Redux: The Exorcist.

Redux #037: The Exorcist.

Cast: 

Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Max von Sydow (Father Lankester Merrin), Lee J. Cobb (Lieutenant William F. Kinderman), Kitty Winn (Sharon Spencer), Jack MacGowran (Burke Dennings), Jason Miller (Father / Dr. Damien Karras, S.J.), Linda Blair (Regan MacNeil; Eileen Dietz as stand-in), Father William O'Malley (Father Joseph Dyer), Barton Heyman (Dr. Samuel Klein), Peter Masterson (Dr. Barringer), with Rudolf Schündler (Karl, House Servant), and Mercedes McCambridge (The Voice of Pazuzu) Directed by William Friedkin.

Review: 

From my review on April 22, 2011: 

To be honest, I found this film to be a little underwhelming. The first hour is just talking, and building up to the Exorcism. It finally comes, and we do see the scariness in the Devil. I felt underwhelmed for the first half, but the second half helped. The acting is decent, with some scare from Regan and special effects that hold up to this day.

"When [William Peter Blatty] wrote this book he knew that I had a background in documentary films as well, and he wanted the story to be filmed as realistically as possible, and so did I. We did not want to make a scary horror film or a fantasy film. At that time as well as today, the public knows very little about exorcism, little to nothing. Everything that is known about it is sensationalized in the public, and certainly the film I made contributed to that; there is no question about it. Because people regarded it as a horror film. But I made the film as a believer." - William Friedkin.

Admittedly, there are a handful of reasons one could do to look back upon The Exorcist in 2023. For one thing, the film (released in late December) is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Another thing is that 2023 is also the beckoning of a new "Exorcist film", specifically one that is serving as the first of a new trilogy that follows just the original film, complete with a returning cast member from before that makes its premiere on the very first Friday of October. Another is the fact that it seems appropriate to look back upon the career of its director William Friedkin, who passed away in August. But for me, I think the best reason of all is the fact that Movie Night's very first review of a film in the horror genre way back over a decade ago, was this very film. Granted, it wasn't the first horror film I ever saw, because in addition to those R-rated action films, I watched a few horror films before I was even 15, as one might do, but it certainly was a big film that one can hold up within the horror genre...and I guess I really set it up so highly in my head that it only seemed good enough for an 8/10 rating. The quantity and quality of the review is obvious, so here is a chance to re-write that wrong. The film is adapted from William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name, which was inspired by events that had allegedly been occurred in 1949 with a boy named only "Roland Doe". Blatty had heard about it when studying at Georgetown University (studying in English, which he also did for a master's degree at George Washington University), but what set him on the path to write it was seeing the film adaptation of Ira Levin's novel in Rosemary's Baby (1968), which pleased him right until the ending involving the resolution of the unborn child. Once a comic novelist and a screenwriter for comedies, the resulting success of the novel was tremendous, to put it lightly, and he got his wish to have William Friedkin serve as director with the success of The French Connection (1972). Friedkin was raised in the Jewish faith, but he found himself more welcoming of the teachings of Jesus as a declared agnostic. As such, when it came to influences, one film cited was Carl Theodor Dreyer's Ordet (1955). As such, Friedkin hired actual priests to appear in the film along with serve as technical advisors. Over four decades later, he would direct a documentary titled The Devil and Father Amorth (2017), which featured Father Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist for the Diocese of Rome that had mentioned Friedkin's film in his first book (An Exorcist Tells His Story). Friedkin worked closely with Blatty on the screenplay (the latter served as both screenwriter and producer). Blatty would write two further novels involving faith with The Ninth Configuration (1978) and Legion (1983), for which the latter served as the sequel to the aforementioned Exorcist; Blatty spearheaded the film adaptations of both novels as director in 1980 for Configuration and 1990 for the now retitled Exorcist III. Forty years after publishing the novel, Blatty did a revising of the novel that added a new chapter.

The original cut of the film lasted 122 minutes after Warner Bros. suggested cuts in order to fit more screenings, which Friedkin did. However, in 2000, a "The Version You've Never Seen" version was released that features a handful of cut sequences from before, most notably with the final scene that seems more in line with the book, which results in a runtime of 132 minutes. The mysteries that matter most to the film, true to Friedkin's word, are ones of faith, goodness, and the one of inexplicability. It is is a carefully built film on intense scale that is best enjoyed with great patience. Calling it the first of anything in horror is perhaps a too bit lofty to use, because of previous great horror films such as Psycho (1960), but I'm sure you can see the importance of a film like this beyond just calling it a film about possession, because it is a film of sacrifice and finding one's faith. The power of that comes with the cast to hold up such tremendous production values, for which I'm sure you would already guess. There were a variety of actors considered for key roles in terms of the desires of Warner Bros., such as asking Audrey Hepburn first about the leading role (she declined, as did a few others) or the late switching of Stacy Keach for Jason Miller (playwright of That Championship Season). Both Burstyn and Miller were big on doing these roles (the former was quoted as believing it to be destiny to play the role and the latter, who had studied for the priesthood, felt that he was Karras). Friedkin got his way with the casting of both actors and the rest eventually fell into place, which even included a critic of the book in O'Malley. Each of the core cast succeed in drawing a film of dread within atmosphere that is homed in realism as much as one can expect when seeing vomit or a cerebral angiography or whatever strikes a nerve in the realm of anxiety, moral or otherwise. The film is as much Miller's film as it is one of Burstyn & Blair when it comes to the driving point because of how he draws you with such intensity that comes from a great array of guilt and wavering spirit. Don't get me wrong though, Burstyn and Blair do just as well, with the former's sense of fear for her loved one shining through with the scattered innocence/corruption of Blair providing great terror. True, there is a certain voice quality in dubbing that can only come from an Academy Award winner in McCambridge and a minimal use of a double for intense scenes, but I think you know what I mean when I say that Blair went through the whirlwind and survived with a useful performance. Von Sydow and Cobb provide grizzled support that you greet for those familiar with those actors or voices (the former in aged makeup, of course). It is a film that builds in the terror of what enfold before you get to that exorcism, and it probably stands to reason that any film since this one involving exorcisms or possession has considerable ground to cover when it comes to trying to play distinct from this one. None have probably stokes half of the controversy that comes with its tone of haunting qualities or religious fervor, for better or worse. The sacrifice made at the end, now combined with the revised ending, makes it all the more involving as a film fit for its age and genre, a useful lesson for horror through and through.

In the end, what is about The Exorcist that makes it endure so vividly in reputation? There are a variety of factors, but the most important is that Friedkin and company had the faith required to craft a film as straight to the line as they wished to do that struck a nerve within the viewer of the time that works just as well now because it respected its viewer with patience and craftsmanship to make for a worthy unsettling time. It is probably hard to figure just which Friedkin film ranks among his best, but it is perhaps The Exorcist that endures most when it comes to the realm of looking forward to the season of horror or perhaps the time to look upon one's faith, and that is perhaps worth more than anything in the material sense.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Well, the clock is soon to strike 12 on October, so why not get a head start? October will be quite the showcase to show a wide variety of horror films from the past such as The Monster to the current year within The Exorcist: Believer. We shall see how many films get a spotlight here and what finds its way for the first week of November.

Strange Brew.

Review #2088: Strange Brew.

Cast: 

Dave Thomas (Doug McKenzie), Rick Moranis (Bob McKenzie), Max von Sydow (Brewmeister Smith), Lynne Griffin (Pam Elsinore), Angus MacInnes (Jean "Rosie" LeRose), Paul Dooley (Uncle Claude), Brian McConnachie (Ted), Mel Blanc (Father McKenzie), Tom Harvey (The Inspector), and Douglas Campbell (Henry Green) Directed by Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis.

Review: 

There is something fascinating about watching an adaptation of TV material into a feature film, if you think about it. But there is something really fascinating about watching a film based on material that was originally created as a mockery that initially was a two-minute sketch. No, really. In 1980, Second City Television (SCTV), a TV show with a handful of members of the Toronto Second City troupe, was making its return to television for its third season after a momentary hiatus that saw it broadcast nationwide in Canada on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (with select syndication in America). In light of the fact that the Canadian rendition of the series would be two minutes longer due to less commercial content than the American rendition, the CBC requested that those two minutes be allocated to Canadian content material." When SCTV cast members Dave Thomas and Rick Moranis heard this, they asked, "Well what do you want us to do, put up a map of Canada and sit in front of it wearing toques and parkas and cook back-bacon and 'Talk like dis, eh'?" The answer was essentially, yes. As related by Thomas, these sketches would be done at the end of a production day with a minimal crew of three to basically try and get a couple of two-minute stuff they could improvise out of a filming hour, which they called "all very low key and stupid". To get a gauge on the segments, one of them involved "Twist-off Tops". Oddly enough, the segments first gained popularity within the American edition first, particularly when NBC picked up the show for network airing on Fridays in 1981. The result of "Bob and Doug" resulted in a comedy album (The Great White North) and this film, which essentially served as their finale. Of course, the two have reprised the roles for a handful of commercials (such as one against beer taxes in 2023), a "Two-Four Anniversary", and a loose inspiration (yes, in moose form) in the Brother Bear films (2003, 2006). Such is the popularity of the two is that they have their own statue in Edmonton (where a good chunk of SCTV was filmed).

The success of the album, combined with seeing John Candy get an offer to do a film (Going Berserk) inspired them to think about doing a film, which saw them hire Steve De Jarnatt to do a first draft, complete with asking him to use Hamlet as a "sort of springboard". The result was a script that went from agents to a deal with MGM in a flash despite the fact that Thomas and Moranis felt was going to need tinkering from them to make it more of their own voice. Jack Grossberg gave the two guidance as executive producer when the duo was unexpectedly asked to direct the film as well as star and write it. As a whole, you can see the efforts done by the two to make a goofy feature that seems just about at home with other films of its ilk in sketch-turned-films such as the earlier The Blues Brothers (1980) or the subsequent Wayne's World (1992). As someone who went on a lark to pick this one out for a spotlight (for a film that happened to turn 40 last month), I can say it is a lovingly silly feature that makes the most of two goofball leads packed into a story wrapped in the amount of foliage you would expect to hold up a number of gags that come around. Of course, I have to admit my surprise that Hamlet was the loose thread to build around, if only because we are talking about a film that involves mind control beer, heroic flying dogs, and ghosts that possess electrical outlets. The 90-minute runtime sees a good deal of rambling and entertainment from Moranis and Thomas, who seem to squeeze any and every trick in the book of bits to mine together for chuckles, which manages to give them both time to shine without seeing a crack in the jovially dense characterizations that stick in your head in inane interest. Of course, it helps to have a game supporting cast, for which von Sydow and Dooley make dependable heavies to go along with the proceedings that seemingly reward those already quite familiar with their presence (the former was a surprise recruitment because Thomas and Moranis didn't actually think MGM could get him and the latter is Paul Dooley, what more do you need?). Griffin and MacInnes round out the general cast with good balance to accompany the bumblers with mostly straight-man routine (of note is among the rest of the cast is one scene spent with the famed voice actor Mel Blanc). At any rate, the film holds its own with a jovial pace that has two distinct halves, one involving the duo showing a poorly received film before they come up with "this mouse was in my beer bottle" and the other one involving them stumbling onto a brewery going into the world domination business (and yes, a dead uncle intervention) that results in a good deal of offbeat amusement. It is a casually enjoyable Canadian film through and through for all the folks (and hosers) at home. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

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).

Redux: Ghostbusters II.

Redux #031: Ghostbusters II.

Cast: 

Bill Murray (Peter Venkman), Dan Aykroyd (Raymond "Ray" Stantz), Sigourney Weaver (Dana Barrett), Harold Ramis (Egon Spengler), Rick Moranis (Louis Tully), Ernie Hudson (Winston Zeddemore), Annie Potts (Janine Melnitz), Peter MacNicol (Janosz Poha), Kurt Fuller (Jack Hardemeyer), David Margulies (Mayor Lenny Clotch), Harris Yulin (Judge Stephen Wexler), with Wilhelm von Homburg (Vigo the Carpathian [voiced by Max von Sydow]), and Janet Margolin (the Prosecutor) Directed by Ivan Reitman (#026 - Ghostbusters)

Review: 

"I’m really proud of the second movie — I just saw it again and I really liked it. It didn’t get particularly good reviews. It was successful, financially, but less successful than the first one. I pushed it into a much more personal story."

Look, the original Ghostbusters (1984) made oodles of money. Obviously, there was a movement to make a second movie, but timing really is everything when it comes to movies. You had to make a movie that Reitman, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Murray all wanted to do, since they were reluctant to do a second movie to begin with, although Columbia Pictures was pretty much on board. Murray had not acted in a movie for a couple years (in a starring role anyway) after the release of the movie, since he believed that the success of Ghostbusters would forever be his biggest accomplishment. Aykroyd and Ramis return to do the script, although it was the former who wrote the first draft, as was the case with the original. Aykroyd apparently wrote his initial script involving a kidnapping to Scotland with fairy rings and underground civilizations (even he would admit that it was really too far out), but the part about things happening underground was retained. It was Ramis that contributed to the idea of negative human emotions having consequences (i.e. mood slime) alongside an idea he had once had for a horror story involving an infant who suddenly woke up with adult agility and focus. While the movie took five years to finally come out, Ghostbusters did find its way onto television first with The Real Ghostbusters, which ran from 1986 to 1991 (which is why one sees a bit more Slimer, since that character was apparently a big thing on that show). Naturally, there were re-shoots. Reitman noticed when watching the test version that the last 25 minutes apparently seemed like "a horrible death". Test audiences thought that the associated elements of the slime alongside Vigo the Carpathian weren't really connected or that the conflict was, well, a conflict hard enough for the Ghostbusters. Reshoots were done to try and strengthen the climax alongside cutting certain sequences. These added scenes include: a ghost train scene that goes through Winston, a scene with severed heads, and a fire that nearly takes down two of the Ghostbusters after they try to develop photographs of Vigo. The movie was released on June 16, 1989, to moderate but not spectacular audience results; Aykroyd tried to make a script for a third movie (one idea sent them to a hellish version of Manhattan), but Murray was not particularly interested, and multiple scripts came and went before plans to just do a reboot came in 2016.

 

I'll be honest, I have only seen the movie three times (once in 2011, the other one in 2019, and today). There just has to be a reason beyond just saying "it's just not as good as the original" for this. I can't say that the movie has exactly warmed further in my heart when it comes to looking at a movie that was released on June 16, 1989 (Reitman wanted to release it on the 23rd but decided to ask for the week beforehand because a certain movie was being released that same day). You may remember that the original 1984 film was a capable comedy that just happened to have good effects and a solid cast that (pardon the cliche) had heart to its proceedings with a well-developed story. Now, one has a movie that thinks its first best conceit it to throw the Ghostbusters right in the dump and build themselves up again, especially considering the whole "we saved your sorry asses from Gozer and you just decided to sue us like a bunch of losers" that sticks in my mind. Hell, I would have gladly accepted a plot-line that sees the other looming threat to a business besides authorities: competition. Hell, forget "restraining orders" for two seconds, who wouldn't want to try and improve what had been done? But nah, let's just take the skeleton of the original and take out a few parts to reincorporate at will, right down to a scene midway through the movie that takes the jail sequence from the first one and just replaces it with a mental institution. Dennis Muren was tasked to supervise the special effects as Reitman was not particularly happy with the work of Richard Edlund's Boss Film Studios for the first film. It didn't help make the process of doing Vigo faster, since it took them months to find a design likable enough to shoot. The effects do take a bit more of the show, for better or worse. On the one hand, the 108 minutes do pass pretty well in building interest for the aspects of slime and Vigo in the slightest of creeping terror. I did roll my eyes a tad less during the Statue of Liberty sequence and I did at least think the resolution with the crowd helped contrast the fact that one has to see a floating head for the final final shot of Vigo before he hits the dust. On the other hand, it is clearly not as funny as the original in general lines because of the fact that the filmmakers wanted to soften the image of their title characters to seemingly match the cartoon series, which results in a sitcom hodgepodge that a cynic would say has "castrated" the characters; I'm not saying, "screw you, kids", I just think it is a little silly to try and balance the needs of a movie and an animated series designed for kids when just making a balanced movie is a bit less convoluted. True, Murray is still the undoubtable highlight of the movie, one that has some of the same wit and spontaneity from before, even if he finds himself paired with Weaver (and a baby, ha ha ha) just as much as with the main group (the TV show scene is probably the highlight). Weaver does fine with the material provided in warm timing. Ramis is still the same wry guy from before, which goes with the energetic Aykroyd, which generally works out for a few chuckles and exposition that varies in engagement. Hudson, the sentimental favorite in audience surrogates and underrated presences has probably the same number of things to do as compared to from before (marginal), but he carries well among the scenes he usually is part of with Ramis/Aykroyd (this is one of those movies where you only see all four of a group for select moments until the end). I did appreciate MacNicol more than I had remembered, since he plays a stooge worthy of all the chuckles in offbeat quality that makes an interesting pairing with Weaver or for the climax. It should be noted that Von Homburg (a German boxer-turned-actor with a split lip) didn't know his voice was dubbed by von Sydow (who did his stuff in a day) until the premiere of the movie - at least he looks the part in off-putting terror, and von Sydow provides the right voice for it. Fuller may be playing an imitation of William Atherton from the first movie, but he at least makes a go of it in smarmy attribution to pair against the beleaguered and sorely lacking Marguiles (of course, Yulin gets to ham up a judge for a time, so all's even). As a whole, it comes together as a weird prediction of future movie sequels/reboots of the current age that take certain aspects from the original to include references that may or may not do anything particularly new with things (kind of like Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in how each are average).

Reitman blamed the movie not being as successful on the climate of films released around the time of June 1989...such as Batman (1989), released one week after this movie; Reitman described his movie as a "friendly, more personal, sort of character-based Ghostbusters" as one that seemed like a disappointment to audiences toned to something different; of course, his movie features people being so negative that they turn New York City into a cesspool of slime along with a Rasputin pastiche getting a guy to kidnap a baby to get out of a painting and possibly become a great terror. 1989 was an interesting year for sequels: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Karate Kid Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Lethal Weapon 2, Back to the Future Part II, you get the idea. As a whole, the movie is fairly average in all the ways you never would have seen coming five years ago from a movie as beloved as the original was, one is carried heavily by effects and a little bit of cast magic that proves it is hard to capture the best essence of moviemaking twice. It is average and a disappointment, but it is far from being a complete waste not worth watching at least once, which means that Reitman and company did at least succeed somewhere down the line.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Hour of the Wolf.

Review #1427: Hour of the Wolf.

Cast: 
Max von Sydow (Johan Borg), Liv Ullmann (Alma Borg), Gertrud Fridh (Corinne von Merkens), Georg Rydeberg (Lindhorst), Erland Josephson (Baron von Merkens), Naima Wifstrand (Old Lady with Hat), Ulf Johansson (Heerbrand), Gudrun Brost (Gamla Fru von Merkens), and Ingrid Thulin (Veronica Vogler) Written and Directed by Ingmar Bergman (#777 - The Seventh Seal)

Review: 
"I think we are the sum of what we have read, seen and experienced. I do not think artists are born from emptiness! I am a small stone of a tall building, I depend on each element of the building, next to, above, below."

It never hurts to reach for someone who wants to question the human condition with films. Ingmar Bergman was most certainly a director with enough ambition and detail to accomplish films that have lingered as iconic for Swedish cinema. He had a troubled childhood under strict parenting and unhappy school years, but he developed an interest in the theater and film from an early age, most notably when he acquired a magic lantern (an early type of image projector). Studies in university were mostly dominated by theater and film-watching, and he eventually found himself rewriting scripts for film that led to his true screenwriting debut with Torment (1944) and his eventual directorial debut with Crisis (1946). Bergman felt that art had to expose humiliation and how we as beings do it to each other, since it is "one of the most dreadful companions of humanity, and our whole social system is based to an extent on humiliation." Over the course of nearly sixty years, Bergman would work on numerous films (with all but the last four being for television) that have received notice (from directors past and present to winning three Academy Awards for Best International Film), ranging from Wild Strawberries (1957), The Virgin Spring (1960), and Fanny and Alexander (1982).

The original script (known as "The Cannibals") had been done in 1964, but he later revised the script after a bout of pneumonia made him think of the budget it would take to execute it. Instead, he did the film Persona (1966), but he eventually re-worked the script, which would take inspiration from works such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's opera The Magic Flute (which Bergman would later adapt into a film in the following decade) alongside Bergman's own nightmares. It is a film that threatens to unravel before one's very own eyes in self-destruction for the artist and in a way the audience. How long can it be before one's creativity starts to turn into madness, particularly if one can't sleep (as is the case for night owls like myself). It is a Gothic nightmare that accomplishes a good deal of what it wants to do in Bergman's own manner that segues into psychological horror. Whether it is reaches you on a level that inspires chills is up to how much patience one has with its moments into surreal territory that seems at times like a retelling of the vampire legend (Bergman was an admirer of Dracula (1931), incidentally). If one is looking for a straight story in 88 minutes, this may not be the one for you. If viewed on its own terms as something to pick apart like a surgeon on the table or an artist looking upon what they have created and having it look back on them, then this works itself out quite nicely. In terms of acting, von Sydow and Ullmann make up our primary focus for the film and each do fine with what they are given, since both each worked with Bergman ten times (this, along with Shame (1968) and The Passion of Anna (1969) are argued by some to be a trilogy involving violence upon ordinary lives and guilt). One shouldn't be surprised to hear this about von Sydow, who was quite versatile in playing heroes and villains in both European and American cinema in over seven decades of work. In this, he makes quite a contemplative focus in terms of a tortured artist, one with plenty of brooding conviction in his dealing with the real and unreal involving demons and insomnia. Ullmann, the Norwegian actress of international fare and along with eventual director of her own films, accompanies our focus as the other side of the coin with von Sydow in her own type of despair and struggle in trying to keep herself intact from falling off the edge, beginning and ending the film with poignancy. The others do fine in accompanying the quiet terror that builds in garnering curiosity in a subtle haunt. The sequence involving von Sydow and a kid, a involving overexposed photography is likely the most memorable part, at least if one isn't going with just images, which could involve a ceiling or a sequence with a little person in the closet. On the whole, this is a film with plenty of despair as a sketch upon the things that haunt us in and out of our dreams when it comes to creativity and the encompassing companionship that one tries to seek out (or vice versa) to alleviate the creature that lurks in the dark of humiliation in the hour of birth and death. It may require a bit of patience to push it forward, but it is generally a fair piece by Bergman with enough curiosity factor to make it a good sell for world cinema to view at least once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Seventh Seal.

Review #777: The Seventh Seal.

Cast
Gunnar Björnstrand (Jöns, squire), Bengt Ekerot (Death), Nils Poppe (Jof), Max von Sydow (Antonius Block), Bibi Andersson (Mia, Jof's wife), Inga Landgré (Karin, Block's wife), Åke Fridell (Blacksmith Plog), and Inga Gill (Lisa, blacksmith's wife) Directed by Ingmar Bergman.

Review
The Seventh Seal has been heralded as a classic of world cinema, so much so that it is hard to talk about it when others (with significantly more knowledge of film) have talked about the movie extensively. But in any case, these reviews are just my opinion, which you can take/not take for value. Welcome to Season 6 and 2016. 

The Seventh Seal (known in Sweden as Det sjunde inseglet) happens to be the first Swedish film reviewed on Movie Night, and it comes from Ingmar Bergman, who directed movies for over 50 years until his death in 2007. The movie can be grim (especially at the beginning and end), but it also has its insertions of humor and warmth (particularly with Poppe and Andersson, who represent hope even in times of death). The acting is well done, especially by Max von Sydow, who seems perfectly natural and makes for a performance anyone could root for in any decade. The most memorable scene is when Death first appears to Sydow's character, and Ekerot's look is especially chilling. Another memorable scene is the procession of the flagellants, and the expressions of the cast as the haunting scene proceeds around them. The dance of death ends the movie much in the way that everyone inevitably has to face, with no one being able to escape death. The movie looks great as well (due to the cinematography by Gunnar Fischer), having a stark and an appearance. Ultimately, this is a movie that doesn't cheat its audience, because it is a movie that makes one think without having to be spoon fed info, or just being a grim tale. Sure, it is a bleak movie with death, but it also has its touches of hope amidst the darkness that engulf us all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: What Dreams May Come.

Review #627: What Dreams May Come.

Cast
Robin Williams (Christopher Nielsen), Cuba Gooding, Jr. (Albert Lewis), Annabella Sciorra (Annie Collins-Nielsen), Max von Sydow (The Tracker), Jessica Brooks Grant (Marie Nielsen), Josh Paddock (Ian Nielsen), Rosalind Chao (Leona), and Lucinda Jenney (Mrs. Jacobs) Directed by Vincent Ward.

Review
This is a personal review for me, but I do imagine this film can be personal for others as well. My father had bought the DVD for this film about a few years ago, my father loved buying movies (especially Westerns), he was probably the reason I watched movies, with or without him, in fact this show started with a film he bought, I still wonder what he would think of this show if he were still here today. Why I am telling this story, you ask? Because sometimes telling a story helps when dealing with someone else's death, in this case the recent death of Robin Williams yesterday. I won't talk about that because honestly that's too sad to talk about, especially in the middle of a review of one of his movies. What Dreams May Come sometimes feels more like an experience than a movie, it sometimes feels like a movie that shows you the essence of one's dreams, showing us beauty with the paintings. The effects for this movie are really beautiful to watch, they capture the essence of imagination, and it works especially in a film like this. The acting is well done, especially by Williams, who was a good comedian, but he also could be really skilled at portraying dramatic characters, especially this one. The story is somewhat assembled weirdly, but at least the movie is enjoyable, and it all stems from the wonderful cast (Gooding is also fun to watch) and the effects. This is a bittersweet review; the movie is good, though I found myself tearing up a bit inside, the movie has its moments of struggle, and given Williams' death, it's amplified here. My father probably liked this film, and I imagine he also had a good time with it as well. No matter what project Williams was in, he always managed to make us smile.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Never Say Never Again.

Review #595: Never Say Never Again.

Cast
Sean Connery (James Bond), Kim Basinger (Domino Petachi), Klaus Maria Brandauer (Maximillian Largo), Barbara Carrera (Fatima Blush), Bernie Casey (Felix Leiter), Max von Sydow (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Edward Fox (M), Rowan Atkinson (Nigel Small-Fawcett), Gavan O'Herlihy (Jack Petachi), and Alec McCowen (Q) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#004 - RoboCop 2 and #114 - The Empire Strikes Back)

Review
Due to Kevin McClory's lawsuit over the rights of the novel Thunderball, he gained the filming rights of the novel, even after the movie was released, despite EON's attempts to stop it, and McClory would help produce a new version on the Thunderball story, with Lorenzo Semple, Jr (notable for developing the 1960's Batman TV show and Flash Gordon - #215) writing the screenplay. Connery was brought to play the role 12 years after he last played Bond in the spectacular disaster of a film Diamonds Are Forever (#280). The film was released 4 months after Octopussy (#360), the other Bond film from 1983. So which one is better? It's hard to discuss this movie. Of the six Bond films in the 1980's, this isn't the worst one, but it also isn't the best. Connery does good in his return to Bond, a little aged but a little more defined, and refined. The supporting cast isn't bad (though Atkinson is an exception), it's certainly better than Thunderball's cast, especially with Felix Leiter, who is more interesting to watch this time around. Basinger does well, she has at least some chemistry with Connery, and the dance scene is at least watchable. The villain is ever more interesting because he leaves an impression on you, though admittedly the scene where he plays against Bond in a video game is either an odd inclusion or just surprising, but then again the other Bond movie had Bond dress up as a clown, so pick your poison. The aquatic action isn't as annoying due to not there being as much of it, which is refreshing. The movie is actually pretty decent, not too bad, and it's a good way for Connery to have one last hurrah. There, I've reviewed all the Bond films, even the unofficial ones...for now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rush Hour 3.

Review #402: Rush Hour 3.

Cast
Jackie Chan (Lee), Chris Tucker (James Carter), Hiroyuki Sanada (Kenji), Yvan Attal (George), Zhang Jingchu (Soo-Yung), Noémie Lenoir (Geneviève), Youki Kudoh (Jasmine), Tzi Ma (Solon Han), Max von Sydow (Varden Reynard) Directed by Brett Ratner (#012 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #305 - Rush Hour, #306 - Rush Hour 2)

Review
The first film had its flaws, but it had some enjoyability and wasn't too standard of a buddy cop film. The second had some moments of laughter, but substantially less than the first one with the directing making the film louder, weirder, and not as funny as the first film. The third? Mostly laughless, mostly pointless, but more importantly: mostly forgettable. Chan is a fine actor, but not even he can save the film. But not even Tucker is why the film flounders, by this point it's expected that he's...erm, vibrant. but the main problem with the film is that it either tries to hard to be funny or to be serious, and it flounders with both. It doesn't have much charm in terms of acting and the comedy feels awkward. Max von Sydow appears in this (for about 5 minutes), and his performance makes me wonder how he went from Flash Gordon to this, but even in Flash Gordon he had more screen time. This might be enjoyable for some, but for others it just isn't that funny or necessary.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Judge Dredd.

Review #332: Judge Dredd.

Cast

Sylvester Stallone (Judge Dredd), Armand Assante (Rico Dredd), Rob Schneider (Fergee), Diane Lane (Judge Hershey), Jürgen Prochnow (Judge Griffin), Max von Sydow (Chief Judge Fargo), Joanna Miles (Judge McGruder), and Joan Chen (Dr. Ilsa Hayden) Directed by Danny Cannon (#146 - Goal! The Dream Begins)

Review

Ah yes, Sylvester Stallone once again. This my seventh review with him in the film being reviewed (#003 - Rocky, #025 - Rambo: First Blood, #047 - The Expendables, #059 - Zookeeper, #254 - Antz, #277 - Rocky II), and he usually got some sort of praise, doing a respectable job, so how does he do here? Uh...Let's get to some history. Judge Dredd is based off the strip of the same name that is featured in a magazine called 2000 AD. And apparently that Dredd has a helmet that coves all but his mouth. However, if I came to this without any of that small info and watched the film, I'd believe Dredd doesn't wear it much, if at all. But is it any good regardless?....Nope. Its action is standard fare, its locations look slightly okay, but more reminding of other dystopian films. And its acting? Stallone does...a weirdly bad job. Assante acts more like he's trying to compete with Stallone for most overacting (Especially in one scene where he says "Law!" in a really silly way. It's better to explain in context.), and even though Sydow does a fine job, the rest can't be said for Schneider. The story feels kinda predictable: A judge is framed by his...brother in an attempt for...power, so he can have his own...order to stop crime. Is there any real benefit to watching this? The only one I can think of is the unintended badness of it. It might be slightly enjoyable if you lower your expectations really low.

Overall, I give it 4 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: Flash Gordon.

Review #215: Flash Gordon.

Cast
Sam J. Jones (Flash Gordon), Melody Anderson (Dale Arden), Topol (Dr. Hans Zarkov), Timothy Dalton (Prince Barin), Max von Sydow (Ming the Merciless), Ornella Muti (Princess Aura), and Brian Blessed (Prince Vultan) Directed by Mike Hodges.

Review
First off, this film is adapted from the comic strip by Alex Raymond in 1934. It had already been adapted to film serials, television series, and even radio. It was written by Lorenzo Sample Jr (Who had also written Batman (1966) - #177), and it shows. Colorful effects with good design and a variety of acting talents, including (say it with me here) BRIAN BLESSED. Sydow does an allright job, given what he has to work with (Jones is decent, even if he reminds me of He-Man) It's funny how George Lucas has said he took inspirations from Flash Gordon for Star Wars, and I can see why. Action and flair with loads of fun (including having the soundtrack by Queen) to go with it. A shame there would be no sequel.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.