"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (2017) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", the 2017 adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1934 novel. Kenneth Branaugh directed and starred as Hercule Poirot: 


"MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS" (2017) Photo Gallery

"The Lightsaber Connection"

"THE LIGHTSABER CONNECTION"

A great deal has been made of the light saber given to potential Jedi acolyte Rey by former smuggler Maz Kanata in “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS”. It was during this moment when young Rey experienced visions of her past as a child and her future encounter with villain Kylo Ren. It was this moment when movie audiences became aware of her connection to the Force. 

I really do not recall how I felt when I first saw this scene. After all, it has been at least two years since the movie’s release. Yet, the more I think about it, the more I have come to realize that it may have been a big mistake to put so much emphasis on that particular light saber in "THE FORCE AWAKENS". One, both J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan used a weapon to ignite Rey’s connection to the Force. Worse, they used an object with a questionable and rather bloody past to serve as some kind of special Jedi relic. 

Sometime between “STAR WARS: EPISODE II – ATTACK OF THE CLONES” and “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH”, then Jedi padawan Anakin Skywalker had constructed a new light saber following the loss of his previous one before the Battle of Geonosis in the 2002 film. He used this new light saber during his services as a military leader during the Clone Wars – before and after he had become a Jedi Knight. And he used the light saber during his final duel against former Jedi Master-turned-Sith Lord Count Dooku in “REVENGE OF THE SITH” before decapitating the latter’s head. Anakin also used this very light saber to chop off Jedi Master Mace Windu’s hand during the latter’s duel against Sheev Palpatine aka Darth Sidious. He used it to participate in the Jedi Purge (which included killing younglings at the Jedi Temple) and to help the new ascended Emperor Palpatine by killing the remaining leaders of the Separatist Movement. This is also the very light saber that Anakin had used during his duel against his former mentor, Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi on Mustafar. Near the end of this duel, Anakin lost the light saber when Obi-Wan chopped off his legs and his arms. Obi-Wan took possession of the light saber and left the limbless Anakin aka Darth Vader on a lava bank to slowly burn to death. Unfortunately for Obi-Wan, the seriously wounded Anakin was found by Emperor Palpatine and a squad of clone troopers and survived for another twenty-three years.

Obi-Wan kept the light saber during the nineteen years he lived as an exile on Tattooine. When he and Anakin’s son, Luke Skywalker finally met in “STAR WARS: EPISODE IV – A NEW HOPE”, the former Jedi master gave the young man his father’s lightsaber. Luke kept that lightsaber for three years before he faced Anakin for the first time at Cloud City, on the mining colony of Bespin in “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”. Unaware that Anakin was his father, Luke engaged in a duel with the Sith apprentice until the latter chopped off his hand. Not only did Luke lose his hand, he also lost the lightsaber, which fell down a mining shift to God knows where. Sometime during the year between “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” and “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI”, Luke constructed a new lightsaber.

During the thirty years or so between “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” and “THE FORCE AWAKENS”, Anakin’s lost lightsaber ended up in the possession of the pirate queen known as Maz Kanata. She kept the weapon in a wooden curio box inside her castle/tavern on Takodana for years. Then one day, her old friends Han Solo and Chewbacca appeared on Takodana with a BB droid and two young people – Finn and Rey. While roaming around Maz’s castle, the “lightsaber awaken” and called out to Rey. She ventured into the castle's basement and found the lightsaber inside Maz's curio box. Upon touching it, she received a series of visions and recoiled in horror, rejecting Kanata's attempt to give her the lightsaber. Finn later took it for safekeeping. Later in the film, both Finn and later Rey used the lightsaber in their duels against Kylo Ren aka Ben Solo, an apprentice of Supreme Leader Snoke of the First Order, on an ice planet where the Starkiller Base was located. Although Ren managed to seriously wound Finn, Rey took up the lightsaber and eventually defeated Ren by wounding him. 

While re-reading the last paragraph, I found myself contemplating the words – “lightsaber awaken and called out to Rey”. Anakin’s second lightsaber called out to Rey via the Force? What . . . in . . . the . . . fuck? What on earth were J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan thinking? Why on earth did they tried to portray the very weapon that Anakin Skywalker had used to help Emperor Palpatine purge the Jedi as some mystical connection to the Force for one of the franchise’s newest protagonists, Rey? 

I feel the two filmmakers made a serious mistake. Or else they really had no idea what George Lucas was trying to do in his creation of the Force. Why did Abrams and Kasdan use this very weapon as a means for Rey to become aware of her connection to the Force? Why did they use a weapon in the first place? Did Abrams and Kasdan believe it would be . . . what . . . cool? Were they simply too lazy to find another way for Rey to become aware of her connection to the Force? Or did they need an excuse for both Finn and Rey to become in possession of a lightsaber so that they can duel against Kylo Ren? 

By the way, who in their right mind would use a weapon with such an ugly and bloody history to be some kind of Force relic? Why use a weapon in the first place? Because that is basically what a lightsaber is . . . a weapon. A tool that all Force sensitive individuals used – regardless of their moral compass. Like the old Jedi Temple’s library. Or a Jedi fighter. A lightsaber should not be regarded as the ultimate symbol for any Force user . . . or of the Force. I especially take umbrage that Abrams and Kasdan used it as means for Rey’s connection to the Force. I mean honestly . . . a weapon? I am certain that some “STAR WARS” fan would remind me that the average Force user had constructed his or her own lightsaber. My response to this is . . . so what? I do not recall a Force sensitive individual using a lightsaber to form a connection to the Force. At least not before “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS”. And if it had been used as a connection to the Force before the 2015 movie, it should not have been. 

The Force is an energy and spiritual entity that connects all living things throughout the galaxy. An individual using a weapon to achieve a connection to all of this strikes me as a corruption of what Lucas was trying to say about the Force. After all, Luke Skywalker did not become a Jedi in “RETURN OF THE JEDI” because of his skill with a lightsaber. He truly became a Jedi at the moment when he dropped his weapon and refused to slay his father in anger or revenge. When he rejected the use of aggression and force. Apparently, this was something that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan failed to consider. Why on earth did they not allow that damn lightsaber to remain lost for good?

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Review

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Review

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Peter Ustinov starred in theatrical adaptations of two Agatha Christie novels that featured her Belgian protagonist, detective Hercule Poirot. Three years after the second film, CBS Television hired him to star in three television movies featuring the Poirot character. The first one was the second adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel, "Lord Edgeware Dies". 

Actually, the 1933 novel was published in the United States under a different title. And the 1985 television adaptation aired on CBS under that second title as "THIRTEEN AT DINNER". After appearing as a guest on a television talk show, Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot is recruited by a famous American actress named Jane Wilkinson to convince her estranged husband, Lord Edgeware, to give her a divorce, for she has plans to marry the Duke of Merton. To Poirot's surprise, Lord Edgeware informs the former that he had already agreed to end his marriage to the American-born actress in a letter. However, Jane denies ever receiving it. The following evening, Lord Edgeware is murdered at his home. Scotland Yard's Chief Inspector Japp immediately suspects Jane of the murder. However, both Poirot and Japp discovers that the actress had attended a dinner party held by Sir Montague Corner on the night of the murder. This leaves Poirot, his friend Arthur Hastings and Japp to discover who had a reason to kill Lord Edgeware . . . or frame Jane Wilkinson for murder.

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" was the first adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel that I had ever seen. However, I had also seen the 2000 adaptation from ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" and wrote a review of it. If I must be honest, I found the 2000 television movie mildly enjoyable, but unremarkable. And if I must be honest, I could say the same about this adaptation. Considering that this adaptation was set during the time it was made - namely the mid-1980s. There were a few updates in the story to adhere to its late 20th century setting - which included making both Jane Wilkinson and a fellow actor, Bryan Martin, movie actors. Otherwise, Rod Browning's teleplay more or less followed Christie's novel.

What I disliked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? I had one major problem. Thanks to Rod Browning's screenplay, I found it rather easy to guess who was killer after the third victim, another actor named Donald Ross, was murdered. One would have to be an idiot not to figure it out. What I liked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? Well . . . despite the new time setting, the movie managed to be more or less faithful to Christie's novel. I found some of the humor rather sharp, especially between Poirot and Hastings. I rather liked John Addison's theme for Poirot. I found it rather quirky and easy to remember. More importantly, I thought the characterizations featured in the film rather strong. And the film's photography remained rather sharp after thirty-two years, thanks to Curtis Clark.

What I liked best about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" were the performances. I really enjoyed Peter Ustinov's portrayal of Hercule Poirot in this film. His Poirot seemed more witty and sharp-tongued than he was in movies like "DEATH ON THE NILE" and "EVIL UNDER THE SUN". Although Jonathan Cecil looked like the typical English twit, his version of Arthur Hastings seemed a bit more clear-headed. And there were a few moments in which Cecil's Hastings briefly engaged in little witty repartees with Ustinov's Poirot. I rather enjoyed it. Faye Dunaway seemed to be enjoying herself in the dual roles of prime suspect Jane Wilkinson, Lady Edgeware and impersonator Carlotta Adams. I found her performance very charming and energetic. Either that or she was simply giving her usual 100% into the roles.

Although Lee Horsley has appeared in more prestigious movie and television productions, I have to admit that I found his role as action star Bryan Martin in this teleplay to be one of his most interesting and best performances. Superficially, Horsley portrayed the actor as an easy-going and charming star. But with subtle skill, Horsley conveyed Bryan Martin as an over-weening and vindictive egotist. Another interesting performance came from a much younger Bill Nighy, who portrayed Lord Edgeware's weak-willed heir, Ronald Marsh. I enjoyed Nighy's performance very much and found myself wishing that his role had been slightly bigger. David Suchet, who would begin a twenty-three year stint as Hercule Poirot in ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT", portrayed none other than Chief Inspector Japp in this film. He gave a funny and sharp performance as Japp; and I found his interactions with Ustinov very entertaining. Suchet considered this performance as one of his worst. I do not agree. I suspect Ustinov felt the same, for he had suggested that Suchet should consider portraying Poirot in the future. "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"also featured solid performances from Amanda Pays, Diane Keen, Glyn Baker, John Barron, Geoffrey Rose, Pamela Salem; Benedict Taylor, whose portrayal of actor (he was a writer in Christie's novel) Donald Ross struck me as rather intelligent; and Allan Cuthbertson, who gave a very entertaining performance as the "friendly", yet competitive and egotistical Sir Montague Corner. 

I might a well be frank. I did not find the narrative for "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" particularly exceptional, but it was pretty solid. In fact, I could say the same about the 1933 novel and the 2000 television adaptation. What did strike me as exceptional was the cast. The movie did feature a very entertaining cast led by the always superb Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot and Faye Dunaway.

"REVENGE" Season One (2011-2012) Photo Gallery

Below are images from Season One of the ABC series, "REVENGE". Created by Mike Kelley and loosely based upon Alexandre Dumas père's novel, "The Count of Monte Cristo", the series starred Madeline Stowe and Emily VanCamp: 


"REVENGE" SEASON ONE (2011-2012) Photo Gallery