mmcloughlin Reviews

Poirot: Appointment with Death (2008) Season 11, Episode 4

Waste of Video Tape Except for Cheryl Campbell

[1/10 · 23 September 2018]

Cheryl Campbell's portrayl of Mrs Boynton is spot-on and superb. The rest of the actors are done-in by an incredibly bad script. Nothing can save it - not even a bottle of whisky (drunk by the viewer in advance).

Several of the problems I recite recur throughout the last decade of the Poirot series with Suchet, and reflect that fact the producers simply took too long to do the stories. The series started in 1989 and finished in 2013 - by which time, most of the original, excellent writers had stopped working on the series; and the ones who replaced them were frequently less than half as good. The writing was uniformly top quality from 1989 to 2002, so they probably should have scheduled their production plans to complete the whole series by 2003 instead of stretching it out to 2013 so that Suchet and others could do other projects along the way. Oh, well! Can't be helped now.

Nota Bene: I am not an AC purist. I adore the Margaret Rutherford Marple films despite her Miss Marple being nothing like Agatha Christie's Miss Marple. But this particular adaptation goes beyond the pale because the changes it makes from the original DO *NOT* MAKE ANY SENSE.

Chief of these is the resurrection of the late Mr Boynton. His wife's control of the children does not work if he is alive. In the original, he was a prison warden and she was a prison wardress - it's how they met after his first wife died. The second Mrs Boynton, now widowed and aged, would not have the sadistic control she exercises over her step-children if her husband were still alive *and* were as sympathetic a father & husband as the character played by Tim Curry.

It also certainly makes no sense that Mr Boynton is British - as well as being LORD Boynton! - when the rest of his family are supposed to be Americans. Campbell, by the way, does a great American accent for this role; making it even more stupid for her to have a British husband.

Lady Wesholme is also American (at least in the original). *She* is the one who married British, and is now a Member of Parliament despite having been born and raised in America; but apparently not in this version, which I found very difficult to watch because of its poor quality.

The change of locale also makes no sense. In the original - and every other TV and film version made - the Boynton family are visiting the Holy Land, which is under British administration. The murder always happens in what was then still called Trans-Jordan, usually at Petra (in one adaptation, Qumrun). Here, they're in Syria where alleged archaeologist Lord Boynton is digging around to find the head of John the Baptist.

Earth to Lord Boynton: They did mummification in Egypt not Syria; and anyway, John the Baptist died in Jerusalem, not Syria - so you're definitely digging in the wrong place!

It's all just too ridiculous! Some reviewers have also complained apart Poirot's suddenly visible Catholicism. Although it's surprising and also makes no sense - he *is* a good Catholic but he is also a very modest one who keeps his faith to himself - it just adds to what was already a poorly written season in a mostly superb series.

Murder Is Easy (1982 TV Movie)

Surprisingly Not Bad

[8/10 · 17 November 2016]

American adaptations of Agatha Christie (especially for television) tend to be on the low end of the scale. It's principally the writing, secondarily the directing – i.e. the writers and directors mold the Christie work into something they *think* American audiences want instead of giving us what we actually *do* want – which, when it comes to English murder mysteries, is the same thing the English want.

So, I was greatly taken by surprise so see that *this* adaptation of *Murder is Easy* was NOT bad. It is not grade 'A' quality by a long shot; but it is definitely a high 'B' grade. And it is certainly more faithful to the original than the 2008 adaptation (which has a lot of *very* bizarre flights of fancy that do NOT make for a better story; just a bizarre one).

In this version, Luke is not a retired policeman from India but a computer expert from America; but the age difference is the same (or at least Bixby was 20 years older than Down, which is the age difference in the novel). Lavinia Pinkerton has become Lavinia Fullerton for some reason, but she's killed the same way under either surname. Gordon Ragg, Lord Whitfield (no known relation to June) has become Lord Easterfield (in full credit, Lord Gordon Easterfield; but Easterfield would be his lordship, not his surname - so he might still be a Ragg, at least by birth). Honoria Waynflete, Rose Humbleby, and the rest (so far as I can tell) are all the same.

The plot develops steadily and cleanly, as the suspense slowly builds. As in the novel, Luke believes the killer is a certain individual – which, of course, is a classic signal to reader and viewer that it must be someone else; but who? Ah, therein lies the mystery – and when the identity of the killer is finally revealed, it *is* a surprise (unless, of course, you have already read the book) because it is somebody whom nobody would suspect.

And as long as nobody suspects you ... Murder is Easy.

Side Note for Radio Fans: The best adaptation of this novel to date (November 2016) is one that was done a few years ago for BBC Radio 4 by Joy Wilkinson. It stars Patrick Baladi (New Tricks, Poirot), Lydia Leonard (The 39 Steps - 2008 version), Michael Cochrane (Downton Abbey), Marcia Warren (Agatha Raisin, Dangerfield), and a lot of other very good British actors that most Americans will not have heard of.

Surveillance 24/7 (2007)

Not Nearly As Bad As Some Overly Critical Posters Have Said

[7/10 · 12 November 2015]

The point is made at the opening of the film that, thanks to everybody and his sister having CCTV everywhere - from public bus and train services to private business establishments, especially retail stores - it's possible to track a "target" from point A to point B very easily.

And that is how a few of everybody and half their sisters are able to keep an eye on Adam, mild-mannered IT teacher at a private school for boys. Thought it is hard to believe, as stated at the opening, that all of the shots actually *were* drawn from CCTV cameras. Anyway, that's the theory.

Anyway, Adam spends the night with someone who ends up dead because he had a secret that involved somebody in the Royal Family. The establishment (i.e. the government of the day, as distinct from the Royal Family - who have no control over such things) did not care about the secret as long as it was secret but the establishment does care about someone's not-so-veiled threats to make the secret public.

But the documentation is not found on the person on someone after his demise because Adam apparently picked up someone's phone by mistake, not realising he already had his own phone stuffed away wherever he had it stuffed. It's when he goes to give the phone back to someone that he almost gets stuffed himself.

So Adam goes to old girlfriend who's a journalist, and she gets in on the act as someone *else* - actually "elses"; it takes a while for Adam to realise that more than one bunch of someone elses are after him - starts making things difficult for Adam.

The climactic scene is very climactic and presents a twist ending that was not expected. In the end, everything ends up normal and safe for Adam, and no harm done - except for one of his best friends getting killed in the process.

Hopefully, I have not given too much of the plot away. In terms of technicalities, the direction is fine, the story is good, and the acting ranges from very good to not bad. The script could be more tightly written, and the plot could be organised *much* better than it is.

Another reviewer has complained about plot holes. I didn't notice any actual holes but because the plot is not as well organised as it could be it is very easy for parts of the plot to hide, and some of them might by hiding in holes (hence the term, "hidey-hole," I suppose).

I think what another reviewer called "sub-plots" is actually meant to be background information about the characters. There's really just the one plot. The film is meant to be a more or less simple melodrama, so it's important that one do not dig too deeply for meaning or motivation, or you'll end up passing it.

Otherwise, we need to actually see Amy's reason for getting involved; and there needs to be a better reason for the biker getting killed (or that bit needs to be scrapped - e.g. put him in hospital with an accident). But mostly the plot needs better organisation and the writing needs to be tightened up, to make it more suspenseful and less confusing.

Worth seeing as a matinée or other cheap show, though it's probably not making the rounds of theatres any more. Worth having the DVD if you can get it free or cheap, so you've got something to watch on a rainy weekend afternoon when you're tired of perennial repeats of Tarzan and Shirley Temple.

It could be a lot better than it is, and perhaps someone will re-make it as a better film someday soon. But it's not nearly as bad as some of the other reviewers have said.

Consenting Adult (1985 TV Movie)

Good Semi-Autobiographical Movie

[8/10 · 15 September 2006]

Laura Z. Hobson, 1900 - 1986, ("Gentlemen's Agreement") published "Consenting Adult" in 1975 about her experience as the mother of a gay son. She adopted one child in 1937, then bore one herself in 1941 -- don't know which one was the son in question, but he would have been in college either c. 1954 - 1958 (older child) or c. 1958 - 1962 (younger child). I found that information helps to put the mood of the piece into temporal perspective -- especially the psychological therapy. When Hobson published the book in 1975, homosexuality had just been removed from the DSM - the manual that lists all recognised mental illnesses, dysfunctions and disorders - in 1973; and attitudes had changed even more by the time ABC did the TV movie in 1985 (a year before Hobson died at age 86).

But when the real "Jeff" came out to his mother around 1960, it was a *very* different world; and one in which homosexuality was *very* much still a mental illness for which you be committed to a mental hospital, particularly by your parents - and the age of majority in those days was *21* not 18.

1960-esque mood aside, the timing in the TV movie was relatively contemporary (i.e., 1980-ish). Jeff's sexuality is an issue for his parents, but it's not a big issue for his older sister; and there's a scene when Jeff and his boyfriend Stuart are playfully affectionate in the cafeteria where they're both enrolled in med school - and nobody bats an eye. (*That's* not the early 1960's, when nobody in med school would have been playful with *anything* -- grad students were a *lot* more serious back then.)

As to the TV movie, Tubb is seriously cute, though still very much learning his craft at the time. (You can definitely tell he's a new actor in this show.) Sheen and Thomas are good, as usual. Interestingly, this movie was about a dozen years after Martin Sheen played a gay man himself, opposite Hal Holbrook with Hope Lange as Holbrook's ex-wife, in *That Certain Summer*. (Sheen and Lange had a beautiful exchange of lines at one point- Gary (Sheen): If I were a woman, this would all be acceptable. Janet (Lange): If you were a woman, I would know how to compete with you.)

In *Consenting Adult,* Jeff's father finally comes to accept that his son is gay and writes him a letter to tell him so ("Who needs a gay man for a son? I do.") - but he dies before he screws up enough courage to mail it.

Jeff's mother, meanwhile, doesn't have a problem with Jeff being gay in theory - but as she says to her best friend, Tess: I swear, Claire, I've accepted it -- as long as I don't have to see him in that life. Claire: Then have you *really* accepted it?

The movie ends with Tess calling Jeff (Stuart answers, "It's your mom") to invite herself over for dinner, and she mentions she'd like Stuart to be there, too. Tess: He's important to you, isn't he? Jeff: Yes, he is. Tess: Well, then, I'd like to meet him.

Excellent film for gay teens and college students to see. I had already seen *That Certain Summer* when I was 12, but I still found it a very affirming experience to watch this movie. In fact, I watched it with my mother - and perhaps more importantly, *she* found it very affirming, too.

Proteus (2003)

Part Art Film, Part Historical Drama, Part Interracial Gay Love Story

[9/10 · 28 April 2006]

The important thing to know when going into this film is that it's first an art film; second, an historical drama; and finally and interracial gay love story.

As an art film, it meanders and intermingles elements of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries - from 1725 to 1964 - as a cinematic illustration of the maxim plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - the more things change, the more they stay the same.

As an historical drama, it is based on an actual case and uses the names of the two men. The real relationship, however, began about 1715 (not 1725, as presented in the film) when Rijkhaart Jacobsz and Claas Blank were about 16 years old. They had been together 20 years when they were executed in 1735 about age 36. Their relationship was not particularly secret, and apparently not particularly shocking - so the reason for their trial and execution can only be speculated. The most likely explanation is that the sodomy panic that gripped The Netherlands in 1731 made its way down to Cape Town by 1735.

One of the amazing things about the real court case is that the testimonial evidence of the Khoi defendant, as well as the Dutch one, was recorded. Usually, there's just notes as to what the Black defendant said, not his (or her) actual words. So, for some reason, Claas Blank sufficiently impressed the Cape Colony authorities that he was treated essentially the same as a white convict.

Proteus is a poignant film, and a fine example of contemporary South African (and Canadian) cinema.

An American in Canada (2002–2004)

Old Joke But Otherwise Good

[16 April 2006]

As the title implies, an American moves up to Canada - and to his surprise, he discovers he's living in a foreign country! Amusing for me, since I grew up on the U.S. side of the Metro Detroit/Windsor area, as a fifth-generation American-born expatriot Canadian -- so, I have something of a different take on the joke about Americans knowing nothing about Canada (except maybe moose and Mounties, and Austin Powers); because, in Metro Detroit/Windsor/Toledo, we all grow up watching the CBC (avec l'exception des Michiganois(es), qui se grandisent à voir le SRC télévision).

Anyway, the gist of the series is that an American who knows nothing about Canada ends up learning a lot about Canada and, in the process, learns a lot about himself and the really important things in life.

As to the basic premise of American ignorance of Canada, I should say the matter is understated. Americans don't know much about ANYBODY, even other Americans. And it should be noted that Canadians do NOT know as much about Americans as they think they do. For example, Canadians often remark that one of the differences between the two countries is that Canada has two official languages whereas the United States has only one. In fact, the United States has NO official language, and the First and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, together, probably forbid the U.S. Government from establishing one as power reserved to the several states. (In contrast to Canada, where all power not assigned to the provinces by the Canadian Constitution is reserved the federal government; all powers not assigned by the U.S. Constitution to the American federal government are reserved to the governments of the 50 states.) But I digress.

Most of the series after the first couple of episodes focuses on Jake Crew's burgeoning journey of self-discovery (to the extent one can pursue self-discovery in a sitcom - or in this case, a "Can-com"), and his slowly developing relationship with Judy.

Not great or rip-roaring fun, but a nice "Sunday-ish" bit of low comedy.

Guns, Germs, and Steel (2005)

Good Historical Review; High Production Values; Worth Watching

[8/10 · 10 February 2006]

Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.

I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.

The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power.

I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.

Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.)

So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.

If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school.