mrarchiegoodwin

Overall I liked this movie until I read half the reviews--done before, simplistic, not realistic, etc. It is not a GREAT sci fi movie, but it is not as ridiculous as most of the genre. Best feature is that none of the major characters behave idiotically to further the plot. One never feels compelled to yell "Turn around, stupid!" or "No. Don't go into the basement alone!" or "Please turn on the lights!" or (to the heroine) "Don't you remember it's invulnerable to bullets?" The heroine is afraid throughout the movie (shouldn't she be?), but is she irrational at any time? The curmudgeonly, wheelchair-bound senior researcher is trapped on an upper floor, but does he emerge at the end from his place of hiding behind the computer console? The detective is disbelieving at first, but does he obstruct and endanger in the end? The science may be unbelievable (it's like finding a mummy curse) and that prevents this from being a great sci fi, but the behavior of the characters seems authentic (researchers who know their environment) and that is this movie's major strength.

I chanced upon Tremors by accident and was enthralled. Great flick. I could not believe my luck when I happened upon Tremors 2. Not as great. In the first movie the town had to defend itself against the unknown. The highly individual personalities banded together in a reasonable, sometimes inspired, response to astonishing monsters--for their own survival. In Tremors 2 it was more like a seek and destroy mission that almost had me rooting for the creatures. It might have been because the human characters lacked the variety of the original--I kept wondering why Mrs Gummer left such a sympatico husband. And Fred Ward's character soured a bit. With such a great first movie I had hoped the entire surviving cast would have been brought back. I understand there is a Tremors 3 and I hope it is a winner.

I attended a first release screening of this movie with friends from school. We were intrigued by the premise and how it would be translated into story and sets. Imagine Shangri La, a subtropical micro climate valley hidden by the vast Himalayas and built over centuries by those whose long lives allow the accumulation of great wisdom. Would senior residents speak with posh British accents while younger members look like extras from South Pacific? The "Bangkok Hilton" sets (buildings with verdegris patina and garden pools festooned with rampant tropical blossoms) made me squirm. Then I think Liv Ulmann closed a door that sounded like hollow core--yoicks. My friends and I began sniggering. The audience shushed us indignantly. It might have been a Bobby Van number that set us howling. By then others in the audience could not contain themselves either, but at the time neither could they bring themselves to laugh--it was hyped as a major Hollywood undertaking. Most people just groaned a lot. Too bad Mel Brooks was not given this assignment from the start.

There are not many movies filmed in exotic Istanbul for the western audience. I was hoping for something similar to Topkapi, but this is not in that league. However it is not bad for a low grade secret agent flick. Tony Kendall saunters through the sets pretending to be a cross between Dean Martin and John Gavin. Brad Harris seems to have fun playing GI Joe/G Man in a suit. The story has so many twists and scene changes that it could have been released as 3 different movies--since it was dubbed who would have known? Perhaps this deserves a viewing because it tries so hard to be entertaining. Most effective is the use of Istanbul's settings and environs for unique treatments and stunts (with the major exception of not showing the interiors of the great mosques). This may be the best of the Kommissar X series.

I saw portions of this on TV as a child and could not forgot it. By luck I was able to see the whole movie as a video recently. It is episodic, but not badly paced for 1964. The sets are exotic (although surely not India where it is supposed to take place). Richard Harrison is pretty good for an unknown. The story is intricate and there are hardly any holes (for a cheap movie) in the plot. The best part is when the movie is woven into a genuine historic event. A fun time.

This is my favorite fantasy movie--makes me nostalgic for a USA I never knew and where I might not have been welcome, but what a place it might have been. Full of anticipation, the movie suggests a country and its people on the verge of greatness--the same story of our country retold many times. Rocketeer and pioneer--synonymous with the excitement of an unfolding adventure and, in this case, filled with the daily customs and familiarities of those who were either the protagonists or their witnesses.

Powerful components dazzle the viewer: melodic, brassy and triumphant music; luscious photography one could almost taste; comic book sets more intimate and more grand than real life; action-packed direction to beat the second hand; and a near-perfect cast (imagine actors other than Bill Campbell and Alan Arkin) for one of the ultimate feel good movies.

Admittedly, the Dave Stevens graphic novel offered more gristle, stronger counterpoint and puzzles to titillate, but it had to pass the Disney taste test to be allowed to emerge as a full blown movie--and at Disney everything must be sweet. Occasionally I allow myself dessert.

Another good idea poorly executed with pot holes in the story line, improbable action and one dimensional characters. Thoughtful Lindsay Frost (Hutch as a woman) and hard case Bill Paxton (Starsky as a man) stumble onto a zany murder (pretty, vulnerable and distraught, young Russian scientist tries to run down and then succeeds in discharging a firearm into a little boy). Evil Fed agent John Hurt takes custody of the murderer from police Captain Lou Gossett. Shortly thereafter, havoc ensues as discreet portions of Los Angeles are terrorized by the evil of the Monolith (the term is not used in the film so one assumes that Monolith refers to the evil or its source). Starsky & Hutch pursue the invincible evil being--continuing to shoot at it even though they discover early on that it is invulnerable (but everyone in the movie seems to shoot at it as well--to no avail). John Hurt is 100% bad--including his acting. Bill Paxton has greasy dark hair. Lindsay Frost has really skinny jeans for a cop. Lou Gossett and the Squad Room could be recycled into another movie--any other movie. Perhaps this was originally made for TV and commercial breaks were integral to the plot.

Lou Ferrigno fans will not be disappointed--he is the best part of this dismal production. Lou is far from being in his best physical condition (similar to the way he looked in the movie Cage). He wears a Hercules-type outfit throughout, but does not show off in any muscle-flexing events. Even when he runs (and this happens surprisingly often) there are no close-ups or slow motions. Obviously he was not selected for his pulchritude. Perhaps the director was trying to showcase Lou's acting ability instead. Lou is fairly good at pretending to be sad and not so good at acting angry (also similar to Cage). Yet his acting is better than anything in the rest of this movie. It is even better than that of most of the other players (or were they customers selected at random from a Walmart parking lot?)--one could not enunciate his lines enough to be heard and another's slight accent undermined the authority of his character. The sets are truly cheap without any redeeming innovations. The equipment is pathetic and contributes to the farce. And there is barely any continuity or logic to the story line--a pity because the basic premise is decent sci-fi and the ending both uplifting and conclusive of the opening scene.