Robin and Marion
I've said this before in another thread, Juggernaut from 1974, with Richard Harris, about bombs planted on a luxury liner crossing the Atlantic, is a good terrorist thriller directed by Lester.
That double-shot of Three and Four Musketeers is one of the finest literary adaptions I've ever seen, and - with the latest StudioCanal and Criterion blu-rays - some of the most gorgeous cinematography ever produced. Richard Lester was a damn fine director.
That being said... I do think the Donner Cut is a better movie, as cut-and-paste as it is. I just don't think Lester was ever going to be a good fit with the material.
Agreed. Although, I will admit that I was today years old when I learned through a Google search prompted by this very discussion that Lester directed a third Musketeer movie that that he never speaks of that was intended for theaters and then downgraded to a TV movie...
The Return of the Musketeers - Wikipedia
Return isn’t a bad movie, though it’s certainly not as good as the first couple. I think it’s worth getting the Blu-ray from Kino Lorber to have a complete set.Agreed. Although, I will admit that I was today years old when I learned through a Google search prompted by this very discussion that Lester directed a third Musketeer movie that that he never speaks of that was intended for theaters and then downgraded to a TV movie...
The Return of the Musketeers - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It’s an utter tragedy Roy Kinnear died during production, after which Lester never directed another narrative film.
Lester's Juggernaut (1974) is a pretty good movie that is without question worth seeing.
However, the second time I saw it, I did come away let down by something that I can't quite put my finger on. I guess I would say that I had a hard time engaging with the characters, especially the secondary characters, but really all or almost all of them, as anything other than caricatures.
So, it's a mixed bag there, maybe, but I think that assessing a film as worth seeing, even while regarding it as flawed, is more than just faint praise.
However, the second time I saw it, I did come away let down by something that I can't quite put my finger on. I guess I would say that I had a hard time engaging with the characters, especially the secondary characters, but really all or almost all of them, as anything other than caricatures.
So, it's a mixed bag there, maybe, but I think that assessing a film as worth seeing, even while regarding it as flawed, is more than just faint praise.
I don't disgree that it's flawed, but I think it's unfair to treat The Donner Cut as a proper "director's cut" since he never got to shoot all the material he intended or come up with a new ending after they moved the II ending to I. At best, The Donner Cut is a partial "what if?" peek at something that can't really be completed.
Comments on the video bring that up, and I agree with that take.
If Lester isn't available, or turns the offer down, then who else is there available to direct the reshoots.
They're not going to pony up the money for a big name director, so who's on the 'B' list that they can turn to.
I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, but I'm not that familiar with directors of that era.
They're not going to pony up the money for a big name director, so who's on the 'B' list that they can turn to.
I can't think of anyone off the top of my head, but I'm not that familiar with directors of that era.
That's the way I look at it. Its a nice "what if', but not something I pull out when I want to see Superman 2. There are bad cut and paste scenes that really take you out as a viewer.
Also, there are things in that Donner Cut which he would not been able to put in had he stayed director.
1.) There would have been no Brando. His scenes were removed from the sequal because of the lawsuit. The order to replace him came from the producers long before shooting picked back up for 2. That alone negates this from being a true directors cut.
2.) He would not have had Superman fly around the world again after doing it in the first movie. That would have been redundant.
Last edited:
Right, because all that obvious polystyrene looked exactly like real ice...
The set was marvelous and looked great. Today it would be cgi.
Om talking about the world itself. It looks more like the real world than cgi chaotic worlds we get in modern superhero films. The original superman movies had their campy silly scenes weren't as plentiful and as goofy.
Ye godz, I find myself in partial agreement with TRON JA307020. I too have a soft spot for the days of practical effects and physical sets. But I’m also not going to let that preference stop me from enjoying more modern movies, especially when they’re as splendid as Superman ‘25.
Im fine with CGI so long as its done right. In Superman 2025 it was done right. In The Flash, the CGI was total sh#t and ruined the movie for me.
Same goes for practical effects. Superman 1 and 2 was totally believable. Superman 4 looked so fake that I can't bring myself to rewatch it.
In the end, it's all about the execution.
Last edited:
Yeah the first three Reeves Superman movies the effects were superb by the 4th movie they really stunk. I think it was budget and changing to a cheap effects company. So bad. Lol.
I am not saying I hate CGI I just scrutinize its application/usage. Some marvel movies have done some good work. My favorite is the first Iron Man. Great effects but not so much where it takes me out of the movie. Lots of location shooting outside as well. I guess its just personal preference.
Amy and I were talking the other day about missing matte background paintings. I'm very thankful for the era, it helped fire my imagination, but the world continues and people continue to evolve processes in everything from food to film. It is the nature of what we are.
One way isn't inherently better than the other, just different.
Right to all the above. Canon purchased the property from the Salkinds and they went cheap.
There's a very old saying, "You get what you pay for."
What I like about CGI is that it just gives the creators so much freedom to just go completely bonkers and do stuff you could never do practically. One of my all time favorite scene in any Marvel movie is when Dr. Strange and America are jumping through all of the crazy universe, and there is no way you could do half that shit practically.
But on the other hand I do appreciate practical effects when they're done well, I'm a huge fan of Jim Henson, and Henson Production. One of my all time favorite shows is Farscape, and I think it's the perfect example of how to combine practical effects and CGI. And on the purely practical effects front, I'm a huge fan of the orignal Star Wars trilogy, Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, The Never-Ending Story, and Legend.
And I do annoyed sometimes when they use CGI for something that can easily be done practically.