Below is my ranking of the episodes “THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT”, Netflix’s Emmy winning 2020 adaptation of Walter Nevis’ 1983 novel. Written and directed by Scott Frank, the miniseries starred Emmy nominee Anya Taylor-Joy:
RANKING OF “THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT” (2020) EPISODES
1. (1.04) “Middle Game” – While competing at an international tournament in Mexico City, chess prodigy Beth Harmon meets the intimidating Soviet champion, Vasily Borgov. Meanwhile, her adopted mother Alma Wheatley cozies up with a pen pal.
2. (1.07) “End Game” – In the series finale, a visit from Jolene, her old childhood friend from the orphanage, forces Beth to reckon with her past and rethink her priorities. With Jolene’s help, she is able to compete in the Moscow Invitational.
3. (1.02) “Exchanges” – Alma and her husband Allston Wheatley adopts Beth and draws her into a new life in suburbia Lexington, Kentucky. The teenage Beth studies her high school classmates and hatches a plan to enter a local chess tournament.
4. (1.03) “Doubled Pawns” – Beth travels to Cincinnati with Alma and wins the big prize at the chess tournament. While competing at the U.S. Open in Las Vegas, Beth meets the current U.S. chess champion, Benny Watts.
5. (1.06) “Adjournment” – After training with Benny in New York, Beth heads to Paris for her rematch with Borgov. But a wild night sends her into a self-destructive spiral.
6. (1.01) “Openings” – In the series premiere, nine-year-old Beth is sent to an orphanage following her mother’s death. She develops an uncanny knack for chess and a growing dependence on the green tranquilizers given to the children.
7. (1.05) “Fork” – Shaken by a recent tragedy, Beth returns home to Kentucky. She reconnects with former opponent Harry Beltik, who offers to help sharpen her game ahead of the U.S. Championship.
“STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” (2005) Review
Released during the summer of 2005, “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” marked the sixth and final time producer-director-writer George Lucas served as creator of a “STAR WARS” movie. By an ironic twist, the movie served as the third film in terms of the series timeline.
Set three years after “STAR WARS: EPISODE II – ATTACK OF THE CLONES” and the beginning of the Clone Wars, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” begin with Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker leading a mission to rescue Chancellor Palpatine from the clutches of Separatist leader and former Jedi Master Count Dooku aka Darth Tyrannus and his leading military commander, General Grievous. The rescue mission is besieged with difficulties. First, the two Jedi are forced to fight a difficult duel against Dooku and later, are briefly captured by General Grievous. But the pair prevail and return the kidnapped Palpatine to Coruscant via a crash landing skillfully executed by Anakin. The latter is reunited with his secret wife, Senator Padmé Amidala, who reveals she is pregnant. At first excited, Anakin begins to have premonitions of Padmé dying in childbirth.
Fearful of Padmé dying, Anakin seek advice from Jedi Master Yoda on how do deal with his anxieties. But Yoda’s advice leaves him unsatisfied. Even worse, Obi-Wan reveals that the Jedi Council are suspicious of Palpatine maintaining power of the Senate and asks Anakin to spy on the politician. Anakin is against the idea, due to his friendship with Palpatine and because he finds the mission dishonorable. His opinion of the Jedi Council sinks even further when Palpatine appoints Anakin as his representative on the Jedi Council . . . and the latter is denied the rank of Master. Between his anxieties over Padmé’s pregnancy and fate and loss of faith toward the Jedi Order, Anakin finds himself listening more and more to the insidious advice of Chancellor Palpatine.
Most fans of the “STAR WARS” view “REVENGE OF THE SITH” as the best film in the Prequel Trilogy. I could make assumptions on why the 2005 film is considered the best of the second trilogy, but it would be arrogant of me to do so. Unlike the Original Trilogy, it is the third and last film of this trilogy that proved to be the darkest. In fact, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” is probably the darkest film in the entire franchise . . . so far. And that is not surprising, considering that it marked the downfalls of Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi Order and the Galactic Republic. Many fans have dumped the blame on Chancellor-turned-Emperor Palpatine for being responsible for the downfall of a Jedi Knight, a religious order and a political body. I wish I could agree with them . . . but I cannot. I would say that Palpatine exploited their weaknesses, fears and bad choices in his bid for supreme power. But he would have never had the opportunity for that grasp for power without the mistakes of the Galactic Senate, the Republic and the Jedi Order. There are some who believed that he “used the Force” to cloud his real identity and actions from the Jedi Council. I find that ridiculous . . . even for a science-fiction/fantasy tale like “STAR WARS”.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that certain fans simply cannot accept the idea that the so-called “good guys” would make such erroneous mistakes that would help lead to their downfalls. Unless said “good guys” were Anakin Skywalker and Jedi Master Mace Windu. Due to the foreknowledge of Anakin’s fate as Sith apprentice Darth Vader, many were willing to accept him capable of making serious mistakes. And due to Mace Windu’s unpopularity with many fans – especially those who are incapable of accepting Samuel L. Jackson in the role of a major member of the Jedi Order – they were willing to accept him as flawed. Yet, many of these same fans seemed unwilling to accept the flawed nature of characters like Senator Padmé Amidala and especially Jedi Masters Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda. Padmé is regarded – to her great detriment – as some idealized female character. And both Obi-Wan and Yoda are highly regarded by the fans, due to their major roles in the older trilogy. In fact, I find this attitude so annoying that I am almost willing to break my earlier edit about making assumptions regarding the fans’ opinion of “REVENGE OF THE SITH”. Okay . . . I am willing to do so. I am willing to make an arrogant assumption. And here it is. I suspect that many STAR WARS fans are more acceptable of this third film, due to Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader. It is the event that many had been looking forward to since the Prequel Trilogy movies first hit the movie screens back in 1999.
For me, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” was not merely about Anakin’s love of Padmé and his fear of losing her finally led to his transformation into Sith Lord Darth Vader. For me, it was also watching the last chapter in which the major characters made their final decisions that helped Chancellor Palpatine aka Darth Sidious become leader of the Galactic Empire. Watching these major characters make mistake after mistake, along with crime and crime was fascinating to watch. Even some of the most minor decisions – like Padmé Amidala’s insistence that her marriage to Anakin remain a secret – struck me as a prime example of the mistakes the characters made, due to their attachments. Most fans tend to claim that the Jedi – especially Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi – harbored no attachments to anyone or anything. But I feel differently. I believe the movie made it clear that the Jedi – and all of them – were attached to the Order and were willing to do anything to maintain it, the Republic and the Order’s position within the Republic.
“REVENGE OF THE SITH” featured some very memorable scenes. I was especially impressed by the entire sequence featuring Obi-Wan and Anakin’s rescue of Palpatine from Count Dooku and General Grievous; which featured a hilarious moment with R2-D2 and was capped by a fantastic crash landing on Coruscant. Obi-Wan’s experiences on Utapau struck me as interesting . . . especially his duel with Grievous. Anakin and the clonetroopers’ attack on the Jedi Temple sent chills down my spine. So did that final confrontation between Palpatine, Mace Windu and Anakin inside the chancellor’s office. The twin duels of Anakin vs. Obi-Wan, and Yoda vs. Palpatine practically took my breath away. I was really impressed by Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen’s work in their fight scene. I have seen clips of the two actors practicing their duel . . . and yes, they are that good. However, I cannot help but wonder which scenes that the majority of the fans prefer – the two lightsaber duels or the bone-chilling Order 66 sequence that featured the destruction of many Jedi padawans, Knights and Masters. By the way, Lucas shot that sequence as a montage and I must say that his direction, along with Ben Burtt and Roger Barton’s editing, and John Williams’ score made this the most haunting sequence in the entire Saga.
The movie also featured some intimate scenes – both dramatic and comedic – that struck me as a positive addition to its story. Both Ian McDiarmid and Hayden Christensen gave outstanding performances in many of the scenes between Palpatine and Anakin . . . especially the opera scene in which the former revealed the circumstances behind the death of the former’s master, Darth Plagueis. Both Christensen and Natalie Portman did excellent jobs in conveying the love between their characters and the lack of communication that seemed to plague the Skywalker/Amidala marriage – including one scene in which Padmé expressed her sympathy toward the Separatists. Both McDiarmid and Samuel L. Jackson were excellent in the final confrontation scene between Palpatine and Master Windu. Christensen and McGregor were outstanding in two particular scenes between Anakin and Obi-Wan. I not only enjoyed their performances in one scene in which the pair argued over Obi-Wan’s request that Anakin spy on Palpatine, but also when the Jedi Master and his former padawan exchanged their last friendly conversation before Obi-Wan’s departure for Utapau. And I must admit that I found it nice to see not only the Wookie homeworld Kashyyyk, but also Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca.
As usual for any STAR WARS movie, “REVENGE OF THE SITH” featured some outstanding visual effects. If I could pinpoint the main person responsible for the movie’s visual and special effects, I would kowtow at that person’s feet. First of all, I was impressed not only by the effects used in the Battle of Coruscant opening and the crash landing that marked the sequence’s ending; but also the two duels that dominated the movie’s last half hour. The art direction team led by Peter Russell, along with cinematographer David Tattersall and the special effects team provided eye-catching scenes like those featured below that literally made me drool:
Speaking of art that made me drool, I have to bring up Trisha Biggar’s costume designs. Naturally, I will not repeat myself about how much I admire her work. And I will not bring up the fact that I consider it a crime that she never received any Oscar nominations for her work. However, below are two examples of her work featured in “REVENGE OF THE SITH”:
Was there anything about “REVENGE OF THE SITH” that I found troubling or questionable? Well . . . yes. As much as I admired the performances in the movie, there were the usual cheesy dialogue found in a STAR WARS movie. This was especially apparent in a few performances that struck me as particularly hammy. Christensen got pretty hammy in one scene in which Anakin angrily confronted Obi-Wan before their duel on Mustafar. And McGregor got a little hammy during that scene in which Obi-Wan ranted at a limbless and burning Anakin, after the duel. Even McDiarmid and Jackson engaged in a good deal of ham during the big Palpatine/Windu scene. I was a little disappointed that Christopher Lee’s Count Dooku only appeared in the movie’s first half hour. His replacement – General Grievous one-dimensional and not very interesting as a personality. I was also disappointed that Jar-Jar Binks, along with Owen and Beru Lars were all reduced to cameo appearances with no dialogue in the movie’s last montage. However, my biggest complaint featured Anakin’s early appearance on Mustafar. After killing Nute Gunray and the other Separatist leadership on Mustafar, Anakin remained on the planet; while Palpatine declared himself Emperor, Obi-Wan informed Padmé about Anakin’s new role as a Sith Lord, and both of them headed for Mustafar. Why on earth did Anakin remain on the planet for so long, after killing the Separatists? That did not make sense to me.
Despite these complaints, I cannot deny that “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH” was a more than worthy entry in the STAR WARS. I found it outstanding, despite its flaws. The movie featured a well written, yet dark tale about the downfall of its many characters; outstanding visuals; along with excellent action and dramatic scenes. But most importantly, I also found it ironic that the movie’s dark and operatic tone ended up being more or less copied by many other film franchises in the years to come.
Below is a list of my top favorite episodes from Seasons Five and Six of “ONCE UPON A TIME”. The series was created by Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz:
FAVORITE EPISODES OF “ONCE UPON A TIME” SEASONS FIVE AND SIX (2015-2017)
1. (5.08) “Birth” – Killian Jones aka Captain Hook risks everything to uncover the truth about what his lady love, the new Dark One Emma Swan, did while they were all in Camelot.
2. (5.19) “Sisters” – Hades and Zelena Mills aka the Wicked Witch finally reunite in the Underworld and he informs her of his plan to leave that realm forever, using the citizens of Storybrooke. Cora Mills aka the Queen of Hearts reveals information from the past that will change the lives of her daughters, Zelena and Regina Mills aka the Evil Queen, forever.
3. (6.07) “Heartless” – Mary Margret Blanchard aka Snow White and David Nolan aka Prince Charming need to sacrifice their hearts if they want to save Storybrooke from part of Regina’s psyche, the Evil Queen. In the Enchanted Forest past, Snow White tries to get away from the Woodcutter and Charming has plans to sell his family’s farm.
4. (5.02) “The Price” – With Emma now the new “Dark One”, evil rises in Storybrooke, leading others to find a new savior. Back in Camelot’s past, Prince Arthur organizes a ball. And one of the guests proves to be someone from Regina’s past, whose actions nearly cost her heartache.
5. (6.21-6.22) “The Final Battle” – After Fiona aka the Black Fairy (Rumplestiltskin’s mother) unleashes a new curse upon Storybrooke, Henry Mills wakes up to find Emma in a mental hospital and the former as the town’s new mayor. Meanwhile, Rumpelstiltskin searches for a missing Belle; and Snow, Charming, Regina, Zelena and Hook are trapped in a crumbling Enchanted Forest.
Honorable Mention: (6.19) “The Black Fairy” – Flashbacks reveal how Fiona became the Black Fairy and why she gave up custody of her son, Rumpelstiltskin. Meanwhile, the latter searches for his younger son Gideon’s heart in order to free the latter from Fiona’s control.
Following both the box office and critical success of the 2017 movie, “WONDER WOMAN”; Warner Brothers Studios and the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) franchise quickly set out to capitalize on its success with a sequel that had been scheduled to be released six months earlier than it did.
Like the 2017 movie, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” featured Gal Gadot in the starring role of Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman and Patty Jenkins as its director. And like its predecessor, the 2020 movie featured a period setting and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor, Diana’s true love. I know what you are thinking. How could Pine portray the same role, considering his fate in the previous film? Let me explain.
Set in Washington D.C. 1984, nearly sixty-six years after the previous film; Diana finds herself dealing with a greedy and desperate businessman, along with a co-worker at the Smithsonian Institution and her own selfish desire when an ancient artifact that grants wishes goes missing. After Wonder Woman secretly foils a robbery at a local mall, the D.C. police asks the Smithsonian to identify stolen antiquities from the attempted robbery. Diana and her colleague, geologist and cryptozoologist Dr. Barbara Ann Minerva notice one item, later identified as the Dreamstone, contains a Latin inscription claiming to grant the holder one wish. Neither woman is aware that failing businessman Maxwell “Max Lord” Lorenzano seeks to use the Dreamstone to save his bankrupt oil company.
Both Diana and Barbara unknowingly use the Dreamstone to fulfill their personal desires. Diana wishes for the resurrection of her dead lover from World War I – Captain Steve Trevor. And Barbara wishes to become like Diana – which leads her to acquire superpowers similar to the latter’s. After discovering the artifact’s new location, Max Lord seduces Barbara and steals the Dreamstone from the Smithsonian. Using the item, he wishes to become the artifact itself and gains its wish-granting powers. Diana, Steve and Barbara discover that the Dreamstone had been created by Dolos/Mendacius, the god of mischief aka Duke of Deception. The Dreamstone not only grants a wish, it also exacts a toll on the user until the wish is renounced or the artifact is destroyed. Following Steve’s return, Diana slowly begins losing her superpowers. Barbara begins losing her humanity. As for Lord, his wish and new role as the Dreamstone not only makes him a wealthy and powerful businessman, but allows him to create chaos and destruction throughout the world.
When Warner Brothers first released news about “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, I must admit that I had a few misgivings about the film. But my misgivings were rather minor. I found it unnecessary that this film would also be a period production, like its 2017 predecessor, “WONDER WOMAN”. In fact, I suspect that Warner Brothers, the DCEU franchise and director-writer Patty Jenkins had decided to use this period setting to exploit one aspect of the previous film’s success. My misgiving toward the film increased when I learned that Chris Pine would return as Diana’s lover Steve Trevor, since his character had died in the 2017 movie. I wondered how Jenkins and the other two screenwriters – Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham – would find a way to bring back Steve.
In the end; Jenkins, Johns and Callaham brought Steve back using the Dreamstone and Diana’s wish as narrative devices. I found this acceptable . . . to a certain degree. Diana’s use of the Dreamstone also allowed the film to explore her inability to recover from Steve’s death back in 1918 and her willingness to succumb to selfishness in order to keep him around. In fact, the film’s opening sequence foreshadowed Diana’s willingness to embrace selfishness for her own personal desire. The opening scene featured the much younger Diana participating in an athletic event on Themyscira against older Amazons. After falling from her horse, Diana’s desire to win the event leads her to cheat during the final race by using a shortcut after her fall. Although Diana’s use of the Dreamstone had been more of an act of wishful thinking on her part, her stubborn refusal to renounce her wish and give up Steve exposed her unwillingness to do the right thing and learn to face grief all over again.
When I first learned that Jenkins would also serve as a screenwriter for “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, I had feared she would allow reverence for the Diana Prince character prevent the latter from being well-rounded. Fortunately, the director-writer proved me wrong. By writing Diana with a degree of ambiguity, Jenkins allowed Gal Gadot to give a better performance than the one she gave in “WONDER WOMAN”.
But there were other aspects of “WONDER WOMAN 1984” that impressed me. Despite my misgivings about the setting, I have to give kudos to production designer Aline Bonetto for her excellent re-creation of Washington D.C. circa 1984. The movie seemed to permeate with that particular period in history, thanks to Bonetto. The art direction team led by Peter Russell, Anna Lynch-Robinson’s set designs and Matthew Jensen’s cinematography also contributed to the movie’s mid-1980s setting. But I especially wanted to point out Lindsay Hemming’s costume designs that perfectly captured the decade, as shown below:
“WONDER WOMAN 1984” also benefited from the cast’s first-rate performances. There were performances that struck me as solid and competent – including Lilly Aspell, who had returned to portray the younger Diana; Gabriella Wilde as Max Lord’s secretary Raquel; Natasha Rothwell as Diana and Barbara’s Smithsonian co-worker Carol; Oliver Cotton as Simon Stagg; Lucian Perez as Lord’s son Alistair; Stuart Milligan as POTUS; Amr Waked as Emir Said Bin Abydos; Ravi Patel as Babajide; Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta; and especially Robin Wright as Diana’s aunt Antiope.
However, I believe the best performances came from those who portrayed the main four characters. Chris Pine gave a warm performance – much warmer – as the resurrected Steve Trevor, who not only found himself a man out of time, but also growing aware of Diana’s continuing grief over him. Pedro Pascal gave a very energetic, yet complex portrayal of failing businessman Max Lord. I thought the actor managed to skillfully conveyed all aspects of Lord’s personality – his insecurities, capacity for love, desperation, charm, cunning and ruthlessness.
I was very impressed by Kristen Wiig’s performance as Barbara Ann Minerva aka Cheetah. I thought she handled the transformation of the geologist-cryptozoologist who becomes a super villain was more than exceptional. I found it subtle, skillful and very effective. Although I was impressed by Gal Gadot’s portrayal of the naive Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman in 2017’s “WONDER WOMAN”, I felt that she gave a better performance in this film. Yes, Gadot did an excellent job in conveying the more positive aspects of Diana’s character – her warmth and heroic determination. But I feel that the actress gave an exceptional performance in conveying the more negative aspects of Diana’s nature – her willingness to engage in her selfishness and especially her unhealthy and never-ending grief over Steve’s original death. Gadot’s portrayal of this aspect of Diana’s character was especially on full display when Steve tried to convince her to renounce her wish.
“WONDER WOMAN 1984” also featured some pretty decent action sequences. However, I felt there was only one sequence that really impressed me. It featured Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor’s fight against against Lord’s men and Cheetah inside the White House. I thought Jenkins did an outstanding job in directing this sequence.
I wish I could say that “WONDER WOMAN 1984” was a first-rate movie or a sequel that truly lived up to the original film. I wish I could say this, but I cannot. This movie was mess, despite its virtues. As I have constantly stated in the past, I believe the backbone of any film is its story. The narrative for “WONDER WOMAN 1984” had potential, but screenwriters Geoff Johns, Dave Callaham and Patty Jenkins just . . . they pretty much screwed over the film’s potential.
First of all, what was the point in setting this film in the mid-1980s? The 2016 movie, “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” had established that during the 97 years following Steve Trevor’s death, Diana had more or less isolated herself due to her growing cynicism toward humanity and her grief over the former’s death. I have a theory about this – either Patty Jenkins was offended by the idea of Diana not engaging in any costume vigilante activities during that near century; she and the Warner Brothers Studio suits wanted to cash in on the success of the period setting for “WONDER WOMAN”; or both. Nevertheless, showing Diana as Wonder Woman foiling a mall robbery in 1984 Washington D.C. pretty much undermined the established canon from “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”. Sloppy writing, folks. Even if it is minor.
Speaking of the mall robbery . . . this scene will probably go down as one of the most cringe worthy I have ever seen in a motion picture. I realize that the robbery had served as the catalyst for the Dreamstone story arc, but . . . oh my God! It was a travesty. The entire scene felt as if Patty Jenkins had pulled out every cliché about the Wonder Woman character and the mid-1980s in general . . . aaaannd ramped it up to the extreme. Another cringe-worthy sequence proved to be watching the world fall into chaos after Max Lord managed to convince a great deal of humanity to make a wish. I never realized that a competent director like Jenkins was capable of going over-the-top.
Another exaggeration I found in “WONDER WOMAN 1984” proved to be Steve Trevor’s reaction to the year 1984. I realize Jenkins and the other two writers wanted a repeat of Diana’s reactions to London 1918 in “WONDER WOMAN” . . . only from Steve’s perspective. But the mistake they made was including Steve’s reactions to escalators and subways. Why? Both innovations had already been in existence before 1918. The escalator had been in existence since the late 19th century – roughly 30 to 40 years before the 2017 movie’s setting. The subway or rapid transit systems had been in existence in Great Britain since 1863. The innovation first made its U.S. appearance in 1897 Boston and sprung up in New York City a few years later. Since both innovations had existed years before 1918, why on earth did this film have Steve reacting to both like some kid who had stumbled across a prize?
I also had a problem with the resolution of the whole Lord/Dreamstone situation. From what I understood, once Lord had renounced his past wishes as the Dreamstone, Barbara Ann aka Cheetah lost her powers. I do not see how this is possible, considering that she had gained a copy of Diana’s powers through her first wish – before Lord became the Dreamstone itself. I saw nothing wrong with Barbara Ann losing her second wish (or Lord’s, since he was the one who actually made the wish) – namely being an apex predator. But she had never renounced her first wish – which means she should have remained as powerful as Diana by the film’s end.
Did anyone notice how often Jenkins had Diana used her Lasso of Truth as a weapon a lot? I did. Yet, there seemed to be no sign of a shield or sword. I had no problem with Diana not using a sword and shield in this movie; but Jenkins, Johns and Callaham practically had her heavily depending upon the lasso as a weapon like the Jedi in “THE CLONE WARS”. It seemed too much. Speaking of weapons, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” also introduced the armor of a legendary Amazon named Asteria. Apparently, Diana had sought out this Amazon in later years, but only found the latter’s golden armor. Diana later wore this armor during her last fight with Barbara Ann aka Cheetah. When the media first released images of this armor, I was not impressed. And my instincts proved to be correct. I do not know how Asteria, whom the mid-credit scene revealed as still being alive in 1984, lost her armor. But the latter proved to be a waste of time – not only for Diana, but also to this viewer. Wearing the armor did nothing for Diana. It was not able to protect her from Barbara Ann’s claws during their fight. In fact, it did not take Barbara Ann very long to damage the suit. What was the point in introducing the armor in the first place?
“WONDER WOMAN 1984” introduced two new abilities for Diana that were part of comic book canon, but not featured in any previous DCEU movies. One of those abilities left me feeling flabbergasted – namely Diana’s ability to fly. That is correct. Wonder Woman flied . . . like Superman. Diana had possessed this ability in the comic books since the 1980s. My only previous experience with Wonder Woman had been the 1970s cartoon, “THE SUPER FRIENDS”, and Lynda Carter as the titular heroine between 1975 and 1979. Wonder Woman’s ability to fly was never seen in “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”, the 2017 movie or both versions of “JUSTICE LEAGUE”. Why was it important for Jenkins to introduce this ability . . . in this film? During this period in Diana’s life? I do recall Wonder Woman’s invisible plane from the 1970s. But in “WONDER WOMAN 1984”, Diana suddenly remembered that she had inherited her father’s ability to render something or someone invisible. And she used this ability to make the plane she and Steve had stolen to fly to Egypt . . . invisible. Now, I realized that although the invisible plane was part of Wonder Woman lore, I saw this plot twist as unnecessary. One, why introduce this ability when it was not previously shown in other DCEU movies? And two, why steal a plane in the first place? Neither Diana or Steve ever considered that the man whose body Steve occupied had a passport. The whole sequence struck me as dumb.
Since I had brought him up, I might as well focus my attention on the one aspect of “WONDER WOMAN 1984” that I believe sunk this film. Namely, Steve Trevor’s possession of the nameless handsome strange. Why in God’s name did Jenkins, Johns and Callaham allow this to happen? Why did the writers allow Steve’s spirit to take possession of some man without the latter’s consent? Why did they allow Steve to take control of the man’s apartment without his consent? Why did they allow Diana to have sex with this man’s body . . . without his consent? All of this happened without Diana or Steve even considering the issue of consent. And it was disgusting to watch. The entire situation smacked of rape to me. If the genders of the three characters involved had been reversed . . . what am I saying? This situation managed to generate a great deal of criticism anyway . . . and quite rightly. What I did not like was Jenkins’ attempt to brush aside this controversy. If Jenkins, Johns and Callaham wanted Steve back that badly, they could have easily allowed Diana’s wish to manifest Steve’s body again . . . wearing his old World War I uniform. Why did they not consider this? I could have tolerated this film a lot more, despite its flaws, if Jenkins and the other filmmakers had not pulled this disgusting plot point with Steve Trevor and the handsome stranger’s body.
Believe or not, “WONDER WOMAN 1984” had its share virtues – a few pretty good action sequences, costume and production designs that perfectly reflected the mid-1980s and some damn good performances from a cast led by Gal Gadot. Unfortunately, I believe the film’s flaws – especially in regard to the Steve Trevor and handsome stranger characters – really undermined it. I have not been so disappointed in a comic book movie since Marvel’s 2016 film, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. What a damn pity!
Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season One of the All Access CBS series, “STAR TREK: PICARD”. Created by Akiva Goldsman, Michael Chabon, Kirsten Beyer and Alex Kurtzman, the series stars Patrick Stewart as Admiral Jean-Luc Picard, retired:
FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “STAR TREK: PICARD” SEASON ONE (2020)
1. (1.05) “Stardust City Rag” – Retired Admiral Jean-Luc Picard and the La Sirena crew reach the planet of Freecloud and find Federation scientist Dr. Bruce Maddox in a precarious situation. The ex-Borg and former U.S.S. Voyager crew member, whom they had recently picked up, lends her assistance.
2. (1.07) “Nepenthe” – Picard and female android Dr. Soji Asha, who is struggling to make sense of her recently unlocked memories, travel to the home planet of Picard’s old friends and former staff officers, Will Riker and Deanna Troi. Romulan monk Elnor and ex-Borg Hugh are left on an old Borg cube now under Federation-Romulan control to face Tal Shiar Colonel Narissa.
3. (1.01) “Remembrance” – In the series premiere, Picard is quietly living on his family’s vineyard some fourteen years after his retirement, when a female android named Dahj Asha seeks his help.
4. (1.06) “The Impossible Box” – Picard and the crew trace Soji Asha to the Borg cube, forcing Picard to face memories of being Locutus; Narek believes he’s found a way to safely exploit information from Soji.
5. “Et in Arcadia Ego, Part 1” – In this first half of the season finale, Picard and the La Sirena crew finally reach Soji’s home planet, with the Romulans in pursuit, and discover more than they expected about the inhabitants.
There is a group of mystery writers I usually read. However, one of them is not P.D. James. Mind you, I have read one of Ms. James’ novels. But it was not enough to tempt me to become a fan of her stories. I just might give her another chance . . . especially upon discovering that one of her novels was “Death Comes to Pemberley”, a 2011 sequel to Jane Austen’s 1813 novel, “Pride and Prejudice”.
Two years after the publication of James’ novel, the BBC aired a television adaptation in the form of a three-part miniseries. Set in 1803, (six years after the ending of “Pride and Prejudice”), “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” began with Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam Darcy preparing for the annual Queen Anne’s Ball at their Pemberley estate. The first guests arrive on the day before the ball – Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Colonel Fitzwilliam and one Mr. Henry Alveston, an attorney that happened to be friends with Jane and Charles Bingley. During supper, an unexpected carriage arrive at Pemberley conveying Elizabeth’s youngest sister, Lydia Wickham, who is in a hysterical state. She claims that both her husband George Wickham and his friend Captain Denny had been arguing, when the latter angrily left the carriage in a state of anger. Wickham followed him and a few minutes later, Lydia and the carriage’s driver heard shots. Mr. Darcy organizes a search party that includes Colonel Fitzwilliam and Mr. Alveston. They find a distraught Wickham sobbing over Denny’s dead body. Very little time passes before the local magistrate, Sir Selwyn Hardcastle, finally arrests Wickham for murder.
As I had earlier stated, I have never read P.D. James’ novel. I could never make any comparison between her novel and the 2013 television adaptation. But I can convey how I felt about the latter. There were aspects of “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” that I found either perplexing or annoying. One such aspect was Elizabeth Darcy’s reaction . . . or lack of reaction to her sister Lydia Wickham’s behavior at Pemberley. In Jane Austen’s 1813 novel, Elizabeth had never been inclined to hold her tongue regarding Lydia’s childish behavior. In this miniseries, she more or less remained silent in the face of Lydia’s childish actions and spiteful words. Within her own home. Why? Why did the screenwriter allow Elizebath to remain silent and endure Lydia’s unpleasant presence? Was this supposed to be a sign of Elizabeth’s “growing maturity”? What? I never understood Elizabeth’s lack of responses when it came to her youngest sister. Another aspect that I found slightly irritating proved to be the scene in which Elizabeth and Pemberley’s housekeeper Mrs. Reynolds inspected the food prepared for the Darcys’ upcoming ball . . . for the following day. I am aware that cooks and their kitchen staff in Georgian England usually prepared cold dishes the day before any ball or banquet. Yet, the above scene featured Elizabeth and Mrs. Reynolds inspecting dishes like roast poultry and soup that were obviously not cold dishes. Yes, it is a minor complaint. Being a history buff, I found this scene slightly annoying.
Were there any other aspects of “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” that either annoyed me or I found questionable? Well . . . yes. The miniseries’ first episode featured a flashback to Elizabeth’s first ball as Pemberley’s chatelaine. This flashback featured a moment in which Elizabeth overheard two guests making snide comments about her father’s income of £2,000 pounds per year. I found this scene puzzling. Why would anyone make snide comments about Mr. Bingley’s income? Two thousand pounds per year from an estate meant that Mr. Bennet was a moderately wealthy man. Granted, he was not as wealthy as two of his sons-in-law. But he was wealthy, especially since all five of his daughters had married by this time in the family saga. And chances are, at least half or more of the Darcys’ guests earned a good deal less than Mr. Bennet. This scene struck me as another example of this erroneous belief that the Bennets came from the middle-class – a belief that either P.D. James or the miniseries’ screenwriter Juliette Towhidi shared. I must admit I found it surprising that George Wickham’s friendship with Captain Denny had survived following the former’s scandal with Lydia Bennet in “Pride and Prejudice”. Following the scandal, Darcy managed to purchase a commission in a regular Northern regiment – Colonel Fitzwilliam’s regiment – leaving Denny behind with the militia at Brighton. Perhaps this is nothing, but I found it surprising that their friendship, which never struck me as deep in the first place – had survived so long. Following her discovery of Captain Denny’s actual killer, Elizabeth and Reverend Oliphant raced to the execution site to save Wickham. They arrived in time to prevent Wickham’s execution at the last moment. Honestly, this scene seemed like a rehash of a scene from Henry Fielding’s novel, “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling” and other stories. I found it so hokey. A giant cliché that left me wincing with embarrassment.
Despite my issues with “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY”, I rather enjoyed it. A lot more than I had originally thought I would. I had featured the three-part miniseries would turn out to be one of those Jane Austen sequels filled with a good deal of hokey gimmicks. I mean . . . a sequel to “Pride and Prejudice” that turned out to be a murder mystery? Come on! Thankfully, P.D. James’ tale proved to be a great deal more interesting and just as emotionally complex as some of Austen’s best works. Captain Denny’s murder forced Elizabeth and Darcy to overcome their natural antipathy toward Wickham and face the possibility that for once, he might not be the murderer or villain in this scenario. Yet, ironically, Wickham’s past actions had led to his situation in the first place. The mystery surrounding Denny’s murder led to other issues. It revealed a good deal of class division – especially in regard to the gentry ruling class, middle-class types like Wickham and the Darcy family’s servants.
But there were other issues that manifested in the wake of Wickham’s arrest. A romantic triangle involving Georgiana Darcy, Henry Alveston and Colonel Fitzwilliam. Naturally, Wickham’s arrest has led to family troubles for both Elizabeth and Darcy. Fearful that Wickham’s conviction and execution might lead to more scandal for the Darcy family, Pemberley’s owner resumes his old habit of suppressing his emotions. Worse, Darcy becomes willing to support Colonel Fitzwilliam’s marriage proposal to Georgiana in the name of family solidarity and staving off any hint of scandal. And both of his actions threaten to alienate him from Elizaeth. Poor Georgiana seemed torn between her desire for Henry Alveston and marriage to Colonel Fitzwilliam out of family duty. Being a Darcy, she nearly allowed family duty to win the day . . . and it probably would have if her brother and sister-in-law had not learned of Fitzwilliam’s connection to Wickham and a potential scandal.
Not only did “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” provide a first-rate narrative, it was also blessed with a superb cast. Anna Maxwell-Martin shined as the initially happy Elizabeth Darcy who found herself nearly caving under the emotional strains that Wickham’s arrest had brought to Pemberley’s inhabitants and the Darcy family. Someone had once complained that Elizabeth’s famous wit seemed to be missing in this production. I certainly do not agree. I think Maxwell-Martin’s performance made it clear that Elizabeth had evolved from the younger woman in “Pride and Prejudice” inclined to put her wit on display. In other words, Elizabeth has become more mature over the years without the need to spout witicisms every now and then. But as the situation at Pemberley grew worse, it seemed obvious clear that she had not lost her sharp tongue. Judging from Fitzwilliam Darcy’s behavior during the first half of the series’ first episode, one would assume that marriage to Elizabeth had brought about a great change in his personality. Perhaps. Or perhaps this was an example of Darcy’s behavior as a happy man. Yet, once the whole situation regarding the murder and Wickham’s arrest began to take its toll, it felt as if Darcy’s personality from the 1813 novel had re-emerged with a vengeance. I have to give kudos to actor Matthew Rhys for doing such a beautiful in capturing these different aspects of Darcy’s personality. More importantly, I thought he had skillfully handled Darcy’s gradual transition from one aspect of the latter’s personality to another.
“DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” also featured other excellent performances. Matthew Goode gave a complex and nuanced performance as embattled George Wickham, whose smooth and manipulative persona is shaken by the threat of a murder conviction and execution. Another first-rate performance came from Trevor Eve, who skillfully portrayed the Darcys’ neighbor and ruthless county magistrate, Sir Selwyn Hardcastle. Jenna Coleman did a great job in infusing immature shallowness, malice and a surprising touch of pathos in her portrayal of Lydia Wickham. Eleanor Tomlinson’s portrayal of Georgiana Darcy seemed to possess more depth and complexity than any previous portrayal of her. Tom Ward’s performance as the Darcys’ cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, struck me as one of the most interesting in the limited series. Mind you, I thought P.D. James and by extension, screenwriter Juliette Towhidi; did an excellent job in allowing the Colonel to become a more complex and ambiguous character in his own right. Yet, this transformation . . . or revelation of Colonel Fitzwilliam’s character without Tom Ward’s brilliant performance. There were other performances featured in “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” that impressed me. These performances came from James Norton, Mariah Gale, Nichola Burley, Rebecca Front, James Fleet, Philip Martin Brown, Joanna Scanlan, Jennifer Hennessey, Lewis Rainer, and Penelope Keith as Lady Catherine de Bourgh.
I also have to give kudos to the production team for “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY”. It is a beautiful-looking series. This can be attributed to Grant Montgomery’s luscious production designs. Montgomery did an excellent of bringing a late Georgian provincial community to life in this limited series. I believe Steve Lawes’ sharp and colorful photography of the miniseries’ Yorkshire and Derbyshire filming locations enhanced Montgomery’s work, along with Nick Wilkinson’s art direction and Ussal Smithers’ set decorations. I also believe Marianne Agertoft’s costume designs contributed to the miniseries’ production designs. I must honest. Agertoft’s costumes did not blow my mind. But I have to say that the costumes’ color schemes – especially the women’s – struck me as rich and sharp as Lawes’ cinematography.
I will not deny that I have a few issues with “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY”. But my issues are minor, in compared to my admiration for this miniseries. Because I do admire “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY”. I found the series’ production aspects lush and beautiful. The cast led by Anna Maxwell-Martin and Matthew Rhys gave superb performances. More importantly, I believe director Daniel Percival and screenwriter Juliette Towhidi did an excellent job of adapting P.D. James’ novel. “DEATH COMES TO PEMBERLEY” offered a very original view into the world of Jane Austen.
Ladylavinia1932's Blog 