Reviews

This series started out very promising and then petered out as if the authors couldn't figure out how to end what they started. No spoiler except to say that they pulled a classic "deus ex machina" out of a hat that no one could see coming and was not a logical inference from what went on before. Acting was well done and I feel sorry for the actors that had to work with this material. File this under "how do we end this now that we're stumped."

The location shooting was impressive and the villains were sufficiently evil and fleshed out to create real tension. But then time came for the big reveal and we were treated to a very wet firecracker.

Its pretty clear that they spent more of the production budget on costumes and makeup than they did on getting competent acting talent. So many holes in the plot that it is hard to suspend belief and really get into this. Give it a few points for a novel (albeit nonsensical) concept,

This might have worked as a concept, IF

The jokes were funny

The actors were not wooden amateurs

If there was some creative theme to hold it together.

None of those things apply to the movie. There is a smattering of nudity, but nothing actually erotic or exciting. Take a pass.

Let's see. Wooden amateurish acting that is embarrassing to watch. Stilted dialog. And to call it a story line is as generous as the 2.5 star rating. Cast must have had a large family packing the IMBD site.

BUT, the use of stop action is worth looking at. In the era of CGI and so forth, this throwback technology is hardly ever employed anymore. So, the one reason to watch is the stop action special effects. Fast forward through the rest of this dreck, but enjoy the special effects effort,

Sorry, I cannot join the chorus of enthusiastic support. It is true that the fight scenes are well choreographed and the twinning is effective. But...

Why does Spy Smasher wear a cape and goggles? He's not a super hero, has no special powers, so why bother with the outfit?

And for the first 8 or 9 episodes The Mask is always shown with a mask on, always hiding his identity. Then all of a sudden, from at least episode 10 on, The Mask never bothers to wear his mask. Why did he wear it at all? He's only wearing it when talking to his own henchmen. Or why did he stop? There was no big "reveal." Its not like all of a sudden we learn that The Mask was kindly old uncle so and so - he was a guy we had never seen before. So, who cares if he wears a mask or not?

I am a fan of the Republic serials, but this one seems weak even by Republic standards. Much better was Capt. Marvel, or even the Mysterious Doctor Satan.

I am a big Dr. Who fan, but admit I was not into the program at its origin. It is very hard to put yourself into the mindset of people seeing this for the first time in 1963. But curiosity and a desire to see the program from the start drove me to watch Season One.

First, prepare yourself for the fact that this is a kinescope (I think) of live TV. When an actor flubs a line, and that happens with some frequency, there is no edit and re-take. This is how it went out over the air. The boom mike at the top of the picture happens more than once. The sets and costumes are pretty cheesy. The backgrounds are obviously painting on flats. In short, this does not show the production values and quality of more resent seasons. Chalk this up to "you have to start somewhere."

Lastly, and I suppose this is HERESEY, but Hartnel is absolutely my least favorite incarnation of the Doctor. He is unnecessarily infuriating and obtuse. Worst of all, in Season One at least, he doesn't really do the heavy lifting on the story. The school teachers carry the narrative and are the stars. And while some of the aspects lay the ground work for later events (first invention of the daleks, for example) there is too much heavy-handed foreshadowing and predictability.

In short, you will want to watch this if you are compulsive about seeing the entire saga. Otherwise, if you take a pass on this historical curiosity, you are not missing much.

This stage show-to-film adaptation requires a certain familiarity with the guy group era and the music of the 1950's in order to be fully appreciated. The music is treated with great respect (perhaps more than it deserves) and the physical comedy mostly pokes very gentle fun at the Four Lads and the ilk. The characters are each well defined and these actors have lived the parts myriad times. They know their characters. If you have an ounce of empathy you will find yourself rooting for these so-earnest losers. These are the guys who were in the Audio-Visual Club at my high school and couldn't get a date on a bet. Times have changed but you knew people like this in high school, or maybe even were one of them. If only we could each get that one moment of perfect glory.....

There is a certain "suspension of disbelief" required to enjoy a movie like this. But sometimes a director can push that beyond its limits. Here's one specific example.

As you might guess from the title there is a castle which features prominently in the film. (Until the inevitable and predictable explosion) It is described as the Governor's castle in Anatolia. It is guarded by Turkish guards in white uniforms. Early in the movie Fu Manchu and his legion of dacoits attack the castle and take it over. They hold it for some time.

Now think about this. As a "Governor's Castle" it is presumably a seat of government where routine business is conducted. Are we to believe that nobody notices that the governor has disappeared and none of the normal business is taking place? Putting that aside, Fu Manchu's dacoits take over guard duty,. They are prominent and visible, in their black uniforms and red headbands. We are supposed to believe that nobody notices that the Turkish guards with white uniforms have been "disappeared" and replaced by dacoits. Any it is not like the dacoits are secretive. They are right out there.

And then when Nayland Smith has to fight his way out of the castle, unarmed, we learn that these are the most inept dacoits in the history of film. Smith disposes of 15 or 20 dacoits with single punches and never suffers a blow.

I am sorry but its just too much.

As a side note, if you do watch this curiosity, do not overlook Dick Martin. You may not know the face, but you do know that voice. Clayton Moore: Hi Ho Silver away!

If you can possible get hold of the Rifftraxx version of the film, it turns this piece of ponderous dreck into something really fun.

This movie commits the cardinal sin of parody: It isn't funny. Yes, it has the characters speaking lines from classic '50's sci fi flicks. I think I caught most of them but maybe you could play a drinking game where contestants had to name the movie and character for each quote. Yes I know that the cheap and obvious not-so-special effects were deliberate. And maybe cute for a minute or two. But come on. Over and over? The only way I can explain the 5.5 star rating above is that the cast, their family, and any close friends must have stuffed the ballot box. The concept has been done again and again, mostly better. Take a hard pass.

Just a quick note for people of a certain age. When you hear the character "Graber" speak you will immediately recognize that voice, but not the face. It's Clayton Moore, TV's Lone Ranger. Now you know what he looks like without a mask,

There will be no spoilers in this review. Unfortunately other reviewers have not been so careful

IF you have seen and are a fan of the TV series The Prisoner, this is a must see. McGoohan is a fascinating human being and seeing him drawn out to explain himself is wonderful.

BUT if you have not seen The Prisoner, DO NOT watch this documentary first. It is full of spoilers and will completely ruin the effect McGoohan was trying to achieve in making this ground breaking TV series. If you have never seen the series, it is worth binge watching. There are only 17 episodes in total. Then see this and you will enjoy both experiences.

First, this is not a great movie. Like a lot of Zucker's works, it is uneven. But it does have some very funny bits and moments. Unfortunately, when Zucker is skewering liberal icons like Michael Moore, liberal reviewers seem to be unable to see the humor. On the other hand, some conservative reviewers oversell this as the greatest film since Birth of a Nation. It's not.

Leslie Neilsen is wasted in this film. And he looks so past his prime that it is uncomfortable to watch. Farley as Michael M is pretty funny at the start when he is full of himself, but his conversion at the end is less than convincing and not funny at all. Grammar's Gen. Patton didn't work for me, but that is personal and not necessarily an objective evaluation.

If you consider yourself liberal or very liberal, you will hate this movie unless you can park your politics at the door and watch for the Zucker touch.

I suppose there has to be somewhere that untalented actors can go to learn their craft. What better vehicle than a poorly crafted story that doesn't hand together and is full of internal inconsistencies. The director appearently just discovered the concept of the "flashback" and decided to use one every three minutes, whether the story called for one or not. And the lead actress is in the running for the most over-emoted performance of the decade. What dreck.

Jimmy Martin is an unappreciated musical genius. His recordings still have a raw power that is almost unmatched in contemporary bluegrass. He is an enigma and few contemporary groups even try to cover his work.

This documentary is sympathetic to Jimmy, only alluding to his notorious drinking problems and his alienation of those who could have helped him. But if you watch closely you will see his bitterness at being excluded from the Grand Ole Opry - his childhood dream. You may need to read between the lines - but it's there.

If for no other reason, the musical content of this documentary justifies watching it. If you know and love his music, this is a must. If you are not familiar with his work, this is a great introduction.

Go read Robert Caro's biography of LBJ and you will understand how totally distorted this version of LBJ is. Shame on Reiner for propagating this absurd myth.

Not a loving homage to monster movies of the 50's. Rather a poorly acted, cheap rip-off of same. Not an original idea either. I know you can view the wooden acting as intentionally camp, but I would have to see any of these players do ANYTHING with skill before I would venture that opinion. Camp is not an excuse for really stilted dialogue delivered stupidly.

The only regret is that this web site requires me to give it one star. It doesn't deserve even that.

Forrest J. Ackerman, who plays "flustered man" shows up in a few films. "Forrie" is best known as the editor/publisher of the magazine "Famous Monsters of Filmland" He was doing this kind of cameo before Stan Lee ever thought of it.

At least for me, the movie does not respect its source material. Agatha Christie's work has subtle humor woven into it already. This treatment is about as subtle as a root canal. And there is little or no "mystery" here - we know "who done it" way too early and everything thereafter is filler. The main sin here is that Poirot is not at all true to the character readers admire. Tony Randall is required to play Poirot as a buffoonish caricature of Christie's brilliant creation.

I did like the very brief cameo appearance by Margaret Rutherford in full Miss Marple mode. That was funny.

Good cast burdened with weak material which is a misconception from the outset. The 5 star rating is exceedingly generous.

I am fairly sure that Brianna's character is Megasonic etc. not Negasonic. I could be wrong

Bensonmum2's review is very accurate and makes most of the points I would have made. I just want to add, if anyone cares, that the whole movie is available for free on YouTube.

This ranks up there with Plan 9 from Outer Space as a "so bad it's good" movie. It is earnest and the actors try so hard. How did they keep a straight face?

Teenagers from Outer Space Plan Nine from Outer Space

Both from Outer Space.

Coincidence? I think not.

Particularly wooden acting, continuity rife with errors, not worth your time. There are so many other Sherlock Holmes movies why would you sit thru this one?