Showing posts with label Roy Kinnear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roy Kinnear. Show all posts

April 19, 2024

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

December 15, 2022

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.

November 7, 2018

Taste the Blood of Dracula.


Review #1159: Taste the Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 
Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Geoffrey Keen (William Hargood), Gwen Watford (Martha Hargood), Linda Hayden (Alice Hargood), Peter Sallis (Samuel Paxton), Anthony Corlan (Paul Paxton), Isla Blair (Lucy Paxton), John Carson (Jonathan Secker), Martin Jarvis (Jeremy Secker), Ralph Bates (Lord Courtley), Roy Kinnear (Weller), and Michael Ripper (Inspector Cobb) Directed by Peter Sasdy.

Review: 
Oooh, a Dracula film. October already had Interview with the Vampire and Dracula vs. Frankenstein for some vampire action, but I've had a desire to go back to the Hammer Dracula films, which I last covered in 2016. With this review, there is only two other Hammer Dracula films left with Lee in the main role (Scars of Dracula and Dracula A.D. 1972), although there were two other Hammer Dracula films without Lee (The Brides of Dracula and The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires). In any case, I'll try to get around to those in due time. 

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968) was a fine piece of entertainment, having a collection of cliches and flair that worked out to make it work for the franchise. It had a few interesting characters along with some compelling moments with a worthwhile climax. The development of the sequel certainly had a bit of a bumpy road to it, since the original intent was to not have Lee back as Dracula. By this point in time, Lee was not particularly interested in continuing to play the role for Hammer Films, although if he was given the right amount of salary, he certainly would come back. With a desire to not pay him (or perhaps tired of having to try and convince Lee to come back), the original script by Anthony Hinds featured Bates being the main villain, since he drinks the blood of Dracula before convulsing and beaten to death by the people who bought Dracula's belongings. Yes, right before Dracula perished in the previous film, he happened to encounter some random guy and perished right in front of him and he got the idea to collect not only the powder of his blood but also his cape and brooch. In any case, the idea to have Bates (infused with the spirit of Dracula) as the villain was vetoed by Warner Bros, the American distributor for these films, who wanted Lee back. He certainly seemed fine with the film, describing it as having "Good cast, good production, good story -- except that Dracula didn't really belong in it!". He wasn't too fond of having the films be made so closely with the others, and he felt that audiences grew tired of it, which he said could apply to him as well. In one account, he was apparently convinced to keep doing the role in part because the producers would tell him about the people that would lose work if he didn't keep doing the role for more films. In any case, 1970 was quite the year for him as Dracula. Not only did he play the role in this film, he also played the role in Count Dracula (directed by Jesús Franco that was released one month before this film) and Scars of Dracula (released by Hammer Films six months after the success of this film).

There isn't much of Dracula this time around, with bare dialogue but quite a few shots of Lee and his hypnotic eyes. Honestly, I could care less about the conflict between the elders and their offspring and the hypocrisy from the former - I'm more interested in the ridiculousness of the fact that Dracula is getting revenge for his servant (Bates) being killed by the group - as if Dracula suddenly cares about anybody other than himself. Actually, it's strange that he is brought back at all through a ceremony where someone drinks the mixed blood of himself and Dracula. Would Dracula have been brought back if the other guy hadn't been killed quickly by the elders? When I think about Dracula films, I don't think about scenes involving an old man drunkenly trying to whip his daughter for seeing her boyfriend, I instead think about the Count trying to somehow use people to get what he wants. Perhaps it is supposed to be a reflection on the times, but really it just inspires my eyes to wander for what should be a more interesting horror film. Lee (in his fourth turn at the role for Hammer) doesn't really have much to do, but he at least shines when he needs to show some presence. At least he speaks a few words more than he did when compared to the other films. Keen plays an unsavory hypocrite okay, but waiting for his character to be stalked by Dracula proves more interesting. Hayden, Corlan, and Blair make up the young group who encounter Dracula in their own respective ways, but none of them are too particularly interesting to follow along with. The ending is a bit ridiculous. This time around, it's not the sun, water or a stake that gets him, instead it is him being taken down by a church being restored to its sanctity and being overwhelmed by its power that makes him fall and crumble into dust. The film feels like a mess, feeling confused over where it wants to go as a film. It isn't too particularly scary nor over-the-top to make it other than just something to pass the time waiting for Dracula, though at least there is some moments of blood and gore through its run-time (95 minutes for the uncut edition and 91 for the cuts in the US release) that may prove fine for others. I found the movie to be pretty average and not quite as good as the other previous installments. It isn't the best or worst of the bunch, and perhaps it will serve its purpose if you're in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

July 27, 2017

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.

April 29, 2012

Movie Night: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

Review #131: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

Cast
Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka), Jack Albertson (Grandpa Joe), Peter Ostrum (Charlie Bucket), Roy Kinnear (Henry Salt), Julie Dawn Cole (Veruca Salt), Leonard Stone (Sam Beauregarde), Denise Nickerson (Violet Beauregarde), Dodo Denney (Mrs. Teevee), Paris Themmen (Mike Teevee), Ursula Reit (Mrs. Gloop), Michael Bollner (Augustus Gloop), and Diana Sowle (Mrs. Bucket) Directed by Mel Stuart.

Review
41 years, and it is a grand classic, pure and simple. This was based on the 1964 novel, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. However, Dahl apparently did not like this film for its focus on Wonka and not Charlie (hence the title). However, this film is still good. Look, no matter what happens, we're going to care more for Wonka then Charlie (even in the 2005 version, especially given Depp's performance in it...). Speaking of that, Wilder does great in this film. First time you see him, and he impresses you. The rest do fine. The sense of wonder is here, with all the machines and candy (with weird looking chocolate non-withstanding). It does have its scariness to a 10 with the carousel scene. While the movie does not follow the book much, it entices you anyway with a sense of fun.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.