Wizard-8 Made just before the Disney company started its own adult movie division (Touchstone Films), "Trenchcoat was one of several movies the company made in a desperate attempt to change the image of its product while trying to appeal to both adults and kids. Despite the great effort, the end result is a complete misfire. The script is the greatest offender - it is a deadly mix of tired clichés (like when the heroine kills a bad guy but the body disappears when she goes for the police), stupid characters, and a really slow moving (and predictable) plot. The insulting script might explain why the cast doesn't really give any effort to try and liven things up - Margot Kidder is abrasive and annoying, and Robert Hays is vanilla bland. And under the direction of Michael Tuchner, the entire enterprise feels not only very subdued, but cheap and tacky despite the studio filming on location in Malta. The acting careers of the two leads never recovered from this embarrassment, and it's easy to see why.

drystyx Once upon a time, people knew who they were. Some were mechanics, some were politicians, some were writers.Since about 1980, the real writers have been removed so that the rich tea party families could "write on the side".That's why we had so many "situational tea party type Miss Marple comic murder mysteries", comic fantasies purely going with formula.There is no "writing" here. It is formula stage play. It is a mixture of "Romancing the Stone", "Miss Marple", and virtually every stage comedy one has ever seen.Then again, all good cinema begins as good stage plays, so you have at least a mediocre movie here.What helps here is great casting. Margot Kidder is a bit like Lois Lane here, only more likable. She shows that comedy is her forte, and the role seems to have been written specifically for her.This is probably what Kidder should always have done. The rest of the cast is also splendid.In a formula film like this, casting makes a big difference. It's lightly likable, with the cast pulling it up over the 5/10 mark.

MARIO GAUCI The only reason I decided to check this one out was because it’s set in Malta; the result, however, was an exceedingly feeble comedy-thriller from, of all people, the Disney stable and, needless to say, a long way behind Hitchcock.Incidentally, this was the film which forced the studio to open a parallel label – Touchstone – so that they could make more adult-oriented fare: its few moments of violence and the appearance of a man in drag, presumably, were the offending elements in this regard! The title is the typical outfit worn by the detective hero of 1940s film noirs: here, it’s incongruously donned by the irritating would-be thriller novelist Margot Kidder(!) – while the boyish-looking Robert Hays is the typical undercover agent (whose mission is to catch a ring of plutonium-traffickers). I can’t say the script-writers/film-makers were particularly inspired by the Maltese locations – so much so that it could have been set practically anywhere else to much the same dismal effect (it’s simply not thrilling and certainly not funny)! Most of the other characters are seen either aiding or harassing the two leads – sometimes they seem to be doing one when their intention is actually the opposite; these include clumsy assassin Leopoldo Trieste, laid-back police chief David Suchet (TV’s future Hercule Poirot!), a couple of sweet old lodgers at Kidder’s hotel, a German mystery woman, and a Sicilian stud. A notable appearance is put in by John Justin (yes, the hero of the classic Michael Powell/Alexander Korda THE THIEF OF BAGDAD [1940] in what amounted to his last feature-film role!) as the long-suffering aristocratic owner of the hotel, whose place is turned upside-down by the end of the film. By the way, I only spotted two Maltese actors of stature in bit roles – one played a guide at a museum, and the other a fishmonger who helped Kidder evade her pursuers in one scene.For what it’s worth, the identity of the villains is ingenious (if not exactly original); in the end, though, in spite of a number of chases, the film is never as engaging (or enjoyable) as it should have been…and only manages to give a bad name to the genre it’s playing at, not to mention the people and country involved!

Hollywood_Yoda I think that putting this movie under the Disney label even with controversy surrounding it was a good move. That is just what the studio needed at a time when people were straying away from the usual cutsie "Disney" movies, like "The Rescuers"(1977), or even "petes Dragon"(1977) for that matter. This is more of an adult centered film, and that is what makes it special. Parents will enjoy this film more than their kids. But any children watching this film under about the age of 12 or 13, SHOULD have parental guidance, because the film does have some suggestive content. Over all, I gave it 8/10, mostly for the story line and character situations. It was GOOD!!!