IN: Review: drss1942 really took the words right out of my mouth. I loved Segal's early films and feel like the only one who is still faithful to him. I just saw this movie (ok, fell asleep about 90% through, so I didn't see the end). When I woke up and saw I was at the DVD menu, I was thankful I didn't subject myself to any more of that movie and didn't dare find out what happened at the end. There was something strange about the voice of Segal and others. Kinda reminded me of the original Mad Max where the voice were dubbed, but in the same language (Australlian is English, right? :) Anyway, if I had 10 thumbs, they'd all point down right now for this Segal injustice.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: When originally screened in America in 1972, 'The Night Stalker' became the highest rated made-for-T.V. movie in history. Based on Jeff Rice's unpublished novel, it told how a fearless investigative reporter named Carl Kolchak ( the late Darren McGavin ) discovered the existence of a vampire in modern-day Las Vegas. When it arrived on British television four years later, it did not quite have the same impact, but my friends were talking about it at school on Monday morning, as indeed was I. We all agreed that it was one of the most exciting things we had seen.

I did not know of the existence of 'The Night Strangler' until it turned up nearly a decade later. I.T.V., who screened the 'Kolchak' movies, had apparently decided to pass on the spin-off series; they felt 'Barnaby Jones' starring Buddy Ebsen to be more of a draw, and anyway, viewers might confuse 'Kolchak' with 'Kojak'! For years my only source of information concerning the show was an article in Fangoria magazine. I could not even purchase the Jeff Rice novels.

Then something wonderful happened. In 1990, B.B.C.-2 put out the show as part of a late-night Friday series devoted to the supernatural called 'Mystery Train', hosted by Richard O'Brian. 'Kolchak' found himself rubbing shoulders with the likes of 'The Brain Eaters' and 'Earth Vs.The Spider'. The opening titles were trimmed, removing Kolchak's whistling, and the closing credits...well, there were none.

The first episode screened was 'Werewolf'. I cannot say I was overly impressed, but stuck with it, and am I glad that I did!

I really wish I'd seen it in 1974. My twelve year old self would have adored it. Creepy, humorous, exciting, no wonder it fired Chris Carter's imagination.

The show's biggest asset was, of course, McGavin. Unlike the recent Kolchak, the original was an everyman figure, eccentrically dressed, rather conservative. He was to the supernatural what 'Columbo' was to crime. The late Simon Oakland was great too as Kolchak's bad-tempered boss Tony Vincenzo. The scripts overflowed with wonderful, dry wit. I found myself enjoying the programme more for the humour content than the horror. When the twenty episodes ended, I felt bereft.

'The X-Files' came along a few years later and filled the void - but only to an extent. I wanted Kolchak and Vincenzo back. I am glad that the show was never revived though. Without Oakland it would not have been the same.

I have the Rice books now and have read them several times. I was very surprised when Stephen King slated the first ( in his book 'Danse Macabre' ) as it is as good as anything he has written.

Alright, so some of the monsters were hardly state-of-the-art, but so what? The new 'Kolchak' totally missed the point of the original. What you don't see is sometimes more frightening than what you do...

Best Episode - 'Horror In The Heights' Worst Episode - 'The Sentry'
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Put quite simply, this film is terrifying.

It starts off simply, looking like a study of a rebellious young girl and goes on to become a beautifully crafted horror film.

Don't expect gore, or zombies. This is psychological, and just as he would also do in Candyman, Bernard Rose manages to convey the horror that is not being believed.

Each time you watch this film, you realise more about what's happening, and about how the two worlds in this film interconnect.

Drawings have never been scarier.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.

Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.

Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.

If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative