Q: Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I've recently acquired another adaptation of his work COMA (1978) in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.

Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop mainly because the narrative just isn't very thrilling: in fact, it's quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure it's actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country's heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this 'act of treason' with his life.

Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of "Frost/Nixon", which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down's antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.
A: negative
Q: I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch.
A: positive
Q: Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.

The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button a lot.
A: negative
Q: I only recently found out that Madeleine L'Engle's novel had been turned into a TV movie by Disney and ordered the DVD. The book was a favorite of mine when I was a child and I read it several times.

Despite some of the child actors not resembling the characters as described in the novel, the Murry family is well cast, with a likable (if too pretty) Meg at the center and a Charles Wallace who is convincing as a child prodigy without becoming irritating.

The first half hour is promising enough, doing a good job in establishing the relationships between the lead characters and at setting the scene. Unfortunately as soon as the non-human characters appear the adaptation starts to unravel and once the children leave earth the whole thing falls apart. Alfre Woodward is too youthful looking and much too regal as the eccentric Mrs Whatsit (think Miriam Margolis or Joan Plowright instead) and Kate Nelligan face is so mask like and inexpressive, she must have visited Faye Dunaway's plastic surgeon in recent years. For some reason they make her Mrs Which look like Glinda from The Wizard of Oz when she should have resembled a benign Wicked Witch of the West.

In the end what lets this down most badly are the terrible special effects and art direction. I understand that this is a TV movie, but the CGI looked like something that could have been done 15 years earlier. Mrs Whatsits' centaur incarnation is a disaster as is the Chewbacca like suit for Aunt Beast, who in the novel is a velvety, elegant creature instead of the ungainly Big Foot like thing shown here. I could go on and on, nearly every artistic choice is a disaster, presumably because there wasn't a large enough budget to do this justice, but also because the design work lacks imagination and good judgement.

This really would have needed the sense of wonder Spielberg brought to his early films. What a shame that with the current popularity of adapting children's literary fantasy series nobody thought of adapting A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels for the big screen, giving it the scope it deserves.
A: negative