"GREAT EXPECTATIONS" Adaptations

 

Charles Dickens' 1861 novel, "Great Expections" is highly regarded as one of the author's best works. Although there have been numerous adaptations, I have seen only three of them. Needless to say, I have mixed feelings about them:




"GREAT EXPECTATIONS" ADAPTATIONS



1. "Great Expectations" (1946) - Directed by David Lean and starring John Mills, this adaptation from 1946 seemed to be regarded as the benchmark all versions of Dickens' novel are compared. And for the likes of me, I cannot see why. Thanks to Guy Green and Robert Krasker's photography, it is a beautiful looking movie. The movie also featured some excellent performances, especially from Jean Simmons, Finlay Currie and Alec Guinness. However, I ended up feeling less than satisfied with the screenplay written by Lean and co-screenwriters Anthony Havelock-Allan and Ronald Neame. I found the movie’s second half rushed and unfulfilling.






2. "Great Expectations" (1999) - Directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Ioan Gruffudd, this television adaptation seemed to be an improvement over the 1946 movie. I thought it did an excellent job of conveying Pip’s obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman. And I loved Odile Dicks-Mireaux's costume designs, along with Ian McDiarmid as the attorney Jaggers. I was also impressed by Gruffudd’s portrayal of Philip "Pip" Pirrip. However . . . I thought Charlotte Rampling had been miscast as Miss Haversham. Her take on the character seemed to lack bite. And I did not care for the miniseries' ending. Following a major character's death, the narrative's ending seemed to peter out in a vague manner.






3. "Great Expectations" (2023) - Directed by Brady Hood and Samira Radsi, and starring Fionn Whitehead; this television adaptation was loathed by the critics. I actually enjoyed it, but I had some quibbles that included the heavy and unnecessary use of profanity, the resolution of Magwitch's arc occurring at Miss Haversham’s home, instead of the Thames River; and Pip's fate regarding his profession. On the other hand, I really liked the performances, especially those from Olivia Colman as Miss Haversham and Ashley Thomas as Jaggers. I also liked how the miniseries conveyed Pip's obsession with Estella and in becoming a gentleman, along with how the access of easy money came dangerously close to corrupting him.


But if I must be frank, the above adaptations had failed to knock my socks off. In other words, I have yet to see an adaptation of "Great Expectations" that has impressed me. Considering the numerous adaptations I have yet to see, there is the chance I might come across that exceptional adaptation.

"ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" (1961) Review

 

"ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" (1961) Review

Sixty-four years ago, Paramount Pictures released a quirky romantic comedy directed by a journeyman director named Joseph Anthony. The movie had been released during a period in Hollywood that saw the release of a good number of films known as "bedroom comedies". The most famous of these movies featured the Doris Day/Rock Hudson screen team from Universal Pictures. But one of the most unlikely bedroom comedies I have come across was Anthony's 1961 flick, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK".

The movie begins with the death of a wealthy magazine publisher inside a Palms Beach, Florida hotel. The dead man's playboy nephew, Tony Ryder, inherits the company; but is left with a board of directors whose members believe he is unsuited for the task of managing it. Even worse, the Palm Beach hotel's detective, Mr. Lasker, informs Tony and the board of the young woman he had spotted running away from his uncle's hotel room, wearing nothing but a Turkish towel and an earring, on the night of Colonel Ryder's death. Both Tony and Lasker discover that the young woman in question is Katie Robbins, a Ryder employee who works for the magazine's research department. Anticipating a bank loan, Tony and the Board members fear Katie might blackmail the company or expose the Colonel's promiscuous past. They, along with Lasker, resort to learning the truth about Katie's encounter with Colonel Ryder or ensure her marriage to her strait-laced veterinarian fiancé in order to silence her about the Colonel's death at all costs.

That is correct folks. "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" is basically a comedy about mistaken identity. You see, Tony Ryder and the Board members mistakenly believe she may have been the Colonel's past mistress. The reality is that Katie had found herself in the magnate's hotel room by mistake and under different circumstances. She had been fleeing from a drunken millionaire whom she had saved from drowning in the hotel's swimming pool . . . and who had repaid her Good Samaritan act with an aggressive attempt at seduction. So much for good deeds. Because Tony and the Board need funds to finance the magazine's expansion, they view Katie's encounter with the dead Colonel as a potential threat.

Superficially, "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" seemed like one of those typical sex comedies that Hollywood studios made by the dozens from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s. I certainly would not describe the 1961 comedy as the best of the bunch. Its portrayal of Midwesterners struck me as bit one-dimensional. And modern-day filmgoers might find some of its attitude toward women slightly offensive. I refer to one scene in which Tony not only admire Katie for her brains, but also admire her ability to hide her brains. Like . . . what the hell? Regardless of those little peccadilloes and the fact that I do not regard it as one of the best mid-century sex comedies I have seen . . . I rather enjoyed "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK". In fact, I more than enjoyed it. I found it slightly unusual from the usual flicks of its genre.

What was it about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" that I found unusual? For me, the real humor stemmed from the corruption that reeked in the film's narrative. Whether that corruption came from the countless men who try to proposition Katie - including Tony, to the Board and Lasker's assumption that Katie was the Colonel's mistress without really knowing her story. In one funny sequence, Katie has a disastrous evening on the town with her fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley, Jr. and his visiting Kansas parents, thanks to Tony's interference at two nightclubs and Mrs. Kingsley's negative judgmental attitude toward her. Yet, the most hilarious example of the corruption that permeated the film came from the topic of greed in the form of the Board of Directors. Desperate to acquire the bank loan to expand the magazine, they not only bemoaned the possibility of Katie blackmailing them but discussed various ways to silence her and ensure that loan. They were absolutely hilarious. The only other sex comedy that I believe permeated with corruption in the form of business survival was the 1961 Doris Day/Rock Hudson film, "LOVER COME BACK". Nineteen sixty-one was an interesting year.

Am much as I had enjoyed the movie's narrative, what I really enjoyed about "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" was its cast. The movie featured first-rate performances from supporting cast members like Norma Crane, Rosemarie Stack, Ian Wolfe, John Hudson and a very funny Jack Weston, who portrayed the Palm Beach hotel detective who had first spotted Katie leaving Colonel Ryder's suite. Cliff Robertson gave solid support as Katie's upright fiancé Dr. Warren Kingsley Jr. Mable Albertson was appropriately prim and oppressive as young Warren's priggish mother. On the other hand, Charles Ruggles gave a very charming performance as Dr. Warren Kinglsey Sr., the only member of the Kingsley family who knew how to enjoy a good time.

However, there were at least five performances that I truly enjoyed. Three of them came from Gale Gordon, Jerome Cowan and Ralph Dumke; who portrayed the senior members of the Board Members. Watching them bemoan over the possibility of Katie being Colonel Ryder's mistress and plot to find ways to keep her silent were among the true highlights of the film. And then we have our two leads - Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. I just realized the pair had made six films together. Six. I suppose I should not have been surprised. Martin and MacLaine had great screen chemistry. And this was apparent in their scenes together. Martin's smooth charm and subtle sense of humor contrasted perfectly with MacLaine's more nervous and kinetic performance as the much put upon Katie. I also enjoyed Martin's subtle, yet sly reactions to the Board Members' bombastic plotting against the movie's leading lady. And what I also enjoyed about MacLaine's performance is how she managed to convey Katie's worldliness beneath a seemingly naive persona - especially when dealing with over amorous men.

Earlier, I had stated that I did not consider "ALL IN A NIGHT'S WORK" as one of the best sex comedies from the mid-20th century. Perhaps it is not one of the best. But I now believe it is one of the most original I have ever come across. It might also be one of my favorites from that particular era in Hollywood history, thanks to Joseph Anthony's solid direction; a first-rate screenplay written by Edmund Beloin, Maurice Richlin and the legendary Sidney Sheldon; and superb comedic performances from a cast led by Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine. What else can I say?

"NOBLE HOUSE" (1988) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 1988 NBC miniseries, "NOBLE HOUSE". Adapted from James Clavell's 1981 novel and directed by Gary Nelson, the four-part miniseries starred Pierce Brosnan:




"NOBLE HOUSE" (1988) Photo Gallery

"LOST" RETROSPECT - (3.15) "Left Behind"

 

"LOST" RETROSPECT - (3.15) "Left Behind"

Have you ever watched a movie or television episode and had maintained an opinion of it for years? Only to change your mind after an umpteenth viewing of it? That is what happened to me after a recent rewatch of the "LOST" Season Three episode, (3.15) "Left Behind"

I might as well begin with the episode's "B" plot. This featured a "B" plot that involved Oceanic survivors Hugo "Hurley" Reyes and James "Sawyer" Ford. Following the events of the previous episode, (3.14) "Exposé", Hurley informs Sawyer that the rest of survivors are in the middle of a debate on whether to banish the Alabama-born con man from the camp. Hurley reminds Sawyer about the benefits of living within a society and suggests that Sawyer start making efforts to make amends for his past actions.

All I have to say is . . . who had written this episode? Honestly. For years, I thought it was a decent, but not exactly mind-blowing episode. But after this latest viewing, I honestly do not know what to think of it. I might as well start with the "B" plot. What can I say? I found it annoying and pointless. It is not that I had any sympathy for Sawyer at this point in the series. I did not. I did not care for Sawyer until Season Five. If Hurley believed the Oceanic camp needed a leader to fulfill the absence of Jack, Sayid and John Locke; he should have stepped up and volunteered for the role, himself. If he was capable of pushing or manipulating Sawyer into stepping into the leadership role, he was capable of assuming the role of leader himself. Instead, Hurley pulled this stupid con job in order to manipulate Sawyer into assuming the role. All this plot managed to achieve was solidify my belief that Hurley was definitely a man child . . . at least through most of the series' run.

Since "Left Behind" happened to be a Kate-centric episode, I might as start with her flashback. In it, Kate meets Sawyer's old flame (at least two-to-three years before she met him on the island), Cassidy Phillips, while the latter was attempting to sell questionable jewelry. Kate comes to her aid before a potential customer could inform the cops. After Cassidy guesses that Kate, who was a fugitive, also did not want to attract the cops; the two women become fast friends. Cassidy agrees to help Kate distract the local law enforcement and U.S. Marshal Edward Mars, so that the fugitive could contact her mother, a waitress at an Iowa road cafe Diane Janssen. You see . . . Kate wanted to know why dear old Mom had ratted her to the cops after she had murdered her father.

I rather liked Cassidy and it was good to see her again after her previous appearance in a Sawyer flashback from Season Two. But I found Kate's agenda very annoying. Why on earth would she be shocked at her mother's decision to inform the police about her murder? Was the audience really expected to sympathize with Kate over Diane's action . . . and becoming perplexed about it? Because I still feel no sympathy for Kate. Audiences learned in the Season Two episode that Kate had murdered her father, Wayne Janssen, in (2.09) "What Kate Did". Diane had a very good reason for snitching on Kate. As she had reminded the latter, Kate had cold-bloodedly murdered Diane's husband, blew up her house and committed insurance fraud to cover up the fact that a murder had been committed. Worse, Kate had lied about the real reason she killed Wayne. She had killed him for her own personal and selfish reason. And yet, in the end, Kate had decided not to forgive her mother for ratting her out? Fuck that! Diane had a chance to rat her out a second time in this episode. Only she did not bother. Kate had her good moments as an individual, but her complaints about Diane in this episode only convinced me how incredibly selfish and delusional she could be.

I finally come to the episode's main plot. While being held captive by the Others for less than a day at their compound, Kate Austen peaks out of a house and spots the group packing to leave. Seconds later, someone tosses a gas cannister, which knocks her out. Some time passes before Kate regains conscious and finds herself handcuffed to the Others' rogue member, Dr. Juliet Burke. Kate is not particularly fond of Juliet, due to the latter being an Other and for developing a close friendship with the Oceanic survivors' leader, Dr. Jack Shephard. While Kate insists upon returning to the Barracks to find another Oceanic captive, Sayid Jarrah, and Jack; Juliet insists upon heading for the Oceanic beach camp. The pair experience a series of adventures involving an encounter with the island entity, "the Smoke Monster", while arguing over Jack and the reason behind Juliet's estrangement from the Others.

I have a question. Why did Kate ask Juliet what the latter had done to piss off Ben and the Others? Juliet had murdered Pickett - right before Kate's eyes - in order to save her and Sawyer. Had she experienced memory loss or something? Had Damon Lindelof and Elizabeth Sarnoff really concocted this ridiculous plot to handcuff Juliet to Kate? According to a later episode, Ben had conceived this handcuff plan. But why? Hold on. I know why. Ben had expected Juliet to use this situation to gain Kate's trust - and through the latter, the Oceanic castaways' trust. Yet again, WHY? All Juliet had to do was agree with Kate's plan to return to the Barracks. Both would have easily found Jack. After all, she had managed to gain his sympathy and friendship during his captivity with the Others. It seemed so pointless to handcuff Juliet to Kate and try to gain her trust. This whole scenario struck me as unnecessary and infantile. As for the catfight in the rain? Very sexist and I suspect, typical of this series' showrunners. And Juliet's encounter with the Smoke Monster? Pointless, because she never encountered it again.

Looking back on my recent rewatch of "Left Behind", I cannot believe I had accepted it as a tolerable episode that could pass muster. Because I find it difficult to accept this . . . at least now. There were too many idiotic plot points and situations for me to regard it as nothing more than an example of one of the less than exemplary episodes from "LOST".

"THE A.B.C. MURDERS" (1992) Review

 

"THE A.B.C. MURDERS" (1992) Review

As I had pointed out in my review of the 2018 adaptation of "THE A.B.C. MURDERS", Agatha Christie's 1936 novel, I have been a fan of the latter for years. And as I have also pointed out, there have been at least four adaptations. In this review, I have decided to focus on the 1992 television adaptation from the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" series.

Starring David Suchet as the Belgian-born detective, Hercule Poirot, "THE A.B.C. MURDERS" begin with Poirot welcoming his old friend Captain Arthur Hastings, who has traveled from his Argentina ranch for a visit to Britain. Poirot reveals a letter he had recently received from a possible serial killer named "A.B.C.", who declares his or her intention to murder a citizen of Andover, whose name starts with an "A". Following the death of one Alice Ascher in Andover, Chief Inspector Japp and Scotland Yard becomes involved when Poirot receives a second letter from the killer, who needles the detective with his/her intent to kill a second victim in a seaside town called Bexhill-on-the-Sea. After the murderer kills a third victim, an elderly millionaire from Churston; Poirot recruits the victims' relations and loved ones to assist him and Hastings in the hunt for the killer. And unbeknownst to Poirot and the police, a non-descript, middle-aged stockings salesman named Alexander Bonaparte Cust found himself present at the locations of each victim.

As much as I liked the 2018 adaptation of Christie's 1936 novel, I must admit that I prefer this version over it. Unlike the former, this television movie managed to adhere a lot closer to Christie's novel. Unlike many, I would not consider the latter as a requisite for a good adaptation. I can think of a few first-rate Christie adaptations that were not that faithful to the original source. But in the case of "THE A.B.C. MURDERS", I believe Clive Exton was wise to be as faithful as possible to Christie's 1936 novel. Why? I believe it is one of her best creations and it is a personal favorite of mine. It seemed very rare for mystery writers - especially those like Christie - to create a story about a possible serial killer. The only other time I can recall Christie creating something similar was her 1939 novel, "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE". Another aspect of this story that I enjoyed was the sense of urgency in Poirot and the police's hunt for "ABC" after the second murder had been committed. This was especially apparent in Exton and director Andrew Grieve's use of fast-paced moments of newspaper headlines, newsreel narrations and close-up shots of A.B.C. railway guides. And thanks to Grieves' direction, along with performances by David Suchet and Donald Sumpter, the television movie included an excellent scene that featured Poirot's interview with the arrested Cust.

Although "THE A.B.C. MURDERS" is a favorite of mine, it is not perfect. Once again, the series brought in Scotland Yard's Chief Inspector Japp to serve as the main police investigator in this story. I have always enjoyed Poirot and Hastings' interactions with Japp, but I do get weary of the series using Japp as the main police investigator in nearly every episode or television movie. Especially since none of the murders in this story were committed within Scotland Yard's jurisdiction. Arthur Hastings appeared in the form of two problems for me. One, I was not a fan of the running joke involving the dead Amazon Cayman that Hastings had shot and brought with him from South America. I did not find it funny or amusing. And two - as much as I have enjoyed Hugh Fraser's performances as Hastings over the years, I found Exeter's portrayal of him as this idiot rather excessive. Although I consider this adaptation superior to the 2018 miniseries, I must admit that the latter seemed to more style and punch in its production. This movie's first half had style. But after the fourth victim, I had to struggle to stay awake, due to the second half's more plodding style . . . at least until Poirot's revelation of the killer. I have a complaint about the casting, but I will bring it up later. But I do have one last complaint. The movie featured one of those scenes in which involved the police chasing the murderer after Poirot exposes the latter. God, I hate them. The "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MISS MARPLE" with Joan Hickson was the first to utilize this trope. And unfortunately, "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" continued it every now and then.

The performances in "THE A.B.C. MURDERS" struck me as first-rate. David Suchet gave his usual fine performance as the Belgian-born private detective, Hercule Poirot. As stated earlier, I was especially impressed by his performance in a scene in which Poirot interviews the major suspect. Although I had an issue of how Captain Arthur Hastings was written for this TV movie, I cannot deny that actor Hugh Fraser gave his usual excellent performance as Poirot's companion and best friend. Philip Jackson was excellent as usual as the tart-tongued Chief Inspector Japp. There were two other performances that stood out for me. One came from Pippa Guard, who gave an excellent performance as Megan Barnard, the blunt and tart-tongued sister of the second victim, Betty Barnard. But the one stand-out performance came from Donald Sumpter, who portrayed the stocking salesman, Alexander Bonaparte Cust. Sumpter did a superb job in making such a non-descript personality so interesting and slightly creepy. The rest of the cast provided first-rate support - including Nicholas Farrell, Cathryn Bradshaw, Nina Marc, David McAlister, Ann Windsor, Peter Penry-Jones, Vivienne Burgess and Donald Douglas. Speaking of the latter - he had been cast as Franklin Clarke, the younger brother of the killer's third victim, Sir Carmichael Clarke. I have been aware of Douglas ever since I was a kid and have always regarded him as a first-rate actor. But I believe he had been miscast as Franklin Clarke, who had been described as a handsome, charming and charismatic man in his early-to-mid 40s. Although attractive, Douglas had been in his late 50s when he portrayed Franklin. Also, he seemed to come across more like some hale and hearty Englishman than what Christie had described the character in her novel.

I have no problems with the television movie's production values. In all honestly, I would rate the movie's production as solid. There was nothing mind boggling about it. Rob Harris' re-creation of London and other parts of Great Britain struck me as solid. Only his discovery of the De La Warr Pavilion in Essex struck me as a godsend. I found Christopher Gunning's score solid, but not memorable, along with Peter Wenham's art direction. However, I must admit that Carlotta Barrow's set decorations; especially in scenes that featured Alice Ascher's store, the De La Warr Pavilion, Cust's apartment and various hotel rooms, and Poirot's own apartment; struck me as above par and worthy of notice. But I have to give kudos to Barbara Kronig, whom I believe did a superb job of re-creating the 1936 fashions for characters from various backgrounds and personalities.

Anyone with common sense would know or realize there is no such thing as a perfect movie or television production. This certainly applies to "THE A.B.C. MURDERS", the 1992 television adaptation to Agatha Christie's1936 novel. The pacing for the movie's second half had threatened to bog down during a small period of time. The joke surrounding Arthur Hastings' dead cayman had become tiresome and never-ending. And I believe one of the characters had been miscast. However, these flaws seemed trifling in compared to the movie's virtues. The cast led by David Suchet struck me as first-rate. Most of the television movie possessed an energy and style, thanks to Andrew Grieve's direction. And screenwriter Clive Exton had written a first-rate adaptation. I believe he did this after recognizing the excellent quality of the source material. "THE A.B.C. MURDERS" is one Agatha Christie adaptation I will continue to enjoy for years to come.

This article really disgusted me. I never thought this blog would be so careless in writing and posting an article on something as important as this fire.

Just to let you know, TWO major fire departments in the Southern California area were fighting those fires - the Los Angeles CITY Fire Department and the Los Angeles COUNTY Fire Department - before they were joined by other fire departments from around the country and other parts of the world. Are you blaming Bass for the destructive fires for Altadena and Malibu? Because both are under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County, not the City of Los Angeles. Are you blaming the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for the destructive fires in Malibu and Altadena? Apparently not.

There was no water shortage. The firefighters in the Pacific Palisades were having water pressure issues with the local hydrants, because so many of them were using the latter due to the size and speed of the fires. Southern California was dealing with the Santa Ana winds in January and they usually appeared in the late summer and fall. The region is still dealing with a drought that had not seen any rain for a long period of time. Which is why those fires were unusual. Also, despite the $17 million dollars (that were supposed to be used by the Department for Human Resources and publicity) cut, the Los Angeles City Fire Department ended up receiving a four percent increase in its budget - a great deal of that money being utilized for firefighting services. I found this out from "The Los Angeles Times". And this makes me wonder why Fire Chief Kristin Crowley had complained about the budget in the first place.

I'm really disappointed in Ms. Landwehr's article. I'm disappointed that she had obviously failed to do her homework and instead utilized SKY NEWS (a British right-wing publication owned by Rupert Murdoch with a history of questionable reporting) as the main source for her article. And I'm disappointed that this blog would allow Ms. Landweher's article to be posted in the first place.

"G.I. JOE: RETALIATION" (2013) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "G.I. JOE: RETALIATION", the sequel to the 2009 movie, "G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA". Directed by Jon M. Chu, the movie stars Dwayne Johnson, Byung-Hun Lee, Adrianne Palicki, Ray Park, and D.J. Controna:

 



"G.I. JOE: RETALIATION" (2013) Photo Gallery