Reviews

I won't add more insults -- others here have done that well enough. This movie is godawful. But I will point out two areas that seem to be staples of bad movie remakes of beloved old TV shows. First, how about getting someone to write/direct that actually liked and understood the original? That person would understand that the West-Gordon relationship was the core. In a sense, West and Gordon complimented each other to make a slick, functional crime-fighting machine: West handled the action and romance, and Gordon took care of the thinking, deception, and humor (disguises). This was a well-used TV convention -- think the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triad in Star Trek, or the great contrasty chemistry between Bill Cosby and Robert Culp in I Spy. Add a lovable villain to the mix (not an offensive atrocity like the film-Loveless) and you've got a crazy, tongue-in-cheek action classic. The filmmakers here seemingly did not know or care about the fundamentals of the original show. Not that this is necessarily a problem, but then why bother resurrecting the premise in the first place? Why not just make Will Smith a different wild west troubleshooter? The Mission Impossible franchise has the same problem.

Second, why all the emphasis on showing the principals getting to know each other? I know -- because it eats up 30% of the script, and creates conflict. But the conflict should be between West and the villain. Jim and Artie should just BE. The TV show didn't bother explaining how West met and knew Gordon, any more than Barney Miller, Mission Impossible, or 24 found it necessary to have all the main characters meet and learn to work together. They were a team with a job to do. Audiences understand this concept; having a trumped-up plot about how the heroes meet and overcome their differences is a hackneyed device that only exposes the script weaknesses present. See the film version of Dragnet (a better film, though) for another example of this unfortunate trend.

Finally, a comment on the "race" issue. Inserting content that justifies Smith-West's skin color is no more necessary than explaining Henry V's skin color when Laurence Fishburne or Andre Braugher play him on stage. Indeed, ignoring Smith's race in a movie like this one would help us all look past such issues. If a blond actor had portrayed West, nobody would have suggested a plot that explains his Norwegian background! He just would have been West, and that would be that. But color-blind casting requires courage, and could conceivably cut into the film's bottom line. So, not in this spineless script.

I seldom get mad at movies I don't like. Even The Avengers didn't anger me, though it was possibly even worse than this one. This one ticked me off REAL good. Buy the original series on DVD instead, and see how it's done right.

Boy, this is right out of the B-Western handbook. There's singing narration ("He prays for the day/ He can put that gun away/ And stop -- this -- foooooolish game"), a funny sidekick (well, a sidekick, anyways), a mysterious hero, etc. The initial shootout contains highly original lines, such as: "There ain't room in this town for the two of us -- now draw!" Also, the Preacher (hero) is a master of deductive reasoning. Here is an example, (lines to the best of my recollection):

Preacher (after shooting a couple of guys): Do you know these men?

Sidekick: Nope, but I think I've seen one of them in town.

Preacher: That narrows it down then. It means we're looking for somebody from town.

The rest of the movie is pretty close to this. I must admit -- I used to have a "bad movie" radio spot where I recommended fun bad movies, and once I was at deadline without cutting my spot and without a movie to pull lines from. And presto -- this movie appeared on local TV, and I've never heard from it since. Good luck finding it -- it's bad! Also, I've got a copy of the movie poster that looks like it was drawn by a seven-year-old. Hilarious!

Others have said it already, but this is definitely one to check out. I bought an English version of this from some guy in Brazil (subtitled in Portuguese), but I saw it several times before on Saturday afternoon TV (Captain USA really did it up when he showed this -- even singing the Yeti song during the breaks!) My favorite things about Yeti:

He looks like a hippie -- coincidence?

He keeps changing in size -- hanging under the helicopter, he appears to be about 10 feet tall. Later, laying on his back in the warehouse, his foot is about 10 feet long!

Great movie line -- listen for the background extra during the Toronto rampage scene who yells, "Look out! He's got a tree!"

It turns into a crime movie -- honestly, I never saw it coming.

So check this one out -- you'll never look at fish bones without thinking of the Yeti!

Not too much to add here, except that this is a truly weird, strange, silly movie that will crack you up when it's not disturbing your soul. My top ten favorite things in this movie:

10. Balonium

9. Chemicals! First they create -- then, they improve!

8. Abdullah -- the Biggest Miller of them all.

7. The Bolum ("Now THERE'S a monster!")

6. "Who's that man?" (Bob!)

5. "Ha Ha Ha. Earth is in chaos."

4. "You're gonna get a taste of the A-Bomb tonight"

3. The Wczinskis -- wonderful people! "Not that they haven't had their problems adjusting to our Berquitlam ways!"

2. "Don't like no fruits -- no veggies too. And I don't give a damn for them that do!"

1. Where did Jan get the English accent?

Take heart you Big Meat Eaters -- others have seen this movie and have it on tape for posterity. Cherish it -- treasure it. But be careful who sees it -- your Mom will have you put away for watching stuff like this.

Ahh, so sang the jolly band -- after they were made evil for a while.

Or were those the evil KISS robots? I can't remember. And why

not? Because I haven't actually seen this since it aired in 1978.

Now, this was my first term in college, and -- hey, that's a BEER!

As I recall, the film is a delightful masterpiece. But then again, my

roommates and I then went to a Halloween party, where I ended

up face-down in my own..... well, you get the idea. So my

memories of that night are not exactly crisp. For example, until I

read the credits here on IMDB, I thought Paul Williams was in it.

Must have been a fungus-induced nightmare. Ah, college days!

That's my memory of KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park. Thanks

for listening.

Remember Tron? That movie about the guy getting stuck inside a video game? I'll bet the actors in this drivel feel a lot like that. Clones should win an Academy Award -- the new Best Animated Feature award. But at least the backgrounds ARE animated -- unlike the stiff playing Annakin. As for the CGI techniques, I can only say that as flat as this looked on the big screen, it's going to look even worse on TV, where you can see everything at once. But I'm looking forward to the next one, in which I've heard that Justin Timberlake will play Annakin and nobody will play Obi Wan -- they'll just scan a bunch of old Alec Guiness movies, computer de-age him, and walk him around like the dead president robots at Disneyland. And that movie will finally answer the fateful question: Why does Vader wear a helmet? In fact, it has nothing to do with keeping him alive or helping him breath. He simply doesn't want to be recognized as the annoying youths of Episodes I and II. Unless there's a Wookie in #III, I'm walking.

Wow, it's not often that a film with this many major stars plods as conventional a course as "The Score." You've definitely seen all this before. Still, I found myself entertained even as I groaned at the predictable plot. Sometimes I think the only reason they make these things is that it gives a notable actor or actress the opportunity to put on one of those cool "thief-ninja" rigs: you know, the all-black jumpsuit with ropes and pulleys and suction cups and pockets and bags and a skimask. Where do you buy those! I want one. Also, if I ever encounter an infrared defense field, I think I'll now know about 15 ways to defeat it. I thought De Niro was cool as Harry Tuttle in "Brazil" too, so it's nice that he gets to wear the same getup again. But Catherine Zeta-Jones looked better in that suit in "Entrapment." Well, all the actors are good sports here and do good, professional work, even Angela Bassett, despite the fact theat she doesn't really have a character to play. Pretty familiar ground, but in the summer of "Pearl Harbor," it seemed solid and fun. Ed Norton is definitely emerging as a fine, dependable lead. Look out Tom Hanks!

I am very pleased to see that so many people don't like this movie. A good movie is well-liked by many. A great one takes chances, and generates deep admiration in some and frustration in others. Sure, many in today's audiences will find this movie too slow and hard to understand. That's how many found it in 1968, too! (Ask anyone who was around.) This isn't passive entertainment for the popcorn crowd, and if you think "The Matrix" is the apex of cinema, then maybe this will be too boring for you. That's perfectly okay! Kubrick made all of his films with meticulous attention to detail, and some with slow pacing that deliberately challenged movie house attention spans. I have always thought his goal in doing this was to rip the audience out of their preconceptions of how a movie should work so they could see his films for what they were. As for people that complain about this film being boring, slow, or obtuse; well, they should watch other movies. But please, use the vitriol sparingly! Many don't like Shakespeare, Van Gogh, Rachmaninoff, and e. e. cummings, but that doesn't mean they "suck" or produced "crap." I love this movie because of its determination to tell its own story in its own way, without regard for convention, which is awfully nice for a change. And to those who give up on this one after one viewing (especially if the one viewing is on video!), I can only encourage you to give it another try, and this time throw out your images of "Star Wars" and "The Matrix" and "Planet of the Apes" (all fine films) and give 2001 the attention it deserves. And if you still don't like it, then that's cool too. I like all kinds of movies, but this is the one that convinced me that movies were for grownups too, and that film is an art form that occasionally admits a view of genius. I think I'll go watch it right now!

When thinking about this fine film, one should consider that its lack of "realism" is intentional. Movies are not reality, and should not necessarily be judged against the grittiness or logics of real life. Of course German guards weren't this buffoonish in real life -- but they weren't very funny either! Sure barracks weren't filled with identifiable ethnic and class "types," but that's one way to create comic possibilities. Movies are deliberate distortions of life, and that's why they're fun and entertaining. Stalag 17 was considered to be edgy comedy for its time, along the lines of M*A*S*H later on. The very idea of Americans at odds with each other over supposed traitors in the ranks is at once a challenge to the gung-ho images presented in more jingoistic war films, and an idea that would have resonated with paranoid McCarthy-era Americans. By offsetting those serious issues with broad comedy, courtesy of Strauss and Lembeck, the drama is heightened rather than obscured. And sure, Hogan's Heroes was inspired by this movie, but you can't blame the movie for that. But I wonder why more people don't note Stalag 17's influence on other films, notably The Great Escape, Dr. Strangelove, M*A*S*H, and even Good Morning Vietnam.

Now, the ending. First, the original ending was much more caustic -- Sefton was to deliver the "Let's just pretend we never met" line and duck out with a scowl. The studio wouldn't go for it, and made Wilder put in Sefton's little reappearance and grin/salute to the guys. Boy, would it have been dark the other way! Also, this movie has a great cynical closing line, like many Wilder movies, this one mouthed by Animal (I think): "Hey, maybe he just wanted to steal our wire cutters. Ever think of that?"

I am intrigued by the number of people that are buying into the "Spielberg -- Kubrick Collaboration" propoganda that is being used to sell this film. Kubrick played with the idea for a decade or so and finally enlisted Spielberg as director in the early 90s. However, Spielberg backed out quickly, and at the time of Kubrick's death no plans for finishing the film were evident. Spielberg continued the project recently after turning down other possibilities, including "Harry Potter." Kubrick's contribution to this film is a substantial one -- he worked out much of the story, themes, and treatment. But this really has to be considered a Spielberg film -- he wrote the screenplay and directed, and the entire film bears his unmistakably plush tone, for good or ill.

Much has been made of the first two-thirds of the film being more "Kubrickian." Well, certainly the first third takes a sterile, cold view of humanity and consumer culture, similar to the feel of films like "Clockwork Orange" and "Barry Lyndon." The second third contains some elements of wry dark humor reminiscent of "Dr. Strangelove" and "Full Metal Jacket." But the similarities feel more like homage to S. K. than organic exercises in storytelling, just as the Kubrick in-jokes (the Moloko Milk Bar, etc) feel cheesy and poppish. John Williams' Wagnerian whiz-bang score still hovers over all, reminding us of the bright-eyed director of "ET" at the helm. The "flesh fair," an attempt at showing the ambiguous evolution of both Luddite and "right-to-life' morality in a "Clockwork Orange" style is too heavy-handed to be either funny or horrifying -- an amateurish presentation of "the old ultraviolence." Jude Law's Gigolo Joe character was rife with possibilities, but he is reduced quickly to playing chauffeur to Ozment's Pinocchio. There was a lot to like in those first two-thirds, but it always felt glossy and Spielbergian, despite the dark subject matter.

Ah, but the Blue Fairy! Now there's Spielberg in all his glory. At least "Star Trek: The Next Generation" never literally dived into the Pinocchio story with its artificial boy. Spielberg attaches the Carlo Collodi tale to his narrative in such a broad way that I may never be able to read and enjoy it again. Only a director who reworked poor old Peter Pan to address his own mid-life anxieties ("Hook") could have produced this slavish, overly sentimental take on a children's tale. There's a gem of a good idea in here that follows from "2001" (that machines may be called upon to take up human evolution unless the humans can learn to act more, well, human), but it's all buried in the shameless tear-jerking of those last scenes. Who isn't going to shed a tear at a poor, abandoned boy pining desperately for his long lost mother? Did Spielberg really have to plunk the kid down in front of an ACTUAL statue of the Blue Fairy? (I've managed to plod through 41 years of life without ever encountering one.) The last section showed little discipline or direction, and does not follow logically, spiritually, or thematically from the rest of the film. I actually heard groans and butt-shifting with 20 minutes left to go in the movie. But this Pinocchio fixation should not be surprising to anyone who remembers groaning when Spielberg and Williams worked the strains of "Wish Upon a Star" into the score of the mother-ship scene in "Close Encounters." "AI" ends on a sweet fairy-tale note that is everything Kubrick's films were not.

I don't think this film is bad -- in fact, there's a lot to admire, especially the visual style and spectacle. But make no mistake: this is a Spielberg film, from an idea by Stanley Kubrick. It is Spielbergian in its patina of wonder and romance, overshadowing even a cold, inhuman vision of the future. And ultimately, because Spielberg simply can't make himself ride the razor's edge the way Kubrick could, it is Spielbergian because it pulls back at the end and disappoints in the gooey way we've come to expect from the most powerful director of the last twenty years. I think Kubrick might have liked the final result. But then again, he really liked "ET" too.

This is a tremendously bad thriller from the late 80s, and the dating shows. The bad guys are cartoon caricatures of Libyans. They cross the US-Canadian border into Indiana (think about it) and immediately fail to blow up a nuclear reactor in Kokomo. What follows is the longest sustained car chase I know of (35 minutes), with old cars, abandoned factories, and other unwanted props getting blown to hell with rocket launchers. Finally, they take over a high school during detention hours (described by one terrorist as a "steenky place!"). It's "Breakfast Club" meets "Die Hard" then, as jocks and nerds band together to defeat the baddies. Meanwhile, the police and SWAT teams led by Chuck Conners surround the school and proceed to do nothing, even when the terrorists' numbers are reduced to two and clear headshots present themselves repeatedly. Finally, it's a mad dash for freedom as the terrorists and their pretty-girl hostage board a Ford Bluebird school bus and head for the airport. But is it a big Bluebird after all? The final set of exciting stunts wouldn't work with a full-size bus, so it miraculously (and VERY clearly) transforms into a Hoekstra minibus halfway through the chase.

I've said enough -- this is an overlooked classic.

Not much to say that hasn't already been said -- except to note that this movie belongs in that despised group of films that fall back on the "campy humor" excuse for wretchedness (e.g. "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.") "Batwoman" is like those joke bands your friends were in (I was in one, too) where nobody knows how to play, but you keep saying "It'll be funny that we're so bad!" In the case of this movie, the unintentional humor of movies like "Manos" and "Creeping Terror" is there, but it's sullied a bit by the "it's all a joke, kids!" crutch. It's funny, but it's also pretty sad and lame. The beauty of Ed Wood's disasters is that he was really trying! Not these guys -- they were just dumb, talentless dopes given money and a camera by some fool.

One thing nobody has mentioned -- Batwoman's "headquarters," which is obviously just somebody's house. Looks like my aunt's house in Fresno.

Finally, I'm a little confused at the comments directing viewers toward the MST3K version for laughs. I agree -- that WAS one of the funniest MST3K's, even with Mike instead of Joel. But c'mon, the whole fun of these movies is sitting around with friends (and beer) making your OWN observations. God knows there's plenty of opportunities here.

And I still think "The Amazing World of Ghosts" is the worst of all time.

This movie is available on video, and I recommend buying it. A problem with the bad movie genre (subgenre? metagenre?) is that it is dominated by science fiction and horror. Well, this movie has elements of both, but it is mainly an adventure film gone horribly wrong. So, it is often overlooked as a source of unintentional laughs. Here's 10 good reasons to see it:

1. Look at the tattoos in the opening and closing title sequence.

2. Is it a historical drama? A pirate adventure? A monster movie? Who knows?

3. Bad narration -- lots of it! Could be missing pieces of soundtrack.

4. James Aurness (sic) -- He was more expressive as the carrot in "The Thing"

5. Bill Kennedy -- the grouchy costar was later a popular TV movie host in the Detroit area -- a special Michigan connection

6. Fight montage sequence -- there must be stuff from 10 movies in here!

7. You know, you can MOVE that camera! But this cinematographer obviously wasn't aware -- he just turned the camera on, and people walked in and out of the shot. Guess he was in the can a lot.

8. The monsters fight each other, but pose no threat to the humans. They should get guest star billing!

9. If you can tell the two lead women apart, you're doing better than me.

10. Last but not least -- the finale features the world's most powerful handheld telescope as a side-splitting topper.

I've said enough -- and last but not least -- it's SHORT! The best quality a bad movie can have. This one's a winner, folks.

The previous comments are correct -- it is a con-job, a fraud, exhausting, hilarious, and ultimately mind-boggling. Maybe it is a joke, and maybe it isn't. I first saw this production (and I use the term VERY loosely) in New Hampshire on late-night TV in 1985, and have sought it ever since. We found it, and -- WOW! Words cannot describe it. It really must be seen to be believed (but not understood -- that is impossible.) This video will change your life, though probably not in good ways. I have seen many of the worst, but this takes it all! Makes Ed Wood's films look like Cannes Palm d'Or winners. Even the MST3K guys would be dumbstruck. It seems impossible that it could be made, much less distributed. Enough! Seek out and watch this strange thing, and see for yourself. But beware -- of ghosts! Ghosts! From spaaaace! The dark, infinite void of interstellar space!

If R. Brautigan got really drunk and made a film, this would be it. Really, really incredible.