
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, June 1, 1990                   TAG: 9006010179
SECTION: EXTRA                    PAGE: E-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Chris Gladden
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

IT'S TIME TO RETIRE SOME SEQUELS

The filmmakers behind the "Back to the Future" series say that "Part III" is the last episode in this highly lucrative string of pictures. But anyone who has seen the third installment knows that the ending certainly doesn't preclude the possibility of others - on the contrary, it's constructed in a way that could spawn a whole new batch of adventures.

At this time, though, I'll just take director Robert Zemeckis and producer Steven Spielberg at their word and congratulate them for stopping at an appropriate time.

The tendency in the movie industry is to make sequels until they stop making money. It appears "Back to the Future" still has a few more miles in it before it runs out of gas.

"Part II" and "Part III" were made concurrently and released within six months of each other - one to rake in box-office bucks at Christmas, the other to tap the summer market. The strategy makes economic sense. Now it makes sense to quit while the filmmakers and audiences are ahead. After the disappointment of the second movie, "Part III" turns out to be enjoyable escapism - an upbeat punctuation.

There's an honored tradition in sports to retire a player's number after a particularly distinguished career. It should be applied to the movie business where sequels are concerned.

"Future" leaves the field with honor after a dazzling debut, a mid-career slump and a professional finish.

But how about "Jaws?" It opened a winner, but the series floundered for three more movies.

"The Star Wars" trilogy actually needed three movies to tie up its plot. Each movie could stand on its own but each also serves the other. This was a case of a filmmaker attempting to complete his vision, not the commercial exploitation of the original movie.

On the other hand, the Indiana Jones movies just reworked the same formula: the line could have been retired with "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Sequels are the big movie news this summer and on into the fall and Christmas seasons.

Most are action films, where box office hits inevitably spawn follow-ups. Studios would be insane to not make a "RoboCop II" or a "Die Hard 2."

But how about a "Godfather III"? This is where sequels enter dangerous territory.

If there was ever an artistic argument for sequels, it's "The Godfather, Part II." It did something sequels seldom do: It exceeded the original when it won six Oscars including best picture in 1974. This continuation 3 1 CLIPS Clips of the Corleone family saga could well be the greatest sequel ever made. Now, director Francis Ford Coppola has filmed a third installment that looks at the gangster family's relationship with the Vatican. It's an audacious move.

Then there is "The Two Jakes." Finally scheduled for release this summer, this is the long-awaited sequel to "Chinatown."

Warning signals have been up for months because the release date of this troubled production has been pushed back several times. Roman Polanski directed the original but fled the U.S. because of legal problems before he could direct a sequel. Star Jack Nicholson is at the helm of "The Two Jakes."

While the action sequels will probably corner the summer box office, "The Godfather, Part III" and "The Two Jakes" will grab the most attention. We'll all want to know if their numbers should have been retired before this year.

by CNB