Thursday, August 27, 2026

"PERSUASION" (1971) Review

 














"PERSUASION" (1971) Review

This adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1818 novel turned out to be the first of the old Jane Austen television adaptations that the BBC aired during the 1970s and 80s. Produced and directed by Howard Baker, and adapted by Julian Mitchell; this two-part miniseries starred Ann Firbanks and Bryan Marshall.

As many fans of Austen’s novel would know, ”PERSUASION” told the story of Anne Elliot, the middle daughter of a vain and spendthrift baronet, who finds herself reunited with her former finance, a Naval officer of lesser birth named Frederick Wentworth. Eight years before the beginning of the story, Anne’s godmother, Lady Russell, had persuaded her to reject Wentworth’s marriage proposal, citing the Naval officer’s lack of family connections and fortune. She reunites with Wentworth, during a prolonged family visit to her younger sister and brother-in-law, Mary and Charles Musgrove. And the Naval officer has managed to acquire a fortune during the Napoleonic Wars. Anne is forced to watch Wentworth woo Mary’s sister-in-law, Louisa Musgrove, while he ignores his earlier attraction to her.

Many diehard Austen fans have expressed the opinion that this adaptation of her last novel has a running time that allows for the characters to be expressed with more depth than they were in the 1995 and 2007 versions. I must admit that the miniseries’ running time of 210 minutes allowed a greater depth into Austen’s plot than the two later movies. Yet, despite the longer running time, ”PERSUASION” managed to be only a little more faithful than the other two versions. One of the plotlines that Mitchell failed to include featured the injury suffered by one of Charles Musgrove’s sons, following a fall from the tree. It was this injury that delayed Anne’s reunion with Wentworth near the beginning of the story. Fortunately, the changes or deletions that Mitchell made in his script did not bother me one whit. Especially since "PERSUASION" turned out to be a first-rate adaptation.

However, there were times when Mitchell was too faithful to Austen’s novel. I still have nightmares over the second scene between Anne and her old school friend, Mrs. Smith; in which the latter finally revealed the true nature of Anne’s cousin, William Elliot. That particular scene seemed to take forever. And I never understood Anne’s outrage over William’s comments about Sir Walter and Elizabeth in his old letters to Mrs. Smith's husband. He had only expressed what Anne also felt about her father and older sister. And once again, an adaptation of ”Persuasion” failed to correct the problem surrounding the William Elliot character – namely his attempt to woo and marry Anne in order to prevent Sir Walter from marry Elizabeth’s companion, Mrs. Clay, or any other women . . . and guarantee his inheritance of the Elliot baronetcy. As I had stated in my other reviews of the ”PERSUASION” adaptations, William’s efforts struck me as irreverent, since there was no way, he could have full control over Sir Walter’s love life. Why was it necessary to show William sneaking away with Mrs. Clay in order to elope with her? Both were grown adults who had been previously married. They were not married or engaged to anyone else. I found their clandestine behavior unnecessary. And why on earth did Mitchell include Sir Walter spouting the names and birthdates of himself and his offspring in the script’s opening scene? I do not think so. In fact, this scene merely dragged the miniseries from the outset.

The production values for ”PERSUASION” struck me as top-rate . . . to a certain extent. I have to commend Peter Phillips for his colorful production designs and Mark Hall for the miniseries’ art work. ”PERSUASION” permeated with rich colors that I found eye catching. However, I have some qualms about Esther Dean’s costumes designs. How can I put it? I found some of the costumes rather garish. And the photography for the exterior scenes struck me as . . . hmmm, unimpressive. Dull. Flat. And I had some problems with the hairstyle for the leading lady, Ann Firbank. Her hairdo seemed like an uneasy mixture of an attempt at a Regency hairstyle and an early 1970s beehive. Think I am kidding? Take a gander:












My opinion of the cast is pretty mixed. There were performances that I found impressive. Morag Hood gave a very skillful and entertaining performance as Anne Elliot's vain and emotionally needy younger sister, Mary Elliot Musgrove. Marian Spencer gave a complex, yet intelligent portrayal of Anne Elliot’s godmother and mentor, Lady Russell. I was also impressed by Valerie Gearon’s subtle performance as Anne’s vain older sister, Elizabeth Elliot. And both Richard Vernon and Rowland Davies gave colorful performances as Admiral Croft and Charles Musgrove, respectively. On the other hand, Basil Dignam got on my last nerve as the vain Sir Walter Elliot. There was nothing really wrong with his performance, but many of his scenes dragged the miniseries, due to the number of unnecessary dialogue over topics that had very little to do with the main storyline. Quite frankly, a great deal of Sir Walter's dialogue bore me senseless.

And what about the story’s two leads? Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall gave excellent performances as the two former lovers, Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth. They competently expressed their characters’ intelligence and emotions. They also made the eventual reconciliation between Anne and Wentworth very believable. Unfortunately, Firbank and Marshall lacked any real strong chemistry - at until the story shifted to Lyme Regis. I never got the feeling that Firbank’s Anne and Marshall’s Wentworth were struggling to contain their emotions toward each other in the first half of the miniseries. Every now and then, Firbank utilized sad and pensive expressions, reminding me of Evangeline Lilly’s early performances on ABC’s ”LOST”. And Marshall’s Wentworth seemed too friendly with the Musgrove sisters and polite toward Anne to hint any sense of remaining passion toward her. It was not until their encounter with William Elliot at Lyme Regis that I could detect signs – at least on Wentworth’s part – of emotion toward Anne. And it was only from this point onward, especially in the production's second-half, in which Firbank and Marshall finally conveyed a very strong screen chemistry. This was especially apparent in scenes where they met at a coffeehouse in Bath and at the opera.

In the end, I have to admit that this adaptation of "PERSUASION" struck me as entertaining. I cannot deny it. Despite being the most faithful of the three known adaptations, I had originally felt that it was probably more flawed than the latter versions. Screenwriter Julian Mitchell and director Howard Baker’s close adherence to Austen’s novel did not really help it in certain parts. In doing so, the miniseries adapted some of the faults that could be found in the novel. And the miniseries' close adaptation also dragged its pacing needlessly in the first half of Part Two. But I now realize that overall, it is just as good as the 1995, 2007 and 2022 adaptations. I take that back. I believe it is better than the other adaptations. And the excellent performances by the cast, led by Ann Firbank and Bryan Marshall; along with the colorful production designs and the story’s intelligence allowed me to really enjoy it in the end.

Wednesday, August 19, 2026

"THE HOUR" Season One (2011) Photo Gallery

 












Below are images from Season One of the BBC series, "THE HOUR". Created by Abi Morgan, the series starred Ben Whishaw, Romola Garai and Dominic West:



"THE HOUR" SEASON ONE (2011) Photo Gallery




























 


Monday, August 17, 2026

"SUPERMAN RETURNS" (2006) Review

 













"SUPERMAN RETURNS" (2006) Review

The 2006 Summer movie season was a memorable one for me. I never got around to review movies like"MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III""PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN:  DEAD MAN'S CHEST""THE DaVINCI'S CODE", and "X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND". I had just started on my first blog and never really bothered to put much effort into a movie review. However, I did managed to write a few words about "SUPERMAN RETURNS".

I supposed one could say that "SUPERMAN RETURNS" is almost a direct sequel to the 1980 film. It begins with Superman aka Clark Kent's return to Earth five years after his journey to a location where astronomers believed they had discovered the remains of Krypton. During those five years, his nemesis Lex Luthor served time in prison before his release, which coincided with Superman's return. Upon the latter, Clark resumes his old job as a journalist for Metropolis' The Daily Planet. He also learns that the love of his life, Lois Lane, is now engaged to Perry White's nephew Richard, with whom she has a five-year-old son named Jason. Lois also won a Pulitzer Prize for her article "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman".

While Clark deals with this personal drama, Luthor and a new group of minions steal Kryptonian crystals from the Fortress of Solitude and Kryptonite from the Metropolis Museum of Natural History. These thefts set in motion Luthor's plan to utilize a combination of both to to grow a new landmass in the Northern Atlantic Ocean that will supplant the continental United States. In other words, Luthor has plans for another land swindle that might cost the lives of millions of people.

I wish I could say that I had loved "SUPERMAN RETURNS". I wish I could say that I found it very original. I wish I could . . . but I cannot. Because I would be lying if I had said so. Do not get me wrong . . . "SUPERMAN RETURNS" was a pretty good movie. Well . . . it was entertaining. And the movie featured a first-rate performance from leading man Brandon Routh as Clark Kent aka Superman. I also enjoyed performances from Kate Bosworth, James Marsden, Frank Langella, a young Tristan Lake Leabu, Eva Marie Saint, and Sam Huntington. I was especially impressed by Kevin Spacey's witty take on the villainous Lex Luthor and Parker Posey's hilarious performance as Luthor's ditzy henchwoman, Kitty Kowalski. Unfortunately, the movie also turned out to be something of a disappointment for me. It possessed a plot that failed to support its roster of talent.

First of all, I felt that it was a big mistake on director Bryan Singer's part to continue the story, following 1980's "SUPERMAN II". It was bad enough that he had re-used John Williams' score and Marlon Brando's image as Jor-El. But he also used plot lines from the 1978 film, "SUPERMAN"(1978). He re-hashed the following:

*Lois' rooftop meeting with Superman, followed by a flight over Metropolis

*Some of Chris Reeves' dialogue

*Lex Luthor's plot to destroy part of the U.S. for a land swindle (which was not handled very effectively)
.

Singer also borrowed the love triangle from Marvel's 2004 movie, "SPIDER-MAN 2" . . . but with only a few twists. And the movie's final action sequence seemed to drag forever.

In the end, I could not tell whether the movie was a sequel to "SUPERMAN II" or a remake of "SUPERMAN". Very confusing and very disappointing. Although I believe the movie proved to be pretty good with a first-class cast, it also proved to be one of the most unoriginal comic book hero flicks I have ever seen. Singer could have done better. I rated the movie a "B-".






Tuesday, August 11, 2026

"HEAVEN AND HELL: NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III" (1994) - EPISODE ONE Commentary

 













"HEAVEN AND HELL:  NORTH AND SOUTH BOOK III" (1994) - EPISODE ONE Commentary

If there is one chapter in John Jakes' NORTH AND SOUTH saga that is reviled by the fans, it the television adaptation of the third one, set after the American Civil War. First of all, the theme of post-war Reconstruction has never been that popular with tales about the four-year war. More importantly, fans of Jakes' saga seemed to have a low opinion of "HEAVEN AND HELL", the 1994 adaptation of Jakes' third North and South novel, published back in 1987. 

My opinion of the 1994 miniseries slightly differs from the opinions formed by the majority of the saga's fans. The three-part miniseries failed to achieve the same level of production quality that its two predecessors had enjoyed. But unlike the second miniseries, 1986's "NORTH AND SOUTH: BOOK II", this third miniseries was more faithful to Jakes' original novel - as I had pointed out in a previous article. And to my surprise, I discovered that some aspects of the miniseries were an improvement from the novel.

Episode One of "BOOK THREE" struck me as a solid return to John Jakes' saga. Not only did it re-introduce some of the old characters from the previous two miniseries, but also introduced new characters. Ironically, one of the new characters turned out to be the oldest Main sibling - Cooper Main. As many fans know, his character was left out of the first two miniseries. Why? I do not know. But Cooper was introduced as a humorless man, embittered by the South's defeat. And Robert Wagner gave one of the best performances in the miniseries in his portrayal of Cooper. Another praiseworthy addition turned out to be Rya Kihlstedt, who portrayed Charles Main's new love interest, actress Willa Parker. Not only did Kihlstedt did a great job in portraying the idealistic Willa, she had great chemistry with Kyle Chandler, who took over the role of Charles Main. Many fans had howled with outrage over Chandler assuming the role of Charles, following Lewis Smith's portrayal in the previous miniseries. So did I. But after seeing Chandler do a superb job of conveying Charles' post-war angst and desperation to find a living to support his son. James Read gave a solid performance as a grieving George Hazard, who seemed to be having difficulty in dealing with the death of his best friend, Orry Main, at the hands of their former enemy, Elkhannah Bent. Cliff De Young made a surprisingly effective villain as Gettys LaMotte, the manipulative and vindictive leader of the local Ku Klux Klan.

Unfortunately, there were performances that failed to impress me. I got the feeling that director Larry Peerce harbored an odd idea on how a 19th century upper-class Southern woman would behave. This was quite apparent in the performances of Lesley-Anne Down as Madeline Fabray Main and Terri Garber as Ashton Main Huntoon. The performances of both actresses struck me as unusually exaggerated and melodramatic - something which they had managed to avoid in "BOOK I" and "BOOK II". Fortunately for Garber, she occasionally broke out of her caricature, when portraying Ashton's more sardonic nature. Down only got worse, when her voice acquired a breathless tone. Being a fan of character actor Keith Szarabajka from his stint on "ANGEL" and other television and movie appearances, I was shocked by his hammy performance as a vengeful Kentucky-born Union officer named Captain Venable, whose family had been ravaged by Confederate troops. His performance was one of the most wince-inducing I have witnessed in years.

Episode One possessed some bloopers that left me scratching my head. Cooper's sudden appearance in the miniseries was never explained by the screenwriters. Neither was the introduction of former slave Isaac, who was portrayed by Stan Shaw. And I am still curious about how Gettys LaMotte learned about Madeline's African-American ancestry, let alone the other neighbors in the parish. I do not recall Ashton or Bent telling anyone.

Fortunately, Episode One was filled with excellent scenes and moments. One of the scenes that really seemed to stand out featured George and Madeline's argument about the state of post-war Mont Royal. Charles' hilarious introduction to a Cheyenne village involved marvelous acting by Chandler and Rip Torn, who portrayed mountain man Adolphus Jackson. One other scene that had me on the floor laughing featured Ashton, who became a prostitute in Santa Fe, kicking a smelly would-be customer out of her room. The episode featured very chilly moments. One of them featured Gettys LaMotte's creepy rendition of the KKK theme song (I forgot that De Young was also a singer). Another was the murder of Adolphus Jackson and his nephew Jim by a Cheyenne warrior named Scar. But the best scene in the entire miniseries (and probably the entire trilogy) was Elkhannah Bent's murder of Constance Hazard, George's wife. I found it subtle, creepy and beautifully shot by Peerce. Also, Philip Casnoff and Wendy Kilbourne acted the hell out of that scene.

Despite some bloopers that either left me confused or wincing with discomfort - including some hammy performances by a few members of the cast - I can honestly say that "HEAVEN AND HELL:  BOOK III" started off rather well.  Better than I had originally assumed it would.

Tuesday, August 4, 2026

"IRONCLADS" (1991) Photo Gallery

 













Below are images from "IRONCLADS", the 1991 made-for-television movie about the Battle of Hampton Roads during the U.S. Civil War. Directed by Delbert Mann, the movie starred Virginia Masden, Reed Diamond and Alex Hyde-White:



"IRONCLADS" (1991) Photo Gallery



















"THIS MEANS WAR" (2012) Photo Gallery

  Below are images from the 2012 action comedy,  "THIS MEANS WAR" . Directed by McG, the movie starred Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pi...