"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Review

 

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Review

One would think after the release of last year's "THE AVENGERS", Marvel Studios would call it quits on its saga about the team of superheroes who foiled an alien invasion in said movie. But the "THE AVENGERS" opened the possibility of a new threat to Earth, paving the way for a new slew of stories for the costumed Avengers.

The beginning of this new group of films resulted in the release of "IRON MAN 3", the third movie about the sole adventures of billionaire Tony Stark aka Iron Man. The alien invasion from "THE AVENGERS" had left its mark on Tony. He has become even more popular than ever with the public. The U.S. government (including S.H.I.E.L.D.) seemed to be leaving him alone for the moment. And his relationship with Pepper Potts seemed to be going strong. However, Tony also seemed to be in the process of ironing out the kinks for his new method of accessing his Iron Man armor - a method that turned out to be a technological copy of Thor's habit of summoning the Mjölnir hammer. His chauffeur Happy Hogan has been promoted to Head of Security for Stark Industries. But Happy's caustic "Super Friends" indicated the latter's resentment toward Tony's newly forged connections to the other Avengers. Worst of all, Tony has been experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from the Avengers' battle against the invading Chitauri aliens.

But these problems are nothing in compare to the re-emergence of an old acquaintance whom Tony first met at a New Year's Eve party in 1999. Thirteen years earlier, a drunken Tony and his date Dr. Maya Hansen encountered the disabled scientist Aldrich Killian, who offered them positions in his new company, Advanced Idea Mechanics. However, Tony rejects the offer, humiliating Killian in the process. Sometime after this encounter, Killian met Dr. Hansen and used her Extremis virus - an experimental regenerative treatment intended to allow recovery from crippling injuries - to heal his own disabilities. However, Extremis also gives the individual superhuman strength and allows him or her to generate heat. As it turns out, Killian is working for the latest threat to strike into the heart of American intelligence, a terrorist known as Mandarin. The latter has been responsible for a string of bombings that have left the intelligence agencies bewildered by any lack of forensic evidence. But Happy's encounter with Killian's major henchman, a former Army officer named Eric Savrin, in front of the Hollywood Chinese Theater leads him badly injured. And a very angry Tony issues a televised threat to capture the Mandarin. Former paramour Dr. Hansen appears at Stark's Malibu home to warn him about Killian and the Mandarin, but the latter orders Savrin to lead an attack on the house. Tony, Pepper and Dr. Hansen all survive. But the house is destroyed and Tony is forced to disappear to somewhere in Tennessee and discover a way to defeat the Mandarin.

I was surprised to learn that Jon Favreau did not return as director for this third IRON MAN movie. Although "IRON MAN 2" proved to be a box office hit, many critics and moviegoers claimed that it was not as good as the first movie, "IRON MAN". It was not an opinion that I shared, but . . . it was an opinion that led Marvel Studios to ask Favreau to step down as director of "IRON MAN 3". Star Robert Downey Jr. suggested that the studio hire Shane Black to direct this third film. Downey Jr. and Black had first worked with each other in the 2005 comedy, "KISS KISS BANG BANG". Did changing directors help the IRON MAN franchise? I do not think so. I am not saying that "IRON MAN 3" was a bad movie. I thought it was far from bad. But a change in directors did not improve the franchise. It was a change that I believe was unnecessary in the first place. However . . . I still enjoyed this third film very much.

One of the best things I could say about ""IRON MAN 3" is that it presented Tony with a very formidable opponent. The Mandarin proved to be not only scary, but very intelligent. The attack on Tony's Malibu home was mind boggling. But the manner in which the Mandarin managed to track Tony down to a small Tennessee town and steal the War Machine (re-named Iron Patriot) armor by tricking American intelligence and the military regarding his location, and luring James Rhodes (aka War Machine) into a trap struck me as pretty flawless. And in using the Hansen/Killian Extremis virus on disabled military veterans, the Mandarin managed to create a formidable private army. There were other aspects of Black and Drew Pearce's screenplay that I found very appealing. Although I had no problems with the Pepper Potts character in the previous two movies, I enjoyed the fact that Black and Pearce really put her through the wringer in this one - dealing with Tony's panic attacks, surviving the Malibu house attack, and becoming a prisoner. Pepper's ordeals finally paid off when she played a major role in defeating the Mandarin. Although Rhodey had a small presence in the movie's first half, his presence increased tenfold in the second half. And like Pepper, he played a major role in the Mandarin's defeat that I personally found very satisfying.

The movie also featured some top-notch action sequences. For me, the second best of them all was the Mandarin's attack on Tony's Malibu house. But there were other sequences that I found impressive; including Happy's encounter with Eric Savrin and another benefactor of the Extremis virus in Hollywood, Tony's encounter with Savrin and Extremis muscle Ellen Brandt in Tennessee, and the final battle on an oil rig. Mind you, the latter was not perfect, but Pepper and Rhodey's actions in this sequence made it memorable for me. If the Malibu house attack was my second favorite action sequence, my favorite turned out to be Iron Man's encounter with Savrin aboard Air Force One and his rescue of the President's personnel following the plane's destruction. The use of free fall in Iron Man's rescue of the Presidential passengers really blew my mind.

There were some complaints that Robert Downey Jr. seemed to be going through the motions in his portrayal of Tony Stark in this film. I cannot say that I agree with this opinion. Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony seemed more sober or stressed out, due to the character's inability to deal with the aftermath of the events in "THE AVENGERS". Perhaps this is not a Tony Stark that fans and critics wanted to see. But I congratulate both Downey Jr., Black and Pearce for allowing audiences to see how Tony dealt with the aftermath of encountering invading aliens. I had been impressed by Gwyneth Paltrow's portrayal of a stressed out Pepper Potts in "IRON MAN 2". Considering what she had endured in this movie, Paltrow pulled out the stops as she conveyed Pepper's array of emotions from wariness to fear and finally to anger. Frankly, I feel this movie featured her best performance as Pepper. I noticed that Don Cheadle seemed a lot more relaxed in the role of Lieutenant-Colonel James Rhodes aka War Machine (re-named Iron Patriot). As I had earlier stated, his presence in the movie's first half seemed rather minimal. But once the movie shifted toward Tony and the American government going after the Mandarin in Miami, his role became more prominent. Not only did Cheadle displayed his talent for comedy, but his James Rhodes proved to be just as much of a bad ass without his War Machine armor, as he was with it. Denied the director's chair for this movie, the screenwriters gave Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan was allowed a bigger role in the story, when the injuries he suffered at Eric Savrin's hands snapped Tony out of his lethargy to deal with the Mandarin. And Favreau gave a performance that I found both funny and poignant.

In one article I had read, Guy Pearce described his role in "IRON MAN 3" as merely a cameo. Frankly, I think he may have exaggerated a bit. Like Don Cheadle, Pearce's presence in the movie's first half seemed minimal. In fact, his presence as Aldrich Killian did not seem to fully develop until the movie's last forty-five minutes or so. And his character slightly reminded me of the Dr. Curt Conners (the Lizard) character from last year's "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN". But I must admit that Pearce did a great job of conveying the character's development from a pathetic and desperate man eager to use science to heal his disabilities to a charming former acquaintance of Pepper's and finally a truly scary and difficult-to-beat villain. I have never seen James Badge Dale portray a villain. But I have heard that he once portrayed a serial killer on two carryover episodes from "CSI: MIAMI" and "CSI: NEW YORK". I need to see those episodes, but I found Badge Dale's portrayal of henchman Eric Sevrin rather frightening and intimidating. Rebecca Hall portrayed Dr. Maya Hensen, the true creator of the Extremis virus, who found herself regretting her decision to work with Dr. Killian. Hall gave a sharp and witty performance, but I think her presence seemed pretty much wasted. William Sadler gave a solid performance as the President of the United States. Considering his talent, I do wish the script had allowed him to do more. I can say the same about Miguel Ferrer's ambiguous portrayal of the Vice-President. I finally come to Ben Kingsley's portrayal of the Mandarin. Many fans were upset over the changes that Black and Pearce made to the Mandarin character. I was not. I found their portrayal of the super villain amazing and mind boggling. And one has to thank Kingsley for giving what I feel was the most entertaining performance in the movie. In fact, I feel that the scene in which Tony meets the Mandarin for the first time is one of my favorite "hero-meets-villain" scenes of all time from any Marvel film. It is a scene I will always cherish.

I do have a few complaints about "IRON MAN 3". I had already pointed out my slight disappointment at the limited manner in which the Maya Hensen character was utilized. Also, Tony's trip to Tennessee seemed a bit offbeat to me. I did not need to watch his developing friendship with the kid Harley, which struck me as trite. And I also wish that the script had been a little clear on how the Mandarin and Killian tracked Tony down to Tennessee. Although I found some satisfaction in the oil rig sequence - especially in regard to Pepper and Rhodey's actions - I must admit that overall, it struck me as somewhat convoluted. It did not help that the entire sequence was shot at night. Between the night setting, Jeffrey Ford and Peter S. Elliot's shaky editing and the numerous Iron Man droids, I almost found the sequence disappointing. Well, let me put it another way . . . I have seen better.

Marvel Studios and Paramount Pictures are promoting this film as the best IRON MAN film ever. I cannot say that I agree. I feel it has a more complex story than the somewhat simplistic tale for "IRON MAN". But it has a set of flaws that makes it difficult for me to declare it as "the best". I guess "IRON MAN 2" is still my favorite. But I do believe that "IRON MAN 3" proved to be a very entertaining and exciting film. In the end, Shane Black did a top-notch job with the help of a decent script and excellent performances from a cast led by Robert Downey Jr.

"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

 

Below is a gallery featuring photos from "IRON MAN 3", the third entry to Marvel's IRON MAN movie franchise. Directed by Shane West, the movie starred Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man:




"IRON MAN 3" (2013) Photo Gallery

"THE KING'S SPEECH" (2010) Review

"THE KING’S SPEECH" (2010) Review

Inspirational movies have been the hallmark of Hollywood films over the decades. They especially became popular between the mid-1970s and the early 1990s. After the mid-90s, I never thought they would become popular again. But the recent release of the historical drama, "THE KING’S SPEECH" proved me wrong. 

Directed by Tom Hooper and written by David Seidler, ”THE KING’S SPEECH” told the story of Great Britain’s King George VI’s difficulties with a speech impediment and his relationship with Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, who helped him overcome his stutter. The movie opened with George VI (then Prince Albert, Duke of York) at the closing of the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, with his wife Elizabeth by his side. There he gives a stammering speech that visibly unsettles the thousands of listeners in the audience. After nine years of unsuccessfully finding a speech therapist that can help him, Elizabeth recruits Australian-born Lionel Logue to meet him. The two men eventually bond and Logue helps the Duke of York overcome the latter’s stammer during a series of crises that include the death of George V; his brother, King Edward VIII’s romance with American divorcee, Wallis Simpson; the abdication of Edward; the Duke of York’s ascension to the throne as George VI; his coronation and the start of World War II. Also during this period, both king and speech therapist become close friends.

What can I say about ”THE KING’S SPEECH”? I cannot deny that it was a heartwarming tale about the growing friendship of two men from disparate backgrounds. Seidler’s script was filled with wit, charm, warmth and pathos that filled the heart. The cast, lead by Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, did great credit to the script. There have been complaints about the film’s historical accuracy from both the media and historians. And there is a good deal of the story that is historically inaccurate. George VI and Lionel Logue’s collaboration began as far back as 1926, not 1934. And the king was also pro-appeasement in the late 1930s. In fact, the majority of Britons during that period were pro-appeasement. What historians fail to realize is that appeasement was popular due to a lack of desire for another war against Germany. World War I had traumatized a generation that included George VI. One also has to remember that ”THE KING’S SPEECH” is a drama based upon historical fact, not a documentary. One would know by now that complete historical accuracy in a work of fiction is rare. It has been rare for as long as there have been fictional work based upon history. And to be honest, I do not believe that the movie’s fiddling with historical fact has not harmed the story.

One would think that I consider ”THE KING’S SPEECH” to be one of the best movies this year. Frankly, I find labeling what is ”the best” rather subjective. I did enjoy the movie and it made the list of my Top Ten Favorite Movies of 2010. However, I must admit that I do not consider it to be a particularly original film. One, it is one of those inspirational films that moviegoers tend to love – movies like ”SEABISCUIT”, ”CINDERELLA MAN” and the 1976 Oscar winner, ”ROCKY”. And if I must be brutally honest, there was nothing original about ”THE KING’S SPEECH” - even for an inspirational film. I already have a nickname for it - ’ROCKY in the Palace’. Another problem I have with the movie is that I was not that impressed by its visual style. I found Danny Cohen’s photography rather pedestrian. And Eve Stewart’s production designs and Judy Farr’s set decorations were very disappointing. Only the movie’s exterior shots prevented ”THE KING’S SPEECH” from becoming another filmed stage play. And the actual sets struck me as very dull. My hopes of a rich look at London and the rest of Great Britain during the 1920s and 30s fell short. I suppose I should not have been surprised by the movie’s uninspiring visual style. It only had a budget of $15 million dollars. I suspect the producers had very little money to work with.

With a few exceptions, the cast turned out to be first-rate. Colin Firth gave a superb and complex performance as the insecure sovereign with the speech impediment. I am not that surprised that he managed to earn nominations and win a good number of acting awards. Geoffrey Rush, who portrayed Lionel Logue, gave a first-rate performance filled with a great deal of sly humor. Also, he and Firth generated a strong screen chemistry. Helena Bonham-Carter was a charming and witty Duchess of York/Queen Elizabeth. However, I would have never considered her performance worth of any acting award nomination. She was simply portraying the “loyal wife” schtick. I was surprised to find Guy Pierce portraying the love obsessed and selfish Edward VIII. And I must he was very subtle and effective in revealing the man’s less admirable traits. The movie also benefitted solid performances from the likes of Michael Gambon as King George V, Claire Bloom as Queen Mary, and Anthony Andrews, who was surprisingly effective as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. 

However, there were some performances that I found unsatisfying. Being a fan of Jennifer Ehle, I was disappointed in the limitations of her role as Logue’s wife, Myrtle. She hardly had a chance to do anything, except murmur a few words of encouragement to Logue. Her only great moment occurred in a scene that featured Myrtle Logue’s realization that the King of England was one of her husband’s clients. Seeing Ehle and Firth in the same scene together brought back memories of the 1995 adaptation of ”PRIDE AND PREJUDICE”. I also had a problem with Eve Best’s portrayal of American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. Her Wallis came off as more extroverted than the divorcee in real life. And I hate to say this, but Timothy Spall’s interpretation of Winston Churchill seemed more like a parody than a serious portrayal. Every time he was on the screen, I could not help but wince.

In conclusion, I enjoyed ”THE KING’S SPEECH” very much. Despite its lack of originality, I found it heartwarming, humorous, and dramatic; thanks to Tom Hooper’s direction and Seidler’s writing. And aside from a few performances, I was impressed by the cast, especially leading men Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. I would never consider it artistically worthy of an Oscar for Best Picture. But I cannot deny that it was entertaining.

"THE KING'S SPEECH" (2010) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 2010 historical drama called "THE KING'S SPEECH". Directed by Tom Hooper, the movie stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham-Carter: 


"THE KING'S SPEECH" (2010) Photo Gallery

"MILDRED PIERCE" (2011) Review

"MILDRED PIERCE" (2011) Review

When HBO first revealed its plans to air an adaptation of James M. Cain's 1941 novel, "Mildred Pierce", many people had reacted in some very interesting ways. Some seemed thrilled by the idea of a new version of Cain's story. But there were many who were not thrilled by the idea. And I suspect that this negative response had a lot to do with the first adaptation. 

Sixty-six years ago, Warner Brothers Studios had released its own adaptation of the novel. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the movie starred Joan Crawford in the title role and Ann Blyth as her older daughter, Veda. The movie received several Academy Award nominations and a Best Actress statuette for Crawford. Due to the film's success and lasting popularity, many fans and critics viewed it as a definitive adaptation of one of Cain's works. So, when they learned about HBO's plans for a new version, many regarded the news with scorn. After all, how could any remake be just as good or superior to the classic Hollywood film?

Was "MILDRED PIERCE" as a miniseries just as good or better than the 1945 movie? I will give my opinion on that topic later. I will say that I truly enjoyed both versions. The miniseries benefited from Todd Haynes serving as the director, one of the producers and one of the writers. Oscar winning actress, Kate Winslet portrayed the title role. The miniseries also possessed a talented supporting cast that included Guy Pearce, Melissa Leo, Brían F. O'Byrne, Mare Winningham, James Le Gros; along with Evan Rachel Wood ("TRUE BLOOD") and Morgan Turner. And I cannot deny that I found the miniseries' production designs first-rate, despite a few quibbles. But I have come across a good number of movies or television productions with everything in its favor that still failed to win me over in the end. Fortunately, "MILDRED PIERCE" did the opposite.

Todd Haynes had pointed out that his new miniseries would be more faithful to Cain's novel than the 1945 movie. And he was good on his word. The biggest differences between the Michael Curtiz movie and Haynes' new miniseries were the running times and the lack of a murder mystery in the miniseries. That is correct. Monty Beragon was never murdered in the novel and he certainly was not murdered in the new version. There were no flashbacks on Mildred's life, following her divorce from her first (and third) husband, Bert Pierce. And I am grateful to Todd Haynes for sparing the viewers that nonsense and sticking closer to Cain's plot. I believed that the murder plot unnecessarily dragged the Curtiz movie. And Haynes' miniseries was long enough. Due to the lack of a murder mystery, the miniseries retained Cain's slightly bleaker ending. Much to the dismay of many fans.

Since Haynes had decided to stick a little closer to the novel, the miniseries covered the story's entire time span of 1931 to 1940. Which meant that "MILDRED PIERCE" gave viewers a bird's eye view of the Depression's impact upon Southern Californians like the Pierce family. Part One began in 1931 with Mildred preparing a pie to sell to one of her neighbors. Husband Bert has joined the ranks of the broke and unemployed, thanks to the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the economic hijinks of his former business partner and friend, Wally Burgan. Bert seemed to spend most of his days engaged with chores like mowing the lawn or in an affair with a neighbor named Maggie Biderhof. Bert's announcement that he might spend another afternoon and evening with Mrs. Biderhof proves to be the last straw for Mildred. The couple have a heated quarrel that ends with Bert's departure from the family and eventually, a divorce. 

Mildred realizes that she needs a steady income to support their two daughters, Veda and Ray. Unfortunately, Veda lacks any experience for a position outside of customer service. And being enamored of her upper-middle-class status, the idea of being a waitress, maid or housekeeper is abhorrent to Mildred. She also knows that such professions are abhorrent to her pretentious and class-conscious daughter, Veda. After rejecting jobs as housemaid to the future wife of a Hollywood director and waitress at a tea parlor, the realities of the Depression finally leads a desperate Mildred to take a job as waitress at a Hollywood diner. Unfortunately, Veda learns about the new job, which leads mother and daughter to their first major quarrel and Mildred's decision to make plans to open a restaurant. The quarrel also marked the real beginning of what proved to be the story's backbone - namely Mildred and Veda's tumultuous relationship.

As much as I admire "MILDRED PIERCE", it does have its flaws. I would view some of them as minor. But I consider at least one or two of them as major. One of the small problems proved to be Haynes' decision to shoot the miniseries in New York, instead of Southern California. Aside from Mildred's Glendale neighborhood, most of the locations in the miniseries do not scream "Southern California" - including the beach locations. The director claimed that he had chosen the area around New York City, because it was more cost-efficient than shooting around Los Angeles. He also claimed that it would be difficult to find "Old L.A." within the city today. Speaking as an Angeleno who has spent many weekends driving around the city, I found these excuses hard to swallow. Los Angeles and many other Southern California neighborhoods have plenty of locations that could have been used for the production. And could someone explain how filming around New York was cheaper than Los Angeles?

"MILDRED PIERCE" has received charges of slow pacing and an unnecessarily long running time. I have nothing against "MILDRED PIERCE" being shown in a miniseries format. But I have two quibbles regarding the pacing. One, the sequence featuring Mildred's job hunt dragged unnecessarily long. Haynes filled this segment with many long and silent shots of a pensive Mildred staring into the distant or dragging her body along the streets of Glendale and Los Angeles. I am aware that Haynes was trying to convey some kind of message with these shots. Unfortunately, I am not intellectually inclined and the sequence merely ignited my impatience. On the other hand, the speed in which Haynes continued Mildred's story in Episode Three left my head spinning. Aside from the sequence featuring the opening of Mildred's first restaurant, I felt that the episode moved a bit too fast . . . especially since so much happened to Mildred during the two to three year time span. I would have preferred if Episode Three had a running time of slightly over an hour - like Episodes Four and Five.

Complaints aside, this "MILDRED PIERCE" struck me as truly first-rate. As much as I had enjoyed the 1945 movie, I thank God that Todd Haynes did not add that ludicrous murder mystery into the plot. Cain's novel was not about Veda getting her comeuppance for being an ungrateful daughter to a hard-working mother. The story was about a resilient woman, who was also plagued by her personal flaws - which she refused to overcome, let alone acknowledge. Some viewers and critics have expressed confusion over Mildred's continuing obsession over her older daughter. Others have deliberately blinded themselves from Mildred's flaws and dumped all of the blame for her downfall entirely upon the heads of others - especially Veda. But there have been viewers and critics who managed to understand and appreciate the miniseries' portrayal of Mildred. I certainly did.

I have never understood the complaints that "MILDRED PIERCE" had failed to explain Mildred's unwavering obsession over Veda. I thought that Haynes perfectly revealed the reasons behind her obsession. First of all, he revealed those traits that both mother and daughter shared in numerous scenes - aspirations for entry into the upper-class, desire for wealth, snobbery, and a talent for manipulating others. Mildred's refusal to consider those jobs at a tea parlor and as the pretentious Mrs. Forrester's maid struck me as signs of her ego blinding her from the precarious state of her family's financial situation. And when she finally caved in to becoming a waitress at a Hollywood diner, Mildred considered quitting, because her sensibilities (or ego) could not fathom working in such a profession. Her contempt toward others suffering from the Depression after the successful opening of her Glendale restaurant was expressed in a scene with upper-class playboy Monty Beragon. Episode Five revealed her manipulation of Monty into marrying her . . . in order to lure Veda back to her seemed pretty obvious. But one scene not only revealed the core of Mildred's character, but also the miniseries' theme. While despairing over her decision to become a waitress at the end of Episode One, Mildred said this to neighbor Lucy Gessler:

"She (Veda) has something in her that I thought I had and now I find I don't. Pride or nobility or whatever it is. For both my girls, I want them to have all the cake in the world."

Judging from Mildred's comments, it was not difficult for me to see that she viewed Veda as an extension of herself and in some degrees, better. I believe that the quote also hinted Mildred's personal insecurities about living among the upper-class. This insecurity was revealed in a scene from Episode Three in which Mildred appeared at a polo field in Pasadena to pick up Veda, who was bidding her "babysitter" Monty good-bye. So, this argument that Haynes had failed to explain Mildred's enabling behavior toward Veda simply does not ring true with me.

Despite my complaint about Haynes' decision to shoot "MILDRED PIERCE" in New York, I must admit that I found myself impressed by Mark Friedberg's production designs. The miniseries' setting did not have a Southern California feel to me, but Friedberg certainly did an excellent job of re-creating the 1930s. He was ably supported by Peter Rogness' art designs and Ellen Christiansen's set decorations. But aside from Friedberg's work, the biggest contribution to the miniseries' Thirties look came from Ann Roth's costume designs. Not only did she provide the right costumes for the years between 1931 and 1940, she also ensured that the costumes would adhere to the characters' social positions and personalities. For example, both Roth and Haynes wisely insisted that Kate Winslet wear the same dowdy, brown print dress during Mildred's job hunt in Episode One. One last person whom I believe contributed to the miniseries' look and style was cinematographer Edward Lachman. If I must be honest, I was more impressed by Lachman's photography of various intimate scenes reflecting the characters' emotions or situations than any panoramic shot he had made. I was especially impressed by Lachman's work in Episode One's last scene and the Episode Five sequence featuring Veda's betrayal of Mildred.

Along with Todd Haynes' direction, it was the cast led by the uber-talented Kate Winslet that truly made "MILDRED PIERCE" memorable. First of all, the miniseries featured brief appearances from the likes of Richard Easton and Ronald Guttman, who each gave a colorful performance as Veda's music teachers during different periods in the story. Hope Davis was deliciously haughty as the Los Angeles socialite-turned-movie producer's wife with whom Mildred has two unpleasant encounters. In the 1945 movie, Eve Arden portrayed the character of Ida Corwin, which was a blend of two characters from Cain's novel - Mildred's neighbor Lucy Gessler and her diner co-worker Ida Corwin. The recent miniseries included both characters into the production. Fresh on the heels of her Oscar win, Melissa Leo gave an engaging performance as Mildred's cheerful and wise friend/neighbor, Lucy Gessler, who provided plenty of advice on the former's personal life. Aside from a two-episode appearance in the last season of "24", I have not seen Mare Winningham in quite a while. It was good to see her portray Mildred's blunt and business-savy friend and colleague, Ida Corwin.

At least three actors portrayed the men in Mildred's life - James LeGros, Brían F. O'Byrne and Guy Pearce. Although his sense of humor was not as sharp as Jack Carson's in 1945, I must admit that LeGros managed to provide some memorably humrous moments as Wally Burgan, Mildred's business adviser and temporary lover. Two of my favorite Wally moments turned out to be his reaction to the news of Mildred's breakup from her husband and to the revelation of her romance with Monty Beragon. Brían F. O'Byrne earned an Emmy nomination as Mildred's ex-husband, Bert Pierce. What I admired by O'Byrne's performance was the gradual ease in which he transformed Bert's character from a self-involved philanderer to a supportive mate by the end of the series. But the most remarkable performance came from Guy Pearce, who won a well-deserved Emmy for his performance as Monty Beragon, Mildred's Pasadena playboy lover and later, second husband. Thankfully, Pearce managed to avoid portraying Monty as some one-note villain and instead, captured both the good and the bad of his character's nuance - Monty's friendly nature, his condescension toward Mildred's class status, his seductive skills that kept her satisfied for nearly two years, his occasional bouts of rudeness and the hurt-filled realization that Mildred had used him to win back Veda.

Two remarkable young actresses portrayed Veda Pierce, the heroine's monstrous and talented older daughter. Morgan Turner portrayed Veda from age eleven to thirteen and I must say that she did a first-rate job. In the first three episodes, Turner convincingly developed Veda from a pretentious, yet still bearable eleven year-old to an ambitious girl in her early teens who has developed a deep contempt toward her mother. My only problem with Turner's performance were the few moments when her Veda seemed too much like an adult in a child's body. Evan Rachel Wood benefited from portraying Veda between the ages of 17 and 20. Therefore, her performance never struck me as slightly odd. However, she miss the opportunity to portray the development of Veda's monstrous personality. But that lost opportunity did not take away Wood's superb performance. Despite the awfulness of Veda's character, I must hand it to the young actress for injecting some semblance of ambiguity. Aside from portraying Veda's monstrous personality, Wood did an excellent job of conveying Veda's frustration with Mildred's overbearing love and the end of her own ambitions as a concert pianist.

I have been a fan of Kate Winslet since I first saw her in 1995's "SENSE AND SENSIBILITY". There have been and still are many talented actors and actresses with the ability to portray multifaceted characters. But I believe that Winselt is one of the few who are able to achieve this with great subtlety. Her portrayal of Glendale housewife-turned-entrepreneur Mildred Pierce is a prize example of her talent for acting in complex and ambiguous roles. Superficially, her Mildred Pierce was a long-suffering and hard-working woman, who overcame a failed marriage to become a successful entrepreneur . . . all for the love of her two daughters. Winslet not only portrayed these aspects of Mildred's character with great skill, but also conveyed the character's darker aspects, which I had already listed in this article. She more than earned that Emmy award for Best Actress in a Miniseries.

Although many have expressed admiration for "MILDRED PIERCE", these same fans and critics seemed to have done so with a good deal of reluctance or complaints. I will be the first to admit that the miniseries has its flaws. But I do not find them excessive. This reluctance to express full admiration for "MILDRED PIERCE" culminated in its loss for the Best Miniseries Emmy to the British import, "DOWNTON ABBEY". I had objected to this loss on the grounds that the British drama - a television series - was nominated in the wrong category; and that I believe "MILDRED PIERCE" was slightly superior.

Flawed or not, I believe that Todd Haynes did a superb job in adapting James M. Cain's novel. He wisely adhered to the literary source as close as possible, allowing viewers a more complex and ambiguous look into the Mildred Pierce character. Also, Haynes had a first-rate cast led by the incomparable Kate Winslet. As much as I love the 1945 movie, I must admit that this recent miniseries turned out to be a superior production. My admiration for Todd Haynes as a filmmaker has been solidified.