Equinox.

Review #1004: Equinox.

Cast: 
Edward Connell (David Fielding), Barbara Hewitt (Susan Turner), Frank Bonner (Jim Hudson), Robin Christopher (Vicki), Jack Woods (Asmodeus), Fritz Leiber (Dr. Arthur Waterman), James Philips (Reporter Sloan), Patrick Burke (Branson), Jim Duron (Orderly and Green Giant), Norvelle Brooks (Detective Harrison), and Irving L. Lichtenstein (Old Man) Directed by Jack Woods and Dennis Muren.

Review: 
Equinox is certainly an intriguing standout, in that not only was it made for a budget of $6,500, it featured stop-motion effects and cel animation, with Dennis Muren (eight time winner of the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects) providing (along with David W. Allen and Jim Danforth) the effects that make what would've been just an ultra low-budget movie stick out among other horror "midnight movie" flicks. The film (known as The Equinox... A Journey into the Supernatural) was originally a short film made over the span of over two years by Muren, Allen and Danforth that the former made while attending college, with the result being liked enough by Tonylyn Productions to distribute it. Jack Woods was hired to direct additional footage by producer Jack H. Harris (producer of #418 - The Blob) in order to make it feature-length, with the final run-time being 80 minutes long, which certainly seems efficient.

The main four characters aren't really anything you wouldn't see in in a monster film, although they are at least somewhat competent.  Woods does a decent job in a role as odd as the one he plays, which is certainly strange. Famed fantasy and horror writer Fritz Leiber appears in the film in a brief but crucial role, despite having no spoken lines. Famed magazine editor and literary agent Forrest J Ackerman also appears in the film as one of the voices heard on the tape recorder in the film. Neither have starring roles, but it is interesting to note their appearances due to their roles in literature and fandom. As for the main four, they do relatively decent jobs, but the real star of the show is the special effects, which are fairly impressive for the time. There's just something about how they move and how they gel with the human actors to make this is an interesting watch. The plot is certainly a bit erratic (along with odd to follow at times), but it keeps itself going on the basis of its energetic spirit. The film gets more interesting (along with more odd) in the second half, but it is worth it due to the effects along with a fairly cohesive horror setup, with a climax that while weird is certainly fitting for something like this. It isn't a classic, but it is at the very least an interesting curiosity that merits at least one watch.

Happy Halloween folks.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Child's Play (1988).

Review #1003: Child's Play.

Cast: 
Alex Vincent (Andy Barclay), Catherine Hicks (Karen Barclay), Chris Sarandon (Detective Mike Norris), Brad Dourif (Charles Lee Ray/voice of Chucky), Dinah Manoff (Maggie Peterson), Tommy Swerdlow (Jack Santos), Jack Colvin (Dr. Ardmore), Raymond Oliver (John Bishop), and Neil Giuntoli (Eddie Caputo) Directed by Tom Holland (#614 - Thinner)

Review: 
I will admit, it took longer to finally cover one of these films than I thought it would, especially since Chucky is a character that is still appearing in films (with the seventh installment coming out just this month), and it is interesting to watch a horror film about a killer doll, though whether this is actually a scary slasher film is up to you. For me, I thought it was a decent movie, with Dourif (along with the animatronics used for Chucky) being the key highlight. Vincent does an decent job (for a child actor), and Hicks is fairly acceptable as well, but my level of entertainment were with Chucky. It's not so much that he is terrifying as it is that it's an interesting villain for a slasher film because of how clever the doll seems (my question though: would there have been any effect on Chucky if they had put batteries in the doll?). The film takes its time before letting Chucky "reveal himself", and whether that comes off as tedious or somewhat clever is up to you, although it really shouldn't be surprising to current viewers, anyway. The voodoo parts are what they are: stuff to explain the story, and I suppose they work well enough.

If I had to compare this to anything, I'd probably compare it to The Twilight Zone episode "Living Doll" (1963) which had a sentient doll, although that one was a bit more suspenseful though this is a fairly capable thriller. The film works best in its second half with Dourif being fairly entertaining and quite resourceful (for a doll, anyway). His voice just fits well (especially considering the actual voice of the doll) with this role. At 87 minutes, this is fairly decent horror fare, and if you find yourself into the concept and wanting more there are more than enough follow-up films for your taste.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Willard (1971).

Review #1002: Willard.

Cast: 
Bruce Davison (Willard Stiles), Sondra Locke (Joan), Elsa Lanchester (Henrietta Stiles), Ernest Borgnine (Al Martin), Michael Dante (Brandt), and J. Pat O'Malley (Farley) Directed by Daniel Mann (#514 - Our Man Flint)

Review: 
When it comes to horror films, Willard is certainly a interestingly strange one. I've done films with killer animals before, such as #462 - Kingdom of the Spiders (1977), #480 - Jaws (1975), #823 - Zaat (1971), but here's one with killer rats...although they don't exactly do too much killing. Whether that is actually a positive or a negative is up to you, but I found this to be such an average movie (based off a short novel named Ratman's Notebooks (1969) by Stephen Gilbert) that it really didn't matter all too much. The real horror seems to be the human characters and how they act to each other, which actually makes me laugh a bit, mostly because you're supposed to feel for this main character (who just happens to like rats), but I found him to be occasionally annoying (the same could sometimes be said for Lanchester's character, although she is fine). Davison does a decent job with the material he is given with, although I can't really find myself caring too much (this can apply to Locke's character as well). Somehow, Borgnine is my favorite from this film, probably because his maverick demeanor is somewhat amusing. If you are wondering how the special effects are...it's about what you'd expect with rats tearing someone apart. I don't particularly care for rats myself, but I'm not exactly afraid of them. The length of 95 minutes is fairly tolerable, although one has to slog through a first half that sometimes can feel slow, though its second half is at least somewhat serviceable. The climax of the film is likely the best part of the film, for better or for worse, but I can't really convince myself that this movie is anything but just an average b-movie. That's not to say that I am not a fan of what the film was going for (or that I don't like b-movies), but I just can't find myself saying that is really any better than a film like Kingdom of the Spiders. As a whole, this is a mediocre film that inspires a few more laughs than frights/thrills, but it is a somewhat serviceable film for people in the right state of mind.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Money Talks.

Review #1001: Money Talks.

Cast: 
Chris Tucker (Franklin Maurice Hatchett), Charlie Sheen (James Russell), Gerard Ismael (Raymond Villard), Heather Locklear (Grace Cipriani), Elise Neal (Paula), Michael Wright (Aaron), Paul Sorvino (Tony Cipriani), Larry Hankin (Roland), and Paul Gleason (Det. Bobby Pickett) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2, #402 - Rush Hour 3)

Review: 
It is not so much that this movie is not good as it is that it is not worth giving extensive criticism to. Does one really need over 500 words to express how this is just a film I didn't care much for? In the four films that Ratner and Tucker have teamed up together for (with this being their first), I found only one of them (Rush Hour) to actually be satisfyingly entertaining enough, and that was because the duo of Tucker and Jackie Chan actually worked out quite well (the same can't be said for the sequels).

In this case, Tucker is paired with Sheen, who can be a decent actor when in a coherent comedy (and occasional drama), but they simply aren't an effective duo together. Sure, you could make the case that they aren't supposed to be like other buddy duos (after all, one is a reporter while the other is a hustler), but I never really found myself wanting to care about what goes on with these two. Tucker (and his shtick) is tolerable to a point, with some likely having more (or less) patience with him and his lines. He falls along the middle for me, but that's not really much of a compliment. He certainly is more interesting than Sheen, who doesn't really have much to do. The villain (Ismael) is fairly generic; the only other interesting supporting character is Sorvino, who seems right at home in this role somehow. Simply put, this is a movie without much fire in it. Why should I care about their attempt to get to sweeps week? Why should I care about the valuable diamonds? Or the random twist involving a minor character at the end? If you have read some of the reviews on this show, you know that I do not try to over-think things in a film or overtly go critical on a film, because what purpose does that serve to you? This is a movie that would likely be easy bait for someone wanting to get irritated while not striving for anything other than just being a piece of entertainment. It's not a movie to use as an example of lazy filmmaking nor is it something worth fawning nostalgic over (even after 20 years), but it's a film that is what it is. I can't say this is an awful movie, and I also can't say I blame someone if they like (or at least tolerate) the film. Take that for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Last Picture Show.

Review #1000: The Last Picture Show.

Cast: 
Timothy Bottoms (Sonny Crawford), Jeff Bridges (Duane Jackson), Cybill Shepherd (Jacy Farrow), Ben Johnson (Sam the Lion), Cloris Leachman (Ruth Popper), Ellen Burstyn (Lois Farrow), Eileen Brennan (Genevieve), Clu Gulager (Abilene), Sam Bottoms (Billy), Randy Quaid (Lester Marlow), Gary Brockette (Bobby Sheen), Sharon Taggart (Charlene Duggs), Barc Doyle (Joe Bob Blanton), Bill Thurman (Coach Mr. Popper), Jessie Lee Fulton (Miss Mosey), Joe Heathcock (Town Sheriff), John Hillerman (English Teacher), and Frank Marshall (Tommy Logan) Directed by Peter Bogdanovich.

Review: 
Here it is. The big one. I hope to satisfy you folks with the review of this film, which I had been longing to do for quite some time, so what better way than now? It also happens to be a film set and shot in my home state of Texas. Enjoy the show.

It sometimes feels hard to explain the benefits or the highlights of the town you live in, especially if you live in a small city. What does it have that another city doesn't have? Is there much to having civic pride? Based on the 1966 novel of the same name by Larry McMurtry, The Last Picture Show is an interesting look into what makes up a dying little town such as this, and the characters that live in it. Bottoms and Bridges are a fairly effective duo, each having an interesting quality to them that stands out, such as Bottoms' eyes and Bridges' charm, and they both do tremendous jobs that stick out in a cavalcade of stand-out performances. Shepherd (in her debut role) does a spirited job, managing to be interesting along with alluring. Near the halfway point of the film, Johnson's character reminisces about the time spent in a prairie, and the way that he talks about old memories seem like something you could hear from someone in your neck of the woods if you gave a listen. He doesn't have too many lines (in fact he is in the film for nine minutes), but it is the way that he expresses them that makes him an enduring figure in the film, as if he was the soul of the town. Leachman also pulls a capable job, particularly during the climax. The rest of the cast stick out in their own little ways. This film was nominated for six Academy Awards, with Johnson and Leachman winning for supporting roles. These are characters worth watching because these are characters that we can see with fair honesty. They don't suddenly become comic characters for no reason, nor do they become melodramatic, and that serves to be a key highlight and something worth striving for in film today. Is it a bleak film? At times it is, but it also manages to be moving along with enduring, and Bogdanovich is the one responsible for making a movie as put together and complete as this one is.

The city's flatness and empty nature is perfectly captured by the cinematography by Robert Surtees, in part because of how he arranges the shots; the fact that it is shot in black-and-white (decided by Bogdanovich through a conversation with Orson Welles) also helps in showing this town (and its people) with a certain aesthetic that proves fitting for the movie. Everything from the music (with songs from artists such as Hank Williams) to even the clip of the "last picture show" (from the ending of Red River) is planned out in an effective manner. The film proved to be a success upon release, and a Special Edition Director's cut was released in 1992 that added seven minutes to the run-time (making it 127 minutes) that adds a bit to the film's stature. It's a coming-of-age film, but it also is an honest movie that never seems to break its mood nor its intentions. This is a movie worth watching in part because of how it captures the essence of the time it portrays along with its town that seem fresh even after over 40 years since its release.

I just wanted to give a word of thanks to any and all viewers of Movie Night over the past one thousand reviews. It has been a pleasure doing so many reviews in nearly seven years, and I will be the first to say that they have improved in quality over time - but having at least a few people read them (and share appreciation on occasion) feels nice. I do not know what is in store for the next batch of reviews, but I hope that you will enjoy them. Thank you. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Attached is a compilation of various celebratory landmarks over the past few years, from the 50th all the way to now. Enjoy:

The Man Who Laughs (1928).

Review #999: The Man Who Laughs.

Cast: 
Mary Philbin (Dea), Conrad Veidt (Gwynplaine / Lord Clancharlie), Brandon Hurst (Barkilphedro), Olga Baclanova (Duchess Josiana), Cesare Gravina (Ursus), Stuart Holmes (Lord Dirry-Moir), Samuel de Grasse (King James II Stuart), George Siegmann (Dr. Hardquanonne), and Josephine Crowell (Queen Anne Stuart) Directed by Paul Leni (#863 - Waxworks)

Review: 
I figured that it would be fitting to do a silent film for the 999th review, with this being the 62nd of its type covered on Movie Night. You may notice that the square right next to the title card is in a few colors like pink, grey and black. These colors were utilized for the 99th review (Mutiny on the Bounty), albeit with a bit more stylizing this time around. Enjoy this review.

This was adapted from Victor Hugo's 1869 novel of the same name. The novel had one previous adaptation in 1921 named The Grinning Face, made in Austria. Universal had previously adapted Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (#850) back in 1923, and the intent was to have Chaney star in the title role after the success of that film, although issues to the rights of the novel meant that Chaney would be released from doing this film in favor of The Phantom of the Opera (#774). After that film's release, producer Carl Laemmle decided to try and make this as his next attempt at Gothic success, with Veidt picked to play the title role. Leni, who had recently moved to Hollywood after having been invited by Laemmele, was selected as director. Both choices prove to be fairly crucial in why this film works as well as it does; Leni uses his lighting and sets to fine effect, as one might expect from a German Expressionist such as him. Veidt wears a makeup device that made his mouth swollen while being supplied disturbing teeth, which contributes to the look of his character. While it is a great effect, it takes a good actor to help convey numerous emotions with only his eyes, and Veidt stands up to the challenge quite well. The appearance of Veidt proved to be the visual inspiration for the comic book villain the Joker, appearing in comics over a decade later. Philbin, playing a role not too different from her role from Phantom of the Opera (in which she played opposite Chaney), does a decent job, given that she is playing a blind person.

This film is sometimes counted as one of the films of the Universal Monsters series, and while it isn't much of a horror film, there is a fair amount of gloom within its tone to make a case for it, although it also has elements of romance and swashbuckling action. Yes, it has a climax with excitement, but the scenes that precede it also can be sad, such as when Veidt's character is shown in a freak show, or when he is being propositioned by Baklanova's character. The scene at the House of Lords proves to a moving and effective scene in part because of Vedit and his mannerisms towards the others. Though this is a silent movie, it was (on re-release) shown with sound effects, a synchronized score, and even a theme song (named "When Love Comes Stealing"). The sounds we get to hear are of laughter during the freak show, which is certainly a startling (and satisfying) effect, and the theme is fairly passable as well. As a whole, this is an efficient movie that satisfies on numerous levels while being fairly paced well at 110 minutes. It might not be the horror film that you might expect from seeing Veidt's appearance on screen, but it is a satisfying romance drama (with a bit of horror) with enough competence and style to make a top-notch effort.

Well. Here we are at end of review nine hundred ninty-nine. 
You are likely wondering what is next for the one thousandth review, so I'll tell you...

...tomorrow night, when the review is actually up. I'm not trying to hype the review, but I figure it makes sense to let you all wonder a bit and enjoy. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Special - Michael Jackson's Thriller.

Review #X: Michael Jackson's Thriller.

Cast: 
Michael Jackson, co-starring Ola Ray, with 'Rap' from Vincent Price. Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, and #513 - Spies Like Us)

Dancers: Marcea Lane, Kim Blank, Lorraine Fields, Tony Fields, Michele Simmons,,Vincent Peters, Michael Peters, Vincent Paterson, Michael De Lorenzo, Ben Lokey, John Command, Richard Gaines, Mark Sellers, Suzan Stadner, Diane Geroni and Suga Pop.

Review: 
You probably are wondering what am I doing reviewing a music video, especially on Friday the 13th. Honestly, I do enjoy Movie Night and the films that it can cover (for better or for worse), but I decided that it wouldn't hurt to do something that was both interesting and different from the usual content. This is basically a one-off special for me, and I hope you enjoy this, especially for an October like this.

How many music videos linger in your memory? Or more importantly, can a music video be more than just a "vanity piece" for a song/album? If you haven't guessed my opinion, Michael Jackson's Thriller is one of the most memorably crafted pieces of music video ever put onto screen ever since its release in 1983, especially if you enjoy Jackson's music (as I do from time to time) or like the execution of direction and movement. The Thriller album happens to be the world's best-selling album, but the motivation for doing this album is because the record had fallen off being #1 in the summer of 1983. One can't really say anything too substantial about the acting, since it plays only a small role in regards to the "story", but it gets the job done (this was five years before Moonwalker (#403), which was actually stranger, especially since that was an actual film). Jackson and Ray seem to be a decent little duo, but the real star of the show involves the dancing and the "Rap" by Vincent Price, who seems to revel in delivering these lines so capably well, the perfect choice. Landis, who had directed An American Werewolf in London just two years prior (speaking of films, that is one I will have to get to eventually) was recruited by Jackson to make (along with write) the video, and it certainly is interesting seeing how film directors did not generally direct music videos at the time. He does a fine job in setting the mood, with the photography by Robert Paynter being a big help as well in making for a spooky experience, especially with the ending. The choreography by Michael Peters and Jackson is praiseworthy, having movements that are still being done and repeated to this very day. The fact that there are numerous allusions to horror films also helps in making for a interesting atmosphere, from the parody of horror films to the style of the two leads in clothes. Rick Baker contributed to the special effects, and they are the hauntingly spectacular capstone in a video that has expert production values. It was actually screened in theaters (along with the 1940 film Fantasia) in December of 1983 as an attempt to garner a nomination for an Academy Award as a short subject, though it was not nominated. However, it did win a Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video (now known as Best Music Film).

Among all of the iconic things one can cite from the film, the jacket (designed by Deborah Nadoolman Landis) worn by Jackson is particularly noteworthy, particularly because of how cool it looks. There is something undeniably entertaining about how he rocks the jacket. You might wonder if it overstays its welcome, seeing how it runs at 13 minutes, 41 seconds. But it really isn't, and that is likely due to how entertaining it proves itself to be, not feeling overtly dragged out. This is a landmark of music videos, to the point that it was even selected for the National Film Registry in 2009 by the Library of Congress, the first ever music video to be selected.

For the rating system, here is something different for the review different from the rest. Enjoy today, along with the rest of the month, folks. I hope you enjoyed this special.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

I Walked with a Zombie.

Review #998: I Walked with a Zombie.

Cast: 
Frances Dee (Betsy Connell), Tom Conway (Paul Holland), James Ellison (Wesley Rand), Edith Barrett (Mrs. Rand), James Bell (Dr. Maxwell), Christine Gordon (Jessica Holland), Theresa Harris (Alma), Sir Lancelot (Calypso Singer), and Darby Jones (Carrefour) Directed by Jacques Tourneur.

Review: 
This was based off an article of the same name written by Inez Wallace for American Weekly Magazine; this was the third film produced by Val Lewton, known for doing numerous low-budget horror films for RKO Pictures in the 1940s, and he had three rules given to him: The film would have to be made for under $150,000, it would have to run under 75 minutes and his supervisors gave him the film titles to utilize for the film. With a movie title like this, you certainly get what you came for, along with a fairly cohesive film. Just make sure you read the disclaimer on the credits "The characters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead, or possessed, is purely coincidental." It differs from other horror films of the time in how it relies on mood and ambiguity than some sort of monster. It was Lewton's idea to fit the structure of the film like the novel Jane Eyre, and it certainly seems to make sense, seeing how compelling the characters seem to be. Dee and Conway manage to have a fairly interesting chemistry together, mostly because they don't really go for anything too melodramatic, instead having a natural feel that goes with the rest of the film. Barrett is also fairly decent as well, particularly due to her role being more useful than it might seem, and she takes good advantage of that. Gordon does a decent job in the title role as well. It has an exceptional atmosphere and a competent kind of plotting that makes for a breezily interesting experience. The story has numerous turns, and it certainly helps in keeping the film feel fresh while not letting itself become predictable - with a capably odd end scene. The parts with the people of the island aren't as riveting, but they aren't too harmful for the film. It's not a film that goes for scares, but it certainly reaches for chills and succeeds without much doubt in that regard. At 69 minutes, I find it to a fairly easy movie to recommend, sticking out quite nicely from other horror films of its time.

Well. Only one batch to go. The last review with only three digits for the number will be next week, while the big milestone review will follow a day later, as per tradition. No spoilers yet, folks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Blade Runner 2049.

Review #997: Blade Runner 2049.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (K), Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Ana de Armas (Joi), Sylvia Hoeks (Luv), Robin Wright (Lt. Joshi), Mackenzie Davis (Mariette), Carla Juri (Dr. Ana Stelline), Lennie James (Mister Cotton), Dave Bautista (Sapper Morton), Jared Leto (Niander Wallace), Edward James Olmos (Gaff) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario)

Review: 
It has been over five years since I reviewed Blade Runner (#100, The Final Cut edition), and I will admit that I never actually thought a sequel would happen. Well, here we are with a sequel 35 years later (and 897 reviews after I did the original, which seems fitting). I even watched the original film hours later I saw this, mainly so I could process my thoughts for this film a bit better. In any case, that film still manages to hold up quite well, but I still never dreamed that there would ever be a follow up, because of how the film built itself, owing to its direction but also its screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples; I mention this due to Fancher returning to write the screenplay for this film (with Michael Green serving as co-writer).

Honestly, this was a pretty great movie. For fans of the original, I would say that it was worth the wait, and its shining achievement is in how it is not a retread of the first film, managing to utilize elements from it that make for a capably clever narrative. Like the original, it is a bleak, shocking kind of science fiction film, and it certainly is a movie made to tell a story with numerous threads to it, owing to the 163 minute run-time (which is probably the longest for a film I've seen in quite some time), but it never bored me as it earns every minute of its time, although it admittedly could take a while to really kick in. Roger Deakins, who had done the cinematography for Skyfall (#572), Sicario (#753), and Fargo (#765) (along with several other films) does a tremendous job in this film, utilizing light and shadow all throughout the movie with a wonderful touch. Gosling does a fine job, carrying the film with the right kind of tone and feel that you would expect. It isn't too much of a spoiler to say that it takes quite a while for Ford to show up but when he does it certainly seems like the best time for him to appear, with the film having built itself enough tension already. Ford also does a fine job, being quite useful for the narrative while also showing some emotional prowess; likely the best scene with him in it involves him and Leto, mainly because of the exchange that they have. de Armas does a fine job in a role that certainly is unique while also being fitting for a film all about it means to be human. Hoeks steals the show, being quite chilling and incredibly stealthy in her role. Wright also does a fine job in the time she has on screen, as does Davis and Juri. Leto has a few scenes that certainly come off as a bit strange...so of course it makes sense in the context of the film, which he pulls off pretty well. Even if I wanted to, it is hard to really talk much about the film's plot because of how it builds itself with imagination that certainly will leave the viewer with some sort of emotional response (and some questions) by the time the film gets to its end.

Watching this film is not so much an endurance as it is an experience (which I hope does not come off as sounding pretentious), and it is one that I would recommend for someone looking for a film that challenges you to follow every step it ventures to take with its tone and characters. Whether there is a sequel to this film or not, this is a movie that stands on its own as a fine piece of entertaining science fiction, doing what it sets out to do without any kind of restrictions or bounds. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely an exceptional one at least.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Demon Seed.

Review #996: Demon Seed.

Cast: 
Julie Christie (Susan Harris), Fritz Weaver (Alex Harris), Gerrit Graham (Walter Gabler), Berry Kroeger (Petrosian), Lisa Lu (Soon Yen), Larry J. Blake (Cameron), John O'Leary (Royce), and Robert Vaughn (Proteus IV) Directed by Donald Cammell.

Review: 
What better way to (belatedly) start off October but with a horror film? I honestly had planned for the review to occur later in the month, but I decided that there needed to be some kind of start, especially with the countdown. Anyways....

This was adapted from the 1973 novel of the same name by Dean Koontz (which he would later rewrite and republish 24 years later), and I certainly have to give credit to the strange and unique premise: an artificially intelligent computer imprisons a woman in order to try to make a child. The computer (which can control the lighting, temperature control, security, etc) is certainly an interesting character to watch, especially with Robert Vaughn (who was not credited for the role) doing the voice for him; there is just something about the way he speaks that is quite chilling and effective. Christie proves to be a pretty capable lead, being quite vulnerable along with watchable as well. The rest of the cast do a capable job in their roles, not being dumbed down (too much, at least) or made to be fodder. It proves to be an interesting blend of science fiction and horror, though it is hard to say that it is really a classic. It definitely is watchable, and the performances are certainly workable, but I can't really say that the film as a whole works enough to be great. It certainly doesn't plod much at a run-time of 94 minutes, earning most of its minutes while also a fairly shocking ending that serves as either the capstone of a film worth watching or a film as ridiculous as it gets with science fiction (and horror as well). It has fairly interesting imagery (for the most part) and an a fairly useful soundtrack by Jerry Fielding as well. Regardless of creepy (or offbeat) one finds the film, it manages to have enough compelling moments to deserve at least one watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.