Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Would anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: "The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.

Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!

The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.

The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.

"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.

I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.

If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.