Reviews (3)

New Classics
This is an underated film that presents itself in understated way. It is a quiet movie that constantly moves you although you don't realize it. I takes you through the lives of the two main characters as they become helpless to the love they share.

It is an accurate portrayal of a families involvement, and a young womans ties to tradition and that of her own heart.

A hidden treasure movie
This is a quietly great movie. It did not hit the top charts after its premiere and soon went into oblivion. Only after Hank's success in the 90s, this film "resucitated" on TV. Every... needs concentration from viewers, and a basic understanding of sephardic history to appreciate its value. Mr. Hanks once said this is his most fondly remembered movie, believe or not. Hanks plays the role of an american fighter pilot enlisted with the RAF. After his plane was shot down in North Africa, he convalesces in Jerusalem. He meets a young sephardic jew (Cristina Marsillach) with whom he falls in love. Her family overall resists this romance. She is also caught with the dilemma: my family traditions or my love for somebody who is "different"?, and hesitates, but not for long. The film accurately reflects a part of the life of sephardic jews. The director is israeli (and sephardic I presume). It is also a true experience to hear Ladino, or Judeo-Spanish. As a Spanish speaker, I see it as a form of medieval Spanish preserved across time. This is unique. The only weakness I found was the audio. I highly recommend this movie.

An early glimpse of Tom Hanks' dramatic appeal!
This movie is amazing. I saw it once many years ago and I never really got over it. It's an incredibly dramatic, romantic, touching, and realistic story of young love in the 1940s. Hanks plays a WWII American pilot stationed in Jerusalem who falls in love with a Sephardic girl played by Christina Marsillach. Of course, Marsillach's family is dead-set against their daughter dating the American. The film focuses in on their forbidden love affair, and Hanks and Marsillach have amazing on-screen chemistry. The characters are remarkably real and raw, as is the storyline. There is no sugar-coated perfect ending, but it's not depressing either. This is one of those rare films that is able to capture at once both the dispair of human prejudices and the optimism of human determination. I rewatched this movie recently, and I was overwhelmed by the same feelings I felt when I watched it for the very first time. Although it's out of print and one of Tom Hanks' lesser known films, it's definitely worth the effort. Try getting your hands on a copy--you won't regret it. Highly, highly recommended. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A rather jarring mix of period drama, trashy romance, and all-star blockbuster, Duel of Hearts is a swashbuckling, bodice-ripping tale of slightly dubious quality. Based on a novel by Barbara Cartland, it provides the usual dollops of intrigue and love, although its choice of a female protagonist does at least give it some twist. The splendidly named Lady Caroline Faye (Alison Doody) is the story's plucky heroine, fighting to prove the innocence of her beau Lord Vane Brecon and discover his troubling inner turmoil. Donning a disguise that seems to consist largely of wearing her hair in a different manner, she places herself amongst the very people that would seek Brecon's undoing. Those looking for high-quality drama should probably go elsewhere, but this is an entertaining enough piece of silliness, combining the history of Regency England with the production values of a daytime soap opera. --Phil Udell ... Read more

Reviews (4)

After all this time I still remember ...
... the other day I was in a second hand bookstore when I noticed a large pile of Barbara Cartland copies ... And right away I went looking for "Duel of hearts" .. I've seen this movie when it was new and Benedict Taylor made such an impression on me I could still remember how the story went.. I bought the copy & read it in 1-2-3 ... It's hard to believe that hardly anything is available on the net concerning Benedict and that this movie isn't available on DVD yet ... but for the first time in years I feel like a giggling teenager again, wishing I was Caroline ;-)

Reminicent of Jane Eyre
Obviously, this movie borrows from Jane Eyre,
but is still an enjoyable bodice-ripper.
Benedict Taylor as Lord Vane Brecon is extremely handsome.
Wonder what happened to him? Alison Doody makes a plucky
heroine. I miss these early 90's TNT movies! Particularly
great on a rainy day.

A reader of Barbara Cartland's books
When I found out this movie was based on a book by Barbara Cartland, I bought it right away. I was not disappointed. I love it! I fell in love with the characters right away. The costumes and the settings was very beautifully done. This movie is now listed as one of my all-time favorites.

A terrific "bodice ripper"!!
A story for everyone - murder,danger, betrayal, and love. A young woman tries to clear the man she loves of murder. She finds in the castle he lives in is full of secrets - and more. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Great premise, poor execution! Dull & boring!
I dunno--this movie just didn't do a thing for me! "Watcher in the Woods" was made at a time when the Disney Corporation was trying to break into the adult market. They produced a number of disjointed, unsatisfying films: "Tron;" "Something Wicked This Way Comes;" "Tex;" "The Black Hole;" and "Watcher," among them. They were really trying to find their way and eventually hit paydirt with "Splash." Alas, "Watcher" is much ado about nothing. The great Bette Davis is completely wasted in a thankless role. Basically, it's a hoary old plot about "something in the woods" that, uh, "watches." Oh, and it also likes to follow you around while you're biking. Is it a ghost? A monster? Answering that question would give away the ending, which (according to lore) was reshot twice. This is definitely After School special stuff--replete with zooms, horrid acting by "typical" kid stars, cheesy special effects, and flacid attempts at shock (a screeching cat, snarling dog, little girls talking in someone else's voice, yada-yada). You've heard and seen it all before. Scary? Nope! Dull? Yep! This is surprising, since "Watcher in the Woods" was directed by John Hough, who also helmed the terrifically spooky "Legend of Hell House." "Watcher" has a nice video transfer and received the deluxe treatment from Anchor Bay. But it's significant that Disney hasn't even bothered to rerelease "Watcher" (and other of its pre-Splash attempts) on their own label. They've all been licensed to Anchor Bay. If Disney doesn't believe in their own material, why should you?

A great scary slumber party movie!!!
Two young girls and their family move into a big old mansion with an interesting past!!!I remeber watching this as a child and just being absolutely fascinated and frightened. It is so fun and suspenseful and scary! I would reccomend this for age 9 and up for a super scary slumber party or nightime movie!! I cannot wait for my seven year old to get old enough to watch it, but right now she is too prone to nightmares after semi scary movies! Also recommend, "The Labrynth" for a fifth grade slumber party movie! Oh the memories!

OK movie, but a must for DVD collectors
The Out-of-Print Anchor Bay version of the WATCHER IN THE WOODS DVD is up there with the first, one-day release of the LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (w/the original ending) as the Holy Grails of DVD collectors.

This version has two Alternate Endings which has more special F/X, explains the story better and actually shows what the Watcher in the Woods looks like (the original version you never actually see the Watcher or know its origins). The alternate endings also make more sense (as we follow Jan going into the other Watcher's Homeworld and bringing the unaged Karen back). The movie itself is so-so, but the special features in this rare DVD find makes it worth it.

20 years later, still scared.
When my parents bought their first VCR, I was allowed to rent any Disney movie I wanted. I chose this one, and I had nightmares for YEARS. There are very scary, abrupt images of a trapped, blindfolded girl in random mirros--frightening for a child. It is a very, very creepy film. Parent should preview it before showing it to children 10 and under.

Another Twilight Zone Story from Disney
If you've looked at my reviews, you know that I have an affection for Rod Serling. Most of my favorite films are Twilight Zone types of stories and this one is no exception.

Disney has fluctuated between outstanding animated features and some very good live-action films. At one point, the studio lost some of its direction (after Walt died, by the way), and the animation became less than perfect, the live-action films strayed from being family classics (in the sense of Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, etc.) and called up a darker side of the studio. This story, along with Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Child of Glass, is of that era, or should I say, flavor. All four films are not your standard Disney fare. Of them, only Child of Glass remains in the vault, possibly because it was made for television, rather than for the theater. It is well worth looking for and hopefully the studio will release it some day in the future.

Back to the present. This one is due for rerelease in August, 2004. I have it on DVD and as a one-time video store employee, I would recommend it for someone who wanted to see something different in the way of suspense and horror. And, like the good suspense film it is, it does not resort to violence, but a collection of oddities which seem more surreal and strange than supernatural.

Ironically, the original release (and the Anchor Bay DVD has all the alternate endings and other goodies - I can't speak to the new release) has one of the strangest twists at the end that one can imagine. Thank you Disney for doing it this way, instead one of the alternatives, for it truly remains the best approach, even if the FX needed to pull off the other approaches had been available and perfected. This is the best and it turns out to be something different!

Science Fiction.

Huh?

Yes. The ending is purely science fiction in nature and scope. Something that you wouldn't expect given the gothic setting of the story and yet, that is exactly what it is. I won't reveal how, but not one customer came back and disagreed with me after watching the film.

A note on my rating. Normally, I would have given this five stars, but after watching this a couple of times, I found Holly's voice to wear thin and grate on my nerves. As the story progresses, her voice correctly shows the tension that she is developing as the mystery deepens. It reaches a shrillness that is seldome used as she approaches her own breaking point. Unfortunately, the increasing shrillness works only with the alternate endings. With repeated watchings (it isn't noticeable in the first watching) it fails to work well with the selected ending, even though the ending was the best choice as I mentioned earlier. It is unfortunate that the studio didn't go back and remix her voice to correct the problem, but they were running out of time once the producers realized they couldn't pull off the original ending. As I mentioned, you probably won't notice the problem on your first, or even second watching, but it is there.

One final word. Even on the third and forth watchings, I still tended to jump out of surprise... and that's something that's a rarity. ... Read more

Description

Poiroit investigates the murder of a man, whose wife claims that he was killed by a woman who looks just like her. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Peter Ustinov returns as "Poirot".
Peter Ustinov returns for the third time as Belguim Detective, Hercule Poirot, since his portrail in DEATH ON THE NILE (1978) and EVIL UNDER THE SUN (1982). Thirteen At Dinner is a 1985 tv-movie. The cast includes Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley (Matt Houston tv series). Poirot is interviewed by talk show host David Frost, who has just interviewed Lee Horsley as "Brian". A surprise on the talk show is Horsley's co-star Jane Wilkenson (played by Faye Dunaway). But after a few dramatic lines, we find out it is an impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson (also played by Faye Dunaway) is at home watching this live on television. She invites them to her house for dinner, including the impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson is also known as Lady Edgeway by marriage. She wants a divorce from her husband. later that night, Horsley confides to Poirot a strange woman has been following him. The next morning, we find out that Lady Edgeway's husband has been murdered last night. On the movie set, we se Lee Horsley in his "Matt Houston" role (listen for the in-joke). Horsley thinks Lady Edgeway did it and , of course, must be replaced on the movie.
Folks, if you do not have this one figured out in less than 10 minutes, you were into your ice cream. Okay, I'll give you 24 minutes. If you are too good, you have been watching "Columbo".
Followed by, with Peter ustinov as "Poirot": Dead man's Folly (1986-tv), Murder in Three Acts (1986-tv), Appointment With Death (1988).

'Thirteen At Dinner' will make you rush for dinner!
Horrible! Completely and utterly horrible! Horribly horrible!!
Why did they make this movie? For passing time? Wouldn't they rather have read a book, or gone jogging?
-->The negative aspects:
1. A cabbage placed in place of each actor, would have acted more impressively!
2. The sound recording makes you wonder why silent films are catching on again!
3. The dullness and dreariness are very genuine!
4. The music (meant to be eerie and have a mysterious air) really makes one scream...for other reasons, though!
5. Peter Ustinov (!)
6. The sets are very convincing...convincingly lousy!
7. The plot has been shown so clearly that one could easily mistake this movie for Bambi! (no offense meant for Walt Disney).
Please note: This list could continue endlessly!

-->The positive aspects:
1. A true depressent for one in extremely high spirits!

Poor actors, bad script from bad choice of book to dramatise
This dramatisation is based on Agatha Christie's book "Lord Edgeware Dies" where the murder suspect is obvious but the evidence and alibis etc puts her in the clear and casts suspicions on other characters.

Readers would have immediately jumped to the conclusion that if actress Jane Wilkinson was seen to have entered the study of her husband Lord Edgeware the night he was murdered, at the same time she was supposed to be miles away attending a dinner party of 13, then her look-alike Charlotta must have been involved.

What made the book worth reading was how Poirot untangled the web of deceit to produce hard evidence to convict the murderer and clear the innocent. And that is something that would have been difficult to transpose from the printed pages into the screen.

Not impossible, but it would take an experienced team, with lots of patience into the art and a willingness to extend the show beyond the 80 minutes or so.

Unfortunately, the producing team failed to do just that and as a result, the entire film was a flop (I didn't buy this video, borrowed it from the library). Another unforgivable error was that while the book had been published in 1933, the film producers set it in 1970s-80s. Viewers can immediately sense the awkwardness, even those who had never read the book would feel it too. Crucial dialogues from the novel was thoroughly mutilated in the script or in the setting. It is not impossible to dramatise Christie's work on a low budget, some of her stories would have been just right, but this is not one of them.

Despite the unfaultable performances of the cast - Peter Ustinov, Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley, the whole film was a disgrace, far from the fantastic work done by Peter Ustinov as Poirot in Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun. I suppose the cast regretted ever making this one, but it's the producers who ought to be shot.

Has Dunaway Done Away with Her Husband?
Lady Edgeware (played by Faye Dunaway) is estranged from her husband and wants a divorce. If she can't have a divorce, she says she'll just have to kill him. Shortly after making this pronouncement, Lord Edgeware is murdered. Lord Edgeware's servants testify that Lady Edgeware drove up to the home in a cab, walked into Lord Edgeware's study, and left after a brief period of time in the study. Shortly afterward, the servants find Lord Edgeware dead in his study.

This is as true-to-life a murder scenario as ever came from the pen of Agatha Christie. In 27 years of prosecuting and defending murder cases, I've had several that followed this plotline.

But Christie isn't going to allow things to be that simple. It seems that twelve unimpeachable witnesses are all prepared to testify that Lady Edgeware was with them at a formal dinner at exactly the time of the murder. Poirot finally unravels the mystery, and in the denouement proves quite satisfying.

Peter Ustinov is an unlikely Poirot. He's too large, too unkempt, too greyheaded, and not nearly foppish enough. David Suchet, of the A&E series, has become the archetypical Poirot against whom all other Poirots must suffer in comparison. It is all the more amusing that in this show, Suchet plays an unconvincing and unsympathetic Chief Inspector Japp. It is a wonder how he could get Poirot so right and Japp so wrong. Faye Dunaway's characterization of Lady Edgeware is right on the money. She plays the part with gusto and is a delight to behold. Watching her, I could not help but remember her excellent portrayal of an affluent murder suspect on a "Columbo" episode from the 70's.

This made-for-TV movie suffers in comparison with the A&E series starring Suchet, but mediocre Poirot is far, far better than no Poirot at all.

Apples and oranges
I will not dispute all of the negative reviews on this film. However that is like picking on someone for having red hair. This movie was not made or intended to be one of those beautiful epics with dazzling color and wide screen. It is a made for TV movie. It does follow the book closely. The few variations were probably due to time constraints in getting the information out. I have to admit I also was about to press the fast forward button. I do not think thy will ever try to put Poirot in the 80's again. What you missed was David Suchet playing Inspector Japp with the worst English accent I ever heard. So what is his real voice? And Faye Dunaway did not dominate every scene. The Colonel Hastings (Jonathan Cecil) was to pansy to be in any army I know. Still it had its moments; like when Hercule turned to Japp and said "Get used to the fact that wherever you go, it is on our way." And by the end of the movie you get over the initial shocks and can enjoy it for it's self. ... Read more

Amazon.com

This television miniseries tells the story of the founding of the modern Olympics by focusing on individuals in several countries and their preparationsand eventual competition in Athens in 1896. David Ogden Stiers (a familiar faceto viewers of M*A*S*H reruns) portrays a Princeton classics professorwhose knowledge of the ancient Olympics means he's given the task of recruitingan American team for the 1896 games. The stories of how some athletes have to beconvinced to join the team may seem contrived, but they do reinforce the idea ofhow fragile the concept of reviving the Olympics was at the time. A young DavidCaruso (years before he'd swagger through the stationhouse of N.Y.P.D.Blue) portrays a cocky Boston Irishman who walks away from a Harvardscholarship to participate in track events. And if Caruso does veer perilouslyclose to doing an extended James Cagney impression, he serves as a sturdy focalpoint to the American team. Once in Athens, the focus is very much on theAmerican athletes and their surprising success, and there are some interestingand humorous touches in the plot. For instance, the fledgling American team hadenlisted a local blacksmith to render an iron discus, thereby giving them anunexpected advantage when presented with the much lighter "official" discus inAthens. Even if the various plots and subplots about the athletes don't alwayshold up very well, the scenes of competition in Athens do provide anentertaining re-creation of the first modern Olympics. --Robert J.McNamara ... Read more

Reviews (14)

The First Olympics - First Rate
This is a magnificent and wonderful movie about the Olympic Games of 1896 in Athens... the first Olympics in 2000 years. The characters are generally well cast, the dialogue is fitting, and the relations between characters is well developed. I don't know if all the scenes are historically accurate, but I know that a great deal of it is... especially the names of the athletes, the results of the events and the Olympic Stadium in Greece. Although centered around the American team and its athletes, there is considerable attention paid to the lives of athletes from other countries, most notably Greece and Australia. Unfortunately a couple of the athletes portrayed could have been played by actors who were more appropriate for the events they were in, and you'll pick them out right away.

This is a FAMILY MOVIE, no sex, no vulgar language, nothing that shouldn't be seen by anyone in your family. It is a true classic in my mind, and one which I enjoy watching on a regular basis. Now, if it would only come out on DVD I'd buy it in an instant. There's so much garbage out there on DVD, why can't this and other classics be brought out on DVD?

Chariots of desire.
If you have 280 minutes to spare, this is an engaging and enjoyable account of the first modern Olympic games, held in Athens in 1896. At such a length, one might expect a tedious documentary approach, but instead we get a nicely-paced story of privileged young men enjoying some pure athletic rivalry and old-fashioned male bonding. This film manages to avoid Chariots of Fire's melodramatic themes while still delivering an exciting depiction of those first Olympic games, where athletes competed because of their simple desire for greatness.

The First Olympics
The movie The First Olympics is not just an educational movie it also demands your attention for the full 4 hours and 40 minutes. In fact at demands my attention as well as my siblings that everytime we visit our grandparents house in Utah we have to watch it, even if it means staying up until early in the morning. It shows how the first olympics of modern days actually was and what American athletes, as well as other athletes went through, both on their way there and at the Olympics. I would definetely suggest this movie to anyone!!

The "true" story of the first modern American Olympic team
"The First Olympics - Athens 1896" tells a story that is a far cry from the spectacle the world witnessed tonight in Salt Lake City. In an effort to promote peace, the Baron Pierre de Courbertin (Louis Jordan) wants to revive the Olympic movement. Athletes from around the world will gather in Athens in 1896 and the Baron thinks it is important that the United States field a team. David Ogden Stiers plays William Sloane, a professor of classic studies who agrees to put together the American team. If the stories told in this charming slice of history are not true, please do not tell me. For me the focal character is young Robert Garrett (Hunt Block), who kisses his mother (Angela Landsbury) goodbye and goes off to compete for honor and glory. But neither Robert or the good professor know anything about the sports in the Olympics beyond what they can learn from reading Homer and looking at pictures of Greek urns while the maid has to show the boys how to run the high hurdles. This results in an awkward moment at a fundraiser where the team concludes they are suppose to compete in the nude like the ancient Greeks. The American team receives no governmental support and the Ivy League schools are against in; their uniforms are white with stripes representing their college colors. The first part ends with the Professor left behind as the team sails off to Europe, at which point he learns that the Greeks follow a different calendar and the team will not get there until the final day of competition. That means the second part starts with a mad dash across the continent to arrive in Athens in time.

While the mini-series does focus on the American team, we also follow several other notable participants in that first modern Olympics, including the legendary Greek marathoner, Spiridon Loues (Nicos Ziagos). There is a cute moment when the Greek orchestra leader has to pick between two songs to represent the Americans at the awards ceremony but my favorite part is when Robert Garrett learns that he will not be allowed to compete with the shot put and discuss he has been practicing with all these many months. You see they are not regulation size. In fact, they are about twice as big as they are supposed to be. Seems those Greek urns need to be updated. The scene where he is given the shot put he must use, instead of his cannon ball, and he tosses it up into the air a couple of times. There is also a very touching moment when back in America Professor Sloane receives the telegram that announces the first Olympic Gold medal in almost two thousands years has been won by an American. Stiers is wonderful in this role as are the cast of unknown young actors (only David Caruso as a cocky Irish long jumper from Bah-ston is recognizable). "The First Olympics--Athens 1896" is one of those mini-series that should be shown every four years, right before the summer Olympics. If you have seen it, then you have never forgotten it, and everyone who enjoys watching the world's best athletes compete before the entire world should get to see this mini-series at least once as well.

Best Olympic Movie Ever
This is was the best about the olympics that I ever saw. It had all the parts that a great epic movie should have. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A TALE OF ROMANCE AND ADVENTURE IN BRITISH COLONIAL INDIA...
Based upon M. M. Kaye's best selling novel of the same name, this film is well acted and absorbing. It is a story set during the time of the British Raj in India. The two characters central to the film are Ash (Ben Cross), an Englishman who spent the formative years of his life believing that he was Indian, and Anjuli (Amy Irving), a half-caste Indian princess. Ash and Anjuli spent a portion of their childhood growing up together, until palace intrigues forced Ash and his Indian foster mother to flee. As a prepubescent youth, he is informed of his English heritage and sent to England for his education and Anglicization.

Returning to India many years later as a young man, Ash becomes a part of a British regiment called the Guides. He has some difficulties adjusting, as he is not an Englishman comfortable in his own skin, as he also feels Indian in many ways, a view that brings him conflict due to the way the native Indian population is viewed by the British. Meanwhile, Anjuli has continued living as a half-caste Indian princess. She and Ash have not seen each other since he and his foster Indian mother fled, and she has no idea that Ash is not Indian, but British.

The film is an amazing cornucopia of adventure and romance. It provides a tantalizing glimpse into British colonial India. All of this, however, merely serves to propel the story towards the uniting of Ash and Anjuli, as the film is, first and foremost, a love story set against the romantic and lush backdrop of colonial India. When the paths of these star crossed lovers intersect, it is under a most unusual set of circumstances. It is a story that will keep the viewer riveted to the screen. I, myself, was unable to tear myself away from the screen and was riveted for the full five hours that it took for this mesmerizing tale of adventure, love, and treachery to unfold.

With a star studded cast that includes the likes of Omar Shariff, Christopher Lee, Sir John Gielgud, and Rossano Brazzi, this is a film what will capture the viewer's imagination. I read and loved the novel upon which this film was based, and while it is not a faithful adaptation of that wonderful book, the film stands on its own considerable merits. It is meant to entertain and that it most certainly does. This is a film worth having in one's collection, as it is such a gripping tale.

Excellent picturization and impressive acting
I loved 'Far pavillions' the book. I got myself the video after I read the book from end to end. The good thing about the movie is that the picturization is perfect. Like all other Ishmail Merchant movies, Far Pavillions is finely done with lots of attention paid to the details. My only complaint is that the director did not spend much time on Ash's (the hero's)childhood and just showed bits of it during the titles. Ash's grown up life has a lot to do with the childhood that he spent at Gulkote. None of that is shown. There are times when it feels as though the film maker is trying to fast forward things. I know that this is a 5 hour film, but then it is based on a book that is at leat 1000 pages long and took 14 years to complete. Why not give the author some credit for her work. I like the way india has been depicted and both the lead actors (Ben cross) and the lady who plays Anjuli did a great job. The cast also includes some famous Indian and Holywood actors like Saeed Jaffery, Omar Sharief, Rossano Brazi etc. If you love the book, you will probably love the film. The only problem is that you will feel it is all on fast forward. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Peter Ustinov returns as "Poirot".
Peter Ustinov returns for the third time as Belguim Detective, Hercule Poirot, since his portrail in DEATH ON THE NILE (1978) and EVIL UNDER THE SUN (1982). Thirteen At Dinner is a 1985 tv-movie. The cast includes Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley (Matt Houston tv series). Poirot is interviewed by talk show host David Frost, who has just interviewed Lee Horsley as "Brian". A surprise on the talk show is Horsley's co-star Jane Wilkenson (played by Faye Dunaway). But after a few dramatic lines, we find out it is an impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson (also played by Faye Dunaway) is at home watching this live on television. She invites them to her house for dinner, including the impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson is also known as Lady Edgeway by marriage. She wants a divorce from her husband. later that night, Horsley confides to Poirot a strange woman has been following him. The next morning, we find out that Lady Edgeway's husband has been murdered last night. On the movie set, we se Lee Horsley in his "Matt Houston" role (listen for the in-joke). Horsley thinks Lady Edgeway did it and , of course, must be replaced on the movie.
Folks, if you do not have this one figured out in less than 10 minutes, you were into your ice cream. Okay, I'll give you 24 minutes. If you are too good, you have been watching "Columbo".
Followed by, with Peter ustinov as "Poirot": Dead man's Folly (1986-tv), Murder in Three Acts (1986-tv), Appointment With Death (1988).

'Thirteen At Dinner' will make you rush for dinner!
Horrible! Completely and utterly horrible! Horribly horrible!!
Why did they make this movie? For passing time? Wouldn't they rather have read a book, or gone jogging?
-->The negative aspects:
1. A cabbage placed in place of each actor, would have acted more impressively!
2. The sound recording makes you wonder why silent films are catching on again!
3. The dullness and dreariness are very genuine!
4. The music (meant to be eerie and have a mysterious air) really makes one scream...for other reasons, though!
5. Peter Ustinov (!)
6. The sets are very convincing...convincingly lousy!
7. The plot has been shown so clearly that one could easily mistake this movie for Bambi! (no offense meant for Walt Disney).
Please note: This list could continue endlessly!

-->The positive aspects:
1. A true depressent for one in extremely high spirits!

Poor actors, bad script from bad choice of book to dramatise
This dramatisation is based on Agatha Christie's book "Lord Edgeware Dies" where the murder suspect is obvious but the evidence and alibis etc puts her in the clear and casts suspicions on other characters.

Readers would have immediately jumped to the conclusion that if actress Jane Wilkinson was seen to have entered the study of her husband Lord Edgeware the night he was murdered, at the same time she was supposed to be miles away attending a dinner party of 13, then her look-alike Charlotta must have been involved.

What made the book worth reading was how Poirot untangled the web of deceit to produce hard evidence to convict the murderer and clear the innocent. And that is something that would have been difficult to transpose from the printed pages into the screen.

Not impossible, but it would take an experienced team, with lots of patience into the art and a willingness to extend the show beyond the 80 minutes or so.

Unfortunately, the producing team failed to do just that and as a result, the entire film was a flop (I didn't buy this video, borrowed it from the library). Another unforgivable error was that while the book had been published in 1933, the film producers set it in 1970s-80s. Viewers can immediately sense the awkwardness, even those who had never read the book would feel it too. Crucial dialogues from the novel was thoroughly mutilated in the script or in the setting. It is not impossible to dramatise Christie's work on a low budget, some of her stories would have been just right, but this is not one of them.

Despite the unfaultable performances of the cast - Peter Ustinov, Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley, the whole film was a disgrace, far from the fantastic work done by Peter Ustinov as Poirot in Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun. I suppose the cast regretted ever making this one, but it's the producers who ought to be shot.

Has Dunaway Done Away with Her Husband?
Lady Edgeware (played by Faye Dunaway) is estranged from her husband and wants a divorce. If she can't have a divorce, she says she'll just have to kill him. Shortly after making this pronouncement, Lord Edgeware is murdered. Lord Edgeware's servants testify that Lady Edgeware drove up to the home in a cab, walked into Lord Edgeware's study, and left after a brief period of time in the study. Shortly afterward, the servants find Lord Edgeware dead in his study.

This is as true-to-life a murder scenario as ever came from the pen of Agatha Christie. In 27 years of prosecuting and defending murder cases, I've had several that followed this plotline.

But Christie isn't going to allow things to be that simple. It seems that twelve unimpeachable witnesses are all prepared to testify that Lady Edgeware was with them at a formal dinner at exactly the time of the murder. Poirot finally unravels the mystery, and in the denouement proves quite satisfying.

Peter Ustinov is an unlikely Poirot. He's too large, too unkempt, too greyheaded, and not nearly foppish enough. David Suchet, of the A&E series, has become the archetypical Poirot against whom all other Poirots must suffer in comparison. It is all the more amusing that in this show, Suchet plays an unconvincing and unsympathetic Chief Inspector Japp. It is a wonder how he could get Poirot so right and Japp so wrong. Faye Dunaway's characterization of Lady Edgeware is right on the money. She plays the part with gusto and is a delight to behold. Watching her, I could not help but remember her excellent portrayal of an affluent murder suspect on a "Columbo" episode from the 70's.

This made-for-TV movie suffers in comparison with the A&E series starring Suchet, but mediocre Poirot is far, far better than no Poirot at all.

Apples and oranges
I will not dispute all of the negative reviews on this film. However that is like picking on someone for having red hair. This movie was not made or intended to be one of those beautiful epics with dazzling color and wide screen. It is a made for TV movie. It does follow the book closely. The few variations were probably due to time constraints in getting the information out. I have to admit I also was about to press the fast forward button. I do not think thy will ever try to put Poirot in the 80's again. What you missed was David Suchet playing Inspector Japp with the worst English accent I ever heard. So what is his real voice? And Faye Dunaway did not dominate every scene. The Colonel Hastings (Jonathan Cecil) was to pansy to be in any army I know. Still it had its moments; like when Hercule turned to Japp and said "Get used to the fact that wherever you go, it is on our way." And by the end of the movie you get over the initial shocks and can enjoy it for it's self. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

New Classics
This is an underated film that presents itself in understated way. It is a quiet movie that constantly moves you although you don't realize it. I takes you through the lives of the two main characters as they become helpless to the love they share.

It is an accurate portrayal of a families involvement, and a young womans ties to tradition and that of her own heart.

A hidden treasure movie
This is a quietly great movie. It did not hit the top charts after its premiere and soon went into oblivion. Only after Hank's success in the 90s, this film "resucitated" on TV. Every... needs concentration from viewers, and a basic understanding of sephardic history to appreciate its value. Mr. Hanks once said this is his most fondly remembered movie, believe or not. Hanks plays the role of an american fighter pilot enlisted with the RAF. After his plane was shot down in North Africa, he convalesces in Jerusalem. He meets a young sephardic jew (Cristina Marsillach) with whom he falls in love. Her family overall resists this romance. She is also caught with the dilemma: my family traditions or my love for somebody who is "different"?, and hesitates, but not for long. The film accurately reflects a part of the life of sephardic jews. The director is israeli (and sephardic I presume). It is also a true experience to hear Ladino, or Judeo-Spanish. As a Spanish speaker, I see it as a form of medieval Spanish preserved across time. This is unique. The only weakness I found was the audio. I highly recommend this movie.

An early glimpse of Tom Hanks' dramatic appeal!
This movie is amazing. I saw it once many years ago and I never really got over it. It's an incredibly dramatic, romantic, touching, and realistic story of young love in the 1940s. Hanks plays a WWII American pilot stationed in Jerusalem who falls in love with a Sephardic girl played by Christina Marsillach. Of course, Marsillach's family is dead-set against their daughter dating the American. The film focuses in on their forbidden love affair, and Hanks and Marsillach have amazing on-screen chemistry. The characters are remarkably real and raw, as is the storyline. There is no sugar-coated perfect ending, but it's not depressing either. This is one of those rare films that is able to capture at once both the dispair of human prejudices and the optimism of human determination. I rewatched this movie recently, and I was overwhelmed by the same feelings I felt when I watched it for the very first time. Although it's out of print and one of Tom Hanks' lesser known films, it's definitely worth the effort. Try getting your hands on a copy--you won't regret it. Highly, highly recommended. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A STIRRING TALE OF ROMANCE AND ADVENTURE IN COLONIAL INDIA..
Based upon M. M. Kaye's best selling novel of the same name, this film is well acted and absorbing. It is a story set during the time of the British Raj in India. The two characters central to the film are Ash (Ben Cross), an Englishman who spent the formative years of his life believing that he was Indian, and Anjuli (Amy Irving), a half caste Indian princess. Ash and Anjuli spent a portion of their childhood growing up together, until palace intrigues forced Ash and his Indian foster mother to flee. As a prepubescent youth, he is informed of his English heritage and sent to England for his education and Anglicization.

Returning to India many years later as a young man, Ash becomes a part of a British regiment called the Guides. He has some difficulties adjusting, as he is not an Englishman comfortable in his own skin, as he also feels Indian in many ways, a view that brings him conflict due to the way the native Indian population is viewed by the British. Meanwhile, Anjuli has continued living as a half caste Indian princess. She and Ash have not seen each other since he and his foster Indian mother fled, and she has no idea that Ash is not Indian, but British.

The film is an amazing cornucopia of adventure, derring do, and romance. It provides a tantalizing glimpse into colonial India. All of this, however, merely serves to propel the story towards the uniting of Ash and Anjuli, as the film is, first and foremost, a love story set against the romantic and lush backdrop of colonial India. When the paths of these star crossed lovers intersect, it is under a most unusual set of circumstances. It is a story that will keep the viewer riveted to the screen. I, myself, was unable to tear myself away from the screen and was riveted for the full five hours that it took for this mesmerizing tale of adventure, love, and treachery to unfold.

With a star studded cast that includes the likes of Omar Shariff, Christopher Lee, Sir John Gielgud, and Rossano Brazzi, this is a film what will capture the viewer's imagination. I read and loved the novel upon which this film was based, and while it is not a faithful adaptation of that wonderful book, the film stands on its own considerable merits. It is meant to entertain and that it most certainly does. It is a thoroughly gripping tale of romance and adventure in colonial India. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Great premise, poor execution! Dull & boring!
I dunno--this movie just didn't do a thing for me! "Watcher in the Woods" was made at a time when the Disney Corporation was trying to break into the adult market. They produced a number of disjointed, unsatisfying films: "Tron;" "Something Wicked This Way Comes;" "Tex;" "The Black Hole;" and "Watcher," among them. They were really trying to find their way and eventually hit paydirt with "Splash." Alas, "Watcher" is much ado about nothing. The great Bette Davis is completely wasted in a thankless role. Basically, it's a hoary old plot about "something in the woods" that, uh, "watches." Oh, and it also likes to follow you around while you're biking. Is it a ghost? A monster? Answering that question would give away the ending, which (according to lore) was reshot twice. This is definitely After School special stuff--replete with zooms, horrid acting by "typical" kid stars, cheesy special effects, and flacid attempts at shock (a screeching cat, snarling dog, little girls talking in someone else's voice, yada-yada). You've heard and seen it all before. Scary? Nope! Dull? Yep! This is surprising, since "Watcher in the Woods" was directed by John Hough, who also helmed the terrifically spooky "Legend of Hell House." "Watcher" has a nice video transfer and received the deluxe treatment from Anchor Bay. But it's significant that Disney hasn't even bothered to rerelease "Watcher" (and other of its pre-Splash attempts) on their own label. They've all been licensed to Anchor Bay. If Disney doesn't believe in their own material, why should you?

A great scary slumber party movie!!!
Two young girls and their family move into a big old mansion with an interesting past!!!I remeber watching this as a child and just being absolutely fascinated and frightened. It is so fun and suspenseful and scary! I would reccomend this for age 9 and up for a super scary slumber party or nightime movie!! I cannot wait for my seven year old to get old enough to watch it, but right now she is too prone to nightmares after semi scary movies! Also recommend, "The Labrynth" for a fifth grade slumber party movie! Oh the memories!

OK movie, but a must for DVD collectors
The Out-of-Print Anchor Bay version of the WATCHER IN THE WOODS DVD is up there with the first, one-day release of the LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (w/the original ending) as the Holy Grails of DVD collectors.

This version has two Alternate Endings which has more special F/X, explains the story better and actually shows what the Watcher in the Woods looks like (the original version you never actually see the Watcher or know its origins). The alternate endings also make more sense (as we follow Jan going into the other Watcher's Homeworld and bringing the unaged Karen back). The movie itself is so-so, but the special features in this rare DVD find makes it worth it.

20 years later, still scared.
When my parents bought their first VCR, I was allowed to rent any Disney movie I wanted. I chose this one, and I had nightmares for YEARS. There are very scary, abrupt images of a trapped, blindfolded girl in random mirros--frightening for a child. It is a very, very creepy film. Parent should preview it before showing it to children 10 and under.

Another Twilight Zone Story from Disney
If you've looked at my reviews, you know that I have an affection for Rod Serling. Most of my favorite films are Twilight Zone types of stories and this one is no exception.

Disney has fluctuated between outstanding animated features and some very good live-action films. At one point, the studio lost some of its direction (after Walt died, by the way), and the animation became less than perfect, the live-action films strayed from being family classics (in the sense of Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, etc.) and called up a darker side of the studio. This story, along with Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Child of Glass, is of that era, or should I say, flavor. All four films are not your standard Disney fare. Of them, only Child of Glass remains in the vault, possibly because it was made for television, rather than for the theater. It is well worth looking for and hopefully the studio will release it some day in the future.

Back to the present. This one is due for rerelease in August, 2004. I have it on DVD and as a one-time video store employee, I would recommend it for someone who wanted to see something different in the way of suspense and horror. And, like the good suspense film it is, it does not resort to violence, but a collection of oddities which seem more surreal and strange than supernatural.

Ironically, the original release (and the Anchor Bay DVD has all the alternate endings and other goodies - I can't speak to the new release) has one of the strangest twists at the end that one can imagine. Thank you Disney for doing it this way, instead one of the alternatives, for it truly remains the best approach, even if the FX needed to pull off the other approaches had been available and perfected. This is the best and it turns out to be something different!

Science Fiction.

Huh?

Yes. The ending is purely science fiction in nature and scope. Something that you wouldn't expect given the gothic setting of the story and yet, that is exactly what it is. I won't reveal how, but not one customer came back and disagreed with me after watching the film.

A note on my rating. Normally, I would have given this five stars, but after watching this a couple of times, I found Holly's voice to wear thin and grate on my nerves. As the story progresses, her voice correctly shows the tension that she is developing as the mystery deepens. It reaches a shrillness that is seldome used as she approaches her own breaking point. Unfortunately, the increasing shrillness works only with the alternate endings. With repeated watchings (it isn't noticeable in the first watching) it fails to work well with the selected ending, even though the ending was the best choice as I mentioned earlier. It is unfortunate that the studio didn't go back and remix her voice to correct the problem, but they were running out of time once the producers realized they couldn't pull off the original ending. As I mentioned, you probably won't notice the problem on your first, or even second watching, but it is there.

One final word. Even on the third and forth watchings, I still tended to jump out of surprise... and that's something that's a rarity. ... Read more

Reviews (63)

Great premise, poor execution! Dull & boring!
I dunno--this movie just didn't do a thing for me! "Watcher in the Woods" was made at a time when the Disney Corporation was trying to break into the adult market. They produced a number of disjointed, unsatisfying films: "Tron;" "Something Wicked This Way Comes;" "Tex;" "The Black Hole;" and "Watcher," among them. They were really trying to find their way and eventually hit paydirt with "Splash." Alas, "Watcher" is much ado about nothing. The great Bette Davis is completely wasted in a thankless role. Basically, it's a hoary old plot about "something in the woods" that, uh, "watches." Oh, and it also likes to follow you around while you're biking. Is it a ghost? A monster? Answering that question would give away the ending, which (according to lore) was reshot twice. This is definitely After School special stuff--replete with zooms, horrid acting by "typical" kid stars, cheesy special effects, and flacid attempts at shock (a screeching cat, snarling dog, little girls talking in someone else's voice, yada-yada). You've heard and seen it all before. Scary? Nope! Dull? Yep! This is surprising, since "Watcher in the Woods" was directed by John Hough, who also helmed the terrifically spooky "Legend of Hell House." "Watcher" has a nice video transfer and received the deluxe treatment from Anchor Bay. But it's significant that Disney hasn't even bothered to rerelease "Watcher" (and other of its pre-Splash attempts) on their own label. They've all been licensed to Anchor Bay. If Disney doesn't believe in their own material, why should you?

A great scary slumber party movie!!!
Two young girls and their family move into a big old mansion with an interesting past!!!I remeber watching this as a child and just being absolutely fascinated and frightened. It is so fun and suspenseful and scary! I would reccomend this for age 9 and up for a super scary slumber party or nightime movie!! I cannot wait for my seven year old to get old enough to watch it, but right now she is too prone to nightmares after semi scary movies! Also recommend, "The Labrynth" for a fifth grade slumber party movie! Oh the memories!

OK movie, but a must for DVD collectors
The Out-of-Print Anchor Bay version of the WATCHER IN THE WOODS DVD is up there with the first, one-day release of the LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (w/the original ending) as the Holy Grails of DVD collectors.

This version has two Alternate Endings which has more special F/X, explains the story better and actually shows what the Watcher in the Woods looks like (the original version you never actually see the Watcher or know its origins). The alternate endings also make more sense (as we follow Jan going into the other Watcher's Homeworld and bringing the unaged Karen back). The movie itself is so-so, but the special features in this rare DVD find makes it worth it.

20 years later, still scared.
When my parents bought their first VCR, I was allowed to rent any Disney movie I wanted. I chose this one, and I had nightmares for YEARS. There are very scary, abrupt images of a trapped, blindfolded girl in random mirros--frightening for a child. It is a very, very creepy film. Parent should preview it before showing it to children 10 and under.

Another Twilight Zone Story from Disney
If you've looked at my reviews, you know that I have an affection for Rod Serling. Most of my favorite films are Twilight Zone types of stories and this one is no exception.

Disney has fluctuated between outstanding animated features and some very good live-action films. At one point, the studio lost some of its direction (after Walt died, by the way), and the animation became less than perfect, the live-action films strayed from being family classics (in the sense of Swiss Family Robinson, Old Yeller, etc.) and called up a darker side of the studio. This story, along with Black Hole, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Child of Glass, is of that era, or should I say, flavor. All four films are not your standard Disney fare. Of them, only Child of Glass remains in the vault, possibly because it was made for television, rather than for the theater. It is well worth looking for and hopefully the studio will release it some day in the future.

Back to the present. This one is due for rerelease in August, 2004. I have it on DVD and as a one-time video store employee, I would recommend it for someone who wanted to see something different in the way of suspense and horror. And, like the good suspense film it is, it does not resort to violence, but a collection of oddities which seem more surreal and strange than supernatural.

Ironically, the original release (and the Anchor Bay DVD has all the alternate endings and other goodies - I can't speak to the new release) has one of the strangest twists at the end that one can imagine. Thank you Disney for doing it this way, instead one of the alternatives, for it truly remains the best approach, even if the FX needed to pull off the other approaches had been available and perfected. This is the best and it turns out to be something different!

Science Fiction.

Huh?

Yes. The ending is purely science fiction in nature and scope. Something that you wouldn't expect given the gothic setting of the story and yet, that is exactly what it is. I won't reveal how, but not one customer came back and disagreed with me after watching the film.

A note on my rating. Normally, I would have given this five stars, but after watching this a couple of times, I found Holly's voice to wear thin and grate on my nerves. As the story progresses, her voice correctly shows the tension that she is developing as the mystery deepens. It reaches a shrillness that is seldome used as she approaches her own breaking point. Unfortunately, the increasing shrillness works only with the alternate endings. With repeated watchings (it isn't noticeable in the first watching) it fails to work well with the selected ending, even though the ending was the best choice as I mentioned earlier. It is unfortunate that the studio didn't go back and remix her voice to correct the problem, but they were running out of time once the producers realized they couldn't pull off the original ending. As I mentioned, you probably won't notice the problem on your first, or even second watching, but it is there.

One final word. Even on the third and forth watchings, I still tended to jump out of surprise... and that's something that's a rarity. ... Read more

Reviews (13)

I've changed my mind about this one since more viewing.
I've been a big fan of movies produced/directed by Dan Curtis and/or written by Richard Matheson for years. Strangely though I'd never seen his version of this story until recently.
Compared to Curtis's and/or Matheson's movies like Kolchak Night Stalker, House of Dark Shadows, Norliess Tapes, Hell House and the Dark Shadows series this movie isn't quite as good.

Turn of the Screw is clearly better than the majority of the dreadful excuses for horror genre that are inflicted on us nowadays. As a plus this movie does have the hallmark Curtis/Matheson penchant for well-maintained mood and atmosphere throughout and the unforgettable Poe-like ironic and/or surprise ending that you may be famiilar with from the 60's teleplays of the Poe stories starring Vincent Price.

Some very observant here have correctly pointed out some bloopers to criticize; but frankly they really didn't bother me all that much particularly since you have to really be looking for them. I also purchased the predecessor to this movie entitled, "The Innocents." In comparing the two I personally found "The Turn of the Screw" to be the superior movie due mostly in part to the unmistakable mood/atmosphere stylings of Curtis/Matheson. I also found "The Innnocents" quite frankly to be, well, dull and rather plodding even for me. I'm a big fan of classic gothic from the 40's to the 70's so that quite a rare thing for me to say about such a movie. To each their own though, for I know "The Innocents" has some very devoted fans.

Spooky Atmosphere Ruined by Gratuitous Violence
Well-acted, eerie atmosphere, BBC-style British television spooker is all set to be near-perfect, of a quality right up there with The Changeling or the Woman In Black. But some viewers may be turned off by the relentless torturing of animals that the two kids get up to - far more so than the barely hinted at suggestions in The Innocents film version of this great Henry James story. I found this aspect spoiled what could have easily been otherwise an above-average haunted house movie relying on psychological chills in the best tradition of The Haunting.

Are you serious
Although the plot stayed somewhat close to the Henry James' story the director certaintly took his creative license and ran. Some strange scenes were pointless, and the wonderful ambiguity from the book was complety discarded in this movie. And don't even get me started on the scenery and props, i'm sorry was that a #2 pencil she was writing with in a period movie? And oh the acting! Ouch! The only thing scary about this movie was the scenery, the acting, and that miles kid. Man was he creepy, but he was a riot, "I preffer brandy to tea". Where do the get this stuff?

better than the rest
Despite a few nay sayers out there,this video was pretty darn good. It may not have a polished look,but then again,it was made for television. Within that contects,this version thrives like a vegetable in the rain. The sets are good as well as the acting,effects,and the frightning score by Robert Corbert.

A Dissenting Point of View
Though I appear to be a minority, I'd like to praise this version of "The Turn of the Screw," not because I think it's an improvement over the 1961 film version, "The Innocents," but because I think it succeeds in the context of its own particular medium: videotape. True, this rendering of Henry James is not "cinematic" in the usual sense, but the very nature of videotape precludes the stylistic approach of celluloid. What this version lacks in the verisimilitude of exterior settings, it more than compensates for in terms of intimacy of atmosphere (the main virtue of videotaped productions), so that I encountered a mood of claustrophobia lacking in theatrical versions. In fact, this "Turn of the Screw," like Dan Curtis's 1968 version of "Jekyll and Hyde" (and like the BBC videotape of "Count Dracula") carries much of the directness of on-stage drama: precisely because of its technical lack of "polish," it draws the viewer into a more authentic sense of involvement. As for the acting, here, too, I have to partially differ, since I feel Lynn Redgrave gave a fine and measured performance (not over-the-top, as some reviews have stated). If I had any quarrel with the acting, it was with Jasper Jacob as "Miles," because the actor looked 4 or 5 years too old for the role. Still, his performance was passable, and as for Eva Griffith, her "Flora" was superb; Griffith's face, moreover, has remarkable sensuality for a child actress, which makes the gradual onset of libertine possession all the more believable. In short, this is one of my favorite adaptations of a famous horror novel which, whatever its flaws, is one I'd love to have on DVD. ... Read more