"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Review

For some reason, I still find it hard to believe that until recently, very few people were aware that the first adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, "Sense and Sensibility", dated as far back as 1971. After all, people have been aware of other Austen adaptations during this same period or earlier. Even the Wikipedia site fails to mention it, except in connection with one of the cast members. What was about this four-part miniseries that eluded so many Austen fans? 

In "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", a wealthy landowner named Mr. Dashwood dies, leaving his two daughters and second wife at the mercy of his son by his first marriage, thanks to the rules of inheritance. When the son fails to financially help his sisters and stepmother, the trio are forced to live at a meager cottage, thanks to the generosity of Mrs. Dashwood's cousin. The miniseries follows the love lives of the sisters, while they deal with their new penniless status.

I could have went into greater detail about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. But what would have been the point? Austen's novel and the other adaptations have made both their story and characters well known to fans. Everyone knows that the Dashwood sisters' penniless state have made them undesirable as potential mates among the English upper-class. And many know that Elinor Dashwood is the older and more sensible sister, who kept her emotions suppressed behind a facade of stoic behavior. They also know that Marianne is the younger sisters, whose romantic enthusiasm led to emotional excesses and irrational behavior. Was there something unique about this adaptation of Austen's novel? Hmmm. Other than it was probably the first version of the 1811 novel and the first of four versions to exclude the character of the youngest Dashwood sister, Margaret. 

Overall, I believe that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be an entertaining and well-paced television miniseries. But it was not perfect. One, I felt that screenwriter Denis Constanduros made a few missteps in his adaptation. I wish that Constanduros had included a scene featuring John Dashwood's last conversation with his dying father. I felt that his eventually betrayal of his promise, due to his wife's capriciousness would have possessed more bite. I also felt that Constanduros could have included more scenes featuring Marianne and John Willoughy's courtship. The period between their first meeting and Willoughby's decision to end their romance seemed to go by in a flash. It happened too soon for me to understand Marianne's grief over his rejection of her. Although there were a good deal of exterior shots of the English countryside, I wish there had been more exterior shots of early 19th century London, during the sisters' trip. The London sequences made the miniseries feel more like a filmed play. And why on earth did Constanduros allowed Elinor to pay a visit to Edward Ferrars' London rooms alone? What was he thinking? He should have allowed Elinor to summon Edward to Mrs. Jennings' home in order to deliver Colonel Brandon's news about a new job. I have one last major problem. Why on earth did costume designer had Elinor and Marianne wearing identical traveling outfits? They were not twin sisters. And no siblings from an upper-class family - especially of the female gender - would be caught dead in this manner:

 

What was costumer designer Charles Knode thinking?

I also had some problems with the casting and performances. I had a real problem with actress Ciaran Madden's performance as Marianne Dashwood. How can I put it? It was over-the-top. I realize that she was at least 25 years old at the time this production was filmed. But did she and director David Giles really thought an exaggerated performance was necessary to portray the emotional 17 year-old Marianne? Was that their idea of portraying an emotional adolescent? And why would actor Michael Alderidge use a strong, regional accent for his portrayal of Sir John Middleton? I realize that his mother-in-law and wife came from a middle-class background. But Sir John and his cousin Mrs. Dashwood, did not. Both actresses who portrayed the Steele sisters - Frances Cuka and Maggie Jones - seemed at least a decade-and-a-half too old for their roles. And Kay Gallie's Fanny Dashwood seemed like such a major disappointment. Her Fanny struck me as too passive-aggressive and nervous in compare to the other actresses who portrayed the role.

But despite some disappointments, I must admit that "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" turned out to be a pretty good production. Hell, I like it a lot more than I do the 1981 television version. Thanks to Constanduros's script and Giles' direction, the four-part miniseries struck me as well paced - aside from Marianne and Willoughby's courtship. Aside from the traveling outfits, I must admit that I found Knode's costume designs both colorful and elegant. And like the 1995 movie, I was happy to see that the screenplay allowed Marianne to become aware of Colonel Brandon before her meeting with Willoughby . . . allowing the pair's eventual romance in the last episode very credible.

There were also some very good performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". I found myself surprisingly impressed by Richard Owens' performance as Colonel Brandon. At first, I barely paid attention to him. But I must admit that his performance actually grew on me and I thought he did a credible job of slowly revealing Brandon's passion for Marianne. Despite his strong regional accent, I must admit that Michael Aldridge was perfectly cast as Mrs. Dashwood's gregarious cousin, Sir John Middleton. And despite her age, Frances Cuka did a very good of conveying Lucy Steele's manipulations regarding Edward, Elinor and the Ferrars family . . . even if I found it a bit obvious. I was very impressed by Milton Johns' performance as Elinor and Marianne's spineless older half-brother John Dashwood. In fact, I feel that he gave one of the better performances in the miniseries. Robin Ellis gave a solid performance as Edward Ferrars. However, I must admit that I was not that impressed by his screen chemistry with Joanna David's Elinor. In an ARTICLE I had written about Jane Austen's rogues, I stated that I found Clive Francis' portrayal of the caddish John Willoughby unmemorable. I take it back. On a second viewing, I found myself surprisingly impressed by his performance. I think I may have been distracted by the so-called Regency wig he was wearing . . . or the speed of the Marianne-Willoughby courtship. But I thought he gave a very complex performance.

But there were two performances in "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" that I found outstanding. One of them belonged to Joanna David, who was perfect - well . . . almost - as Elinor Dashwood. She was one of the few performers who managed to restrain from "playing to the second balcony" as many other stage-trained actors tend to do. Mind you, there were moments when she seemed incapable of projecting Elinor's passionate nature behind the sensible facade. But more than any other person in the cast, she did a superb job in carrying the miniseries on her shoulders. The other outstanding performance turned out to be Patricia Rutledge's portrayal of the vivacious Mrs. Jennings, Sir John's mother-in-law. She was in her early 40s at the time and technically, too young for the role. But I cannot deny that Rutledge seemed like the very personification of the verbose and interfering, yet warm-hearted widow. Of the four Mrs. Jennings I have seen, only Elizabeth Spriggs from the 1995 movie seemed her equal.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" is not the best adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel, despite being the first. And it possessed certain aspects in both the script and casting that I found questionable. But thanks to David Giles' direction, Denis Constanduros' screenplay, and superb performances especially from Joanna David and Patricia Rutledge; I feel that it turned out to be a pretty damn good adaptation in the end. I would highly recommend it.

"Post Season Three Leadership of the Charmed Ones"

"POST SEASON THREE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHARMED ONES"

I am probably going to get bashed for this, but I never thought it was a good thing for the writers to automatically allow Piper Halliwell to become the new leader of the Charmed Ones in Season Four of "CHARMED", due to her new position as the oldest sister.  In fact, I believe it was a big mistake.

I am sorry, but I do not think that former middle sister Piper ever had the personality to be a real leader. And I found her "growth" as a character and a leader from Season Four to Season Eight rather hard to believe. Even by the last two seasons. Her idea of leadership was to be curt and bitchy a lot. And to be honest, the Halliwells made some really bad decisions during her tenure as "leader" - half-demon Cole Turner's death in (4.20) "Long Live the Queen", Piper's decision to allow husband/whitelighter Leo Wyatt to change her personality in (5.23) "Oh Goddess! (Part 2)", Phoebe and half-sister Paige Matthews' theft of police detective Darryl Morris' soul in (6.01) "Valhalley of the Dolls (Part 1)", Paige convincing her Season Six boyfriend Richard Montana into stripping his powers, Phoebe and Paige's murder of Rick Gettridge in (6.17) "Hyde School Reunion", and the deal with the Avatars in (7.12) "Extreme Makeover: World Edition".

New middle sister Phoebe probably would have made a slightly better leader if she had not been so self-absorbed and immature at times. And Paige would have made an even better leader, despite her inexperience in S4. Unfortunately for Paige, Kern and his writers were so hellbent upon turning her into a flake between mid-Season 5 and the series finale.

Do not get me wrong. I like Piper. But unlike oldest sister Prue Halliwell, who was killed in Season Three's (3.22) "All Hell Breaks Loose"; she never really knew how to think matters through. I am not saying that Prue always did. There were times when she had jumped to conclusions. But never at the scale in which Piper, Phoebe and Paige did. Especially Piper. And more than anything, I never understood Kern's decision to turn Piper into Uber Bitch or a second-rate Prue, because she was the new leader. It really seemed to go against her personality. I have no problem with Piper becoming a stronger personality. It is another when Kern's decision to make her the new leader because of her age, ended up turning her into a second-rate Prue or an Uber Bitch.

"THIS GUN FOR HIRE" (1942) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THIS GUN FOR HIRE", the 1942 adaptation of Graham Greene's 1936 novel, "A Gun For Sale". Directed by Frank Tuttle, the movie starred Veronica Lake, Robert Preston, Laird Cregar and Alan Ladd: 



"THIS GUN FOR HIRE" (1942) Photo Gallery

"SPEED RACER" (2008) Review

"SPEED RACER" (2008) Review

When I first saw the trailer for "SPEED RACER" . . . I had simply cringed in my seat. Granted, I had been a fan of the Japanese cartoon when I was a kid. But looking at that trailer, my mind simply cried, "Hell no!"There was no way in the world I was going to see this movie. 

But the more I saw the trailer, old memories of the cartoon kept welling in my thoughts. Soon, I found myself filled with nostalgia for the cartoon. I eventually decided to go see the movie after all. It might turn out to be a pile of crap, but I had to exorcise the ghosts of my childhood. Well . . . I went ahead and saw the movie. And I must say that it turned out to be a hell of a lot better than I had expected.

At a running time of two hours and fifteen minutes, "SPEED RACER" is about a young 18 year-old American (Emile Hirsch) with natural racing instincts. His goal is to become a world-class car racer, in the wake of the tragic death of his older brother, Rex Racer (Scott Porter) during the Casa Cristo, a cross-country rally. Speed is loyal to the family business, run by his parents Pops (John Goodman) and Mom (Susan Sarandon). Pops designed Speed's car, the Mach 5. The owner of Royalton Industries (Roger Allam) makes Speed a lucrative offer to join the company's racing team, but Speed rejects the offer, angering the owner. Speed also uncovers a secret that top corporate interests, including Royalton, are fixing races and cheating to gain profit. After Speed denies his offer to join his racing conglomerate, Royalton wants to ensure that Speed will not win any future races. Speed finds support from his parents and his girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) and enters the Casa Cristo Rally in a partnership with his one-time rival, Racer X (Matthew Fox), in an effort to rescue his family's business and the racing sport itself.

I must admit that when I first saw this movie, the first ten minutes had left me puzzled. Although I enjoyed how the story introduced Speed Racer's obssession with racing and the death of his older brother, Rex Racer; I must admit that I had been taken aback by the movie's visuals. It looked very cartoonish and I have not seen such bold colors since Warren Beatty's 1990 film, "DICK TRACY". But my mind adjusted to this new visual style and proceeded to enjoy the rest of the story. In fact, by the time the movie focused upon The Casa Cristo cross-country race, I found myself marveling over John Gaeta's visual effects and David Tattersall's photography. Quite frankly, I also ended up enjoying Larry and Andy Wachowski's screenplay. "SPEED RACER" must be one of the few movies based upon a cartoon that possessed a strong social message - namely one against corporations' involvment in the sport. And I found it pleasantly surprising.

As for the cast, Emile Hirsch struck me as a little flat at first. But in the scene in which Speed rejected Royalton's offer, Hirsch's Speed Racer finally bloomed into life. Christina Ricci gave a fun and charming performance as Trixie, Speed's girlfriend. Both John Goodman and Susan Sarandon were excellent as Speed's parents. Both were given the opportunities to strut their acting skills in private scenes with Hirsch's Speed. And I do not think that Matthew Fox had never been as sexy and enigmatic as he was as Racer X - Speed's rival and ally in the fight against Royalton. The movie also featured a scene in which both he and Emile Hirsch gave a superb performances in an intense conversation about car racing between the two characters. I especially enjoyed his fight with a ninja assassin. Richard Roundtree gave a surprisingly sly and funny performance as Ben Burns, a former racer who became a commentator. To my surprise, Roger Allam's slightly bombastic performance as the corrupt Royalton did not bother me at all. In fact, his character's over-the-top personality seemed perfect for the movie. The biggest surprise turned out to be Paulie Litt as Spritle, the youngest Racer sibling. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. Regis Philbin once described the young television actor as a 40 year-old in a child's body. Perhaps he is right. But young Paulie was a bundle of energy with great comic timing.

"SPEED RACER" did possess a few imperfections. Either the movie is fifteen minutes too long or its pacing managed to drop off a bit, following the Casa Cristo race sequence. And I was a little annoyed with the Wachowski Brothers' interruption of the fascinating sequence between Speed and Royalton's discussion about the racing scene with comic moments featuring Spritle and his pet monkey, Chin Chin, trying to break into the businessman's candy storage. It just seemed out of place and it nearly ruined the marvelous scene between Speed and Royalton.

Many film critics had disliked the film. I suspect that "SPEED RACER"'s unusual visual style may have been a little too mind blowing for them. Unfortunately, a good number of moviegoers ended up paying attention to those critics. Which is a shame, in my opinion. I feel that "SPEED RACER" is one of the most entertaining films I have seen this year . . . hell, in the past decade; and one of the most unusual I have seen in a long time. And it was a shame when it bombed at the box office. There is an ironic post-script to the movie. When it was first released on DVD, those moviegoers who did not bother to go see it at the theaters, expressed surprised at how much they enjoyed it. I could have told them how enjoyable it was when it first hit the theaters back in May 2008.

Hangtown Fry

Below is an article on the 19th century California dish called "Hangtown Fry":


HANGTOWN FRY

The state of California is not known for its cuisine. In fact, it has developed a reputation for bland and uninspiring dishes. It is a pity since the state has created some memorable recipes over the decades. One of them is the 19th century dish called Hangtown Fry. The latter is an omlette dish that originated sometime between 1849 and 1853 during the California Gold Rush. Although the dish has three origin tales, everyone does agree that the it was created in mid-19th century California. Many also agree that the original dish was an omlette made from eggs, bacon and oysters.

According to the first origin tale, the Hangtown Fry was invented in Placerville, California - then known as Hangtown - in the saloon of the El Dorado Hotel, now known as the Cary House Hotel. When a prospector rushed into the hotel's saloon, announcing he had struck gold along the banks of Hangtown Creek; he ordered the most expensive dish that the hotel could provide. Since the most expensive food in Gold Rush California were eggs - a delicacy that had to be carefully brought to the mining town, bacon shipped from the East Coast, and oysters brought from San Francisco on icewhich were delicate and had to be carefully brought to the mining town; bacon, which was shipped from the East Coast, and oysters, which had to be brought on ice from San Francisco, over 100 miles away - the hotel's cook created the omlette known as the Hangtown Fry.

The dish's second origin tale centered around a condemned prisoner awaiting execution inside a Placerville jail. The authorities asked what he would like to eat for his last meal. The prisoner quickly ordered an oyster omelet, aware that the oysters would have to be brought from San Francisco, over a hundred miles away by steamship and over rough roads. He had hoped the transport of the oysters would delay his execution for a day. And according to the third tale, a man named Parker opened a saloon called Parker's Bank Exchange in San Francisco's financial district in 1853. Following the saloon's opening, he invented and served Hangtown Fry to his customers. Hangtown Fry became a very popular dish in California during the 1850s. It was popularized by Tadich Grill in San Francisco, where it has apparently been on the menu for 160 years. Over the years, cooks have made variations of the dish by adding bell peppers, onions and various spices to its recipe.

Below is a recipe for Hangtown Fry from the "Saveur" website:

Hangtown Fry

Ingredients

12 oysters, such as Bluepoint or Fanny Bay, shucked
Kosher salt and black pepper, to taste
¼ cup flour
7 eggs
½ cup bread crumbs
4 tbsp. unsalted butter
4 strips cooked bacon, crumbled
2 scallions, thinly sliced


Preparation

Pat oysters dry, and season with salt and pepper; set aside. Put flour, 1 beaten egg, and bread crumbs in 3 separate bowls. Dip each oyster in flour, then egg, then crumbs; place on a floured plate. Heat butter in a 12" nonstick skillet over medium-high heat. Add oysters; fry, flipping once, until golden brown, 6–8 minutes. Whisk remaining eggs in a bowl; season with salt and pepper. Add eggs to pan with half the bacon and scallions. Cook until eggs are just set, about 3 minutes. Smooth over top; cover, and cook until top is set, about 5 minutes. Transfer omelette to a plate, and garnish with remaining bacon and scallions.

"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY", the 1971 television adaptation of Jane Austen's 1811 novel.  Adapted by Denis Constanduros and directed by David Giles, the four-part miniseries starred Joanna David and Ciaran Madden:


"SENSE AND SENSIBILITY" (1971) Photo Gallery

"LES MISERABLES" (2012) Review

"LES MISERABLES" (2012) Review

There were a few movies released in 2012 that I was very reluctant to see in the theaters. One of those movies turned out to be "LES MISERABLES", the recent adaptation of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg's 1985 stage musical of the same name. And that musical was an adaptation of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel.

Directed by Oscar winning director Tom Hooper, "LES MISERABLES" told the story of early 19th century French convict Jean Valjean released from prison on parole by a guard named Javert in 1815. Nineteen years earlier, Valjean had been imprisoned for stealing bread for his sister's starving family. Because of his paroled status, Valjean is driven out of every town. He is offered food and shelter by the Bishop of Digne, but steals the latter's silver during the night. Valjean's former prison guard, the police captures him. But the Bishop informs them that he had given the silver to Valjean as a gift. The former convict eventually breaks his parole and Javert vows to capture him. Eight years later, Valjean has become a wealthy factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer. Some of Valjean's factory workers discover that one of their own, a woman named Fantine, one of his workers, has been sending money to an illegitimate daughter named Cosette. Fantine uses her salary to pay an unscrupulous innkeeper named Thénardiers, his equally shady wife and their daughter Éponine to take care of Cosette. However, Valjean's foreman dismisses Fantine and she resorts to desperate measures to support her daughter by selling her hair and teeth, before becoming a prostitute. Javert, who has become the town's chief inspector, arrests Fantine for striking an abusive customer. Valjean saves her and has her hospitalized. He also learns that a man believed to be him, has been arrested. Refusing to allow an innocent man to become condemned in his place, Valjean reveals his identity during the man's trial. Then then returns to the hospital and he promises the dying Fantine that he will look after Cosette.

Javert arrives to take Valjean into custody, but Valjean escape with a jump into the local river. He then pays the Thénardiers to allow him to take Cosette. The pair elude Javert's pursuit and begin a new life in Paris. The story jumps nine years later in which the grandson of a wealthy man and student and named Marius Pontmercy becomes involved in a growing revolutionary movement following the death a government official sympathetic to the poor named Jean Maximilien Lamarque. He also falls in love with Cosette, much to Valjean's dismay, who believes he is an agent of Javert's. Meanwhile, Marius is unaware that Éponine Thénardier, the daughter of Cosette's former caretakers, has fallen in love with him. Most of these storylines - Valjean's reluctance to acknowledge Cosette and Marius' love; Éponine's unrequited love for Marius; and Valjean's problems with Javert, who has joined the Paris police force, culminates in the long and detailed sequence that features the June Rebellion of 1832.

After watching my DVD copy of "LES MISERABLES", I cannot deny that the movie has some great moments and struck me as pretty damn good. The sequence featuring Fantine's troubles greatly moved me. After winning an Academy Award for her outstanding performance as the doomed woman, Anne Hathaway had expressed a hope that one day the misfortunes of Fantine would be found only in fiction in the future. That is a lovely hope, but knowing human nature, I doubt it will ever happen. And watching Fantine's life spin out of control, due to the narrow-minded views of society and male objectivity of her body, I think my views on human nature sunk even further. Some critics had the nerve to claim that Fantine's situation was something from the past and could never be considered relevant today. I am still amazed that adults - even those who considered themselves civilized and intelligent - could be so completely blind and idiotic. Even Valjean's attempts to make a life for himself, following his release from prison struck me as relevant - echoing the attempts of some convicts to overcome the criminal pasts and records in an effort to make a new life. Usually with little or no success, thanks to the chilly attitude of the public. Hugh Jackman's performance beautifully reflected the struggles of many convicts - past and present - to make new lives for themselves - especially in the movie's first half hour. Although many people tend to view the police officer Javert as evil, I suspect they view his villainy as a product of any society that creates rules - at times rigid - to keep the general population in check. While watching "LES MISERABLES", I realized that I could never view Javert as a villain of any kind. He merely seemed to be a foil or object to Valjean's chances for a new life. More than anything, Javert seemed to be a victim of his own rigid views on good, evil and upholding the law. Russell Crowe did a beautiful job of expressing Javert's inability to be flexible in his views on morality . . . even when his own flexibility comes to the fore when he allows Valjean to finally escape in the end. And it is a shame that he never earned an Academy Award or Golden Globe Award nomination.

"LES MISERABLES" has a running time of 2 hours and 38 minutes. Yet, only 50 minutes of the film focused on Valjean's early years as an ex-convict, his tenure as mayor of Montreuil-sur-Merhis, Fantine's troubles and young Cosette's time with the Thénardiers. The rest of the movie is set in 1832 Paris, leading up to the outbreak of the June Rebellion. And if I must honest . . . I found that a little disappointing. Mind you, not all of the 1832 segment was a waste. Thanks to Tom Hooper's direction, the segment featured a well directed and detailed account of the June Rebellion - especially from Marius Pontmercy, Valjean and Javert's viewpoints. It featured more fine performances from Jackman and Crowe, as Valjean and Javert continued their game of cat and mouse. It also featured an excellent performance from Samantha Barks, who made a very impressive film debut as Éponine Thénardier, the oldest daughter of Cosette's cruel caretakers. Many filmgoers and critics had complained about the romance between Cosette and Marius Pontmercy, claiming that it seemed forced. I do not know if I could agree with that assessment. I thought Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne did a pretty good job in conveying the young couple's romantic interest in each other. The problem with their romance centered on Cosette's character.

I realized that Seyfried did all she could to infuse some kind of energy into the role. I could say the same for Isabelle Allen. Both Seyfriend and Allen gave first-rate performances. Unfortunately, both were saddled with a one-dimensional character. At times, I found myself wishing that Éponine and not Cosette had ended up with Marius. In fact, I felt the movie could have explored Cosette and the Thénardiers' relationship with a little more depth. As for the Thénardiers, they proved to be the story's true villains. Unfortunately, Helen Bonham-Carter and Sascha Baron Cohen injected a little too much comedy into their performances. The couple came off more as comic relief, instead of villains. And I blame both Hooper and the screenwriters. Cosette and the Thénardiers were not the only problems. Although I had complimented Hooper's direction of the June Rebellion scenes, the entire sequence threatened to go on and on . . . almost forever. I ended up as one relieved moviegoer when the sequence ended with quick violence and Valjean's rescue of Marius. I have a deep suspicion that "LES MISERABLES" was really about the June Rebellion. Many claimed that Hugo was inspired by his witness of the insurrection. Which would explain why the story's earlier period between 1815 and 1823 were rushed in a span of 50 minutes or so. Pity. Other moviegoers complained about Hooper's constant use of close-ups in the film. And I have to agree with them. For a movie that was supposed to be a historic epic wrapped in a musical production, the balance between wide shots and close-ups somewhat unbalanced. During Valjean's death scene, he envisioned not only the long dead Fatine, but also the insurrectionists who had fought alongside Marius before getting killed. One of those insurrectionists turned out to be Éponine Thénardier. Only she had died before Valjean had arrived at Marius' barricade. So . . . why was he experiencing images of her?

I could comment on the singing performances of the cast. I thought they had more or less did a pretty good job. Many had criticized Crowe's singing, but I honestly felt nothing wrong about it. Hathaway's acting during her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" impressed me a lot more than her singing voice, which struck me as pretty solid. I had expected Jackman's singing to knock my socks off. It did not quite reach that level. Like Hathaway and Crowe, his acting impressed me a lot more than his singing. Both Redmayne and Seyfried sang pretty well. So did Helen Bonham-Carter and Cohen. But the one musical performance that really impressed me was Samantha Barks' rendition of "On My Own". The actress/singer has a beautiful voice.

I liked "LES MISERABLES" very much. The movie featured fine performances from the cast. And Tom Hooper did a very good job in directing the film, despite the many close-ups. And I do believe that it deserved a Best Picture nomination. Do not get me wrong. I enjoy musicals very much. But I simply could not endure a musical that not only featured songs, but dialogue acted out in song. It stretched my patience just a little too much - like the drawn out sequences leading up to the violence that ended the June Rebellion. I would like to say that I regret missing "LES MISERABLES" in the movie theaters. But I would be lying. I have no regrets . . . as much as I like the film.

Fans' Opinions on Sean Connery as Bond

FANS' OPINIONS ON SEAN CONNERY AS BOND


“No post-Connery Bond in his debut performance has shrugged off comparisons to his predecessors as successfully as Craig does in Casino Royale: before the movie is even halfway through his Bond is far more his own man than those of Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were by the end of their first Bond films.” 

“A splendid casting choice, Craig has a physicality that only Sean Connery and perhaps George Lazenby could approach.”

“I don't think he (Daniel Craig) can overtake Connery as Bond for me, but he's already running a damned close.”



I do not understand this. Are all James Bond fans in love Sean Connery? Are we all expected to accept the idea of him as the best James Bond as a matter of fact? I hope not. Because it is an opinion I have never shared during my thirty-four years of watching Bond movies.

While watching a commercial for the recent Bond movie, “CASINO ROYALE”, the announcer declared Daniel Craig as the best Bond. A relative of mine nearly jumped out of his seat and cried, “Sean Connery is the best Bond!” as if it were a matter of fact. I could only look away in amusement.

One reason why I have never accepted Connery as the best Bond is the fact that he was not the first actor I had seen in the role. And if I had, I still doubt I would have accepted him as the best Bond. Although Roger Moore was my first Bond (I first saw him in “LIVE AND LET DIE”), very little time had passed before I saw Connery as Bond television for the first time. From what I had seen of Moore on the movie screen and Connery on television, both seemed to be very effective as James Bond. But only different. To this day, I have never been able to decide between the two who was my favorite Bond. And when movies like “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”, “THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS” and “GOLDENEYE” became popular with me, I found it increasingly difficult to choose any actor as the best Bond.

I am not saying that Sean Connery was a lousy James Bond. He obviously made an excellent Bond. But after watching most of the Bond films over the past six months, I simply found it hard to accept the idea that he was the best actor to portray Bond. Quite frankly, I found myself equally impressed with those that followed – George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.

As for Connery, I was especially impressed by his performances in “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” and “THUNDERBALL”. He seemed to be at his most human in those two roles. And in 1971’s “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”, he seemed to be at his funniest. But honestly . . . I have never viewed him as the best James Bond. I certainly do not believe that his debut as Bond was the best. And I do not think I ever will. In fact, his debut (in “DR. NO”) is my least favorite Bond debut. His performance seemed . . . mixed. Uneven. In some scenes, his performance seemed very smooth and professional. At other times – especially in Jack Lord’s company – he seemed wooden.

He never really came close to the literary Bond penned by Ian Fleming. Both Dalton and Craig deserve that honor. Not that being close to the literary Bond mean much to me. Frankly, I could not care less how an actor portrays the 00 agent, as long as he gives a good performance, deal adequately with the action sequences and create his own style as Bond. Connery had created his own style – a mixture of rugged machismo and a touch of sophistication. But machismo seemed to dominate Connery’s Bond.

I don’t know. Perhaps many Bond fans – which seemed to be dominated by men – feel that machismo is the ultimate expression of a man. Personally, I do not agree. But we are all allowed our opinions. In adopting a machismo persona, Connery immediately created his own style of how to portray Bond. But the reason why I cannot give him credit as the ultimate Bond is that the other actors have managed to create their own style, as well. Why should Connery be given credit for something the other five actors have also managed to achieve?

But why do fans insist upon declaring Connery as the best Bond, as if it were a matter of fact? Some might point out that most Bond fans prefer Connery. I admit that it does seem to be the case that Connery is the most popular Bond actor. But I am the type of person who does not believe in the old term – ‘majority rules’. Especially in regard to art or entertainment. Hell, most Americans in the mid-19th century believed there was nothing wrong with enslaving African-Americans. But just because most accepted this opinion as fact, does not mean they were right. And I must say the same about Connery’s performances as Bond. Even if most fans accept him as the best James Bond, does not mean they are right. In the end, it is subjective. I only wish that many of these film critics and fans stop declaring Connery as the best Bond . . . as if it were a matter of fact. Would it really kill for them to add – “in my opinion”?