"WONDER WOMAN 1984" (2020) Review

 

"WONDER WOMAN 1984" (2020) Review

Following both the box office and critical success of the 2017 movie, "WONDER WOMAN"; Warner Brothers Studios and the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) franchise quickly set out to capitalize on its success with a sequel that had been scheduled to be released six months earlier than it did.

Like the 2017 movie, "WONDER WOMAN 1984" featured Gal Gadot in the starring role of Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman and Patty Jenkins as its director. And like its predecessor, the 2020 movie featured a period setting and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor, Diana's true love. I know what you are thinking. How could Pine portray the same role, considering his fate in the previous film? Let me explain.

Set in Washington D.C. 1984, nearly sixty-six years after the previous film; Diana finds herself dealing with a greedy and desperate businessman, along with a co-worker at the Smithsonian Institution and her own selfish desire when an ancient artifact that grants wishes goes missing. After Wonder Woman secretly foils a robbery at a local mall, the D.C. police asks the Smithsonian to identify stolen antiquities from the attempted robbery. Diana and her colleague, geologist and cryptozoologist Dr. Barbara Ann Minerva notice one item, later identified as the Dreamstone, contains a Latin inscription claiming to grant the holder one wish. Neither woman is aware that failing businessman Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano seeks to use the Dreamstone to save his bankrupt oil company.

Both Diana and Barbara unknowingly use the Dreamstone to fulfill their personal desires. Diana wishes for the resurrection of her dead lover from World War I - Captain Steve Trevor. And Barbara wishes to become like Diana - which leads her to acquire superpowers similar to the latter's. After discovering the artifact's new location, Max Lord seduces Barbara and steals the Dreamstone from the Smithsonian. Using the item, he wishes to become the artifact itself and gains its wish-granting powers. Diana, Steve and Barbara discover that the Dreamstone had been created by Dolos/Mendacius, the god of mischief aka Duke of Deception. The Dreamstone not only grants a wish, it also exacts a toll on the user until the wish is renounced or the artifact is destroyed. Following Steve's return, Diana slowly begins losing her superpowers. Barbara begins losing her humanity. As for Lord, his wish and new role as the Dreamstone not only makes him a wealthy and powerful businessman, but allows him to create chaos and destruction throughout the world.

When Warner Brothers first released news about "WONDER WOMAN 1984", I must admit that I had a few misgivings about the film. But my misgivings were rather minor. I found it unnecessary that this film would also be a period production, like its 2017 predecessor, "WONDER WOMAN". In fact, I suspect that Warner Brothers, the DCEU franchise and director-writer Patty Jenkins had decided to use this period setting to exploit one aspect of the previous film's success. My misgiving toward the film increased when I learned that Chris Pine would return as Diana's lover Steve Trevor, since his character had died in the 2017 movie. I wondered how Jenkins and the other two screenwriters - Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham - would find a way to bring back Steve.

In the end; Jenkins, Johns and Callaham brought Steve back using the Dreamstone and Diana's wish as narrative devices. I found this acceptable . . . to a certain degree. Diana's use of the Dreamstone also allowed the film to explore her inability to recover from Steve's death back in 1918 and her willingness to succumb to selfishness in order to keep him around. In fact, the film's opening sequence foreshadowed Diana's willingness to embrace selfishness for her own personal desire. The opening scene featured the much younger Diana participating in an athletic event on Themyscira against older Amazons. After falling from her horse, Diana's desire to win the event leads her to cheat during the final race by using a shortcut after her fall. Although Diana's use of the Dreamstone had been more of an act of wishful thinking on her part, her stubborn refusal to renounce her wish and give up Steve exposed her unwillingness to do the right thing and learn to face grief all over again.

When I first learned that Jenkins would also serve as a screenwriter for "WONDER WOMAN 1984", I had feared she would allow reverence for the Diana Prince character prevent the latter from being well-rounded. Fortunately, the director-writer proved me wrong. By writing Diana with a degree of ambiguity, Jenkins allowed Gal Gadot to give a better performance than the one she gave in "WONDER WOMAN".

But there were other aspects of "WONDER WOMAN 1984" that impressed me. Despite my misgivings about the setting, I have to give kudos to production designer Aline Bonetto for her excellent re-creation of Washington D.C. circa 1984. The movie seemed to permeate with that particular period in history, thanks to Bonetto. The art direction team led by Peter Russell, Anna Lynch-Robinson's set designs and Matthew Jensen's cinematography also contributed to the movie's mid-1980s setting. But I especially wanted to point out Lindsay Hemming's costume designs that perfectly captured the decade, as shown below:







"WONDER WOMAN 1984" also benefited from the cast's first-rate performances. There were performances that struck me as solid and competent - including Lilly Aspell, who had returned to portray the younger Diana; Gabriella Wilde as Max Lord's secretary Raquel; Natasha Rothwell as Diana and Barbara's Smithsonian co-worker Carol; Oliver Cotton as Simon Stagg; Lucian Perez as Lord's son Alistair; Stuart Milligan as POTUS; Amr Waked as Emir Said Bin Abydos; Ravi Patel as Babajide; Connie Nielsen as Queen Hippolyta; and especially Robin Wright as Diana's aunt Antiope.

However, I believe the best performances came from those who portrayed the main four characters. Chris Pine gave a warm performance - much warmer - as the resurrected Steve Trevor, who not only found himself a man out of time, but also growing aware of Diana's continuing grief over him. Pedro Pascal gave a very energetic, yet complex portrayal of failing businessman Max Lord. I thought the actor managed to skillfully conveyed all aspects of Lord's personality - his insecurities, capacity for love, desperation, charm, cunning and ruthlessness.

I was very impressed by Kristen Wiig's performance as Barbara Ann Minerva aka Cheetah. I thought she handled the transformation of the geologist-cryptozoologist who becomes a super villain was more than exceptional. I found it subtle, skillful and very effective. Although I was impressed by Gal Gadot's portrayal of the naive Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman in 2017's "WONDER WOMAN", I felt that she gave a better performance in this film. Yes, Gadot did an excellent job in conveying the more positive aspects of Diana's character - her warmth and heroic determination. But I feel that the actress gave an exceptional performance in conveying the more negative aspects of Diana's nature - her willingness to engage in her selfishness and especially her unhealthy and never-ending grief over Steve's original death. Gadot's portrayal of this aspect of Diana's character was especially on full display when Steve tried to convince her to renounce her wish.

"WONDER WOMAN 1984" also featured some pretty decent action sequences. However, I felt there was only one sequence that really impressed me. It featured Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor's fight against against Lord's men and Cheetah inside the White House. I thought Jenkins did an outstanding job in directing this sequence.

I wish I could say that "WONDER WOMAN 1984" was a first-rate movie or a sequel that truly lived up to the original film. I wish I could say this, but I cannot. This movie was mess, despite its virtues. As I have constantly stated in the past, I believe the backbone of any film is its story. The narrative for "WONDER WOMAN 1984" had potential, but screenwriters Geoff Johns, Dave Callaham and Patty Jenkins just . . . they pretty much screwed over the film's potential.

First of all, what was the point in setting this film in the mid-1980s? The 2016 movie, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" had established that during the 97 years following Steve Trevor's death, Diana had more or less isolated herself due to her growing cynicism toward humanity and her grief over the former's death. I have a theory about this - either Patty Jenkins was offended by the idea of Diana not engaging in any costume vigilante activities during that near century; she and the Warner Brothers Studio suits wanted to cash in on the success of the period setting for "WONDER WOMAN"; or both. Nevertheless, showing Diana as Wonder Woman foiling a mall robbery in 1984 Washington D.C. pretty much undermined the established canon from "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN". Sloppy writing, folks. Even if it is minor.

Speaking of the mall robbery . . . this scene will probably go down as one of the most cringe worthy I have ever seen in a motion picture. I realize that the robbery had served as the catalyst for the Dreamstone story arc, but . . . oh my God! It was a travesty. The entire scene felt as if Patty Jenkins had pulled out every cliché about the Wonder Woman character and the mid-1980s in general . . . aaaannd ramped it up to the extreme. Another cringe-worthy sequence proved to be watching the world fall into chaos after Max Lord managed to convince a great deal of humanity to make a wish. I never realized that a competent director like Jenkins was capable of going over-the-top.

Another exaggeration I found in "WONDER WOMAN 1984" proved to be Steve Trevor's reaction to the year 1984. I realize Jenkins and the other two writers wanted a repeat of Diana's reactions to London 1918 in "WONDER WOMAN" . . . only from Steve's perspective. But the mistake they made was including Steve's reactions to escalators and subways. Why? Both innovations had already been in existence before 1918. The escalator had been in existence since the late 19th century - roughly 30 to 40 years before the 2017 movie's setting. The subway or rapid transit systems had been in existence in Great Britain since 1863. The innovation first made its U.S. appearance in 1897 Boston and sprung up in New York City a few years later. Since both innovations had existed years before 1918, why on earth did this film have Steve reacting to both like some kid who had stumbled across a prize?

I also had a problem with the resolution of the whole Lord/Dreamstone situation. From what I understood, once Lord had renounced his past wishes as the Dreamstone, Barbara Ann aka Cheetah lost her powers. I do not see how this is possible, considering that she had gained a copy of Diana's powers through her first wish - before Lord became the Dreamstone itself. I saw nothing wrong with Barbara Ann losing her second wish (or Lord's, since he was the one who actually made the wish) - namely being an apex predator. But she had never renounced her first wish - which means she should have remained as powerful as Diana by the film's end.

Did anyone notice how often Jenkins had Diana used her Lasso of Truth as a weapon a lot? I did. Yet, there seemed to be no sign of a shield or sword. I had no problem with Diana not using a sword and shield in this movie; but Jenkins, Johns and Callaham practically had her heavily depending upon the lasso as a weapon like the Jedi in "THE CLONE WARS". It seemed too much. Speaking of weapons, "WONDER WOMAN 1984" also introduced the armor of a legendary Amazon named Asteria. Apparently, Diana had sought out this Amazon in later years, but only found the latter's golden armor. Diana later wore this armor during her last fight with Barbara Ann aka Cheetah. When the media first released images of this armor, I was not impressed. And my instincts proved to be correct. I do not know how Asteria, whom the mid-credit scene revealed as still being alive in 1984, lost her armor. But the latter proved to be a waste of time - not only for Diana, but also to this viewer. Wearing the armor did nothing for Diana. It was not able to protect her from Barbara Ann's claws during their fight. In fact, it did not take Barbara Ann very long to damage the suit. What was the point in introducing the armor in the first place?

"WONDER WOMAN 1984" introduced two new abilities for Diana that were part of comic book canon, but not featured in any previous DCEU movies. One of those abilities left me feeling flabbergasted - namely Diana's ability to fly. That is correct. Wonder Woman flied . . . like Superman. Diana had possessed this ability in the comic books since the 1980s. My only previous experience with Wonder Woman had been the 1970s cartoon, "THE SUPER FRIENDS", and Lynda Carter as the titular heroine between 1975 and 1979. Wonder Woman's ability to fly was never seen in "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN", the 2017 movie or both versions of "JUSTICE LEAGUE". Why was it important for Jenkins to introduce this ability . . . in this film? During this period in Diana's life? I do recall Wonder Woman's invisible plane from the 1970s. But in "WONDER WOMAN 1984", Diana suddenly remembered that she had inherited her father's ability to render something or someone invisible. And she used this ability to make the plane she and Steve had stolen to fly to Egypt . . . invisible. Now, I realized that although the invisible plane was part of Wonder Woman lore, I saw this plot twist as unnecessary. One, why introduce this ability when it was not previously shown in other DCEU movies? And two, why steal a plane in the first place? Neither Diana or Steve ever considered that the man whose body Steve occupied had a passport. The whole sequence struck me as dumb.

Since I had brought him up, I might as well focus my attention on the one aspect of "WONDER WOMAN 1984" that I believe sunk this film. Namely, Steve Trevor's possession of the nameless handsome strange. Why in God's name did Jenkins, Johns and Callaham allow this to happen? Why did the writers allow Steve's spirit to take possession of some man without the latter's consent? Why did they allow Steve to take control of the man's apartment without his consent? Why did they allow Diana to have sex with this man's body . . . without his consent? All of this happened without Diana or Steve even considering the issue of consent. And it was disgusting to watch. The entire situation smacked of rape to me. If the genders of the three characters involved had been reversed . . . what am I saying? This situation managed to generate a great deal of criticism anyway . . . and quite rightly. What I did not like was Jenkins' attempt to brush aside this controversy. If Jenkins, Johns and Callaham wanted Steve back that badly, they could have easily allowed Diana's wish to manifest Steve's body again . . . wearing his old World War I uniform. Why did they not consider this? I could have tolerated this film a lot more, despite its flaws, if Jenkins and the other filmmakers had not pulled this disgusting plot point with Steve Trevor and the handsome stranger's body.

Believe or not, "WONDER WOMAN 1984" had its share virtues - a few pretty good action sequences, costume and production designs that perfectly reflected the mid-1980s and some damn good performances from a cast led by Gal Gadot. Unfortunately, I believe the film's flaws - especially in regard to the Steve Trevor and handsome stranger characters - really undermined it. I have not been so disappointed in a comic book movie since Marvel's 2016 film, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". What a damn pity!

"WONDER WOMAN 1984" (2020) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "WONDER WOMAN 1984", the sequel to the 2017 D.C. Comics Extended Universe (DCEU) movie, "WONDER WOMAN". Directed by Patty Jenkins, the movie stars Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman aka Diana Prince:



"WONDER WOMAN 1984" (2020) Photo Gallery

"POLDARK" Series Three (2017) Episodes Six to Nine

 

"POLDARK" SERIES THREE (2017) EPISODES SIX TO NINE

I have a confession to make. Viewing the BBC's current adaptation of Winston Graham's "Poldark" literary series has become increasingly difficult over the past year or two. Although I had expressed a good deal of admiration for show runner Debbie Horsfield's adaptation of Graham's first three novels, I began expressing a good deal of wariness as the series progressed into her adaption of the fourth and fifth novels.

I did not like Horsfield's adaptation of the second half of Graham's 1953 novel, "Warleggan: A Novel of Cornwall, 1792-1793". My opinion of the show runner's adaptation of Graham's 1973 novel, "The Black Moon: A Novel of Cornwall, 1794-1795" was even lower. Because of this, I had faced Horsfield's adaptation of the 1976 novel, "The Four Swans: A Novel of Cornwall, 1795-1797" with a great deal of trepidation.

Episode Six picked up where Episode Five left off - near the end of "The Black Moon". Following Ross Polark's rescue of Dwight Enys and other prisoners-of-war from France, he is regarded as a hero within his parish, much to the annoyance of his nemesis, banker George Warleggan. Even more annoying to George was the refusal of his cousin-in-law, Morwenna Chynoweth, to marry the man of his choice - the morally bankrupt and toe sucking Reverend Osborne Whitworth. But when Drake Carne, Morwenna's love and Ross' younger brother-in-law, is framed by George for stealing Geoffrey-Charles Poldark's bible (it was a gift), the young woman caves in and agrees to marry Whitworth. Meanwhile, Dwight's wedding to heiress Caroline Penvenen is delayed, due to his physical and emotional recovery from his ordeal. Several months later, a wedding is held for the couple and attended by the local gentry and aristocracy - including the Poldarks, the Warleggans and the Whitworths. Meanwhile, Ross is courted by a local baronet named Sir Francis Basset to run for office as a Member of Parliament (MP). The Warleggans and other local merchants clash with Sir Francis' rival, the aristocratic Viscount Falmouth, by refusing to his candidate for political office. The Warleggans turned to Sir Francis, who agrees to support George's campaign for MP. As for George, he has one last clash with Agatha Poldark over her desire to hold a birthday party to celebrate turning 100 years old. This clash leads to an exchange of spite in which George reveals that she will only turn 98 years old . . . and in which Agatha hints that his son Valentine was not an eight month-old baby and might have a different father - possibly Ross.

For reasons that still boggles me, Debbie Horsfield had decided to re-structure Winston Graham's saga by mixing at least the last third of "The Black Moon" with the first third of "The Four Swans". Why she thought this was necessary, I have no idea. Was this her way of attempting to trim the series' adaptation of "The Four Swans"? Perhaps not, because she plans to complete her adaptation of "The Four Swans" in Series Four. But why did she feature Dwight's post-war emotional problems, his and Caroline's wedding reception, and Sir Francis Basset's attempt to recruit Ross for Parliament, (all of which occurred in "The Four Swans") before Aunt Agatha Poldark's death (which occurred in "The Black Moon")? Why did she do that? Was this supposed to improve Graham's tale? Because it did not. It eventually occurred to me Horsfield had dragged "The Black Moon" narrative into the one for "The Four Swans", because of her unnecessary and badly written additions that played out between Episodes One to Five.

The end of the series' adaptation of "The Black Swan" made a good deal of Episodes Six and Seven seem a bit anti-climatic. But there were at least two or three scenes that impressed me. And they involved veteran actress Caroline Blakiston, who portrayed Agatha Poldark. One scene focused on Ross' clandestine visit to Trenwith to see his great-aunt. The scene involved subtle and rather touching performances from both Blakiston and Aidan Turner, who did a great job in conveying the affection and love between the two characters. The next scene featured George's decision not to hold Agatha's birthday party and her toxic hint about young Valentine's true father. The scene conveyed all of the dislike and spite that the pair held for each other, thanks to the marvelous performances of Blakiston and Jack Farthing. This particular scene was capped by another in which a dying Agatha tried to warn her former great-niece-in-law, Elizabeth Warleggan, about her act of indiscretion. This moment provided Blakiston with a great death scene and she was ably supported by a first-rate performance from Heida Reed.

Many fans of Winston Graham's saga have regarded the title of his 1976 novel as a metaphor for the four major female characters in this story:

*Caroline Penvenen Enys
*Morwenna Chynoweth Whitworth
*Demelza Carne Poldark
*Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark Warleggan

I must confess that I was not that impressed by the handling of Caroline Enys character in the 1977 adaptation. I hate to say this, but I found the portrayal of Caroline in this new adaptation equally problematic. Like the 1977 series, this adaptation failed to explore the problems that plagued the Enys couple. Yes, Horsfield touched upon Dwight's problems with Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But his problem was quickly solved within one episode, thanks to Ross' suggestion that fellow prisoner-of-war Hugh Armitage to provide some company to poor Dwight. I found Horsfield's quick solution to Dwight's emotional problem rather shallow and rushed. But what really irritated me was that she had failed to adapt the conflict that developed between Caroline and Dwight over his medical practice.

In "The Four Swans", Dwight had been spending a great deal of his time with his patients - too much, as far as Caroline was concerned. In fact, the novel seemed to indicate that Caroline harbored a low opinion of Dwight's profession and could not understand his reluctance to embrace the role of a landowner. Not once did Horsfield explore this story arc. And I understand why. It did not portray Caroline in a positive light and it made her look like a bigger snob than she did in "Jeremy Poldark: A Novel of Cornwall, 1790-1791". More importantly, this story arc revealed that even Ross could be a snob himself. Instead of understanding Dwight's loyalty to his patients, Ross advised Dwight to adhere to Caroline's wishes. In her never-ending efforts to whitewash popular characters like Caroline and especially Ross, Horsfield ignored this particular story arc.

Horsfield did a better job portraying Morwenna Chynoweth Whitworth's marriage to the odious Reverend Osborne Whitworth. In Episode Six, Morwenna finally capitulated and married the upper-class vicar after her cousin-in-law, George Warleggan blackmailed her by threatening to charge her beloved Drake Carne with the theft of a bible that had been given to the latter by young Geoffrey Charles. I noticed that Horsfield changed the circumstances surrounding Morwenna's decision to marry Osborne. Instead of George using Drake's arrest for theft, Graham's novel featured Morwenna's mother being summoned to Trenwith for a long talk with the younger woman. In the end, Mrs. Chynoweth convinced (or coerced) Morwenna to become Mrs. Whitworth. I must admit that I slightly prefer Horsfield's take on this story arc. I found it less complicated . . . even if it made George look like an ultimate villain.

But I have two complaints. One of them featured Morwenna and Osborne's wedding night. Both the 1977 series and this recent adaptation conveyed Osborne's sexual assault upon Morwenna after she had given birth to their son, Conan. But also like the previous adaptation, it had failed to adapt his sexual assault upon his bride on their wedding night, which was featured in "The Black Moon" novel:

"So supper ended, and in a panic she complained or sickness after the ride and asked if tonight she might go early to bed. But the time of waiting, the time of delay was over; he had already waited too long. So he followed her up the stairs and into the bedroom smelling of old wood and new paint and there, after a few perfunctory caresses. he began carefully to undress her, discovering and remov­ing each garment with the greatest of interest. Once she ­resisted and once he hit her, but after that she made no protest. So eventually he laid her naked on the bed, where she curled up like a frightened snail.

Then he knelt at the side of the”bed and said a short prayer before he got up and began to tickle her bare feet’ before he raped her."

To this day, I never understood why this scene from "The Black Moon" was deleted from both the 1970s series and the current one. What were the reasons for Anthony Coburn, Morris Barry and Debbie Horsfield for deleting it from their adaptations of the novel? Because it featured rape? Yet, both adaptations had no problems with including Osborne's rape of Morwenna after she gave birth to their son. In the case of the current "POLDARK" series, I would have found it difficult to believe the emotional and sexual distress that Morwenna had suffered during her marriage to Whitworth if it had not been for one scene that featured him intimidating the former into a sexual quickie before they could attend the Enys-Penvenen nuptials. Frankly, I found myself feeling slightly intimidated as well, thanks to Christian Brassington's performance. But the ironic thing is that there was no such scene in "The Four Swans". But . . . why did Horsfield add that scene, and yet deleted the Whitworths' honeymoon scene from the novel? What was the point? My second problem with Morwenna's story arc centered around the depiction of Osborne's affair with his sister-in-law, Rowella Chynoweth. One, it felt slightly rushed in compare to how the 1977 series portrayed it. Also, Brassington's screen chemistry with the actress who portrayed Rowella, Esme Coy, did not exactly impress me. While everyone contemplated on whether Rowella was truly attracted to Osborne or not, I just could not invest my interest in their affair.

I was very disappointed with Horsfield's portrayal of Elizabeth Warleggan in Episodes One to Five of Series Three. Very disappointed. The only thing Horsfield got right about Elizabeth in those episodes was her support of George's efforts to coerce her cousin Morwenna into marrying Osborne Whitworth. Otherwise, Horsfield subjected viewers to her portrayal of Elizabeth as a cold mother to her newborn Valentine and an alcoholic/drug addict. As everyone know, George and Elizabeth continued their efforts to coerce Morwenna to marry Osborne in Episode Six, until George finally succeeded by blackmailing Morwenna, when he threatened to have Drake convicted for theft. Unaware of George's blackmailing scheme, Elizabeth seemed satisfied that Morwenna had settled into her marriage with Osborne. She also expressed concern for Morwenna's health after the latter had given birth. I enjoyed how actress Heida Reed conveyed Elizabeth's firm insistence that Dwight Enys examine poor Morwenna, instead of another doctor, after the latter gave birth to a son. And the actress' chemistry with actor Harry Marcus, who portrayed the young Geoffrey Charles, struck me as very charming and spot on. There were two scenes in which Reed had the opportunity to shine as Elizabeth.

One of those scenes involved Elizabeth's encounter with Ross at Sawle Church . . . the very encounter that Prudie Paynter had witnessed in Episode Eight. I have to be honest. I found this scene rather disappointing. Although this moment featured Elizabeth and Ross alone together, it struck me as rather mute. Come to think of it, neither Reed or Aidan Turner shone in this scene. And both have managed to create a very strong screen chemistry in the past. Reed and Turner's performances seemed a bit too restrained for my tastes. And I believe the problem stemmed from Horsfield's attempt to re-write Ross' rape of Elizabeth in Series Two as consensual sex. For the Sawle Church yard scene, gone was Elizabeth's bitter anger over the rape and Ross' unwillingness to accept that he had done wrong. Instead, the scene was shot as a semi-romantic encounter between two former lovers discussing the child they had conceived. Not only did this scene failed to work for me, I found it very frustrating. It was clearly another effort made by Horsfield and the BBC to deny that Ross was guilty of rape. I find this effort to whitewash Ross' character in this story arc increasingly repellent.

On the other hand, I was very impressed by the scene featuring Elizabeth's emotional argument with George over Drake Carne, Ross and Agatha Poldark. Both Reed and Jack Farthing gave superb performances in which Elizabeth conveyed exactly how strong-willed she could be. While many have regarded Elizabeth as weak, I never did. I have always believed that she was willing to be the traditional and supportive wife, due to her upbringing. This willingness to be the traditional wife led Elizabeth to commit the second biggest mistake in her life (marrying Francis was the first) - support George's efforts to marry her cousin Morwenna off to Osborne Whitworth. But I have noticed that the older she became, the more Elizabeth was willing to reveal the steel beneath the passive manner. This should have been indicative in Elizabeth and Ross' reunion at Sawle Church. And this especially seemed to be the case in Elizabeth's showdown with her husband George in Episode Nine. A good deal of Elizabeth's confrontation centered around her attempt to convince George that Valentine was his son. Personally, I do not blame her. It is bad enough that a good deal of the saga's fandom seemed to regard her as some kind of manipulative whore and blame her for the night of May 9, 1793. George had already given an inkling of his cold behavior, following Agatha's revelation about Valentine's paternity. But Elizabeth also included her own disapproval of his treatment of Drake Carne and his use of Tom Harry as his personal henchman during their quarrel. The scene, thanks to Farthing's emotional outburst, made me realize how much George loved Elizabeth.

It took me a while to even consider the following . . . that many of Debbie Horsfield's changes to Graham's story had a lot to do with the characters of three people - Ross Poldark, Demelza Poldark and George Warleggan. It seemed to me that most of Horsfield's changes were all about idealizing both Demelza and Ross (to a certain extent); and magnifying George's villainy.

Ross became dangerously close to becoming a Gary Stu (male version of Mary Sue) in these four episodes. Episode Six began with him raising crops on his estate to feed those out-of-work miners from the Warleggans' Wheal Leisure. No such thing had occurred in "The Four Swans". All Ross did was offer jobs to some unemployed miners to work at his mine, Wheal Grace. Remember the story arc of George's aversion to toads? Well, Ross' actions clearly labeled him as a bully. And yet, Horsfield portrayed this revelation in a semi-comic moment. Why? Considering the present view of bullying, why expose Ross as a childhood bully in a semi-humorous manner? That was nothing in compare to what happened at Dwight and Caroline's wedding. Instead of the reception being all about the happy couple, Horsfield used this event to celebrate Ross' heroics in France. Yes, I realize that Ross was responsible for Dwight and Caroline being able to wed. But honestly? Why was it so necessary for her to pound this into audience by having the wedding guests celebrate Ross' heroics, instead of the bride and groom?

Another aspect of Ross' portrayal in these four episodes that I found laughable was this attitude toward him running as a candidate for Parliament. Everyone - from Demelza to Sir Francis Basset - seemed to regard Ross as a potential political savior for Cornwall. Even the media had been pushing this idea in various articles about the upcoming Season Four. And yet . . . Ross Poldark never struck me as the type of who could be regarded as a successful politician. He has always seemed too impatient, temperamental and judgmental. Lord Falmouth seemed to be the only person who did not regard Ross as some political savior. He simply wanted to use Ross as a tool to punish the Warleggans for rejecting his political clout.

Ross spent most of these four episodes rejecting the idea of running for Parliament. Do you want to know what finally led him to consider the job? Local miners threatening a riot for much needed grain. And yes . . . this did NOT happened in "The Four Swans". There was riot in the novel. Miners even stole from the grain stores. However, Ross had been ordered, as commander of the local militia, to arrest the leaders of riot. And one of them was hung. However, Horsfield changed this story arc by having Ross and his militia platoon confront the rioters before they could steal the grain. Ross used this moment to finally declare his intent to run for Parliament. By this point, I was ready to shove my fist into the television screen. Was Horsfield really that concerned over viewers seeing Ross arrest the rioters before one of them was hung? To the point that she had to create this ludicrous situation? I have always considered the hanging as a sign of the price Ross would be forced to pay for associating himself with political sponsors like Sir Francis Band Lord Falmouth. I am not saying that Horsfield had portrayed Ross as a perfect person. His personal flaws were on display. But I noticed that she only seemed willing to display his flaws whenever Demelza was concerned.

If it were not for the story arc that featured Demelza Poldark's relationship with Royal Navy officer, Lieutenant Hugh Armitage, I believe I would have found it difficult to like her during the second half of Series Three . . . or to stop regarding her as the series' Mary Sue. It seemed as if Horsfield tried too hard to transform Demelza into some 21st century feminist icon. And I found this rather odd, considering that she is a character from a story set during the late 18th century. There were scenes featuring Demelza that made my teeth clinch. They include:

*Demelza behaving like an action girl, as she raced through the countryside on horseback to prevent her younger brother Drake from being beaten by George Warleggan's henchmen. No such scene was in "The Four Swans". Drake's unconscious body was found by some local people.

*Demelza sang at one of the soirees hosted by Sir Francis Basset. Horsfield has been giving actress Eleanor Tomlinson chances to display her singing talent throughout the series' run. I had no problem with this during the Trenwith Christmas dinner sequence back in Series One. Her performance served the story. But after two years of Horsfield pausing the narrative to inject moments of Tomlinson's singing skill for the sake of idealizing Demelza's character has become too much to bear.

*One scene featuring Demelza offering tea and sympathy to Morwenna for the end of the latter's relationship with Drake. The two characters never interacted with each other until the latter half of the 1977 novel, "The Angry Tide: A Novel of Cornwall, 1798-1799". This little moment struck me as nothing more than another cheap and unnecessary change made by Horsfield to make Demelza's character look sympathetic.

The story arc regarding her and Hugh Armitage made her seemed less of a Mary Sue . . . somewhat. The excellent performances of Eleanor Tomlinson and Josh Whitehouse certainly helped. The pair managed to create a first-rate screen chemistry. More importantly, I thought they did a great job in conveying Demelza and Hugh's sexual interest in each other. After all, Hugh must have been the first man of her generation to harbor any sexual interest in her. Ross is a decade her senior and had married her in the first place for reasons other than love. Worse, Demelza had spent the previous seasons being pursued and pawed by lustful older men like Sir Hugh Bodrugan and Captain McNeil, who seemed to regard her as easy prey due to her class origins. Does this mean I supported Demelza's act of adultery, like so many? No. I understood why she did it. But I still believe she did the wrong thing. I am not a supporter of the "eye for an eye" mentality. While a good number of fans cheered Demelza for paying back Ross for his infidelity in Series Two, I only felt contempt toward her. She had lowered herself to his level. Well . . . almost. At least Demelza's act of infidelity was not tainted by rape.

But I also had two problems with this story arc. In "The Four Swans", Demelza had made the decision to have that one afternoon of sex with Hugh on her own, despite Jud Paynter informing her of an interaction between Elizabeth Warleggan and Ross at the Sawle Church. In this adaptation, Demelza was egged on by Nampara's housekeeper, Prudie Paynter, who had witnessed Ross' interaction with Elizabeth. This twist by Debbie Horsfield not only struck me as unnecessary, but a lame attempt to shift some of the blame for Demelza's infidelity to Prudie. I mean . . . come on! Really? Even worse, this entire sequence ended with Ross waiting at Nampara, confused by Demelza's non-appearance. Now, I found this confusing. Why did Horsfield took a scene from near the end of "The Four Swans" and tacked it on the ending of Series Three - especially since she had not finished adapting the novel? Why did she do this? To end the season with a cliffhanger? To have everyone wondering if Demelza would return to Ross? Of course she would! Where in the hell else can she go? To Verity? To her stepmother? Caroline and Dwight? How long could Demelza's "visits" to those households have lasted? Stay with Hugh? Considering his health issues, how long would that situation have lasted? I am still wondering why Winston Graham and Debbie Horsfield had Ross speculating on whether Demelza had left him or not in the first place. He should have known that as an 18th century wife, her prospects outside of her position as his wife were not that great.

I have one last complaint about Demelza . . . and it concerns one of her costumes in the image below:

Why? Why did Demelza wear the above house dress that exposed her cleavage in this fashion during the daytime? And she wore this outfit so often . . . even away from the house. Why? No respectable woman during this period in history - regardless of class - would wear such a outfit. Unless she was prostitute displaying her wares. Costume designer Howard Burden should have known better . . . or done his homework.

During my article for Episodes One to Five, I had expressed my displeasure at what I saw was Debbie Horsfield transforming George Warleggan into a one-note villain. I never understood why Horsfield thought this was necessary. Fortunately, most of George's questionable actions in Episodes Six to Nine could be traced to both "The Black Moon" and "The Four Swans" . . . including his emotionally distant behavior with Elizabeth and his violent harassment of Drake Carne. Blackmailing Morwenna into marrying Osborne seemed to be the only act that had been created by Horsfield. And I had already mentioned my only problem with it. I do have one major problem with Horsfield's portrayal of George in these later episodes. Remember the grain riot that Ross was ordered to snuff out? The owners of the grain stores were nameless merchants in the 1976 novel. In "POLDARK", George owned the grain stores. Why? I have not the foggiest idea. To magnify George's villainy even further . . . when it was not necessary? To establish that Ross need to run for Parliament in order to single-handedly "save" Cornwall from the Warleggans? Sigh. I am afraid this might be the case. Horsfield seemed to have transformed this entire story arc into a morality play for ten year-olds.

There were other aspects of Series Three's second half that I noticed. The four episodes also featured Drake Carne's childish retaliation against George for disrupting his romance with Morwenna. He did so by placing toads - something that George loathed - into Trenwith's pond. Horsfield added a twist to this story by establishing George's revulsion to toads. Ross and a few others boys used to shove toads down his breeches when they were kids in order to punish George and the Warleggans for trying to attain a higher social position. Harry Richardson, who portrayed Drake Carne, gave a nice performance, but he did not exactly float my boat, so to speak. And Drake's actions led to George retaliating in one of the worst possible ways - being framed for the theft of Geoffrey-Charles' Bible. Sam Carne's burgeoning attraction to Tholly Tregirls' daughter Emma. Despite Tom York and Ciara Charteris's competent performances, I must admit that I could not maintain any strong interest in this story arc. There were also the story arc regarding the political rivalry between Sir Francis Basset and Lord Falmouth. I have nothing against the performances of both John Hopkins and James Wilby as the two politically-inclined landowners. Both were excellent. But to be honest, this story arc really belonged to Ross and George.

In the end, Debbie Horsfield managed to disappoint me in her adaptation of Winston Grahams' novels from the 1970s - "The Black Moon" and "The Four Swans". These two novels, along with 1977's "The Angry Tide: A Novel of Cornwall, 1798-1799", are regarded by many as the best in his twelve-novel series. And yet, Horsfield has proven herself incapable of adapting these novels with any semblance of subtlety or intelligence. She has transformed two of Graham's best novels into borderline romance novels. God only knows what she will do to "The Angry Tide" in Series Four.

"THE THREE MUSKETEERS" (2011) Review

"THE THREE MUSKETEERS" (2011) Review

Recently, I became aware of the BBC series called "THE MUSKETEERS" and became an instant fan. Due to my renewed interest in Alexandre Dumas père's work, I decided to focus my attention on 2011's "THE THREE MUSKETEERS", the most recent adaptation of the author's 1845 novel.

Produced and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, this cinematic version of Dumas père's novel, proved to be a different kettle of fish. Yes, screenwriters Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak managed to adhere to some aspects of the 1845 novel. The movie closely followed d'Artagnan's first meeting with his future three friends - Athos, Aramis and Porthos - along with Captain Comte de Rochefort and Milady de Winter. The rivalry between the Musketeers and Cardinal Richelieu's guard - led by Rochefort - remains intact. "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" also included a conspiracy created by Richelieu that centered around Queen Anne, Britain's Duke of Buckingham and the former's diamond necklace given to her by King Louis XIII.

But Davies and Litvak created changes to Dumas' story. One, Milady de Winter begins the story working with the three musketeers to steal airship blueprints created by Leonardo da Vinci. In this scenario, Milady and Athos are long time lovers and not a married couple. Their antipathy begins when Milady betray her compatriots and gives the plans to Britain's Duke of Buckingham. Her betrayal leads to the disbandment of the Musketeers. So, when d'Artagnan arrives in Paris to join the military unit, he is a year too late. Also, the Duke of Buckingham is portrayed more as a villain, since he is not The Constance Bonacieux is not only single in this story, but also one of the Queen's ladies-in-waiting; instead of married and a royal seamstress. Also, there is no real affair between Queen Anne and Buckingham. But Cardinal Richelieu decides to create false rumors using the Queen's diamond necklace and false love letters in order to discredit her. This would lead to Anne's execution, a war against Britain and a demand by the people that a more experienced leader - namely Richelieu himself - would rule France. Alas, thanks to Constance, d'Artagnan and the Musketeers step up to save the Queen's reputation and ruin Richelieu's plans.

It would be difficult for me to deny that "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" is a beautiful looking film. Germany served as 17th century France and Great Britain in this film and Glen MacPherson really did justice to the shooting locations, thanks to his beautifully sharp and colorful photography. MacPherson's photography also did justice to Paul D. Austerberry's production designs, whose re-creations of 17th century France and England struck me as spot on. Both MacPherson and Austerberry's work benefited from Philippe Turlure's set decorations and the art direction team of Nigel Churcher, Hucky Hornberger and David Scheunemann. But what really dazzled me about "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" were Pierre-Yves Gayraud's s costume designs. Personally, I found them worthy of an Oscar nomination. Below are three images just to prove my point:







There are aspects of "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" that did not exactly impress me. First of all, the chemistry between the four leads seemed a bit off. One might blame Logan Lerman, who was the only American in the team. But I had no problems with his chemistry with both Matthew MacFadyen and Ray Stevenson. And Luke Evans had a nice chemistry with both MacFadyen and Stevenson, despite his subdued take on his role. And I cannot blame MacFadyen, who seemed to be the odd man out as a screen swashbuckler. I am not saying that all four men - Lerman, MacFadyen, Evans and Stevenson - had no chemistry whatsoever. There was some inclination of a screen chemistry. But . . . their chemistry as the four musketeers never struck me as dynamic than in other versions I have seen.

Another major problem I had with the movie proved to be Davies and Litvak's re-writing of the Milady de Winter character. I had no problem with Milady starting the movie as colleague of Athos, Aramis and Porthos. I had no problem with her being Athos' lover, instead of his estranged spouse. I did have a problem with Milady being written as some kind of action woman. Many of her scenes featured actress Milla Jovovich engaged in some acrobatic stunt at a great height. I understand why. Both Jovovich and Anderson (who are married, by the way) are known for the "RESIDENT EVIL" movies, in which the actress had starred as the main protagonist. For some reason, the couple and the two screenwriters seemed to believe it was necessary to transform Milady into a female action figure. In doing so, all four robbed the Milady of the subtle villainy that made her such a memorable character in the novel and in other adaptations. I almost got the impression that Anderson and the screenwriters did not believe Jovovich lacked the ability to portray a seductive and manipulative villainess. Yet, one scene between Jovovich and actor Christoph Waltz (who portrayed Cardinal Richelieu) made it clear to me that the actress could have been a very effective Milady de Winter without resorting to countless number of stunts and other action scenes. Hmmm . . . pity.

Despite these misgivings, I must admit that I enjoyed "THE THREE MUSKETEERS". Much to my utter surprise. When I first saw the film, I was ready to reject it after the Venice sequence. The idea of Milady working with Athos, Aramis and Porthos on a mission in Venice was not how I recall previous adaptations of Dumas' novel. But I gave it a chance and decided to finish the film. And I enjoyed it. Actually, there were aspects of the movie that made it enjoyable for me. Aside from the movie's visual style and costumes, I enjoyed how Davies and and Litvak put a different spin on Dumas' story arc about Queen Anne's diamond necklace. I was also both surprised and impressed at how they utilized the heist movie trope in two major sequences - the opening scene in Venice and the Musketeers' attempt to get their hands on the diamonds, which were stolen by Milady and planted inside London's Tower of London.

Davies and Litvak's screenplay displayed a nice sense of humor. This was apparent in the personalities of three major characters - Porthos (who has been the comic relief of nearly all versions of Dumas' tale), King Louis XIII and surprisingly, the Duke of Buckingham, along with d'Artagnan's first meetings with his future three friends. The movie also featured some excellent action sequences. My favorite include the Musketeers and d'Artagnan's fight against Rochefort and the Cardinal's guards, the four friends' heist of the diamond necklace from the Tower of London, and their final showdown against Rochefort and his men upon their return to Paris. This last sequence featured an outstanding duel between d'Artagnan and Rochefort that in my opinion, rivaled the duel between the two characters in 1974's "THE FOUR MUSKETEERS".

I still stand by my belief that the chemistry between the four actors who portrayed the Musketeers and d'Artagnan was not as strong as it had been in other productions. But the movie did featured some solid performances from the four actors. Ray Stevenson displayed his usual talent for comedy in his performance as Porthos. Honestly, I think his comic skills are highly underrated. Luke Evans gave a decent performance as Aramis. However, I do wish he could have displayed a little more élan in his portrayal of the usually dashing womanizer. Matthew Macfadyen did a skillful job in portraying Athos' brooding nature and role as the group's leader. But I got the feeling that he was not the type of actor I would cast in a swashbuckling film. Of the four actors, he never struck me as the swashbuckling type. It is odd that I would say this about Macfadyen and not Logan Lerman, who portrayed d'Artagnan. But the thing about Lerman is although his looks strike me as mediocre and he seems to be the shortest of the four leads. Yet, once he opens his mouth and move, he becomes a bundle of energy with a good deal of style and panache. Curious.

Despite my complaints by Anderson and the screenwriters' attempt to turn Milady de Winter into an action queen, I must say that I still managed to enjoy Milla Jovovich's performance. She is the only actress I know who conveyed the spy's seduction skills with a good deal of sly humor. Christoph Waltz did a solid job as the villainous Cardinal Richilieu. But I must admit, I did not find his performance particularly memorable or energetic. I can also say the same about Gabriella Wilde, who portrayed Constance Bonacieux. I hate to say this, but I found her performance somewhat wooden. On the other hand, Juno Temple gave a very charming performance as Queen Anne (formerly of Austria). Not only did she give a charming performance, she also conveyed a good deal of the Queen's strength of character.

I really enjoyed Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Captain Rochefort. The Danish actor did an excellent job of conveying Rochefort's subtle menace and talent for intimidation. Orlando Bloom proved to be quite a surprise as the villainous Duke of Buckingham. He was very funny in a sly, yet theatrical way. James Corden also gave a funny performance as Planchet, the Musketeers' long suffering manservant. But the funniest performance came from Freddie Fox, who portrayed the rather young King Louis XIII. What can I say? He was hilarious in his portrayal of the King's insecure nature and lack of experience as a leader. In fact, I believe he gave the best performance in the movie.

What else can I say about "THE THREE MUSKETEERS"? It is not particularly faithful to Alexandre Dumas père's novel. But to be honest, I do not really care. In my opinion, the movie's lack of adherence to the novel was not a weak point. The worst I can say about the movie is that the chemistry between the four actors portraying the Musketeers was not particularly strong. I did not care for the use of 17th century airships in this story. And I was not that impressed by the movie's tendency to portray Milady de Winter as an action figure. On the other hand, I still managed to enjoy the screenplay written by Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak, along with Paul W.S. Anderson's direction. And the movie also featured some strong performances - especially from Logan Lerman, Juno Temple, Orlando Bloom and Freddie Fox. In the end, I still enjoyed the film, despite my initial reservations.