The Corsican Brothers – 18 Cinema Lane

With 18 Cinema Lane’s 5^th anniversary in February, the annual Gold Sally Awards is here to mark this occasion! As I mentioned last month, this year’s awards will be presented differently. Each category was created by me, based on topics I’ve brought up on my blog. The award recipients relate to movies I saw in 2022, with some of those movies covered on 18 Cinema Lane. For each category, I will explain the significance of them and why I chose that recipient. So, without any delay, let the Gold Sally Awards begin!

5th Annual Gold Sally Awards Winners created by me, Sally Silverscreen.

The Edwin P. Christy Award

(Most Annoying Character in Film)

Grandpa Marcus from Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Journey

When I saw I Dream of Jeanie two years ago, I was introduced to the character of Edwin P. Christy. In my review of the 1952 movie, I said I found Edwin annoying. This is because he used every opportunity to put the spotlight on himself. He does this so often, I said in my list of the top ten worst movies of 2021 that I Dream of Jeanie’s honest title would be “The Edwin P. Christy Show”. In 2022, I met another annoying character named Marcus, from Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Journey.

Having a hobby can be a good thing. But in Marcus’ case, his hobby for photography turns into an obsession. This obsession causes Marcus’ family to either hide their faces or run away from him whenever he wants to take their picture. Marcus also takes pictures of people without their permission. It even gets to the point where Marcus makes his grandson, who appears to be eight to ten years old, drive a car so Marcus can take photos. His grandchildren jokingly remark how their grandpa will photograph their car accident if something should happen to them, their remark not sitting well with me at all. In Journey, Marcus’ hobby is related to one of the movie’s themes; memories are irreplaceable. The delivery of this theme, though, was an annoying one.

The “She Won’t Give Me My Chocolate” Award

(Best Quote from a Movie)

“Someone who likes their cereal really hot” – Wanda, Point of Origin

The Valley of Light is a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie I like. I’ve mentioned in my tier rank list of every Hallmark Hall of Fame movie I saw that “She won’t give me my chocolate” is one of my favorite quotes from this collection of films. When I watched Point of Origin last June, I heard a quote that was so funny, it caught me off guard! In one scene, John’s daughter asks John, the film’s protagonist, what a serial arsonist is, after hearing the term on the news. Without missing a beat, Wanda, John’s wife, answers the young girl’s question by explaining it is “someone who likes their cereal really hot”. I was not expecting Wanda to provide this kind of answer, let alone any answer at all. Its unexpectedness is why I found this quote hilarious!

The Edward Boult Award

(Missed Opportunity in Cinema)

Not Having the Quote, “I have a need, a need for speed”, in Top Gun: Maverick

Back in 2019, I watched Edward, My Son for the first time. In my review of that film, I talked about how Edward’s lack of on-screen appearances was a missed opportunity. Not only did this creative decision prevent the audience from getting to know and connect with Edward as a character, it also denied an actor from receiving the “standing ovation” he deserved. Out of the films I saw in 2022, there were a few times where I felt an opportunity was missed. But not having the quote, “I have a need, a need for speed”, in Top Gun: Maverick was, in my opinion, the biggest missed opportunity of the year. The aforementioned quote is not only the most well-known quote from Top Gun: Maverick’s predecessor, it’s one of the most famous quotes in movie history. Like I said in my review of the 2022 blockbuster, the film did a good job respecting Top Gun. However, I still think “I have a need, a need for speed” should have been referenced somewhere in the movie.

The They Deserve an Award Award

(An Actor or Actress Who Deserves Recognition)

Melissa Joan Hart (for her performance in Dirty Little Secret)

A quote I have always tried to incorporate into 18 Cinema Lane is Auggie’s quote from Wonder: “Everyone in the world should get a standing ovation at least once in their life because we all overcometh the world.” This is why I go out of my way to talk about movies, people, or movie related topics that may be overlooked. Dirty Little Secret is a Lifetime movie that premiered last year. In this film, Melissa portrays Joanna, a woman who is secretly a hoarder. As I have said in the past, Lifetime has a history of creating PSA/ “after school special”/cautionary tale type of movies. Unlike the majority of those projects, Dirty Little Secret revolves around a story, which happens to address the serious issue of hoarding. Through her performance, Melissa was able to successfully bring forth the humanity of her character. With a strong sense of emotionality and an array of expressions and body language, Joanna became a character the audience could be empathetic towards. Personally, I think Melissa should have, at least, been nominated for an award, as her performance in Dirty Little Secret was one of the best from 2022!

The “Woman from the City Coming Back to Her Small Hometown” Award

(Most Extreme Use of a Cliché)

Lily from Lake Effects

If you’ve read my list of the top ten worst cliches from Hallmark movies, you’d know the “woman from the city coming back to her small hometown” cliché is my least favorite. It’s been used so many times, it makes a story more predictable. There are two cliches from Hallmark productions I’ve never talked about on 18 Cinema Lane: the “younger sibling is free-spirited” cliché and the “artist = free-spirit” cliché. While these cliches have made several appearances in Hallmark projects, including When Calls the Heart, their presence hasn’t been as frequent as other cliches. But these two cliches were fully embodied by Lily, one of the characters in the 2012 film, Lake Effects. From her colorful wardrobe to her dream of studying art in Paris, Lilly adopted every component of the two aforementioned cliches you can think of. The combination of these elements created a character I couldn’t take seriously. In fact, you could make a bingo game revolving around the various ways the “younger sibling is free-spirited” cliché and the “artist = free-spirit” cliché are incorporated into Lilly’s story.

The Standing Ovation Award

(Character Most Deserving of Receiving Their Full Potential)

Kili from The Hobbit trilogy

When I talked about The They Deserve an Award Award, I brought up Auggie’s quote from Wonder. Last November, I created a list of characters who didn’t receive their full potential. With both of that said, I decided to create an award category where I recognize a character that I feel should receive the full potential they deserve. In my tag post, My take on The “Flaming Hot…5 Reasons Why” Tag, I brought up Kili from The Hobbit trilogy. Since I saw all three movies for the first time last year, Kili would be eligible for this award. In that aforementioned tag post, I claimed how Kili was, in my opinion, the MVP of Middle-Earth. This is because there are several attributes that make him a likable character, such as his humbleness toward his royal title. Throughout the trilogy, I was rooting for Kili to achieve his full potential, which I feel could have been possible. But, without spoiling this story, his potential was ultimately denied. I do plan on writing at least one editorial about Kili, so stay tuned!

The Honorable and Dishonorable Mention Award

(Best and Worst Movie from the Honorable and Dishonorable Mention Category)

Best – Akeelah and the Bee, Worst – Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Corsican Brothers

Whenever I publish my best and worst movies of the year lists, I receive few opportunities to talk about the movies in my Honorable and Dishonorable Mention categories. In fact, the only times I talk about these movies are when I get the opportunity to review them on my blog. Therefore, I created an award category to recognize these films. Akeelah and the Bee was such a pleasant surprise for me! It was a feel-good story that felt sincere in the messages and delivery. There were even interesting twists that I did not see coming. Without spoiling the movie, the script did a good job at avoiding a cliché when it comes to competitions in movies. I’m glad I checked out Akeelah and the Bee, as the film was time well spent!

Last October, I reviewed Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Corsican Brothers for the Devilishly Delightful Donald Pleasence Blogathon. After seeing some adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ stories, I thought I knew what to expect from the 1985 made-for-tv movie. But the longer I watched The Corsican Brothers, the more disappointed I became. This story was not the exciting tale with adventure and intrigue I was hoping for. Instead, it was a confusing film with little to no use of urgency. As of the publication of this award post, I still have not read this movie’s source material. Therefore, I don’t know which parts of the production are creative liberties.

The Nosferatu vs. Dracula Award

(Two Movies That Feel Like You’re Watching the Same One)

Harvey (1950) and Hallmark Hall of Fame’s Harvey (1972)

For a Blog Follower Dedication Review, I wrote about 1931’s Dracula. Because I had seen Nosferatu prior to watching Dracula, the 1931 film felt like a re-tread of its predecessor. I even told my readers if they had seen Nosferatu, they’d already seen Dracula. Last year, I reviewed two versions of Harvey; the 1950 movie and the Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation from 1972. Though I liked the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie more than its predecessor, I didn’t like how it was a copy of the 1950 film. The movie’s sets even looked almost exactly like they did in the 1950 production. If you’ve never seen any version of this story, I’d recommend only seeing 1972’s adaptation of Harvey.

The Hallmark Hall of Fame Award

(Movie That Feels Like It Belongs in the Hallmark Hall of Fame Collection)

A Godwink Christmas: Miracle of Love

I have sometimes found a movie that feels like it should have been included in the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection. So, when I find out a story isn’t associated with this series, it surprises me, whether it’s because the movie is based on a true story or the story itself covers a topic found within Hallmark Hall of Fame. That leads me to bring up A Godwink Christmas: Miracle of Love! Like other films in the Godwink series, the 2021 film is also based on a true story. Subjects related to faith, which usually aren’t found in a typical Hallmark Channel or Hallmark Movies & Mysteries production, are included within this particular story as well. In my opinion, the overall quality of A Godwink Christmas: Miracle of Love felt reminiscent of Hallmark Hall of Fame movies I like, such as The Valley of Light and A Dog Named Christmas. I’m honestly surprised SQuire Rushnell’s stories weren’t included in the Hallmark Hall of Fame collection back when Hallmark utilized that banner.

The “Based on a Book I Haven’t Read Yet” Award

(Movie Based on Source Material I Have Not Yet Read)

The Pit and the Pendulum

I feel like, more often than not, I find myself saying that a movie I review is based on source material I haven’t read. This prevents me from judging the film as an adaptation. It’s been years since I’ve read anything by Edgar Allan Poe. I even mentioned this fact in my review of the 1961 adaptation. Fortunately, The Pit and the Pendulum is a book I plan on reading for the upcoming Eurovisionathon readathon. Because of that, I selected The Pit and the Pendulum for this specific award!

Have fun at the movies!

Sally Silverscreen

When I reviewed the 1982 Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, Witness for the Prosecution, back in July, I stated how I didn’t think I’d ever see the film. This was due to the movie’s lack of DVD or VHS release. But this is not the only Hallmark Hall of Fame production I didn’t think I would ever receive the opportunity to watch. One of these titles is the 1985 film adaptation, The Corsican Brothers. Similar to Witness for the Prosecution, the 1985 title didn’t receive a VHS or DVD release, as far as I know. Also similar to Witness for the Prosecution, I was able to locate the full movie on Youtube! Besides these similarities, both films star Donald Pleasence. In fact, Donald’s involvement in The Corsican Brothers is one of the reasons why I chose to review this film, as I’m participating in The Devilishly Delightful Donald Pleasence Blogathon!

*The Corsican Brothers* poster created by Hallmark Hall of Fame Productions, Norman Rosemont Productions, and CBS

Things I liked about the film:

The scenery: Within the movie’s introduction, there is a shot of the ocean surrounding Corsica. As the introduction continues, rocky terrains, rolling hills, and a city on a mountain are also showcased. The natural beauty of this island was captured well on film, making outdoor scenes visually appealing. When scenes took place in the town, quaint looking buildings met cobble stoned streets. A fountain was located in the town’s square. From a visual perspective, the town looked peaceful. It resembled Wanda’s hometown in the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, In Love and War!

The historical accuracy: According to the film’s introduction, the story begins in 1820. Though the majority of the story revolves around Louis and Lucien’s life as adults, the film still takes place in the 19^th century. While watching The Corsican Brothers, I was impressed by the historical accuracy shown on screen! Furniture is one example of this. In a scene where the camera pans over a section of a study room, a green embroidered chair with bolted upholstery was featured. An oil lamp was also included in the room. The windows boasted a lattice design, which highlighted an old-world charm to the titular characters’ home. These details provided a nice blend of the characters’ past and present!

The Devilishly Delightful Donald Pleasence Blogathon banner created by Gill from Realweegiemidget Reviews and Barry from Cinematic Catharsis

What I didn’t like about the film:

The underutilization of Donald Pleasence: As I stated in the introduction, Donald Pleasence is one of the reasons why I chose to review this adaptation of The Corsican Brothers. As this is his second Hallmark Hall of Fame production I’ve seen and reviewed, I was eager to witness more of his acting talents. But, to my disappointment, Donald only appeared in about three and a half scenes. He did a good job with the acting material he was given. However, it made me wonder why he was cast in this movie in the first place, especially if the role didn’t allow his talents to be fully showcased?

Unexplained parts of the story: I have never read this film’s source material. Despite this, I expected The Corsican Brothers to be like other adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ stories; exciting tales full of adventure and intrigue. With the 1985 Hallmark Hall of Fame project, however, I was, more often than not, confused by what was happening on screen. At the beginning of the movie, a voice-over talks about how the region of Corsica is overruled by a multi-generational long vendetta. What this voice-over forgets to mention is how and why this vendetta started. From time to time, a mysterious woman appeared in Corsica, giving some of the characters fates. No explanations are provided for who this woman is or why she wants to get involved in the story’s events.

Little to no sense of urgency: In the adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ stories I’ve seen, a common ingredient is a sense of urgency. Since there is a sense of adventure found in these stories, an added element of urgency gives the audience a reason to stay invested in the characters and their journey. With The Corsican Brothers, though, this sense of urgency was almost non-existent. I’d say about fifty percent of this movie showed Louis attending fancy events in Paris. Even when parts of the story were meant to be exciting, they either came across as anti-climactic or were not shown on screen. A good example is the trial in Paris that Louis is a part of.

Limited use of lighting: In a few scenes, events took place at night. But because of the limited use of lighting, it was difficult to see what was happening on screen. It got to the point where I couldn’t see characters’ faces. I am aware cinematic technology in the mid-80s was not as advanced as it is today, especially when it comes to made-for-tv films. Had the creative team of The Corsican Brothers incorporated a little more light to the nighttime scenes, it would have remedied the issue.

Hand-written letter image created by Veraholera at freepik.com. <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/background”>Background vector created by Veraholera – Freepik.com</a>. <a href=’https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/love-letter-pattern_1292902.htm’>Designed by Freepik</a>. Image found at freepik.com.

My overall impression:

When creating a book-to-film adaption, you should strive to create a movie that satisfies both the casual viewer and readers of the source material. As I stated in this review, I have never read The Corsican Brothers. Instead of being invested in the characters and their stories, I was, more often than not, confused by the events on screen. It felt like the creative team behind the movie expected the audience to have read the book prior to watching their presentation. Story related flaws are not the only flaws that stood out to me. Limited use of lighting made nighttime scenes difficult to see. The underutilization of Donald Pleasence also didn’t help. Not all Hallmark Hall of Fame movies are created equal, as some are bound to be better than others. Sadly, The Corsican Brothers isn’t one of the better ones.

Overall score: 5.5 out of 10

Have you seen The Corsican Brothers? What’s your favorite adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ literary work? Let me know in the comment section!