pmicocci

This is one of my least favorite episodes of the series. Instead of sticking to the Ambrose Bierce short story, this version turns it completely on its head by making it a series of flashbacks, instead of the time-telescoped story that Bierce wrote. There was a French short made of the same story in 1962, which was incidentally seen by Rod Serling at a French film festival and bought by him to air as the last episode of season 5 of "The Twilight Zone"; this version is far more faithful to the original story and far superior to the Hitchcock one. It is also one of the very few times I could say that an episode of "The Twilight Zone" was superior to an episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents". I really detest it when Hollywood does a version of a classic but decides to "improve" on it, which is almost never the result.

I would have given this more stars but for the contrived ending that sort of ruined the whole thing for me. Up until that point, I was seriously considering this work to be the equal of any work by Ingmar Bergman. Despite the corny ending, I still think that Sandy Dennis was easily the equivalent of Liv Ullman or Isabelle Hupert. It's shame that she died when she did, and I don't think she ever really received the accolades that she was due. Of course there was her work in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff", in which she played a supporting role, and lighter fare such as "The Out of Towners", but one viewing of "That Cold Day in the Park" should be enough to convince any discerning viewer that Sandy Dennis was a great talent that was taken away far too soon.

I have to say that the contributors who have addressed either "factual errors", "technical goofs", or otherwise apparently have little familiarity with the overall work of Jean-Luc Godard. This guy is not the least bit concerned with the standard questions of continuity, factual and contemporaneous representation, plagiarism, or almost any other standard which envelopes Hollywood films - indeed, he has spent his career demolishing these standards. Just a cursory glance at the filmic and literary references throughout the film should make it apparent: Professor Vonbraun, who was originally named "Leonard Nosferatu", Heckell and Jeckell, Dick Tracy! What more do you need to recognize that Godard will steal from anyone and anything, will deliberately obfuscate, will twist anything to his purpose... which is perhaps never entirely clear to anyone, maybe not even the director himself.

The only bad thing I can say about this movie is that it was eerily prescient, and still not beyond the realm of reality. Warning, extreme danger... ... even though I'm a shareholder... .."the changes that keep going' round..." A movie that could make make even Barry McGuire and hippie-speak relevant... And if you don't find the subject matter of this film relevant, you're probably one of the Board of Directors... It is hard... to say much more... that would not be extraneous, but IMDb demands it for some completely asinine reason which requires me to go on writing far more than is merited in any film review apart from an actual synopsis of the film, which would not serve anyone's purpose...

Anyway, IMDb... Since this film is currently on reruns on Xvwerse, or ATTWhatsity TV, or whatever media conglomerate services your TV, try to catch it and get a laugh, especially if you have any vague memories od branch dialing and party lines...

If the first of this seemingly interminable series was rather far-fetched, at least it didn't push to the extremes of absurdity (well, maybe not more than a few times); Jurassic Park III does practically from the start. Dinosaurs and pterosaurs are constantly depicted exhibiting traits that might be believable in primates, dog packs or even domesticated animals but would be ridiculous to attribute to reptiles; the writers go so far as to mention the "alpha male" of a pack of large herbivores - I guess that makes it sound more "authentic"... Even in the original movie such behavior strained credibility past the breaking point on a few occasions, such as having a dinosaur burst through solid walls as if it recognized what a wall is and anticipated what would be on the other side - was that a tyrannosaurus or Godzilla? How many wild animals has anyone ever seen demonstrate such behavior? With each movie the 'raptors become more and more fiendishly clever; by the time V or VI rolls out (probably on direct-to-video), you might almost expect to hear one of them say, "I am your father!"

The funny thing about time travel is that our hapless heroes never seemed to travel to any time or place where nothing was happening. Either I (and almost all of the rest of the earth's population) have been leading an unusally boring life or these guys had the most incredibly bad luck! Just imagine, no sooner do you escape one perilous event in history by the skin of your teeth than you're thrown into another, possibly worse scrape! TV sure is dangerous work!

...that should have stayed hidden! Whatever else this movie might have going for it, Craig T. Nelson's singing is definitely not one of them. The soundtrack to this movie could be released as a special package deal along with those memorable records by other such unsuspected vocal talents as William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

... that so many people have NOT seen the original movie version! My God, even if you didn't see it in the theater (I was a little young for that sort of thing when it was initially released) and haven't see on DVD or VHS, it shows up on TV (at least in the US) once or twice a year! As far as this version goes, the only acting by the principals that comes anywhere near in quality to the originals is that of Sam Neill, and Rod Steiger would be a pretty hard act for anyone to follow.

Read the novel. Watch the movie. Note the world of difference. I don't care how gorgeous Sonia Braga looks, this movie isn't even the ghost of the novel on which it was based. One of the most disappointing adaptations of a fine piece of literature since Kon Ichikawa's "Enjo".

Until film directors or writers can transmit information telepathically, I believe it's a complete waste of time to try to make a movie based on a novel like Mishima's "Temple of the Golden Pavilion". This movie is basically only a sequence of episodic occurrences without any explanation of the thoughts, feelings, and obsession that drove Mizoguchi to his final, self-destructive act; the novel, on the other hand, is almost completely dominated by such explanation, and the episodes depicted in this film serve in the novel essentially as jumping-off points for Mizoguchi's expostulations on beauty, deformity, isolation, etc. The very essence of his story is exactly what's missing from this film, and its absence renders the movie incomprehensible to those who haven't first read the novel. I watched it within a couple of weeks of having read "Temple of the Golden Pavilion" and so had a good idea of the story; my wife had not read it and found the story frankly puzzling, and I was at a loss as to how to explain to her Mizoguchi's motivations for his actions. The episode of his defacing the scabbard of the naval cadet's scabbard, for example, comes across in the movie as just a peevish act of petty revenge for the other students mocking his stammer. Completely absent from the movie are such central issues as his feelings towards his father and, especially, his mother (including the traumatic experience of witnessing his mother's adultery, which passes almost invisibly in the movie); his feelings towards the Superior and his need to rouse the old man to anger and condemnation; his relationships with Kashiwagi and with Tsurukawa (the latter missing entirely from the movie); and above all, his overarching obsession with the Golden Pavilion itself and all it symbolizes to him. From the movie alone, one gets the impression that the almost completely inarticulate monk just suddenly decides to burn the temple down for virtually no reason, whereas in the novel, he explains frequently and at almost exhausting length what the Golden Pavilion means to him and why he comes to decide that he has to destroy it. Where, for instance, in the movie is even the hint that his obsession with the Golden Pavilion renders him essentially impotent? By his telling in the novel, that is one of the main factors of his desperation. This movie is only a paltry shell of the work on which it was based. If you must watch it, read "Temple of the Golden Pavilion" shortly before you do, or you'll be completely at sea!

I agree with the previous comments concerning this production, and I would like to add that it demonstrates a complete innocence of knowledge of Roman history as well. It's amazing that, being such puling, punkish little perverts, as they are depicted almost without exception, the Romans managed to more or less hold an empire together for another four centuries (despite the sententious pronouncement that "here the Roman Empire stands or crumbles"). The only Romans that appear to have more than a few decades on them are Claudius and Seutonius. Nero looks like he's suffering from a combination of tuberculosis and malaria; and he seems to have been conflated with Caligula, showing a penchant for strutting around in armor more appropriate in the son of a famous general who grew up in army camps in Gaul than in the haughty, patrician artist the historic Nero appears to have fancied himself to be. I guess all those emperors look the same from a distance of a couple of millennia. Also, there appears to have been a distinct lack of sunlight (not to mention personal hygiene) in the first century AD. All in all, I suppose it's slightly more authentic than an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess.