Q: Unashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending though. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Luckily, not knowing anything about this movie I was curious enough to tape it from TV. And then the tape ran out just five minutes before the ending!

But I'm glad I managed to get most of it because this is a really great spy movie. There are the usual toy submarines and a bit foggy plots, but also very chilling and even daring moments. Considering the production year 1969, the certain slight lesbian overtones must have raised a few eyebrows. Of course now it doesn't surprise anyone and those scenes in fact seem pretty beautifully done. And it's not just because of the two George's actresses.

The gas attack seems to hit every viewer very strongly, no wonder, And it certainly did hit me. Very effective. Also the viewpoints from the both sides of the opponents gives the whole story more deepness along the usual suspense and action. This is not just a heroic war tale of one victorious side, but shows what lies behind the victory in good and bad. Well, being a case of war, mostly bad.

For the fans of composer Ennio Morricone this is also a must. His work is always excellent, touching but never over the top. And I think I have to try to catch more movies with Suzy Kendall. Talk about Fraulein! Let's hope they get this on DVD soon, so I can have the entire movie in my collection and more people will become familiar with this very little known gem. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
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. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative