"FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" (2010) Review

 

"FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" (2010) Review

On the heels of the 2009 action hit, "TAKEN", producer/writer Pierre Morel released another action packer last called "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE". This movie centered around a pair of CIA operatives portrayed by John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers hunting for Islamic terrorists in Paris.

Rhys-Meyers portrayed James Reece, an aide to the U.S. ambassador to France, who also happened to be a low-level CIA operative with duties that include changing cars license plates for field operatives. His constant requests for a promotion to field agent finally led to a senior-level assignment as an escort for a visiting CIA agent named Charlie Wax. The latter was sent by the Agency to investigate a drug ring that may have been indirectly responsible for the death of the Secretary of Defense's niece from a drug overdose. What started as a simply task of getting Charlie cleared by French Customs agents, eventually led to a series of dangerous and sometimes humorous adventures in the French underworld in search of Islamic extremists, planning to destroy the U.S. Embassy in Paris during a summit meeting.

Unlike "TAKEN", producer Luc Besson and director Pierre Morel presented a tale that relied more on comedy and less upon family angst. I must admit that Besson and co-writer Adi Hasak’s screenplay for "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" did not seem all that original. The movie seemed like your typical action flick filled with one-liners, hair-raising stunts and explosions. However, like "TAKEN", the movie did provide plenty of interesting views featuring the steamier side of Paris and some very hilarious moments between Travolta and Rhys-Meyers. I am also grateful that cinematographer Michel Abramowicz’s photography lacked the shaky camera work that has occasionally marred some action films over the past two decades or so.

I do have one major problem with this film. Aside from one character, all of its villains – minor or otherwise – came from within France’s immigrant population. Wax and Reece encountered criminals of Asian, African and Arabic descent. And although the movie featured one French villain, the character happened to be a recent convert to Islam. At least "TAKEN" featured a corrupt French cop and an equally corrupt American diplomat. Not even "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" can claim this brand of diversity.

Another aspect of "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" proved to be the screen teaming of John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. Quite simply, they sizzled - much to my surprise. Travolta’s Charlie Wax bore a strong resemblance to some of his other over-the-top characters that he has portrayed over the years. However, for "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE", Travolta portrayed a protagonist. One of the good guys. Instead of being slightly overbearing, Travolta turned out to be funny as hell. But he was not the only one who provided humor in the movie. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers proved that he could match Travolta in the humor department, as his character James Reece reacted to Wax’s lunacy. And there were several scenes in which he also proved that he could be just as over-the-top as Travolta. Of course, this should not be a surprise, considering Rhys-Meyers' portrayal of the extroverted King Henry VIII on Showtime’s "THE TUDORS" for four seasons. My only quibble with his performance was that his American accent seemed ridiculously flat at times.

Would I be inclined to view "FROM PARIS WITH LOVE" on DVD or streaming television sometime in the near future? Maybe. Sure. Why not? Granted, I found the movie's portrayal of Paris’ immigrant population rather one-dimensional and borderline offensive. And its plot seemed to lack any originality, whatsoever. But Besson and Hasak wrote a solid story with plenty of action, tension and humor. And Morel’s direction did justice to their screenplay. So, yes . . . reluctantly . . . I would consider viewing this movie again.  After all, it is damn entertaining.

Mary and Henry Crawford in "MANSFIELD PARK"

 

MARY AND HENRY CRAWFORD IN "MANSFIELD PARK"

Every time I read an article or review about Jane Austen's 1814 novel, "MANSFIELD PARK", the authors of these articles always comment on the unpopularity of the novel's leading character, Fanny Price. I could say the same about most articles and reviews on the novel's television and movie adaptations. Time and again, both critics and others claim that most Austen fans have a low opinion of Fanny Price. At the same time, these same commentators like to point out the popularity of the novel's antagonists, Henry and Mary Crawford.

The first time I had come across such a statement about Fanny Price and the Crawfords, I decided to search for further articles that verified these claims. In all honesty, I have come across at least less than a half-a-dozen articles or blogs that either criticized Fanny or praised the Crawfords to the sky - especially Mary Crawford - or did both. But most of the articles and reviews I have discovered usually followed this structure:

1. Fanny Price is very unpopular with Austen fans.

2. The Crawfords - especially Mary - is very popular with Austen fans.

3. The authors claim that they harbor the same opinions, until recently.

4. The authors eventually state that they believe Fanny Price is a misunderstood character and praise her character to the sky as a paragon of virtue and courage.

5. Or the authors would point out Fanny's personality flaws and claim that Austen used as some kind of metaphor for eighteenth century morality play, or etc.

6. Bring up the Crawfords and reveal how degenerate they really were, despite any virtues they may possess. Both characters have been called the worse names in an effort to make Fanny look good.

I like to call the above structure or formula - "The Defense of Fanny Price Campaign". And most articles I have read about "MANSFIELD PARK" usually follow this formula. In fact, I have come across so many articles of this nature that I now have doubts that most Austen fans really dislike Fanny or even like the Crawfords.

I am well aware that Mary and Henry Crawford were flawed. And I believe that Austen did an excellent job of making their flaws rather obvious. On the other hand, I believe that she did a pretty good job in portraying their virtues, as well. Fanny Price was no different, in my opinion. Mind you, I found her rather dull at times. But I have never dismissed her on those grounds. Fanny did have her virtues. But I believe that she also possessed flaws. And like the Crawfords, she never overcame hers by the end of the novel. But whereas Austen literally ignored Fanny's flaws by the end of novel . . . and gave her a wide berth, she castigated the Crawfords for failing to overcome their flaws. Many critics and fans who have posted articles in the very fashion I brought up, also did the same. And so did the movie and television adaptations.

This is the main problem I have about "MANSFIELD PARK". If Austen had been willing to acknowledge Fanny's flaws (let alone those of her cousin, Edmund Bertram), I would have never found it difficult to enjoy the story. I suspect that "MANSFIELD PARK" could have easily been one of those novels that explored the complex nature of all of its major characters without labeling one or two of them as "villains". Or . . . if she really wanted to villify the Crawfords that badly, she would have been better off portraying them as superficial, one-note characters.

But what I find really frustrating is this so-called "Defense of Fanny Price" campaign that seemed to have swamped the Internet for the past four-to-five years. By utilizing the structure that I had earlier pointed out, these critics and fans seem willing to turn a blind eye to Fanny's flaws; at the same time, castigate Mary and Henry Crawfords as villains on the same level as George Wickham of "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE". Of all the articles I have come across about the characters featured in the 1814 novel, only one has seemed willing to view them all as morally complex and ambiguous. Unfortunately, I have not seen hide nor hair of it in a few years. If there are other "MANSFIELD PARK" articles of similar nature, I can only hope that someone would inform me.

"TAP ROOTS" (1948) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "TAP ROOTS", the 1948 adaptation of James H. Street's 1942 novel. Directed by George Marshall, the movie starred Susan Hayward and Van Heflin:



"TAP ROOTS" (1948) Photo Gallery

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (2008) Review

 

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (2008) Review

Looking back on the number of Agatha Christie movie adaptations I have seen, I find it surprising that only a handful of Christie titles have been adapted for the movies or television more than once. One of those titles happened to be the author’s 1938 novel called "Appointment With Death".

The most well-known adaptation before the 2008 one had been produced and directed by Michael Winner some twenty years earlier. Released in 1988, the movie starred Peter Ustinov in his last appearance as the Belgian-born sleuth, Hercule Poirot; and is not considered among the best of Christie adaptations before the premiere of "Agatha Christie’s POIROT" around 1989. The production values of the 1988 version of "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" almost had a cheap, B-movie quality about it. Nevertheless, I feel that it is a masterpiece in compared to this recent version that starred David Suchet as Poirot.

"APOINTMENT WITH DEATH" told the story of Hercule Poirot’s investigation into the murder of a wealthy, middle-aged American woman named Lady Boynton (Mrs. Boynton in the novel). But screenwriter Guy Andrews made so many changes from Christie’s original tale that it would seem pointless for me to recap the plot. One, the victim is not a widow. Instead, she is in the middle of a second marriage to a British peer and archeologist named Lord Boynton. Only Lennox Boynton is her stepson by marriage . . . and his name has become Leonard. The others – Carol, Raymond and Ginerva (Jinny) – had been adopted before her marriage to Lord Boynton. And yes, Jinny is no longer her child by blood. Lady Boynton never spent time as a warden for a women’s prison. Instead, she was an astute businesswoman. The character of Nadine, Lennox’s wife, did not appear in this adaptation. Jefferson Hope was transformed from the Boynton family’s attorney, into an American traveler with business ties to Lady Boynton. Dr. Gerard’s nationality and profession had been changed from French psychologist to British medical doctor. The American-born Member of Parliament, Lady Westholme, became British-born world traveler Dame Celia Westholme. And former nursery governess Miss Amabel Pierce, became known as “Nanny”; Lady Boynton’s nervous and very reluctant henchwoman in the abuse of the murder victim’s many adopted children. Andrews also added a new character – a Polish-born nun, who had befriended Jinny, named Sister Agnieszka. However, Dr. Sarah King remained intact – in both characterization and profession. The story’s setting is changed from Petra to Syria. The novel featured a single killer. This movie featured two killers . . . and a different motive. These changes allowed Andrews to give the murderers a fate straight from the finale of 1937’s ”Death on the Nile”.

I have to make one thing clear regarding the changes made by Guy Andrews. I have nothing against a writer making changes from a literary source to accommodate a screen adaptation. There are some things that do not translate well to the screen. But I feel that most of the changes made by Andrews did NOT serve the movie’s plot very well. In fact, I would say that the opposite happened. Despite its B-movie atmosphere; the 1988 movie seemed like an elegant affair in comparison to this 2008 version. Mind you, the latter had some virtues. David Suchet gave a subtle performance as Hercule Poirot. Peter Greenhalgh’s photography struck me as beautiful and rich in colors. Even Sheena Napier’s costume designs managed to capture the mid-to-late 1930s quite well. Elizabeth McGovern’s portrayal of a British or Irish female seemed surprisingly competent, despite her being American-born. Both Tim Curry (as Lord Boynton) and John Hannah (as Dr. Gerard) gave entertaining performances. And I also felt impressed by Christina Cole (Dr. Sarah King) and Mark Gatiss (Leonard) performances as well. So, why do I have such a low opinion of this movie?

My main beef with ”APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH” was the changes made to the story. I simply found them unnecessary. The change in the story's setting from Petra to Syria, created a small confusion. In the 1930s, part of Syria was under British control and the other half was under French control. Yet, the movie featured a very British Colonel Carbury (portrayed by Paul Freeman), who had French troops under his command. Confusing. And was it really necessary to include characters like Lord Boynton and Sister Agnieszka, who did not exist in the novel? No. Lord Boynton was nothing more than a red herring created to distract viewers of the teleplay. And Sister Agnieszka was used to include a subplot that was never in the novel and had nothing to do with the main narrative. Was it necessary to change the number of murderers from one to two? Again . . . no. By changing the number of murderers, Andrews changed the motive behind the victim’s murder from preserving a secret to an act of revenge. Worse, by changing the number of murderers and motive, Andrews complicated the plot to such a ridiculous level that by the end of the story, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief. Even more ridiculous was the convoluted method used by the killers to bump off Lady Boynton. Was it necessary to include a subplot about the sex slave trade, which had nothing to do with Lady Boynton’s murder? I would say no. Especially since the subplot was never included in Christie’s novel.

In the novel, Mrs. Boynton had inflicted a great deal of psychological abuse upon her stepchildren and her daughter, Jinny. This movie had Lady Boynton bullying a hired nanny – Nanny Taylor - into inflicting physical abuse upon the many children she had adopted over the years – including Raymond, Carol . . . and Jinny. Was the change necessary? I certainly do not believe it was. Both the novel and the 1988 film made it painfully obvious how harmful Mrs. Boynton’s psychological abuse was upon her stepchildren. Apparently, Andrews, director Ashley Pierce and the producers thought it was not dramatic enough and decided to be more drastic by including physical abuse. To emphasize the horror of Lady Boynton’s domestic situation, they allowed Nanny Taylor to fall into a catatonic state following her employer’s death out of guilt. I found these changes unnecessary. I found the idea of Nanny Taylor remaining with the family after the children became adults irrelevant. And if I must be brutally honest, I was not that impressed by Angela Pleasance’s slightly hammy performance as the tormented nanny.

In a review of "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", the 2010 version of Christie’s 1934 novel, I had complained about the religious themes that permeated that movie. Apparently, "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" was not the first movie in the series to emphasize religion. The same happened two years earlier in "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH".  As I had stated earlier, one of the new characters turned out to be a Polish-born Catholic nun. I had to endure a sanctimonious conversation between her and Ginerva. Lord Boynton’s archeological quest turned out to be a search for John the Baptist’s head. I had never heard of anything so ridiculous. How was anyone supposed to figure out whether the head of John the Baptist or some citizen of the region had been found? And to make matters worse, once Lord Boynton thought he had found the object of his quest, he had Sister Agnieszka lead the rest of the party into a prayer over said skull. The scene struck me as too ludicrous to believe. The over-the-top choral music that permeated Stephen McKeon’s score did not help matters.

When it comes to adapting a novel or play for the screen, I have no problems with screenwriters making changes to the story or any of the characters . . . if those changes manage to serve the film. After all, some aspects of a novel or play do not translate well into film. But the changes I found in "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" struck me as unnecessary. They not only had failed to serve the movie’s plot, but I also found them convoluted and over-the-top. The addition of a religious theme simply made matters worse. The movie had a few virtues – including a solid performance from David Suchet. But not even he could save the amount of damage inflicted upon this movie.

"BREATHLESS" (2013) Episode Ranking

 

Below is a ranking of the episodes from the 2013 ITV limited series, "BREATHLESS". Created by Paul Unwin and Peter Grimsdale, the series starred Jack Davenport and Catherine Steadman:




"BREATHLESS" (2013) EPISODE RANKING

1. (1.03) "Episode Three" - In 1961 London, chief gynecologist Dr. Otto Powell, along with anesthetist Charlie Enderbury and former nurse Jean Truscott perform an illegal abortion on young woman in Soho but complications arise, requiring an admission to a hospital. Jean's husband, junior doctor Richard Truscott, has a reunion with former lover Margaret Dalton and resumes their affair.

2. (1.06) "Episode Six" - Otto and his wife, Elizabeth, have a confrontation with police Inspector Ronald Mulligan, who has been blackmailing her into having a sexual affair. Years earlier in Cyprus, Otto had bribed Mulligan into keeping silent about an accidental death involving Elizabeth's fiancé, an American officer.

3. (1.02) "Episode Two" - Charlie loses out on his promotion to chief anesthetist to the newly arrived Dr. Omprakash Mehta. Following their return from their honeymoon, an angry Richard discovers that Jean, with Otto's collusion, had kept her miscarriage a secret before their wedding. Jean holds a dinner party that ends in disaster.

4. (1.05) "Episode Five" - Margaret is admitted into the hospital for cervical cancer and receives a visit from Jean. Angela Wilson, Jean's sister and a nurse, spots Otto and Elizabeth on a theater trip and realizes that an affair with him would be pointless, despite her attraction to him. And Charlie's wife, Lily Enderbury, spots Mulligan at the Powell home.

5. (1.01) "Episode One" - Right before Jean and Richard's wedding, the former has a miscarriage and asks Otto to help keep the incident a secret. Angela is hired as a nurse for the hospital's gynecology unit. She later helps Inspector Mulligan's unmarried daughter avoid being forced into a loveless marriage.

6. (1.04) "Episode Four" - Otto and Angela travel to Dorset with a medical student named Sam Roth in order to treat an unmarried girl who had been raped by her father and is giving up her triplets for adoption. Elizabeth sends her son Thomas away during Otto's trip in order to accommodate Mulligan but is surprised by a visit from Charlie.

"THE EMPRESS" Season One (2022) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from Season One of the Netflix series, "THE EMPRESS".  Created by Katharina Eyssen, the series stars Devrim Lingnau and Philip Froissant as Elisabeth, Empress of Austria and Franz Joseph I of Austria:

"THE EMPRESS" SEASON ONE (2022) Photo Gallery