The Return of the Musketeers.

Review #2200: The Return of the Musketeers.

Cast: 

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

Review: 

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*"we" being me, myself, and I

Help!

Review #1939: Help!

Cast: 

The Beatles [John Lennon • Paul McCartney • George Harrison • Ringo Starr], with Eleanor Bron (Ahme), Leo McKern (Clang), John Bluthal (Bhuta), Patrick Cargill (the Superintendent), Victor Spinetti (Professor Foot), Roy Kinnear (Algernon), Alfie Bass (Doorman), Warren Mitchell (Abdul), and Peter Copley (Jeweller) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, #785 - Superman II, #786 - Superman III, #972 - The Three Musketeers, and #976 - The Four Musketeers)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember A Hard's Day Night (1964), the first feature film that starred the wildly popular group of The Beatles. It was the third feature effort from Richard Lester, the American-born director who had lived in England since the 1950s. In my review for that film, I forgot to mention that one of the main attractions of Lester for the Beatles was his work on a short film called The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film (1959), although his experience in directing musical acts with It's Trad, Dad! (1962) probably also helped. The movie was a hit before it even came out (owing to pre-sales), but there was always a plan to do more than one Beatles film. At any rate, Lester followed the aforementioned Beatles film with The Knack ...and How to Get It (1965), a wide hit itself. Since the sequel wasn't going to feature the group doing what they were doing in their life, naturally the film would be about them being "passive responders to some external stimulus". Help! (working title: Eight Arms to Hold You) was a bigger budget film with more time (which meant filming in The Bahamas and Austria) and in color, which resulted in a generally pleasant experience, aside from the fact that the group got into marijuana during filming that made for plenty of giggles. The film was written by Marc Behm and Charles Wood. It should be noted that the film was apparently inspired by Duck Soup (1933), while the comedy stylings of the group was inspired by The Goon Show, which Lester had experience with. The next project with the Beatles was with the TV musical film Magical Mystery Tour in 1967, while Yellow Submarine (1968) saw them appear for exactly one scene, and the documentary Let It Be (1970) was their swansong. Lester would continue to do a variety of features in the next couple of years, whether that meant comedy in How I Won the War (1967, which had Lennon in a supporting role) or The Bed Sitting Room (1969) or other efforts such as the wildly successful Musketeers films.

At the time, the group did not particularly like the experience of filming - John Lennon felt like the group was like extras in their own film before calling it "advanced" years later. Of course, having to do a film alongside doing songs for it and touring probably didn't help matters. The two Beatles films were inspirations for filmmakers too: Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider saw the success of the two films and decided to revive an idea the former had for television involving teenagers and rock.... which eventually became The Monkees, which had their own feature film (but that is another time...). If you came to watch a film about The Beatles do a bit of singing and have a bit of fun with each other, you came to the right place. There's a handful of songs to view here, such as the title song (duh) or "Ticket to Ride". The group of four may be easy to describe with a sentence or two as performers rather than outright actors, but one always smiles when they are on screen, mostly in the case of the hapless Starr or the charm in McCartney (evidently, Lester felt Harrison was the best actor of the group, so take that for what it's worth). Besides, they seem to be having fun with the whole affair, whether that involves trying to deal with a stubborn ring on the finger or whatever - the lines go off one another like paper in the wind. It might not be as effective in general energy as their previous effort, but it has enough casual flair for adventure to make it a useful follow-up. It has been termed as being at the forefront for the "music video" (no, it didn't create the trend, but it sure had a key place with the filmmaking techniques used for sequences such as the title song). All of the fun happens around a movie about Eastern cultists and mad scientists chasing the group for a ring one of them has on their finger - McKern, Spinetti, and Kinnear make suitable foils to see involve themselves in the silly chase. Things come and go with the film, which all ends with tomfoolery on the beach. For 92 minutes, you can't really go wrong with this light fare of music and comedy with one of the most noted quartets of their time at your side for a playful goofy time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Four Musketeers (1974).

Review #976: The Four Musketeers.

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

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

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

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Three Musketeers (1973).

Review #972: The Three Musketeers.

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

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

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Superman III.

Review #786: Superman III.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Richard Pryor (Gus Gorman), Robert Vaughn (Ross Webster), Annette O'Toole (Lana Lang), Annie Ross (Vera Webster), Pamela Stephenson (Lorelei Ambrosia), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Marc McClure as (Jimmy Olsen), and Gavan O'Herlihy (Brad Wilson) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night, #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and #785 - Superman II)

Review
There is nothing wrong with a bit of humor and/or slapstick. Some comic book movies even excel at moments of lightness in otherwise good films. Superman III is not one of those movies. It's a sad, desperate attempt of trying so hard to be both that it manages to fail at every turn. It's hard to tell when the first cracks appear, but it could be argued that it's either when Richard Pryor first appears, or when the title sequence is shamelessly put on the bottom of the screen so we can all see some slapstick immediately after Pryor shows up. Afterwards, the movie goes up and down from there. Reeve is the best part of the movie, carrying the movie even when you know it's already past the point of no return. He even gets to play a Superman who (briefly) becomes weakened by synthetic kryptonite (just go with it) and becomes...a Superman who fixes the Tower of Pisa and even drinks some alcohol (while flicking peanuts at beer bottles). It's a ridiculous aspect of the movie, but it gives Reeve something to do amidst the Pryor parts that really take up nearly 45% of the film. There's even a scene where the two "Supermans" fight each other, which while being ridiculous (especially in how it ends), is actually pretty interesting to watch.

The new villain this time around is played by Robert Vaughn, but he doesn't really stick out too much, coming off as a Lex Luthor stand-in. O'Toole is the new leading lady (by that I mean for only this film), and while she is relatively decent, she isn't given much to do, as compared to Kidder...who is essentially put on a bus early on. And then of course there's Richard Pryor. He's not inherently terrible, and he is somewhat funny, but he doesn't really feel like he should be in a Superman film. For most of the movie he is on the side of the villain(s), but the second that Superman is in actual danger, he switches sides, and it comes off as a dull surprise. The only thing that surprised me is the computer "robotizing" one of the characters near the end, but of course it's not permanent, so whatever (by the way, how does a computer who is supposed to know Superman's weaknesses not realize how a certain acid gets volatile under intense heat? Actually, forget it, the movie still stinks). The movie's biggest flaw is that there really is no spectacle to any of it. You never really care about anything that goes on, and nothing sticks out in this movie that you truly remember as a good thing. The main idea behind the movie isn't terrible, but the execution falls flat on its face.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman II.

Review #785: Superman II.

Cast
Christopher Reeve (Clark Kent / Superman), Gene Hackman (Lex Luthor), Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), Terence Stamp (General Zod), Jackie Cooper (Perry White), Sarah Douglas (Ursa), Jack O'Halloran (Non), Ned Beatty (Otis), Valerie Perrine (Eve Teschmacher), Marc McClure (Jimmy Olsen), Susannah York (Lara), Clifton James (Sheriff), and E.G. Marshall (The President) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night and #594 - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum)

Review
If you're interested in the review, skip this paragraph, as it does not pertain to the review, merely serving as a little bit of background...

If you remember my review from two years ago of the original Superman movie (#547), I had said that it was a fine epic that succeeded in nearly every way possible, with the most important being that it was entertaining. Naturally, the movie was a success, and Superman II (which had been filmed simultaneously with the first film) would soon follow...but not with Richard Donner, who was "replaced" from the film by the Salkinds producers a few months after the first film's release. Richard Lester was tasked to finish the film. The dispute over what footage of the movie is Donner's and so on continued for years, with a "Richard Donner Cut" made in 2006 that tried to restore (as much as possible) footage that Donner had shot, though he was not involved with that cut.

With all that in mind, Superman II still manages to be a decent sequel. While it isn't up to the same craft as the first film, Superman II is as least entertaining enough to work. The movie has elements of humor that veer into slapstick (no doubt added by Lester), which admittedly gets in the way of enjoying my favorite part of the movie: The climatic fight with Superman and Zod, Ursa & Non. While it is a good fight that takes up the last 30 (or so) minutes of the movie, it is marred by random aspects. One example is Superman throwing his emblem shield at Non, which mystifies me on the level of practicality. Reeve and Kidder do have good chemistry together once again, and the romance is at least watchable, even despite the fact that Superman can just erase memories with a kiss (if he chooses to, I suppose), which makes for a peculiar (if not extremely inevitable) reset. The movie takes time to get going in the sense that it is more fun with Zod and the others around. The effects, while a bit peculiar at times, fit the movie well enough. Stamp certainly makes for a standout villain in the sense that there finally is a villain who can match to the physical strength of Superman, alongside the fact that Stamp is entertaining to watch, especially when asking someone to kneel. I wish that the idea of Superman taking his powers away in favor of being with Lois could have been more than just a five minute blip that just passes through and is nearly forgotten, right up to the end, anyway. I do find it interesting that at the end of the movie, Superman beats up a trucker (the one who had beaten him up while he was temporarily human), because...I guess Superman really felt that he needed to get some sort of retribution. Superman II is a sequel that has its bogging flaws, but it shines just enough with charm and a little bit of magic to work.

As for the sequel...next time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

Review #594: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

Cast
Zero Mostel (Pseudolus), Phil Silvers (Marcus Lycus), Michael Crawford (Hero), Jack Gilford (Hysterium), Annette Andre (Philia), Buster Keaton (Erronius), Michael Hordern (Senex), Leon Greene (Miles Gloriosus), Patricia Jessel (Domina), and Inga Neilsen (Gymnasia) Directed by Richard Lester (#541 - A Hard Day's Night)

Review
The movie begins and ends on the same song, "Comedy Tonight", which sums up the movie. The cast is exceptional, especially Zero Mostel, who is just as wacky and fun as he was in The Producers. The movie may be a comedy, but it's also a musical, and while the comedy dominates most of the time, the songs aren't that bad, and Mostel is a decent enough singer for these songs. I realize that I haven't covered Buster Keaton on this show before, but at least I finally get to say something about him (ironically in his last film role), and what I would say is that he is certainly noteworthy despite not having too much screen time, he delivers a chuckle or two. The movie has a good deal of fun lines and zany motion that makes a wild but fun film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Hard Day's Night.

Review #541: A Hard Day's Night.

Cast
The Beatles [John Lennon • Paul McCartney • George Harrison • Ringo Starr], with Wilfrid Brambell (Grandfather), Norman Rossington (Norm), John Junkin (Shake), Victor Spinetti (T.V. Director), and Anna Quayle (Millie) Directed by Richard Lester.

Review (since modified - editorial, 2023)
This was the third feature effort from Richard Lester, who had been born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and had studied and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in Clinical Psychology. He got involved in the television industry in 1950 and later moved to England in the decade. One of the main attractions of Lester for the Beatles was his work on a short film called The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film (1959). He directed his first feature film with the musical act film in It's Trad, Dad! (1962). The movie was a hit before it even came out (owing to pre-sales), but there was always a plan to do more than one Beatles film. He would follow up this Beatles film with Help! (1965). 

Ah yes, the Beatles. Fifty years ago on this day, The Beatles made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, and in honor of that, I'm reviewing this film. I don't know exactly what I expected from a film like this, but I was nevertheless surprised at the result. This is a strange, but clever movie that is extremely entertaining to watch and to listen to. The Beatles themselves are entertaining as entertainers but also as people, and the screenplay seems really natural, really in touch with the film's tone. The music is good, it flows well, and it adds a depth of style to the movie without just seeming like one of those 1950s rock music of acts and little else. The supporting cast is entertaining (especially Brambell), and the comedy is pretty nice, fun to watch all the antics in the film. Lester does a good job directing and the movie has a good pace along with a good heart. This is truly a classic and fun for anyone wanting more of the Beatles, or just for a good ol' musical with a great deal of fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.