aqqs10
Joined May 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
aqqs10's rating
Usually the film remakes of 'classic' TV shows are nowhere near the standard of the TV version.
Now I have to be honest and say that I haven't seen this movie. The reason is simple - the TV show was the most stupid, mind-numbingly ridiculous pile of trash that has ever disgraced a TV screen. That being so, the rule I mentioned above means that film version will be even more execrable. To think that the BBC dropped 'The Rockford Files' to show this drivel still, after 25 years, amazes me. The only good thing about the TV series was Catherine Bach.
Perhaps the funniest thing about this big screen version was a comment by one of the actors from the TV version. He thought the movie spoiled a 'classic' TV show ! Fatuous would be a more apt description.
Now I have to be honest and say that I haven't seen this movie. The reason is simple - the TV show was the most stupid, mind-numbingly ridiculous pile of trash that has ever disgraced a TV screen. That being so, the rule I mentioned above means that film version will be even more execrable. To think that the BBC dropped 'The Rockford Files' to show this drivel still, after 25 years, amazes me. The only good thing about the TV series was Catherine Bach.
Perhaps the funniest thing about this big screen version was a comment by one of the actors from the TV version. He thought the movie spoiled a 'classic' TV show ! Fatuous would be a more apt description.
I know Hollywoods propensity for retreading or rehashing earlier films - it's so much easier than thinking - but hasn't anyone noticed that the 'plot' is a complete rip-off of the 1985 film 'Prizzi's Honour' made with Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson, which was in turn taken from the novel by the brilliant, late, writer Richard Condon. At least the remake of his novel 'The Manchurian Candidate' last year gave some acknowledgement even though it was probably far inferior to the Harvey/Sinatra film of 1959.
I'll probably go to see this but I doubt if it will be a patch on the Turner/Nicholson film.
I'll probably go to see this but I doubt if it will be a patch on the Turner/Nicholson film.
This is now on rerun on Sky in the UK. I watch it from time to time, but only make a point of seeing it if Mel Harris from thirtysomething is in it as Oma Desala. I suppose it's reasonably entertaining but as a sci fi fan ( I belong to the third group of StarWars people - I think they are all rubbish ) I don't think it is as cutting edge as the avid fan seems to think. Something that spoils it are slightly ridiculous alien character, many of whom look like refugees from a seance. Also the weapons the bad guys carry are just ridiculous - as bad as the hand phasers in Sar Trek.
I should say I've never seen the original film, and haven't got into all the mythology behind it.
I should say I've never seen the original film, and haven't got into all the mythology behind it.