"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" (1986) - Episode Two "July 1861 - August 1862" Commentary

"NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" (1986) - EPISODE TWO "July 1861 - August 1862" Commentary

Episode Two began with the aftermath of Bull Run. It also featured Brett Main Hazard and Semiramis' journey to South Carolina, Orry Main's wedding to his widowed neighbor Madeline LaMotte, and Elkhannah Bent and Ashton Main Huntoon's smuggling operations. I wish I could be objective about this particular episode, but I cannot. I dislike it too much. It is one of the main reasons why I have so much difficulty with "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" in the first place. 

My main beef with this episode centered around the plot line that featured Brett and Semiramis' journey south to Mont Royal, following the Bull Run battle. First of all, I believe that this particular plot line was badly written. Brett and Semiramis should not have had any difficulties getting past Union lines, since nearly the entire Union Army had fled to Washington in disarray, following the battle. Second, once they had reached Richmond and delivered the message about Clarissa Main's injury, they could have accompanied Orry back to South Carolina. They would have arrived at Mont Royal in late July or early August 1861, instead of November 1861. And why did it take them so long to reach South Carolina in the first place? Surely, the two could have traveled by train. The Union Army had not began destroying Southern railroad tracks during the summer of 1861. And one last question – why on earth was a message sent to Brett in Washington D.C. in the first place? An accommodating neighbor of the Mains or a local doctor could have sent the message about Clarissa to Orry in Richmond. It would have been a lot easier. And quicker. Talk about bad writing!

I have a few other qualms about Episode Two. I find it odd that Justin La Motte never suffered any legal repercussions for his attack upon Mont Royal in Episode One. Nor did Orry Main encountered any repercussions for La Motte's death, when he rescued Madeline from her venal husband. And could someone please explain Orry's war duties to Jefferson Davies and the Confederacy? It is bad enough that he managed to procure such a high position within the Confederate Army, considering his previous military history. But what exactly was his duty? Was he the main quartermaster for the Confederate Army? Was he involved in investigating war profiteers? Or was he some unrealistic jack-of-all-trade? In fact, I have the same complaint about George Hazard's position with the Union Army. Like Orry, his previous military history was very limited. Yet, he managed to become a military aide to President Lincoln and serve other duties for the Army - duties that seemed to be very varied. I was especially shocked to find George attending one of Lincoln's Cabinet meetings. Really? Are they serious? This is incredibly sloppy writing. Both Charles Main and his fellow officer Lieutenant Ambrose Pell continue to unnecessarily cart around their swords, during their duties as scouts. And I still see no signs of enlisted men under their command. Episode Two also featured a moment when President Lincoln announced his "Emancipation Proclamation" to his cabinet . . . and George Hazard. I realize this should have been a profound moment, but the pretentious dialogue left me feeling cold.


However, there were some good moments in this episode. George and Orry had a bittersweet reunion inside a barn, while both were traveling to their respective capitals. Charles visited the widowed Augusta Barclay’s farm after being injured by Union cavalry. Stanley and Isobel Hazard scheme to profit from the war and make enough money to take over Hazard Iron. And in one brief scene, Congressman Greene had an embarrassed reaction to a wounded soldier that did David Odgen Stiers’ skills proud as an actor. Of all of these scenes, the one that really impressed me proved to be the one that featured Stanley and Isabel's scheming. For me, this was a step up from their narrative in John Jakes' 1984 novel. The reason I was so impressed by these scenes was due to the first-rate performances from the cast. 

Aside from the Stanley and Isabel story arc, I feel that the rest of the scenes benefited from the cast's excellent acting. This was especially apparent by James Read and Patrick Swayze's performances in the scene that featured George and Orry's reunion, and also the performances by Lewis Smith, Kate McNeill and first-time actor John Nixon. Both Philip Casnoff and Terri Garber continued to amazing heat in their portrayals of Elkhannah Bent and Ashton Main Huntoon. Kurtwood Smith gave an intense and fascinating portrayal of Billy Hazard's commander Hiram Burdan. And Whip Hubley, an actor I have never been that particularly impressed with, gave an interesting performance as Billy's regimental rival, Lieutenant Stephen Kent. 

Kevin Connor continued to handle his actors with skill. And the miniseries' photography by Jacques R. Marquette continued to strike me as colorful, but not particularly impressive. But there is one aspect of this production that continued to really impress me was Robert Fletcher's costume designs - especially for the women. Below are examples of his work in this episode:

 

But if I must be brutally frank, Episode Two featured some of the worst writing in this miniseries, and probably in the entire trilogy. No amount of excellent performances or dazzling costume designs could improve my opinion or save what proved to be an otherwise dull episode.

"THOR" (2011) Review

"THOR" (2011) Review

My knowledge of European-based mythology is very sketchy. I am familiar with some figures of both the Greek and Roman mythologies. But my knowledge of Norse mythology is even less. As for the many characters from Marvel Comics, I barely knew about any of them - aside from "SPIDER-MAN", until the past decade. One can only imagine my surprise when I learned that one of Marvel's more successful super heroes was the Norse god, Thor. 

Based upon the Norse mythology and the Marvel Comics character, "THOR" is an origin tale about the God of Thunder (and several other things), and how he ends up on Earth and becomes affiliated with S.H.I.E.L.D. The story begins in New Mexico, when scientist Jane Foster, her assistant Darcy Lewis and mentor Dr. Erik Selvig stumble across a figure that has tumbled from a wormhole in the sky. That figure turns out to be Thor, the Norse god that was exiled by his father, Odin, king of Asgard. 

Earlier, Thor had been preparing to ascend to the throne of Asgard, but his ceremony was interrupted when Frost Giants attempted to retrieve the source of their power, the Casket of Ancient Winters, which had been taken by Odin in an earlier war. Against Odin's order, Thor traveled to Jotunheim, the Frost Giants' realm, to confront their leader Laufey; accompanied by his brother Loki, childhood friend Sif and the Warriors Three - Volstagg, Fandral and Hogun. A battle ensued until Odin intervened to save the Asgardians, which destroyed the fragile truce between the two races. For Thor's arrogance, Odin stripped his son of godly power and exiled the latter to Earth, accompanied by Thor's hammer Mjolnir — the source of his power, now protected by a spell to allow only the worthy to wield it.

No one was more surprised than me upon learning that actor/director Kenneth Branaugh had manned the helm for"THOR". Pop culture movie franchises were nothing new to him. After all, he had appeared in 2002's "HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS". But directing an adaptation of a comic book series? Mind you, "Thor" is a different kettle of fish in compare to . . . say "Spider-Man", "The Fantastic Four" or "Iron Man". After all, Thor originated as a figure in Norse mythology. However, I must admit that I found it difficult to wrap my mind around the idea of a known Shakespearean actor directing a comic book hero movie.

In the end, I believe that Branaugh did a pretty good job. "THOR" turned out to be a solid tale filled with mythology, some first-rate acting, family drama, comedy and action. The best aspect of "THOR" was to me - hands down - the family drama surrounding the main hero and his relationships with his father Odin and his younger brother, Loki. This family drama originated in Thor's arrogant nature and brother Loki's discovery that he was an orphan that Odin had discovered in the Frost Giants realm. Despite his discovery that he was a Frost Giant instead of an Asgardian, Loki viewed Thor as an unsuitable heir to the Asgard throne and used Thor's exile to muscle his way to the throne . . . and, uh Odin's heart. 

Another aspect of "THOR" I found interesting was the story line about S.H.I.E.L.D.'s investigation into the wormhole that delivered Thor to Earth and his hammer Mjolnir, which is stuck in the middle of the New Mexican desert like Excalibur. The first encounter between the forces of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Thor during a rainy evening also provided some interesting action. This sequence not only featured a brutal fight to the now mortal Thor and a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and a cameo appearance by future Avenger member, Clint Barton aka Hawkeye.

The New Mexico sequences provided most of the comedy featured in "THOR". The former Norse god's interactions with Jane Foster, Erik Selvig, Darcy Lewis and the locals of the New Mexico town where they resided. Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne's screenplay not only provided a good deal of slapstick humor and witty one-liners for the Darcy Lewis character, but also a variation on the "fish out of water" theme. 

And If there is one thing that the movie did shine was its production designs and cinematography. Bo Welch did a excellent job in recapturing the rugged setting of the small New Mexican town and the Frost Giants' realm of Jotunheim, featured in the film. But he did a superb job in his design of Asgard, the realm of the Norse gods. Asgard possessed a sleek, colorful and over-the-top quality that reminded me of what the Art Deco style would look in the hands of Hollywood craftsmen in the 1930s and 40s. And Haris Zambarloukos' photography did great justice to both settings, especially Welch's designs for Asgard. Even though I found the movie's theme somewhat conflicting, I must admit that I found Paul Rubell's editing rather smooth and well done in both the action sequences and the jumps between Asgard and New Mexico.

However, I have yet to encounter a movie that I would consider perfect. And "THOR" was far from perfect. The film's main problem was that it seemed to have a conflicting quality about it. Because the movie's setting constantly moved from Asgard to New Mexico and back, it ended up striking me as a mixture of "CLASH OF THE TITANS" and"STARMAN". And this conflicting style did not seem to balance very well. I could have settled for "THOR" beginning its story in Asgard and remaining in New Mexico until the last scene. Unfortunately, most of the movie's more important action occurred in Asgard, leaving the New Mexico sequences to bear the brunt of most of the comedy. By the time the movie's last scene ended, I could not tell whether this was a movie about mythological gods or a comic book hero."THOR" was a pretty good movie, but it did not exactly rock my boat. I found the story a bit mediocre and conventional. And the problem, if I must be honest, rested with Marvel Comics' decision to create a comic series about a well-established mythological figure, instead of a new and original character. 

Also, there were a few performances that failed to impress me. I realize that the three actors and one actress that portrayed Thor's Asgardian friends - Sif and the Warriors Three - were very popular with moviegoers. Unfortunately, not only did they fail to impress me, I found them rather uninteresting. Poor Rene Russo. Within a decade she went from leading lady to a minor character actress, stuck in the thankless and nothing role of Thor's stepmother, Frigga. Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye was really wasted in this film. In fact, he did nothing at all, except pose with a bow and arrow. I realize that he will appear as one of the Avengers in the upcoming 2012 film, but he was never allowed to strut his stuff like Scarlett Johanssen in "IRON MAN 2".

Aside from the performances I had earlier mentioned, "THOR" seemed blessed with a first-rate cast. I was surprised to learn that Chris Hemsworth had portrayed James T. Kirk's doomed father in the 2009 movie, "STAR TREK". His George Kirk had been so dull. Fortunately, portraying Thor gave him the opportunity to shine in a complex role that developed from an arrogant and over-privileged prince with an aggressive sense of self to a more compassionate and wiser man who had fallen in love. For an actor with only eight or nine years of acting experience - most of them on television - Hemsworth more than held his own against the likes of Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins. And those scenes that featured Thor's encounters with Jane's van conveyed Hemsworth's talent for physical slapstick humor. As an on-screen fighter, he struck me as a bit crude, but I am certain that he will improve with time. Natalie Portman gave a charming and humorous portrayal of Dr. Jane Foster, the astrophysicist who is not only obsessed with her work, but eventually finds love with Thor. Mind you, I did not find her character particularly exceptional. But I am glad to say that Portman tried all she could to make Jane an interesting personality. But one of the two best performances came from Tom Hiddleston's portrayal of Loki, Thor's resentful and conniving younger brother. Loki was definitely the movie's main villain. The joke he had played (luring three Frost Giants to the chamber that held the Casket of Ancient Winters) on Thor's ascension ceremony not only led him to the discovery that he was an abandoned Frost Giant infant taken by Odin, but also gave him the opportunity to discredit Thor and take the latter's position as Odin's more cherished son. Mind you, I cannot say that Hiddleston conveyed Loki's mischievous sense of humor effectively. But he did handle Loki's conniving nature, jealousy toward Thor and outrage over the story behind his true nature with great skill and subtlety.

Other outstanding performances came from Idris Elba, who portrayed Asgard's gatekeeper, Hemidall; Kat Dennings as Jane's sardonic assistant Darcy Lewis; Clark Gregg as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson; and Colm Feore as Laufey, King of the Frost Giants (and Loki's real father). I was amazed at how Elba managed to convey all of Hemidall's emotions and intelligence with very limited movement. No wonder he became very popular with many of the film's characters. And Colm Feore managed to do something quite similar. He conveyed all of Laufey's malice and secrecy behind a ton of body makeup. Aside from Hemsworth's foray into slapstick, the New Mexico sequences featured a deliciously sly and humorous performance by Kat Dennings, who portrayed Darcy. And it was great to see Clark Gregg reprise the role of Phil Coulson for the third time (he made two earlier performances in the two IRON MAN movies). Thankfully, the movie's script allowed him to be more complex and increasingly sardonic, allowing Gregg to really show his acting chops. Finally, the movie benefited from solid performances by Anthony Hopkins' majestic portrayal of Odin, Thor's father, Stellan Skarsgård as Jane's dependable and practical mentor, Dr. Eric Selvig and Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury in the movie's post-credits sequence.

In conclusion, "THOR" proved to be an entertaining movie and another step toward "THE AVENGERS", the big Marvel Comics saga for 2012. The movie provided solid direction from Kenneth Branaugh and excellent performances from most of the cast. But the movie's conflicting genre(s) and somewhat general origin story led me to realize that I would never consider it to be one of the outstanding releases from Marvel Studios.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set in the 1890s

Below is my current list of favorite movies set in the 1890s: 


TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET IN THE 1890s



1. "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" (2011) - Guy Ritchie directed this excellent sequel to his 2009 hit, in which Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson confront their most dangerous adversary, Professor James Moriarty. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law starred.





2. "Hello Dolly!" (1969) - Barbra Streisand and Walter Matthau starred in this entertaining adaptation of David Merrick's 1964 play about a New York City matchmaker hired to find a wife for a wealthy Yonkers businessman. Gene Kelly directed.





3. "King Solomon’s Mines" (1950) - Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr and Richard Carlson starred in this satisfying Oscar nominated adaptation of H. Rider Haggard's 1885 novel about the search for a missing fortune hunter in late 19th century East Africa. Compton Bennett and Andrew Marton directed.





4. "Sherlock Holmes" (2009) - Guy Ritchie directed this 2009 hit about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson's investigation of a series of murders connected to occult rituals. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law starred.





5. "Hidalgo" (2004) - Viggo Mortensen and Omar Sharif starred in Disney's fictionalized, but entertaining account of long-distance rider Frank Hopkins' participation in the Middle Eastern race "Ocean of Fire". Joe Johnston directed.





6. "The Harvey Girls" (1946) - Judy Garland starred in this dazzling musical about the famous Harvey House waitresses of the late 19th century. Directed by George Sidney, the movie co-starred John Hodiak, Ray Bolger and Angela Landsbury.



 

7. "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book" (1994) - Stephen Sommers directed this colorful adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's 1894 collection of short stories about a human boy raised by animals in India's jungles. Jason Scott Lee, Cary Elwes and Lena Headey starred.





8. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (2003) - Sean Connery starred in this adaptation of Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's first volume of his 1999-2000 comic book series about 19th century fictional characters who team up to investigate a series of terrorist attacks that threaten to lead Europe into a world war. Stephen Norrington directed.





9. "The Prestige" (2006) - Christopher Nolan directed this fascinating adaptation of Christopher Priest's 1995 novel about rival magicians in late Victorian England. Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine starred.





10. "An Ideal Husband" (1999) - Oliver Parker directed this charming adaptation of Oscar Wilde's 1895 stage play about a British government minister being blackmailed over a past misdeed. Rupert Everett, Jeremy Northam, Cate Blanchett, Julianne Moore and Minnie Driver starred.





Honorable Mention: "The Four Feathers" (1939) - Alexander Korda produced and Zoltan Korda directed this colorful adaptation of A.E.W. Mason's 1902 novel about a recently resigned British officer accused of cowardice. John Clements, June Duprez and Ralph Richardson starred.

"THE THIN MAN" (1934) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1934 movie, "THE THIN MAN".  Adapted from Dashiell Hammet's 1934 novel and directed by W.S. "Woody" Van Dyke, the movie starred William Powell and Myrna Loy: 


"THE THIN MAN" (1934) Photo Gallery

"THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN" (2005) Review

”THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN” (2005) Review

Although considered one of her most famous novels, 1934’s ”Murder on the Orient Express” was not the first of Christie’s novels that featured a famous luxury train as a setting. The year 1928 saw the publication of another novel called ”The Mystery of the Blue Train”, which told the story of a brutal murder aboard the famous Blue Train. 

This story had its origins in Christie’s 1922 novella, ”The Plymouth Express”, which told the story of the murder of an Australian heiress. Christie took that story and expanded it into a full-length novel, ”The Mystery of the Blue Train”. The television series, ”Agatha Christie’s POIROT” aired ”THE PLYMOUTH EXPRESS”, an adaptation of the novella, in 1991. And fourteen years later, the series aired its own version of ”THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE”. Actor David Suchet portrayed Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot in both productions.

The Blue Train referred to in this story was not the luxury train that traveled through Southern Africa. Known as Le Train Bleu or the Calais-Mediterranée Expres, this Blue Train was a luxury French night train that conveyed, wealthy and famous passengers between Calais and the French Riviera from 1922 until 1938, usually during the winter seasons. Unlike Christie’s novella, ”THE PLYMOUTH EXPRESS”, the case featured in ”THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN” centered on the murder of an American heiress named Ruth Van Aldin Kettering, aboard the Blue Train. One of Ruth’s possessions ended up missing, namely a famous ruby called the Heart of Fire that was recently purchased by her father, American millionaire Rufus Van Aldin. The suspects accused of killing her and stealing the Heart of Fire were:

*Katherine Grey – a young Englishwoman who became wealthy through a recent inheritance; and whose father had been financially ruined by Van Aldin

*Derek Kettering – Ruth’s estranged and financially strapped husband, who came from an aristocratic family

*the Comte de la Roche – Ruth’s lover and a fake aristocrat who happened to be a con man and thief

*Ada Mason – Ruth’s maid, who disappeared during the Blue Train’s stop in Paris

* Mirelle Milesi – an exotic French courtesan, who was seen entering Ruth’s compartment aboard the train

*Major Richard Knighton –Van Aldin’s private secretary, who happens to be in love with Katherine

*Lady Tamplin – a financially strapped British aristocrat living on the Riviera with her daughter and young husband; and who is Katherine Grey’s distant cousin

*Lennox Tamplin – Lady Tamplin’s daughter

*’Corky’ Evans – Lady Tamplin’s young husband

*the Maquis – a famous jewel thief

Belgian-born detective, Hercule Poirot, found himself aboard the same train heading toward Nice for a winter vacation. The one passenger he managed to befriend was Katherine Grey, who had switched compartments with Ruth Kettering after meeting the latter. Overwrought by his daughter’s death, Van Aldin hired Poirot to find her killer.

I became a major fan of ”The Mystery of the Blue Train” not long after I first read the 1928 novel, years ago. The mystery struck me as slightly intriguing, the characters colorful and the atmosphere reeking with the glamour of the early 20th century rich in Europe. Imagine my delight when I first learned that a television adaptation of the novel had been made, starring David Suchet as Poirot. When I finally saw the movie, I found myself both disappointed . . . satisfied with it.

”THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN” could have truly been a first-class production. But some of the changes in the story stood in the way. One, Guy Andrews’ script got rid of the love triangle between Katherine Grey, Richard Knighton and Derek Kettering. Pity. I rather enjoyed it. Instead, Katherine only enjoyed a romance with Knighton. She barely shared any scenes with Derek, except for one in which she snapped at him for his childish behavior. And speaking of Derek Kettering, he became a petulant and hard drinking man who remained in love with the spoiled and estranged Ruth. He seemed quite different from the sardonic man in the novel, who had already fallen out of love with his wife long before the story began. Another change that proved to be a major one, involved the character of Mirelle. She remained a Frenchwoman, but one of African descent. And instead of being Derek’s soon-to-be former mistress and a dancer, this cinematic Mirelle turned out to be Rufus Van Aldin’s mistress. As for Lady Tamplin, she and her family also made the journey aboard the Blue Train – which did not happen in the novel. Any other changes? In this version, Katherine Grey revealed to Poirot that Van Aldin had financially ruined her father. Also, someone tried to kill her one hour into the movie.

What did I think of ”THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN”? I did not mind some of the changes from the novel. For example, Lady Tamplin became a more likeable and sexy personality, thanks to Lindsay Duncan’s spirited performance. I found her young husband, Corky (Cubby Evans in the novel) less vacuous and self-absorbed. Mirelle’s personality acquired a welcome change from the character in the novel. Actress Josette Simon portrayed her as a world-weary, yet passionate woman with a great deal of complexities, instead of Christie’s one-dimensional portrait of sex and greed, wrapped in a French accent. I also enjoyed Nicholas Farrell’s quiet, yet charming portrayal of Rufus Van Aldin’s private secretary, Richard Knighton. Jaime Murray did a solid job in portraying Ruth Van Aldin Kettering, the murder victim, whose body was discovered aboard the Blue Train. I must admit that she managed to capture her character’s extroverted, ruthless and somewhat self-absorbed personality, even if her American accent seemed a bit questionable. And thank goodness for the presence of Elliot Gould, whose portrayal of Van Aldin transcended the cliché of the American businessman featured in the novel. Finally, David Suchet continued to give another fine performance as Hercule Poirot, everyone’s favorite Belgian detective – subtle, yet intense as always.

One of my favorite scenes in the movie featured the Blue Train’s departure from Calais during a heavy rainfall. Thanks to director Hettie Macdonald, production designers Jeff Tessler and an uncredited Paul Spriggs, along with cinematographer Alan Almond; this particular scene reeked with atmosphere and mystery. They also did an excellent job in capturing the sunny and exotic glamour of the French Riviera – especially in one scene that featured a house party given by Lady Tamplin at her home, Villa Marguerite. I also liked the fact that the story began in London, paused in Calais and ended in Nice. It did not shift to different locations throughout England and France, as in the novel. More importantly, Poirot revealed the murderer’s identity in front of all the suspects and the police; instead of limiting his audience to two characters.

What did I NOT like about "THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN"? Unfortunately, a good deal. One, I did not care for the change in Katherine Grey’s personality. I have no complaints about Georgina Rylance’s performance. She did a solid job in the role. But screenwriter Guy Andrews transformed the Katherine Grey character from a cool and smart woman that kept her emotions in check to a naïve woman that wore her emotions on her sleeve. It almost seemed to me that Katherine’s character had been somewhat diminished. Another change I did not care for was Andrews’ decision to make Mirelle the mistress of Van Aldin, instead of Derek Kettering. Nor did I care for his decision to reveal that Van Aldin’s wife was still alive, slightly mad and living in a convent in Nice. I found this plot twist to be very unnecessary. Speaking of Mr. Kettering, his personality went through a major change. In this adaptation, Derek became a drunken, gambling addict with a habit of sniveling over a wife who no longer loved him. Only James D’Arcy’s complex performance made it possible for me to tolerate the character. The movie’s portrayal of Lennox Tamplin seemed like a letdown from Christie’s novel. Instead of the sardonic young woman who had learned to tolerate her mother’s talent for exploitation and exhibition, this version of Lennox became a bubbly and extroverted personality (still capable of a few sharp remarks) with an atrocious hairstyle for a story set in the 1930s. 

The biggest change occurred in the movie’s revelation scene. Although I had expressed approval of Andrews and director Hettie Macdonald’s decision to allow Poirot to reveal the murderer in Nice, I still had some problems with the scene. One, it began with the detective indulging in a ridiculous tirade about how each suspect could have been the murderer. But after Poirot identified the killer, viewers were treated to a ridiculous and theatrical scene in which the latter attempted to use a hostage to evade the police. I did not know whether to laugh or shake my head in disgust. I believe I ended up doing the latter.

"THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN" will never be a favorite Christie adaptation of mine. There were too many changes that I did not care for – especially with some of the characters and the revelation scene. On the other hand, I found other changes – including the revelation scene – to be an improvement from the novel and a welcome relief. I also enjoyed the movie’s atmosphere, setting, photography and David Suchet’s performance as Poirot. It was not the best Christie adaptation, but I found it tolerable.

"STARDUST" (2007) Review

"STARDUST" (2007) Review"

When I had first saw the poster for the 2007 movie, "STARDUST"; I could not drum any interest in seeing it. In fact, my interest remained dormant after viewing the trailer. Then someone had suggested that my family and I see it, considering there was no other movie in the theaters we were interested in seeing. I said "no thanks". It did not end there. This "someone" - namely a member of my family - literally had to coerce me into seeing the film. And you know what? I am glad that he did. 

Based upon Neil Gaiman's novella and directed by Matthew Vaughn, "STARDUST" tells the story of a young 19th century Englishman named Tristan Thorne (Charlie Cox), who becomes in involved in a series of adventures in magical kingdom located beyond the wall of his hometown of . . . Wall. His adventures resulted from his love of a young neighbor named Victoria (Sienna Miller) and his desire to find and retrieve a fallen star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) in order to prove his worthiness as a future husband. Tristan has no idea that his mother (Kate Magowan) is not only a citizen of this magical kingdom, but is also a royal princess who is enslaved by a witch named Ditchwater Sal (Melanie Hill). He does not realize that his two surviving uncles - Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) and Prince Primus (Jason Flemyng) - are in search of a ruby that will give either of them the throne to the kingdom. A ruby that had caused Yvaine to fall from the sky and is now worn by her. And Tristan is also unaware of a witch named Lamia who seek Yvaine. With the latter's heart carved out, Lamia and her two sisters will be able to regain their youth and power.

I do not think I will go any further into the story, because it is simply too damn complicated. It is not confusing. Trust me, it is not. But I do feel that in order to know the entire story, one would simply have to see the film. I have never read Gaiman's novella, so I have no idea how faithful Jane Goldman and director Matthew Vaughn's script was to the story. But I do feel that Goldman and Vaughn's adaptation resulted in an exciting, yet humorous tale filled with surprisingly complex characters and situations.

The acting, on the other hand, was first-class. It could have been easy for Charlie Cox and Claire Danes to fall into the usual trap of portraying the leads, Tristan and Yvaine, as a pair of simpering and and over emotional young lovers - a cliche usually found in many romantic fantasies over the years. Instead, Cox and Danes seemed to be having a good time in portraying not only the ideal personality traits of the two lovers, but their not-so-pleasant sides through their constant bickering and mistakes. Vaughn filled the cast with some of his regulars like the always competent and dependable Dexter Fletcher and Jason Flemyng, along with Sienna Miller, who did a surprisingly good job of portraying Tristan's bitchy object of desire, Victoria. Mark Strong was excellent as the ruthless and sardonic Prince Septimus. Robert DeNiro did a surprising turn as Captain Shakespeare, a flaming drag queen who pretends to be a ruthless and very macho captain of a pirate ship in order to maintain his reputation. DeNiro was very funny. But by the movie's last half hour, the joke surrounding his deception threatened to become slightly tiresome. But the movie's true scene stealer turned out to be Michelle Pfieffer as the evil and treacherous Lamia, the oldest and most clever of the three sister witches. At times seductive, funny, malevolent and creepy, Pfieffer managed to combine all of these traits in her performance, allowing her to literally dominate the movie and provide one of the most creepiest screen villains to hit the movie screens in the past decade. Margaret Hamilton, look out!

As much as I had enjoyed "STARDUST", I had a few problems with the movie. I have already pointed out how the joke surrounding Captain Shakespeare's sexual orientation threatened to become overbearing. I also found the movie's running time to be a bit too long. This problem could be traced to an ending so prolonged that it almost rivaled the notoriously long finale of "LORD OF THE RING: RETURN OF THE KING". And the fact that the movie's style seemed to be similar to the 1987 movie, "THE PRINCESS BRIDE", did not help. Another problem I found with the movie was its "happily ever after"ending that left me feeling slightly disgusted with its sickeningly sweet tone. But what really irritated me about"STARDUST" was Jon Harris's editing. It seemed so choppy that it almost gave the movie an uneven pacing.

But despite the movie's disappointing finale and Harris' editing, "STARDUST" proved to be a very entertaining movie. Using a first-class cast and an excellent script, director Matthew Vaughn managed to pay a proper homage to Neil Gaiman's novella. He also proved that his debut as a director ("LAYER CAKE") was more than just a fluke.