MartinHafer I was feeling nostalgic recently and began re-watching episodes of "The Night Gallery". As a kid, I loved it--and it often scared the crap out of me. But now, 40 years later, I can sure see the limitations of the show--limitations that only became more obvious the more shows you've seen. While I ADORE the idea of a horror anthology series, this one was undone by bad writing and too much re-tooling of a basically good idea.The series is alternately called "Rod Serling's Night Gallery"--and this leads to the biggest problem with the show. While Serling's name is at the masthead, he actually only wrote a few episodes here and there--and wrote less and less as the series continued. Why the execs would NOT want Serling writing as much of the show as possible is beyond me--he was brilliant in all his previous work and you'd think a shelf full of Emmy Awards for writing would convince the high muckity-mucks to make him THE writer for the show. But, instead, it seemed like practically anyone (talented or not) could write for the show--and this became VERY obvious in season two.This brings me to the next biggie damaging the show. It's rare to see a show's writing go downhill so fast as it did between season one and two. While season one was no masterpiece, some idiots thought the format needed retooling--and comedy shorts were added to the show in addition to the scary stuff. Some of the comedy was funny--most was not. But the big problem is that it totally disrupted the serious mood of the show and cheapened it. In effect, the series jumped the shark in season two.The final big problem is that even if you ignore the comedy infused into "Night Gallery", you can't deny that the quality of the serious scripts dropped considerably. Many episodes were now pretty awful--so bad that I simply couldn't continue watching the shows. My time is too important to watch any more.

Snusmumrikken I am a fan of Rod Sterling's Twilight Zone, and i thought this show also would be great. To my disappointment it wasn't. I saw the pilot plus season 1&2. I only liked 2 segments of the pilot in this show.They were, The Cemetery and The Escape Route. I liked The Cemetery best, because i think it had: Creepy atmosphere, good acting, suspenseful and great story.I liked the twist ending. I have seen the British lead Roddy McDowall before in several other TV-series. i think he did a great job, acting wise. I gave up watching this show after viewing season 2.If only season 1&2 had any great segments like the 2 mentioned. I think the rest of the episodes lacked the, Creepy atmosphere, good acting, suspenseful and great story. I have to give this series 2 out 10.

notdempsey If your anything like me, you've probably (to quote Marcellus Wallace) scoured the Earth for "Make Me Laugh," the second of two stories the young Spielberg shot for "Night Gallery." Not wanting to spend the 50 dollars on the DVDs, I patiently waited to find and record a re-run of the anthology.Before I review "Make Me Laugh," I'd like to say that Night Gallery is, for better or for worse, its own show made by many other talented directors and their casts and crews."Make Me Laugh" is not Spielberg's nor Sterling's finest hour. The story is very trite and the acting is weird and self aware. Sterling has written much better episodes than this unoriginal and pointless story of a down and out comedian granted the ability to make people laugh. The late great Godfrey Cambridge (Friday Foster) adds depth to the jaded jokester with extreme melodrama that is so over-the-top its kind of enjoyable. The same can't be said for Jackie Vernon, who played the genie. The genie character is dull, flat, and totally unreal. This is only made worse by bad makeup and a ridiculous costume. The pacing of the episode is minimal (surely due to time factors) but well done. And the lighting is natural. Professional, but not ground breaking.Spielberg wasn't given much wiggle-room on this one. A strict contract gave him almost no creative control, and this terrible script didn't help either. But it is an impressive effort for someone as young as Spielberg was. His visual style was still in the cooker, but there are compositions that are unique to television at the time and early heeds of Spielberg's natural-yet-abnormal frame. In the end, this episode was based on such a lame story that it never really had a chance no matter who was behind the camera. It is worth watching for its historical value, and for the strange performance of Cambridge. However, Spielberg's other Night Gallery outing "Eyes" is a much better example of an early version of Spielberg's framing and his excellent exposition.

Ripshin At least a dozen users have brought up Spielberg's participation, as if it were a revelation each time. Enough, already. Also, it would be nice if people would place a *spoiler* warning, when they describe plots, ad naseum.This series DOES beg a comparison to Serling's earlier "Twilight Zone," of course. And, it does NOT fair well. While a few classic episodes do pop up, "Night Gallery" is a major misfire from the first season.Ridiculous "twist" endings, with no logical basis, are mistaken as being "scary." Some episodes don't even make sense, even after repeated viewings.The hour-long show should have been reduced to thirty minutes, as it was in syndication. Apparently, many users don't realize that a separate show, "The Sixth Sense," was incorporated into "Night Gallery" in syndication, with Serling creating new wrap-around intros. The two were never intended to be "one," and it is evident. Any episode with Gary Collins was not originally a true "Gallery."