"THE WOMAN HE LOVED" (1988) ReviewI have come to the conclusion that any movie producer willing to do a project on Wallis Warfield Simpson, later the Duchess of Windsor would eventually realize that said project is bound to generate a great deal of emotion - not only in Great Britain, but even in the United States. I have never come across a female historical figure who has polarized the public the way this 20th century American-born socialite has.The first screen production about Wallis Simpson and her romance with Edward, Prince of Wales, later King Edward VIII and the Duke of Windsor I ever saw was the 1978 BBC miniseries, "EDWARD AND MRS. SIMPSON". But I have seen screen portrayals of both Mrs. Simpson and Edward VIII in other productions, including this television movie called "THE WOMAN HE LOVED". The television movie aired on CBS in 1988. I wish I could say this movie was the best on-screen interpretation of the infamous romance that rocked the British monarchy back in the mid-1930s. However, I would be lying if I did. But I certainly do not believe it is the worst."THE WOMAN HE LOVED" told the story of the famous romance mainly from Mrs. Simpson's point-of-view, via flashbacks. The movie began in 1972 with her arrival in Britain for the first time in years to attend the funeral of her third and final husband, the Duke of Windsor. While the recently widowed Duchess seeks solitude inside Buckingham Palace as a guest of the Royal Family, she reminisces about about her marriage to American-born businessman Ernest Simpson in 1928 and how it led to her entry into British high society and to her relationship with Edward Windsor. Aside from the 1972 flashbacks, most of the movie began with Wallis' marriage to Simpson and ended with her marriage to the newly created Duke of Windsor in May 1937. It also covered Wallis and Edward's affair, which began when he was Prince of Wales and continued after he became King Edward VIII. Also, Wallis' marital problems with Simpson, along with their divorce and the Abdication Crisis, which occurred during the fall of 1936 were also covered in this film. This is not surprising, considering this is the narrative formula that is used in most productions about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.How did I feel about the movie? Well . . . I did not hate it. But I did not exactly love it. I must admit that its production values were top notch for a television film with a foreign setting. One has to give Kenneth Sharp credit for a detailed re-creation of London and Great Britain between 1928 and 1936. If there is one thing I can say about "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" is that it is a beautiful looking period drama. Sharp's work was ably assisted by Brian Morgan's sharp and colorful cinematography. Hell, his work looked better than many period dramas I have seen on both the small and large screen. Although I found Allyn Ferguson's score not particularly memorable, I thought he and director Charles Jarrott did an excellent in selecting certain tunes that added to the movie's 1930s setting. But one aspect of the movie's technical aspect that really blew my mind was Robin Fraser-Paye's costume designs. Can I say . . . WOW? Or better yet, below are images of Fraser-Paye's work:
On the other hand, William Luce's screenplay failed to have the same effect upon me. As I had hinted earlier, the screenplay for "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" was the basic narrative used for most productions about the historic couple. I would go even further to say that Luce's work was basically a paint-by-the-numbers job. There were moments that did impress me. Most of those moments featured conversations between Wallis and Simpson - especially when their marriage was breaking apart. I was especially amused by one particular quarrel between them that ended with Wallis sharply ordering their dog from her bed. Some of the biggest problems I had with "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" is that Wallis and Edward's story was treated solely as a movie adaptation of a romance novel. And I am not a fan of romance novels. I did not expect the movie to be some Charles Higham-style trashy revelation about the Windsor couple. I have seen plenty of recent productions - "UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS (Season One)" and "THE KING'S SPEECH" - that portray Wallis as some kind of gauche, gold digging whore. Unfortunately, "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" went to another extreme - painting Wallis as some kind of American-born Cinderella and Edward as this poor, misunderstood prince who had been denied some sliver of happiness due to royal tradition. The movie did offer crumbs of the couple's ambiguity - Wallis' affair with Edward and the latter's determination to steal another man's wife. But despite these moments of ambiguity, "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" was simply an exercise in romantic gloss."THE WOMAN HE LOVED" featured the screen reunion of Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews, who first co-starred with each other in the 1982 television costume movie, "THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL". Both were outstanding in that film. I wish I could say the same about their performances in "THE WOMAN HE LOVED" . . . but I cannot. I am not saying they gave bad performances. Their screen chemistry remained intact. And both Seymour and Andrews offered some examples of their talent in a few scenes. Most of Seymour's best scenes were with actor Tom Wilkinson, who portrayed Ernest Simpson. Perhaps her performances in these scenes led to her Emmy nomination. Perhaps. However, I found it easy to question this nomination, due to Seymour being forced to portray Mrs. Simpson as an occasionally star-struck adolescent. I could blame her questionable Upper South accent (the American socialite came from an old Baltimore family), but I never believed that a bad or questionable accent could really harm a performance. Andrews had a particularly effective scene in which his Edward angrily expressed his frustration with the British Establishment, who refused to accept Wallis as his future wife. I found this scene to be a breath of fresh air, considering most of his consisted of dialogue that struck me as wooden. But in the end, both actors were simply hampered by Luce's romantically one-note screenplay.Olivia De Havilland also received an Emmy nomination - a Best Supporting Actress nod for her portrayal of Wallis' aunt, Bessie Merryman. And if I must be honest, I find this puzzling. I am not criticizing De Havilland. I thought she gave a solid performance, considering the slight amount of screen time given to her. But there was nothing about it that dazzled me. Lucy Gutteridge portrayed Edward's previous mistress, the American-born Thelma, Viscountess Furness. By some ironic twist, Gutteridge portrayed Furness' twin sister, Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt, in the 1982 television movie, "LITTLE GLORIA, HAPPY AT LAST" and earned an Emmy nomination. As for her portrayal of Thelma, it was pretty solid, but not particularly mind dazzling. In fact, none of the other supporting performances in the movie - Julie Harris, Robert Hardy, Phyllis Calvert and David Waller - did not strike me as particularly memorable. I must admit I was surprised to see Waller reprise his role as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, which he had originated in "EDWARD AND MRS. SIMPSON". Only Tom Wilkinson's wry and cynical portrayal of the cuckolded Ernest Simpson came close to really impressing me. While everyone else seemed to be a bit too theatrical or simply going through the motions, Wilkinson made the low-key Simpson a rather interesting personality.I really do not know what else to say about "THE WOMAN HE LOVED". I cannot deny that visually, it is a very beautiful looking movie that did an excellent job of re-creating Great Britain during the two decades between the two world wars. But instead of providing a balanced and ambiguous portrait of Wallis Simpson and her third husband, King Edward VIII; director Charles Jarrott and screenwriter William Luce decided to portray their relationship as some kind of cinematic romance novel. And I believe their work may have hampered the performances of the cast led by the usually talented Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews. If you want a realistic feel of the Wallis Simpson/Edward VIII affair, this may not be your movie. But if it is an onscreen fairy tale romance you are looking for, this might be your cup of tea.
"THE CONSPIRATOR" (2010/11) ReviewThroughout Hollywood history, the topic of the American Civil War has proven to be a volatile mix in terms of box office and television ratings. Robert Redford's new drama about President Abraham Lincoln's assassination called "THE CONSPIRATOR" proved to be the case.Directed by Redford and written by James D. Solomon, "THE CONSPIRATOR" told the story about Civil War veteran Frederick Aiken's efforts to prevent Mary Surratt, the only woman charged in the Lincoln assassination during the spring and summer of 1865. Following the 16th President's death and near fatal attack upon Secretary of State William H. Seward, a Maryland-born boarding house owner and Confederate sympathizer named Mary Surratt becomes among those arrested in connection to the crime. The Federal government, under the authority of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, is convinced of Mrs. Surratt's guilt because of her son John's connections to assassin John Wilkes Booth and the other conspirators. Mrs. Surratt's case was not helped by the fact that they had used her Washington D.C. boardinghouse as a meeting place; or that John managed to evade capture by the Federal authorities following the assassination.Mrs. Surratt summoned a fellow native of Maryland, U.S. Senator Reverdy Johnson, to defend her before a military tribunal. But political pressure from Stanton and others forced Johnson to recruit Aiken to represent Mrs. Surratt at the tribunal. Unfortunately, the 27-year-old Aiken lacked any previous experience inside a courtroom. The young attorney's initial belief in Mrs. Surratt's guilt and reluctance to defend her disappeared, as he became aware of possible evidence that might exonerate his client and that she was being used as a hostage and bait to lure her son John to the authorities through foul means."THE CONSPIRATOR" proved to be one of those Civil War movies that failed to generate any interest at the box office. Most moviegoers ignored it. Many critics bashed it, claiming it was another of Robert Redford's thinly veiled metaphors on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must be honest. I found this particular criticism worthy of some head scratching. Perhaps those critics had been right. But I must admit that I failed to see the metaphor. The manner in which the Army tribunal railroaded Mary Surratt to a date with a hangman's noose sadly struck me as a very common occurrence throughout history. The wealthy and the powerful have never been reluctant to destroy someone they deemed as a threat or a convenient scapegoat.Superficially, Mary Surratt did not seem like the type of person toward whom I would harbor any sympathy. The Maryland-born woman had been a Confederate sympathizer. I personally found her political and social beliefs abhorrent. Yet, by revealing the lies and manipulations that she had endured at the hands of the Army tribunal and Federal government, both Redford and screenwriter Solomon did an excellent job in igniting my sympathy. Mary Surratt's experiences also reminded me that they could happen to anyone - even today. The idea of so much power against one individual or a particular group is frightening to behold, regardless of if that individual is a slave, a Confederate sympathizer under arrest or an early 21st century citizen.Aside from displaying the dangers of absolute powers, "THE CONSPIRATOR" succeeded on two other points - at least for me. I found the movie's basic narrative well written and paced to a certain degree. Both Redford and Solomon had been wise to focus the movie's plot on Mrs. Surratt's case. They could have included the testimonies regarding the other conspirators, but that could have resulted in a great deal of chaos. However, the other defendants' participation in the conspiracy against the Lincoln Administration was utilized in an excellent sequence that conveyed the events surrounding President Lincoln's assassination, the attempt on William Seward's life, John Wilkes Booth's death and the subsequent arrests. With this excellent introduction, the movie smoothly segued into Frederick Aiken's efforts to defend Mrs. Surratt.However, no movie is perfect. And "THE CONSPIRATOR" had its own imperfections. My main problem centered on three characters - a close friend of Aiken's named Nicholas Baker, who was portrayed by Justin Long; actress Alexis Bledel's portrayal of Aiken's fiancée, Sarah Weston; and the presence of Oscar winner Kevin Kline as Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. My only problem with Bledel was that her performance struck me as mediocre. No number of romantic scenes or beautiful 19th century costumes could alleviate her performance. Justin Long's presence proved to be a waste of time - at least for me. One, Redford and Solomon included a meaningless scene featuring the aftermath of a nameless Civil War battle with both James McAvoy's Aiken and Long lying on the ground, wounded. What was the point of this scene? To establish Aiken's devotion to the Union cause in the form of his friend, Baker? If so, I feel it failed to achieve this. Long was further wasted as one of the two friends who tried to convince Aiken not to defend Mrs. Surratt. Actually, James Badge Dale, who portrayed the young attorney's other friend, William Hamilton, was used more effectively for this task. Long merely hung around slightly drunk or sober, as he grunted his disapproval toward Aiken. And I cannot understand why Redford even bothered to include his character in the plot. Also wasted was Kevin Kline's portrayal of Edwin H. Stanton. Aside from convincing Reverdy Johnson not to personally defend Mrs. Surratt, barking instructions to government lackeys following the incidents at Ford's Theater and Seward's home, and ignoring Aiken's attempts to contact him; Kline's Stanton did nothing. I had expected some kind of confrontation between Aiken and Stanton . . . again, nothing happened.Fortunately for "THE CONSPIRATOR", the good outweighed the bad. This was certainly apparent in the rest of the cast. I would never consider Frederick Aiken to be one of James McAvoy's best roles. But I cannot deny that he did an admirable job in transforming Aiken's character from a reluctant legal defender to his client's most ardent supporter. He also infused the right mixture of passion, anger and growing cynicism into his character. I have seen Robin Wright only in a small number of roles. But I do believe that Mary Surratt might prove to be one of her best in a career that has already spanned over twenty years. What truly impressed me about Wright's performance was her ability to avoid portraying Surratt as some ladylike martyr that barely did or said anything to avoid conviction. Although Wright's Surratt did suffer, she also conveyed grit and determination to alleviate her situation.The majority of the cast for "THE CONSPIRATOR" gave solid performances. There were a few I considered standouts among the supporting cast. One of them turned out to be Danny Huston's intense portrayal of the prosecuting attorney, Joseph Holt. Evan Rachel Wood superbly guided Anna Surratt's character from a defiantly supportive daughter to a young woman on the edge of despair. Despite a slightly unconvincing Maryland accent, Tom Wilkinson gave an intelligent performance as U.S. Senator Reverdy Johnson. I could also say the same about James Badge Dale's portrayal of William Hamilton, one of Aiken's friends, who proved to be a wise adviser. As for actor Toby Kebbell, I have to admit that he made a convincing John Wilkes Booth.I cannot deny that Robert Redford and screenwriter James Solomon made a few missteps with the plot and at least two characters for "THE CONSPIRATOR". But as I had stated earlier, the virtues outweighed the flaws. Both director and screenwriter provided moviegoers with a fascinating and frightening look into the abuse of power during a famous historic event. And they were backed by excellent performances from the likes of James McAvoy and Robin Wright. I only hope that one day, audiences might overlook Redford's current reputation as a filmmaker and give "THE CONSPIRATOR" a second chance.
"JOHN ADAMS" (2008) ReviewLast year marked the 10th anniversary of the airing of HBO's 2008 miniseries, "JOHN ADAMS". And yet, my memories of the seven-part television production remains fresh in my mind. Directed by Tom Hooper, the miniseries was also written by Kirk Ellis and produced by Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman. In a nutshell . . . "JOHN ADAMS" is an adaption of David McCullough’s bestselling, Pulitzer-Prize winning biography on the country’s second president, John Adams. Instead of beginning the story during Adams’ childhood or early adulthood, the miniseries began in the late winter/early spring of 1770, when he defended seven British soldiers and one officer accused of murder during the 'Boston Massacre' crisis. It ended with the episode that covered the last twenty-five years of Adams' life as a former President. And despite some historical discrepancies and a rather bland fourth episode, "JOHN ADAMS" became another glorious notch in HBO’s history.The performances were superb, especially Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams. On screen, they were as well matched as the second President and First Lady were, over two hundred years ago. If either of them is passed over for either an Emmy or Golden Globe award, a great travesty will end up occurring. Especially Giamatti. He is the first actor I have seen make the role of John Adams his own, since William Daniels in "1776". Another performance that left me dazzled was British actor Stephen Dillane’s subtle and brilliant performance as one of the most enigmatic Presidents in U.S. history – Thomas Jefferson. I had heard a rumor that he preferred acting on the stage above performing in front of a camera. If it is true, I think it is a damn shame. There is nothing wrong with the theater. But quite frankly, I feel that Dillane’s style of acting is more suited for the movies or television. These three fine actors are backed up with excellent performances from the likes of David Morse as George Washington, a brooding Sam Adams portrayed by Danny Huston and Tom Wilkinson portraying a roguish and very witty Benjamin Franklin. I found most of the miniseries’ episodes very enjoyable to watch and very informative. Not only did "JOHN ADAMS" gave its viewers a detailed look into the United States and Europe during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, rarely seen on the silver or television screen. One particular scene comes to mind occurred in Part 1 - "Join or Die", when Adams witnessed the tar-and-feathering of a Boston Tory by members of the Sons of Liberty. The entire incident played out with grusome detail. Another scene that caught my attention occurred in Part 6 - "Unecessary War", when the Adamses had their first view of the recently built White House, located in the still undeveloped Washington D.C. I am so used to Washington looking somewhat civilized that its early, ramshackle appearance came as quite a surprise. And instead of allowing the actors and scenery resemble something out of a painting or art museum, everything looked real. One might as well be stepping into the late eighteenth century, absorbing the sights, sounds and smells . . . if one could achieve the latter via a television set. Speaking of sounds, I have to comment on the opening scene score written by Rob Lane. It is very rare find a miniseries theme song this catchy and stirring. Especially in recent years.If I could choose one particular episode that left me wanting, it had to be Part Four - "Reunion". This episode covered John and Abigail Adams’ years in Paris during the Treaty of Paris negotiations and as the first U.S. Minister to the British Court of St. James in London. It also covered his return to Massachusetts and election as the first Vice President. I enjoyed the development of the Adams’ friendship with Jefferson in this episode. Unfortunately that is all I had enjoyed. I wish that the episode had expanded more on the troubles surrounding the Treaty of Paris and especially the Adams’ stay in London. The most that was shown in the latter situation was Adams’ meeting with King George III (Tom Hollander) and Abigail’s desire to return home. On the whole, I found this episode rushed and slightly wanting.But there were three others that I found fascinating. One turned out to be Part 3 - "Don't Tread on Me". This episode featured his subsequent Embassy duties with Benjamin Franklin to the Court of Louis XVI, and his trip to the Dutch Republic to obtain monetary support for the Revolution. I would not exactly view this episode as one of the miniseries’ best, but it did feature an excellent performance by Paul Giamatti, who expressed Adams’ frustration with the opulent Court of Louis XVI and Benjamin Franklin, rakishly portrayed by Tom Wilkinson. Watching Adams attempt to win the friendship of the French aristocrats and fail was fascinating to watch.One of the episodes that really stood out for me was Part 6 - "Unnecessary War". This episode covered Adams’ term as the second President of the United States and the growing development of a two-party system in the form of the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton (Rufus Sewell) and the Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans. This episode featured standout performances from not only Giamatti, but from Linney, Dillane and Sewell as a rather manipulative and power hungry Hamilton. The episode also featured a detailed history lessons on the beginning of political partisanship in the U.S. and the country’s (or should I say Adams’) efforts to keep the U.S. neutral from the war between Great Britain and France. It also focused upon a personal matter for both John and Abigail, as they dealt with the decline of their alcoholic second son, Charles. An excellent episode all around.My favorite episode – and I suspect that it might be the case with many fans - is Part 2 - "Independence". This episode focused upon the early years of the Revolution in which Adams and his fellow congressmen of the Continental Congress consider the option of independence from Great Britain and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It also focused upon Abigail’s struggles with the Adams’ farm and a smallpox outbreak in the Massachusetts colony. Personally, I consider this the best episode of the entire series. I especially enjoyed the verbal conflict between pro-independence Adams and delegate John Dickinson of Pennsylvania (superbly portrayed by actor Željko Ivanek), who favored reconciliation with the Crown. But one scene I found particularly humorous featured Adams and especially Franklin “editing” Jefferson’s final draft of the Declaration of Independence. All three actors – Giamatti, Wilkinson and Dillane were hilarious in a scene filled with subtle humor.Despite being based upon a historical biography, "JOHN ADAMS" is not historically accurate. Which is not surprising. It is first and foremost a Hollywood production. Some of the best historical dramas ever shown on television or on the movie screen were never historically correct. Whether or not "JOHN ADAMS" is 100% historically correct, it is one of the best dramas I have seen on television in the past three years. Ever since it was released on DVD, I have enjoyed viewing it over and over again.
"A POCKETFUL OF RYE" (1985) ReviewThere have been two adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1953 novel, "A Pocket Full of Rye". Well . . . as far as I know. I have already seen the recent adaptation that aired on ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MARPLE" series in 2009. Recently, I watched an earlier adaptation that aired on the BBC "MISS MARPLE" series in 1985. Directed by Guy Slater, this earlier adaptation starred Joan Hickson as the story's main sleuth, Miss Jane Marple. The story begins in the London office of financier Rex Fortescue, who suddenly dies after drinking his morning tea. At first suspicion falls upon the employees of Fortescue's firm. But the police coroner discovers that Fortescue had died from taxine, an alkaloid poison obtained from the leaves or berries of the yew tree. Due to this discovery, Detective-Inspector Neele realizes that someone within the Foretescue household may have poisoned the financier during breakfast. Suspicion falls upon Fortescue's second and much younger wife, Adele after Neele learns of her affair with a local golf pro at a resort. However, Adele is murdered during tea, via poison. Even worse, a third victim, a maid named Gladys Martin, is found in the garden, strangled to death and with a peg on her nose. After Adele and Gladys' murders are reported by the media; Miss Marple, who used to be Gladys' employer, pays a visit to the Fortescue home to discover the murderer's identity among the list of suspects:*Percival Fortescue - Rex's older son, who was worried over the financier's erratic handling of the family business
*Jennifer Fortescue - Percival's wife, who disliked her father-in-law
*Lance Fortescue - Rex's younger son, a former embezzler who had arrived home from overseas on the day of Adele and Gladys' murders
*Patricia Fortescue - Lance's aristocratic wife, who had been unlucky with her past two husbands
*Mary Dove - the Fortescues' efficient and mysterious housekeeper
*Vivian Dubois - Adele's lover and professional golf instructor
*Aunt Effie Ramsbottom - Rex's fanatically religious ex-sister-in-lawDespite Inspector Neele's initial inclination to dismiss the elderly Miss Marple, he comes to appreciate her help in solving the three murders.I like "A POCKETFUL OF RYE". I like it a lot. I have always been a fan of Christie's 1953 novel. And if I must be honest, I also enjoyed the 2009 adaptation, as well. Originally, one would be inclined to believe that this earlier adaptation is more faithful to Christie's novel. Surprisingly, it is not. Screenwriter T.R. Bowen eliminated at least three characters from the novel and changed the murderer's fate in the end. Otherwise, this adaptation was pretty faithful. But it is not its faithfulness to Christie's novel that made me enjoy this production. I have read plenty of first-rate novels that translated badly to the television or movie screen. Fortunately, "A POCKETFUL OF RYE" does not suffer from this fate. At least not too much.Overall, "A POCKETFUL OF RYE" is an entertaining and solid story that left me intrigued. It is also one of the few Christie stories in which the revelation of the murderer's identity left me feeling very surprised . . . and a little sad. However, even sadder was the third murder . . . that of Gladys Martin. She was the only one of the three victims that was likable. Not only did I find her death sad, but also cruel. But it was also good drama. The movie also featured some strong characterization that I believe enhanced the story. Between the interactions between the members of the Fortescue family members, the interactions between Miss Marple and Inspector Neele, and the interaction between the latter and his assistant Sergeant Hay; this production reeked with strong characterization."A POCKETFUL OF RYE" did have its problems. One, I thought the movie's pacing dragged a bit, following the death of Rex Fortescue. And because of this, the story took its time in reaching Miss Marple's arrival at the Fortescues' home. Another problem with Bowen's script is that it strongly hinted the killer's identity before Miss Marple could to the police. This problem has been a problem with the Joan Hickson movies throughout its run. For me, the real problem with "A POCKETFUL OF RYE" proved to be the killer's fate. Apparently, Bowen and director Guy Slater decided that Christie's version of what happened to the murderer was not enough. Instead, they decided to kill off the murderer in a convoluted manner via a traffic accident. Frankly, I found Christie's original version more emotionally satisfying.I certainly had no problem with the movie's performances. Joan Hickson was top-notch as usual, as Jane Marple. I also enjoyed Tom Wilkinson's very entertaining performance as Inspector Neele. I find it hard to believe that it took another 13 years or so for him to achieve stardom. There were three other performances that I truly enjoyed. One came from Rachel Bell, who was first-rate in her portrayal the victim's enigmatic daughter-in-law. Selina Cadell's portrayal of housekeeper Mary Dove proved to be just as enigmatic and impressive. Both Peter Davidson and Clive Merrison gave interesting performances as the two Fortescue brothers, Lance and Percival, who seemed such complete opposites of one another. I also enjoyed Fabia Drake, who gave an excellent performance as the victim's religious, yet observant sister-in-law, Effie Ramsbottom. The movie also featured solid performances from Timothy West (whose appearance was sadly too brief), Annette Badland, Stacy Dorning, Jon Glover, Frances Low and Martyn Stanbridge."A POCKETFUL OF RYE" proved to be an entertaining and solid adaptation of Christie's novel, thanks to director Guy Slater and screenwriter T.R. Bowen. The movie also featured excellent performances from a cast led by the always incomparable Joan Hickson. However, I do feel that the movie was somewhat marred by a slow pacing in the middle of the story and an early and unsatisfying revelation of the killer's identity. Oh well. At least "A POCKETFUL OF RYE" was not a bust or even mediocre.
"DUPLICITY" (2009) ReviewSeveral years ago, "BOURNE" franchise scribe/director Tony Gilroy went another direction and wrote and directed this 2009 comedy thriller that barely earned a profit at the box office. This romantic spy flick centered around a pair of romantically involved former intelligence spies who team up for a business scam that would allow them to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle together. "DUPLICITY" began five years in the past in which MI-6 agent Ray Koval is ordered to seduce and spy upon a woman named Claire Stenwick, who unbeknownst to him, is a CIA agent. After Claire drugs Ray and steals classified documents from him. The movie's opening shifts to a physical fight between CEOs Howard Tully of Burkett & Randle and Dick Garsik of Equikrom, establishing the longstanding professional rivalries between the pair. Several years later, Ray, who has become a corporate spy for Equikrom, encounters Claire in New York City. He eventually discovers that she has been an Equikrom corporate spy, working undercover at Burkett & Randle. Ray and Claire decide to create a con job in which they manipulate a corporate race between Tully and Garsik to corner the market on a medical innovation. A con job they hope will reap huge profits for them. When I first saw the trailer for "DUPLICITY", I figured that Gilroy would have a smash hit on his hands. He had two leads whose screen chemistry had already been established in the 2004 romantic drama, "CLOSER". He also had Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson (both fresh from winning awards for their performances in the 2008 HBO miniseries, "JOHN ADAMS"). And he had an interesting story line. What could go wrong? Apparently, a good deal went wrong.To be honest, "DUPLICITY" was not a terrible movie. The four leads and the supporting cast provide excellent performances – especially Roberts and Owen. And Gilroy managed to write a very witty script. Unfortunately, I also found his script slightly confusing thanks to the flashbacks that featured Roberts and Owen’s budding romance and a slow build up to their scheme to scam Giamatti and Wilkinson. But what prevented "DUPLICITY" from being a winner for me was the ending. As it turned out, Wilkinson’s character had been aware of the scheming ex-spies all along and used them to bankrupt his rival, Giamatti, with phony plans for a new medical innovation. A flashback revealing the listening bug in Roberts’ apartment revealed how he had learned of their scheme. But the movie failed to explain how he had become suspicions of the two in the first place. I also have to add that I was disappointed that Roberts and Owen’s characters had failed to succeed in their scheme. I usual hate these ironic of endings in comedic movies that feature con artists.What else can I say? "DUPLICITY" featured some excellent performances from Julia Roberts (who had earned a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress in a Comedy for her performance), Clive Owens and the rest of the cast. Tony Gilroy's screenplay also featured a good deal of witty humor. But if anyone plans to watch this film and expects a well written and fascinating narrative, I suspect that viewer might end up disappointed. I certainly was.
"SNOWDEN" (2016) Review
When I heard that director Oliver Stone was about to release a movie about tech whistleblower, Edward Snowden, I did not know what to expect. I still harbored memories of "THE FIFTH ESTATE", the 2013 movie about Julian Assange. Unlike many others, I did not dislike the film. But I did not find it particularly impressive. But curiosity won in regard to this movie about Snowden and I decided to watch it.
Structured as a flashback, "SNOWDEN" began three years earlier in Hong Kong, where Snowden had agreed to meet with The Guardian and Washington Post journalists and reveal the details leading to his decision to expose the National Security Agency (N.S.A.)'s illegal cyber-snooping on millions of unsuspecting American citizens. The flashbacks began with Snowden's departure from the U.S. Army due to a major injury and covered his years with the C.I.A. and as a contractee for Dell, which manages computer systems for multiple government agencies like the N.S.A. The movie also covered Snowden's profession and growing knowledge of the American government's illegal use of cybertech affected his tumultuous relationship with girlfriend Lindsay Mills and his health for nearly a decade.
Personally, I thought "SNOWDEN" was a pretty damn good movie. It is not the first biopic or movie with a strong historic background that Oliver Stone had directed. And if I must be brutally honest, it is not his best. I cannot put my finger on why "SNOWDEN" failed to rank up there with the likes of "PLATOON", "BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY" and especially "JFK". Was it the subject matter? One would think Edward Snowden's actions would generate plenty of controversy. An N.S.A. contractor exposing the U.S. government for illegally spying on the American public would seems controversial. Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald's screenplay even went into details behind Snowden's discoveries - details that left many Americans outraged when news of Snowden's leaks hit the newspapers and the Internet. The screenplay also detailed the emotional consequences that Snowden had suffered from his years with the C.I.A. and his employment as a N.S.A. contractor.
"SNOWDEN" also featured some pretty top notch performances from the cast. Performers like Zachary Quinto, Melissa Leo, Nicholas Cage, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Olyphant, Scott Eastwood, Keith Stanfield, Ben Schnetzer, Logan Marshall-Green and Joely Richardson gave solid, yet colorful performances. I was very impressed by Rhys Ifan, who have a subtle, yet slightly sinister performance as Snowden's C.I.A. mentor Corbin O'Brian. Shailene Woodley was excellent as Snowden's girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, who nearly became an emotional victim of his profession. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt gave an outstanding performance as the titled character, Edward Snowden. His performance was subtle, emotional and very skillful . . . worthy of an acting nomination.
So, why did "SNOWDEN" fail to impress me? The performances were top-notch. The topic of illegal government surveillance struck me as not only controversial, but also relevant. Or perhaps the topic had ceased to be relevant with American moviegoers. Society's taste in entertainment has grown disturbingly conservative over the past several years. It is possible that many moviegoers were more outraged over Snowden's actions, than the government's. Or perhaps Stone's timing for the movie's production and release was a year or two late.
But if I must be honest, "SNOWDEN" seemed to lack something . . . perhaps some touch of magic or energy that made some of his past films memorable to this day. In fact, the movie reminded me of the 2010 Best Picture winner, "THE KING'S SPEECH". Many recall that movie was a box office and garnered a great deal of accolades. True. But aside from Colin Firth's Best Actor win, I never thought it deserved its accolades. Both movies struck me as entertaining, yet unoriginal biopics. I suspect that the 2010 movie benefited from the public's growing conservative taste in entertainment. And it did not help that "SNOWDEN" ended with an appearance from the actual man himself. I dislike it when a filmmaker does this. For me, it is like tacking on a "behind-the-scenes" featurette at the end of a film, giving the latter a weak ending.
Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed "SNOWDEN". I found its topic very interesting and relevant. I was also impressed by the cast, which was led by the very talented Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the title role. Oliver Stone did a solid job in covering the years that led to Edward Snowden's whistle blowing. And thanks to him, the movie featured some interesting moments from a cinematic point-of-view. But overall, "SNOWDEN" struck me as a not-so-dazzling effort from Stone. It struck me as a bit too typical for a historical drama and biopic.
