The Evening Star

1996 "The continuing story of 'Terms of Endearment'."
5.9| 2h9m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 25 December 1996 Released
Producted By: Paramount Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Continuing the story of Aurora Greenway in her latter years. After the death of her daughter, Aurora struggled to keep her family together, but has one grandson in jail, a rebellious granddaughter, and another grandson living just above the poverty line.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Paramount Pictures

Trailers & Images

Reviews

tex-42 As a movie standing by itself, The Evening Star is a decent film with strong performances by MacLaine and Richardson. However, as a sequel to Terms of Endearment, the movie is mostly middling.The plot line starts off about fifteen to sixteen years after Terms ended. The grandchildren are now all grown, and each has their own problems. Aurora remains the queen bee, but feels like she is losing her family, as her grandchildren resent her interfering and blame her for their current state. Added to the mix is Patsy, Emma's rich best friend and Aurora's nemesis who feels like she could have done a better job raising Melanie. Also along for the ride is Rosie, Aurora's long term maid and companion.The movie mainly follows Aurora as she attempts to deal with life, by dating various men and trying to put her grandchildren on the right path.There are a number of problems with this movie. The first being the complete lack of Flap Horton, the children's father. Here, he has no role in his children's lives, and he is only briefly mentioned as living in New Mexico. The second issue is the character of Melanie. She is essentially a stand in for Emma in this movie, but the dynamic between her and Aurora is underdeveloped and does not work very well. The other two grandchildren, Tommy and Teddy, are even more underdeveloped. The fourth issue is the virtual cavalcade of death this movie becomes in its second half where three main characters die! The one positive note is the Patsy/Aurora relationship. Both actresses have a good chemistry and play well off each other. You can feel the way each resents the other, but it is also understood that at the end of the day, there is a grudging respect.So overall, not a bad movie, but don't watch it expecting another Terms.
brendanchenowith A sequel is an admirable intention. You loved characters from a certain film and wanted to see them again, or the original film left some open ends you'd like to see tied up. These marketing tools very rarely live up to a real film, never mind surpassing it, like in Christopher Reeve's version of "Superman". Most of the time, they're unnecessary at best, and vomitous at worst. Yes, dear readers, The Evening Star is Cinematic Ipecak. If queasy film-goers think they're made to vomit at horror films, just wait until they see this one. It's not a horror movie in the traditional sense, it's a horror OF a move in every sense.I did mention this contains spoilers, but viewers' appetites don't count here No, really, I remember so little of this except for three scenes which I thought were just hilarious: 1- Melanie, played by the never-to-be-Oscar-winning Juliette Lewis (who I understand was a much worse mental case than Debra Winger), spouts off at Aurora (during a fight the two have about her latest boyfriend) "I love him - I HATE YOU!" 2- The fact that Tommy's been in prison all this time and LIVED TO BE RELEASED! If he acted the way he acted in the first film, he'd have been Bruno's special friend in the pokey, not to mention deserving the death penalty for being such a....such a....AAAHH I can't even find the right adjective. Oh, he was just a pig.3- Aurora's stroke while sitting at the piano with some kid. I needn't add anything else to it. 'Nuff said! James L. Brooks was NOT associated with this. Larry Mc Murtry's actual follow-up novel was NOT the basis for this. Lisa Hart Carroll was NOT Patsy. Yes, the great Miranda Richardson was NOT so great in this.Bill Paxton (wherever HE is these days - Twister II, anyone?) was okay in this, and it's always nice to see Jack, but it wasn't long enough. Now that I think of it, Paxton resembles Jack a little. Maybe there was a missing subplot about him being Garrett's and Aurora's son who was put away in an institution because post menopausal ladies usually give birth to children with severe birth defects. Paxton's choice in acting in this piece of schlock was truly a defective one and he should be institutionalized. HEY WAIT A MINUTE - MAYBE HE WAS (heh-heh).This sits very prettily on the perch of the four very worst sequels ever made: EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC - Blatty didn't write - Friedkin didn't direct. Blair didn't act. Yeah, she's in it, but she still doesn't act.ARTHUR II ON THE ROCKS - Come on, guys! Romantic fantasies are supposed to have the couple living happily ever after. An amusing fairy tale was turned into a soap opera by an individual in his/her first week of literacy classes in hopes of obtaining a GED.STAYING ALIVE - As could be said in Johnny Dangerously, I saw this ONCE! Sequel to Saturday Night Fever - fevers usually make you feel sick and can sometimes kill you, even robbing you of your powers of either sight, hearing, or speech, as in the case of Helen Keller.YEP - this'll do it!
MovieAddict2016 I don't understand the point of this movie. "Terms of Endearment" already did all this - and it was better. What's the point of bringing Shirley MacLaine back almost fifteen years later? The original audience of the first film are much older by then and younger girls don't give a damn because they weren't around when the original was released. Do you see a point? Neither do I. Perhaps that's why it flopped when it came out.MacLaine returns to her role and basically this movie is just her life and we get an update on how she's living. Juliette Lewis and Bill Paxton get little to do - Lewis is annoying as usual and frankly I wouldn't mind if she just stopped acting permanently tomorrow.The best thing about this film has to be Jack's cameo appearance as Garrett. It almost saves a failing movie - but once he leaves it all falls apart again.
Laura1229 This movie had two major problems to contend with: being a sequel and being an adaptation, and the two problems were very related. First of all, "Terms of Endearment" the novel and "Terms of Endearment" the movie have huge differences. (Garrett Breedlove isn't even in the book and Rosie was married with several children.) What I think is great about "The Evening Star" is that it tries to hold true to the book and the first movie. Perhaps most importantly, it shows how important Hector and Rosie were in Aurora's life. As a fan of both the books and the first movie, I was happy to see how well this movie brought them all together. It's one of my favorites.