable and merciless spirits as Simon of Montfort, and it moved south with bands of clerics who sang Veni Creator. It made no distinction between Cathars and others. At Bezieres, it stormed the town and in the church of the Madeleine where women and children had taken refuge, seven thousand were slain. It divided, quartering over the countryside, at times fighting actual battles against the desperate knights of the south, and at times devastating everything with sword and fire. Captured knights were crucified on the olive trees, or dragged at horses’ tails. The path of the army became marked by pyres of human bodies, smoking and blackened heaps, and wells were choked by corpses. Meanwhile, Innocent had sanctioned two other enterprises as crusades. In the far north-east the Teutonic knights were sent among the pagan Prussians to convert them sword in hand. And in Spain itself knights were summoned to a crusade against the remaining Moslems from which they emerged victorious after driving the men of Islam south to the Granada region by the sea. And to do away with the troublesome John Lackland in England, the pope prepared for a crusade against the English that Philip Augustus embraced with eagerness. He had taken no part in the ravaging of Languedoc, but he welcomed an excuse for the invasion of England. From the years 1206 to 1213 Innocent availed himself of the crusade-power to further his own policy from Constantinople to Granada. For the first time, in the south of France, he had drawn the papal sword to exterminate heretics. But it was not to be the last time. For more than five blood-stained centuries other popes and monarchs would follow his example. So, for the first time, the crusades were turned, by Innocent’s will, against Europeans at home. The crusade-power had been harnessed to papal ambition, in 1206-1213.” Although Stephen King’s It (1986) isn’t a novel that I’ve been reading in the last year or two, it’s worth mentioning that I’m now listening to the audiobook again. I began doing this a few weeks ago. I read It for the first time when I was a teenager. This novel is one of King’s best, and it was published in the 1980s, which was a time when King, like other American writers, could still write good novels. So far, I’ve read It two times and I listened to the audiobook one time. It’s a thick novel and getting into it again this time is my fourth time. It’s one of those novels, like Inherit the Stars (1977), that I can read over and over again because it brings me comfort. It, the monster itself, actually landed on Earth at a time when dinosaurs still existed. It comes from space. But the novel isn’t really a science-fiction story. It’s horror mixed with dark fantasy. The Tommyknockers (1987) is another good novel by King that I read when I was a teenager. I’ve already read The Shining (1977), which is King’s most critically acclaimed novel, two times. I finished reading Carrie (1974), Pet Sematary (1983), and The Running Man (1982) several months ago. Christine (1983) and Cujo (1981) are novels that I read several years ago. Well, all of these novels are worth recommending because they’re some of King’s best.

I recently spent some time on finishing to watch all of the content that Marvel Studios put out for Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I even got to see The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special and I Am Groot. Some people have criticized me for making posts about the MCU, but other people have enjoyed reading what I have to say about the MCU. Well, it would seem that someone like me shouldn’t be interested in what Marvel Studios puts out, but my likes and interests are varied, and I have a soft spot for the MCU. All I can say is that I enjoy watching Marvel films on a superficial level. Moreover, since so many other people talk about Marvel Studios and review what Marvel puts out, why don’t I provide my thoughts? I mean, some things in this world can’t be easily explained. For example, Rich Evans fought in the American Civil War on the side of the Union for some reason, and he’s a decorated veteran of this war. Well, I like to watch films by Marvel Studios for some reason. In addition, nowadays, films by Marvel Studios are pretty much the only films that I look forward to seeing in a theater, and this has been the case for several years already. I don’t really look forward to seeing other films that are released in theaters because I know that they’ll be disappointing or at best mediocre. Instead of seeing a bland new drama film in a theater, I’d rather see a good old drama film at home. It’s worth mentioning that I got to see every MCU film in a theater. The only MCU film that I didn’t see in a theater is Eternals (2021), and the reason for this is because it was released when vaccine passes were still mandatory in order to enter a theater. I even remember seeing Iron Man (2008) for the first time in a theater. At that time, I wasn’t enthusiastic about going to see this film because I thought that it would be another disappointing superhero flick. Let’s not forget that Iron Man was released not long after disappointments like X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), Catwoman (2004), Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), Elektra (2005), and Ghost Rider (2007) got released. Therefore, I thought that there’s no way that a Hollywood studio will be able to make a good superhero movie, especially one about Iron Man. But Iron Man obviously turned out to be a success. Robert Downey Jr. was well suited for the role of Tony Stark, the special effects were mostly excellent, there was an effective music score, and the film had several exciting scenes. Not everything in Iron Man appeals to me, but it is one of the best films in the MCU. So, after I finished watching all of the MCU films from Phase One to Phase Three again in August of 2022, my views changed a little. Phase Two, which ran from 2013 to 2015, is perhaps my favorite phase of the MCU overall, though it contains only six films. I don’t share the dislike of Thor: The Dark World that some people have. I think that it’s one of the better films in the MCU. Phase Two also contains Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which many people consider to be the best film in the MCU. Avengers: Age of Ultron has become one of my favorite MCU films after I watched it again in May of 2022. It may be a little flawed, but it sure is entertaining and it features several exciting action scenes, like the fight between the Hulk and Iron Man, the chase and the fight in Seoul, and the fight at the end in Sokovia. Anyway, since Phase Four, which ran from 2021 to 2022, is now over, I will finally provide my thoughts about it. If you want to read the other posts with my thoughts about the MCU, check the archives of my blog. Although Phase Four is almost entirely comprised of good content, in my opinion, it is admittedly the weakest phase of the MCU so far. Phase Four does contain the worst MCU film so far, which is Thor: Love and Thunder. This film is bad enough that it’s the only MCU film that I don’t want to see again, and it cost $250 million to make. Where did the money go? Well, I suppose that the money went on the CGI, on the performances of the actors, on the sets, and on other things. But, this time, in the hands of the director Taika Waititi, all of these things turned mostly to sludge and resulted in a huge waste of money. If one or more of the other films in Phase Four had been as bad as Thor: Love and Thunder, I think that my opinion of Marvel Studios would have been seriously shaken. Fortunately, three of the other films in the phase (Spider-Man: No Way Home, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever) have become some of my favorite films in the MCU. I found another three of the films (Black Widow, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and Eternals) to be enjoyable but a little flawed. Marvel has been spending a lot of money not only on making the films but also on making the TV series. Every episode cost about $25 million to make. Apparently, by today’s standards in the industry, this is a lot of money to spend on making one episode. So, while the films of Phase Four have introduced viewers to superheroes like Xu Shang-Chi, Yelena Belova, Sersi, Riri Williams, and America Chavez, the series have introduced viewers to Kate Bishop, Moon Knight, Ms. Marvel, and She-Hulk. This is one of the reasons why some people felt let down by Phase Four because famous and beloved characters like Iron Man, Captain America, Ant-Man, Black Panther, and even the Guardians of the Galaxy didn’t return, for various reasons. Instead, a lot of time was spent on introducing and developing new characters. These characters aren’t as beloved as the old Marvel characters because they’ve had little screen time so far. For example, a character like Captain America isn’t only famous. His personality appeals to many people. It can be described as follows.

“Considered by many as the world’s first and greatest superhero, Steve Rogers has been defined by his courage, patriotism, and righteousness. Rogers has always had a noble and honest spirit, intolerant towards injustice and abuses of power. Since he grew up weak and small, he learned on his own that true strength is having the courage to fight against abuse, no matter one’s power, and having compassion for the innocent. Despite being transformed into a perfect human by the Super Soldier Serum, he maintained his original values and character. Since his reawakening, Rogers was saddened by losing so much of his time, but still retains the same values he had since the 1940s. Due to his famed past exploits and his continued works to save the world, Rogers is generally respected by many; even if he doesn’t seek acknowledgment for his deeds. He was also very empathetic; being able to understand and relate to both Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver before meeting them and understanding Tony Stark’s motivation during the Avengers Civil War, despite Iron Man being on the opposing side.”

By the way, the fact that Marvel Studios includes almost every character in several films is one of the reasons why the MCU has been so successful. This approach allows characters to get plenty of development and screen time and makes viewers get attached to these characters, thus making viewers look forward to almost every new MCU film in order to see their favorite characters. Another reason why some people felt let down by Phase Four is the fact that most of the superheroes that got introduced are female. Although some people won’t admit this, or they simply don’t realize this, their dislike of Phase Four stems mostly from this change. Seeing female superheroes in the main roles is something that they’re not used to. In addition, a few gay relationships got introduced in Phase Four in a mild way. Some viewers were obviously angered by this. When it comes to me, I don’t find the appearance of female superheroes in the MCU to be offensive. The actresses playing them are good-looking and they’re pleasant to look at. Letitia Wright, in particular, looked very good in Wakanda Forever. I also noticed that she wore some specially-designed, cool clothes in the film. I especially like the white outfit that she wore in the scene in which she’s examining the vibranium-detecting machine. By the way, the car that belongs to Riri Williams in the film is called the Plymouth Barracuda. Another thing that I noticed after seeing Wakanda Forever again is that it features some allusions about the state of affairs in the USA, though it’s not the first MCU film to do this. Iman Vellani, who’s another actress that appeared in Phase Four, isn’t only attractive. She also looks cute. Was this the main reason why she was chosen to play Ms. Marvel? I wonder. And, surprisingly, she did a good job playing Ms. Marvel. As some people have said, her performance is one of the best aspects of the Ms. Marvel show. The show itself is probably my second favorite show of Phase Four, after WandaVision. After seeing all of the series in Phase Four, I can say that they’re all well made, just like the films. The CGI and the costumes are as good as in the films. The actors did a good job. Although the series that Marvel Studios released are as good as, or even better than, anything else that gets made for TV these days, they’re still slightly brought down at times by mediocre characterization, by a lack of memorable music, and by scenes that aren’t interesting, or memorable, or exciting. All of the other modern TV series are brought down by these and other factors as well. So, in my opinion, Phase Four was brought down a little by the factors that I’ve mentioned, but it’s in no way the disappointment or the disaster that some people have been calling it. I found Phase Four to be enjoyable. Seeing the Marvel Studios logo again, after a two-year break from 2019 to 2021, was a delight.

Georgy Sviridov – The Blizzard (1964 soundtrack)

01. 00:00 Troika
02. 03:06 Waltz
03. 06:58 Spring And Autumn
04. 09:03 Romance
05. 14:34 Pastoral
06. 16:45 Military March
07. 19:08 Wedding

The mid-to-late 1960s through 1970 were the magical years for muscle cars, when the domestic automakers were competing to see who could come up with the fastest and most-audacious horsepower machines.

The roots were planted nearly a decade before, starting in 1956, when Semon Emil “Bunkie” Knudsen was appointed general manager of General Motors’ Pontiac Division with the mission to improve the brand’s public perception and to ignite the lagging sales of its vehicles.

Knudsen took Pontiac to the race track. “Wide-track” became the new advertising theme, backed by the improved performance of cars, led by new chief engineer Pete Estes, who came over from Oldsmobile, and the recruitment of his assistant, John Z. DeLorean, who had been at Packard.

Add advertising executive Jim Wangers to the mix, and things would get very interesting.

Long before “We Build Excitement” would become the brand’s advertising tag line, the Knudsen/Estes/DeLorean/Wangers crew did just that. It created the Detroit muscle car phenomenon, although at first it had to do so with a back-door effort to avoid the scrutiny of the GM bureaucracy.

GM had an internal rule that reserved its largest V8 engines for use in its largest cars. But the Pontiac engineers realized that there was room under the hood of the “intermediate” (mid-sized) Tempest model for the 389cid V8 from the Bonneville. Typically, the Tempest carried a meager, 140-horsepower inline 6-cylinder. But the big Bonneville benefited from its 325-horsepower unit.

The solution: A special-option package for the 1964 Tempest LeMans. Check the right boxes and for less than $300 you got the V8, heavy-duty 3-speed or Muncie 4-speed manual transmission, stiffer suspension, improved steering gear and tires, dual exhaust, and badges that proclaimed your car as a GTO.

That’s GTO as in the famed Gran Turismo Omologato of Ferrari fame (pity that the Italian sports car maker hadn’t trademarked the name).

Enhancing the car’s image was Wangers recruitment (actually, his creation) of a rock ’n’ roll band, Ronnie and the Daytonas, to record what became a hit song, Little GTO. That, and a Car and Driver magazine cover proclaiming “GTO vs GTO” and a story about a supposed drag race between the Pontiac and Ferrari models.

By the way, the GTO-optioned Pontiac could sprint to 60 mph in about 6.5 seconds and run the quarter-mile in less than 15 seconds.

By 1966, GTO became a separate model line for Pontiac. Empowered by such a vehicle, Pontiac soared to third in sales among all Detroit automakers, and Knudsen was promoted in 1961 to head Chevrolet. Estes moved up at Pontiac, and then took over Chevrolet when Knudsen left for Ford (and later would become president of GM). In 1965, DeLorean got the top job at Pontiac and, at age 40, became the youngest person to head a GM automotive division.

As you might imagine, the success of the early GTO created some controversy within the GM family. Other divisions wanted their own “muscle cars,” and they got them. And the rest of Detroit jumped on the bandwagon as well.

Before the end of the 1966 model year, Oldsmobile offered a 4-4-2 upgrade on its F-85/Cutlass. The numbers came from the four-barrel carburetor, four-speed manual transmission and dual exhaust. For 1967, The Cutlass Supreme 4-4-2 offered a new 350-horsepower, 400cid “Force-Air” engine with ram induction.

Buick tried to match the GTO with its 325-horsepower Skylark Gran Sport.

Chevrolet’s response was the Chevelle/Malibu SS 396, equipped with a 375-horsepower, 396cid V8, dual exhaust, four-speed manual gearbox, stiffer suspension and a 160 mph speedometer. For 1965, 200 Z16 versions were produced with stiffer frames, narrowed rear axles, Impala brakes and hydraulic lifters like those used on the Corvette. 

Chevelle remained a leader in the mid-size muscle car wars, culminating in the 1970 Chevelle SS454 LS6, a valuable collector car today.

Meanwhile, Mopar engineers started the decade working on a NASCAR engine that would wind up setting the trend for large-displacement V8 engines for street or strip, the legendary 426 Hemi that used a revolutionary hemispheric cylinder-head design to improve air flow at all rpm, and which was rated at 425 horsepower. 

The sturdy Hemi ruled NASCAR after it showed up to win Daytona in 1964, was banned in 1965 for the lack of homologation, then was back to its winning ways in 1966 as thousands of 426 Hemis found their way into muscle cars for the street. 

Things got serious for Chrysler in 1966 with the introduction of the Dodge Charger, a Coronet-based fastback available with the 426 Hemi, and the restyling of the Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite, dominated by the GTX version with the 440cid V8.

For 1968, the Dodge and Plymouth intermediates were ready for true muscle car makeovers, with Plymouth offering the Road Runner with a standard 383-cid V8, the GTX with a 440 “Super Commando” V8, or the 426 Hemi, and the Dodge Charger with corresponding engine choices. 

The NASCAR influence on Mopar performance was most exemplified by the Road Runner Super Bird and the Charger Daytona with their long, aerodynamic front-end add ons and towering rear spoilers. As outrageous as they were on the street, they were effective on the NASCAR track. 

Hemi V8s are revered today as muscle car icons, and any numbers-matching Mopar powered by one draws a strong premium value. For instance, an original 1970 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda could set you back in the seven figures.

GM and Ford played catchup with their own 427cid big blocks. In the showrooms, Ford offered its 427 V8 as an option in its midsize Fairlane and a 390cid V8 in the Mercury Comet Cyclone. Ford’s focus was on beefing up its Mustang, highlighted by such things as the Boss 428 with the Cobra Jet 428 racing engine under its long hood. 

The Cobra Jet was used by the end of the decade in the Ford Talladega and Mercury Cyclone. 

GM used its 427 in a number of high-performance applications, ranging from Corvettes to Impala, and notably in such towering performance beasts as the Camaro ZL1.  

In the heyday of the Detroit Muscle Car, even American Motors joined the party with its Rebel SST and Rebel Machine models, and its Rambler Scrambler.

Model year 1970 is seen as an apex for muscle cars as a confluence of engine technology and corporate will came together to create some of the greatest muscle cars of the era. But it all began fading away the following year, as Department of Transportation regulations and soaring insurance rates spelled doom for high-performance muscle cars. 

The final fatal blows were right around the corner, when the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 heralded the end of cheap, plentiful gas, and emissions regulations strangled the horsepower output of once-mighty engines.

It was fun while it lasted, but the Detroit muscle car era had come to an end, though it was an end that would prove to be only temporary.