Sunday, May 31, 2015
"A POCKET FULL OF RYE" (2009) Review
While the producers of "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" seemed to regard the 1930s as the "golden age" of Hercule Poirot mysteries, I get the feeling that the producers for both "MISS MARPLE" and the recent "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MARPLE" regard the 1950s in a similar manner for those stories featuring Miss Jane Marple. As a fervent reader of Christie's novels, I must admit that I believe most of the best Jane Marple mysteries had been published during the 1950s and the first half of the 1960s. One of those mysteries was the 1953 novel, "A Pocket Full of Rye".
The novel was first adapted into a television movie in the mid-1980s, which starred Joan Hickson. Another television adaptation aired on ITV some twenty-four-and-a-half years later, starring Julia McKenzie as Miss Marple. "A POCKET FULL OF RYE"centered around the mysterious death of a London businessman named Rex Fortescue. After drinking his morning tea at his office, the businessman dies suddenly, attracting the attention of the police in the form of Inspector Neele. Neele and his men discover rye grain in the dead man's pocket and that he had died from taxine, an alkaloid poison obtained from the leaves or berries of the yew tree. Neele realizes that Fortescue may have been initially poisoned at home due to presence of yew trees at the latter's country home and the time it took for the poison to work.
Fortescue's second and much younger wife, Adele, becomes the main suspect, due to her affair with a golf instructor at a nearby resort named Vivian Dubois. However, Adele is murdered, while drinking tea laced with cyanide. On the same day, a third victim is found in the garden, all tangled in the clothesline and with a peg on her nose. She was a maid named Gladys, who used to work for Jane Marple. When Gladys and Adele's murders are reported in the media, Miss Marple pays a visit to the Fortescue home to learn what happened to Gladys. Miss Marple informs Inspector Neele that she believes the three murders adhered to the nursery rhyme "Sing a Song of Sixpence", which may have something to do with one of Rex Fortescue's old dealings - the Blackbird Mine in Kenya, over which he was suspected of having killed his partner, MacKenzie in order to swindle it from the latter's family. However, an investigation of Fortescue's financial holdings and family connections reveal the possibility of other motives, as the following list of suspects would attest:
*Percival Fortescue - Rex's older son, who was worried over the financier's erratic handling of the family business
*Jennifer Fortescue - Percival's wife, who disliked her father-in-law
*Lance Fortescue - Rex's younger son, a former embezzler who had arrived home from overseas on the day of Adele and Gladys' murders
*Patricia Fortescue - Lance's aristocratic wife, who had been unlucky with her past two husbands
*Elaine Fortescue - Rex's only daughter, who resented his opposition to her romance with a schoolteacher
*Gerald Wright - Elaine's fiancé, a schoolteacher who resented Rex's hostile attitude toward him
*Mary Dove - the Fortescues' efficient housekeeper, who harbored a few secrets in her past
*Vivian Dubois - Adele's lover and professional golf instructor
*Mrs. MacKenzie - the slightly senile widow of Rex's former partner, who urged her children to seek revenge against the financier
I honestly did not know how I would view "A POCKET FULL OF RYE". To my surprise, I enjoyed it very much . . . aside from a few scenes that I felt were out of place. The movie turned out to be a well-paced mystery that featured some solid acting from the cast. Although not completely faithful to Christie's novel, the television movie proved to be a little more faithful, thanks to screenwriter Kevin Elyot and director Charlie Palmer. The character of Miss Henderson, Rex's religious sister-in-law from his first marriage, was deleted from this production. And I did not miss her. I am also very grateful that Elyot and Palmer stuck to the novel's original ending and avoided a ridiculous chase sequence that seemed to mar the 1985 adaptation. Although there was nothing really dramatic about the story's final scene, it projected an air of justice finally achieved that I found particularly satisfying, thanks to Julia McKenzie's performance.
I was also impressed by the movie's production values. One, production designer Jeff Tessler and his crew did a top-notch job of re-creating the movie's mid-1950s setting. I should add . . . "as usual". After all, Tessler worked as production designer for the "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S MARPLE" series since it debuted back in 2004. "A POCKET FULL OF RYE" proved to be the first of four episodes for the series, in which she served as costume designer. Her work in this film provided audiences with the color and top-notch skill in which she created costumes for that particular time period. Another veteran of the "A POCKET FULL OF RYE" was cinematographer Cinders Forshaw, whose sharp and colorful photography proved to be one of the hallmarks of the series. One thing I cannot deny about "A POCKET FULL OF RYE", it is damn beautiful to look at.
Did I have any problems with the movie? Well . . . yes. A few. Actually, I have only one major problem with the production . . . namely the addition of sexual situations in at least two or three scenes in the film. I am not a prude. Trust me, I am not. But . . . I found the sexual scenes featured in "A POCKET FULL OF RYE" out of place. Yes, the Christie novels have featured the topic of sex in many variations - including adultery, incest and homosexuality. And I have seen on-screen sex in one other production - namely 1965's "TEN LITTLE INDIANS" and 2004's "DEATH ON THE NILE". I have never seen "TEN LITTLE INDIANS". But the sex featured in "DEATH ON THE NILE" seemed so minimalized. I can say otherwise about "A POCKET FULL OF RYE" and the performers involved were clothed. But the way Palmer shot the scenes seemed so in-your-face. I can tolerate the scene featuring Adele Fortescue and Vivian Dubois. Personally, I thought their sex scene pretty much fit the narrative and confirmed (in a rather ham fisted manner) that the pair was involved in an affair. But the sex scenes featuring Lance and Patricia Fortescue seemed just as ham fisted. Even worse, I could not see how they served the narrative. The scene (or scenes) seemed to come out of no where.
I can certainly state that I had no problems with the performances in this production. Well, I had a problem with one performance. Julia McKenzie was excellent as soft-spoken Jane Marple, who seemed very determined to learn the murderer's identity, due to her past with one of the victims. I can also say the same about Matthew MacFadyen's performance, which struck me as intelligent, yet deliciously sardonic as Inspector Neele. I also enjoyed Helen Baxendale's subtle performance as the quiet, yet observant housekeeper, Mary Dove. On the other hand, Rupert Graves gave an exuberant and very entertaining portrayal of the Fortescue family's black sheep, Lance. And he clicked very well with actress Lucy Cohu, who gave a charming performance as Lance's wife, Patricia. Another interesting performance came from Liz White, who portrayed Rex Fortescue's enigmatic daughter-in-law, Jennifer. Actually, I believe she gave one of the better performances in the movie. Another first-rate performance came from Anna Madeley, who portrayed Rex's shallow and adulterous wife, Adele.
I really enjoyed Joseph Beattie's portrayal of Adele's sexy, yet desperate lover, Vivian Dubois. And Ben Miles gave a subtle, yet complex performance as Rex's pragmatic older son, Percival. Kenneth Cranham, Laura Haddock and Prunella Scales gave memorable performances as Rex Fortescue, his secretary, Miss Grosvenor and Mrs. MacKenzie. It seemed a pity they were not on the screen long enough for me to truly enjoy their performances. "A POCKET FULL OF RYE" also featured solid performances from Hattie Morahan, Chris Larkin, Ken Campbell, Wendy Richards and Rose Heiney.
"A POCKET FULL OF RYE" proved to be an entertaining movie and a worthy adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1953 novel. Along with a fine cast led by Julia McKenzie, I thought director Charlie Palmer and screenwriter Kevin Elyot handled the adaptation very well, aside from the sex scenes that struck me as unnecessary. Despite that . . . setback, I still managed to enjoy the movie.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Below is a list of my top five favorite episodes from Season Two (2008-2009) of NBC's "CHUCK". Created by Josh Schwartz and Chris Fedak, the series starred Zachary Levy:
TOP FIVE FAVORITE EPISODES OF "CHUCK" SEASON TWO (2008-2009)
1. (2.11) "Chuck Versus Santa Claus" - In this exciting yet emotional episode, an amateur criminal on the lam from the police crashes into the Buy More and take its employees, along with Chuck Bartowski's sister and fiancé hostage.
2. (2.08) "Chuck Versus the Gravitron" - Chuck, along with his handlers Sarah Walker and John Casey are shocked to discover that his ex-girlfriend, Jill Roberts is a FULCRUM agent in search of the Intersect. Chuck is asked to use his relationship with Jill to find a FULCRUM agent called Leader.
3. (2.22) "Chuck Versus the Ring" - In this season finale, Ellie Bartowski and Devon "Captain Awesome" Woodcomb's wedding nearly goes awry, when FULCRUM agent Ted Roark appears at the church to get his hands on the new Intersect, now being guarded by Chuck's old college friend, CIA agent Bryce Larkin.
4. (2.09) "Chuck Versus the Sensei" - Casey is shocked to discover that his former mentor and sensei, Ty Bennett, had become a rogue agent. Meanwhile, Devon's parents make a surprise visit to help him and Ellie plan their wedding.
5. (2.13) "Chuck Versus the Suburbs" - Chuck and Sarah pose as a married couple when they and Casey investigate a Los Angeles suburban neighborhood that might be a front for FULCRUM.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Below are images from "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON", the sequel to the 2012 blockbuster hit, "THE AVENGERS". The movie was written and directed by Joss Whedon:
"THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON" (2015) Photo Gallery
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
"FURIOUS 7" (2015) Review
Following the success of 2013's "FAST AND FURIOUS 6", I felt sure that the FAST AND FURIOUS movie franchise would finally end. After all, Universal Studios and director Justin Lin had proclaimed the fourth, fifth and sixth films as part of a trilogy. But to my utter surprise, the producers announced their intention for a seventh film by ending "FAST AND FURIOUS 6" on a cliffhanger.
Anyone who has seen the sixth film knows that Dominic Toretto, Brian O'Conner and their circle of friends had assisted Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Special Agent Luke Hobbs in taking down mercenary Owen Shaw in exchange for the clearance of their criminal records and finding Dom's lady love, the amnesiac Letty Ortiz. Their actions had left Shaw in a coma and a return to normal life. However, Dom and his friends learn that Shaw's older brother, a rogue special forces assassin named Deckard Shaw, is seeking revenge against the team for what happened to the younger brother. The end of"FAST AND FURIOUS 6" revealed that the older Shaw was responsible for Han-Seoul-Oh's death in Tokyo, which was first seen in the 2006 film, "THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT". Next, Shaw nearly kills both Agents Hobbs and Elena Neves in an explosion at the DSS Los Angeles Field Office, leaving Hobbs seriously wounded. After Shaw sends a package that destroys the Toretto home in Los Angeles, a C.I.A. covert team leader named Frank Petty recruits the remaining friends to help him prevent a mercenary named Mose Jakande from obtaining a computer program called the God's Eye that uses digital devices to track specific people, in exchange for allowing them to use the latter to find Shaw first. Unbeknownst to the others, Shaw has allied himself with Jakande to take down Dom, Brian and the others.
I must admit that on paper, "FURIOUS 7" struck me as a first-rate story. Screenwriter Chris Morgan, who has been writing for the franchise since "TOKYO DRIFT", did an excellent job of continuing the story first set up in "FAST AND FURIOUS 4". He even managed to skillfully connect some of the story acrs of the franchise's past films with this latest plot. This was especially the case for Han's death in "TOKYO DRIFT", his romance with Gisele Yashar and friendship with Sean Boswell; Letty's amnesia, which was never resolved in "FAST AND FURIOUS 6"; and, of course, the Shaw brothers. Morgan also did a solid job in utilizing the situation regarding Frank Petty, Mose Jakande and the God's Eye device for the team's search for Deckard Shaw. And although I feel that James Wan lacked Justin Lin's more technical skills as a director, I thought he did a pretty good job in handling a high budget production that was nearly derailed by Paul Walker's death.
One would have to be blind not to notice how beautiful "FURIOUS 7". Then again, that has been the case for the entire franchise since the first movie. One has to thank Stephen F. Windon, who has worked on the film franchise since"TOKYO DRIFT", and Marc Spicer for their colorful and sharp photography. The beauty of their work was especially apparent in the Abu Dhabi sequences. Speaking of Abu Dhabi, it also featured some of the movie's best action scenes. One of them featured a fight between Michelle Rodriguez's Letty Ortiz character and martial artist Ronda Rousey, who portrayed the head of security for an Abu Dhabi billionaire. Another featured an attempt by Dom and Brian to steal the billionaire's car, which contained the God's Eye device. This scene also led to one of the most spectacular stunts I have ever seen on film. In an attempt to escape the billionaire's security team, Dom drives the stolen car through a series of hi-rise buildings that . . . hell, I do not know how to describe this stunt. It has to be seen on the movie screen in order to believe it.
The movie also featured another over-the-top stunt, in which the team airdrop their cars over the Caucasus Mountains in Azerbaijan, in order to ambush Jakande's convoy and rescue Megan Ramsey, the creator of God's Eye. For some reason, I was not that particularly impressed with this particular stunt. Perhaps it is because I found the sequence a little too frantic and clumsily shot. The best aspect of the Azerbaijan sequence was the fight scene between Brian and one of Jakande's men, a martial artist named Ket. Not surprisingly, the film's producers hired martial artist/actor Tony Jaa to portray Ket. They were also lucky in that Paul Walker had been a martial artist for several years, himself. The pair, along with fight choreographer Jeff Imada, created a first-rate fight scene. They also managed to repeat themselves with another excellent fight scene staged inside an empty building in downtown Los Angeles. Imada also served as the choreographer between the Rodriguez/Rousey fight scene in Abu Dhabi and a surprisingly effective fight between Dwayne Johnson's Luke Hobbs and Jason Statham's Deckard Shaw near the film's beginning. The only fight scene that failed to impressed me occurred between Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto and Shaw on a downtown L.A. parking structure. If I must be honest, there seemed to be too much testosterone and dialogue, and not enough skillful moves to impress me. It almost seemed as if director James Lin overdid it in his attempt to transform this particular fight into a showstopper. Instead, the fight simply bored me.
However, the Toretto/Shaw fight scene was not the only disappointing aspect of "FURIOUS 7". I had other problems with the movie. Exactly how many years had passed between "FAST AND FURIOUS 6" and "FURIOUS 7"? After watching the 2013 movie, I had assumed that Deckard Shaw had killed Han Seoul-Oh at least a few months after the events of the movie. But in "FAST AND FURIOUS 6", Brian O'Conner and Mia Toretto's son Jack was still an infant. "FURIOUS 7"revealed that young Jack was a toddler between the ages of 2-5 around the time of Han's death. So . . . I am confused. Another problem I had with the film was the dialogue written by Chris Morgan. I might as well be frank. Dialogue has never been a strong point with the FAST AND FURIOUS franchise. But I was surprised that only three characters were forced to spew some of the worst dialogue I had ever heard in the entire movie franchise. And that bad dialogue came out of the mouths of Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham. It seemed as if the three actors were engaged in some kind of verbal testosterone contest to see who is the toughest. No wonder some critics had claimed that the movie's three worst performances came from them. And if this was not bad enough, I had to endure that uber-macho fight scene between Diesel and Statham that really unimpressed me. Worse, the movie featured a moment in which the convalescing Agent Hobbs becomes aware of a struggle between Dom's team and the combined Shaw/Jakande alliance inside his hospital room. So, what does he do? Hobbs flexes a muscle, forcing his cast to tear apart. It was one of the most wince-inducing moments I have ever seen on film.
According to the movie's publicists, Universal Studios and the producers had decided not to kill off the Brian O'Conner character, because of actor Paul Walker's death. For that I am utterly grateful. Learning about his death had been difficult enough. I certainly did not want to see the same for his character on screen. However, the public was told that instead of being killed off, Brian's character would retire at the end of the movie. This announcement left me confused. Retire from what? Brian's law enforcement career ended in "FAST AND FURIOUS 4", when he helped Dom Toretto escape from a prison bus. His brief career as a criminal ended, following the successful Rio de Janeiro heist in "FAST FIVE". Brian and the rest of the team's actions in the sixth movie revolved around their search for an amnesiac Letty Ortiz and efforts to get their criminal records cleaned. As for this seventh movie, they were mainly concerned with finding Deckard Shaw before he can kill them all in retaliation for his brother's condition. So, from what exactly was Brian retiring? The producers could have simply stated that Brian, Mia and their son had moved to another city . . . and away from Dom and Letty. How did retirement fit into all of this?
I also had one last problem with "FURIOUS 7" - namely the Roman Pearce character, portrayed by Tyrese Gibson. Ever since his first appearance in 2003's "2 FAST 2 FURIOUS", I have been a fan of Roman and Gibson's portrayal of him. But I have become aware of the franchise's recent portrayal of him as the team's clown. When this happen? Oddly enough, it began with "FAST FIVE" in which the Tej Parker character made a few snarky comments at his expense. In the 2011 film, it was mildly amusing. In "FAST AND FURIOUS 6", it got a little worse. But the Azerbaijan sequence pretty much solidified Roman's role as the team's clown. This sequence nearly made him a dye-in-the-wool coward, when he originally refused to participate in the car jump. What the hell? Roman has always been a verbose, temperamental and impulsive guy. But he was also a very pragmatic man, who always seemed to have a more realistic view of their situations than any of the other characters. This does not mean he was gutless. Why on earth did the franchise decided to make him this embarrassing clown? And why team him with Tej, who always seemed hell bent upon humiliating him? One of the aspects of "2 FAST 2 FURIOUS" I enjoyed so much was that Roman and childhood friend Brian O'Conner had struck me as a well-balanced screen team. Brian never went out of his way to constantly humiliate Roman . . . like Tej. And Roman never treated Brian like some adopted offspring . . . like Dom. But the producers were determined to exploit the original Dom/Brian relationship in the movies, starting with "FAST AND FURIOUS 4". And in order not to leave Roman out of the loop, they teamed him with Tej Parker, whom he first met in the 2003 film. Unfortunately, Tej (through screenwriter Chris Morgan), has transformed poor Roman into a clown.
Clown or not, Roman had the good luck to be portrayed by Tyrese Gibson, whom I believe is one of the better actors in the main cast. Mind you, he is no Kurt Russell, Djimon Hounsou or Elsa , but I still believe he is slightly better than the other actors and actresses in the movie. Speaking of Russell, he gave a dry and witty performance as shadow agent Frank Petty. The actor injected a good deal of sharp wit into a film nearly marred by bad dialogue. As for Hounsou, he made an effective and intelligent villain, capable of thinking on his feet and quickly exploiting a situation or individual. In my review of"FAST AND FURIOUS 6", I had commented on Paul Walker's increasing skill as an actor. This improvement of Walker's acting skills were obvious in scenes that reflected his character Brian O'Conner's struggle to adapt to a family lifestyle, his conversation with wife Mia two-thirds into the film and his reaction to Dom's decision to drive a stolen car through the window of an Abu Dhabi skyscraper. Another memorable performance came from Michelle Rodriguez, who continued her portrayal of Letty Ortiz's struggles to deal with amnesia. This was especially apparent in a scene in which the actress had to convey her character's frustration in facing fleeting memories of the past and Dom's attempts to help her regain her memories. The movie also featured solid performances from Jordana Brewster (who was missing throughout most of the film), Chris Bridges aka Ludicrous, Nathalie Emmanuel, Lucas Black (of "THE FAST AND FURIOUS: TOKYO DRIFT"), Elsa Pataky, Ali Fazal and Tony Jaa. Even Ronda Rousey, despite her lack of acting experience, was appropriately intimidating as the billionaire's head of security. She is no Gina Carrano, who acting managed to improve by"FAST AND FURIOUS 6", but she was effective.
I know what you are thinking. What about Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham? Surely they were not that terrible? All three actors are pretty decent performers. But "FURIOUS 7" did not show them at their best. As I had earlier hinted, all three were hampered by Chris Morgan's machismo dialogue and attempt to raise the testosterone level, via their characters. But each actor had their moments. Diesel's best moments were featured in his scenes with Rodriguez. Johnson's best moments occurred in the film's first half hour, which included his character's fight against the Deckard Shaw character and his playful interactions with Elsa Pataky's Elena Neves. And Statham's best scene in the film, at least for me, was his first. This featured Deckard Shaw's visit to his comatose brother's hospital room, in which he expressed tenderness and family concern for the latter (portrayed by Luke Evans in a cameo appearance). Otherwise, Diesel, Johnson and Statham proved to be problematic for me in so many ways.
I am not saying that "FURIOUS 7" is a terrible movie. It would probably be considered terrible by certain fans and moviegoers, whose tastes in films are a lot more elitist or intellectual. But as action films go, it is pretty decent and a lot of fun to watch. Yes, I found it difficult to endure some of the movie's bad dialogue, the re-imaging of the Roman Pearce's character into a clown and the over-the-top machismo portrayed by Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham. And James Wan does not exactly strike me as skillful a director as Justin Lin. But, I believe "FURIOUS 7" is still a fun-filled action flick and a worthy last film for the late Paul Walker.
R.I.P. Paul Walker (1973-2013)
Saturday, May 23, 2015
"ONCE UPON A TIME: MAKING EXCUSES"
For those of you who believe that Emma Swan did the right thing by killing Cruella de Vil in the “ONCE UPON A TIME”Season Four episode, (4.18) “Sympathy For the de Vil” . . . I could not disagree with you more.
Emma could have used another way to save her son, Henry Mills, from Cruella. She could have teleported him from Cruella’s grasp. She could have teleported Cruella’s gun. Someone on FANFORUM.COM had pointed out that Emma could have saved Henry . . . and not kill Cruella. After all, she managed to stop Zelena aka the Wicked Witch of the West from killing Henry in (3.19) “A Curious Thing”. Yet, she could not have done the same with Cruella in (4.18) “Sympathy For the de Vil”? What made Emma’s action even more problematic is that she did not even warn Henry that she was about to attack Cruella. She just did killed the latter . . . magically shoved her over a cliff. If Henry had not ducked, there is a good chance he would have been dead, as well.
I have written a good number of articles criticizing Emma and other members of the Charming family. And there is a reason why. Many fans like are ALWAYS making excuses for their more questionable actions. The only reason these same fans are now being critical about Snow and David’s actions toward Maleficent’s baby, revealed in (4.16) "Best Laid Plans", is they had lied to Emma about what they had done. They revealed that they were not as "noble" as Emma - and many fans - originally believed they were.
A lot of fans like to pretend that Emma and Snow did nothing wrong, when the latter tried to kill Mulan in (2.08)“Into the Deep”. So do show runners Adam Horowitz and Edward Kitsis. They have made sure that both Snow and Emma have never paid the consequences for their actions . . . or lack of action in that episode. Many fans have claimed that Snow only attacked Mulan during their fight, after the latter was prevented from stealing away with a magical compass that would have taken them from the Enchanted Forest and back to Storybrooke. What happened was the following . . . Snow and Mulan fought. Snow won and held down Mulan. Mulan told Snow and Emma that she took the locket to save Aurora. Snow lost her temper and decided to kill or maim Mulan anyway. Aurora stopped Snow. Emma did nothing but looked on. She never lifted a finger or raised her voice to stop Snow from a murder attempt.
Many fans still make countless excuses for Snow’s murder of Cora in (2.16) “The Miller’s Daughter”. In fact, they still react the same way as Emma did, when she tried to make excuses for Snow by using Cora’s murderous actions. Snow was not concerned about saving Storybrooke. She wanted revenge against Cora for the murder of her mother, Queen Eva. And she used a cruel way to get her revenge. That is why David was upset at what she had done. He had even offered to kill Cora himself . . . to save Snow’s moral compass and the town. Snow rejected his offer and proceeded to get her revenge anyway. And Emma could not handle the truth when Snow told her why she had killed Cora. These same fans still cannot handle the truth.
Many fans still make excuses for Emma’s possession of the yellow Volkswagen. Neal had first stolen the car. Then Emma tried to steal the car from him. Both ended up using the car together, when they became a couple. When I pointed out that Emma was still driving a stolen car in previous articles and forums, many fans either ignored the topic or responded with some drivel about Emma not being guilty of murder, or the fact that Neal had arranged the car’s registration to reflect her as the true owner. As if that was supposed to excuse Emma knowingly being in possession of a stolen car.
Many fans still make excuses about Emma’s decision to change the timeline and save “Maid Marian” in (3.22) “There’s No Place Like Home”. These same fans continue to claim that saving a life is more important than maintaining the storyline. No, it is not. Especially not for someone who had died in the past. I realize this is a harsh thing to say, but changing the timeline for any reason is a very . . . dangerous . . . thing to do. Both Hook and Rumpelstiltskin had warned Emma not to change the timeline for any reason. But she refused to listen. And what happened? As it turned out, Emma’s decision to change the timeline gave Zelena the opportunity to return to Storybrooke in Marian’s place. I am quite certain that Kitsis and Horowitz will never mention or criticize Emma’s bad decision in a future episode. If they do, I will be happily surprised.
What is it about these fans who seem incapable of dealing with Emma or the other Charmings actually being guilty of a crime or a serious mistake? Is it really that important that the Charming family be portrayed in some idealized manner? Do these same fans really need idealized fictional protagonists who are incapable of a bad deed or mistake in order to deal with this crazy old world of ours? Do they need to cling to some kind of illusion about humanity that only the world of fiction can maintain with any real thoroughness? What is it?
Edward Kitsis and Adam Horowitz used to be part of the writing staff for "LOST", a television show in which most or nearly all of the characters were guilty of serious mistakes or crimes. The cast of characters could have been easily nicknamed “Murder, Inc.”. Apparently, the show runners for "ONCE UPON A TIME" seem bent upon portraying nearly all of their major characters in a similar light . . . including "the Savior" herself. Is this so hard for many fans to accept? Or are they among those types who can only deal with characters with a one-dimensional moral compass? If the latter, I hope that none of them ever become writers.