[Hobbit Day] The Hobbit (1977)

Director: Jules Bass, Arthur Rankin, Jr.

Cast: Orson Bean, Richard Boone, Hans Conreid, John Huston, Otto Preminger, Cyril Ritchard, Theodore, Glenn Yarbrough, Paul Frees, John Stephenson, Don Messick, Jack DeLeon

Screenplay: Romeo Muller

77 mins. Rated TV-PG.

 

It’s still interesting to me to hear that most film fans, even fans of the Peter Jackson films or the J.R.R. Tolkien novels, are unaware that they were previously adapted: The Lord of the Rings into two animated films of drastically different tones in The Lord of the Rings and The Return of the King, and The Hobbit into the film we are going to talk about today. I’m not talking about short films or student films or experimental pieces like Leonard Nimoy’s Bilbo Baggins song (it exists). No, it’s a TV movie released in the 1970s from those guys that made all your favorite Christmas specials, but now, over 40 years later, there’s are some interesting comparisons and contrasts to Jackson’s films. They are uniquely opposite interpretations in execution and finished product, but these older, almost forgotten takes on Middle Earth still carry a lot of weight.

You know the story, but I’ll remind you again. In the Shire, there lives a comfortable enough Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins (Orson Bean, Being John Malkovitch, InnerSpace) who is rather happy with his cozy uneventful existence, as many Hobbits are, and he is looking for no reason to change it. Everything changes, though, when he is visited by a wizard, Gandalf the Grey (John Huston, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Chinatown), who enlists his burglary skills (of which he has none) to help Thorin Oakenshield (Hans Conreid, Peter Pan, The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T) and his band of dwarves to reclaim their home and their dwarven treasure from the villainous and greedy dragon, Smaug (Richard Boone, Vicki, Hombre). Along this journey, Bilbo will encounter trolls, goblins, and a frightening creature by the name of Gollum (Theodore, The ‘Burbs, Nocturna) who carries a nifty magic ring.

The first noticeable difference between this film and Jackson’s trilogy is just that. One is a film running just under 80 minutes, and the other is a three-part film series that comes in (extended cuts and all) at just over nine hours! For many people, Jackson’s Hobbit films are bloated and stuffed with pieces that were unnecessary. They believe that the films are simply too long and undeserving of a full trilogy of films to tell their story. To that extreme, I’ll throw back The Hobbit 1977, a film that I believe loses a lot of its grandness in swiftly running through events like a checklist. This Hobbit interpretation is too short. I personally like the heft of Jackson’s trilogy (yes, flawed as they are, if I enjoy a world, I could live there forever), but I will attest that neither adaptation perfected the length of their story to match Tolkien’s.

There’s also the animation aspect. I’ve always preferred live-action, but the Rankin/Bass animation of this version is rather endearing and warm. There’s a certain charm to the animation style of The Hobbit (though I also prefer Bakshi’s batshit crazy Lord of the Rings animation style), and it works to better effect here than in The Return of the King.

I like the voice cast of our central players. Orson Bean is a positively inspired choice for Bilbo Baggins, and John Huston’s take on Gandalf works wonders (it’s also different enough from Ian McKellan’s take on the character to allow both versions to flourish nicely). The consistently unusual performer Theodore does fine work as Gollum in a role that I wouldn’t have thought to work from a performance angle. I’m just not a fan of the flat characterizations of the company of dwarves. Don Messick (The Last Unicorn, Pufnstuf) and Jack DeLeon (Temptress, Allyson is Watching) voice most of the dwarves and we just don’t get much time to care that they’re on the journey with us. It asks the question of why we care about anyone else on the journey except for Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf. Not enough time is delegated to any of the secondary dwarves in this adaptation, but they are there anyway because that’s how the book did it. I understand as well that the book didn’t always give a lot of attention to the secondary dwarves, but if you can’t make them compelling characters, just don’t put them in the movie. It’s an adaptation, not a translation.

Among all that, I still quite liked The Hobbit. It’s a good family-based version of events, and without the Jackson films to compare with, it’s cute and warm and enjoyable. Sure, it’s a nearly forgotten take on Middle Earth, but I find that I keep coming back to it, flaws and all, and enjoying myself. I think you could too.

 

3/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Ralph Bakshi’s The Lord of the Rings, click here.

For my review of Jules Bass and Arthur Rankin, Jr.’s The Return of the King, click here.

[Stephen King Day] Maximum Overdrive (1986)

Director: Stephen King

Cast: Emilio Estevez, Pat Hingle, Laura Harrington, Christopher Murney

Screenplay: Stephen King

98 mins. Rated R.

 

The trailer for Maximum Overdrive, perhaps the single greatest trailer in cinema history, features Stephen King, the writer/director of the film and writer of the short story Trucks, which the film is based on, claims that if you want Stephen King done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself. He also claims that he’s going to Scare the Hell out of you! Neither of these claims ever comes true in Maximum Overdrive, but is the film without merit? I don’t think so. Let’s break down the horror novelist’s lone directing credit today, and we’ll find out just what the hell happened.

The date is June 19, 1987, and the Earth has passed in the tail of a comet that creates a supernatural force, bringing all machines on Earth to life. The machines begin a hostile and homicidal takeover, and a group of survivors hold up in the Dixie Boy truck stop gas station, hoping to fend off the mechanical menace.

Let’s start off with King’s second claim. There’s nothing in Maximum Overdrive even remotely terrifying outside of its central concept. It just doesn’t offer chills. Perhaps it’s because we don’t care about our core group of characters, perhaps it’s because we aren’t presented with enough tension once the initial plot comes into play and the survivors are trapped at the Dixie Boy. It isn’t exactly clear where the film falls apart because it is only tenuously held together to begin with. King’s a hell of a novelist, but directing just doesn’t seem his forte. He can direct on the page, but not all that well with a camera. That’s not entirely on him, as he was quoted as saying that he was “coked out of my mind” for the entirety of the filmmaking process, and it shows (perhaps nowhere more obviously than that trailer). If there’s ever been a solid case for quitting drugs, show someone the great modern horror writer and his film only directing film, Maximum Overdrive.

None of the performances are particularly dazzling. I like the Emilio Estevez (The Way, D3: The Mighty Ducks), specifically in Repo Man, but he capture the audience well. Pat Hingle (Batman, Hang ‘Em High) is flatly asshole-like in his work as Hendershot, a secondary antagonist to the survivor group, and everyone else in the film falls into the stock character work, with most of the secondary cast disappearing from memory with hours of seeing the film.

AC/DC provided the music for the film, and their song choices kind of worked with the high-octane motor vehicle villains that circulate around the Dixie Boy looking to pick off our blood-pumping heroes. I’m not big on their ratchety score outside of the song choices though. Again, AC/DC are not writers of musical scores, and while some musicians can do both, perhaps they were not ready at that time to move into the realm of films.

So the film is bad, there’s no denying that (King himself called it his worst adaptation back in 2013, and those 2 Golden Raspberry noms didn’t give it much credibility), but is it a so-bad-it’s-good kind of film? In some ways, it really is. It has such a simple plot that you don’t have to follow it with detailed notes, the inconsistencies (why do some of the working vehicles never come to life when others do?) are almost endearing, and the murder and mayhem are enjoyably silly and entertaining (King’s cameo as a man at an ATM is particularly dumb and fun). Sure, I showed it at a movie night a few years back, and it earned the enjoyment factor raised.

Maximum Overdrive is not a good movie, but like all auto wrecks, there’s some salvaging to do with this one. There are parts that work well enough to get it moving, and you can get some mileage out of it in the right circumstances, as long as you know what movie you are watching. The statements in the trailer may not be truthful, but it does sell exactly what this movie is, if you can handle it. It’s not good, and I won’t claim that it is, but you can still have a hoot with it.

 

2/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

John Wick-Helmer Chad Stahelski Has Interest in Blade!

You may not know Chad Stahelski right now, and outside of the John Wick franchise, it’d be hard to blame you. The director of the trilogy, set to return to the franchise with the 4th and 5th installments shot back-to-back, was mostly known in the industry for his stunt choreography in films like Captain America: Winter Soldier, The Matrix, and The Hunger Games, but now he’s becoming a hot director among action films, with an upcoming take on Highlander in the near-future.

Stahelski was recently speaking with Comicbook.com when he was asked it he’d ever take on a Marvel film of his own, and he said:

“If the opportunity ever came, the one that really jumps out to me would be like ‘Blade.’ If they were going to redo ‘Blade’ or something like that, just because I feel that one, for some reason, the vampire martial art action vibe. That would be a cool one to stretch and try and reinvent.”

For this film fan, I find that Stahelski is doing impressive work with Keanu Reeves in the John Wick franchise, and given the choice of him continuing on that path of leaving to do a Blade film, I’d rather see him do more Wick. Purely selfish, but I like when he has an edge and Marvel won’t give him that. Even as far as Highlander goes, that’s a tough egg to crack, and I think he’s capable, but much like Justin Lin’s work on the Fast & Furious franchise, Stahelski seems to only get better with each film.

All that being said, if Marvel approached him for Blade and he said Yes, I could only be excited. His stunt coordinating on Winter Soldier and its follow-up, Civil War, were both so kinetic and raw and they excited the realm of superhero films and became hard action films. What Stahelski could bring to a vampire martial arts action film could only be good, and I’m all for it as long as he keeps turning out good work (the most frequent John Wick film is the best one yet, fight me).

So what do you think? Would you like to see Chad Stahelski keep on directing John Wick films or should he broaden out by trying to nab a Blade film? Is there another property you’d like to see him tackle? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

John Wick: Chapter 4 is scheduled for release on May 27, 2022.

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

[Happy 20th Birthday!] Bring It On (2000)

Director: Peyton Reed

Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku, Jesse Bradford, Gabrielle Union

Screenplay: Jessica Bendinger

98 mins. Rated PG-13.

 

Can you believe it’s been 20 years since Bring It On came out? Well, I can, because this is the first time I’ve ever seen it. Let’s take a look back at Peyton Reed’s (Ant-Man, Yes Man) cheerleading film.

Torrance Shipman (Kirsten Dunst, Spider-Man, TV’s On Becoming a God in Central Florida) has just been selected to be the new Team Captain for the Toros cheerleading squad. When Torrance tries to add the new girl, Missy (Eliza Dushku, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, The Saint) to the squad, she learns that her team has been using stolen moves and routines from other people for years. Torrance is forced to reinvent the squad in order to win without stealing, but she soon finds that her team is not as willing to adapt to the new way of doing things.

As I stated earlier, this was the first time I watched this film, and when I spoke with other people who had seen this film back in 2000, I learned that I seem to be in the minority. This is a bad movie. I did not find much to like about it. The opening of this film was awful. I didn’t care much for Peyton Reed’s directing. I wasn’t impressed with the acting. I loathe the screenplay. I’m sorry, but I have to speak my thoughts. This was a bad movie.

The level of cheese that 20 years will add to some pop cultural films will help, and I will say, the cheesiness did help with that. I’m a big fan of Eliza Dushku, specifically from the work she did back in the early aughts, and I enjoyed the character of Missy and what she brings to the team. I feel like the film would be more enjoyable from her perspective primarily with Torrance as a secondary supporting lead.

From a purely technical perspective, the film is technically sound, but it lacks any technical flair. The cinematography is fine, but not flashy. The editing is fine, but the pacing is poor. The music was fine, but it isn’t memorable, even for an older film. There just isn’t anything that I loved about this film.

What it boils down to here is that I really enjoyed Kirsten Dunst and Eliza Dushku as the leads, but the film would work much better with the narrative focused on Dushku’s Missy. I like the way the narrative played out near the end. Outside of that, the film just doesn’t work for me. I’m very glad that many people love this movie, and it’s true. A lot of people love it. I am not one of those people. If you are, I’m happy for you, but it didn’t work for me. Bring It On, for me, simply doesn’t work.

 

2/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

Ennio Morricone Dead at 91

It’s a sad day for the world of cinema. Ennio Morricone, perhaps the most prolific and respected¬† composer in the world of film, has died at 91.

Morricone scored over 400 films along with many television projects and short films, and yet he went without Academy Awards wins until late in his life, finally winning for The Hateful Eight. He was nominated several times for the films Days of Heaven, The Mission, The Untouchables, Bugsy, and Malena.

I’m going to cover some of my favorite work from Morricone and then drop a selected filmography.

The Man With No Name Trilogy: Morricone essentially created the musical style of Spaghetti Westerns with his work on this trilogy, and his score is practically as iconic as Clint Eastwood’s lead character.

Exorcist II: The Heretic: Say what you will about this truly awful film, but Morricone’s score is still pretty damn good.

The Thing: John Carpenter’s classic isolation horror tale is made all the more claustrophobic by the chilling Morricone score that layers the film in a blanket of paranoia almost as thick as the snow on the ground.

Once Upon a Time in America: Keep making new longer cuts of this movie so that we can get more Ennio Morricone music in this movie. It’s extended cut is a staggering journal of life in old America and the score showcases a new side to Morricone’s skillset, and it reunited him with Sergio Leone.

The Untouchables: This feels like Morricone at his most bombastic and heroic. He enhanced the heroes and villains quite nicely and makes an iconic cop film even more unforgettable in the process.

The Hateful Eight: I love The Hateful Eight, and I love the score for The Hateful Eight. The movie could’ve flat-out failed, but Morricone’s music blended so well with Tarantino’s dialogue. It’s a truly special pairing.

Rest in Peace, Ennio Morricone.

Selected Filmography:

  • A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
  • For a Few Dollars More (1965)
  • The Battle of Algiers (1966)
  • The Bible: In the Beginning… (1966)
  • The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
  • Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)
  • The Invisible Woman (1969)
  • Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970)
  • The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)
  • The Cat o’ Nine Tails (1971)
  • The Canterbury Tales (1972)
  • Arabian Nights (1974)
  • 1900 (1976)
  • Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
  • Orca (1977)
  • Days of Heaven (1978)
  • The Thing (1982)
  • Once Upon a Time in America (1984)
  • Red Sonja (1985)
  • The Mission¬† (1986)
  • The Untouchables (1987)
  • Cinema Paradiso (1988)
  • Hamlet (1990)
  • Bugsy (1991)
  • In the Line of Fire (1993)
  • Wolf (1994)
  • Disclosure (1994)
  • U Turn (1997)
  • Lolita (1997)
  • Bulworth (1998)
  • The Legend of 1900 (1998)
  • The Phantom of the Opera (1998)
  • Mission to Mars (2000)
  • Ripley’s Game (2002)
  • The Hateful Eight (2015)

 

Do you have a favorite Ennio Morricone score? Let me know/Drop a comment down below!

-Kyle A. Goethe

[IndyPendence Day] Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw, Amrish Puri, Roshan Seth, Philip Stone, Ke Huy Quan

Screenplay: William Huyck, Gloria Katz

118 mins. Rated PG.

  • Academy Award Winner: Best Effects, Visual Effects
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Music, Original Score

 

Happy IndyPendence Day! Let’s celebrate with the prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark, set one year prior. Yes, I’m talking about Temple of Doom, probably the darkest film in the Indiana Jones saga.

The year is 1935, and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford, The Fugitive, The Call of the Wild) has found himself stranded in India with his sidekick, Short Round (Ke Huy Quan, The Goonies, Second Time Around), and a nightclub singer named Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw, Black Rain, Due East). Now, in order to get home, Indy has agreed to retrieve a sacred stone for some local villagers from the walls of Pankot Palace. What Indy doesn’t expect, though, is that his journey will lead him into a deeper darkness than he has seen before, and there’s a lot more insidious work being done at Pankot Palace.

The decision to make Temple of Doom into a prequel instead of a follow-up is due to a rather silly reason. George Lucas did not want the Nazis to be the main focus off the film, which is notable, but the film didn’t need to be a prequel to forgo the Nazis, but it matters not as most of this franchise does not rely on previous knowledge. Temple of Doom does break the mold and go in a wildly different direction than its predecessor. For example, Indy is not hired for this mission and merely falls, quite literally, into it. The entire story is set after a botched mission, and it’s nice to see Indy kind of out of his element. He’s always capable of thinking on his feet, but the task required of him this time around does not allow himself to plan or plot to complete it.

That doesn’t mean that this Indy adventure is without its faults. I find that the film meanders quite a bit in its search to find footing for its story. While it contains my two favorite sequences in the entire franchise (the opening in Club Obi-Wan and the mine cart chase), the rest of the film is more forgettable outside of the big ritual scene. Honestly, it’s hard to imagine the film has a two-hour run time if you haven’t seen it in a while because so much of that first half of the film is dedicated to exposition and nonsense.

Having Short Round as Indy’s sidekick in this film elevates it so much because of how we see Indy through him. The two performers have such great chemistry that all of their scenes have a sense of fun amidst all the horrors. It’s amazing that Ke Huy Quan wasn’t even trying to audition for the role but instead was providing moral support for his brother who was auditioning. He was picked out and put into a room to do a scene with Ford that ended up getting him the role that hundreds were passed over for. It does add the question of whatever happened to the character as he doesn’t appear in Raiders despite it taking place only a year later.

On the other hand, new character Willie is, I’m sorry to say, absolutely awful. Kate Capshaw has nothing to do in this movie that’s worth a damn and the film would be so much better without her. I’ll agree with Capshaw’s quoted description of Willie as “not much more than a dub screaming blonde.” In fact, the only notable accomplishment that Willie does in the film is scream 71 times in two hours.

As I said above, Temple of Doom, for all its faults, contains the two best scenes of the franchise, most notable the mine cart scene. It’s one of the best action set pieces in any film ever. That’s where the film truly wins; it has some of the coolest visuals of the franchise. The ritual chamber is epic in scope, the Pankot Palace scenes are elegant and magical, and even the opening in Club Obi-Wan is elaborate and intense, an unforgettable way to open a movie.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the weakest film in the original Indy trilogy of the 1980s but it has elements that make it stand out as truly unique. Ford gets to flex some new acting muscles here and his dynamic with Short Round is wonderful. There are things, however, that don’t work, most notably Willie Scott, the weakest Indy love interest by a stretch. Still, though, there’s enough here to warrant a watch and a rewatch.

 

3.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, click here.

For my review of Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind, click here.

For my review of Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, click here.

For my review of Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, click here.

For my review of Steven Spielberg’s The Post, click here.

Pirates of the Caribbean Goes Sparrow-less, Margot Robbie to Lead New Film

Jack Sparrow is out, Harley Quinn is in.

Margot Robbie, recent star of Birds of Prey and Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood, is set to lead a new take on Pirates of the Caribbean, which may or may not be a spin-off, with Birds of Prey screenwriter Christina Hodson penning the screenplay.

The Hollywood Reporter broke the story that Disney is very invested in the Pirates of the Caribbean IP and franchise, and they are also still developing a spin-off that was announced last year being worked on by Ted Elliot and Craig Mazin. The most notable absence from both of these announced projects is Johnny Depp, who became famous for Jack Sparrow, who appeared in all 5 Pirates films thus far.

So what does this mean? Right now, who knows? It seems like Disney wants to turn Pirates of the Caribbean into a cinematic universe where they can create unique and original stories set within the very-defined world of the Pirates of the Caribbean world, and I’m all for it. I only request that they actually develop the universe with the parameters that have been defined by the previous films. They don’t need to directly connect, they just need to exist in the world. I’m so sick of franchises just starting over when they run into trouble.

So there are two independent Pirates of the Caribbean films on the way, one of them starring Margot Robbie. Are you excited for Pirates of the Caribbean to continue with Margot Robbie in the lead? Let me know/Drop a comment down below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

[Father’s Day] Father of the Bride (1991)

Director: Charles Shyer

Cast: Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, Martin Short, Kimberly Williams

Screenplay: Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Nancy Meyers, Charles Shyer

105 mins. Rated PG.

 

It’s Father’s Day, and while I am not a father (to my knowledge), I figured now would be a great time to watch a good Father’s Day movie.

George Banks (Steve Martin, Roxanne, Billy Lynn’s Halftime Walk) is dealing with the worst situation of his entire life: his 22-year-old daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams, The Christmas Chronicles, TV’s According to Jim) is getting married to a man he’s never met. As the impending date of the nuptials nears, George’s sanity gets closer and closer to shattering.

The central relationships in the Banks family are the strongest element of the film, specifically between George and Annie. I could genuinely believe that they were father and daughter. George doesn’t hate the idea of her marrying, but he’s terrified of losing his daughter. He wants to be a father for just a little longer. I really enjoyed both of them, and I enjoyed Diane Keaton (Annie Hall, Poms) as George’s wife, Nina, who is so easily won over by Annie’s fiance.

George gets into some pretty frustratingly fun interactions early on in the film, like meeting the in-laws in their lavish home. I would have liked more of these situations because as the film moves along, they lose these moments. In that way, it also lost me a little.

For all the love I have for the central family dynamic, I was unimpressed with Martin Short (The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause, The Addams Family) as Franck Eggelhoffer, the comedic wedding planner who is so unintelligible that he grew old rather quickly. I started out really enjoying his character, and it didn’t work after a while. The filmmakers just leaned so heavily into Eggelhoffer as a supporting character.

Father of the Bride has some really entertaining characters and comedic set pieces. The problem is that it just doesn’t have enough of them to keep the film in that upper tier of Steve Martin comedies. The movie has plenty of heart, though, and that keeps the emotional core strong enough to entertain enough. I still recommend the film but I wish it were stronger.

 

3/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

Dune Not Expected to Be Delayed?

We still have half a year until Denis Villeneuve’s epic adaptation of Dune, but in the world of COVID-19, nothing is off limits. Some films that should have been released by now won’t be seen by audiences until 2021. With all that, it seems like Dune‘s place in the holiday season of 2020 is not expected to change.

This August, Dune is expected to get some planned reshoots. Of course, reshoots are not out of the ordinary, and with that report, Dune is still expected to hit the release date. Now, this is all contingent on COVID-19 and a potential flare-up in cases, but as of now, that is the only things standing in Dune‘s way.

The film is rumored to have footage in front of the Inception anniversary screenings coming on July 17, but there’s been no real confirmation on that.

I’m so happy to hear that Dune isn’t expecting a delay. I get the feeling that every film that gets delayed will carry a stigma, completely out of its hands, and I think Dune needs as many good vibes as it can get.

Don’t get me wrong! I expect Dune to be brilliant. Everything I’ve seen from Villeneuve has been exemplary, and Dune‘s one of my most anticipated of the year (I’m planning on slaying through the novel this fall in eager anticipation), but this film already carries some baggage related to the divisive nature of the previous adaptations, a failed Alejandro Jodorowsky film, and the supposedly unfilmable nature of the novel, but in the climate of a post-Game of Thrones pop culture landscape, Dune has a real chance. It’s just the question of whether film-goers will turn up for it. Villeneuve’s last big budget sci-fi film, Blade Runner 2049, underperformed even though it is incredible.

This is a film to keep watching out for, and I cannot wait to see the first trailer.

So what do you think? Are you excited for Dune? Do you think it will hit its release date? Let me know/Drop a comment down below!

Dune is still, as of now, expected to arrive on December 18.

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

Warner Bros. Teases Major Film Announcements

There’s been a lot of projects being moved around right now as the impacts of the Coronavirus are felt throughout the industry. With all that, though, new projects are still being green-lit, or in this case, teased.

Warner Bros. has been using their social media platforms to tease announcements related to several major IPs. Specifically, their Instagram has hinted at important September announcements for The Goonies, Beetlejuice, and Sherlock Holmes (the Guy Ritchie films).

For The Goonies and Beetlejuice, several commentators online have deduced that the most likely connection is not sequels or remakes but 4k gift sets, both of which are scheduled to street date in September.

So what’s the deal with Sherlock Holmes? Will this film receive a gift set? Is one warranted? The film isn’t that old, and it doesn’t have the same following that a major WB film like The Goonies or Beetlejuice. Do these posts have anything in common or is it just coincidental and we’re reading too much into it? That seems the most likely option, but let’s dig a little deeper.

Sherlock Holmes has had a third film in development for some time, and now that Robert Downey Jr. is no longer Iron Man, this may open the door for that third film quite nicely. The last I heard, Rocketman and Eddie the Eagle director Dexter Fletcher was attached to the sequel (please give us a villainous turn from Taron Egerton) but that was some time ago and Fletcher has his name attached to several projects. Could this be a sequel finally moving forward?

If that’s the case, maybe that means that sequel announcements for all three films could be in the pipeline. Sure, it’s doubtful, even though sequels have been discussed for decades for The Goonies and Beetlejuice. Steven Spielberg, producer of The Goonies, seemed to suggest that a sequel could never live up to the original and was, therefore, not worth it. The same has been suggested by various members of the Beetlejuice cast and crew.

So many potential threads and yet so little to really go on here.

So what do you think? Are these sequels or merely 4k releases, and do these posts have anything at all to do with each other? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑