“THE KENNEDYS” (2011) Review

“THE KENNEDYS” (2011) Review

The past forty to fifty years have seen a great deal of movies, documentaries and television productions about one of the most famous political families in the U.S., the Kennedys. But none of them have garnered as much controversy or criticism as this latest production, an eight-part television miniseries that aired last April.

Directed by Jon Cassar, “THE KENNEDYS” chronicled the family’s lives and experiences through the 1960s – mainly during President John F. Kennedy’s Administration. The miniseries also touched upon some of the family’s experiences and relationships before JFK first occupied the White House through flashbacks in Episode One, which also focused upon Election Day 1960. And Episode Eight covered the years between JFK’s assassination and the death of his younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968. But the meat of the miniseries centered on the years between January 1961 and November 1963. Unlike most productions about the Kennedys, which either covered JFK’s public experiences as President or the family’s private life; this miniseries covered both the public and private lives of the family.

Much to my surprise, “THE KENNEDYS” attracted a great deal of controversy before it aired. The miniseries had been scheduled to air on the History Channel for American audiences back in January 2011. However, the network changed its mind, claiming that “this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand.”. Many, including director Jon Cassar, believed that the network had received pressure from sources with connection to the Kennedy family not to air the miniseries. Several other networks also declined to air the miniseries, until executives from the Reelz Channel agreed to do so. The network finally aired “THE KENNEDYS” in April 2011 and other countries, including Canada and Great Britain also finally aired it. After viewing the miniseries, I do not understand why the History Channel had banned it in the first place.

The miniseries not only attracted controversy, but also mixed reviews from the critics. Well, to be honest, I have only come across negative reviews. If there were any positive commentary, I have yet to read any. For me, “THE KENNEDYS” is not perfect. In fact, I do not believe it is the best Hollywood production on the subject I have seen. The miniseries did not reveal anything new about the Kennedys. In fact, it basically covered old ground regarding both JFK’s political dealings with situations that included the Bay of Pigs, the Civil Rights Movement and the Cuban Missile Crisis. It also covered many of the very familiar topics of the Kennedys’ private lives – including the adulterous affairs of both JFK and Joseph Senior. Hell, even the miniseries’ take on the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed more like a rehash of the 2000 movie, “THIRTEEN DAYS”. In fact, the only aspect of this miniseries that struck me as new or original was the insinuation that First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy may have received amphetamine shots (also taken by JFK) from a Doctor Max Jacobson, to boost her energy for the numerous duties of her office. And I have strong doubts over whether this is actually true.

I have one other major complaint about the miniseries – namely the final episode. Episode Eight covered Jacqueline and Bobby’s lives during the remainder of the 1960s, following JFK’s death. For me, this was a major mistake. Although Part One mainly covered Election Day in November 1960, it also featured flashbacks of the family’s history between the late 1930s and 1960. But the majority of the miniseries covered JFK’s presidency. In my opinion, ”THE KENNEDYS” should have ended with JFK’s funeral, following his assassination in Dallas. I realize that the miniseries also featured the lives of Bobby, Jacqueline, Joseph Senior, Rose and Ethel’s live in heavy doses, it still centered on Jack Kennedy. By continuing into one last episode that covered Jacqueline and Bobby’s lives following the President’s death, it seemed to upset the miniseries’s structure. If that was the case, the setting for ”THE KENNEDYS” should have stretched a lot further than the 1960s.

But despite my complaints, I still enjoyed “THE KENNEDYS”. For one thing, it did not bore me. The pacing struck me as top notch. And it lacked the dry quality of the more well-received 1983 miniseries, “KENNEDY”. Although I believe that particular miniseries was superior to this new one, it sometimes felt more like a history lesson than a historical drama. It is possible that the additions of sequences featuring the family’s personal lives and scandals may have prevented me from falling asleep. But even the scenes that featured JFK’s presidency struck me as interesting – especially the scenes about the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Episode Three. I also enjoyed the flashbacks that supported the miniseries’ look into Joseph Kennedy Senior’s control over his children and the shaky marriage between JFK and Jacqueline. At least two particular flashbacks focused upon JFK’s affair with Hollywood icon Marilyn Monroe, and its near effect upon younger brother Bobby. One scene that really impressed me was Bobby’s first meeting with the starlet. Thanks to Cassar’s direction, along with Barry Pepper (Bobby Kennedy) and Charlotte Sullivan’s (Marilyn Monroe), the scene reeked with a sexual tension that left viewers wondering if the pair ever really had a tryst. Both Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes gave outstanding performances in two particular scenes that not only featured the explosive marriage between the President and First Lady, but also the depths of their feelings toward one another. The miniseries also scored with Rocco Matteo’s production designs. I was especially impressed by his re-creation of the White House, circa 1961. I was also impressed by Christopher Hargadon’s costume designs. He did a first-rate job in not only capturing the period’s fashions for both the male and female characters, but also in re-creating some of Jacqueline Kennedy’s more famous outfits.

Aside from the pacing, the miniseries’ biggest strength turned out to be the cast. I have already commented upon Charlotte Sullivan’s excellent performance as Marilyn Monroe. But she her performance was not the only supporting one that impressed me. Kristin Booth gave a top-notch portrayal of Bobby Kennedy’s wife, Ethel. And she did this without turning the late senator’s wife into a one-note caricature, unlike other actresses. I was also impressed by Don Allison’s turn as future President, Lyndon B. Johnson. However, there were moments when his performance seemed a bit theatrical. I also enjoyed how both John White and Gabriel Hogan portrayed the rivalry between a young JFK and Joseph Junior during the late 1930s and early 1940s, with a subtlety that I found effective. However, both Tom Wilkinson and Diana Hardcastle really impressed me as the heads of the Kennedy clan – Joseph Senior and Rose Kennedy. They were really superb. Truly. I was especially impressed by Wilkinson’s handling of his New England accent, after recalling his bad American accent in 2005’s “BATMAN BEGINS”. And I had no idea that Diana Hardcastle was his wife. Considering their strong screen chemistry, I wonder if it is possible for husband and wife to act in front of a camera together, more often.

The best performances, in my opinion, came from Greg Kinnear, Katie Holmes and Barry Pepper as JFK, Jacqueline Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, respectively. For some reason, Pepper’s portrayal of Bobby seemed to keep the miniseries grounded. He did a great job in capturing the former senator and Attorney General’s ability to maintain solidarity in the family; and also his conflict between continuing his service to JFK and the family, and considering the idea of pursuing his own profession. Greg Kinnear’s take on JFK struck me as different from any I have ever seen in previous movies or television productions. Yes, he portrayed the style, charm, intelligence and wit of JFK. He was also effective in conveying the President’s conflict between his lustful desires for other women, his love for his wife and any “alleged” guilt over his infidelity. There seemed to be a slightly melancholy edge in Kinnear’s performance that I have never seen in other actors who have portrayed JFK. But I feel that the best performance came from Katie Holmes in her portrayal of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. Personally, I thought it was worthy of an award nomination. However, I doubt that anyone would nominate her. Pity. I thought she did a superb job in capturing not only the style and glamour of the famous First Lady, but also the latter’s complex and intelligent nature.

I am well aware that most critics were not impressed by the miniseries. Hell, I am also aware that a good number of viewers have expressed some contempt toward it. I could follow the bandwagon and also express a negative opinion of “THE KENNEDYS”. But I cannot. It is not the best production I have ever seen about the famous political family. It did not really provide anything new about the Kennedy family and as far as I am concerned, it had one episode too many. But I was impressed by Jon Cassar’s direction, along with the outstanding cast and first-rate production and costume designs. And thinking about all of this, I still do not understand why the History Channel had went through so much trouble to reject the miniseries’ airing on its network.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set During the 1600s

Below is a list of my favorite movies set during the 1600s:

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET DURING THE 1600s

1. “The Four Musketeers: Milady’s Revenge” (1974) – Richard Lester directed this adaptation of the second half of Alexandre Dumas père‘s 1844 novel, “The Three Musketeers”. The movie starred Michael York, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch and Faye Dunaway.

2. “The Man in the Iron Mask” (1977) – Richard Chamberlain portrayed duel roles in this loose adaptation of Alexandre Dumas père‘s 1847-50 novel, “The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later”. Directed by Mike Newell, the movie co-starred Jenny Agutter, Patrick McGoohan and Ralph Richardson.

3. “The Three Musketeers” (1973) – Richard Lester directed this adaptation of the first half of Alexandre Dumas père‘s 1844 novel, “The Three Musketeers”. The movie starred Michael York, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch and Faye Dunaway.

4. “Adventures of Don Juan” (1948) – Errol Flynn starred in this swashbuckling movie as the infamous Spanish nobleman and fencing master for King Philip III and Queen Margaret of Spain’s court, who comes to the aid of the couple when another nobleman plots to steal the throne from them. Vincent Sherman directed.

5. “The New World” (2005) – Terrence Malick wrote and directed this cinematic look at the founding of the Jamestown, Virginia settlement. The movie starred Colin Farrell, Q’orianka Kilcher, Christopher Plummer and Christian Bale.

6. The Three Musketeers” (1948) – George Sidney directed this adaptation of Alexandre Dumas père‘s 1844 novel. The movie starred Gene Kelly, Van Heflin, Lana Turner and June Allyson.

7. “Girl with a Pearl Earring” (2005) – Colin Firth and Scarlett Johansson starred in this adaptation of Tracy Chevalier’s 1999 historical novel about a Dutch housemaid; her employer, painter Johannes Vermeer; and the creation of his famous 1665 painting. Peter Webber directed.

8. “The Wicked Lady” (1945) – Margaret Lockwood starred in this adaptation of Magdalen King-Hall’s 1945 novel, “Life And Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton”. Directed by Leslie Arliss, the movie co-starred James Mason and Patricia Roc.

9. “Forever Amber” (1947) – Otto Preminger directed this adaptation of Kathleen Winsor’s 1944 novel about the rise of a 17th century English orphan. Linda Darnell and Cornel Wilde starred.

10. “The Crucible” (1996) – Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder starred in this adaptation of Arthur Miller’s 1953 stage play about the Salem Witch Trials. The movie was directed by Nicholas Hytner.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set During the 1500s

Below is a list of my favorite movies set during the 1500s:

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET DURING THE 1500s

1. “The Sea Hawk” (1940) – Errol Flynn starred in this exciting, but loose adaptation of Rafael Sabatini’s 1915 novel about an Elizabethan privateer. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the movie starred Brenda Marshall and Henry Daniell.

2. “Shakespeare in Love” (1998) – John Madden directed this Best Picture winner about how an imaginary love affair between playwright William Shakespeare and a wealthy merchant’s daughter that led to his creation of “Romeo and Juliet”. Joseph Fiennes and Oscar winner Gwyneth Paltrow starred.

3. “Anne of the Thousand Days” (1969) – Richard Burton and Oscar nominee Geneviève Bujold starred in this historical drama about Anne Boleyn’s relationship with King Henry VIII of England. Charles Jarrott directed.

4. “A Man for All Seasons” (1966) – Oscar winner Fred Zinnemann directed this Best Picture winner, an adaptation of Robert Bolt’s play about the final years of Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor. Oscar winner Paul Scofield starred.

5. “Captain From Castile” (1947) – Tyrone Power starred in this adaptation of Samuel Shellabarger’s 1945 novel about a Spanish nobleman’s experiences during the Spanish Inquisition and Hernan Cortez’s conquest of the Aztecs in Mexico. Directed by Henry King, the movie co-starred Jean Peters and Cesar Romero.

6. “The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex” (1939) – Bette Davis, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland starred in this adaptation of Maxwell Anderson’s 1930 Broadway play, “Elizabeth the Queen”, a fictionalized account of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and the 2nd Earl of Essex. Michael Curtiz directed.

7. “Elizabeth” (1998) – Golden Globe winner Cate Blanchett starred in this highly fictionalized account of the early years of Elizabeth I’s reign. Directed by Shekhar Kapur, the movie co-starred Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes and Richard Attenborough.

8. “Ever After” (1998) – Drew Barrymore starred in this loose adaptation of “Cinderella”. Directed by Andy Tennant, the movie co-starred Anjelica Houston and Dougray Scott.

9. “Mary, Queen of Scots” (1971) – Vanessa Redgrave starred in this biopic about the life of Queen Mary of Scotland. Directed by Charles Jarrott, the movie co-starred Timothy Dalton, Nigel Davenport and Glenda Jackson.

10. “Anonymous” (2011) – Roland Emmerich directed this interesting and highly fictionalized biopic about Elizabethan courtier, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The movie starred Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson and David Thewlis.

“JOHN ADAMS” (2008) Review

“JOHN ADAMS” (2008) Review

In a nutshell . . . “JOHN ADAMS” is an adaption of David McCullough’s bestselling, Pulitzer-Prize winning biography on the country’s second president, John Adams. Instead of beginning the story during Adams’ childhood or early adulthood, the miniseries began in the late winter/early spring of 1770, when he defended seven British soldiers and one officer accused of murder during the ‘Boston Massacre’ crisis. It ended with the episode that covered the last fifteen years of Adams’ life as a former President. And despite some historical discrepancies and a rather bland fourth episode, “JOHN ADAMS” ended as another glorious notch in HBO’s history.

The performances were superb, especially Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. On screen, they were as well matched as the second President and First Lady were, over two hundred years ago. If either of them is passed over for either an Emmy or Golden Globe award, a great travesty will end up occurring. Especially Giamatti. He is the first actor I have seen make the role of John Adams his own, since William Daniels in “1776”. Another performance that left me dazzled was British actor Stephen Dillane’s subtle and brilliant performance as one of the most enigmatic Presidents in U.S. history – Thomas Jefferson. I had heard a rumor that he preferred acting on the stage above performing in front of a camera. If it is true, I think it is a damn shame. There is nothing wrong with the theater. But quite frankly, I feel that Dillane’s style of acting is more suited for the movies or television. These three fine actors are backed up with excellent performances from the likes of David Morse as George Washington, a brooding Sam Adams portrayed by Danny Huston and Tom Wilkinson portraying a roguish and very witty Benjamin Franklin.

I found most of the miniseries’ episodes very enjoyable to watch and very informative. Not only did “JOHN ADAMS” gave its viewers a detailed look into the United States and Europe during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, rarely seen on the silver or television screen. One particular scene comes to mind occurred in Part 1 – “Join or Die”, when Adams witnessed the tar-and-feathering of a Boston Tory by members of the Sons of Liberty. The entire incident played out with grusome detail. Another scene that caught my attention occurred in Part 6 – “Unecessary War”, when the Adamses had their first view of the recently built White House, located in the still undeveloped Washington D.C. I am so used to Washington looking somewhat civilized that its early, ramshackle appearance came as quite a surprise. And instead of allowing the actors and scenery resemble something out of a painting or art museum, everything looked real. One might as well be stepping into the late eighteenth century, absorbing the sights, sounds and smells . . . if one could achieve the latter via a television set. Speaking of sounds, I have to comment on the opening scene score written by Rob Lane. It is very rare find a miniseries theme song this catchy and stirring. Especially in recent years.

If I could choose one particular episode that left me wanting, it had to be Part Four – “Reunion”. This episode covered John and Abigail Adams’ years in Paris during the Treaty of Paris negotiations and as the first U.S. Minister to the British Court of St. James in London. It also covered his return to Massachusetts and election as the first Vice President. I enjoyed the development of the Adams’ friendship with Jefferson in this episode. Unfortunately that is all I had enjoyed. I wish that the episode had expanded more on the troubles surrounding the Treaty of Paris and especially the Adams’ stay in London. The most that was shown in the latter situation was Adams’ meeting with King George III (Tom Hollander) and Abigail’s desire to return home. On the whole, I found this episode rushed and slightly wanting.

But there were three others that I found fascinating. One turned out to be Part 3 – “Don’t Tread on Me”. This episode featured his subsequent Embassy duties with Benjamin Franklin to the Court of Louis XVI, and his trip to the Dutch Republic to obtain monetary support for the Revolution. I would not exactly view this episode as one of the miniseries’ best, but it did feature an excellent performance by Paul Giamatti, who expressed Adams’ frustration with the opulent Court of Louis XVI and Benjamin Franklin, rakishly portrayed by Tom Wilkinson. Watching Adams attempt to win the friendship of the French aristocrats and fail was fascinating to watch.

One of the episodes that really stood out for me was Part 6 – “Unnecessary War”. This episode covered Adams’ term as the second President of the United States and the growing development of a two-party system in the form of the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton (Rufus Sewell) and the Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans. This episode featured standout performances from not only Giamatti, but from Linney, Dillane and Sewell as a rather manipulative and power hungry Hamilton. The episode also featured a detailed history lessons on the beginning of political partisanship in the U.S. and the country’s (or should I say Adams’) efforts to keep the U.S. neutral from the war between Great Britain and France. It also focused upon a personal matter for both John and Abigail, as they dealt with the decline of their alcoholic second son, Charles. An excellent episode all around.

My favorite episode – and I suspect that it might be the case with many fans – is Part 2 – “Independence”. This episode focused upon the early years of the Revolution in which Adams and his fellow congressmen of the Continental Congress consider the option of independence from Great Britain and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It also focused upon Abigail’s struggles with the Adams’ farm and a smallpox outbreak in the Massachusetts colony. Personally, I consider this the best episode of the entire series. I especially enjoyed the verbal conflict between pro-independence Adams and delegate John Dickinson of Pennsylvania (superbly portrayed by actor Željko Ivanek), who favored reconciliation with the Crown. But one scene I found particularly humorous featured Adams and especially Franklin “editing” Jefferson’s final draft of the Declaration of Independence. All three actors – Giamatti, Wilkinson and Dillane were hilarious in a scene filled with subtle humor.

Despite being based upon a historical biography, “JOHN ADAMS” is not historically accurate. Which is not surprising. It is first and foremost a Hollywood production. Some of the best historical dramas ever shown on television or on the movie screen were never historically correct. Whether or not “JOHN ADAMS” is 100% historically correct, it is one of the best dramas I have seen on television in the past two decades.

“SNOWDEN” (2016) Review

“SNOWDEN” (2016) Review

When I heard that director Oliver Stone was about to release a movie about tech whistleblower, Edward Snowden back in 2016, I did not know what to expect. I still harbored memories of “THE FIFTH ESTATE”, the 2013 movie about Julian Assange. Unlike many others, I did not dislike the film. But I did not find it particularly impressive. But curiosity won in regard to this movie about Snowden and I decided to watch it.

Structured as a flashback, “SNOWDEN” began three years earlier in Hong Kong, where Snowden had agreed to meet with The Guardian and Washington Post journalists and reveal the details leading to his decision to expose the National Security Agency (N.S.A.)’s illegal cyber-snooping on millions of unsuspecting American citizens. The flashbacks began with Snowden’s departure from the U.S. Army due to a major injury and covered his years with the C.I.A. and as a contractee for Dell, which manages computer systems for multiple government agencies like the N.S.A. The movie also covered Snowden’s profession and growing knowledge of the American government’s illegal use of cybertech affected his tumultuous relationship with girlfriend Lindsay Mills and his health for nearly a decade.

Personally, I thought “SNOWDEN” was a pretty damn good movie. It is not the first biopic or movie with a strong historic background that Oliver Stone had directed. And if I must be brutally honest, it is not his best. I cannot put my finger on why “SNOWDEN” failed to rank up there with the likes of “PLATOON”, “BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY” and especially “JFK”. Was it the subject matter? One would think Edward Snowden’s actions would generate plenty of controversy. An N.S.A. contractor exposing the U.S. government for illegally spying on the American public would seems controversial. Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald’s screenplay even went into details behind Snowden’s discoveries – details that left many Americans outraged when news of Snowden’s leaks hit the newspapers and the Internet. The screenplay also detailed the emotional consequences that Snowden had suffered from his years with the C.I.A. and his employment as a N.S.A. contractor.

“SNOWDEN” also featured some pretty top notch performances from the cast. Performers like Zachary Quinto, Melissa Leo, Nicholas Cage, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Olyphant, Scott Eastwood, Keith Stanfield, Ben Schnetzer, Logan Marshall-Green and Joely Richardson gave solid, yet colorful performances. I was very impressed by Rhys Ifan, who have a subtle, yet slightly sinister performance as Snowden’s C.I.A. mentor Corbin O’Brian. Shailene Woodley was excellent as Snowden’s girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, who nearly became an emotional victim of his profession. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt gave an outstanding performance as the titled character, Edward Snowden. His performance was subtle, emotional and very skillful . . . worthy of an acting nomination.

So, why did “SNOWDEN” fail to impress me? The performances were top-notch. The topic of illegal government surveillance struck me as not only controversial, but also relevant. Or perhaps the topic had ceased to be relevant with American moviegoers. Society’s taste in entertainment has grown disturbingly conservative over the past several years. It is possible that many moviegoers were more outraged over Snowden’s actions, than the government’s. Or perhaps Stone’s timing for the movie’s production and release was a year or two late.

But if I must be honest, “SNOWDEN” seemed to lack something . . . perhaps some touch of magic or energy that made some of his past films memorable to this day. In fact, the movie reminded me of the 2010 Best Picture winner, “THE KING’S SPEECH”. Many recall that movie was a box office and garnered a great deal of accolades. True. But aside from Colin Firth’s Best Actor win, I never thought it deserved its accolades. Both movies struck me as entertaining, yet unoriginal biopics. I suspect that the 2010 movie benefited from the public’s growing conservative taste in entertainment. And it did not help that “SNOWDEN” ended with an appearance from the actual man himself. I dislike it when a filmmaker does this. For me, it is like tacking on a “behind-the-scenes” featurette at the end of a film, giving the latter a weak ending.

Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed “SNOWDEN”. I found its topic very interesting and relevant. I was also impressed by the cast, which was led by the very talented Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. Oliver Stone did a solid job in covering the years that led to Edward Snowden’s whistle blowing. And thanks to him, the movie featured some interesting moments from a cinematic point-of-view. But overall, “SNOWDEN” struck me as a not-so-dazzling effort from Stone. It struck me as a bit too typical for a historical drama and biopic.

“THE DEBT” (2010) Review

 

“THE DEBT” (2010) Review

Roughly thirteen years ago, Assaf Bernstein directed a movie about three retired Mossad agents confronted by a challenge from their past in a movie called “THE DEBT”. Four years later, John Madden directed a remake of this movie with the same title. Although originally intended for a December 2010 release date, the movie was finally released at the end of August 2011.

This latest version of “THE DEBT” began in 1997 when two retired Mossad agents,  Rachel Singer and Stefan Gold, have received shocking news about their former colleague David Peretz. All three have been celebrated by Israel for at least thirty-one years for successfully tracking down a Nazi war criminal named Dieter Vogel back in 1965-55 in East Berlin. However, the reactions of both Rachel and Stefan and several flashbacks questioned whether or not if the team’s mission had been accomplished.

I have never seen the 2007 version. Which means there is no way I could compare this newer version to the older one. But I could say this about “THE DEBT” . . . I thought it was one of the best movies I had seen this past summer. In fact, I thought it was one of the best movies I have seen this year. “THE DEBT” is a superb thriller about a dangerous mission to capture a Nazi war criminal – a mission that led to a labyrinth of lies, guilt, regrets and a desire to correct a mistake. The sequences set in Israel and Russia of the late 1990s and in flashback sequences, 1965-66 East Berlin. The three protagonists in the film proved to be a complicated trio, haunted by not only the Holocaust, but also their personal demons and desires.

The central figure in the story is Rachel Singer, a former Mossad agent who gave up her career when she became pregnant with her only child. Rachel spent the years 1966 to 1997 being caught between two men – the team’s charismatic and womanizing leader, Stefan Gold; and the quiet and intense David Peretz. Both of them became attracted to her. But whereas Stefan viewed Rachel as a brief romance, David began falling in love with her. Rachel felt the same, but turned to Stefan for a one night stand – an act that ended up having major consequences in the relationship between the trio. In a very intense and well directed sequence, the agents finally managed to capture Vogel. But a bad encounter with East German guards at the Wollankstraße Station forced them to take Vogel back to their safe house and guard him, until they can find another way to get him to Israel. What followed was a deliciously acted cat-and-mouse game between manipulative Vogel and his three captors. The shocks and tensions continued, once the story shifted permanently to 1997. In that time frame, Rachel was forced to travel to Russia and clean up a mess caused by the major secret created by the three colleagues back in 1966. I wish I could give away the story, but to do so would give away the plot twists. All I can say is that one of the best aspects of this movie are the plot twists.

The acting was superb. Jesper Christensen, who had impressed me in three James Bond movies, was even more fascinating in his subtle performance as the ruthless, yet manipulative Dieter Vogel. Both Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds gave solid performances as the older Stefan and David. But the real star of the 1997 sequences was Helen Mirren, who was wonderful as an older Rachel, who believed that she had finally put the past behind her. She also proved that one could still be a first-rate female action star at the age of 65/66. If Helen Mirren was the star of the 1997 sequences, the real stars of the entire movie were Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas. In my review of 2010’s “MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS”, I had not been kind to Chastain’s performance in that movie. A lot of my criticism had to do with how her character was written. But I must admit that she was superb as the younger Rachel, who found herself caught up not only in a deadly mission with a dangerous adversary; but also in an emotionally confusing situation between two men. Cskokas gave an enlightening performance as the colorful and commanding Stefan, whose extroverted facade hid an ambitious drive that made him willing to do anything to maintain his career. It was good to see Sam Worthington in a first-rate role after so many years. His portrayal of David Peretz was probably the most intense in the entire episode. Worthington did a superb job of conveying not only David’s quietly expressed desire for Rachel, but also his reluctance to get emotionally involved with others following the loss of his entire family during the Holocaust.

If “THE DEBT” had one flaw – at least for me, it was the ending. I have to be honest. I usually do not mind if a movie ends on an ambiguous or vague note . . . as long as it works. For me, such an ending worked for the 2010 movie, “INCEPTION”. The vague note on which “THE DEBT” ended had failed to work for me. It simply did not feel right and I had the suspicion that either Madden or screenwriters Matthew Vaughn, Kris Thykier, Eduardo Rossoff were trying to be just a little too artistic. And “THE DEBT” struck me as the type of story that did not need an ambiguous ending of that kind.

Despite the movie’s unnecessarily vague ending, I must admit that I truly enjoyed “THE DEBT”. It had an exciting and fascinating story that was served well by the screenwriters, director John Madden and a superb cast led by Helen Mirren and Sam Worthington. As I had stated earlier, it became one of my favorite movies from 2011.

“DUPLICITY” (2009) Review

 

“DUPLICITY” (2009) Review

Several years ago, “BOURNE” franchise scribe/director Tony Gilroy went another direction and wrote and directed this 2009 comedy thriller that barely earned a profit at the box office. This romantic spy flick centered around a pair of romantically involved former intelligence spies who team up for a business scam that would allow them to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle together. 

“DUPLICITY” began five years in the past in which MI-6 agent Ray Koval is ordered to seduce and spy upon a woman named Claire Stenwick, who unbeknownst to him, is a CIA agent. After Claire drugs Ray and steals classified documents from him. The movie’s opening shifts to a physical fight between CEOs Howard Tully of Burkett & Randle and Dick Garsik of Equikrom, establishing the longstanding professional rivalries between the pair. Several years later, Ray, who has become a corporate spy for Equikrom, encounters Claire in New York City. He eventually discovers that she has been an Equikrom corporate spy, working undercover at Burkett & Randle. Ray and Claire decide to create a con job in which they manipulate a corporate race between Tully and Garsik to corner the market on a medical innovation. A con job they hope will reap huge profits for them.

When I first saw the trailer for “DUPLICITY”, I figured that Gilroy would have a smash hit on his hands. He had two leads whose screen chemistry had already been established in the 2004 romantic drama, “CLOSER”. He also had Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson (both fresh from winning awards for their performances in the 2008 HBO miniseries, “JOHN ADAMS”). And he had an interesting story line. What could go wrong? Apparently, a good deal went wrong.

To be honest, “DUPLICITY” was not a terrible movie. The four leads and the supporting cast provide excellent performances – especially Roberts and Owen. And Gilroy managed to write a very witty script. Unfortunately, I also found his script slightly confusing thanks to the flashbacks that featured Roberts and Owen’s budding romance and a slow build up to their scheme to scam Giamatti and Wilkinson. But what prevented “DUPLICITY” from being a winner for me was the ending. As it turned out, Wilkinson’s character had been aware of the scheming ex-spies all along and used them to bankrupt his rival, Giamatti, with phony plans for a new medical innovation. A flashback revealing the listening bug in Roberts’ apartment revealed how he had learned of their scheme. But the movie failed to explain how he had become suspicions of the two in the first place. I also have to add that I was disappointed that Roberts and Owen’s characters had failed to succeed in their scheme. I usual hate these ironic of endings in comedic movies that feature con artists.

What else can I say? “DUPLICITY” featured some excellent performances from Julia Roberts (who had earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy for her performance), Clive Owens and the rest of the cast. Tony Gilroy’s screenplay also featured a good deal of witty humor. But if anyone plans to watch this film and expects a well written and fascinating narrative, I suspect that viewer might end up disappointed. I certainly was.

1960s Costumes in Movies and Television

 

Below are images of fashion during the 1960s, found in movies and television productions over the years:

 

1960s COSTUMES IN MOVIES AND TELEVISION

“That Thing You Do” (1996)

 

 

“Infamous” (2006)

 

 

“Dreamgirls” (2006)

 

 

“Mad Men” (2007-2015)

 

 

 

“The Kennedys” (2011)

 

 

“Pan Am” (2011-2012)

 

 

“Saving Mr. Banks” (2013)

 

 

“The Astronaut Wives’ Club” (2015)

“MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL” (2011) Review

“MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL” (2011) Review

Looking back on the “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE” franchise, I noticed that a movie seemed to appear every four to six years. There are a few things unique about the franchise’s 2011 movie, “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL”. One, Paula Wagner did not co-produce the movie with star Tom Cruise. J.J. Abrams, who directed the third film, did. And two, for once the villain’s goal turned out to be a lot different from those in the past three movies. 

Directed by Brad Bird (who was responsible for Disney animation classics, “THE INCREDIBLES”, “THE INCREDIBLES 2” and “RATATOUILLE”, along with the live action movie “TOMORROWLAND”), “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL” focused on the efforts of an IMF team led by Ethan Hunt to prevent a nuclear disaster. During a mission to procure the files of a terrorist named “Cobalt”, Ethan and his fellow agents are implicated in the bombing of the Kremlin. The IMF is shut down, causing Ethan’s team and an intelligence analyst named William Brandt to go rogue and clear the organization’s name. In order to do this, they have to find “Cobalt”, a Swedish-born nuclear strategist named Kurt Hendricks, and prevent him from using both a Russian nuclear launch-control device from the Kremlin and the activation codes stolen by an assassin hired by Hendricks to send a nuclear missile to U.S. soil.

“MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL” was highly received by both critics and moviegoers after its release. And it is easy to see why. This is a well-written story filled with personal drama, intrigue and great action. In a way, “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL” reminds of both the 1996 movie that introduced the franchise, along with the fifth and the last act of the third film.
In this movie, Ethan Hunt, his immediately colleagues and the entire IMF agency has been disavowed and only Hunt and three of his colleagues are in any position to reverse the situation.

Personal drama is introduced in the opening scene that featured the murder of IMF agent Trevor Hathaway, who was romancing one of Ethan’s colleagues – Jane Carter. And the fate of Julia Hunt, Ethan’s bride from the previous film, turns out to have an emotional impact on Brandt, who is revealed to be a former field agent. Intrigue is revealed in scenes that feature the IMF team’s efforts to acquire the nuclear activation codes at a Dubai hotel from the assassin who had killed Hathaway, Brandt’s revelation as a former field agent, and Carter’s efforts to acquire satellite override codes from an Indian telecommunications mogul to prevent Hendricks from launching a nuclear missile.

But if there is one thing that many fans and critics seemed bowled over in “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL”are the actions sequences shot with great style by director Brad Bird. I could write an essay on the exciting sequences that filled the movie. But only two really impressed me. One involved a prolonged fight between Hunt and Hendricks over the launch-control device at an automobile processing plant in Mumbai. But the movie’s pièce de résistanceinvolved the team’s efforts to acquire the nuclear device’s activation codes from the assassin that killed Hathaway. Not only was it filled with intrigue, it involved Hunt scaling the exterior of another high rise, two major fight scenes involving Hunt and Brandt against Hendricks’ men; and Carter against Hathaway’s killer, the assassin Sabine inside a Dubai hotel (filmed at the city’s highest building Burj Khalifa).

Tom Cruise had returned for a fourth time as IMF agent, Ethan Hunt. I realize that the actor is not always popular with many moviegoers. Personally, I guess I do not care. First of all, I have always believed he was a charismatic and first-rate actor. And his talents were definitely on display in his portrayal of the IMF agent. The cockiness of Cruise’s Hunt from the 1996 film hardly exists anymore. He is now older, wiser and a lot more subtle. Cruise’s Hunt has become a fine wine that has aged with grace.

Simon Pegg made his second appearance in the franchise as IMF programmer Benjy Dunn, who has been promoted to field agent. I might as well confess. I found his Benjy slightly annoying in the third film. Pegg’s humor remained intact in this film, but for some reason I found him a lot more funnier and not at all annoying. Paula Patton gave an excellent and passionate performance as IMF agent Jane Carter. Not only did Patton handled the action very well, she did a great job in conveying Jane’s efforts to rein in her desire for revenge against the assassin who murdered her lover and fellow agent. Once again, Jeremy Renner proved what a great actor he is in his portrayal of former IMF agent-turned-analyst William Brandt. I enjoyed how he conveyed Brandt’s fake inexperience in the field and his recollections of the assignment that went wrong – namely the protection of Ethan’s wife, Julia.

I also have to commend Swedish actor Michael Nyqvist’s subtle portrayal of the nuclear strategist, whose extremism led him to kick start a plot to rain a nuclear disaster upon U.S. shores. Unless he was using a stunt double, Nyqvist also impressive in the fight scene between Hunt and Hendricks in Mumbai. Josh Holloway of “LOST” made a brief appearance as the doomed IMF agent, Trevor Hathaway, who was murdered at the beginning of the movie. Holloway did a good job with what little he was given to do. But I must admit that I feel he is unsuited for the silver screen. If he hopes to become a bigger star, I would suggest he stick to television. His presence is more effective in the latter.

If I have one problem with “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL”, it was the villain’s goal – namely to send a nuclear missile to the U.S. According to the script penned by André Nemec and Josh Appelbaum, Hendricks’ decision to fire a missile stemmed from a desire to start a nuclear war and initiate the next stage of human evolution. Hmmmm . . . . This sounds like something from a James Bond movie. In fact, it reminds me of the 1977 movie, “THE SPY WHO LOVED ME”. What on earth made Cruise, Abrams, Bird, and the screenwriters to pursue this slightly cartoonish plot line? I found it unlike the goals of the previous villains, who only sought either financial, political or career power. I just realized that I have another problem with the movie – namely Michael Giacchino’s handling of the franchise’s theme song, originally written by Lalo Schifrin. Quite frankly, it sucked. I found it just as unmemorable as the adaptations of Schifrin’s score in the past two movies. Only Danny Elfman’s version of the score in the first movie really impressed me.

Despite my misgivings about the villain’s goal in the story and Giacchino’s take on the famous theme song, I really enjoyed “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE – GHOST PROTOCOL”. I enjoyed it so much that it became one of my favorite films of 2011 and is still my favorite entry in the “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE” film franchise.

 

 

“SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” (1995) Review

“SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” (1995) Review

The year 1995 saw the beginning of an onslaught of Britain and the United States’ love affair with British author, Jane Austen. A love affair that has not abated after fourteen (14) years. In 1995, the BBC aired Andrew Davies’ miniseries adaptation of Austen’s most famous novel, ”Pride and Prejudice”. And later that year, Hollywood released its adaptation of another Austen, ”Sense and Sensibility” – which I had just recently watched. 

Directed by Ang Lee, ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”, starred Emma Thompson (who also wrote the screenplay), Kate Winslet, Alan Rickman and Hugh Grant. The story centered around Elinor (Thompson) and Marianne (Winslet), two daughters of Mr. Dashwood (Tom Wilkinson) by his second wife (Gemma Jones). They have a younger sister, Margaret (Emilie François), and an older half-brother named John (James Fleet). When their father dies, the family estate passes to John, and the Dashwood women are left in reduced circumstances. The story follows the Dashwood sisters to their new home, a cottage on a distant relative’s property (Robert Hardy), where they experience both romance and heartbreak. The contrast between the quiet and sensible Elinor and the extroverted and occasionally impetuous Marianne is eventually resolved as each sister finds love and lasting happiness. This leads some to believe that the story’s title described how Elinor and Marianne find a balance between sense and sensibility in life and love.

Producer Lindsay Doran made an excellent choice in selecting Lee to direct the film. First of all, he drew some excellent performances from his cast – especially from Thompson, Winslet, and Rickman. Lee also effectively drew filmgoers back into Regency England without allowing the film to resemble some kind of stiff painting or a museum piece. Although he initially had trouble with dealing with Western-style of filmmaking – especially in dealing with British cast members who questioned his direction and made suggestions regarding shots. He could be rather authoritarian with the cast, especially with Hugh Grant. The actor ended up calling him ”the Brute” behind his back. But Lee and the cast eventually got used to each other. Lee was also responsible for insisting that Thompson play the oldest Dashwood sister. And he Lee ordered Winslet to read poetry and novels from the late 18th century and early 19th century in order to get her to connect to Marianne’s romantic nature. And to give the movie its emotional core, he asked both Thompson and Winslet to room together during production. The two actresses remain close friends to this day.

Not only was Lee ably assisted by his superb cast, but also by crew members such as costume designers Jenny Beavan and John Bright, production designer Luciana Arrighi, set decorator Ian Whittaker, art directors Philip Elton and Andrew Sanders; and cinematographer Michael Coulter, whose photography beautifully captured the English countryside in all of its glory. I especially have to give kudos to Coulter’s photography and Arrighi’s production design for a beautiful re-creation of Regency London. I also enjoyed composer Patrick Doyle’s score for the film. His use of John Dowland’s song, “Weep You No More Sad Fountains” as Marianne’s own theme song struck me as very impressive. But I have to especially give kudos to Emma Thompson for her marvelous adaptation of Austen’s novel. It may not have adhered exactly to the novel, but I found it well written, lively and paced just right.

With the exception of two performances, I felt more than impressed with the cast. When Ang Lee had signed on as the movie’s director, he immediately suggested that Emma Thompson portray the oldest Dashwood sister, Elinor. Thompson considered herself too old for the role, considering that Elinor was at least 19-20 years old in the novel. But Lee suggested that she increase Elinor’s age to 27 in the screenplay, which would also make her distress at being a spinster easier for contemporary audiences to understand. Frankly, I feel that Lee made a good choice. Emma Thompson gave a superb performance as Elinor Dashwood, whose practical mind led her to act as the family’s de facto leader, following her father’s death. She also brilliantly conveyed Elinor’s emotional nature behind a mask of reticence via her eyes and various expressions. Kate Winslet had no need to be subtle as the more openly emotional Marianne Dashwood. Winslet was at least 20 years old when she filmed ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY’. Yet, even at that tender age, Winslet proved that she had the talent and acting chops to portray the very complex Marianne. And yet, she managed to convey all aspects of Marianne’s personality – romantic, willful, emotional and sometimes a bit self-involved – with surprising subtlety.

I found Alan Rickman impressive as one of the Dashwoods’ new neighbors, the quiet and dependable Colonel Christopher Brandon. I enjoyed the subtle manner in which Rickman expressed Brandon’s reluctance in expressing his love for Marianne, due to her feelings for another man. That other man proved to Greg Wise, who gave a surprisingly effective performance as the dashing, yet rakish John Willoughby. Wise has never struck me as an exceptional actor, but I must admit that I consider Willoughby to be one of his three best performances. The movie’s supporting cast also included Robert Hardy and the late Elizabeth Spriggs, who gave amusing performances as Sir John Middleton, the Dashwoods’ cousin and benefactor; and Mrs. Jennings, Sir John’s mother-in-law. Gemma Jones was excellent as the emotional and sometimes girlish mother of the Dashwood sisters. I was also impressed by Harriet Walter, who portrayed the sisters’ shrewish sister-in-law, Fanny Dashwood. And Hugh Laurie gave a hilarious performance as the sardonic and long-suffering Mr. Palmer, Mrs. Jennings’ other son-in-law. And I must say that Imogen Stubbs also impressed me by her subtle performance as the cunning and manipulative Lucy Steele, who seemed to have a claim for the same man that Elinor Dashwood longs for.

Speaking of Elinor Dashwood’s love, I finally come to the two performances that had failed to impress me. One of them belonged to Hugh Grant. He portrayed Edward Ferrars, one of Fanny Dashwood’s brothers that happened to be in love with Elinor and is claimed by the manipulative Lucy Steele as her fiancé. Remember his charming, yet modest performance in the hit 1994 comedy, “FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL”? Well, his Edward Ferrars turned out to be an early 19th century version of that particular role. Grant simply gave the same performance, but with more stuttering and well . . . the same charm. What had been fresh and original in 1994, ended up as old news a year later in “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”. Fortunately, he managed to create strong chemistry with both Thompson and Emilie François, who portrayed the young Margaret Dashwood. And he managed to inject a good deal of subtle wit into his portrayal of the low-key Edward. But the one performance that really did nothing for me belonged to Imelda Staunton. She portrayed Charlotte Jennings Palmer, Mrs. Jennings’ daughter and Mr. Palmer’s wife. Now I am a fan of Stauton, but I cannot say the same about her portrayal of Charlotte Palmer. I realize that the character was supposed to be annoying, but one could say the same about Sir John and Mrs. Middleton. But whereas I found Robert Hardy and Elizabeth Spriggs’ performances amusing and rather funny at times, Staunton’s slightly over-the-top portrayal of Charlotte Palmer ended up irritating the hell out of me.

I understand that Andrew Davies had produced his own version of the Austen novel back in 2008. I cannot deny that the three-part miniseries is first rate. There are two other adaptations of Austen’s 1811 novel that I have enjoyed. However, I still believe that this particular version is superior. It came as no surprise to me that it earned seven (7) Academy Award nominations and won one (1) for Thompson’s Adapted Screenplay. ”SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” is one movie I could watch over again without ever getting tired of it.