Monday, July 30, 2012



The late Joan Hickson starred as Miss Jane Marple in her 11th movie that featured the elderly sleuth, created by Agatha Christie. The movie in question was "THEY DO IT WITH MIRRORS", an adaptation of Christie's 1952 novel.

While paying a visit to her old friend, the American-born Ruth Van Rydock, Miss Jane Marple is asked to visit the other woman's younger sister, Carrie Louise Serrocold. All three women were friends at the same school in Italy when they were girls. Ruth is worried that something is very wrong at Stonygates, the Victorian mansion where Carrie Louise lives with her husband Lewis Serrocold. She fears that Carrie Louise may be in danger of some kind. Ruth asks Miss Marple to find out what is going on. Miss Marple learns that Stonygates has been converted into a home for delinquent boys by Serrocold, who is devoted to the idea of reforming these boys. Christian Gulbrandsen, Carrie Louise's stepson from her first marriage and a member of the Stonygates Board of Trustees, everyone assumes he is there for a business meeting with Serrocold. The latter finally admits to Miss Marple that Later that evening, the visiting Ruth decides to show an old film of her, Carrie Louise and Miss Marple in Italy; when one of Stonybrook's boys, an uber-nervous type named Edgar Lawson interrupts the festivities to accuse Serrocold of being his real father. While they quarreled in another room, the fuse to the house blows out. Within minutes, Gulbrandsen's visit takes a tragic turn when he is found dead - shot in the head - inside his bedroom. Miss Marple, along with Chief Inspector Slack, scramble to find Gulbrandsen's murderer.

From the articles I have read on the Web, "THEY DO IT WITH MIRRORS" seemed to be highly regarded by many of Christie's fans. I wish I could share their sentiments, but I cannot. I am not saying that the movie was terrible. It seemed pretty decent to me. But it did not exactly rock my boat. At the moment, I cannot put my finger on it. There is something . . . weak about the plot. One, I did not find the setting of a Victorian manor converted into a home for delinquent boys that intriguing. I suppose one has to blame Christie for creating this setting in the first place. I suspect that she was out of her league. And two, the mystery itself - the murder of Christian Gulbrandsen - did not seem particularly complicated. Judging from the title and the details that led to his murder, I did not find it particularly difficult to guess the murderer's identity. And three, I thought the movie finished on a slightly weak note. After a murder attempt was made on another character, my attention to the movie gradually began to fade. I was not sleepy. My interest simply began to fade.

I also had a few problems with the cast. The characters of Carrie Louise Serrocold and Ruth van Rycock were portrayed by actresses Jean Simmons and Faith Brook. I had no problems with their performances. I thought both were first rate - especially Simmons, who captured Carrie Louise's vague and slightly fey personality just right. But both actresses were at least a good twenty years younger than Joan Hickson. And I found the idea of their characters coming from the same generation as Miss Marple rather ludicrous. I also had a problem with Todd Boyce's portrayal of Walter Rudd, Carrie Louise's American-born grandson-in-law. At first, I thought he was English born, because I found his American accent rather questionable. I was surprised to learn that he was born in Toledo, Ohio. His family had moved to Australia when he was 16. I think what really annoyed me was that whenever he opened his mouth to speak, I heard a few bars of Western music - to indicate that the character in question was an American. (Pardon me, while I indulge in an eye roll) Thankfully, the music ceased about halfway into the film and I found Boyce's performance a lot more enjoyable from then on.

"THEY DO IT WITH MIRRORS" also had its virtues. I must admit that the cast was first rate. Joss Ackland gave one of his more sympathetic performances as the well-meaning philanthropist who fears for his wife's safety. I have already commented upon Simmons, Brooks and Boyce. I was also impressed by Christopher and Jay Villiers, who gave enjoyable performances as the Restarick brothers - Carrie Louise's stepsons from her second marriage. I could say the same about Holly Aird, who portrayed Carrie Louise's granddaughter, Gina Rudd. And for the first time, I actually enjoyed David Horovitch's performance as recurring police sleuth, Chief Inspector Slack. However, I never understood the need to bring him back. I do not recall his character appearing in the novel. As for Joan Hickson, she was perfect as Jane Marple . . . as usual. In fact, she was a real class act in this film.

Personally, I feel that "THEY DO IT WITH MIRRORS" is somewhat overrated by today's Christie's fans. I found the plot rather unoriginal and a bit weak in the last thirty minutes. But it had a first-rate cast and decent production values. If you want a pleasant movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon, it might be the ticket for you.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Top Five Favorite Episodes of “HAWAII FIVE-O” Season One (1968-1969)

Below is a list of my top five favorite episodes from Season One of “HAWAII FIVE-O”. Created by Leonard Freeman, the series starred Jack Lord as Steve McGarrett: 

1. (1.11) “Yesterday Died and Tomorrow Won’t Be Born” - Danny Williams directs a methodical search for the unknown assailant who had critically wounded Steve McGarrett, while the latter was engaged in a morning jog.

2. (1.14) “King of the Hill” - A Marine Vietnam veteran (Yaphet Kotto) suffers a breakdown and, believing he is back in Vietnam, takes Danny hostage in a hospital ward.

3. (1.12) “Deathwatch” - Five-O fights to save the life of a gangster (Nehemiah Persoff), so that he can testify against his boss (James Shigeta).

4. (1.05) “Samurai” - McGarrett must protect a Japanese-born underworld kingpin (Ricardo Montalban) that he is trying to convict of racketeering activities.

5. (1.06) “…And They Painted Daisies on His Coffin” - The Five-O team works overtime when Danny is indicted for the murder of an apparently unarmed teenage boy.

Thursday, July 26, 2012


Below are images from "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", the latest adaptation of Agatha Christie's famous 1934 novel. The television movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. 






article-1333459-0C377EAB000005DC-648_306x548 (1)








Tuesday, July 24, 2012

"THIS MEANS WAR" (2012) Review

"THIS MEANS WAR" (2012) Review

The story idea of two male friends battling for the affections of one woman has not been new to Hollywood.  One of the earliest examples of this kind of plot proved to Ernst Lubitsch's 1933 adaptation of Noel Coward's play. The latest film to play out this scenario was McG's movie, "THIS MEANS WAR"

Written by Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg, "THIS MEANS WAR" began two C.I.A. agents and best friends FDR Foster and Tuck Henson being deployed to Hong Kong to prevent international criminals/brothers Heinrich and Jonas from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the assignment goes awry, resulting in the death of Jonas and Heinrich swearing revenge against FDR and Tuck.  For the two agents' protection, their boss, Collins, assigns them to desk duty upon returning to the U.S.

While both are busy investigating the whereabouts of Heinrich, the divorced Tuck decides to find a new girlfriend via online dating. He eventually meets a product testing executive named Lauren Scott and falls for her. Not long after the two first met, womanizer FDR meets Lauren at a video store and unsuccessfully hits on her. But when FDR helps her fool an ex-boyfriend into believing she had a boyfriend, the pair eventually become attracted to one another. Lauren feels guilty about dating two men, but her girlfriend Trish convinces her to give it a try to see whom she likes best. Meanwhile, FDR and Tuck discover they are both dating Lauren and eventually begin to compete for her hand. While the two agents continue to compete for Lauren's love, Heinrich sets about investigating their whereabouts in order to seek revenge.

Although "THIS MEANS WAR" was not a big box office hit, it did manage to earn over twice its budget, which made it a minimal success. I really did not expect much from the film, but I must admit that the movie's plot did intrigue me. How did I feel about it? In some ways, "THIS MEANS WAR" reminds me of the 2005 action comedy, "MR. AND MRS. SMITH". In other words, the movie's romance and comedy overshadowed its plot line. And if I must be honest, this did not bother me one bit. The movie's action did not attract my attention in the first place.

However, at least the action in "MR. AND MRS. SMITH" struck me as more substantial and played a major role in the romance and comedy between the two major characters. I cannot say the same for "THIS MEANS WAR". The movie's action nearly struck me as irrelevant and the characters of FDR and Tuck could have easily had other professions. And I do have one complaint about the movie's love triangle. A part of me wished that it could have ended on the same note as "DESIGN FOR LIVING". Instead, it ended with Lauren choosing one man over the other. And I found this resolution lacking a little bite or originality.

Aside from Lauren eventually choosing one man over the other, I cannot deny that I found the movie's romantic plot very satisfying. More importantly, it was surprisingly funny. "THIS MEANS WAR" could boast some hilarious scenes and dialogue that had me shaking with laughter. Among my favorite moments include Lauren and Tuck's afternoon at a paintball field, and FDR's efforts to impress Lauren at a dog pound. Thanks to Dowling and Kinberg's script and McG's direction, the movie featured some hilarious conversations in the movie. My favorite scene included a conversation between Lauren and Trish overheard by the two men, in which she compared both their virtues and shortcomings. But even the movie's final action scene included a hilarious moment that featured Trish during a high speed chase.

"THIS MEANS WAR" had a solid cast that included pleasant performances from Rosemary Harris, who portrayed FDR's grandmother; Warren Christie as Lauren's too perfect boyfriend; John Paul Rittan as Tuck's son Joe; and Abigail Spencer as his ex-wife, Katie. Both Angela Bassett and Til Schweiger were appropriately intimidating as FDR and Tuck's C.I.A. supervisor, and master criminal Heinrich. However, there were moments when I found Bassett's performance to be a little over-the-top and Schweiger seemed a bit wasted in his all too brief appearances. The one supporting performance that really impressed me came from comedienne Chelsea Handler. One could accuse Handler of taking her stand-up routine and utilizing it in her role as Lauren's best friend, Trish. Fortunately, Handler proved to be a first-rate comic actress who also handled her more poignant moments featuring the character's marriage very well.

But the three performances that made this movie truly enjoyable came from Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. I was surprised by the high level of chemistry between the three performers. Not only did Witherspoon possessed great chemistry with the two actors individually, but both Pine and Hardy managed to create a first-rate "bromance" between them. It seemed a shame that Witherspoon's character ended up choosing one over the other. Also, Witherspoon was charming and witty as the beleaguered Lauren. Pine made a first-rate ladies' man and still managed to convey his character's feelings for the leading lady as very believable. And Hardy expertly walked a fine line as an introverted romantic and aggressive intelligence agent.

"THIS MEANS WAR" was not perfect. The action subplot was not as strong as I thought it could be. Which lead me to believe that the professions of the two male protagonists could have easily been something other than C.I.A. agents. But I cannot deny that McG directed a very funny movie, which was blessed with three talented performers in the lead. To my surprise, I ended up enjoying "THIS MEANS WAR" very much.

Saturday, July 21, 2012

"WESTWARD HO": Introduction

Below is the introduction to an article about Hollywood's depiction about the westward migration via wagon trains in the United States - especially during the 1840s: 

"WESTWARD HO!": Introduction 

I. History vs. Hollywood

Between 2001 and 2004, the A&E Channel used to air a series called "HISTORY vs. HOLLYWOOD". Each episode featured experts that were interviewed about the historical accuracy of a film or television special that was based on a historical event. These experts or historians would examine a newly released film - usually a period drama - and comment on the historical accuracy featured in the story. Not surprisingly, most productions would receive a verdict of "both Hollywood fiction and historical fact".

A rising demand for more historical accuracy seemed to have become very prevalent in recent years. I cannot explain this demand. And if I must be honest, I do not know if I would always agree. If such accuracy ever got in the way of a whopping good story, I believe it should be tossed in favor of the story. Many of William Shakespeare's dramas have proven to be historically inaccurate. I can think of a good number of well-regarded productions that I would never consider to be completely accurate as far as history is concerned - "GONE WITH THE WIND" (1939)"GLORY" (1989)"ENIGMA" (2001) and "THE TUDORS" (2007-2010).

All of this brings me to this article's main topic - namely the depiction of the 19th century western migration in various movies and television productions. I thought it would be interesting to examine five productions and see how they compare to historical accuracy. I will focus upon two movies and three television miniseries:


*"THE WAY WEST" (1967)

*"CENTENNIAL: The Wagon and the Elephant" [Episode 3] (1978-79)


*"INTO THE WEST: Manifest Destiny" [Episode 2] (2005)

II. The Essentials of Western Travel

Before I start making comparisons, I might as well focus on the correct essentials needed by westbound emigrants during their trek to either Oregon, California or other destinations. The essentials are the following:

1. Farm wagon/Prairie schooner vs. Conestoga wagon - The Conestoga wagon is well-known among those who study American history during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It was a heavy, broad-wheeled covered wagon used extensively during that period in the United States east of the Mississippi River and Canada to transport goods up to 8 tons. It was designed to resemble a boat in order to help it cross rivers and streams.

However, the Conestoga wagon was considered too large and bulky for the 2,000 miles journey between Western Missouri and the West Coast - especially for the teams of stock pulling the wagon. It was highly recommended for emigrants to use regular farm wagons. The farm wagon was primarily used to transport goods. However, small children, the elderly, and the sick/or injured rode in them. But since the wagons had no suspension and the roads were rough, many people preferred to walk, unless they had horses to ride. The wagon - depending on luck - was sturdy enough for the 2,000 to 3,000 westbound trek. More importantly, the wagon would not wear down the team of animals pulling it.

2. Draft animals - The westbound emigrants depended upon draft animals to haul their wagons for the long trek. Horses were out of the questions. A single rider could travel to Oregon or California astride a horse. But horses were not sturdy enough for the 2,000 miles trek and would die before reaching the end of the journey. It was recommended that emigrants use oxen or mules to pull their wagons.

Both oxen and mules were considered sturdy enough for the long trek. However, most would recommend oxen to haul a wagon, for they were cheaper and could survive slightly better on the grazing found along the trails. Mules could do the same, but at a lesser rate. But they were more expensive than oxen. They had a tendency to be temperamental. And they were more inclined to attract the attention of Native Americans.

3. Supplies and Goods - It was very essential for emigrants to haul supplies and goods during their long, westward trek. Upon leaving Independence, Missouri; there were very little opportunities to purchase food and supplies. The only locations that offered such opportunities to purchase more goods were a small number of trading and military outposts along the western trails. However, many emigrants attempted to bring along furniture, family heirlooms and other valuable possessions. They realized it was wiser to rid said possessions in order to lighten their wagon loads. And this would explain why these discarded possessions practically littered the major emigrant trails during the second half of the 19th century.

4. Western Outposts - As I had stated earlier, westbound emigrants encountered very little opportunities to re-stock on supplies during their journey west. Only a series of trading or military outposts on the western plains offered emigrants opportunities for more supplies. Emigrants encountered Fort Laramie (present day eastern Wyoming), Fort Hall (present day Idaho) and Fort Laramie after 1848 (present day Nebraska) along the Oregon/California Trails. Along the Santa Fe Trail, they would eventually encounter Fort Leavenworth (present day northeastern Kansas). Fort Bent (present day southeastern Colorado) and eventually Santa Fe in the New Mexico Territory.

5. Native American Encounters - The portrayal of emigrants' encounters with Native Americans during the western trek could either be chalked up to Hollywood exaggeration, American racism or a mixture of both. But many movie and television productions about the western migration tend to feature large scale attacks upon wagon trains by Native American warriors. One, such attacks never happened - at least as far as I know. The various nations and tribes possessed too much sense to attack a wagon train that was likely to be well-armed. And the number of Native Americans portrayed in these cinematic attacks tend to be ridiculously large. A small band of warriors might be inclined to steal some horses or stock in the middle of the night, or attack a lone wagon traveling on the plains for the same reason. However, westbound emigrants either socialized or traded with the Native Americans they encountered. Or perhaps some trigger-happy emigrant or more might be inclined to take pot shots at a lone rider or two. But large scale attacks by Native Americans ended up being figments of a filmmaker's imagination.

In the following article, I will focus upon the history accuracy or lack thereof featured in 1962's "HOW THE WEST WAS WON".

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery featuring photos from "IRON MAN 2", the sequel to Marvel comics' 2008 blockbuster hit. Directed by Jon Farveau, the movie stars Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson:

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery