Q: Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.

Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.

Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.

The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.

In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.

It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.

An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.

4/10
A: negative
Q: Notice I have given this 1 star if the option been given I would have given this zero. As I put this DVD into my TV and sat down on my couch I was expecting some of the worst film making at its finest. I looked this movie up on IMDb and saw that it was the worst rated movie so I guess I came into it critical of every mistake. But it didn't prepare me for the crap that was about to spew from my television screen.

The box makes this movie out to look well OK at best. DO NOT LET THAT FOOL YOU. This movie needs to be banned from all shelves around the world.

The best way I can describe this movie is like porn but without any sex scenes in it. The acting (if you can call it that), the "plot" (so many holes must look like Swiss cheese), and the special effects really are just terrible.

Please do not be like me and rent this movie because you think it will be funny to watch.

In the end I'm not saying I can make a better movie than this, but I am thinking it.
A: negative
Q: It is a story of Siberian village people from the beginning of 20th century till the 60ties. It is about passion and feelings, about Russian soul, and very romantic. This movie IS NOT action packed, it flowes slowely. In second part one can find great songs - Russian romances. It is much more better than Doctor Zhivago. The director of this movie moved to America and made Runaway Train for example.
A: positive
Q: As an animated film from 1978, this is pretty good--generally well above the standard of the days when Disney hadn't done anything good in years (and Tolkien cared little for Disney anyway). It gets major points for innovative and careful camera work, applying cinematic techniques with relative success. The much-maligned rotoscoping actually works pretty well, especially with the Ringwraiths, and the opening narration. However, it is so drastically overused--possibly as a money-saving technique--that it detracts from the overall effect. The same technique that makes wraiths spooky and otherworldly doesn't fare so well in the Prancing Pony.

As for the adaptation of the story, it's actually quite good. We lose little bits here and there, minor details such as the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the Gaffer and the Sackville-Bagginses. We compress a few characters, such as revising Legolas as one of Elrond's household and an old friend of Aragorn's, but that's a rather wise decision for film. In books you have room to include the references to the larger world of the Elves and Middle-Earth's vast history. In film, you trade that for visuals and sound that convey the same elements in a different way. Nothing critical is truly lost here, and although I have minor quibbles about some of the changes, I'm generally pretty happy with it.

If only the dratted writers had managed to remember Saruman's name--he's frequently referred to as Aruman, a decision probably made to make him more distinct from similarly-named Sauron; it took me a second viewing before I was certain I hadn't misheard it. It's also annoying that Boromir is a bloody stage viking, and irritable from the start. However, Gandalf is excellent, and most of the rest of the voicework is excellent. If only John Hurt weren't too old to play Aragorn; I love his voice.

Of course, with the film ending at the midpoint of the story, there's a vast disappointment built in. What makes it far, far worse is the altogether miserable job done by the Rankin & Bass crew on the sequel. That they were permitted to do Return of the King after butchering The Hobbit remains a huge mystery; they seem more interested in bad songs than in proper storytelling. For all its faults, this film's heart is solidly in place and it tries very hard to accomplish a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that the upcoming series of films keeps as true to its vision...
A: positive