Two years after their success with Django, director Sergio Corbucci and lead actor Franco Nero teamed up again for this western which, to the best of my knowledge (and surprise) was never released with an alternate title including the word 'Django'. Rather than focusing on a coffin-towing gunslinger, this one features a story taking place around the time of the Mexican revolution. The film gets off to a good start with a great score conducted by Ennio Morricone. From there we are introduced to Franco Nero's character Sergei Kowalski; a Polish gunslinger, only out to better himself; and, it has to be said, is a little hard to understand at first. He hooks up with a Mexican revolutionary named Paco, and together they strike a bargain; The Pole will aide Paco in his revolution, for a slice of any profits that the pair and their army 'liberate' from the Mexican towns and villages. Naturally, it's not long before Paco is attracting attention from the Government; and the pair's different objectives soon lead to fights amongst themselves.

This film works principally thanks to a good and interesting story, as well as the characters themselves which are intriguing and work well together. Franco Nero, of course, is the main star of the show and shows his versatility somewhat with the role. Of course, he played gunslingers in plenty of films; but here he manages to convince that he's Polish (although the accent does take a little getting used to). He receives good feedback from Tony Musante (who was the lead actor in Dario Argento's The Bird with the Crystal Plumage) and the pair have a good, if somewhat awkward, chemistry together. There's also a 'guest star' role for Jack Palance who plays a rival gunslinger. The film is not all that well known today, and that is probably because it is rather derivative of other and better known westerns; most obvious is the climatic shootout sequence towards the end which directly 'borrows' from Sergio Leone's masterpiece The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Still, in spite of this; The Mercenary is a very well made and entertaining spaghetti western that should please all fans of the genre.


"Django" director Sergio Corbucci's Spaghetti western "The Mercenary" about an itinerant Polish pistolero Sergei Kowalski (Franco Nero of "Camelot") in Mexico at the turn of the century who takes a poor ignorant peasant (Tomas Musante of "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage") under his gun arm and elevates him to the status of hero of the Mexican revolution beat Sergio Leone's "Duck, You Sucker" by three years. In "Duck, You Sucker," an Irish revolutionary (James Coburn) took a penniless peasant (Rod Steiger) and elevated him to the status of Pancho Villa during the Mexican revolution. Indeed, the basic plots of "The Mercenary" and "Duck, You Sucker" resemble each other closely, except the characters and the endings differ drastically. The peasant here in "The Mercenary" is Paco Roman, a young, wifeless, childless, blue-collar laborer toiling in the mines of a wealthy aristocrat with a taste for opera. In "Duck, You Sucker," the peasant was much older, with a brood of trigger-happy sons, and a passion for thievery. In retrospect, the similarity between "The Mercenary" and "Duck, You Sucker" shouldn't seem too surprisingly when you consider that the same scenarist, Luciano Vincenzoniwho penned "Death Rides A Horse," "For A Few Dollars More," and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"wrote both "The Mercenary" and "Duck, You Sucker." "The Mercenary" was Corbucci's first Mexican revolutionary western that he would follow up with "Companeros" starring Franco Nero as a Swedish arms dealer, Tomas Milian as the Mexican peasant, and Jack Palance as the villain.

"The Mercenary" opens in an arena with clowns simulating a bullfight. The main clown is really Paco; he is on the run from wealthy mine owner Alfonso García (Eduardo Fajardo of "Bad Man's River") and a deadly but dandified gambler Curly (Jack Palance) who is in league with Garcia. The Polish gunman Kowalski (Nero) sits in the stands and watches Paco until the time for the sundown comes. At that point, Corbucci and his multitude of writersamong them Franco Solinas of "A Bullet for the General" and Vincenzoniflash back to the first meeting between our heroes who later become fast friends. Two Mexican mine owner pay Kowalski to get their silver. Curly follows them after he sees them talking to Kowalski. Curly is deeply interested in them because he had to have one of his henchmen, Studs (Franco Ressel of "Sabata"), killed for trying to kill Kowalski. You see, Kowalski caught Studs gambling with loaded dice and made him swallow the dice with a glass of milk.

Anyway, Curly kills the two Mexicans and rides out to get the silver and Kowalski. Meanwhile, at the mine, Paco and his fellow minersexploited at poverty wagesdine on execrable food and Paco discovers a lizard in his food. Everybody has a good laugh about the 'meat' in the grub. Later, in Garcia's office, the mine owner comes face-to-face with Paco holding a pig on a platter with a pistol sticking out of its mouth. Paco hand feeds Garcia the lizard and the two are enemies for life. When Kowalski shows up to pick up the money, he finds himself surrounded by Paco and his men. They are going to kill the Polish gunman until the Mexican army, with a vengeful Garcia in the ranks, intervenes with an artillery barrage. Vincenzoni wrote a similar scene in Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" as Tuco was about to hang Blonde from a hotel rafter. In the middle of all the shooting, the wealthy Paco explains that the silver can never be gotten to but he has fistfuls of paper money. He pays Kowalski to teach him how to operate a machine gun and the two become revolutionaries.

Kowalski takes his hard earned money and leaves Paco, only to be trapped in the desert by Curly and his gunmen. This time Paco intervenes in the showdown between Kowalski and Curly and kills all of Curly's men and forces Curly to walk away without a stitch of clothing on in humiliation. Now, Curly has it in for Paco as well as the Polish soldier-of-fortune. Essentially, Kowalski teaches Paco how to run a revolution until an interfering woman Columba (Giovanna Ralli of "Cannon for Cordoba") joins them and turns Paco against his pal. As they make more money, Kowalski's demands become outrageous. He prefers to be paid in coin and he forces Paco's army to stop in the middle of the desert so that he can improvise a shower to cool himself off. No sooner have Paco and Columba wed and left Kowalski tied up in a stable than Garcia and Curly arrive, again with the Mexican army and a bi-plane that drops bombs.

Spaghetti director Sergio Corbucci wrote and directed twice as many westerns as Sergio Leone. Corbucci lacked Leone's flamboyant style and his lucky break in establishing the Italian western. Nevertheless, he was his equal when it came to staging gunfights and helming snappy action stories. Franco Nero became his Clint Eastwood and Corbucci gained fame as Burt Reynolds called him 'the other Sergio' for his diverse oaters. Corbucci bucked the 'southwest' look of Spaghetti westerns with his oddball oater "The Great Silence" and his muddy western "Django" where the hero dragged around a coffin with a machine gun stashed in it. Corbucci maintains a furious pace throughout "The Mercenary," even though it starts up with a flashback and sacrifices some suspensebecause you know the principals cannot die until the flashback ends. Predictably, the body count is as high as the film's cynicism. At one point, Curly jams a hand grenade into a revolutionary soldier's mouth and blows him up. However, Corbucci shows uncharacteristic flair when he stages a killing and a torture scene and declines to show the violence in each scene. In one scene, a thug batters the truth out of an unwilling victim while we watch Curly ride around in a circle. This kind of subtlety is very unusual for a Spaghetti western.


The Mercenary is one of my favorite movies to watch. As is the case with the Leone westerns, I just can't get enough of this film. This is Sergio Corbucci's most meaningful and well-crafted cinematic work. It comes very close to being as good as any of the movies in the Dollars trilogy, and is definitely a strong contender for the title of "best non-Leone spaghetti western."

Franco Nero gives what is perhaps his best performance out of all of the films I have seen him in. It definitely helps that his voice is not dubbed by someone else in this movie. His acting in the role of Sergei "the polack" Kowalski is at least as good if not better than any of Clint Eastwood's performances. There's plenty of Franco Nero style machine gunning action in this movie too. Tony Musante is fantastic as Paco Roman. He's kind of like a less cartoonish version of Tomas Milian, which is perfect for the character of Paco. Giovanna Ralli is wonderful in the role of Columba. Her role in this movie as the strong, cunning female revolutionary is much more significant than women were usually given in westerns. She plays it perfectly, and she really deserves equal billing with Nero and Musante. Jack Palance is entertaining and gloriously over-the top, as always. Eduardo Fajardo puts in a fine performance too, as usual.

The music is one of Ennio Morricone's most memorable scores. The title theme is a rousing, festive Mexican sounding instrumental. During the film, there's some great use of organ music, and best of all there's that haunting whistling pattern that will forever stick in your mind, followed by the solemn trumpet melody and building crescendo. It works so well with the action on screen, especially during the showdown in the bullfighting arena, which is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Corbucci and Morricone could definitely create art on screen. It's no coincidence that the greatest spaghetti westerns are the ones with the greatest music scores.

This is a very well developed story with intelligence, emotion, a roller coaster ride of action, and even a little bit of comedy. It is also very tight. There are no plot holes here. It's just a damn good flick. I could watch it a million times. Do not miss this one!!


Before you can even adjust to the tone of this suburban sex-opera, the most colorful character in the cast is given the shaft, with nothing left to occupy the interest except surgery footage and low-watt scandals. A prominent brain surgeon (John Colicos) is arrested for the murder of his wife, but what should the hospital do when they need his talents to save a dying child? Colicos, pursing his lips and acting archly defiant, doesn't strike me as the kind of husband who would kill his cheating spouse and her lover--he's the type who'd want to watch and maybe join in. Written and directed by people who should've known better, "Doctors' Wives" was considered pretty heavy stuff in its day (the first time it ran on network TV, there was a "parental discretion" warning preceding the movie), but its 'raciness' is now rather quaint. Aficionados of '70s cinema will no doubt enjoy Dyan Cannon's wicked cackle, or Richard Crenna, a young Gene Hackman (with a tidy little mustache), and urologist Carroll O'Connor all playing frustrated doctors engaged in a game of musical beds. * from ****


Unfortunately meant as a drama, this movie is so bad, you'll laugh out loud. Dyan Cannon plays the seductive wife of one of the doctors, who has apparently slept with every one of her friends husbands. Who is to blame when she gets punished? An all star cast includes Carrol O'Connor as the impatient husband of an alcoholic (who actually says "I'll drink to that" at every opportunity). Don't miss this one!


This was done back in the early 1970s were Hollywood was desperate to try anything to drive audiences back to theatres (attendance was at an all time low in the early 70s). The only movies that made money were sex movies and violent movies. So, they combined them! This was considered pretty shocking in its day--today it's fairly tame (although it would still get an R rating) with gratitous blood, gore and female nudity.

As one previous poster noted it plays like an unsold TV pilot. The acting is bad (especially by the men), the plots are predictable and, despite all the surgery views, it's all very dull. The only bright point is Dyan Cannon's brief, flashy appearance as a cheating wife. She's just great--but she's killed off after one scene!

It's almost worth watching for laughs but I was kind of uncomfortable laughing at a movie were a bunch of very talented actresses are forced to take their clothes off just to turn on the audience. This was a big bomb in its day--that should tell you something.

Only worth seeing if you're totally bored or want to see a bunch of very talented actors embarass themselves. Depressing.


What would you get if you mixed two parts "ER" with two parts "Dynasty"? You might think that you would get something steamy yet emotionally intriguing. Instead, you might end up getting an awful medical melodrama called "Doctors' Wives".

I have never understood why any movie would have its most interesting character killed off in the first fifteen minutes. The one and only excusable circumstance would be if you show that character in a lot of flashbacks. That doesn't happen in this film and it suffers severely.

"Doctors' Wives" has the look and feel of a TV pilot. There really isn't much location shooting to speak of. Most of the film takes place in a hospital or at the characters' homes. The screenplay is much more interested in introducing a lot of characters to you rather than fleshing any of them out. As a movie, it is dull and laughable. As a TV pilot, it showed that it might have eventually become rather interesting. Or then again...maybe not. 1/10


What's the point of this film? What does it have to say? And why does Dyan Cannon disappear so early on? You'll have all those questions running through your mind while you're watching "Doctor's Wives", but this vapid, pointless, soap-opera-level film provides no answers. A very superficial treatment of potentially strong subjects. A great cast that is thoroughly wasted. And a heart-surgery scene that is not for the squeamish. (*1/2)


A long time has passed since I last time saw my favourite SciFi programme. Still, with no disrespect, it is the best SciFi I have ever seen. Special effects is not the only thing that makes a SciFi (as well as any other sort of movies) attractive, good and memorable. It is a good script, fine cast and the atmosphere of the time when it has been broadcast. In case of the Space 1999, there is also a strong context of reality. Compared with the other similar programmes and movies, the Space 1999 deals with familiar objects (like Moon), provides usually the imaginable situations. All these make people watching the show more capable to identify themselves with characters and situations. Certainly, the Space 1999 had caught me in front of my TV every Saturday night. Very happy to find the programme on DVD!


I have intensely fond memories of this show. I always seemed to associate it with some of the best memories of my childhood, although sometimes I wonder if those memories were so good because I had a show I was so fond of to relate to in my memory.

As such, my expectations of this show were abnormally high. Years later, when I finally got my hands on the box sets of both series, I was destined to be.... disappointed? Not really. After all those years I'd come to understand that nothing my child's mind had interpreted as "great" was ever going to meet the standards of my adult point of view.

As with everyone who has commented on this show, it is almost impossible to watch S99 as a combined 48 episode tv show. The differences between the seasons are far too great. Season 1 is marvellously primal and epic in its intentions, earnest in its realisation and grim and depressing in its reflection. It was also class ham, far more 1960's than were most shows made in 1974. The characters were all a pretty grim lot, but after 24 episodes you start to warm to them, feeling for their predicament. The individual episodes really stood out, especially Dragon's Domain, The Infernal Machine, Black Sun, Force of Life, The Last Sunset, Earthbound, Mission of the Darians, The Last Enemy, Space Brain and End of Eternity. Season 2 was a necessitated shift away from this grimness, because without it there wouldn't have been a season 2, for better or worse. It doesn't have the same epic feel or the sense that things are quite as desperate for the crew of Moonbase Alpha, and carries with it a greater sense of character, without the sense of depth. It was too far in the other direction, in my opinion, which was why we didn't see a season 3. The producers just never managed to settle the show down into something that would both be dramatic and acceptable to the casual viewer.

But this was the first show I ever followed, in my memory, week after week without fail, and so I love it to bits, even with all of its faults. If made today, I wouldn't be anywhere near as forgiving for those faults. Times have changed, for everyone, I suppose.


Space: 1999 to me is a truly excellent series. Produced and created by the great Gerry Anderson, it was the most expensive science fiction series of it's time and looks it!! The first Season provided us with some excellent episodes, and some excellent performances from the series leads - Martin Landau, Barbara Bain and Barry Morse. Some of the best episodes of Season One include the wonderfully dark and menacing 'Dragon's Domain', 'The Alpha Child', 'Voyagers Return', 'The Last Enemy', 'Breakaway', 'The War Games', 'Space Brain' and many others. The series writing was, despite the bad press it has often received since, pretty exceptional, although there are a few let downs. Despite the series brilliance occasionally in the Season you will see episodes that suffer from poor pacing - 'The Troubled Spirit' for example, but these episodes are few in number only about 2 or 3 really, so they are easy to overlook, and all series will usually slip up somewhere!!! It is entirely forgivable. I mention this because I am trying to be a reasonable critic to the series, and not just include all the qualities I love about it!! Unfortunately the first season didn't really take off, but a surprisingly generous I.T.C backing allowed a Second Season to be made. I say this because I.T.C's usual concern about how British programmes appealed to the American audience led certain series to have a very short life. Many Gerry Anderson series have been affected by this, The Secret Service seems to be the best example. Due to the marital breakup of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson, Gerry had to hire a new producer. He chose Fred Freiberger, ex- producer of the final series of Star Trek. He changed the series already shaky continuity completely and made the show more Action orientated. This idea appealed to some, but Martin Landau has gone on record for saying that although Freiberger may have helped the show in some aspects, his ideas were (in the opinion of Landau) very boring compared to the way that Season One had been produced. Johnny Byrne the series regular script editor has gone on record in saying (in his words) that Season 2 was 'complete rubbish'!, even basing the story 'The Dorcons' on his dislike to the way that Season 2 was produced. Whatever your views on the Second Season (I personally like it very much, although it takes time to adjust to Season 2 compared to Season 1) some classic stories were produced during it's time. 'The Metamorph' introducing Maya a wonderful character that can change into most forms of living matter, played superbly by Catherine Schell, 'The Rules of Luton', 'The Dorcons', 'The Immunity Syndrome', 'The Lambda Factor', 'The Exiles', 'New Adam New Eve' and many others. The second season was arguably though, the most exciting, with upbeat music and lots of action, the flaw being that some of the scripts were pretty poor. Although 'The Beta Cloud' is a good episode in many aspects, the script is admittedly lousy. As he had done in the First Season, excellent Sci-fi writer Johnny Byrne provides some of the best scripts in Season 2, usually much more serious than other stories, obviously refusing to bow down to Freiberger's 'Scooby Doo action' idea as Freiberger himself described it, lots of action with lots of often silly humour. 'The Bringers of Wonder' despite being very exciting is a ludicrous story in places, and 'The Taybor' despite having some good qualities also suffers from this weakness. However overall I feel Season 2 was a good Season, and it is deeply sad that a third season never got past the drawing board stages. However we must be grateful for what we have got. All the episodes are now provided on shiny DVD's for the enjoyment of all who remember or have come to like the series over it's 30 years existence. Season 1 provided us with lavish and menacing stories, often with hidden morales and examples of the failings of human nature and it's fight to survive in a frequently hostile environment. Season 2 provided us with upbeat and exciting stories, exploring often the most bizarre and intriguing aspects of Science fiction 'The Rules of Luton' for example - highly evolved plants!!! Overall an excellent series, one which belongs with all of the Science fiction greats.


I could go on & on about this show, as others have, but I don't need to cover old ground--those of us who saw this show as youngsters when it first came out, well... it was an amazing & hypnotic thing.

If you like ST:TOS, Dr. Who, in general any sci-fi from the 60s or 70s, this will be familiar territory for you, and I think a happy place to visit.

One thing I didn't see mentioned that fascinates me about the show: most of the alien planets & landscapes were *hand painted* by guest abstract artist--and they amaze. When combined with model work far superior to UFO or Thunderbirds, the alien vistas were, for wont of a better word, painterly.

Some of it is campy. The acting is inconsistent. Sometimes the science is bad & there are too many 'psychic' episodes, but I have the entire series and it's one of my favorite possessions.

Slightly related, incredibly obscure reference that won't help anyone: Once a friend of mine met a fellow who was a big Peter Hammill fan, who had never heard the VDGG album 'Still Life' but had just bought it and was carrying it around. When he gleaned this from the gentlemen, he told him, "My god man, why are you just standing there--go home and listen to that CD!" If you are a fan of (as these things go) smart, complicated, visually striking vintage SF TV & you haven't seen Space 1999--go and buy it & watch it--you're in for a treat--and there are enough episodes you can spend pretty much 48 hours straight with it before you run out of content... I'm a little envious of you.


I saw the show when I was a teenager and loved it instantly. And I still do, as I observed when I saw it again more than 20 years later. Sure, the environment and the tricks are looking a little cheap today, so what. Every show is aging. There isn't much action as in Star Trek, which at one point only seemed to discover planets with beautiful but strange women. Much of the action is between the characters, how to deal with fear,their situation and the loneliness... Love it or hate it, the show had something special. Till today I saved a huge crush on Martin Landau as an actor, I watch everything, even his weakest movies. And I saved a huge crush on Captain Alan Carter as a character of the show, I'd love to be an Eagle-Pilot! Forget that it's a 70s show and enjoy it.


In their book 'Fantastic Television', Gary Gerani and Paul H. Schulman took 'Space:1999' to task for its apparent contempt for the laws of physics, and made the somewhat extraordinary claim that 'these days audiences are used to heavy dollops of science with their science fiction'.

Really? Well, I do not remember there being dollops of science, heavy or otherwise, in 'The Six Million Dollar Man' or 'Planet Of The Apes'. If every sci-fi film or television series had to be 100% scientifically accurate, there would be some pretty dull stuff floating around.

It was Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's follow-up to 'U.F.O.' and in fact started life as an aborted second season. The premise was that a nuclear waste dump on the Moon had exploded, triggering a series of violent blasts that took it - and the men and women based on 'Moonbase Alpha' - out of the Solar System and careering off into the unknown. The Alphans gave up any hope of getting back to Earth, and began looking for a new home.

Martin Landau took up the lead as 'Commander John Koenig', the man responsible for making the important day-to-day decisions concerning the running of the base, while his then-wife Barbara Bain played 'Dr.Helena Russell', Alpha's chief scientific officer. Both had recently starred in the hit series 'Mission: Impossible'. Landau was excellent, while Bain's performance has been the subject of much debate over the years, with many describing her as 'wooden'. I certainly think the show would have benefited from a different actress in the role.

Barry Morse played 'Professor Victor Bergman', a sort of father figure to whom everyone turned to for advice. He brought much humour and warmth to what otherwise could have been a stock role.

There was hardware a-plenty; the Alphans travelled from one part of the base to another in 'travel tubes' and carried portable communication devices called 'commlocks'. They also had cute looking ray-guns that resembled office staplers! What should have been the second episode - 'Black Sun' - unfortunately went out later in the original run, meaning viewers missed an important plot point - the Moon had passed into a region of space where the normal laws of physics did not apply, hence Dr.Asimov and all those sticklers for scientific accuracy were misinformed in their harsh criticism.

'Space: 1999' rightly took the view that entertainment should take precedence over authenticity. The first series rivalled '2001: A Space Odyssey' in terms of grandeur and spectacle. With the exception of 'Dragons Domain', it was a monster-free zone. Episodes such as 'Breakaway', 'Dragons Domain', 'Force Of Life', 'The Infernal Machine', 'End Of Eternity' are worthy of the highest possible praise. Unfortunately, it never quite succeeded in emerging from 'Star Trek's' shadow. Had Year 2 been made to the same standard as 1, I believe this would have happened eventually.

It was denied the opportunity to be a hit in Britain because it was not networked. However, it did well enough abroad for a second season to be commissioned. American producer ( and the man who assassinated 'Star Trek' ) Fred Freiburger was brought in first as a head writer, then as producer. He knocked the series out of shape, pushing it down the same road as 'Lost In Space', with ludicrous monsters running amok. Out went Barry Morse and in came Catherine Schell as the shape-changing Psychon 'Maya'. She was lovely but her presence unfortunately negated the need for any imagination in the scripts, as each time the Alphans faced a crisis they simply got her to turn into a monster. Tony Anholt's 'Verdeschi' was another major error.

Someone at H.T.V. ( my local I,T.V. region ) must have sensed Year 2 was a no-no - we did not get to see it until 1984!

It is a little alarming to watch both seasons in conjunction. So different are they it is hard to reconcile them as being part of the same series. Nevertheless, Year 1 is the best remembered, and stands as one of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson's finest productions.


Who among us, who has seen the series and accepted it for what it was without reservation, has not dreamed of riding shotgun with Alan Carter in the cockpit of an Eagle, lending a helping hand to Dr. Russell in the Medical Section, sitting in conference with Professor Bergman and Commander Koenig as they contemplate the mysteries and menaces of the unknown, or simply planting yourself at one of Moonbase Alpha's computer terminals and poring over its various databases, just so that you could broaden your own horizons? Space:1999 opened all those doors for me, and far more besides. A rare jewel among shows of the science-fiction genre, which still had the courage to try even when it fell short of the viewers' expectations...


At the time the series was spawned, it was very conceivable (and we all wanted to believe) the man would be stationed in space and upon the moon before the dawn of the new century.

The success of the Apollo missions, Nixon having visited China, the planned rendezvous of the Apollo-Soyuz mission. The Cold War was ending, and we all had tremendous hope for a future in which we could all work together, and move forward. The timing of the series couldn't have been more perfect.

The story line each and every episode strove to balance our possible future fears (fear of the unknown), with our current compassion, common-sense judgment, and morality. The production and writing staff seemed to keep the Alphan basics as: "that is possible before the new millennium." The Moonbase, the travel tubes, the medical advances, the computer control, the slow, hard to maneuver, limited-distance Eagle spacecrafts. Only the Alphan's encounters each episode seemed to push the envelope. Uncharted planets and stars, unknown energy forces, higher beings and entities, advanced technologies, physical improbabilities.

Space 1999 was a giant leap for mankind closer to reality than Lost In Space, Star Trek, The Starlost, though I treasure those series as well for what they offered. And if you watched Space 1999 closely enough, you'd have recognized a handful of the episode plots recreated within future sci-fi series (i.e., one episode surrounding a biological computer, a collection of many minds from many different intelligent species, where Commander Koenig is forewarned that "to resist is foolish").


What stands in my mind is how, eight to ten minutes before the end of nearly every episode, the society on a new planet encountered by the Alphans ends up being destroyed, usually at the hand of Commander John Koenig, because what it seeks does not meet with the life Alphans are used to. This was a weakness to otherwise intriguing stories that were not going to be mistaken for Star Trek.

Although I remember too many things that left me scratching my head, even from the superior first season - why did the command centre have exterior windows that could be opened when the Moon was given an atmosphere? With all of the Eagles that crashed or were otherwise disabled, how did they always seem to be able to get another one aloft, and how were they fast enough, given the scramble of Alan Carter to keep up with the Moon when it first left Earth's orbit, to reach the base again when outside the gravity of the orb.

The local TV station aired the first season Fridays at 7 pm, the same time slot that it had used for Star Trek a decade earlier. The second season was picked up by the CBC, but they threw it away by airing it Saturday afternoons at 3 pm. In the late 80s, it ended up on the children's channel YTV at about the same time, grouped with Blake's 7 and Red Dwarf. The TV regulator felt Space 1999 and Blake's 7 were too violent for a children's channel, and Red Dwarf being possibly too racy for daytime airing on that channel.

It had potential, but it just seemed to have the need to sell in many markets so that it could pay its bills, rather than just to tell great stories. If it had told great stories consistently, it would have sold solidly and been a franchise comparable to Star Trek.


Back in the 70s I really loved this show but that mainly had to do with there not being a lot of sci/fi shows on TV at the time plus I was only 6 years old and didn't know any better. However, re-watching it, I was quite disappointed. The sets and costumes and even the special effects were actually rather good but not more impressive than UFO four or five years earlier. Main main problems with Space 1999 is the weak story lines and the casting. The stories to me are positively weird, a lot of them being fairly esoteric and ending in a rather anti-climactic way. Maybe I should try watching under the influence of stimulants but some of the stories resemble more a bad acid trip than a TV show. I think you could have discussion about the meaning of some episodes as though you were discussing a Bunuel film. The casting is not very convincing either. Barry Morse looks like an OAP walking around in his payamas and Barbara Bain as love interest is beyond words. So give me UFO any time but Space 1999 really is strange.


This was an incredibly ambitious sci-fi series produced in the UK for international distribution. It was extremely expensive for its day and unfortunately, the series never took off due to a Luke-warm reception. Some of this can be blamed on the series itself--the show had a very sterile look and action was something it was usually lacking. While Martin Landau and Barbara Bain were fine actors, the parts and script were amazingly low-key for the genre. Additionally, had it appeared a few years later, after the sci-fi craze began following STAR WARS, it probably would have fared better.

Another problem is that although I enjoyed the show, there were huge changes (mostly unwelcome) in the second season. Because the show was struggling in the ratings, huge cast changes were made. The most notable ones were the loss of the wonderful doctor (played by Barry Morse) and the introduction of a shape-shifting alien (Maya) who seemed rather inappropriate to the style of the show. The intention was to pump some life into it, but devotees of the series like myself were not particularly pleased).

Overall, there were some amazing episodes (such as the one about the Queller Drive) and some bombs. It's a shame, really, as the show deserved to do better than it did.


I was in 10th grade when Space 1999 was first released and being a science major I became an instant fan. Funny enough I never liked Star Trek (too many precocious clichés and unbelievable stuff). However, I loved Space 1999. Although many criticize it for not being realistic, it was the most realistic SciFi show about space available to that date (with the exception of "2001 A Space Odyssey"). It showed us how we (humanity) might deal with the real situation of being hurled away from the Earth; heck they even had a Physicist as a main character; how much more real can you get? I watched each episode of the first season religiously and remember it among the most fond times of my life.

I still remember being all psyched up for the first episode of the second season. I even got my Dad to relinquish the living room television and watch it with me (a Herculean task). All it took was the new intro for me to instantly become discouraged (which was really horrible compared to the dramatic and well scored intro of the first season). Then I saw Maya and thought "Oh my God! are these people for real?" This woman was a Star Trek refugee with the most ridiculous make-up and eyebrows that looked like modeling clay. Also she had a power that bordered on the magical; heck they may as well have made Merlin the Magician a character also. By the time the episode was over my heart was broken. They took a visually realistic scientific atmosphere and turned it into a cheap rip off of Star Trek. My father looked at me in disbelief and said "I can't believe this is the show that you get so excited about every week." I tried watching another season two episode but couldn't even sit through it and never watched the show again. Recently I purchased the DVD set (season one only) and have been happy to re-live the genius that was this show.

As for those that say it was boring, like all first seasons the show was developing a direction and was positioned for a killer second season (before they butchered it without giving it a chance to grow that is). I'm convinced that had the original theme been pursued the second season would have been more exciting while still maintaining its scientifically realistic roots  truly a loss for a truly brilliant show.

Favorite character was probably Victor, but liked Martin Landau and loved seeing Barbara Bain each week (which fed a crush I had on her since the Mission Impossible days).


This was a good show in between the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" years that was supposed to be a reboot for the successful English "UFO" series of The Late '60s / Early '70s. The States got it in syndication about a year post-production and was heavily marketed initially for the 1975-76 season.

The show got a lot of stick for its questionable science and uneven writing, but it was a nice break from other action shows masquerading as sci-fi. Remember, it is science FICTION. Unresolved endings and dark story lines were the trademark of the first season while the second series succumbed to safer familiar territory. One can point to the unexplained changes in Season Two as show killers, but I think people who latched on to this simply wanted another "Star Trek" and were disappointed.

I wasn't disappointed ... I found the stories fresh, realistic, and full of literary references that fleshed out the scripts rather than purloined as borrowed lines uttered by the actors.

The main idea built around the premise of the moon forcibly ejected from the earth's orbit was a risky move, and I suppose many viewers thought this too ridiculous, therefore I wonder if an episode, a continuation of the pilot episode, that picks up the events befalling earth below simultaneously was in order. Perhaps that idea was kicked around but rejected because of similarities to Irwin Allen's disaster flicks of the time, budget constraints, the lack of a script, or the fact that the series was about space, not earth. Whatever, I think that would've been the link that might have clinched this series for a longer run.

Some of my favorites include "Dragon's Domain", "Force of Life", "Black Sun", "Earthbound", and "Death's Other Dominion". Good drama, good fun.

Cheers: Groundbreaking effects, fine acting, some good scripts, serious drama though fun. Stories are thoughtful.

Caveats: Year Two. Haven't we seen this sort of thing before? "Science" Fiction. Scripts at times uneven and lacked conclusions.


Thsi television series is excellent. It will surprise you for its intelligence. It deals with the old Indo-European knowledge of life, death and the after-life. It balances though in many aspects the old -Orpheus- myths of the travels via the under-worlds to the finding of secret treasures, so precious the conductor should resign his fears: Europe, as you know, is a derivative of the old Indo-Europeans, enemies to Egypt, the Ancient Gnostic Civilization. -Space 1999- is a proposal for the correction of this sick mind: the European. As you know, Greece is an enemy to Egypt: they are both opposite cultures: one celebrates knowledge, the other celebrates carnal pleasure. -Space 1999- is a perfect resolution to this old dilemma. Enjoy!


Now we come full circle so to speak , we've made Baattle Galactica again , Star Trek in Dec , and more are coming out , Land of the Lost and V: The Second Coming , so why is Hollywood afraid of remaking Space:1999 , with today's technology and the use of more nuclear devices , doesn't it seem more real to remake Space:1999 with a possible return flight to the Moon , call it Space:2020 or Space:2112 the future is now people , it's here before us . They have the money and know how to remake Battlestar , why not Space:1999 , remake:) It's about time .

You have the directors and stars , I would to see Sam Neill play a Barry Morse type character , or Tom Weller as a Tony Verdeshci type role and Zooey Deschanel as the Barbara Bain type character , haven't yet decided on the character of John Koenig , I think Christian Bale would be great as John Koenig .

Please remake Space :1999 , it's important .


I've seen about 80% of the episodes of this series in a fairly chronological order. Season 2 is definitely a nose-dive in quality from season 1 but has some redeeming qualities to it.

My main complaint with season 1 is that the aliens are often very poorly realized - mostly just people with some slight make-up on. The only episode with an imaginative extraterrestrial on it - Dragon's Domain - is good but the monster (looking like the baddie from Luigi Cozzi's CONTAMINATION) is cheesy and immobile. The best things about the first season is the A) excellent guest stars including Gianni Garko, Orso Maria Guerrini, Giancarlo Prete, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Joan Collins, Judy Geeson, etc. and B) a few never-been-seen-before science fiction ideas.

The second season tossed these two redeemers in favor of more formulaic stories and more action and humor. Granted the humor is terrible, and the departure of Paul, Victor, and Kono unfortunate (Victor was a good cerebral anchor to the show), and the scripts often trashy, but the show remained unpredictable. The alien design got a little better especially in the episode "Rules of Luton' and the chicken-man alien costume must have been reused or rehashed for THE ICE PIRATES. Maya the shape-shifting alien, though well acted by Catherine Schell, is a terrible idea (good on paper, not on screen), with makeup different in every episode and then the tendency to transform only into Earth animals. How boring. The other regulars are good except Barbara Bain, who is not a good actress, nor is she particularly pleasant to look at. Her nostrils on her nose are pointed and bizarre looking, and at 40 she had not aged well at all, looking about 2 decades older.

The worst episode is easily 'Missing Link' from season one, and 'The Taybor' and 'The Mark of Archanon' from season two. Just brain-dead episodes in every way.

The special effects, while dodgy at times, are good for the era, fresh (not the same three shots over and over like Battlestar Galactica), and with numerous explosions involving fatalities. The show continuity is a bit iffy with the base suddenly having surface defenses in some episodes and lacking them in others, etc.

All in all a fun show to watch, I just wish the quality were more consistent (like Doctor Who or Star Trek).


The only ones who think Space: 1999 is any good are those who grew up watching it as kids, and therefore has a nostalgic relationship with the series. I am not one of those.

When I view this series today (as TV reruns), trying to be objective about its value as sci-fi, I find hardly anything to enthuse about. Compared to just about any other sci-fi show, even from its own era, Space: 1999 has probably the most terrible and obnoxiously inaccurate scientific content I've ever seen, and that includes the basic story (the moon sent hurtling through space at what must be sub-lightspeed, yet encountering new worlds and aliens in every episode). Martin Landau is a very serious-looking actor who's trying to be professional about it, but he cannot save a horrid, brain-dead show like this.

Apologies to the show's fans, but I - a seasoned sci-fi fan - find the show practically unwatchable. It's even worse than the old Battlestar Galactica series, though not by much!

My rating: 2 out of 10.


I was saddened that this movie had such a low rating. I've watched it many, many times over the years, and it continues to entertain. It is, perhaps, the last good "hacker" film (well, 23 (1998) also comes to mind, but that isn't widely available in English).

The math is believable (Janek's lecture makes sense), as is the technology (except for the Hollywood-ish decryption displays -- but that's forgivable). The characters are among the most realistic in any of these movies (with the exception of Joey the lamer in Hackers (1995) -- most accurate character in a hacking movie I've seen yet). They're each composites of well-known people from the 80s security scene. The techniques they use are the techniques of the business, especially in that era.

Now that computers have become such a big thing, I don't think it would be possible for Hollywood to produce another movie like this. Anything made now would have to be far more glamorous and unrealistic.

What's this movie got, if you don't care about any of that stuff? It's tremendously funny, cleverly written (every scene works overtime to say and do more than one thing), and beautifully shot and scored. (The opening scene and transition is wonderful) The acting is priceless. I've never met someone who didn't love this film. See it.


This film is the one film of the nineties which I can watch again and again without getting bored. That's not to say it's the best, no no no, but there's something about this movie which I just can't get enough of. It's easily the most frequently used tape in my limited video library.

Mainly it's the cast; quality names down the length of the list, and each one, from Robert Redford heading the motley crew of good guys (Dan Ackroyd and Sidney Poitier especially good) to Ben Kingsley as a deliciously cool but insecure villain. They're all clearly having such a good time as they're making the movie that you can't help but join them; it's infectious.

It's also surprisingly timeless. Seven years have passed since this movie came out, which is a long time in the gadget world in which this film is based, but none of their equipment or techniques (except a brief glimpse of a now outdated version of Windows but that's REALLY nitpicking) seem out of date; it could still be today.

And then there's the moments. This is a film based on a whole load of brilliantly memorable moments. When they find out what the mysterious black box actually does, it's truly chilling. All the little tricks of their trade on display are each a delight, from setting off fire alarms to being on the other end of the phone when the fire service is subsequently called. And the ending, in my opinion, is one of the most satisfying, and hilarious, conclusions ever captured on film.

In case you hadn't noticed, I love this movie. A great score, a great cast, and a whole lot of fun. Whether you got to these comments because you want to know if this film was worth seeing, or whether a training shoe web-search somehow ended you up here against your will, you really should see this film. It's a hugely entertaining piece of the nineties. And Robert Redford has done nothing better since.


There are a bunch of movies which might not be GREAT, but really good, and you can watch them over and over again. Rainy day movies. "Sneakers" is without a doubt such a movie.

It is a lightweight caper which gets into a higher division thanks to the acting: Redford is always good, as is Strathairn, Kingsley and McDonnell. The other actors do a really good job as well, but these four stand out in my opinion.

There are twists and turns in the script, Great San Francisco locations and lots of underplayed humor in this film, all contributing to that the movie can be seen several times.

Take it for what it is, and you'll have a really good time in front of the TV.


Given that this came out in 1992, the level of technology in it is amazing. I watched this twice, the latest in 1999, and still am amazed at some of the things they can do with computers. Of course, some hacking techniques are commonplace and outdated now, but it is still engrossing to see these acts in action.

Watching it a second time gives you a sense of perspective though. Back then, to think that a chip that can control the world was preposterous, but now, with almost everything microchip-controlled, and the ubiquity of the Internet, that thought is not too farfetched.

Talking in movie terms, this ranks as one of the better ones that center around computers. There is some solid acting, and though there are sub-plots within the main plot, they do not grow so much so as to overwhelm the main storyline, which is basically a group of men hired to find the chip-that-controls-everything.


I resent another IMDB user's assumption that anyone who likes this movie has got to have an IQ of 2. What exactly does that mean? I am an intelligent moviegoer and I loved Sneakers. And I know others who are much more intelligent than me and some who I would even guess are certifiable geniuses who also loved this movie.

This movie is captivating. As other people have written, Sneakers can be watched over and over again. Its a suspense thriller that doesn't try to blind you with so many special effects that you lose sight of the fact that less than five minutes was used to create and edit the script (ie. Mission Impossible 2).

This is a fun movie for anybody who is a team player. Its very entertaining to see how each member of Redford's team brings an essential element to the task at hand. There are a couple of scenes where some things are far fetched, but nothing outside the rhelm of possibility. There is nothing that makes you groan in disgust, as if say you were watching any scene in a John Woo film. For a movie like this to work it has to be believable, and this is believable.

Sneakers is original in its ideas and the characters are very likable. Even the villian possesses qualities that make you like him. Each character is developed enough so that by the end of the movie you want to be a part of the team. Its just that much fun to watch. 10/10


I was drawn to Sneakers because I heard the story was of my favorite genre, a spy thriller. However, I found this movie to be more along the lines of a caper film.

Robert Redford is the leader of a team of experts who break into security systems so that institutions (such as banks) can see how good their system is. The team is made up of a diverse group: an ex-Cia agent (Portier) and three computer whizzes (Ackroyd, Phoenix, and the blind Stratharn). The group has great chemistry and often this leads to some fun humor.

Redford and his team are hired by the government (so they believe) to retrieve a black box that can decode encrypted computer firewalls. After retrieving the black box, the team finds themselves in dire trouble.

I was hoping the film would be more intense, yet Sneakers incorporates a lot of humor. It is a fun film and is enjoyable to watch, but if you are looking for a true spy film, then you may want to pass.

This film more closely resembles recent movies like Ocean's 11 or The Italian Job, popcorn films that have some laughs, some danger, and some suspense.

Redford is really great in this movie as is Straitarn; Mary McDonnell is also very good. Phoenix holds his own. Although far from their best roles, Poitier, James Earl Jones, Ackroyd, and Ben Kingsley are decent.

Overall an enjoyable film which incorporates computer hacking before it was mainstream. Rating 7 of 10 stars.


Other comments have already said it all. This film is superb and extremely forward-thinking... today, eight years later, all of the technology, themes, and allusions still make sense. This is Lawrence Lasker's last and greatest film as writer. For those of you who don't know, he wrote WarGames and Project X, two other great techno-thrillers. But neither of those Cold War films are relevant today, while SNEAKERS still is.

Watch this movie again in the new millennium. You'll be amazed.


This is a must film for fans who want to know if the world's secrets can be acquired through theft. The answer may surprise many including Officials who believe our Government is secure. This film is entitled " Sneakers " and is about a group of Cyber-specialists who advertise themselves as computer security experts. Their job is to test the encryption systems of various electronic based companies. In their youth, two college students (Jo Marr and Gary Hershberger) seeking to right the world's financial problems, break into a University system as a prank. Unfortunately they are detected and Marr is sent to prison. It is years later and Bishop (Robert Redford) is a legitimate security consultant who is kidnapped because he has stolen a 'Black Box' which can hack into the most secure and sensitive centers of the world. His team consists of other specialists like Donald Crease (Sidney Poitier) Erwin Emory (David Strathairn) 'Mother' (Dan Aykroyd) and River Phoenix as Carl. They have decided to take on the Government agents who are holding Bishop. The problem multiples when the C.I.A. takes an active interest as does Bishop's former friend who seeks his own bit of revenge. The movie is interesting and lively as the level of danger grows until everyone is in danger including the real U.S. government. Easily recommended as a wonderful, but serious film. ****


Great acting, great cast, great effects, great plot. This movie has it all...suspense, twists, and a little action. Even a small bit of romance. I've watched the movie a zillion times, every time picking something new out of it. Lately I've found a few mistakes in it, the latest being a scene where a headlight burns out in one camera angle scene and not in another... but that's another story. If you like adventure movies, this one's for you!


Sneakers is a fantastic movie! Almost perfectly cast--River Phoenix as a hacker is tough to accept, although he's fun in the role. The direction, cinematography, and music are excellent-- it doesn't get much better than these great angles, stylistic cuts, and on-the-edge-of-your-seat jazz (believe it or not!). The script is hilarious, the drama real. And as for the "plausibility", I don't know what the previous reviewer is talking about. I'm a Caltech undergrad, so I have a better feel for Large Number Theory and hacking than the average person, and I have to say, it's about a thousand times more possible than anything technical that Hollywood's churned out since. Okay, so even an applied mathematician being able to build such a chip all by his lonesome is pretty iffy; and some of the gadgetry is absurd, like the movement sensors that can be fooled by raising the temp to 98.6 F. And the character of Cosmo the still-radical anti-capitalist is a little off the beaten path. But these details should and can easily be ignored. As they say, sit back and enjoy the hack. Better performances of *real* hackers personalities you won't find outside of the X-Files.


10 years from today you may or may not remember elements of Star Wars but you will remember every scene in this movie. Great Cast, Good Plot and the action is actually well scripted. Of course you could do without the car chase at the end but VERY WELL written and even the minor characters put in "A" performances. I could think of 000's of ways to waste $ 7 on a movie. This one is great and you can actually see it for free


A snappy, extremely well-written literate script from the Oscar-nominated writer/director of FIELD OF DREAMS is brought to life by one of the best casts ever assembled. The legendary Robert Redford leads a ragtag bunch of computer jocks, which includes Oscar nominees Sidney Poitier, Dan Aykroyd, River Phoenix, and Oscar-winner Mary McDonnell. Maybe the film's best performance, aside from Redford, is by David Strathairn, the only major player who has never been up for an Oscar. And Oscar winner Ben Kingsely is a sublime villain.

Redford is Martin Bishop, the head of a group of computer and security specialist misfits who breach corporate security systems as a way of analyzing their weaknesses and recommending improvements. The group is coerced into a great caper: steal a little black box from a top mathematician, for the US government. Only it isn't just a little black box, it's a codebreaker - actually it's THE codebreaker: a computer formula that can crack any encryption software ever devised.

Oh, and it's not the US government ... it's the mob, which wants the codebreaker to deal with the Russians. SO Bishop and company have to steal the box back from the mob, in one of the greatest capers ever.


This is the best caper film since "Topkapi". It's smart as a whip, has a great cast, and never takes itself too seriously. I had a great time watching great actors like Redford, Poitier, Ben Kingsley, etc., just enjoying being in a great popcorn movie. There's deeper meanings in it, if you want them, or you can just sit back and let "Sneakers" take you for a great ride. It's a really, really good movie.


This is a feel good movie. Full of action, comedy and suspense. We need to have Part 2 to watch. I have already worn out my first vhs tape and bought another one. Whenever I feel like a pick me up, I put in this tape and it always brings a smile to my face. I have some very good idea for the sequel. If I feel this way, then you know , other's must feel this way also.


A college prank where one got caught and sent to prison and the other didn't forms the basis for Sneakers, a stylish, but ultimately unsatisfying thriller. Sad because it's a waste of a really talented cast.

Gary Hershberger and Jo Marr area a couple of college age computer geeks from the seventies who if they had stayed on the straight and narrow might have wound up being Bill Gates and Bill Jobs. Marr got caught and Hershberger was not by dint of going out for pizza during a break-in. Marr got some serious jail time, but Hershberger became a fugitive.

Fast forward to the nineties and Hershberger has now grown up to be Robert Redford and heading a security firm under an alias. Redford employs the diverse talents of David Strathairn, Sidney Poitier, Dan Ackroyd, River Phoenix and on occasion Mary McDonnell. They break into unbreakable places and tell you what you're doing wrong.

Redford and his crew get hired or possibly a better word is drafted into working for a couple of slippery agents played by Timothy Busfield and Eddie Jones. Object is to steal a code box with a formula designed by super mathematical genius Donal Logue. In it Logue's designed a gizmo that can break ANY code.

Before long Redford and his crew are in conflict with his former college prankster now all grownup and played by Ben Kingsley. Who wouldn't want the Ultimate Codebreaker? Even I'd like to have that.

Sneakers is done with a lot of flash and style, but in the end it's all rather silly. A real waste of a good cast. You've got to catch at the very end where on a news broadcast it's said that Republican National Committee has gone broke overnight and Greenpeace is overflowing with money for its good work.

Now maybe that's Robert Redford's secret fantasy, but this isn't Never-Never Land.


In 1992, when "Sneakers" came out, the Internet was just getting off the ground. What they portray in this movie seems more like what one would expect to find in a 21st century movie. Robert Redford and Sidney Poitier play hackers, with an entire syndicate made up of Dan Aykroyd, David Strathairn and River Phoenix. Following a few strange incidents, the whole group finds itself involved in a vast, bizarre scheme. The movie isn't totally easy to follow, but the occasional comedic bits make up for that (namely the Scrabble scene, the voice recording, and the end). Not any kind of masterpiece, but worth watching nonetheless, what with its mixture of suspense and goofiness.


I have seen this film several times, and it always entertains. It's got a well-placed plot, and the acting is tremendous. I look back at the supporting cast, and it really is top-notch. There isn't a weak link in the bunch: Redford, Poitier, River Phoenix, David Strathairn, Mary McConnell - even Akroyd is good here. (And that list doesn't even include the magnificent Ben Kingsley!) I saw the film when it first came out as a grad student in math, and yes, the math in the film is absurd. The idea of a key that could break any possible code is utterly absurd. But hey, it's fiction, so it's not worth complaining too much about it. I think it's reasonable for fiction to be occasionally unrealistic - esp. any thing that wants to make for interesting science fiction.

From a mathematician's perspective, Sneakers is a breath of fresh in this respect: it doesn't depict mathematicians as crazy.


Movies that try to do a lot fail more often than they succeed. There's no doubt that "Sneakers" attempts to pull off a lot of things during its 126 minute running time. Just look at the genres its listed under on its page (and believe me, the film spends plenty of time in each of them). But while there are many films that suffer from being overly ambitious, "Sneakers" is not one of them. It's hard to imagine how this film could be any more perfect.

Martin Bishop (Robert Redford) runs a business in testing security systems with an eccentric group of characters. However, they are hired by the NSA to steal a mysterious box from a scientist. Of course, not everything is what it seems.

To say more would be a crime. "Sneakers" has enough twists and turns to keep the viewer guessing where it will go next. This is achieved by both Phil Alden Robinson's excellent direction, and a smart script where the heroes and villains are equally intelligent.

The acting is terrific. Robert Redford is terrific as the low-key Bishop. Bishop has a dark past, but he's likable enough that we still root for him. His crew is made up of actors who turn in equally good performances: Sidney Poitier as the weary Creasy, Dan Aykroyd as the conspiracy freak known as Mother (the banter between Mother and Creasy is hilarious), the late River Phoenix as the teen-aged Carl, and David Stratharin is excellent as the blind, but excellent-hearing Whistler. And Mary McDonnell is delightful as Mary's ex-girlfriend Liz. The villains (I won't say who they are) ooze menace.

Phil Alden Robinson made his debut with the hit "Field of Dreams," and he follows it up with "Sneakers." The tone is perfect. It's fun, easy-going, but it leaves room for legitimate tension. It's also oddly nostalgic. The result is a dreamy masterpiece.

See "Sneakers." You won't be disappointed.


I'm always up for a good caper movie, and this is one of the better ones. It doesn't get overworked with such intricacy and tension that trying to keep up with it would prove unsatisfying. Instead, this one puts together a nice blend of mystery, suspense, intrigue and humor, and does it with a capable cast and clever writing. The hacker group's lone egghead is at the same time a conspiracy theorist (Dan Ackroyd) who balances out his own personality, while the rest are a complementary lot to their leader, Robert Redford, alias Martin Brice, alias Martin Bishop. I couldn't quite see Sidney Poitier as a member of the group in the early going, but he did deliver the film's best line in my estimation - "You guys would be chalk outlines without me".

The film was somewhat eerily prophetic in it's treatment of an attempt by our country's enemies to acquire access to computers controlling the national power grid. Recent headlines in the news make mention of just such a scenario with the potential to cripple the nation's infrastructure. The bad guys have been pitted against the good guys since the beginning of time, but with each passing year, the stakes continue only to escalate.

I tuned in to "Sneakers" last night without realizing that I had seen it before, and kept wondering for a while why I knew what was coming next. It was Mary McDonnell's appearance that finally brought me to my senses - I remembered that she was also pretty hot the first time around!


Sidney Poitier - River Phoenix - Dan Ackroyd - Mary McDonnell - Robert Redford - James Earl Jones... and Gandhi! Not to mention a youngish David Strathairn.

This film made in 1992 is very relevant today, dealing with issues like encryption, security, access, Identification... At the time this film was made, the PC was just starting to be used for common uses. This film is a pretty accurate look back at the state of the industry for 1992, and some of the speculative uses shown here have actually come into being.

This film shows Robert Redford as he heads a group of people who are uniquely talented in manipulating several fields of computer and telephone uses... and Ab-uses.

As head of this band of electronic robin hoods, Redford as 'Marty' Bishop is tricked into stealing a piece of technology and handing it over to Bad Guys headed by "Cosmo" aka Gandhi/Ben Kingsley - And this piece of Tech can literally shout secrets over rooftops... Hence, "No More Secrets". The item in question actually deals with encryption algorithms that are still in use today.

In an attempt to re-acquire this little gadget, Redford assembles his team and with the help of girlfriend Mary McDonnell, attempts to infiltrate the Marin County "fortress of solitude" of criminal Ben Kingsley.

The technical and comedic situations which arise in this caper make a wholly fun and interesting film. These pranks are highly humorous and basically succeed... And some of them were not too far off the mark due to the technical assistance by one of the scientists who actually developed part of the technology which this film refers to.

There are several nods and references to the films "THX-1138" by Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation", and Barry Levinson's "The Natural"... and "Three Days of the Condor".


First off, don't try this at home. This is after-all only a movie.

"Sneakers" is probably the best suspense film that honestly deals with the issues of Information Technology. The film takes you into the world of espionage via computer hackers, the new threat to world order. Rather than Chicago Italians sporting machine guns, zoot suits, and violin cases, these guys work with equipment that can do far more than hold up a bank or run a casino. And they do it from a worktable with little complex machines with screens. These "sneakers" may have stumbled onto the ability to change the entire infrastructure of the modern world. And it all works because of the outstanding script and the ensemble cast of some of the best actors in the business: Robert Redford, Ben Kingsly, Dan Ackroyd, David Strathairn, Mary McDonnell, Sidney Poitier, the late River Phoenix, and even Stephen Tobolowsky (who played the infamous Ned Ryerson in "Groundhog Day") as a nerdy tech guy. I have often felt that ensemble cast movies such as these have the most meat to them.

Robert Redford plays Martin Bishop (aka Marty or Bish), the leader of a group of hackers-for-hire that test the security systems of banks and other financial institutions to pinpoint their weaknesses. But Martin Bishop is not who he says he is. In fact, he is really Martin Brice, a 1960's college radical who, with his colleague Cosmo, used to hack into computer databases with the intention of moving money toward left-wing political causes--25 years before the launch of the World Wide Web. Brice and Cosmo became the target of US authorities. Brice escaped to Canada and assumed another name. Cosmo was not so lucky and apparently died in prison.

The other members of the "Sneakers" each have their little eccentricities: "Whistler" (my favorite character), the blind tech genius played with amazing realism by the extraordinary David Strathairn, "Mother" (Dan Ackroyd), a conspiracy theorist who believes that the people who assassinated JFK also framed Pete Rose, Carl (the late River Phoenix), the boy hacker who was caught trying to change his grades through his school's computer system, Donald Crease (Sidney Poitier), an x-CIA agent, and Liz (Mary McDonnell), a former mathematics and computer intellectual who was a former lover of Redford.

Now, apparently, the Feds have caught up with Brice, aka Bishop, and they want him to steal a certain black box from a Dr. Gunter Janek, an eastern European genius who is the Einstein of computer hackers. According to the Feds, the Russians are financing Janek through anonymous grants to create a key or shortcut to unlock the most complex computer systems in the western world. The key has been hardwired into a computer chip located inside a block box. The box is said to have the ability to break through unbreakable codes used by the largest financial and governmental institutions, from the Federal Reserve to JFK Airport.

At first the plot centers around the Sneakers or hackers using their skill along with their bugging and stake-out equipment to acquire the black box from the young professor. But an unanticipated twist pushes the movie into an unforeseen direction. All of a sudden, some of the people involved are not who they say they are. The recurring theme of "Too Many Secrets" and "No More Secrets" pushes the plot into new territory but one that completely makes sense for the rhetoric of the film as Bishop/Brice meets an old friend (Ben Kingsly) whom he did not expect to see.

A great movie, suspenseful from beginning to end. The performances of the cast are exquisite, particularly David Strathairn as Whistler, the blind tech wizard. In one amazing camera angle, we see him with dark glasses as code numbers are reflected upon his lenses. At another point, he has to drive a van, which almost worth the price of admission alone! Not to be missed if you are a computer hacker, a computer tech, or just want good suspenseful story.


With a quick glance at the plot, this would not be a film that would typically catch my attention. Normally, I would not be interested in a film that is summarized as a "complex... thriller about computers and cryptography, government and espionage." However, on this particularly boring afternoon, I decided to give it a watch. I was very surprised and quite glad that I had given it the time of day.

First and foremost, the cast is wonderfully selected. They were all very real-- even the extras. There is unexpected humor all throughout the film, as well some romance. The score is perfect, and really helped make the movie. It is not all about computers and technology or whatever you would contribute to the description of the movie, but rather it's a pretty good thriller. I jumped quite a few times throughout, and toward the end I was on the edge of my seat and biting my nails. Not only all that, but the themes are somewhat ahead of their time. I could definitely see something like this happening in the future; or maybe it's happening already...

Overall, great film and not one to be missed!


Featuring a quite talented cast, this entertains and keeps you interested throughout. The plot is fairly easy to follow. The acting is good for all the parts(in spite of Kingsley's inexplicable and seemingly random occasional change of accent) and the characters are good(Aykroyd amuses with his portrayal of a conspiracy nut, though he's never over the top). The main characters make an effective team, and each member contributes, just about equally, too. The editing and cinematography don't go anywhere you don't expect them to, but they don't really need to. The comedy is never forced, just clever and well-delivered. The pacing is great, the movie neither stands still nor rushes through. It's a fun ride through the entire thing, not to be taken too seriously(and it never claims to be more than that). Yes, the political agenda is impossible to miss(and the very end is almost insulting), but that is not surprising, given Redford's involvement. The film works well as a light spy film(without becoming farcical), delivering, as the title suggests, sneaking, as well as conspiracies. As my fiancée pointed out while we watched it, fans of J.J. Abrams' hit series Alias will appreciate the elaborate planning and execution of the "sneaks"(though it is not as stylized), and there is some gadgetry. Enjoyable from start to finish. I recommend this to any fan of spy flicks(though I'm not sure people expecting action or mystery in this will find themselves satisfied... and as a thriller, it's light at best). 7/10


Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, Dan Ackroyd, Ben Kingsley, River Phoenix, David Strathairn, and Mary McDonnell star in "Sneakers," a film about security guys who get involved in a scheme to steal for the government. Or so they think.

Redford plays Martin Bishop, who has been on the run from the law since 1969, when his friend Cosmos was caught hacking into some large bank accounts - like the Republican Party's, Richard Nixon's, etc. Bishop (whose name back then was Brice) was outside the building at the time and has been wanted ever since. Fast forward 20+ years and he's a securities expert in partnership with ex-CIA agent Poitier, Ackroyd, the blind Strathairn, and River Phoenix. The government wants them to get a black box invention from a Russian mathematician, promising to wipe Bishop's record clean. Except they turn out not to be the government. And the black box? A decoder that can get into power plants, the Federal Reserve, and every other important place.

This is a fast-paced, entertaining movie that has both funny and highly suspenseful moments. The story is way out there, the technical equipment is interesting and lots of it probably still holds up 16 years later, and the cast is great. I realize some of the comments are quite negative - I find "Sneakers" very enjoyable with great ensemble work and an intricate plot. Realistic? Is Mission: Impossible? If I wanted reality, I wouldn't be watching a movie.


Having just watched this early '90s suspense thriller about computer hackers (I think) for the first time, I was partially confused about some scenes though overall, I was a little entertained by some of the comedy elements that were sprinkled throughout. My favorite was between Robert Redford and Lee Garlington as Dr. Elena Rhyskov whose room Redford broke into. He, with his gang's help talking over his earpiece, try to convince this doctor of his good intentions and how he doesn't want her paramour (a mathematician they're trying to catch red-handed) to know about them. I especially laughed when Redford substituted "help" for "head"! It was also good seeing Redford and Sidney Poitier in their only team-up though technically Poitier was supporting here. Dan Aykroyd was also funny about some "facts" only he believes. And most of the supporting cast, especially James Earl Jones, provided their own moments. So while I have reservations, I do recommend Sneakers.


"I could of joined the NSA but they found out my parents were married!"

The DVD box proudly proclaims that the film is one of the most satisfying suspense films ever,! naturally this is hyperbole from the marketing department, but it's stuff like that that can make or break a viewers expectation level being achieved.

I opened this write up with a funny line spoken by Robert Redford because having just finished the film I feel all jolly, and that is a priceless thing after watching one of the most suspenseful films ever! {groan}. This film is a multi genre offering, it has pretty much most bases covered, and it has a cast of actors from different eras clearly enjoying the work they are doing. There is no earth shattering twists or performances to match, it's a tightly written 2 hours of pure entertainment. It does have suspense, it does make you think about how technology is an incredible tool, but chiefly the film is a film that you all can watch on a winters night and be safe in the knowledge that your rental or TV time hasn't been wasted.

7/10, and the ending is fabulous, I really should go for a higher rating purely for the incredulous looks that James Earl Jones gives as the final reel draws to a close.


I'd rate this movie between an 8 and a 9. Very entertaining and moves along well. Strong cast of people that would probably not be together except for an offbeat move like this. I LIKED the music in the background. Unobtrusive, but effective without trying to hype up excitement. I just happened to see it again today (3rd time) by accident. It's still as good as ever.

Over the years, I've seen a number of spy movies and this one is clearly among the more clever ones. The level of sophistication of the electronic tools used in the intelligence community was surprising then and made me wonder what kinds of things were really possible at the time.

If you're looking for blazing guns, car chases and repelling wires in watches, this isn't your movie. On the other hand, if you like your spy movies on the cerebral side, this one will do, quite nicely.


The film begins with Martin (Redford) and his friend "Cosmo" (Kingsley) in college, hacking into various agencies' computer systems and diverting money to other accounts. Martin narrowly escapes a raid on their apartment and flees to Canada, while Cosmo goes down. Decades later, Martin (under an assumed name) leads a team of private investigators and is hired by government agents to steal a "code-breaking" box from a Bay Area scientist. But the Feds aren't real... and the box finds its way into the hands of none other than Martin's former partner in crime.

All in all, it works because the math and the technology are believable, especially for the early '90s. The characters are all terrific and among the most realistic seen in "high-tech" thrillers of this nature, while also adding a certain light-hearted feel at times. The eerie feel is also realistic, with the Cold War having just ended and great uncertainly lingering as to the world political landscape. A good soundtrack, well-chosen locations and great writing make this film solid and very much underrated.


At first I wasn't sure this movie was going to be much. Prepared to give it a mediocre score, partially to just be nice since it contained work from big names like Robert Redford and Ben Kingsley (who's names didn't appear on the credits on the outside of the package) and more. But this movie did sneak in and grab my attention with it's subtle draw. These people are computer experts, Redfords character is blackmailed because of his past, into doing some work for the government. The task is retrieving a black box, that isn't your run of the mill black box like what is found in air planes, this one has a very powerful secret.


Starring: Robert Redford, Dan Akroyd, Ben Kingsley, Sidney Poitier, River Phoenix, Mary McDonnell, David Straithairn This movie is just so good, it's almost hard to sum up the greatness in a review. At one point this was basically my favorite movie, but now it's just one of my favorite movies. It still gets a place on the mantel.

The movie starts with a young Marty and Cosmo back in 1969 doing some early computer hacking. They're busily transferring money from those who have it to those who need it. Example, taking from Richard Nixon's personal checking account and giving it to the Association of Legalized Marijuana. Truly, Robin Hoods. But then Marty gets hungry, so he heads out for pizza. When he gets to the van and tries to start it, flashing lights appear outside, head upstairs, and haul Cosmo away. Marty runs, and then it fades to present day, which when the movie was made, was 1992.

Martin Brice (Redford) now goes by the alias of Martin Bishop. He has an interesting job. As a bank teller says, "So you get hired to break into other people's places, to make sure nobody can break into their places?" In the team is a blind sound expert who goes by the name of Whistler (Straithairn), an electronics expert who goes by Mother (Akroyd), a teenager named Carl (Phoenix), and an ex-CIA agent, Donald Crease (Poitier).

One day they get some clients who walk in with a long list of information on all the people in Bishop's team. The only person they don't have info on is Martin Bishop. They then identify themselves as NSA, tell Bishop that they know his real identity, and ask to meet with them again for a special assignment. That assignment is to steal a little black box from some mathematician. Bishop's crew doesn't know what the box does, so they accept the offer. As part of the deal it pays $175,000, and they'll clear Bishop's record.

Once they have the box, they fiddle around with it a little and discover that it is actually a sophisticated code breaker that can hack American encryption systems. But when they are getting ready to give it to the NSA guys, they find out that Dr. Janek, the mathematician, has been murdered. At this point it's kind of hard to not wonder how important the box is, but unfortunately, the box is already in the NSA's hands before they find out about Janek, and so they drive away with no money and no little black box.

It's around this point where the plot of the movie really takes off and it gets very interesting. I'm not going to say much else. You'll just have to watch it for yourself and see.

Bottom Line: 4 out of 4 (own this movie)


Having just watched The Bronze Buckaroo, I picked the next film on the "Black Westerns" disc of the DVD set "Black Entertainment in Film" which happened to be Harlem Rides the Range. Once again Herb Jeffries stars as Bob Blake with Lucius Brooks as sidekick Dusty and Clarence Brooks in a villainous role. Spencer Williams, however, is on the good side this time as Blake's ranch-hand boss and previously female lead Artie Young is just a picture here until the last 10 min. Also F. E. Miller appears again as Slim Perkins who with Lucius provides some amusing comic relief that in a white cast movie might have been considered racist. I actually thought Harlem Rides the Range might have been slightly duller than The Bronz Buckaroo but at least this time the print was good and the soundtrack was clear so I could actually hear the dialogue well and the singing was more enjoyable as a result which was provided by Mr. Jeffries and The Four Tones of which Lucius is a member. P. S. Another player, Wade Dumas who was the Dog City Sheriff, came from my home state of Louisiana in addition to Mr. Williams. Also, Mr. Williams and Mr. Miller wrote the screenplay this time.


In the 1920s, 30s and 40s, Black movie goers were usually not allowed in White movie theaters here in the United States. In addition, theaters catering to Black audiences had difficulties getting first-run film and Black audiences really didn't feel much connection to the all-White films Hollywood was producing. As a result, small Black-owned movie companies sprang up and tried to fill this void. The problem was that these companies were operated on shoestring budgets and they simply couldn't afford to make polished and high quality films. Some of them turned out pretty good, but in general these films were pretty dreadful--and what more could you expect considering that 99% of all the money went to make Hollywood films.

Because of this context, you need to understand that with so many strikes against this film, it's a wonder it even achieves a score of 3 (and perhaps my 3 is being a tad generous). The film is a Black version of a typical Gene Autry film but starring a cast of less experienced actors, lacking incidental music and a good Foley artist (a lot of the action has no sound effects or they are severely muffled) and experienced writers and directors. This was purely a 3rd string group of film makers and I am sure they were trying their best, but the lack of professionalism shows. All too often, actors just stand around or utter their lines with no emotion or conviction--because they almost universally lacked experience and training. As for the film's star, Herb Jeffries, he wasn't too bad. His singing wasn't bad but he certainly lacked charisma. It's no surprise, then, that this marked the last of Jeffries cowboy films--being the fifth in a series of very inconsequential low-budget Westerns.

The plot, if anyone really cares, is about a hidden radium mine and some baddies attempt to steal it from its rightful owner. The problem I saw with that is that radium occurs only in trace amounts in uranium and must be processed and refined to collect radium. So why didn't they call it a 'uranium mine' instead?! After all, you don't mine pure radium. But this is also not particularly important--nor is the film unless you are watching it for historical purposes or if you are curious to see the most famous Black singing cowboy.

Also, one final note. This is packaged on a DVD along with MURDER IN HARLEM by Alpha Video--one of the worst DVD producers on the planet. Most of their videos are fuzzy and tough to watch and this film was certainly no exception. However, Alpha also specializes in some public domain and hard to find films where there simply aren't better copies available and it doesn't make financial sense to properly restore the films. Like 'em or not, if you want to see this film, Alpha is probably your only source.


Boy did this movie suck. And not in that bad movie/campy way that I thought it would. It took itself much too serious. And having Farrah Fawcett play a women who is the world's most successful actress/singer? The scene where she is recording a song is too funny. She's suppose to be this huge pop singer and the song was really lame, and obviously it was not her singing. And Fawcett, even though shot through tons of gauze, was certainly not looking her best, but everyone kept saying how she was soooo beautiful and talented and gorgeous. And her "acting" in this movie was atrocious. She has the same look for pensive, fearful, angry, happy and contemplative. It's like, "I'm so sad, look at my pretty, curly, blond hair.

And the rest of the cast is no better. Robin Givens is the self centered diva, but really has nothing to do except have lunch with the other characters, act like Samantha on Sex in the City, and realize at the end how much she really loves her daughter. Boring!

And Melissa Gilbert can't act either. She looks good but that's it. And her storyline was the only one that was somewhat interesting/funny. This movie might of been a little better if they got rid of the lame kidnapping storyline. I thought this movie would be about the lives of the famous and wealthy in Hollywood, but the last part of it looked like a cheesy Diagnosis Murder episode. And it's painful to watch Farrah try to act like she's upset.


Farrah Fawcett is 60 years old. And it shows! I just could not believe that the walking mummy on screen was once the prettiest of the Angels. Hollywood is really harsh with aging actresses but this doesn't give them any excuse for trying (unsuccessfully) to look sexy and desirable until...death, especially when it's not in their genes. As for the movie, the plot and the acting are horrible. The characters and reactions unconvincing. I only watched it to the end to see if it would get worse - and of course it did. The film is supposed to show (once again) how rotten the U.S. Movie industry is and how it affects people's personalities and actions. But no morals are gained due to the shock of viewing one of the worst films ever!


actually the film had some interesting story lines. casting was wrong, Farrah playing a young babe was mutton dressed like lamb, she clearly does have some thing , but playing a young middle aged sex goddess probably expired by 1990. I feel they should have changed the storyline and made her a has been successful movie star trying to make a comeback, utilise some of her character acting abilities and explore the insecurities of a women who had it all and now faces a ageist community like Hollywood which remembers stars for their more famous roles, like Charlie's angels "closer to half a century ago". The rhythm of the feel was indecisive, and did not do the book justice. I wish someone would give me half the money to make a film like this - with the story lines , budget , actors the final delivery is SO disappointing.


This is a pale comparison to the 1985 Mini-Series based on Jackie Collins's novel "Hollywood Wives". Not having read the "New Generation" book, I can't say how literary it is. But as a made for television movie it is poor. Farrah Fawcett's character Lissa seems tired. And the vacuous young characters are atrocious. Every one talking on cell phones in every other scene is a bit much. Yes, most people have cell phones, but it vitiates the action for the characters to always be on cell phones. Doesn't anyone in movies walk down streets, or go over to someone's house without calling first.

I thought all three female leads were empty, shallow characters with nothing interesting to say or do. I'll have to read the book this trash was based on, and imagine how it could have been conceived as a TV movie.


I first read the novel by Jackie Collins and I thought what a fantastic book, not Shakespeare obviously, but definitely a page turner. When I finished it I thought it would make a great movie. Little did I know it was already turned into a movie. I have to admit I was a little nervous about seeing the movie, as movie adaptations are usually always not as good as the book, and especially TV movies are usually pretty low on talent and budget. I finally tracked this movie down on DVD on ebay, and in spite of the negative reviews on IMDb, I really enjoyed it. While reading the novel I had images of what the characters looked like and for the most part the movie did a great job. I thought Melissa Gilbert as Taylor Singer was great, always loved her, Robin Givens was OK, but Farrah Fawcett was definitely not who i would have chose. The Character in the book was closer to a cross between Madonna and Marylin Monroe. Farrah Fawcett was definitely way too old for the part and looked weathered, tired and haggard much of the time, the rest of the time she had about a pound of makeup on and wore clothes 20 years too young for her.

However I thought the movie was great. If your trying to take the movie seriously and looking for quality, then this movie probably deserves 2 stars, however, if your looking for some trashy, guilty pleasure, camp entertainment then this movie scores. This movie is a basic cable CBS movie of the week, yet its trying to be hip, edgy and sexy, like an HBO/skinamax movie. This is what makes this movie so enjoyable. It opens with Farrah Fawcett finishing up her make up, (which looks like bondo!!) and doing a truly jaw dropping Vanity Fair cover shoot. Farrah writhes and touches herself and mugs for the camera so unashamedly that you just cant help but laugh. She is just too old to be playing a drop dead sexy pop star! The story line weaves together Farrah's story with that of her 2 other Hollywood wife friends. Melissa Gilbert plays an ex actress now married to a prominent producer. Shes trying to write a script and turns to a 20 something hunk writer, who we see for the first time naked, save for a conveniently draped bed sheet. Melissa Gilbert is wonderful to watch as shes very eager to shed her safe image, and we she her talking about oral sex at lunch, taking her top off (back to the camera) and going to bed with her hunk numerous times and eventually acting in Showtime movie about lesbians!!. Farrah Fawcett in the mean time is dealing with an abusive husband who is sleeping with other women and using her as meal ticket. One shocking scene has Farrah getting slapped round by her husband in their bedroom, he throws her on the bed and then unzips his pants practically in her face,(hinting at forced oral sex) She later develops a relationship with a private investigater whom she hires. Robin Givens the last of our Hollywood wives has basically no part, and is mere filler. She is always talking about how wonderful she is and how she is adored by her fans, and is definitely a diva.

The movie looks fabulous. All the women get to look fantastic. In every scene they are dressed to the nines and fully made up. The all drive expensive cars, live in luxurious homes and are filthy rich. The acting is pretty low, which adds to the trashiness. One scene between Farrah and her daughter is pretty shocking because of how bad the acting is. Farrah is supposed to be trying to give advice to her daughter about some man trouble, but cant find the right thing to say. Farrah acts like she forgot the dialogue and stumbles over her words and makes gestures that are so amateurish and lame, it looks like a scene off a blooper real!! Seeing Farrah try to act like a sex symbol and sing like a pop star (she lip syncs worse than Susan Hayward in Valley of the Dolls) makes this a so bad its good movie. The dialogue is full of hilarious profanity( remember its a TV movie so the characters go around saying "Bitch, Son of a Bich, ass, and bastard" as much as possible to make the movie sound edgy!! By the middle of the movie your wanting someone to say F***!!!!) The storyline keeps the viewer involved and has some twists and suspense as it gets to the end.

If your a fan of trashy movies like Valley of the Dolls and movies that showcase an aging actress in a role too young for her, than this is def worth a look! Like the book this movie is mere entertainment and not some Academy Award winning art film!! If you watch this movie for some fun it won't disappoint!!!


I've always loved Farrah Fawcett, ever since I've seen "The Burning Bed", a couple of months ago I heard that she was going to do a movie for T.V., so I came on the internet and went here to IMDB, when the movie came on I thought it was not the best, but what commercial t.v. movie is?, the only thing I liked about it was Farrah Fawcett, she was really good in it, she looked different, but I still loved her in this movie, I gave it a 7 because I thought 8-10 was too much, if this was a motion picture it probably would be a 2 star movie, but anyway I liked it, I even taped the movie for myself.


Jack Scalia gets better with age..his acting skills always complement Jackie Collins ..Farrah and Melissa Gilbert were perfect casting ..the actors and friendship among the cast added to the story...My main interest in the movie was Jack Scalia, this movie proves that if given the right script his acting talents are enduring..More Jack Scalia in the future . PLEASE! Too many producers look to other countries for actors. Thank You Jackie Collins for giving us a chance to see more projects and actors otherwise not considered for romantic roles..JACK Scalia will still be sexy in his 80s..

Again, this movie was a wonderful escape and ended way to soon! Fondly! jsn


A Walt Disney SILLY SYMPHONY Cartoon Short.

Worried about having enough food to feed her family come Wintertime, THE WISE LITTLE HEN decides to plant a field of corn. Her idle friends, Peter Pig & Donald Duck, decline to help with the planting or the harvesting - leaving the little chicken to plan her sweet revenge...

This is a very fine adaptation of the childhood story, with a strong, self-reliant title character (voiced by Florence Gill). But the reason this is a landmark cartoon is because it was the debut of the irascible, anti-social, temperamental, infuriating & utterly lovable Duck, a character so strong he would soon eclipse Mickey Mouse himself. With voice courtesy of the inimitable Clarence Nash, Donald would become one of the world's most popular personalities & a source of never-ending fascination for those who study anti-social behavior and its consequences.

Fate would not be so kind to Peter Pig. Although his debut was just as conspicuous as the Duck's, he lacked that certain intangible quality which would set him apart from the common swine. Hollywood can be a cruel place & Peter's attempts to build a movie career - he worked for a while as Porky Pig's stunt double - proved a failure. When last heard of, Peter Pig was living in a small apartment over a garage in Pomona, California.

The SILLY SYMPHONIES, which Walt Disney produced for a ten year period beginning in 1929, are among the most fascinating of all animated series. Unlike the Mickey Mouse cartoons in which action was paramount, with the Symphonies the action was made to fit the music. There was little plot in the early Symphonies, which featured lively inanimate objects and anthropomorphic plants & animals, all moving frantically to the soundtrack. Gradually, however, the Symphonies became the school where Walt's animators learned to work with color and began to experiment with plot, characterization & photographic special effects. The pages of Fable & Fairy Tale, Myth & Mother Goose were all mined to provide story lines and even Hollywood's musicals & celebrities were effectively spoofed. It was from this rich soil that Disney's feature-length animation was to spring. In 1939, with SNOW WHITE successfully behind him and PINOCCHIO & FANTASIA on the near horizon, Walt phased out the SILLY SYMPHONIES; they had run their course & served their purpose.


While watching The Wise Little Hen, I had to keep reminding myself that this short was made in 1934. The animation has held up well over the years and is as good as anything you'll see. The colors paint a bright picture and the attention to detail is amazing. This film is also an important milestone as it marks the first appearance of Donald Duck, it remains one of his best films.


Just watched on YouTube this Disney Silly Symphony that's important for one reason and one reason only: It's the debut of Donald Duck and that of his creator, Clarance Nash. In this one, it's the musical version of the moral fable "The Wise Little Hen" with Florence Gil voicing the one who asks Donald and his friend Peter Pig (Pinto Colvig) for help in first planting the corn and then harvesting them. The both fake bellyaches and when it comes time to eat the results...well, watch the short. Both entertaining and educational, The Wise Little Hen is highly recommend for fans of Disney and animation and especially that lovable short tempered duck! And it's all because of Mr. Nash that we owe a heap of thanks so thank you, Clarance, wherever you are!


This is an excellent example of early Disney and the first appearance of Donald Duck. There was also a Peter Pig, who did not fare as well as Donald in his movie career. Donald is, if anything, more obnoxious and disagreeable here than he was later. The animation here is splendid and the short is well worth seeking out. Attempts to locate Peter Pig have been unsuccessful, although there are rumors that he lives in semi-retirement in Encino, having wisely bought stock in Disney and, later, in IBM. Recommended.


This is a gem. The animation is beautiful, with lovely colourful backgrounds and the character animation is very good. The music was brilliant, very playful and jolly, and the theme tune somewhat reminds me of that for Peculiar Penguins. The characters are engaging, with the exception of Peter Pig, whose presence seemed unnecessary at times. The hen of the title is fun, the chicks are ADORABLE(I know I keep using this word, but most of the silly symphonies are), but what makes this short for me is the presence of Donald Duck, voiced by the one and only Ducky Nash. Everything else was fine, but my favourite duck's presence elevates this gem to a greater level.

Two words for this- wonderful gem! 9.5/10 Bethany Cox