Showing posts with label Geraldine Fitzgerald. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geraldine Fitzgerald. Show all posts

March 13, 2019

Poltergeist II: The Other Side.

Review #1198: Poltergeist II: The Other Side.

Cast: 
Craig T. Nelson (Steven Freeling), JoBeth Williams (Diane Freeling), Heather O'Rourke (Carol Anne Freeling), Oliver Robins (Robbie Freeling), Zelda Rubinstein (Tangina Barrons), Will Sampson (Taylor), Julian Beck (Rev. Henry Kane), and Geraldine Fitzgerald (Jessica Wilson) Directed by Brian Gibson.

Review: 
The original Poltergeist (1982) was an entertaining supernatural horror film that had plenty of chills and atmosphere within direction from Tobe Hooper with a story from Steven Spielberg. Four years later, a sequel followed, albeit with some differences. Hooper and Spielberg did not return, although the two writers that helped co-write the screenplay with Spielberg (Michael Grais and Mark Victor) did return, and they also served to produce the feature. Most of the family cast (except Domnique Dunne, who was murdered months after the original film's release) return this time around along with Rubenstein. Admittedly they do try to make the material seem passable and not too hokey, but the film as a whole isn't quite up to par with generating scares. Nelson and Williams seem to just go with the flow, for better or worse. O'Rourke and Robins are fine to watch as well. Rubenstein doesn't have too much to do, with Sampson (in his second-to-last role before his death in 1987) taking the role of "spiritual advice", which he does fine with. The film is best at showing how hard it is to make a horror sequel, particularly one that tries to build on the plot from the previous film, particularly with its main terror of The Beast. It was described in the first film as a "terrible presence...So much rage, so much betrayal." 

Now the Beast is explained to be a cultist preacher. Beck, a co-founder of The Living Theatre in his final role before his death from stomach cancer in 1985, is an okay villain, but I feel that the ominous presence from the original delivered more effective chills than having to rely on one singular figure, although at least the porch scene is a bit creepy. I do find it amusing that they turned the old house location into a paranormal digging excavation, alongside the fact that traveling to the other side apparently made the mom and the daughter clairvoyant. In trying to build and follow the original, this sequel feels flat and not too particularly interesting, not having as many dark elements that resonate while feeling a bit silly with some of its motivations. The only real memorable sequence involves a worm, brought on by drinking of a certain substance that the Beast somehow possesses, which makes for a slightly disturbing (if not also slightly ham-handed) sequence with a big ugly worm.  It may have less of a run-time than the original, but it somehow still feels a bit sluggish. The film had an original running time of 131 minutes before being edited down to 91 minutes. It isn't too hard to see elements of a rushed production from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, particularly with the final battle, which last all of two minutes that serves to bring the whole film to a letdown. On the whole, there just isn't much of a spark to drive this film towards suspenseful entertainment, serving as the kind of horror sequel that in attempting to build on previous foundation manages to flounder too many times to really work out. It isn't the kind of film you would regret ever watching, but it also isn't one that really merits too much curiosity unless you are really big on supernatural stories with occasional scares.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

February 3, 2014

Movie Night: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.


Review #538: Arthur 2: On the Rocks.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla Bach), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Kathy Bates (Mrs. Canby), Paul Benedict (Fairchild), Stephen Elliott (Bert Johnson), Cynthia Sikes (Susan Johnson), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Bud Yorkin.

Review
I have reviewed this particular character before, with the remake (#203) which while I may have given a bit too much credit, wasn't awful. I then reviewed the original Arthur (#206), and...yeah, I have a confession to make. After watching the original Arthur once more just recently before doing the sequel, I realized that the first one is actually better then what I first thought. Moore does a very entertaining performance. He of course can be hilarious to himself and others, but the scenes he shares with Gielgud are brilliant and showcases Moore at his best. And Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do) is a really good song, especially for a film like that. Steve Gordon did such a good job in sadly the only film he directed. So yeah, I will change my ranking for Arthur, all because of my regret.  And then there's this sequel. Make no mistake, I won't ever revoke my thoughts on a film like Arthur 2: On the Rocks. A seven year wait, and all you get...is a lemon of a sequel. Does it have its moments? Sure, even really awful movies have their brief moments (Except for of course, #442 - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which has no merit because that would require me to let out my repressed memories of that film), and the beginning of this film at least tries to make an effort. Then...Arthur goes broke.

After that, the movie segues into even more mediocre quality, until of course it reaches the last possible trick it has, John Gielgud...who appears an hour into the movie (as a drunken hallucination, mind you), and leaves after eight or so minutes. Is he funny? Sort of, but by then, the movie has sunk to a depressive quality that makes you wonder why was this even made. And yes of course Arthur gets his money back, if he didn't, the movie would end with him (and the audience to a lesser extent) doomed. Arthur doomed because the light at the end of the tunnel turned out to be an oncoming train, and the audience, who just realized their time was just wasted. It's all too predictable, half the time you're just waiting for him to get his money back because seeing him try to make the best of his...drunken state, while a novel attempt at trying to twist things up, is not very entertaining. Minnelli is okay, I suppose. At least Stephen Elliott (who is okay, delusional, but okay) returns, though his daughter played by Jill Eikenberry in the original didn't. Sikes is okay, though she can't save the movie. Moore seems more aged, seemingly tired of this role, he even disowned the film after it was released. The movie seems to have a few subplots: An adoption subplot, Bach's attempts to get his money subplot, and Bach's alcoholism struggle, none of the subplots are great, the movie tries so hard, and yet it falls so flat. This is a sad movie when it all comes down to it, it's not awful, it's just a disappointment. If you want to see more of Arthur, I'd recommend it. If you want to see more sequels to movies that were probably forgotten after they were watched, I'd suggest Staying Alive, Grease 2, or Airplane II: The Sequel.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

July 28, 2012

Movie Night: Arthur (1981)



Review #206: Arthur.

Cast
Dudley Moore (Arthur Bach), Liza Minnelli (Linda Marolla), John Gielgud (Hobson), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Martha Bach), Jill Eikenberry (Susan Johnson), Stephen Elliott (Burt Johnson), Thomas Barbour (Stanford Bach), Ted Ross (Bitterman), and Barney Martin (Ralph Marolla) Directed by Steve Gordon.

Review
This review has been revised since the original review, citing my newfound appreciation for it. It figures, I mention any kind of movies in reviews of other movies, and somehow it comes back to be reviewed (Heh, what's next, Batman and Robin?). Anyway, the cast is excellent, I find that Moore does well (Given he has to play a drunken millionaire). You might wonder which Arthur is better portrayed, Brand or Moore. Personally, Moore is better. I feel that he is simply more fun to watch and more...lovable then Brand. It's fun to watch and has a good theme to go with it (Best That You Can Do is the title, and it actually got an Oscar for Best Original Song). The film is more balanced that gives you a good laugh or two. It's been 10 years since Moore's death, an there are people out there that still miss him. A good film, better then the 2011 version.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.