“THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” (2004) Review

 

“THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” (2004) Review

I might as well say it. Agatha Christie’s 1942 novel, “The Body in the Library” has never been a particularly favorite of mine. Nor have I ever been that fond of the 1984 television adaptation that starred Joan Hickson. So, when ITV aired another adaptation of the novel, I was not that eager to watch it. But I did. 

“THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” proved to be a slightly complicated tale that begins with the discovery of a dead body in the library of Gossington Hall, the home of Colonel Arthur and Dolly Bantry. The body turns out to be a peroxide blonde in her late teens with heavy make-up and dressed in a satin gown. The police, led by Colonel Melchett, Chief Constable of the County, first suspects a local St. Mary Mead citizen named Basil Blake, who has clashed with Colonel Bantry in the past. However, Colonel Melchett discovers there is a living, breathing peroxide blonde in Blake’s life named Dinah Lee. Superintendent Harper of the Glenshire police becomes a part of the investigation, when he reveals the identity of the corpse as eighteen year-old Ruby Keene, a professional dancer who worked at the Majestic Hotel Resort in Danemouth. Ruby’s body is identified by her cousin Josie Turner, another professional dancer at the Majestic.

While both Colonel Melchett and Superintendent Harper investigate Ruby’s death, Dolly Bantry recruit her old friend and neighbor, Jane Marple to conduct her own investigation. Both the police and Miss Marple discover that another old friend of the Bantrys – a wealthy guest named Conway Jefferson, had reported Ruby’s disappearance. During the last year of World War II, Jefferson’s son and daughter were killed during a V-1 attack; leaving him physically handicapped and his son-in-law Mark Gaskell and daughter-in-law Adelaide Jefferson widowed. Since her arrival at the Majestic Hotel, Ruby had grown close to Jefferson. Their relationship led the latter to consider adopting Ruby and leaving her his money, instead of his in-laws. But despite their strong motives, both Mark and Adalaide had alibis during Ruby’s murder. Also more suspects and another corpse – a sixteen year-old Girl Guide – appear, making the case even more complicated.

Kevin Elyot’s screenplay featured changes from Christie’s 1942 novel. Like many “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MISS MARPLE”movies, “THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” is set during the 1950s. Certain characters from the novel, including Miss Marple’s old friend Sir Henry Clithering, were eliminated. Jefferson’s family is killed during World War II by a V2 rocket, instead of in a plane crash. Jefferson’s son and Mark Gaskell were RAF pilots. And one of the murderers’ identity was changed, leading to an even bigger change that will remained unrevealed by me. But do to Elyot’s well-written screenplay and Andy Wilson’s colorful direction, the changes did not affect my enjoyment of the movie. And that is correct. I enjoyed“THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” very much. Mind you, I did not find it perfect. Following the killers’ revelation, there was a scene in which the latter were being booked by the police that I found a bit silly and over dramatic. Also, a part of me wished that Miss Marple’s exposure of the killers could have occurred in their presence and in the presence of the other suspects. But . . . considering the circumstances and emotions behind the two murders, I could understand why Elyot did not.

“THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” proved to be one of the most colorful and lively Miss Marple productions I have ever come across. And I find this ironic, considering my feelings for the original novel and the 1984 television movie. First of all, I have to give credit where it is due – namely to director Andy Wilson. Not only did his direction infuse a good deal of energy and style into a story I had previously dismissed as dull. More importantly, he maintained a steady pace that prevented me from falling asleep in front of the television screen. Martin Fuhrer’s photography of the British locations in Buckinghamshire and East Essex certainly added to the movie’s colorful look. Production designer Jeff Tessler did an excellent job of re-creating the look and color of a seaside British resort in the 1950s. But the one aspect of movie’s production that really impressed me were the movie’s costumes designed by Phoebe De Gaye. They . . . were . . . beautiful. Especially the women’s costumes.

The performances were first rate. “THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” proved to be Geraldine McEwan’s first time at the bat as Miss Jane Marple. Ironically, the 1984 version of this story proved to be the first time Joan Hickson portrayed the elderly sleuth. And like Hickson, McEwan immediately established her own style as the soft-spoken, yet uber-observant Jane Marple, by injecting a bit of eccentric behavior and habits into the mix. Joanna Lumley gave a deliciously vibrant performance as Miss Marple’s close friend, Dolly Bantry, who gets caught up in the murder investigation and the glamour of the Majestic Hotel’s atmosphere. Ian Richardson struck the right emotional note as the physically disabled Conway Jefferson, who re-focused his feelings upon the doomed Ruby Keene, after years of dealing with the loss of his family. Both Simon Callow and Jack Davenport gave funny performances as the two police officials in charge of the case – the occasionally haughty Colonel Melchett and the sardonic Superintendent Harper. Mary Stockley gave a subtle performance as Ruby’s cousin, the no-nonsense Josie Turner, who has to deal with the death of a close relative. Jamie Theakston had a great moment in a scene that featured Mark Gaskell’s conversation with Miss Marple about his character’s difficulties in dealing with the loss of his wife and friends during the war and his financial difficulties since. Tara Fitzgerald’s portrayal of Jefferson’s daughter-in-law, Adelaide, struck me as warm and very sympathetic. Ben Miller did a great job in portraying the colorful, yet slightly pathetic personality of Suspect Number One Basil Blake. And James Fox had a small role in “THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY”, but he did a very good job in conveying Arthur Bantry’s embarrassment over the discovery in his library and the gossip directed at him.

The flaws featured in “THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY” struck me as minimal, in compare to the movie’s virtues. More importantly, Andy Wilson’s direction and Kevin Elyot’s screenplay infused an energy into this adaptation that seemed to be lacking not only in the 1984 movie, but also in Christie’s novel. This might prove to be one of my favorite Miss Marple movies to feature the always talented Geraldine McEwan.

Five Favorite Episodes of “ONCE UPON A TIME” – Season Two (2012-2013)

Below is a list of my top five favorite episodes from Season Two of “ONCE UPON A TIME”. The series was created by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz: 

 

FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “ONCE UPON A TIME” – Season Two (2012-2013)

1. (2.16) “The Miller’s Daughter” – While Regina Mills and her mother Cora hunt for Rumpelstiltskin’s dagger in Storybrooke in this spine-tingling episode, Cora’s back story as a poor miller’s daughter who becomes the wife of a prince is revealed in flashbacks.

2. (2.10) “The Cricket Game” – Following Cora and Captain Hook’s arrival in Storybrooke, the former set about framing Regina for Archie Hooper’s “murder” in an effort to emotionally break the former mayor. Snow White and Charming disagree over how to handle the captured Evil Queen in the Fairy Tale Land flashbacks.

3. (2.05) “The Doctor” – The true identity of Dr. Victor Whale is revealed to be Dr. Frankenstein, when he attempts to resurrect Regina’s long dead fiancé in an effort to make a bargain with her. Flashbacks reveal Rumpelstiltskin’s manipulations of a young Regina that prove to have major consequences.

4. (2.22) “And Straight Until Morning” – Regina and the Charmings join forces to prevent Storybrooke from being destroyed by the former mayor’s magical trigger, stolen by anti-magic vigilantes Greg and Tamara in this surprisingly interesting season finale.

5. (2.14) “Manhattan” – Emma Swan, Henry Mills and Rumpelstiltskin’s search for the latter’s son in Manhattan results in a major surprise for all three. Flashbacks reveal Rumpelstiltskin’s encounters with a blind seer, whose predictions will harbor consequences for the former.

“NORTH AND SOUTH” (1975) Review

 

“NORTH AND SOUTH” (1975) Review

I had been a fan of Elizabeth Gaskell’s 1855 novel, ever since I first saw the 2004 television adaptation a few years ago. Mind you, I had never read the novel. And I still have yet to read it. Despite this, I became a fan of the story. And when I learned that the BBC planned to release an older adaptation of Gaskell’s novel, which first aired in 1975, I looked forward to seeing it. 

As one would assume from reading this review, I eventually purchased a copy of the 1975 adaptation on DVD. And if I must be honest, I do not regret it. “NORTH AND SOUTH” proved to be a pretty damn good adaptation. Like the 2004 version, it consisted of four (4) fifty-minute episodes. Gaskell’s novel told the story of one Margret Hale, who returns home after ten years to her cleric father’s rector in Helstone, after attending the wedding of her cousin, Edith Shaw. Margaret’s homecoming is short-lived when she and her mother learn that her father Richard Hale has left the Church of England as a matter of conscience, after he has become a dissenter. His old Oxford friend, Mr. Bell, suggests that the Hales move to the industrial town of Milton, in Northern England; where the latter was born and own property.

Not long after the Hales’ arrival in Milton, both Margaret and mother Maria Hale find Milton harsh and strange. Due to financial circumstances, Mr. Hale works as a tutor. One of his more enthusiastic students turn out to be a wealthy cotton manufacturer named John Thornton, master of Marlborough Mills. Appalled by the conditions of the poverty-stricken mill workers, Margaret befriends the family of one Nicholas Higgins, a union representative. She also develops a dislike of Thornton, finding him gauche and seemingly unconcerned about his workers’ condition. Unbeknownst to Margaret, Thornton has grown attracted to her. The volatile relationship between Margaret and Thornton eventually plays out amidst the growing conflict between mill owners and angry workers.

As I had stated earlier, “NORTH AND SOUTH” proved to be a pretty good adaptation. I have a tendency to regard BBC miniseries produced in the 1970s with a jaundice eye, considering their tendency end up as televised stage plays. Thanks to the conflicts, social commentaries and romance featured in “NORTH AND SOUTH”, the miniseries was never boring. Many viewers who have seen this version of Gaskell’s novel claim that it was a more faithful adaptation than the 2004 miniseries. I cannot agree or disagree, considering that I have yet to read the novel. But I have never been too concern with the faithfulness of any movie or television adaptation, as long as the screenwriter(s) manage to come up with decent script that adheres to the main narrative of the literary source. Fortunately, David Turner did just that. His screenplay, along with Rodney Bennett’s direction, explored all of the aspects of Gaskell’s 1855 novel – the reason behind the Hales’ move to the North, the labor conflicts between the workers and the mill owners, Margaret Hale’s conflict/romance with John Thornton, the latter’s relationship with his mother, Nicholas Higgins’ conflict with fellow mill worker Boucher, and the fragmentation of the Hale family. Also, Bennett directed the entire miniseries with a steady pace that kept me alert.

It is a good thing that Bennett’s pacing kept me alert . . . most of the time. Like many BBC productions in the 1970s,“NORTH AND SOUTH” did come off as a filmed play in many scenes. Aside from Margaret’s arrival in Helstone inEpisode One, the labor violence that erupts within the grounds of Marlborough Mills in Episode Two and the delivery of Boucher’s body in his neighborhood; just about every other scene was probably shot inside a sound stage. And looked it. This even includes the Milton train station where Margaret says good-bye to her fugitive brother, Frederick. Now many would state that this has been the case for nearly all BBC miniseries productions from that era. Yet, I can recall a handful of productions from the same decade – 1971’s “PERSUASION”, 1972’s “EMMA” and even “JENNIE, LADY RANDOLPH CHURCHILL” from 1974 – featured a good deal of exterior shots. And there were moments when some scenes continued longer than necessary, especially in Episode One. Margaret’s conversation with her cousin Edith and Mr. Hale’s announcement of his separation from the Church of England seemed to take forever. And due to this problem, there were moments went the miniseries threatened to bog down.

But as much as I liked Turner’s adaptation of the novel, it seemed far from perfect. One aspect of the script that really irritated me was that Turner had a habit of telling the audiences what happened, instead of showing what happened. InEpisode One, following their arrival in Milton, Margaret tells her parents that she met the Higgins family. The miniseriesnever revealed how she met Nicholas or Betsy Higgins in the first place. The series never revealed the details behind Boucher’s death in Episode Four. Instead, a neighbor told Margaret, before his body appeared on the screen. We never see any scenes of Fanny Thornton’s wedding to mill owner Mr. Slickson. Instead, John tells Mr. Bell about the wedding in a quick scene between the two men on a train. Also, I found Margaret’s initial hostility toward John rather weak. A conversation between the two about the mill workers took part after audiences met the Higgins family. It is easy to see that John’s arrogant assumption regarding his control of his workers might seemed a bit off putting to Margaret. But it just did not seem enough for her hostility to last so long. And while the script probably followed Gaskell’s novel and allowed John’s regard for Margaret to be apparent before the end of Episode One, I never felt any growing attraction that Margaret may have felt toward John. Not even through most of Episode Four. In fact, Margaret’s open declaration of her love for John in the episode’s last few minutes seemed sudden . . . as if it came out of the blue.

The above mentioned problem may have been one reason why I found Margaret and John’s romance unconvincing. Another problem was that I found the on-screen chemistry between the two leads, Rosalie Shanks and Patrick Stewart, rather flat. In short, they did not seemed to have any real chemistry. The two leads gave first-rate, if somewhat flawed performances in their roles. Aside from a few moments in which I found Shanks’ Margaret Hale a bit too passive, I thought she gave an excellent, yet intelligent performance. Stewart seemed as energetic as ever, even if there were moments when his John Thornton seemed to change moods faster than lightning. But they did not click as an on-screen couple. Also, Turner’s screenplay failed to any signs of Margaret’s growing attraction toward John. It simply appeared out of the blue, during the series’ last few minutes.

I certainly had no problems with the other performances in the miniseries, save for a few performances. Robin Bailey did an excellent job in portraying Margaret’s well-meaning, yet mild-mannered father, Richard Hale. Bailey seemed to make it obvious that Mr. Hale was a man out of his depth and time. Kathleen Byron perfectly conveyed both the delicate sensibility and strong will of Margaret’s mother, Maria Hale. I was very impressed by Rosalie Crutchley’s portrayal of the tough, passionate and very complex Mrs. Hannah Thornton. I could also say the same about Norman Jones, who gave a very fine performance as union representative Nicolas Jones . . . even if there were times when I could barely understand him. Christopher Burgess’ portrayal of Boucher struck me as very strong . . . perhaps a little on the aggressive side. And Pamela Moiseiwitsch gave a very funny portrayal of John’s younger sister, Fanny; even if her performance came off as a bit too broad at times. It was a blast to see Tim Pigott-Smith in the role of Margaret’s fugitive brother, Frederick Hale. I say it was a blast, due to the fact that Pigott-Smith portrayed Richard Hale in the 2004 miniseries, 19 years later. As much as I enjoyed seeing him, there were times when his performance came off as a bit hammy.

Overall, “NORTH AND SOUTH” is a pretty solid adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s novel. Aside from a few changes, it more or less adhered to the original narrative, thanks to David Turner’s screenplay and Rodney Bennett’s direction. And although it featured some fine performances, the miniseries did suffer from some narrative flaws and a lack of chemistry between the two leads – Rosalie Shanks and Patrick Stewart. However, “NORTH AND SOUTH” still managed to rise above its flaws . . . in the end.

Me and the “STAR WARS” Saga

ME AND THE “STAR WARS” SAGA

Last fall, I learned about the creation of a YOU TUBE video clip called “Dear J.J. Abrams”. In this clip, someone named Sincerely Truman made a list of rules for director-producer J.J. Abrams to follow for the upcoming seventh movie in the“STAR WARS” film franchise. In reality, the video clip was basically another attempt to bash the last three movies of the franchise known as the Prequel Trilogy. 

This Sincerely Truman seemed to believe that Abrams, along with screenwriter Michael Arndt follow his (or her) advice, the franchise could regain the former glory it had lost with the release of the Prequel Trilogy. While brooding over this video clip, I found myself recalling my own reactions to the movie franchise . . . reactions that stretched back to the release of the first movie during the summer of 1977.

I am old enough to recall seeing “STAR WARS: EPISODE IV – A NEW HOPE”, when it was simply known as “STAR WARS” over 36 years ago. I have a confession to make. I disliked the movie intensely. I did not want to see it in the first place. In fact, my parents practically had to drag me to the theaters to watch the movie. Despite this, I still hated it. Looking back on my initial reaction, I realize that “A NEW HOPE” was something so entirely new that my mind immediately reject it. And it took me years to finally embrace it.

I was not that particularly thrilled when “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” hit the theaters during the summer of 1980, three years later. I had not completely dismiss it, like I did “A NEW HOPE”. For some reason, the movie’s darker story line, the Leia/Han romance and Darth Vader’s revelation really lingered in my mind. However, I was not that thrilled that“THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” ended on a cliffhanger. I still found it difficult to embrace “STAR WARS”. In the end, “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI” became the first Star Wars movie that I completely embraced. I suppose I was finally ready to embrace George Lucas’ work, thanks to the success of 1981’s “RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK”. By 1983, “STAR WARS” was no longer something new or too different for me to embrace. And I was a good deal older. Also, “RETURN OF THE JEDI” did not end on a cliffhanger. This attitude continued, until I saw “EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” for the first time in seven years. Not only did I completely embrace it, the movie eventually surpassed my affections for “RETURN OF THE JEDI”. A year or two passed before I finally embraced “A NEW HOPE”. In fact, I eventually began to regard it higher than“RETURN OF THE JEDI”, as well.

When I learned that Lucas planned to release a new trilogy, set during the years before the Original Trilogy, I was a very happy woman. My infatuation with the“STAR WARS” saga had been revived by the re-release of the Original Trilogy in 1997, which had been remastered by Lucas. I really looked forward to a new set of“STAR WARS” movies. But I had no idea how Lucas planned to reveal the downfall of Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi and the Republic. And to be honest, I simply could not get into the “let’s make assumptions” game. I simply decided to wait and see.

I saw “STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE” in 1999, when I was in my 30s. And I instantly fell in love with it. I found its style somewhat different from the first three movies, but I did not care. Being in my 30s, I rather enjoyed the tale, which struck me as more emotionally and politically complex. The complexity became even further in the next film, 2002’s “STAR WARS: EPISODE II – ATTACK OF THE CLONES”, which I absolutely loved. I loved it so much that I got a little teary at the end. Along with “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”, it became my favorite “STAR WARS” movie of all time. Hell, I just recently watched it and realized that even to this day, I love it a lot. I also cried at the end of 2005’s “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH”. One, it was a sad movie. And two, I thought at the time it would be the last“STAR WARS” movie to be released in theaters. Mind you, there are times when I find it a bit depressing. But I love it more than “THE PHANTOM MENACE”. But “ATTACK OF THE CLONES” still remain my top favorite Prequel Trilogy movie. I have noticed that many of the old time fanboys are willing to embrace it, instead of the other Prequel Trilogy movies. I suspect that this tolerance for“REVENGE OF THE SITH” is due to the fact that in the film, Anakin Skywalker finally becames Darth Vader.

As you can see, my feelings about the current six “STAR WARS” movies seem a little strange for most of the franchise’s fans. I love all six movies. Despite the differences in style, I was able to see the connections between the two trilogies. And to this day, I find it hard to understand those who prefer one trilogy over the other. Mind you, I feel they are entitled to their opinions. But I am entitled to mine. Because of my complete embrace of all six movies, I found it difficult to enjoy that YOU TUBE video clip – “Dear J.J. Abrams”. I simply found it difficult to enjoy it or accept the views of its creator. Because of my love of all six films, I refuse to accept that this next film, “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII”, has to regain former glory for the franchise. As far as I am concerned, the franchise has never lost its glory.

“THE LONE RANGER” (2013) Review

 

“THE LONE RANGER” (2013) Review

My memories of the 1950s television series, “THE LONE RANGER”, is a bit sketchy. Actually, it is downright vague. I can recall Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels in their costumes – the latter wearing a mask. I can recall Moore bellowing “Hi ho Silver!” every once in a while. And I do recall that the series was shot in black-and-white. I have no memories of a particular episode or storyline. I never invested any genuine interest in the series during my childhood. 

When I learned that the Disney Studios and Jerry Bruckheimer planned to produce a movie about the Lone Ranger, I regarded the announcement with very little interest. Not even the news that Johnny Depp would portray Tonto could generate any excitement within me. Usually, I would have been excited by the news of another collaboration between Bruckheimer and Depp – especially since this collaboration marked the return of Gore Verbinski as director. But my lukewarm regard toward the old “THE LONE RANGER” made it impossible for me get excited. Instead, I merely adopted an attitude of “wait and see” and dismissed the news from my mind . . . until the release date for the movie finally approached.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, “THE LONE RANGER” was not only based upon the 1950s television show, but also the 1933 radio program. The movie is basically an origin tale of how a Commanche named Tonto met the man who became the Lone Ranger. It begins in San Francisco 1933, in which Will, a young boy and fan of the Lone Ranger myth, meets the elderly Tonto at a Wild West exhibition at a local fair. The story jumps back 64 years to 1869 in Colby, Texas; where a young attorney named John Reid is returning home by train to become an assistant district attorney. Also traveling on the train as prisoners is the notorious outlaw Butch Cavendish and Tonto. Cavendish is heading back to Colby to be hanged, following his capture by John’s older brother Dan and the other Texas Rangers in the area. However, Cavendish’s gang manages to rescue their leader and escape, leaving John, Tonto and other passengers aboard a runaway train. The latter eventually derails at a rail construction site for the unfinished Transcontinental Railroad and Tonto is arrested by the Reid brothers. Dan, who is married to John’s childhood love Rebecca Reid, deputizes his younger brother as a Texas Ranger before the whole group sets out to recapture Cavendish and his gang. Unfortunately for the Reid brothers and their fellow Rangers, there is a traitor amongst them who sets them up to be ambushed and killed by the Cavendish gang. Only John survives, due to the assistance of Tonto, who managed to escape jail. Seeking revenge, John sets out to find and capture Cavendish with Tonto’s help; unaware that the Commanche has his own vengeful agenda regarding Cavendish.

The question remains . . . did I enjoy “THE LONE RANGER”? I can honestly say that I did not like it as much as I had liked the three “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” movies that Gore Verbinski had directed – “THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL”, “DEAD MAN’S CHEST” and “AT WORLD’S END”. I take some of that back. Perhaps I liked it as much as I did “AT WORLD’S END”. I certainly liked it more than the fourth “PIRATES” movie, “ON STRANGER TIDES”. However, “THE LONE RANGER” had its flaws. One, I found the 149 minutes running time a bit too long about the movie adaptation of an old radio/television character. This movie could have undergone a bit more trimming, leaving the movie slightly longer than 120 minutes. What could Verbinski, Bruckheimer and the three screenwriters have cut? I have no idea. Well . . . I would have cut the 1933 sequences. I really did not see the need of an aging Tonto recalling his first meeting with the Lone Ranger with some kid. Two, there were some minor aspects of the plot that could have been a bit more clear. For instance, who saved Rebecca and her son Danny Reid from Collins, the Texas Ranger who had betrayed her husband? The movie never explained. The movie also failed to explain how Tonto had escaped from the Colby jail in time to find a wounded John Reid and nurse him back to health. Three, I was not impressed by Hans Zimmer’s score. To be honest, I have no memories of it. And if there is one thing that can contribute to the quality of a movie, is a first-rate score. “THE LONE RANGER” simply did not have one. And finally, I could have done without the train wreck that Tonto and John survived near the movie’s beginning. I wish screenwriters Ted Elliot, Terry Rossio and Justin Haythe could have found a less over-the-top way for Cavendish to escape the hangman’s noose.

Despite these flaws, I still managed to enjoy “THE LONG RANGER” very much. The screenwriters still managed to construct an interesting and entertaining tale about frontier politics, justice and revenge. In fact, the movie not only featured its usual staple of humor and action found in an Depp/Verbinski/Bruckheimer film, it also featured some pretty dark moments in its plot. Aware of moviegoers’ current dislike of summer films with a dark undertone – unless its a movie about some comic book hero or simply a drama – I was rather glad that the screenwriters and Verbinski managed to inject some darkness into the plot. The tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of Dan Reid and his fellow Texas Rangers, along with the reasons behind Tonto’s desire for revenge against Cavendish, the deadly attack upon the Reids’ ranch, and the threat of railroad construction and the U.S. Army against Commanche lands made this story very interesting. Another fascinating aspect of the movie’s plot proved to be the relationship between Tonto and John aka the Lone Ranger. First of all, I liked how the screenwriters made Tonto responsible for the creation of the Lone Ranger myth. Two, the development of Tonto and John’s relationship proved to be an uphill and hard-won battle. The screenwriters did not make it easy for the pair. A fellow co-worker had complained of John’s reluctance to trust Tonto by following the latter’s advice. A part of me agreed with him. Another part of me understood John’s reluctance, considering that Tonto had failed to be completely honest with him. Although I was not impressed by Zimmer’s score, I must admit that I truly enjoyed how the composer used the old Lone Ranger theme – Gioachino Rossini’s“William Tell Overture” – to accompany the movie’s final action sequence. I found it so inspiring.

“THE LONE RANGER” also featured little moments that I found very interesting . . . and entertaining. One of those moments was a hilarious flash-forward that depicted the Lone Ranger and Tonto’s robbery of a local bank that contained an item used by the pair to defeat the villains. Another scene that I enjoyed centered on the pair’s efforts to escape from being trampled upon after being buried in the ground by Commanches. I also enjoyed Tonto’s rescue of John, who was nearly hanged by Cavendish and the U.S. Army. And I especially enjoyed the last action sequence in which the pair tried to prevent the transportation of silver stolen from the Commanche lands by Cavendish and his partner. But my favorite moment – and it is a small one – centered around the love triangle between the Reid brothers, the woman they both loved, Rebecca; and a blue silk handkerchief used in the most subtle and erotic manner.

As for the movie’s technical aspects, I must admit that I left the movie theater feeling very impressed by it. I found Bojan Bazelli’s photography of the locations in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Colorado very beautiful. There was another aspect of Bazelli’s photography that I found interesting. The movie’s color scheme started out as chrome gray as soon as the plot shifted to 1869 Texas. Yet, even the 19th century “flashbacks” eventually grew in color as the story unfolded and the relationship between Tonto and John strengthen. I also have to commend the film’s editing done by James Haygood and Craig Wood, especially in many of the film’s action sequences. And Jess Gonchor did a beautiful job in re-creating mid-19th century Texas through his production designs – especially in the Colby and railroad construction sequences. Three time BAFTA nominee Penny Rose, who had designed the costumes for the “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN”movies, collaborated with Bruckheimer and Verbinski again as costume designer for “THE LONE RANGER”. I could rave about Rose’s work and how she perfectly captured the style of frontier fashions at the end of the 1860s. By why bother, when all I have to do is point out her work in the image below:

I found the performances featured in “THE LONE RANGER” outstanding . . . aside from two. One of those exceptions proved to be Helena Bonham-Carter’s portrayal of Red Harrington, an ivory-legged brothel madam who assists Tonto and John. Actually, Bonham-Carter gave a colorful and earthy performance as the one-legged madam who also sought revenge against Cavendish. Unfortunately, the movie’s screenplay failed to do anything with her character, other than allow her to provide some information to the pair in the movie’s first half and assist them for a brief moment in the final action sequence. Elliot, Rossio and Haythe pretty much wasted her character and Bonham-Carter’s time. Barry Pepper gave a colorful performance as the xenophobic U.S. Army Captain Jay Fuller, who allowed himself to be corrupted by Cavendish and his partner. But as much as I enjoyed Pepper’s performance, I found myself a bit unsatisfied with how the screenwriters handled his character. Captain Fuller’s transformation from a determined Army officer to a corrupt one struck me as a bit rushed and clumsy. James Badge Dale fared a lot better as John Reid’s older brother, Texas Ranger Dan Reid. He gave an excellent performance as the professional lawman torn between his love for his younger brother and jealousy toward his wife’s continuing feelings for the latter. Remember my recall of the scene featuring the blue silk handkerchief? Badge Dale’s performance in that scene really made it particularly memorable for me. It has been a while since I last saw William Fitchner in a movie – over three years, as a matter of fact. The man has portrayed a vast array of interesting characters over the years. And I would definitely count the outlaw Butch Cavendish as one of those characters. Fitchner skillfully portrayed the outlaw as a walking horror story with an impish sense of humor.

Tom Wilkinson, whom one could always count on portraying interesting and complex characters, skillfully portrayed another one in the form of railroad tycoon, Latham Cole. Wilkinson did an excellent job in portraying Cole as a subtle and wily man whose desire for Rebecca Reid, power and wealth; along with the construction of the railroad makes him a potential enemy of both Tonto and the Lone Ranger. I was surprised to discover that British actress Ruth Wilson had been cast as Rebecca Reid, John’s sister-in-law and the love of his life. I have always felt that she was a top-notch actress and her portrayal of the spirited Rebecca did not prove me wrong. But I was very surprised by how she easily handled a Texas accent during her performance. If someone ever decides to do a remake of the 1965 movie, “THE GREAT RACE”, I would cast Armie Hammer in the role of Leslie Gallant aka the Great Leslie. Hammer did a beautiful job in conveying a similar uptight and annoyingly noble personality in his portrayal of John Reid aka the Lone Ranger. In a way, I could see why a good number of fans found John’s stubborn refusal to improvise in dealing with Cavendish rather annoying. And if they did, Hammer succeeded in his performance on many levels . . . and still managed to be likeable. At least to me. Some critics had complained that Depp’s portrayal of Tonto failed to become another Jack Sparrow. Others complained that his Tonto seemed too much like Tonto. I will admit that Depp, the screenwriters and Verbinski utilized a similar sense of humor in the portrayal of Tonto. But thanks to Depp’s performance, the latter proved to be a different kettle of fish. Not only did I find Depp’s portrayal of the wily and vengeful Commanche rather funny, but also sad, considering the character’s back story. This allowed the actor to inject a tragicomedic layer in his portrayal of Tonto that reminded me why he is considered one of the best actors in the film industry.

As I had stated earlier, “THE LONE RANGER” did not strike me as perfect. I certainly do not regard it as one of the best movies from the summer of 2013; due to a running time I found too long, a few problems with the script and the presence of two characters I believe were mishandled. On the other hand, it turned out to be a first-rate action Western with a plot that featured some surprising plot twists and a dark streak that I believe made the story even more interesting. It did help that I not only enjoyed the post-Civil War setting, but also the performances of an excellent cast led by Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer and a very entertaining direction by Gore Verbinski.

TIME MACHINE: Battle of Chickamauga

 

TIME MACHINE: BATTLE OF CHICKAMAUGA

September 2013 marked the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Chickamauga, during the U.S. Civil War. Fought in southwestern Tennessee and northeastern Georgia, the battle served as the last Union offensive in that region between September 19-20, 1863. It was the first major U.S. Civil War battle to be fought in Georgia.

Following his successful Tullahoma Campaign, General William Rosecrans, who commanded the Union’s Army of the Cumberland, set out to force the Confederate Army of Tennessee, under General Braxton Bragg out of Chattanooga, Tennessee. In early September 1863, Rosecrans consolidated his forces scattered around Tennessee and Georgia and forced the Army of Tennessee out of Chattanooga. Bragg and his troops were forced south of the city and the Union troops followed them. The two armies engaged in a brief clash at Davis’s Cross Roads. Bragg became determined to reoccupy Chattanooga by meeting a part of Rosecran’s army, defeat it and move back into the city.

On September 17, his army marched north, intending to attack the Union’s isolated XXI Corps. While Bragg marched north on September 18, his cavalry and infantry fought with Union cavalry and mounted infantry. The actual Battle of Chickamauga between the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of Tennessee began in earnest on September 19, 1863; near Chickamauga Creek in northwestern Georgia. This small body of water flows into the Tennessee River. Although the Confederate troops engaged in a strong assault, they could not break the Union line.

General Bragg resumed his assault on the following day, September 20. In late morning, Rosecrans received erroneous information that he had a gap in his line. While moving units to close the alleged gap, Rosecrans had accidentally created an actual gap, directly in the path of a Confederate eight-brigade assault on a narrow front by Lieutenant General James Longstreet. Longstreet’s attack drove one-third of the Union army, including Rosecrans himself, away from the field. Other Union forces spontaneously rallied to create a defensive line on Horseshoe Ridge, forming a new right wing for the line of Major General George H. Thomas, who assumed overall command of remaining Federal forces. Although the Confederates launched costly and determined assaults, Thomas and his men held until twilight. The actions of Thomas earned him the nickname of “The Rock of Chickamauga. He led the Union forces to Chattanooga, while the Confederates occupied the surrounding heights and commenced upon a siege of the city.

Unable to break the Confederates’ siege of Chattanooga, General Rosecrans was relieved of his command of the Army of the Cumberland on October 19, 1863. He was replaced by General Thomas. During the siege, General Bragg commenced upon a battle against those subordinates he resented for failing him in the campaign. This conflict led toGeneral D.H. Hill being relieved of his command and General Longstreet’s corps being sent to fight in the Knoxville Campaign against General Ambrose Burnside. These actions seriously weakened Bragg’s army at Chattanooga. General Bragg’s siege of Chattanooga remained in effect for two months, until General Ulysses S. Grant broke it during the Chattanooga Campaign in late November.

For more information on the Battle of Chickamauga, read the following books:

“The Chickamauga Campaign [Civil War Campaigns in the Heartland] (2010) Edited by Steven E. Woodworth

“The Battle of Chickamauga: The Fight for Snodgrass Hill and the Rock of Chickamauga” (2012) by Robert L. Carter

“THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” (1995) Review

“THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” (1995) Review

When the 1995 adaptation of John Ehle’s 1971 novel, “The Journey of August King” hit the theaters, it barely made a flicker in the consciousness of moviegoers. In a way, I could see why. 

“THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” begins with widowed farmer August King traveling through the hills of western North Carolina in the spring of 1815, after selling his produce, making a final payment on his land, and purchasing goods at the local markets. During his journey, he learns about a hunt for an escaped slave. August eventually comes across the slave – a 17 year-old girl named Annalees. Although he is unwilling to expose her to slave catchers and her owner, a brusque farmer named Olaf Singletary; August wants nothing to do with her. But Annalees, sensing a sympathetic soul, literally follows August’s wagon until she literally forces him to help her. For the next several days, August and Annalees engage in a tension-filled journey in an effort to dodge Singletary and his slave hunters . . . and fellow travelers, whose curiosity or friendliness threatened to expose August and his new travel companion.

Earlier, I had stated that I could understand why “THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” barely made a flicker in the consciousness of moviegoers. One, the movie was based upon a novel that had been published 24 years earlier. And two, Miramax made little effort to publicize this ninety-minute film. I suspect the reason behind the lack of real publicity has to do with the film’s subject – American slavery. Aside from the recent movie, “DJANGO UNCHAINED”, the topic of U.S. slavery has not been that popular with moviegoers and television viewers in the past twenty years or so. I am not going to claim that “THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” is a cinematic classic. But I do wish that Miramax had made a bigger effort to promote this film.

“THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” had its flaws. There were times when the movie’s pacing threatened to crawl to a halt – especially in its second half hour. At the beginning of the movie, August claimed that it would take him at least three days to reach his farm. Yet, the journey to his farm and a nearby trail for escaped slaves seemed to take him and Annalees to reach. Perhaps this is not surprising. I also got the feeling that most of the characters traveling on that road – including August and Annalees – seemed to be traveling in circles. There were times when the pair seemed to be ahead of Singletary . . . and there were times when he seemed to be ahead of them. Very confusing. I only had one final complaint. Thandie Newton gave an excellent performance as Annalees in this movie. But . . . there were times I found her Southern slave girl accent a little exaggerated. I guess I should not have been surprised, considering that the actress hails from Britain.

Thankfully, “THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” possessed a lot more virtues than flaws. Despite her occasionally shaky Southern accent, Newton gave a first-rate performance as the extroverted, yet desperate fugitive slave, who took the chance to recruit the reluctant white farmer to help her. And Jason Patric was brilliant as the cautious August King, suffering from loneliness following the death of his wife. The actor did an excellent job in conveying his character’s development from the farmer who allowed his compassion and loneliness to overcome his caution . . . and at the same time, maintain his quiet nature. More importantly, both Patric and Newton produced a sharp, yet slightly sensual screen chemistry. Larry Drake (from “DARKMAN” and NBC’s “L.A. LAW”) gave a subtle, yet frightening performance as Annalees’ relentless owner, who is determined to recapture her. The movie also boasted a solid supporting performance from Sam Waterston as August’s neighbor and a local lawman.

“THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING” had more to offer. One, it featured some solid direction by Andrew Duigan. Also, the movie was filmed in – where else? North Carolina. Not only did it looked beautiful, its beauty was enhanced by Slawomir Idziak’s sharp and colorful photography. Although I would not view the movie’s setting as an excuse to provide eye-catching costumes, I must admit that Patricia Norris did an excellent job in re-creating the styles of Early America Appalachia through her costume designs.

I was surprised to learn that author John Ehle wrote the movie’s screenplay. I am usually wary of novelists writing the screen adaptations of their own novels. They tend to overdo it with over-the-top dialogue or protracted pacing. Granted, a third of the movie did suffer from a slow pacing, but I feel that Ehle did an otherwise excellent job in translating his novel into a movie. I was especially impressed by his portrayal of both August and Annalees. As I had noted earlier, August’s character was very well developed, without the loss of his core nature. Some film critics have complained that Annalees was portrayed as a passive character. I never got that impression. Granted, August had to help her evade Singletary and his slave hunters. But critics seemed to forget that Annalees had more or less forced August to help her. More importantly, she steadfastly maintained her own sense of individuality – even to the point of reacting violently when she believed August was expressing sexual interest in her during the movie’s first half hour. Ehle also provided a good deal of action and tension – surprisingly so for a movie that is basically a character study.

With the success of “DJANGO UNCHAINED” and  “TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE”, I hope that more film fans would consider taking the time to view “THE JOURNEY OF AUGUST KING”. It has its flaws, but I feel that it is a rewarding character study of two people during a period that is considered dark during this country’s history.

Coronation Chicken

Below is a small article about a dish that was created in the early 1950s called Coronation Chicken. I first learned about the recipe while watching a “SUPERSIZERS” episode about the 1950s: 

 

CORONATION CHICKEN

Sixty years ago last June, the citizens of the United Kingdom and the remaining British Empire celebrated the coronation of their new monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. She had ascended the British throne upon the death of her father, King George VI on February 6, 1952. A year and four months later on June 2, 1953; the Queen was crowned in a ceremony called a coronation.

Among the events scheduled in celebration of the event was a coronation luncheon hosted by the Queen. A chef named Rosemary Hume and a food writer/flower arranger named Constance Spry, who were both associated with the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London, were commissioned to prepare the food for the luncheon. When the two women set about preparing the food, Spry suggested the idea of a recipe that featured cold chicken, curry cream sauce and dressing that would later become known as coronation chicken.

Many believe that the Coronation Chicken recipe may have been inspired by another recipe called Jubilee Chicken, which had been specifically created for Silver Jubilee of the present Queen’s grandfather, King George V, in 1935. And for Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebration in 2012, guests at the Royal Garden Party were served “Diamond Jubilee Chicken”, a variation of Coronation Chicken created by Heston Blumenthal.

Below is the recipe for “Coronation Chicken”, from “The Constance Spry Cookery Book”, written by Rosemary Hume and Constance Spry:

Coronation Chicken

Ingredients for Chicken
2 Young chickens
Wwater and a little wine to cover
1 Carrot
1 Bouquet garni
Salt
3-4 Peppercorns
Cream of Curry Sauce

Ingredients for Cream of Curry Sauce
1 Tablespoon oil
2 oz. Onion, finely chopped
1
1 dessert spoon Curry Powder
1 Good Teaspoon Tomato Purée
1 Wineglass red wine
¾ Wineglass water
1 Bay-leaf
Salt, sugar, a touch of pepper
1 Slice or 2 of lemon
1 Squeeze of lemon juice, possibly more
1-2 Tablespoons Apricot Purée
¾ Pint mayonnaise
2-3 Tablespoons lightly whipped cream
A little extra whipped cream

Preparation

Poach the chickens, with carrot, bouquet, salt and peppercorns, in water and a little wine, enough barely to cover, for about 40 minutes or until tender. Allow to cool in the liquid. Joint the birds, remove the bones with care. Prepare the sauce given below. Mix the chicken and the sauce together, arrange on a dish, coat with the extra sauce. For convenience, in serving on the occasion mentioned, the chicken was arranged at one end of an oblong dish, and a rice salad as given below was arranged at the other.

Cream of curry sauce: Heat the oil, add the onion, cook gently 3-4 minutes, add curry-powder. Cook again 1-2 minutes. Add purée, wine, water, and bay-leaf. Bring to boil, add salt, sugar to taste, pepper, and the lemon and lemon juice. Simmer with the pan uncovered 5-10 minutes. Strain and cool. Add by degrees to the mayonnaise with the apricot purée to taste. Adjust seasoning, adding a little more lemon juice if necessary. Finish with the whipped cream. Take a small amount of sauce (enough to coat the chicken) and mix with a little extra cream and seasoning. This is an admirable sauce to serve with iced lobster.

Rice Salad: The rice salad which accompanied the chicken was carefully cooked rice, cooked peas, diced raw cucumber, and finely chopped mixed herbs, all mixed in a well-seasoned French dressing.

“JANE EYRE” (2011) Review

 

“JANE EYRE” (2011) Review

There seemed to be certain famous British novels that are always adapted for film or television . . . over and over again. One of those novel is Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 novel, “Jane Eyre”. There have been twelve television adaptations and seventeen movie adaptations. That must be a world record for any literary piece. I have seen at least three television adaptations and four movie adaptations. The most recent I have seen is the 2011 motion picture, directed by Cary Fukunaga. 

“JANE EYRE” – at least this version – begins with governess Jane Eyre leaving Thornfield Hall in the middle of the night, crying. She finds herself stranded on the Yorkshire moors, until she reaches the home of a clergyman named St. John Rivers and his two sisters. They allow Jane to stay with him. While staying with the Rivers family, Jane flashes back to the events that led to her flight and meeting with her rescuers. Her flashbacks begin with her last days at her childhood home, Gateshead, as a ten year-old girl clashing with her brutish Cousin John Reed and her cold Aunt Reed. The latter sends her to Lowood School for Girls, which is run by a cruel clergyman, Mr. Brocklehurst. Jane endures the brutality of Lowood with the help of a friend named Helen Burns. After Helen dies, Jane remains at Lowood for eight years, until she leaves to become a governess for a French orphan girl named Adele Varens at Thornfield. Jane becomes acquainted with the manor’s inhabitants – including Adele, housekeeper Mrs. Alice Fairfax and the manor’s owner, Mr. Edward Rochester. Jane’s relationship with Mr. Rochester develops from an employee/employer relationship to something more complicated and romantic. But their relationship is threatened by a secret that looms over Thornfield.

This adaptation of Brontë’s novel became the second one of my knowledge that was structured differently. In other words, this production began in the middle of Brontë’s tale, instead of the beginning. Fortunately, Fukunaga and screenwriter Moira Buffini’s changes to the story’s structure did not harm the story one bit. As far as I am concerned. By allowing the movie to begin with Jane Eyre’s flight from Thornfield Hall, Fukunaga and Buffini set up a second mystery within the story for those moviegoers unfamiliar with the story. The 2011 movie is not completely faithful to Brontë’s novel. And this is not a bad thing. Buffini’s screenplay did not focus very long on Jane’s stay at Lowood – for which I am utterly grateful. It also deleted Mr. Rochester’s prank against his female guests, when he disguised himself as a Gypsy fortune teller. This version also featured a bit of sexual tension between Jane and her benefactor, St. John Rivers. It also eliminated any reference to the latter’s romantic feelings toward a local heiress named Rosamond Oliver. Actually, the changes to Brontë’s novel did not really affect my feelings about the movie. Although it garnered a good deal of praise from many critics, “JANE EYRE” drew mix feelings from many moviegoers – especially those who were fans of the novel. This mixed reaction led me to ignore the movie for nearly two years, until my curiosity finally got the best of me and I watched it.

I was relieved to discover that “JANE EYRE” proved to be better than I had originally assumed. First of all, the movie benefited from a solid pacing, thanks to Fukunaga’s direction. Not only did Fukunaga kept the pacing lively enough to maintain my interest, but did not rush it . . . except in one pivotal scene. Despite re-arranging the story’s structure and deleting some scenes, both Fukunaga and Buffini maintained Brontë’s basic narrative. One aspect of the movie that I really enjoyed proved to be Adriano Goldman’s photography. Although the story is set in Yorkshire, Fukunaga shot most of the film in Derbyshire. It did not matter, for I was dazzled by Goldman’s work, especially in the sequence that featured Jane’s flight from Thornfield Hall. I also have to give kudos to Melanie Oliver’s editing for the smooth transitions between the sequences with the Rivers family and the flashbacks to Gatehead, Lowood and Thornfield Hall. But I am also a costume whore. And if there is one aspect of period dramas that really appeal to me, it is the costumes. And I might as well say it – Michael O’Connor’s costumes for the movie blew my mind. I thought he did a superb job in re-creating the fashions of the 1830s and especially the 1840s. O’Connor earned Academy Award and BAFTA Award nominations for his work. Below are examples of O’Connor’s beautiful costumes:

However, “JANE EYRE” is not perfect. What movie is? And yet . . . I would never consider this movie as the best adaptation of Brontë’s novel. Since “JANE EYRE” is basically a love story about a demure English governess and her moody employer, one would expect the two leads to crackle with chemistry. Unfortunately, I never detected any real chemistry between Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Lord knows they tried. They really tried. One of the problems is that Wasikowska had better chemistry with Jamie Bell, who portrayed St. John Rivers. I did not find this surprising, considering that the pair had portrayed young lovers in the 2008 World War II drama, “DEFIANCE”. There were a few scenes from the novel that did not appear in this film . . . and I missed them. I do not recall Rochester’s caustic recollections of his affair with young Adele’s mother. And I felt surprised that Rochester’s attempts to keep Jane at Thornfield seemed to be tinged with self-remorse. I do not recall Rochester expressing any remorse for his attempt to draw Jane into an ill-fated marriage and later, an illicit affair in the novel or other adaptations. I also got the feeling that Fukunaga and Buffini were trying to maintain a positive portrayal of him, following the revelation of his secret. And I must admit that I found Jane’s return to Thornfield and her reconciliation with Rochester rather disappointing. Unlike the rest of the film, I believe this final sequence was rushed. In fact, once Jane agrees to marry him, the movie suddenly ends, denying moviegoers Jane’s revelations about her time with St. John Rivers and his sisters and her marriage to Rochester. In other words, Fukunaga removed the story’s epilogue, causing the movie to end in an abrupt manner.

The performances featured in “JANE EYRE” seemed to range from solid to the superb. Most of the solid performances came from cast members that did not have a particularly large role in the film – for example, Freya Parks (as Helen Burns), Sophie Ward (Lady Ingram), Ewart James Walters (John Reed), Holliday Grainger (Diana Rivers) and Tamzin Merchant (Mary Rivers). Harry Lloyd’s performance as Richard Mason nearly made this list, but there were times I found myself wondering if he had been too young for the role. On the other hand, Romy Settbon Moore made a rather charming Adèle Varens. Simon McBurney gave a spot-on performance as the religious and tyranical Mr. Brocklehurst. But if I must be honest, it is a role he could have done in his sleep. I was surprised to see Sally Hawkins in the role of Jane’s Aunt Reed. This is the second role I have seen her in and it is such a complete difference to the Anne Elliot role from “PERSUASION” that I am still trying to comprehend it.

I really enjoyed Judi Dench’s portrayal of Thornfield Hall’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. She did an excellent job in conveying all aspects of the charater’s trait – the positive and occasionally, the not-so-positive. And she managed to utilized a soft Yorkshire accent without trying to hard. Jamie Bell’s portrayal of St. John Rivers really took me by surprise – in a positive way. Mind you, St. John has always struck me as an interesting character, but Bell’s strong screen chemistry with leading lady Mia Wasikowska contributed more nuance into the role. It seemed as if his St. John was a passionate man, who barely hid his feelings with a cool and socially correct persona. Michael Fassbender received a good deal of accolades for his portrayal of Edward Rochester. And there were times I believe he truly earned them by conveying the character’s sardonic and brooding manner. However, there were times when I found his performance a little wooden. And as I had stated earlier, his screen chemistry with Wasikowska was not always that strong. But the star of this movie, in my opinion was Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre. I was not that kind about the actress’ performance in the Disney film, “ALICE IN WONDERLAND”. And I thought she did a solid job in “LAWLESS”. But she ruled supreme in this movie’s title role. She did a superb job in projecting Jane’s emotions and passions with great subtlety and at the same time, conveying her character’s deep sense of morality. I must admit that I found her Yorkshire accent a bit of surprise, considering that Jane Eyre came from Britain’s gentry class. Despite this, I felt that Wasikowska made a superb Jane Eyre. And a part of me cannot help but wonder why Fassbender received more accolades than she.

I would not go out of my way and state that “JANE EYRE” was the best adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s novel. It possesses some flaws that prevent me from considering it among the top adaptations. But I do feel that it turned out to be a lot better than I had imagined it would be. In the end, I cannot join those group of “purists” who have condemned the film for failing to be an exact adaptation of the novel.