joposa Reviews

Hawaii Five-O: Bored, She Hung Herself (1970) Season 2, Episode 16

Don't try this at home!

[3/10 · 10 November 2018]

I managed to catch this episode on YouTube a few years ago, before it was removed, making me one of the relatively few people who have seen it. It seems a boy died died trying to imitate a dangerous stunt depicted in it, and the episode was never shown again on television and I guess never will be. Before having seen it I was somewhat indignant that it had been taken out of circulation and kept out of the official season 2 release. Having watched it, I don't really care anymore. The plot was in some ways rather familiar: the usual suspects turn out to be innocent and the otherwise respectable citizen is guilty.

A hippy guru practices an usual exercise in which case he hangs himself, but not to the point of death. One supposedly reaches a higher level of consciousness with it. When his girlfriend is found dead hanging at the end of a rope, her father, a psychiatrist and friend of McGarrett's, is convinced the guru is guilty and maneuvers him into confessing to having at least some level of culpability. McGarrett, however, suspects otherwise. Here comes the spoiler you were warned about, if it matters, since most people reading this will, as another reviewer pointed out, never watch the episode: McGarrett and Danno grill the hippy's neighbor, a middle-aged seemingly happily-married man and father and otherwise respectable citizen, into confessing to the murder. It seems he lusted after the girl, and killed her when she spurned his advances. Say hello to the NEW usual suspects! The ending is unbelievably corny, where we see Steve smiling as he watches the hippy jumping up and down along the beach, celebrating his innocence in the murder. Ironically, this was filmed just a few months after a real life gang of crazed hippies led by Charles Manson went on a murder spree, in which case the victims were, yes, respectable citizens.

I still think it's unnecessary to ban the episode, and while I understand the apparent reason for it, there are all kinds of dangerous stunts shown on television that may or may not unintentionally inspire some viewers to try it. Future releases could at least include the episode as a special feature with a warning against imitating the technique in question. But, as I indicated, you're not missing much.

Just Life (1990 TV Movie)

Doomed from the start!

[3/10 · 4 July 2017]

In this pilot for a proposed series, Victoria Principal plays a woman who balances her life as a divorced mother of a teenage girl and as an investigator with the D.A.'s office. Her job leads her to the case of the murder of a black jeweler. The cops finger a young black hoodlum, but she has her doubts. She suspects the officers are the guilty ones, and the young punk is their innocent patsy. This would-be series might have stood a chance if the producers had waited for it to develop as a series before filming an episode in which the cops are the bad guys, and a hoodlum the innocent one. Sure, there are bad cops, just as there are bad priests, bad journalists, bad bankers, and, of course, bad politicians. There are bad apples in every barrel. But making the cops out to be the bad guys is a lousy way to start off a series in which law enforcement is a major theme. They could have thought of a better title too.

The Twilight Zone: Spur of the Moment (1964) Season 5, Episode 21

Life"s Lessons Learned Too Late

[9/10 · 1 April 2016]

Many Twilight Zone episodes have a moral, or lesson, and this episode is one of them.

The year is 1939. On the day she is supposed to marry Robert Blake, young heiress Ann Henderson, wearing a white blouse, is out riding horseback on her father's estate when she finds herself being chased by a hideous creature clad in black, also on horseback. This other rider screams what sounds like a screeching war cry, and seems to charge at Ann. Ann is terrorized and rides back home as fast as she can, losing the other rider. She tells her parents and her betrothed about her experience. Then, in bursts an impetuous young man, poor and rebellious David Mitchell, who is the opposite of Robert, who is well-to-do, well behaved, and approved by Ann's austere parents.

We soon learn, as does Robert, that Ann really loves David, when, on what was supposed to be his and Ann's wedding night, Robert spies Ann and David kissing like two true lovers. The sad, heartbroken expression on Robert's face is palpable.

Fast forward to contemporary times (1964). Ann is miserable and, like her lazy free-spending husband, David, her "true lover", she is an alcoholic. Her mother is still alive and widowed, and constantly lectures Ann about what she and David are doing to the late Mr. Henderson's estate and legacy. One morning, after another argument with David, which is a constant routine in their miserable marriage, Ann, clad in black, goes out horseback riding, her favorite pastime. While riding, she sees a younger woman, wearing a white blouse, also riding on the estate she now owns. We soon learn that the older Ann is herself the "hideous creature", chasing after the younger Ann (who is still in 1939), not to harm her, but to warn her that she is about to make a mistake she will regret for the rest of her life, their lives. That screeching scream the audience hears is merely her calling out young Ann's name. It was purposely made to sound so hideous and incoherent to us because that is how it sounded to young Ann, who is completely and hopelessly unaware of the black clad rider's true intentions. The older Ann will repeat this routine every morning, which will apparently be a repeat of the same morning back in 1939, the day she was supposed to marry Robert. Her efforts will end in vain every time, because, like the song says, "You Can't Ever Go Home Again".

Many of us do essentially what the older Ann was doing, trying to turn back time, undoing much of what we did wrong and do it over. But, alas, life does not grant such do-overs. Try to get it right the first time!

At the episode's end, we see the contemporary Ann stop riding, breathing hard. It might have been more dramatic, and fitting, if she had started to break down crying, a reflection of the fact that deep down she knows that this routine is a grand exercise in futility.

The Twilight Zone: Queen of the Nile (1964) Season 5, Episode 23

Good Halloween fare!

[7/10 · 21 October 2013]

Pamela Morris, an attractive, seemingly good-girl actress has a dark secret. With the aid of an ancient and deadly, vampiric beetle, she can live forever, and has already been around since the days of the Egyptian pharaohs. Living with her is a German-speaking woman, Viola Draper, who is quite convincingly passed off as her mother. Viola wants no part of Morris's deadly endeavors, but fears meeting the fate of Pamela's many victims if she doesn't cooperate.

Syndicated columnist Jordan Herrick is intrigued by Pamela and visits her in her mansion for an interview. After the interview he promises to return, in spite of a dire warning from her "mother", who tries to convince him that she is really Pamela's daughter. He is befuddled by some discrepancies in Pamela's timeline as he sees photos of her as she looks now that were shot when she was supposed to be not much more than a baby. During a return visit he uses the phone at the residence to call a friend named Kreuger, possibly his editor, and asks him to check on these discrepancies. His suspicions of Pamela's age are confirmed. Then, after a revealing conversation with Viola, he makes the deadly mistake of accepting a a cup of coffee from Miss(?) Morris. Before he takes a sip we see her slipping knockout drops in his cup when his head is turned. Then the beetle goes to work, and with Jordan's blood Pamela will live to see yet another day, which cannot be said for poor young Mr. Herrick. Almost immediately after, the doorbell rings, and another young man enters. His fate is sealed.

You have to wonder, how long can she keep this up before people get suspicious? The fact that so many people were last heard from at or on the way to her house would surely attract the attention of the authorities, and Mr. Herrick's phone call to Krueger from Morris's house would prompt Kreuger to alert the police when he fails to turn up. Rod Serling, however, wasn't bothered by such trifles. He apparently felt they would only distract the viewer, even if they also spark the viewer's curiosity.

Beyond Tomorrow (1940)

"I believe that the soul of Man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this."

[9/10 · 23 December 2012]

I find myself watching this over and over again around Christmas time. It's an oldie, older than "It's a Wonderful Life", but has yet to become a Christmas classic. A few years ago there was an official DVD release, which changes the title from "Beyond Tomorrow" to "Beyond Christmas", no doubt to make it more marketable as a holiday movie. It shows the original B&W version and a colorized version. In this release they show "deleted" scenes as a special feature, but these scenes are included as part of the feature in almost every other DVD compilation which features it, as well as TV airings, so the makers of this DVD distort the meaning of the term "deleted scenes".

Three aging, well-to-do engineers are spending Christmas Eve in the spacious NY mansion which they apparently share, and also work out of. Also living there is a kindly former Russian countess, Madame Tanya (Maria Ouspenskaya) who, like Josef the butler (Alex Melesh), was exiled after the Bolshevik revolution. The three men are bored and lonely after their expected guests cancel, so Michael O'Brien (Charles Winninger), the jolly Irishman, comes up with a scheme to deliberately toss out their wallets, each containing ten dollars (a fair sum in 1940), to see if anyone brings the wallets back. The two that are returned belong to Michael and Allen "Chad" Chadwick (C. Aubrey Smith), the friendly Englishman. The other wallet that was not returned is found and kept by a woman, a starlet named Arlene Terry (Helen Vinson), who later emerges as something of a villainess. Appropriately enough, that wallet belonged to the melancholy Oklahoman George Vale Melton (veteran screen star Harry Carey), perhaps the most interesting character. More on that later.

Michael's and Chad's wallets are returned, respectively, by a Texan named (what else?) James Houston (Richard Carlson, whose singing here is far better than his otherwise fine acting, assuming that's really him singing), and a lady from New Hampshire, Jean Lawrence (Jean Parker). They all become instant friends, and Jimmy and Jean become instant lovers. A few months later, a plane crash, apparently foreseen by Madame Tanya, takes the lives of the three engineers, who return as ghosts in an effort to help James and Jean, and to keep James from being led astray by the duplicitous Arlene Terry as he pursues a singing career. Along the way, George is summoned to the darkness by an ominous voice. In life, he was in fact a good-hearted soul, but tried his best to hide it, as witnessed in the Christmas Eve scene where he delights in the walking stick given him by Michael, until Chad sees him, then George changes his expression and calls it "A lotta childish nonsense!". He is haunted by an incident from his past, the nature of which is not made entirely clear, but there are a few clues . Earlier, he suspects that the Christmas Eve guests who cancelled on them did so because of him and this incident, the Shreve (sp?) case, "acquitted". As he is summoned by this voice, he says he did what needed doing, and has no regrets. Later Madame Tanya provides another clue when she tells Jimmy that George lost everything over a woman like Arlene. Chad, too, is called, in his case to heaven to be with his wife and son, who preceded him in death. When Michael is called, he chooses to remain on Earth to help lead Jimmy on the right path and back to Jean, even though he is told that he will wander the earth forever. Of course, after a near-tragedy, he eventually succeeds in his mission, and as a result of some prodding by his late mother, he is called home again, and is joined by George, who has returned from the darkness after working out all of his issues.

A little hokey? Maybe, but how realistic can portrayals of the afterlife be expected to look? That there is an afterlife appears to be a central theme of the movie, as witnessed by the Benjamin Franklin quote that appears after the opening credits, and that gives this review its title. A feel-good movie that deserves to be a holiday classic.

The Exorcist (1973)

God vs. Satan, Good vs. Evil and The Old vs. The New

[10/10 · 14 November 2008]

The Exorcist is deserving of its title as "the scariest movie of all time". Unlike its many imitators, it doesn't have a party atmosphere, and takes its subject seriously: the ultimate in good vs. evil.

Chris MacNeil is a fairly successful actress, separated from her husband and living with her daughter, Regan, in Georgetown, Washington D.C. She is horrified at Regan's abrupt change in behavior and consults teams of doctors and psychiatrists, to no avail. One night, Burke Dennings, the director of the film she is starring in, is killed in a fall from Regan's window, bringing in Inspector Kinderman, perhaps the most likable character in the film. One doctor suggests the Catholic practice of exorcism as therapy (even though the Church regards it as a sacred rite, not therapy). Mrs. MacNeil, an agnostic, is incredulous at the suggestion, until another outburst by Regan, one that nearly kills Mrs. MacNeil, convinces her to consult a priest. She is also convinced that it was Regan, by way of Satan himself, who killed Dennings.

Father Karras is a liberal, modernist priest, who is more at home in the field of psychiatry than Holy Orders. His aged mother is dying, and he is struggling with his faith. When Chris asks him about exorcism, he seems to think she's nuts, and tells her it isn't done anymore, even though he's aware that the practice has never been abandoned. Chris has had enough of psychiatrists, and so Father Karras agrees to see Regan as a priest. After a few visits, he sees that, even though he himself doesn't believe in demonic possession, Regan's case meets the criteria set forth in the rite of exorcism. He obtains permission for the exorcism, but he will only be an assistant. The Bishop prefers someone with experience (and faith, with which Father Karras is struggling). That priest is Father Lancaster Merrin.

We first meet Father Merrin at the film's beginning. He is in Iraq as part of an archaeological expedition, his way of escape after an earlier exorcism that nearly killed him. While in Iraq, he tells a friend, "there is something I must do". We see him seeing two dogs fight, and looking at two eerie looking statues, symbolizing the fight between good and evil, a battle which he must go back to the U.S. to rejoin, even though he has yet to receive an assignment. The assignment is delivered via a monk, and he knows it's time to get back to work.

After he arrives at the MacNeil residence, where Father Karras is waiting for him, we see the contrast between the old and the new in the Church. Karras still thinks of the assignment as more psychiatric therapy than a battle against Satan, but Merrin is under no such illusions. As they prepare for the exorcism, Karras tries to bring Merrin up to date about Regan's psychiatric history. Merrin's terse one-word reply is, "why?" That isn't so much a question as a statement to Karras that this is the real thing. A bit later, Karras attempts to inform Merrin of Regan's three distinct personalities (he still thinks it's a case of schizophrenia) that he has detected, provoking another terse response from Merrin: "There is only one!" We know who that one is, even though Karras, who apparently fancies himself as too sophisticated to believe in Satan and demons as real beings, still hasn't gotten with the program. Karras is clearly out of his league in the exorcism, and wouldn't know what to without Merrin. Merrin, in spite of a bad heart condition, which requires constant medication, appears confident, while Karras seems in awe at Regan's levitation and such. It appears to dawn on him at last that this is indeed the real thing. Neither man survives the exorcism, but there is a satisfying ending.

At the epilogue, as the MacNeils prepare to leave Georgetown (Sharon, Chris's assistant, stays behind), we see Karras's close friend, Father Dyer (played by a real priest) seeing them off. Regan stares at his collar, and gives him a big hug. She sees goodness and hope in his collar. After they leave, we see Dyer walking away after looking at the deadly steps where Burke Dennings and Father Karras met their demise. In the restored version, Inspector Kinderman joins him for lunch, setting the stage for The Exorcist III.

September Dawn (2007)

Chilling, heart-breaking, but how much is fact?

[6/10 · 28 April 2008]

First, let me say the movie is very entertaining and enjoyable to watch. If you watch it without regard to the real history of the horrific event the film portrays, it's a great film, and should have been nominated for Best Picture.

Having said that, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction. What we know for certain is that there was a diabolical attack on a wagon train in the area known as Mountain Meadows in the Utah Territory on September 11, 1857. We can say with confidence that Mormons were involved. To what degree, and to what level in the LDS hierarchy, remains a matter of dispute. The LDS church today insists that Brigham Young had no advance knowledge of the attack, though most historians say that at the least his rhetoric contributed to the atmosphere that led to it.

Jon Voight is very convincing (he should have been nominated for Best Actor) as the diabolical, yet pious Mormon Bishop. Trent Ford is great as the Bishop's dissenting son, Jonathan, whose heart is with the "emigrants", and his presence provides the film with a Mormon protagonist. Tamara Ford is equally fine as his "Gentile" lover. That part of the movie we know is fictional, but the movie makers intend for the rest to be taken at face value. This is born out by the special features included on the DVD, which contain commentaries and interviews with people, descendants of the Baker-Fancher party, and historians who believe the Mormon Church was responsible from Brigham Young on down. Perhaps we will never know exactly whether Young was directly responsible.

My theory is that this film is actually a well-disguised attack on, not Mormon, but Islamic radicalism. Instead of Osama Bin Laden, we have Brigham Young, and the bishop. The fact that both attacks occurred on September 11 may be a coincidence, but I believe the makers were discouraged from making an all-out attack on radical Islam by one, four letter *F* word: FEAR. You can attack Mormonism and escape with nothing more to fear than criticism and bad reviews. If you attack Islam, you will need police protection. That is why you will continue to see films that attack Christianity, and never one that takes radical Islam to task. No one wants to share the fate of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch film director who was brutally murdered for directing an anti-Islam documentary.

An American Rhapsody (2001)

A girl torn between two families, and two countries.

[7/10 · 22 July 2007]

This autobiographical film by director Eva Gardos is about a troubled teen who was reunited with her birth family in the U.S. after spending the first six or so years of her life with a couple in her native Hungary. Her birth parents fled communist persecution in Hungary, but couldn't take the infant out of fear she would cry, and alert the communist authorities. They intended to retrieve her shortly thereafter, but matters were complicated, and she remained. After a few years had gone by and she had grown to love her surrogate parents, the first ones she ever knew, she was taken from them somewhat deceptively by her grandmother. As a teen, she longs to return to her native land to see her surrogate parents, if only for a visit.

The film is touching, both sad and joyous, but I was a little disappointed that there were no references, at least that I caught, of the Hungarian revolt against the Soviets in 1956, one that was brutally crushed by the invading Red Army.

One thing that led me to this movie, which I purchased on DVD, was that I read that Hungarian actress Eva Soreny was in it, albeit very briefly. She's the elderly waitress in the first scene that takes place in America, in L.A. She has quite a story of her own, worthy of a full-length feature film, a story that mirrors The Sound Of Music. She was forced to flee her native land with her family following the 1956 revolt after communist authorities told her of their interest in using her for propaganda purposes, since she was regarded as Hungary's premiere actress of that era. Her story is told in an episode of the 1950s-60s TV series The Armstrong Circle Theater, entitled "The Hunted: The Eva Soreny Story", in which she plays herself. After coming to America, she had a few other acting jobs, mainly guest appearances in TV series. I saw her in The Twilight Zone (episode:Mute) and Family Affair (A Waltz From Vienna). As far as I know, as of this writing, she is still alive at age 90.

Capricorn One (1977)

Good Escapism!

[6/10 · 22 April 2007]

When I first heard of this movie in high school, about the time of its release (it would be years before I would actually see it), I was under the impression that it was sort of an expose, clothed in fiction, of the "moon hoax." Actually, while the makers of this flick were no doubt inspired by these weird theories, they didn't really subscribe to them, which I was gratified to learn.

In Capricorn One, the head of the U.S. Government space agency (a fictional NASA) learns that a planned mission to Mars cannot be accomplished. So, to keep government funding, he decides to stage the mission on a studio set , and will go to all extremes, including murder, to protect the secret. One of the technicians suspects that something isn't quite right with his readings, and tells his bosses about it. Shortly thereafter, he disappears. The tech's close friend, a reporter, probes his friend's mysterious disappearance, meeting intrigue and danger along the way. (Funny how only one "lowly" technician was able to figure it out!)

There are too many holes in the various "moon hoax" theories (there are several different theories, having in common only that they all say NASA fabricated the Apollo missions) to mention here. Capricorn One illustrates one of these holes, in that a very few people were able to fool the entire world, including the Soviets, who would have screamed bloody murder to the world had they even suspected such a hoax. On even a strictly need-to-know basis, at least hundreds would have to be on the inside, and many others participating in the mission, including the "lowly" technicians, would be able to figure out that something was amiss. Also, in Capricorn One, the astronauts were prepared to spill the beans to the world. Why haven't we heard "the truth" from moon hoax insiders?

It's a fun movie to watch, despite some bad writing and dialogue. Just sit back, have some popcorn, and don't take it too seriously

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Amateurish, but not void of entertainment

[5/10 · 4 February 2007]

Some of my criticism here is directed at the book version, but the film is a faithful adaptation, so some of that criticism applies to the film as well.

First, let me start by saying that the film, like the book, is indeed fiction, but the book was first billed as an expose, in novel form, of the "true" history of Christianity. That is what made it such a bestseller, not the plot line. It was initially used as a historical reference by people who had an ax to grind with Church ("read the Da Vinci code, it's all there!" read one message on a message board by one anti-Church individual). Author Dan Brown enthusiastically proclaimed its historical accuracy, in carefully controlled interviews (I could just imagine him on "The O'Reilly Factor"!) and on the book's "fact" page. Some felt threatened at first, not for themselves, but for those masses less educated about Church history. I heard comments from one person, a Catholic, who loved the book and defended it as pure fiction, but nonetheless was mislead by some of the historical claims, such as the nail-biter vote at the Council of Nicea that decided Christ's divinity, and that Council's decision of which books would be regarded as sacred scripture. Actually, the vote was more like about 300-2, and did not decide Christ's divinity, which was never in question, but rather Alexandrian priest Arius' teaching that Christ, while part of the Trinity, was created by, and not equal to, the Father. And that Council did not address the issue of scripture. Emperor Constantine called the council, but was not a participant, and attended only a few sessions.

Any threat the book might have posed soon subsided as a result of the sub-genre of books and documentaries that came out to debunk the "Da Vinci" myths. These were done by REAL historians, not moonbat conspiracy theorists. Only then did Brown begin to back off some from his claims that the book is fact-based, and only then did the "hello, it's fiction!" defense start.

I can't judge the movie by all these same standards since Ron Howard has maintained from the beginning that it's only fiction. However, some say the movie shouldn't be judged by historical accuracy. Why shouldn't it? How would "Gone With The Wind" be judged if it were Richmond, and not Atlanta, that was burned? Even "The Wizard Of Oz" wouldn't escape severe criticism if it had been a Kansas hurricane, rather than a tornado, that sent Dorothy spiraling into munchkin land. Why the double standard?

A brief word about the acting: I was not impressed by most of it. Nobody stood out as great, but Tom Hanks was not himself, and lent nothing more than name recognition; Audry Tautou was sleepwalking; and Paul Bettany was comic bookish as the murderous Albino monk (are there any good Albinos in movies?).

And, okay, last time: his name was not Da Vinci! it was Leonardo, and he was from a town called Vinci (in Italian), so calling him Da Vinci is like calling Joan of Arc "of Arc".

I give the movie five stars because it is not devoid of entertainment value, Paris is an interesting setting, and because moonbat theories are, if nothing else, fun.

ADDENDUM:

To the reviewer in Vienna, Austria, who says that Christians who are offended by the conspiracy theories in the book and movie are no better than Islamic radicals who reacted with violence as a result of the "Mohammed" cartoons: Do you seriously feel that way? No better at all? How many Christians reacted with violence? How many riots were there? Did either Dan Brown or Ron Howard need police protection? To establish any moral equation between these two reactions is completely irrational!

The Final Goal (1995)

Blah!

[2/10 · 13 August 2006]

I just purchased this DVD cheap, costing a buck (plus an extra 10% off employee discount). At 90 cents, I still didn't get my money's worth.

The plot is sometimes difficult to follow, but a few scenes of dialog make it possible to do so. Steven Nijjar (who?) stars as Nick Kanel, a soccer goalie, who is also a martial arts expert on the side. He finds his teammates being taken in by corrupt promoters promising big bucks for those willing to throw the big game, for the Gold Cup, and bruises and bullets for those who, like Kanel, are too scrupulous. Kanel puts his fighting skills to use in battling these creeps.

The ending is unbelievably campy, and the acting is unbearable. Nijjar's was so bad it wasn't good enough to qualify for a Golden Rasberry award. I guess even the Razzies have standards.

The one saving grace, sort of, was the occasional comic relief provided by a couple of Kanel's teammates, one of whom resembles Doogie Howser.

Erik Estrada, who plays one of the bad guy promoters, got top billing only he because he was by far the best known. He must have been really desperate for work.

A Killer in the Family (1983 TV Movie)

factual, but somewhat misleading

[7/10 · 29 May 2006]

This comment may contain a few spoilers for people who are not aware of the events on which this movie is based.

Though it has been a number of years since I've seen this movie, I know it is based on a true story, the Tison family's murderous rampage through the Arizona desert, accompanied by the psychopathic Randy Greenwalt, in the summer of 1978.

Reminiscent of his portrayal as the heavy in "Cape Fear", Mitchum is at his "worst", so to speak (that's actually a compliment), as the brutal psychopath, Gary Tison. I was troubled, though, at the movie's apparent attempt to exonerate the Tison boys of any real culpability beyond the prison escape. Some observers who have seen the surviving sons after their capture say they hardly conveyed an image of otherwise decent boys who only wanted to save their father from a prison bully, and then live in peace. They were more like willing accomplices to the six murders committed during the rampage, even if they didn't do the actual killings. The climactic scene where the gang attempts to run a roadblock, during which oldest son Donald Tison is seen trying to kill his father, was utterly implausible. Donald Tison was in fact killed during an attempt to run a roadblock, but the rest, come on!

Watch it to be entertained, and perhaps even informed, but don't take it all at face value. Check other sources if you want facts.

Flowers in the Attic (1987)

Don't judge it by the book

[7/10 · 9 January 2006]

An earlier review here, one of the few positive reviews of this movie on this site, had one thing wrong, saying that those who read the book would appreciate the movie, and vice-versa. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Having not read the book, I first saw this movie unjaded, and so was able to appreciate it as the sad and tragic story that it is.

The sudden death of a loving husband and father (it appears he may be a little too loving toward the oldest daughter, but the movie doesn't expand on that) leaves the family in despair, so the mother takes the children and herself to her filthy-rich parents' mansion, hoping to inherit the estate from her dying father. Just one little thing: she was long-ago disinherited because she entered into a forbidden marriage, and her father will not grant her an inheritance if he knows the marriage resulted in children, so she and her mother, "The "Grandmother", keep the children hidden in an attic as they await the old man's death, and she tries to win back his approval. The Grandmother is like a cruel warden, treating the children, a teenage boy and girl, and two young twins, boy and girl, like convicted criminals, only worse. The waiting goes on and on, during which the mother is consumed by greed, and emerges as the real villain.

Some readers of the book are indignant that the story was cleaned up for the movie, but that was necessary to make it more watchable to a wider audience. It is still a great and haunting story, reminiscent of the black and white horror flicks of the 1960's ("Whatever Happened To Baby Jane", "Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte", etc.). Audiences of the 1980's were not so jaded as today's, and were not ready for incest, especially among sympathetic characters.

Maybe the acting was not first-rate, and some elements, like the climactic ending, a bit campy, but the compelling storyline easily compensates for it, so long as you don't dwell on the few shortcomings, and can't see the forest for the trees.

And the movie has one thing the book hasn't: a memorably haunting, chilling musical score, a perfect compliment to an equally haunting, chilling story.