Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Having never seen an episode of the original television series and diving into this feature without any idea of who directed what segment, Twilight Zone: The Movie turned out to be a delightful surprise for me. Maintaining a firm grip on the viewers' senses and keeping them guessing throughout its 101 minutes runtime, it is one of those rare anthology films that works for the most part, if not all.Twilight Zone: The Movie covers four segments. The first one concerns a loud-mouthed bigot who finds himself transported back in time. The second story is set in a retirement home where a new guest makes the old residents rediscover their youth. The third tale is about a young woman who becomes entrapped in a boy's alternate reality while the last segment follows an airline passenger who may or may not be imagining things.The movie opens with an interesting prologue that sets the tone & expectations for the rest of the picture and is helmed by Joe Landis who also directs the first segment, "Time Out". Both stories are brilliantly narrated but the prologue stays on for an extended period and could've used a few trims. The first segment, however, is a fantastic blend of comedy & mystery and features the only original story of the four.The next part, "Kick the Can", is directed by Steven Spielberg and brims with a familiar childlike simplicity & deep sense of warmth. It is a heartwarming episode that beautifully illustrates the joys of childhood, emanates a strong feeling of nostalgia, and demonstrates that feeling young has nothing to do with age but your heart & attitude. It may feel out of place with the rest & is quite sentimental but there's an innocent quality to it and it's affectionately crafted.The third segment, "It's a Good Life", is directed by Joe Dante, and even though it commences on a promising note plus covers its underlying themes in a subtle manner, the exaggerated acting as well as the ridiculous effects take away the intended bleakness from it and what's left behind is a campy episode which, at least for me, was the least impressive of the four. However, its depiction of the loneliness that comes with being an omnipotent still leaves a positive impression.The final segment, "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet", brings the film full circle in a clever manner and is expertly directed by George Miller. Tense, claustrophobic & flying at lightning speed, it benefits a lot from John Lithgow's terrific performance, Miller's kinetic direction and some good old horror delights. Easily my favourite of the four, this one finishes itself on a high note and doesn't really leave much to complain about. The final moment before the credits also serves as a fitting conclusion to the whole journey we were led on, and the end result has more highs than lows.On an overall scale, Twilight Zone: The Movie is overloaded with numerous references to its source material but manages to be just as compelling for newcomers as it may be for the series' seasoned fans. All four directors have done a pretty neat job with the scripts they chose to transform on the film canvas and their distinctive filmmaking style gives each segment a distinct flavour of its own. Although not as influential as the landmark TV series, Twilight Zone: The Movie still serves as an excellent tribute to Rod Serling's show and a welcome addition to its genre(s). Strange, mystifying & enveloped with an eerie vibe from start to finish, this bizarre yet thrilling cinematic ride comes recommended.

TWILIGHT ZONE- THE MOVIE is remarkably true to the spirit of the television series upon which it is based. The fact that three of the four segments are actually REMAKES of classic episodes (and are all brilliantly directed, if you ask me) goes a long way towards explaining WHY the movie's so True to its Source- but these are well-thought-out remakes as opposed to just rehashes; and the Landis episode would've made an excellent episode of the original series as well: it, too, is True to the Spirit of the Source. (The best episode of the revived teleseries itself was the William Friedkin version of Robert R. McCammon's NIGHTCRAWLERS, although it was one in a million... and there WEREN'T a million episodes, if you see what I'm saying...) Any fan of the original series will love this one.

Personally I thought that this movie was long and boring. It is different from a lot of movies though because it is actually four short movies compressed into one with the common theme of the imaginary and the horrifying linking them. This was screened during Halloween meaning that this is probably viewed more as horror than as science-fiction, which is what I originally believed the Twilight Zone to be. In fact the original series was similar to the movie in that it would show three short films every week with a similar horrifying or science-fiction theme. From the Twilight Zone are spawned many other imitations such as Amazing Stories, which is also based on a short story magazine, Freddy's Nightmares, The Outer Limits, and other such shows. I will explore each of the four stories, though we must remember that the movie has a more horrific bent that science-fiction, especially considering the prologue and the quote, "do you want to see something scary." The first film as very anti-racist. It begins with a red-necked bigot going on about the Jews and the Negroes who are taking over his job. He leaves the pub to find himself in Nazi Germany and being pursued by Jew hating Nazis. He is then sent to the deep South where he is lynched as a Negro, and then to Vietnam where he is viewed by the American soldiers as Viet-Cong, and finally goes back to Nazi Germany where he is shipped off to a concentration camp. The moral of this is that racism is wrong and everybody is equal. It is a bit sickening to watch this because though it is trying to show us that racism is not tolerated, one thinks that the only people who will appreciate this are those who already agree that racism is bad. Instead it seems to reinforce the idea that we are really good for not being racist while they are really bad for being racist. But, if one person is affected by the film and begins to change his views then obviously this has done some good.The second is the most sickening, and I was not surprised to see Spielburg's name plastered to it. It was a happy little film about people in an old folks home who meet an old Negro who gives them their childhood back. Most decide to return to being old while one remains a child. The theme in this film is that being old does not mean we are useless. Instead it is designed to show us that we still have a lot of potential even if it does not seem that way. Still I thought that it was very optimistic, something that seems to be a trait of Spielburg.The third is the most bizarre and is about a child that has incredibly powerful mind powers. He is so powerful that his family tremble in fear about him and give him everything he wants. He has cartoons everywhere and eats junk food every night and his parents are scared of him because they know what he can do. But this film is more about the teacher that meets him and is willing to stand up to him. Her lack of fear is what changes the boy. He is used to everybody being scared of him, but she is not and she is willing to put him in his place. Thus when everybody else is dealt with she still remains. I guess this is a film about standing up to our fears. People are the strongest when our fear lets them be, but by not showing any fear truly weakens them. This raises the question of what is fear. There is the commandment to fear God, but what have we to fear of God unless we are rebelling against him. It was not like they were rebelling against the child, but rather they were scared of him. Unlike the child, I think we need to fear God, that is hold him in awe because we know what he can do. We have seen it with Sodom and Gomorrah and countless of other nations and cities. He has done it once and he will do it again.The forth was probably the most boring. It was supposed to be tense, but I thought that John Lithgow was seriously over acting, much worse than Jim Carey. He is on a plane and is hysterical. When the engine is struck by lightning he sees a creature on it ripping out the next engine so he tries to warn people of it. This reminds me of a Simpson's episode which was taken from it, but in the Simpsons it was a creature ripping out the wiring of the school bus. Other than that there is nothing much that I really want to say about this.The Twilight Zone has some ideas flowing through it, but it is supposed to be a horror. Unfortunately the tenseness that it builds is destroyed by over-acting, and the attempt to do too much with effects. The creation at the end of the third film of the flowers in the desert look fake, but then this could be a symbol of the true falseness of the power. Everything in the third is related to cartoons or very disproportioned. It symbols an untrained power that needs to be channelled and used properly. Still, this is not on my best movie list.

Anthology movie based on the classic television series, of which I'm a huge fan. It's an all-star effort with four big '80s directors. The movie is most remembered today for the tragic accident that took the lives of Vic Morrow and two children on set. There are four stories plus a prologue that ties back in at the end of the film.The prologue and first story are both directed by John Landis. The prologue is about a driver (Albert Brooks) and a hitchhiker (Dan Aykroyd) driving late at night. The driver plays a game by turning the headlights off and on, trying to scare the hitchhiker. The hitchhiker turns the tables on him and reveals a surprise of his own. This is a lackluster beginning. Brooks and especially Aykroyd have a kind of flippancy in their performances that puts me off. The first story is "Time Out" and is the only original story in the film. The others are remakes of Twilight Zone episodes. The plot is about a bigot (Vic Morrow) who is thrown through time to various points of history to experience persecution and hatred. It's a moralizing soapbox story that might have played better had it been written with the slightest bit of sophistication. As it stands, it's a weak, downbeat story and an odd choice to start the film.The second story is "Kick the Can," directed by Steven Spielberg. It's about a group of oldsters at a retirement home who discover playing a game of kick the can restores their youth. Reportedly Spielberg was going to do an original horror story for the movie. But after the tragedy he changed plans and did this tepid remake. The direction for this story is half-hearted at best. A very underwhelming effort from Spielberg.The third story is another remake, "It's a Good Life," about a boy with special powers who holds his family prisoner and forces them to do whatever he wants. Joe Dante directs this and it has some of his trademark touches, such as genre in-jokes and homages. Despite Dante's direction and how much fun he seems to have with the story, it's still nothing special.The last story, directed by George Miller, is a remake of "Nightmare at 20,000 Feet." This is easily the best story in the film, with a powerful performance by John Lithgow as an airplane passenger who is terrified of flying. While in the air, he sees a creature on the wing of the plane trying to tear the engine apart but nobody believes him.Overall, there is only one exceptional segment in the whole movie. The film as a whole misses the point of the Twilight Zone and comes across as a hollow experience. Still, failure or not, there's enough scraps here to be of interest to fans of the series or the big-name directors involved.