Three Musketeers ... or is it Four?

I've seen a few Musketeers in my time.  Frankly it comes in only second to "Robin Hood" for swashbuckling adaptations.  My first was the ever-so-famous 1973 version.  Have to say even though this was a critic favorite I've never warmed up to it, even after seeing it a few times.  Too slow and too dark.  It may be a faithful rendition of the book but if I want the book I'll read the book.  For films you have two hours to make me think about something other than Covid or, you know, real life.  With that as the benchmark I enjoy the 1993 film.  The dialog is ridiculous, the acting over the top, but it's fun.  Kiefer Sutherland is moody, Charlie Sheen is bizarrely religious and Oliver Platt is, well, Oliver Platt.  I kind of love his rude pretend superiority bit.  And Rebecca De Mornay's Milady was, IMHO, one of the best.  All the Miladys are great, frankly.  It must be fun to play the ultimate femme fatale.  De Mornay's version was just step up because the script allowed for some complicated levels in the character's motivations.  Even though I've seen it a good number of the times I still deconstruct her "ending" during every viewing (no spoiler here, Milady is a bad guy who always gets it in the end).  Recently saw a semi-new version of the Musketeer canon, filmed in 2011, which beat the fun-but cheesy 1993 film in a few important ways.  First of all it was less about highlighting Hollywood stars as it was about a group working together.  D'Artagnon's hair was still unfortunate but less so than in the '93 version.  The jokes were still there but didn't overwhelm a somewhat more serious script.  Milady gets to do something other than just seduce people and the fight sequences were terrific.  I always like fresh, new styles of stage combat and this didn't disappoint.  Critics dislike the wide berth it takes from the source material (hint:  airships) but the action is great and the story engaging, which is all I care about.  Also this one does a nicely subtle job of introducing the very real competition between England and France in a very delicate time.  Is it a classic?  No, but it's worth a few hours.  There are more to explore.  A BBC series, another upcoming film.  Who knows?  One of these days someone might make the perfect version.  But then we wouldn't have new chances to explore old material, would we?

"Radioactive"

Critics panned this new film with understandable concerns but missed the point.  They didn't like the intercuts showing after-effects of the Curie discoveries, which include the US dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, use of radiation in cancer treatments and the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant among others.  It was felt that this politicized the film, turning it into a statement piece.  There were also complaints about the lack of historical accuracy, something which often comes up in projects like this (check out the latest controversy on "The Crown").  

Here's my take.  #1 This isn't a documentary.  Neither is "The Crown" or "The Aeronauts", for the record.  The purpose of this film is to entertain.  #2  This is based on a Graphic Novel.  Most of what is in the film was in the book so if you don't like the content then blame the source material.  One critic, showing her clear lack of understanding, told folks to read the "comic book".  WRONG.  Graphic Novels are not comic books.  Dismissing them is missing, well, the entire point.  (Yes, "Maus" won the Pulitzer Prize so they can be considered REAL literature).

ANYWAY, I digress.  Is the film entertaining?  Yes.  Is it interesting?  Yes.  Are the actors good?  Yes.  Is the film, as a whole, engaging?  Yes.  Marjane Satrapi, an award-winning graphic novelist in her own right, directs the film well.  It has depth and good visuals without being distracting.  There is flow and beauty.  The character of Marie continues the trend of unlikeable female lead, something we see more and more as women direct films.  Her warts are shown, and they don't diminish her incredible accomplishments.  Is it "real"?  No.  But it isn't meant to be.  Worth checking out.

"The Watch"

So, I wasn't going to watch this, then I realized it was based on Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, so then I watched it, but now I'm not.  It's not that it's bad.  It isn't.  The diverse cast and super-fast dialog makes for some smiles but between the grubby setting and the, um, "very British" sensibilities it just took too much work to watch it.  To be honest, "Guards, Guards" (on which this is clearly based) was probably my least favorite of the Discworld books and as much as I love the series the lack of magic and focus on the commonplace in an uncommon world in this particular book just didn't appeal.  In another place and time I might hang in there on this series.  But not now.  If you're up for it, enjoy.  It is worthy -- I'm just not.

"Mr. Mayor"

Another NBC comedy from Tina Fey and the minds of "Saturday Night Live" this one packs on the heavyweights.  It stars Ted Danson and Holly Hunter along with perpetual funny-man sidekick Bobby Moynihan and a host of fresh faces.  It works but it's not the kind of sitcom one watches while cleaning the house or doing laundry.  The dialog is super-fast and the edits quick.  In the premiere I had to rewind at least three times to catch stuff.  It's the kind of funny I like -- mostly smart and a little subtle.  It also manages to be a politically-based comedy which doesn't remind you at all about the current political mess.  Which is kind of brilliant.  I say thumbs up and worth watching.  Just make sure to pay attention.  

"Earthsea"

With a strong cast, decent script, high quality production values (including score) and solid source material it feels like this should have been a great film.  It wasn't.  So many problems.  First, this was the second part of a two part mini-series, but SyFy just broadcast it like a standalone film.  So, it felt like I was being dumped into the middle of a story.  Which I was.  The biggest problem is a Hollywood one.  Much like the "Percy Jackson" tales the producers here thought they could just take a bunch of random events from the book series and squish them together.  There is a major problem with that.  Only action films tell stories through one big major event after another.  Most literary series, as this one was, have depth and subtlety.  You can't just watch a character do something you have to understand who that character is, what they are thinking and feeling, why they do what they do.  Characters can't just reference a past you have to be able to take the time to understand how that past came to be.  Building those relationships makes the story tangible and understandable.  This was, unfortunately, a hot mess.  Especially when mixed with a different world with different rules one must take a lot of time to help the audience understand the setting.  Boiling these brilliant novels down to the "big events" left me feeling like I was watching some bad clip show for two hours, veering from one moment to the next without meaning or purpose.  Skip it and read the books.

"One Child Nation"

This very difficult to watch documentary should be required for anyone concerned about China, abortion or women.  Focused on the past it has amazing repercussions for today given that the actions of the Chinese government in their "one child" era are supposedly being recreated in the plentiful workcamps with forced sterilization again becoming routine for Uyghers, Chinese Muslims and others from the western provinces.  

It haunts.  The women who were sterilized, the doctors who performed the surgeries, the artist who found, quite by accident, the bodies of aborted children in a trash yard.  Seeing this, after being in the country for nearly a month, I have a deeper understanding of the reluctance of couples, mostly free of the one-child rule, to have additional children.  I have a greater insight into the attitudes of gender in a country where male dominance is still very visceral.  That the film exists at all is a miracle given that current leadership has been in a years-long crackdown on any kind of dissent in their positivity campaigns.  

It's not easy material, but I do feel it is the kind of thing we need to know.  We need to look in the dark corners and bring light to the atrocities which exist in our modern world.

"Call Me Kat"

This new sitcom on FOX started out so syrupy I almost didn't make it five minutes into the first episode.  And then Mayim Bialik breaks the fourth wall and turns to the camera.  It was great.  Three episodes in this comes off as a very G-rated version of "Fleabag".  Many of the themes are the same.  A not 20-something single woman tries to find love and meaning in life's work.  Both have strong supporting casts who provide a good amount of input and reflection and the occasional snarky aside.  "Call Me Kat" doesn't have the raunchy sexcapades of "Fleabag" but still provides a good number of smiles. 

Which leads me to some confusion.  Everyone loves "Fleabag".  Loves, loves, loves it.  Critics however, have piled onto this show (which is an American spin on a UK show "Miranda").  They think the direct-to-camera action is too much, the whole thing ungrounded.  While there is some basis for the latter the former seems ... hypocritical.  Mayam Bialik went so far as to address the feedback on a YouTube video.  The ratings are actually pretty good so what is the issue?  Well, first of all, it is hugely saccharin but frankly I really need an escape right now and this fits the bill.  Second, there are things that can be cleaned up.  Some potty humor could be eliminated (thank you, FOX) and Swoosie Kurtz, who I love, needs to go.  She looks like some emaciated advertisement for bad plastic surgery and nothing in her flat line readings feels real.  In the most recent episode they had her spreading biased stereotypes about Puerto Rico, which is, frankly, unacceptable in this environment.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, Ms. Bialik can be a devisive figure.  She has spoken out about Israeli rights over the Palestinians and she advocates, voraciously, for attachment parenting.  Finally she inferred that she isn't subject to Hollywood sexual harrassment because she dresses conservatively.  In the end I can't help but think that the criticism of the show is a critique on her.  

I don't necessarily like what she says but I also don't believe that actors should be muzzled.  Like any human being they have opinions and should be free to share them.  The show is enjoyable and I choose to watch it because, quite frankly, I'm looking for smiles anywhere I can get them these days.

Jillian Bell

As is often the case, I just happened to watch two films back-to-back with something in common.  In this case, actor Jillian Bell.  It might not be a total coincidence.  Ms. Bell has had a busy couple of years and has SEVENTEEN credits listed for 2019-2020.  Kind of nice to see a not size-0 silicone-filled Hollywood starlet making good.  She's an actual actor, one who helped found the LA Groundlings and was a writer on Saturday Night Live.  And that's just the first line of her bio.  Not bad for a 36 year-old.

The two projects I saw her in:  First, I watched "Brittany Runs a Marathon" and then "Godmothered".  Both were good, both were unexpected, which I like.  "Brittany Runs a Marathon is surprising on a couple of levels.  The plot was expected but took turns I didn't see coming.  Fat girl trains for the NYC marathon?  Check.  Success in her endeavors?  Well ... (won't spoil it for you).  It's billed as a comedy but I have to say I didn't find it funny.  And Jillian's character is essentially mean.  She rags on everyone around her, bites every hand offered.  So we have an unlikeable lead who has a long road to travel, both literally and figuratively.  Not so much an inspirational story but a real one.  While the first part made me uncomfortable the resolutions worked.  I'd call it "satisfying".

The second film, "Godmothered" was to be holiday fluff which it mostly is but doesn't wrap up anywhere near where I thought it would.  For every twist I saw coming there was one I didn't.  The fresh take on a storybook tale made it very watchable and a little thoughtful.  Again, Ms. Bell struck a great balance between being a silly character and being grounded.  It was perfect for the tone of the whole thing.  

At the end of the year many young and unrealistically pretty people made the best of 2020 list, including Anya Taylor-Joy from "The Queen's Gambit" and the Korean pop group BTS.  While I wish them the best I have to say I'm more impressed with Ms. Bell and those like her.  Give me a little seasoning in all the sugar.  It's far more interesting.

"I'm Your Woman"

Officially labeled "neo-noir" this new offering by Amazon Prime is a very engaging, interesting film, but it's hard to really say what it is about.  Set in an unspecified time period (late 70s, early 80s?) the mob-based drama anchors it but there are a plethora of quite moments, still moments.  The dialog is sparse to say the least.  Acting is outstanding and much like the last Amazon Prime offering I watched the characters are complex.  While you might root for some of them none are pure, to say the least.  Rachel Brosnahan is nearly unrecognizable as she does her best impression of Emily Blunt in "A Quiet Place".  In addition to her subtle performance is outstanding direction, and it is that direction which had me fixated to the screen.  Julia Hart, who directed "Stargirl", has true vision and created scene after scene like an artist in a moving medium.  Honestly it was hard to turn away from even though I kept asking myself what was going on.  A worthy way to spend a few hours.

"The Man in the High Castle"

Behind the times, as always, I finally caught up on this powerful series.  With everything going on politically there couldn't be a better time for this prescient show.  Take strong source material, outstanding performances by a large number of actors and a Sci-Fi twist to the oft-written trope of "America loses WWII" and you have this streaming series, which kept me bound for nearly a week, digesting each and every one of the 40 episodes.  Digest is a good word.  There is so much to take in that I think this will be one of those shows which haunts me for a good deal of time to come.  It's not an easy watch.  The Nazi world permeated everything, making me feel sick from episode to episode.  The characters -- Japanese military of the Empire, the Nazis, the various resistance groups -- not one of them, not even the most benign character, had clean hands.  Philip Dick nailed it when he wrote that every invading force always sees themselves as liberators.  There is death, a lot of it, and I didn't cry for any particular character knowing that the entire show endorses a kind of Karma which fed into the endings of so many of the main figures.  While each of them espoused to do what was right, and often ended up doing horrific wrong, they had a unique ability to destroy the lives around them, their loved ones, their families.  It was "The Cherry Orchard" and "Hamlet" all tied into a kind of majestic drama.  "What is right" became the core issue.  Philosophical meanderings, after viewing, are what stay with you.  To paraphrase the show, do we really know any person beyond ourselves?  Is a man just a man when all is said and done (or are there true monsters)?  If you had a choice between saying nothing in the face of destruction, and surviving, or speaking up and likely dying, which would you choose?  What is the price of survival?  It went round and round and round. 

The show gets a lot right and a few things a little wrong.  The little stuff I worked to dismiss.  The first three seasons takes place in, essentially, a single year.  The children, however, grow up, noticeably.  So you have kids aging three years in one.  The locations, like so many, don't fit the reality.  I kept chafing at the depiction of "Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia" but tried to put it aside.  It's not the first time Hollywood has picked a random spot off a map and depicted it completely inaccurately.  Other details were outstanding.  The clothing, cars and household items of the losers come from the time of the loss.  In San Francisco and the Neutral Zone, everything seems to be stuck in the 1940s.  In Berlin and New York everything is shiny and new, modern -- for 1962, that is, which is when the series is set.  The racist, bigoted opinions voiced aren't just those of the Nazis, they are things which were commonly said in that era.  Some, sadly, exist today.  I found the ideas of Asians feasting on dogs and Blacks being essentially violent and savage to be particularly hard to take.  And that's the thing.  When this series debuted in 2015 I would have thought "Science Fiction".  But it is not.  We have had four years.  Four awful years, to show us the truth.  To show us how easily people buy into media lies, how they bow to fascists to ensure their own fake security, how little they care about those whom they see as different.  In 2015 I would not have believed that Americans could become Nazis.  Today, with white supremacists marching openly in the streets, supported by a U.S. President, I realize the danger, the sickening pull of it all.  This show, along with the last four years, has reminded me that we must be vigilant.  That forces of evil hold far more sway than I ever wanted to admit.  

The show ends with one more philosophical challenge.  So many possibilities, so many versions of ourselves -- if we can be anything, why do we choose to be who we are?

Worth watching, even if it makes you hugely uncomfortable.