Murder by Death.

Review #1996: Murder by Death. 

Cast: 

Eileen Brennan (Tess Skeffington), Truman Capote (Lionel Twain), James Coco (Milo Perrier), Peter Falk (Sam Diamond), Alec Guinness (Bensonmum), David Niven (Dick Charleston), Elsa Lanchester (Jessica Marbles), Peter Sellers (Sidney Wang), Maggie Smith (Dora Charleston), Nancy Walker (Maid), Estelle Winwood (Nurse), James Cromwell (Marcel), and Richard Narita (Willie Wang) Directed by Robert Moore.

Review: 

Admittedly, the appeal is in how much you are invested in mystery characters being spoofed. No, not Sherlock Holmes (that was a deleted scene), but characters such as Sam Spade and Nick & Nora Charles (as created by Dashiell Hammett) to go alongside the works of Agatha Christie in Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. Oh, and Charlie Chan (as written by Earl Derr Biggers). Neil Simon, playwright and screenwriter of previous ventures such as The Heartbreak Kid (1972) and The Sunshine Boys (1975) wrote the screenplay for this film. This was the first film for director Robert Moore, who had done a handful of productions in the theater such as The Boys in the Band in 1968 and Promises, Promises the following year (Moore did a number of television shows and three total films as a film director before his untimely death). Falk, who is imitating Sam Spade that was notably portrayed on screen by Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon (1941), returned with Moore and Simon to play a parody of Bogart with The Cheap Detective in 1978 alongside Brennan, Coco, and Cromwell. So yes, here are with a movie that wants to have fun with the "old dark house" genre that was pretty big in the early part of the 20th century, complete with plenty of name actors to go around, which includes two actors making their final appearance in Winwood and Walker and one in Cromwell making his first.

You know, for the most part, it is a pretty good time for 94 minutes. Sure, not every joke is bound to land, and it probably lingers a bit in being too smart and silly for its own good, but it does generally work the points it wants to do when it comes to in the realm of the mystery spoof. It is breezy without laboring hard within its one setting and one eventual punchline to outdo the setups done prior to the climax. It's interesting to watch Falk here in a role that makes light of a hard-boiled detective, mostly because a considerable amount of time has been spent by me (in the past few months) watching him in probably his most famous role as Colombo. But he is a talented actor, playing to the hard-nosed expectations of the spoof role and exceeding it quite well in generating chuckles without playing it as just an easy buffoon, which basically means dry warmth, and Brennan clings with resourceful timing that fits for a genre riff. Guinness seems to be having fun with this role, which mostly has him stumble around for effect with a few offbeat lines and play a blind man. Sellers is in prosthetics to play a character that most famously had been played by Swedish-born actor Warner Oland, much in the same way that Sellers did a decade earlier when playing an Indian in The Party (1968), which is easily the most dated aspect of the film. He does bring a few chuckles, if only because the lines seem so intentionally corny to begin with, one who seems intentionally out of date with the times to make laughs. Of course, Sellers would (in)famously have his last role end up being the title role of The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu in 1980 (one year after that film, Peter Ustinov (another non-Asian actor) played Charlie Chan in Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen (1981), and since that film, neither of the two characters have been portrayed on film). Niven and Smith make a decent pairing in the expense of The Thin Man that namely involves them playing the role to pleasantries. Capote is, well, a writer brought in to play against the other mystery spoofs in his first and only major role in a film. It has been said that Simon and Moore thought about replacing him with an actor but that it never came to pass. Eh, he does what is needed in parts, since it isn't really his movie to steal the scenery as is the case with the others. Coco and Lanchester prove fine in the mildest sense of comic relief. The cliche elements of old are lovingly utilized to chuckles, whether involving an old dark house or hired help with more on the mind than housewares or convivences stacked upon conveniences (which makes for an amusing ending). As a whole, the movie takes a familiar presence with familiar detective types (be it the rough detective or general sleuth) and has a fun time with it, finding a clear balance between ribbing the dynamics that come with trying to play around with an audience and not simply just tearing the dynamic to shreds. It is good fun without being wrapped up in annoyance for its audience, which on the whole makes for a solid recommendation.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Creed III.

Doctor Zhivago.

Review #1421: Doctor Zhivago.

Cast: 
Omar Sharif (Dr. Yuri Andreyevich Zhivago), Julie Christie (Lara Antipova), Geraldine Chaplin (Tonya Gromeko), Rod Steiger (Victor Ippolitovich Komarovsky), Alec Guinness (Lieutenant General Yevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago), Tom Courtenay (Pavel "Pasha" Antipov / Strelnikov), Siobhán McKenna (Anna Gromeko), Ralph Richardson (Alexander Maximovich Gromeko), Rita Tushingham (Tanya Komarova), Jeffrey Rockland (Sasha), Bernard Kay (Kuril), and Klaus Kinski (Kostoyed Amoursky) Directed by David Lean (#286 - Lawrence of Arabia)

Review: 
"Secrets are what you confide to people in the dark. I think one of the things we've lost in the cinema is intimacy. Now you see appalling things happening and high excitement, but you rarely get right into people."

If one needed to view an epic drama or romance, one could find a great argument to be made for David Lean. He was born in England to Quaker parents; he had his first experience with watching cinema at thirteen, and receiving a Brownie camera as a gift from his uncle served as a good hobby for him. He found work as an apprentice in his father's accountancy firm, but he found himself more interested in the cinema, and this led to him joining Gaumont Studios in 1927. He served in various roles for the studio such as tea and clapper boy and eventually cutting room assistant. Over the next few years, he would become chief editor at Gaumont British News before shifting to editor on film in 1939. Three years later, playwright Noël Coward gave him a chance to direct with him with the war film In Which We Serve (1942), which served him well in directing further films (which he would do through forming Cineguild Productions with cinematographer Ronald Neame and producer Anthony Havelock-Allan, which lasted from 1944 to 1949), with his next six films being adaptation of plays and novels (three of them being works from Coward), which led to noted movies like Brief Encounter (1945) and Great Expectations (1946). A perfectionist with a tendency for autocratic behavior on set, Lean would make sixteen films in a career of 42 years, receiving plenty of attention for works such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), and Lawrence of Arabia (1962, which like this film was written by Robert Bolt), and his final work A Passage to India (1984, which he also wrote and edited).

The film was based on the 1957 novel of the same name by Boris Pasternak, a poet whose work is noted for its long and intricate structure that span over forty years against the backdrop of an evolving Russia in the 20th century (with the poet's views on said transition being the reason for the Soviet Union opposing its publication), and the controversy over the novel meant that it could not be filmed in Russia, with a majority of filming instead being in Spain. The film runs at 200 minutes (after an original length of 197 and a restoration that occurred in the late 1990s) with the intent of something intimately romantic and epic. How much the film accomplishes in that regard is up to the viewer, and there have been plenty who encountered it, since it ranks as one of the highest grossing films of its era (behind fellow 1965 film The Sound of Music), and this film won Academy Awards in art direction, cinematography, screenplay, costume design and score. All of this window-dressing for a film held n some ways as a classic is me trying to figure out exactly why the actual experience for me was just fine at best. Can it be possible to make something that has scope and ambition to tell a long story and yet seem lacking in making a romance epic whole? The words seem to be there, and there is plenty of interesting scenery and set design to go around with acting that is generally convincing, but it doesn't seem as great as it wants to portray itself. It has a sappy seductive power that can either sweep you off your feet or make you struggle to not roll your eyes in where it (theoretically) wants to go. Thrust into a title role is Sharif, an Egyptian actor of numerous British and American productions that had approached Lean about a supporting role but ended up being cast as the lead by Lean. His performance comes off decent, where his expressive eyes seem to try and hide a passive character that has bare chemistry with everything that happens to occur around him. Christie, a British actress who rose to prominence through films like this and Darling (1965), proves adept in generating passion through chemistry with Sharif that gradually builds to something halfway meaningful, a soap opera that mutates itself into trying to be taken seriously. Chaplin, a dancer-turned-model-turned actress in her English-language debut, can only do so much with a doormat type of character, one who generates far more interest in her kindness than the others who is doomed to be the first wheel to fall off the proverbial romantic vehicle. Of the whole cast, it is method icon of volatility in Steiger that proves most interesting, as he commands your attention with his intimidating nature that serves the film well in starting and ending things without becoming too much in blustering for the sake of it. It is nice to see Guinness from time to time, even when serving as a framing device for everything around him. Courtenay rounds things out with composed rebelliousness that serves him well from time to time.

There are tough choices to make for a film like this, and in some ways the film carries those dilemmas with a right touch and other times with a heavy-handed approach. It is like a piece of art that has plenty of color and lines but seems to be missing that central focus to bring it all completely together. It proves no wonder why no one has tried to make a second theatrical adaptation of this work: For one thing, television seems more adept in covering such an expansive work like this, and it might very well be folly to think one can top the highs generated by a film as iconic as this one is - regardless of how it might land for folks like me. It is immensely flawed, but it is nevertheless something to consider as a film for the 1960s worth pondering over, whether for its sweeping images or its gestures of romance that come together for a spectacle that can help lend inspiration to audiences then as before, if one has the patience and understanding for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Raise the Titanic.

Review #1195: Raise the Titanic.

Cast: 
Jason Robards (Admiral James Sandecker), Richard Jordan (Dirk Pitt), David Selby (Dr. Gene Seagram), Anne Archer (Dana Archibald), Alec Guinness (John Bigalow), Bo Brundin (Captain Andre Prevlov), M. Emmet Walsh (Master Chief Vinnie Walker), J.D. Cannon (Captain Joe Burke), and Norman Bartold (Admiral Kemper) Directed by Jerry Jameson.

Review: 
What film can best be summed up by a quote from its producer other than this one: "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic." With a budget of over $40 million (which would be roughly over $120 million in 2019) and an ultimate box office finish of $7 million, this was another of Lord Lew Grade's failures for the year of 1980, where production overruns and story re-writes doomed a film to fail beyond belief. The film is based off the novel Raise the Titanic! (1976) by Clive Cussler, the third book in his series of adventure books involving the character Dirk Pitt, for which he has currently written 24 of since 1973. Grade saw potential in Cussler's books to adapt to film and make a series much like with the James Bond films. The intent was to have Stanley Kramer as director, although he quit as pre-production began due to creative differences, with the brunt of the budget's spiraling being due to making models (alongside re-writes for the script); a fifty foot scale model was built for the climatic raising of the ship that required a 10 million-gallon tank to accompany its size. Larry McMurtry (writer of novels such as The Last Picture Show and Lonesome Dove) claimed to have worked on the screenplay alongside sixteen other writers, although he was the only one who did not petition for writing credit, although the final credits list Eric Hughes for story and the screenplay credit for Adam Kennedy.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the idea of making an adventure film set around raising the Titanic could have had potential, albeit one that would have to rely on charm and effects instead of tight logic to really work. Keep in mind, the Titanic was not proven to have been broken up into two pieces (as opposed to the theory that it simply sunk intact) until 1985. Unfortunately, the final product is not particularly interesting to watch, managing to squander its premise with plenty of padding surrounded by one pure highlight. Jordan doesn't spring too much interest as the main hero, perhaps in part because there really is nothing for him to go on in terms of personality. I suppose him and Selby are supposed to be an interesting pair to see interact and bicker with, too bad they don't really click well. Robards is okay. The actors besides him really seem to just say the lines very mildly. Honestly, the only one who seems interesting is Guinness, playing a survivor of the Titanic who exists just to say exposition about the mysterious person who just happened to put the "byzanium" in a vault before the ship sank. He's in the film for one scene, looking perfectly like someone waiting to cash a check, but at least it means he isn't stuck in the feature for very long. Archer has slightly more screen-time, yet her character (and her motivations for being in the plot) fade halfway through the film. There isn't even a real villain worth mentioning, and the only real menace in the entire film is boredom over the water scenes, which don't really give the film much in terms of spectacle for 114 minutes of run-time.

Comparing it to Grade's other boondoggle in Saturn 3 is amusing, since both films have such strange differences yet still manage to both be ridiculous in their own ways due to their cast, story and use of effects. In this regard, the earlier film is somehow a bit better, perhaps because it doesn't feel so long. Undeniably, the only shining part of the film is composer John Barry (known for his work on Born Free and the James Bond films) and his score, which is entertainingly majestic, fitting quite well for the film, particularly when dealing with the climatic raising. In a less flawed film (i.e. one that works better), the scene of the Titanic rising the depths would prove to make the film ultimately feel worth it, as it is a nice sequence even after over three decades since its release. Understandably, Cussler was not happy with the results of the film, saying that they had turned the plot into a hollow shell of the original along with not liking the cast. He refused to give permission for any more film adaptations of his books, with the only other film adaptation of his books in Sahara (2005) also being a tremendous failure with audiences. In any case, this is a strangely terrible flick, being occasionally watchable but also being something that doesn't quite elevate itself to serviceable entertainment, unless one likes to watch an adventure film sink itself.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Lavender Hill Mob.

Review #953: The Lavender Hill Mob.

Cast:
Alec Guinness (Henry "Dutch" Holland), Stanley Holloway (Alfred "Al" Pendlebury), Sid James (Lackery Wood), Alfie Bass (Shorty Fisher), Marjorie Fielding (Mrs. Chalk), Edie Martin (Miss Evesham), John Salew (Parkin), Ronald Adam (Turner), and Arthur Hambling (Wallis) Directed by Charles Crichton (#428 - A Fish Called Wanda)

Review:
At 81 minutes, this is a capable heist comedy that manages to be clever along with amusing. This movie (made in the United Kingdom) won the Academy Award for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay (now known as Best Original Screenplay), and it's not hard to see why; the heist elements are crafted at a good pace, with the scheme to do the heist (converting the bullion into paperweights) is handy, with the idea having been thought up by the filmmakers when conversing with the Bank of London. Guinness and Holloway make for a good capable duo, particularly when they are just forming their plan, with credit to their expressions and the way they handle their lines. James and Bass and fairly capable contributors, being pretty crafty and amusing as well. The rest of the cast is pretty decent, but the real fun is seeing the movie execute itself with its situations. This is a light fun film that moves at a ready pace and works magic out of being engaging and not having a dull moment at any time. The film uses its locations well, with the Eiffel Tower sequence being pretty clever and entertaining, especially with Guinness and Holloway laughing down the tower steps. The climax is handled quite well, having its share of thrills but also moments of hilarious moments; the framing device the film uses in the beginning to tell the story does not hinder the suspense too much of wondering if Guinness will get away with the loot because of how engaging the movie is. This is a film that is easy to recommend watching due to its cleverness and charm.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: Return of the Jedi.

Review #115: Return of the Jedi.

Cast
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Sebastian Shaw (Anakin Skywalker), Ian McDiarmid (The Emperor), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), Frank Oz (Yoda), Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles), and Timothy M. Rose (Admiral Ackbar, Sy Snootles and Salacious Crumb) Directed by Richard Marquand.

Review
In my original review (#115 - April 1, 2012), I had given the movie a 9/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie, with regards to the characters, action and effects. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux - Special Edition (which I had done for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). 

Now, with May 25, 2023 on the horizon, it is time for a bit more editing. Don't worry, it's just the addition and subtraction of certain sentences to give better clarity. Enjoy.

Decades after its release, Return of the Jedi always seems to be lumped in as the lesser of the three films of the so-called Star Wars Original Trilogy. On an emotional level, the movie is a bit too safe, particularly with the ending. Granted, The Empire Strikes Back is a tough act to follow, because that film basically saw the series grow up a bit when it came to the stakes being even higher in terms of space opera while separating its characters into neatly defined plots. I maintain of course that the original 1977 film is the one with the most punch in terms of "first-time joy", but with Return of the Jedi, it does have the benefit of closing its door of a story not one of simple rebellion, but of one with father and son. Howard Kazanjian replaced Gary Kurtz as producer. The director would be Richard Marquand, who had directed The Legacy (1978), Birth of the Beatles (1979), and Eye of the Needle (1981), with the latter being cited by Lucas as key to hiring. This time around, Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas wrote the screenplay with Lucas providing the story (Kasdan used tape transcripts of him, Lucas, Marquand, and Kazanjian in conference discussing ideas to help make the script). The film was a tremendous success, although for Marquand, having to direct with Lucas looming on set frequently when it came to handling effects certainly must have been a challenge. Marquand directed three further films after Jedi before his death in 1987 at the age of 49 following a stroke. 

Of all the cast in the movie, the one actor with the most impact is the one with little screen time and only 24 words, Sebastian Shaw, who manages to evoke the dying words of a redeemed but withered man with such little time and be one of the more memorable aspects of the film. The Emperor, after being seen briefly in Empire Strikes Back (voiced by Clive Revill in 1980 but replaced by Ian McDiarmid with computer-generated imagery for the 2004 alteration), is given his time to showcase his power over the Empire and Vader himself. McDiarmid plays this master of deception with an unsettling tone of voice that makes the villain more than just a hammy bad guy, compelling even without much revealed about him (until the prequels, anyway, which let him play a double act). Hamill's best scenes are with McDiarmid & Jones, and they make for compelling entertainment, with the lightsaber duel being a key highlight. While the trio of Hamill, Ford & Fisher doesn't really cover any new ground, it is nice to see them again. It's interesting that Ford wanted his character to die as a "self-sacrifice" for a character that progressed from a rogue who didn't particularly care about the Rebellion (while caring mostly about himself) all those years ago to one who decides to die for his friends; Kazanjian had got Ford to return to the role and actually agreed with Ford's suggestion to kill the character off, but Lucas refused. The reveal of Leia being Luke's sister isn't a bad scene, but after everything the two characters had gone through (such as the kiss in Empire to make Han jealous - at least I hope so), it comes off as somewhat strange, especially with Leia stating that she apparently always knew. Circle of life and all. The movie ends with everyone happy (complete with celebratory music in both the original and Special Editions), but does an Empire truly end just because you take down the leader? By this point, Lucas wanted to end the trilogy and curtail any plans he (supposedly) had for Episodes VII-IX and just end it, even if it wasn't as poignant as it could've been. My thoughts on the film have shifted the tiniest bit when it came to the Ewok battle on Endor, since a group of teddy bears that believed a golden robot was a deity manage to take down Empire soldiers with logs and...overpowering them seems more and more amusing when considering the idea of a technological empire losing to a primitive tribe was evidently Lucas deciding to evoke the Vietnam War. Hell, he calls the Ewok sequences a "distraction", not a win, so keep that in mind. The opening rescue sequence on Tatooine with the loathsome Jabba the Hutt is a delightful way to spring adventure from the get go.

Of course, the space dogfight is as fun as ever, probably more so when considering how the series would do them in later years (to say nothing of the Special Editions, which are most apparent here, from the ridiculous song in the first half to the ending); Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren, Ken Ralston and Phil Tippett were each given a Special Achievement Academy Award for their work in the film in effects. Once again, the music by John Williams is excellent, being entertaining (any of the themes from the Battle of Endor, with one of my favorites being "Into The Trap", but "Emperor's Throne Room" is also a chilling brilliant one). For all I said about how it seems too safe at times, Return of the Jedi an enjoyable film, full of spectacle that has enough fun to mostly overcome its emotional shortcomings. Is it slicked in more commercial flavor than the other two? Sure, but it still an enjoyable adventure, one that showed what is fun about making space adventure that turns old cliches into new enjoyment for all to see.

32 years later, Star Wars: The Force Awakens bridged its continuation to the old and new generations of fans, doing a fine job as a beginning of a new trilogy. Time will tell how the new trilogy (and spin-off films) will go, but as someone who saw Episode VII on opening day and enjoyed himself, I sure can't wait.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: The Empire Strikes Back.

Review #114: The Empire Strikes Back.

Cast
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Billy Dee Williams (Lando Calrissian), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Frank Oz (Yoda), Jeremy Bulloch (Boba Fett), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), and Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#004 - Robocop 2)

Review
In my original review (#114 - March 31, 2012), I had given the movie a 10/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie. I barely mentioned the characters and effects at all, among other aspects that I should have talked more about. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux - Special Edition (which I did for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Enjoy.

The Empire Strikes Back is often called the best installment of the original trilogy and one of the best sequels of all time, and with good reason. It raises the stakes along with the mood and tension in a degree that makes for an entertaining movie that eclipse the excitement and depth of the original film in some aspects. It's interesting that the beginning of the movie starts not only with a large-scale battle, but one that our heroes technically lose (in that they retreat). Sure, they had destroyed the Death Star, but the story (and the war) didn't end just because you can blow up a base (or two). It has been three years since they destroyed the Empire's space station, but the Rebels has moved on from celebrating in Throne Rooms to having to deal with getting a new base and adapting to the cold and the fear the Empire would find them. The music by John Williams is once again fantastic, ranging from tense (The Battle of Hoth) to mysterious (Yoda's Theme) to one that inspires dread (The Imperial March) to one that fits for the climax (The Clash of Lightsabers), with the music fitting the movie just perfect.

Of the (now seven) films, Empire Strikes Back is the only one that introduces key characters while not having any major ones die, and the movie still manages to be emotionally satisfying. Williams is certainly a welcome addition to the band of heroes, managing to have a certain aspect of intrigue along with conflict about the decisions he has to make. Yoda is an interesting case, depending on when you see him (prequels/originals), but in this he certainly has a mystique that evolves from seeming like an strange little hermit (in our first encounter watching him first meet Luke) to a wise master that seems to have more secrets than he lets on. I love the puppetry for Yoda because it never seems fake or off-putting to watch. The way it moves around along with the voice (by Frank Oz) fits well with a character as grand as Yoda.

It's interesting how popular Boba Fett (voiced by Jason Wingreen originally, though replaced by Temuera Morrison after 2004) became even though he doesn't have many lines to say (though he does have a crucial role), though his armor is admittedly interesting to look at.  The Emperor (voiced originally by Clive Revill but replaced by Ian McDiarmid in the newer editions starting in 2004) has only one scene in the movie, but he manages to have an important presence even when he isn't seen because even though Vader seems to be more in control (as opposed to Tarkin essentially having Vader on a leash in the previous one) of the Empire's wrath, he still has a Master to look to. Of course, one can't mention the movie without saying something about the Han-Leia dynamic, and the way their romance doesn't seem to override the movie or take away from it - because it seems natural and it makes the movie more interesting than it already is. Even the line of "I know" to Leia saying "I love you" works because it doesn't bog the movie down in melodramatic form of romance (which is something the prequels, in particular Episode II failed to do).

Once again, the effects (visual and sound) are impressive, but the fight between Vader and Luke is also a key highlight, with the lighting and steam creating a subdued atmosphere, for a fight sequence that is a key improvement over the last film in terms of tension and stunt choreography. The reveal of Darth Vader being Luke's father is a moment in which the movie manages to culminate all the emotional buildup of Luke having believed that his father was killed by Vader only to find out a harrowing truth (or was it?...of course it was) into a powerful moment that still is a great scene even when you've already seen the movie or know the mythology because it still manages to be a memorable and effective scene, serving as a great climax for the film. Ultimately, The Empire Strikes Back manages to be a dark, but entertaining movie that serves a great sequel to the original Star Wars film that while not ending on a high note for the characters, still has a hopeful outlook to continue onto more adventures.

Next up on Redux - Special Edition is the film that ended the story of our heroes...for a while on a peculiar note...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Redux - Special Edition: Star Wars (1977).

Review Special Edition: #113: Star Wars.

Cast

Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia Organa), Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin), Alec Guinness (Obi-Wan Kenobi), David Prowse (Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Phil Brown (Owen Lars), Shelagh Fraser (Beru Lars), Jack Purvis (Chief Jawa), Denis Lawson (Wedge Antilles), and Garrick Hagon (Biggs Darklighter) Directed by George Lucas.

Review

In my original review (#113 - March 30, 2012), I had given the movie a 10/10 rating, and while I stand by the rating, I regretted not saying more about the movie. I barely mentioned the acting at all, among other aspects that I should have talked more about. Because of this, I decided to finally make a Redux Review (which I had done for A Christmas Story, Halloween, Licence to Kill, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Enjoy this "Special Edition" version, if you will. 

Star Wars (also referred to as A New Hope) is a mythical tale that has entertained audiences all around the world for over 40 years, and the scope of its influence on cinema (and filmmakers) can't be understated. It's interesting how a space opera like this had been influenced by other movies such as The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon serials, but also works by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Star Wars at its heart is a fairy tale with the mythical nature of the characters, legends in an epic that is not set in the beginning, but rather the middle. You don't have to watch the prequels before seeing this because this film s manages to introduce itself and its story extremely well, right from the opening crawl. I remember watching this when I was around 13 years old, and I can recall that I didn't know much about Star Wars at the time (aside from the name), but the Battle of Yavin (amidst other scenes) managed to stick out the most in my head, even years later. Perhaps it was the memorability of the characters, or the music (by John Williams) being so in tune to the movie, with Binary Sunset being especially memorable, but other music works extremely well to the atmosphere of the film (Cantina Band) or with adventure with the Yavin sequence at the end.

The characters are interesting to watch interact with each other (particularly our main trio), which is more interesting than the actual acting with regards to the dialogue. While admittedly Hamill can come across as slightly whiny, the progression of his character throughout the trilogy means that it is worth it in the end. Ford is a charming rouge who (along with Chewbacca) manage to be entertaining from the first scene they are in, primarily because of the sheer magnetism of the duo. Fisher also does a fine job, alongside Cushing and Guinness (both already well-established actors of film), who are both memorable in their own ways. Cushing is the perfect actor to play a role that really is the main enemy of the film (as he is the one that commands the Death Star, orders the destruction of Alderaan), even with a Sith Lord at his side. Guinness manages to seal the mysterious wise aspects of an old warrior in his first few scenes while putting Luke onto the path of adventure (even if what he says is true from a certain point of view) and realizing what he must do to play his part in trying to bring down the Empire. It's interesting how David Prowse plays the physical aspects of Darth Vader, and he sure fits the imposing frame of a villain perfectly, with James Earl Jones' voice being quintessential for the character.

Even though the movie has had fixes over the years (most notably the "Special Edition" version), the effects are still impressive to me in the sense that I love the effort it must have taken to get the look and action right, such as the TIE fighter attack and how it was based off of dog fights from World War II. The fun isn't in the themes or the dialogue, but in the adventure that ensues, and how it satisfies you by just being a charming movie that doesn't need slogs of backstory to be enjoyable. You can watch this first instead of the prequels and still not be too confused because it isn't one to try and fill background information, rather it is one that has a story of its own with a mythos that would only get expanded upon in future installments.

Next up on the Redux Review / Special Edition: The sequel that many argue is one of the best sequels of all time...

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Scrooge (1970)

Review #673: Scrooge.

Cast
Albert Finney (Ebenezer Scrooge), Alec Guinness (Marley's ghost), Edith Evans (Ghost of Christmas Past), Kenneth More (Ghost of Christmas Present), David Collings (Bob Cratchit), Michael Medwin (Fred), Paddy Stone (Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come), Frances Cuka (Mrs. Cratchit), Richard Beaumont (Tiny Tim), Laurence Naismith (Fezziwig), and Mary Peach (Fred's wife) Directed by Ronald Neame.

Review
Ouch, it's been a week since the last review. Sorry for the delay, but hey, December's a tough month. I celebrated my birthday on the 1st, then promptly was sick for the next three or so days. Colds are very annoying to deal with, but now I'm better and ready to get back into the circuit...with another film called Scrooge. If you're wondering how it's any different from the other films, this time we're dealing with a musical version of the tale (I guess at this point anything can be turned into a musical, even hockey.), with one small change from the novel. But hey, how's the movie? It's alright, I suppose. For a Christmas film, it's fine as it does have a good deal of spirit (Heck, it even has Santa-I mean Father Christmas in it. I'm just surprised that the store happened to be selling it in Scrooge's size rather then the fact that they were open on Christmas), and you do get the sense of warmth and fun. Albert Finney is the biggest highlight, especially given that he portrays Scrooge so effectively you barely notice him under all that makeup, which helps when focusing on how he ranges Scrooge's emotions, such as the flashback sequence, where you see his grief and his regret in the past; I especially like seeing the present Scrooge berating the younger one for his actions, which makes Scrooge out to be more than a miser. The songs and how they are sung, are debatable though. Sometimes they're good (Thank You Very Much is nice, I admit), but other songs aren't as good (Father Christmas isn't a bad song, it just feels long). The ghosts are fun to watch (Ghost of Christmas Present sounds more like a feasting buddy, but he at least gets the point across, so there), and Guinness does a fine job as Marley. The one scene in the movie that veers from the tale is at the end, when Scrooge sees his future in death...and in chains. Yep, Scrooge sees more than just his grave, he also sees his chain. It's an unnecessary scene; Having Scrooge only see his grave without anyone being sad for his death and having them cheer in the streets in more haunting than a sequence in "fire land", with rats. But ultimately the movie is fine, and it manages to have enough quirks to be a good telling of the tale.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Ladykillers (1955).

Review #567: The Ladykillers.

Cast
Katie Johnson (Mrs Louisa Alexandra Wilberforce), Alec Guinness (Professor Marcus), Cecil Parker (Major Claude Courtney), Herbert Lom (Louis Harvey), Peter Sellers (Harry Robinson), Danny Green ('One-Round' Lawson), and Jack Warner (Police Superintendent) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick.

Review
Today is the 100th Anniversary of Alec Guinness' birth. Whether you remember him as Obi-Wan Kenobi (as I do) or Prince Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia, Guinness was a great actor of his time that will always be remembered for his charm and his ability to act as any type of character, and that goes for this film as well. Guinness acts well among a variety of actors (including a young Peter Sellers), in fact everybody in this film do splendid jobs, they all act well together in their own way. The movie has many moments of hilarity, especially at the end, but spoiling that ruins the fun. One of my favorite moments though is when all the characters try to capture a bird back into its cage...and fail miserably. I don't know why I find it so funny, maybe it's just a scene that shows how strange yet funny the movie can get. However you choose to honor Guinness' birthday, this is a good film to showcase the very best of Alec Guinness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lawrence of Arabia.

Review #286: Lawrence of Arabia.

Cast
Peter O'Toole (T. E. Lawrence), Alec Guinness (Prince Faisel), Anthony Quinn (Auda abu Tayi), Jack Hawkins (Allenby), Omar Sharif (Ali ibn el Kharish), José Ferrer (Turkish Bey), Anthony Quayle (Harry Brighton), Claude Rains (Mr. Dryden), Arthur Kennedy (Jackson Bentley), and Donald Wolfit (General Murray) Directed by David Lean.

Review
This film is based off the life of T. E. Lawrence, who is played by Peter O'Toole. (who I've reviewed...Mostly: #158 - Ratatouille. Come to think of it, this is the first time I've reviewed Alec Guinness in anything other then Star Wars Episodes IV-VI - #113-#115.) O'Toole does a good job, but what seals the deal for me is the eyes. The eyes allure me because they give a whole new level of attention that helps the film. You might be wondering why (or not) am I not complaining about the length of the film. (216 minutes, the longest running film I've reviewed here.) An epic film is a film with grand scale and grand ideas. This is one of them (plus if I criticized the length, I'd probably get a deconstructive lesson in epic films) The rest of the actors do very well, especially Guinness and Quinn. One tiny fact I will mention is that it starts out in a way similar to Citizen Kane (#200), with an opening scene that segues into the rest of the film. The scenery is used effectively, helping the film gain its epic scale even more. While its historical accuracy remains to be debated and be analyzed, it is undeniable that this film is still really, really good, accuracy and all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.