Reviews

I don't usually write reviews of movies that I have seen and think have nothing to offer . But honestly I don't usually get as far as actually watching such a movie in the first place. I watched this with a GF of the time so I was trying to give it a chance. I kept thinking while I was watching it that I had already watched however much and I might as well See it to its end. But it just kept going. And it wasn't good heh. A disturbing thing about the movie is not only how much was spent making it But that it actually made money. I'm sure this will only encourage the making further movies like it Despite that it clearly was not liked by critics or movie goers. It's a movie where you can clearly see where the money went . It has pricey special effects . Of course they are in a context where you don't care about them. Characters are uninteresting. Don't tell me anyone found this scary and/or interesting. Clearly made with the absolute sole purpose to make money off the name of the original film.

And it not be a Woody Allen or "The Natural"... Well I think I'd pick this one.

Brando's performance... Well how did he not win Best Actor?? ...The Academy voters mad he had not accepted for "The Godfather "?

Has so much in it that movies have lost.

A sexual movie that is indeed not pornography but rather Art.

Wonderful score by Gato Barbieri.

I saw this for the first time 15 years ago. I'm glad I'm seeing it again now:)

The characters of this show are so realized that it will always seem that there are (And should be in a better world ) more episodes of it.

I don't know if Jerry Seinfeld or Larry David ever saw this show but it seems a clear inspiration For the "in each episode different narratives coming together" style of both "Seinfeld" and "Curb Your Enthusiasm".

Basil is a splendidly flawed protagonist.

I remember as a boy seeing episodes of this running late on Sunday nights on PBS. Like to so many other people it stood out to me as the greatest, funniest thing I'd ever seen. And really I still haven't seen anything funnier or greater decades later.

I can't imagine they did these with any idea they'd still be watched and beloved some fifty years later. Yet that's whats happened.

And As influential as their sense of comedy has been I think it's proven somewhat inimitable- A testament to their uniqueness .

The 1977 Academy awards saw Faye Dunaway win best actress for "Network". One of the other nominees was Liv Ullman for this movie. Ullman's is possibly the best performance in a movie ever by anyone. Hyperbole? I suggest you check it out.

"Face to Face" is angst Ingmar Bergman all the way. As great as his writing and direction are, it's difficult to imagine this movie working at all No less as greatly as it does with any other actress carrying it. The movie depiction of a regular person going crazy can of course easily become unintentionally funny. But don't expect any laughs in this one beyond those in amazement at how good Ullman is.

If you liked "Scenes from a Marriage" mr Josephon is also back here. And he and Ullman continue to Have a rarely matched chemistry in their scenes as a screen couple.

There are a number of dream scenes- Nightmares actually. Again these could easily become unintentionally silly. I found them quite scary.

46 minutes more was included in the Swedish TV presentation of this. It's never been released in any way to home video. Boy I'd love to see it, Because the nearly two hours here is superb.

As a big fan of the original TZ I am just seeing this series now. Or I should say just seeing some of it. As it is awful and I don't plan to see more.

The positive reviews here are incomprehensible to me. Have these people seen the original series?

This isn't just the case of a damn good try and failing to catch the old magic. This series just rests on the cache of the old series' title And offers up the lamest sci fi you can find.

It one hundred percent lacks the original series' deeper meaning scripts. These stories offer no food for thought. They really offer nothing but the name. Not interesting, not good.

I'm a bit surprised this seems to have an aggregate rating lower than any other Woody Allen film. "Anything Else" and "Hollywood Ending" are better than this?? I can't agree.

Someone noted the the Mills Brother song is played too much. I agree heartily. I've noticed the overplaying of one track in almost all of Allen's recent films. It can get rather annoying, as it admittedly does here. I honestly don't quite know why Allen is Choosing to be that lazy with the soundtrack While he puts in plenty of work to virtually every other detail of these films. There is no song the audience would want to hear that many times in one film- No less such a novelty type one (!)

Regardless I think the screenplay is quite good. Winslet totally won me over to her character. Rarely has a character stuck with me like hers.

The look of the movie is very nice. Lighting, color, setting.

Some see Timberlake as miscast. I guess they can't shake that he was in a Boy Band. I did not have a problem with his performance.

To me this is Allen's best and most interesting recent film, Even Better than "Blue Jasmine" and "Midnight in Paris".

Considering that Bardot is one of the most if not THE most beautiful woman ever filmed it's just plain distressing how many of her films like this one are not clear like modern movies are that feature less beautiful er "stars" like Adam Sandler. If only the films had been filmed as clearly as the many still photos of her from the same time that leave no doubt to her incredible beauty.

This was what a popular sci fi movie looked like before Star Wars. It's difficult to miss that most of this was shot in a shopping mall standing in for an encapsulated society. Many scenes' effects are now unintentionally comical. The plot has more holes than a Swiss cheese convention, More unanswered questions than an SAT done with broken pencil. Yet it's watchable mostly due to its charismatic leads.

The first movie is passable entertainment that undeservedly became a big hit. This sequel exists only because of that financial success. It retreads the first movie like an aged pop star doing a medley of their early greatest hits. It has no soul and zero artistic integrity. It sets the bar for sequels in a place not even a snake could get under.

I wanted to write about the fairly little noted similarity between 4 popular movies during a 7 year period In the late 70s to the early 80s. I decided to put the review on this one-the last and what to me is the least of the 4 movies. I give it a "5" because it is entertaining and has a likable cast. But make no mistake this is the same plot as the other three movies with sparkly effects added And all the psychological horror lost.

The other films I'm referring to are Burnt Offerings (1976), The Amityville Horror (1979) and The Shining (1980). All four movies are about a family (husband wife and child(ren)) who come to reside in an evil house.

Burnt Offerings came from a novel by Robert Marasco. It's fine cast included Oliver Reed, Karen Black And Bette Davis as the aunt. I'm pretty sure there are evil house movies before this, but this is the first I was acquainted with. The idea that the house is not only evil but making the family evil is important. This sets it apart from previous movies where a house is threatening its inhabitants but NOT making them a threat to each other as well. This element is continued in "Amityville" and heightened In "Shining" , with it absent from "Poltergeist". "Burnt" probably made money but probably less than all the other 3 movies.

"Amityville" was a very popular movie. It starred James Brolin, Margot Kidder And Rod Steiger as the hapless priest. It was based around a book written by the Lutzes who had lived at a real home thar had previously seen a real brutal murder of a family by a son. Despite that "Burnt" is fiction and "Amityville " is nonfiction (Well at least according to the Lutzes) the two movies are strikingly similar.

Just a year later "The Shining" comes out. It was a modest box office success and was actually disparaged by a number of critics at the time. Today it is considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time. And I definitely consider it the best of these 4 movies.

I think it's become a cliche after Anthony Hopkins performance in "The Silence Of The Lambs" to think that actors are good at playing crazy evil guys . Here Jack Nicholson puts in a definitive performance as a regular guy going crazy. Likewise how many scream queens have we seen over the years ? Shelly Duvall seems genuinely horrified here. The boy actor as the son is very credible . Few child performances in other movies are of this quality .

Based on Stephen King's novel but quite changed around by the great director Stanley Kubrick. It uses virtually the same ending shot as "Burnt".

Then a mere 2 years later we get the very successful but shallow "Poltergeist". Starring JoBeth Williams and "Coach" Craig T Nelson and actually directed by Stephen Spielberg . It delivers all the "this house is evil" ideas of the other movies while leaving out any substance, Any feeling of real horror.

Comparing scenes I note the early scene in "The Shining " when a psychologist visits Danny to evaluate him. We see his room which includes Bugs Bunny and or Mickey Mouse on the walls as a real child would have. In a later scene he's watching a cartoon on TV as a real child would. In "Poltergeist" we have a number of scenes in the son's bedroom. It's filled with posters and toys of virtually every single thing a boy at that time would be interested in, Including very just popular movies like "Aliens" that are questionable fare for a boy his age. This is ironic as "Poltergeist " itself was no doubt seen by many children for whom it's scares are perhaps not appropriate for due to its PG (or PG13 rating). The other three movies were I believe rated "R". The room is like an ad for what a young consumer should be consuming, With "interests" in all and any and therefore no real direction.

To me this typifies the tone of the entire movie which is more like an advertisement for a scary movie than a scary movie. Indeed, to me it is a regurgitation of the scares of the earlier three. But instead of a grounded feeling of menace as is in all the other three we get the "we are just a regular middle class American family" vibe that Spielberg scored with in a bunch of movies in the late 70s And early 80s including "Jaws", "Close Encounters" And "E.T.". No substance, no psychological component-Not truly scary, or that good.

What can I say that has not been said before ? One of the most analyzed and speculated about movies of all time

It's well documented how Kubrick asked for many retakes. Although this may well have been unpleasant for the actors I cannot rule this out as a contributing factor in the fine performances. Kubrick simply would not stop until he was pleased with the reading.

While many obviously and justly note Nicholson and Duvall in this I also mention the boy who plays the son. Just how good his performance is becomes the more apparent When you compare it to the one in the later Stephen King directed version of this.

Something I find interesting but is rarely mentioned Is that the subject of the title- The boy's psychic paranormal ability- Is really the subplot of the story (perhaps more so in the movie than the book) To the main story of the evil of the hotel That we see Mainly in the father's growing insanity.

I considered giving this a "9" But it really is not one of those sequels that just retreads what was liked in the original. It takes Phibes to Egypt and the murders get even campier So this builds nicely on the first movie With its own story

Quarrey replaces Cotton in this as Price's antagonist, His character is fairly interesting although we still root mostly (if not indeed entirely ) for Price. He and a fine English cast support Price in perhaps his ultimate role.

At least two actors who appeared in the first film appear here in different roles without issue. A different (equally pretty) actress plays the (supposedly died in the first film) silent Vulnavia. Look for the beautiful Caroline Munro appearing uncredited as Phibes' dead (or almost heh) wife.

It is Difficult to not chuckle at Price's closing rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow".

As good as Price was in serious scary movies He takes things to another level in camp horror And "Dr Phibes" is definitely one of the best of that type.

Despite the title we are lead to empathize with Phibes And dare I say to relish in his fanciful murders.

The sequel is really mostly up to this one's level, Although of course there couldn't have been a sequel without this one's success.

Good English cast plus the great Joseph Cotton joining Price.

So I gave this review as an "8 " because it includes "Little GirlLost". My understanding is that NG originally aired in an hour format (at least some of its run). This would include two or even three episodes. Now NG runs on cable in half hour episodes.

So "The Caterpillar" is as good as NG can be. Probably better, really heh. Much of the series is plagued by absurd ideas , low budget sets and poor effects . This one avoids those issues- Partly as it's not a supernatural story- which is fairly rare in NG.

It's story is simple but (especially for NG) clear and well delivered. The cast of five are all perfect in their parts.

The "Little Girl Lost" story I tried to watch twice. Something to do with a scientist who controls the know-how to a terrible weapon. His daughter dies accidentally and his obsession with her is used by a government agent To try to get him to complete his work (I think heh).

I can't say I understood it but something about the fear of such weapons existing because That means they can be used -I think.

Seemed to be the most wordy NG episode ever heh. I can't give it more than a "5" itself and that's probably way too generous heh.

But "The Caterpillar " is a keeper. Really much better than the vast number of NG episodes in my opinion.

For those rating this a "10" I have to wonder did they actually see this movie? Heh

Not unwatchable because you still have some charismatic actors in this, But really what were they trying to accomplish with this other than spitting out a Superman movie? As It made money so they were probably happy with this.

I see some reviews defending this as more "cartoonish" and Yes it is, But is that what this series needed? I understand the"science" in this can't be expected to be totally plausible- But the ideas and"logic" in this is what I'd expect from kids on a playground- Not adults writing a movie for those kids and the rest of us.

And Not that I'm traumatized heh But I also did not see why we need to have it implied that Superman screws the heavy's girlfriend While he's supposedly an evil version of himself- Especially in the middle of such an as mentioned "cartoonish" movie.

Some odd but not interestingly odd choices in this script. Heh

My greatest quibble with this series is just that it's inherently exploitative. Otherwise it's excellent in virtually every respect.

I have not seen season one, but I've just watched season two.

If the aim was to show us how the killer could choose to do what he did While not excusing his choices one bit I think it had some success .

Many people are troubled and angry in many ways. To me choosing to kill often comes down to incredible selfishness. The killer wants to kill so he does without truly caring about how such would effect others including the victim. This is to me the main thing what separates a seemingly regular guy from a killer- In other words it's the choice taken to kill- The action itself- Which defines the difference. And I think that's played out here.

The going back in time set up was very powerful in this story .

The sets were fabulous. Versace's home is a character in itself.

I am reviewing this movie not because I have so much to say about it in particular. I really just want to comment on a general issue on modern TV. And seeing one segment of this movie pushed me to actually dodo.

I saw this segment on a channel called Comet . It shows sci-fi /horror movies and series from the past decades.

Comet's censorship policies are to cloud out any nudity whatsoever. They always cloud out women's nipples, even in clothing.

This reached a hilariously ridiculous degree when I noticed that the quite distant image of a fenale form In the regular opening montage of the later version of "The Outer Limits" series was clouded out.

These aren't pornographic scenes.its not hard core, it's not anything. Just the human body.

I have nothing against people choosing to watch gory movies if they enjoy that. I can turn the channel. So I'm not complaining that Comet and other channels play gory movies like this one.

What I am complaining about is the absurdity of playing those scenes but clouding out nipples. I don't know the universe where seeing nipples can be reasonably believed to be more disturbing or traumatizing to the viewer-whatever their age is- Than these gory scenes/violence.

I'm not BTW suggesting the gore be censored. But why not leave the nipples alone. Let people who are offended turn the channel. Let the rest of us see nipples instead of clouds. Really, we can take it heh.

I'm a fan of Price and find this the most re-watchable of any of his movies that I've seen. Certainly there are some other quite good ones . But this probably has the best campy black humor of any. And Price is quite good at that.

Price gets to do many Shakespeare lines and it's a fun self referential ham that he plays. Diana Rigg is delightful as his suffering daughter / assistant. And an all-star cast of British actors as the victims and the police.

Inventive , entertaining weaving of the Shakespeare into the murders .

A movie I now find difficult not to watch when it's on.

This episode does sport two pluses

In Farentino's sweater 👍

Shows off her hot body !

No, really, She does ! D

I'm not going to pretend ive seen Every episode of this series. Despite liking sci fi I find much of the series not very interesting, Especially stretched out to its hour long duration.

But I'm also a fan of true crime. Mix that with my favorite sci-fi trope of time travel And you have this episode.

Wonderful cast of Plummer and Forbes. Provocative story as the best sci fi is.

As mentioned in the trivia for this episode The federal law with the Samaritan name Actually states the opposite of what it is in this episode .

The real law says that you do not have to give help to someone In need . And not that I think there should be a law that says you do have to, But it makes me so proud (that's sarcasm BTW) to be in a country That finds it necessary to make a law saying "Hey you don't have to help people !"

I do watch NG, so I guess I find it entertaining. Do I think it's good? Well that's more difficult to answer.

The series got good actors. But it's production values are low, even for the time. There's a low budget feel. For comparison the horror films of the sixties by hammer generally have better effects and sets (Although I will say I recently was very unimpressed with "the Gorgon" haha ).

The stories frankly often make little sense. I'll grant that with the horror genre sense can be passed by sometimes. But NG takes that excuse pretty far.

So in this one we get a likable actor, Leonard Nimoy. We get some story about his invalid wife having passed on. Something vague about this visiting cat is maybe his wife's spirit come back to haunt him And evidently kill him. Even vaguer suggestion(s) that he had an affair with his secretary and thus deserves all this.

Many low budget effects in this. Example is where the cat becomes what I think is a Jaguar . No transformation scene , that's too expensive. Just cut to a seen of the jaguar in a doorway we are supposed to take as Nimoys kitchen. Then cut to him doing his best to act like he's a few feet from a dangerous animal. Cut back to the animal, cut back to him. Obviously not in the budget to even have him on the same set with the animal. So no not too scary haha.

I'm honestly surprised at how high most reviews are for this series. It's often unintentionally funnier than scary. I Still prefer it over slick modern horror . But I can't see this for the most part as being as well crafted as say Serlings other older famous anthology Series, the Twilight Zone. I have some affection for it-particularly the cast- But I have to give the series itself some kind of mixed review.

When I did my list of my dozen favorite episodes of TZ I forgot to include this one. Ouch! How could I forget Talky Tina ?! Don't tell me the makers of "Child's Play" hadn't seen this episode of TZ .

The Story is successful in being scary, Yes, But also in being funny on some level, And also in delivering the undercurrent family drama of the back-then somewhat different situation Of a step-father perhaps not really being accepted by his new family.

Has to be in my top ten :)