The Parent Trap III

“Parent Trap III,” released in 1989, is an absurd, relentlessly cheerful continuation of the franchise that began with the 1961 film.

In the two-hour, two-part “Magical World of Disney” TV film, Hayley Mills briefly reprises her role as twins Susan and Sharon Evers.

The story focuses instead on her sister, an interior decorator hired to redesign the beach house owned by Jeff Wyatt (Barry Bostwick), the widowed father of identical, satisfying teenage triplets (Leanna, Monica, and Joy Creel) who is about to marry an extremely pretentious woman (Jill Tyler from “Home Improvement,” Patricia Richardson).

Clifford Terry said in his review, “Fat chance. Before long, the girls are acting as matchmakers between Susan and their Dad . At the same time, they are busily complicating their own lives by trading places and boy friends-''a game,'' as the press release puts it, ''that Susan knows only too well.''”

For a television film, this sinks the franchise into a lower level. I couldn’t find this film anywhere, but my friend told me about a website where I could go buy this DVD. Both of us didn’t know if it was legit or not, but I bought the DVD and watched it. I regret watching this because this was bad. This is not being called one of the worst sequels, but just one of those bad ones that you easily forget about. Never watch this movie.

This film (much like the first two) is paired with the fourth film in the franchise. Yes, you heard right, there is a fourth film to the franchise. If you want to know how that was, stay tuned tomorrow when I review that in the continuation of “Disney Month 2023.”

The Parent Trap II

Produced for the Disney Channel in 1986, “The Parent Trap II” is a completely pointless sequel that makes the first film look like some type of a masterpiece.

This time around, the tables are turned on Sharon (Hayley Mills) as her daughter (Carrie Kei Heim) and twin sister (also played by Mills) plan to trick a single sports writer (Tom Skerritt) into falling in love with her – however, she doesn’t know anything about it.

David Nusair said in his review, “There's really not much here worth recommending, as The Parent Trap II features a predictable and overtly silly storyline that has evidently been dumbed down to appeal solely to small children. The thoroughly unimpressive visuals and amateurish supporting performances certainly don't help matters, although Skerritt is surprisingly charming as the befuddled would-be boyfriend. Add to that several incredibly dated references (a character is tricked into leaving the room by the promise of a hunky boy who resembles Ralph Macchio), and you've got a complete waste of time that's highly unlikely to appeal to fans of the original.”

I saw this on YouTube and I don’t see the reason why they decided to make a sequel to a film that I wasn’t a fan of. It just made the film feel superfluous, as you might have guessed by this review. Do yourself a favor and never see this sequel. If you saw the first film and liked it, this one is not for you. Especially with the amount of time that has passed since the release of the original. Just to think the first two films are always together on a DVD release, and I don’t know why.

If you thought that was the end, it’s not, sadly. We’re going to look at the next sequel tomorrow in “Disney Month 2023.”

The Parent Trap (1961)

It’s impossible to talk about “The Parent Trap” without spending some time on its remake, which – despite both films having many of the same beats and gags – ends up being a more entertaining and heartwarming film.

Identical twins Sharon and Susan, both played by Hayley Mills, were separated at birth, but are surprised to meet one another at a summer camp for girls. The two decide to switch places to meet the parent they’ve never met, much to the irritation of mom (Maureen O’Hara) and dad Mitch (Brian Keith).

David Nusair said in his review of the 1961 original film, “The Parent Trap possesses exactly the kind of genteel vibe that one might expect from a circa-1960s Disney flick, complete with colorful (yet completely styleless) direction and an over-the-top, thoroughly detestable villain. But the palpable feeling of magic that was so prominent in the Lindsay Lohan update is absent here, a problem that's exacerbated by an overlong running time and the acceptable but far-from-memorable performances (something that's particularly true of Keith's gruff turn as the father, a role that was charismatically filled by Dennis Quaid in the remake).”

Even though the special effects are surprisingly whole, the original “The Parent Trap,” when watched alongside the remake, just can’t help but feel unrelated and dated by comparison.

I know this may come off as a surprise to people, but I just wasn’t a fan of this film. I saw a little bit of the film when I was in fifth grade during Halloween. My Elementary School used to have students dress up on Halloween and stand outside on the blacktop to show off their costumes. However, since I don’t celebrate Halloween, I went to the Media Center, where this film was being played. I never bothered to go back and watch this film until earlier this year to prepare for this month. If you like this film, great, but I can do without it.

This film was so successful that it had some sequels. We’ll be looking at the first one tomorrow in “Disney Month 2023.” I’m sorry for posting this late. I took a nap since I was so tired from work.

The Shaggy Dog (1994)

Ray Loynd began his review by stating, “The curious thing about this remake of Walt Disney’s 1959 “Shaggy Dog” comedy/fantasy is the filmmakers’ dumbfounding loyalty to the style and sensibility of the earliest Disney live-action movies.”

Writer Tim Doyle has set the remake in the present and inserted some of the original’s obsolete material, like Cold War spies, however, it might as well be 1959 all over again.

Loynd said, “Launching “Disney Family Movies” on ABC, this telepic’s allegiance to the tone of the first “Shaggy Dog” feels exactly like a Disney print lifted from the studio’s old vaults. Such a time warp of a movie might appeal to nostalgic parents won over as children by the first “Shaggy Dog” (not to mention two sequels), but 35 years later the effect is helplessly leaden except for, perhaps , kids younger than 6.”

The thought that a serious, shy teenager, played by Scott Weinger, should transfigure into a talking shaggy dog because of a spell cast by a romantic ring found in his dad’s pretty museum is imaginary enough. Loynd noted, “But Dennis Dugan’s direction is pedestrian even when Doyle’s script momentarily comes to life.”

The main example of imaginative flight happens when Weinger suddenly starts growing shaggy hair on his face and arms, and then his whole body, while watching “The Curse of the Werewolf” in a packed theater with his first date, played by Sarah Lassez.

Also funny is Ed Begley Jr., in the role of the busy father created by Fred MacMurray, and Sharon Lawrence’s on-point spoof of a happy, dim-witted homemaker.

However, the main subplot, concerns a neighbor, played by James Cromwell, who’s an international jewel thief creating thefts with the help of a look-alike shaggy dog, falls flat, like almost everything else.

As you may have guessed, as a 1994 made-for-TV remake, this wasn’t a valiant effort. You should never watch this on YouTube, because there isn’t anything good about it. I know people may not have liked the Tim Allen version, but I didn’t mind that so much. This, on the other hand, did not need to be made. Just avoid watching it because you will not like it one bit.

Now we are done with this franchise. Tomorrow I will pick up on another franchise that I’m not really a fan of either in “Disney Month 2023.”

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Tonight, on Disney+, I finally got to see “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” released in June theatrically but on Disney+ at the beginning of the month. This was one of the movies I was itching to see this year, and now I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

It’s been a long time since the archeology students of Dr. Henry (Indiana) Jones, Jr., reprised by Harrison Ford, paid so much attention to him in the lecture hall. In the first movie of this now-five film franchise, one of them even wrote “love you” on her eyelids. That was in the 1940s, and we get a flashback to that time with Indiana kidnapped by his old enemies, the Nazis, and then his exciting escape with his friend, Basil Shaw, played by Toby Jones. Just like in the first film, they were looking for the Ark of the Covenant because Hitler wanted its power, in this flashback, they are looking for something almost as epic, a compass-like dial from the Ancient Greek scientist/mathematician Archimedes.

However, now this movie takes place in the summer of the first moon landing, 1969, and Indy is grumpy at his retirement party (which, strangely, happens before the end of the semester, despite his just having told his bored students what will be on their final, but fine).

Basil’s daughter Helena, played by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, surprises Indy, who has not seen her since she was a child. Her father’s obsession with Archimedes’ dial ended his life. However, Helena is now looking for it too, as is a Nazi officer, played by Mads Mikkelsen, who, like Werhner von Bron, was brought to America instead of tried for war crimes, because his scientific knowledge was important to the development of the space program.

Just like the third and fourth films, we get just enough about what is going on with Indiana to add some emotional moments to every action scene. We learn why he separated from Marion, played by Karen Allen. We learn about his relationship with Basil and Helena and some regrets he may feel about all three of them. We also reunite with some characters from the previous films, including the favorite Sallah, reprised by John Rhys-Davies, and his family. There are some callbacks to the previous films, and of course one of the fall-time classic John Williams movie scores, guaranteed to excite everyone. Are there snakes? Just watch the film to see.

There are lots of action. Nell Minow said in her review, “The opening chase scene on and on top of a train is everything we hope for in an Indiana Jones movie, witty, exciting, well-paced. Director James Mangold (“Logan,” “Walk the Line”) ably takes over for Steven Spielberg, with inventive stunts making the most of the props and settings. One under-water section is not as effective as the high-speed chases. There are some poor and tonally inconsistent choices about outcomes for some characters and a switch of allegiance that is not adequately supported by the storyline. There is an un-earned death of a character that takes us out of the film and it takes a leap near the end that did not always work for me. But we’re there to see Harrison Ford, with hat and whip, dazzle us with his action scenes and pure star power, and that is more valuable than an ancient treasure.”

I’ll let everyone know that the film has extended danger and action-style violence, with characters injured and killed. There are references to the sad death of an adult son in the military due to a preoccupation that took over his life. Characters use strong language and drink alcohol.

I know that people may not think very highly of this movie, but I think this movie will be liked better than “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” I might think this is better than that and “Temple of Doom.” Just see the movie and judge for yourself. If you’re a fan of Indiana Jones, then you should give this one a chance. Don’t listen to what people are saying. You should see the movie because I think it is good and people should like this one. Antonio Banderas is in this movie and Ethann Isidore is also in here as another Short Round type character. As the final film of the franchise, this is a fitting end.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Disney Month 2023.”

The Return of the Shaggy Dog

“The Return of the Shaggy Dog,” released on television in 1987, is a sequel to “The Shaggy Dog,” and takes place before “The Shaggy D.A.” What’s funny is that “The Shaggy D.A.” took place in the 70s and “The Return of the Shaggy Dog” takes place in the 80s. Originally released as a two-parter on “The Wonderful World of Disney,” this movie, according to Billwenham, has been aired twice and had Wilby Daniels (Gary Kroeger) engaged to Betty (Michele Little) but before his wedding, he is kidnapped by Professor Primkutt’s (Jack Ammon) caretakers (Jane Carr and Gavin Reed) (who find the ring and read the inscription, hence Wilby’s transfiguring back into the shaggy dog).

There is also another plot where Wilby’s brother, played by Todd Waring, is trying to find the perfect dog for a dog food commercial. Would you say this is predictable and guess what happens next? I guess this is up to the viewer to say if this is enjoyable or not.

You could say that this is disappointing, as is to be expected of made-for-TV sequels. At-A-Glance said in their review, “The villains are cartoony and irritating, the stars have little chemistry or screen appeal, and the comedy includes too few laughs amongst too much slapstick that, excuse the pun, falls flat.” Still, the movie pulls no punches when it comes to getting Wilby in trouble with everyone, and that part of the film is fun. Cindy Morgan is also in the film as Laura.

I guess I could say that I didn’t expect much from the film because the franchise started to feel tired. Thankfully, this is the last that featured Wilby. This is available on YouTube, but I don’t think anybody should see this.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I talk about the last film in the franchise in “Disney Month 2023.”

The Shaggy D.A.

Donna Gustafson started her review by saying, “Any person with a skeleton in their closet should carefully consider the prudence of pursuing a career in politics.” But not Wilby Daniels, played by Dean Jones. Completely livid after being robbed twice in less than twenty-four hours, the local lawyer gives a warning and announces that he wants to run for the office of District Attorney.

The unhappy Daniels is convinced his community’s continuously increasing crime rate is directly related to the tolerant behaviors of the present D.A., Honest John Slade, played by Keenan Wynn. With his wife (Suzanne Pleshette) and son (Shane Sinutko) with him, the enthusiastic rookie decides to make his campaign promise to clean up the town, beginning with looking into the incumbent’s connections with known crooks.

Gustafson said, “Anxious to put a muzzle on his up-start opponent, the cigar-smoking Slade determines to dig up any dirt he can find on Daniels. What he gets his paws on is better than anything he could have hoped for.”

As a child, Wilby Daniels had sadly fallen under a spell. Anytime the inscription on an ancient ring was read, he turned into a shaggy dog. (This synopsis is explained in the previous film, “The Shaggy Dog.”) thanks to a robbery at the museum, the powerful ring is out again, and the old curse is once again haunting him.

Once told about this history, Slade knows whoever gets the ring will win the election. Gustafson noted, “As both parties franticly search, flying pies, gunshots, car chases, and tussles with other canines are just some of the madcap antics to ensue.”

The slapstick comedy is improved by the casting of Tim Conway. Gustafson mentioned, “Playing the part of a gullible ice-cream vendor who confuses the transformed Daniels with his pet dog Elwood, Conway’s character unwittingly runs interference, and provides much of the movie’s humor. He also compensates for cheesy talking mutts and obvious costumes used to create the scenes where a dog drives a car or dons roller-skates.”

Although it’s no surprise life mysteries are not told here, “The Shaggy D.A.,” released in 1976, gives some silly fun, a positive family example, the opportunity for good to win over evil, and an underdog worth cheering for.

When I was in eighth grade, we went on a trip to Philadelphia on coach buses. On the way there, we watched “The Princess Bride.” On the way back, we watched “Shrek.” However, we were finished before we got back to school. They put this on, but we didn’t get very far in the movie before they changed it to the first “Spy Kids.” I decided to check this out on Disney+ and I liked it. I guess everyone was losing interest when we were watching it that’s why they changed it, but now as an adult, I appreciate it. Check it out and see for yourself.

Tomorrow I will look at the next film in the franchise in “Disney Month 2023.” Sorry for the late posting. I had a really busy day today.