The Return of the Musketeers.

Review #2200: The Return of the Musketeers.

Cast: 

Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), C. Thomas Howell (Raoul), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Kim Cattrall (Justine de Winter), Philippe Noiret (Cardinal Mazarin), Christopher Lee (the Comte de Rochefort), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), Eusebio Lázaro (the Duke of Beaufort), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Cyrano de Bergerac), Alan Howard (Oliver Cromwell), David Birkin (Louis XIV), and Bill Paterson (Charles I) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, #972 - The Three Musketeers, #976 - The Four Musketeers, and #1939 - Help!)

Review: 

“I really won’t talk about The Return of the Musketeers, I never have and I won’t now. But I think you can draw your own conclusions.”

On April 19, 1989, The Return of the Musketeers was released into European theaters. Let us refresh ourselves by going back a few years. In 1844, the adventure novel The Three Musketeers [Les Trois Mousquetaires] was first serialized, as written by Alexandre Dumas and his collaborator Auguste Maquet, which was the first of three Musketeer novels between 1844 and 1847 (Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later); Dumas had been inspired by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras and his memoirs of Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan, an actual captain of the Musketeers of the Guard in the 1600s. Films have been done of the Musketeers since the early days of film, albeit mostly of the first book. At any rate, the Salkinds (Alexander and Ilya) had an initial idea of getting the Beatles to play the roles of the Musketeers for a film. Years went by (and, well, no Beatles to play the roles) before the Salkinds asked Richard Lester to do the film, who had not directed a film since The Bed Sitting Room (1969); noted novelist George MacDonald Fraser was hired to do the script. The Three Musketeers (1973) was filmed so heavily, that, well, clearly the Salkinds thought to pull a quick one and eventually tell the actors of the impending The Four Musketeers (1974) rather than having to strain hard to make one long film. So, now in 1989, was a return for Lester after his previous film had been Finders Keepers (1984). The Salkinds were not behind the production (in fact, they wouldn't let any old footage be used here), but Pierre Spengler, a producer involved with the previous two films, was there to produce this one; Fraser returned to do the script and a handful of cast members from the previous two films were there (even William Hobbs, who was behind the stage combat for the previous two films, returned). Lester has not been particularly keen on talking about the film too much in the 35 years since the release of this film, one that was both a trying production along with one that did not even get a proper American release (it was put on cable in 1991 for the States). Lester did one more project as a director with the 1991 concert film Get Back before essentially retiring (this was also the last screenplay written by Fraser).

The nature of Twenty Years Later basically entails that you won't really see all of the core of York, Reed, Finlay, and Chamberlain at once (the latter is credited as "special appearance by") all together at once. In fact, this was the last film to feature Kinnear, also returning from the previous two films (alongside Lee, Chaplin, and Cassel). On September 19, 1988, he suffered a horrific accident while on a horse that saw him fall off that saw him fracture his pelvis (while also having internal bleeding). The next day, he died from a heart attack while in the hospital. As such, seeing what a mix of him alongside stand-in shots (and a soundalike in parts) will probably be a bit jarring. The whole film is a jumble when it all comes down to assessment, but I would venture to say that a decent romp of yesteryear is more ideal to sit through once than not at all. They may be aged and may not be as big in star power as they were fifteen years ago, but it is hard to resist the qualities that come through most in York (if someone is compelled to do a voiceover, might as well be him) and Reed (when he is on, he is right there...), although at least Howell and Cattrall make for adequate newcomers to the smile game of adventure (one can't match Faye Dunaway exactly, but Cattrall at least seems to to be having fun trying). Finlay may be tired, but at least he has bits and pieces to contribute that go further than the "here is a scene there and here is one for the climax because I can" of Chamberlain or particularly Chaplin (you might say Lee is all too brief, but we* adore Lee being there at all). I particularly like the sequence involving a litany of traps within a rough-and-tumble fight that sees it go all the way to the foundation (literally). The clash of trying to play faithfulness to the source material goes to a point (for one thing, the threat was actually de Winter's illegitimate son, but even if this was a hit, would you have expected, say, another of these films where the Musketeers all die?), because there are moments where the strain of trying to keep up with its structure makes it nearly crash into pieces. As a whole, the 102-minute runtime makes for a fairly sustainable feature that deserved better than to be shuffled away as just a lower-release film or Lester's last hurrah, if only because there is something worth seeing with that spark of familiar wonder and chuckles. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*"we" being me, myself, and I

Lifeforce.

Review #2134: Lifeforce.

Cast: 

Steve Railsback (Col. Tom Carlsen), Peter Firth (Col. Colin Caine), Frank Finlay (Dr. Hans Fallada), Mathilda May (Space Girl), Patrick Stewart (Dr. Armstrong), Michael Gothard (Dr. Leonard Bukovsky), Nicholas Ball (Roger Derebridge), Aubrey Morris (Sir Percy Heseltine), Nancy Paul (Ellen), Sidney Livingstone (Ned Price), and John Hallam (Lamson) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist, #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, #1909 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2)

Review: 

"Lifeforce had a great look but lacked a screenplay. There wasn't a hell of a lot that could be done about that except to change it completely. The film started off as Space Vampires, and that's actually what it should've been called. With that title you'd look at that picture with a completely different set of sunglasses!"

I know that beating the drum for Tobe Hooper seems a bit futile once I get to some of his later films, but damn it, the director made The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Poltergeist (1982 - anyone who calls it some sort of "Spielberg" effort is not worth their salt as a film viewer). Anybody who directs two pretty good horror films (and directs a TV adaptation of a Stephen King book that I can't even fathom watching because it was made for TV) can't really have failed to live to their potential. The film is based on the 1976 book The Space Vampires, as written by Colin Wilson, a writer who specialized in the genres of true crime, mysticism and paranormal. He apparently was influenced by the works of H.P. Lovecraft for this story, which deal with energy vampires. Of course, the film is set around the time of the flyby of Hailey's Comet (which occurred in 1986, as opposed to the future in the book) due to suggestion by Hooper to the screenplay writers in Dan O'Bannon and Don Jakoby (they weren't big on the Comet thing, but who cares?). Apparently, Wilson thought little of the film, once saying, "John Fowles had once told me that the film of The Magus was the worst movie ever made. After seeing Lifeforce I sent him a postcard telling him that I had got one better." There exist two cuts: a theatrical cut that lasted 101 minutes and an "international cut" that lasted 116, with most of the edits involving less time with the spaceship. I was fortunate enough to see the international cut, which basically means lines for a handful of actors that were basically cut out of the theatrical version. Michael Winner apparently was considered for the film as director before Hooper got into it, which is one produced by none other than Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan as the first of three that Hooper did for The Cannon Group, who apparently influenced the idea to call it "Lifeforce" because they thought calling it after the book's title would make it sound like one of their low-budget exploitation films. Who the hell did they think was going to see this film, esteemed members of culture that would give Hooper or the Cannon folks credit?

Admittedly, the reputation of the film is more of a "maybe it could be a cult thing" than anything, because it really verges on what one gets from having an international version to compare things to. Well, that, and it is basically a pastiche of stuff you would've seen in those Quatermass films from a few years back along with a bit of O'Bannon's previous work in Alien (1979). The key to the film in the end is in just going with the flow of its strange bubble of energy that has some frights within vampires of energy, ghost ships, a climax set upon St. Paul's Cathedral, vampires that apparently love to wear as little clothes as possible. You've got the British with their own space program to go with spaceships that was apparently modeled after an artichoke, how could you not see this coming? I wonder what the result for Hooper would have been if this film had come out after, say, Invaders from Mars (released in 1986, which had O'Bannon and Jakoby write for it as well), rather than his big effort directing Poltergeist (1982). I suppose people really didn't think Hooper had a spry tribute to Hammer in his cards, and that's too bad for those folks, because the film is pretty enjoyable. May (in her second film role that happens to be her most notable one) makes a suitable presence in hypnotic form that invites mayhem in a manner that is not just an excuse for skin gawking. Railsback and Firth are curious observers to have for leads, particularly since one is meant to have a "psychic connection" to the vampire. They seem about on par with the general attention one would have spent with a Hammer film when it comes to looking at some weird creatures and fun that don't make them seem embarrassed to be there. Okay, maybe Stewart seems a bit miffed to be here, but you would be too if you take all the time necessary to show up for a predictable fate when compared to say, Finlay. The climax is the kind of one where you just throw your hands up and go with it if you like it or just thank the one above that it means its all over. I enjoyed the weird way it crashes all down, because at least the threat is at least presented with some sort of threat levels beyond just saying "huh?". As a whole, it is a frenzied little mystery with a few curious effects and some evident enthusiasm for making a pastiche of the old horror films of the Hammer stuff that is pretty entertaining even in its hurried strangeness to make a film you could at least see once without too much trouble. I can't call it a pretty good one, but Hooper made his efforts count at any rate.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It is Halloween: The Week After, Year Five. As per tradition, the horror invasion from October continues from November 1st until November 7th, which has seen 22 reviews of all the things you would expect, from the very first in Dracula (1979) to last year's stuff such as 3 From Hell (2021). Let's set the tone differently with The Last House on the Left (1972).

Shaft in Africa.

Review #1231: Shaft in Africa.

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Frank Finlay (Amafi), Vonetta McGee (Aleme), Neda Arneric (Jazar), Debebe Eshetu (Wassa), Marne Maitland (Col. Gonder), Spiros Focás (Sassari), Jacques Herlin (Perreau), Frank McRae (Osiat), Nadim Sawalha (Zubair), Thomas Baptiste (Kopo), and Glynn Edwards (Vanden) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong (1976))

Review: 
Admittedly, the first two Shaft films (released in 1971 and 1972, respectively) were fun pieces of entertainment for the right time, being on the forefront of the blaxploitation era - riveting movies that had plenty of action and interesting qualities to go around , with a good deal of credit going to its lead in Roundtree alongside direction from Gordon Parks and writing from Ernest Tidyman (writer of the novels that had featured the character beginning in 1970). For this one, both did not return, with the writing being delegated to Stirling Silliphant (mostly known for his work on projects such as Route 66 along with the screenplay for In the Heat of the Night) while Guillermin was brought in as director. This was the third installement of the series - which proved to be the last of the series for over two decades. It ranks as the weaker of the three Roundtree films in terms of general excitement and foundation, but Roundtree keeps it together long enough to make it most worth a watch. It is evident the makers of this film really wanted to keep things fresh, and perhaps they really thought changing the setting to Africa would rake in a few more box office dollars. After all, both of the previous films had each been made for under $2 million while raking in over $10 million each at the box office, so raising the budget a bit should prove good luck - it did not, since the film failed to make its budget back. The film seems a bit too closed in with trying to make a casual adventure action film, complete with James Bond type gadgets in a stick and a story that tries to cover itself with some subtext involving a bunch of 70s sounding topics while only really doing best with its action sequences, which do their part in giving the film a leg to stand on. It feels a bit too long at 112 minutes, dragging in the middle while not recieving much help from its opening or end in makign a proper powderkeg of entertainment go off. Roundtree is the highlight of the film, containing charm and care without having to say too much, stepping into some comfortable if not entirely challenging shoes. Finlay can't really make this role seem any more than just an "Evil Brit" type, but at least he's passable. McGee is fairly charming, although the others aren't too particularly memorable to go along with. It is a film that meanders in a somewhat interesting setting but with conventional execution and not much else to go along with. On the whole, this is a film that just can't quite get itself into gear enough to make a consistent winner, but it may prove just well enough for people wanting some fair action type without too many struggles. It works best when one doesn't give too much thought to how things go down and just let it happen, whether it involves stickfights, a mild climax, and a little passion to go around.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Four Musketeers (1974).

Review #976: The Four Musketeers.

Cast:
Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos / O'Reilly), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), Jean-Pierre Cassel (Louis XIII), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Charlton Heston (Cardinal Richelieu), Faye Dunaway (Milady de Winter), Christopher Lee (The Count De Rochefort), Raquel Welch (Constance Bonacieux), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), Michael Gothard (Felton), and Nicole Calfan (Kitty) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, and #972 - The Three Musketeers)

Review:
As I mentioned in my review of The Three Musketeers last week, the original plan to make an epic of The Three Musketeers that would last around three hours (including an intermission). However, these plans were scuttled by the producers, instead splitting it into two features. I had forgotten to mention that the two films also had a subtitle applied to them, with the first film's being The Queen's Diamonds and the second one being Milady's Revenge. Due to the first film having been released in February of 1974 in the United States and the United Kingdom, this film was released first in West Germany on October 31, 1974 before being released in the US and UK in February of the following year.

It feels unusual to cover this due to how similar it seems to the first film, although this one is a bit darker along with the charm and laughs that were fine enough once and give out fair returns the second time around. It's not easy to express a lot of thoughts on the film other than saying that it is a decent movie. If the first film was a decent piece of art (or a song), the second film could be considered a print (or a cover) of that same piece, albeit with some differences. The costumes and style of the film shines once again; York and Reed stand out among the four musketeers, and it is nice to see Dunaway having a bigger role this time around (taking advantage of it quite well). The plot is a bit muddled in the sense that it doesn't seem as compelling as the action scenes; there are stakes, but it never really takes off into tension level. The film isn't empty, but there doesn't seem to be as much substance this time around. Its climax is fair and efficient in the right places as you would expect. This is a slick feature that obviously works well with the first film, but it's easy to say that it isn't as good as the original; the spirit from the first film is present, even if it is slightly diminished. It's not hard to recommend it for people who enjoyed the previous film or are looking for another Musketeer film to hang their hat around.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Three Musketeers (1973).

Review #972: The Three Musketeers.

Cast: 
Michael York (d'Artagnan), Oliver Reed (Athos), Frank Finlay (Porthos / O'Reilly), Richard Chamberlain (Aramis), Jean-Pierre Cassel (King Louis XIII of France), Geraldine Chaplin (Anne of Austria), Charlton Heston (Cardinal Richelieu), Faye Dunaway (Milady de Winter), Christopher Lee (The Count De Rochefort), Simon Ward (the Duke of Buckingham), Raquel Welch (Constance Bonacieux), Spike Milligan (M. Bonacieux), Roy Kinnear (Planchet), and Nicole Calfan (Kitty) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, and #786 - Superman III)

Review: 
Based off the novel of the same name by Alexandre Dumas, the story has been adapted to film numerous times over the past century, but this one is often hailed as one of the better versions of the tale, and it's easy to see why. Everything from the cast to the action scenes is studded with great spectacle and entertainment. The fighting sequences (arranged by William Hobbs) are quite riveting, having an energy and execution to them that is incredible to see throughout the movie, made in a time without the possibility of using computer effects nor shortcuts; the cinematography by David Watkin is also fairly decent. York is engaging to watch on screen, being quite personable and fitting for the film. As you would probably expect from Lester's prior filmography, there is an injection of some comic humor within the film that doesn't manage to distract from the other parts of the film. There is a fine look to the film (filmed in Spain and France) that certainly helps give the film some atmosphere. The trio of Reed, Finlay and Chamberlain are fairly fine together, certainly going well together when dealing with the action scenes. Cassel and Chaplin are fine, but Heston (along with Lee) are interesting adversaries that certainly lend themselves to some fine moments, such as when York and Kinnear encounter Lee's character near the climax, having a fight scene without much light. Dunaway and Welch are fairly memorable, and they serve the climax pretty well with a scene for their own fight, and Milligan and Kinnear are fine comic relief. The best part of the film is seeing the action scenes play out with all of these characters, without giving too much thought to the story (which in itself is fine), instead its the way the film operates that makes for an exciting time. Of interest is that the original plan was to make a long epic that would run around three hours, but it was decided to separate it into two films (without telling the cast), with a trailer for the next film (The Four Muskateers) playing at the end of this film. This inspired the Screen Actor's Guild to make a stipulation that future contracts say how many films are being made. In any case, this is a fine adventure that sets out for enjoyment and succeeds with ease.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Christmas Carol (1984)

Review #079: A Christmas Carol.

Cast
George C. Scott (Ebenezer Scrooge), Frank Finlay (Marley's Ghost), Angela Pleasence (Ghost of Christmas Past), Edward Woodward (Ghost of Christmas Present), Michael Carter (Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come), and David Warner (Bob Cratchit) Directed by Clive Donner.

Review
This film is a classic of the Christmas season, as this version is considered the best version of A Christmas Carol by many. I can not argue that, really. Scott delivers Scrooge in such a good way, with the skills he has done in other films of his (Patton being one example), the atmosphere and pace are good, with everything fitting in well to the story. Donner does a good job directing, and he has some experience with A Christmas Carol adaptations before, as he was also the editor in (#076) Scrooge, which is also a good flick. All in all, A Christmas Carol (1984) is truly a Christmas classic and one of the best Carol films I've seen. Merry Christmas.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.