Below is a list of my favorite episodes from Season Two of the All Access CBS series, “STAR TREK: DISCOVERY”. Created by Bryan Fuller and Alex Kurtzman, the series stars Sonequa Martin-Green as Commander Michael Burnham:
FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF “STAR TREK DISCOVERY” SEASON TWO (2019)
1. (2.11) “Perpetual Infinity” – Commander Michael Burnham of the U.S.S. Discovery has a surprising reunion with someone she had believed to be long dead, during the crew’s investigation of the phenomenon, Red Angel. Section 31 operatives Philippa Georgiou and former Starfleet officer/Klingon warrior Ash Tyler aka Voq sense a disturbing change in their commander, Captain Leland.
2. (2.09) “Project Daedalus” – The Discovery crew infiltrates Section 31’s headquarters and realizes that the artificial intelligence entity known as “Control” has destroyed it and may have possibly infiltrated the ship as well.
3. (2.05) “Saints of Imperfection” – In a race to save Ensign Sylvia Tilly’s life; Burnham, Astromycologist Lieutenant-Commander Paul Stamets, and the crew investigate the mycelial network, an alien landscape accessed, thanks to the ship’s spore drive. A surprising discovery awaits them and especially for Stamets.
4. (2.08) “If Memory Serves” – After saving her adoptive brother, the wanted Lieutenant Spock, from Section 31; Burnham escorts him to the banned homeworld of Talos IV in order to discover his connection to the Red Angel. Stamets attempts to reconnect with his previously dead partner, Dr. Hugh Culber, after the latter’s rescue from the mycelial network. And Tyler struggles to shed the suspicions of Discovery’s crew, due to his past as Voq and his earlier decision to stay on the Klingon homeworld.
5. (2.03) “Point of Light” – The lives of Tyler and Klingon leader L’Rell are threatened by a Klingon house leader named Kol-Sha on Qo’noS, when Georgiou appears with a plan to save them. Amanda Grayson arrives aboard Discovery with news for Burnham that Spock is wanted by Section 31 for the murder of three psychiatrists.
Many people would be surprised to learn that not many of Agatha Christie’s novels featured another one of her famous literary sleuths, Miss Jane Marple. The latter served as the lead in at least twelve novels, in compare to the thirty-three novels that starred her other famous sleuth, Hercule Poirot. It is because of this limited number of novels that the producers of “AGATHA CHRISTIE’S MARPLE” featured adaptations of Christie novels in which she appeared in the television films, but not in the novels. One of them is “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE”.
Based upon Christie’s 1958 novel, “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” opened with the murder of the Argyle family’s controlling matriarch, Rachel Argyle. Mrs. Argyle was a wealthy heiress who had adapted several children, due to her inability to have her own. She also proved to be a controlling – almost tyrannical – mother who managed to alienate her adoptive children and husband. It did not take the police very long to focus upon one suspect – the family’s black sheep, Jack “Jacko” Argyle. Apparently, the latter quarreled with the victim over money. Jacko claimed that he had been given a lift by a stranger, when Rachel was murdered. But said stranger never stepped up to give him an alibi and Jacko was hanged for the crime. Two years later found the Argyle family celebrating the family’s patriarch Leo Argyle to his secretary, Gwenda Vaughn. The latter had invited her former employer, Jane Marple, to attend the wedding. A day or two before wedding, a stranger named Dr. Arthur Calgary appeared at the family estate, claiming to be the stranger who had given Jacko a lift on the night of Rachel’s murder. Due to Dr. Calgary’s confession, the Argyle family and Gwenda found themselves under suspicion for murder.
As I have stated in other movie reviews, I never had a problem with changes in adaptations of novels and/or plays, as long as these changes worked. “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” featured a few changes. The biggest change featured in the inclusion of Jane Marple as the mystery’s main investigator. Arthur Calgary served in that role in the novel. The television film also featured the addition of a character that was not in the novel – Jacko’s fraternal twin Bobby Argyle. Another major change featured the film’s second murder victim. Screenwriter Stewart Harcourt switched the identity of the story’s second victim. And how did these changes work?
I have to be frank. The addition of Bobby Argyle to the story did not seemed to have much of an impact upon me. The character became the executor of his adopted mother’s will, which placed him in charge of her money and his siblings’ trust funds. The problem I had with his story arc is that audiences were left in the dark on whether he had lost their money when he committed fraud . . . or he simply lost his own money. As I had previously stated, Harcourt and director Moira Armstrong had switched the identity of the story’s second victim. I will not reveal the identities of both the old and new identities. But I must admit that the second victim’s death – at least in this television movie – added a rather sad and poignant touch to this adaptation. The last major change featured Jane Marple as the story’s major investigator. Arthur Calgary, the man who could have provided Jacko Argyle an alibi, was the main investigator in Christie’s novel. In this film, he was more or less regulated to the role of a secondary character. Ironically, this change did not diminish his role, for Calgary more or less served as Miss Marple’s eyes, ears and feet; while remained at the Argyle estate. And this meant several scenes that featured Calgary engaging in a good deal of investigations on Miss Marple’s behalf.
Despite these changes, “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE” more or less retained the main narrative Christie’s story. More importantly, I thought both Harcourt’s screenplay and Armstrong’s direction did an excellent job in maintaining the story’s angst, poignancy and more importantly, irony. Thanks to the director and screenwriter, “ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE” conveyed how Rachel Argyle’s presence managed to cast a shadow upon her family. And how her absence lifted that shadow, until Dr. Calgary’s revelation about Jacko’s innocence. I was also impressed at how the television movie did an effective, yet subtle job in conveying the bigotry faced by the family’s only person of color – Christina “Tina” Argyle.
While watching “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE”, it occurred to me that Christie’s tale would not have worked if it had not been for the cast’s exceptional performances. All of them, I believe, really knocked it out of the ballpark. Mind you, there were solid performances from supporting cast members like Reece Shearsmith, Andrea Lowe, Camille Coduri, Pippa Haywood, and James Hurran. But I must confess that I was really impressed by those who portrayed members of the Argyle household. Burn Gorman radiated a mixture of charm and slime as the doomed Jacko Argyle. Richard Armitage was equally memorable as the avaricious and bitter ex-R.A.F. pilot who had married into the Argyle family, Philip Durrant. Singer Lisa Stansfield gave a subtle performance as Philip’s emotional, yet reserved wife Mary Argyle Durant, blinded by intense love for her husband. I enjoyed Bryan Dick’s portrayal of the volatile Micky Argyle, but there were moments when he threatened to be over-the-top. Gugu Mbatha-Raw, on the other hand, gave a performance that matched Stansfield’s subtlety as the blunt Tina Argyle, who hid her resentment of the racism she faced behind a sardonic mask. Stephanie Leonidas gave an effectively tense performance as the family’s youngest member, Hester Argyle, struggling to face her past involvement with brother-in-law Philip. And the always reliable Tom Riley did an excellent job with his portrayal of morally questionable Bobby Argyle.
But the performances that really impressed me came from the cast’s more veteran performers. Geraldine McEwan was marvelous as always in conveying the quiet intelligence of Miss Jane Marple. Despite being on the screen for only a few minutes, Jane Seymour really knocked it out of the park and domineering and sharp-tongued Rachel Argyle. She made it easy to see how the character managed to cast a shadow over the Argyle family. Julian Rhind-Tutt struck me as both entertaining and effective as the scholarly Dr. Arthur Calgary, who gave Jacko Argyle his alibi two years too late. What I found impressive about Rhind-Tutt’s performance is that he managed to convey his character’s intelligence and strength behind the nebbish personality. Alison Steadman’s portrayal of the Argyle’s judgmental housekeeper struck me as both subtle and frightening – especially in her stubborn belief that Gwenda Vaughn was Rachel’s killer. Denis Lawson has my vote for the best performance in “ORDEAL OF INNOCENCE”. There . . . I said it. And I stand by this. Lawson did a brilliant job in conveying the weak and suggestible personality of Leo Argyle. There were moments when I could not decide whether I liked him or despised him. It is not every day one comes across a fictional character brimming with quiet charm and unreliability.
It has been years since I saw the 1984 television adaptation of Christie’s 1958 novel. So, I have no memories of it. And I have seen the recent 2018 television adaptation. But I must be honest. I really enjoyed this 2007 adaptation. Yes, it has a few flaws. But I really believe that it did a superb job in conveying the poignant and ironic aspects of the novel. And I have director Moira Armstrong, screenwriter Stewart Harcourt and a superb cast led by Geraldine McEwan to thank.
The following is Chapter Eighteen of my story about a pair of free black siblings making the journey to California in 1849:
Chapter Eighteen – Monuments of the Trail
June 18, 1849 The past several days have been uneventful since our departure from Ash Hollow. Mrs. Robbins and I have maintained a close eye upon both Mr. Cross and Miss Watkins, since that evening we found them . . . together inside one of the caves. Perhaps their meeting proved to be a single occurrence. I hope so, for their sake. Mr. Cross and Miss Watkins’ employer, Mr. Anderson, have detested each other since our crossing of the Big Blue River.
Today marked the first time our wagon train encountered anything of interest. Mr. Wendell pointed out two rock formations that struck me as somewhat imposing. One of them seemed shaped like a government building of some kind. Mr. Wendell informed us that travelers called it “Courthouse Rock”. The other formation is called “Jail Rock”. Why? I have no idea. One of the Palmer brothers commented that it resembled nothing more than a towering lump of rock. During our noon halt, some of us ventured toward the rocks for a closer look. I must admit that “Courthouse Rock” looked even more magnificent up close. As for Jail Rock . . . it looked imposing, but I decided that I could not agree more with Mr. Palmer.
By the time we paused for the evening halt, our wagon train camped just south of another rock formation called “Chimney Rock”. It resembled a narrow pillar atop a large mound of rock. A party had been organized to explore around its base. Mr. Wendell offered to act as my escort, but Benjamin forbade me to be alone in his company, especially in the late afternoon and early evening. I reminded Benjamin that Mr. Wendell and I will be in the company of others. He still forbade me to join the expedition. In the end, I had to suggest that he accompany Mr. Wendell and me. He agreed. Is it just me or is my brother becoming something of a tyrant? I hope not.
June 19, 1849 While eating breakfast, I notice something rather interesting. I saw Mr. Gibson observing Mr. Cross, while the other ate. He also seemed to be interested in the activities of Miss Watkins. It occurred to me that Mrs. Gibson had revealed what transpired between Mr. Cross and Miss Watkins back at Ash Hollow. I wonder if Mrs. Robbins had told her husband. If Benjamin ever learns about the two, it will not be from me.
June 20, 1849 The wagon train encountered another rock formation along the trail. This one is called “Scott’s Bluff”. It was named after a trader named Hiram Bluff, who had died nearby some twenty years ago. Mr. James decided that the bluff would serve as the perfect location for our noon halt.
I must admit that I found Scott’s Bluff to be a magnificent sight to behold. It seemed much more impressive than the formations that we had encountered during the past two days. It reminded me of a castle or a massive citadel in the middle of the Plains. I wonder how many other natural wonders await us on the trail.
For some reason, I still find it hard to believe that until recently, very few people were aware that the first adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1811 novel, “Sense and Sensibility”, dated as far back as 1971. After all, people have been aware of other Austen adaptations during this same period or earlier. Even the Wikipedia site fails to mention it, except in connection with one of the cast members. What was about this four-part miniseries that eluded so many Austen fans?
In “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”, a wealthy landowner named Mr. Dashwood dies, leaving his two daughters and second wife at the mercy of his son by his first marriage, thanks to the rules of inheritance. When the son fails to financially help his sisters and stepmother, the trio are forced to live at a meager cottage, thanks to the generosity of Mrs. Dashwood’s cousin. The miniseries follows the love lives of the sisters, while they deal with their new penniless status.
I could have went into greater detail about Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. But what would have been the point? Austen’s novel and the other adaptations have made both their story and characters well known to fans. Everyone knows that the Dashwood sisters’ penniless state have made them undesirable as potential mates among the English upper-class. And many know that Elinor Dashwood is the older and more sensible sister, who kept her emotions suppressed behind a facade of stoic behavior. They also know that Marianne is the younger sisters, whose romantic enthusiasm led to emotional excesses and irrational behavior. Was there something unique about this adaptation of Austen’s novel? Hmmm. Other than it was probably the first version of the 1811 novel and the first of four versions to exclude the character of the youngest Dashwood sister, Margaret.
Overall, I believe that “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” turned out to be an entertaining and well-paced television miniseries. But it was not perfect. One, I felt that screenwriter Denis Constanduros made a few missteps in his adaptation. I wish that Constanduros had included a scene featuring John Dashwood’s last conversation with his dying father. I felt that his eventually betrayal of his promise, due to his wife’s capriciousness would have possessed more bite. I also felt that Constanduros could have included more scenes featuring Marianne and John Willoughy’s courtship. The period between their first meeting and Willoughby’s decision to end their romance seemed to go by in a flash. It happened too soon for me to understand Marianne’s grief over his rejection of her. Although there were a good deal of exterior shots of the English countryside, I wish there had been more exterior shots of early 19th century London, during the sisters’ trip. The London sequences made the miniseries feel more like a filmed play. And why on earth did Constanduros allowed Elinor to pay a visit to Edward Ferrars’ London rooms alone? What was he thinking? He should have allowed Elinor to summon Edward to Mrs. Jennings’ home in order to deliver Colonel Brandon’s news about a new job. I have one last major problem. Why on earth did costume designer had Elinor and Marianne wearing identical traveling outfits? They were not twin sisters. And no siblings from an upper-class family – especially of the female gender – would be caught dead in this manner:
What was costumer designer Charles Knode thinking?
I also had some problems with the casting and performances. I had a real problem with actress Ciaran Madden’s performance as Marianne Dashwood. How can I put it? It was over-the-top. I realize that she was at least 25 years old at the time this production was filmed. But did she and director David Giles really thought an exaggerated performance was necessary to portray the emotional 17 year-old Marianne? Was that their idea of portraying an emotional adolescent? And why would actor Michael Alderidge use a strong, regional accent for his portrayal of Sir John Middleton? I realize that his mother-in-law and wife came from a middle-class background. But Sir John and his cousin Mrs. Dashwood, did not. Both actresses who portrayed the Steele sisters – Frances Cuka and Maggie Jones – seemed at least a decade-and-a-half too old for their roles. And Kay Gallie’s Fanny Dashwood seemed like such a major disappointment. Her Fanny struck me as too passive-aggressive and nervous in compare to the other actresses who portrayed the role.
But despite some disappointments, I must admit that “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” turned out to be a pretty good production. Hell, I like it a lot more than I do the 1981 television version. Thanks to Constanduros’s script and Giles’ direction, the four-part miniseries struck me as well paced – aside from Marianne and Willoughby’s courtship. Aside from the traveling outfits, I must admit that I found Knode’s costume designs both colorful and elegant. And like the 1995 movie, I was happy to see that the screenplay allowed Marianne to become aware of Colonel Brandon before her meeting with Willoughby . . . allowing the pair’s eventual romance in the last episode very credible.
There were also some very good performances in “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”. I found myself surprisingly impressed by Richard Owens’ performance as Colonel Brandon. At first, I barely paid attention to him. But I must admit that his performance actually grew on me and I thought he did a credible job of slowly revealing Brandon’s passion for Marianne. Despite his strong regional accent, I must admit that Michael Aldridge was perfectly cast as Mrs. Dashwood’s gregarious cousin, Sir John Middleton. And despite her age, Frances Cuka did a very good of conveying Lucy Steele’s manipulations regarding Edward, Elinor and the Ferrars family . . . even if I found it a bit obvious. I was very impressed by Milton Johns’ performance as Elinor and Marianne’s spineless older half-brother John Dashwood. In fact, I feel that he gave one of the better performances in the miniseries. Robin Ellis gave a solid, yet charming performance as Edward Ferrars. However, I must admit that I was not that impressed by his screen chemistry with Joanna David’s Elinor. In an ARTICLE I had written about Jane Austen’s rogues, I had originally stated that I found Clive Francis’ portrayal of the caddish John Willoughby unmemorable. I take it back. On a second viewing, I found myself surprisingly impressed by his performance. I think I may have been distracted by the so-called Regency wig he was wearing . . . or the speed of the Marianne-Willoughby courtship. But I thought Francis, who went on to co-star with Ellis in the “POLDARK” series a few years later, gave a very complex and satisfying performance.
But there were two performances in “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” that I found outstanding. One of them belonged to Joanna David, who was perfect – well . . . almost – as Elinor Dashwood. She was one of the few performers who managed to restrain from “playing to the second balcony” as many other stage-trained actors tend to do. Mind you, there were moments when she seemed incapable of projecting Elinor’s passionate nature behind the sensible facade. But more than any other person in the cast, she did a superb job in carrying the miniseries on her shoulders. The other outstanding performance turned out to be Patricia Rutledge’s portrayal of the vivacious Mrs. Jennings, Sir John’s mother-in-law. She was in her early 40s at the time and technically, too young for the role. But I cannot deny that Rutledge seemed like the very personification of the verbose and interfering, yet warm-hearted widow. Of the four Mrs. Jennings I have seen, only Elizabeth Spriggs from the 1995 movie seemed her equal.
“SENSE AND SENSIBILITY” is not the best adaptation of Jane Austen’s 1811 novel, despite being the first. And it possessed certain aspects in both the script and casting that I found questionable. But thanks to David Giles’ direction, Denis Constanduros’ screenplay, and superb performances especially from Joanna David and Patricia Rutledge; I feel that it turned out to be a pretty damn good adaptation in the end. I would highly recommend it.
Below is a list of my favorite television productions about the British Empire:
FAVORITE TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS ABOUT THE BRITISH EMPIRE
1. “Black Sails” (2014-2017) – Jonathan E. Steinberg and Robert Levine created this historical adventures series that is a prequel to Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1883 novel, “Treasure Island”. Toby Stephens, Hannah New and Luke Arnold starred.
2. “Heat of the Sun” (1998) – Russell Lewis and Timothy Prager created this crime drama limited series about a British police officer in early 1930s Kenya. Trevor Eve starred.
3. “The Jewel in the Crown” (1984) – Art Malik, Geraldine James, Charles Dance and Tim Pigott-Smith starred in this fourteen-episode adaptation of Paul Scott’s Raj Quartet novels (1965–1975) about the last years of the British Empire in India. The series was created by Christopher Morahan, Jim O’Brien, Ken Taylor and Irene Shubik.
4. “Outlander” (2014-present) – Caitriona Balfe and Sam Heughan stars in this television adaptation of Diana Gabaldon’s novels about a former English World War II nurse who ends up time traveling to the 18th century. Ronald D. Moore developed the series.
5. “Indian Summers” (2015-2016) – Paul Rutman created this series about the collision of the British and Indian communities in Simla, during the British Raj in the early-to-mid 1930s. Henry Lloyd-Hughes, Nikesh Patel, Jemima West and Julie Walters starred.
6. “Noble House” (1988) – Pierce Brosnan starred in this television adaptation of James Clavell’s 1981 about a business tycoon and the British business community in Hong Kong during the late 20th century. Directed by Gary Nelson; Deborah Ruffin, John Rhys-Davies and Ben Masters co-starred.
7. “The Far Pavilions” (1984) Ben Cross and Amy Irving starred in this television adaptation of M.M. Kaye’s 1978 novel about an English Army officer in India during the 1870s. Peter Duffell directed.
8. “The Long Song” (2018) – Tamara Lawrence starred in this television adaptation of Andrea Levy’s 2010 novel about a Jamaica woman’s memories of the last years of British slavery and early years of emancipation during the 1830s. Hayley Atwell and and Jack Lowden co-starred.
9. “The Letter” (1982) – Lee Remick starred in this television remake of W. Somerset Maugham’s 1927 stage play about rubber plantation administrator’s wife, who claims self-defense after shooting a neighbor. Directed by John Erman, the television movie co-starred Ronald Pickup, Jack Thompson and Ian McShane.
10. “The Flame Trees of Thika” (1981) – Haley Mills, Holly Aird and David Robb starred in this adaptation of Elspeth Huxley’s 1959 book about British settlers in pre-World War I Kenya. Roy Ward Baker directed.
Honorable Mention: “George Washington” (1984) – Barry Bostwick starred in this three-part miniseries about George Washington – from childhood to the end of the American Revolution. Directed by Buzz Kulick, the miniseries co-starred Patty Duke, David Dukes and Jaclyn Smith.
I might as well be honest. I wish I could be objective about the “STAR TREK VOYAGER” Season Three episode, (3.24) “Displaced”. But I cannot. My feelings for this episode are too strong. Let me explain.
Lisa Klink wrote the teleplay for this episode about Voyager’s crew members being replaced, one-by-one, with aliens from an unknown race. While arguing over a Klingon workout program that Chief Helmsman Tom Paris had created for the Holodeck, the pilot and Voyager’s Chief Engineer, B’ElannaTorres, are interrupted by a strange alien that has appeared aboard ship from nowhere. This phenomenon occurs over and over again, until both Captain Janeway and Commander Chakotay realizes that this new alien race – called the Nyrians – are bent upon taking control of Voyager . . . but without the use of brute force. Eventually, the entire crew end up as prisoners on a habitat that also contains prisoners from other races whose ships and colonies were also conquered by the Nyrians in a similar manner.
Amidst the alien takeover of the ship, the continuation of the blossoming relationship between the ship’s Chief Helmsman, Lieutenant Tom Paris and Chief Engineer Lieutenant B’Elanna Torres hits a snag. In a previous episode called (3.23) “Distant Origin”, Paris had made a bet with Torres over the reason behind a ship malfunction. The Chief Helmsman won the bet and Torres was forced to participate with him in a Klingon exercise program in the Holodeck. Being inclined to avoid her Klingon heritage as much as possible, Torres resents that Paris is interested in all aspects of her entire self – both Human and Klingon. And later in the episode, both Torres and the Doctor revealed Tom’s own insecurities and his tendency to use jokes to hide them.
Temperatures seemed to have played a major role in “Displaced”. From Paris and Torres’ heated argument over his Klingon martial arts program to the Nyrians and Torres’ low tolerance of cold temperatures, and to finally the warm reconciliation between the two future lovers inside the Holodeck. It was good to see Voyager’s crew – especially Janeway and Tuvok – work at retaking control of Voyager by utilizing the Nyrians’ teleportation system. I especially found Janeway’s ultimatums for the Nyrian leaders inside their habitat rather satisfying.
But what really made this episode rocked – at least for me – was the continuation of Paris and Torres’ courtship that began when the Chief Pilot made his first overture in (3.04) “The Swarm”, earlier in the season. By the time “Displaced” had aired – some twenty episodes later – Paris has been in earnest pursuit of Torres. Lisa Klink had wonderfully brought out Paris’ determination to reveal to Torres, his interest in everything about her – and that included both her Human and Klingon sides – despite how she may have felt about the latter. Klink also did an excellent job of revealing the pair’s insecurities, which ended up providing many roadblocks to their romance and eventual marriage over three years later. Late Season Three and early Season Four had featured some of the best moments in the Paris/Torres relationship. At least until Season Seven. And among those gems included scenes from this episode.
Below are what I consider highlights from “Displaced”:
*Paris and Torres’ quarrel over the Klingon martial arts program *Tuvok’s revelation to Chakotay about his survival training experience on Vulcan *Chakotay’s attempts to defend the ship from the Nyrians, reliving his old role as a Maquis captain *The Doctor’s exposure of both Paris and Torres’ insecurities inside the Nyrian habitat *Torres’ “I’m not hostile” conversation with Harry Kim and his fearful reaction to her tone *Paris and Torres’ frozen adventures inside another Nyrian habitat *Janeway and Tuvok’s efforts to gain control of the Nyrians’ teleportation system *Janeway’s confrontation with the Nyrian leaders
As I had earlier stated, I wish I could be objective about this episode. But how can I? Even after so many years, I still love it. Lisa Klink’s teleplay seemed to feature everything – adventure, romance, humor, intrigue and rich characterization. It is easy to see why I consider “Displaced” to be one of my favorite “STAR TREK VOYAGER” episodes of all time.
It is very rare to find a Hollywood action film that features a leading man under the age of twenty (20). But I recently came across one, when I saw Taylor Lautner’s 2011 film called “ABDUCTION”.
Directed by John Singleton and written by Shawn Christensen, “ABDUCTION” is an action thriller about a Pennsylvania teen who sets out to uncover the truth about his life after finding his baby photo on a missing persons website. Nathan Harper has a recurring nightmare featuring the death of an unknown woman and consults a psychiatrist named Dr. Geraldine Bennett to discover why. One day, Nathan is partnered with his neighbor and fellow classmate Karen Murphy for a school assignment about missing children. When Karen finds a website that shows how the children would look like as adults, Nathan discovers that a young boy named Steven Price would look exactly like him at an older age. Searching in his basement, he finds the same shirt that Steven is wearing in the picture and realizes that he and Steven are the same person. Nathan calls the website’s owner, unaware that he is a Russian terrorist named Viktor Kozlow.
Not long after Nathan’s call, Kozlow sends two of his agents to Nathan’s house. They attack Nathan’s parents, Kevin and Mara, who tell him to run before being murdered and the house is destroyed. Nathan and Karen escape and attempt to call the police, but the call is intercepted by CIA operative Frank Burton, who tells Nathan that he is in danger and sends a team to pick him up. Before the CIA’s arrival, Dr. Bennett appears and tells Nathan that Burton cannot be trusted and reveals that Nathan’s adoptive parents were CIA agents assigned to look after him. She also reveals that Nathan’s biological father, Martin, is a CIA agent who stole a list from Kozlow with the names of corrupt CIA operatives. Kozlow had created the website in order to locate Nathan and use him as leverage to force Martin to return the list.
When I first saw the preview for “ABDUCTION”, I had assumed it would be another “HANNA” – namely about a genetically enhanced adolescent trained to be an assassin. Thankfully, it did not turned out that way. I suspect that many critics would have been more satisfied if “ABDUCTION” had been another “HANNA”. Personally, I found “HANNA” to be a pretentious bore. And the last thing I wanted to see was another “profound” movie about some highly skilled teenager wanted by various governments and terrorists. “ABDUCTION” does feature a hunt by an intelligence agency and terrorist for an adolescent. But this hunt has nothing to do with him being genetically enhanced. Instead, he wanted as a bargaining chip for a source of valuable information.
Was “ABDUCTION” any good? Most critics seemed to think otherwise. A great deal of negative reviews practically swamped this film. And if I must be frank, “ABDUCTION” did not turn out to be another “DIE HARD” or “LETHAL WEAPON”. However, I do not find this surprising. No Hollywood producer would ever heavily finance an action thriller starring an 18-to-19 year-old actor, who was only known for co-starring in a series of Young Adult vampire flicks – at least not ten years ago. But I must admit . . . “ABDUCTION” was not a disappointment. In fact, I thought it was an entertaining movie. One, the movie featured a solid story about a teenager being used by the CIA and foreign terrorists, because of his father’s profession. Two, thanks to director John Singleton’s direction, “ABDUCTION” was a well-paced film that featured exciting action sequences and solid dramatic moments. I also have to commend Peter Menzies Jr. for his beautiful photography of Pittsburgh and the area around southwestern Pennsylvania.
Singleton also worked well with a cast that featured solid performances from the likes of Maria Bello, Jason Isaacs, Sigourney Weaver, Michael Nyqvist, Dermot Mulroney and Alfred Molina. Any of these performers could have easily carried this film. But it was all up to the likes of Taylor Lautner and his co-star, Lily Collins, to achieve this task. And while many critics and moviegoers may believe those two had failed, I would disagree. Actually, Lautner and Collins did a very good job – especially Lautner – in carrying the film. More importantly, both Lautner and Collins managed to create a great screen chemistry. Screenwriter Shawn Christensen could have easily ended this film on an illogical note by allowing the Nathan character to save the day and outwit the highly skilled Kozlow. Fortunately, the screenwriter used common sense and allowed Nathan to receive some much needed help in the end.
Would I view “ABDUCTION” as a potential film classic? No. I would say that it is a near-mediocre film. I say . . . near-mediocre, because I feel that it was able to somewhat raise above the line of mediocrity. As I had earlier stated, I would never consider “ABDUCTION” on the same level as the likes “DIE HARD” or “LETHAL WEAPON”. But I must admit that it was a pretty solid action thriller that would be great to watch on a rainy day, thanks to director John Singleton and his two leads, Taylor Lautner and Lily Collins.
The following is Chapter Seventeen of my story about a pair of free black siblings making the journey to California in 1849:
Chapter Seventeen – Respite at Ash Hollow
June 13, 1849 Two days had passed . . . two long days before Mr. Marcus Cross was deemed safe to join the wagon party. Personally, I felt outraged that he had been ostracized by the others for so long. One or two days seemed long enough for me. But four days? It is a miracle that the man did not go mad out of sheer loneliness. When Mr. Cross rejoined the train, resentment was practically stamped on his face. Between losing his kinsman and being “quarantined” by the rest of us seemed to have marred his temperament. One of Mr. Anderson’s companions – Miss Mary Lee Watkins of the blond curls – tried to express her sympathy, but she was prevented from doing so by him. Perhaps her actions would have been in vain. Mr. Cross barely said a word to anyone for the rest of the day.
June 14, 1849 The wagon party crossed the South Platte River, a body of water not worth commenting upon. Not long after the river crossing, we came to a difficult part of the trail. First, the train had to climb up a nearly steep hill called . . . well, the California Hill. After traversing that difficult ground, the wagon party traveled across a wide tableland that stretched between the north and south branches of the Platte through most of the day. But California Hill proved to be nothing in compare to what laid ahead. Some time around four in the afternoon, we faced the difficult task of traveling down a steep hill that Mr. James called Windlass Hill. Our wagon guide and Mr. Wendell organized a dozen to guide each wagon, one by one, down the hill using ropes. Considering the difficulty we had from keeping our wagons from rolling down that hill in haphazardness fashion and landing in a heap, it seemed as if the wind were behind us. The only person who came close to losing his wagon was Mr. Anderson. Naturally.
From the moment I first saw him and his two “companions” back at Council’s Bluff, he seemed out of his element. First, he nearly caused the Crosses’ wagon to capsize, while crossing the Big Blue and now he seemed incapable of handling his wagon during this trip downhill. He was acting as the “brakeman” in this particular incident and unexpectedly let go of the ropes. Thankfully, Mr. Wendell took control of the ropes from Mr. Anderson and acted as the new “brakeman”. Thanks to him, the men managed to guide Mr. Anderson’s mules and wagon to the bottom of the hill without any mishap.
The bottom of the Windlass Hill led to an area called Ash Hollow. Mr. James announced that our wagon party will remain here for one full day to recover from the journey and fresh water. Something that I truly look forward to.
June 15, 1849 Ash Hollow proved to be a godsend. One, it is a beautiful wooded area with ash and cedar trees, a backdrop of limestone cliffs, a creek and springs that provided much needed and appreciated fresh water. A house made from sod had also been built near the edge of Windlass Hill. Mr. James pointed out that it is used by westbound emigrants and mountain men as a post office. Emigrants and other travelers usually left letters and money for postage at the house for relatives back in the East, in the hope that some eastward bound traveler would take it “back to the States” with them.
After eating breakfast and tending our stock, some of us spent the time exploring the area. Benjamin, Mr. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins and I took a stroll along the creek, admiring the woods and natural habitats. Mr. Robbins commented that Ash Hollow could prove to be an ideal spot to establish a farm of some kind. I suspect that the sod house near the hill’s edge gave him this idea. I do not know if I would agree with him. There seemed to be too many hills and cliffs in the area. And if the only way to approach this spot from the east is by traversing two steep hills . . . well, I would consider another spot to settle.
Following our late afternoon supper, Mrs. Robbins invited both Mrs. Gibson and I to accompany her for a tour of a nearby cave. Mr. James warned us not to travel too deep into the cave. A month earlier, I would have been surprised by Mrs. Gibson’s willingness to accept my presence in this expedition. Neither she nor her husband had bothered to make the acquaintance of Benjamin and myself when we first left Independence and Council Grove. Either the Gibsons have become used to our presence, or Mrs. Gibson has learned to tolerate me, due to my friendship with Mrs. Robbins, the wagon party’s only other respectable white woman.
The stroll proved to pleasant activity for us all. All three of us had candles, in case the caves proved to be too dark or night fell before our return to the campsite. However, the pleasure of our expedition turned sour when we . . . Oh dear. I do not know if I could recall that moment again without reliving the shock and revulsion I had felt. Perhaps I should simply state that what Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Gibson and I came across something shocking. Very shocking. I might as well record it in this journal. About several feet into one of the caves’ openings, we came across Mr. Cross and one of Mr. Anderson’s “companions” – Miss Mary Lee Watkins of the blond curls, I believe – in flagrante. Both were in a state of undress . . . and rutting like barnyard animals.
Mr. Cross and Miss Watkins never noticed us. Their attention was deeply focused upon each other. My two companions and I stared in shock, before Mrs. Robbins dragged us away. I felt so shocked and disgusted by the sight that I found myself speechless. Mrs. Gibson threatened to expose the couple’s lustful activity to Mr. James. She also expressed suspicion that Miss Watkins might be “servicing” a couple. But Mrs. Robbins dismissed the idea, reminding us of the deep dislike between Mr. Cross and Mr. Anderson. She believed that Mr. Anderson would “rather chop off his right arm than allow one of his merchandise to provide any such pleasure to Mr. Cross. We decided to remain silent on the subject. But something tells me that none of us will ever forget it. I certainly will not.
LJONES66 
