Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Review #1915: Exorcist II: The Heretic.

Cast: 

Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil), Richard Burton (Father Philip Lamont), Louise Fletcher (Dr. Gene Tuskin), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Paul Henreid (The Cardinal), James Earl Jones (Kokumo), Joey Green (Young Kokumo), Ned Beatty (Edwards), Karen Knapp (The Voice of Pazuzu), and Dana Plato (Sandra Phalor) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, and #1210 - Excalibur)

Review: 

"The sin I committed was not giving the audience what it wanted in terms of horror ... There's this wild beast out there which is the audience. I created this arena and I just didn't throw enough Christians into it."

I was waiting for this day to happen, if you can believe it. I knew damn well what I was getting into when it came to the sequel to The Exorcist, which I remember being a fine film, if not exactly one I went back to again and again. Maybe it was one of those times where I stick more to my comfort horror picks than anything, but yes, the things that stuck with me was the voice of the demon (maybe the devil) by Mercedes McCambridge or maybe the lead performance by Ellen Burstyn. It was good, but the fact that it was nominated for multiple Academy Awards makes its reputation perhaps a bit too lofty when compared to other features of its time. Of course, others will remember William Friedkin and his direction of material that had been written by William Peter Blatty based on his 1971 novel of the same name, and it should be noted that neither had spoken about it being a horror film, instead viewing it as a movie about the mystery of faith. Uh, okay. However, you do not get to see none of them in the sequel, since Blatty and Friedkin clearly had better things to do (such as suing each other and Warner Bros because of disputes over profits and credits) and the only actors to return from the original was Blair, Winn, and von Sydow (who is given more mention than Jason Miller, whom the film practically ignores). Somehow, it should only make sense that a director that didn't even like the first film was recruited to do the sequel, and the studio actually thought they could aim for a PG rating rather than an R, if only because they didn't want to be as controversial as the original was when it came to being rated an R (because some people thought it merited an X, proving that taste is selective).. No seriously, Boorman though that he could make a "kind of riposte to the ugliness and darkness of The Exorcist" - you know, the guy who turned down The Exorcist for Zardoz. William Goodhart was tasked with writing the script, one that was aimed for the metaphysical, but this script ended up with rewrites from Rospo Pallenberg and Boorman, albeit with no credit to them (Blair has stated that Pallenberg directed a good chunk of the film, probably because of Boorman suffering from Valley fever for a number of weeks). The final product came about after attempts were made to tinker with it due to bad preview screenings, which didn't really help matters. You know how bad the reviews were? Apparently, when studio executives went to see the film, the audience members got so mad at what they were watching that they chased down the executives down a street. The film was successful on its $14 million budget, but the reputation was so horrendous that a third Exorcist movie wouldn't happen until 1990, directed by Blatty. While the fact that the film turns 45 years old this year seems like a good reason to cover it, the fact that there is a new Exorcist film out for release in 2023 seems like another good reason to get back into the spirit, regardless of who is directing it, I guess.

You know, I wanted to give things a chance, if only because I am reminded that Martin Scorsese stated that the film got a bit of a bum rap upon release, noting its interesting question about the great goodness drawing all evil and all of that stuff that I'm sure would make a nice essay to get drunk with. Sure, a movie trying to frame the first film with "look, what really happened that night?" is a bit shaky, but there is potential. Then the synchronizer and its strobe light come into the picture, which starts the giggling process, complete with see-through glass for the "institution" and a silly sound for the device to boot. Somehow, seeing Richard Burton watch as Louise Fletcher puts on that ridiculous contraption alongside poor Linda Blair makes it apparent just how ridiculous making a sequel can be. It makes me wonder if Blair's appearance in the Exorcist parody Repossessed (1990) would be any less embarrassing, honestly. The fact that Burton (cast because Jon Voight dropped out) drank heavily as the film production wore on makes this only more offbeat. Remember this: Burton did the film as a "paycheck movie" so he could do better things like Equus (1977), a movie about a teen being treated for blinding horses in a stable. Hell, Blair has stated that she doesn't know what the film is actually about, does that tell you all you need to know about this movie? You have a scene that goes on for a bit about Pazuzu and Africa before it ends with a shot of James Earl Jones growling that does a cut to a shot of a leopard. The barrage of locusts doesn't help matters out, either. Honestly, it isn't the lack of gore or exploitation angle that makes things so baffling, it is the fact that it is so bland as a horror movie to the point of coma. In other words: the audience may be a bit weird in what they think they want, but when they know what kind of bullshit won't fly with them, they will tell you very clearly. One feels like they are watching two different movies smashed up into one, as if they couldn't make up their mind as to who to lend their focus on beyond zigzagging everywhere with its alleged main trio of Blair, Burton, and Fletcher, with the latter either suffering the most because of a lack of things to do or benefitting from the lack of dumb shit to do besides maybe playing the "science" lead, which amounts to a bag of sand in screen presence. If Blair was put through plenty of tough things for the original, she gets to have the pleasure of being put through the wringer in a role that even a more quality actor would have been doomed to fail. She seems lost in a wholly different movie than the one that is actually happening, as if being in a movie about silly teenagers would actually be more up her alley than the gobbledygook present (she didn't put on the makeup for the demon as with the first film, by the way); she seems confused, and you would be too, which results in a sad performance that satisfies no one. Burton gets to wander through a paycheck movie with mild dignity that somehow seems too nice for trash like this, as if the movie needs someone to take this material less seriously. Okay, so you are probably wondering how the plot goes. Well, aside from a failed exorcism or so, you get to learn about psychic healers that Pazuzu likes to target while a heretic priest resists the urge of a succubus that looks like Linda Blair before the house from the original goes belly up in locusts. Oh, and there's a scientist that had these powers who now spends time trying to target locust swarms. Got all of that? In its attempts at trying to play with the story elements of the original, it demystifies the test of faith that made a solid first movie.

 

You know who I was most curious to see? Beatty and Jones, because each get to wait over an hour to show up. Yea, maybe the fact that there isn't much to say about them makes them seem better, unless Jones being in a locust suit and spitting some fruit onto a row of spikes counts as embarrassing. The only one who has any sense of dignity is von Sydow, and he is in it for flashback scenes of all things. That is this movie in a nutshell: things happen, and you just go with it to see how stupider it can get. The best possible director for this kind of movie may not have been someone like Boorman, honestly. It needed someone who was willing to work in the parameters of what the script entailed with their own sense of imagination, whether that involved keeping the script as it was or going even more gonzo. Maybe it should have been made as a straight-up exploitation copy of the original instead, because it probably would've looked as cheap as this film feels, which is astounding considering the multimillion-dollar budget on this film. It feels like an exploitation movie that thinks it is high class with no sense of awareness. If the original had the hint of elegance within its material, this movie is like a bastard fifth cousin that came from outer space. The Ennio Morricone score may be the only thing about the movie that makes any sort of sense. This is the kind of movie that will make people who though the original was the greatest horror thing since sliced bread hate the idea of sequels (and perhaps challenge the very nature of God itself) and make people who thought it was fine remind oneself the merits of the original. In short, the only thing scary about it is the idea a sequel worse than this exists. It is an incoherent mess from start to finish in the most amusing ways possible.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Literally anything will be better than this film. So it is time at last for Underworld (2003).

Patriot Games.

Review #1847: Patriot Games.

Cast: 

Harrison Ford (Jack Ryan), Anne Archer (Cathy Ryan), Patrick Bergin (Kevin O'Donnell), Sean Bean (Sean Miller), Thora Birch (Sally Ryan), James Fox (Lord William Holmes), Ellen Geer (Rose), Samuel L. Jackson (Lt. Commander Robby Jackson), Polly Walker (Annette), J. E. Freeman (Marty Cantor), James Earl Jones (Admiral James Greer), Richard Harris (Paddy O'Neil), Alex Norton (Dennis Cooley), Hugh Fraser (Geoffrey Watkins), Alun Armstrong (Sergeant Owens), and David Threlfall (Inspector Robert Highland) Directed by Phillip Noyce.

Review: 

In 1984, Tom Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October, the first novel in what became his most notable line of books with the character of Jack Ryan, one that saw him take a "play by the rules" approach to showing and getting certain details correctly that he felt was a moral obligation to his readers that made him one of the noted espionage writers of his time. Up until his death, he wrote sixteen further novels in what is referred to as the "Ryanverse" (Patriot Games, published in 1987, happens to serve as a "prequel", oddly enough); the book series has been continued by further writers with the support of the Clancy estate. That first book was adapted into a film in 1990 with Alec Baldwin as the lead character and John McTiernan as director that was most noted for its other main star in Sean Connery. At any rate, the success of the film meant that the filmmakers (producer Mace Neufeld, who optioned the first novel after reading proofs in 1985) wanted to make another feature quickly. However, Baldwin elected to star in a Broadway production of A Streetcar Named Desire rather than reprise the title role (which he did not regret, as Paramount producer David Kirkpatrick forced him to pick between the two, for which Baldwin later described him as a "beady-eyed, untalented fool"). Phillip Noyce was recruited to direct the film to replace McTiernan, who wanted to adapt Clear and Present Danger with a script by John Milius; he apparently felt uncomfortable as an Irish American directing a movie with IRA characters (he proceeded to direct Medicine Man instead). He was known for films such as Newsfront (1978) and Dead Calm (1989), but Ford's appreciation of seeing the former film is what got him to endorse Noyce. W. Peter Iliff and Donald E. Stewart (who had wrote the screenplay of the first film) wrote the film, with later un-credited rewrites done by Steven Zaillian. A cursory reading will reveal gradual differences: for one, the assassination attempt involved the Prince and Princess of Wales rather than a fictional lord (complete with Ryan getting a knighthood) that sees him deal not only with a splinter group of the Provisional Irish Republican Army but also "the Movement" (a black domestic terrorist group). I guess having a climax involving Ryan and company (including the Prince!) fighting a kidnap attempt at his house that sees the authorities round up the remaining terrorists for arrest seemed just a tad much (the earlier movie was mostly faithful despite considerable technical changes). 

Before release, Clancy denounced the changes made from adapting his book to film but seeing a rough cut had him say that there was “some good things in the movie"; on June 5, 1992, the movie came out to considerable box office success, which meant that Noyce and Ford would return for Clear and Present Danger (1994). Whether one has watched The Hunt for Red October or not doesn't really matter much, as one would hope from a film series with a sense of calmness and tension about international affairs (a professor and analyst played by Ford? No sweat). For a 117-minute trip, it generally works out for the best with a useful cast and semi-solid plot foundation. If you didn't know, the character of Jack Ryan in his appeal is the fact that he is an everyman kind of lead focus, an analyst rather than an action hero who only gets involved because his family is involved (the assassination attempt in the beginning of the film happens to occur when Ryan is with his wife and kid, for example). In that sense, Ford (approaching the age of fifty at the time of production) is appropriate here, because he gets to play family man alongside the occasional action beat without seeming hamstrung by boredom, while Archer and Birch make for fair contributors to a solid family triangle. Bean makes a decent adversary to go alongside him, filled with fanatical energy that (intentional or not) overshadows anything done by his adversary partner in Bergin or with Geer. Others are there for cursory moments here and there, whether that involves a young Jackson or Jones returning from the previous 1990 film or Harris, a bewildering choice. The use of technology with survey satellites and heat-sensitive photography when scouting the camp is fairly interesting to see play out among other scenes of "analysis" and thriller parts (the assassination scene along with the rescue of Bean from a van are noteworthy, even if the latter might be privy to realism). Of course, the climax is a bit forced, because the studio had them change the original intended climax of an underwater fight near rocks to what became a boat chase, which is only slightly easier to see when one is fighting someone in a rainstorm. Really it just reminds me that even Thunderball (1965) knew better than to have a boat-fight be in the dark. At any rate, the movie doesn't lose its footing when sticking the general landing, setting the stage for other possible peeks into the Ryan window without begging for anything.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings.

Review #1805: The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings.

Cast: 

Billy Dee Williams (Bingo Long [P]), James Earl Jones (Leon Carter, All-Star [C]), Richard Pryor (Charlie Snow, All-Star [RF] / "Carlos Nevada" / "Chief Takahoma"), Stan Shaw ("Esquire Joe" Calloway, An All-Star [CF]), Tony Burton (Issac, All-Star [CF]), Rico Dawson (Willie Lee Shively, All-Star [RF]), Sam "Birmingham" Brison (Louis Keystone, All-Star [SS]), Jophery Brown (Emory "Champ" Chambers, All-Star [3B]), Leon Wagner (Sam "Fat Sam" Popper, All-Star [1B]), John McCurry (Walter Murchman, All-Star [LF]), DeWayne Jessie (Rainbow, All-Star [Batboy]), Ted Ross (Sallison Potter [Owner]), Mabel King (Bertha Dewitt [Owner]), Ken Foree (Honey), and Carl Gordon (Mack) Directed by John Badham (#088 - Short Circuit, #1293 - Dracula (1979), #1456 - Saturday Night Fever, #1610 - WarGames)

Review: 

If you didn't already know about the Negro leagues when it comes to baseball, you really should. Oh sure, I will get to the review of the film soon, but I figured that this matched perfectly with this particular month in black history. Baseball, as we all know, is a great game. However, it was not a perfect game when it came to handling color, as the line between white and black players arose in the late 19th century that excluded the latter from league play. In 1887, the first black league was created, but independent play was the norm until the 20th century. In 1920, the Negro National League was formed by the legendary pitcher/manager Rube Foster, and it became the first definitive major league for black baseball. Six other leagues would come and go in the next two decades that featured many great players and managers all across the country, such as Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Willie Wells, Turkey Stearnes, Candy Jim Taylor, Vic Harris, and plenty more. Integration of Major League Baseball occurred in 1947 with Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby, which turned the Negro leagues into a barnstorming unit (most notably with the Indianapolis Clowns); Robinson would be the first black player to become a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962, but it was only nine years later that a committee was formed to induct players that were involved in the Negro leagues, starting with Paige. Although numerous great players have been honored from this era, it was only in 2021 that MLB made a decision to recognize those seven leagues as major leagues. To tie all this together with how Negro league baseball inspired folks, consider the fact that John Badham grew up in Birmingham, Alabama, where the Black Barons played in the era. Badham (in his directorial debut) seemed like the ideal director to adapt the 1973 novel of the same name that was written by William Brashler. Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins did the screenplay for the film, while Berry Gordy (known for his work in Motown Records) served as one of the producers.

Honestly, there are ingredients for a great piece of entertainment, one that could have really been a tremendous period comedy that took inspiration from the famous names that starred in the Negro leagues. Some of this is present here when it comes to antics reminiscent of players such as Paige (who liked to call in the outfield in an inning to strike out the side on occasion) and Gibson (a power-hitting catcher) with a little bit of Jackie Robinson (of course, the film is set in 1939, which makes the ending of the film curiously out-of-place). Of course, by the time one finishes its 110-minute runtime, they will find a film that is...more of a long single rather than a home run, shall we say. It might sound dissapointing, but one does want a bit more from a baseball movie than just one that plays for a few laughs. There is something begging to be told about the story of players who toil to make a few bucks while dealing with both the realities of that time in America, but one seems to see more antics than foundational points. The baseball action is also just okay, since a good deal of it is meant to be charming in the style of the Harlem Globetrotters than say, The Pride of the Yankees. Charming, sure, but one can see where perspective might have helped when it comes to seeing people struggle to make a living within segregated baseball. 

At least one can say Williams and Jones are at their best here. Incidentally, Williams, who grew up in New York City, used to watch Negro league (and Cuban) players play in Central Park before he developed dreams of becoming a painter and actor. He proves engaging in a charming role filled with confidence that is quite infectious. Jones accompanies him with solid chemistry while essentially playing the straight man in a film with a handful of chuckles to go around, which works fine for him. Pryor is technically the third star of the film, even if he really only has four scenes to show for it, with two of them involving him impersonating a Cuban and Native American. He does fine schtick, I guess. Shaw does fine as the essential leader of the supporting cast (which includes a dwarf ballplayer), while Ross seems suited for more scenes to chew on as the heel (King is also interesting, but she is mainly used for a one-note joke). To me, the movie is most interesting when one sees the baseball diamond and the history it invites more than a few sly jokes (the firecracker bit being the best), but it generally manages to be charming enough to make the final result worth it. With a suitable cast and a fair foundation behind it, I would say this makes for a decent baseball movie and decent one to pick out for encouraging further research in black history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Friday.

Dr. Strangelove.

Review #1301: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Cast: 
Peter Sellers (Group Captain Lionel Mandrake / President Merkin Muffley / Dr. Strangelove), George C. Scott (General Buck Turgidson), Sterling Hayden (Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper), Keenan Wynn (Colonel Bat Guano), Slim Pickens (Major T. J. "King" Kong), Peter Bull (Soviet Ambassador Alexei de Sadeski), James Earl Jones (Lieutenant Lothar Zogg), Tracy Reed (Miss Scott), and Shane Rimmer (Capt. Ace Owens) Directed and Producted by Stanley Kubrick (#044 - Full Metal Jacket, #065 - The Shining, #093 - 2001: A Space Odyssey, and #1046 - Barry Lyndon)

Review: 
When it comes to satire and black comedies, Dr. Strangelove sure comes to mind as one of the best. It should come as no surprise that it is the work of masters in terms of cast headlined by Peter Sellers and its director in Stanley Kubrick, who are each at their prime in a film that is razor-sharp in every aspect. The film was based off the novel Red Alert by Peter George, a thriller novel that treated its scenario of nuclear accident seriously. In his attempts to write a screenplay based on the book, he found that their was comedy present involving the absurd or paradoxical when it came to the balance of terror that was the arms race between the two superpowers of the world of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union. There certainly was plenty of inspiration involving Cold War tensions for Kubrick to make light of, with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the two powers came to nuclear war, having occurred just two years prior. The "doomsday / mine-shaft" gaps are parodies of the missile gap, which had been popularized for political effect in the late 1950s. As such, the screenplay was credited to Kubrick, Terry Southern (an American novelist known for his dark absurdist style), and Peter George.

On the surface, one might wonder humor could be found with the scenario of an accident that could lead to nuclear warfare. The answer comes out pretty quickly with a film that captures an atmosphere where such a ghastly thing could happen in eccentric hands with subtlety. This for a film with plenty of interesting to go around, such as a general who believes in a Communist plot involving water fluoridation prior that threaten one's precious bodily fluids, or a crazed scientist resisting the urge to have his hand rise to a familiar position, or even a cowboy style wearing pilot that provides the most famous image from this film for its climax involving a missile and him. Sellers is the star of the show, playing three roles with such brilliance that could only come from a comically unique actor, for which he had already showcased with his various disguises in Kubrick's previous film Lolita (1962). He just blends into his two surrounding sets and actors (one being Hayden and the other being Scott and Bull) with perfect ease, each having their own distinct mannerisms and voices without seeming like a distraction from artistic depth. Scott is just as excellent in his role, where over-the-top isn't so much a guild-line as it was a case of Kubrick utilizing takes that were thought to be warm-ups for less ridiculous takes with the actor (for which he swore to never work with Kubrick again, although he later came to appreciate his performance). One can see him give his all with unapologetic grace and bluster that is keen to the moment needed. This goes just as well for the gritting Hayden, who is absolutely the one needed for a madman general like this, needing only a cigar and some talk about the water to make him captivating to view in humor. Pickens (a rodeo performer who also appeared in Westerns), told to play the role straight, is just as fine a highlight in part because his natural cadence shines through to make for laughs without seeming inauthentic. The rest of the cast have their small moments, such as Wynn and his deadpan delivery for his last line that lands perfectly, or Bull and his expressive nature when he first comes into the war room with a small camera, or Jones (who had acted on stage for nearly a decade) with a short but capable way to make a film debut, or Reed and her one-scene show with Scott.

The film is a funny one about such serious things because it knows how to utilize its surroundings without playing everyone for complete fools while having plenty of style to go around in terms of cinematography (Gilbert Taylor, with that wonderful look) and its set design (Ken Adam, with that wonderful war room), where one can see a thriller alongside the satire without seeming like two different films. After all, a serious rendition of potential nuclear warfare through accident would be shown that same year with Fail Safe (itself based off the novel of the same name from Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler), which ended up being released ten months after this film from the same studio after Kubrick and George had sued for copyright infringement. In any case, this is a wonderfully dark comedy that plays on the fears and culture of the time with zest and prime work from its cast and crew to make this an easy winner for everyone, having a bittersweet climax that seals everything up quite nicely (changed from the original intent of having it end with a massive pie fight). It still stands true today because its basic framework of human error and the attitudes of warfare when the chips all seem to be in place for it.

Overall, I give it 10 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: The Sandlot.

Review #605: The Sandlot.

Cast
Tom Guiry (Scott Smalls), Mike Vitar (Benny Rodriguez), Patrick Renna (Hamilton Porter), Chauncey Leopardi (Michael "Squints" Palledorous), Marty York (Alan McClennan), Brandon Quintin Adams (Kenny DeNunez), Grant Gelt (Bertram Weeks), Shane Obedzinski (Tommy Timmons), Victor DiMattia (Timmy Timmons), Denis Leary (Bill), James Earl Jones (Mr. Mertle), and Art LaFleur (Babe Ruth) Directed by David M. Evans.

Review
Yes, I know. I am aware of this movie's cult status, and I remember watching this movie a long time ago, though I never got to the end, so I get to connect to the past. And baseball films are usually enjoyable, so the movie has a good deal of promise. So how is the film? It's okay. Is it a classic? I guess so, but it all depends on what you define as classic. The Sandlot is slightly awkward (we all were like that once) and slightly fun, though the baseball action is more fun to watch than the interactions of the kids. Some of the cast are interesting, (Vitar, Leopardi, Jones, for all of his brief screen time), but others are just okay. Guiry isn't bad, I get the characterization of the new kid and how he develops, but eh, I still like Vitar better either way. He doesn't get much characterization, but he's fun to watch being the leader of a bunch of kids just playin' ball. The movie is more than just baseball, it's about these kids (and one big dog) and their summer in a time where there were only 20 teams in the majors (which means I can't make an Expos reference until 1969), and when baseball was at its era of dominance. The movie may not be a particularly great movie, but like Babe Ruth (played by a decent Art LaFleur) said, the legends never die.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Field of Dreams.

Review #488: Field of Dreams.

Cast
Kevin Costner (Ray Kinsella), Amy Madigan (Annie Kinsella), James Earl Jones (Terence Mann), Ray Liotta (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Burt Lancaster (Archibald "Moonlight" Graham), Timothy Busfield (Mark), Frank Whaley (Archie Graham), and Gaby Hoffmann (Karin Kinsella) Directed by Phil Alden Robinson.

Review
Being a baseball nut (as I am) will probably make this film even more of a treat for them, but even if you're not a baseball nut, this is still a pretty enjoyable film. This is my first time watching a film that stars Kevin Costner (Though my dad seemed to love watching his films on DVD when I was growing up), and he does an alright job, perfectly awkward in a film like this, and he pairs off really well with James Earl Jones, the two just mesh well with each other. But of course, the two actors who quite nearly steal the show are Ray Liotta and Burt Lancaster, and it's because their presences in the scenes each have just leave a lasting impression on me, and it really is a warming film that forgoes sentimentality it transcends into its own one of a kind of films. Costner joined this film because he felt this would be "this generation's It's a Wonderful Life", and I don't blame him because while it may not be one of the greats, it can certainly be watched any time, any day, and work just the same.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Coming to America.

Review #410: Coming to America.

Cast
Eddie Murphy (Prince Akeem/Clarence/Randy Watson/Saul), Arsenio Hall (Semmi/Morris/Mr. Brown/The Girl), James Earl Jones (King Jaffe Joffer), Shari Headley (Lisa McDowell), John Amos (Cleo McDowell), Madge Sinclair (Queen Aeoleon), Paul Bates (Oha), Eriq La Salle (Darryl Jenks), Allison Dean (Patrice McDowell), Frankie Faison (Landlord), Vanessa Bell (Imani Izzi), and Louie Anderson (Maurice) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places)

Review
Landis and Murphy once again team up, and once again they do well. The beginning of the film works really well, and Murphy does a fine combination with Hall, and the two also play multiple character that also generate laughs. James Earl Jones is a fine actor, and he can also generate some laughs, stopping me from making endless Star Wars jokes...for a moment or two. Headley is a decent lead actress, and she and Murphy make an alright film couple. I like the film, but sometimes it can get a bit too sappy on its romance, not too sappy but at least the film is enjoyable, and while it could be argued the film could be even better, this is arguably a classic and Eddie Murphy is a lot of fun. It has been 25 years, which is a welcome milestone for any film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Conan the Barbarian (1982).

Review #323: Conan the Barbarian.

Cast
Arnold Schwarzenegger (Conan), James Earl Jones (Thulsa Doom), Sandahl Bergman (Valeria), Gerry Lopez (Subotai), Ben Davidson (Rexor), Mako (The Wizard/Narrator), Max von Sydow (King Osric), Cassandra Gava (The Witch), Valérie Quennessen (The Princess), and William Smith (Conan's Father) Directed by John Milius.

Review
Schwarzenegger has been a small fixture on Movie Night. He was the first actor listed in the first review, and he has been reviewed in six (seven if you count The Expendables) films here. So how about another review with him? (Not much of a question...) Oh right, this is his earliest film reviewed here (Though not his first), with this being released 30 years ago (Ooh, another Anniversary review. I must a stickler for those.), and Schwarzenegger (Try saying that 5 times fast) does an okay job, not being horrible, for the most part. James Earl Jones does a fine job (It's been a while since I've reviewed him, he's a pretty good actor) as the villain (The name Doom isn't really subtle as we might see next year.), and the rest of the cast do fine jobs. The action is riveting, feeling like an epic (I'd mention that this was based off books by Robert E. Howard, except apparently this didn't have much to do with those. Wait, didn't I just mention-), oddities and all. It's unbalanced at times, and yet it does at least one focus: Conan and his revenge. It works in some ways and doesn't in other ways. But hey, the Conan stuff is all over now, right? Conan would be successful in his own right, with momentum for a sequel. But that is another tale that...shall also be told. With regrets either before or after watching it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hunt for Red October.

Review #080: The Hunt for Red October.

Cast
Sean Connery (Captain 1st Rank Marko Aleksandrovich Ramius), Alec Baldwin (Dr. Jack Ryan), Scott Glenn (Commander Bart Mancuso), Sam Neill (Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin), James Earl Jones (Vice Admiral James Greer, CIA Deputy Director - Intelligence (DDI), Jeffrey Jones (Skip Tyler), Joss Ackland (Ambassador Andrei Lysenko), Richard Jordan (Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor), Tim Curry (Dr. Yevgeniy Petrov), Peter Firth (Senior Lieutenant Ivan Putin), Ronald Guttman (Senior Lieutenant Melekhin), Stellan Skarsgård (Captain 2nd Rank Viktor Tupolev), Fred Dalton Thompson (Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Joshua Painter), and Courtney B. Vance (Sonar Technician Submarines Second Class Ronald Jones) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
This film is great. Simply put, it has everything someone needs to be entertained, but learn something at least. Sean Connery is the main lead, overshadowing Baldwin, and he does a great job. Connery makes the film more big by his prominent preformance, taking some if not at least 70% of the film. The plot is good, not messed up or too hard. The film is the parallel to Top Gun, bringing light to submarines, yet this one is a better film, that would inspire sequels, but played by a different actor...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Lion King.

Review #073: The Lion King.

Cast
Matthew Broderick (Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa), Jeremy Irons (Scar), Moira Kelly (Nala), Nathan Lane (Timon), Ernie Sabella (Pumbaa), Rowan Atkinson (Zazu), with Whoopie Goldberg and Cheech Marin. Directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff.

Review
This film is gem among Disney flicks (ironically the animators thought Pocahontas would be the better flick). It delivers a story with good acting, top notch animation, and a little humor (Not too much thankfully) added in. It's a film that's also useful for any teachers wanting to use it to teach about science (and how the living turn into the grass). Anyway, this is a good film with music in there that helps the story and does not ruin anything, unlike some other "musicals" It's no wonder they made a musical adaptation a few years after the film. It's a recommended film that makes you love animation. Oh and Disney. A little...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.