Reviews

What worked: -The "you can get there from here" sequence at the beginning. Turmoil in the Middle East combined with an over-regulated industry in the US means massive oil shortages, so cars and planes are no longer viable and trains have come back in a big way. Probably wouldn't stand up to strong economic scrutiny, but it gets you into the movie -The acting, mostly. Especially when they were allowed to explore their characters beyond the limits of the book. In the book Ellis Wyatt is dynamic, but still part of the crew of noble, rational businessmen. Here he's a Texas oilman by way of Colorado, bold and passionate. In the book Hugh Akston works in a diner, but keeps his speech at the level of a professor and is said to be immaculate in his dress. Here he looks and acts like a blue-collar worker, specifically because he's hostile to the main character at this point in the story.

-The production design and cinematography. All the 10-million-dollar budget is up on the screen in sweeping vista shots of landscapes and location shots of the steel plant, as well as the opulent boardrooms and homes of the tycoons. And during the low-light sex scene, watch for reflections off the bracelet of Rearden Metal for the kind of symbolism that Rand loved. The only glaring error in the design is that the windows of James Taggart's office, which are quite distinct in looking like melted metal and stained glass, and thus appropriate for the man who never has a straight thought, are recycled for the office of the John Galt line, which is supposed to be A) a big come-down from the fancy office, and B) the setting for Dagny, who is a much more rational character. But in particular credit should be paid to the design of corporate logos and news broadcasts, which weren't hyper-modern so as to give it a science-fiction feel, but fit in with the realism.

What didn't work: -Fransisco D'anconia and Robert Stadler. Frisco's part was cut down heavily, and the actor Jsu Garcia didn't have a chance to get into it. Stadler had some bizarre accent completely divorced from the character, and looked nothing like a man who had been beaten down by 12 years of treason and strife.

-Dialogue shoehorned in from the book. Where the script re-wrote the words to fit the situation (or the actors ad-libbed for all I know), it flowed naturally and let the emotion come through. When they quoted the book it felt stilted. In particular Dagny at times seems to turn into Commander Data and stop using contractions when any normal 21st-century person would. I like the book, but it's not a screenplay.

One might expect that any show about an angel of god who walks the Earth trying to help people would be heavy-handed and depressing. Highway to Heaven is neither. It's an uplifting show that showcases all the best aspects of religion and niceness. Unlike "Touched by an Angel" and the televangelist shows, HtH deals with whether a person is good, not whether they subscribe to the right religion. There is room in the definition of "good" to include businessmen, politicians, and former criminals. I'm a hardcore atheist and I still love this show.

In addition, the element of God's power is never used as a club. Jonathan has "the stuff," but never uses it until words and persuasion have failed. It almost makes one feel that with a little effort, they might do some good themselves in the world. Throw in the grainy mid-80s picture and you've got a wonderful bit of escapism to a world where just a little good will can move mountains.

This was the first movie I ever saw. It was, I think, also about the second through hundredth movie I saw. I was five at the time and had rather an infinite patience to watch a movie over and over again. It was also that good. From the effects (blue-screens are impressive to a five year old) to the lovable characters to the happy ending, I was enraptured.

But I must disagree with another reviewer: Chamberlain ROCKS!! I would go around using his "mmmmmm-MMMMM" all the time, plus he's the least ugly of the skeksis. Maybe it was the fact that he sounds like furry little Grover. I'm always dissapointed when he loses the trial by stone. If he were the Emporer, the Skeksis would have won.

This movie tries to do just a bit too much, but does most of it well. I loathe Bruce Willis, and he turns in yet another stone-faced performance here as what should be a very emotional role. The kid is great. He may look like Anakin or Macauly Culkin, but he knows how to poke fun at patronizing adults without being cute. As far as plot goes, the movie starts out very psychological, until the "I see dead people" line, when it turns into a supernatural thriller. The psych could have work if they had stuck with it, but once Willis believes the kid, all the analysing goes out the window.

The gore and scares are not gratuitous, but are unnecessary; the movie works so well intellectually and emotionally, it doesn't need to work physically by startling the audience.

In summation: The communication-with-the-dead plot works, but isn't deep enough. Either the psychology or the gore could complement it for a superb movie, but they clash with each other.

But by the final revelation, this sin is forgiven as a twist that would make Hitchcock proud comes out. It leaves a few plot holes, but you won't care.

Roger Corman will never win an Oscar, never have the highest grossing film, but movie fans have a place for him in their hearts. The Undead was filmed on a small set with cheesy effects, including day-for-night shots and the use of two walls to represent three, but that's not the point. The point is the PLOT. I'm sure some viewers will be confused, but that's because they're not paying attention. The dilemma of sacrifice, the psychology of the devil, and the relationship of modern science and medieval sorcery are explored here as they never could be in a big studio production, especially not today. Corman would never make anyone else's movie. While most films seem like new blends of old plots, Corman attacks the job with a refreshing innocence, and comes up with something you've never seen before and never will again. Maybe that's why he'll never win an Oscar.

***1/2 Three and a half stars, but subtract a star if your idea of a great movie is Titanic.

If this movie is as old as it looks, it may well be one of the first films in the "Bad Semi-supernatural T&A" genre, many more of which can be seen on USA Up All Night. There's lots of butt-waggling, and a few way-out sci-fi ideas, like a "happy pill" invented by an evil scientist that makes people dance, the vague idea of a cult of vampires, and an insta-cloning machine.

The "plot" is impossible to follow but seems to concern Batwoman trying to protect an "atomic hearing-aid" from a villain called Rat Fink. Yeah. Batwoman has no discernible powers, not even the above-average ability of Batman, but she has a group of stacked Batgirls who follow Parliamentary procedure to the letter. This movie was shown on MST3K, which helps, but not much.

* 1 star, but add a star if you're a young male and you didn't pay for the movie.