Reviews

This is a really impressive piece of filmmaking until the end, when it just sort of splinters into a lot of random bits (including what look like stray cuttings from PRINCESS KA'UILANI?) It's too bad, because otherwise this might have been an eerie masterpiece standing alongside, instead of shadowing, SIXTH SENSE.

Jessica Barden is AMAZING as Marie; a weird 15-year-old living in a depressed suburban tract that backs onto "the hill," a large tract of undeveloped land that includes an abandoned bunker where she conducts burials for kills she steals from her poacher neighbor Filthy (Tony Curran.) Filthy entertains both Marie and his young son Sean with myths and folktales, but when Sean dies while Marie is babysitting, Filthy loses control while Marie becomes convinced that she is in communication with the dead. Increasingly estranged from her only friend Michelle (Georgia Henshaw) and erratic mother (Lyndsey Marshal,) Marie becomes convinced that Sean wants her to draw his father into the bunker.

Directed by Alastair Siddons, In The Dark Half is wonderfully weird, with terrific performances by everyone, atmospheric music, and effective cinematography. The script is a little all over the place from the beginning but this works at first, keeping the audience guessing as to the film's intentions; I thought this really worked for a while as it allowed the supernatural elements to creep in. Unfortunately it all began to fall apart once they are plainly in place, simultaneously telegraphing "the twist" without really setting up the rest of the finale to make sense. That doesn't necessarily make it a terrible film; it just left me feeling kind of disappointed.

This film compares favorably to SO much that hits the screen nowadays that it's well worth seeing; also it's a key part of the rest of the Pink Panther 'series' although not included in the box sets so far. We get the classic "minkey" sequence and meet Cato, for the first time, in one of the series' great slapstick routines. However the film has a sort of split personality and the current DVD transfer is too grainy for a large-screen TV IMHO. So, rent it, but I'd wait for something better if you're looking to collect.

I wouldn't exactly say this movie sets the tone for the rest of the series. The original starred David Niven, with an all-star supporting cast including Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau. Then Clouseau became the star of "A Shot in the Dark," which didn't involve either the Pink Panther gem nor jewel thief Sir Charles Lytton. This film has them all, so tries to 'balance' the action between Clouseau and Sir Charles. It doesn't work, and probably as a result there were no more such attempts: the series becomes all about Clouseau, and that's for the best. I like Christopher Plummer, but the movie is too 'heavy' when he's on screen - probably the writer's fault. As for Catherine Schell, I'd look at her in anything (or nothing at all) and IMHO her acting compares favorably to at least Dyan Cannon's and Elke Sommers'. Herbert Lom, Burt Kwouk, and Andre Maranne are of course a terrific comedic supporting cast, but Peter Arne has to straddle the comedic and serious aspects of the film, which doesn't really work out.

The story shifts back and forth between the perspectives of Sir Charles and Clouseau. The Pink Panther gem, nationalized by the government of Lugash after the events of the original film, has been displayed in the national museum until stolen in a great caper sequence. Against the wishes of his frustrated boss ("how can an idiot be a police officer"), Clouseau, who (sort-of) recovered the gem previously, is recalled from beat duty ("There was some question whether it was the man or his minkey who was breaking ze law") and put on the case at the request of Lugash police chief Colonel Sharky. Clouseau naturally suspects Sir Charles, particularly since his trademark, a glove embroidered with the letter "P," was left at the scene. Sir Charles, however, is surprised; he has been living in retirement and knows nothing about the matter until it is brought to his attention by his mischievous wife Claudine. Knowing he will be suspected, Litton sets off for Lugash to find the real criminal while Clouseau sets off for Nice to investigate Sir Charles' home - and wife. Clues lead both Clouseau ("I am NOT Guy Gadbois") and Sir Charles to a Swiss hotel (and the parrot sequence.) All is revealed in the final confrontation where more than one policeman proves to have been playing a double game.

Someone here said it hasn't aged well but I'd say almost the opposite - the first time you see it you'll probably think it hilarious - but it may pall the second time around.

THE ROCKETEER is a perfect, but not great, movie. It is NOT a tribute to the cliffhanger movie serials of the 1930s, its an homage to the B-movies of the '40s: think SANTA FE TRAIL or CAPTAINS OF THE CLOUDS. Our swell hero and his wisecracking sidekick take some digs from his girl but, after standing up to the swings of the action heavy, close in for the K.O. in the final reel.

This is an affectionate reproduction of a simpler time in film-making and you'll love it if you're not expecting the wrong kind of thing. The critics (abetted by the studio) typecast this as another cliffhanger-tribute movie, but if you're expecting a non-stop thrill-ride like INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE or Brendan Fraser's THE MUMMY, you're going to be disappointed (as many were) because the pacing of this film is totally different. Fighting a Nazi on a zeppelin? You're almost through THE ROCKETEER, but LAST CRUSADE is just warming up.

I loved CRUSADE and MUMMY, but hyperactive duds like THE WILD, WILD WEST and THE MUMMY RETURNS show the limitations of the non-stop-pacing school. I wish there were more fun adventure flicks paced like THE ROCKETEER; it works if you give it a chance! I'd describe this as a very warm film; at heart it's all about love. Not just love of flying; Cliff and Peevy's comradely love, Hughes' love of innovation, Valentine's love of country - but most importantly, Jenny's love of the movies! And the filmmakers' love of the period shines through in the little details, not spotlighted but carefully there. Plus you get a neat plot and some fine actors having a lot of fun! Pop in the DVD, break out the popcorn, and get ready for a pleasant good time.

This one-season 70's series was a LOT of fun as it would almost have to be with both Moore, doing his typical suave Englishman routine, and Curtis almost reprising his SOME LIKE IT HOT hustler-with-a-heart-of-gold. Sometime DR WHO scriptwriter Terry Nation makes the most of the contrast, and throw in wacky '70s fashions plus enough dough to actually shoot scenes on location, and you've got something that should have run MUCH longer.

Two international playboys receive a summons to the Riviera, where they wind up under the thumb of a retired judge with a hunger for justice. Judge Fulton needs someone outside the law to pursue the mystery of a crime syndicate that is still operating after the apparent death of its boss. Fulton challenges Wilde and Sinclair to rise above their selfish lifestyles and, developing a taste for sparring with each other, the pair pursue a beautiful girl who unknowingly holds the key to locking up the bad guys.

This isn't my favorite episode of the series; it takes Moore and Curtis an episode or two more to really master their chemistry. If you're wading through the DVD set I'd recommend skipping ahead to POWERSWITCH.

A group of people participate in a group-isolation test to see if they can withstand being sent to a distant planet. Although they know they will be subject to unexpected tests, strange events strain their unity, and when personality changes start to happen, certain members break down in paranoia - or IS it paranoia?

This isn't one of the best episodes, but the story actually moves a bit better than some. However the characterization never evolves above stereotypes and not a lot makes real sense. None of the characters are particularly engaging, and as usual the female characters are the weakest. Disappointing.

It's been a long time since I've seen "Omega Man" or read the original Matheson story, but I'd heartily recommend them as superior entertainment, while this... Well, if you've got nothing better to do, it's not TERRIBLE, but...

I have to agree with everybody who says this was all about the CGI, and not about the plot - or, in my opinion, the suspense. There's not enough characterization of the zombies, and too much of Robert Neville - I like Will Smith, but I didn't care for his rather hysterical interpretation, although the interplay with Sam was good. There was too much backstory on the virus (and Neville's family) and too little on the zombies. And things don't seem to have been too challenging for Anna and Ethan - nothing worth talking about, anyway! Ethan isn't really necessary in any way - Sam is the Richie character (I think it was Richie - anyway, it IS kind of a clever riff on the doofus who wanders off in search of the cat...)

I can't believe anybody respects the pacing. There are two moments of genuine suspense in the movie - Following the Deer, and the Copycat Trap - and both of them totally failed to have any shock value. Following the Deer turns out OK, while The Copycat Trap builds up and builds up, but then, well, up hops Bob and gets his gun, oh dear he drops it - oh, Sam isn't in as much trouble as we thought - oh, he was, was he - and we wind up waiting around for the dog to change, and then - well, that was that. Poignant, maybe (he has the recovered-rat antitoxin - why not Sam?) but suspenseful - are you kidding? And As for the film's finale, did we really need to see it? I think it was irrelevant (especially with the voice-over), and the prologue is also unnecessary - we could have spent the time getting a few real chills and thrills in.

Ruined New York is well done, but it's not like we haven't seen THAT before (couldn't this have been filmed in Detroit, without CGI?) The movie has a kind of moral, which has to do with Neville being wrong about what turns out to be true at the very end. There's a worthy idea there - nothing to do with Matheson's original idea, or the title of the film, of course - but there isn't enough supporting material in the rest of the story for it to be said to be the film's theme - and there's nothing else to the story, really - so why is Neville a legend? Apparently, it's the same reason he was on the cover of TIME magazine...

A wealthy Norteamericano scientist (Ralph Meeker) brings his team to a banana republic in search of scientific fame. He discovers that a legendary lake monster is in fact a living fossil, an ichthyosaur. The millionaire's egotistical plans for the monster are obstructed, however, by the egotism of the local dictator (Henry Silva), by his own team's commitment to scientific integrity, and by certain remarkable properties of the monster itself...

Once again, as too often on THE OUTER LIMITS, a decent story is undermined by clumsy plotting and awkward direction, which combine with low budget to stumble us to the usual preachy moral, which could have been better supported by the story elements.

If you first saw an episode of this program when it first aired, I can't believe you're not a BIG fan. If you've never seen this show before, however, I think you're likely to be VERY disappointed. Let's face it, the pacing is typically slow and awkward and the moral-of-the-story endings are preachy and increasingly tediously predictable. The acting is typically excellent, but the directing is terrible, and while the writing is centered on ingenious ideas, they're too often lost in clumsy, tension-less plotting. Sorry, but pacing and suspense are simply FAR better handled on the Outer Limits' rival, "The Twilight Zone."

This show deserves its place as a milestone in TV programming, and as someone who first watched it when it aired, the number of episodes that fascinated or frightened me are too numerous to mention. But on a second, much later viewing, the flaws overwhelm the good stuff; while I can forgive the low-budget props and costumes, the storytelling falls far short of Rod Serling-level. And in all honesty, you have to admit that a moralizing voice-over at the end of the tale is not really the best method of thought-provoking!

Let's start out by reminding everybody that this TV series was aimed at an audience of children and young teenagers, so images of young Indy battering Nazis to the death with his bare fists wasn't part of the plan. It's totally different in tone from the films, which are intended to reprise old-time movie serials. The series is education-oriented, thus all the brushes with famous names of history. Production values ARE pretty good - it won 10 Emmys, out of 23 nominations! BUT...

Episodes were directed by Nicolas Roeg, Mike Newell, Terry Jones, and Carrie Fisher among others, but despite beautiful cinematography almost all the shows I've seen are pretty bland, and it's mostly the writers' fault. The series just lacks energy, and the characters, particularly Mrs Jones (Ruth de Soza) aren't very engaging - her star turn in "Florence, 1908" lacked any real passion to the point of being embarrassing. Margaret Tyzack, as Indy's governess, is by far the best actor and tends to outshine everybody else - she gets some real opportunities for character development, which is more than can be said for Lloyd Owen, who plays Professor Jones Sr.

Corey Carrier plays Indy age 10, while Sean Flanery plays the character ages 17-21. Flanery is very bland. I thought Carrier was OK for a precocious kid, but nothing special - though this may be the writers' fault. I LOATHE cutsey-pie stuff like the "Vienna, 1908" episode!!! (Note that a list of episodes can be found at Wikipedia.) 70 episodes were planned; but apparently only 44 were produced - I've only seen the episodes off the DVD volume one boxset, so... Maybe things got better... "Benares, 1910" was the only episode I thought was really GOOD - the series relatively slow pace works for the subject matter. "Princeton, 1916" tries to give us some thrills, but... the story just isn't interesting enough - "Mexico, 1916" works a LITTLE better - thanks partly to a two-fisted cameo by the future General Patton, and nice work by the supporting actors.

There's a noble effort here to work the historical characters - and their contributions - into the stories without being too preachy. So I'd say, if you want to give a kid with a taste for adventure a taste for early 20th century history, these are decent stories, BUT....

A HUGE irritation with the DVDs is that to pad out the series, a set of "documentaries" are included, which apart from being not what I paid to see, are highly historically suspect, at least the jingoistic Irish one, which is the only one I bothered to watch all the way through.

I've been a big fan of the Poirot series ever since seeing my first episode on PBS - which MAY have been in 1989, the year the series first aired, I'm not sure. Poirot has been fortunate from the beginning to have a wonderful cast, headed by the superb David Suchet, and to have clever writing, mostly the dramatizations of Anthony Horowitz, fabulous sets and props, and first-rate directing and cinematography. The series was for a long time a personal favorite of mine, alongside Jeremy Brett's equally superb Sherlock Holmes series and Joan Hickson's all-too-few appearances as Miss Marple.

I would unhesitatingly recommend ANY of the 49 episodes produced from 1989 to 2002. I too liked Peter Ustinov's movie version of Poirot, but the films simply cannot compare to the wonderful ensemble acting of the TV cast; Hugh Fraser as Captain Hastings, Philip Jackson as Inspector Japp, and Pauline Moran as Miss Lemon.

And there's the trouble, for me at least, with the post-Horowitz episodes. Poirot is really something of a cartoon character, an ethnic stereotype of the sort that hasn't been seen on U.S. TV since the '60s. Played for fun, with a supporting cast conveying humor and camaraderie, the series is incomparable. But recent attempts to play the stories 'straight' (I'm not sure they DO stray from Agatha Christie's plots, however) feel fake and lack the fun of the earlier episodes.

I've seen the early episodes, from "The Adventure of the Clapham Cook" to "Murder in Mesopotamia" dozens of times, and will probably watch them dozens more! But the episodes from 2003's "Five Little Pigs" to 2006's extraordinarily nasty "Taken at the Flood," well, once was MORE than enough!

The three intelligent, well-educated women I saw this film with were, to varying degrees, moved by this story about an under-appreciated teacher who handles troubled teens by believing in and challenging them instead of controlling and punishing them. I obviously wasn't so crazy about it. Let's put it this way: if you can focus on inspiring core values and overlook obvious flaws, you may enjoy this film VERY much, and might also like "Dead Poets Society" and "Mr Holland's Opus." If you're looking for a study of three-dimensional characters facing challenging problems in a complex reality, however, skip this and try "Stand and Deliver" or even "The Blackboard Jungle!" Ca suffit!

The Queen has some fascinating performances (and Helen Mirren's most sympathetic character in decades), but there's a LOT of missing information that's necessary to making anything of the movie's main idea, that Tony Blair "saved the monarchy" during the Diana 'crisis.'

As mentioned elsewehere the story, set in the early days of the Blair (Michael Sheen) prime-ministership, is about how after Princess Diana is killed by the papparazzi the royal family, together with the government, must determine how to respond in the face of mounting public pressure for some form of national obsequies.

I don't follow celebrities. As far as I could tell, Diana was a pretty blonde who passed through life in the pocket of one or other millionaire playboy. The movie certainly says nothing to dispute that, which leaves me sympathizing more with a family that resents her for dumping their anxiety-ridden son than with the extraordinary obsession the British public seems to have had with her. The royals themselves are presented as peevish and old-fashioned, but so what? The film, however, drops a number of hints that Diana had an awkward marriage with an unfaithful Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) and that the royals supposedly disliked her from the get-go, all of which demands a LOT more explication within the film.

This brings us to the "save the monarchy" pitch. To be honest, I don't understand what that even means. At one point, Cherie Blair (Helen McCrory) suggests that it costs the British government 40 million pounds a year to support the Windsors, but it's my understanding that not only are the royals multi-billionaires in their own right but that the supposed "subsidy" is actually a portion of the income the British government receives from managing royal property under an 18th century contract. It's like young marrieds Tony and Cherie, living in the in-law suite of the parental home, making part of their income from managing the parental retirement account, then suggesting cutting the parents loose! This would make Tony B's odd outbursts more comprehensible, but as far as the film goes, we just don't really know the reason. The movie, after first suggesting that Blair "saved" Queen Bess II out of a kind of protect-mom projection, later drops a loud hint that Tony's take on "the people's princess" was of big benefit to himself. What's lacking, once again, is info within the film's structure that supports any of this.

That should be integral to the sub-theme of the direction of the Blair administration. The film talks a lot about Blair's election as a "revolution" with goals of "modernizing" Britain, but here again I'm totally confused. I thought that Britain, formerly a failing industrial-socialist state, was "modernized" by She Who Must Not Be Named back in the '80s. My impression of Blair was a polo-shirt progressive pulling a Clinton to get elected; rolling over his out-of-touch civil-service conservative opponent with a platform of platitudes that thinly disguised his actual economic beliefs, which seem to be just a kind of casual-day capitalism. Seriously, help me out here. Am I way off, or is the film trying to fake up some kind of story that Blair was romanced out of 'real' progressivism by a fascination with The Queen?

Well, I'd still recommend watching this, 'cause in addition to Mirren, James Cromwell, Sheen, and Sylvia Syms are terrifically entertaining and the scenery is gorgeous - including Mirren's expanding and contracting legs. I wonder if they weren't considering showing 'em with hair in the barbecue scene? And the scene of the Queen Mum (Syms) learning that her funeral plan would be used for Diana is priceless! For plotting and character development thumbs down, but for the excellent acting, two pinkies discreetly up.

Simple test: did you like "Napoleon Dynamite?" If so, you'll like this too. If you didn't, or if you can't stand Benny Hill, the Three Stooges, SNL, or... well, ANY absurdist, skit-based, none-too-pc comedy with mildly tasteless humor and the occasional predictable pratfall - Ne-VER MIND! My wife and I laughed heartily several times and smiled indulgently a lot, which puts this light years ahead of "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" and WAY too much other higher-toned failed comedy. It doesn't compare structurally to Black's crisp "School of Rock" and is nowhere close to the intelligence of "High Fidelity;" this is just a campy jokefest, which should be fine if that's something you can handle.

Yeah, this picture COULD'VE been better, and if you're looking for stuff to DISlike you'll find many problems: campy plot, disjointed pacing, gags that don't come to an apparent punchline... But that kind of absurd irrationalism can work, and if it works for you, you'll enjoy this film.

I don't want to give anything away, but the relationship between Brother Nacho (Jack Black) and Sister Encarnacion (Ana de la Reguera), lustful on his side, sweetly bewildered and uninterested on hers, is one of the main sources of humor here! If you don't get that, I don't know what business you have reviewing comedy. More could have been done with Esqueleto (wonderful performance by Hector Jimenez) and Candida (Carla Jimenez), true, but get over it! If you think comedy HAS to make sense, you're going to miss out on a WHOLE lot of comedy!

Recently I was delighted to see Nick Chinlund in a dramatic role on "Ghost Whisperer." I had been blown away by his outstanding performance in the X-Files season 2 episode "Irresistable," and his performance was so creepy I feared he might have wound up typecast!

In this season 7 sequel to the earlier episode, necrophiliac and fetishist Donnie Pfaster vanishes from a maximum security prison. Born-again prison chaplain Orison (Scott Wilson) seems to have something to do with the mysterious escape, but what? As Pfaster murders again, Mulder fears for Scully, who Pfaster views as the one that got away!

This is a solid thriller episode, but the weird elements are just thrown in for effect and aren't really developed. How exactly is Pfaster more evil than Cigarette Smoking Man, Modell, or Ed Truelove (to say nothing of Phyllis Paddock, Betsy Monroe, 'Reverend' Mackey...?)?? I was delighted, but ultimately disappointed, by the Carlos Castaneda reference. The ending is also muddy. Still the suspense is good and the fight scene struck me as a positive element.

Dana Scully, FBI agent, physician, cancer survivor, and practicing Catholic, is drawn to the case of a Christian Science child who has had a miraculous remission from cancer. Upon investigation she discovers two things: an 'alien' implant in the back of the boy's neck and C.G.B. Spender, super assassin for the government's secret inner circle. When Spender, "the cigarette-smoking man" tells Scully that he means to share the secret cure for cancer with her she suspects him of blowing smoke, but accompanies him to a mysterious assignation at a lakeside hotel. Meanwhile her FBI partner, Fox Mulder, has discovered that someone has hacked into Scully's computer and impersonated Scully in an exchange of emails with someone at the Department of Defense's research facility. While Spender tries to convince Scully of his benign intentions, Mulder fears that she is merely a disposable bit of bait in a plan to draw a federal fugitive into the secret assassin's deadly sights.

This is another season 7 old-plot-device-elimination episode, and as this often meant the elimination of characters we have good reason to fear for Scully's survival! Unfortunately the ending of the episode really doesn't make much sense.

William B. Davis, who plays "the cigarette-smoking man," once suggested in an interview that his character was the real star of the show! Ironically this and certain other episodes show that in a way, Chris Carter has become the cigarette-smoking man, terminating stray characters and plot lines - with extreme prejudice!

Squeaky-clean stay-at-home moms aren't the only ones in danger when feelings of repression and revenge prompt a ravening wraith to go on a rampage. While Scully tracks a shifter of a different shape in the seamy part of town, Mulder gets the real Rob Petrie treatment in suburbia. Mulder finds that the monster isn't the only one who can't look into a mirror as Scully supplies the key clue to the killer's identity.

This isn't a bad thriller though it's a tad predictable with a stereotypical theme. It's not really much more than a darker reworking of the season 6 episode "Arcadia" - which is a pity since the lighter tone of the previous episode suited the subject matter perfectly, IMHO! I wonder if that slotted closet door is the same one Scully was hiding behind in the earlier episode... Anyway, the red herrings in THIS episode are better distributed, making the plot crisper (IMHO). If only the theme had been more imaginative this would have been one of the greats! Hell hath no fury... yeah yeah yeah...

When a '60s radical turns up dead in the crypt of a prominent Catholic it looks like a great basis for a movie to Deputy Director Skinner's old college pal, writer/producer Wayne Federman (as himself.) It's inexplicable weirdness on screen and off as Mulder and Scully try to handle Hollywood and a case that involves a Da-Vinci-coded soup bowl and the dancing dead.

I guess it had to happen - the show about show business. And it is just as awful as you might expect, combining both a self-parodical X-File AND a parody of a Hollywood treatment of the X-Files! Where does this leave viewers? Near the bottom of the unbrakeable slide in quality that is season 7. Once we were on a search for answers, then we were on a search for questions. Now we're just looking for laughs.

In the finale scene, keep your eye peeled for the Chris Carter zombie - the one with tongue THROUGH cheek and skewered in place with a blue pencil. Oh wait, that's not visible on-screen...

This comic "Lone Gunmen" episode is the sequel to the delightful episode "Unusual Suspects" from season 5. Byers, Frohike, and Langly, publishers of the "Lone Gunmen" conspiracy-newsletter, are in Las Vegas at a defense contractors' convention hoping to dig up some government secrets. So are a couple of other conspiracy 'nuts' - and Suzanne Modeski, the military chemist kidnapped by government agents in the episode that brought the "Gunmen" together! Byers has long carried a torch for the beautiful would-be whistle-blower, and aims to rescue her - again! The trio trick Scully into lending a hand, but Modeski doesn't feel she needs much help. Are Byers' suspicions of Modeski's fiancé (Charles Rocket) more than jealousy? Will Frohike take advantage of his love interest's new feelings? And Langly is also aiming for a woman's heart - will he penetrate it? You'll have fun finding out!

Charles Rocket doesn't have much of a role here, which is kind of a waste. Nevertheless this is a fun comedy-thriller. If you like it, be sure to look for "The Lone Gunmen" TV series.

I always loved the Lone Gunmen, and this episode is a favorite. This had to be a reason creator Chris Carter got the go-ahead on the spin-off series. It's too bad the series didn't last a full season!