I first saw this made-for-TV movie when I was a kid. Three things stuck with me from it. Two are from the first story in the film, which I'll get to shortly. The third was Rod Serling's distinctive voice narrating. Had it not been for Serling, I doubt I would have ever figured out what movie it was I had these memories of. But I did and today I saw it for the first time in decades. The movie is three stories of the supernatural that are supposedly based on fact. One of them is very obviously an urban legend ghost story that was old by the time this film was made in 1973. So that casts doubt on the other two being based on true events as well.
The first story is about three young men who play a prank on another which results in his death. At the funeral, the dead boy's mother places a curse on the three, telling them they will each die over the next few weeks. The rhyming curse is silly but the makers of this film were obviously very proud of it, as they use the scene of her reciting it repeatedly. This is the story that I remember parts of from my childhood. I remember the mother's expression as she cursed the boys, which was scary to me as a child but is funnier now. The other thing I remembered was the boy who played the victim of the prank. He creeped me out back then. Now he looks to me like an inbred Jake Gyllenhaal, which is creepy as well. This segment is OK but not scary like I remembered.
The second story is about some hick people that find a mist-covered hole in the woods that has sounds of something moaning coming out of it. This story starts out well enough but its ending is not satisfactory at all. Still, this was probably my favorite story of the three. What was with that mentally challenged guy though? They showed him running up to the barber early on like he would be significant later. Then, when he shows back up later at the hole with the other men, he doesn't do anything. It's like someone thought "let's just throw this guy in there." Weird.
The third story is the weakest. It's the old "phantom hitchhiker" story we've all read or seen many times before. Overlong, padded segment for such a standard ghost story. Love the clash between 1920s and 1970s styles in their attempt to do a period piece though.
The end result is that it's a watchable movie, enjoyable on some levels. The acting is mostly amateur and the writing, particularly the narration, is weak. Serling didn't write this. It was just a payday for him doing narration work. It does have a sort of '70s atmosphere about it. Fans of that will enjoy it.
The first story is about three young men who play a prank on another which results in his death. At the funeral, the dead boy's mother places a curse on the three, telling them they will each die over the next few weeks. The rhyming curse is silly but the makers of this film were obviously very proud of it, as they use the scene of her reciting it repeatedly. This is the story that I remember parts of from my childhood. I remember the mother's expression as she cursed the boys, which was scary to me as a child but is funnier now. The other thing I remembered was the boy who played the victim of the prank. He creeped me out back then. Now he looks to me like an inbred Jake Gyllenhaal, which is creepy as well. This segment is OK but not scary like I remembered.
The second story is about some hick people that find a mist-covered hole in the woods that has sounds of something moaning coming out of it. This story starts out well enough but its ending is not satisfactory at all. Still, this was probably my favorite story of the three. What was with that mentally challenged guy though? They showed him running up to the barber early on like he would be significant later. Then, when he shows back up later at the hole with the other men, he doesn't do anything. It's like someone thought "let's just throw this guy in there." Weird.
The third story is the weakest. It's the old "phantom hitchhiker" story we've all read or seen many times before. Overlong, padded segment for such a standard ghost story. Love the clash between 1920s and 1970s styles in their attempt to do a period piece though.
The end result is that it's a watchable movie, enjoyable on some levels. The acting is mostly amateur and the writing, particularly the narration, is weak. Serling didn't write this. It was just a payday for him doing narration work. It does have a sort of '70s atmosphere about it. Fans of that will enjoy it.