"THE RESIDENCE" (2025) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the Netflix limited series, "THE RESIDENCE".   Created by Paul Williams Davies and adapted from Kate Andersen Brower's 2015 book, "The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House", the eight-part series starred Uzo Aduba:

 "THE RESIDENCE" (2025) Photo Gallery

"ADAM BEDE" (1991) Review

 

"ADAM BEDE" (1991) Review

Recently, I had come across an old BBC production that I have not seen in years. The production was a television movie based upon author George Eliot's first novel, "Adam Bede".

This adaptation of Eliot's 1859 novel told the story of four young people from the rural English community of Hayslope around the end of the 18th century. This "love rectangle" revolved around a local carpenter named Adam Bede; a beautiful, yet self-absorbed milkmaid named Hetty Sorrel; the local squire's charming grandson and heir, Captain Arthur Donnithorne; and Hetty's cousin Dinah Morris, a beautiful Methodist lay preacher who is also attracted to Adam. How did this "rectangle" come about? Although highly regarded by the Hayslope community as an intelligent and talented carpenter, Adam has a weakness . . . namely his passionate and unrequited love for the beautiful Hetty. Unfortunately for Adam, Hetty was deeply in love, lust or simply dazzled by the handsome and charming Arthur. Did Arthur love Hetty? I honestly do not know.

As I had stated earlier, "Adam Bede" was George Eliot's first novel. Eliot's earlier skill as a writer is very apparent in this television adaptation. Do not get me wrong. I rather enjoyed "ADAM BEDE" very much. But it did not strike me as . . . fascinating or complex as other George Eliot adaptations I have seen. If one must be honest, the whole "servant girl get seduced by rich young man" scenario is not particularly new. I suspect that it was not new when Eliot wrote this novel back in the 1850s. I believe that Eliot had used this trope again when she wrote "Silas Marner", which was published two years after this first novel. Both stories featured "fallen women" and both portrayed the latter in a slightly unsympathetic light. Mind you, Eliot did a good job in conveying Hetty's struggles between the discovery of her pregnancy and the verdict during her trial. But I could not help but suspect a slight taint of Victorian morality in Eliot's portrayal of Hetty. I believe screenwriter Maggie Wadey tried her best to overcome that rigid morality, but thanks to the narrative, I do not think she had fully succeeded. Especially when one considers how "ADAM BEDE" ended.

If I have a real problem with "ADAM BEDE", it is the ending. If the production had been a two-part movie, perhaps . . . You know what? I suspect that stretching out the running time would not have solved what I believe was the narrative's main problem. I believe changing the ending would have helped. One problem proved to be Hetty's fate. After being found guilty of infanticide, Hetty was sentenced to execution. Her sentence was commuted to penal transportation to Australia at the last moment, thanks to Arthur Donnithorne. Ye-ee-ea-ah . . . I found this scenario a bit improbable. It seemed as if Eliot had tacked on this last minute fate for Hetty to avoid a truly tragic ending. Another problem I had with the ending proved to be the main protagonist's relationship with the Dinah Morris character. The movie featured a brief scene in which Adam Bede regarded Dinah as an attractive woman. Despite this, he spent most of the production harboring a passionate, almost possessive love for Hetty Sorrel. Once Hetty was sent away for transportation, Adam became romantically interested in Dinah. Rather fast. Too fast, if you want my opinion. I realize that he was urged to consider Dinah as a romantic partner by others, but . . . yeah, I thought the final romance between the pair happened too fast.

However, "ADAM BEDE" had its virtues. One, the production did an excellent job in conveying the mores and traditions of a rural town in Britain at the end of the eighteenth century. I found it amazing how the town's middle and lower classes were judged a bit more harshly than the upper-class residents. I noticed that although Adam is not regarded as morally questionable, many others tend to judge him based upon his moral compass . . . a lot. I also noticed that many seemed to regard Arthur's morals with a wary eye, they seem willing to give him a pass. I doubt they would have been that generous with Adam. But that is always the case, is it not . . . at least for those who are not part of an elite social group.

If middle and lower-class men had it bad, women of all classes had it worse. Dinah Morris is portrayed as a decent and pious woman. Yet, there seemed to be a slight air of disapproval directed toward Dinah, due to her role as a Methodist lay preacher. But no one is judged more harshly than Hetty Sorrel. Even by Eliot. Audiences are expected to harshly judge Hetty for her desire for a life "above her station". But I will give credit to both Eliot and screenwriter Maggie Wadey for injecting a great deal more of ambiguity and sympathy toward Hetty . . . especially after she became pregnant.

I also have to commend the movie's performances. There was not a bad one in the bunch. Susannah Harker made a very serene Dinah Morris, even I did not find the character particularly interesting. James Wilby had a more interesting character to portray, namely the shallow and sensual Arthur Donnithorne. However, I do not think Wadey's screenplay really gave the actor much of a chance to explore Arthur's ambiguity, aside from one or two scenes. "ADAM BEDE" also featured excellent performances from Jean Marsh, Paul Brooke, Robert Stephens, Freddie Jones, Michael Percival and Alan Cox.

Julia McKenzie struck me as particularly memorable as Mrs. Poyser, the aunt of both Dinah and Hetty. Although Eliot had written her as a comic figure, the actress managed to inject a good deal of pathos and emotion into the character, thanks to the screenplay. Patsy Kensit was superb as the flighty, yet hard-luck Hetty Sorrel, who proved to be the most interesting character in this tale. Kensit managed to skillfully rise the character's one-dimensional portrayal in the movie's first half and embrace the ambiguous quagmire that poor Hetty ended up in the second half. Superficially, Adam Bede did not seem as ambiguous as Hetty. Superficially. But underneath the stalwart and industrious carpenter existed a proud and emotional man, whose world centered around a woman who did not love him. And man did the producers select the right man to portray young Adam - namely Iain Glen. I have been aware of the actor for several decades. And I have noticed that whether he was playing a hero, a villain, anti-hero - you name it - Glen has always managed to convey the emotional depths behind his characters on a level that very few actors have managed to achieve . . . whether through his voice or expressions. Or perhaps both. And he utilized the same level of skill in his portrayal of the emotional and lovelorn Adam. No wonder I have been a fan of his for years.

Overall, I would never regard "ADAM BEDE" as one of my favorite George Eliot adaptations. The problem is that the movie reflected too much of the novel's narrative flaws. But not all was lost with Maggie Wadey's adaptation. I still managed to enjoy the movie, thanks to its intriguing plot and first-rate cast led by Iain Glen. In the end, I believe it had more virtues and flaws.

"LOST" Commentary: (2.04) "Everybody Hates Hugo"

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.04) "Everybody Hates Hugo"

Unless I am mistaken, Season Two of "LOST" was never that popular with the show's fans. This season expanded on the Hatch (DHARMA Swan Station) subplot that was touched upon in the second half of Season One. This season introduced a tiresome running joke surrounding the Michael Dawson character. And it also featured the introduction of the survivors from Oceanic 815's Tail Section, which included the unpopular character, Ana-Lucia Cortez. In some way, the fourth episode - (2.04) "Everybody Hates Hugo" - seemed to be some kind of manifestation of Season Two.

Aside from the joke regarding Michael Dawson, "Everybody Hates Hugo" touched upon most of the topics I brought up in the previous paragraph. In the previous episode, (2.03) "Orientation", the survivors of Michael's raft (Michael, James "Sawyer" Ford and Jin Kwon) were captured by a mysterious group of people upon their return to the Island. "Everybody Hates Hugo" focused on their incarceration inside a deep pit. Before Sawyer could finish plotting their escape, the mysterious group revealed to be survivors from Oceanic 815's Tail Section. Despite some hostile conflict between Sawyer and the Tailies' leader, Ana-Lucia Cortez, all agree it would be best to head for the Fuselage passengers' beach camp. Claire Littleton stumble across the bottle of messages from Michael's raft on the beach. She and several survivors worry over the fate of Michael, his son Walt Lloyd, Jin and Sawyer. Following the tiresome three-episode introduction of the Swan Station's interiors, Jack and Sayid explore the hatch. They also order a very reluctant Hugo "Hurley" Reyes to ration the food found inside the station. The episode's flashbacks reveal the consequences of Hurley winning the lottery . . . and his reasons for wanting to be in charge of food distribution on the Island.

I have to be frank. The episode's main subplot involving Hurley's job in the Hatch and his flashback did nothing for me. I found it boring. Well . . . I almost found it boring. Hurley's reasons behind his reluctance to win the lottery and be in charge of the Losties' food distribution clarified an aspect of his personality that I have always suspected. Despite some flashes of wisdom and common sense, Hurley is at heart a man-child who is reluctant to grow up. Unfortunately, this is an aspect of Hurley's character I have never admired. In fact, I found it tiresome . . . over and over again. And I never could understand why fans have never noticed in past viewings. One could point out that Hurley became more mature as the series progressed. I find that hard to believe, considering the circumstances behind Hurley's eventual fate. Hurley's minor quarrel with Charlie over the secrecy of the Swan Station struck me as infantile. It did not help that Charlie's constant rants about betrayal really irritated me. But I must admit that both Jorge Garcia and Dominic Monaghan gave first-rate performances. The only thing about this subplot that I found entertaining was Hurley's interaction with Rose Nadler, portrayed by the very talented L. Scott Caldwell.

The second subplot regarding Jack and Sayid's exploration of the Swan Station only seemed a step above the main subplot. The only reason I found it slightly more interesting was due to the mystery surrounding the Hatch. It seemed like a more mature subplot than one about Hurley's man-child issues. That even includes Jack's accidental encounter with a nearly nude Kate Austen, after she had finished taking a shower. What interested me was Sayid's discovery of an electromagnetic energy within the Hatch's walls. This discovery will end up not only having an impact in the Season Two finale, but also being fully revealed by mid-to-late Season Five. The third subplot involved Claire's discovery of the bottle of messages from the raft. This subplot struck me as irrelevant . . . period. Aside from giving Shannon Rutherford a moment to see a wet manifestation of Walt - an event that will have greater impact in a future episode - this subplot did nothing to drive the series' main narrative forward. Instead, it involved some of the female survivors speculating on the fates of the raft's passengers. And nothing more.

It was the final subplot regarding Michael, Jin and Sawyer's experiences with the Tailies that really injected energy into the episode. It was not so much the mystery surrounding the raft survivors' captors that made "Everybody Hates Hugo" so interesting to me. The three men discovered they had been captured by survivors from the Tail Section before halfway into the episode. But the psychological conflict between the more familiar characters and the newcomers crackled with a lot of energy that made me take notice. I especially found the conflict between Sawyer and Ana-Lucia, thanks to Josh Holloway and Michelle Rodriguez's intense performances very entertaining. I realized that a good number of "LOST" fans disliked the Ana-Lucia Cortez character ever since this episode aired during the fall of 2005. I must admit that I had a different reaction. The powerhouse punch that Ana-Lucia delivered to Sawyer in "Orientation" had already thrilled me. Her continuing abuse of the always annoying Sawyer filled me with even more glee. I realize that most fans would probably be put off by my comments. But I do not care. I like Sawyer, but he was a real pain in the ass in this particular episode. At least to me.

"Everybody Hates Hugo" ended both on a mysterious and uplifting note. The Tailies led the raft survivors to another hatch that had been originally constructed by the DHARMA Initiative. Apparently, they had been using it as refuge from the jungle and the Others inside the nearly abandoned Arrow Station. So much for the mystery. What did I find uplifting about the episode? Certainly not the cheesy monologue featuring Hurley's generous distribution of the food from the Swan Station. It was that moment when one of the Tail Section survivors approached the raft survivors and asked if they knew Rose. Thanks to a poignant performance by Sam Anderson, I nearly cried when he revealed himself to be Rose's missing husband, Bernard. Great way to end an otherwise mediocre episode, "LOST".

"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.