lmoore66

"SALT" (2010) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 04:52:18 GMT

Below are images from the 2010 action thriller, "SALT". Directed by Phillip Noyce, the movie starred Angelina Jolie:

"SALT" (2010) Photo Gallery

HALLOWEEN Images at the Disneyland Resort

lmoore66 — Wed, 03 Nov 2021 06:55:20 GMT

Below are images of the Halloween celebration at the Disneyland Resort during the past decade:

HALLOWEEN IMAGES AT THE DISNEYLAND RESORT

"THE BUTLER" (2013) Review

lmoore66 — Sun, 24 Oct 2021 06:21:27 GMT

"THE BUTLER" (2013) Review

When I first saw the trailer for "THE BUTLER", I resisted the urge to see it. I have nothing against films about the African-American experience. I could not wait to see Quentin Tarantino's pre-Civil War opus, "DJANGO UNCHAINED". But there was something about the trailer for "THE BUTLER" that turned me off. It had that dignified, pretentious aura that marred "THE KING'S SPEECH" and "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II" for me. I was determined to avoid it. But thanks to my family, I could not avoid it in the end.

Directed by Lee Daniels and written by Danny Strong, "THE BUTLER" was loosely inspired by the life of former White House butler, Eugene Alley. Now, when I say "loosely inspired", I meant it. Contrary to what many have claimed, the movie was not based upon Allen's life. Actor-turned-screenwriter Danny Strong read an article in the The Washington Post called "A Butler Well Served by This Election" by Will Haygood. Inspired by Allen's 34 years as a White House butler, Strong created the character of Georgia-born Cecil Gaines, who witnessed the murder of his sharecropper father by the plantation owner who also raped his mother. The estate owner's elderly mother reassigns Cecil to being a house servant. Another decade pass before Cecil decides its time to leave the cotton plantation. He makes his way for parts unknown, but the Great Depression in the form of hunger and unemployment leads him to break into a pastry shop for food. The shop's servant, Maynard, helps him get a job and later, recommends him for a job at a Washington D.C. hotel. During his two decades at the hotel, Cecil marries a woman named Gloria and they conceive two sons, Louis and Charlie. Then in 1957, Cecil is hired for a butler position at the White House and spends the next three decades working there. His job not only gives Cecil the opportunity to meet seven U.S. presidents, but also threatens his marriage to Gloria and creates tension between him and his activist older son, Louis.

In the end, I am glad that I saw "THE BUTLER". It turned out to be a lot better than I had assumed. I have to give kudos to Danny Strong for creating a fascinating story that mingled history with personal drama. And Lee Daniels did a fabulous job of transforming Strong's tale to the screen. More importantly, "THE BUTLER" managed to avoid that annoying and pretentious air that have tainted a good number of historical dramas in the past. Except in perhaps two scenes. Watching "THE BUTLER" reminded me of an old NBC miniseries that aired back in 1979 called "BACKSTAIRS AT THE WHITE HOUSE", which told the story of a mother/daughter pair named Margaret Rogers and Lillian Rogers Parks, who worked as White House housemaids between 1909 and 1961.

What really impressed me about the plot for "THE BUTLER" is how Cecil's past and profession had such an impact upon his adult life. Witnessing his mother's rape and his father's death seemed to have an impact upon Cecil's psyche. In a way, these events led him to develop an obsequious personality that served him well,professionally. But his obsequiousness also led him to fear and oppose his son Louis' participation in the Civil Rights movement for many years. I must admit that those sequences featuring Louis' involvement with the Freedom Riders during the early and mid 1960s struck me as both fascinating and harrowing. Cecil and Louis' estrangement deepened when younger son Charlie was killed during the Vietnam War . . . and Louis failed to appear at the funeral for personal reasons. And as I had earlier pointed out, Cecil's job also had an impact on his marriage to Gloria. She resented how his profession kept him away for long hours, leading her to contemplate an adulterous affair with a neighbor.

As much as Daniels and Strong emphasized the impact of Cecil's job upon his private life, they allowed the audiences glimpses of his interactions with not only the presidents who occupied the White House during his tenure, but also with his fellow servants - especially Carter Wilson and James Holloway. The movie featured interactions between Cecil and five U.S. presidents - Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan. If I had to select my favorite presidential segment, it would have to be Cecil's interactions with Johnson, whose penchant for the occasional racial slur I had learned about, years ago. I found those scenes hilarious and sardonic - especially Carter's sarcastic reaction to Johnson's announcement about the Civil Rights bills. There were three scenes I found particularly interesting - Cecil's eavesdropping of Reagan's discussion with GOP politicians regarding South Africa's apartheid policy, Kennedy's revelation of his knowledge regarding Louis' arrests and involvement in the Civil Rights Movement; and Nixon's appearance (when he was Vice-President) in the servants' work room in an effort to recruit their votes during the 1960 Presidential Election. I also enjoyed the private moments between Cecil and his two colleagues that eventually spread to his home, when they began spending off hours with him and his family.

Production-wise, "THE BUTLER" is a beautiful movie to behold. Andrew Dunn's photography provided sharp and colorful images of Cecil's life throughout the 20th century. Tim Galvin's production designs certainly benefited from Dunn's work. Then again, Galvin did a superb job in recapturing those 80-odd years of Cecil's life with great accuracy. This was especially apparent in the period featuring Cecil's first decade as a butler for the White House - between the late 1950s and early 1970s. I can also say the same about Ruth E. Carter's work as the film's costume designer. Not only were they beautiful to look at, I was also impressed by how she recaptured the fashion styles of each period featured in the movie. Here are a few examples of Carter's designs:

As much as I had enjoyed "THE BUTLER", I cannot deny that it had its share of flaws. Earlier, I had complimented the movie for its lack of pretentiousness - except in two scenes. One of those scenes that seemed to reek of pretentiousness featured Cecil's interaction with President Eisenhower. The scene began with Eisenhower ordering the U.S. Army troops to protect the lives and rights of a group of African-American high students integrating a Little Rock, Arkansas high school. The scene eventually segued into Eisenhower reminiscing about his late father to Cecil. And although the scene's drama was portrayed in a straightforward manner by Forest Whitaker and Robin Williams, it seemed to reek of sentimentality and pretentiousness that I found annoying. Another scene that I found off-putting proved to be Cecil's encounter with President Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. The entire scene seemed to have come straight from Cinematic Nixon 101. It featured a slightly drunk Nixon, lounging on a White House sofa, while spouting self doubts about his political abilities and integrity. I found the scene boring, pretentious and very unoriginal. In fact, I would swear I had seen similar views of Nixon in at least two other films.

I would even go as far to say that the movie's main weakness seemed to be its portrayals of the U.S. Presidents featured. For some reason, most of the actors who portrayed those presidents in the movie seemed to be miscast. I had nothing against Robin Williams' performance as Dwight D. Eisenhower. But I took one look at him and was reminded of the character's predecessor - Harry S. Truman. Really. Liev Schreiber struck me as being at least ten to fifteen years too young to be portraying Lyndon B. Johnson. And yet . . . he did such as great job as Johnson that I am willing to allow the issue of his age to slide. John Cusak was not only too young, but also too slender for his role as Richard M. Nixon. In my opinion, he was definitely the wrong actor for the job. As for Alan Rickman . . . hmmm. Well, if I must be honest, I found his portrayal of Ronald Reagan very effective in a subtle way. The only other piece of casting that seemed to be spot on proved to be James Marsden as John F. Kennedy. Not only did he give a pretty good performance, but his Boston accent seemed decent. "THE BUTLER" also featured the appearances of two First Ladies - Minka Kelly as Jacqueline Kennedy and Jane Fonda as Nancy Reagan. Kelly did a solid job as Jackie Kennedy, especially in one scene that featured the First Lady's return to the White House after the death of her husband. And Fonda gave a very entertaining performance as the ambitious and slightly controlling Nancy Reagan.

Since I am on the subject of acting, I might as express my views on those performances by the main cast. "THE BUTLER" featured some solid work from cast members such as Colman Domingo, who portrayed the White House maitre d that hired Cecil in a rather funny scene; Clarence Williams III, who gave a poignant portrayal of an elderly man who first trained Cecil to become a professional waiter; Yaya DaCosta, who did an excellent job of developing the character of Carol Hammie (Louis' girlfriend) from a college student to a hardened activist; Vanessa Redgrave, who gave a brief, yet memorable performance as the elderly mother of the elderly plantation owner who caused havoc within the Gaines family during the 1920s; Alex Pettyfer, as the temperamental landowner, who managed to be effectively scary with very little dialogue; and Mariah Carey, who was surprisingly effective as Cecil's victimized mother. It was great to see Cuba Gooding Jr., who gave a very entertaining performance as the fast-talking White House head butler Carter Wilson, who becomes a long-time friend of Cecil's. Lenny Kravitz gave a subtle performance as Cecil's other White House colleague, the more educated James Holloway. And Terrence Howard gave an excellent performance as the Gaines' somewhat sleazy neighbor, Howard, who becomes interested in Gloria. He was especially brilliant in one scene in which his attempts to seduce Gloria into having an affair with him.

But in my opinion, the best performances came from the movie's three leads - Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey and David Oyelowo. This is the third or fourth time I have seen British-born Oyelowo portray an American character. And I am still amazed at his grasp of an American accent. More importantly, he did a wonderful job in his portrayal of Louis Gaines, Cecil's older son who becomes hardcore activist over the years, aging from 17 years old to a man in his late 60s. While watching "THE BUTLER", I found myself wondering how many years have passed since Oprah Winfrey had a major role in a movie. The last major role I could recall was her performance in the 1998 drama, "BELOVED". Watching her portray Cecil's strong-minded wife, Gloria, reminded me how much of a superb actress she really is. There were two scenes that reminded me how skillful she really is - her bedroom rant against the demands of Cecil's job and her angry response to Louis and Carol's derogatory comments about actor Sidney Poitier. I really do not know what to say about Forest Whitaker's performance in the title role. Personally, I feel that if went on about Whitaker's performance in this movie, this article would stretch even longer. The man was brilliant. He really was. Whitaker did a superb job in developing Cecil from the 35-40 something obsequious butler to the 90 year-old man, looking back on his life and career. And I believe that Cecil Gaines is one of the best roles of his career. It would be a crime if he never receive an Academy Award for his performance.

I have noticed that "THE BUTLER" has received some mixed reviews from the movie critics. And most of these reviews seemed to be in the extreme from high praise to accusations of clumsy direction from Lee Daniels or equally clumsy writing from Danny Strong. I am not going to pretend that "THE BUTLER" is a perfect movie. It has its flaws. But I feel that its virtues more than outweighed its flaws. And thanks to Daniels' direction, Strong's screenplay and a superb cast led by Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey, I feel that "THE BUTLER" is one of the best historical dramas I have seen in years.

"MANHATTAN" Season Two (2015) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Fri, 22 Oct 2021 06:01:31 GMT

Below are images from Season Two of the WGN series, "MANHATTAN". Created by Sam Shaw, the series starred John Benjamin Hickey:

"MANHATTAN" SEASON TWO (2015) Photo Gallery

TIME MACHINE: Compromise of 1850

lmoore66 — Fri, 15 Oct 2021 23:40:20 GMT

TIME MACHINE: COMPROMISE OF 1850

One hundred and seventy years ago marked the passage of the controversial document, the Compromise of 1850. The document was a package of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress in September 1850. These bills were used to defuse a political confrontation between slave and free states on the status of territories acquired after the Mexican–American War.

A new debate over slavery in the territories had erupted during the Mexican–American War. Many Southerners sought to expand slavery to the newly-acquired lands and many Northerners, wary of economic competition with slave owners in the West, opposed any such expansion. The new state of Texas’ claim to all former Mexican territory north and east of the Rio Grande, including areas that had never been effectively controlled, further complicated the debate. These issues prevented the passage of acts to create organized territorial governments for the land acquired during the recent war – lands that included the present-day states of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and western Colorado.

In early 1850, with the assistance of Democrat Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky had proposed a package of bills that would settle the more important issues before Congress. His proposals included:

*The cession by Texas of some of its northern and western territorial claims in return for debt relief
* The establishment of New Mexico and Utah territories
*Admission of California as a free state
*A ban on the importation of slaves into the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) for sale
*A tougher fugitive slave law

Clay had originally favored voting on each of his proposals separately. However, Democrat Senator Henry S. Foote of Mississippi convinced him to combine the proposals regarding California's admission and the disposition of Texas's borders into one bill. Both Clay and Foote hoped this combination of measures would convince congressmen from both North and South to support the overall package of laws even if they objected to specific provisions.

Clay's proposal had attracted the support of some Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs like Douglas and Vice-President Millard Fillmore. But the proposal lacked the backing necessary to win passage. President Zachary Taylor opposed the proposal and wanted both California and New Mexico to be admitted as free states. Democrat Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and some other Southern leaders argued that the compromise was biased against the South because it would lead to the creation of new free states. Not long after expressing his opposition to the proposal, Calhoun died at the end of March. Northern politicians like Whig Senator William H. Seward of New York opposed the pro-slavery elements of the Compromise, especially a new fugitive slave law. During a speech on the Senate floor on March 11, 1850, Seward invoked a "higher law than the Constitution" argument to express his opposition against Clay’s proposals.

The debate over Clay’s proposal led to verbal sparring between Vice-President Fillmore and Democrat Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri (who opposed the pro-slavery elements of the proposal) over Texas’s borders. During the pair’s debate, Senator Foote drew a pistol on Benton. In early June, nine slaveholding Southern states sent delegates to the Nashville Convention to determine their course of action if the compromise passed. Some delegates preached secession, while the moderates ruled and proposed a series of compromises that included extending the Missouri Compromise of 1820’s dividing line to the Pacific Coast. The situation took a major turn when President Taylor suddenly died on July 9, 1850. His death led Fillmore to become the 13th President of the United States and the end of presidential opposition to the proposals.

The individual proposals were initially introduced as one "omnibus" bill. Despite Clay's efforts, the bill failed to pass during a crucial vote on July 31, 1850. It was opposed by southern Democrats and by northern Whigs. Clay announced his intention to pass each part of the bill on the Senate floor the following day. However, the 73-year-old Clay became physically exhausted from the effects of tuberculosis, which would eventually kill him nearly two years later. After Senator Clay left the Senate to recuperate in Newport, Rhode Island; Senator Stephen A. Douglas took the lead in attempting to pass Clay's proposals through the Senate.

Instead of presenting Clay's proposals as one bill, Douglas ensured that the proposals were presented as separate bills:

*The Fillmore Administration and the Senate would deny Texas's claims to New Mexico, asserting that the United States had promised to protect the territorial integrity of New Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, the compromise would allow the United States to assume Texas's debts and set the state's northern border at the 36° 30' parallel north (the Missouri Compromise line) and much of its western border followed the 103rd meridian.

*California would be admitted as a free state on September 9, 1850.

*The Territories of New Mexico and Utah would be organized under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

*The nation's capital, Washington D.C., would cease to become a major center for the domestic slave trade. However, slavery would continue to exist within its borders. Although all Southern politicians opposed this proposal, they were eventually outvoted.

*A new fugitive slave law would be created in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Enacted on September 8, 1850; this new law would enforce Federal judicial officials in all states and Federal territories, including those states and territories in which slavery was prohibited, to assist with the return of escaped slaves to their masters from those states and territories that permitted slavery. Anyone who refused to assist in the capture of fugitive slaves or assisted a fugitive would be liable to a steep fine or imprisonment.

By September 1850, both the United States Senate and House of Representatives managed to form an agreement over all major issues and voted for the passage of the new Compromise of 1850. President Fillmore signed four of the proposals, with the exception of the Fugitive Slave Act. He signed that into law after Attorney General John J. Crittenden assured him that the law was constitutional. Many historians argue that the Compromise of 1850 had played a major role in postponing the American Civil War by at least a decade. However, one element of the new compromise - the establishment of the Fugitive Slave Act - led to legal abuses regarding the pursuit of fugitive slaves and the safety of free blacks throughout the country. The new law also led to growing support of the abolition movement and the re-opening of the slavery issue. This led to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, a law drafted by Stephen Douglas that would help inflame the slavery issue until the eve of the U.S. Civil War.

"3 DAYS TO KILL" (2014) Review

lmoore66 — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 21:46:28 GMT

"3 DAYS TO KILL" (2014) Review

Although I have seen Kevin Costner appear in movies recently, they have mainly been in supporting roles. So image my surprise, seven years ago, when I had discovered that he had a leading role in a film that recently hit the movie theaters. I heard a good deal of negative press about it, but due to sheer boredom, I decided to go see it, anyway.

Written by Adi Hasak and Luc Besson, and directed by McG; "3 DAYS TO KILL" is about veteran C.I.A. agent Ethan Renner, who is manipulated into carrying out one last mission for the agency, in exchange for an experimental drug that might cure his cancer. The story begins in Berlin where Ethan and a team of fellow agents converge upon a hotel to find and capture "The Albino", lieutenant to an arms trafficker called "The Wolf". The operation's leader, assassin Vivi Delay, has been informed that "The Wolf" is selling a dirty bomb to some terrorists. "The Albino" becomes aware of the trap when he recognizes one of the C.I.A. agents. Renner manages to shoot "The Albino" in the leg, but not capture him. And the veteran agent passes out.

When Renner regains consciousness inside a hospital, his doctor informs him that he is dying of brain cancer and that the disease has spread to his lungs. Renner realizes that he had spent most of his career keeping it a secret from his estranged wife Christine and daughter Zoey and damaging his relationship with them. He becomes determined to fix his relationship with his family upon his return to Paris. However, his efforts are threatened when Vivi Delay approaches him with a deal - to find and kill "The Wolf", in exchange for an experimental drug that could extend his life significantly. He reluctantly accepts in order to get more time with his family.

I could say that "3 DAYS TO KILL" failed spectacularly at the box office. But since it ended up making a profit of seven million dollars, perhaps I will limit my observation to a failure to become a bit hit. The critics really raked this film over the coals. The only positive comments I have heard about this film came from my boss, who thought it was pretty good. One could say . . . what does he know? Well, I saw the movie, because I could not find anything else to do. And honestly? I rather liked it. In fact, I liked it a bit more than Kevin Costner's other Winter 2014 film, namely "JACK RYAN: SHADOW RECRUIT". Why? I thought "3 DAYS TO KILL" was a more original film. Renner's mission to hunt down and kill a notorious arms dealer did not strike me as particularly original. But when Besson and Hasak added the element of a doomed agent dying of cancer, an experimental drug and family problems . . . well, I found myself spellbound by the story. Perhaps other moviegoers and critics would have preferred a more unoriginal tale. I certainly would not have appreciated it. All I can do is sigh with relief that "3 DAYS TO KILL" proved to be such an odd and if I may say so, entertaining film.

The movie also featured some top-notch action sequences, deftly shot by McG and cinematographer Thierry Arbogast; and skillfully edited by Audrey Simonaud. The scenes that especially come to mind are the original attempt to snatch "The Albino" in Berlin, Renner's kidnapping of Mitat Yilmaz, limousine driver for "The Wolf", an attempt on Renner's life at a local grocery store, Renner's killing of "The Albino" at a subway and the final action sequence in which Renner goes after "The Wolf" at a party held by the parents of Zoey's boyfriend. I also enjoyed Arogast's photography of Berlin and especially Paris, considering that the story is set in the late fall. The costumes designed by Olivier Bériot and Roemehl Hawkins not only struck me as very chic, but perfect for a clothing boutique.

As much as I liked "3 DAYS TO KILL", it had its problems. I must admit that the idea of an experimental drug that can cure cancer seemed to be stretching it a bit, despite its originality. I really hate to say this, but I found Amber Heard's character, Vivi Delay, rather hard to swallow. Actually, I rather disliked the character. She seemed rather over-the-top to me, reminding me of some over-the-top Bond villain or villainess - despite the fact that she was a protagonist. And honestly? Amber Heard is not John Travolta or Al Pacino, who can be hammy with style. My last problem with "3 DAYS TO KILL" has to do with the last action sequence. As much as I liked it, I found it rather flawed. The biggest mistake that Besson, Hasak and McG did was inter-cut Renner's last attempt to kill "The Wolf" with scenes of his daughter Zoey and her boyfriend Hugh, cuddling and who knows what else, in a private room of the club. It just did not work. Especially since the moments with Zoey and Hugh did not really add to the action sequence.

Although I was not impressed with Amber Heard's hammy performance, at least I was impressed by Kevin Costner and other members of the cast. What can I say about Costner? Well . . . he gave a performance that reminded me why I became a big fan of his so many years ago. I was especially impressed by how he balanced the professional and private lives of his character, Ethan Renner. Hailee Steinfeld, who had made such an impression in her Oscar-nominated performance in 2010's "TRUE GRIT", proved to be equally impressive as Renner's strong-willed and slightly eccentric daughter, Zoey. Connie Nielsen made a nice impression as Renner's ex-wife. Unfortunately, I wish she could have been in the film a little longer. Both Richard Sammuel ("INGLORIOUS BASTERDS") and Tómas Lemarquis gave impressive performances as the arms dealer "The Wolf" and his lieutenant "The Albino". Eriq Ebouaney gave a charming performance as the West African who squats in Ethan's Paris apartment, along with his family. But the performance that I found really entertaining was Marc Andréoni's portrayal of Mitat Yilmaz, limousine driver of "The Wolf". Like Costner, he did a first-rate job of balancing his character's dangerous profession and his private life as a family man with a great deal of sharp humor.

What else can I say about "3 DAYS TO KILL"? I would never regard it as one of the best action movies I have seen. And it certainly had its flaws. But I did end up enjoying it, much to my surprise, especially since I found the screenplay written by Luc Besson and Adi Hasak rather original. More importantly, I thought the screenplay was well served by energetic direction from McG and first-rate performances (well, most of them) from a cast led by Kevin Costner.

"LIVE AND LET DIE" (1973) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Sat, 02 Oct 2021 06:15:22 GMT

Below are images from "LIVE AND LET DIE", the 1973 adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1954 novel. Directed by Guy Hamilton, the movie marked Roger Moore's first appearance as James Bond:

"LIVE AND LET DIE" (1973) Photo Gallery

Favorite Episodes of "ARROW" Season Four (2015-2016)

lmoore66 — Sun, 26 Sep 2021 20:00:10 GMT

Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Four of the CW series, "ARROW". Created by Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim, and Andrew Kreisberg; the series starred Stephen Amell as Oliver Queen aka the Arrow:

FAVORITE EPISODES OF "ARROW" SEASON FOUR (2015-2016)

1. (4.09) "Legends of Yesterday" - In the second half of a two-part crossover that began in "THE FLASH", Oliver Queen aka Green Arrow and Barry Allen aka the Flash and their fellow vigilantes struggle to find a way to save Carter Hall aka Hawkman and Kendra Saunders aka Hawkgirl from and defeat the murderous immortal Vandal Savage.

2. (4.15) "Taken" - Oliver seeks help from old friend Mari McCabe aka Vixen for help in fighting Damien Darhk, the leader of a terrorist group called H.I.V.E. Meanwhile, half-sister Thea Queen aka Speedy has a heart-to-heart talk with her biological father, Malcolm Merlyn.

3. (4.03) "Restoration" - The growing tension between Oliver and his friend/colleague John Diggle aka Spartan endangers their lives when they pursue Darhk and a H.I.V.E. deployed meta-human. Meanwhile, Laurel Lance aka Black Canary talks Thea into returning to Nanda Parbat in order to resurrect her younger sister Sara in the Lazarus Pit.

4. (4.05) "Haunted" - Oliver calls in a favor from old friend and sorcerer John Constantine when the resurrected Sara takes a turn for the worse.

5. (4.02) "The Candidate" - Oliver and Thea are concerned when a family friend plans to run for mayor of Starling City. Thea starts to exhibit side effects from her resurrection thanks to the Lazarus Pit, last season. And Team Arrow's A.I. expert Felicity Smoak asks an employee for help with a business decision.

"GIRLS ABOUT TOWN" (1931) Review

lmoore66 — Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:31:10 GMT

"GIRLS ABOUT TOWN" (1931) Review

When he first arrived in Hollywood in 1929, New York stage director George Cukor served as a dialogue coach at Paramount Pictures and occasionally, at other studios like Universal. Then in 1930, he co-directed three movies, two of them with Cyril Gardner. He had to wait a year later to serve as sole director for his first two movies. One of them turned out to be the 1931 comedy called "GIRLS ABOUT TOWN".

Written by Zoe Akins, Raymond Griffith, and Brian Marlow; "GIRLS ABOUT TOWN" is about two gold diggers named Wanda Howard and Marie Bailey who entertain stody, but wealthy Midwestern businessmen visiting Manhattan. However, Wanda has tired of her demeaning lifestyle until she meets the handsome Jim Baker during a yacht party. Also on board is Jim's friend, stingy tycoon Benjamin Thomas, who is the richest man in Lansing, Michigan. While Marie entertains Benjamin and becomes the victim of his practical jokes, Jim makes his feelings about her and Marie's racket. However, the pair fall in love when she nearly drowns and Jim rescues her. And when he proposes marriage to her, Wanda makes her feelings clear by ripping up her payment for entertaining him. But an obstacle stand in Wanda and Jim's path to a happy ending in the form of her shiftless ex-husband Alex, who wants Jim to pay him a hefty sum for a divorce from Wanda.

In the movie's secondary plot, Marie has become weary of Benjamin's practical jokes. But she is also determined to swindle him into giving her as much money as possible . . . which proves to be increasingly difficult, due to his tightfisted ways. However, Marie acquires an unexpected ally in the form of Benjamin's wife, Daisy. The latter is determined to divorce him for his stinginess, despite the fact that she still loves him. The two women, realizing that Benjamin is using his stinginess to string them along, the two women scheme to shame Benjamin into spending more money for them both.

How can I put this? I would not consider "GIRLS ABOUT TOWN" to be a particularly original tale. Or perhaps I simply found predictable - at least the main narrative about Wanda and Jim. Only a blind man would fail to predict how their relationship would unfold, especially when her ex-husband Alex entered the picture. But despite this element of predictability, I must admit that I found Wanda and Jim's story rather entertaining, thanks to winning performances from Kay Francis and Joel McCrea. Not only did I predict that ex-husband would prove to be an obstacle for Wanda, so did Hattie, the maid that she and Marie shared. Louise Beavers, who portrayed Hattie, had one of the funniest moments in the film when she hysterically spilled out how Alex would prove to be a lot of trouble for Wanda and Jim.

But it was the movie's subplot involving Marie and the Thomases that proved to be the movie's pièce de résistance. When Daisy Thomas first visited Marie and Wanda's apartment, I had no idea on how this story would played out. It was not long before I found myself flabbergasted by the budding friendship between Marie and her sugar daddy's wife, Daisy. And watching them scam the tightfisted Benjamin into spending cash for both of them made me appreciate how this movie seemed to be a prime example of Hollywood's Pre-Code era. This subplot also benefited from some hilarious performances from the husky-voiced Lilyan Tashman, Eugene Pallette (another performer known for an unusual voice) and Lucile Gleason.

Overall, "GIRLS ABOUT TOWN" is an entertaining and slightly wicked film, well directed by George Cukor in one of his earlier Hollywood efforts. Mind you, I did not find the movie's main narrative that particularly original. But the subplot really took me by surprise and in my view, really made the film; along with a fine cast led by Kay Francis, Lilyan Tashman and Joel McCrea.

"TITANIC" (1953) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Tue, 14 Sep 2021 05:12:01 GMT

Below are images from "TITANIC", the 1953 movie version of the sinking of the S.S. Titanic. Directed by Jean Negulesco, the movie starred Barbara Stanwyck, Clifton Webb, and Robert Wagner:

"TITANIC" (1953) Photo Gallery

Lobster Roll

lmoore66 — Thu, 09 Sep 2021 19:31:15 GMT

Below is a small article about the American sandwich known as the Lobster Roll:

LOBSTER ROLL

One of the most popular sandwiches created in the United States in the New England dish known as the Lobster Roll. Not only is the latter native to the New England states, but also the Canadian Maritimes.

The sandwich consists of lobster meat served on a grilled hot dog-style bun. The lobster filling is served with the opening on top of the bun, instead of the side. The filling usually consists of lemon juice, salt, black pepper diced celery (or scallions) and melted butter. However, in some parts of New England, the butter is substituted with mayonnaise. Potato chips or french fries are usually served as sides for the sandwich.

According to the "Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink", the Lobster Roll may have originated in 1929, as a hot dish at a restaurant named Perry's in Milford, Connecticut. Over the years, the sandwich's popularity spread up and down the Connecticut coastline, but not far beyond it. In Connecticut, when the sandwich is served warm, it is called a "Lobster Roll". When served cold, it was called a "Lobster Salad Roll". Over the decades, the Lobster Roll's popularity had spread to other states along the Northeastern seaboard. As far back as 1970, chopped lobster meat heated in drawn butter was served on a hot dog bun at road side stands such as Red's Eats in Maine.

Although it is believed to have originated in Connecticut, the Lobster Roll in the United States is usually associated with the State of Maine. But as I had pointed out, it is commonly available at seafood restaurants in the other New England states and on Eastern Long Island, New York; where lobster fishing is common. The sandwich has also become a staple summer dish throughout the Maritime provinces in Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia, where hamburger buns, baguettes, or other types of bread rolls and even pita pockets are used. The traditional sides are potato chips and dill pickles. McDonald's restaurants in the New England states and in Canadian provinces such as Nova Scotia and Ontario usually offer Lobster Rolls as a limited edition item during the summer.

Below is a recipe for the classic Maine Lobster Roll from the Destination Kennebunkport website:

Maine Lobster Roll

Ingredients

*1lbs (or slightly more) cooked lobster meat, keeping 4 of the claw meat intact for garnish
*1/4cup finely minced celery
*1/4cup best-quality mayonnaise(I prefer Stonewall Kitchen’s Farmhouse Mayo), plus additional to garnish (only if you didn’t get the claw meat out in one piece!)
*1/2tsp fresh lemon juice(I literally just squeeze a few drops on the lobster)
*Sea salt, only if necessary
*Finely ground black pepper, to taste
*4 best quality New England-style hot dog rolls
*5tbs very soft salted butter
*Optional but good - paprika to garnish

Preparation

1. In a medium bowl, lightly combine the lobster, celery, mayonnaise, and lemon juice. Taste first, seasoning with salt only if necessary and lightly with pepper. Chill until ready to use, but no more than 8 hours in advance.

2. When ready to serve, place a griddle or a large non-stick skillet over medium-low heat. Spread both sides of the rolls with the butter and cook each side until golden brown, about 1 to 2 minutes per side (check your first roll, I found the bakery rolls browned faster, and it only took slightly more than a minute per side).

3. Fill and mound each roll with the lobster mixture—they will be quite full. Garnish the top of each with a piece of claw meat, or place a little dollop of mayonnaise on top of each roll and sprinkle it with a smidge of paprika or chopped chives. Serve immediately.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" (2015) Review

lmoore66 — Sun, 29 Aug 2021 06:56:23 GMT

"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" (2005) Review

Despite the release of the first two movies in the film franchise, I did not become a fan of the "HARRY POTTER" series until I saw the 2004 movie, "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN". I became so enamored of this third film that I regarded the release of its successor, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE", with great anticipation.

Released during the fall of 2005 and based upon J.K. Rowling's 2000 novel, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" follows boy wizard Harry Potter's fourth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This year proves to be a special one for Harry when he unexpectedly finds himself competing in the wizard world's Tri-Wizard Tournament, a magical competition for young wizards from three different schools, who are 17 years old or older. Not only does the 14 year-old Harry have to deal with the contempt from Hogswarts students who believe he had cheated to enter the competition, he also have to deal with the dangerous tasks that make up the competition and an unpleasant surprise that awaits him once the tournament ends.

When the movie first hit the theaters nine years ago, many had hailed "GOBLET OF FIRE" as the best of the four HARRY POTTER movies, released thus far. I wish I could have agreed with that assessment of "GOBLET OF FIRE". I really wish I could. But . . . I cannot. Personally, I feel that these critics may have overrated the 2005 film. Why? I considered it the weakest of the first four movies. I would not consider the movie a complete waste of my time. It did feature some very entertaining and mesmerizing scenes. My favorites include the opening sequence in which Harry dreams of Lord Voldemort, Peter Pettigrew and a mysterious man being interrupted by an elderly handyman named Frank Bryce inside a mansion, before the latter is killed by Pettigrew; Headmaster Albus Dumbledore pulling the names of the Tri-Wizard Tournament competitors from the Goblet of Fire; Harry and Ron's quarrel over the former being one of the tournament's competitors; the competition's second task; the third task inside the claustrophobic maze and Harry's encounter with the . . . uh, unpleasant surprise. But my favorite sequence in the entire film has to be the Yule Ball - the Christmas celebration for the tournament's participants, the foreign visitors and Hogswarts' students and faculty staff. I would say that it is one of the best sequences in the entire "HARRY POTTER" film franchise. It is just a joy to watch . . . from the preparations for the ball (that included finding dates and learning how to dance) to the immediate aftermath of the special night.

"HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" featured some pretty decent performances. But they seemed far and between. Both Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint gave excellent performances as the two best friends - Harry Potter and Ron Weasley. I was especially impressed that they managed to restrain from any theatrical acting when their characters became drawn into a quarrel over Harry's participation in the tournament. Maggie Smith was her usual competent self as the always dependable Professor Minerva McGonagall. Alan Rickman's portrayal of potions teacher Severus Snape continued to be a joy to watch. My only disappointment was that his role seemed rather diminished in this film. I was pleasantly surprised by Brendan Gleeson's portrayal of the colorful teacher and former wizard aurorer, Alastor "Mad Eye" Moody. Gleeson could have indulged in a great deal of hamminess with such an eccentric character. But he kept his performance in full control, while conveying the oddball nature of "Mad Eye". Miranda Richardson gave a deliciously wicked performance as Rita Skeeter, a reporter who harbored an indulgence for yellow journalism that annoyed poor Harry to no end. I found Jason Isaac's portrayal of Lucius Malfoy rather theatrical in the Quidditch World Cup scene. But I must admit that I was very impressed by the subtle manner in which he portrayed his character's obsequious manner in the film's last half hour. The movie also featured solid performances from Robert Pattison and Katie Leung, who portrayed the student lovers, Cedric Diggory and Cho Chang; Timothy Spall as Death Eater Peter Pettigrew; Robbie Coltrane as Hogwarts teacher Rubeus Hagrid; Frances de la Tour as Beauxbaton Headmistress Olympe Maxime and Eric Sykes as Riddle handyman, Frank Bryce.

Unfortunately, I could find nothing further to admire about "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE". My first problem turned out to be the screenplay written by Steve Kloves. I did not expect him to be completely faithful to Rowling's novel. It would take a two-week miniseries to be completely faithful to it. But there were some scenes I wish Kloves had not eliminated. One, he cut the scene featuring the Weasleys' visit to the Dursley home on Privet Drive to pick up Harry for the Qudditch World Cup. I mourned this cut, for I believe it was one of the funniest scenes in Rowling's book series. But Kloves' further cuts left the main narrative with some serious plot holes. Kloves' screenplay never explained how Death Eater Barty Couch Jr. managed to escape from the wizarding world's prison, Azkaban, without the Ministry of Magic's knowledge. How did Lord Voldemort and Couch Jr. learn about the Tri-Wizard Tournament in the first place? Also, there was one scene that featured "Mad Eye" Moody's arrival at Hogwarts with no luggage or trunk. Yet, there was another scene in which Harry visited Moody's room and spotted a trunk. How did the teacher convey his trunk to the castle?

There were other problems that marred my enjoyment of the film. I read an article in which director Mike Newell decided to portray the Hogwarts students in a more "realistic" manner - in other words, as British school children would behave in real life. Unfortunately, his attempt at "realism" merely allowed most of the actors and actresses portraying Hogwarts students to engage in theatrical performances. Even worse, Newell did the opposite with the visiting foreign students from Durmstrang and Beauxbatons by allowing the actors to indulge in one-dimensional cliches with their portrayals. I found one scene in which Harry's trip to the school prefects' bath was interrupted by a ghost known as Moaning Myrtle. I realize that Myrtle was supposed to be around 14 (the age of her death), the same age as Harry was in this story. But watching actress Shirley Henderson, who was at least 39 years old at the time, flirt with a half-naked or naked Daniel Radcliffe made me squirm in my seat with a good deal of discomfort. On the other hand, I felt a great deal of disappointment toward the movie's production style and look. I get the feeling that Production Designer Stuart Craig and Cinematographer Roger Pratt, along with Newell, were trying to recapture the look or style of Middle Earth, as shown in "LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS" and "LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING". I hated the look in those movies and I hated it in this film.

My biggest problem with "GOBLET OF FIRE" turned out to be the acting. I have already pointed out what I believe were the better performances in the film. As for the rest of the cast . . . sigh. I have never encountered so much hammy acting in my life. It seemed as if three-quarters of the cast spent most of the time shouting their dialogue. I am not just talking about the performances of those portraying the students, but especially the adult actors and actresses. There were some questionable performances that really caught my attention. Emma Watson is a first-rate actress, but she seemed to be trying too hard in her portrayal of Hermione Granger in this film. Michael Gambon, who had done such a wonderful job in his debut as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore in 2004's "HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN", gave a completely different - and very hammy - performance in "GOBLET OF FIRE". Roger Lloyd-Pack was another actor whom one could depend upon for a first-rate performance. Not in this film. He seemed to be a bundle of out-of-control nerves and very theatrical in his role as head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, Barty Crouch Sr. The previous performances mentioned were nothing in compare to both David Tennant and Ralph Fiennes. Lloyd-Pack's twitchy performance was nothing in compare to David Tennant, whose performance as Death Eater Barty Crouch Jr. revealed more twitchy mannerisms in this one film than Bette Davis did in her entire film career. But when it came to chewing the scenery, no one did it better than Ralph Fiennes in his debut as the series' main villain, Tom Riddle Jr. aka Lord Voldemort. Words cannot describe the over-the-top performance he gave in the movie's climatic scene. And I cannot help but wonder why Newell did not reign in his performance. Then again, he was barely able to do the same with other cast members, as well.

Yes, "HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE" struck me as far from perfect. Thanks to the plot holes, unattractive production look and the numerous hammy performances, I found it difficult to consider it a great favorite of mine. But despite its flaws, I still managed to enjoy the film. It just strikes me as a pity that it turned out to be a comedown after the franchise's first three films . . . at least for me.

"LEAP YEAR" (2010) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Tue, 24 Aug 2021 16:26:40 GMT

Below is a gallery of images from the 2010 romantic comedy, "LEAP YEAR". Directed by Anand Tucker, the movie starred Amy Adams and Matthew Goode:

"LEAP YEAR" (2010) Photo Gallery

"TIMELESS": Secrets and Mistrust

lmoore66 — Mon, 23 Aug 2021 01:46:25 GMT

"TIMELESS": SECRETS AND MISTRUST

Ever since Season Two of NBC's "TIMELESS" completed its run, I found myself re-watching the series from the beginning. It had been something of a slow burn, but I did not wish rush through it. Recently, I watched Season One episode called (1.06) "The Watergate Tape" and discovered something unpleasant about the series' trio of protagonists. Well . . . at least two of them.

Ever since the series' premiere, (1.01) "Pilot", the initial protagonist, the former NSA agent and rogue time traveler Garcia Flynn, has been trying to convince main protagonist Dr. Lucy Preston that they would become future colleagues and that he had possession of her future diary. Flynn also tried to warn Lucy about Rittenhouse, a mysterious political organization that has been at the forefront of the United States' development since the American Revolution. Horrified by the idea of being a colleague with a man she regarded as nothing more than a murderer, she kept silent about the encounters.

In the same episode, the creator of the two time machines and head of Mason Industries, Connor Mason, had instructed his programming engineer/time machine pilot Rufus Carlin to provide an audio recording of his missions with Lucy and U.S. Army Delta Force operative Master Sergeant Wyatt Logan. Although Rufus agreed, he changed his mind in the next episode, (2.02) "The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln". To convince Rufus to cooperate, Mason reminded the engineer that he had bankrolled the latter's education. When Rufus had refused to continue recording their missions in (1.04) "Party at Castle Varlar", a Rittenhouse operative threatened to harm Rufus's family if he did not cooperate. Rittenhouse's threat was issued again in "The Watergate Tape" when an older operative (or official) appeared outside of Rufus' home with Mason inside a limousine. The Rittenhouse official made it clear that the organization was monitoring Rufus' family. He also made it clear that if Rufus continues to refuse recording the time travel missions, the Carlin family might cease to exist.

Both Lucy's previous encounters with Flynn and Rufus' secret recordings finally came to light in this episode. After Flynn managed to capture the trio not long after their arrival in 1972 Washington D.C., he revealed his previous encounters with Lucy to both Rufus and Wyatt. Needless to say, both men were surprised and upset. While Flynn kept Wyatt as a hostage, he tasked both Lucy and Rufus to find the missing "doc" that was mentioned in the infamous 18 1/2 missing minutes from one of President Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes. Both Lucy and Rufus discovered that the "doc" is actually a young African-American woman, whose family has been associated with Rittenhouse for generations. The "Doc" wanted to make her escape from the organization. Lucy overheard Rufus contact Rittenhouse and discovers that he had been providing the organization with audio recordings of their missions and reacts with anger. Meanwhile, Flynn informed Wyatt of his discovery that Rittenhouse had bankrolled Mason Industries and the organization's murders of his wife and child. Because of this, Flynn became determined to bring down Rittenhouse, using the stolen time machine created by Mason. By the end of the episode, a very angry Wyatt learned about Rufus' recordings on Rittenhouse's behalf and instructed the latter to continue recording their missions.

I must not have understood the emotions that emitted from the protagonists in this episode, when I first saw it. As far as I knew, Lucy was angry at Rufus for recording their missions for Rittenhouse. Rufus was angry (at first) over Lucy's previous discussions with Flynn. And Wyatt was angry at both of them for keeping secrets from him. I did not pay much attention to all of this, because in the following episode, (1.07) "Stranded", the trio made their peace with each other. But after this latest re-watch of the episode, I found myself speculating on the two secrets kept by Rufus and Lucy and the reactions to them.

I understood why Rufus and Wyatt were upset over Flynn's revelations that he had been in contact with Lucy. As far as both men were aware, Garcia Flynn was an enemy determined to bring down the United States government and the man who had murdered his family. The U.S. government have been trying to capture or kill him since the first episode. And considering that Lucy had failed to inform them of her interactions with Flynn since the first mission, I would not have been surprised if Wyatt and Rufus had began to wonder about her role on their team or whether she had been associated with Flynn all along.

However, my feelings regarding Rufus' situation proved to be different. I understood Lucy and Wyatt's initial anger over their discovery that the former had been recording their missions. But Rufus had made it clear that after their first mission he had refused to continue his recording until Rittenhouse had threatened to kill his family. He had even made an effort to point out that the organization had been observing him, his mother and his brother. Although Wyatt had instructed Rufus to continue recording the missions until they can learn more about Rittenhouse . . . he remained angry at and distrustful of the engineer. So did Lucy. And for some reason, I found myself feeling angry at both of them.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Wyatt and Lucy had allowed their anger to get the best of them . . . to the point that they seemed unwilling to comprehend the threat that Rittenhouse had personally posed to Rufus. It was bad enough that Connor had used his past sponsorship of Rufus's career to blackmail the latter into cooperating.

Following Wyatt's discovery of Flynn's past history of Rittenhouse and the threats that Rufus had received, I found myself wondering why he still remained angry at the engineer. Surely he understood why Rufus had agreed to cooperate with Rittenhouse? The latter's family had been threatened. And considering Flynn's revelation that Rittenhouse had murdered his family, surely Wyatt understood that Rufus had a good reason to cooperate and keep those recordings a secret in the first place. On one level, he seemed to understand. After all, he did instruct Rufus to continue the recordings. But why remain angry at the other man? Why declare in an angry voice that he could never trust Rufus again? Was Wyatt really that self absorbed and hypocritical? Did he really believe that Rufus should have thought of the team over the Carlin family? Was he privately pissed that he might have to consider that Garcia Flynn's conflict with Rittenhouse had some merit?

One might accuse Rufus of hypocrisy, considering his reaction to the revelation that Lucy had been in contact with Flynn since the first mission. However, I realized that Rufus had a better excuse for keeping his secret than Lucy had for keeping hers. His family had been threatened. Their safety, along with his, was at stake. Had Flynn threatened Lucy to keep their past conversations a secret? Had he threatened to kill her mother, Carol Preston, if she reveal their encounters to Rufus, Wyatt and Agent Christopher? The answer to both questions were "no". Not only did Flynn not threatened Lucy to keep their private encounters a secret, he was the one who revealed those encounters to Rufus and Wyatt. And he had seemed a bit surprised that Lucy's teammates never knew.

And yet . . . like Wyatt, Lucy had remained angry at Rufus by the end of the episode. I found myself wondering why she had remained angry. She seemed well aware that Rittenhouse was a threat. Not only had Rufus informed her that the organization had threatened him and his family, but that it also wanted "the Doc" killed. More importantly, the latter had explained to Lucy on just how dangerous Rittenhouse could be. Yet, she was still pissed at Rufus by the time they had returned to 2016. What the fuck? Was she pissed . . . jealous that Rufus had a better excuse to keep his activities a secret than she had for keeping her conversations with Flynn a secret? Frankly, I found Lucy's hypocrisy even worse than Wyatt's. After all, what was her excuse? She was appalled at the idea of her future self becoming a friend and/or ally of Garcia Flynn?

I am certain that many fans of the show would find my above ramblings inconsequential. As I had pointed out earlier, the tensions between Rufus, Lucy and Wyatt were eventually settled by the next episode. Why make a fuss over what happened between them in "The Watergate Episode". Well . . . I had read several articles about the episode. Although some reviewers had discussed how tensions had arose between the three colleagues, no one had really bothered to discuss the hypocrisy that seemed seemed rampant in this episode. Or how this episode had pretty much exposed the uglier side of their natures - especially that of Lucy and Wyatt. At this point in the series, no one seemed willing to discuss this. And perhaps . . . the episode had annoyed me so much that I had to express myself in some form.

"SUNSET" (1988) Review

lmoore66 — Mon, 16 Aug 2021 01:20:16 GMT

"SUNSET" (1988) Review

Bruce Willis and James Garner co-starred in this period piece murder mystery about famous Western movie star Tom Mix and former Old West lawman Wyatt Earp solving a case in 1929 Hollywood. Written and directed by Blake Edwards ("PINK PANTHER" and "VICTOR/VICTORIA"), the movie was based upon Rod Amateau’s novel of the same title.

The movie begins with studio boss Alfie Alperin (Malcolm McDowell) assigning Tom Mix to star in a movie about Wyatt Earp and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He even hires Earp to act as the film’s technical adviser. The two legends become good friends before getting caught up in a real case that involved prostitution, corruption and the murder of a Hollywood madam. And Alperin’s step-son Michael (Dermot Mulroney) becomes the police’s main suspect. Alperin’s wife and Michael’s mother Christina (Patricia Hodge) recruits Earp (an old flame) and Mix to help her son by finding the real killer.

Let me be frank. "SUNSET" is at best, a mediocre film. It is filled with cinematic clichés, plot twists that either do not make any sense or come off as predictable, and some rather bad dialogue. Surprisingly, one of the worst offenders turns out to be Bruce Willis. I am not accusing him of bad acting. On the contrary, I believe that he gave a pretty damn good performance. Unfortunately, Willis was forced to deal with some pretty atrocious dialogue, thanks to writer/director Blake Edwards. Honestly . . . the poor man came off sounding like a California surfer circa 1985, instead of a Hollywood cowboy from the 1920s. Perhaps if Edwards had refrained from including the term "dude" into Mix’s dialogue, Willis could have emerged from the movie unscathed.

However, Willis was not the only cast member who suffered in this movie. The director’s daughter, Jennifer Edwards, did not fare any better as Victoria Alperin, Alfie’s sister. Poor Ms. Edwards. A year later, she would give a wonderful performance as a ditzy secretary in the 1989 remake of the 1950s television classic, "PETER GUNN". But in "SUNSET", her Victoria Alperin seemed even more out of place in this 1920s tale than Willis’ Tom Mix. Her performance struck me as petulant and unnecessarily brittle. I could not help but think she would have fared better in a guest appearance on "MIAMI VICE" as the brittle wife of some drug dealer or corrupt businessman. Honestly. Actor Joe Dallesandro portrayed Dutch Kieffer, a take on the famous gangster, Dutch Schultz. Granted, he did a competent job in adding menace to the character. Unfortunately . . . his demeanor seemed more suited to a character in something like "BARETTA" or "STARSKY AND HUTCH". Like Ms. Edwards, he seemed even more out of place in this movie than Willis. But the one person who truly seemed out of place in "SUNSET" was character actor M. Emmet Walsh. Poor Mr. Walsh. He had the bad luck to portray the chief security officer of Alperin Studios, Marvin Dibner. If there was one character who seemed unnecessary to the story, it was him. Honestly, his character could have easily been deleted. Instead of creating another addition to his gallery of interesting supporting roles, poor Mr. Walsh popped up in every other scene, wearing a dumb expression.

Fortunately, "SUNSET" could boast some good, solid performances. Despite some of the bad dialogue dumped on him, Bruce Willis had the good luck to be teamed with James Garner. Between Garner’s earthy performance as the legendary lawman and Willis’ cocky take on the famous Western star, the pair managed to create an electrifying screen team. Kathleen Quinlan made a nice addition to the cast as the sly and humorous Nancy Shoemaker, one of Alperin Studios’ publicists. Mariel Hemingway had been nominated for a Razzie Award as Worst Supporting Actress for her role as the daughter of the murdered madam. This nomination merely confirmed my belief that the Razzie Awards are full of shit. I thought Hemingway gave a good, solid performance and had a nice chemistry with Garner. Richard Bradford, fresh from his role in 1987’s "THE UNTOUCHABLES", gave a convincingly venomous portrayal of a corrupt cop named "Dirty" Bernie Blackworth . . . despite some questionable dialogue. Patricia Hodge and Dermot Mulroney portrayed Christina Alperin and her son, Michael. They gave competent performances, but I found nothing memorable about them. And of course, there was Malcolm McDowell portraying Alfie Alperin, the movie comedian-turned-studio head. It is obvious that Alperin is based upon Hollywood icon Charlie Chaplin. I can only wonder if Chaplin was as cruel and sadistic as the Alperin character. Thankfully, McDowell did not use the character’s negative traits as an excuse for an over-the-top performance. His Alfie Alperin came off as warm, clever, charming and most importantly, quietly menacing.

Plot wise, "SUNSET" turned out to be another one of those murder mysteries set in Old Hollywood. And yes, it was filled with the usual clichés and name droppings. I would reveal the killer’s identity, but I suspect that anyone with a brain would guess within forty minutes into the story. Or make a close guess. The only difference from this Hollywood mystery and others was that the two investigators turned out to be famous figures and not some Los Angeles detective or minor studio employee. Speaking of Earp and Mix, many film critics pointed out that the two had never met in real life. As it turned out, they did meet and Mix had served as a pallbearer at Earp’s funeral. Talk about an egg in the face. However . . . Earp did pass away two months before the movie’s setting. And Mix was at least seventeen years older than Willis' true age during the movie’s production.

If there is one aspect about "SUNSET" that I must commend, it is the film’s artistic designs. Patricia Norris beautifully re-captured the 1920s in her Academy Award nominated costumes. Hell, I could say the same about Richard Haman’s art direction, Marvin March’s set decorations and especially Rodger Maus’ production designs. Thanks to these four artisans, "SUNSET" fairly reeked of the slightly corrupt gloss of late 1920s Hollywood.

"SUNSET" is such a mediocre film that there are times I wonder why I like it. Some of the characters seemed out of place in the 1929 setting. M. Emmet Walsh was practically wasted in his role as a studio security chief. The movie was filled with some atrocious dialogue. And to be honest, the plot came off as so predictable that it almost seemed easy to pinpoint the killer’s identity. So why did I bother to watch this movie? Why did I bother to purchase a used VHS copy of the movie, several years ago? Despite its obvious flaws, I rather like "SUNSET". Willis and Garner literally lit up the screen as a charismatic duo, McDowell made a fantastic villain and the movie did feature some witty dialogue. But most importantly, ”SUNSET” was drenched in a late 1920s setting thanks to such work from artisans like Rodger Maus’ production designs and Patricia Norris’ costumes.

"IRON FIST" Season One (2017) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:49:24 GMT

Below are images from Season One of "IRON FIST", the Marvel Netflix adaptation of the Marvel Comics hero. Created by Scott Buck, the series starred Finn Jones as Danny Rand aka Iron Fist:

"IRON FIST" SEASON ONE (2017) Photo Gallery

Tarte Tatin aux Pommes

lmoore66 — Wed, 11 Aug 2021 04:54:36 GMT

Below is a small article about the French dessert known as Tarte Tatin aux Pommes:

TARTE TATIN AUX POMMES

I love Apple Pie. I love it more than any other dessert on Earth . . . well, aside from donuts. I thought there was only one kind of apple pie. Which goes to show how limiting my thinking could be. And I eventually discovered when I learned about the French dessert, Tarte Tatin aux Pommes.

The Tarte Tatin aux Pommes is a pastry that consists of fruit, usually apples, is caramelized in butter and sugar before it is baked as a tart. The apples originally used for the dessert came from two regional varieties - Reine des Reinettes (Queen of the Pippins), and Calville. Over the years, other apple varieties have been used, including Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, Fuji and Gala. When choosing apples for a Tarte Tatin aux Pommes, it is important to pick a type that will hold their shape while cooking, and not melt into apple sauce. In North America, Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, or Jonathan have proven to be popular choices. The Tarte Tatin can also be made with pears, quinces, peaches, pineapple, and tomatoes. Other fruit and vegetables like an onion can also be used. The Tarte Tatin aux Pommes should be made with puff or shortcrust pastry.

The creation of the Tarte Tatin aux Pommes proved to be an accident. The dessert was created at a hotel called Hôtel Tatin, located in the commune of Lamotte-Beuvron, 200 miles south of Paris, France. The Hotel Tatin was owned by two sisters named Stéphanie and Caroline Tatin during the 1880s. The most common tale about the dessert's origin is that Stéphanie, who did most of the hotel's cooking, had started to make a traditional apple pie. But feeling overworked, she left the apples cooking in butter and sugar too long. Realizing that the apples and butter might be in danger of burning, Stéphanie tried to rescue the dish by putting the pastry base on top of the pan of apples, quickly finishing the cooking by putting the whole pan in the oven. After turning out the upside down tart, she was surprised to find how much the hotel guests appreciated the dessert. There is another origin tale for the dessert. In it, Stéphanie had baked a caramelized apple tart upside-down by mistake. She went ahead and served the hotel's guests the unusual dish. Whatever the veracity of either story, the concept of the upside down tart was new in the 1880s. For instance, patissier Antonin Carême had mentioned glazed gâteaux renversés adorned with apples from Rouen or other fruit in his 1841 book, "Pâtissier Royal Parisien".

The tarte eventually became a signature dish of the Hôtel Tatin. Many historians and gourmets have argued whether it is a genuine creation of the Tatin sisters or the branding of an improved version of the "Tarte Solognote", a traditional dish named after the Sologne region which surrounds Lamotte-Beuvron. Research suggests that, while the Tarte Tatin aux Pommes became a specialty of the Hôtel Tatin, the sisters did not set out to create a "signature dish". They had never written a cookbook or published their recipe. The sisters never even called it Tarte Tatin aux Pommes. That recognition was bestowed upon them after their deaths by Curnonsky, famous French author and epicure, as well as the Parisian restaurant Maxim's.

Below is a classic recipe for Tarte Tatin aux Pommes from the Epicurious website:

Tarte Tatin aux Pommes

Ingredients

*Frozen puff pastry sheet (from a 17 1/4-ounce package)
*1/2 stick (1/4 cup) unsalted butter, softened
*1/2 cup sugar
*7 to 9 Gala apples (3 to 4 pounds), peeled, quartered lengthwise, and cored

Special Equipment

*A well-seasoned 10-inch cast-iron skillet

Preparation

Preheat oven to 425°F.

Roll pastry sheet into a 101/2-inch square on a floured work surface with a floured rolling pin. Brush off excess flour and cut out a 10-inch round with a sharp knife, using a plate as a guide. Transfer round to a baking sheet and chill.

Spread butter thickly on bottom and side of skillet and pour sugar evenly over bottom. Arrange as many apples as will fit vertically on sugar, packing them tightly in concentric circles. Apples will stick up above rim of skillet.

Cook apples over moderately high heat, undisturbed, until juices are deep golden and bubbling, 18 to 25 minutes. (Don't worry if juices color unevenly.)

Put skillet in middle of oven over a piece of foil to catch any drips. Bake 20 minutes (apples will settle slightly), then remove from oven and lay pastry round over apples.
Bake tart until pastry is browned, 20 to 25 minutes. Transfer skillet to a rack and cool at least 10 minutes.

Just before serving, invert a platter with lip over skillet and, using potholders to hold skillet and plate tightly together, invert tart onto platter. Replace any apples that stick to skillet. (Don't worry if there are black spots; they won't affect the flavor of the tart.) Brush any excess caramel from skillet over apples. Serve immediately.

Cooks' note:

*Tart can cool in skillet up to 30 minutes. It can also stand, uncovered, up to 5 hours, then be heated over moderately low heat 1 to 2 minutes to loosen caramel. Shake skillet gently to loosen tart before inverting.

"THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" (1975) Review

lmoore66 — Sun, 08 Aug 2021 06:39:13 GMT

"THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" (1975) Review

There have been numerous adaptations of Alexandre Dumas père's 1844 novel, "The Count of Monte Cristo". I have seen at least three adaptations - two theatrical releases and a television movie. I had just recently viewed the latter, which aired on British television back in 1975, on DVD.

"THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" begins in 1815 with the return of merchant sailor Edmond Dantès to his home port of Marseilles in order to marry his Catalan fiancée, Mercédès Herrera. Before dying during this last voyager, Edmond's captain Leclère charges Dantès to deliver a letter from Elba to an unknown man in Paris. On the eve of Dantès' wedding to Mercédès, Dantès' colleague Danglars, who is jealous of Edmond's promotion to captain, advises Edmond's friend Fernand Mondego to send an anonymous note accusing Dantès of being a supporter of the recently exiled Napoleon Bonaparte. Fernand is open to the suggestion due to his own jealousy of Edmond's engagement to Mercédès, whom he also loves. Edmond is arrested and interrogated by the local chief deputy prosecutor Gérard de Villefort. De Villefort is willing to release Edmond when he realizes that the latter is innocent of being a Bonapartist. But when he discovers that Edmond was charged in delivering a letter to his own father, another Bonapartist, de Villefort has Edmond sent to the Château d'If prison without a trial.

During his fourteen year imprisonment, Edmond meets a fellow prisoner named Abbé Faria, who gives the former a former education. When Faria finds himself on the verge of death, he informs Edmond about a treasure located on the Italian island of Monte Cristo. When Faria dies, Edmond takes his place in the burial sack and makes his escape from the Château d'If. After acquiring the Monte Cristo treasure, Edmond sets about seeking revenge against the three men responsible for his imprisonment.

Many literary and movie fans have complimented this adaptation as being "faithful" to Dumas' tale in compare to many others. I am a little more familiar with the 1845 novel than I was several years ago, when I had reviewed both the 1934 and 2002 adaptations. Which means I am quite aware that this adaptation is no more faithful than the others. But this did not bother me . . . somewhat. I have one or two issues that I will discuss a bit later. But overall, I found this adaptation, which was produced by a British television production company called ITC Entertainment, both satisfying and entertaining. I realize that my last description of the movie seems slightly tepid. Trust me, I do not regard this adaptation as tepid. It truly is quite good. I thought director David Greene and screenwriter Sidney Carroll provided television audiences with a lively and intelligent adaptation of Dumas' tale.

Both Greene and Carroll did an excellent job of maintaining a steady pace for the film's narrative. Starting with Edmond's return to Marseilles before Napoleon's Hundred Days return to power, to his fourteen year incarceration inside the Château d'If, and his discovery of the Monte Cristo treasure; I can honestly say that this television movie did not rush through the narrative. Well, most of it. This steady pacing seemed especially apparent in Dantes' elaborate plots to exact revenge against Mondego, Danglars and de Villefort. However . . . there were aspects of Dumas' narrative that could have stretched out a bit and I will focus on that later. Greene and Carroll also did a solid job in conveying how those fourteen years in prison, along with his desire for revenge had an impact upon his personality. This topic was not explored as much as I wish it had been, but it was featured in the film's plot.

I do have a few complaints. Like the 1934 movie, this television movie featured the character of Haydée, the daughter of a pasha who had been betrayed and murdered by Ferdinand Mondego and one of Edmond's major allies. In the novel, Haydée became Edmond's lover by the story's end. In this television movie, she is basically an ally who was limited to two scenes. I suspect that the character's North African background made the producers unwilling to to be faithful to Dumas' novel and give Isabelle De Valvert, who had portrayed Haydée, more screen time, aside from two scenes. Pity. Speaking of Edmond's love life, I noticed that once he became the Count of Monte Cristo, Richard Chamberlain and Kate Nelligan, who portrayed Mercédès Mondego, barely shared any screen time together. In fact, it seemed as if Edmond barely thought about Mercédès. So when the film ended with him rushing toward Mercédès to declare his never ending love for her, it seemed so false . . . and rushed. I do not recall seeing any build up to this scene.

One must remember that "THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" is not only a drama, but also a swashbuckler. And that means action sequences. There were not that many in the movie, but there were a few memorable moments. The final action sequence featured a duel between Edmond and his former friend, Mondego. It never happened in the novel, but I found it interesting to watch a duel between two former onscreen swashbucklers - Richard Chamberlain and Tony Curtis. It was . . . decent. But if I must be honest, I was more impressed by the duel between Carlo Puri and Alessio Orano, who portrayed Andrea Benedetto (a person set up by Edmond to be a part of de Villefort's past) and Alessio Orano, who portrayed a former cowardly neighbor of Edmond named Caderousse. Neither duel was particularly long, but I found the Benedetto-Caderousse duel to be more physical and exciting.

I have mixed views of the movie's production values. On one hand, I found myself very impressed by Walter Patriarca's production designs and Andrew Patriarca's art direction. I thought both did an excellent job of utilizing the film's Italian locations to re-create early 19th century France and Italy. I was also impressed by Aldo Tonti's solid photography for the film. I found it clear and somewhat colorful. My feelings regarding the film's costumes are not as positive. I noticed that there is no costume designer named for the film. Instead, Luciana Marinucci was hired as the costume/wardrobe "supervisor". This makes me wonder if a good deal of the film's costumes came from warehouses in Italy. A good deal of the fabrics used for movie's costumes struck me as questionable. Cheap. And quite frankly, I found this somewhat disappointing for a first-rate movie like this. I also found the hairstyle worn by actress Taryn Power, as shown in the image below:

It bore no resemblance to the hairstyles worn by women during the early 1830s.

I certainly had no complaints about the film's cast. All either gave solid or excellent performances. The movie boasted solid performances from the likes of Anthony Dawson, Angelo Infanti, Harold Bromley, George Willing, Alessio Orano, Taryn Power, Dominic Guard, Dominic Barto and Isabelle De Valvert. Although I have a high regard for Kate Nelligan as an actress, I must admit that I was not that overly impressed by her performance as Mercédès Mondego. I thought it was solid, but not particularly mind blowing. It seemed as if she really had not much material to work with, aside from those scenes that featured Edmond's arrest and her final scene.

But thankfully, "THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" does boast some excellent and memorable performances. One came from Carlo Puri, who gave a very charismatic performance as Andrea Benedetto, a former galleys convict used by Edmond in his scheme against Gérard de Villefort. Speaking of the latter, Louis Jordan was superb as the ambitious prosecutor who was responsible for Edmond's incarceration in the first place. I was especially impressed by his performance in the scene that featured the revelation about the illegitimate son he had tried to kill years earlier. Another superb performance came from Donald Pleasence as Danglars. I thought he did an excellent job in transforming his character from a resentful and jealous seaman into the greedy banker. Trevor Howard earned a well deserved Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Edmond's mentor, the imprisoned former soldier-turned-priest. I found his last scene especially poignant to watch. This was probably the first production in which I saw Tony Curtis portray a villain
And I thought he gave an excellent performance as the broodingly jealous Ferdinand Mondego, who seemed to have no qualms about destroying others for the sake of his feelings and his ambitions. "THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO" proved to be Richard Chamberlain's second (or third) production that was an adaptation of an Alexandre Dumas père novel. Like Howard, he had earned a well deserved Emmy nomination for his portrayal of the revenge driven Edmond Dantès. Chamberlain did a superb job in conveying the growing development of Edmond's character from the clean-cut, yet ambitious young seaman, to the long-suffering prisoner wallowing in despair and finally, the cool and manipulative man, whose desire for vengeance had blinded him from the suffering of other innocents.

In the end, I have some problems with certain aspects of "THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO", including the portrayal of some characters , a few changes in the narrative's ending and some of the costumes. Despite them, I can honestly say that I enjoyed the television movie and thought it did a fine job adapting Alexandre Dumas père novel. And this is due to Sidney Carroll's well-written screenplay, David Greene's solid direction and an excellent cast led by the always superb Richard Chamberlain.

"NORTHANGER ABBEY" (2007) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Thu, 05 Aug 2021 16:24:56 GMT

Below are images from "NORTHANGER ABBEY", the 2007 adaptation of Jane Austen's 1817 novel. Directed by Jon Jones and adapted by Andrew Davies, the television movie starred Felicity Jones and J.J. Feild:

"NORTHANGER ABBEY" (2007) Photo Gallery

"THE BUTLER" (2013) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 01:29:43 GMT

Below is a gallery of images from "THE BUTLER", the 2013 adaptation of the real-life accounts of former White House butler, Eugene Allen. Directed by Lee Daniels, the movie starred Forest Whitaker:

"THE BUTLER" (2013) Photo Gallery

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (2008) Review

lmoore66 — Sun, 11 Jul 2021 22:34:56 GMT

”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH” (2008) Review

Looking back on the number of Agatha Christie movie adaptations I have seen, I find it surprising that only a handful of Christie titles have been adapted for the movies or television more than once. One of those titles happened to be the author’s 1938 novel called ”Appointment With Death”.

The most well known adaptation before the 2008 one had been produced and directed by Michael Winner some twenty years earlier. Released in 1988, the movie starred Peter Ustinov in his last appearance as the Belgian-born sleuth, Hercule Poirot; and is not considered among the best of Christie adaptations before the premiere of ”Agatha Christie’s POIROT” around 1989. The production values of the 1988 version of ”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH” almost had a cheap, B-movie quality about it. Nevertheless, I feel that it is a masterpiece in compare to this recent version that starred David Suchet as Poirot.

”APOINTMENT WITH DEATH” told the story of Hercule Poirot’s investigation into the murder of a wealthy, middle-aged American woman named Lady Boynton (Mrs. Boynton in the novel). But screenwriter Guy Andrews made so many changes from Christie’s original tale that it would seem pointless for me to recap the plot. One, the victim is not a widow. Instead, she is in the middle of a second marriage to a British peer and archeologist named Lord Boynton. Only Lennox Boynton is her stepson by marriage . . . and his name has become Leonard. The others – Carol, Raymond and Ginerva (Jinny) – had been adopted before her marriage to Lord Boynton. And yes, Jinny is no longer her child by blood. Lady Boynton never spent time as a warden for a women’s prison. Instead, she was an astute businesswoman. The character of Nadine, Lennox’s wife, did not appear in this adaptation. Jefferson Hope was transformed from the Boynton family’s attorney, into an American traveler with business ties to Lady Boynton. Dr. Gerard’s nationality and profession had been changed from French psychologist to British medical doctor. The American-born Member of Parliament, Lady Westholme, became British-born world traveler Dame Celia Westholme. And former nursery governess Miss Amabel Pierce, became known as “Nanny”; Lady Boynton’s nervous and very reluctant henchwoman in the abuse of the murder victim’s many adopted children. Andrews also added a new character – a Polish-born nun, who had befriended Jinny, named Sister Agnieszka. However, Dr. Sarah King remained intact – in both characterization and profession. The story’s setting is changed from Petra to Syria. The novel featured a single killer. This movie featured two killers . . . and a different motive. These changes allowed Andrews to give the murderers a fate straight from the finale of 1937’s ”Death on the Nile”.

I have to make one thing clear regarding the changes made by Guy Andrews. I have nothing against a writer making changes from a literary source to accommodate a screen adaptation. There are some things that do not translate well to the screen. But I feel that most of the changes made by Andrews did NOT serve the movie’s plot very well. In fact, I would say that the opposite happened. Despite its B-movie atmosphere; the 1988 movie seemed like an elegant affair in comparison to this 2008 version. Mind you, the latter had some virtues. David Suchet gave a subtle performance as Hercule Poirot. Peter Greenhalgh’s photography struck me as beautiful and rich in colors. Even Sheena Napier’s costume designs managed to capture the mid-to-late 1930s quite well. Elizabeth McGovern’s portrayal of a British or Irish female seemed surprisingly competent, despite her being American-born. Both Tim Curry (as Lord Boynton) and John Hannah (as Dr. Gerard) gave entertaining performances. And I also felt impressed by Christina Cole (Dr. Sarah King) and Mark Gatiss (Leonard) performances as well. So, why do I have such a low opinion of this movie?

My main beef with ”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH” was the changes made to the story. I simply found them unnecessary. The change in the story's setting from Petra to Syria, created a small confusion. In the 1930s, part of Syria was under British control and the other half was under French control. Yet, the movie featured a very British Colonel Carbury (portrayed by Paul Freeman), who had French troops under his command. Confusing. And was it really necessary to include characters like Lord Boynton and Sister Agnieszka, who did not exist in the novel? No. Lord Boynton was nothing more than a red herring created to distract viewers of the teleplay. And Sister Agnieszka was used to include a subplot that was never in the novel and had nothing to do with the main narrative. Was it necessary to change the number of murderers from one to two? Again . . . no. By changing the number of murderers, Andrews changed the motive behind the victim’s murder from preserving a secret to an act of revenge. Worse, by changing the number of murderers and motive, Andrews complicated the plot to such a ridiculous level that by the end of the story, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. Even more ridiculous was the convoluted method used by the killers to bump off Lady Boynton. Was it necessary to include a subplot about the sex slave trade, which had nothing to do with Lady Boynton’s murder? I would say no. Especially since the subplot was never included in Christie’s novel.

In the novel, Mrs. Boynton inflicted a great deal of psychological abuse upon her step-children and her daughter, Jinny. This movie had Lady Boynton bullying a hired nanny – Nanny Taylor - into inflicting physical abuse upon the many children she had adopted over the years – including Raymond, Carol . . . and Jinny. Was the change necessary? I certainly do not believe it was. Both the novel and the 1988 film made it painfully obvious how harmful Mrs. Boynton’s psychological abuse was upon her stepchildren. Apparently, Andrews, director Ashley Pierce and the producers thought it was not dramatic enough and decided to be more drastic by including physical abuse. To emphasize the horror of Lady Boynton’s domestic situation, they allowed Nanny Taylor to fall into a catatonic state following her employer’s death out of guilt. I found these changes unnecessary. I found the idea of Nanny Taylor remaining with the family after the children became adults irrelevant. And if I must be brutally honest, I was not that impressed by Angela Pleasance’s slightly hammy performance as the tormented nanny.

In a review of "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", the 2010 version of Christie’s 1934 novel, I had complained about the religious themes that permeated that movie. Apparently, ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” was not the first movie in the series to emphasize religion. The same happened two years earlier in ”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH”. As I had stated earlier, one of the new characters turned out to be a Polish-born Catholic nun. I had to endure a sanctimonious conversation between her and Ginerva. Lord Boynton’s archeological quest turned out to be a search for John the Baptist’s head. I had never heard of anything so ridiculous. How was anyone supposed to figure out whether the head of John the Baptist or some citizen of the region had been found? And to make matters worse, once Lord Boynton thought he had found the object of his quest, he had Sister Agnieszka lead the rest of the party into a prayer over said skull. The scene struck me as too ludicrous to believe. The over-the-top choral music that permeated Stephen McKeon’s score did not help matters.

When it comes to adapting a novel or play for the screen, I have no problems with screenwriters making changes to the story or any of the characters . . . if those changes manage to serve the film. After all, some aspects of a novel or play do not translate well into film. But the changes I found in ”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH” struck me as unnecessary. They not only failed to serve the movie’s plot, I found them convoluted and over-the-top. The addition of a religious theme simply made matters worse. The movie had a few virtues – including a solid performance from David Suchet. But not even he could save the amount of damage inflicted upon this movie.

"BREATHLESS" (2013) Episode Ranking

lmoore66 — Fri, 09 Jul 2021 19:38:02 GMT

Below is a ranking of the episodes from the 2013 ITV limited series, "BREATHLESS". Created by Paul Unwin and Peter Grimsdale, the series starred Jack Davenport and Catherine Steadman:

"BREATHLESS" (2013) EPISODE RANKING

1. (1.03) "Episode Three" - In 1961 London, chief gynecologist Dr. Otto Powell, along with anesthetist Charlie Enderbury and former nurse Jean Truscott perform an illegal abortion on young woman in Soho but complications arise, requiring an admission to a hospital. Jean's husband, junior doctor Richard Truscott, has a reunion with former lover Margaret Dalton and resumes their affair.

2. (1.06) "Episode Six" - Otto and his wife, Elizabeth, have a confrontation with police Inspector Ronald Mulligan, who has been blackmailing her into having a sexual affair. Years earlier in Cyprus, Otto had bribed Mulligan into keeping silent about an accidental death involving Elizabeth's fiancé, an American officer.

3. (1.02) "Episode Two" - Charlie loses out on his promotion to chief anesthetist to the newly arrived Dr. Omprakash Mehta. Following their return from their honeymoon, an angry Richard discovers that Jean, with Otto's collusion, had kept her miscarriage a secret before their wedding. Jean holds a dinner party that ends in disaster.

4. (1.05) "Episode Five" - Margaret is admitted into the hospital for cervical cancer and receives a visit from Jean. Angela Wilson, Jean's sister and a nurse, spots Otto and Elizabeth on a theater trip and realizes that an affair with him would be pointless, despite her attraction to him. And Charlie's wife, Lily Enderbury, spots Mulligan at the Powell home.

5. (1.01) "Episode One" - Right before Jean and Richard's wedding, the former has a miscarriage and asks Otto to help keep the incident a secret. Angela is hired as a nurse for the hospital's gynecology unit. She later helps Inspector Mulligan's unmarried daughter avoid being forced into a loveless marriage.

6. (1.04) "Episode Four" - Otto and Angela travel to Dorset with a medical student named Sam Roth in order to treat an unmarried girl who had been raped by her father and is giving up her triplets for adoption. Elizabeth sends her son Thomas away during Otto's trip in order to accommodate Mulligan, but is surprised by a visit from Charlie.

"3 DAYS TO KILL" (2014) Photo Gallery

lmoore66 — Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:50:21 GMT

Below are images from the 2014 political thriller called "3 DAYS TO KILL". Directed by McG, the movie starred Kevin Costner:

"3 DAYS TO KILL" (2014) Photo Gallery

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Review

lmoore66 — Sat, 03 Jul 2021 19:30:54 GMT

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" (2005) Review

To my knowledge, there have been at least ten screen (film and/or television) adaptations of Jane Austen's 1813 novel, "Pride and Prejudice". I believe it has been adapted more times than her other five novels. This is not surprising. It is probably the most beloved of her six novels. I have seen four of those adaptations, myself. And one of them is director-writer Joe Wright's 2005 film adaptation.

"PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" starred Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen as Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. The story focuses on Elizabeth's dealings with marriage, manners and other issues in the landed gentry society of late Georgian England. Elizabeth and her four sisters are encouraged by their mother to find a suitable husband before their father's estate is inherited by a distant male cousin. The Bennet family is heartened by the blossoming romance between Elizabeth's older sister Jane and a wealthy bachelor named Charles Bingley, who has rented a neighboring estate. But the family are unaware that Mr. Bingley's even wealthier friend, Fitzwilliam Darcy, has grown attracted to the extroverted Elizabeth. However, obstacles block the path of true love. Mr. Darcy and Bingley's snobbish sister Caroline disapprove of his romance with Jane, due to the poor behavior of Mrs. Bennet and her three youngest daughters. And Elizabeth has developed a deep dislike of Mr. Darcy, due to his own distant and haughty behavior. Through a series of setbacks and misunderstandings, true love finally flourishes in the end.

Wright's adaptation of Austen's novel was a box office hit and earned numerous award nominations, including a Best Actress nomination for star Keira Knightley. But like the 1940 adaptation with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier, this 2005 film has attracted a great deal of criticism from Austen fans for its failure to be closely faithful to the novel. Many have complained how Wright changed the dynamics within the Bennet family. Others have complained by the less than sterile appearance of the Bennet estate and the movie's late 18th century. As far as many readers were concerned, "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" should have been set between 1811 and 1820 - Britain's Regency era, since the novel was published in 1813. So, how did I feel about Wright's take on Austen's novel?

I might as well be frank. I did have problems with "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". I could have understood Wright's decision to portray the Bennet household with a less than pristine appearance. The Bennet manor was not the first to be portray in this style. The Western home in 1963's "TOM JONES" looked a lot messier. But Squire Western lived on the estate by himself, until the arrival of his daughter Sophie and his sister Aunt Western. Mrs. Bennet managed the family estate in Wright's movie. One would think she and the house servants would be able to keep a cleaner home. And I was not that impressed by most of the costumes worn by the Bennets. I found them rather plain and worn for an upper class family from the landed gentry. Mind you, they did not have the same amount of money as Mr. Darcy or the Bingleys. Except for the Netherfield ball sequence, their costumes seemed to hint that they barely possessed enough money to scratch out a living. Yet, at the same time, they had both house and field servants?

I was not impressed by the change of dynamics between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. They seemed a bit too affectionate in comparison to their portrayals in other movies. Wright's decision to make this change seemed to defeat the purpose of Austen's narrative. He forgot that the incompatible marriage between the well-born, yet caustic Mr. Bennet and the middle-class and boorish Mrs. Bennet was one of the major reasons that led youngest daughter Lydia to leave Brighton with the roguish George Wickham. Mrs. Bennet's shrill manners and obsession with matrimony for her daughters, and Mr. Bennet's cynical disregard for his wife and society led to their failure to discipline their youngest daughters - Lydia and Kitty. But we never see this in Wright's film. He had every right to justify Mrs. Bennet's search for future sons-in-law. But the affection between her and Mr. Bennet makes it difficult to explain their failure to discipline Lydia and Kitty.

I also had a problem with George Wickham. I felt sorry for Rupert Friend. He is a very good actor who was handed over a role that turned out to be a ghost of its former self by Wright. Friend is also a very handsome actor. But he was really not given the opportunity to display Wickham's charm and talent for emotional manipulation. Worse, the Elizabeth/Wickham scenes failed to convey any real friendship between the two, before Elizabeth's discovery of his true nature. They were simply not on screen together long enough to justify Elizabeth's outrage over Mr. Darcy's alleged treatment of Wickham. Wright's treatment of the Charles Bingley character was also a problem for me. I am aware that Mr. Bingley has always sought his friend Mr. Darcy's approval, regarding the other man as his social superior. But Mr. Bingley has also struck me as a more social and extroverted man. Wright made sure that his Mr. Bingley, portrayed by Simon Woods, was socially active. But he also transformed Bingley into a shy and reticent man. And the idea of a quiet Mr. Darcy and a shy Mr. Bingley as close friends does not quite seem right to me.

However, there is no such thing as a perfect film - at least not in my experience. Yes, "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" is a flawed movie. But it is not the disaster that some Austen fans would have many to believe. Despite some changes in the characterization and the 129 minutes running time, Austen's tale remained intact under Wright's direction and Deborah Moggach's pen. And a few of the changes made by Wright and Moggach did not bother me one bit. In fact, I found them rather interesting. One change in the movie involved the Elizabeth Bennet character. This "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" delved more into the impact of the Bennet family's shenanigans upon her psyche with scenes that featured Elizabeth's brief flight from the crowds of the Netherfield ball, her penchant of keeping personal secrets from her closest sister Jane, and occasional bursts of temper. Many also complained about the film's late 18th century setting, claiming that Austen's novel was a Regency tale. I said this in my review of the 1940 adaptation and I will state it again. There was no law that "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" had to be set in the 1810s because of its final publishing date. Austen's tale is not a historical drama, merely a comedy of manners and a romantic tale. Besides, her novel was originally completed some time in the late 1790s - the same time frame as this movie.

Despite my complaints about the plain wardrobe for the Bennet family, I must admit that I was impressed by most of Jacqueline Durran's costumes - especially for the Netherfield Ball sequence. I felt that the most interesting costume was worn by Kelly Reilly (as Caroline Bingley in the aforementioned sequence:

Some fans felt that Durran made a misfire in the creation of this particular costume, which they believed evoked the high-waisted fashions of the first two decades of the 19th century. They especially took umbrage at her gown's lack of sleeves. What they failed to realize was that women's fashion was in a stage of transition between the late 18th and early 19th century. Older women like Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine de Bourgh wore the older 18th century fashions, while younger females began wearing dresses and gown with a higher waistline. It made sense that Caroline Bingley, being familiar with the more sophisticated London society, would wear such a gown. There is a 1798-99 painting called "Madame Raymond de Verninac" in which the subject wore a similar looking gown:

Other technical aspects of the movie that proved to be a lot less controversial. Roman Osin's photography proved to be one of the movie's biggest assets. I found it lush, yet sharp and rich in color. And it certainly did justice to Sarah Greenwood's production designs and Katie Spencer's set decorations, which captured the look of Britain at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century beautifully. I especially enjoyed the photography featured in Elizabeth's journey with her Gardiner relations to Derbyshire. Another segment that displayed Osin's photography and Greenwood's work beautifully was the Netherfield Ball. I especially enjoyed the tracking shot that touched upon the behaviors and emotional states of the major characters, before finally settling upon a secluded Elizabeth, heaving a sigh of relief.

Wright had the good luck to find himself with a first-rate cast for his movie. Jena Malone's Lydia Bennet struck me as more of a show boater or poseur than any other interpretation of the role. Carey Mulligan gave ample support as her slightly older sister and emotional pet, Kitty. Talulah Riley did a very good job in capturing Mary Bennet's self-righteous nature. Yet, at the same, she was surprisingly poignant - especially during the Netherfield ball sequence. Despite Moggach and Wright's attempts to paint Mrs. Bennet's determination to marry off her daughters in a more positive light, Brenda Blethyn still managed to capture the character's gauche manners and silliness. And for that I am grateful to the actress. Donald Sutherland's take on Mr. Bennet seemed less cynical than Austen's take on the character. Thanks to Moggach's script, Sutherland's Mr. Bennet almost loses his bite. But not completely. Sutherland managed to retain some of the character's sardonic humor. And I really enjoyed his performance in the scene that featured Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth's discussion about her feelings for Mr. Darcy.

Despite my complaints about the characterizations of Charles Bingley and George Wickham, I cannot deny that both Simon Woods and Rupert Friend gave first-rate performances. However, I suspect that Woods was given more to work with, even if Moggach's portrayal of his character struck a wrong note within me. There is an interesting post-script regarding Woods' casting - he was Rosamund Pike's (Jane Bennet) ex-boyfriend, when they filmed "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" together. The movie featured only one of Mr. Bingley's sisters - namely the gold-digging Caroline Bingley. Kelly Reilly's take on the role strongly reminds me of Frieda Inescort's performance in the 1940 movie - cool and sarcastic. Reilly had some choice lines, my favorite being her comment about her brother's guests at the Netherfield Ball:

"I can't help thinking that at some point someone is going to produce a piglet and we'll all have to chase it."

Yes, I realize that Jane Austen did not write it. But who cares? It is such a droll line, even if it was spoken by the unspeakable Caroline. I read somewhere that Joe Wright had convinced Judi Dench to portray Lady Catherine de Bourgh, claiming that he loved it when she "played a bitch". And yes . . . Dench's Lady Catherine was deliciously bitchy. On the other hand, Claudie Blakely gave a nice performance as Elizabeth's best friend, Charlotte Lucas. She also had one memorable moment in which her character tried to explain her decision to marry William Collins, Elizabeth's unpalatable cousin. "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" marked the first time Keira Knightley worked with Tom Hollander. His Mr. Collins did not strike me as obsequious as previous versions. For some reason, Hollander reminded me of a socially awkward geek. The scene featuring Mr. Collins' attempt to get Mr. Darcy's attention struck me as particularly funny. Penelope Wilton and Peter Wight gave solid performances as Elizabeth's aunt and uncle, the Gardiners. But I did not find them particularly memorable. Rosamund Pike made a very beautiful and charming Jane Bennet. She perfectly conveyed the character's shyness and penchant for thinking too good of others.

Matthew MacFadyen was not that well known to U.S. audiences when he was cast in the role of Mr. Darcy. I realize that I am going to attract a good deal of flak for this, but I am glad that MacFadyen did not try to recapture Colin Firth's take on the role. An actor or actress should never try to copy another's performance. Frankly, I thought MacFadyen did a fine job on his own. He is the only actor to openly convey Mr. Darcy's inability to easily socialize before the story's second half, due to some silent acting on his part. I especially enjoyed his performance with Knightley featuring Elizabeth's rejection of Mr. Darcy's first marriage proposal. But Keira Knightley, as Elizabeth Bennet, contributed just as much to the scene as he did. For some reason, the actress has attracted a great deal of bashing from moviegoers. I will not try to determine the reason behind their behavior. But I will compliment Knightley for her performance. Like the other actresses who have portrayed Elizabeth, she conveyed all of the character's wit, prejudices and exuberant nature. But thanks to Moggach's screenplay, Knightley was given a chance to put a new spin on Elizabeth's character. Due to the Bennet family's behavior, Knightley was able to convey Elizabeth's increasing emotional distance from them. Many critics did not care for this new spin on the character. I, on the other hand, found it fascinating and new.

Joe Wright's "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE" has its flaws. There is no denying it. But I can say the same for the other three adaptations of Jane Austen's novel that I have seen. For me, the movie's virtues outweighed its flaws. And its biggest virtues were Roman Osin's photography and a memorable cast led by the talented Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen. This was Joe Wright's first film and so far, my favorite he has done during his years as a director.</lj-

"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.: This Is Love?"

lmoore66 — Fri, 02 Jul 2021 05:38:57 GMT

"AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.: THIS IS LOVE?"

Ever since the middle of Season One of Marvel's "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.", there had been a fandom dedicated to the relationship between two of the series' characters: former hackivist/turned S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Skye (no surname mentioned) and Agent Grant Ward. During the series' first season, I had found myself wondering if I should support it or not . . . despite the amount of attention dedicated to this potential romance on the Internet and in the media.

The relationship between Skye and Ward had began in (1.01) "Pilot", the series' very first episode. Despite being a member of a hacktivist group called Rising Tide, Skye ended up being recruited by S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Phil Coulson and his newly formed team (which included Ward) track down a man named Mike Peterson, who had recently acquired super powers. Coulson assigned the no-nonsense Ward to serve as Skye's S.O. (Supervising Officer) and train her.

During Season One's first half, Ward trained Skye; while she responded with quirky jokes and mild flirtation. Then in the final scene of (1.08) "The Well", Ward began an affair with another member of Coulson's team - the formidable Agent Melinda May. I suspect that May had slept with Ward as some form of comfort following his traumatic experiences with an Asgardian Beserker Staff. Their relationship lasted until a "repentant" Ward received a grilling for fraternizing with another agent and promised to end the affair in (1.13) "T.R.A.C.K.S.". Two episodes later in (1.15) "Yes Men", Ward admitted his attraction to Skye in a conversation with the rogue Asgardian goddess, Lorelei. She had him under her thrall at the time. The friendship between Skye and Ward deepened in the following four episodes - between (1.16) "End of the Beginning" and (1.19) "The Only Light in the Darkness". During this period, the events of "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" had played out and resulted in the downfall of S.H.I.E.L.D., the revelation of HYDRA's (a former Nazi science organization-turned-terrorist group) infiltration, and Skye's discovery that Ward had been a HYDRA mole on behalf of another S.H.I.E.L.D./HYDRA traitor, Agent John Garrett.

The relationship between Skye and Ward eventually fell apart during Season One's remaining three episodes. Skye was forced to leave Director Nick Fury's secret Providence base and allow Ward to lead her into the arms of HYDRA and Garrett. The latter needed her to break the encryption code she had created to guard many S.H.I.E.L.D. files. After Coulson rescued her at the end of (1.20) "Nothing Personal" with the help of fellow agents Maria Hill and Antoine Triplett, Skye and Ward did not face each other again until the big confrontation between Coulson and Garrett in the season's finale, (1.22) "Beginning of the End". In that episode, Skye expressed her disgust and contempt for Ward and he ended up in Federal custody after enduring a beat down by May.

Since the airing of "Beginning of the End", fans had been divided over the future of Skye and Ward's relationship (dubbed "Skyeward" on the Internet). They had also been divided over the possibility of Ward's redemption in future episodes. How did I now feel about those issues from seven years ago? Honestly, I was a bit conflicted. At least about Ward's redemption. Did I believe that he was beyond redemption? Well . . . no. I had thought it would take a great deal of sacrifice on Ward's part (possibly his death) to redeem himself for the murders of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents Victoria Hand, her assistants, and Eric Koenig; and the attempted murders of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents Leo Fitz, Jemma Simmons, Coulson and Skye.

What about "Skyeward"? How did I feel about the Skye/Ward relationship? Honestly? I never sensed any real love between them. Not really. The ironic thing was that I had considered the possibility of a romance between them during Season One's first half. After all, cast members Chloe Bennet and Brett Dalton had managed to generate a pretty good screen chemistry. However, the revelation of Ward as a HYDRA mole led me to dismiss any considerations. And after my recent re-watching of several Season One episodes, I found myself wondering how I could have ever considered any possibility of a romance between them in the first place.

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Skye

There are certain fans who still believe that Ward could have find redemption from being a HYDRA mole through Skye's love. I have a problem with this theory. I have a problem, because I had doubts that Skye ever loved him. Her flirtation attempts at Ward in the early episodes seemed to hint that Skye found Ward attractive. She even used a photograph of him as her laptop computer's wallpaper . . . like an infatuated schoolgirl. This attraction was especially apparent in an early scene from "Yes Men", in which both seemed physically aware of each other, while the latter expressed relief at her recovery from being shot by HYDRA scientist/industrialist Ian Quinn in "T.R.A.C.K.S.".

But there was also Skye's feelings about Mike Peterson. She was the first major character who had befriended the former construction worker in the series premiere. Throughout Season One, Skye found it difficult to automatically regard him as some kind of villain. Skye had expressed dismay when he became HYDRA's hired gun, Deathlok, against his will. She had expressed dismay when Ward pointed out that Mike could not be trusted.
And she had expressed her dismay for the third when she was a prisoner of HYDRA in "Nothing Personal". For some reason, Skye found it difficult to give up on Mike. And she was never in love with him.

At the same time . . . I do not recall Skye ever expressing similar feelings for Ward, when she discovered he was a HYDRA mole. Not once. When she had finally confronted him about his betrayal to S.H.I.E.L.D., she merely expressed anger and disgust. In fact, she labeled him as someone "evil". In the season finale, her feelings toward him had transformed into contempt and she judged him as "weak", instead of "evil". The only member of Coulson's team who seemed unable to face Ward's betrayal or give up on him was Leo Fitz. From the moment the rest of the team had learned about Ward's betrayal, Fitz expressed disbelief that Ward was a HYDRA agent and expressed numerous theories that Ward may have been coerced. Even moments before Ward tried to kill him and Jemma Simmons by ejecting them into the ocean, Fitz continued to blind himself from Ward's perfidy. He finally accepted it by Season Two.

As I had stated earlier, Skye never tried to deny Ward's betrayal. One might point out her willingness to cooperate with Garrett over the encrypted files, when Mike endangered Ward's life in "Nothing Personal". But Skye was willing, if reluctantly, willing to allow Ward to die if it meant preventing HYDRA from accessing those files. In the end, it took Mike's argument that she would have Ward's blood on her hands if she did not cooperate. Thankfully, Joss and Jed Whedon, along with Maurissa Tancharoen; were never willing to satisfy fans with some plot twist that allowed Skye's love to redeem Ward.

S.H.I.E.L.D./HYDRA Agent Grant Ward

Judging from the Season One episodes I have seen, I would say that Grant Ward had harbored stronger feelings for Skye than she did for him. And yet . . . I could never sense any deep and abiding love on Ward's part for Skye. I recalled him expressing concern for her life, when she had infiltrated Quinn's mansion in (1.03) "The Asset". He did seemed concerned for Skye's life after she had been shot by Quinn. Yet, other members of the team seemed more openly upset. Like Ward, Fitz had expressed remorse that he did not accompany Skye to Quinn's Italian villa, where she got shot. But he did seem a lot more emotional than Ward. Simmons had literally burst into tears. May lost her temper and nearly beat the living crap out of Quinn, after he became their prisoner. And Coulson became uber-determined, actually desperate, to find a means to save Skye's life - even to the point of breaking S.H.I.E.L.D. protocol and searching for the project that had resurrected him. Of all the team members, Ward had seemed the least emotional over Skye's fate. Perhaps the latter was trying not to shed "unmanly" tears. Who knows? He did express his displeasure to his mentor John Garrett, who had ordered Skye's death. But his easy willingness to accept Garrett's dismissal of the incident struck me as a bit . . . interesting.

Ward's most emotional reaction to any character on the show had been directed at Garrett. This happened when the latter's organs began to fail, due to internal cybernetic parts. Ward expressed deep concern when Garrett's health began to fail in (1.21) "Ragtag". And when a captured Fitz used an old World War II EMP device that further endangered Garrett's life, Ward nearly flipped out. Despite the fact that Garrett had ordered Quinn to kill Skye and Mike Peterson to endanger his life, Ward remained concerned over and loyal to the older man. Some might say that Ward's continuing loyalty to Garrett was a sign of emotional abuse he had received. But those flashbacks in "Ragtag" seemed more like examples of emotional manipulation from Garrett, not abuse.

And there was something else that bothered me. I found it odd that Ward's attraction to Skye finally became apparent to audiences in "Yes Men". Especially when May had brusquely brushed aside his concern and offers of help after she had been tortured in "T.R.A.C.K.S.". Minutes later, Ward spotted Coulson tenderly attending to May's wounds inside the Bus' (S.H.I.E.L.D. plane) medical bay. I found it odd that Ward would begin expressing any romantic feelings for Skye two episodes after what he had witnessed between Coulson and May. Was he fooling himself about Skye? Had he been fooling her and the rest of the team about his true feelings? Was he relieved that he no longer had to fake romantic feelings for May? Or had he viewed Skye as an easier target for his reluctant lover act? Who knows?

Those fans who had rejected the idea of a future romance between Skye and Ward tend to cite the latter's sexism, which reared its ugly head in both "Nothing Personal" and "Beginning of the End". But I had spotted other reasons that make me doubt these two might ever be destined for a romance. One, Skye had no problems accepting Ward's betrayal of the team and S.H.I.E.L.D., unlike Leo Fitz. On the other hand, she had trouble accepting Mike Peterson's cooperation with Garrett and HYDRA. As for Ward, he was willing to deliver Skye into Garrett's hands in episodes like "The Only Light in the Darkness", "Nothing Personal" and even "Beginning of the End". If Ward had truly loved Skye, why would he be willing to endanger her in this manner? Was this supposed to Marvel's idea of love? Frankly, I rather doubt it.

I could see that both Skye and Ward found each other sexually attractive. But love? Sorry, but I never bought it. Not at the moment. And sure enough, the Whedon brothers and Tancharoen never allowed "Skyeward" to become one of the great romances for "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.".