Q: It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.

Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky "comments" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement.

In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye.

As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them.
A: negative
Q: A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.

What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?

Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.

That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end.
A: negative
Q: SERIES 1

As the UK eagerly awaits the launch of series two of 'Lost', series one (which just finished showing here) did not disappoint.

A group of over forty passengers struggle to cope after their plane crash-landed into a deserted island. They pray for rescue. However, as the days turn into weeks and the survivors explore the rainforest that surrounds them, they begin to wonder whether they are alone.

Admittedly, the series has a hard time keeping up the pace after the explosive pilot episodes, which hurls at the group a polar bear, a giant beastie and the possibility of others on the island. Nevertheless, the series manages to pick itself up after a few episodes and is outstanding by the final episode. Possibly the greatest thing about 'Lost' is the fact that we visit each character's life before the crash in a series of flashbacks. This gives us more insight and, hence more suspense and excitement as the events unfold in the present.

Ultimately, this show is a superb combination of drama, suspense and the supernatural; it is, quite simply, unmissable.

SPOILERS FOR SEASON 1 FOLLOW

SERIES 2

After the cliffhanger that was the end of Series 1 of 'Lost', Series 2 begins with our protagonists delving deep into the heart of the phenomenon that is the Hatch. They discover a mysterious man who has a job to do. Meanwhile, Michael and Sawyer struggle to cope with the aftermath of what happened on the raft.

As the series progresses, the viewers will be unable to bring themselves to turn off their television set, as every episode of the series contains more twists than a Curly-Wurly chocolate bar, one of which introduces a whole host of new characters. With every mystery solved with 'Lost', five brand new ones seem to come out of the woodworks. After the 974th plot twist of the series, it finally dawns on the viewer that it doesn't actually matter whether the plane-crash survivors make it off the island. However, the stunning series finale answers just over half of those questions, despite its anti-climatic ending.
A: positive
Q: Indian Summer is a good film. It made me feel good and I thought the cast was exceptional. How about Sam Raimi playing the camp buffoon. I thought his scenes were very funny in a Buster Keaton-like performance. Solid directing and nice cinematography.
A: positive