Thursday, February 28, 2019

The Major Problems of “HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III” (1994)





THE MAJOR PROBLEMS OF "HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III" (1994)

Any fan of the John Jakes’ NORTH AND SOUTH trilogy would be more than happy to tell you that the worst entry in the author’s saga about two American families in the mid 19th century was the last one, ”HEAVEN AND HELL: North and South Book III”. Those fans would be speaking of the 1994 television adaptation, not the novel itself. Unlike many of these fans, I do not share their low opinion of the three-part miniseries. But I will not deny that ”HEAVEN AND HELL” had its share of problems. Below is a list of I consider to be its major flaws. 

*Use of Montages - The miniseries did not hesitate to use montages to indicate a passage of time. Most of these montages centered on the Charles Main character, portrayed by Kyle Chandler. The problem with these montages was that they had exposed a blooper regarding Charles’ rank with the post-war U.S. Army in the first episode.

During a montage that featured Charles’ early courtship of actress Willa Parker (Rya Kihlstedt), Charles either wore corporal or sergeant stripes on his jacket. It went like this – Charles first wore corporal stripes, a fringe jacket and then sergeant stripes. And after the montage, Charles wore corporal stripes again.


*Orry and Madeline Main’s Presence in Richmond - BOOK II ended with Orry and Madeline Main (Patrick Swayze and Lesley Anne Down) attending the funeral of family matriarch, Clarissa Main. However, ”HEAVEN AND HELL” began with Orry and Madeline staying at a friend’s home in Richmond, in order to raise funds to feed the defeated post-war South. What in the hell for? The pair had a burnt home, an estate and family to care. They had no form of income or cash. And yet, they left their devastated home to raise funds for a cause that would have been implausible for them to achieve. 

I realize that screenwriters Suzanne Clauser and John Jakes wanted an excuse to get Orry in Richmond so that he would be murdered by his old nemesis, Elkhannah Bent (Philip Casnoff). This could have been achieved in simpler fashion. For example, Clauser and Jakes could have used a funeral for an old comrade as an excuse to get Orry and Madeline to Richmond. This seems simple enough to me.


*Augustus “Gus” Main’s Age - In an article I had written about ”NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II”, I had pointed out that the screenwriters managed to foul up the age of Augustus Main, Charles Main’s (Kyle Chandler) only son by his first love, Augusta Main. Jakes and Clauser managed to repeat this mistake in their screenplay for ”HEAVEN AND HELL”. The third miniseries began with young Gus around the age of five. According to Charles, Gus had been born just before the war. Where did this come from? It was bad enough that Gus looked older than he should have in ”BOOK II”. Then they aged Gus even more, despite the fact that only a few months had passed between the second and third miniseries. Worse, Gus failed to age, as the story for ”HEAVEN AND HELL” progressed. Especially since the miniseries was obviously set between 1865 and 1868.


During my last viewing of ”HEAVEN AND HELL: North and South Book III”, I was surprised to discover that a good number of its so-called “bloopers” originated from writing mistakes that appeared in both ”NORTH AND SOUTH” and ”NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II”. Those “bloopers” include: 


*Cooper Main - Prodigal Son - In John Jakes’ literary saga, South Carolina planter Tillet Main and his wife Clarissa had one nephew – Charles, and four children – Orry, Ashton, Brett and the oldest offspring, Cooper (Robert Wagner). However, Cooper was never featured in the first two miniseries. His appearance finally came in the third miniseries, ”HEAVEN AND HELL”. Those fans who had never read Jakes’ novels had accused the producers and screenwriters of creating the character for the miniseries. Personally, I never understood why the screenwriters of ”NORTH AND SOUTH” and ”NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II” had failed to include Cooper. After all, his presence proved to be vital to the saga by the third novel.

My only problem with Cooper’s presence in this third miniseries is that Jakes and Clauser had failed to create a back story to explain his disappearance from the first two miniseries. This failure made his appearance in this third chapter rather incongruous.


*Charles Main and Elkhannah Bent in Texas - Another plotline that took the fans of Jakes’ saga by surprise was the revelation that Charles Main had served under Elkhannah Bent in Texas, during the late 1850s . . . before the Civil War. No such story arc had been present in the first miniseries, ”NORTH AND SOUTH”. However, this plotline was present in Jakes’ 1982 novel. The first miniseries did show Charles serving in the U.S. Army in 1850s Texas. It also revealed Bent as an Army officer, visiting New Orleans, Louisiana around the same period. And New Orleans had served as one the main terminals in and out of Texas, east of the Mississippi River during the early and mid 19th century. 

Charles’ past with Elkhannah Bent proved to be one of the major storylines in third story. The screenwriters for the miniseries had no choice but to include it. Especially since Charles and Bent’s past history played a major role in Jakes’ story. Most fans would probably hate for me to say this, but I believe that the screenwriters and producers for ”BOOK I”made a major mistake in their failure to include Charles’ experiences in Texas in the miniseries. Especially, since it proved to become an important storyline.


*The Return of Stanley and Isobel Hazard - I am surprised that many fans of the saga were surprised to see Stanley and Isobel Hazard (Jonathan Frakes and Deborah Rush) footloose and fancy free in this third miniseries. After all, they were last seen in ”BOOK II” facing prosecution for war profiteering. As it turned out, the couple was never investigated or prosecuted for war profiteering in Jakes’ second NORTH AND SOUTH novel, ”LOVE AND WAR”. Also, ”HEAVEN AND HELL” portrayed Stanley pursuing a political career, something that never happened in the first two miniseries. Yet, the literary Stanley Hazard had began his political career as far back as the second half of the first novel, ”NORTH AND SOUTH”. Again, another so-called “blooper” in ”HEAVEN AND HELL” originated from the screenwriters’ failure to be faithful to the novels when it counted.


*Revelation of Madeline Main's Ancestry - In the first miniseries, "NORTH AND SOUTH", the character Madeline Fabray LaMotte Main learned from her father that her mother was a quadroon (one-quarter African descent) and that she was an octoroon (one-eighth African descent). She eventually revealed this information to her love, Orry Main. Her secret ended up being exposed to both Elkhannah Bent and her despised sister-in-law, Ashton Main Huntoon (Terri Garber) in the second miniseries, due to Bent's discovery of a painting of Madeline's mother in a New Orleans whorehouse. Somehow, the Mains' local neighbors - including the local Klan leader, Gettys LaMotte (Cliff DeYoung) - learned about her ancestry. I would love to know how they managed this, because Bent and Ashton never had the opportunity to expose Madeline's secret. In fact, the entire storyline regarding the exposure of Madeline's ancestry is riddled with a good number of bloopers that originated in Jakes' first novel, "NORTH AND SOUTH".


*Miscellaneous Characters - Characters last seen in ”NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II” failed to make an appearance in the third miniseries:

-Semiramis – the Mont Royal house slave was last seen engaged to another one named Ezra. Both had been given land to farm by Clarissa Main in the last episode. A former slave named Jane (Sharon Washington) took Semiramis’ place in the third miniseries. However, Semiramis was only featured in the first novel. And Jane was featured in both the second and third novels.

-Ezra – Semiramis’ future husband and a character that had been created solely for the second miniseries and not featured in any of the novels.

-Hope Hazard – George and Constance Hazard’s (James Read and Wendy Kilbourne) had been a month before the Civil War broke out in the first miniseries and was seen in the second miniseries. However, she never existed in any of the novels. The literary George and Constance had two children – William and Patricia – in all three novels. And they were seen in ”HEAVEN AND HELL”.

-Virgilia Hazard – Portrayed by Kirstie Alley, George Hazard’s younger sister had been killed at the end of ”BOOK II” - executed for the murder of a congressman. However . . . this never happened in the second novel. And her character played a major role in the third novel. Unfortunately, she did not appear in the third miniseries. Her presence was sorely missed by me.


”HEAVEN AND HELL” was not a perfect miniseries. Its production values did not strike me as impressive as the first two miniseries. And it had its share of flaws. However, I was surprised to discover that it was a lot more faithful to Jakes’ third novel, ”HEAVEN AND HELL” than ”BOOK II” was to the second novel, ”LOVE AND WAR”. More importantly, a good number of changes made by the screenwriters of the first two miniseries produced some of the “bloopers” found in ”HEAVEN AND HELL”. I could accuse Wolper Productions and the screenwriters of ”NORTH AND SOUTH” and ”NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II” for failing to consult author John Jakes on how he would continue his saga in the third novel. But the problem is that Jakes also happened to be one of the screenwriters for all three miniseries. While co-writing the first two miniseries, he should have stood his ground and resisted some of the major changes made in them – especially in the second miniseries.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

"HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - PART I" (2010) Review




”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” (2010) Review

I have been a major fan of J.K. Rowling’s ”HARRY POTTER” novels as much as the next person. But I would have never become a fan if it had not been for the movie adaptations of the novels. Mind you, I have not harbored a high opinion of all the movie adaptations. It has been a mixed bag for me over the past nine years. Of the seven movies that were made, I have a high opinion of at least four of them. And the most recent movie - ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” - happened to be one of them.

I never thought I would think highly of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I”. When I had heard that Warner Brothers planned to split Rowling’s seventh novel into two movies, I did not think it was a good idea. And I felt it was an attempt by the studio to get as much profit from Rowling’s saga as much as possible. Being a steady fan of the franchise, I went ahead and saw . . . and thanked my lucky stars that the movie had not been shot in the 3-D process. Not only did I develop a high opinion of ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I”, I fell in love with it. Considering the number of complaints I have heard about the movie, I suspect that many would be surprised by my opinion. But I did. I fell in love with that movie. And considering the detailed nature of Rowling’s novel, the decision to make two movies from it may have done justice to Steve Kloves’ screenplay.

Directed by David Yates, ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” told the story of Harry Potter and his two close friends – Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger – and their efforts to elude Lord Voldemort and his Deatheasters throughout Britain, after the latter assumed control of the wizarding world following Albus Dumbledore’s death in ”HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Not only did Harry, Ron and Hermione do their best to elude Voldemort and the Deatheaters; they had to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes – objects or receptacles in which Voldemort had hidden parts of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality. Harry had destroyed Voldemort’s school diary in ”CHAMBER OF SECRETS”. And before the start of ”HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”, Professor Dumbledore had destroyed another - Marvolo Gaunt's ring. There remained five horcruxes for the trio to find and destroy. But as fugitives within Britain’s wizarding world, their task proved to be difficult.

As I had stated earlier, I ended up falling in love with ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. But this feeling did not blind me to its flaws. And it had a few. One, what happened to Dean Thomas? For the first time in the saga’s history, he had a bigger role. At least in the novel. He failed to make an appearance in this adaptation. Mind you, his lack of presence did not harm the story. But it would have been nice for Harry, Ron and Hermione to encounter at least one fellow Hogswarts student (other than Luna) during their adventures. And poor Dean Thomas had been sadly underused since the first movie. Two, I wish that director David Yates and editor Mark Day had chopped some of the scenes featuring the Trio’s ”Winter of Discontent”. I could understand that the three friends would endure a great deal of despair over their situation and the state of the wizarding world. However . . . was it really that necessary to endure so many shots of Harry, Ron and Hermione staring into space, looking depressed? These scenes nearly bogged down the movie’s middle section. The Dursleys barely made a presence in this movie. Worse, Kloves had decided to delete Harry and Dudley’s goodwill good-bye. Who became the new owner of Sirius Black’s home, Number 12 Grimmauld Place, following his death? Since ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE” movie failed to clear the issue, I had hoped this movie would. It never did. I had also hoped that ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” would clear reveal the identities of the two other horcruxes that were revealed in the sixth novel - Helga Hufflepuff's Cup and Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem. The only thing that Kloves’ script did was mention that the Trio did not know about the cup, the diadem and two other horcruxes.

Despite these annoyances, I still love ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I”. The only HARRY POTTER movie that I love more is 2004’s ”HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. There had been complaints of the movie’s dark tone. Personally, this did not bother me one bit. In fact, I reveled in the story’s darkness. Other HARRY POTTER have ended on a dark note. But the story’s dark tone was not only well handled in Rowling’s novel, but also in Kloves’ script. Why? Because it suited the story. Aside from the ”Winter of Discontent” sequence, the rest of the pacing for ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – Part I” was well handled by Yates and Kloves. The movie also featured some outstanding sequences. Among my favorite were the following:

*Lord Voldemort’s murder of Charity Burbage at the Malfoy Manor.

*The Order of the Phoenix escort Harry to the Weasleys’ home, the Burrows.

*Harry, Ron and Hermione’s escape from Bill and Fleur’s wedding at the Burrows to London.

*The attack upon the Trio by two Death Eaters at a London café.

*The Trio steal Salazar Slytherin’s locket from Dolores Umbridge at the Ministry of Magic.

*Ron’s departure from Harry and Hermione, following a vicious quarrel between him and Harry.

*Harry and Hermione’s narrow escape from Godric’s Hollow.

*Ron’s reunion with Harry and Hermione and his destruction of Salazar Slytherin’s locket (a horcrux).

*Xenophilius Lovegood’s (and Hermione’s) narration of Peverell brothers and the Deathly Hallows.

*Dobby’s rescue of the Trio, Luna Lovegood and Mr. Ollivander from the Malfoy Manor.


Of the above scenes, at least three of them stood out for me. One of those scenes was the quarrel that broke out between Harry and Ron during the ”Winter of Discontent”. I found it ugly, brutal and emotional, thanks to the performances of the three leads. They really made this scene worked and for the first time; it occurred to me that Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson had really grown in their skills as actors. Hell, in this scene, they gave the best performances in the movie. Another scene that really stood out was Xenophilius Lovegood’s narration of the bleak tale regarding the Peverell brothers and the three Deathly Hallows (the Elder Wand, the Resurrection Stone and the Cloak of Invisibility). What made this sequence unique was that it was shown via some visually stunning animations designed and directed by Ben Hibon. But the one scene that really impressed me was the Ministry of Magic sequence that featured the Trio’s retrieval of Salazar Slytherin’s locket from the odious Dolores Umbridge (now head of the Muggle-Born Registration Commission). From the moment that Harry, Ron and Hermione used Polyjuice Potion to transform into three workers from the Ministry of Magic (Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri), until their escape via apparition; the entire scene was a fabulous ride filled with tension, humor, chaos and adventure. I would rate it as one of the best sequences in the entire saga.

I had already commented on the marvel of the three leads’ performances. For once, Radcliffe, Grint and Watson were the ones to give the most outstanding performances; instead of a supporting cast member. But there were other excellent performances. One came from Tom Felton, who continued his ambiguous portrayal of Hogswarts student Draco Malfoy that began in ”THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE”. Another came from Ralph Fiennes, who gave a better performance as Lord Voldemort – especially in the opening sequence at Malfoy Manor – than he did in both ”THE GOBLET OF FIRE” and ”THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX”. In fact, I could say the same about Helena Bonham-Carter, who seemed less over-the-top and a lot scarier than she was in her previous appearances. Rhys Ifan was deliciously entertaining as Luna Lovegood’s equally eccentric father, Xenophilius. And I have to give kudos to Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara and Steffan Rhodri did a great job in conveying their adolescent characters (Hermione, Harry and Ron) through body language – especially since the three leads added their voices. And in his few scenes, Alan Rickman was his usual superb self as the enigmatic Severus Snape. A good example of how ambiguous he could be can be seen in the sequence featuring the death of an old friend of Snape’s – Charity Burbage. All you have to do is look at Rickman’s eyes and face.

Considering that this tale has no choice but to end happily in ”THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART II”, I could assume that ”Part I” might prove to be the darkest movie in the HARRY POTTER. On the other hand, Yates and Kloves might prove me wrong. But despite a few flaws, I believe that ”HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS – PART I” is one of the best movies in the franchise. I have not truly enjoyed a HARRY POTTER this much since ”THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN”. And I can thank director David Yates, screenwriter Steve Kloves; and the three leads – Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson. Excellent job, guys. Excellent job.




Tuesday, February 19, 2019

"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.09) "What Kate Did"

kate-cap332




"LOST" RETROSPECT: (2.09) "What Kate Did"

Kate Austen must have been one of the most divisive characters on the ABC series, "LOST". The character has generated some very extreme reactions from the show's fans. The latter have either loved her or hated her. I had harbored a good deal of dislike toward Kate, myself for a long period. However, my dislike stemmed from the writers' handling of her character and a good number of the fans' attitude toward the mistakes and crimes she had committed. A good example of this attitude could be found in the general reaction to the Season Two episode called (2.09) "What Kate Did"

This episode followed up on the disastrous first meeting between the remaining Tail Section survivors and the Fuselage survivors in episodes (2.06) "Abandoned" and (2.08) "Collision". Ana-Lucia Cortez and her fellow Tailies finally made it to the Fuselage camp, but with tragedy in their wake. Ana-Lucia had accidentally shot and killed Shannon Rutherford, after mistaking the younger woman for the Others, following the disappearance of stewardess Cindy Chandler. James "Sawyer" Ford; who had been badly wounded by one of the Others in the Season One finale, (1.24) "Exodus, Part II", while trying to prevent ten year-old Walt Lloyd from being kidnapped; finally received decent medical attention from leader Dr. Jack Shephard. There was a good deal of marital reconciliations that occurred. Rose Nadler finally reconciled with her husband, Tail Section survivor Bernard Nadler, in the previous episode. And the series' favorite South Korean couple, Jin and Sun Kwon, celebrated their reconciliation after four days with . . . well, with sex.

Everything seemed to be going well with everyone . . . except for fugitive and Fuselage survivor Kate Austen. While gathering fruit from a tree, she spots a black horse in the jungle. Later, while feeding the semi-conscious Sawyer with the fruit, he grabs her by the neck and demands to know why she killed him. The black horse and Sawyer's attack leads Kate to speculate on whether the former had been possessed by the spirit of her dead stepfather, Wayne Janssen. Three years earlier, Kate had discovered that her stepfather was actually her real father. Due to Wayne's physical abuse of her mother Diane and alcoholism, Kate harbors hatred of him. But the realization that he is her biological father leads her to murder him via an explosion of the Janssen house and commit insurance fraud in order to provide for her mother. Although U.S. Marshal Edward Mars manages to capture her before she could purchase a bus ticket to Tallahassee, Kate eventually escapes and spends the next three years as a fugitive from justice. The episode's subplot revolved around the DHARMA film reel discovered by John Locke in a previous episode. While showing the film clip to Michael Dawson and Mr. Eko inside the DHARMA hatch (aka the Swan Station), the latter reveals a small reel of film he had found several days ago inside the empty DHARMA Arrow Station. 

Most "LOST" fans tend to regard any episode Kate-centric episode with wary eyes. If I must be honest, most of the episodes featuring Kate Austen as a main character tend to range from mediocre to piss poor. However, there are at least two or possibly three that have struck me as above-average. And "What Kate Did" happens to be one of them. Mind you, it had a few flaws. The episode never really hinted what led Kate to start thinking of her father in the first place. Was the island responsible for Sawyer being possessed by the spirit of Wayne Janssen? Did a badly wounded Sawyer, who reminded Kate of her father, brought back the memories of Wayne's murder? Inquiring minds . . . well, my inquiring mind would like to know. And why was U.S. Federal Marshal Edward Mars the one to arrest Kate at the bus station? Would she have to successfully flee across a state line before being hunted by a U.S. Marshal? Judging from the comments in many reviews for the episode, I noticed that many fans and critics were intrigued by the subplot featuring the DHARMA 16mm film. I was not. I was not intrigued when I first saw "What Kate Did". And five years later, I still remain bored. I was bored by Locke's drama queen antics in revealing the film to Michael and Mr. Eko in the first place. I was bored by Eko's little biblical story about King Judah. Looking back, I realize this subplot was basically another addition to the mystery about the Swan Station, which was revealed in late Season Five. But I do not care, because I found this subplot's presentation rather dull. Only one aspect of this subplot struck me as interesting - namely Michael's tinkering with the hatch's computer, and the possibility that he may have contacted his kidnapped son at the end of the episode.

Surprisingly, it was the main plot regarding Kate's backstory about the murder of her father that proved to be the episode's backbone. Many fans had assumed that Kate had been forced to commit a crime on behalf of a loved one or framed for a major crime. As it turned out, Kate committed murder with malice aforethought and a good deal of personal insecurity. I believe she best revealed her reason for killing her father in the following infamous soliloquy:

"Can you hear me? Sawyer? -- Wayne? [Sawyer stirs.] I'm probably crazy and this doesn't matter, but maybe you're in there somehow. But you asked me a question. You asked me why I -- why I did it. It wasn't because you drove my father away, or the way you looked at me, or because you beat her. It's because I hated that you were a part of me -- that I would never be good. That I would never have anything good. And every time that I look at Sawyer -- every time I feel something for him -- I see you, Wayne. It makes me sick."

The sad thing is that many fans - especially female fans - refused to accept Kate's confession as the truth. Many began to speculate that "dear" Daddy Wayne not only physically abuse his wife, Kate's mother, but also sexually molested Kate when she was a child. Kate's soliloquy and the rest of the series never verified this. But many preferred to believe this theory than accept the fact that Kate had never been molested by her father. When the molestation theory failed to pan out, many decided that Kate had killed her father in order to protect Diane from further abuse. This theory became very popular after the Season Three episode, (3.15) "Left Behind" aired. Kate used this excuse to lie to her mother, but Diane exposed her in the end. Nowadays, it is popular to deride Kate Austen as a badly written character. In a way, I agree . . . but for reasons that had nothing to do with Kate's act of murder. Many had used the reason behind Kate's murder of her father as a reason why she was badly written. Apparently, an act of cold-blooded murder by a television series' leading female character is a no-no with fans. Sexism, even when exposed in the form of feminist sensibilities, reared its ugly head. 

I have to give kudos to screenwriters Steven Maeda and Craig Wright for not exposing Kate's motive for murdering her father. They revealed the actual murder at the beginning of the episode and spent the remainder slowly unveiling not only Kate's family history, but also her motive. I found this narrative structure very clever. I was also impressed by how Maeda and Wright utilized another subplot about the aftereffects of Shannon's death into the main story. It seemed that Kate's murder of her father failed to wipe out her own personal insecurities. One particular scene in "What Kate Did"makes it apparently clear that Kate had yet to overcome those insecurities. When Jack confronted her for leaving behind the seriously injured and unconscious Sawyer on the hatch's floor, Kate responded in a vehement manner:

"Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I am not as perfect as you! I'm sorry that I'm not as good!"

Fans are aware that Jack had suffered from his own insecurities due to some advice handed to him by his father. But listening to those words come out of Kate's mouth made wonder if part of her problems with Jack stemmed from this belief that he was some kind of figure of perfection. And if Sawyer reminded her of Wayne, why would she become emotionally attached to him, as well? Is it because she suspected that deep down, she shared a good number of character traits with her despised father? I have always felt so. Perhaps it was easier for Kate to bond with someone who strongly reminded her of Wayne, and through familial extension, herself. Who knows?

If there is one thing I cannot deny, "What Kate Did" featured some first-rate acting. Despite my annoyance at the subplot featuring the DHARMA film, it was easy for me to see that Terry O'Quinn, Harold Perrineau and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje gave fine performances. Naveen Andrews continued his superb portrayal of a grief stricken Sayid Jarrah. The episode featured solid, yet minonr performances from cast members like Daniel Dae Kim, Yunjin Kim, Josh Holloway, Jorge Garcia, Emilie de Ravin, Michelle Rodriguez, Cynthia Watros, L. Scott Caldwell, Sam Anderson and especially Dominic Monaghan. I certainly cannot complain about the performances from the episode's guest stars. Beth Broderick, Lindsey Ginter and James Horan gave first-rate performances as Kate's mother, step-father and father respectively. I was especially impressed with each actor/actress' individual scenes with Evangeline Lilly. Fredric Lane continued his colorful performance as Kate's nemesis, U.S. Marshal Edward Mars. However, there were moments I found his performance a little too theatrical. 

The two best performances in the episode came from Matthew Fox and especially, Evangeline Lilly. Fox, was excellent, as always. I was especially impressed how he conveyed both Jack's love for Kate and his frustration with her occasionally flaky behavior. Also, he and Lilly had a great kissing scene. I find this surprising, considering that when Season Two first aired, I never considered them as a really potential on-screen couple. However, Lilly proved to be the real surprise in this episode. I believe this is the first time she really proved her potential to be an excellent actress. She managed to convey the various emotions that Kate felt throughout the episode without resorting to mechanical acting tricks she utilized during the series' first season.

I had a few complaints about "What Kate Did". As I had earlier pointed out, one of them was the dull subplot featuring the DHARMA training film clip. My real disappointment with the episode happened off-screen and in the future. I feel that producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse did a piss poor and half-ass job in effectively developing and drawing the plot regarding Kate's crime to a close. Despite these disappointment, I cannot deny that "What Kate Did" was a well-written episode that did an excellent job in exploring Kate's personal demons and the crime that led to her becoming a fugitive, thanks to Steven Maeda and Craig Wright's screenplay. Their work was helped not only by solid direction from Paul Edwards, but also excellent performances from a cast led by Evangeline Lilly and Matthew Fox.



Friday, February 15, 2019

"BLEAK HOUSE" (2005) Photo Gallery



Below are images from "BLEAK HOUSE", the 2005 adaptation of Charles Dickens' 1852-53 novel. Directed by Justin Chadwick and Susanna White, the miniseries starred Gillian Anderson, Charles Dance, Anna Maxwell Martin and Denis Lawson: 



"BLEAK HOUSE" (2005) Photo Gallery