Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Twilight Zone: The Invaders (1961)
Season 2, Episode 15
One of the best TZs
15 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Fact is, as the story proceeded, after 10 minutes I thought it was shaping up to be one of the worst ever TZs and on a par with Plan 9. Histrionic, affected, 'acting', gasping grunts and groans, endless stares upward, I mean " c'mon get on with it!" It then occurred to me it might be one of those wonky 50's 60's experimental artsy productions people occasionally could get away with in those days. Rod Serling letting his hair down.

It got so that I just kept jumping forward in 10 second increments. In a sense, Mr. Serling cheated a tad in the word he used to characterize the main (almost only) player. In the end, everything was clarified, even the strange pot that seemed to me less a boiling stew than a Halloween dry-ice caldron; the strangely uncertain food she was cutting, and the way she ate a piece... or didn't eat it, spending more time with the slice sticking out of her mouth like a redundant tongue.

The creature is an alien, the planet is alien; their psychology, even in solitude is alien. It's hard then to say whether Moorehead had turned in a stellar performance as a slightly addled hermit mute, or her speculative impression of how a denizen of some distant planet of some unknown star would behave. Perhaps these people are solitary by nature and procreate asexually. 'She' doesn't speak because they are non-social. Who knows?

The spaceship is ours. They are not little robots, they are full-sized men, in spacesuits. For all we know, 'her' atmosphere is composed of 50% chlorine, her knives blades of diamond, her fireplace burning silicon logs.

The ending is a familiar SF gotcha; Serling and Co. pull out all the stops to dress it up in an especially fresh attire. It's also one of the few TZ that is, in fact, science-fiction; it's an irritation to this writer that series has been alternately described as horror or SF. It is neither. It is solidly in the fantasy genre, with it's own special subcategory and Serling himself put it best: "...a dimension of M I N D." We always have the feeling the episodes are messing with our heads.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Murder 101 (1991 TV Movie)
8/10
The Twist atop the Whodunit Twist
20 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Pierce Brosnan is a college professor who teaches a creative writing course that requires students to actually write a plausible murder scenario. A complication is that the prof himself actually wrote a book implicating a friend in a murder, for which his friend is found guilty and sent to prison. There is a twist at the very end of this really good-cinema quality-movie that has had only passing reference here among the User reviews, so this critique seeks to explore that twist in more detail.

Spoiler A number of reviewers have mentioned the twist at the end without specifying whether they are alluding to the conventional penultimate twist-the one we never suspected-or the finale in the last 30 seconds leading up to the credits.

One reviewer found this the same device as in Chicago Joe and the Show Girl, but in fact that movie was content to keep jiggling the fourth wall. Murder101 does not do that until the last moment, where the wall is not merely jiggled but sort of turned into the conceptual equivalent of a time-loop. It seems the outer movie, the one we are watching on our screens, is but a tableaux to present a movie-in-the-making, a movie that lo and behold was based on a screenplay developed from the murder-assignment of one of the Prof's students, who plays an integral part in the piece himself.

I can't think of this as nothing so much as a cinematic analogue of Escher's mutually drawing hands. Everyone character in the movie is in fact also an actor playing... their own part, and to make that clear at the close, the dolly-shot backwards reveals not merely the set boom-mike, but some of the 'dead' victims as very well and alive.

This leads to a furious amount of re-thinking, after the movie, of everything presupposed, including plot-'holes' (eg. It had bothered me that the clever student had a cast-iron alibi-he was giving a presentation, at the time of Francesca's death, so the Prof had let off his suspicion; so why did he re-adopt his suspicion later on?), yet are these holes in the movie itself? Or are they defects in the self-referencing 'student's' self-referencing assignment-turned-movie script?

And it would explain something that bothered me: the student had written an absolutely STELLAR assignment; probably the most block-buster assignment any undergrad had ever written anywhere, ever. I was expecting with its impending cover-page reveal to see an "A+". Why only an "A"? Because a few... plot-holes?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Man must relive past events repeatedly
26 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
8/10 is as far as I can go for a low-budget movie, that cannot afford polished, high-end production value.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The theme is familiar enough for the fantasy genre: Someone must relive the guilt of a serious mishap in the afterlife—if that is what it is— and the 'afterlife', as is common in these sorts of movies, initially seems to consists of some kind of prosaic institutional setting (psych- ward? government secret mind-project?... one is left wondering).

Our protagonist manages to effect a change in the course of the event(s), in a twist that is sufficiently original, along with excellent acting, scripting, editing, to warrant what we could call an 8 out of 8.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed