Oysters Rockefeller

Here is some information about a well-known dish that originated in New Orleans, Louisiana called Oysters Rockefeller: 


OYSTERS ROCKEFELLER

Oysters Rockefeller is a dish that consists of oysters topped with ingredients such as parseley, other green herbs, bread crumbs and a rich butter sauce, served on the half-shell. The dish was originated in 1899 by one Jules Alciatore, the son of the founder of the famous New Orleans restaurant, Antoine's.

The dish was named after the richest man in the United States at the time, John D. Rockefeller. Alciatore developed Oysters Rockefeller in the face of a shortage of French snails, substituting the locally available oysters for snails. Antoine's has been serving the original recipe dish since 1899. Although many New Orleans restaurants have claimed to be serving the original version of the dish, Antoine's has refuted their claims, stating that no other restaurant has successfully duplicated the original recipe. The restaurant also claimed that Alciatore' original recipe for the dish was passed down to his children, and has apparently never left the family's hand.

Here is a recipe (probably not the original) for Oyster's Rockefeller:


OYSTERS ROCKEFELLER

Ingredients:

1 pound butter
1 rib celery, finely chopped
2 bunches green onions, finely chopped, about 2 cups
1 bunch parsley, fine chopped
3 tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
1/2 to 1 teaspoon Tabasco sauce
1/2 teaspoon Pernod, Anisette, or Herbsaint
1 1/4 cups seasoned bread crumbs
4 dozen oysters in their shells
rock salt


Preparation:

Melt the butter in a large skillet and add the celery, scallions and parsley. Saute for 5 minutes, then add the Worcestershire and Tabasco. Reduce heat to medium and cook for 10 minutes. Add the Herbsaint or Pernod and bread crumbs; cook for 5 minutes more. Remove the pan from the heat and transfer the mixture to a bowl.
Chill in the refrigerator for 1 hour, until cold but not firmly set. Shuck oysters. Discard the top shells; scrub and dry the bottom shells. Drain the oysters. Arrange several oyster shells in baking pans lined with about 1 inch of rock salt. Arrange several pans in advance, if desired. Place 1 oyster in each shell. Heat oven to 375°. Remove the chilled Rockefeller topping from the refrigerator and beat it with an electric mixer to evenly distribute the butter and infuse air into the mixture; transfer the mixture to a pastry bag fitted with a large plain tip. Pipe a tablespoon of the mixture onto each oyster, then bake in a 375° oven for 5 to 8 minutes. Allow about 6 oysters for each guest. If possible, bake these in batches of 6 in oven-safe pans, so each person can be served a pan of hot Oysters Rockefeller right out of the oven.

"THE BIG COUNTRY" (1958) Image Gallery

Below are photos and screenshots from the 1958 Western, "THE BIG COUNTRY". Directed by William Wyler, the movie starred Gregory Peck, Jean Simmons, Charlton Heston and Carroll Baker: 


"THE BIG COUNTRY" (1958) Image Gallery

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (1977) Review

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" (1977) Review

I have heard of the 1977 adaptation of A.E.W. Mason' 1902 adventure film. But I never thought I would see it. Recently, it occurred to me to rent the movie from Netflix, because I have yet to run across it at any store that sells DVDs. I did rent "THE FOUR FEATHERS". Needless to say, it produced some rather interesting feelings within me. 

Anyone familiar with Mason's tale knows that "THE FOUR FEATHERS" is the story about a 19th century British Army officer named Harry Faversham, who harbor plans to resign from his commission in the Royal North Surrey Regiment and live out the rest of his days with future wife Ethne Eustace. During a ball held at his family estate, telegrams for Harry and three of his friends - Jack Durrance, William Trench and Thomas Willoughby - ordering them to report for duty, due to their regiment being shipped out to the Sudan to participate in the Mahdist War. Being the first to receive the telegrams, Harry had them destroyed so that he would not have to report for duty a day before his resignation from the Army was due to be official. Realizing what Harry had done, his father ostracized him, his three friends gave him white feathers that labeled him as a coward, and Ethne breaks off their engagement and also hands him a white feather. Also, Harry's best friend, Captain Durrance, becomes a rival for Ethne. Haunted by his efforts to avoid combat, Harry travels to the Sudan to help his friends any way possible and return their feathers.

"THE FOUR FEATHERS" attracted a good deal of critical acclaim, after it aired on British and American television. The movie also earned a Primetime Emmy nomination. And if I must be honest, I find that particularly surprising. I have seen this movie twice. Granted, it seemed pretty decent as far as television movies go. But . . . an Emmy nomination? "THE FOUR FEATHERS"? It just did not strike me as being that memorable. The Wikipedia site claimed that it was a very faithful to Mason's 1902 novel. Actually, it was no more faithful than any other adaptation I have seen. But I do feel that the movie's critical acclaim might be overrated.

The movie can boast its virtues. "THE FOUR FEATHERS" provided a small, but detailed peek into Harry Faversham's childhood that gave audiences a good idea behind his aversion to continuing his military career. It also featured at least two excellent action sequences - the skirmish that led to the destruction of Durrance's company and his blindness, and Harry and Trench's escape from the prison-of-war camp at Omdurman. Dramatic scenes abound in the film, especially one that featured the breakup of Harry and Ethne's engagement and the former's final confrontation with his militant father, retired General Faversham. 

And I cannot deny that some very good performances were also featured in "THE FOUR FEATHERS". David Robb, Harry Andrews and Robin Bailey all gave solid performances. I found Simon Ward's portrayal of William Trench rather intense, but believable. Both Robert Powell and Jane Seymour were excellent as Jack Durrance and Ethne Eustace. Beau Bridges proved to be an enjoyable surprise in his portrayal of the lead character, Harry Faversham. I recall reading one review of this movie, in which the critic praised the rest of the cast, but put down Bridges' performance. Apparently, he found the idea of an American portraying a Victorian British military officer unbelievable. I have seen Americans portray British characters before. And quite honestly, I thought Bridges did an excellent job by giving a subtle performance and avoiding histronics . . . unlike his performance in the 1976 film,"SWASHBUCKLER".

And while I found the production's quality solid, I did not find it particularly dazzling. I can only assume that as a television production, it would not be on the same quality as a theatrical release. The movie's costume designs by Olga Lehmann seemed a little more impressive. I especially enjoyed her costumes for Jane Seymour, despite my confusion over whether the costumes reflected the 1870s or the 1880s. But if I must be honest, I have seen other television productions a lot more impressive. I was also disappointed to find that the story's jingoistic portrayal of the British Empire somewhat off-putting, especially for a television movie that had aired in the 1970s. I would even add that the sympathetic portrayal of Harry's anti-military attitude struck me as a bit hypocritical, considering that the movie's conservative view of British imperialism. I must also admit that I found myself slightly repelled at the sight of white English actors portraying Sudanese soldiers. Did the producers really find it that difficult to find non-white actors to portray the Sudanese? Speaking of white actors portraying African ones:



Yes, ladies and gentlemen. The above photo is an image of British actor Richard Johnson portraying a Sudanese Arab named Abou Fatma, who assists Harry in his efforts to save his friends. Johnson gave a nice, solid performance as Fatma, but . . . why?Why??? Why on earth did the producers cast Johnson in this role? He looked like a performer in a 19th century minstrel show . . . or a cast member from "THE BIRTH OF A NATION". This kind of wince-inducing casting may have been common in the film industry during the first half of the 20th century. But "THE FOUR FEATHERS" aired on television around 1977/78. Nearly a year after the ABC miniseries, "ROOTS". What in the hell were the producers and casting director Paul Lee Lander thinking?

Do not get me wrong. "THE FOUR FEATHERS" is a pretty solid adventure movie that can boast a first-rate cast led by Beau Bridges. But I do feel that the movie is critically overrated. I did not find it that impressive, dramatically or production wise. I found the casting of white actors portraying non-white characters rather repulsive. And the movie's sympathetic portrayal of the character's anti-military stance in comparison to its pro-conservative portrayal of British imperialism struck me as hypocritical. Still . . . it was not a bad movie.

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (4.01-4.02) "Charmed Again"

"CHARMED" RETROSPECT: (4.01-4.02) "Charmed Again"

I just watched the "CHARMED" two-part Season Four premiere, (4.01-4.20) "Charmed Again". I rather liked the first half, which culminated with the youngest Halliwell sister, Paige Matthews, becoming a Charmed One and the sisters vanquishing Shax. I found the second half of the story to be . . . well, rather badly written. But to give you a picture of my feelings about this episode, I made a list of what I deem as "problems":

1) Why had Penelope "Grams" Halliwell, Patricia "Patty" Halliwell and the latter's whitelighter, Sam, believed that it was necessary to hide Paige's identity from the Elders? Okay, I understand that Sam would not want to find himself in trouble with his superiors. But did all of them actually believe that the Elders would kill an infant, whose only crime was being the progeny of an adulterous affair between a whitelighter and his married charge? Or that they would take Paige away from them? The Elders have no right to do such a thing. At least not to Paige. The worst they could have done was clip Sam's wings. Did maintaining Paige's future as a witch or Charmed spare was more important to Patty and Grams than her being a part of the family?

2) Why would seeing the ghosts of Patty and Grams in the manor's attic lead Inspector Cortez to believe that the two older Halliwell siblings - Piper and Phoebe Halliwell, Leo Wyatt and Cole Turner "Belthazor" had murdered the recently dead Prue Halliwell and Doctor Griffiths? What on earth could the sight of two ghosts lead Cortez to believe that the manor's inhabitants had committed murder?

3) Once the Source (disguised as Paige's boyfriend Shane) was alone with Paige in her apartment, why did he not kill her when he had the chance? Why bother going through the trouble of coercing Paige to choose a path of evil? Come to think of it, why did he not kill Piper and Phoebe at the church? Or all three of them at the Manor? In his final scene with the sisters, he TKs Piper against the staircase, and practically flings Phoebe aside. The only person he really tries to kill is Inspector Cortez. It is obvious that he was more powerful than the Power of Three. In order to kill him, the sisters had to rely on the Power of Three and the spirits of their ancestors. That only tells me that he could have easily kill them and Cole. But he did not bother. Why? Because he wanted Phoebe around to witness Cole's death? Was the Source that much of a moron . . . or what?

4) When the Source wounded Cole, he left the latter at a non-remote roadside for a long time. Yet no one noticed him. Why?

5) Here is something I found confusing. The Source was not able to go into the church due to the warding gargoyle. Yet, the evil warlocks in the episode "When Bad Warlocks Turn Good" were able to walk freely in and out the church. Granted, the church in the S1 episode may not have been protected by gargoyles. But the church in the two episodes looked the same. And when the Source had possession of Cole's body, he was able to enter a church.

6) I also spotted a blooper. When Piper and Phoebe are talking to Paige in P3, at the end of Part 2, Piper is not wearing any earrings. But when they go home she is wearing long black earrings.

7) "The 48-Hour Window of Opportunity" - According to both Leo and Cole, there is a period - "window of opportunity" - in agreed upon by both good (the Whitelighters) and evil (the Demons) where a witch can decide her alliance. Personally, I think this is the dumbest idea ever created by Brad Kern. I find it hard to believe that due to an agreement between the Source's Council and the Elders Council, a new witch is given the free will to choose between good and evil. That witch should have possessed the free will to choose whatever path he or she wants without some damn agreement between whitelighters and demons. And it even harder to believe that once that witch makes his or her choice, he/she will remain either good or evil until death? What utter crap! This "window of opportunity" sounds like something from a fairy tale for children. Apparently, Mr. Kern had failed to remember a certain law of nature - that life is UNCERTAIN and/or there is no real absolute that one can depend upon. There is no certainty that a person will remain on a certain path chosen earlier in his or her life. Even if Paige had chosen evil, her remaining evil would have never been absolute or certain. This where Kern's black-and-white morality really failed him.

8) How is it that Phoebe had failed to see the evil within Leo with those glasses she had created for that particular purpose? Leo had darkness within him, like everyone else. Which is why he ended up being infected by the "Deadly Sins" in the Season 3 episode, "Sin Francisco", like the Halliwells. Two seasons later, Leo will end up committing an act of evil with his murder of Elder Gideon. Phoebe should have seen his inner darkness, as well as Cole's. After all, there is such a concept as "the fallen angel".


Well, that's it. Granted, some of the episodes from Seasons 1-3 were not that hot. But I do believe that "Charmed Again" signaled the moment when the show's writing threatened to start becoming less than mediocre.

"SOME LIKE IT HOT" (1959) Photo Gallery

Here is a gallery featuring images from "SOME LIKE IT HOT", the 1959 comedy directed by Billy Wilder. The movie starred Marilyn Monroe, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon: 



"SOME LIKE IT HOT" (1959) Photo Gallery

"OCEAN'S THIRTEEN" (2007) Review

"OCEAN'S THIRTEEN" (2007) Review

After the rather disappointing 2004’s "OCEAN'S TWELVE", I really did not expect to even like this third entry into what became a trilogy. I more than liked "OCEAN'S THIRTEEN". I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not only was it better than the second film, I found it just as enjoyable as the first – namely 2001’s "OCEAN'S ELEVEN" 

Directed by Oscar winner, Steven Soderbergh, the movie starts out in a series of flashbacks in which Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), one of Danny Ocean’s associates from the first two films, makes the mistake of building a hotel with one of Las Vegas’ most hated businessmen, Willy Bank (Al Pacino). He gets cut out of the deal and ends up in the hospital after a heart attack. In an attempt to help his old friend Reuben, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) approaches Bank and asks him to restore Reuben’s share of the hotel. In their exchange, Ocean appeals to the code of honor that applies to those people who have shaken Sinatra's hand - both Reuben and Bank have done so. Bank glibly denies Ocean's request saying of Reuben: "He's made the right choice: roll over and die. Let him be." Ocean and his crew decide to bring down Banks by rigging his new hotel and casino – The Bank – to lose $500 million dollars on the night of its Grand Opening, six months later. When they run out of money, they enlist the help of former nemesis – casino owner Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), who wants to settle a score against Bank for creating hotel/casinos that have been taking the spotlight from his casinos.

I could go into detail about the movie’s plot, but I rather not. It happens to be a complicated plot. Do not get me wrong. Brian Koppelman and David Levien’s ("ROUNDERS") plot is not convoluted. Aside from one or two plot points, I perfectly understood what was going on. But I feel that it is too complicated for me to spell it out in details. Instead, I will simply point out the moments that I truly enjoyed:

*I found the gang’s initial plot to kill Willy Bank and dispose of his body in retaliation for Reuben’s condition rather funny and a great moment of ensemble acting from the cast:

*Another moment I enjoyed was when Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) caught Danny watching an episode of Oprah. Great comic moment for both Clooney and Pitt.

*I loved Linus Caldwell’s (Matt Damon) impersonation of a ”mouthpiece” for an Asian real-estate mogul (Yen in disguise); especially when he is called upon to seduce Bank’s assistant, Abigail Sponder (Ellen Barkin), using artificial pheromones, which act as an aphrodisiac to maximize her attraction to him. Apparently, Linus needed her to get him inside Willy Bank’s Diamond Room.

*There is a great sequence of scenes featuring a hotel reviewer who is treated as “the V.U.P.” (the always great character actor David Paymer) or “Very Unimportant Person”, when Saul Bloom (Carl Reiner) is mistaken as the reviewer. The V.U.P.’s discovery of bed bugs in his room is part-hilarious, part-creepy.

*Don Cheadle as the group’s mechanical genius Basher Tarr gets to shine in a scene in which he impersonates a motorcycle stuntman in order to distract Bank, while Virgil and Turk Malloy (Casey Afflect and Scott Caan)

*Another great moment is when the plot to financially ruin Bank comes together with many of the hotel’s patrons winning large sums of money at most of the gaming tables in the casino. Actually, this entire sequence was done within a montage.

*But my favorite sequences feature featured Virgil Malloy’s (Casey Affleck) efforts to load the casino’s specially designed dice at a factory in Mexico. Virgil is sent there to infiltrate the factory. Instead, he loses sight of his mission when he sees the working conditions at the factory. Instead of fixing the dice, he decides to fix the problem and lead his co-workers in a revolt.

As usual, the cast is great. I especially enjoyed Al Pacino’s performance as the backstabbing casino owner, Willy Bank. He managed to be flamboyant, without going over-the-top. I also enjoyed seeing Ellen Barkin in a memorable role, after all of these years. But I must admit that I especially enjoyed Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, David Paymer, Don Cheadle and Elliot Gould in this film. And Steven Soderbergh did a great job in maintaining the movie’s pace, drawing out memorable performances and especially capturing the flash and glitter of early 21st century Las Vegas. In fact, I think that "OCEAN'S THIRTEEN" is just as good as the first movie, "OCEAN'S ELEVEN" . . . and thankfully, a great improvement over the confusing"OCEAN'S TWELVE".

JANE AUSTEN's Hero Gallery

Below is a look at the fictional heroes created by Jane Austen in the six published novels written by her. So, without further ado . . . 


JANE AUSTEN'S HERO GALLERY

   

Edward Ferrars - "Sense and Sensibility" (1811)

Edward Ferrars does not seemed to be highly regarded by many Jane Austen fans or literary critics. People seemed to take this mild-mannered, unambitious young man for granted and in some cases, dismiss him as weak. Although mild-mannered, I would never regard Edward as weak. I found him stalwart and willing to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions . . . even if this trait nearly led him into matrimony with the manipulative Lucy Steele.



1. Robin Ellis (1971) - He gave a charming and solid performance as the likeable Edward. After many viewings, I even learned to tolerate the stuttering he used for portraying Edward. Ellis and actress Joanna David had a nice chemistry, but it did not exactly blow my mind.




2. Bosco Hogan (1981) - I must admit that I had originally found his performance in the 1981 miniseries as somewhat tepid. But on second viewing, I realized that I had underestimated him. Despite his low-key portrayal of Edward . . . or because of it, I detected some rather interesting moments in Hogan's performance in which he effectively conveyed Edward's emotional state, while trying to suppress it. I am impressed.




3. Hugh Grant (1995) - At first, I was not impressed by Grant's portrayal of Grant. But on later viewings, I noticed that he injected a good deal of charm and humor into his performance. And he had some pretty good lines in the movie's first half hour. More importantly, he had great chemistry with leading lady Emma Thompson.




4. Dan Stevens (2008) - He conveyed more emotion and charm into his performance than his predecessors and it worked for him. And like Grant before him, he had great chemistry with his leading lady Hattie Moran.



   

Colonel Christopher Brandon - "Sense and Sensibility" (1811)

There are some critics and fans who believe that the quiet and always loyal Colonel Brandon was wrong for the much younger Marianne Dashwood. Personally, I found him a major improvement over John Willoughby. And despite his quiet demeanor, he seemed to be just as emotional as she . . . but with more control.



1. Richard Owens (1971) - His performance slowly grew on me, as the miniseries progressed. I thought he gave a pretty good performance and did a solid job in slowly revealing Brandon's feelings for Marianne.




2. Robert Swann (1981) - He must be the most emotional Colonel Brandon I have ever seen on screen. At least once his character's feelings for Marianne were finally exposed. Personally, I liked his take on Brandon very much, even though most fans do not seem to care for his performance.




3. Alan Rickman (1995) - He made an excellent Colonel Brandon. I was impressed by how he revealed the character's romantic nature behind the stoic facade. I also feeling that Brandon is one of the actor's best roles.




4. David Morrissey (2008) - He is the last actor I could imagine portraying the reserved, yet passionate Colonel Brandon. And yet, not only did he did a great job in the role, he also gave one of the best performances in the miniseries.



   

Fitzwilliam Darcy - "Pride and Prejudice" (1813)

Unless I am mistaken, Fitzwilliam Darcy must be the most popular leading man created by Jane Austen. There are times when he seems more popular than the novel's leading character, Elizabeth Bennet. Although he is not my favorite Austen leading man, I must say that he is one of the most fascinating. However, I found his "redemption" in the story's third act a bit too good to be true.



1. Laurence Olivier (1940) - He gave a very good performance as Fitzwilliam Darcy and was properly haughty. But there were times when he displayed Darcy's feelings for Elizabeth Bennet a little too openly . . . especially in the movie's first half.




2. David Rintoul (1980) - His Mr. Darcy was probably the most haughty I have ever seen on screen. There were moments when his portrayal seemed a bit too haughty, especially scenes in which his feelings for Elizabeth should have been obvious. But I believe he still have a first-rate performance.




3. Colin Firth (1995) - He received an Emmy nomination for his portrayal of Mr. Darcy in the 1995 miniseries. And I believe he fully deserved it. Hell, I would have given him the award. He did a great job in portraying the character's complexity with a balance I have never seen in the other actors who portrayed the same character.




4. Matthew McFadyen (2005) - He gave a very good performance as Mr. Darcy. However, I think Joe Wright's script emphasized a bit too much on the character's shyness and inability to easily socialize with others.



   

Charles Bingley - "Pride and Prejudice" (1813)

I have always found this character as sociable, charming and very likable. However, he has never struck me as complex as Fitzwilliam Darcy. And to be honest, I found his willingness to allow Mr. Darcy to dictate his social life a little irritating. But I suppose this should not be surprising, considering he is from a class lower than his friend.



1. Bruce Lester (1940) - I did not find his performance particularly memorable, but I must say that he gave a charming performance as young Mr. Bingley. And he had a nice, strong chemistry with Maureen O'Sullivan's Jane Bennet.




2. Osmund Bullock (1980) - He gave a nice, solid performance as Mr. Bingley. But I found his portrayal even less memorable than Bruce Lester's. That is the best thing I can say about him.




3. Crispin Bonham-Carter (1995) - I thought he gave a very warm and friendly performance as Mr. Bingley. In fact, he seemed to be the epitome of the literary character. I also enjoyed how the actor conveyed Mr. Bingley's attempts to hide his discomfort at either the Bennet family's behavior, or his sisters'. My only complaint is there were times when he came off as a bit too broad and theatrical.





4. Simon Woods (2005) - I cannot deny that he gave a first-rate performance. But I believe the latter was hampered by a script that portrayed Mr. Bingley as somewhat shy. I never had the impression from Austen's novel that the character was a shy man.



  

Edmund Bertram - "Mansfield Park" (1814)

Oh dear. I might as well be frank. I have never liked the Edmund Bertram character. He never struck me as completely negative. He was capable of great kindness - especially toward his cousin Fanny Price, who was basically an outsider. He had decent moral values and he knew what he wanted to do with his life. But he was such a prig . . . and a hypocrite. Even worse, he failed to become aware of his own shortcomings and develop as a character.



1. Nicholas Farrell (1983) - Despite my dislike of the character, he was excellent as the "Dudley Do-Right" Edmund. In fact, I think he was the best Edmund ever. And that is saying something, considering the excellent performances of the other actors who portrayed the role.




2. Jonny Lee Miller (1999) - He also gave a first-rate performance as Edmund. More importantly, he was given a chance to convey the character's growing attraction to his cousin, thanks to Patricia Rozema's screenplay.




3. Blake Ritson (2007) - After watching his performance as Edmund in the 2007 movie, I am beginning to suspect that an actor worth his salt could portray the role with great success. And that is exactly what Ritson managed to do.



   

George Knightley - "Emma" (1815)

George Knightley must be the most mature Austen hero I have ever encountered - not only in age, but in temperament. But due to his sly wit and admission of his own shortcomings, he has always been a big favorite of mine.



1. John Carson (1972) - Many have pointed out his age (45 years old at the time) as detrimental to his portrayal of Mr. Knightley. However, I found his performance and screen chemistry with his leading lady, Doran Godwin, that I honestly did not care. I still do not care. He gave an excellent performance.




2. Jeremy Northam (1996) - His portrayal of Knightley seemed to be the epitome of level-headed charm. And I especially enjoyed how he managed to convey Knightley's jealousy of Emma's friendship with Frank Churchill with some memorable brief looks.




3. Mark Strong (1996-97) - I have to give him kudos for conveying a great deal of common sense and decency into his portrayal of Mr. Knightley. He also had very good screen chemistry with the leading lady. But . . . I found him too intense and too angry. He made a somewhat scary Mr. Knightley.




4. Jonny Lee Miller (2009) - I really enjoyed his portrayal of the level-headed Mr. Knightley. He managed to convey a great deal of charm and wit into his performance with great ease. I am almost inclined to view his performance as my favorite.



 

Reverend Henry Tilney - "Northanger Abbey" (1817)

If I had to choose my favorite Austen hero, it would have to be him. Henry Tilney. Despite the fact that he is a clergyman, Henry is charming, clever, witty and sardonic. The type of man who could keep me in stitches forever. And he still manages to be complicated. What can I say? I adore him.



1. Peter Firth (1986) - His portrayal of Tilney nearly ruined my love of the character. I do not blame him. Firth gave it his all and also one of the best screen kisses I have ever seen in a period drama. But thanks to screenwriter Maggie Wadey, Firth's Henry ended up as an attractive but condescending one, instead of a witty and playful one.




2. J.J. Feild (2007) - His portrayal of Henry restored my love of the character. Field was fortunate not to be hampered by a transformed Henry. And I adored how he captured every aspect of Austen's literary character - the charm, wit, playfulness and common sense. And Field added one aspect to his performance that I adore . . . that delicious voice. 



  

Captain Frederick Wentworth - "Persuasion" (1818)

If I must be honest, Frederick Wentworth is tied with George Knightley as my second favorite Austen hero . . . but for different reasons. He had the charm, humor and looks to attract the eye of any red-blooded female. However, his character was marred by a penchant for lingering anger and so much insecurity, especially eight years after being rejected by Anne Elliot. Wentworth has to be the most insecure Austen hero I have ever come across. That is why I find him so fascinating.



1. Bryan Marshall (1971) - I really enjoyed how he conveyed Frederick's extroverted sense of humor and charm. But I never got a strong sense of his character's insecurity, along with his lingering anger and love for the leading lady, until the last act of the miniseries' first half.




2. Ciarán Hinds (1995) - He did an excellent job in conveying all of the complicated aspects of Frederick's personality. However, there were moments when I felt his performance could have a little more subtle. However, I still enjoyed his take on the character.




3. Rupert Penry-Jones (2007) - Some have complained that his take on the character seemed a bit too introverted. I have to agree . . . at least in the television movie's first half hour. But I thought he did an excellent job in portraying Frederick's insecurity, anger and lingering love for the leading lady.