“MAD MEN” RETROSPECT: (1.07) “Red in the Face”

“MAD MEN” RETROSPECT: (1.07) “Red in the Face”

Due to some sense of nostalgia, I decided to break out my “MAD MEN” Season One DVD set and watch an episode. The episode in question turned out to be the seventh one, (1.07) “Red in the Face”.

After watching “Red in the Face”, it occurred to me that its main theme centered around some of the main characters’ childish behavior. I say “some of the characters”, because only a few managed to refrain from such behavior – Sterling Cooper’s co-owner Bert Cooper; Office Manager Joan Holloway; and Helen Bishop, a divorcée that happens to be a neighbor of the Drapers. I do not recall Cooper behaving childishly during the series’ last four seasons. Helen Bishop merely reacted as any neighbor would when faced with a situation regarding her nine year-old son and a neighbor. As for Joan, she had displayed her own brand of childishness (of the vindictive nature) in episodes before and after “Red in the Face”. But in this episode, she managed to refrain herself.

I cannot deny that I found this episode entertaining. And I believe it was mainly due John Slattery’s performance as Roger Sterling, Sterling-Cooper’s other owner. In scene after scene, Slattery conveyed Roger’s penchant for childishness – proposing an illicit weekend to Joan, resentment toward the female attention that Don Draper managed to attract at a Manhattan bar, making snipes at the younger man’s background during an impromptu dinner with the Drapers, making sexual advances at Betty Draper, and gorging on a very unhealthy lunch. That is a lot for one episode. Roger’s behavior served to convey a middle-aged man stuck in personal stagnation. Even worse, he has remained in this situation up to the latest season. And Slattery managed to convey these tragic aspects of Roger’s character with his usual fine skills.

Jon Hamm fared just as well with another first-rate performance as the series’ protagonist, Don Draper. In “Red in the Face”, Hamm revealed Don’s immature and bullying nature behind his usual smooth, charismatic and secretive personality. This was especially apparent in a scene that Hamm shared with January Jones, in which Don accused his wife Betty of flirting with Roger. And Don’s less admirable nature was also apparent in the joke that he pulled on Roger in the episode’s final scenes. Speaking of Betty, January Jones also did a top-notch job in those scenes with Hamm. She also gave an excellent performance in Betty’s confrontation with Don, following the dinner with Roger; and her conversation with neighbor Francine about her desire to attract attention. I have noticed that most of the series’ fans seemed to regard Betty as a child in a woman’s body. Granted, Betty had her childish moments in the episode – especially during her confrontation with neighbor Helen Bishop at a local grocery store. But I have always harbored the opinion that she is no more or less childish than the other main characters. This episode seemed to prove it. One last performance that stood out came from Vincent Kartheiser as the young Accounts executive Pete Campbell. To this day, I do not understand why he is the only major cast member who has never received an acting nomination for an Emmy or Golden Globe. Because Kartheiser does such a terrific job as the ambiguous Pete. His complexity seemed apparent in “Red in the Face”. In one scene, he tried to exchange a rather ugly wedding gift for something more dear to his heart – a rifle. His attempt to exchange the gift seemed to feature Pete as his most childish. Yet, he also seemed to be the only Sterling Cooper executive who understood the advertising value of John F. Kennedy’s youthful persona during the 1960 Presidential election.

Earlier, I had commented on how screenwriter Bridget Bedard’s use of childish behavior by some of the main characters as a major theme for “Red in the Face”. I have noticed that once this behavior is apparent; Roger, Don, Betty and Pete are left humiliated or “red in the face” after being exposed. Betty’s decision to give a lock of hair to Helen Bishop’s nine year-old son in (1.04) “New Amsterdam” led to a confrontation between the two women at a grocery store and a slap delivered by Betty after being humiliated by Helen. If I had been Betty, I would have admitted that giving young Glen a lock of her hair was a mistake, before pointing out Glen’s habit of entering a private bathroom already in use. And Pete’s decision to trade the ugly-looking chip-and-dip for a rifle led to being berated over the telephone by his new wife, Trudy. Only a conversation with Peggy Olson, Don’s secretary, about his fantasies as a hunter could alleviate his humiliation. During the Drapers’ dinner party with Roger, the latter noted that Don’s habit of slipping his “Gs” indicated a rural upbringing – a revelation that left Don feeling slightly humiliated. And after accusing Betty of flirting with Roger, she retaliated with a snide comment about his masculinity. Don tried to retaliate by calling her a child, but Betty’s stoic lack of response only fed his humiliation even more. However, he did get even with Roger by setting up the latter with a cruel practical joke that involved a falsely inoperative elevator and a heavy lunch that included oysters and cheesecake. Although the joke left Don feeling smug and vindicated, I was left more convinced than ever of his penchant for childish behavior. Aside from feeling humiliated by a pair of young females’ attention toward Don, Roger managed to coast through most of the episode without paying a price for his behavior. In the end, he suffered the biggest humiliation via his reaction to Don’s joke – by vomiting in front of prospective clients.

“Red in the Face” featured many scenes that I found entertaining – especially the impromptu dinner party given by the Drapers for Roger Sterling. But if I must be honest, I did not find it particularly impressive. Although “Red in the Face” offered viewers a negative aspects of four of the main characters, I do not believe it did nothing to advance any of the stories that began at the beginning of the season. I must also add that Betty’s confrontation with Helen Bishop seemed out of place in this episode. While watching it, I had the distinct impression that this scene, along with Betty and Francine’s conversation, should have been added near the end of “New Amsterdam”. By including it in “Red in the Face”, it almost seemed out of place.

I could never regard “Red in the Face” as one of the best episodes of Season One or the series. But I cannot deny that thanks to performances by John Slattery, Jon Hamm, January Jones and Vincent Kartheiser, I found it entertaining.

“DR. NO” (1962) Review

DN_351

 

“DR. NO” (1962) Review

This 1962 movie marked the cinematic debut of EON Production’s James Bond franchise, created by Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. Sean Connery also made his debut in this film as the MI-6 agent, James Bond. Although many critics and fans consider film as one of the more impressive in the franchise, I honestly cannot say that I share their opinion.

Based on Ian Fleming’s 1958 novel, “DR. NO” begins with the murder of MI-6 agent Strangeways and his secretary by a trio of assassins in Jamaica. Fellow MI-6 agent James Bond is ordered by his superior, “M”, to investigate the agent’s death and eventually stumbles upon a plot by Dr. Julius No, an agent of the criminal organization SPECTRE, to disrupt the U.S. space program for the Chinese Republic.

As I had stated earlier, I have never considered “DR. NO” as one of the more impressive entries of the Bond franchise. In fact, it is one of my least favorite Bond movies of all time. The main problem I had with “DR. NO” was the schizophrenic script written by Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, and Berkely Mather that featured an unbalanced mixture of genres. I suppose they had no choice. After all, they simply wrote a close adaptation of Fleming’s novel. And Fleming never struck me as the world’s greatest novelist. The story began as a mystery thriller, as Bond tried to figure out who was behind Strangeways’ death. Unfortunately, the movie transformed into a fantasy-style adventure when Bond and one of his CIA contacts, Quarrel made their way to Dr. No’s Crab Key Island in order to disrupt the villain’s plot. A part of me wish that Young and the screenwriters had made changes in Fleming’s story.

The stilted dialogue peppered throughout the movie only made matters even worse for me. The worst line came out of the mouth of former beauty pageant winner, Marguerite LeWars, who portrayed a photographer working for SPECTRE. It is so bad that I will not even repeat it. Even Connery was guilty of spewing some wooden dialogue. In fact, his performance seemed as uneven as the movie’s story and production style. In many scenes, he seemed to be the epitome of the smooth British agent. And in other scenes – especially with Jack Lord, who was the first actor to portray CIA agent Felix Leiter – he came off as gauche and wooden. Mr. Lord, on the other hand, gave a consistently polished and performance as the sardonic Agent Leiter. Much has been made of Ursula Andress’ performance as “Bond Girl No.1” Honey Ryder – especially her famous first appearance when her character emerges upon a beach. Frankly, I have never been able to sense the magic of that moment. Nor did I find Andress’ presence in the movie particularly impressive. Not only was her character irrelevant to the story, she did not really aid Bond’s attempts to defeat Dr. No.

I first became a fan of Joseph Wiseman ever since I noticed his sly and subtle performance as a 1960s gangster in the Michael Mann TV series, “CRIME STORY”. But I was not that impressed by his Dr. Julius No, a character that simply bored me to tears. I might as well say the same about Anthony Dawson’s performance as SPECTRE agent, Professor Dent. Many fans have been waxing lyrical over a scene featuring his death at Bond’s hand. Personally, I found Bond’s actions unprofessional. The MI-6 could have easily drugged the SPECTRE agent, remove any inconvenient cyanide pills and have the authorities “question” him. Instead, Bond killed him in cold blood . . . and lost any chance to get more information from Dent. Moron. “DR. NO” can boast first-class performances by American-born John Kitzmiller as the exuberant Jamaican CIA contact, Quarrel. And Zena Marshall gave a solid, yet subtle performance as Professor Dent’s Eurasian secretary and SPECTRE agent, Miss Taro. It is only too bad that the producers and Terence Young could not find genuine Eurasians for both the Dr. No and Miss Taro roles. But I guess that would not have been possible in 1962.

“DR. NO” featured some beautiful photography of Jamaica from cinematographer Ted Moore. Monty Norman not only provided a first-rate musical score, he also delivered the original “James Bond” theme. However, some of the movie’s flaws – namely the uneven script and direction by Terence Young, along with the wooden dialogue, makes “DR. NO” vastly overrated in my eyes. But what can I expect from a movie that consistently threatens to put me to sleep two-thirds into the story?

“SYLVIA” (2003) Review

 

“SYLVIA” (2003) Review

I finally watched “SYLVIA”, the 2003 biography on poet Sylvia Plath, on DVD. After all I have heard about the movie, I had expected to be disappointed by it. To be truthful, I found it quite interesting biopic that was especially enhanced by the leads’ performances. But . . . “SYLVIA” was not a perfect film.

Set between the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, “SYLVIA” told the story of Plath’s marriage to fellow poet, British-born Ted Hughes, their tumultuous relationship and her struggles to maintain a career. The movie’s revelation of the Plath/Hughes courtship, followed by their marriage turned out to be very interesting and rather intense. “SYLVIA” also did an excellent job in re-capturing the literary and academic world in both the United States and Great Britain that Plath and Hughes interacted with during the 1950s and early 1960s.

I suspect that many had expected John Brownlow’s screenplay to take sides in its portrayal of the couple’s problems and eventual breakup. To Brownlow and director Christine Jeffs’ credit, the movie avoided this route. There were no heroes/heroines and villains/villainesses in their story . . . just two people who had failed to create a successful marriage. “SYLVIA” revealed that Hughes’ infidelity with married writer and poet, Assia Wevill, the critical indifference of the male-dominated literary world and her own bouts with depression made life difficult for Plath during her last years. At the same time, the movie made it clear that Hughes struggled to deal with a depressed and suicidal wife. In the end, the movie presented the possibility that both Plath and Hughes had contributed their breakup.

To be honest, I think that Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig’s performances as Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes had more to do with the movie’s main virtue than Jeffs’ direction or Brownlow’s script. director, Christine Jeffs or the screenwriter, John Brownlow. Also, the movie featured some first-rate performances from the supporting cast. All of them – Jared Harris as poet/literary critic Al Alvarez; Blythe Danner as Aurelia Plath, Sylvia’s mother; Amira Casar as Wevill; and Michael Gambon as Teacher Thomas, a neighbor of Sylvia’s; gave able support. But it is obvious that this movie belonged to Paltrow and Craig, who conveyed the intensity of the Plath/Hughes marriage with an honesty and rawness that I sometimes found hard to bear.

But even those two were not able to save the movie’s last half hour from almost sinking into an abyss of unrelenting boredom. I suspect that Jeffs and Brownlow wanted to give moviegoers an in-depth look at Plath’s emotional descent into suicide, following the break-up of her marriage to Hughes. But I wish they could have paced the movie’s ending a little better than what had been shown in the finale. The movie’s last half hour nearly dragged the story to a standstill.

Despite the last half hour, I would still recommend “SYLVIA”. In the end, it turned out to be a pretty interesting look into the marriage of the two famous poets, thanks to director Christine Jeffs, John Brownlow’s screenplay and a first-rate cast. But I believe that performances of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig proved to be the best aspects of the film.

“Charles Gunn and His Role in Angel Investigations”

 

CHARLES GUNN AND HIS ROLE IN ANGEL INVESTIGATIONS

There is something about one of the episodes of “ANGEL” that has always bothered me. My unease centered around an incident between two of the series’ major characters that occurred in the early Season 3 episode, (3.03) “That Old Gang of Mine”. But to understand the nature of my unease, one has to return to two episodes from Season 2 – (2.10) “Reunion” and (2.12) “Blood Money”.

As many fans of ”ANGEL” are aware, Angel had decided to fire his three companions – Cordelia Chase, Wesley Wyndham-Price and Charles Gunn – as a despondent reaction over his failure to save a human Darla from the manipulations of Wolfram and Hart and the vampire he had sired, Drusilla; in the episode ”Reunion”. Although upset over Angel’s actions, Cordelia, Wesley and Charles had decided to revive Angel Investigations in the episode, ”Blood Money”:

Gunn takes the card and looks at it.
Gunn: “That’s a Angel? Looks like a – a lobster with a – growth or… We’ll make our own logo.”
Wesley: “Yes. Something sleek, but edgy.”
Gunn: “Something that says: you need help, we’re there.”
Wesley: “Exactly. Danger is our business. (Cordy put a hand to her forehead and begins to stagger) We’ll catch you when you fall.”

While celebrating the successful conclusion of a case that involved a demon, the trio had a discussion on their agency’s new name:

Gunn: “Our new agency.”
Wesley: “Wyndham-Price Agency.”
Cordy and Gunn: “The what?”
Wesley: “You don’t like it? – It’s classy.”
Cordy: “It’s stuffy. – The Chase Agency! *That* has the right ring.”
Wesley: “Why?”
Cordy: “Because it’s my name.”
Gunn: “Uh, Wes, Ms. Chase, alright, there is only one player here with a name that strikes dread in the demon heart.”
Points at himself.
Cordy: “Gunn?”
Gunn: “Uh-huh.”

Mind you, the above conversation that took place was nothing more than a spot of fun for the trio. They eventually decided to maintain the agency’s former name – Angel Investigations.

Now, according to many fans of the series, Cordy, Charles and Wesley had all decided that despite being equal partners in the updated version of the firm, Wesley would act as case leader. In other words, due to his past as a Watcher and extensive knowledge of the supernatural world, he would lead the other two when they were actually on a case. This did not make Wesley head of the firm altogether or the official boss of Angel Investigations. He would simply act as leader during a case. But after an early episode in the following season, a good number of people – including Joss Whedon and Tim Minear – had forgotten.

Then came the early Season Three episode, ”That Old Gang of Mine”. In this particular episode, Charles discovers his former comrades are murdering harmless demons for fun. When he tries to convince them to stop, he learns that – due to his association with Angel – he has lost their trust. One of his former associates gives Charles the opportunity to win their trust by killing Angel, who is unable to defend himself due to a spell. Near the end of the episode, Wesley had threatened to fire Charles if the latter ever goes against Angel Investigations again.

Here is the rub. Why in the hell would Wesley threaten to fire Charles? HE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS. Charles was no longer an employee of Angel Investigations. He was one of three partners. I realize that he and Cordelia had voted to allow Wesley act as leader in their cases. But this gave Wesley NO RIGHT to treat Charles as an employee, instead of a partner. He should have told Charles that he and Cordelia would break their partnership with Charles if the latter ever pulled again what he did in “That Gang of Mine”. Instead, Wesley treated Charles like a minion. Even worse, no one has protested against Wesley’s behavior this to this day:

Gunn: “Don’t guess Rondell and his crew are gonna be crossing Venice boulevard again any time soon.”
Wesley: “It’s never easy – the pull of divided loyalties. – Whatever choice we do end up making we feel as though we’ve betrayed someone.”
Gunn: “Yeah.”
Wesley: “If you ever withhold information or attempt to subvert me again, I will fire you. – I can’t have any one member of the team compromising the safety of the group, no matter who it is. If you do it again you will be dismissed, bag and baggage, out of a job onto the streets.”

Just reading the above passage pisses me off. Did Wesley actually believe he had a right to treat Charles like an employee? Like some damn minion? Tim Minear – who wrote the transcript – and Joss Whedon obviously allowed Charles to accept the threat as genuine. And I do not understand this. What in the hell were they thinking? Both seemed to have forgotten that Angel Investigation 2.0 had been co-founded by Charles, Wesley and Cordelia. Because of this, Wesley had no right to treat Charles like some employee, instead of a colleague and co-owner of the agency. But since Minear and Whedon seemed to be stuck in their vision of Charles as some muscle-bound employee, they made a major blooper in regard to Charles’ character. And worst of all, the majority of the Jossverse fans see nothing wrong in Wesley’s treatment of Charles or the idea that the Englishman was the African-American’s employer and not fellow colleague.

I am sick to my stomach.

“THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” (2002) Review

“THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” (2002) Review

Let me make something clear . . . I have never read the literary version of “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO”, written by Alexandre Dumas. I have seen three movie versions – including this latest one starring James Caviezel. But I have never read the novel. So, for me to compare the literary version to this movie would be irrelevant.

In short, “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” is the story about a French sailor named Edmond Dantès (Caviezel), who finds himself a victim of French political machinations, thanks to the Emperor Napoleon, a jealous first mate named Danglars, his best friend Fernand Mondego (Guy Pearce) and an ambitious local magistrate named J.F. Villefort (James Frain). Edmond ends up on an island prison called Château d’If, where he meets a fellow prisoner, a priest and a former soldier in Napoleon’s army named Abbé Faria (Richard Harris). Faria is killed in an accident after informing Edmond about a fabulous hidden treasure. After Edmond uses Faria’s death to escape from Château d’If, he befriends a smuggler and thief named Jacopo (Luis Guzmán). The two find the treasure that Faria had talked about and Edmond uses it to establish the persona of the Count of Monte Cristo. His aim? To avenge himself against those who had betrayed him – Danglars, Villefort, Mondego and his fiancée Mercédès Iguanada (Dagmara Dominczyk), who had married Mondego after his arrest.

I have to give kudos to director Kevin Reynolds and screenwriter Jay Wolpert for creating a first-class adaptation of Dumas’ novel. From what I have read, it is not an exact adaptation of the novel. As if that was possible. Not that I care whether it was or not. I still enjoyed the movie. Despite some of the changes to the story, “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” still managed to retain its emotional ambiguity. Villains such as Villefort and especially Mondego are not as one-dimensional ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ as one might believe. The origin of Villefort came from his father’s ego-driven ambition. As for Mondego, his dislike and betrayal of Edmond had its roots in his own insecurity and bouts of self-hatred, despite his position as an aristocrat. As for Edmond, he becomes so blinded by his hatred and desire for revenge that his actions nearly ends in tragedy for Mercédès and her adolescent son, Albert (Henry Cavill) – the only innocents in this tale of betrayal and vengeance.

The cast was first rate. James Caviezel gave a superb performance as Edmond Dantès, the naïve French sailor who becomes a wealthy man bent upon vengeance. Caviezel took Edmond’s character and emotional make-up all over the map without missing a beat. And Guy Pearce was equally superb as the villainous Fernand Mondego, an arrogant aristocrat whose own jealousy and bouts of self-loathing led him to betray the only friend he would ever have. James Frain gave a solid performance as the ambitious Villefort, whose greed allows Edmond takes advantage of in order to exact his revenge. And I could say the same for both Dagmara Dominczyk, who portrayed Mercédès Iguanada, Edmond’s charming fiancée who found herself stuck in a loveless marriage with Mondego due to certain circumstances; and Luis Guzmán’s portrayal as the wise and loyal Jacapo. Henry Cavill gave a solid performance as Edmund’s guiless, yet emotional son who gets caught up in the crossfire between Edmund and Fernand. And the late Richard Harris managed to create great chemistry with Caviezel as Edmond’s wise mentor, Abbé Faria.

Cinematographer Andrew Dunn and production designer Andrew Dunn did a great job of transforming locations in Ireland and the island of Malta into early 19th century France. And they were ably assisted by Tom Rand’s costume designs. Along with a first-rate cast, Kevin Reynolds’ competent direction and Jay Wolpert’s script, this version of “THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO” turned out to be an entertaining movie filled with exciting action, great drama and excellent storytelling. A first-rate movie all around.

“SUNSET” (1988) Review

431190_original

“SUNSET” (1988) Review

Bruce Willis and James Garner co-starred in this period piece murder mystery about famous Western movie star Tom Mix and former Old West lawman Wyatt Earp solving a case in 1929 Hollywood. Written and directed by Blake Edwards (“PINK PANTHER” and “VICTOR/VICTORIA”), the movie was based upon Rod Amateau’s novel of the same title.

The movie begins with studio boss Alfie Alperin (Malcolm McDowell) assigning Tom Mix to star in a movie about Wyatt Earp and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He even hires Earp to act as the film’s technical adviser. The two legends become good friends before getting caught up in a real case that involved prostitution, corruption and the murder of a Hollywood madam. And Alperin’s step-son Michael (Dermot Mulroney) becomes the police’s main suspect. Alperin’s wife and Michael’s mother Christina (Patricia Hodge) recruits Earp (an old flame) and Mix to help her son by finding the real killer.

Let me be frank. “SUNSET” is at best, a mediocre film. It is filled with cinematic clichés, plot twists that either do not make any sense or come off as predictable, and some rather bad dialogue. Surprisingly, one of the worst offenders turns out to be Bruce Willis. I am not accusing him of bad acting. On the contrary, I believe that he gave a pretty damn good performance. Unfortunately, Willis was forced to deal with some pretty atrocious dialogue, thanks to writer/director Blake Edwards. Honestly . . . the poor man came off sounding like a California surfer circa 1985, instead of a Hollywood cowboy from the 1920s. Perhaps if Edwards had refrained from including the term “dude” into Mix’s dialogue, Willis could have emerged from the movie unscathed.

However, Willis was not the only cast member who suffered in this movie. The director’s daughter, Jennifer Edwards, did not fare any better as Victoria Alperin, Alfie’s sister. Poor Ms. Edwards. A year later, she would give a wonderful performance as a ditzy secretary in the 1989 remake of the 1950s television classic, “PETER GUNN”. But in “SUNSET”, her Victoria Alperin seemed even more out of place in this 1920s tale than Willis’ Tom Mix. Her performance struck me as petulant and unnecessarily brittle. I could not help but think she would have fared better in a guest appearance on“MIAMI VICE” as the brittle wife of some drug dealer or corrupt businessman. Honestly. Actor Joe Dallesandro portrayed Dutch Kieffer, a take on the famous gangster, Dutch Schultz. Granted, he did a competent job in adding menace to the character. Unfortunately . . . his demeanor seemed more suited to a character in something like “BARETTA” or“STARSKY AND HUTCH”. Like Ms. Edwards, he seemed even more out of place in this movie than Willis. But the one person who truly seemed out of place in “SUNSET” was character actor M. Emmet Walsh. Poor Mr. Walsh. He had the bad luck to portray the chief security officer of Alperin Studios, Marvin Dibner. If there was one character who seemed unnecessary to the story, it was him. Honestly, his character could have easily been deleted. Instead of creating another addition to his gallery of interesting supporting roles, poor Mr. Walsh popped up in every other scene, wearing a dumb expression.

Fortunately, “SUNSET” could boast some good, solid performances. Despite some of the bad dialogue dumped on him, Bruce Willis had the good luck to be teamed with James Garner. Between Garner’s earthy performance as the legendary lawman and Willis’ cocky take on the famous Western star, the pair managed to create an electrifying screen team. Kathleen Quinlan made a nice addition to the cast as the sly and humorous Nancy Shoemaker, one of Alperin Studios’ publicists. Mariel Hemingway had been nominated for a Razzie Award as Worst Supporting Actress for her role as the daughter of the murdered madam. This nomination merely confirmed my belief that the Razzie Awards are full of shit. I thought Hemingway gave a good, solid performance and had a nice chemistry with Garner. Richard Bradford, fresh from his role in 1987’s “THE UNTOUCHABLES”, gave a convincingly venomous portrayal of a corrupt cop named “Dirty” Bernie Blackworth . . . despite some questionable dialogue. Patricia Hodge and Dermot Mulroney portrayed Christina Alperin and her son, Michael. They gave competent performances, but I found nothing memorable about them. And of course, there was Malcolm McDowell portraying Alfie Alperin, the movie comedian-turned-studio head. It is obvious that Alperin is based upon Hollywood icon Charlie Chaplin. I can only wonder if Chaplin was as cruel and sadistic as the Alperin character. Thankfully, McDowell did not use the character’s negative traits as an excuse for an over-the-top performance. His Alfie Alperin came off as warm, clever, charming and most importantly, quietly menacing.

Plot wise, “SUNSET” turned out to be another one of those murder mysteries set in Old Hollywood. And yes, it was filled with the usual clichés and name droppings. I would reveal the killer’s identity, but I suspect that anyone with a brain would guess within forty minutes into the story. Or make a close guess. The only difference from this Hollywood mystery and others was that the two investigators turned out to be famous figures and not some Los Angeles detective or minor studio employee. Speaking of Earp and Mix, many film critics pointed out that the two had never met in real life. As it turned out, they did meet and Mix had served as a pallbearer at Earp’s funeral. Talk about an egg in the face. However . . . Earp did pass away two months before the movie’s setting. And Mix was at least seventeen years older than Willis’ true age during the movie’s production.

If there is one aspect about “SUNSET” that I must commend, it is the film’s artistic designs. Patricia Norris beautifully re-captured the 1920s in her Academy Award nominated costumes. Hell, I could say the same about Richard Haman’s art direction, Marvin March’s set decorations and especially Rodger Maus’ production designs. Thanks to these four artisans, “SUNSET” fairly reeked of the slightly corrupt gloss of late 1920s Hollywood.

“SUNSET” is such a mediocre film that there are times I wonder why I like it. Some of the characters seemed out of place in the 1929 setting. M. Emmet Walsh was practically wasted in his role as a studio security chief. The movie was filled with some atrocious dialogue. And to be honest, the plot came off as so predictable that it almost seemed easy to pinpoint the killer’s identity. So why did I bother to watch this movie? Why did I bother to purchase a used VHS copy of the movie, several years ago? Despite its obvious flaws, I rather like “SUNSET”. Willis and Garner literally lit up the screen as a charismatic duo, McDowell made a fantastic villain and the movie did feature some witty dialogue. But most importantly, ”SUNSET” was drenched in a late 1920s setting thanks to such work from artisans like Rodger Maus’ production designs and Patricia Norris’ costumes.

Top Favorite WORLD WAR I Movie and Television Productions

worldwar1somme-tlBelow is a list of my favorite movie and television productions about World War I:

TOP FAVORITE WORLD WAR I MOVIE AND TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS

1 - Paths of Glory

1. “Paths of Glory” (1957) – Stanley Kubrick directed Kirk Douglas in this highly acclaimed anti-war film about French soldiers who refuse to continue a suicidal attack. Ralph Meeker, Adolphe Menjou and George Macready co-starred.

2 - Lawrence of Arabia

2. “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) – David Lean directed this Oscar winning film about the war experiences of British Army officer T.E. Lawrence. The movie made stars of Peter O’Toole and Omar Sharif.

3 - All Quiet on the Western Front

3. “All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930) – Lew Ayres starred in this Oscar winning adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque’s 1929 novel about the experiences of a German Army soldier during World War I. Lewis Milestone directed.

4 - The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles

4. “The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles” (1992-1993) – George Lucas created this television series about Indiana Jones’ childhood and experiences as a World War I soldier. Sean Patrick Flannery and Corey Carrier, George Hall
and Ronny Coutteure starred.

5 - Gallipoli

5. “Gallipoli” (1981) – Peter Weir directed this acclaimed historical drama about two Australian soldiers and their participation in the Gallipoli Campaign. The movie starred Mark Lee and Mel Gibson.

6 - The Dawn Patrol 1938

6. “The Dawn Patrol” (1938) – Errol Flynn and David Niven starred in this well made, yet depressing remake of the 1930 adaptation of John Monk Saunders’ short story, “The Flight Commander”. Directed by Edmund Goulding, the movie co-starred Basil Rathbone.

7 - La Grande Illusion

7. “La Grande Illusion” (1937) – Jean Renoir co-wrote and directed this highly acclaimed war drama about French prisoners-of-war who plot to escape from an impregnable German prisoner-of-war camp. Jean Gabin starred.

8 - Shout at the Devil

8. “Shout at the Devil” (1976) – Lee Marvin and Roger Moore starred as two adventurers in this loose adaptation of Wilbur Smith’s novel, who poach ivory in German controlled East Africa on the eve of World War I. Directed by Peter Hunt, the movie co-starred Barbara Parkins.

9 - Biggles - Adventures in Time

9. “Biggles: Adventures in Time” (1986) – Neil Dickson and Alex Hyde-White starred in this adventure fantasy about an American catering salesman who inadvertently travels through time to help a British Army aviator during World War I. John Hough directed.

10 - A Very Long Engagement

10. “A Very Long Engagement” (2004) – Jean-Pierre Jeunet wrote and directed this very long romantic war drama about a young French woman’s search for her missing fiancé who might have been killed in the Battle of the Somme, during World War I. Audrey Tautou starred.

TAGS: alec guinness, alex hyde-white, basil rathbone, british empire, carrie fisher, christopher lee, claude rains, daniel craig, david niven, errol flynn, george lucas, german reich, harrison ford, history, ian holm, ian mcdiarmid, indiana jones, jason flemyng, jeffrey wright, jennifer ehle, marion cotillard, middle east, movies,old hollywood, paul freeman, peter firth, peter o’toole, progressive era, roger moore, television, third republic, time travel, timothy spall, vanessa redgrave, world war 1