Q: After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book "The House Next Door" has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.

With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.

Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.

Be sure to read the great novel.
A: positive
Q: Excellent writing and wild cast. The tech is poor but it's obviously very low budget. Looks like they didn't cut the negative but had to release on a video output. In any case one of the most inventive comedies I've seen lately. The screenwriter in particular is fine.
A: positive
Q: This obscure de Sica delivers the goods. And it is said "the meek shall inherit the earth." This tale of classes on the surface but really an allegory for all the homeless people that populated Europe after the great war. They are homeless but cheerful, in a societies too impoverished and selfish to care for or acknowledge them, footmats for the Italian carpetbaggers. de Sica chooses to tell it as a fairy tale, a Cinderella story. I have not read the book it is based on so I cannot foresay if the deus ex machina is the construct of the writer or Vittorio. It begins with the words, "Once upon a time..." to exemplify the timelessness of its tale, for the story could be set anywhere and everywhere. Caricature sketches of the aristocracy that cut to the bone, whimsical nature of the homeless especially when they begin to grant their wishes and an ending right out of a Spielberg picture makes this boulange a delight for all. De Sica's most accessible picture is also one of his best. Abandoning neo-realism, he always dallied between that and pure good old film-making, he creates a movie that breaks the heart and at the same time fills it with the yearning of hope that one needs to continue leaving in this world. Gracias Vittorio! Gracias! Gracias!!! Gracias!!!!!!!!!!!!
A: positive
Q: When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.

I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.

-SPOILERS FOLLOW-

First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.

Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.

Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.

The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.

The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.
A: negative