"LORD EDGEWARE DIES" (2000) Review

 

"LORD EDGEWARE DIES" (2000) Review

The worlds of Britain's upper-crust and artists mingled in Agatha Christie's 1933 novel called "Lord Edgeware Dies aka Thirteen at Dinner". There have been at least three movie and one radio adaptations of the novel in the past seven to eight decades. The most recent was a 100 minute television adaptation that aired in 2000 on the ITV series, "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT".

In "LORD EDGEWARE DIES", Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot is approached by celebrated stage actress, Jane Wilkinson aka Baroness Edgeware, to approach her rather unpleasant husband on the possibility of a divorce. She has plans to marry her current beau, the Duke of Merton. Although reluctant to carry out such a task, a reluctant Poirot is charmed by the actress into committing this deed. However, both he and his friend, Captain Arthur Hastings, are surprised to learn that Lord Edgeware had already informed his estranged wife of his willingness to grant her a divorce in a letter. Poirot surprises the actress with this information. But she claims that she has never received such a letter.

Jane's relief at this bit of news is spoiled when Lord Edgeware is found murdered inside his study. When both his secretary and butler claim that the actress had appeared at her husband's house, several minutes before his death, she becomes the prime suspect. However, a newspaper article catches the eyes of Poirot and Chief Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard. Through the article, they discover that Jane had been a guest at a dinner party on the night of her husband's murder. Although Jane was one of the first guests to rise from the table, she was only gone for a few minutes. And when the American-born impersonator/comedienne Carlotta Adams was found dead from an overdose, Poirot begins to realize that someone had hired her to appear at the Edgeware home as Jane Wilkinson.

"LORD EDGEWARE DIES" surprisingly turned out to be that rare occasion in which a screen adaptation adheres faithfully to the novel source. The only major difference between the 1933 novel and the 2000 movie was the addition of Poirot's secretary, Miss Lemon, to the story. One would think that such faithfulness made "LORD EDGEWARE DIES" one of the best Christie adaptations to be filmed. Perhaps other Christie fans might believe so, but not me. I am not saying that "LORD EDGEWARE DIES" is a terrible movie. Trust, it is not. If I have to be brutally honest, I found nothing exceptional about it.

There were a few aspects about Anthony Horowitz's screenplay that I found troubling. The screenwriter nearly gave away the murderer's identity just before the death of the third victim, a Scottish writer named Donald Ross, with a penchant for Greek mythology. And I could have done without the subplot involving Hasting's return to England. It could have worked in a POIROT aired five years earlier or so. But "LORD EDGEWARE DIES" proved to be one of the last three or four movies to feature the Arthur Hastings character. Why create a big hullabaloo over Hasting's return to England, when his character was destined to be gone within a year? Worse, Hastings seemed more than ever like a buffoon. Poirot's interactions with Chief Inspector Japp seemed a lot stronger.

Aside from a few performances, I found nothing exceptional about the cast featured in "LORD EDGEWARE DIES". David Suchet seemed competent as usual as Hercule Poirot. So did Philip Jackson as Chief Inspector Japp and Pauline Moran as Miss Lemon. Only Hugh Fraser suffered, thanks to Horowitz's script. And despite being a competent actor, I am afraid that Fraser was unable to overcome the script's less-than-pleasing portrayal of Hastings. Helen Grace gave one of the few outstanding performances as prime suspect Jane Wilkinson. Her portrayal was complex, yet at the same time, made it easy for me to see why Poirot was charmed by her personality. Fiona Allen gave an amusing performance as impersonator Carlotta Adams. And Iain Fraser was solid as the intelligent and observant writer, Donald Ross. Aside from the Fraser, the only other performance that failed to impress me came from John Castle. I found this disappointing, because Castle is usually a subtle, yet outstanding performer. I suspect that like Fraser, Castle was hampered by a badly written character. Even worse, his Lord Edgeware came off as a one-dimensional bully.

Rob Harris did an outstanding job as the movie's production designer. I thought he and his team did a great job in re-creating London of the 1930s. I was also impressed by Chris O'Dell's cinematography and Frank Webb's editing. I was especially impressed by Webb's editing and Brian Farnham's direction in the sequence featuring Scotland Yard's chase of Lord Edgeware's butler at Croydon Airport. I found Charlotte Holdich's costumes very sharp and sophisticated - especially for the Lady Edgeware character. However, whoever styled Helen Grace's hair for role, did a slightly sloppy job in re-creating a 30s hairdo for her character.

In the end, I found "LORD EDGEWARE DIES" as a solid, entertaining, yet undistinguished addition to the list of adaptations for "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". I enjoyed it, despite its flaws. But I would never consider it to be one of the best Christie adaptations around. It is a good movie, as far as I am concerned . . . but not a great one.

"FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" (1973) Book Review

 

"FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" (1973) Book Review

Serving as the fourth entry in George MacDonald Fraser’s The Flashman Papers, this 1973 novel continued the story of Harry Flashman, a character previously from the 1857 novel, "Tom Brown’s Schooldays" and now a British Army officer in Fraser’s novels. This particular novel, "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE", recalled Flashman’s experiences during the Crimean War (1854-1856) and Imperial Russia’s expansion into Central Asia.

One could say that "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" could almost serve as a prequel to Fraser’s 1975 novel about the Sepoy Rebellion, "FLASHMAN IN THE GREAT GAME". Almost. But it seemed quite obvious to me that the latter is a sequel to the 1973 novel. At least two supporting characters from this novel reappeared in "FLASHMAN IN THE GREAT GAME". And the theme of Imperial Russia’s attempts to wrestle control of India from Great Britain in the 1975 novel, began in this novel.

The 1973 novel began with Harry Flashman enjoying the London social scene with his beautiful wife, Elspeth. With Great Britain on the brink of war against Russia on Turkey’s behalf, the cowardly Flashman believed that the only way to avoid combat was to have his Uncle Bindley secure him a post with the Board of Ordinance – the British Army’s armory. However, Flashman’s luck failed to hold (not surprisingly) and his meeting with the young German prince, William of Celle (a relation of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert) led him to become a staff galloper for Lord Raglan, the British Army’s Commander-in-Chief. The new position drew Harry against his will into the chaos of the Crimean War and in becoming a participant of one of history’s most infamous cavalry engagements – the Charge of the Light Brigade. This famous military action also led him to becoming a prisoner-of-war at the estate of a Cossack nobleman named Count Pencherjevsky

At Count Pencherjevsky’s estate, Starkosk, Flashman has a reunion with a former Rugby schoolmate, Harry "Scud" East. After the two English prisoners learned of Russia’s plans to invade India and kick the British out, they decided to make their escape following a serf uprising at Starkosk. Unfortunately for Flashman, a sleigh accident led to his recapture by the Russians and a political officer named Count Nicholas Ignitieff. Flashy’s incarceration at Fort Raim led him to an acquaintance with two famous Muslim freedom fighters from the state of Kokodad, Yakub Beg and Issat Kutebar. Luck finally caught up with Flashman, when he and his two new acquaintances are rescued by Yakub Beg’s mistress, Ko Dali’s daughter, and a band of Kokodans. Following the rescue, Harry participated in one last action against the Russians against his will . . . so to speak.

I must admit that "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" turned out to be a well-structured and well-written novel. Unless I am mistaken, the novel was written into three parts – the London prelude, Flashman’s Crimean War experiences that included his time as a prisoner-of-war at the Starkosk estate, and finally his incarceration at Fort Raim and experiences with the Kokadans. Fraser began the novel on a strong note and finished it in a similar manner. My only sole complaint centered on Flashman’s journey to Starkosk and his time at the estate. In short, it seemed to me that the sequence threatened to bog down the pace. I suspect that Fraser’s in-depth look into Imperial Russian serfdom during this sequence is responsible. As much as I found it interesting, I also wondered if Fraser got caught up in his subject, which would seem ironic considering his failure to explore American slavery in the 1971 novel, "FLASH FOR FREEDOM!". As much as I had enjoyed Flashman’s time spent with Count Pencherjevsky and his family on the Starkosk estate, no one felt more relieved than me when he and "Scud" East finally escaped, thanks to a serf uprising. I had become rather weary of Flashman’s period as a prisoner-of-war.

Despite some of my problems with the novel, I cannot deny that "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" is a well-written novel. Fraser did an excellent job in recapturing London during the early and mid 1850s and Great Britain’s pro-war mood on the cusp of the Crimean War. He also expertly drew readers into the world of the British Army during the first months of the war. His description of the Army caps and hospitals at Alma just before the Battle of Balaclava literally had me cringing in my seat a bit:

"So the siege was laid, the French and ourselves sitting down on the muddy, rain-sodden gullied plateau before Sevastopol, the dismalest place on earth, with no proper quarters but a few poor huts and tents, and everything to be carted up from Balaclava on the coast eight miles away. Soon the camp, and the road to it, was a stinking quagmire; everyone looked and felt filthy, the rations were poor, the work of preparing the siege was cruel hard (for the men, anyway), and all the bounce there had been in the army after Alma evaporated in the dank, feverish rain by day and the biting cold by night. Soon half of us were lousy, as some wags said, who’d holiday at Brighton if he could come to sunny Sevastopol instead?"

Another memorable passage featured Flashman’s participation in the Light Brigade Charge. Fraser did a superb job in describing not only the Battle of Balaclava, but particularly the Light Brigade Charge. I found his description of the famous military charge filled with heady action, chaos and terror – especially from Flashman’s point-of-view:

"I had only a moment to look back – my mare was galloping like a thing demented, as I steadied, there was Cardigan, waving his sabre and standing in his stirrups; the guns were only a hundred yards away, almost hiddenin a great billowing bank of smoke, a bank which kept glaring red as though some Lucifer were opening furnace doors deep inside it. There was no turning, no holding back, and even in that deafening thunder I could hear the sudden chorus of yells behind me as the torn remnant of the Light Brigade gathered itself for the final mad charge into the battery. I dug my heels, yelling nonsense and brandishing my sabre, shot into the smoke with one final rip from my bowels and a prayer that my gallant little mare wouldn’t career headlong into a gun-muzzle, staggered at the fearful concussion of a gun exploding within a yard of me – and then we were through, into the open space behind the guns, leaping the limbers and ammunition boxes with the Russians scattering to let us through, and Cardigan a bare two yards away, reining his beast back almost on its haunches."

However, one of my favorite chapters in the novel featured Flashman and the Kokordans’ attempts to destroy the Russian gunboats filled with weapons to be used against the Kokordans and the invasion of India. Before this battle took place, Ko Dali’s daughter drugged the cowardly officer with hashish (bhang) in order to force him to overcome his fear for the operation. The scene of the cowardly Flashy acting like George Armstrong Custer on crack struck me as one of the funniest passages in the entire series:

"God, what a chaos it was! I was galloping like a dervish at Kutebar’s heels, roaring 'Hark forrard! Ha-ha, you bloody foreigners, Flashy’s here!', careering through the narrow spaces between the sheds, with the muskets banging off to our left, startled sleepers crying out, and everyone yelling like be-damned. As we burst headlong onto the last stretch of open beach, and swerved past the landward end of the pier, some stout Russian was bawling and letting fly with a pistol; I left off singing 'Rule, Britannia' to take a shot at him, but missed, and there ahead someone was waving a torch and calling, and suddenly there were dark figures all around us, clutching at our bridles, almost pulling us from the saddles towards a big go-down on the north side of the pier."

George MacDonald Fraser did take historical liberties with one particular character – the novel’s main villain, Count Nicholas Ignatieff. The author described the Russian character in the following manner:

"And as our eyes met through the cigarette smoke I thought, hollo, this is another of those momentous encounters. You didn’t have to look at this chap twice to remember him forever. It was the eyes, as it so often is – I thought in that moment of Bismarck, and Charity Spring, and Akbar Khan; it had been the eyes with them, too. But this fellow’s were different from anything yet: one was blue, but the other had a divided iris, half-blue, half-brown, and the oddly fascinating effect of this was that you didn’t know where to look, but kept shifting from one to the other.

For the rest, he had a gingerish, curling hair and square, masterful face that was no way impaired by a badly-broken nose. He looked tough, and immensely self-assured; it was in his glance, in the abrupt way he moved, in the slant of the long cigarette between his fingers, in the rakish tilt of his peaked cap, in the immaculate white tunic of the Imperial Guards. He was the kind who knew exactly what was what, where everything was, and precisely who was who – especially himself. He was probably a devil with women, admired by his superiors, hated by his rivals, and abjectly feared by his subordinates. One word summed him up: bastard."

The above passage described Flashman’s opinion of Ignatieff during their first meeting on the road to Starkosk. They met for the second time, when Flashman and "Scud" East overheard Ignatieff, Czar Nicholas I and other Russian officials discuss plans to invade India during a secret meeting at Starkosk. And their third and final encounter happened after Flashman was recaptured, following his escape from Starkosk and attempt to reach the British lines on the Crimean peninsula. It was Ignatieff who tossed Flashman into the prison at Fort Raim. From what I have read, the real Ignatieff had never been quite the villain as portrayed in "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE". Fraser even admitted that he had taken liberties with the character in order to provide the novel with a main villain. Mind you, I believe he could have done that a lot easier with a fictional character. Why he had decided to take a historical figure and change his character in order to make him an effective villain is beyond me.

After reading "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE", it is easy to see why it remains very popular with many fans of Fraser’s novels. It is a well written comic-adventure tale filled with interesting characters – fictional and historical. The novel also featured two very unique passages, namely the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade and the usually cowardly Flashman behaving in a brave and aggressive man during a major battle. "FLASHMAN AT THE CHARGE" also happened to be one of those rare Flashman novels that began and ended on a strong note. Not only does it remain popular with many Flashman fans, but I also personally consider it to be one of Fraser’s better works.

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery

 

Below is a gallery featuring photos from the 2004 version of William Makepeace Thackeray's epic novel, "VANITY FAIR". Directed by Mira Nair, the movie starred Reese Witherspoon:

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Photo Gallery

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1959) Review

 

"BLEAK HOUSE" (1959) Review

I never thought a trip to Great Britain would reveal the existence of many television adaptations of certain Victorian novels. But it did. I took a trip to Europe and discover that the BBC had produced older television adaptations of famous novels - including those written by Charles Dickens.

One of the adaptations I had stumbled across was the 1959 version of Dickens' 1852-1853 novel, "Bleak House". First aired in eleven 30-minute episodes, I had been forced to binge watch the entire miniseries at a friend's house due to a time constraint. Eric Tayler, known for his work with the BBC in Great Britain and the ABC in New Zealand, served as the producer. And Constance Cox, who had a reputation for adapting classic literature for the stage and television, had served as the screenwriter for the five-and-a-half hours production. How did they do?

Before I offer my opinion of the miniseries, allow me to provide a recap of this adaptation of Dickens' story. "BLEAK HOUSE" centered around Jarndyce and Jarndyce, a long-running legal case in the Court of Chancery, due a testator having written several conflicting wills. Among the characters directly affected by Jarndyce and Jarndyce are:

*John Jarndyce - a beneficiary of the case, and benevolent landowner and owner of the Bleak House estate
*Richard Castrone - one of Mr. Jarndyce's wards and another beneficiary
*Ada Clare - Mr. Jarndyce's other ward and another beneficiary
*Esther Sommerson - Mr. Jarndyce's third ward, whom he hired to serve as his housekeeper and Ada's companion
*Honoria, Lady Dedlock - the wife of baronet Sir Leicester Dedlock, another beneficiary and Esther's illegitimate mother

Although the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case directly affect some, other characters - like Esther - are indirectly affected by the case:

*Sir Leicester Dedlock- wealthy baronet and Lady Dedlock's husband
*Mr. Tulkinghorn - Sir Leicester's solicitor, who becomes aware of Lady Dedlock's past, due to her reaction to the affidavit
*Nemo aka James Hawdon - a former British Army officer, Esther's illegitimate father and law writer, whose penmanship of a Jarndyce and Jarndyce affidavit alerts his presence to his former lover, Lady Dedlock
*Jo - a poor young street sweeper whom Nemo had befriended
*Miss Flyte - an elderly woman, whose family had been destroyed by a long-running Chancery case similar to Jarndyce v Jarndyce, and who befriends Mr. Jarndyce's wards
*Krook - a rag and bottle merchant and collector of papers, who is also Miss Flyte and Nemo's landlord

Although Mr. Jarndyce remained unconcerned with the case, Richard develops an obsession over it, an act that leads to his estrangement from his guardian. This estrangement leave both Esther and Ada caught between the pair. Lady Dedlock seemed more concern with the identity of the man who had been hired to write the Jarndyce and Jarndyce affidavit. Her concern is noticed by Mr. Tulkinghorn, who becomes obsessed with connecting the two in an effort to protect Sir Leicester's good name. His search for Nemo's identity and Lady Dedlock's secret end up affecting other characters.

I had expected to dislike this version of "BLEAK HOUSE" . . . or merely express contempt for it. To my surprise, I found myself impressed. Granted, I believe it had its share of flaws, which I will eventually discussed. But overall, "BLEAK HOUSE" proved to be more than a solid adaptation of Dickens' novel. Thanks to Constance Cox's screenplay and the group of directors, the eleven-part miniseries moved at a steady pace that kept me alert and interested in the story. And although Bryan Langley's camera work lacked the artistry and sweep of the two adaptations that followed, I thought he managed to provide some artistic touches in the productions, especially those moments featuring Esther, Richard and Ada's arrival at Bleak House, Esther and Inspector's Bucket's search for the missing Lady Dedlock later in the series, the miniseries' final shot and especially the murder of a major character around the end of the ninth episode. What I find interesting is that many of these "artistic" touches had occurred near the end of an episode.

I noticed that this version of Dickens' novel had removed several supporting characters from the adaptation. Those missing included Mr. Jarndyce's old friend, Lawrence Boythorn; the Jellyby and Turveydrop families; the former servant of Esther's aunt, Mrs. Chadband and her minister husband; Rosa, Lady Dedlock's second maid; Watt Rouncewell, Rosa's intended; and Robert Rouncewell, Watt's industrialist father and the older son of the Dedlocks' housekeeper. This led screenwriter Constance Cox to create another excuse for Lady Dedlock to dismiss her French maid, Madam Hortense. I cannot help but wonder if this was an attempt to portray Lady Dedlock's treatment of her personal servants in a more positive light. There were characters whose roles had been reduced by Cox and producer Eric Tayler. Among them were George Rouncewell's right-hand man, Phil Squod; the memorable, yet malignant moneylender, Joshua Smallweed; and his granddaughter Judy Smallweed. Because of this reduction of Smallweed's character, Lady Dedlock needed another reason to flee Chesney Wold, other than blackmail and the threat of exposure. The elimination of one particular character nearly left a hole in the production - namely Harold Skimpole, the selfish and amoral friend of Mr. Jarndyce, with his penchant for sponging from others.

The lack of Mr. Skimpole proved to be a problem for me. Without his presence, I found Richard Carstone's gradual interest in the Jarndyce and Jarndyce case, his growing hostility toward Mr. Jarndyce and his hiring of the greedy Chancery lawyer, Mr. Vholes, less easy to accept. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seemed to me Skimpole had played a major influence in Richard's growing obsession with the Jarndyce case. Without his presence in this production, there were times when Richard's arc seemed rushed. But I had a few more issues with "BLEAK HOUSE", but not as severe as the one surrounding the Skimpole character. The miniseries had failed to explain Miss Flyte's whereabouts, during her landlord Mr. Krook's moment of spontaneous combustion. Where was she? The old lady had already moved to other lodgings in the novel. And in the two adaptations following this one, she had encountered law clerk William Guppy outside of Krook's shop, while returning home. Granted, this adaptation proved to be more faithful regarding the circumstances of Krook's death with the addition of the Tony Jobling character. I just wish it had explained Miss Flyte's whereabouts.

I do have some complaints regarding the production's casting, but I will get to that later. Some have pointed out that this adaptation lacked the sweeping visuals of the 1985 and 2005 versions. I cannot deny this. But this "BLEAK HOUSE" was a television production from the late 1950s. It seemed unrealistic to expect the miniseries to possess the same visual sweeps from the two adaptations that followed. With the exception of the mid-19th century hairstyle worn by actress Elizabeth Shepherd, the other major female cast members had their hair (or wigs) swept into late 1950s beehives. If that was not enough, I also had some issues with the women's costumes. Dickens' novel had been published between 1852 and 1853. The costume designs for the 1985 and 2005 adaptations had reflected this time period. But I had noticed that the women's costume designs for the 1959 adaptation reflected a later period - between the late 1850s and early 1860s - when women's skirts were more wider, due to the innovation of the cage crinoline petticoat in 1856. Had it been the intention of producer Eric Tayler to set this adaptation during the later years of the 1850s?

With the exception of one or two actors, I did not have a problem with the performances featured in "BLEAK HOUSE". I certainly had no problems from the likes of Elizabeth Shepherd, John Phillips, Jerome Willis, Angela Crow, William Mervyn, Wilford Brambell, Richard Pearson, Michael Aldridge, Gerald Cross, Eileen Draycott, Leslie French and Annette Carrell. I especially have to commend Shepherd, Phillips, Aldridge and Carrell for being standouts among the supporting cast. The only reason I could not regard John Phillips' portrayal of the lawyer Mr. Tulkinghorn as among the best of the series is that although I found his performance rather intimidating at times, I thought he had lacked the high level of menace and spite that both Peter Vaughn and Charles Dance had managed to infuse into their portrayals.

There were performances that I found questionable. David Horne's portrayal of the aristocratic Sir Leicester Dedlock struck me as a bit too theatrical or hammy - especially during the miniseries' last two episodes. Terence Soall's performance as the moneylender Mr. Smallweed seemed not only a ghost of Dickens' original character. The malice and sharp temper seemed to be missing in Soall's interpretation of the character, leaving the actor's Mr. Smallweed to be nothing more than a man who resorted to passive-aggressive sniveling to get through life. And to my surprise, I believe he was only featured in one or two episodes. I finally come to Malcolm Knight, who portrayed the impoverished street-crossing sweeper, Jo. I am not claiming that he gave a bad performance. If I must be honest, the actor had given his all to inject as much pathos as possible into the role. But . . . if I must be honest, at the age of 23 or 24 years old, Knight had been too old to portrayed the 10-to-12 years-old Jo. No amount of pathos in his performance could overcome this issue.

For me, the outstanding performances came from six cast members. Although Cox's transcript did not touch upon Esther's bouts insecurity - a product of the emotional abuse she had endured, while being raised by her aunt - I thought Diana Fairfax did an excellent job of conveying Esther's sometime frantic need to be liked. Andrew Cruickshank was equally superb as the warm-hearted landowner, Mr. John Jarndyce, who seemed torn between his efforts to protect his charges and his anguish over Richard's unfounded hostility toward him. I also noticed that both Fairfax and Cruickshank had generated a very strong screen chemistry - which would be repeated by those who had portrayed Esther and Mr. Jarndyce in future adaptations. All of the actors I have seen portray the young Richard Carstones had been first-rate. But I believe Colin Jearvons gave the best portrayal of the fleckless but good-natured ward, transformed over time by the character's growing obsession with the Jarndyce case and his own resentment toward Mr. Jarndyce's disappointment in his failure to find a profession. Ironically, Jeavons had appeared in six Dickens adaptations, including two adaptations of "Great Expectations" and two of "Bleak House". Iris Russell did a first-rate job in infusing a good deal of pathos into the Honoria, Lady Dedlock role without resorting to any hammy acting. This especially seemed to be the case in the one scene in which Lady Dedlock revealed herself as Esther's mother to the latter. I believe Miss Flyte must be one of those roles that prove very difficult not to indulge in theatrical acting. Fortunately for this production, Nora Nicholson had been cast in the role of Miss Flyte, the elderly and eccentric woman who had developed an obsessive in other Chancery cases like Jarndyce and Jarndyce, following the destruction of her own family over a similar case. Nicholson managed to keep her performance under control, while conveying Miss Flyte's eccentric nature. Finally, Timothy Bateson really impressed me in his portrayal of the ambitious, yet very funny law clerk, William Guppy, who worked for Mr. Jarndyce's solicitor. I have to say . . . that man had possessed a superb comic timing that not only suited the character very well., but should have been the envy of many comic actors.

I am not going to pretend that "BLEAK HOUSE" should have been faithful to Dickens' novel. That would have been an impossibility for any television or movie production. Some of the changes made by the screenwriter failed to harm the miniseries. But there were a few changes - namely the exclusion of the Harold Skimpole character - that struck me as minor mistakes. However, I thought Constance Cox did a first-rate job in adapting Dickens' novel. And those who had directed the eleven episodes did an excellent job in maintaining the production's pace and also the narrative's continuity. I believe their work had been ably supported by a first-rate cast led by Diana Fairfax, Andrew Cruickshank, Colin Jeavons and Elizabeth Shepherd. I would gladly watch this miniseries again. Unfortunately, it is currently unavailable in the U.S. and I do not see myself in paying for another trip to the U.K. just to watch it. Hmmmm . . . pity.

Favorite Episodes of "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" Season Three (1994-1995)

 

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Three of "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE". Created by Rick Berman and Michael Piller; the series starred Avery Brooks as Commander Benjamin Siesko:

FAVORITE EPISODES OF "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" SEASON THREE (1994-1995)

1. (3.26) "The Adversary" - The Federation's Ambassador Krajensky informs newly promoted Captain Benjamin Sisko that there has been a coup on Tzenketh. During the journey to Tzenketh, Sisko and the crew discover that a Changeling from the Dominion may be hiding aboard and sabotaging Deep Space Nine's only ship, the U.S.S. Defiant. Lawrence Pressman guest starred.

2. (3.09) "The Defiant" - Commander William Riker of the U.S.S. Enterprise shows up unannounced and the station's second-in-command, Major Kira Nerys shows him the Defiant, where he reveals his true motives for coming to Deep Space Nine. Jonathan Frakes and Tricia O'Neil guest starred.

3. (3.21) "The Die is Cast" - Former Cardassian spy-turned-tailor Elim Garak reluctantly tortures Odo for information to prove his loyalty to his former mentor, Enabran Tain, as a joint Tal Shiar/Obsidian Order attack on the Founders in the Omarian Nebula is underway, without Starfleet's involvement. Paul Dooley and Leland Orser guest starred.

4. (3.11-3.12) "Past Tense" - A transporter accident sends Sisko, Dr. Julian Bashir, and Lieutenant Jadzia Dax back to Earth's dark past in the 21st century, a time just before the Bell riots, a violent civil disturbance in opposition to Sanctuaries which are controlled ghettos for the dispossessed. Bill Smitrovitch, Jim Metzler and Clint Howard guest starred.

5. (3.19) "Through the Looking Glass" - Sisko is kidnapped and forced to impersonate his deceased mirror universe counterpart in order to convince Jennifer Sisko to defect to the Terran Rebellion. Felecia M. Bell and Tim Russ guest starred.

Honorable Mention: (3.24) "Shakaar" - Vedek Kai Winn, who has become a political leader on Bajor, needs Kira to convince the former resistance leader Shakaar, now a farmer, to return soil reclamators needed elsewhere in Rakantha, which used to be Bajor's most productive agricultural region. Duncan Regehr and William Lucking guest starred.

"BOARDWALK EMPIRE" Season Two (2011) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season Two of the HBO series called "BOARDWALK EMPIRE".  Created by Terence Winter, the series starred Steve Buscemi:

"BOARDWALK EMPIRE" SEASON TWO (2011) Photo Gallery

"THE DARK KNIGHT" (2008) Review

 

"THE DARK KNIGHT" (2008) Review

In 2005, director/writer Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman franchise with the highly successful movie, ”BATMAN BEGINS” that starred Christian Bale as Batman aka the Caped Crusader. Both men reunited for two other movies. Their second reunion centered around Batman’s conflict with his greatest nemesis, the Joker, in the 2008 movie called ”THE DARK KNIGHT”.

There have been a great deal of attention surrounding this movie. Many have not only praised it, claiming that it was the best film in Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. But most of the word-of-mouth had centered around Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, especially after his tragic death some six months before the film's theatrical release. When ”THE DARK KNIGHT” hit the movie theaters, many critics and fans expressed the belief that their positive word-of-mouth had been justified. Not only had many judged Ledger’s performance as the best in his career, others still claim that the movie is probably the best comic book hero movie ever made. I do not know if the Joker featured Heath Ledger’s best performance ever. As for the claim about ”THE DARK KNIGHT” being the best comic book hero movie . . . well, I disagree.

I am not saying that ”THE DARK KNIGHT” was a terrible or mediocre film. Frankly, I believe that it was one of the best movies I have seen during the summer of 2008. Most of the movie featured an excellent story scripted by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer. The movie began with Gotham’s organized criminal element feeling itself threatened by the law ever since the end of crime boss Carmine Falcone in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, thanks to Batman. A former inmate of Arkham Asylum named the Joker approaches the crime bosses with an offer to kill Batman for pay. At the same time, Batman aka Bruce Wayne and Lieutenant James Gordon contemplate including the new district attorney Harvey Dent in their plan to eradicate the mob, as he could be the public hero Batman cannot be. Harvey Dent has been dating Wayne's childhood friend and object of desire, Rachel Dawes. The conflict between Batman, the Joker and their allies escalates to a well-directed action sequence that ends tragically. And it is here where I believe that the movie faltered.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” could have ended with that tragic moment, followed by the Joker’s manipulation of a badly wounded Harvey Dent into madness and his eventual capture or death. Instead, the Nolan brothers and Goyer allowed the Joker to escape and continued the story with Dent’s vengeful hunt for those he considered responsible for helping the Joker. And then . . . the screenwriters dumped a scenario that involved the Joker resorting to a Green Goblin-style maneuver involving two ferryboats packed with explosives. The situation involved him telling the passengers on each that the only way to save themselves is to trigger the explosives on the other ferry; otherwise, at midnight he will destroy them both remotely. All of this occurred during the movie’s last half hour and quite frankly, it was a half hour I could have done without.

I found the entire ferryboats sequence so unbelievable and contrived. It seemed as if the Nolans and Goyer teased movie audiences with the possibility of seeing the darker side of the average citizen . . . and wimped out, because they would rather stroke the moviegoers' egos with some "nobility of man" bullshit by allowing some of the passengers refuse to blow or try to blow each other to kingdom come, instead of telling the truth about human nature. Very disappointing. It would have been more interesting or grittier if one of the ferryboats had blown up before Batman could prevent the situation. Or . . . the Caped Crusader could have prevented the passengers from blowing up the boats at the last minute. Batman would have saved the people, but the Joker would have proven a point about the reality of human nature.

A fan had pointed out that the ending of the ferryboat sequence were the Nolans' message about leaving a sliver of hope for the audiences that human beings do have the capacity to do good things. I realize that this was the Nolans' aim, but this is a message that has been done to death by authors, filmmakers, playwrights and television showrunners for eons. The problem is that writers, screenwriters and moviemakers are always giving the public this "sliver of hope". They call themselves pointing out the dark side of humanity and then they pervert these messages by allowing them to come out of the mouths from villains like the Joker, before the latter is eventually proven wrong. It just seems like a cop out to me. Which was why I found the whole ferryboat sequence something of a joke. Sure, human beings are capable of doing some good. But in that particular situation? I rather doubt it. If there is one trait that humanity possess, it is a talent for self-preservation. It would have been more realistic to me if the boats had detonated or Batman had prevented this before anyone on one or both of those boats had activated the bombs. Granted, Batman/Bruce Wayne would have been disappointed in Gotham’s citizens, but he would have learned a valuable lesson about the very people he calls himself protecting. Even better, I would have preferred if the Nolans and Goyer had never added that sequence in the first place.

As for Harvey Dent’s little criminal hunt for those he deemed responsible for helping the Joker . . . I would have been more satisfied if Nolan and his co-writers had ended the movie with Dent’s eventual slide into darkness in that hospital room and saved his transformation into a twisted vigilante and arch villain for the third film in The Dark Knight Trilogy. This would have prevented the movie from being unnecessarily a half hour long. It would have saved the talented Aaron Eckhart for the third film as “Two-Faced” Harvey. It would have spared moviegoers of that ludicrous ending in which Batman and Gordon decided to allow the former assume blame of Dent's crimes in order to save the reputation of the D.A. I understand why they did it. If Harvey had been exposed for killing two cops and a crime boss, all of those criminals he had prosecuted could have been released from prison. But why not simply inform others that Harvey had been killed without exposing his murderous actions? Why have Batman take the blame for his crimes? Why end the movie with Jim Gordon's pretentious speech about justice and the Caped Crusader? And did Batman and Gordon really harbored such a low opinion of Gotham's citizens that the latter had to be treated like children? With Harvey as "Two-Faced" at the end of the film, perhaps Nolan's trilogy could have ended with a better film. Who knows?

The performances in "THE DARK KNIGHT" were superb. Christian Bale beautifully captured the growing dilemma of Bruce Wayne’s desire for a normal life with Rachel Dawes, juxtaposed with his role as Gotham’s costumed vigilante and his growing power over the city’s criminal element, thanks to his alliance with police lieutenant James Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. There is one aspect of Bale’s performance I did not like – namely the growling tone he used, while in the Batman persona. I did not care for it in ”BATMAN BEGINS”. I cared for it even less in this film.

I have noticed how many have expressed the view that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Rachel Dawes was better than Katie Holmes in the 2005 film. Personally, I did not see much of a difference in the quality of their performances. Both actresses gave first-rate performances. But . . . the screenwriters’ portrayal of Rachel in this film disappointed me. They had turned her character into an object of desire. She was Bruce Wayne's prize for giving up the Batman persona, as soon as he could get Dent to assume the role of Gotham's "hero". She was Harvey’s love interest and Girl Friday all rolled into one. And for the Joker, she was a means to get at Batman, once he realized how the latter felt about her. There were times when Rachel's character almost seemed irrelevant and a sad decline from the legal and moral dynamo that Holmes had portrayed in ”BATMAN BEGINS”.

Heath Ledger as the Joker. What can I say? The man was brilliant. He made Jack Nicholson’s Joker look like chump change. Honestly. One of the reasons why I have never care for the Joker character in the past was due to his over-the-top persona. Cesar Romero’s Joker had somewhat impressed me but not completely, regardless of the numerous insane clown laughs he had utilized. Nicholson’s Joker was a little too over-the-top for my tastes. As one can see, I do not have a love for overly theatrical characters, unless they are done right. Granted, Ledger portrayed the Joker as over-the-top. But somehow . . . I really do not know how to describe it. Somehow, he managed to infuse some kind of control in the character’s insanity, not only with his behavior, but also with a talent for emotional manipulation and the views he had spouted to Batman and other characters. Do I believe that the Joker was Ledger’s best performance? No. I believe that the character was one of his two best performances, the other being Ennis DelMar from 2005’s ”BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN”. Do I believe that Ledger had deserved the Best Supporting Actor Oscar he had won for his performance, despite his death? Hmmmm . . . yes. He truly was that good.

The other truly superb performance came from Aaron Eckhart as Gotham’s new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. One of Eckhart’s virtues was that he formed an excellent screen chemistry with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Frankly, I found their romance more believable than her relationship with Bruce Wayne. Eckhart projected a great deal of magnetism, charm and intensity into his portrayal of Dent. But I was more impressed by the way he expressed Dent’s descent into revenge and madness in the film's last half hour. Although I disliked the movie’s last half hour, Eckhart’s performance in it almost made it bearable.

Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Cillian Murphy all reprized their roles from the first film. All four gave solid performances, but only Oldman’s role as James Gordon seemed bigger. I found Gordon’s fake death somewhat contrived and manipulative. Aside from the creation of the Rachel Dawes character, everything about the two Batman movies directed by Nolan have adhered to the Batman canon. Which is why I found it difficult to believe that Gordon was dead halfway in the movie. Alfred’s role seemed to have diminished from the first film, despite Caine's excellent performance. Freeman’s Lucius Fox seemed to be quite aware that Bruce is Batman and seemed to be acting as the latter’s armorer, as well as Wayne Enterprises’ CEO. The only problem I had with the Fox character was his opposition against Wayne/Batman’s development an advanced surveillance system that can listen in and track the movement of any of the thousands of cell phones in the city. I am not claiming that his opinion was wrong, but I found the whole scenario contrived. As much as I had enjoyed Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Dr. Crane/the Scarecrow in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, I found his less than five minutes appearance in ”THE DARK KNIGHT” a waste of the actor’s time . . . and mine.

Composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard returned to score the sequel. I must admit that I had been impressed by their work in ”BATMAN BEGINS” and had expected another exceptional score by them. Unfortunately, I barely remembered the score for "THE DARK KNIGHT". I understand that they had rehashed the original score for this movie and added a new theme or two. But it all came off as unmemorable for me.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” had the potential to be my favorite film from the summer of 2008. But there were some aspects – the portrayal of Rachel Dawes’ character, Zimmer and Newton Howard’s score, the portrayal of some of the minor characters and the contrived writing that dominated the movie’s last half hour – that I believe had ruined the movie’s chances of achieving this potential. Fortunately, the virtues outweighed the flaws and in the end, ”THE DARK KNIGHT” managed to remain first-rate and become – in my view – my second favorite summer 2008 film.