Avaliações de planktonrules

Reggie (Terry-Thomas) is an adventurer and world traveler. However, he doesn't do it for fun...he does it because he is a writer and media celebrity whose adventures are eaten up by an eager public. What they don't know is that many of these 'adventures' are highly exaggerated and staged. But something unusual happens with his latest adventure, trekking across the desert...he gets lost and loses his handlers. As a result, he's stranded and stays with bedouins for some time...and comes back a changed man. Gone is the nice but egotistical guy. In its place is a sexist jerk who has learned from the bedouins 'how women should be treated'...which is essentially like property and drudges. Naturally, his wife is NOT thrilled when he eventually returns becasuse of his sexist attitudes. What's next? Well, the wife decides to write a book about the fathead...and Reggie is not pleased, as it will talk about the REAL Reggie!

While I liked the first portion of the film, what follows is VERY cliched...like something you've seen too many times in sitcoms. I would say more, but it would provide spoilers. Suffice to say, the story starts well but just doesn't manage to work overall. I blame the script mostly. Not a terrible film...but one that is really just a time-passer.

"Kill or Cure" is an unusual film. While the plot is that of an Agatha Christie story about her recurring characters, Tommy and Tuppence, the story has been altered to make it a comedy. So instead of the husband/wife duo, you have Terry-Thomas as the Captain...a private detective AND photographer (it seems being a private eye doesn't pay well...so he takes photos to make ends meet).

The story begins with a rich elderly woman hiring the Captain over the phone. She wants him to stay at a health clinic and investigate some crime...and she'll tell him about it when she sees him at the clinic. As for the clinic, it's a place which believes in taking all the fun out of life and replacing it with vegetable juices, physical therapy which is akin to torture, and keeping the residents freezing 'for their own good'...and, naturally, the Captain hates it. However, before he can meet the old lady, she's murdered...and there's a large reward for solving the crime. However, it's not as easy as all that...as he'll soon find out for himself.

Terry-Thomas could be very funny. However, apart from the potentially funny setting, not enough is made of it when it comes to laughs. Now I am NOT saying it's a bad film...but it certainly isn't exactly a comedy though it is supposed to be. An okay offering...very watchable but missing what it needs to be a must-see.

"A Shield for Murder: Part 2" is the second of a two-part episode. Part 1 was very exciting...part 2 is even better...and well worth your time.

In part 1, Kojak is seeking information on a woman who was convicted of murdering her mother. The woman says she was guilty and is now in prison in a psychiatric ward. She clearly is mentally ill. But despite this, Kojak befriends her and comes to think she isn't guilty after all This second part consists of Kojak investigating and a HUGE number of folks in high places trying to stop him. The reasons why...well, you'll learn at that by the end.

Kojak is harassed by a hitman, Internal Affairs, the Prosecutor's office, other cops and an evil and manipulative woman. Of course, he IS Kojak and you know he won't stop until justice is served.

Overall, a VERY exciting and well written episode...one of the best of the series. And, a chance for Kojak to mostly work on his own...as he's a VERY determined man.

"A Shield for Murder: Part 1" is the first of a two-part episode. It is essentially a made for TV movie...much like they made after the series officially ended, as they continued to make a few made for TV Kojak movies.

The story begins with Kojak telling a prosecutor from the DA's office what he thinks of the guy...and it sure isn't nice! It seems that Assistant DA Burton is more concerned about convictions and a political career than whether the people he prosecutes are guilty. Just then, a gun-wielding guy tries to kill Burton...but the police manage to stop him. This has Kojak wondering...why would this guy try to kill the Assistant DA...especially when the shooter has no criminal history. Kojak cannot let this thought go...and soon it leads him to a woman convicted of her mother. What does all this mean? Well, for asking these questions, suddenly all sorts of folks take notice...and some sort of conspiracy is happening here. What and how hight does it go? That will be answered in part two.

This is a very good episode and it ends with someone calling Kojak and offering to tell him more about the case. That meeting also is in part two.

A very strong and interesting story and a chance for the show to be pretty much on Telly Savalas' shoulders alone (most of the men at the precinct have little to do as Kojak mostly investigates on his own). Very interesting and well worth seeing...provided you also tune in to the second episode.

Much of "By Silence Betrayed" reminds me of the classic film "On the Waterfront" which I watched again just a couple weeks ago. Both are about dock workers ('longshoremen') who are pushed around by mobsters but who won't talk because of some silly unwritten 'code'. In this case, Kojak and his men try to get through this code and clean up the gang activity on the docks.

The episode begins with some hoods trying to get a dock supervisor to 'play ball'. He refuses...and his corpse is soon fished out of the river by the cops. Even though the dead guy's friends know what happened, they refuse to become snitches to the police. How can the cops break through to these guys that they CAN'T handle it on their own and they need to cooperate with the police? Well, they can try to squeeze the various dock workers...especially Gino.

This is a very good and familiar sort of plot. It's also, perhaps, a bit too familiar...making it a bit less original than many "Kojak" scripts.

"A Hair-Trigger Away" is anepisode of "Kojak" with a rather amazing cast of guest stars...most of which became famous soon after the show. Irene Cara, Morgan Fairchild, Dan Hedaya, Hurd Hatfield, and Lynn Redgrave all have major parts in the show.

Len is an undercover cop with a REALLY strange personal life. While he's working hard to bust a big drug cartel, his own girlfriend is an addict...and he knows it. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, he's working hard to get these creeps. However, when he and his partner are about to catch one of the big dealers, he accidentally shoots and kills his partner...partly because he was involved in a gun battle with the dealer. However, no one wants to work with Len now...and, of course, Kojak takes it personal and gets involved.

This is not a great episode despite all the interesting guest stars....mostly because I cannot imagine any police force letting a guy with a junkie girlfriend remain on duty...particularly this sort of duty. Still, it is an enjoyable and interesting episode...and is worth your time.

When the story begins, two undercover cops spot a couple guys stealing a car battery...not exactly big time crime, but a crime nevertheless. They arrest the two thieves and when they are trying to bring them in, some of the family of the accused assemble and things get rather crazy. Soon, one of the crooks grabs one of the cops' guns and aims it at the other cop. Despite telling him a couple times to drop the gun, the crook doesn't...and the cop, justifiably, shoots him dead. It's a horrible scenario...one that is a total waste. However, soon it goes from a regrettable shooting to a case of the neighborhood versus the cops...and all sorts of folks get involved who never even saw the altercation! What's next in an apparent rush to judgment by some?

This is an exceptionally and well-balanced episode that is as timely now as it was back in the 1970s. The show is very careful NOT to justify all cop shootings but focus on this specific case only...whereas a lot of angry and disenfranchised folks want a pound of flesh for many past wrongs. It really makes you think and helps you understand how difficult cases like this can be. Well worth seeing.

The episode begins with police surveillance in a park. It seems some pervert has been molesting children and it's happened twice in the park recently. And, the perpetrator is caught when he's about to have his third victim in the same park when the police catch him. But there's a problem. Despite catching him and having eye witnesses, it turns out he has diplomatic immunity and the feds are using him for something big...and the feds want the police to release him! But the guy is a serial molester...and it's not like he's going to stop after he's released. What's next with this frustrating case?

All in all, this is an excellent episode...with a very interesting twist at the end. Well worth seeing and well written.

I went to see the new "Superman" movie yesterday and already there are over 2000 reviews for the movie and it's already earned back every dime they put into the movie...and it only debuted a few days ago! Clearly, this is a blockbuster movie...and because of all the positive stuff I've been told about it by friends, I decided to see the movie even though I am not a huge fan of superhero movies. Fortunately, I did enjoy the movie very much and would also recommend you see it.

Because there are so many reviews so far, I'm not going to do a very lengthy review or talk a lot about the plot...all that's been done many, many times already. Instead I want to talk about what I liked and disliked about the movie.

On the positive side, the film is rousing and tends to elicit all sorts of positive emotions in the viewers. It is a real crowd pleaser. There also are some really terrific performances and the story won't disappoint. In a few words, it's a great film.

However, despite giving the movie a 9, there were a few small things I didn't like. First and foremost, I hated the character Cat Grant in the movie. In the comics, she's a complex, competent newspaper editor. Here in the movie, she is simply a hot woman with a pushup bra and a shirt unbuttoned way too far to take her seriously. She also has little, if any, character development and there's no reason for her to be in the movie. Second, the first third or so of the movie is dark...a think I usually hate in superhero movies. Fortunately, it does get better as the film progresses. Third, the film is overwhelming, as there are so many huge, huge stunts and action. You get a bit of action fatigue as the film progresses. But these are all minor quibbles...small reasons I couldn't justify giving the movie a 10. Well worth your time.

By the way, it was great seeing Cincinnati's Union Terminal in the movie and I am surprised you don't see this art deco masterpiece more often in films. It made for a great headquarters for Green Latern #8 and his cohorts. If you ever are in this town, by all means visit. It houses some nice museums and is a delight on the eyes.

Roger is an incredibly angry man. He feels as if the world is out to get him and he treats everyone around him like garbage..often screaming at folks over the slightest supposed provocation. But these might just be his better qualities! Roger also later confesses to killing people who have wronged the public...sort of like a consumer advocate and Norman Bates all rolled into one. The problem is that his story isn't consistent. Is it possible some OTHER person is responsible for these crimes?

As IMDB rightfully points out in the Trivia section, the police aren't exactly at their best in this episode. Read up about nearly capturing the man and his getaway...and this was at the beginning of the episode! Additionally, the police use everything but a truncheon on the guy to get him to confess once he's caught! Great cops, huh?!

The lack of subtlety and the ineffectiveness and brutality of the police make this a very weak episode. Also, at the end, Crocker shoots a guy and he flies out a window. Bullets do NOT do that...you don't go flying backwards when shot with a .38...only on TV and in movies. Enjoyable to watch? Sure...but not a top episode...though the twist in the story is very interesting and so it's not a bad episode...just a weak one.

Before watching "The Lady and the Highwayman", you might want a bit of historical background. Charles I was a terrible king who constantly battled with Parliament...literally and figuratively. In essence, he believed the king had ALL authority and Parliament believed the king and this body shared power. Again and again, a series of wars broke out between the king's and parliament's forces. Most of the time, the king's forces lost....he made promises to play nice and conceded some power to Parliament...only to completely ignore all his promises shortly thereafter. Eventually, after thousands of deaths, Parliament got so sick of it, they executed Charles. The Brits tend to look at this as a bad thing. As an American, I always thought Charles brought it on himself and deserved it.

Following this execution, Parliament began squabbling with itself and the leader of Parliament, Cromwell, got sick of it and essentially made himself a dictator...the 'Lord Protector'. He was NOT a great leader and the country went through a period of repression.

Upon Oliver Cromwell's death, his son, Richard, became Lord Protector and soon relinquished the title in favor of the dead king's son, Charles II, assuming the crown once again. Charles II was a terrible king...as was his heir, his brother James II and soon James was forced to flee Britain lest Parliament once again execute a king.

I mention all this because essentially the kings and Parliament sucked...though this film takes the popular modern stance that Charles II was pretty cool. He wasn't. He was an absolutist monarch like his father and he, his father and James II were all weasels who believed strongly in the divine right of kings...something sane people today cannot comprehend. Barbara Cartland's novel picks up just as Charles has returned to assume the throne.

A young royalist, Panthea (from a family whose allegiance was to the king), is tricked by an evil mustach-twirling sort of villain, who is a roundhead (loyal to Parliament), into marrying her. On their wedding day, he shows exactly who he is when kicks her dog to death for kicks! Just then, a highwayman arrives and fights a duel with the creep...and kills him...saving Lady Vyne from a life of misery with her evil hubby. Hizzah! But who is this masked highwayman and what will he do next? The rest of the story has to do with this highwayman as well as the relationship between King Charles II and his mistress.

This is a pretty made for TV movie with nice costumes, lovely location shooting and a star-studded cast of Brits including Emma Samms, High Grant, Michael York, Oliver Reed, John Mills, Claire Bloom, Robert Morley and many other familiar faces. I think these are the best aspects of the film.

Apart from these lovely things, the plot and writing are okay...though a bit cartoony and one-dimensional. I think in particular, the new evil hubby kicking the doggy to death was definitely a case of 'overkill'...too over the top to be taken very seriously.

Overall, if you want a good historical piece, you could do a lot better. If you are more concerned about romance, heaving bosoms and the like, then you'll likely enjoy the film.

I am a Sherlock Holmes purist. I think that the original Conan Doyle stories are the best and I also think the Jeremy Brett versions of his stories are the best. However, I must admit that I did enjoy "A Study in Terror" even though it is neither...neither an original Conan Doyle story nor stars Jeremy Brett. In fact, it's based on real facts and fiction...making it an unusual film. What also is unusual is how graphic the movie is, at least by 1960s standards.

The story is set during the time of Jack the Ripper. Holmes is naturally curious about the case and sets out to investigate. Using actual case facts (such as the names of his victims, locations, as well as severity of the brutal deaths), this fictional detective comes up with what seems like a plausible solution to the crimes.

John Neville is excellent as Holmes without some of the usual eccentricities which many think are Holmes but which bear little semblance to the original character. I think, in contrast, Watson was a bit of a dud...just okay. But the script is the best part...exciting and well done...with many nice nods to prior Holmes stories and some consistent characterizations. Most enjoyable...albeit a bit bloody.

A small patrol of British soldiers are sent out to locate the German fuel depot and destroy it during the North African campaign of WWII. However, after carefully making their way to the dump and planting charges, they realize that there is something else there...something they MUST get back to the British lines to tell them. A huge number of German tanks are also hidden at the dump...and if the British learn of its location, they can bomb them. Unfortunately, this IS the North African desert and it's very tough going. Their vehicles eventually break down and the men are low on supplies. But they MUST get back...even if that means leaving their wounded behind.

This is a strong story about personal sacrifice and duty. It's the sort of rousing thing that is inspiring....provided you actually like war movies, and many do not. Good acting and an excellent script...well worth your time.

No overacting...subtle decent sets

"The Story of the Star-Spangled Banner" is a lovely film to look at, but, sadly, only one of the original two reels still exists. And, thie remaining first reel has portions missing or damaged...such as the title and opening credits.

The story covers Francis Scott Key's birth to the British bombardment of Ft. McHenry in Baltimore to the aftermath, when Key and the British noticed the American flag still flew over the fort in the morning. As to the writing of the poem which became the "Star-Spangled Banner" and its promotion, this is missing from the film.

I must say that what DOES remain is very nice. The costumes aren't perfect but very good for 1921 and the acting is really good. None of that silent movie hyperemoting here...just decent acting...and a nice score by Ben Model who apparently owned this copy of the film. Worth a look even if incomplete.

The 1910s were the heyday of slapstick movies. Slapstick films featured a lot of people hitting, kicking and/or shooting each other...all, supposedly, for laughs. However, most of these pictures don't hold up well today because of two reasons...there really was little in the way of plot AND all the violence got rather boring after a while because that WAS the laugh...or was supposed to be. "Willful Ambrose" is definitely a slapstick sort of film.

The film begins with Ambrose (Mack Swain) shooting out in the yard. Oddly, his daughter is standing right next to the target...so gun safety is not a priority in Ambrose's life. However, he accidentally ends up shooting the giant beer stein his wife bought him.

Ambrose seems to go out to buy an identical stein as a replacement. But he soon abandons this and all sorts of punching, shooting people and Ambrose forcing himself on a woman...none of which made me laugh in the least. It all ends with the wife showing up and hitting folks with a baseball bat. Again, none of which is very funny.

When seen in 1915 it must have been a riot. However, today I'd say the film lacks plot and laughs and I'm giving it a charitable 3.

By the way, what is with Ambrose's daughter?! She looks like an adult and plays like she's 6. Talk about creepy.

WWI prologue with romance.

Jumps to 1940...now he's captain Saville unnecessary but well made prologue wouldn't the Germans have kept them under lock and key? KJ

"Sailor of the King" is a remake of the 1935 film "Born for Glory" though the setting of the story has been changed from WWI to WWII in this remake. It surprised me because, oddly, the remake is about as good as the original.

The story begins during WWI...but this is just a prologue. It's well made...but also unnecessry for the rest of the story.

The story then picks up during WWII. The young officer in the first portion (Michael Rennie) is now the Captain of his own destroyer. However, like the prologue the story really is NOT about him. Instead, one destroyer pursuing the German ship Essen, is detroyed while the Captain's isn't. On the sunken ship was a young sailor (Jeffery Hunter), a Canadian who is responsible for communications between ships. The young sailor is rescued by the Germans and eventually he manages to escape AND is partially responsible for the sinking of the Essen. How? See the film.

The film is inspiring...a word I rarely use about any film, let alone a war film. But it has a great impact on the viewer, is very well made and manages to be very good despite being a reworking of the 1935 film.

I must point out first that I think the Jeremy Brett versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories are, by far, the best Holmes tales you can find. They generally stick very close to the original stories and Sherlock is much closer to the Conan Doyle version than any other. So, I tend to look less favorably on other incarnations of Sherlock Holmes as well as Holmes stories not written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Keep this in mind as you read this review.

In "Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death", the fine English actor Peter Cushing plays Holmes...and he does a good job playing the character. On hand are some other excellent actors...such as John Mills (as Watson), Ray Milland, Anton Diffring, Anne Baxter, and Gordon Jackson. Cushing's version of Holmes is elderly...and considering the story is set just before WWI, this is about how old the fictional detective would have been.

Sherlock is approached by a government minister as well as a top German official. They wish to hire Holmes to find a prince who disappeared...a prince dedicated to maintaining the peace in Europe on the eve of WWI. However, as Holmes investigates, he seems to think the enterprise is an elaborate plot to kill him. Additionally, there is some sort of underground factory in London! He also is surprised to meet an old 'adversary', Irene Adler (from the story "A Scandal in Bohemia"). How does she figure into the plot? See the film to find out for yourself.

The fact that the story would include Ms. Adler isn't too surprising as she's one of the most famous of all the characters in the Holmes stories, as she's one of the few who ever got the better of the famous detective. She also was featured in at least one other non-Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories.

So is this any good? Yes...in fact, it's one of the better non-Conan Doyle stories about Sherlock Holmes. Much of this is due to the acting and the story itself is fascinating. Surprisingly, I liked this one.

"Who's That Girl" is a film which bombed back when it debuted in 1987. I noticed that reviews for it on this site tended to either love the film or hate it. I found myself in the latter category. Why? Well, Madonna plays one of the most annoying leading characters I've seen in a very long time. I do think SOME of the problem was also Madonna's voice...but I also noticed in later films she sounded much better and I assume she took some voice and diction lessons. In the film, it's just grating. But I don't completely blame her...after all she was new to acting. Instead, I blame the ineffective director and writers who seemed to have no idea how to make her character likable in any way. Kooky? Yes...but too much so!

The film begins with an animated segment where you see Madonna's character, Nikki, was set up for a murder she didn't commit. The film then enters the real world and she's about to be released from prison. Inexplicably, Mr. Worthington asks his future son-in-law, Loudon, to drive her to the train station upon her release...something really not explained to Loudon. Why he agreed, I have no idea.

From the minute Loudon meets Nikki, she is abrasive, annoying, dangerous and won't listen at all to him. It's so bad you wonder why Loudon didn't just call it a day and go home...or call the police when she began breaking laws and nearly killing him. In many ways, it's how I felt at this point...why am I continuing to watch a movie THIS annoying?

In many ways, the film is trying to recreate the screwball comedies of the 1930s and 40s...particularly "Bringing Up Baby". But these old films worked well because they featured very experienced actresses. Asking Madonna to do a role once suited to Katharine Hepburn ("Bringing Up Baby") or Rosalind Russell ("His Girl Friday") just seems like it's setting her up for failure...not just because of her inexperience but because you dislike her character THAT much. You didn't hate the women in the classic screwball comedies.

Overall, a film I really had to struggle to finish. I know Madonna was anxious to prove herself as an actress but in hindsight, this was NOT the project.

Mark Lester plays Philip, a boy afflicted with psychological mutism. In other words, he hasn't talked in years despite his parents taking him to experts. However, his depression is alleviated some when he forms a special bond with an albino horse. He also develops important friendships with the Colonel (John Mills) as well as a young girl and a pet Kestel (a type of falcon). Will any of these be enough to help bring Philip out of his mutism and depression?

Did I like the movie? Yes and no. I really liked the evocative music (oddly one reviewer really hated it), John Mills' natural acting as well as the location shoot in Dartmoor. I wasn't 100% thrilled by Mark Lester's performance (it just didn't seem very natural and it's odd he cannot talk yet uses almost no signs nor writes to voice his mind), the underdeveloped parents (they seemed to just be there and weren't well rounded characters) as well as the animal torment (which I'll talk about below). Overall, a decent movie that with a few tweaks would have been much better.

By the way, I noticed a review complained about the treatment of the animals in the film. At first, I assumed the reviewer was some nut. However, there's a scene where the kestrel (falcon) is horribly abused and it sure looked 100% real. If it wasn't real, why didn't the film say so? I can't see how the film got away with this...in the States it would violate laws created to protect birds of prey...even little ones like the kestrel. The folks who made this film should be ashamed of having Mark Lester treat the bird this way.

By the way, this is NOT a major complaint. However, I found it odd how Mills' character seemed to know so much about birds of prey and yet he alternated in calling the falcoln a Kestrel (the appropriate name to this type of falcon) and a hawk...which is not closely related to falcons at all.

A few years ago, "Dunkirk" made quite a splash with critics. It also garnered three Oscars, though they were for the categories that most people don't particularly care about one way or another, such as Best Achievement in Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing. However, despite being a very good looking movie, I actually prefer this 1958 version. Why? Well, the film manages to have more story about individual soldiers. It also shows a lot of the events leading up to the Dunkirk evacuation.

Now I am not saying the 1958 version is perfect. Two minor problems I noticed...the use of VERY grainy stock footage for Stuka dive bombers as well as too few extras on the beaches of Dunkirk. In reality, there were over 300,000 men resuced there...and the film rarely has more than perhaps a thousand in the biggest scenes. It's all about money...and both apparently were cost prohibitive.

Overall, this is a terrific war film that gives you a real feel about the people...the soldiers, the citizen sailors and the folks in charge. Well worth seeing.

E. W. Hornung was the brother-in-law of Arthur Conan Doyle...the man who wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories. Interestingly, Hornung also wrote detective stories but with an anti-hero, the gentleman thief, A. J. Raffles. I am somewhat of an expert on Holmes, having read all of the original stories...but Raffles? No, I've never read any of the stories and only saw a few movies they've made over the years. So this review is NOT from anyone who will spot flaws in the characterization...I'm just not that well educated on the character.

In this story, Nigel Havers ably plays Raffles. He is an upper class Brit who loves to steal...mostly from people he thinks deserve it. In the case of this story, Monty Sinclair is upper class...technically speaking. But he's a classless jerk who, in Raffles' mind, deserves to be taken. In this case, Sinclair owns an enormous ruby...and Raffles intends to rid him of it. But there are serious complications...and Raffles might just have to change his plans for the ruby.

This is a very enjoyable film and I liked Havers in the lead. However, I also think the film was missing something...such as a neat sidekick like in the "Campion" series. Still, it's worth your time and is reasonably well made.

Currently, "The End of the Road" is one of the higher rated episodes of "Poker Face", as a more than respectable score of 8.2--with the most common score being a 10. Oddly, the two featured reviews give it a 1! What is going on here?! Clearly some folks seem really invested in both directions to make the episode either look great or godawful. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

The episode is the culmination of MANY small clues about the identity of the killer who may be targeting Beatrix Hasp. As such, you really needed to be watching all of season two and paying careful attention. My oldest daughter guessed early on who the killer was based on these clues.

So why did I dislike the episode enough to give it a 5? Well, in the final episode you literally have a lengthy sequence where there is a recap of EVERY freakin' clue and it essentially spoon feeds the reader...to the point of making it an episode more for someone who skipped many of the episodes. But to devoted series fans like my family, it seemed like too much exposition and dumbing down the story too much. As a result, we all felt a bit let down by the end of the story. Not terrible but quite disappointing...but to give it a 1 or a 10...well that seems unreasonable.

Burl Stote is on trial for a murder committed several years ago. The main witness in the case is Crocker, though some of Crocker's testimony has been thrown out by the judge and the case is thin without more. But several of the witnesses have moved or refused to testify or aren't reliable or have died...supposedly by accident. However, when the story begins, you see Burl's brother murder one of the witnesses. As a result, Kojak and his men must find other witnesses and convince them to testify. Plus, getting them to testify might save their lives, as Burl's nasty brother is more than willing to kill more folks to free him.

This is an interesting episode about a side of police work and prosecution you often don't hear much about otherwise. An interesting case...and one well worth seeing.

Detective Braddock is a real mess. Following his son's death, his wife has become seriously clinically depressed and even delusional. The Detective has dealt with her illness by having an affair. The wife has apparently learned of her husband's indiscretions and has decided to end the affair...by tossing a Molotov Cocktail into a cafe where the mistress was waiting for him! Instead of coming clean about his knowing one of the victims (his mistress), Detective Braddock keeps it to himself and 'investigates' the case his way...to protect himself from being associated with the victim...who also happened to be a junkie. You can't help but think that the truth will come out sooner or later during this hot, sweaty summer.

I think Fionnula Flanagan did a great job of playing the Detective's sick wife, Molly. She managed to convey, very clearly, just how insane she was in this standout performance.

This is a profoundly sad episode...one of the saddest of the series. It will likely leave you shaken and, perhaps, a bit teary. Exceptional.

"A Black Veil for Lisa" is an Italian-German co-production with a Brit in the lead. This sort of multinational production wasn't too unusual for 1960s films. My only complaint is the dubbing, as several men were dubbed by Paul Frees...and they all ended up sounding like his Boris Badenov from "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle"!

In this story, John Mills stars as a police detective investigating a serial killer. At the same time, he's married to a woman nearly 30 years younger than him and he begins to suspect she's cheating on him...especially after he begins checking on her whereabouts. Eventually, he hires an assassin to kill her...with very unsuspected results.

This film has a strong late 60s vibe, when British movies became much more permissive. You see women getting beaten, folks involved in adulterous affairs as well as nudity. It's certainly NOT the sort of film they could have made a decade earlier.

It also is a film which SHOULD have been so much better...especially with John Mills in the lead. Instead, it just comes off as okay....at best. Choppy edits, the overuse of Paul Frees for dubbing as well as indifferent direction...this one is just a passable time-passer.