Reviews

No need for me to retread the plot, but in my view, had the method of the trap not been revealed to the assistant beforehand, this would have made for one of the very best episodes. As it is it's just a good one, marred by the sheer stupidity of the man igniting the bomb having been told what would happen if the phone were to be answered.

The method could, and should, have been absent from the script, or at least only hinted at, so not to make the man look so unfeasibly idiotic and the outcome that little bit far-fetched. Another minor quibble is that Kuchenko had a chance to shoot Vassiloff on realising he'd been drugged, but instead uttered a few words before passing out. The direction should have called for him to drop the gun before the verbal exchange, but again it's a minor quibble that can be overlooked.

Asides that, a good, suspenseful episode long pre-dating the likes of the 'Saw' series. In hindsight, maybe it's a shame that Serling and co never expanded on the idea.

7/10.

Reading all 37 reviews I find just the one thus far that shares my view of the ending; which was how someone so independently minded and resistant to conformity would suddenly do a mental 180 once physically tranformed. Other reviewers have made fair suppositions on the moral of the story, however in my view it's still somewhat ambiguous.

While clearly a parable about conformity and standards of beauty, and it is indeed explained that an improved physical appearance will also improve the psyche, what does that tell us about the 'old' Marilyn?

One can only assume that some sort of brainwashing procedure took place in addition to the physical changes, because prior to said change, she was fiercly adamant that she wanted to remain how she was and to not look exactly like everybody else. She knew who she was and knew how she'd look 'post-op'. Hence, I fully expected the 'new' Marilyn to remain the same on the inside and to come out screaming about what had been done to her against her will - the message being something along the lines of 'beauty is only skin deep' or 'it's what's inside that counts'.

So then, are we being told that an improved appearance will always improve that person's happiness? Or is that merely what we as people are 'supposed' to believe? Personally, if I were a 10 in the looks department then I'd certainly be 'happier' about 'that', at least..

So what's the take away here?

Maybe I'm being slow on the uptake or taking it too literally, but for me, the moral of the tale remains murky and ambiguous - while in no way necessarily a bad thing, in this case it left me somewhat cold.

An otherwise decent and enjoyable episode with a great performance by Paxton.

7/10.

SPOILER: Psycho demon boy kills people and animals with the power of thought. Locals flummoxed about what to do.

Of course, filling such a glaring plot hole (with an albeit grisly solution) would render the entire production obsolete, but when simple answers to big problems remain overlooked then it's not a story I can invest in. It is uncompelling and but a small step up from pointless.

Granted, drunken birthday boy Dan (Don Keefer) finally outs himself as the sole member of the community to openly suggest the only and most obvious action available, and pays for it with his own life before his wife and friends try to carry on as normal so to appease the little telekenetic psychopath sitting in their midst.

Surely someone would have done something about this within the preceding six years of this incredibly dangerous boy's intolerable and unsustainable reign of terror, but they chose instead to tread on eggshells, rearrange and compromise their entire psyche, and kiss his butt lest he banish them to the cornfield.

Interpreting deeper meanings into what is superficially a weak, silly storyline with weak, silly characters and at least one glaring plot hole, doesn't raise it a great deal in my estimation - but is why I must presume that what I consider to be a throwaway episode can rank so highly for others.

Of course it's subjective, and this one didn't do it for me; besides the genuinely creepy Jack-in-a-box scene.

4/10.

Yes indeed this storyline would have made for a top-notch TZ episode, but padded out to three times the length I found it very wanting. The plot became a bore and I just wanted to discover the reveal. Before that, however, I had to get through (increasingly more so on ffwd) multiple, lingering shots of the map and close ups of the pins, multiple scenes of the cops calling it all a 'coincidence', multiple scenes of Richard Boone and Peggy Maurer reminding each other of how much in love they are, multiple scenes of the old 'Scottish' caretaker reminding Boone of how much care he takes.

As for the reveal itself - having long dismissed the caretaker as being far too obvious a culprit so instead anticipating a more inventive/unexpected twist - the ending was, suffice to say, anti-climactic. Again, a good idea which with a more imaginative and less predictable outcome would have served well as a half hour short or at least made for a better full-length; but a simple half hour story padded out to what is still a relatively brief 75 minutes, would soon become monotonous.

I thought Boone and Bikel (despite the awful accent) at least tried to work with what they were given. So for that I will raise this potentially good but ultimately unsatisying film from a 4 to a 5/10.

A decade ago I happened upon 'The Brown Bunny' on netflix, a film I'd never heard of, let alone seen any trailers for, but having quite liked 'Buffalo '66' I gladly decided to give Vincent another whirl.

And well, where does one begin? I suppose as good a place as any would be the beginning, in which a man (played by Vincent) sets off in a van to find his long lost love; leaving this reviewer at least to anticipate what unfortunate tangents could befall this man's simple desire to get from A to B. I'll admit I was optimistic. But what separates this picture from the more traditional, orthadox standard of film making is that he isn't, in fact, befallen by 'any' unfortunate tangents. Instead he just drives, in silence, unhindered, until eventually reaching the middle of the film, pulling a motorbike outta the back and going for a burn up. He then returns to the van and eventually bumps into Cheryl Tiegs in a layby, where they mumble a bit and get off with each other before our hero jumps back in his van, remembering to look moody and serious at all times, before finally reaching his destination where Chloë Sevigny (his real life ex girlfriend, I believe) provides him with oral sex so awkward I had to watch through my fingers.

Seriously though, was that it?

Well, not so fast, nescient philistine! As though Vincent would hoodwink his own audience in such an arrogant, egotistical manner! For those of us cool, clever, smart and educated connoisseurs of the arthouse, who know better - it's obvious the film contains a much deeper, more ambiguous message; and is pulled together into what can only be described as a truly unforgettable life affirming experience - to whit, the deep, subtle, underlying allegorically nuanced reasoning behind the endless monotony of a bloke in a van for the preceeding 90 minutes, is that Chloë Sevigny is actually dead, okay? She's not really there - the really awkward fellatio scene was really in Vincent's imagination.

So you see? The entire 92 minutes was basically Vincent Gallow, shall we say, 'self indulging' - and to be fair to the guy, he somehow got away with it - not that that raises the film any higher than it deserves. A con is a con.

Not much more I can really add in terms of plot. Found it amusing and enjoyable enough, besides Michael Keaton in his breakthrough role at his most annoying worst. An actor I generally like. His only scene that made me chuckle was on the subway when he coined the euphemism 'Love Brokers', oh yeah, and "Is this a great country or what?"

Had he toned down the meathead, party animal rock n roll dude thing a tad (who apparently only ever listens to a single live version of Jumpin Jack Flash) I'd find him more sympathetic. Heart being in the right place doesn't necessarily equate to being tolerable.

I couldn't help but note however, that some of the other reviewers may need to chill a little. If two doofuses working graveyard at a morgue trying their hand at pimpistry isn't ripe for comedy then I don't know what is! I'll concede it could've been better (mainly Keaton), but do you really have to get moralistic over a throwaway comedy from 1982? Have a day off!

Henry Winkler was perfectly cast as the everyman Fonzie lookalike and I must say that Shelley Long and white panties really do go with the kitchen :)

6/10, Keaton costing it a 7.

May contain mild spoilers: There isn't much more I can add about this travesty that hasn't already been said, but given the urge I'm about to do it anyway. For me, the most important element of a film is a relatable protagonist. It will stand or fall depending on whether or not I care about the main character(s), and/or what becomes of them by the film's conclusion. Cinematography, direction, acting, and even script are secondary. A good example of a well made film with an irredeemable protagonist would be 'Saturday Night, Sunday Morning' by Karel Reisz, starring Albert Finney as Arthur Seaton; a loutish factory worker you wouldn't trust to look after your goldfish, who shoots air guns at old ladies, carries on with his workmate's missus, getting her pregnant in the process, and while he does receive the inevitable, well deserved beating from his mate's brothers, he learns nothing from the ordeal and still gets to skip away into the sunset with Shirley Anne Field. This, therefore, loses the film points for me. I know it's subjective but that's how I work.

Here, in 'Don't Breathe', we have an even less redeemable character whom we are presumably supposed to be rooting for even prior to the reveal that the person standing in her way, an OLD BLIND MAN that she, along with her wannabe gangsta boifrend and her useful friendzoned beta intend to BURGLE, isn't such a savoury character himself. But by then it was far too late, I'd already taken sides, and even though I was supposed to now wish him a slow painful death for his admittedly warped reaction to his daughter being killed, I wanted exactly the same fate to befall our thieving little trailer trash heroine. Right until the bitter end (yes I did stick it out in the vain hope that I'd get my wish), I was rooting for the old man and his dog all the way.

But of course, our cute little misunderstood house invader gets not only what she came for but three times the amount! Seeing as she no longer has to split it with her now dead colleagues...and of course, she gets to fly off into the sunset without a care in the world, leaving four dead bodies in her wake.

But wait! The fourth, the old blind guy, isn't dead after all! Leaving this horrible enterprise ripe for a sequel.

You can see it now. Our cute little bikinied heroine whose crimes we are meant to overlook because she's cute and looks good in a bikini, lying on Malibu beach sucking pina coladas out of a coconut shell, her cute little sister building sandcastles and pestering her for ice-cream, she turns around and then suddenly THERE HE IS! Dark glasses, flip flops, Hawaiian shirt. His loyal Rottweiler panting away happily by his side. The camera zooms in on her pretty little face, a bead of sweat running down the side as she removes her shades and utters but one word, "How?"

My thoughts exactly. 1 out of ten, 2 for effort.