"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1981) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", the 1981 television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel.  Adapted by Alexander Baron and directed by Rodney Bennett, the seven-part miniseries starred Irene Richard and Tracey Childs:

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1981) Photo Gallery

"DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" (1990) Review

 

"DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" (1990) Review

Following the success of the 1988 action thriller, "DIE HARD", I had been surprised to discover that 20th Century Fox had released a sequel to cash in on its success. This decision had surprised me, considering I had always associated sequels to summertime blockbusters from the likes of George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. Despite my surprise, I went ahead and viewed "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" in the theaters. And just recently, I had decided to do a rewatch on this film.

Like its 1988 predecessor, "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" or simply "DIE HARD 2" featured police detective John McClane and his adventures on Christmas Eve. And like "DIE HARD", this movie was based on a novel - namely Walter Wager's 1987 novel, "58 Minutes". "DIE HARD 2" found McClane, now working for the Los Angeles Police Department (L.A.P.D.), in Washington D.C. for a Christmas gathering with his wife's family. The movie began with McClane at the Dulles International Airport, waiting for his wife Holly's plane to land. A group of military terrorists led by a disgraced U.S. Army officer named William Stuart took control of the airport and the air traffic control system in order rescue a corrupt, foreign military leader named General Ramon Esperanza, who was also headed for Dulles under extradition for using U.S. funds to buy drugs. Realizing that Holly's plane and several others circling above Dulles were in danger of running out of fuel and crashing, McClane leaped into action in order to halt Colonel Stuart's plot. Unfortunately, the police detective found himself at odds with the airport police and an Army commander who did not want his assistance.

I was surprised to discover that "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER" proved to be an even bigger box office success than the 1988 movie. In fact, it almost made as twice as much as its predecessor. I found this surprising, since it is rare for a direct sequel to succeed even more than the first film. But I could see why it had proven to be such a big success. Like the first film, it was based on a novel about a group of people being held hostage in a confined area for the sake of the villain's goal. In the case of "DIE HARD 2", the main villain - Colonel Stuart - wanted the airport security and any other law enforcement to maintain their distance, while his men plot to rescue ally General Esperanza and prevent the latter from being turned over to Federal law enforcement. Like the 1988 movie, the movie took its time is presenting its characters, the setting and the narrative. For that, I am grateful to both Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson's screenplay, along with Renny Harlin's direction.

Like any solid action-adventure film, "DIE HARD 2" could boast some well-shot action sequences. Mind you, there were a few that struck me as decent, but not exactly mind blowing - like McClane's encounter with a two of Stuart's men inside one of Dulles' baggage sorting areas and the shootout between Stuart's men and another group of Army commandos, led by the villain's former mentor, Major Grant. And if I must be brutally honest, I was not that impressed by the film's final confrontation between McClane and Stuart on the wing of an airplane in which the latter was trying to make his escape. I found it unnecessarily clumsy and anti-climatic. But I was more than impressed by one particular sequence in which McClane rescues Dulles' airport engineer Leslie Barnes from Stuart's men, when the former tried to use an unfinished antenna array to communicate with the stranded circling airplanes. I thought Hardin did an excellent job in filming the shoot-out and fight scene that followed. But if there was one scene that I found memorable - and very tragic - featured Stuart's retaliation against McClane's rescue of Barnes that involved a British airline.

"DIE HARD 2" also featured some very competent performances by the entire cast. But if I must be honest, there were no performances that I found particularly memorable. The entire cast, including leading man Bruce Willis, did their jobs. However, I must admit there were four performances that I found the most grounded - namely Bonnie Bedalia as McClane's wife, Holly Gennero; Art Evans as airport engineer Leslie Barnes; Fred Dalton Thompson as the airport's air traffic flight director Ed Trudeau; and Franco Nero as General Ramon Esperanza. I felt they had given the most grounded or subtle performances in the movie.

As much as I liked "DIE HARD 2", I do not love it. I never have, if I must be honest. There were aspects of this film that prevented it from being a personal favorite of mine. One . . . the plot. In order to rescue General Esperanza from custody and facing a trial in the U.S., Colonel Stuart and his men had taken control of an entire airport, held many planes flying above the airport hostage and demanded a 747 plane as the group's getaway vehicle. Why engage in such a complex plot to rescue Esperanza, when Stuart or a few of his men could have easily rescue the man before he left his own country? Or quickly and quietly rescue Esperanza from F.B.I. custody? These guys were trained military commandos. They could have easily accomplished their task without such a big hullaballoo. This is why I found the plot rather convoluted . . . probably more so than the narratives in other DIE HARD films.

Earlier, I had pointed out that I did not find any of the film's performances memorable. And I stand by that. Although I had no troubles with the performances, I do believe that most of the cast had been stymied by some rather bad dialogue. Yes, I am aware that "DIE HARD 2" was one of those action flicks from the 1980s and 1990s filled with the usual cheesy dialogue. However, I feel the dialogue featured in "DIE HARD 2" had went beyond cheesiness and bordered on bombastic. I found it rather embarrassing to watch an actor or actress set up a particular witicism, only to fall flat due to the terrible quality of the dialogue. Sometimes, the performances within the cast also came off as nearly bombastic . . . to the point I thought I had been watching a stage production within a film. At least John Amos, who had portrayed Barnes' mentor, Major Grant, managed to spout a few good lines. However, one of the worst offenders - as far as bad dialogue goes - came from William Sadler's Colonel Stuart. I thought some of his dialogue was truly bad. I felt sorry for Sadler, a superb actor who has proven capable of conveying a great deal of wit and humor in many of his other roles. Thanks to the film's screenwriters, his Colonel Stuart sometimes came off as a flat character with terrible or no wit.

But if there was one aspect of "DIE HARD 2" that really annoyed me, is that I had come away with the feeling that it tried to repeat many aspects of the 1988 film that made it such a hit. The movie was set during the Christmas holiday . . . check. Large group of people held hostage by terrorists in a public space . . . check. One of the hostages happened to be a loved one of the film's protagonist . . . check. A scene featuring many deaths, due to the villain seeking retaliation against one of McClane's actions . . . check. McClane in conflict with the local law enforcement . . . check. The movie's law enforcement leaders proved to be not-so-bright and almost incompetent . . . check. The movie ended with John and Holly being driven away by a supporting character (in the case of "DIE HARD 2", a custodian named Marv), to the tune of Vaughn Monroe's "Let It Snow" . . . check. The movie even featured the return of two other characters from "DIE HARD" - Reginald VelJohnson as L.A.P.D. officer Al Powell; and William Atherton as William Atherton as news reporter, Richard Thornburg. VelJohnson only made a cameo appearance in the movie. However, Altherton's Richard Thornburg, who was a fellow passenger on the same flight as Holly, repeated his arc from the 1988 film. His nose and pursuit for a story nearly endangered the lives of the passengers and crew aboard his plane and the others circling above Dulles Airport, just as it had endangered Holly in "DIE HARD". Despite the different setting and a different goal for the main villain, watching "DIE HARD 2" almost felt like watching a remake of the 1988 film. Almost. And that was not a good feeling for me.

Ironically, there was one aspect of the 1988 movie that "DIE HARD 2" had failed to recapture - and I wish it had - was McClane forming a connection or an ally to help him during his adventures. "DIE HARD" had Reginald VelJohnson. The other three movies had also allowed McClane to connect with one particular character to serve as an ally. Unfortunately, "DIE HARD 2" had failed in this endeavor. During the movie's 124 minutes running time, McClane managed to form an alliance or connection with a character to help him or for him to help. But those connections had never lasted. Much to my disappointment.

But you know what? Despite my complaints about "DIE HARD 2: DIE HARDER", I still managed to enjoy the film. In the end, I thought director Renny Harlin and screenwriters Steven E. de Souza and Doug Richardson managed to created a fun and exciting action flick for moviegoers. And although I cannot recall any outstanding performances in the movie, I cannot deny that the film's cast, led by Bruce Willis, did a solid job in bringing their characters to the screen.

Peggy Olson's Promotion in "MAD MEN": (1.13) "The Wheel"

 

PEGGY OLSON'S PROMOTION IN "MAD MEN": (1.13) "THE WHEEL"

Many fans of "MAD MEN" had made a big deal of Peggy Olson's promotion in the Season One finale, (1.13) "The Wheel" over the years.   Actually, many have focused upon Peggy's upward mobility from the secretarial pool to her new position as one of the firm's copywriters - a professional. I had just finished watching this episode and another thought came to mind. 

It finally occurred to me that Don had given Peggy that promotion in order to spite Pete Campbell. Pete had informed Don that he managed to acquire the Clearsil account due to his father-in-law being an executive of the company. One could say that Pete was simply being an asshole by trying to shove the achievement in Don's face. But I think that it was simply another tactic of Pete's to win Don's approval.

Unfortunately for Pete, the tactic backfired. I suspect that Don - feeling satisfied and perhaps a little smug over winning the Kodak account - had decided to strike back at Pete for the latter's blackmail attempt in the previous episode, (1.12) "Nixon vs. Kennedy". He promoted Peggy and handed the Clearisil account over to her in order to embarrass Pete. It was one of the most childish and despicable acts I had ever seen on that show. And yet, because Pete had been unpopular with many fans, a good number of them had failed to notice that Don had used Peggy to get back at Pete. I am not surprised that Don would use a twenty-one year-old woman with eight months of secretarial experience to get back at Pete. What I do find surprising is that the firm's owners, Bert Cooper and Roger Sterling, allowed him to get away with this act of spite.  Especially Cooper, who was still complaining about Peggy's promotion years later.

I also find it amazing that both the critics and fans have accused both Betty Draper (Don's first wife) and Pete of being immature characters. Yet, time and again, Don has proven that he could be just as childish or even more so than either of these two or any other character in the series. But so many seemed blinded by his "man's man" facade and good looks that they have failed to realize how emotionally stunted Don could be.

"THUNDERBALL" (1965) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "THUNDERBALL", the 1965 adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1961 novel and Jack Whittingham's 1959 screenplay, "Longitude 78 West". Directed by Terence Young, the movie starred Sean Connery as James Bond: 

"THUNDERBALL" (1965) Photo Gallery

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

 

"VANITY FAIR" (2004) Review

William Makepeace Thackery's 1848 novel about the life and travails of an ambitious young woman in early 19th century has generated many film and television adaptations. One of them turned out to be the 2004 movie that was directed by Mira Nair. 

"VANITY FAIR" covers the early adulthood of one Becky Sharp, the pretty and ambitious daughter of an English not-so-successful painter and a French dancer during the early years from 1802 to 1830. The movie covers Becky’s life during her impoverished childhood with her painter father, during her last day as a student at Miss Pinkerton’s Academy for Young Ladies, where she meets her only friend Amelia Sedley – the only daughter of a slightly wealthy gentleman and her years as a governess for the daughters of a crude, yet genial baronet named Sir Pitt Crawley. While working for the Crawleys, Becky meets and falls in love with Sir Pitt’s younger son, Captain Rawdon Crawley. When Sir Pitt proposes marriage to Becky, she shocks the family with news of her secret marriage to Rawdon. The couple is ostracized and ends up living in London on Rawdon’s military pay and gambling winnings. They also become reacquainted with Amelia Sedley, who has her own problems. When her father loses his fortune, the father of her beau, George Osborne, tries to arrange a marriage between him and a Jamaican heiress. Leery of the idea of marrying a woman of mixed blood, he marries Amelia behind Mr. Obsorne's back, and the latter disinherits him. Not long after George and Amelia's marriage, word reaches Britain of Napoleon's escape from Elba and control of France. Becky and Amelia follow Rawdon, George, and Dobbin, who are suddenly deployed to Brussels as part of the Duke of Wellington's army. And life for Becky and those close to her prove to be even more difficult.

The first thing I noticed about "VANITY FAIR" was that it was one of the most beautiful looking movies I have ever seen in recent years. Beautiful and colorful. A part of me wonders if director Mira Nair was responsible for the movie's overall look. Some people might complain and describe the movie's look as garish. I would be the first to disagree. Despite its color - dominated by a rich and deep red that has always appealed to me - "VANITY FAIR" has also struck me as rather elegant looking film, thanks to cinematographer Declan Quinn. But he was not the only one responsible for the film's visual look. Maria Djurkovic's production designs and the work from the art direction team - Nick Palmer, Sam Stokes and Lucinda Thomson. All did an excellent job of not only creating what I believe to be one of the most colorful and elegant films I have ever seen, but also in re-creating early 19th century Britain, Belgium, Germany and India. But I do have a special place in my heart for Beatrix Aruna Pasztor's costume designs. I found them absolutely ravishing. Colorful . . . gorgeous. I am aware that many did not find them historically accurate. Pasztor put a bit more Hollywood into her designs than history. But I simply do not care. I love them. And to express this love, the following is a brief sample of her costumes worn by actress Reese Witherspoon:

  

I understand that Witherspoon was pregnant at the time and Pasztor had to accommodate the actress' pregnancy for her costumes. Judging from what I saw on the screen, I am beginning to believe that Witherspoon's pregnancy served her role in the story just fine.

Now that I have raved over the movie's visual look and style, I might as well talk about the movie's adaptation. When I first heard about "VANITY FAIR", the word-of-mouth on the Web seemed to be pretty negative. Thackery's novel is a long one - written in twenty parts. Naturally, a movie with a running time of 141 minutes was not about to cover everything in the story. And I have never been one of those purists who believe that a movie or television adaptation had to be completely faithful to its source. Quite frankly, it is impossible for any movie or television miniseries to achieve. And so, it was not that surprising that the screenplay written by Julian Fellowes, Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet would not prove to be an accurate adaptation. I expected that. However, there were some changes I could have done without.

Becky Sharp has always been one of the most intriguing female characters in literary history. Among the traits that have made her fascinating were her ambitions, amorality, talent for manipulation and sharp tongue. As much as I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon's performance in the movie - and I really did - I thought it was a mistake for Fellowes, Faulk and Skeet to make Becky a more "likeable" personality in the movie's first half. One, it took a little bite not only out of the character, but from the story's satirical style, as well. And two, I found this change unnecessary, considering that literary fans have always liked the darker Becky anyway. Thankfully, this vanilla-style Becky Sharp disappeared in the movie's second half, as the three screenwriters returned to Thackery's sharper and darker portrayal of the character. I was also a little disappointed with the movie's sequence featuring Becky's stay at the Sedley home and her seduction of Amelia's older brother, Jos. I realize that as a movie adaptation,"VANITY FAIR" was not bound to be completely accurate as a story. But I was rather disappointed with the sequence featuring Becky's visit to the Sedley home at Russell Square in London. Perhaps it was just me, but I found that particular sequence somewhat rushed. I was also disappointed by Nair and producer Jannette Day's decision to delete the scene featuring Becky's final meeting with her estranged son, Rawdy Crawley. This is not out of some desire to see Robert Pattinson on the screen. Considering that the movie's second half did not hesitate to reveal Becky's lack of warmth toward her son, I felt that this last scene could have remained before she departed Europe for India with Jos.

Despite my complaints and the negative view of the movie by moviegoers that demanded complete accuracy, I still enjoyed "VANITY FAIR" very much. Although I was a little disappointed in the movie's lighter portrayal of Becky Sharp, I did enjoy some of the other changes. I had no problem with the addition of a scene from Becky's childhood in which she first meets Lord Steyne. I felt that this scene served as a strong and plausible omen of her future relationship with the aristocrat. Unlike others, I had no problems with Becky's fate in the end of the movie. I have always liked the character, regardless of her amoral personality. And for once, it was nice to see her have some kind of happy ending - even with the likes of the lovesick Jos Sedley. Otherwise, I felt that "VANITY FAIR" covered a good deal of Thackery's novel with a sense of humor and flair.

I have always found it odd that most people seemed taken aback by an American in a British role more so than a Briton in an American role. After all, it really depends upon the individual actor or actress on whether he or she can handle a different accent. In the case of Reese Witherspoon, she used a passable British accent, even if it was not completely authentic. More importantly, not only did she give an excellent performance, despite the writers' changes in Becky's character, she was also excellent in the movie's second half, which revealed Becky's darker nature.

Witherspoon was ably assisted with a first-rate cast. The movie featured fine performances from the likes of James Purefoy, Deborah Findley, Tony Maudsley, Geraldine McEwan, Eileen Atkins, Douglas Hodge, Natasha Little (who portrayed Becky Sharp in the 1998 television adaptation of the novel), and especially Romola Garai and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Amelia Sedley and George Osborne. But I was especially impressed by a handful of performances that belonged to Bob Hoskins, Rhys Ifans and Gabriel Byrne. Bob Hoskins was a delight as the slightly crude and lovesick Sir Pitt Crawley. Rhys Ifans gave one of his most subtle performances as the upright and slightly self-righteous William Dobbins, who harbored a unrequited love for Amelia. Jim Broadbent gave an intense performance as George's ambitious and grasping father. And Gabriel Byrne was both subtle and cruel as the lustful and self-indulgent Marquis of Steyne.

In the end, I have to say that I cannot share the negative opinions of "VANITY FAIR". I realize that it is not a "pure" adaptation of William Makepeace Thackery's novel or that it is perfect. But honestly, I do not care. Despite its flaws, "VANITY FAIR" proved to be a very entertaining movie for me. And I would have no problem watching it as much as possible in the future.