"THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" (1979) ReviewAs I have stated in many previous movie reviews, I am a sucker for period drama. However, I am an even bigger sucker when said drama turns out to be something different from the usual narrative for this kind of genre. In the case of the 1979 movie, "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY", it turned out to be one of those rare kind of films.Like Michael Crichton's 1975 novel, "The Great Robbery", "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a fictional account of a famous robbery known as the "Great Gold Robbery of 1855". Before one thinks that the movie is a faithful account of this historical event or a faithful adaptation of Crichton's novel . . . you are bound to be disappointed. Not only did Crichton play a little fast and loose with history in his novel, he also wrote the movie's screenplay and made even more changes to the tale."THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" began with a failed attempt by some nameless criminal to rob the gold used to pay the British troops fight in the Crimean War being shipped monthly on the London-to-Folkestone train. This failed robbery, which ended with the criminal's death, had been masterminded by a successful criminal named Edward Pierce. Finally realizing that the gold is guarded in two safes with two locks each, Pierce and his mistress, Miriam, recruit a pickpocket and screwsman named Robert Agar to make copies of the safes' four keys. They also set about attaining copies of the keys by exploiting the weaknesses of two key holders - bank president Edgar Trent and bank manager Henry Fowler.When they discover that the other two keys are locked in a cabinet, inside the office of the South Eastern Railway at the London Bridge train station, Pierce and Agar recruit a cat burglar named "Clean Willie" to help them break into rail office and make impressions of the keys. At first, Pierce is able to execute his plan with very few problems. But obtaining the keys inside the South Eastern Railway office and recruiting "Clean Willie" end up producing major obstacles that he and his accomplices are forced to overcome.I would not claim that "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a favorite movie of mine. But I must admit that every time I watch it, I usually end up enjoying it very much. And I cannot deny that it proved to be different than the usual period drama. Although "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" is a literary adaptation that also features a historical event, it is not the usual period piece. I mean . . . how many period dramas are about a real-life crime? Especially a crime that had occurred before the 20th century? If there is another movie with a similar narrative, I have yet to come across it.Even more interesting is that Crichton utilized great details to show audiences how the crime was planned and carried out. Yes, I realize that Crichton had made changes to his portrayal of the 1855 gold robbery, but I still cannot help but admire that he portrayed this crime in such a detailed manner. And this allowed me to enjoy the film even more, for it provided audiences a detailed look into the criminal and business worlds of the Victorian Age during the 1850s. This was especially the case in the movie's second half in which the protagonists schemed to get their hands on copies of the third and fourth set of keys inside a London railway station. And if I must be honest, I enjoyed the movie's first half even more - especially those scenes that featured the robbers' attempts to acquire copies of the first two keys. Since those two keys were in the hands of bank executive Trent and bank manager Fowlers, the movie allowed peeks into the lives of an early Victorian family and a Victorian bachelor, all from the upper-middle-classes. These scenes included one featuring Pierce's wooing of Trent's only daughter, while riding along Hyde Park's Rotten Row, a popular riding spot for upper and middle-class Londoners; and another featuring Miriam's seduction of the always lustful Fowler inside an exclusive London bordello.Another aspect of "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY" that I enjoyed was its production values. Crichton and producer John Foreman had gathered a first-rate crew for this movie. There were four aspects of the movie's production values that I enjoyed . . . somewhat. I certainly had no problem with Maurice Carter's production designs for the movie. I thought he did an excellent job in re-creating Victorian London - especially in crowd scenes like the Rotten Row sequence, the bordello and the railway station. I also enjoyed Jerry Goldsmith's score. Although I did not find it particularly memorable, I thought it blended well with various scenes throughout the movie and was original enough in a jaunty way. I have slightly mixed feelings about Anthony Mendleson's costume designs. On one hand, I thought many of them - especially those for the male characters - wonderfully recaptured the fashion styles of the mid-1850s. My feelings regarding his designs for the female characters were another matter. There were some designs that I admired very much - especially those for the Pamela Trent and Emily Trent characters. Yet, I found those designs for Lesley-Anne Down's character rather theatrical. I also have mixed about Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography. On one hand, I found many of the film's wide shots - especially in many of the exterior shots - rather colorful and beautiful. Unfortunately . . . I also noticed that Unsworth's photography seemed to project this hazy film, indicating that the movie was a period drama. Personally, I found this . . . haze rather annoying and a bit detrimental to the movie's sharp colors.I can only recall at least three or four sequences that might be considered action-oriented. Three of them involved the "Clean Willie" character and I found them well shot by Crichton. The fourth action sequence - the actual train robbery - was also well shot by Crichton. The problem is that I am not a big fan of the actual robbery sequence. What can I say? It bored me. I could explain that I am becoming less tolerant of action sequences in my old age. But if I must be honest, I never really liked this sequence when I first saw it when I was a lot younger. There is nothing like an actual action sequence on top a train to bore the living daylights out of me. It was not Crichton's fault. This is simply a case of my personal preferences.I certainly had no problems with the cast. Sean Connery was the perfect embodiment of middle-age debonair as the charismatic, clever and occasionally ruthless criminal mastermind, Edward Pierce. I would not exactly regard this role as a challenge for him. But he seemed to be enjoying himself. The role of Pierce's mistress, Miriam, seemed to be quite rare for Lesley-Anne Down. I can only recall her portraying a similar character in another heist film that released the same year. Personally, I thought she did a great job portraying Miriam not only as a sexy paramour for Pierce, but also as an equally intelligent and talented partner-in-crime.The movie also featured some interesting performances from Malcolm Terris as the lustful bank manager Henry Fowler with a penchant for prostitutes. Michael Elphick was effective as the cool and collected bank guard Burgess, who accepts Pierce's bribe to be a part of the heist. Gabrielle Lloyd gave an interesting performance as Edgar Trent's rather stuffy and plain daughter Elizabeth whom Pierce pretends to court. And Pamela Salem gave a sly performance as Elizabeth's stepmother Emily Trent, who hides her lust for Pierce with a cool attitude and pointed comments. Other fine supporting performances came from Alan Webb, Wayne Sleep, Robert Lang and André Morell."What about Donald Sutherland?" many might be thinking. Why was he left out of the praise? Trust me, he was not. If I must be honest, Sutherland gave my favorite performance in the film. I really enjoyed his colorful take on the witty and sly pickpocket/screwsman Robert Agar. However, I do have one complaint to make . . . and it not about Sutherland's performance. As I had just stated, I found it very enjoyable. But I had read somewhere that the real Agar was more or less the brains behind the bank robbery. Also, Crichton had somewhat "dumbed down" the character in his 1975 novel and in the movie. I noticed, while watching the film that Sutherland's Agar seemed to flip-flop between an intelligent criminal and a buffoon. Personally, I found this inconsistent and unnecessary . . . especially for a successful criminal like Agar.Yes, I have a few quibbles regarding "THE FIRST GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY". And if I must be honest, it is not a great favorite of mine. But I certainly do not regarding it as a mediocre piece of filmmaking. In fact, I thought it was not only an excellent movie, but also rather original for a period piece. Michael Crichton may not have been that faithful to what actually happened during the "Great Gold Robbery of 1855", but I found his fictionalized account rather exciting. And the movie was topped by fine performances from a cast led by Sean Connery, Donald Sutherland and Lesley-Anne Down.
"THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART II" (2015) Review
Some five or six years ago, Warner Brothers Studios began a new tradition when its executives made a decision to split its adaptation of the last "HARRY POTTER" film into two novels. A year later, Summit Entertainment continued this tradition by splitting its adaptation of the last "TWILIGHT" novel into two films. And now Lionsgate has done the same by adapting Suzanne Collins' last novel in her "The Hunger Games" trilogy with two movies. The studio ended the movie franchise with the release of "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART II".
This last film, which is based upon the second half of Collins' 2010 novel, picked up where the 2014 movie left off - with Katniss Everdeen aka "The Girl on Fire" recovering from being attacked by her close friend, Peeta Mallark, after he had been brainwashed by the Capitol into regarding her as an enemy. After being attacked by a supporter of Panem's President Snow during a propaganda campaign in District 2, Katniss is frustrated by rebel leader Alma Coin's insistence that she stay away from the battlefields. Fellow tribute from the 75th Quater Quell Games, Johanna Mason, quietly suggests that she sneak aboard a supply ship leaving for the Capitol, where Commander Paylor is planning an invasion, during the wedding of former tributes Finnick Odair and Annie Cresta. Unable to control Katniss, Coin decides to assigned her to the "Star Squad"; along with childhood friend Gale Hawthorne, Finnick, and documentary director Cressida and her team. Led by Katniss' former bodyguard, Boggs, the squad is order to remain in safety behind the actual invasion of the Capitol and provide video clips of their incursion for propaganda purposes. But Katniss and her fellow combatants encounter a great deal of danger from Capitol soldiers, explosive pods and mutated animals. Coin also assigns Peeta to the squad, despite the fact that he has not completely recovered from his conditioning. What starts out as a propaganda campaign for the squad, eventually becomes a dangerous and bloody mission that ends in tragedy and a great surprise.
This last "HUNGER GAMES" movie received a great deal of praise. But at the same time, these same critics expressed dismay that the last novel in the franchise had been split into two films. Surprisingly, I had no problems with how the adaptation of "Mockingjay" resulted in two films. Unlike the last "HARRY POTTER" and "TWILIGHT" adaptations, the two-part adaptation for this particular movie seemed to break at the right moment - namely the rescued Peeta Mellark's attack on protagonist Katniss Everdeen. However, I did have a few problems with "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART II". I wish the screenwriters and director Francis Lawrence had featured a few scenes of Panem citizens rebelling against the Capitol . . . just as they had done in "PART I". In fact, I wish they could have featured a few scenes of the rebels inching towards the Presidential mansion, before Katniss and close friend Gale Hawthorne had reached it. The movie seemed so fixed upon Katniss' point-of-view (POV) that the entire sequence featuring the massacre of the Capitol citizens, Peacekeepers and rebel medics from bombs seemed slightly disjointed and confusing. I also wish that the screenplay had included a scene from the novel in which Katniss and her mother, Mrs. Everdeen, said good-bye to each other over the telephone. I never understood why they did not include that scene in the film. It would have been a great moment for both Jennifer Lawrence and Paula Malcomson.
Quibbles aside, I must admit that I really enjoyed "MOCKINGJAY, PART II". I thought director Francis Lawrence and screenwriters Danny Strong and Peter Craig did a very good job of adapting the second half of Collins' novel. I had worried that Lion's Gate Studios would insist that the screenwriters and Lawrence drastically change the story by giving it a less bittersweet ending. Lo and behold, no such thing happened. "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART II" - especially its ending - literally wallowed in moral ambiguity. More importantly, story allowed its heroine, in the end, to succumb to her worst instincts in a way that made sense to the saga that began in the first chapter. I believe it took balls for Suzanne Collins to end Katniss Everdeen's struggles against the Capitol on that note. And I can say the same for Lawrence, Strong, Craig and the film's producers.
I was also impressed by the movie's portrayal of Peeta Mallark in this chapter of the saga. As many know, Peeta had spent most of "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART I" as a captive of the Capitol. He had been tortured and brainwashed via a tracker jacker venom into making an attempt on Katniss' life. The filmmakers could have easily ignored Collins' story and allowed Peeta's recovery to be a quick job before he joined Katniss' squad in the Capitol's streets. Instead, they decided to follow Collins' story and allowed Peeta's recovery to be slow. By doing this, they allowed Peeta's presence in the squad to not only endanger everyone, but have an impact on Katniss' relationship with the Rebellion's leadership.
More importantly, "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART II" continued the saga's theme of the impact war has human beings. After all, this theme has been present since Katniss and Peeta found themselves in 74th Hunger Games arena in the first movie. But in these last two movies, audiences see how war impacts everyone and not just a group of tributes coerced into playing out a lethal war game for the sake of television ratings. The war eventually has an impact upon Katniss' various relationships - especially with Peeta, her best friend Gale Hawthorne, her family and the Rebellion's leadership . . . and also upon her psyche. What I found interesting in the combat featured in this film is that Katniss and her fellow combatants not only have to deal with the traditional weapons of war, but also the muttations and other technical wonders usually reserved for the Hunger Games. The most harrowing examples of the Capitol's use of muttations were the flood of black tar on the Capitol's streets and the lizard mutts' attack upon the squad inside the Capitol's sewer system. I found this sequence rather difficult to watch, due to the scary images, the level of violence and the devastating impact upon the squad. But I must say . . . I thought it was one of the most frightening scenes in the entire saga. And due to Lawrence' direction, the cast's performances, the editing team of Alan Edward Bell and Mark Yoshikawa, cinematographer Jo Willems, and the special effects team; I also found it very effective.
Speaking of the performances, there is not enough I can say about them. I could not find a misstep made by any member of the cast. "MOCKINGJAY, PART II" featured some really solid performances from the likes of Elden Henson, Wes Chatham, Evan Ross, Stef Dawson, Sarita Choudhury, and Meta Golding. Natalie Dormer continued her excellent portrayal of television director Cressida. Patina Miller gave a more subtle performance as District 8's Commander Paylor, who ends up playing a major role at the end of the rebellion. Although her screen time was somewhat limited in the movie, Jena Malone continued to give a colorful performance as former tribute Johanna Mason. Actually, she was not the only one whose screen time was limited. I could also say the same about Woody Harrelson, who portrayed Katniss and Peeta's mentor Haymitch Abernathy; Jeffrey Wright as former tribute and the Rebellion's tech man Beetee Latier; Elizabeth Banks as Katniss and Peeta's escort Effie Trinket; Paula Malcomson as Katniss' delicate mother Mrs. Everdeen; Willow Shields as Katniss' quiet and highly determined sister Primrose; and Stanley Tucci as Hunger Games host Caesar Flickerman. Thankfully, they were all top-notch, as usual.
There were cast members who given opportunities to strut their stuff in one or two scenes. There was an excellent moment for Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, who as Rebellion commander Bogg, tries to warn Katniss about President Alma Coin's true goals in a heartbreaking scene. Sam Claflin continued his excellent performance as former tribute Finnick Odair - especially in two scenes. One of them featured his character's wedding to another former tribute Annie Cresta. And other featured his attempts to placate the still hijacked Peeta. One scene that featured an intense performance by Michelle Forbes, who portrayed Boggs' second-in-command, Lieutenant Jackson. However, Donald Sutherland and Julianne Moore received a good number of opportunities to showcase their talent. As President Coriolanus Snow of Panem and President Alma Coin of the Rebellion, the two performers gave interesting, yet contrasting takes on presidential villainy. Sutherland's performance struck me as verbose, but with a slight edge of desperation, as his character struggle to deal with the possibility of defeat. On the other hand, Moore's performance seemed a good deal more subtle . . . cool. I got the impression of observing a personality that proved to be a lot more manipulative than Snow's and just as murderous in the occasional flash in her eyes.
The movie also featured superb performances from the three leads. Liam Hemsworth gave an interesting performance as rebel Gale Hawthorne. Very interesting. Hemsworth skillfully expressed Gale's fervent aggression against Snow's administration, but also a disturbing willingness to resort to any means necessary to end the war in the rebels' favor. But for me, his best scene featured that moment when his character was unable to verify whether one of his weapon designs was used in an attack in front of the Presidential mansion. Hemsworth barely said a word, but his stark emotion is perfectly clear on his face. I think Josh Hutcherson had the most difficult role in this movie. He had to take the Peeta Mellark character on a journey from the murderous and brainwashed young man to someone who managed to find some semblance of peace in the wake of two Hunger Games and a violent war. Thanks to the screenwriters and Hutcherson's performance, Peeta's journey was not rushed into some futile effort to resume his old relationship with Katniss as quickly as possible. And this journey resulted in a beautiful scene in which Peeta finally told Katniss how she was needed to end this war against Snow - a scene that Hutcherson not only acted his ass off, but also brought tears to my eyes. Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Katniss Everdeen seemed a bit more subtle than usual in this movie. I found this surprising, considering her role as the movie's lead. I suspect that Katniss' unusual subtlety came from having the brainwashed Peeta in her midst. I also suspect that Katniss' unease toward Gale's "by any means necessary" attitude toward the use of violence may have contributed to that unease. Lawrence really kept her performance under control in this film. But there was one scene in which Lawrence's performance blew me away, when she openly expressed Katniss' rage and grief against the tragedies she had experienced during the war.
I understand that "THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART II" made less money than the previous three movies. Personally, I do not see this as a reflection of the movie's quality. Sure, it had a few bumps in the narrative and the production. But so did the other three films. Frankly, I thought it was an outstanding conclusion to one of the best movie franchises I had the good fortune to see. And one can thank not only Suzanne Collins' imagination and talent, but also Francis Lawrence's first-rate direction, a well-written script by Peter Craig and Danny Strong, and a talented cast led by the always superb Jennifer Lawrence that brought Collins' story to life.
The year 2015 seemed to be filled with some very memorable screen villains. I am certain that many have their own opinions of what constituted their favorite villains. Well . . . I have mine. Below is that list of my favorite movie villains from 2015:
FAVORITE MOVIE VILLAINS OF 2015
1. Samuel L. Jackson as Richmond Valentine ("Kingsman: The Secret Service") - I have to say it. Samuel Jackson has created some very memorable characters throughout his career - both heroic and villainous. But his portrayal of high tech tycoon, Richmond Valentine, has to be very high on the list. Not only was his goal - to decimate the majority of mankind in order to save the Earth - diabolical, but his lisp and aversion to violence made his character extremely memorable. Extremely.
2. Corey Stoll as Darren Cross aka Yellowjacket ("Ant-Man") - It is a pity that Marvel Studios seemed incapable of maintaining its gallery of villains. One of the best Marvel villains I have come across in quite a while was Corey Stoll's interpretation of Darren Cross aka Yellowjacket, scientist and CEO of Hank Pym's company. Stoll's Cross projected daddy issues with a style that rivaled Loki from the THOR movies, thanks to the actor's performance.
3. Elizabeth Debicki as Victoria Vinciguerra ("The Man From U.N.C.L.E.") - Elizabeth Debicki gave a deliciously entertaining, yet subtle performance as the cool and cruel Victoria Vinciguerra, the leader of a neo-fascist criminal organization and co-owner of a shipping company, who harbored plans to build a nuclear weapon for her own personal use.
4. Donald Sutherland as President Coriolanus Snow ("The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part II") - For the fourth time, Donald Sutherland did an excellent in creeping out movie audiences as the cruel and manipulative leader of Panem, as his character resorts to extraordinary methods to put down a rebellion.
5. Haley Joel Osment as Travis McCerdle ("Entourage: the Movie") - I never thought in a million years that I would see Haley Joel Osment portray a truly unpleasant character, let alone make this list. But he proved to be the sole gem in an otherwise entertaining, yet mediocre film as the son of a Texas billionaire, who is given authority to oversee his father's investment in Ari Gold's film. Osment's performance struck me as so spot-on that he almost resembled a living embodiment of excrement. He has come a long way.
6. James Spader as Ultron ("The Avengers: Age of Ultron") - Another Marvel villain bit the dust this year. But before he (or it) did, audiences were treated to a superb voice performance by actor James Spader as the self-aware artificial intelligence bent upon decimating humanity. Not only was Spader's performance a joy to hear, he had one of the best lines in the movie.
7. Jennifer Jason-Leigh ("The Hateful Eight") - In a movie filled with villains, the most memorable for me turned out to be Daisy Domergue, an outlaw being escorted to her execution by ruthless bounty hunter John Ruth. What made Jason-Leigh's Daisy so memorable was her penchant for sadistic humor, vengeful nature and more importantly her patience. Despite being smacked around throughout most of the movie, the actress superbly conveyed just how ruthless Miss Domergue could actually be.
8. Hugh Laurie as David Nix ("Tomorrowland") - Hugh Laurie gave a subtle, yet sardonic performance as David Nix, the mayor of Tomorrowland, who valued technological achievement over scientific originality. Laurie did an excellent job in conveying the character's paranoia and willingness to resort extreme methods - including murder - in order to maintain the status quo - something he strongly supported. His rant against humanity is a must-see for any moviegoer.
9. Julianne Moore as President Alma Coin ("The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part II") - Julianne Moore gave a very subtle performance as the leader of Panem's District 13 and the rebellion against the Capitol. At first glance, her efforts to free Panem from President Snow's rule seemed very genuine. But Moore did an excellent job in occasionally conveying Coin's manipulative and patient personality, along with a penchant for bloodletting that rivaled Snow's.
10. Christoph Waltz as Ernst Stavros Blofeld ("SPECTRE") - Christoph Waltz became the fifth actor to portray British agent James Bond's biggest nemesis, Ernst Stavros Blofeld, head of criminal/terrorist organization SPECTRE. And he gave a memorable performance, project the character's ruthlessness, intelligence, sadism and . . . dare I say it . . . charm? Waltz's Blofeld made a very charming sadist, only rivaled by Telly Savalas' portrayal in the late 1960s.
