“DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” (1971) Review

 

”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”  (1971) Review

I might as well be frank. After my recent viewing of ”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”, I have come to the conclusion that it just might truly be the worst Bond movie ever released by EON Productions. I certainly view it as an unworthy follow-up to the superb ”ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”. Yet, despite my low opinion of the movie, I also found it to be very funny.

The movie’s pre-credits started the movie out with a montage featuring Bond’s search for Ernst Stravos Blofeld, head of SPECTRE and the man responsible for the brutal murder of the agent’s wife of a few hours, Teresa Bond. And yet . . . the movie had never clearly stated that Bond wanted revenge for his wife’s death. Rather curious. I suppose that Broccoli and Saltzman wanted the audience to forget about ”OHMSS” . . . and at the same time, remember that Bond had a reason to seek revenge against Blofeld. The movie eventually unfolded a tale featuring a diamond smuggling operation from South Africa to Amsterdam and finally to Las Vegas. Apparently, the operation seemed to becoming to an end, since two assassins – the very funny Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, played by Bruce Glover and Putter Smith – seemed to be killing every courier/link that formed the smuggling ring. Her Majesty’s government, worried that the stability of the diamond market might be threatened if all the hoarded diamonds are released at the same time, ordered MI-6 to investigate. M assigned Bond to investigate the matter. At first, the British agent (along with diamond smuggler Tiffany Case, Felix Leiter and the CIA) discovered that a reclusive American millionaire named Willard Whyte might be behind the smuggling operation and the murders. But this proves to be a red herring and Bond finally realized that Blofeld (whom he thought he had killed in the pre-credit sequence) had taken control of Whyte’s business operation to use the diamonds to create a satellite with a powerful laser on board in order to blackmail the world. And of course, Bond destroyed Blofeld’s operation before the villain could blow up Washington D.C.

What is it about ”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” that made it such a terrible Bond movie? One of the main culprits had to be Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz’s screenplay. Their first mistake came in the form of Bond’s search for Ernst Stravo Blofeld in the movie’s pre-credit sequence. It all seemed so vague . . . almost pointless. In fact, it seemed as if the screenwriters and producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman had been torn between a desire to make fans forget about ”OHMSS”’s tragic ending and a fear that those same fans might not forget. Which would explain why the movie’s opening found Bond traveling from one location to another in search of Blofeld. He even managed to nearly strangle one contact with her bikini top, titillating certain fans of the franchise. Yet, not once did Bond ever mention his late bride or her murder – obviously the main reason behind his search for SPECTRE’s leader. I could not help but conclude that the entire sequence was nothing but a cop-out.

And the story had failed to improve following the opening credits. I never could understand why Her Majesty’s government had deemed it necessary for MI-6 to investigate a diamond smuggling operation. Why not seek the assistance of an agency like Interpol or something? And why would the CIA be interested in such a case? Both MI-6 and CIA’s interest all came about before the revelation of Blofeld using the diamonds to create a weapon to extort the major superpowers. And I never could understand this.

Bond’s investigation took him to Amsterdam, impersonating one of the links in the smuggling operation – Peter Franks. From this point forward, a serious of implausible moments appeared in the story. After a fight with the real Peter Franks, who had appeared at Tiffany Case’s Amsterdam apartment, Bond planted his own wallet in the dead smuggler’s jacket. Tiffany discovered the wallet and expressed dismay at the idea of someone killing ‘James Bond’. Could someone please explain how a diamond smuggler would know about a MI-6 government agent, yet have no knowledge of Blofeld or the fact that he had been her actual boss? And there are more implausible moments to follow:

-After Mr. Slumber prevented Bond from being incinerated, Bond accused him and Shady Tree of giving him bad money (they saved him, because he had switched the real diamonds for fakes). Yet, he pocketed the ’bad money’and used it at one of the Vegas hotel/casinos.
-Bond and Tiffany found dead prostitute Plenty O’Toole in the latter’s Vegas swimming pool. Apparently, there had been a scene in which Plenty (who had been dumped out of Bond’s hotel room and into a swimming pool by gangsters working for Tiffany) had returned to Bond’s room and found Tiffany’s purse. If this is true, I can see why this scene had been cut, because it lacked sense. But why had EON Productions failed to cut the scene featuring the discovery of Plenty’s body, as well?
-The stunt featuring Bond’s two-wheeler driving of Tiffany’s Red Mustang through a narrow alley seemed . . . questionable.
-Why on earth did Bond bother to wear a tuxedo in order to break into Willard Whyte’s penthouse?
-Since Blofeld had left instructions to Bond (impersonating as SPECTRE minion, Burt Saxby’s voice) over the telephone to kill Willard Whyte, how did Saxby learn of the assignment in order to appear at Whyte’s house to do the job?
-Why would Tiffany be suspicious of a Blofeld in drag and tail him, when she never knew how he looked in the first place? And I doubt that she knew about the cat.

”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”’s script had ended in a rather disappointing showdown on a SPECTRE-controlled oil rig off Baja California. Come to think of it, Blofeld’s “death” and Bond’s showdown with Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd seemed equally lame.

The movie had also marked Sean Connery’s last appearance as the agent in an EON Productions’ Bond film. He returned following George Lazenby’s decision not to continue with the Bond role. Granted, Connery’s performance had its moments. He seemed to be at his funniest in this movie, displaying a true flair for comedy. And his elevator fight with Joe Robinson (portraying Peter Franks0 made it apparent that he had not lost his touch with action films, following a four-year hiatus from the Bond franchise. And yet . . . I could not help but wish that Lazenby had continued his tenure as James Bond, following ”OHMSS”. Perhaps the Australian’s presence could have guaranteed a more serious follow-up to Tracy Bond’s death. Then again . . . perhaps not. And despite Connery’s comedic touch, he seemed to have lost some of the fire that had made his earlier performances as Bond so memorable. In fact, he seemed to have sailed through the entire movie without any true depth.

There seemed to be a split opinion amongst fans regarding Jill St. John’s performance as smuggler Tiffany Case. Some viewed the red-haired Tiffany as a funny, smart and sassy woman. Others regarded her as nothing more than a bubble-headed bimbo. Personally, I agree with both views. I liked St. John’s sharp portrayal of Tiffany in the movie’s first hour or so. She portrayed the smuggler as a sharp-tongued woman who was shrewd enough to keep Bond’s paws off of her, until she needed him for her advantage. And she helped Bond infiltrate Willard Whyte’s desert laboratory. But once Blofeld was revealed to be alive, Tiffany became this idiot bimbo who allowed herself to get caught by Blofeld; and who helped Bond on the oil rig and later against Wint and Kidd with great ineptitude. Her character seemed to have lost its steam by the movie’s last half-hour.

Charles Gray, who had been last seen as a murdered MI-6 agent in ”YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE”, became the third actor to portray SPECTRE leader Ernst Blofeld on screen. I have to give points to the British actor for being the wittiest villain in the franchise’s history. Although he had spent most of his on-screen time in the movie’s second half, more witticism streamed out of Gray’s mouth than any other actor or actress. And as funny as he was, this abundance of witticism had also lessened his impact as a villain, I am sorry to say. This seemed rather odd for an actor like Gray, who has proven to be more intimidating in other roles.

”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”’s supporting cast had seemed at best, a mixed blessing. Not many Bond fans have been impressed by Norman Burton’s gruff performance as CIA agent Felix Leiter. Frankly, I found his gruffness rather amusing. Speaking of gruffness, Bernard Lee seemed downright acerbic and hostile during his brief appearance as M. Neither Lois Maxwell and Desmond Llewellyn as Moneypenny and Q, respectively, came off as memorable in this movie.

Marc Lawrence and Sig Haig had portrayed two of the gangsters who popped up during Bond’s first day in Las Vegas. Unfortunately, they came off as movie gangsters from a 30s crime melodrama, instead of modern day thugs. Donna Garratt and Trina Parks portrayed Willard Whyte’s bodyguards, Bambi and Thumper. I must admit that they were memorable, although Ms. Parks had struck me as a bit of a drama queen. Lana Wood (Natalie Wood’s younger sister) portrayed the unfortunate Plenty O’Toole. And honestly? I now feel that Ms. Wood was one of THE WORST actresses to appear in a Bond movie. Okay, make that the second worst. I consider Marguerite Le Wars, the actress who played the photographer in ”DR. NO” to be the worst.

Speaking of bad acting, who on earth had the bright idea to cast Country-Western singer, Jimmy Dean, as Willard Whyte? No wonder he had never pursued a movie career. Dean must have been the biggest ham in the movie, considering his tendency to bellow nearly every word that came out of his mouth. Hollywood star Bruce Cabot (”KING KONG” [1933]) seemed like a waste of time in his role as Blofeld minion, Burt Saxby. What a shame, especially since ”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” was his last film. The movie’s bright spot came in the forms of Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as Blofeld’s assassins, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Glover and Smith portrayed these two hitmen (and possible lovers?) with wit, style and a delicious touch of menace. It seemed a shame that they were killed off in one of the lamest action sequences of any Bond film.

I am trying to think of a Bond movie directed by Guy Hamilton that has really impressed me. So far, I cannot think of one. ”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” is certainly not that movie. Granted, it has its bright points – the witty humor, a sassy Tiffany Case in the film’s first half, a great fight scene between Connery and Robinson; along with Bruce Glover and Putter Smith. I would also like to add that I also enjoyed the film’s musical score by John Barry and the theme song, performed by Shirley Bassey. Granted, the song lacked the excitement and brashness of ”GOLDFINGER” and the lyrical beauty of ”MOONRAKER”, but I still managed to enjoy it. But considering some of the second-rate performances found in this movie, along with poor editing and piss poor writing by Maibaum and Mankiewicz, ”DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER” strikes me as being the complete nadir of the Bond franchise. And that is saying something about a movie that I still enjoy watching . . . much to my continuing surprise.

Memorable Lines

Mr. Wint: The scorpion.
Mr. Kidd: One of nature’s finest killers, Mr. Wint.
Mr. Wint: One is never too old to learn from a master, Mr. Kidd.

Sir Donald Munger: Tell me, Commander, how far does your expertise extend into the field of diamonds?
Bond: Well, hardest substance found in nature, they cut glass, suggest marriages, I suppose it replaced the dog as the girl’s best friend. That’s about it.
M: Refreshing to hear that there is one subject you’re not an expert on!

Mr. Kidd: Well, they’re both aboard, and I must say Miss Case seems quite attractive…
[Mr. Wint glares at him]
Mr. Kidd: …For a lady. [pause] Heh heh heh heh!

Plenty O’Toole: Hi, I’m Plenty.
Bond: But of course you are.
Plenty O’Toole: Plenty O’Toole.
Bond: Named after your father perhaps?

[Plenty O'Toole is thrown out of the window by some goons perhaps from the 10th floor, and lands in the middle of the hotel's swimming pool]
Bond: [looking down] Exceptionally fine shot.
Slumber Inc. Attendant: I didn’t know there was a pool down there.

[to a rat]
Bond: Well, one of us smells like a tart’s handkerchief.
[sniffs]
Bond: I’m afraid it’s me. Sorry, old boy.

“Listen, you can drop me off at the next corner. This whole thing is getting a little out of hand. No regrets, but when you start stealing moon machines from Willard Whyte, GOOD bye and GOOD Luck!” – Tiffany Case

Blofeld: Tiffany, my dear. We’re showing a bit more *cheek* than usual, aren’t we?
[Tiffany takes the cassette out from her bottom and hands it to Blofeld]
Blofeld: [to the guards] Take her below and lock her up with Mr. Bond.
[the guards take her to a cell]
Blofeld: What a pity, such nice cheeks too. If only they were brains.

Tiffany: Oh, James.
Bond: Oh, yes. What were you about to ask me?
Tiffany: James, how the hell do we get those diamonds down again?

[Bond tastes the Mouton Rothschild wine served]
Bond: The wine is quite excellent. Although for such a grand meal I would have expected a claret.
Mr. Wint: But of course. Unfortunately our cellar is poorly stocked with clarets.
Bond: Mouton Rothschild IS a claret. And, I’ve smelled that aftershave before, and both times – I’ve smelled a rat.

“Making mud pies, 007?” – Blofeld

Bond: What do you intend to do with those diamonds?
Blofeld: An excellent question. And one which will be hanging on the lips of the world quite soon. If I were to break the news to anyone it would be to you first, Mr. Bond, you know that.

Blofeld: You killed my only other double, I’m afraid. After his death, volunteers were understandably… rather scarce.
Blofeld Double: Such a pity. All that time and energy wasted, simply to provide *you* with one mock, heroic moment.

Bond: Saxby!
Willard Whyte: Burt Saxby? Tell him he’s fired!

Bond: Surely, sir, there’s no need to involve our section on a relatively simple smuggling matter.
M: Sir Donald has convinced the PM otherwise. May I remind you 007, that Blofeld is dead. Finished! The least we can expect from you now is a little *plain*, *solid*, *work*.

“Well go on, go on, it’s merely a lift. Or should I say elevator? In any event I’m sure you’ll find it far more convenient than mountaineering about outside the Whyte House.” – Blofeld

Tiffany: “Well, that’s a switch!”
Bond: “What’s that?”
Tiffany: “The wolf being guarded by the three little pigs!”

“I expected at least one head of state… Your pitiful little island hasn’t even been threatened!” – Blofeld

“As you see, Mr Bond, the satellite is, at present, over Kansas. But if we destroy Kansas, the world may not hear about it for years.” – Blofeld

3/10

“EASTERN PROMISES” (2007) Review

”EASTERN PROMISES” (2007) Movie Review

Two years ago, I saw the crime thriller directed by David Cronenberg called, ”A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE”. Viggo Mortensen had starred in the movie, portraying a happily-married café owner, whose Good Samaritan actions against two thugs led to his disclosure as a former mob enforcer. Both Cronenberg and Mortensen reunited to collaborate on another crime thriller called, ”EASTERN PROMISES”. 

Based upon a screenplay written by Steve Knight, ”EASTERN PROMISES” began with a gangland murder and the death of a 14 year-old Russian-born prostitute while giving birth to an infant girl. The two incidents would resonate over the lives of a London hospital midwife of Russian descent named Anna Khitrova (Naomi Watts), a Russian mob boss and restaurant owner named Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl), his wastrel son Krill (Vincent Cassel) and the mob boss’ enigmatic chauffeur, Nikolai Luzhin (Mortensen).

The plot is a little too complex for me to explain in this review. Needless to say that it centered around the mob boss’ attempt to recover the dead prostitute’s diary, which found itself in the hands of the hospital midwife. However, I would suggest that one see the movie. No one will be disappointed. I know I found it very interesting. Yes, it has violence, but not as much that was found in ”A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE”. But the amount of blood shown in the film – especially in the gangland slaying and the prostitute’s death – seemed to like a metaphor of the story’s theme . . . and the connection between the major characters.

On the surface, ”EASTERN PROMISES” seemed like a typical crime thriller centered around a Russian crime family in London. But the plot – like three of the major characters – turned out to be something quite different than what appears to be on the surface. What seemed like a gang war, turned out to be a lurid family secret that brings down the Russian mobster. As I had earlier pointed out, this theme is also apparent in three of the four major characters:

*Krill –who seemed like a crude and murderous monster on the surface and proves to be more benign

*Semyon – a talented cook and mob boss, whose grandfatherly demeanor hides a darker and more ruthless personality

*Nikolai – the enigmatic chauffeur, whose practical and cynical nature makes him unsuited to merely be the family’s driver. As in the case of Semyon and Krill, he turns out to be someone very different.

And it is through the eyes of the London midwife, Anna that the audience becomes acquainted with the exotic (at least in American and British eyes) world of Russian émigrés mingled with the violence and degeneracy of the Vory v Zakone (Russian Mafia). Thanks to Cronenberg’s direction, the world of the Vory v Zakone seemed so exotic and something never seen before. In fact, it seemed so insular that the usual British atmosphere of London almost seemed miles away, despite the presence of Scotland Yard. One sequence that came to mind is the hand-to-hand fight between Nikolai and two Chechen assassins seeking revenge for the gangland murder in the movie’s opening scene. The sight of a nude Mortensen viciously defending his life against two burly assassins inside a London bathhouse is one that I will never forget. And I suspect that it will become an unforgettable in the minds of moviegoers for years to come.

I was also impressed by the performances in the movie. Despite having the least interesting character, Watts managed – with her usual competency – infused pathos and spirit in the London midwife. And Mueller-Stahl did an excellent job of portraying a brutal and ruthless man who manages to hide these traits under a veneer of warmth and civility. But I feel that Cassel deserves an Oscar nod for his portrayal of the pathetic Krill, who tries to hide his weaknesses (or what he conceives as weakness) with a crude and extroverted persona.

Finally, there is Viggo Mortensen, whose portrayal of the enigmatic Nikolai might finally allow the critics to truly appreciate his skills as an actor. Instead of using words or openly expressed emotions, Mortensen manages to reveal his character to the audience through subtle words (in a Russian accent that surprisingly works), body language, costume and especially in his eyes. What makes Mortensen so remarkable as a film actor is that he has no need for big speeches (which he had attempted in ”LORD OF THE RINGS: Return of the King”) or outbursts of emotions to convey to express his characters’ personalities. This certainly seemed true in the scene in which Nikolai has sex with one of the prostitutes, in the whorehouse owned by Krill’s father. Nikolai does not simply have sex with the woman. He IS FORCED to do so . . . on the orders of Krill, who wants Nikolai to prove that he is not a homosexual. The audience was well aware that the prostitute felt violated and exploited. But Mortensen managed to convey through his eyes, Nikolai also felt violated, exploited . . . and disgusted at Krill’s desire to watch him have sex with the prostitute. Good performance by Mortensen.

What else can I say about ”EASTERN PROMISES”? It is not the best movie I have seen this year. But I feel that it is a fascinating and emotionally complex story that seems different from the usual crime thriller. Unlike ”A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE”, it is not capped by a violence sequence that gives us the last word on the protagonist’s fate. Yet, all the same, I found it very tense and emotional.

“SYLVIA” (2003) Review

SYLVIA” (2003) Review

I finally watched “SYLVIA” on DVD. After all I have heard about the movie, I had expected to be disappointed by it. To be truthful, I found it quite interesting biopic that was especially enhanced by the leads’ performances. But . . . “SYLVIA” was not a perfect film.

Set between the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, The movie’s revelation of the Sylvia Plath/Ted Hughes courtship, followed by their marriage turned out to be very interesting and rather intense. I suspect that many had expected it to take sides in the couple’s breakup. To its credit, the movie avoided this route. There were no heroes/heroines and villains/villainesses in their story . . . just two people who had failed to create a successful marriage. In fact, the movie presented the possibility that both Plath and Hughes had contributed their breakup.

To be honest, I think that Gwyneth Paltrow and Daniel Craig’s performances as Sylvia Plath and Ted Hughes had more to do with the movie’s main virtue than the director, Christine Jeffs or the screenwriter, John Brownlow. Also, both Jared Harris as Al Alvarez and Blythe Danner as Aurelia Plath, gave able support. But it is obvious that this movie belonged to Paltrow and Craig, who brought the intensity of the Plath/Hughes marriage with an honesty and rawness that – if I must be honest – I sometimes found hard to bear.

But even those two were not able to save the movie’s last half hour from almost sinking into an abyss of unrelenting boredom. I suspect that Jeffs and Brownlow wanted to give the moviegoers an in-depth look at Plath’s emotional descent into suicide, following the break-up of her marriage to Hughes. But I wish they could have paced the movie’s ending a little better than what had been shown in the movie theaters. The movie’s last half hour nearly dragged it to a standstill.

Despite the last half hour, I would still recommend “SYLVIA”. In the end, it turned out to be a pretty interesting look into the marriage of the two famous poets. And the performances of both Paltrow and Craig do the movie justice. I gave it 7 out of 10 stars.

 

”MAD MEN”: “The Times They Are A-Changin’”

”There’s a battle outside; And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.” – “The Times They Are A-Changin”
(recorded by Bob Dylan on October 24, 1963)

 

”MAD MEN”: “The Times They Are A-Changin’”

Not long after I had watched the latest episode of ”MAD MEN” called (3.12) “The Grown Ups”, I walked into a pizza eatery and heard a song being played on the jukebox. To my surprise, it was an old Bob Dylan song called ”The Times They Are A-Changin’”. I could not help but feel that it could have been an appropriate song for this latest episode.

Although series creator Matthew Weiner had claimed that he wanted to avoid airing an episode about President John F. Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963; I never saw how he could avoid the topic in the first place. Not only was the Kennedy assassination one of the major events of the 1960s, but one in this country’s history. And one of the series’ major themes is supposed to be the changing social mores of 1960s America.

The interesting thing about ”The Grown Ups” – at least for me – was how certain characters reacted to the assassination. Someone on one of the ”MAD MEN” websites had brought up a comment that the series lead character, Don Draper aka Dick Whitman, had made about a funeral in which he had participated in the Season One episode, (1.10) “The Long Weekend”:

”I remember the first time I was a pallbearer. I’d seen dead bodies before. I must have been fifteen. My aunt. I remember thinking, ‘They’re letting me carry the box, they’re letting me be this close to it, they’re not hiding anything from me now.’ And then I looked over and I saw all the old people waiting together by the grave and I remember thinking I, I just moved up a notch.”

Judging from the above comments, Don seemed to view his participation in this funeral as a sign that the adults in his life considered him mature enough to accept death and the changes it brings in the lives of many. His comments also made me wonder how the characters and the title of last Sunday’s episode. Who exactly were ”the grownups”? Were they characters like Don, Roger Sterling, Mona Sterling, Peggy Olson and Joan Harris; who seemed the least shaken by Kennedy’s assassination? Or were they characters like Pete and Trudy Campbell, Betty Draper, Jane Sterling and Bert Cooper, who not only seemed profoundly shaken by Kennedy’s death, but aware that the event might be a sign of the social upheavals to come?

JFK’s assassination seemed to have a very interesting impact upon many of the series’ characters. For Pete Campbell, the assassination encouraged both him and Trudy to realize that he was wasting his time at Sterling Cooper. Earlier in the episode, Lane Pryce had informed him that Ken Cosgrove had won the battle for the position of Sterling Cooper’s Head of Accounts. Although he managed to keep his disappointment in check in front of the Englishman, Pete allowed his feelings to finally pour out in front of Trudy. When he informed that he plans to take up Duck Phillips’ offer for a position at Grey’s, Trudy informed him to hold back on that decision and remain at Sterling Cooper. Then came the assassination. Both of the Campbells were not only shocked by the event, Pete saw it as a sign that society was about to change. In his odd way, Pete has had a talent for realizing that the world is changing. He was the one who saw Kennedy as a potential head of state. And he was the one who was willing to view African-Americans as consumers to be targeted – a concept that that the old-fashioned Sterling Cooper executives had frowned upon. When he and Trudy learned that the Sterlings planned to go ahead with Margaret Sterling’s wedding on the following day, the couple found the whole thing distasteful and decided not to attend the wedding. More importantly, Trudy encouraged Pete to go ahead and consider leaving the firm. Perhaps they had both finally realize that Pete could no longer pretend that nothing has changed.

I believe that other ”MAD MEN” characters were aware of the possible impact of John Kennedy’s assassination. But whereas some wanted to pretend that nothing will really change, others seemed certain that changes are in the air. During Margaret Sterling wedding reception, her stepmother Jane Sterling and Bert Cooper seemed pivoted to the hotel kitchen’s television set during the media’s coverage of the assassination and its immediate aftermath. Cooper seemed to have become increasingly aware of the changes that were affecting the country. I believe it had began with the sale of Sterling Cooper to the Putnam Powell and Lowe, a British firm in the Season Two finale, (2.13) “Mediations on an Emergency”. It continued with him facing the death of a former colleague and Sterling Cooper’s 40th anniversary in (3.10) “The Color Blue”. While watching him remain glued to the television set during the wedding reception, I wonder if the assassination might prove to be the last straw for Bert Cooper. And how will he react in the months and years to come? Will he wither away, longing for the days when he was younger and social values were different? Or being the pragmatic man he has shown to be in the past, will he learn to go with the flow?

Many fans have commented that Jane Sterling, nee Siegal, is too young for Roger Sterling. Perhaps. However, I find this sentiment rather interesting, considering that many viewers have been fans of the Roger Sterling/Joan Holloway affair . . . and Joan is at least two decades younger than Roger. But Jane was barely 20 years old when she first met Roger in (2.05) “The New Girl” and 21 years old, this season. As she had pointed out, she was not old enough to vote for Kennedy back in 1960. So far, she has been portrayed as a young and immature trophy wife for Roger. And he seemed to treat her more as a child than his spouse, as his reaction to her attempt to befriend Margaret proved. But like Cooper, Jane’s attention became glued to the hotel kitchen’s television. Many fans accused her of using the assassination news to ignore Margaret’s reception. I disagree. I believe that Jane was not watching the news just to ignore the wedding celebrations. The assassination had made an impact upon her, just as it has obviously made an impact upon Bert Cooper. Once more, Roger treated her as a child and tried to pull her away and shield her from the media coverage . . . just as Don tried to do the same to Betty, Sally and Bobby. Jane refused to allow Roger to pull her away. The assassination bothered her and she was being honest about it. I am not saying that Jane is a fully mature character. After all, she is only 21 years old. But considering her reaction to Roger trying to pull her away from one of the hotel’s TVs, I suspect that sooner or later, Roger will no longer have a child bride on his hands. And I cannot help but wonder how long Jane will remain with him.

Duck Phillips had an interesting reaction to the assassination. After calling Peggy Olson for an assignation at a hotel room, he heard the news of the events in Dallas on the television. Duck expressed silent shock before ripping the television’s extension cord from the wall. Then Peggy appeared. Many fans saw this as a sign of Duck using Peggy for his own nefarious means. When their affair had first started in (3.07) “Seven Twenty-Three”, fans were claiming that Duck was using Peggy to get even with Don for his termination from Sterling Cooper last season. Considering that Peggy has not left Sterling Cooper, fans are now claiming that Duck is using Peggy as some kind of addiction. Frankly, I no longer care. I am getting tired of these bigoted remarks about Duck. I realize that he is not perfect. But he is no more or less flawed than the other characters. I also get the feeling that fans have not forgiven him for abandoning his dog in (2.06) “Maidenform” and continue to view him as some kind of slimy villain. As for his actions regarding the hotel room’s television, I believe that the assassination had upset him so much that he tried to turn away from it and continue his assignation with Peggy. But even after they had sex, he realized that he could not run away from it. Duck told Peggy what he had done and turned the TV back on. The interesting result to all of this is that he – quite rightly – thought about his kids and wanted to check on them. On the other hand, I found Peggy’s reaction to the assassination rather interesting. She seemed a little put out by her family’s reaction to the news and went to the office to hide from the media coverage by working. This reminded me of her reaction to Marilyn Monroe’s death. I wonder if Peggy is slowly becoming a Don Draper. If not, good. But if she is, I cannot view this as a good thing.

For the Drapers, I think the assassination made Betty realize that the world is changing and that it was useless to pretend otherwise. Don tried to shield his family from the bad news and pretend that everything was going to be okay. Even Joan Harris had pointed this out to Roger Sterling during a telephone conversation that the world will continue, despite traumatic events like the assassination. And in a way, both Don and Joan were right. Life will continue. But the two characters also failed to see the long term affect that the assassination would have on American society. Betty seemed to feel that life as she had known it will change. Which would explain why she had no qualms about Sally and Bobby watching the news about JFK’s death. As she had pointed out to Don, what was the purpose of trying to shield them from the news. And I think the assassination made her confront that she no longer has a marriage. Or perhaps she never had one.

I have always suspected that Don and Betty never really loved each other when they first got married. Both had married each the other for superficial reasons. Betty tried to maintain the marriage by pretending to be the perfect housewife and making attempts to emotionally connect with Don. She also fooled herself into believing that a third child might finally improve their marriage. Don simply tried to maintain the status quo as successful professional man and suburban husband/father. Whenever things went wrong with Betty – her discovery of his communications with her psychiatrist, her discovery of his affair with Bobbie Barrett, her kicking him out of the house and finally her discovery of his identity as Dick Whitman – Don tried to be the perfect husband/father and pretend that all is right with the world. I found myself recalling his comment in (2.08) “A Night to Remember”, when he told Betty that he doesn’t want to lose “this”, following her confrontation about Bobbie Barrett. There is a good chance that he might be in love with Suzanne Farrell. But I suspect that he harbor doubts that she could be the perfect social wife that he feels that Betty can be. But the assassination and other events of the year, like her discovery of Don’s true identity may have finally made Betty realize that her marriage is a lie. I suspect that Don’s attempts to placate her over the assassination may have been the last straw. Even Sally had failed to buy Don’s reassurances that everything is going to be all right, by a strange look she had given him. I feel that Betty is tired of living the lie. I feel that she is tired of being a “housecat”. Her dream in (3.05) “The Fog” made me wonder if she would ever start to reject that role. I think her confession to Don that she no longer loved him made me suspect that she has had enough. When will Don realize that he has only loved the idea of Betty and not the woman, herself?

I might as well say it. I believe that ”The Grown Ups”, like (3.11) “The Gypsy and the Hobo” from the previous week, to be one of the best episodes in the past three seasons of ”MAD MEN”. Some seemed to think that showing the assassination on the series was pointless. They feel that Weiner will return both the Draper marriage and everything else to what it used to be. If that was true, what would have been the point of creating a series like ”MAD MEN” in the first place? Or better yet, what if those people proved to be wrong? What if ”The Grown Ups” proved to be the catalyst for more changes, as the series moves deeper into the 1960s?

“STARDUST” (2007) Review

 

“STARDUST” (2007) Review”

When I had first saw the poster, I could not drum any interest in seeing “STARDUST”, directed by Matthew Vaughn. In fact, my interest remained dormant after viewing the trailer. Just today, someone had suggested that we see it, considering there was no other movie in the theaters we were interested in seeing. I said “no thanks”. It did not end there. This “someone” literally had to coerce me into seeing the film. And you know what? I am glad that he did.

Based upon Neil Gaiman’s novella, “STARDUST” tells the story of a young 19th century Englishman named Tristan Thorne (Charlie Cox), who becomes in involved in a series of adventures in magical kingdom located beyond the wall of his hometown of . . . Wall. His adventures resulted from his love of a young neighbor named Victoria (Sienna Miller) and his desire to find and retrieve a fallen star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) in order to prove his worthiness as a future husband. Tristan has no idea that his mother (Kate Magowan) is not only a citizen of this magical kingdom, but is also a royal princess who is enslaved by a witch named Ditchwater Sal (Melanie Hill). He does not realize that his two surviving uncles – Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) and Prince Primus (Jason Flemyng) – are in search of a ruby that will give either of them the throne to the kingdom. A ruby that had caused Yvaine to fall from the sky and is now worn by her. And Tristan is also unaware of a witch named Lamia who seek Yvaine. With the latter’s heart carved out, Lamia and her two sisters will be able to regain their youth and power.

I do not think I will go any further into the story, because it is simply too damn complicated. It is not confusing. Trust me, it is not. But I do feel that in order to know the entire story, one would simply have to see the film. I have never read Gaiman’s novella, so I have no idea how faithful Jane Goldman and director Matthew Vaughn’s script was to the story. But I do feel that Goldman and Vaughn’s adaptation resulted in an exciting, yet humorous tale filled with surprisingly complex characters and situations.

The acting, on the other hand, was first-class. It could have been easy for Charlie Cox and Claire Danes to fall into the usual trap of portraying the leads, Tristan and Yvaine, as a pair of simpering and and over emotional young lovers – a cliche usually found in many romantic fantasies over the years. Instead, Cox and Danes seemed to be having a good time in portraying not only the ideal personality traits of the two lovers, but their not-so-pleasant sides through their constant bickering and mistakes. Vaughn filled the cast with some of his regulars like the always competent and dependable Dexter Fletcher and Jason Flemyng, along with Sienna Miller, who did a surprisingly good job of portraying Tristan’s bitchy object of desire, Victoria. Mark Strong was excellent as the ruthless and sardonic Prince Septimus. Robert DeNiro did a surprising turn as Captain Shakespeare, a flaming drag queen who pretends to be a ruthless and very macho captain of a pirate ship in order to maintain his reputation. DeNiro was very funny. But by the movie’s last half hour, the joke surrounding his deception threatened to become slightly tiresome. But the movie’s true scene stealer turned out to be Michelle Pfieffer as the evil and treacherous Lamia, the oldest and most clever of the three sister witches. At times seductive, funny, malevolent and creepy, Pfieffer managed to combine all of these traits in her performance, allowing her to literally dominate the movie and provide one of the most creepiest screen villains to hit the movie screens in the past decade. Margaret Hamilton, look out!

As much as I had enjoyed “STARDUST”, I had a few problems with the movie. I have already pointed out how the joke surrounding Captain Shakespeare’s sexual orientation threatened to become overbearing. I also found the movie’s running time to be a bit too long. This problem could be traced to an ending so prolonged that it almost rivaled the notoriously long finale of “LORD OF THE RING: RETURN OF THE KING”. And the fact that the movie’s style seemed to be similar to the 1987 movie, “THE PRINCESS BRIDE”, did not help. Another problem I found with the movie was its “happily ever after” ending that left me feeling slightly disgusted with its sickeningly sweet tone. But what really irritated me about “STARDUST” was Jon Harris’s editing. It seemed so choppy that it almost gave the movie an uneven pacing.

But despite the movie’s disappointing finale and Harris’ editing, “STARDUST” proved to be a very entertaining movie. Using a first-class cast and an excellent script, director Matthew Vaughn managed to pay a proper homage to Neil Gaiman’s novella. He also proved that his debut as a director (“LAYER CAKE”) was more than just a fluke.

“TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen” (2009) Review

Below is my review of the new movie by Michael Bay called “TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen”:

 

”TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen” Review

Two years ago, I had posted a review of the 2007 movie, “TRANSFORMERS”.  Needless to say, I had written a bad review of the film. Since then, I have seen the movie at least once or twice on television cable. And my opinion of it has changed. Somewhat. My new opinion has led me to view its sequel, ”TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen” with different eyes. Let me explain.

When I saw ”TRANSFORMERS” for the second and third times, I discovered a little secret. If a moviegoer harbors low or no expectations of films like the ones from the “TRANSFORMERS” franchise, that person might find him or herself actually enjoying such films. All it takes is the act of simply shutting down one’s brain. However, there are chances that this little tactic might not always work. It did work for me when I saw ”TRANSFORMERS” for the second time. It also worked when I finally saw ”TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen”.

This second movie began two years after the first, when the main hero, teenager Sam Witwicky has graduated from high school and is ready to enter college. In this film, a revived Megatron (the main villain from the first film) and the rest of the Decepticons have returned to Earth in order to take Sam prisoner, after he learns about the ancient origins of the Transformers and some vital information about a certain machine from the remnants of the All Spark (please do not ask me to explain this – I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry). Joining the mission to protect humankind are the Transformers, their leader Optimus Prime, and members of the NEST Team (military Special Forces assigned to work with the Transformers).

And how was the movie? Honestly, it was not all that bad. But it was also far from perfect. One had to deal with a lot of overbearing action – Michael Bay style. In fact, I found it nearly impossible to distinguish between the Transformers and the Decepticons during their fights. The use of Eubonics by two of the Transformers – twins Skids and Mudflap – annoyed the hell out of me. Nor did I find it at all humorous. And could someone please explain how the National Air and Space Museum (where Sam and his friends found the former ancient Decepticon, Jetfire), which is supposed to be in Washington D.C., end up in a location that strongly resembled the western United States? Seeing John Tuturro’s nearly bare ass in one scene did not help matters. Nor did Ramón Rodríguez’s frantic portrayal of Sam’s new college roommate, Leo Spitz. He made Shia LaBeouf’s performance in the 2007 movie look downright subtle. And quite honestly? This movie was too goddamn long. A running time of two-and-a-half hours for a movie based upon toy robots?

But as I had earlier stated, I had no high expectations of the movie and I managed to shut down my brain – somewhat – while watching it. And the story was not that bad. Screenwriters Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Ehren Kruges found a way to bring Megatron back from the dead in a believable manner. They also introduced another villain – an ancient Transformer Prime who went against the other Primes by constructing some kind of machine that can steal the heat and energy from Earth’s sun. Hmmm . . . not bad.

Another aspect of ”TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen” that impressed me was Ben Seresin’s photography. Despite the movie’s fast action, Seresin did an excellent job in capturing the color and grandeur of various locations like New York, Washington D.C. and especially the Middle East. And although there were times when Michael Bay seemed to succumb to his penchant for MTV-style direction, he still managed to maintain a steady pace for the film. And through his direction, he expressed his talent for revealing the funny and quirky sides of the average American citizens.

Speaking of American citizens, I might as well talk about the cast. Shia LaBeouf gave a more subtle performance as the Transformers’ human friend, Sam Witwicky. With Ramón Rodríguez chewing the scenery, I guess that LaBeouf felt he could relax and tone down his performance. Megan Fox gave a nice and occasionally funny performance as Sam’s mechanic girlfriend, Mikaela Barnes. It was nice to see Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson return as Army Rangers William Lennox and Robert Epps. As they had done in the 2007 movie, the pair made a solid screen team. Aside from his ass, it was nice to see John Tuturro reprise his role as Reggie Simmons, now a retired U.S. intelligence agent. However, I must give top kudos to Kevin Dunn and Julie White as Sam’s wacky parents, Ron and Judy Witwacky. More than they did so in the first film, they made a great comedy team, much to my surprise.

Should you go see ”TRANSFORMERS: Revenge of the Fallen”? I cannot answer that question. It is certainly not one of the best films I have seen this year. But if you are looking for the occasional mindless form of entertainment in which you can shut down your brain, this is definitely the movie for you.

“TRANSFORMERS” (2007) Review

 

 

 

 

 

“TRANSFORMERS” (2007) Review”

Based upon the Japanese cartoon TV series and the line of Hasbro toys, “TRANSFORMERS” is the story about how Earth is caught in the middle of an intergalactic war between two races of robots, the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons, which are able to change into a variety of objects, including cars, trucks, planes and other technological creations. This 2007 film was developed by producers Don Murphy and Tom DeSanto and executive director, Steven Spielberg, had convinced Michael Bay (“PEARL HARBOR”, “BAD BOYS” and “THE ISLAND”) to direct it as his first family film.

I really do not know what to say about “TRANSFORMERS”. It has a pretty good cast with the likes of Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Jon Voight, Anthony Anderson and John Turturro. It also featured the voices of Peter Cullen as Optimus Prime (leader of the the good alien robots) and Hugo Weaving as the voice of the evil Megatron.

I am already into the third paragraph of this post and I have yet to give my review. It sounds as if I am delaying in giving my view of the movie, doesn’t it? Perhaps I am. Like I had stated in the previous paragraph, I do not know what to say about “TRANSFORMERS”. On the surface, it is a pretty exciting, yet funny film. It can boast some first-class action, which happens to be Michael Bay’s forte. And the performances are pretty good. I could say that Shia LaBeouf (Spielberg’s new favorite) was exceptional. Although there were times when I found his performance a little frantic. Rather like a young John Cusak on crack. And I also thought that Tyrese Gibson seemed a little too big to be playing second fiddle to a TV actor like Josh Duhamel. And despite all of the action, special effects and good performances, I had left the theater with this uneasy feeling that “TRANSFORMERS” seemed a little beneath for someone of Bay’s talent or reputation. When one really comes down to it, the movie seemed nothing more than an over-the-top kiddie flick.

But hey, if you are really a fan of THE TRANSFORMERS franchise, I suggest that you check it out. Chances are you will not be disappointed.

“LEATHERHEADS” (2008) Review

”LEATHERHEADS” (2008) Review

As a rule, I usually do not like sports movies. I can think of at least six or seven that are personal favorites of mine. After seeing the recent football comedy, ”LEATHERHEADS”, I can honestly say that the number has risen to eight.

George Clooney, who also directed the film, Clooney plays Dodge Connolly, captain of the struggling football team, the Duluth Bulldogs. Dodge is determined to save both his team and professional football in general when the players lose their sponsor and the league is on the brink of collapse. He convinces a college football star, Carter “the Bullet” Rutherford (John Krasinski), to join the Bulldogs, in order to capitalize on Carter’s fame as a war hero. In addition to his legendary tales of heroism in World War I, Carter has dashing good looks and unparalleled speed and skill on the field. As a result of his presence, both the Bulldogs and football in general prosper. Rene Zellweger provided romantic interest as reporter Lexie Littleton, who becomes the object of the affections of both Carter and Dodge. Unbeknown to Carter, Lexie has been assigned to find proof that Carter’s stories of military heroism are bogus. Meanwhile, Dodge’s attempts to legitimize professional football start to backfire, as rules are formalized, taking away much of the improvisational antics that made the game fun for many of its players.

I had expected to mildly enjoy ”LEATHERHEADS” or at least enjoy the 1920s setting. Instead, I found myself really enjoying the story of Dodge Connolly’s comic attempts to legitimize professional football, and his romantic rivalry with Carter Rutherford for Lexie Littleton’s heart. The comic timing featured in the script written by George Clooney, Steven Soderbergh, Duncan Brantley, Rick Reilly and Stephen Schiff is wonderful. The performances – especially the three leads – were fabulous. Clooney, Zellweger and Krasinski proved that they all possessed the skills and timing for comedic acting. And they were supported by a top notch cast that included Stephen Root, Jonathan Pryce, and Peter Gerety. And I must say that I loved the way Clooney and his production staff captured the mid 1920s America, right down to the chaotic world of football – professional and college.

However, ”LEATHERHEADS” is not perfect. The Chicago sequence leading up to the big game between the Duluth and Chicago nearly dragged the film. And I found the ending vague and lacking any real closure over Dodge, Lexie and Carter’s future. And that perfect capture of the 1920s? Well, it was not completely perfect. I have to blame Renee Zellweger’s hairstyle for this. It was fine when she had her hair pinned. But she spent at least two-thirds of the film wearing her hair in a shoulder-length bob. Is it any wonder I had originally believed this film was set in the early-to-mid 1930s?

It is a shame that ”LEATHERHEADS” did not prove to be a hit. It really is an enjoyable film. But I guess that it is the type of film that would appeal to older moviegoers who are at least in their 30s and 40s. It simply lacked the appeal for younger viewers that ”21” possessed. And to be honest, I am not a big fan of the latter film, even if it was not that bad. Oh well. If you do not want to go see ”LEATHERHEADS” in the theaters, at least give it a chance now that it has been released on DVD.

“Neighbors” – [PG] 2/11

“NEIGHBORS”

Part 2

Cole stood in front of one of the large windows that overlooked San Francisco Bay, from his penthouse. Today had been something of an emotional roller coaster for him. First of all, the firm had just given him a new assignment, and a prestigious one, at that. It involved a lawsuit filed by one of the firm’s clients against a rival company, over the purchase of some valuable real estate in Napa Valley. Despite his “mysterious” disappearance last year, the law firm that he worked for seemed willingly to keep him on their payroll. And allow him to maintain the plush penthouse and black Porsche.

But despite keeping his job, Cole had lost something he considered a lot more valuable. Namely his wife. A long sigh escaped from his mouth. Cole flung himself on the sofa. Perhaps a divorce had been the best thing for him and Phoebe. After all, he had been possessed by the Source at the time of the wedding. When one thought about it, Phoebe had been married to the Source in all but name.

Thoughts of the former evil entity brought forth the anger and resentment that Cole had been harboring for the past nine months. And not just toward the Source. Why did Phoebe fail to understand that she had not been the only one who had suffered? Or that he was no more responsible for what happened than she? Okay, he could kick himself for allowing the Seer to trick him into using the Hollow. But he had done so to save the Charmed Ones.

And why could Phoebe and her sisters understand and forgive if one of them had ended up possessed by evil? But for some reason, they could not extend him the same regard. Was it too much for them to . . .?

A faint noise or vibration from beneath his feet interrupted Cole’s bitter musings. Music. Great! He had to deal with another noisy neighbor for the second time since his return to the penthouse. And from the same damn apartment! Keeping his irritation in check, Cole left the penthouse to pay his new neighbor a visit.

He found himself standing in front of a door marked 716. Cole knocked. Seconds later, music blasted from the apartment’s interior. And a figure appeared in the doorway. And immediately took Cole’s breath away. She stood somewhere at 5′8″ tall. Her stylishly cut hair was red – naturally red and very curly. Freckles sprinkled across the bridge of her nose and on certain parts of her delicate, yet slightly tanned face. She stared at him with eyes green as emeralds. “Hello there,” she greeted in a slightly husky voice. “May I help you?”

A moment or two passed, while Cole stared at his new neighbor. He finally rediscovered his tongue and replied, “Uh . . . I . . .” Cole shook his head. “Sorry. Uh look, I’m your new neighbor. I live upstairs in the penthouse.”

“Well, hello new neighbor,” she added, sticking out her hand. Cole took the hand and shook it. “My name is Olivia McNeill. Call me Olivia. What’s yours?”

Again, Cole hesitated. “Oh, uh Cole. Cole Turner.”

“Hi, Cole Turner.” Olivia paused and frowned. “Say, have we met before? Your name sounds familiar.”

Suspicion clouded Cole’s thoughts momentarily. How could she have known . . .?

“Excuse me, Cole?” Olivia’s voice cut into his thoughts. “Um, is there a reason why you’re on my doorstep?”

Cole immediately formed a stern expression. “Yeah. Look, I’m sorry to do this, but it’s about your music. It’s a little too loud.”

A touch of frost glazed over the neighbor’s green eyes. “Too loud? You’ve got to be kidding! I live ‘below’ you. And I’m keeping the music as low as possible.”

“Obviously it’s not low enough. I can hear it. Loud and clear.”

Her voice now tinged with sarcasm, Olivia shot back, “Considering that you’re standing outside my apartment, is it any wonder you can hear it?”

It took all of Cole’s self-control not to zap the irritating woman with a demonic bolt. “I can also hear it from my penthouse. Now, will you turn that damn music down?”

“You can hear it from . . . Okay, I’ve got to check this out, myself.” Taking Cole by surprise, Olivia brushed past him and marched toward the elevator.

The half-daemon quickly followed her. “Where are you going?” he demanded.

“To your penthouse. I want to see just how loud my music is.” The pair entered the elevator. They waited in silence as they were conveyed to Cole’s penthouse. Once outside his door, a pair of keys appeared in Cole’s hand, hidden behind his back. He had beamed to Olivia’s apartment – without bothering to collect his keys.

Once inside the penthouse, Cole cocked his ear. Yep, he heard music all right. Some tune from the mid-1970s. His neighbor must be one of those Oldies fans.

The redhead whirled on Cole, her eyes flashing accusingly. “I don’t hear anything. I feel a little vibration, but I don’t hear any music.”

“That might be vibration to you,” Cole protested, “but I hear music. And I want you to turn it down.”

Green eyes stared at him with disbelief. “What are you? From Krypton or something? You’ve got super hearing?” Cole glared at Olivia. Who returned his glare with equal heat. Then she let out an exasperated sigh and rolled her eyes. “All right! I’ll use my earphones, if it will get you off my back. Jeez!”

“Thank you,” Cole said politely.

“You know, for a walking male hormone, you’re pretty damn touchy! Good night!” Olivia glared at him one last time and stomped out of the penthouse. Cole allowed himself a triumphant smile. Mission accomplished. And he managed to do it without incinerating anyone. Phoebe would have been proud.

* * * *

The thump woke Cole from an uneasy sleep. He shot up into a sitting position. Did he just hear . . .? Another thump followed, along with a cry. What the hell was that? Whatever it was, it seemed to be coming from the apartment below. Olivia McNeill’s apartment. Strange.

Maybe his new neighbor had invited a boyfriend to spend the night. And the couple was engaged in some kind of sexual S&M thing. Cole began to lower himself back on the bed, when instinct – a gut feeling – took over him. He snapped back into a sitting position. Wait a minute. He felt something. An evil presence. Not demonic, but . . . Cole took a deep breath. A warlock? What was a warlock doing in the apartment below?

Twenty-one months of helping the Charmed Ones fight evil took hold of Cole. Without thinking, he climbed out of bed and beamed out of sight. A second later, he appeared in his new neighbor’s living room. The sight that greeted his eyes took him completely by surprise.

A suited man with long dark brown hair and thin features hung in the air, literally gasping for air. And right below him stood Olivia McNeill, clad in a thin T-shirt and gym pants. Judging by her stance and the manner in which her arm flung outward, she seemed to be responsible for the man’s present position. In other words, she was either another warlock. Or a witch.

“What the hell?” Cole cried out.

Her attention diverted by Cole’s outburst, Olivia stared at him and gasped. She dropped her arm and the man fell to the floor with a thump. “Cole!” Olivia’s face grew pale, despite the tan. “What are you . . .?”

“Look out!”

Cole’s warning came to late. The man . . . or one should say, warlock flung out his hand and sent Olivia crashing against the wall with a cry on her lips. Her head made contact with the edge of a picture frame. Before the warlock could inflict further damage, Cole seared him with a fireball. Seconds later, the warlock exploded into oblivion.

A groan escaped Olivia’s mouth. She struggled to rise to her feet. And failed. Cole stepped forward to offer his assistance. “Oh God!” she moaned. “What happened?”

Cole grabbed her hands and gently forced Olivia to her feet. “I believe you were attacked by a . . . by a warlock, I think.”

“Warlock?” Olivia’s eyes narrowed with suspicion. “How do you know about . . . Hey! You vanquished him!”

Cole gave his shoulders a quick shrug. “Well, yeah.”

“Wait a minute!” The suspicion in Olivia’s green eyes deepened. “What are you a witch, or something? Or are you something else? I’ve never heard of a witch who appears and disappears like that.” She now expressed fear. “What are you?”

Feeling a mixture of dread and déjà vu, Cole heaved a sigh. So much for that new life. “All right, I might as well tell you that I’m a demon. Well, half-demon.” He paused. “Then again, I really don’t know . . . it’s a long story.”

Olivia winced as she moved her neck. Cole grabbed hold of her shoulders and forced her to turn around, so he could examine her. A thin red line of blood trickled from the back of her head and down her neck. “This is bad,” he murmured. “Maybe you should call your whitelighter.”

Green eyes radiated confusion. Along with lingering remnants of suspicion. “I . . . how do I . . .?”

“Look, if I wanted you dead, I would have killed you by now.” Cole led Olivia to her sofa. “You really need to call your whitelighter. The bleeding is getting worse.”

Still staring at her savior, Olivia mumbled, “Yeah, sure. Uh, Leo? LEO!”

Now it was Cole’s turn to look surprised. A familiar cluster of blue lights materialized. Leo. Cole’s eyes expressed shock at the sight of his bro . . . his former brother-in-law. “Leo?”

“Cole?” The whitelighter was dressed in a gray T-shirt and pajama bottoms. He looked equally stunned. “What . . .?” His eyes focused on the groggy-looking woman who sat next to Cole. Shock gave way to concern. “Olivia! What happened to her?”

Cole explained how Olivia had been attacked by a warlock. “I think she took a serious blow to the back of her head.”

Leo immediately sat on the other side of the red-haired witch. He examined her head, placed his hand over the wound and healed it. “There,” he said, “she should be fine.”

Green eyes blinked momentarily, before they settled upon the whitelighter. “Leo! Thanks. I . . .” She touched the spot of her former wound. “Huh. No blood. Nice job.”

However, Leo did not seem to be listening. Instead, he regarded Cole with wary eyes. “Cole! What are you doing here?”

“He’s the new neighbor I had told you about,” Olivia answered, instead. “But I am curious to know how you two know each other.”

Leo took a deep breath. “He’s my former brother-in-law.”

“Huh?”

Cole grumbled, “His ex-brother-in-law. Haven’t you ever heard of Belthazor?”

Olivia’s eyes grew round. Realization made them seem even greener. “Oh! Of course! I thought your name seemed familiar! You’re the half-daemon who . . .” Her face fell into a frown. “Did you say ex-brother-in-law?”

Cole glanced away, suppressing the anger that had ignited within him. He replied coolly, “Yeah, I did. Pho . . . I’ve been divorced since 9:45 this morning.”

“Oh. I’m sorry to hear that.” An embarrassing pause filled the room. Olivia broke the silence, as she cleared her throat. “Anyway, thanks for coming to my rescue.”

Surprise reverberated in Leo’s voice. “Cole saved you?” The moment after the words came out of his mouth, Cole glared at him. “Sorry. Of course you did. Uh . . .”

“Why don’t you go home, Leo? I’m fine and you’re wife, Whats-her-name, must be wondering where you are.” Olivia patted the whitelighter’s arm and stood up. “Meanwhile, my neighbor and I will get to know each other.” She gave Cole a bright smile.

Which Cole responded with a fleeting one of his own. He glanced at the clock on the mantle above the empty fireplace. Twelve thirty-four. “I’d like to stay and chat,” he said politely, “but I have work, tomorrow. And I really need to get some sleep.”

Disappointment flickered in her eyes. “Oh.” Cole had to admit that he felt a similar pang. Although he found Olivia McNeill fascinating, the last thing he wanted was involvement with another woman. Especially another witch. Besides, he could not see himself falling in love with anyone. Not after Phoebe.

“Uh, if you’ll excuse me, I should be going.” Cole nodded at the whitelighter. “Leo. Miss McNeill.” Then he beamed out of his neighbor’s apartment, with the memory of her face imprinted in his mind.

END OF PART 2

“JUMPER” (2008) Review

“JUMPER” (2008) Review

Doug Liman (“THE BOURNE IDENTITY” and “MR. AND MRS. SMITH”) directed this film adaptation of Steven Gould’s science-fiction thriller about a young man who discovers that he has a teleportation ability as a teenager and finds himself the target of a group of bounty hunters known as Paladins. The movie stars Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Rachel Bilson, Jamie Bell, Michael Hooker and Diane Lane.

I really did not know what to expect of this movie. I have never read Gould’s novel and the sequels that followed. The movie trailer looked promising. But with the film being released in February and the critics being lukewarm . . . I really was not expecting much. Lo and behold, I ended up enjoying “JUMPER” a lot.

Liman did a good job in keeping the story interesting and well paced. Hayden Christensen (dubbed “wooden” by the critics) gave a subtle, yet entertaining performance. And he seemed to have good chemistry with his co-stars Rachel Bilson and Jamie Bell. I have to admit there were times I could not understand Bell’s accent, but at least he gave a solid performance. Samuel L. Jackson was particularly scary as Roland Cox, the bounty hunter (also called Paladin) who belonged to an organization that did not approve of teleporters or “Jumpers”. These religious fanatics believed that people like Christensen and Bell had no right to such abilities. Only God. Hmmmm.

Judging from what I have read about Gould’s novel, I can see that the film adaptation was not completely faithful. Not that it bothers me. I have never read the novel. And Hollywood – along with other film industries – never possessed the habit of being completely faithful to the literary source. But I must admit that screenwriters David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls and Simon Kinberg did a pretty good job with their adaptation. Mind you, I believe that the movie could have been a little longer than 90 minutes. But it seems a little clear that the writers have set up a possible sequel in case the movie proves to be successful. However, I do wish they had cleared up two matters – 1) the fate of David Rice’s father after the latter had been assaulted by Cox; and 2) the fate of David’s former nemesis – high school bully Mark, after David had left him in a jail. But at least the story did not end in an abrupt manner that had left moviegoers slightly puzzled at the end of “MR. AND MRS. SMITH”.

“JUMPER” is not exactly the best action film to hit the theaters. It is basically a good solid movie that will keep you entertained to the end. On the whole, I give it at least three out of four stars.