IMDb > "The Twilight Zone" (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"The Twilight Zone"
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"The Twilight Zone" More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 46 reviews in total 

31 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

Better than you might think

Author: George Mussman (GEM-20) from Washington State
23 February 2005

I thoroughly enjoyed this revival of Serling's classic. In fact, there were a couple of episodes that were re-makes of original shows, and one was a sequel to an episode done back on the original series.

Beyond those, there were plenty of stories that were original and well done themselves. This show was certainly superior to the one done back in the mid-'80s. They really seemed to do Mr. Serling proud. It's unfortunate that UPN canceled this after one season. I enjoyed all of it.

I really liked Forrest Whitaker as the host of this new "Zone". He did a wonderful job here. Do I sound like I recommend this show? YES!

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

This show sucks- I have a small spoiler

Author: Jennifertzfan from Ga.
28 September 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'm 18 years old, and that may make several people think that I've never even heard of the original Twilight Zone. That's not true. I am such a diehard fan of Serling's original TZ. I must admit I was kind of had neutral feelings about this remake. Part of me thought it was going to blow chunks, but a small percentage of me said that it might be good. Of course, it wouldn't be as good as the original. In this case, I was right about it blowing chunks.

I watched the first episode and it was just pure trash. I won't go into details about the episode, because either you watched it or didn't. Part 1 of the first episode showed promise. Yes, I admit it did show promise during the first 15 minutes. The ending spoiled it completely. I'm a writer, and I must say that I could've came up with better ending even if I was intoxicated at the time. I don't drink, but that just goes to show that even a person drunk could've came up with a better story. Part 2 of the first episode (Jason Alexander episode) was so obvious. The whole story was just obvious.

I did give the new TZ another chance. I caught the second episode and it was just as bad as the first episode. Okay, Part 1 of the second episode was better than any of the other stories. It wasn't that great of a storyline to start with, but it was better than any of the others. Geez, Part 2 of the second episode was obvious right from the start too. I was chatting with a friend and we were both watching the show and I said *spoiler* I bet the guy is going to be the drawing and the chick is the one that is real *spoiler ending* and this was like 15 minutes in the middle. Needless to say, I was correct.

I just recommend that they cancel this new TZ. I don't see things getting any better. If you want to do something useful then take the money that was going towards the new TZ to make it, take that money and buy the old Night Gallery series and put it back on tv. Show it instead of this new TZ crap.

I'm still clueless to this whole case. Rod Serling and his team were back in the 60s. They were geniuses, and could think up all these awesome stories. Granted, not every episode of the original was a great one. The majority of the originals rocked. They were awesome. They dreamed up all these ideas and here we are in the year 2002, sitting on the top of a technological age-so you think we would be able to broaden our imaginations and come up with some killer stories based on our technology. Rod and his team didn't have all this stuff in the 60s. They could dream it up and write about it. Yet, we have it and keep getting sucky stories. Stories can't come on a silver platter. We have to think them up. I guess our time period is too preoccupied with money and cranking any piece of crap out in order to get paid. Whoever wrote the episode of the new TZ, they just suck. I hate dashing a writer's hopes, especially if they thought their stories were good.

Unfortunately, I see this new TZ lasting for sometime. Yes, you read me correctly. Notice how much sex was involved in the second episode of Part 2. Serling didn't bother writing sex scenes. He could tell a good story without bringing in sex. However, sex seems to sell these days so if the writers for the new TZ keep tossing in sex scenes- people will probably tune in. Kind of sad. Frankly, I'd rather be inspired by the old TZ instead of watching some watered down version of this new TZ.

If you should have a kid or a teenager watching this show and they actually think its good, the parent needs to pull out a tape of the original TZ and pop it in the vcr. It's time the viewers started thinking for themselves again instead of watching all these dumbed down new shows. I guarantee that a viewer can think and be inspired by the old TZ.


Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Twilight Zone --- maybe...

Author: radiopal from United States
19 September 2005

Okay, I bought the DVD at Wal-Mart and then read the reviews on IMDb, I agree with everyone that this is nothing like Rod Serling's Twilight Zone. However, after watching 3 episodes, I decided to watch the shows not as the Twilight Zone, but as an anthology series (there have been several, Outer Limits, Hitch Hiker, Night Gallery to name a few) and the more that I watched, the more I enjoyed it. Yes, it can never be adequately compared to the original, nor should it be. But if you decide to give the series a try, watch it as a fun anthology series. I was even thrilled to see a couple of "tongue-in-cheek" episodes. It will definitely be worth watching that way.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Good but lacks a lot

Author: torres_elias
20 March 2010

I wasn't born yet when the original and the first revival were made (I'm 24), however I was a big Twilight Zone fan while in high school. So the year was 2003 and the second revival was being aired on Fox... I was a freshman in college and had enough time to watch it.

While the dialogues, places and the overall atmosphere looks more familiar to me on this new Twilight Zone, most of the screenplays lack the feeling from the old classic series. They don't have that characteristic superb twist and the end anymore and some of them are really predictable. The episodes from the classic series where awesome and I think they scared a bunch of people back then, but this revival has failed on that matter. But anyway, to be honest I don't blame new Twilight Zone's writers for this since some of the feeling that made this show so great was lost during the 80's revival.

This is overall a good show if you don't have anything else to do, otherwise stick to the classics.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Good remake

Author: thewangiswide from California
13 December 2002

I like this version of The Twilight Zone. There are some episodes that are pretty stupid but some of the most recent ones have been really good. The most recent episode was bad the first half but good the second half. The first one was Gabe's Story with Christopher Titus and it was just plain stupid. The second one, Last Lap, was very good. I totally didn't see the ending coming. I know that this version will get better as time goes on. People just need to give it the time. It's not as good as Rod Serling's version but it's still pretty good.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Good casting, needs less predictable endings

Author: DerekLee1 from Houston, TX
15 January 2003

I am a huge fan of the original, but certainly don't hold that against the new show. As with any remake in the entertainment industry (movies, music, television) I try not to compare the remake with the original and let them each stand on their own. I do the same here.

The casting of the show is fine. It's pretty cool to see popular actors and actresses (albeit most of them B-list) making guest appearances. The problem with the show is its predictability. Even the Hitler episode that everyone is raving about I saw coming from about halfway through the story. Maybe I've seen too many plot twists in other shows and movies that nothing is unexpected for me anymore. But if I can predict the ending 5 minutes into the episode, that's just bad writing. I think they've also lost the concept of what the "twilight zone" is. It's another dimension, of sight, of sound, blah blah blah. Yet the producers just seem to think if the story has even the slightest semblance of a twist, it'll work on this show. Come on, the guitar (wonder if its name was "Christine"?) episode has to be one of the worst pieces of garbage EVER on a TZ "product". Although the chick that got choked by the guitar strap WAS pretty hot...

I hope the show sticks around, because if it's done right, it could be a great Wednesday night sit-down. Maybe the writers should start watching 24 to see what a plot twist really IS, though. Better yet, just watch some original TZ eps. Even remake some of those. Now THERE'S an original concept...

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:


Author: Valentin Georgescu from Sibiu, Romania
11 November 2007

It has history, character and it takes you out for a walk in the world of what is surrealistically real! The Twilight Zone is one of the best television shows ever made. The concept of the show will be carried in my mind throughout my entire life. I must add that given the fact that it's characters change form an episode to another, the show remains self-explanatory and follows quite a strict behavior. It does not, however, become predictable or plain, but surprises with a juicy ending that lets you wonder and leaves you craving for more every single time. An idea well thought, a show that is worth the braincells it might kill, and a ZONE that no matter how hard we try, we can never explain.

The Twilight Zone!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Big Possiblilties

Author: wilddon from United States
11 July 2009

This incarnation of The Twilight Zone had immense possibilities. Some were realized, with a new on-screen host, and some good stories. It is hard to recreate the original, but I think this series made a bold attempt. Old Twilight Zone themes of prejudice, fear, science gone awry, and the wonderful, and awful potential of the human spirit are examined. I would have liked to see the series continue past the one year mark, but sadly, this was not to be. I think Rod Serling would have been proud to see a black host, as well. Things have changed a lot, since 1959, when the original Twilight Zone premiered. These changes were dealt with, often cleverly. I recommend that this series be viewed.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

not bad at all

Author: jhearse from Rain city, USA
5 January 2009

I don't know why the some people seem to think this (2002) series was so bad. Sure, it's not the original. But like the remake in 1985, it has some good episodes and some weaker ones. we all loved Serling, but even some of the originals were a little weak at times. don't over-romanticize Serling. he was one of the greatest writers ever, but not just because of the twilight zone, but his great westerns, crime dramas, etc. and even the original series had a few clunkers - don't forget that he didn't write them all, anyways

Compared to what's out there, from predictable sitcoms to endless CSI/Law and Order formulaic shows, this one's not that bad. Heck, compare it to the absolutely horrible Sci-F channel movies,, yuck!

So, I say. I enjoy this version just fine. heck.. it's only TV.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Even without comparing it to Serling's original, this is still bargain basement sci-fi

Author: liquidcelluloid-1 from
22 November 2004

Network: UPN; Genre: Science Fiction; Content Rating: TV-PG (for sci-fi violence and mild sexuality); Available: on DVD; Classification: Contemporary (Star range: 1 - 4);

Season Reviewed: Complete Series (1 season)

It's no stretch of the imagination to say that Rod Serling's 1959 sci-fi drama 'The Twilight Zone' is a classic series that ranks up there with the best shows of all time. In fact, it's so obvious, it's almost a statement of fact cowardly disguised as an opinion. It's like people who say they are against war or don't like death. Really? Wow, that's bold.

So, Serling's creation is a classic. I can sit and bask in all its black-and-white glory, low budget effects and post-nuclear to-the-camera moralizing during New Year's Day marathons on the Sci-Fi Channel for hours on end. This is not 'the real' Twilight Zone' but UPN's debunked experiment to remake the series and update it for a new generation (hosted by a wildly miscast Forest Whitaker). However, I approach this show not as a cockeyed purist or one of the many pseudo-intellectuals who insists that entertainment was better back in the day. 'The Twilight Zone', and it's unforgettable formula, is exactly the type of series that can be resurrected and re-invented for future generations in response to the needs and fears of the current political and social climate of that generation. As it has already been tried once before in 1985 with lukewarm results.

This show doesn't even come close to rising to the challenge or exploring the entirely free universe that the premise provides its writers. This is a sell-out, bargain basement 'Twilight Zone'-lite. Aside from great writing, creepy premises and patented ending twists, the biggest asset Serling brought to 'Twilight' was incalculable passion. It was his baby. All of which this show lacks in spades. It's unclear if the writers are lazily coasting on the show's namesake or working under Serling's shadow constantly in fear of doing anything bold and screwing up. The ironic thing is that, like the original, this remake could have probably gotten by with phony special effects and campy acting if it had something to say. But the stories are tedious. Pure sci-fi movie-of-the-week trash. When they couldn't make original episodes work, they resorted to guest stars and glamorous babes to titillate the audience with cheap soft-core stories (such as fictitious sex-pot women created via writing or holograms who soon start acting human) . When that didn't work, the show resorted to simply re-creating classic 'Zone' episodes.

Something this series does have to it's name is an eye-catching roster of talented guest stars. See Amber Tamblyn before her breakout series and Dylan Walsh before hi. See veteran actors like Jason Alexander, Lou Diamond Phillips, Christopher McDonald, Cloris Leachman. More appealing is the chance to see character actors that have caught my eye over the years and I so can't get enough of I'd even watch this show to see what they can bring to it. That list includes such criminally ignored versatility as Linda Cardellini ('Freaks and Geeks'), Christopher Titus ('Titus'), Jeremy Piven ('Cupid'), Jason Bateman & Portia De Rossi (pre-'Arrested Development'), Vivica A. Fox ('Getting Personal'), Patrick Warburton & Wayne Night ('Seinfeld'), Xander Berkley ('24'), Robin Tunney, Alicia Witt ('Cybill'), Paul Rodriguez and even Jessica Simpson. But in the end, the guest star on the title draws us in like a fly to the bug zapper. That's what makes this all the tougher to watch. To see these people working with material so far below their means is almost sad.

'The Twilight Zone' could have been so much more then just letting us see what 'The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street' would look like with a new cast and the social climate it was pertinent in now 40 years in the past. I'm harsh on this show because I do not believe that there are no new ideas or that this hackery is a fraction of what the creative minds of this generation can come up with. You're better off with the 'Futurama' homage 'The Scary Door' over this.


Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history