Reviews (22)

Mini-series king Richard reigns supreme here. . .
I first saw this production in 1975, when I was a senior in high school, about the same time I was writing a paper about the book it's based on. From the time I was a little girl, Richard Chamberlain had made my heart flutter as Dr. Kildare on TV. "Count" was after the filming of Richard Lester's "Three Musketeers", but before such classic mini-series as "Shogun" and "Thorn Birds", which are what this generation associates the Chamberlain name with most readily. This production did a wonderful job depicting Edmond's despair and loss of hope as the years pass and he realizes that his enemies mean for him to rot away in the solitary confinement of prison. Fortunately, while trying to dig out of there, he digs himself into the cell of Abbe Faria, who becomes his teacher, mentor, savior. . .and ultimately, benefactor. (Trevor Howard was marvelous here, by the way).

It takes 20 years, but Edmond finally escapes jail, finds the treasure, engages the best barber and tailor in Paris, and proceeds to make monkeys of his betrayers. Chamberlain was physically right for this part--very thin, as if he'd subsisted on soup and bread for two decades--and capable of moving as smoothly as a panther. Kate Nelligan was excellent as Mercedes--a woman whose heart was equal mixtures of bitterness, regret, and love for her son alone after losing the great love of her life at age 20. I liked Tony Curtis--he'd played so many good guys in movies like Spartacus, and also comedy such as in Some Like It Hot--that it was fun to see him be the villian here.

All in all, this production was an excellent SHORT adaptation of the book. Had it been made five years later, when mini-series became more popular in America, much more could have done more with the secondary characters and little subplots. It would be the French who beat Hollywood to the remake, however, with the 1998 mini-series starring Gerard Depardieu in the title role. I rented the Chamberlain version and watched it again last year after having seen the Depardieu version for the first time. It's as good as it was 25 years ago, and the prison scenes are far superior to the ones in the Depardieu production. Other than that, you can't really compare the two of them. The French had a longer version, bigger budget, etc. The Chamberlain version, however, holds its own among newer English or American versions of Dumas' works. If you love the book, then all the video and DVD versions are worth collecting. I'll be adding this one to my own collection soon:)

A Story With A Strong Moral Lesson
THE COUNT OF MONTE CHRISTO is a film adaptation of the classic story by Alexandre Dumas of three men who conspire to have their common enemy Edmund Dantes sent to prison and the vengeance wreaked by Dantes after his escape many years later. The movie is reasonably faithful to the book. The early part of the film depicts prison life graphically and the mood changes abruptly for the better with the start of the revenge sequence.

Richard Chaberlain gives a good performance and is believable as both the younger and older Edmund Dantes. A strong supporting cast includes Kate Nelligan, Louis Jourdan, Donald Pleasance and Tony Curtis. David Greene is known for his direction of GRAY LADY DOWN and THE STRANGE AFFAIR.

An excellent film, full of rich characterization
This is a top-notch production. Richard Chamberlain, the fine English actor seen in "Shogun" and "Thornbirds", is in top form as the wronged and vengeful Edmund Dantes. The story begins with Edmund content and happy, then betrayed by a rival suitor. He spends 14 years in prison, then escapes and uncovers buried treasure through the directions of a fellow inmate. He resurfaces in Paris as the mysterious count of Monte Cristo and exacts revenge on the people who imprisoned him. The story moves swiftly and is quite engaging. Richard Chamberlain is believable and compelling, both as the young Edmund, before prison, then as the older and cunning Count of Monte Cristo. The acting from the supporting cast is also almost uniformly excellent. The script is well-written, although it is a bit stunted at times. This movie is part of a set of 8 in a series called LITERARY MASTERPIECES. I have also seen 2 others in this series, LES MISERABLES and THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK. These were top-notch productions as well. END

Richard Chamberlain .....IS.....THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO!
Richard Chamberlain gives a commanding performance as THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. The newer version, with Jim Caviezel is bland and less believable, largely because Caviezel cannot compete with Chamberlain's passion and style. Richard Chamberlain was created to play this role with his long, lean, graceful body and beautifully carved facial features. No one has the ability to wear the gorgeous costumes and capes with such grandeur! Richard Chamberlain can always be counted on to provide stately charm and class when needed. This film will leave no doubt in your mind......Richard Chamberlain ....IS......THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO!

Chamberlain, Count of Monte Cristo
I have always like Richard Chamberlain, but I think this is one of his best works. The story does not bog down and action keeps going. I love movies in this time period and would like to see more of them. The scenery and acting in this movie, not only by Richard Chamberlain, but of all the actors is phenominal. I highly recommend that if you have not seen this movie, take the time to see it. It will be well worth your time. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

A Fawcett triumph
The small screen treatment of author Ann Rule's best-seller is all the more gut-wrenching because this really happened, a self-absorbed mother whose horrific act of violence against her own children (all for a boyfriend who, it turned out, couldn't wait to unload her?) commanded overdue attention to the threat to children in their own homes. For anyone still unconvinced by "The Burning Bed" that Farrah Fawcett can act better than she can jiggle, they won't be with this one. Fawcett is superlative in getting across the pathological selfishness of Diane Downs and how her children paid for it. The performance was, for Fawcett, a richly earned Emmy nomination. Despite more than ample supporting acting by the likes of John Shea, et al, Fawcett carries this production and highlights it with an indelible emotional wallop. This is an important social piece, much as is "The Burning Bed" remains, and forces us to examine our childrens' safety in a new light. Read Rule's book for background to appreciate the production's faithfulness to its subject matter. Despite that wrenching subject matter, the film gives us some comfort in knowing that the justice system worked this time.

a true story
This TVM directed by David Greene is based on the book by Anne Rule and the teleplay adapted by Joyce Eliason. The female contribution accounts for the stance taken on Diane Downs, an Oregon postal worker who in 1983 was accused of murdering her own children to free herself for a lover who "just don't wanna be a Daddy". The crime outrages the male DA's assistant and presecutor with it's seemingly Medea brutality, their suspicion of Diane raised, in spite of her claim of a "bushy haired stranger" being responsible for the shootings, based on her "weird" behaviour. This behaviour is said to include a lack of emotion, inopportune humour, and a taste for the Duran Duran song Hungry Like the Wolf. (Greene's attempt to make Diane the wolf via her car headlights as eyes is a bit much). The DA's office takes months to form their case against Downs, and in their frustration, resent Diane's use of the media to gain sympathy, though we hear someone comment that "the camera loves her", implying that she possesses an unnatural empathy. At one point the audience becomes the TV camera with Diane talking to us subjectively. Given the nature of the context, it's easy for Downs to be more sympathetic than the police who wish to do her harm, but this perceived unbalance in the light of their feeling about the crime isn't helped by Greene's casting of John Shea as the DA's assistant and prosecutor, who specialises in a wooden stare. Eliason's teleplay reduces Downs by having someone say "She doesn't love. She devours" and gives her a memory monologue that she inexplicably delivers to Shea where she confesses that she hates men. There is also a court opportunity for Shea to project all his bile, and a queasy plot point of Shea's interest in Diane's children, overstepping his professionalism and getting way too personally involved. Greene uses similar cutaways of a crowd outside the courtroom during the trial, and stages a court re-enactment of the shootings in a model car for the camera with projected crosscuts, that the jury is unable to see.
As Downs, Farrah Fawcett has some delicious moments. Although an actress whose effort is always obvious, she captures Diane's recklessness and beauty, as she walks down a hallway talking and passing Shea, and as the camera circles her when a psychiatrist gives an evaluation of her personality. If she says and does things that appear to deliberately make herself look bad in the eyes of others, she still retains tube empathy so that we don't want to see her be found guilty, perhaps because only seeing her doing the shooting through the eyes of the prosecutor, helps it remain unreal. The casting of Ryan O'Neal as her former lover allows her to be uninhibited with him, though funny because of his resistance. There is also a perversity in the casting since it represents them at a time when they were a real life couple, but his stock was falling as hers was rising.
This TVM originally ran at 186 mins which is the version I saw, but ironically the length works against the treatment. In spite of it being truthful to the length of time the real events took, the inbalance of empathy becomes even stronger, and while we wait and wait with the police for Down's surviving daughter to regain her speech so she can stand as a witness against her mother, Fawcett's achievements become Greene's own small sacrifices.

As good as the book!
Movies based upon books are usually not much good, but "Small Sacrifices" is the exception to the rule. Farrah Fawcett delivers a stellar performance as Diane Downs, an Oregon mother who was convicted in mid 1984 for the May 1983 slaying of one of her children and the attempted murders of the other two, all because she was trying to win back the affections of her married lover, who had broken off their affair because he didn't want to be a daddy. Fawcett absolutely excels as Diane Downs because she brings to life Downs's coldness, self absorption, disregard for her children, and psychopathology in an extremely compelling and realistic fashion. John Shea is also commanding as the intense prosecutor, who, convinced of Downs's guilt from the very beginning, relentlessly seeks justice, and not because he feels he has only a legal obligation to do so. Joyce Eliason based her fabulous screenplay on Ann's Rule's bestselling book of the same name. This is an emotional movie, vey tough to watch, and will leave you drained at the end, simply because it is such a hard hitting, spellbinding story about the awful crime committed by a cold blooded woman who never should have been blessed with the gift of children.

Blood For Love
Small Sacrifices, a novel-turned-television-movie, is based on an incredibly true story about a women who tries to kill her three children to keep her lover. My first reaction to this movie was a sick feeling in my stomach that any mother could do such a thing. What also struck me was how convincingly Farrah Fawcett portrayed the cold Diane Downs. I was pleasantly stunned at the intensity each character showed and found that there were no lags or boring lulls in the story line. The devastating story prompted me to read the book by Ann Rule, and I fell in love with the story all over again. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who is as fascinated by true crime as I am.

STUNNING PERFORMANCE!
Farrah Fawcett's interpretation of child killer Diane Downs stays with you forever. A multi-faceted banquet of film-making brilliance, this made-for-Tv adaptation of a real life event is haunting, seductive, and lacrimate. Chameleon-like Diane Downs is "Hungry Like The Wolf", and doesn't want any "kinks" in her social life. Her kids are the "kinks" that prevent her from pursuing a relationship with a clearly confused married man who up and moved hundreds of miles in a futile attempt to hide from the classique femme fatale. heartless maximus. ... Read more

Reviews (73)

The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street 2 KA
Rod Serling was a very odd person. He went to school to become a P.E. Teacher and ended up wrighting over one hundred stories for T.V. One of these stories is Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. This story, as you've probably guessed, takes place on Maple Street. The characters Charlie, the annoying, smart-mouthed neighbor, and Steve, the actually intelligent neighbor, are two of the lead characters in the story. I think that if Charlie had only listened to Steve a lot of bad things wouldn't have happened.
I don't think this story was very realistic. In a real neighborhood people would go crazy just because the power went out and they certainly wouldn't think it was aliens that did it. People would say, "Oh, there goes the power again." Not "The electricity's off!!"(669). Oh no! The powers out! What are we going to do? (sarcastically) The electricity goes out in our neighborhood at least once every other month. Most people would be in side all day so only about three people would have seen the U.F.O. and they would have been kids. Who would believe them? I think the people in the story really over reacted.
There were a few parts of the story that were unbelievable, like when Mr. Goodman's car started. That was really weird. I really didn't see that coming. There was also when Pete Van Horn got shot. I didn't think anything like that would happen. I knew the ending couldn't be happy. The Twilight Zone never is. The stories always seem to be so tragic. What was Rod Serling thinking? He must have been a troubled child. Any way; I can't believe that Charlie actually thought that Pete Van Horn was a monster. "You killed him Charlie. You shot him dead!"(679) How dumb could he be?
I didn't really pick this story. Ms. Chabot told us to read it. I liked it though. I think it's funny to watch old science fiction shows. I laugh at the cheesy acting and the corny special effects. You can see the strings holding them in the air. I thought it was funny how one little boy made all the neighbors think that aliens were attacking their neighborhood. Nobody would believe that now-days. Maybe people were more easily convinced of those things fifty years ago.
I think the video Monsters Are Due on Maple Street and the teleplay Monsters Are Due on Maple Street are a lot the same. They used most of the same lines and used the same camera angles. Just like this line, "What was that? A meteor?" The story took a lot longer to read though. The video was only a few minutes. The book took days. It had more detail than the video did. Just like when they showed the space ship. You could see at least five strings coming off of it. Every body in the class laughed. It was really funny.

4jk
Rod Serling was a former boxer and a future PE teacher. He takes a path uncommon to jocks and science fiction. He wrote a movie called "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street." The characters in this movie are: Charlie the wise-cracker know it all, Steve the wise one, Don the laid back one, Tommy the kid who knows what's gonna happen, Sally his mother, and Pete Van Horn a scientist. You don't here a lot about Pete Van Horn because he leaves Maple Street at the beginning of the movie because he goes to another neighborhood to see if the power is on there. It all happens on Maple Street, USA.

My feelings as I read this book were that I couldn't understand why everybody was fighting and blaming each other. It's like you wanna yell " Jiminy Christmas." It's like what Rod serling said, "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, and prejudice to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudice can kill and suspicion can destroy and a thoughtless frightened search for scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children... and the children yet unborn.
Pg [684.]

I wonder why the town is so peaceful, now and days you see kids about 13-16 on the street smoking, drinking and doing drugs. You might see parents telling there kids there grounded and then later you see the kids sneaking out the window. I mean come on who in the right mind would believe that? "Maple Street, U.S.A., late summer. A tree-lined little world of front porch gliders, hopscotch, the laughter of children, and the bell of an ice cream vendor." Pg [668.]

My favorite part of The Monsters are Due on Maple Street, is when everybody was accusing each other of who where the aliens. Everybody was bickering and fussing about this and that and everything that was going on. Tommy came running up the street yelling an alien is coming, so Charlie took his shotgun and shot what was coming up the street. It was Pete Van Horn, Charlie shot Pete Van Horn. [He swings the gun around to point it toward the sidewalk. The dark figure continues to walk towards them. The group stands there, fearful, apprehensive, mothers clutching children, men standing in front of wives. Charlie slowly raises the gun. As the figure gets closer and closer he suddenly pulls the trigger. The sound of it explodes in the stillness. There is a long angle shot looking down at the figure, who suddenly lets out a small cry, stumbles forward onto his knees and then falls forward on his face. Don, Charlie and Steve race forward over to him. Steve is there first and turns the man over. Now the crowd gathers around them.] Pg 679.

I felt that the book was good. It was very weird I wonder what's going to happen to all of the other people in the book. I wonder if the aliens are going to take over the whole world. Like hypnotizing all of the animals in the whole world to attack and kill all the people in the world except for one person to tell them how all humans lived and the aliens will all move down to earth and start living like humans. Then the whole world will never be the same again. Are you wondering what happened to that one guy? Well they kept him alive, and hypnotize him to think that the aliens are really humans and he married an alien, which he thought was a human. Are you wondering what happened to the animals? Well there alive to but the aliens experimented on them and mixed all of them up. It is freaky dude. I just hope that one of you aren't the one left not killed, because if I were I would just not feel right but I couldn't feel right because I would be hypnotized. Well I change my mind I would want to be the one left behind because I would act like I was hypnotized then I would get some weapons and kill all the aliens in the world. Then I would search all over the world and try to find pieces of the people that were killed then I would go to a lab and clone everybody so that all the people in the world would be back to life but they would be clones but I still would be happy because all of my friends, teachers, family members and other people in the world would be alive. But before I could clone people I would have to read the manual on how to work the cloning machine, then after I read that I would have to read the manual on how to clone people. Then I would fix all the animals back together. Wow! Sorry got off the subject there. Well the book was good I like it a lot I hope you like it to. So you have to read "Monsters are Due on Maple Street"

1VJ
"The Monsters are Due on Maple Street," is a classical episode of the Twilight Zone. I like how it showed that we can be prejudice and suspicious. It's also interesting how all the "monsters", or aliens, had to do was flick on and off a few lights to scare the people. Then the rest was the peoples own doing. The movie is very dramatic, and is almost exactly the same as the teleplay. The fact that it is in black and white makes it even more intense, in my opinion. The video and the teleplay both had the same scene of fright where the lights go out and nothing works. This then goes on to mass confusion, foreshadows the coming of aliens, and shows the weak points of the human race.
The plot advances with chaos. The people get scared and confused. They blame each other for having something they don't. This causes mass confusion and general panic. Things only get worse after that. One thing happens after another. The suspicious grows and the people get paranoid, until someone is killed. This person was Pete Van Horn. "You killed him, Charlie. You shot him dead!" (679)
As the plot advances they also foreshow what will come. The aliens are the ones who cause all the lights to fail, but the humans are the ones who became suspicious. This foreshadows the doom of the humans. The aliens plan to go from Maple Street to Maple Street and do the same to cause the fall of humans. "Then I take this place... this Maple Street...is not unique."
Rod Sterling's theme for "Monsters are due on Maple Street" is you shouldn't be too quick to judge people. Or be suspicious of people who have things you don't. Chaos supports this theme in showing how easily we can become suspicious of others. Then from there chaos and mayhem come. The theme could also be a kind of moral. "They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find... and it is them selves" (682) I think this quote is a good quote to describe the theme.
I think "Monsters are due on Maple Street" is really great. It has a wonderful plot. When I read the teleplay, I thought it was just like the other Twilight Zones. (I have seen a few others. One was about a man being in isolation.) I really enjoyed the Monsters are due on Maple Street. The teleplay was almost exactly like the movie or visa versa. My favorite part in this one was at the end where the sudden quietness is shocking. Then the aliens come and start talking, and it fades out to Sterling's face and he said his "And this is the Twilight Zone." I also like the beginning/ending songs. In conclusion I think the teleplay and the movie were both equally interesting.

The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street 1KC
" The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street"

Rod Serling, a screenplay writer for MGM in the 1950's wrote many famous science fiction teleplays, movies, Broadway shows, and television entertainment shows. Serling has won multiple Emmy awards for his work. He wrote 92 twilight zone episodes that were aired on CBS. They became one of America's most recognized, and most popular television series.
Some of Serling's most famous writings include: "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" and "Time Enough at Last". "Time Enough at Last" was written in 1959. I do not know when "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" was written but I assume it was around 1959.
Rod Serling died on June 28th, 1975. He died during a coronary bypass operation in Rochester, New York. Rod Serling's stories of aliens and super natural happenings are entertaining for all to this day. His name will live on in science fiction history forever.
"The Monsters are Due on Maple Street", a teleplay and television entertainment show, was written by Serling in the nineteen fifties'. I love how Serling describes les Goodman's car starting up with no one in it (673). This event brings chaos and unproven assumptions. Other things, such as flickering lights, happen all down Maple Street. They are mostly all blamed on Les Goodman because of his insomnia. These things bring complete and utter chaos.
Confusion breaks free when all of the lights and appliances down Maple Street turn off and stop working (668-669). This advances the plot to confusion. Chaos doesn't come until Les Goodmans' car starts up with no one inside. People turn wild as new and crazy things happen down Maple Street. Sound effects in this section of the teleplay are screams, crying, and gunfires.
Other crazy things happen down Maple Street. Lights flicker, appliances turn on and off, and again chaos starts up (683). Mostly these things are blamed on Les Goodman. They think he is an alien because his insomnia sometimes wakes him up. So to occupy himself he takes walks at night and claims to be looking at stars. But the families all down Maple Street think he is looking for his alien friends. This foreshadows who is behind all of the chaos and confusion.
I thought Rod Serling's teleplay, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street", was very realistic when referring to human nature. Even though it is believed that alien or outer space life forms are not real. The car starting then produces this assumption.
I thought it was interesting how Serling never gave a definite ending to "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". He never gives a definite ending to the teleplay. I just assumed the chaos went on until every human life on Maple Street was dead or confused for their lifetime. Even though I am not into science fiction writings, I really enjoyed "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street". I would call this science fiction movie and teleplay one of the best from the 1950's.

1OE
The Monsters Due On Maple Street

"The Monsters Due On Maple Street" was probably the only kind of movie that was supposed to be scary back then. Since I'm in the year 2003 that movie was pretty dumb, but back in that time it must have been awesome. The aliens looked really dumb with those two antennas. I liked seeing all the fake shooting and killing. I can now see how far we have come with movies since then. The movie was confusing until the alien started to talk. They told their plan of taking over the Earth by flickering some lights and making some stuff mess up. When they said that, it put all the pieces of the movie together, and foreshadowed that the human race would end because of prejudice.
I think the way he ended the movie was great. He told about the plan and makes you think, could that happen to us? That is how he advanced the plot, he told the story about the alien's plan and then had them talk and tell how everybody is the same. He had the aliens take off saying they were going to take over the world just by sitting down. Then left for another place to terrorize.
When the aliens talk it foreshadows the Earth in complete destruction. Dying because of them assuming that their friends are the enemy, when really they are the most dangerous because they terrorize people as innocent as them. When the aliens talk they say the theme of how people can be so prejudice. "They find the most dangerous enemy they can find............and it's themselves" (682). It is the probably the best and easiest plan the aliens have ever come up with.
The theme in this story is not to be prejudice. My part advanced the theme by talking. The aliens tell their plan about using prejudice to destroy the humans. As much as that sounded stupid, it was smart. The aliens could actually make their plan work, and that is what The Monsters Due Maple Street shows. About everyone has a little bit of prejudice inside him. After reading the story, realizing the theme, and thinking about it, you will think could that happen to me?
The book and movie are so close to each other. You can read from the book and they will say almost all of the same lines in the movie. That is what helps me relate to the movie. I can just see if the picture was same in the movie as in my mind. In other movies they are far off from the book, so it changes the whole view of the story. The author picked a great way to show how everyone can be so prejudice. When I read the story I also was prejudice. I thought Charlie was the alien, but as I found out nobody was. That surprised me a lot. This was the first book that showed that nobody was the bad guy, and that made the story's end great. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Fatal Vision: Movie Suggests Doctor Guilty of Murder
The murder of the wife and children of Green Beret doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was the basis of a book, FATAL VISION, by Joe McGinnis. When Dr. MacDonald was accused of the murder, McGinnis at first believed in his innocence, but later changed his mind, so it is no surprise that his book reflects that belief. The movie version is a faithful rendering of the book and also reflects the same belief. Director David Greene presents MacDonald as a man who is totally narcissistic and capable of violence. Gary Cole, who plays Dr. MacDonald, is presented as exactly the sort of man who could kill his family, and then go on television to revel in the publicity. The first half of the movie is on MacDonald, and the audience is set up to first accept, then reject his claim to innocence. The second half belongs to Karl Malden, who plays Freddy Kassab, the father of the slain wife. He becomes enraged at what he sees as the obvious lack of remorse on MacDonald's part. He pushes the authorities for years to re-open the case. Dr. MacDonald is brought to trial and found guilty. He is now incarcerated for life, and is busy seeking a retrial. Both the movie and book suggest that an overwhelming mountain of circumstantial evidence is the proof of his guilt. The problem that I have with this is McGinnis and Greene present a case just as if they were sure of MacDonald's guilt. Especially reprehensible was the scene in which the prosecutor is describing the moments after MacDonald allegedly slaughtered his family. The camera shows him in the bathroom as he uses a scalpel to self-inflict minor wounds that he would later claim were inflicted by intruders. The impression on the viewer is that this scene is gospel truth. Doctor MacDonald did not help his cause by acting like an arrogant jerk in court. The prosecution got great mileage out of showing his opulent life style with an assortment of bimbos. MacDonald seemed the very picture of a cold-blooded wife killer. The first time I saw the movie, I thought that maybe MacDonald did kill his wife and maybe he didn't, and in the American system of justice, that translates to a verdict of not guilty. The movie was a stacked deck. As an afterthought, I learned in the media of a wave of evidence that could have exonerated MacDonald had the prosecution presented it. Further, key members of the prosecution staff themselves were later charged with perjury in other cases not related to this one and they went to jail. When films like FATAL VISION purport to show a true-life trial, there can never be a 'finished product.' The concluding comments that mention his current status ought to be updated periodically to include the generally unknown facts that point out that MacDonald could be innocent. FATAL VISION is a well-done movie and the court scenes are quite gripping, but the bias against MacDonald intrudes to make the consequences of a real life case seem as inconsequential as any found in a movie of pure fiction.

Superior made-for-TV movie
Although director David Greene is known almost exclusively for his work in television, this movie is several notches above most TV fare. Running a full three hours and twenty minutes in two parts, Fatal Vision is just about as riveting as the book of the same name from which it was adapted. The screenplay by long time Hollywood pro John Gay amounts to an indictment of army Captain Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, but then again so did the book.

Gary Cole gives a convincing performance as the former Green Beret army officer who was accused, and then some nine years after the fact, convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife Collette and two young daughters. Karl Malden plays Freddy Kassab, Collette's father, with his usual skill, while Eva Marie Saint plays Kassab's wife.

Since it is still being debated to this day whether Jeffrey MacDonald really was guilty of this horrendous crime (as he continues to serve his prison sentence), perhaps we should appreciate this movie strictly as a study in sociopathology.

The story begins February 17, 1970 with MacDonald phoning the police to report that his wife and two daughters had been brutally murdered by a marauding gang of hippies who broke into his home shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy." He claims he tried to fight them off and was injured and knocked unconscious.

In contrast, the story presented by the prosecution and detailed in McGinniss's book, portrays MacDonald as having, in a fit of temper injured or killed a member of his family, and then to cover up that crime killed all of them, and then fabricated a crime scene to support his story including the infliction of superficial wounds upon himself.

The question most people would like answered is WHY would a previously upstanding member of the community, a successful doctor as well as a decorated army Captain, go to such a horrendous extreme to cover up a crime no worse than manslaughter, if that?

The answer is in the character of Jeffrey MacDonald himself who is depicted as a psychopath possibly under the influence of amphetamines, a man so callous and unfeeling about the pain and suffering of anyone except himself, that he would murder his own family in an attempt to divert the blame from himself. This was the answer that McGinniss came up with after spending a lot of time with MacDonald and after initially believing him to be innocent. This is the answer that the jury believed, and this is the answer given in the character that Gary Cole so vividly portrays.

There are many kinds of truth--legal truth decided by a jury, scientific truth decided by experiment and confirmation, spiritual truth, etc. And there is cinematic artistic truth, decided by the viewer. I think the business-like direction from Greene and his adherence to McGinniss's "vision," along with the fine performance by Gary Cole make us aware of the reality that there are sociopaths among us who can charm and kill with equal ease.

Regardless of the true facts of the case (which we will never know for certain) it is this singular truth that makes this movie worth seeing.

Not Even Safe With The Military
The Manson family murders that occurred in August of 1969 were bad enough, but now this murder provided no safe haven for Middle Class America to run to; the world was falling further and further apart. For Green Beret Doctor Jeffery McDonald it had as he lost his family his wife and 2 little girls to murder. The world mourned with this man, and then came the accusations, and the fact that McDonald himself finds that he's leading the top of the list. His father in law defends him all the way, but then McDonald's behavior, and attitudes begin to make him wonder could McDonald have killed his whole family, and he sets out to find the truth. McDonald still claims that a bunch of hippies killed his family because McDonald wouldn't give out drugs for them. My honest opinion is that McDonald may very well be completely innocent of this crime, but his psychological state makes me have doubts. First of all the appearance on the Dick Cavett show in which he slams the U.S. Army during the investigation, and causing the audience to laugh. Then the fact he alienated his in-laws, and finally moving away makes me feel that he just was moving on way too fast, and not showing any signs of trying to find who killed his family. His psychological state is also showing that McDonald is a paranoid man who loves himself, and anything pertaining to him. I know that if anyone didn't like, or agree with him he's a controlling sort, and will snap at you. I know the one scene where they argued about a piece of evidence McDonald screamed "Warheidi's a Nazi". I feel that he may have been raised that way by his mother. I Can't look at it any other way. McDonald was found guilty, and will not be elligabe for parole for awhile. I found this to be a impressive movies.

This true story shows The Injustice Criminal Justice System
I have to totally agree with Dr. Charles T. Kelly, Jr from the first book review and the review on the second book to do with the McDonald case. With the information from the Freedom of Information Act there is enough evidence to at least be able to give Dr.McDonald a right to a second Trial and not go against his constitutional rights. In Fatal Vision there were mistakes that were made by the Military and our Government seemed to have decided to ignore other evidence and just decide to go after Dr. Mcdonald for the Murders of his Family.

Fatal Injustice
I watched this movie when it first came out. Since that time, I have read both books, Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders. It appears as though this movie lacks sound, objective, logical reasoning based on the final product. Also, since many years have now passed, it may be a very profitable endeavour for someone to take all of the Freedom of Information documentation and court transcripts and write the TRUE story of what really took place. Additionally, a movement should be initiated to secure the release of or pressure applied on the government to force a reopening of this Fatal Injustice. Also, certain members of the governments team during the CID investigation and Justice Department investigation should be investigated and charges brought. Their actions, inaction, and damage caused to the criminal justice system must be reversed. As a professor of Criminal Justice and Criminal Investigations, I intend to have every student read both books and watch the movie. There is also a academic journal article written on these two books that is very good.

Most respectfully,
Dr. Charles T. Kelly, Jr. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Let the Balling Begin!
Just as one viewer said, the last time I saw this movie I was about 13 years old. I cried my eyes out. I could not believe how touching this movie was. I saw it once and out of all the movies I've seen in my life time, (probably close to a million since I'm a movie buff)this is one of the few movies that I will always remember. I didn't know it was a true story which makes it even more profound. I would love to see the movie again I'm sure it will be just as good as the first time if not better. I love a good cry!

A Real Weepy
This film is the ultimate tear jerker movie. Mark Harmon is married with four children, sadly his wife dies and he has to deal with being a single father whilst still providing for them while working. His sons are taken from his by the state and placed into homes, sometimes together sometimes separately. Harmon's sheer perseverance to get his children back is awe-inspiring. There are a few harrowing scenes and I guarantee you'll be welling up all the way through. It is a film of love, devotion, determination and sheer heartache. It is the best film I have ever seen, I would certainly recommend it.

A well remembered film
It has been many years since this made for TV movie was aired. However, I remember it as vividly today as as when I first saw it nearly 20 years ago. The fathers' struggles to retain his four sons after the loss of his wife; as well as his dealings with an unsympathic court system, will leave you stunned. The system itself really should have been on trial. In the end, the father lives up to his promise made to his four sons. This film is based on a true story that occured during the great depression. It is perhaps the most moving TV movie since Brian Song.

give it 6 stars
This is absolutely one of the saddest stories I have ever seen portrayed on film. It is a definate must see for all ages. You will learn to be happy for the life you lead if you are privilaged enoough to have a family.

A Movie About a Father's Love for his Sons
When I seen this movie on TV I just cried. I fell in love with
it! It's a movie that shows what a loving dedicated father
would do to get his sons back. It's a very powerful movie with
great actors in it - including the boys who play his sons. I
recommend this movie. A real tear jerker I guarantee!! ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A Legacy for Our Youth
As an African American parent and teacher, this movie is a MUST for our children. Each generation is further removed from the real-life experiences of segregation, the Civil Rights Movement, and the deceased generation of slavery. The word "nigger" is now used thoughtlessly as a joke. Our children don't realize the significance the word had and still has for some generations. Too many believe they can refuse or fight their way out of an unwanted situation. Theirs is a different reality. ROOTS can bring them in touch with the past of those who have died in a struggle to maintain dignity for our people. This legacy is alive in the movie ROOTS. Share the legacy with our children---see the movie with a young person.

Kunte Kinte
This a really DEEP! movie. It makes you laugh! and it makes you cry!

It takes you to Africa, then brings you back to slavery. It shows the will of Kunte Kinte and how it could not be broken during his enslavement.

This film is one of a kind you you don't know anything about slavery until you've seen ROOTS ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Fatal Vision: Movie Suggests Doctor Guilty of Murder
The murder of the wife and children of Green Beret doctor Jeffrey MacDonald was the basis of a book, FATAL VISION, by Joe McGinnis. When Dr. MacDonald was accused of the murder, McGinnis at first believed in his innocence, but later changed his mind, so it is no surprise that his book reflects that belief. The movie version is a faithful rendering of the book and also reflects the same belief. Director David Greene presents MacDonald as a man who is totally narcissistic and capable of violence. Gary Cole, who plays Dr. MacDonald, is presented as exactly the sort of man who could kill his family, and then go on television to revel in the publicity. The first half of the movie is on MacDonald, and the audience is set up to first accept, then reject his claim to innocence. The second half belongs to Karl Malden, who plays Freddy Kassab, the father of the slain wife. He becomes enraged at what he sees as the obvious lack of remorse on MacDonald's part. He pushes the authorities for years to re-open the case. Dr. MacDonald is brought to trial and found guilty. He is now incarcerated for life, and is busy seeking a retrial. Both the movie and book suggest that an overwhelming mountain of circumstantial evidence is the proof of his guilt. The problem that I have with this is McGinnis and Greene present a case just as if they were sure of MacDonald's guilt. Especially reprehensible was the scene in which the prosecutor is describing the moments after MacDonald allegedly slaughtered his family. The camera shows him in the bathroom as he uses a scalpel to self-inflict minor wounds that he would later claim were inflicted by intruders. The impression on the viewer is that this scene is gospel truth. Doctor MacDonald did not help his cause by acting like an arrogant jerk in court. The prosecution got great mileage out of showing his opulent life style with an assortment of bimbos. MacDonald seemed the very picture of a cold-blooded wife killer. The first time I saw the movie, I thought that maybe MacDonald did kill his wife and maybe he didn't, and in the American system of justice, that translates to a verdict of not guilty. The movie was a stacked deck. As an afterthought, I learned in the media of a wave of evidence that could have exonerated MacDonald had the prosecution presented it. Further, key members of the prosecution staff themselves were later charged with perjury in other cases not related to this one and they went to jail. When films like FATAL VISION purport to show a true-life trial, there can never be a 'finished product.' The concluding comments that mention his current status ought to be updated periodically to include the generally unknown facts that point out that MacDonald could be innocent. FATAL VISION is a well-done movie and the court scenes are quite gripping, but the bias against MacDonald intrudes to make the consequences of a real life case seem as inconsequential as any found in a movie of pure fiction.

Superior made-for-TV movie
Although director David Greene is known almost exclusively for his work in television, this movie is several notches above most TV fare. Running a full three hours and twenty minutes in two parts, Fatal Vision is just about as riveting as the book of the same name from which it was adapted. The screenplay by long time Hollywood pro John Gay amounts to an indictment of army Captain Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald, but then again so did the book.

Gary Cole gives a convincing performance as the former Green Beret army officer who was accused, and then some nine years after the fact, convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife Collette and two young daughters. Karl Malden plays Freddy Kassab, Collette's father, with his usual skill, while Eva Marie Saint plays Kassab's wife.

Since it is still being debated to this day whether Jeffrey MacDonald really was guilty of this horrendous crime (as he continues to serve his prison sentence), perhaps we should appreciate this movie strictly as a study in sociopathology.

The story begins February 17, 1970 with MacDonald phoning the police to report that his wife and two daughters had been brutally murdered by a marauding gang of hippies who broke into his home shouting "Kill the pigs, acid is groovy." He claims he tried to fight them off and was injured and knocked unconscious.

In contrast, the story presented by the prosecution and detailed in McGinniss's book, portrays MacDonald as having, in a fit of temper injured or killed a member of his family, and then to cover up that crime killed all of them, and then fabricated a crime scene to support his story including the infliction of superficial wounds upon himself.

The question most people would like answered is WHY would a previously upstanding member of the community, a successful doctor as well as a decorated army Captain, go to such a horrendous extreme to cover up a crime no worse than manslaughter, if that?

The answer is in the character of Jeffrey MacDonald himself who is depicted as a psychopath possibly under the influence of amphetamines, a man so callous and unfeeling about the pain and suffering of anyone except himself, that he would murder his own family in an attempt to divert the blame from himself. This was the answer that McGinniss came up with after spending a lot of time with MacDonald and after initially believing him to be innocent. This is the answer that the jury believed, and this is the answer given in the character that Gary Cole so vividly portrays.

There are many kinds of truth--legal truth decided by a jury, scientific truth decided by experiment and confirmation, spiritual truth, etc. And there is cinematic artistic truth, decided by the viewer. I think the business-like direction from Greene and his adherence to McGinniss's "vision," along with the fine performance by Gary Cole make us aware of the reality that there are sociopaths among us who can charm and kill with equal ease.

Regardless of the true facts of the case (which we will never know for certain) it is this singular truth that makes this movie worth seeing.

Not Even Safe With The Military
The Manson family murders that occurred in August of 1969 were bad enough, but now this murder provided no safe haven for Middle Class America to run to; the world was falling further and further apart. For Green Beret Doctor Jeffery McDonald it had as he lost his family his wife and 2 little girls to murder. The world mourned with this man, and then came the accusations, and the fact that McDonald himself finds that he's leading the top of the list. His father in law defends him all the way, but then McDonald's behavior, and attitudes begin to make him wonder could McDonald have killed his whole family, and he sets out to find the truth. McDonald still claims that a bunch of hippies killed his family because McDonald wouldn't give out drugs for them. My honest opinion is that McDonald may very well be completely innocent of this crime, but his psychological state makes me have doubts. First of all the appearance on the Dick Cavett show in which he slams the U.S. Army during the investigation, and causing the audience to laugh. Then the fact he alienated his in-laws, and finally moving away makes me feel that he just was moving on way too fast, and not showing any signs of trying to find who killed his family. His psychological state is also showing that McDonald is a paranoid man who loves himself, and anything pertaining to him. I know that if anyone didn't like, or agree with him he's a controlling sort, and will snap at you. I know the one scene where they argued about a piece of evidence McDonald screamed "Warheidi's a Nazi". I feel that he may have been raised that way by his mother. I Can't look at it any other way. McDonald was found guilty, and will not be elligabe for parole for awhile. I found this to be a impressive movies.

This true story shows The Injustice Criminal Justice System
I have to totally agree with Dr. Charles T. Kelly, Jr from the first book review and the review on the second book to do with the McDonald case. With the information from the Freedom of Information Act there is enough evidence to at least be able to give Dr.McDonald a right to a second Trial and not go against his constitutional rights. In Fatal Vision there were mistakes that were made by the Military and our Government seemed to have decided to ignore other evidence and just decide to go after Dr. Mcdonald for the Murders of his Family.

Fatal Injustice
I watched this movie when it first came out. Since that time, I have read both books, Fatal Vision and Fatal Justice: Reinvestigating the MacDonald Murders. It appears as though this movie lacks sound, objective, logical reasoning based on the final product. Also, since many years have now passed, it may be a very profitable endeavour for someone to take all of the Freedom of Information documentation and court transcripts and write the TRUE story of what really took place. Additionally, a movement should be initiated to secure the release of or pressure applied on the government to force a reopening of this Fatal Injustice. Also, certain members of the governments team during the CID investigation and Justice Department investigation should be investigated and charges brought. Their actions, inaction, and damage caused to the criminal justice system must be reversed. As a professor of Criminal Justice and Criminal Investigations, I intend to have every student read both books and watch the movie. There is also a academic journal article written on these two books that is very good.

Most respectfully,
Dr. Charles T. Kelly, Jr. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Watch out, James Bond
Great spy/adventure flick. Bette Davis makes an great villainess. If I didn't know it was Bette Davis ahead of time, I never would have guessed it was her. Great inventions/gadgets on par with anything created for Bond. And the best part? The 'good guys' lose.

She had to pay the bills........
The movie sucked..bette rocked..point blank...! She was awesome as usual adding some star power to an otherwise James Bond wanna-be movie. ... Read more

Reviews (105)

When wilt thou save the people?
I love Godspell, but this film won't be for everyone. The plot is confusing, since it's basically just Jesus and his disciples acting out parables from the Bible as the plot meanders along, somewhat faithful to the Gospel of Mattthew. The cast mugs a lot, using a ton of cartoon-y voices and facial expressions, which can get annoying.

My favorite part of Godspell is the music. I love almost every song. "Save The People," "Bless The Lord," "By My Side," "Beautiful City," "Day By Day," "Turn Back, O Man" are just some of the classics that appear in this film, sung with an exciting innocence, and staged somewhat inventively, especially the "All For The Best," number.

The cast is great - fans of ABC's "Alias" television series will be shocked to see Victor Garber as an Afro'd Superman shirt singing Jesus. I know I was! The great Lynne Thigpen, sadly passed away, gets a great rollicking number in "Bless The Lord," and the rest of the cast is entertaining as well in their own ways.

So this movie may not be for everybody - if you don't think you can handle a movie based on Bible parables, then don't bother buying this. But I suggest giving this a try - I did, and it turned into one of my favorite movies.

The Best Religious Musical Ever!
I am in a production of "Godspell" myself at my high school as John the Baptist. The movie was the perfect way to really see how David Haskell performed it. Not only that, but the power of the final scene made realize just exactly what I'd undertaken. The music, the characters, and the scenery made this a very moving show. The only bad comment that I would have to make is that the sound quality on some of the songs deteriorates, which made me a little edgy. However, I cannot believe that someone could call it a mockery of the New Testament. I consider it one of the best. Suddenly we can see Jesus, in a modern-day situation, and relate to him. The songs add more brilliant color to the movie, with songs varying from jubilant (Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord), to sad (By My Side, On The Willows). I would say that even if you aren't a religious person, the music and the acting is worth watching.

Better than Superstar
Someone said that this musical is horrible and if you wanted to see a Bible-based retelling of the Gospels to see Jesus Christ Superstar or !Hero. First of all, Jesus Christ Superstar is not Biblical and denies the diety of Christ (the writers aren't even Christians). !Hero is a well-intentioned try, but it's not the Bible, its paralellism (like sandwiches out of a backpack instead of bread and fish for feeding the 5000). Godspell, while at first seeming entirely bizarre and maybe even mocking, once you take a good look at it, you can see that they are really presenting the teachings of Jesus (whereas Superstar only presented the 'drama' of the story) in a fun and creative way that doesn't take away from the message. The songs are great too, although they may need some time to grow on you (because it is very very 70's).
One thing to keep in mind is that this movie is told in presentational form, where the audience is acknowledged and talked to. The actors in the movie are playing *actors*. The movie is meant to be understood that the people in the movie are *actors* acting out the stories. Once you get this, it's a very entertaining movie with great songs, dancing, and creative ways of modernizing some aspects of the Gospel without completely changing the message. I suggest getting it if you enjoy musicals in general, or if you're looking for a good alternative to Jesus Christ Superstar.

THIS MUSICAL IS TERRIBLE!!!
THIS MUSICAL DOSN'T MAKE SENSE! IT'S STUIPED! WHY DID THEY PUT JESUS ON A BASEBALL GATE INSTEAD OF PUTTING HIM ON A CROSS?!?! THIS MUSICAL CAN NEVER BE MADE SO IT WOULD BE BETTER.

THE FIRST SONG IS OK, BUT I'M STILL CONFUSED WITH THE WHOLE SUPERMAN SHIRT THING.

I CAN HARDLY REMEMBER THE OTHER SONGS. I SAY IF YOU WANT TO SEE A GOOD BIBLE BASED ROCK OPERA, YOU SHOULD SEE !HERO OR JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR.

When.. you.. feel.. sad..
My sister and I have been fans of this movie almost since it came out. It is by far my favorite musical.

I love most of the musical numbers, except for "Alas For You", which scared me when I was a kid... but, I'm over it now. No, really, I am. :)

There aren't too many bonuses on the dvd (which is my reason for four stars instead of five): a couple of short text bios of a few of the stars and some trailers of the movie. The scene selection choices were well done, so if you have one favorite song from the movie, you can go straight to it.

The only two stars from this, that I know of, that have had a long lasting acting career, are Victor Garber who plays Jesus (I still can't believe this is the same guy that plays Sydney's father on Alias) and the late very great Lynne Thigpen.

Out of my dvd collection, this one has the strangest list of foreign language subtitles: English, Spanish, Portugese, Chinese, Korean, and Thai. I'm guessing the movie wasn't all that popular in Europe.

Soooo, when you feel sad or under a curse, this movie should definitely lift your spirits. Enjoy! ... Read more

Reviews (25)

A new outlook on the Godfather-formula.
A unique new idea in the Mafia crime-movie. Four women, stripped of their manfolk start a vendetta of their own. The female in the crimestory seems finally to have come of age. Good acting by al the leads, especially Kinski, Redgrave and Tilly and an original story premise more then make up for some weak area's ( A series of rather unlikely coincidences making a twist in the family relations possible, and a villain who switches a little too easily from a halfwit-psycho to a charming young man and the other way round.) A must for all the fans of Godfather.

mafia ladies
i really liked the movie,saw part 1&2,thought it was great to see women mafia take control for a change,i would like to see the movie continue though,because in the secound film,sofia takes out a picture and shows her cross out one of the members that they killed,and it also shows that that there are at least three more members left to be killed,could there be another film in the making ? i think that you should see this movie,you will not be disappointed,hope that this review helped you decide

BEST FEMALE MAFIA MOVIE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE MOVIE WHEN WILL IT BE ON DVD I HAVE HAD TO REPLACE IT TWICE ALREADY!

Bella Mafia
This movie was one of the greatest mafia movies ever, especially from the female view. Bella Mafia is right up there with The Godfather and The Last Don. I hope that there will be a sequel where they continue to get even with the rest of the mob. I have seen this movie at least 40+ times and I continue to watch is over and over as I own a copy on VHS. I hope that Bella Mafia will come out on DVD soon.

Kinski has never been sexier
rented this one. I'm a big Nastassja Kinski fan. This is just about Kinski who falls in love with Dennis Farina's son Michael and then Kinski has sex with him and she ends up pregnant and Michael ends up dead. Kinski puts her child in a church place for children and she gives her son her necklace. Then she enters Farina's famly, falling in love with Michael's brother, forgot his name. Then the other men marry their brides (including Jennifer Tilly and Illeana Douglas). Dennis Farina is married to Vanessa Redgrave. Farina has this enemy on the outside who wants to control everything he has got. Kinski's son grows up without any mother or father and he has a sick riddled friend who guides him the knowledge he gets when he grows up and he grows up into a man (played by The X-Men's James Marsden, he has some what of an ok role). He is adopted by Farina's enemy and remember his mother Kinski is in that family. Kinski bares 2 boys. Gina Phillips(from Jeepers Creepers #1) has a role as a daughter of I forgot. Marsdens is trained by Farina's enemy and he goes one night, kills Kinski's 2 boys( which he kills his little brothers and doesnt know) and he kills Farina and the husbands. Determined to kill, Kinski, Douglas, , Phillips, Redgrave and Tilly want revenge and Kinski just who to kill. At the funerals, Farina's enemy is there and then he is killed by Marsden. Marsden is hit by the car that Kinski's riding in, they take him back and then he realizes where he is and then he becomes like a stalker and the women don't know if he's good or bad. In the end Kinski kills Marsden who she reconizes the necklace and then it is all put together. Great movie, Kinski has never been sexier, I just want to lick her up and everyone gives strong performances. If you waanna hear James Marsden yelp and cry like a sappy baby, plus his performance when hes tied to the chair is great, I was being sarcastic, this is the movie ... Read more

Reviews (3)

"The Worst of Shirley Temple"
This video contains practically nothing! I personally own this video (I received it as a birthday present) and personally hate it. The back cover is very dishonest because it says clips and inside features from Shirley Temple's first wedding-the clips are only 40 seconds. The video also contains "Pardon my Pups" and "Kid in Africa"-I have these films or shorts on tons of other Shirley videos. Don't waste your money!

You'll have to see it to believe it.
I don't quite know how to explain this video. It has three featurettes, two Baby Burlesks and a glimpse of Shirley Temple Black's wedding. The Baby Burlesks are--well, to a person who doesn't know what they're in for, it can be pretty harsh. I mean, it's cute, but strange that they would let toddlers do these things. They're take-offs of movies of the 1930s. I guess you would have to be from that time to really understand everything and get the jokes, but I guess it's kinda scary because I read that the Baby Burlesks producers didn't pay the children as much as they had promised and were cruel to them and had many dangerous scenes which the parents couldn't know about! I don't know this is true, but if it is, I don't really enjoy watching these shorts. I rates it only 1 star. The stories, I'm sorry to say after all the negative things I've said that the stories aren't very good. So if you want to buy this movie, you'd better be ready and armed.

In this movie there are a lot of cute scenes .
The main actress is in this movie is really cute and their are a lot of funny and cute scenes. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

I just wanted to come back and hear the calliope
WALKING DISTANCE is probably the best episode ever produced. Gig Young acts out Serling's prose so perfectly that he speaks for every man that ever wished he could go home again. It is a very moving episode. Bernard Herrmann's score intuitively picks up the emotion and heartfelt sincerity that Serling wrote into this story. This was Rod Serling's, Bernard Herrmann's and Gig Young's finest work for any medium. I think it is the finest piece of work ever put on film. KICK THE CAN is thematically similar and also very moving. It examines what it means to grow old and if one must give up the very things that makes us who we really are. It too is a very heartfelt episode, sincere and remains one of the best.

Timeless and Forever.
Long ago when Television was young there were indeed programs of quality and value. One of the great icons of the era was for sure Rod Serling. Mr. Serling has been gone now since 1975...but his vision and talent and taste for the ironic live on in " Twilight Zone" episodes.

In "Walking Distance" Martin Sloan( Gig Young) gets to look back on his life in a very special way. A shock to himself when he sees himself, as a boy, carving names into a post on a gazebo..( a gazebo that could have been possibly in Serling's home town of Binghamton New York.

The quagmire of time and space are now imposed on Martin Sloan..and this unique teleplay is one of the best 26 minutes you might see on Television. The montage scene on the merry go round...the field is at first tilted...then corrects itself with a return to Mr. Sloan's reality..Frak Overton, Byron Foulger and Ronnie Howard round out the singular cast.

If this were all not enough, Bernard Herrman lends a most meloncholy score to the whole proceedings. This is what happens when great artists combine talents to produce something timeless.

Some " Wisp of Memory" indeed!

This tape has Serling's classic episode "Walking Distance"
In Rod Serling's classic episode "Walking Distance," Martin Sloan (Gig Young) leaves his car at the gas station and walks into his hometown, where suddenly everything is just as it was when he was a child. In fact, he encounters his younger self (Michael Montgomery), and has to come to terms with the fact that he has not been happy with his life for a long, long time. The episode, directed by Robert Stevens, is one of Serling's best evocations of nostalgia, with a cast that includes Pat O'Malley and young Ronnie Howard. "Kick the Can" was George Clayton Johnson's final script for the series, and was the episode adapted by Steven Spielberg in "Twilight Zone: The Movie." Charles Whitley (Ernest Truex) and his friend Ben Conory (Russell Collins) are residents of Sunnydale Rest, a home for the aged. Charles becomes convinced that the secret to being young is acting young, and one night he begs the others to join him for a game of kick-the-can. Everyone agrees to join in the game, except Ben. Because this is the Twilight Zone, this is a tragic mistake and one that Ben will regret the rest of his life. This is an okay episode, but not a classic like the first one on this tape.

Short subjects as timeless as their medium...
This is another fine package in the series, two classics that have obvious but effective stories to tell. "Walking Distance" is about Martin Sloan, successful in business but not successful in that walk of life that all men try sooner or later: trying to go home again. "Kick the Can" is an enormously moving and engrossing piece with Charles Witley dilivering the goods as an old man who refuses to die in Sunnydale Rest. He is a man who knows that he will die in this world if he does not escape...into the Twilight Zone. This is one you should see.

The Human Side to the Twilight Zone
Rod put a lot of humanity into these two episodes of the Twilight Zone. The first story deals with a man's return home to his childhood trying to find his younger self that he left behind. The second story deals with people in their senior years who play a game of "Kick the Can" and discover that being young and old is very closely linked, and not seperate. Even if you don't like science fiction, watch these two Twilight Zone stories, they are human stories. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

A Fawcett triumph
The small screen treatment of author Ann Rule's best-seller is all the more gut-wrenching because this really happened, a self-absorbed mother whose horrific act of violence against her own children (all for a boyfriend who, it turned out, couldn't wait to unload her?) commanded overdue attention to the threat to children in their own homes. For anyone still unconvinced by "The Burning Bed" that Farrah Fawcett can act better than she can jiggle, they won't be with this one. Fawcett is superlative in getting across the pathological selfishness of Diane Downs and how her children paid for it. The performance was, for Fawcett, a richly earned Emmy nomination. Despite more than ample supporting acting by the likes of John Shea, et al, Fawcett carries this production and highlights it with an indelible emotional wallop. This is an important social piece, much as is "The Burning Bed" remains, and forces us to examine our childrens' safety in a new light. Read Rule's book for background to appreciate the production's faithfulness to its subject matter. Despite that wrenching subject matter, the film gives us some comfort in knowing that the justice system worked this time.

a true story
This TVM directed by David Greene is based on the book by Anne Rule and the teleplay adapted by Joyce Eliason. The female contribution accounts for the stance taken on Diane Downs, an Oregon postal worker who in 1983 was accused of murdering her own children to free herself for a lover who "just don't wanna be a Daddy". The crime outrages the male DA's assistant and presecutor with it's seemingly Medea brutality, their suspicion of Diane raised, in spite of her claim of a "bushy haired stranger" being responsible for the shootings, based on her "weird" behaviour. This behaviour is said to include a lack of emotion, inopportune humour, and a taste for the Duran Duran song Hungry Like the Wolf. (Greene's attempt to make Diane the wolf via her car headlights as eyes is a bit much). The DA's office takes months to form their case against Downs, and in their frustration, resent Diane's use of the media to gain sympathy, though we hear someone comment that "the camera loves her", implying that she possesses an unnatural empathy. At one point the audience becomes the TV camera with Diane talking to us subjectively. Given the nature of the context, it's easy for Downs to be more sympathetic than the police who wish to do her harm, but this perceived unbalance in the light of their feeling about the crime isn't helped by Greene's casting of John Shea as the DA's assistant and prosecutor, who specialises in a wooden stare. Eliason's teleplay reduces Downs by having someone say "She doesn't love. She devours" and gives her a memory monologue that she inexplicably delivers to Shea where she confesses that she hates men. There is also a court opportunity for Shea to project all his bile, and a queasy plot point of Shea's interest in Diane's children, overstepping his professionalism and getting way too personally involved. Greene uses similar cutaways of a crowd outside the courtroom during the trial, and stages a court re-enactment of the shootings in a model car for the camera with projected crosscuts, that the jury is unable to see.
As Downs, Farrah Fawcett has some delicious moments. Although an actress whose effort is always obvious, she captures Diane's recklessness and beauty, as she walks down a hallway talking and passing Shea, and as the camera circles her when a psychiatrist gives an evaluation of her personality. If she says and does things that appear to deliberately make herself look bad in the eyes of others, she still retains tube empathy so that we don't want to see her be found guilty, perhaps because only seeing her doing the shooting through the eyes of the prosecutor, helps it remain unreal. The casting of Ryan O'Neal as her former lover allows her to be uninhibited with him, though funny because of his resistance. There is also a perversity in the casting since it represents them at a time when they were a real life couple, but his stock was falling as hers was rising.
This TVM originally ran at 186 mins which is the version I saw, but ironically the length works against the treatment. In spite of it being truthful to the length of time the real events took, the inbalance of empathy becomes even stronger, and while we wait and wait with the police for Down's surviving daughter to regain her speech so she can stand as a witness against her mother, Fawcett's achievements become Greene's own small sacrifices.

As good as the book!
Movies based upon books are usually not much good, but "Small Sacrifices" is the exception to the rule. Farrah Fawcett delivers a stellar performance as Diane Downs, an Oregon mother who was convicted in mid 1984 for the May 1983 slaying of one of her children and the attempted murders of the other two, all because she was trying to win back the affections of her married lover, who had broken off their affair because he didn't want to be a daddy. Fawcett absolutely excels as Diane Downs because she brings to life Downs's coldness, self absorption, disregard for her children, and psychopathology in an extremely compelling and realistic fashion. John Shea is also commanding as the intense prosecutor, who, convinced of Downs's guilt from the very beginning, relentlessly seeks justice, and not because he feels he has only a legal obligation to do so. Joyce Eliason based her fabulous screenplay on Ann's Rule's bestselling book of the same name. This is an emotional movie, vey tough to watch, and will leave you drained at the end, simply because it is such a hard hitting, spellbinding story about the awful crime committed by a cold blooded woman who never should have been blessed with the gift of children.

Blood For Love
Small Sacrifices, a novel-turned-television-movie, is based on an incredibly true story about a women who tries to kill her three children to keep her lover. My first reaction to this movie was a sick feeling in my stomach that any mother could do such a thing. What also struck me was how convincingly Farrah Fawcett portrayed the cold Diane Downs. I was pleasantly stunned at the intensity each character showed and found that there were no lags or boring lulls in the story line. The devastating story prompted me to read the book by Ann Rule, and I fell in love with the story all over again. I wholeheartedly recommend this movie to anyone who is as fascinated by true crime as I am.

STUNNING PERFORMANCE!
Farrah Fawcett's interpretation of child killer Diane Downs stays with you forever. A multi-faceted banquet of film-making brilliance, this made-for-Tv adaptation of a real life event is haunting, seductive, and lacrimate. Chameleon-like Diane Downs is "Hungry Like The Wolf", and doesn't want any "kinks" in her social life. Her kids are the "kinks" that prevent her from pursuing a relationship with a clearly confused married man who up and moved hundreds of miles in a futile attempt to hide from the classique femme fatale. heartless maximus. ... Read more