Monday, August 25, 2025

"THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" (2006) Review

 



















"THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" (2006) Review

I have never read Agatha Christie's 1931 novel, "The Sittaford Mystery". And I have read a lot of her novels. But since the novel did not feature Hercule Poirot, Miss Jane Marple, or Tommy and Tuppence Beresford; I never took the trouble to read it. Well, that is not fair. I can think of at least two or three Christie novels that did not feature any of these sleuths that I have read. But I have never read "The Sittaford Mystery"

So, imagine my surprise when I discovered that the ITV channel had aired an adaptation of the novel in which Geraldine McEwan appeared as Jane Marple. Okay. This is not the first time this has happened, considering that Christie did not write that many Miss Marple novels. "THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" revolved around the murder of a politician who is viewed as a potential Prime Minister in the 1950s. The story begins in the 1920s Egypt, where Clive Trevelyan and a few companions stumble across an important archaeological discovery. Then the story jumps nearly thirty years later when Trevelyan, now a politician, returns to his home Sittaford House in Dartmoor with his aide John Enderby, while Parliament decides on whether he will become Britain's new Prime Minister, following the retirement of Sir Winston Churchill. Due to his friendship with the novelist Raymond West, Trevelyan finds himself forced to accept the latter's elderly aunt, Miss Jane Marple, as a house guest. 

Much to Miss Marple and Enderby's surprise, Treveylan decides to chance the snowy weather outside and stay at a local hotel six miles away. The hotel include guests who seemed to be very familiar with Treveylan or familiar with an escapee from the local Dartmoore prison. One of the guests conduct a séance using a Ouiji board, which predicts Treveylan's death. Hours later, the politician is found stabbed to death in his room. With Miss Marple stuck at Sittaford House (temporarily); Enderby; a young journalist named Charles Burnaby; and Emily Trefusis, the fiancee of Treveylan's wastrel ward James Pearson; set out to find the murderer. However, it is not long before the trio find themselves seeking Miss Marple's help.

"THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" strikes me as a rather confusing tale. I have a deep suspicion that in his effort to somewhat change the plot from Christie's original novel, screenwriter Stephen Churchett ended up creating a very convoluted story . . . right up to the last reel. I have seen this movie twice and for the likes of me, I still have no real idea of what was going on . . . aside from the first fifteen minutes and the movie's denouement. I was aware that the hotel featured guests that had connections with or knew Treveylan, including a former lover, her wallflower daughter, a middle-aged woman who seemed to be a fan of Treveylan, and an American businessman and his aide. 

Churchett created a script filled with so many red herrings - unnecessary, as far as I am concerned - that I simply gave up in trying to guess the murderer's identity and waited for Miss Marple to expose him or her. Upon my first viewing. Upon my second viewing, I tried to examine the plot for any hints or clues that would lead to the killer's identity. Unfortunately, that did not happen until at least fifteen minutes before Miss Marple revealed the killer. I was also disappointed with how the movie resolved the romantic entanglements of Emily Trefusis, Charles Burnaby, James Pearson and a fourth character. I found it so contrived, for it came out of left field with no set up or hint whatsoever. What I found even more unconvincing was the last shot of the murderer staring at the camera with an evil grin. This struck me as an idiotic attempt by director Paul Unwin to channel or copy Alfred Hitchcock's last shot of Anthony Perkins in the 1960 movie, "PYSCHO". I found that moment so ridiculous.

I will give kudos to Rob Harris, the movie's production designer. I thought he did a competent job in creating the movie's setting - a snowbound English community in the early-to-mid 1950s. But do to the majority of the film being limited to either Treveylan's home and the hotel, Harris really did not have much to work with. Frances Tempest certainly did with her costume designs. I found nothing outstanding about them. But I must admit that I found them rather attractive, especially the costumes that actress Zoe Telford wore. On the other hand, I found Nicholas D. Knowland's cinematography rather odd . . . and not in a positive way. I did not like his photography, if I must be brutally honest. His unnecessary close-ups and odd angles struck me as an amateurish attempt by him and Unwin to transform "THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" into an independent film or Hammer-style horror flick.

The performances in "THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" proved to be a mixed bag. I have usually been a fan of Geraldine McEwan's portrayal of Miss Jane Marple. But I feel that she took the whole "verbose elderly lady" act a bit too far . . . especially in her scenes with Timothy Dalton during the first fifteen to twenty minutes. If I must be honest, most of the performances in the film seemed to be either over-the-top or close to being over-the-top. This was especially the case for Michael Brandon, Zoe Telford, Laurence Fox and Patricia Hodge. James Murray managed to refrain himself during most of the film. But even he managed to get into the act during the movie's last fifteen minutes or so. Carey Mulligan's performance seemed competent. She did not blow my mind, but at least she did not annoy me. Robert Hardy made a cameo appearance as Prime Minister Winston Churchill. This marked the eighth or ninth time the actor portrayed the politician and honestly, I could see this appearance was nothing more than a walk in the park for him. There were only four performances I truly enjoyed. One came from Mel Smith, who gave a very competent performance as Treveylan's right-hand man, John Enderby. I could say the same about Rita Tushingham, who gave a nuanced performance as a mysterious woman with knowledge of an ugly part in Treveylan's past. The role proved to be his last, for he passed away not long after the film's production. James Wilby was satisfyingly subtle as the town's local hotel owner, who had a secret to maintain. For me, the best performance came from Timothy Dalton, who was dazzling at the story's main victim, Clive Trevelyan. Considering that he was portraying a somewhat theatrical character, it is amazing that he managed to keep his performance under control, and struck a tight balance between theatricality and subtlety. 

It is obvious to anyone reading this review that I did not like "THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY". I could complain about the changes made to Agatha Christie's novel. But I have never read it, so I saw no point in making any comparisons. But I still cared very little for the movie. I found the direction and photography rather amateurish. And aside from a few first-rate performances, I was not that impressed by the majority of the cast's acting - including, unfortunately, Geraldine McEwan's.





 <img src="https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/seldonp38/50009290/3686879/3686879_300.jpg" alt="jTUXYUrcKsyPvgJ8gji66D.jpg" title="jTUXYUrcKsyPvgJ8gji66D.jpg">




<b>"CHANGING ANGELICA SEDARA"</b>


Upon a rewatch of <b>"THE LEOPARD"</b>, Netflix's 2025 adaptation of Giueseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s 1958 novel, I have noticed a few changes that I found disturbing. One of those changes featured one Angelica Sedara, the daughter of a local Sicilian politician, who becomes involved with aristocratic Salinas and Falconeri families. 


Lampedusa had portrayed Angelica in his novel as the beautiful daughter of the ambitious mayor of mayor of Donnafugata and a newly rich landowner, Don Calogero Sedara.  She and her father became acquainted of Fabrizio Corbèra, Prince of Salina; his family and the Prince's equally ambitious nephew, Prince Tancredi Falconeri.  Some time following the landing of revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi and his troops on Sicily, Prince Salina and his family traveled to his summer estate in Donnafugata.  There, they discovered Don Sedara had become wealthy through dodgy business transactions and political influence.  At a luncheon hosted by Prince Salina, Don Sedara introduced his daughter Angelica to the aristocratic family.  Tancredi became smitten with her, to the dismay of the Prince's daughter Concetta, who loves her cousin. Although aware of his daughter's feelings, the Prince accepted the inevitable and helped arrange Tancredi's betrothal to Angelica.  In a twist different from the novel and the 1963 movie adaptation, Tancredi and Angelica got married in Episode Four.   






Midway into the series, the Prince discovered Angelica having a sexual tryst with some politician. He confronts Tancredi about this, who acknowledges her “transgressions” because they help him rise within his own political ambitions. Of course, Tancredi is cheating on her, as well.


WHAT THE HELL? Why did the screenwriters for this series decide to transform Angelica into some kind of whore? What is this? Ambitious women are naturally promiscuous? Was that their message? By the way, no such scenario was featured in the 1959 novel or the 1963 movie. What is even worse is that no one has commented on or complained about this major change.



One of the aspects of Netflix’s version of “The Leopard” I found disturbing was how it had maligned Angelica Sedara’s character. The 2025 miniseries revealed that her aristocratic husband, Tancredi Falconeri had used her as a whore to sexually service men to advance his political career.


The problem is no such thing had occurred in Giueseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s 1959 novel or Luchino Visconti’s 1963 movie. For some reason, screenwriters Benji Walter’s and Richard Warlow thought it was important to transform Angelica into a whore for her husband. Even worse … no one has mentioned, let alone protest against this change in Angelica’s arc.


I find this very disturbing - almost misogynist. Was it really that important to view Angelica in such a negative way … or accept this “Whore/Madonna trope within the series?




Why? Why on earth did the screenwriters, Benji Walters and Richard Warlow transform Angelica into some kind of whore for hers and Tancredi’s ambitions? Not only was this revealed in Episode 5, but also in the final episode. WHY? The novel had revealed of a brief affair Angelica had with one of his friends, later in their marriage. And Tancredi did cheat on her. But Angelica DID NOT fuck other men on this level. And she certainly did not sleep with Tancredi’s friend for the sake of her ambition or her husband’s.




</lj-cut>

Thursday, August 21, 2025

"CRANFORD" (2007) Photo Gallery

 












Below are images from "CRANFORD", the 2007 adaptation of three novellas written by Elizabeth Gaskell and published between 1849 and 1858: "Cranford", "My Lady Ludlow" and "Mr. Harrison's Confessions".  Adapted by Heidi Thomas and created by Sue Birtwistle and Susie Conklin; the five-part miniseries starred Judi Dench: 



"CRANFORD" (2007) Photo Gallery


























Thursday, August 14, 2025

"LOST" RETROSPECT (1.14) "Special"

 












"LOST" RETROSPECT: (1.14) "Special"

I just watched the Season One episode of "LOST" called (1.14) "Special". It reminded me of how the show runners had pretty much screwed over the Michael Dawson character.

Although I do not regard "Special" as one of the series' best episodes, let alone one of the best about Michael, watching it reminded me of the anger had I felt the show’s fans and their expectations and assumptions about him. One of the criticisms directed at Michael was his inability to be the perfect parent. Some critics actually claimed that Michael did not know how to be a parent. It occurred to me that it was a stupid comment to make. Worse, this comment was indicative of the fans' unrealistic expectations of Michael’s character.

Of course, Michael had no idea on how to be a parent. He was new at it, thanks to his ex-girlfriend, Susan Lloyd. Not only did she break up with Michael following Walt’s birth. She also decided that Michael would not play a role in Walt’s life as his father. Even before her death, she had expected her husband and Walt’s stepfather, Brian Porter, to be the one to raise him. One of the more frustrating aspects of the "LOST" fandom toward Michael is that many had expected him to be this one-dimensional character. He either had to be another castaway, loyal to the series’ leading characters; the perfect parent, despite having very little experience prior to being stranded on the island; or turn to the "Great White Hunter" aka John Locke for lessons on parenthood.

And what the fuck was up with John Locke? Teaching Walt how to use a machete … without Michael's permission? What the hell was he thinking, allowing a child to handle a dangerous weapon? And then there was that piece of advice he gave Michael - to treat Walt more like an adult than a child. What the fuck? Walt was ten years old, not fucking twenty-four years old. One, parents tend regard their off springs as children even after they become adults. To a certain extent. And two, Walt was too young and too immature to be treated like an adult at the time.

What I found disturbing about this situation regarding the machete lesson is that when Michael had called Locke out for teaching Walt how to use a machete, the latter turned it on Michael and blamed him for not being the perfect father. This was bullshit. Teaching a ten-year-old boy how to handle a machete without the permission of the latter's father? Treating said ten-year-old child like an adult? If Michael was expected to become a better parent because he had followed Locke’s advice, then "Special" gave the wrong kind of lesson in parenthood. And if I must be brutally honest, so did screenwriter David Fury. In the end, Walt’s encounter with a polar bear pretty much justified Locke’s decision to teach him to use a machete. It seemed as if Fury and the series’ show runners - Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof - believed Locke knew more about raising a child than Michael.

John Locke was not Dr. Spock. He was a man who had the wrong idea on what it really took to become a parent, based on his own damaged relationships with his parents. As for Michael, he was never a perfect parent. But he was never terrible. And despite his flaws, a great deal of his actions was dictated by his desire to protect Walt from the island’s dangers. His lack of perfection was not surprising since a "perfect parent" does not exist. Never really existed in the first place.

Human beings are not perfect. If humans are not perfect, why expect someone - whether in real life or in fiction - to be the perfect parent? Or perhaps many "LOST" fans had harbored such high demands from Michael because he was a black man and not the lead of a television show. Perhaps he was not expected to be as ambiguous and complicated as he proved to be.





Thursday, August 7, 2025

"THE KINGDOM" (2007) Review

 













"THE KINGDOM" (2007) Review

Based upon a real life incident regarding a terrorist attacks in the Saudi Arabia (Riyadh Compound Bombings), the 2007 action thriller, "THE KINGDOM", tells the story of an FBI Counterterrorist unit sent to Saudi Arabia to investigate a terrorist attack upon an American compound in Saudi Arabia. Directed by Peter Berg ("FRIDAY NIGHTS LIGHTS") and produced by Michael Mann, the movie starred Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper and Jason Bateman.

The main question is . . . did I like "THE KINGDOM"? And the answer is yes. In fact, I had enjoyed it very much. It had plenty of suspense, drama and especially action that should not leave anyone disappointed. Most of the story seemed to be focused upon the theme of American cops forced to deal with their country's own bureaucacy and with the hostility of foreign cops who resent the idea of Americans invading their turf. There have been other Hollywood crime dramas with similar themes. But in "THE KINGDOM", this theme is intensified due to the story's setting - namely Saudi Arabia and the Middle East culture and the current concern of terrorism. And I feel that screenwriters Matthew Michael Carnahan and Michael Mann did a great job.

The entire cast was first-rate . . . especially Jamie Foxx as FBI Agent Ronald Fleury and Ashraf Barhom as Col. Faris Al-Ghazi of the Saudi police, who managed to create a very credible relationship of two men whose different cultures would automatically make them enemies during this time in history. Yet slowly . . . surely, they managed to form a close friendship. Jennifer Garner, Kyle Chandler in a brief appearance and a very entertaining Jason Bateman also gave competent performances. Rounding off the competent supporting cast were Jeremy Piven, Ali Suliman, Richard Jenkins, Tim McGraw, Ashley Scott, Frances Fisher, Omar Berdouni, Anna Devere Smith and Danny Huston. My only problem with the casting was Chris Cooper. Although he was his usual competent self, there were times when his character seemed a bit irrelevant and a little hammy at times.

About a month before the movie had been released in the theaters, someone had written a review of the movie and considered it as a potential for Academy Award nominations. To be honest, I do not know if I would agree with that assessment. As good as "THE KINGDOM" was, I never saw the possibility of it earning any award nominations. At least of Oscar caliber. And I was right. To me, it was simply a solid action-drama with a first-rate cast and good, solid writing. Worthy of an entertaining viewing on DVD or a streaming channel.  








Saturday, August 2, 2025

"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery

 











Below is a gallery of images from "IRON MAN 2", the sequel to Marvel comics' 2008 hit film, "IRON MAN".  Directed by Jon Favreau, the movie starred Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark aka Iron Man:



"IRON MAN 2" (2010) Photo Gallery


























"THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" (2006) Review

  "THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY" (2006) Review I have never read Agatha Christie's 1931 novel,  "The Sittaford Mystery" . A...