Q: Ok so I was bored and I watched it all the way through.

This film is mild, inoffensive and lacklustre. The story is so sugary it rots your teeth on the opening titles. A tail of two 'traumatised' children learning about 'God' the fairy story way which frankly left me rather traumatised. It uses the Irish 'blarney' in such a stereotypical way one hopes no true Irish ever see it. Aimed at children who frankly would switch off after the first attempt at an 'OIRISH' accent. All in all why do they pump these out.
A: negative
Q: This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.
A: negative
Q: This was a very brief episode that appeared in one of the "Night Gallery" show back in 1971. The episode starred Sue Lyon (of Lolita movie fame) and Joseph Campanella who play a baby sitter and a vampire, respectively. The vampire hires a baby sitter to watch his child (which appears to be some kind of werewolf or monster) while he goes out at night for blood. The baby sitter is totally oblivious to the vampire's appearance when she first sees him and only starts to put two and two together when she notices that he has no reflection in the mirror, has an odd collection of books in the library on the occult, and hears strange noises while the vampire goes to talk to the child. She realizes that the man who hired her may not be what she thought he was originally. She bolts out the door, the vampire comes out looking puzzled and the episode is over. I don't know what purpose it was to make such an abbreviated episode that lasted just 5 minutes. They should just have expanded the earlier episode by those same 5 minutes and skipped this one. A total wasted effort.
A: negative
Q: Spoiler alert although I think this one was spoiled coming out of the can It's hard to even imagine that a film with these stars, from this studio, made at this time period, could be so awful, but it is. It is the film's biggest flaw by far that it just doesn't make any damn sense.

Rich widower American aristocrat Penn Gaylord leaves his small daughter "in charge" and goes off to World War I where he is killed. Then we flash forward to present day (1942) and total confusion. The three sisters are in court where they are said to have spent the last twenty years, and some jerk named Barclay is trying to take their home away from them. This is just the beginning of an endless series of unanswered questions that comprises the script, more holes in it than The Warren Report. What happened to the Gaylord fortune? If the will is worth half a billion, why has the family home gone from an opulent palace to the house on The Munsters? Who the devil is this Barclay clown? And why is he able to take someone's home away from them? The questions just pile on top of more questions.

The usually affable and charming George Brent is playing Barclay, who is inexplicably a total sod tromping all over everyone, taking whatever the heck he wants no matter who it belongs to and without a twinge of guilt; yet no one besides Fiona (Barbara Stanwick) seems to particularly dislike this cretin. Why? None of these questions are ever answered. We instead just follow Fiona's life from one train wreck to another, the evil Barclay takes away her home, her fortune, and even her child. What does she do? Shoot him? Set him on fire? No, too logical. In a completely improbably wrap-up, this woman, who's only prior romantic involvement with Barclay was, save for the technicality of marriage, rape, suddenly decides mid-sentence (literally) that she does not hate him, she loves him. And they're going to live happily ever after. All of a sudden for no reason in the world, this early female role model of independence and authority is transformed into the usual helpless ankle-twisting twit more commonly found in films of this era. Yeah, sure, steal everything in the world that belongs to me and I'll fall in love with you. On what planet does that happen? I can only guess the reason I never heard of this film before I happened to catch it on Turner is that it was as lost on contemporary audiences as it is today.
A: negative