930 opiniones
This movie was probably good if the actors and actresses could enunciate and speak less than a hundred words a second, but the pathetic acting and sound quality ruined what might be a good movie. There's really no way to know without closed caption.
So, it might work on television, but it doesn't work in a theater.
I had the feeling that I would like it if I could understand the words. I caught about 25% of the words I think. The super humans in this movie are Superman, Green Lantern, Krypto the dog, Hawkgirl, and some whose names or titles are never mentioned in English by anyone who can enunciate a word. In the end, Supergirl appears, and I never hear her name, but I know her costume.
I heard the name "Rex" for one who looked like Metamorpho of old comic books. He was an element man who could change any part of his body to any element, so that's very powerful. Another hero, who never is mentioned by name that I could hear, plays a big role in the movie, accompanying Lois Lane on something about a black hole. You won't be able to understand any more words than that, unless you get closed caption.
Given this, I really can't say what the movie is about. Superman does bend over backwards to save lives, so we have a very monumental task for him right there, because buildings are falling, and giant monsters are wrecking the city.
A message appears on screen that Lex Luthor claims that Superman was sent to Earth to be a king, so that is one of the plots. Also, we see phone messages that let us know that Jimmy Olsen has a phone relationship with one of Lex Luthor's girlfriends.
While it's impossible to understand the dialog, we can tell that Krypto is a loving dog, and Superman is a loving character, and that makes it watchable.
Strangely, the first 90% of the movie has poor sound, but the final 10% or so we get somewhat clearer sound, and I don't know why, but it explains what we just saw.
From the last part of the movie, it seems that the good guys saved the world from something Lex Luthor was doing, and that Superman considers himself more Earthman than Kryptonian. I don't think that's a spoiler.
So, it might work on television, but it doesn't work in a theater.
I had the feeling that I would like it if I could understand the words. I caught about 25% of the words I think. The super humans in this movie are Superman, Green Lantern, Krypto the dog, Hawkgirl, and some whose names or titles are never mentioned in English by anyone who can enunciate a word. In the end, Supergirl appears, and I never hear her name, but I know her costume.
I heard the name "Rex" for one who looked like Metamorpho of old comic books. He was an element man who could change any part of his body to any element, so that's very powerful. Another hero, who never is mentioned by name that I could hear, plays a big role in the movie, accompanying Lois Lane on something about a black hole. You won't be able to understand any more words than that, unless you get closed caption.
Given this, I really can't say what the movie is about. Superman does bend over backwards to save lives, so we have a very monumental task for him right there, because buildings are falling, and giant monsters are wrecking the city.
A message appears on screen that Lex Luthor claims that Superman was sent to Earth to be a king, so that is one of the plots. Also, we see phone messages that let us know that Jimmy Olsen has a phone relationship with one of Lex Luthor's girlfriends.
While it's impossible to understand the dialog, we can tell that Krypto is a loving dog, and Superman is a loving character, and that makes it watchable.
Strangely, the first 90% of the movie has poor sound, but the final 10% or so we get somewhat clearer sound, and I don't know why, but it explains what we just saw.
From the last part of the movie, it seems that the good guys saved the world from something Lex Luthor was doing, and that Superman considers himself more Earthman than Kryptonian. I don't think that's a spoiler.
Unfortunately, director Aldridge-Neil uses all of his resources to just continue the ignorant misinterpretation of demonic beings that led to the horrors that come from believing that humans are demons instead of the reality that is clearly taught by the one we call Jesus.
The narrator gives instances in History of these false narratives about demons. Demons are clearly supernatural forces, but Aldridge-Neil is trying to keep us in the Middle Ages with the same "rationalization" that existed in those days.
Aldridge-Neil insists that the superstition is based on the belief that the demons were supernatural, when he clearly admits that people in those times claimed that the demons were "material". This was "materialism.
It's not brain surgery. It's simple honesty in reading the facts. For example, the floating test that was lethal to the subject no matter what happened. If the subject sank, the subject was not guilty and drowned. If the subject floated, the subject didn't drown, but was declared a "material" witch and executed.
Everyone knows that muscle mass is heavier than adipose tissue (pleasant way to say "fat"). The people lived in actual "lifeboat situations" with Winter being a time of possible famine, and only so many people sustainable. It was natural to believe in the staunch pilgrim principle of "don't work, don't eat", so those with more muscle were deemed worthier of life. Even if they didn't do more work, they appeared to do more work. People who were hurt and laid up and not usable any more, were not usable.
"Rationalization" is the reason for almost everything.
The ignorance of the masses was never about "religion". We know this because even the narrator here admits that the belief was in physical presences of demons, of witches being materialistic beings with super powers.
This was always contrary to every religion that acknowledged that demonic forces were supernatural principalities. It is only possible for materialistic people to believe in this Middle Ages concept.
And that's what the director does by his own words. Ironic.
This program is exactly the same Middle Ages concept of materialistic rationalization that caused the atrocities explained by the narrator. Super Ironic that the director continually claims it to be the opposite. Very moronic video that pawns itself.
The narrator gives instances in History of these false narratives about demons. Demons are clearly supernatural forces, but Aldridge-Neil is trying to keep us in the Middle Ages with the same "rationalization" that existed in those days.
Aldridge-Neil insists that the superstition is based on the belief that the demons were supernatural, when he clearly admits that people in those times claimed that the demons were "material". This was "materialism.
It's not brain surgery. It's simple honesty in reading the facts. For example, the floating test that was lethal to the subject no matter what happened. If the subject sank, the subject was not guilty and drowned. If the subject floated, the subject didn't drown, but was declared a "material" witch and executed.
Everyone knows that muscle mass is heavier than adipose tissue (pleasant way to say "fat"). The people lived in actual "lifeboat situations" with Winter being a time of possible famine, and only so many people sustainable. It was natural to believe in the staunch pilgrim principle of "don't work, don't eat", so those with more muscle were deemed worthier of life. Even if they didn't do more work, they appeared to do more work. People who were hurt and laid up and not usable any more, were not usable.
"Rationalization" is the reason for almost everything.
The ignorance of the masses was never about "religion". We know this because even the narrator here admits that the belief was in physical presences of demons, of witches being materialistic beings with super powers.
This was always contrary to every religion that acknowledged that demonic forces were supernatural principalities. It is only possible for materialistic people to believe in this Middle Ages concept.
And that's what the director does by his own words. Ironic.
This program is exactly the same Middle Ages concept of materialistic rationalization that caused the atrocities explained by the narrator. Super Ironic that the director continually claims it to be the opposite. Very moronic video that pawns itself.
Come and See is an avant garde style war film set in the WW2 Western Russia area that was full of horror from Nazi atrocities.
On the surface, the movie appears to get much of the grit correct, so that makes it more important to get the reality correct as well. It's the same with other "grit" movies that try to deliver realistic settings and atmosphere, but fail to deliver, making them "style over substance" movies.
This one is totally "style over substance". The atrocities are realistic enough, as is the chaos. The "contrived" matters make it less than meets the eye.
The events are seen through the eyes of a boy who loses a lot in becoming a partisan against the invading Nazis. His attitude and his emotions are totally believable. That much is well done.
However, the writer director team only pretends to be anti Nazi, when in fact we get too much worship of Hitler's number one ideology of the blond pale woman being immortal. There are many women in this moive, but the only woman who is an evil Nazi serving their propaganda machine is also the only woman in the movie who is not an Aryan blond woman.
This cannot possibly be an accident. Instead, it is on purpose a celebration and praise of the most unnatural and foremost number one ideology of Hitler and the Nazis, that women were the fair sex, totally pale and blond and Aryan. This was their number one goal, and it is what they preached above all else.
Which makes this movie actually a Nazi propaganda movie. Germany lost their war, but Hitler won his war, thanks to directors and writers who preach Hitler's sermons even today.
It's too bad. This could have been a better movie, but instead it preaches too much for what it proposes to be against.
On the surface, the movie appears to get much of the grit correct, so that makes it more important to get the reality correct as well. It's the same with other "grit" movies that try to deliver realistic settings and atmosphere, but fail to deliver, making them "style over substance" movies.
This one is totally "style over substance". The atrocities are realistic enough, as is the chaos. The "contrived" matters make it less than meets the eye.
The events are seen through the eyes of a boy who loses a lot in becoming a partisan against the invading Nazis. His attitude and his emotions are totally believable. That much is well done.
However, the writer director team only pretends to be anti Nazi, when in fact we get too much worship of Hitler's number one ideology of the blond pale woman being immortal. There are many women in this moive, but the only woman who is an evil Nazi serving their propaganda machine is also the only woman in the movie who is not an Aryan blond woman.
This cannot possibly be an accident. Instead, it is on purpose a celebration and praise of the most unnatural and foremost number one ideology of Hitler and the Nazis, that women were the fair sex, totally pale and blond and Aryan. This was their number one goal, and it is what they preached above all else.
Which makes this movie actually a Nazi propaganda movie. Germany lost their war, but Hitler won his war, thanks to directors and writers who preach Hitler's sermons even today.
It's too bad. This could have been a better movie, but instead it preaches too much for what it proposes to be against.
I've seen enough of Emile Smith now to convince me that he's just another hack director who only gets to direct because he is part of the neo Nazi program that took over Hollywood in the late sixties and early seventies.
Sadly, the ignorant masses of today are totally brainwashed by these Nazis.
The sheep continually miss the forest for the trees. This movie disguises as being anti Hitler, but in fact praises Hitler's ideals.
A plane from the 21st century magically transports to 1940 and just happens to be in a war zone over Germany at the right time.
The characters are not credible, the story is totally manipulated for Smith to again do what he always does, take one of the few dark haired women in a plane full of blond women and contrive a way to kill her.
Now, every guy has been jilted by a dark haired babe, but only Nazis like Smith let it turn them into Hitler worshipers.
That's the only thing that this movie is really about. If you get anything more out of it, you're looking for trees. Smith does this on purpose, because he is totally out of control to the Nazi demonic force.
It doesn't matter if Smith says that God is a Nazi or that Nature is a Nazi. Either way, it is not natural.
Hopefully, some day, someone who isn't a Hitler ideologist will get to rise to the rank of director in this unnatural culture. I won't hold my breath. I will point it out.
Sadly, the ignorant masses of today are totally brainwashed by these Nazis.
The sheep continually miss the forest for the trees. This movie disguises as being anti Hitler, but in fact praises Hitler's ideals.
A plane from the 21st century magically transports to 1940 and just happens to be in a war zone over Germany at the right time.
The characters are not credible, the story is totally manipulated for Smith to again do what he always does, take one of the few dark haired women in a plane full of blond women and contrive a way to kill her.
Now, every guy has been jilted by a dark haired babe, but only Nazis like Smith let it turn them into Hitler worshipers.
That's the only thing that this movie is really about. If you get anything more out of it, you're looking for trees. Smith does this on purpose, because he is totally out of control to the Nazi demonic force.
It doesn't matter if Smith says that God is a Nazi or that Nature is a Nazi. Either way, it is not natural.
Hopefully, some day, someone who isn't a Hitler ideologist will get to rise to the rank of director in this unnatural culture. I won't hold my breath. I will point it out.
This is a very forgettable movie about who knows what.
Flashbacks and time lapses have been overused since Tarantino became big, and he wasn't exactly great at it.
Here, we have two young women who board the same bus and accidentally get each other's bags.
Neither woman is likable. Both are brats in their own way, although one is the traditional rich kid and the other is just as bratty.
For instance, the girl who is supposed to be the caring one is a brat who judges some older woman on a bus and jumps all over her for absolutely no reason at all.
Well, one of them killed a guy in self defense, and in order to save herself, she had to cut the guy's head off, because he was crazed in an intent to kill her, so there's no problem with that.
It's the other motivation that are pure Hollywood, believe it or not. The directing and writing are pathetic. The dialog is fake and sounds like it was written by AI or something. People just don't speak like that.
It's too bad that it's a muddled mess. It probably could have been a good movie, but the characters that we're supposed to care for are too much the same self-righteous personae who only care about the "in crowd", bringing to mind the song in "Hair" where an actual needy woman deals with people like this.
Flashbacks and time lapses have been overused since Tarantino became big, and he wasn't exactly great at it.
Here, we have two young women who board the same bus and accidentally get each other's bags.
Neither woman is likable. Both are brats in their own way, although one is the traditional rich kid and the other is just as bratty.
For instance, the girl who is supposed to be the caring one is a brat who judges some older woman on a bus and jumps all over her for absolutely no reason at all.
Well, one of them killed a guy in self defense, and in order to save herself, she had to cut the guy's head off, because he was crazed in an intent to kill her, so there's no problem with that.
It's the other motivation that are pure Hollywood, believe it or not. The directing and writing are pathetic. The dialog is fake and sounds like it was written by AI or something. People just don't speak like that.
It's too bad that it's a muddled mess. It probably could have been a good movie, but the characters that we're supposed to care for are too much the same self-righteous personae who only care about the "in crowd", bringing to mind the song in "Hair" where an actual needy woman deals with people like this.
Christopher Smith is the one responsible for this movie, which like Severance, is just more of his Hitler worship, made for the Nazi youth of tomorrow.
It's just more killing of women with dark hair, Christopher Smith's tribute to the many reels of Nazis marching dark haired gypsy women to execution.
There's really no need to look for the trees in this forest of Nazi glorification from Smith. But the most feeble minded viewers do just that in an effort to rationalize their willingness to be sheep.
The writing and directing is garbage. There is no story. There is no "deep meaning". There's just Christopher Smith filming scenes that he can film, because he's allowed to do it, because he's totally out of control as much as the sheep who like this movie, and because he knows he is accepted by the other Nazis in Hollywood.
A woman boards a yacht, it is overturned, and of course Christopher Smith makes sure that the hot brunette is killed off right away. He keeps adding more such images. He's totally out of control.
We're supposed to buy into some deep message, but there is no message. People want to believe there is something supernatural when it's just a director saying "oh, let me film this" for no reason other than to satisfy his desire to be a hack doing the same old thing over and over.
It's just more killing of women with dark hair, Christopher Smith's tribute to the many reels of Nazis marching dark haired gypsy women to execution.
There's really no need to look for the trees in this forest of Nazi glorification from Smith. But the most feeble minded viewers do just that in an effort to rationalize their willingness to be sheep.
The writing and directing is garbage. There is no story. There is no "deep meaning". There's just Christopher Smith filming scenes that he can film, because he's allowed to do it, because he's totally out of control as much as the sheep who like this movie, and because he knows he is accepted by the other Nazis in Hollywood.
A woman boards a yacht, it is overturned, and of course Christopher Smith makes sure that the hot brunette is killed off right away. He keeps adding more such images. He's totally out of control.
We're supposed to buy into some deep message, but there is no message. People want to believe there is something supernatural when it's just a director saying "oh, let me film this" for no reason other than to satisfy his desire to be a hack doing the same old thing over and over.
The worst movies are the ones that waste the most resources. When special detail is given to artless and value-less movie, that's as bad as it gets.
Everything in this movie is predictably Hollywood Nazi worship.
Special pains are given to dye blonde actress Arquette's hair black, so we know she will be killed in the movie. That's the traditional Hollywood Nazi formula that Hitler worshipers like Lynch shove down our throats.
So why do these Hitler worship movies continue? Some, like this one, try to disguise themselves as something else, but Lynch fails to anyone with an IQ over 33. The Beavis and Butthead crowd lap it up and are easily brainwashed.
The reason we keep getting this shoved down our throats is because there are control freaks in every group who insist that these movies be seen by a group. It never fails.
There's no natural explanation for that.
So, we get a really poorly written script here. Everything comes out of nowhere, and it's all ho hum. Oh, Lynch throws naked women at us, bit there just isn't any way to avoid the blatant Hitler worship.
Nothing fits into place. The end is just as contrived as everything else in the movie.
There is zero magic, zero inspiration, zero strategy, zero credibility in story, zero credibility in characters, zero talent, just zero across the board. There should be a 0/10 rating available.
Lynch passed away, and whether he's in Hell or not, he is certainly with his idol Adolf and still on his knees for his idol Adolf. As will be the Nazis who push unnatural hatefulness and depression like this on the people that they want to control.
No offense.
Everything in this movie is predictably Hollywood Nazi worship.
Special pains are given to dye blonde actress Arquette's hair black, so we know she will be killed in the movie. That's the traditional Hollywood Nazi formula that Hitler worshipers like Lynch shove down our throats.
So why do these Hitler worship movies continue? Some, like this one, try to disguise themselves as something else, but Lynch fails to anyone with an IQ over 33. The Beavis and Butthead crowd lap it up and are easily brainwashed.
The reason we keep getting this shoved down our throats is because there are control freaks in every group who insist that these movies be seen by a group. It never fails.
There's no natural explanation for that.
So, we get a really poorly written script here. Everything comes out of nowhere, and it's all ho hum. Oh, Lynch throws naked women at us, bit there just isn't any way to avoid the blatant Hitler worship.
Nothing fits into place. The end is just as contrived as everything else in the movie.
There is zero magic, zero inspiration, zero strategy, zero credibility in story, zero credibility in characters, zero talent, just zero across the board. There should be a 0/10 rating available.
Lynch passed away, and whether he's in Hell or not, he is certainly with his idol Adolf and still on his knees for his idol Adolf. As will be the Nazis who push unnatural hatefulness and depression like this on the people that they want to control.
No offense.
This horror movie edges onto dark comedy, but never really gets there.
A tire rolls around and kills things. It begins with little tread, but each time that it kills some animal or some person, it becomes full of tread. It also needs to drink.
It kills by some sort of mental power. It doesn't touch people to kill them. It sort of concentrates, and it makes heads explode.
A lot of bizarre things take place, and most of the people make no sense. The sheriff, most of all, makes no sense. There is a beautiful woman that the tire may be attracted to.
There is a bit of Maximum Overdrive in this, and a bit of tearing down the fourth wall.
Ordinarily, this would only get 2/10 or 3/10, but the ending is a bit different, and it gets point for not wasting a big budget. At least it shouldn't have been a big budget, unless people partied on the budget money.
A tire rolls around and kills things. It begins with little tread, but each time that it kills some animal or some person, it becomes full of tread. It also needs to drink.
It kills by some sort of mental power. It doesn't touch people to kill them. It sort of concentrates, and it makes heads explode.
A lot of bizarre things take place, and most of the people make no sense. The sheriff, most of all, makes no sense. There is a beautiful woman that the tire may be attracted to.
There is a bit of Maximum Overdrive in this, and a bit of tearing down the fourth wall.
Ordinarily, this would only get 2/10 or 3/10, but the ending is a bit different, and it gets point for not wasting a big budget. At least it shouldn't have been a big budget, unless people partied on the budget money.
I get the feeling that I might like this movie, but having watched it, I have no idea what was going on.
We know from the marquee that Kong is being transported to his home island by well meaning people, and eventually he fights Godzilla.
Other than that, there is no way to know what is going on, mostly due to the poorest sound that you will ever get in a movie.
You won't be able to understand more than half of the words being spoken by any of the characters.
This being the case, I believe it isn't so much the poor enunciation of actors, but the sound crew and the director, who does have total say over the sound.
I watched without the benefit of having closed captions, so I can only guess that the people are well meaning, or which characters are well meaning.
Movies shouldn't be just story boards with no information other than the visual. If movies should just be visual, then let us just make silent movies again.
The special effects are poorly directed. I actually have to read what is taking place to understand it, and that makes a less than average movie.
Too bad. I might have like it. I have no idea. It's just garbled noise.
We know from the marquee that Kong is being transported to his home island by well meaning people, and eventually he fights Godzilla.
Other than that, there is no way to know what is going on, mostly due to the poorest sound that you will ever get in a movie.
You won't be able to understand more than half of the words being spoken by any of the characters.
This being the case, I believe it isn't so much the poor enunciation of actors, but the sound crew and the director, who does have total say over the sound.
I watched without the benefit of having closed captions, so I can only guess that the people are well meaning, or which characters are well meaning.
Movies shouldn't be just story boards with no information other than the visual. If movies should just be visual, then let us just make silent movies again.
The special effects are poorly directed. I actually have to read what is taking place to understand it, and that makes a less than average movie.
Too bad. I might have like it. I have no idea. It's just garbled noise.
This is a very predictable episode about five revolutionaries, of which Peter Falk is the leader, who finally win control of a Cuba like country.
Falk plays a very obvious despot who has the old ruler executed.
Before he goes to execution, the old ruler introduces Peter Falk's character to the Twilight Zone, in this case a magical mirror that reveals anyone who will assassinate him.
Well, you can guess what Falk sees in the mirror. How can he trust his four comrades?
We know that the mirror will show them attempting to kill him, but is this really in the mirror, or in Falk's mind.
I believe it is in the mind of Falk's character, because of the chronological order in which he distrusts them, much like a maniac bases his distrust, the opposite of logic.
It isn't a "classic" story, because it's very predictable, but it is a "mainstay" episode that sends a message which will make it memorable.
Thus I give it 8/10. In ways it is weaker than that, but it ways it is more memorable than that rating.
Falk plays a very obvious despot who has the old ruler executed.
Before he goes to execution, the old ruler introduces Peter Falk's character to the Twilight Zone, in this case a magical mirror that reveals anyone who will assassinate him.
Well, you can guess what Falk sees in the mirror. How can he trust his four comrades?
We know that the mirror will show them attempting to kill him, but is this really in the mirror, or in Falk's mind.
I believe it is in the mind of Falk's character, because of the chronological order in which he distrusts them, much like a maniac bases his distrust, the opposite of logic.
It isn't a "classic" story, because it's very predictable, but it is a "mainstay" episode that sends a message which will make it memorable.
Thus I give it 8/10. In ways it is weaker than that, but it ways it is more memorable than that rating.
This episode is what I call a "basic" episode, which deals with pretty much just one subject.
In this case, it's a normal man who is a bit of a Scrooge when it comes to dealing with other people. Other people irritate him.
He enters the "Twilight Zone" and his desires come true.
As you may guess, his desires for what other people should be like, conform to his will, but don't please him.
It's a basic story line, easy to predict, so it relies on the comic ability of the actor and the lines given to the character.
The lines aren't that great, although they do tell the story.
The actor plays his role well enough. I don't think the lines are that great, but a great comedian makes anything funny, and a great actor makes any lines into anything that he wants.
Of course, the director has the final say.
There is a weakness to the story, but the bottom line is that as an episode, it has the right time length to be a decent story. I wouldn't want to see this play out for a two hour movie at all. 40 minutes would be too long. The story is set to the right length of time, which makes it watchable.
In this case, it's a normal man who is a bit of a Scrooge when it comes to dealing with other people. Other people irritate him.
He enters the "Twilight Zone" and his desires come true.
As you may guess, his desires for what other people should be like, conform to his will, but don't please him.
It's a basic story line, easy to predict, so it relies on the comic ability of the actor and the lines given to the character.
The lines aren't that great, although they do tell the story.
The actor plays his role well enough. I don't think the lines are that great, but a great comedian makes anything funny, and a great actor makes any lines into anything that he wants.
Of course, the director has the final say.
There is a weakness to the story, but the bottom line is that as an episode, it has the right time length to be a decent story. I wouldn't want to see this play out for a two hour movie at all. 40 minutes would be too long. The story is set to the right length of time, which makes it watchable.
This episode is purely for laughs. The sci-fi is purely "Svengoole" like or "Elvira" like, a parody.
Don Rickles plays a bully, and Burgess Meredith plays a meek man who gets bullied.
But the show is about aliens coming to do experiments on humans. Oh, nothing bad. Purely funny ones to the audience, such as giving Meredith the strength of Hercules.
The aliens are comical looking, which works well.
It's all for fun and laughs, and a good stage for Rickles to do his "mean" act. It works. And since there is nothing of pretense about it, and nothing pretending to be scientific, it should remain a mainstay and always work.
Don Rickles plays a bully, and Burgess Meredith plays a meek man who gets bullied.
But the show is about aliens coming to do experiments on humans. Oh, nothing bad. Purely funny ones to the audience, such as giving Meredith the strength of Hercules.
The aliens are comical looking, which works well.
It's all for fun and laughs, and a good stage for Rickles to do his "mean" act. It works. And since there is nothing of pretense about it, and nothing pretending to be scientific, it should remain a mainstay and always work.
This episode is easily one of the five best episodes. It's very frightening.
It begins with our heoine coming home from work to her apartment, and seeing a young girl. She takes a liking to the girl, but the girl has some strange behavior.
So, kids act strange. Nothing new.
But the girl gets stranger and stranger, "curiouser and curiouser".
A blast from the past comes up, and we soon realize, maybe half way through, that the girl is in her imagination, when a man who knew the heroine's mother shows up and doesn't hear the girl singing.
The male visitor was a friend of our heroines' mother, having worked for her.
From there on, we get an idea of what will happen, and it gets very chilling. It's probably the scariest episode Serling ever aired. Will the ending be the usual Hollywood Hitler worship ending of "kill the brunette", or will it be more iconoclastic?
Whichever it is, I can tell you that it is chilling.
It begins with our heoine coming home from work to her apartment, and seeing a young girl. She takes a liking to the girl, but the girl has some strange behavior.
So, kids act strange. Nothing new.
But the girl gets stranger and stranger, "curiouser and curiouser".
A blast from the past comes up, and we soon realize, maybe half way through, that the girl is in her imagination, when a man who knew the heroine's mother shows up and doesn't hear the girl singing.
The male visitor was a friend of our heroines' mother, having worked for her.
From there on, we get an idea of what will happen, and it gets very chilling. It's probably the scariest episode Serling ever aired. Will the ending be the usual Hollywood Hitler worship ending of "kill the brunette", or will it be more iconoclastic?
Whichever it is, I can tell you that it is chilling.
This is a story of a city block experiencing what we label as "Xenophobia".
Some strange occurrences on the block cause some of the residents to act very wild. Indeed, we would laugh at these "neighbors" today. Would they be laughed at in the sixties? I lived in the sixties, and the answer is "Yes, they would be laughed at". The story is quite ridiculous.
A boy says that a fiction story he read told him that aliens from outer space causes such disturbances, and one neighbor in particular jumps on the idea.
Claude Akins plays the sane neighbor. He often played moderate headed guys in these episodes.
In today's information age, this is dated, but it was always a "trite" idea, and an overdone idea. Nine out of every ten scripts that were subjected to contests and to producers (I was aware of college and community ones at least) had pretty much the same theme of the ugly American.
It's not a poor story. Just a lame one.
Some strange occurrences on the block cause some of the residents to act very wild. Indeed, we would laugh at these "neighbors" today. Would they be laughed at in the sixties? I lived in the sixties, and the answer is "Yes, they would be laughed at". The story is quite ridiculous.
A boy says that a fiction story he read told him that aliens from outer space causes such disturbances, and one neighbor in particular jumps on the idea.
Claude Akins plays the sane neighbor. He often played moderate headed guys in these episodes.
In today's information age, this is dated, but it was always a "trite" idea, and an overdone idea. Nine out of every ten scripts that were subjected to contests and to producers (I was aware of college and community ones at least) had pretty much the same theme of the ugly American.
It's not a poor story. Just a lame one.
An aging actor with a young wife goes to the first rehearsal of a Broadway show in which he has a role.
He's a stalwart mainstay on stage, whose first wife was also a mainstay before she passed away.
When he arrives late, he is berated by a young director, and he stalks off, his feelings hurt.
He then enters the "twilight zone" where he is in the past, and sees his first wife happy in a bar, joking with the theatrical group of the old days, the Elanor Parker and Tallulah Bankhead party animals.
What transpires is a lesson for him. What is the lesson? No spoiler from me. I'll say it's one of the more "basic" shows in which the supernatural isn't as important as the "theater".
He's a stalwart mainstay on stage, whose first wife was also a mainstay before she passed away.
When he arrives late, he is berated by a young director, and he stalks off, his feelings hurt.
He then enters the "twilight zone" where he is in the past, and sees his first wife happy in a bar, joking with the theatrical group of the old days, the Elanor Parker and Tallulah Bankhead party animals.
What transpires is a lesson for him. What is the lesson? No spoiler from me. I'll say it's one of the more "basic" shows in which the supernatural isn't as important as the "theater".
We have a man with two wives whom he created out of his imagination.
The worst part of this is that his "descriptions" are not even close to being close to the artistry that the writer seems to believe to be such artistry.
In the usual Nazi writing that so many writers for Serling preached to us about (brunettes are meant to die, and blonde is a feminine trait, the Nazi ideology that came with the coining of the "fair sex" for absolutely no natural reason), the brunette wife is a shrew and the blonde wife is sweet. Hitler would have loved this homage paid to him, but that was a usual weakness of the Twilight Zone, and why it never will be as superb as it should have been.
Nevertheless, the real weakness is the poor descriptions that are hailed by Serling as being so great that people actually appear from the descriptions.
Still, it isn't one of the five worst episodes ever, and partly due to a comic bit at the end with the "fourth wall" exposed. This wasn't unprecedented, but a bit rare.
The worst part of this is that his "descriptions" are not even close to being close to the artistry that the writer seems to believe to be such artistry.
In the usual Nazi writing that so many writers for Serling preached to us about (brunettes are meant to die, and blonde is a feminine trait, the Nazi ideology that came with the coining of the "fair sex" for absolutely no natural reason), the brunette wife is a shrew and the blonde wife is sweet. Hitler would have loved this homage paid to him, but that was a usual weakness of the Twilight Zone, and why it never will be as superb as it should have been.
Nevertheless, the real weakness is the poor descriptions that are hailed by Serling as being so great that people actually appear from the descriptions.
Still, it isn't one of the five worst episodes ever, and partly due to a comic bit at the end with the "fourth wall" exposed. This wasn't unprecedented, but a bit rare.
I think everyone knows how this one turns out, so there really isn't a way to spoil anything that was this predictable even back in the early sixties.
A vicious criminal who is an evil steward of the gifts that he has, is shot and killed by police during a violent run in with the law.
He winds up on the other side of life, greeted by a very nice old guy, played by Sebastion Cabot, a famous actor in my day, though I don't know if he'll be famous fifty years from now, or a hundred years from now. Maybe.
But he won't be famous for this ridiculous episode.
The episode is based on the old joke "Why worry?" You are either sick or well. If you're well, no worry. If you're sick, you either get better or die. If you get better, no worry. If you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell. If you go to Heaven, no worry. If you go to Hell, you'll be so busy having fun and shaking hands with friends that you won't have time to worry, so no worry.
It's a delusional "feel good" bit of wishful thinking that is worse than most delusions, because it is meant to conveniently entice you to do evil and Satanic things.
This is an episode loved only by the "haters". And it's written out of hate for anything that isn't evil.
It's a sick, judgmental episode, and one of the five worst episodes of the series.
The self-righteous attitude of the writer, and of Serling for going along with it, is as ridiculous as the story itself.
A vicious criminal who is an evil steward of the gifts that he has, is shot and killed by police during a violent run in with the law.
He winds up on the other side of life, greeted by a very nice old guy, played by Sebastion Cabot, a famous actor in my day, though I don't know if he'll be famous fifty years from now, or a hundred years from now. Maybe.
But he won't be famous for this ridiculous episode.
The episode is based on the old joke "Why worry?" You are either sick or well. If you're well, no worry. If you're sick, you either get better or die. If you get better, no worry. If you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell. If you go to Heaven, no worry. If you go to Hell, you'll be so busy having fun and shaking hands with friends that you won't have time to worry, so no worry.
It's a delusional "feel good" bit of wishful thinking that is worse than most delusions, because it is meant to conveniently entice you to do evil and Satanic things.
This is an episode loved only by the "haters". And it's written out of hate for anything that isn't evil.
It's a sick, judgmental episode, and one of the five worst episodes of the series.
The self-righteous attitude of the writer, and of Serling for going along with it, is as ridiculous as the story itself.
This episode is very predictable today, so we know it is dated, but it was fairly predictable when it was made, also.
The dreary hospital room is overkill, with the negativity continuing way too long to expect a negative result.
However, Hollywood has been big on negativity since about 1965.
A woman has her face in bandages for some plastic Ito make her look normal. We never see the faces of anyone else, so we know what to expect.
It's directed as well as one can direct it, but it isn't a story that is good for video. It just lies a bit flat. It's still a.nice story, but it just isn't great theater.
The dreary hospital room is overkill, with the negativity continuing way too long to expect a negative result.
However, Hollywood has been big on negativity since about 1965.
A woman has her face in bandages for some plastic Ito make her look normal. We never see the faces of anyone else, so we know what to expect.
It's directed as well as one can direct it, but it isn't a story that is good for video. It just lies a bit flat. It's still a.nice story, but it just isn't great theater.
I often wonder how some plays, movies, and TV shows were seen by the public in terms of being innovative and fresh, or of being trite and preachy.
This is one such case. I don't know the answer. Today, the story of "Death" in human form is so common that people would only be amazed if a character who might be "Death" actually wasn't "Death".
Redford gets to play the role here. Is he "Death"? I don't think it's a spoiler to say that he is. An old lady suspects R G Armstrong of perhaps being "Death" out to get her.
The old lady closes herself off in a condemned building, and is overly afraid of "Death".
So, what will be the outcome of all this?
Pretty predictable today. In 1962, it probably was just as predictable for anyone over 30. Today, it would be predictable for most people over 12.
It's well done, and it's a good story.
This is one such case. I don't know the answer. Today, the story of "Death" in human form is so common that people would only be amazed if a character who might be "Death" actually wasn't "Death".
Redford gets to play the role here. Is he "Death"? I don't think it's a spoiler to say that he is. An old lady suspects R G Armstrong of perhaps being "Death" out to get her.
The old lady closes herself off in a condemned building, and is overly afraid of "Death".
So, what will be the outcome of all this?
Pretty predictable today. In 1962, it probably was just as predictable for anyone over 30. Today, it would be predictable for most people over 12.
It's well done, and it's a good story.
This is one of the "comic episodes" of Twilight Zone.
Like most of the comic episodes, the story is very basic and depends on "performance", and like all of the other comic episodes, we get great comic performances.
Here, the noted performances are from Keaton and Adams, and Maytag repairman White, as a simple gentle soul, a conniving but likeable rogue, and a repairman.
It begins as a silent movie, because it begins in a bygone era, where Keaton is a simple soul who works for an inventor, and accidentally puts on a "time travel helmet".
Travelling to the future, he finds help from a likable rogue (Adams), and they have some misadventures while learning the lesson of "the grass always seems greener on the other side of the hill".
Serling always managed to get perfect casting, particularly for his comedies. This is no exception.
Like most of the comic episodes, the story is very basic and depends on "performance", and like all of the other comic episodes, we get great comic performances.
Here, the noted performances are from Keaton and Adams, and Maytag repairman White, as a simple gentle soul, a conniving but likeable rogue, and a repairman.
It begins as a silent movie, because it begins in a bygone era, where Keaton is a simple soul who works for an inventor, and accidentally puts on a "time travel helmet".
Travelling to the future, he finds help from a likable rogue (Adams), and they have some misadventures while learning the lesson of "the grass always seems greener on the other side of the hill".
Serling always managed to get perfect casting, particularly for his comedies. This is no exception.
This episode is obviously a comedy, yet I notice that.some reviewers actually take it seriously.
Well, some of us like good old fashioned "pie in the face" slapstick, and this is low budget slapstick.
An actor who happens to become a star of a Western TV series, needs a double for anything more than stretching his arms. Everyone else makes fun of him behind his back.
There's a bit of self righteous scapegoating here, but it's slapstick, and that happens in slapstick. The lead character retains some dignity, even though he is a laughing stock.
The "twilight zone" aspect comes in when he does a show where he defeats Jesse James, only to be transported magically to the old West by the real Jesse James to be humiliated.
Why does Jesse James have so much power beyond the grave? Well, there is no reason, and since this is a comedy, you don't need a reason. Comedy ghosts and comedy ghost busters don't need logic.
If this was a serious piece, I could see having issues with it, but it's clearly a preposterous tale meant just for fun. The two lead characters have a lot of fun, and it is funny. Case closed.
Well, some of us like good old fashioned "pie in the face" slapstick, and this is low budget slapstick.
An actor who happens to become a star of a Western TV series, needs a double for anything more than stretching his arms. Everyone else makes fun of him behind his back.
There's a bit of self righteous scapegoating here, but it's slapstick, and that happens in slapstick. The lead character retains some dignity, even though he is a laughing stock.
The "twilight zone" aspect comes in when he does a show where he defeats Jesse James, only to be transported magically to the old West by the real Jesse James to be humiliated.
Why does Jesse James have so much power beyond the grave? Well, there is no reason, and since this is a comedy, you don't need a reason. Comedy ghosts and comedy ghost busters don't need logic.
If this was a serious piece, I could see having issues with it, but it's clearly a preposterous tale meant just for fun. The two lead characters have a lot of fun, and it is funny. Case closed.
This episode is about a very realistic looking robot who is a nanny for three kids.
As usual, the kids aren't very accepting of the nanny at first, and it isn't a spoiler to say that they eventually come to appreciate the robot nanny.
It's a very basic story. I notice that it flows very well, because it doesn't seem to take any time to tell the story, and that is actually a good sign. It means that the story flows well, and is told well.
The robot lady who cares for the kids can be seen as a metaphor for the human being who is divided from a larger body, perhaps the body of a good or bad god, who fulfills a lifetime experience and then experiences an answer to the question of whether it will unite again or divide again.
I'm not saying that it is a metaphor, but I do say that it is intended to be such a metaphor.
As usual, the kids aren't very accepting of the nanny at first, and it isn't a spoiler to say that they eventually come to appreciate the robot nanny.
It's a very basic story. I notice that it flows very well, because it doesn't seem to take any time to tell the story, and that is actually a good sign. It means that the story flows well, and is told well.
The robot lady who cares for the kids can be seen as a metaphor for the human being who is divided from a larger body, perhaps the body of a good or bad god, who fulfills a lifetime experience and then experiences an answer to the question of whether it will unite again or divide again.
I'm not saying that it is a metaphor, but I do say that it is intended to be such a metaphor.
This is a classic episode of the Twilight Zone.
Two astronauts, as depicted in the romantic days of the fifties and sixties, when space travel was seen in a light that wasn't very realistic, are on an asteroid and need to repair their ship.
Akins plays the mature one, and Maross plays the brat.
The astronaut played by Maross finds that there are "little people" , very microscopic, nearby, and he becomes a god to them. He has them build a statue of him. In a wild spoiled brat frenzy, he stomps around and murders many of the "little people".
The character played by Akins is appalled by this, and tries to get the other one to leave when the ship is repaired.
A lot of people really miss the point here. The point is "maturity". It so happens that the mature astronaut is the commander, but as astronauts, both of them are elite characters who already have much stewardship and much command. One of them is a a poor steward. It could just as well be the commander as the second in command.
Two astronauts, as depicted in the romantic days of the fifties and sixties, when space travel was seen in a light that wasn't very realistic, are on an asteroid and need to repair their ship.
Akins plays the mature one, and Maross plays the brat.
The astronaut played by Maross finds that there are "little people" , very microscopic, nearby, and he becomes a god to them. He has them build a statue of him. In a wild spoiled brat frenzy, he stomps around and murders many of the "little people".
The character played by Akins is appalled by this, and tries to get the other one to leave when the ship is repaired.
A lot of people really miss the point here. The point is "maturity". It so happens that the mature astronaut is the commander, but as astronauts, both of them are elite characters who already have much stewardship and much command. One of them is a a poor steward. It could just as well be the commander as the second in command.
During WW2 the "cockleshell heroes" actually did exist, and actually were ten men. Most of the "results" and "fates" depicted in this film are accurate.
Having watched a documentary on the real story, I personally felt the real story was more interesting, but the actors in this film were obviously interesting. If you're looking for Christopher Lee in the movie, you have to wait until the ten men are transported to their mission, as Lee plays the captain of the sub that takes them there.
Jose Ferrer got the better role in this movie. Trevor Howard plays a very stodgy and stiff and more stereotypical character, but all of the actors are very good here.
One trouble is that we really don't get to distinguish the nine men from each other during the movie, as their names are whipped by in quick takes, with two exceptions. The actors do a very top notch job, though. I would rather that the director give us more than a few seconds in the spurts with most of the characters.
It's a good and entertaining film, and close enough to the History (unless you're a real stickler) to enjoy as History.
Having watched a documentary on the real story, I personally felt the real story was more interesting, but the actors in this film were obviously interesting. If you're looking for Christopher Lee in the movie, you have to wait until the ten men are transported to their mission, as Lee plays the captain of the sub that takes them there.
Jose Ferrer got the better role in this movie. Trevor Howard plays a very stodgy and stiff and more stereotypical character, but all of the actors are very good here.
One trouble is that we really don't get to distinguish the nine men from each other during the movie, as their names are whipped by in quick takes, with two exceptions. The actors do a very top notch job, though. I would rather that the director give us more than a few seconds in the spurts with most of the characters.
It's a good and entertaining film, and close enough to the History (unless you're a real stickler) to enjoy as History.
This horror movie is the definition of "style over substance". It's a sequel to one of the worst horror movies ever made, and it does improve on that one, if only because it doesn't try to be anything serious.
The plot is undefined. Dr. Phibes tries to raise his beautiful wife from the dead with some unexplained secret in some unexplained way.
Like I said, there's no plot. There doesn't even seem to be a script, screenplay, or story. Just a bunch of action scenes plied together.
Phibes has a rival, but instead of killing his rival, he kills a bunch of innocent people for no reason.
His rival has more humanity than Phibes, but we get the feeling that we're supposed to care about Phibes, but there is no way that anyone who isn't a homicidal maniac can care about Phibes.
There is a weird orchestra and some dance scenes with the sexy gorgeous assistant to Phibes. They're nice to look at, for guys. It's part of the "style over substance".
The saving grace is that Phibes at least tries to save a couple of gorgeous women. At least that makes this better than the first Phibes movie.
The plot is undefined. Dr. Phibes tries to raise his beautiful wife from the dead with some unexplained secret in some unexplained way.
Like I said, there's no plot. There doesn't even seem to be a script, screenplay, or story. Just a bunch of action scenes plied together.
Phibes has a rival, but instead of killing his rival, he kills a bunch of innocent people for no reason.
His rival has more humanity than Phibes, but we get the feeling that we're supposed to care about Phibes, but there is no way that anyone who isn't a homicidal maniac can care about Phibes.
There is a weird orchestra and some dance scenes with the sexy gorgeous assistant to Phibes. They're nice to look at, for guys. It's part of the "style over substance".
The saving grace is that Phibes at least tries to save a couple of gorgeous women. At least that makes this better than the first Phibes movie.