" A Hollywood Christmas"

Ending my annual review of holiday films with a winner.  "A Hollywood Christmas" is funny.  It's tongue-in-cheek.  It's meta.  It's a Christmas movie about a Christmas movie.  Maybe I like it because of inside baseball -- I spend a good bit of time on film sets and recognize the challenges in that environment.  But it is a quality production.  Leads Jessika Van and Josh Swickard are nicely grounded and the supporting cast ain't bad, either.  Elf-like Anissa Borrego's odd voice is an irritation at first but her narrator-like cuteness grows on you.  The ending is, of course, expected.  But the movie is still fresh and sweet (but not too sweet).  All-in-all, enjoyable without being perfect (you will get that if you watch it).  Makes my #1 of the new offerings this year.

"The Noel Diary"

Calling this a "Christmas movie" is a stretch.  It's about as far from the typical Hallmark fare as you could get.  It's not G rated, there is no "let's save the Christmas farm/hotel/store/tradition, etc."  There is no meet-cute or cute kid (although there is a cute dog).  There isn't a focus on a small town or any indication that true love can only be found by giving up on the big city.  Christmas is there, but plays in the background.  There is no cookie-baking contest, no hot chocolate sipping.  Justin Hartley returns to familiar territory.  Very familiar territory.  Tell me if any of this sounds familiar:  A good-looking, famous 37 year-old is a little tired of his fame and has a difficulty forming lasting relationships due, in part, to his daddy issues.  (And, although Justin can pull it off, 37 is way in his rear-view mirror).  A young Black woman, adopted by parents of different races, feels the need to find her birth mother to close a gap in her life.  The film is mostly a road trip, touched by pathos and longing.  Yeah, it's kind of "This Is Us:  The Holiday Edition".  It's good.  It's unexpected.  And it is packed with top-notch actors.  In addition to Mr. Hartley, with have triple-threat Barrett Doss ("Station 19"), James Remar and Bonnie Bedelia ('nuff said).  It's a quiet tale, one of people searching for belonging, for family (cue the kleenext ... this really is "This Is Us").  There isn't a single sickly-sweet moment, not a single two-dimensional portrayal.  There are, unfortunately, some script/production issues.  They are minor, but distracting.  It's little things.  When Hartley's character is in a remote cabin trying to make up with his dad, his lady-friend and dog are left out in the cold, literally.  They sit in a car during a snowstorm, for ... hours?  Later, the couple lands at a hotel in the middle of nowhere and has a romantic dinner.  Ms. Doss' hair is suddenly straightened and styled -- unlikely.  Hours later she is back to her natural curls.  It's just sloppy bits like this.  These kinds of details take a lovely story and make it look pedestrian.  It was a noble effort, and I appreciate something different, and something with just a touch of class.

"Holiday Harmony"

This is very country, which is not my thing.  But it got good reviews, so I gave it a shot.  And then I wondered what the reviewers were smoking.  Yes, young Annelise Cepero can sing.  Beautifully.  And waiting for the next song helps push it through.  There is some minor sparkage between the leads but the script is uneven.  It's plodding at one point, rushing through needed foundation in other sections.  The acting is ... strained.  The kids are great, of course.  And somehow Brooke Shields gets roped into the thing which gives it a bit of gravitas.  Well, a smidgen anyway.  Like so many other "Christmas fail" films of late, there is a lot of sadness here.  It's dour.  Loss, grief and a lack of snow make for a pretty bleak story.  I appreciate the effort to find new plot points but this ain't it, kids.  

"A Christmas Mystery"

This had real potential, I think, in concept.  You have the "Enola Holmes" films, which show that a perky young woman can solve mysteries.  The problem here is casting and tone.  At the least, it's muted and low energy.  At the most, it's dark, depressing and sad.  No one smiles.  There is no snow.  You are in for an hour before the young lead shows any real punch.  When a neighbor is accused of stealing the miraculous bells of a small town, our girl goes to town to prove his innocence.  She is faced, at almost every turn, with a sense of hopelessness felt by the adults around her.  Many of the actors speak in a kind of muted whisper.  There is an irritating moment when a main character mispronounces the name of a well-known river.  It picks up in the last half hour but is it worth the wait?  I would say no.

"Christmas With You"

Finally, a good one.  A decent script and more of the quiet, gentle moments which can make these things work.  Which is not to say there isn't cliche -- yes, there is an escape from New York which ends in a snowy small town and there is the inevitable montage of "gee, I fell in love" about ten minutes from the end.  But it works.  It's gentle.  And nice.  Charming, delightful, engaging Aimee Garcia pairs with grounded, sweet Freddie Prinze, Jr. for this warm, delightful holiday film.  It feels real(ish).  The supporting cast is far better than usual and the tamale baking scene alone will make you smile.  Worthwhile way to spend an hour and a half before the big day.

"Falling for Christmas"

From the beginning I was a bit cringy.  The movie literally opens with a woman getting a wake-up call at her hotel.  Excuse me, but who, in this day and age, uses a hotel desk service instead of a cellphone as an alarm?  Then there is the color scheme.  The spoiled uber rich wear glaring neon colors, the "townies" wear normal, found-in-nature colors.  Then came the slapstick.  Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend is an over-the-top idiot.  Everything is heavy-handed.  The "gentle magic" of a possible Santa is made obvious rather than hinted at.  The plot, a huge "Overboard" ripoff, is predictable.  Lindsay Lohan, with her unmoving plastic face, looks much older than her costars, Chord Overstreet and George Young, even though she isn't.  Please, please, if there is a God, stop these Hollywood women from using so many injectibles.  It's just too broad, not subtle, and didn't draw me in.  Oh well.

"A Christmas to Treasure"

Seriously "meh".  A bunch of 40 somethings play characters which should have been played by 20/30 somethings.  They haven't been home since graduation (they are talking about high school graduation) and some are still getting their careers started.  There is only one couple (who are oddly wrapped around each other in every scene) and no one has kids.  Their parents are played by actors only a dozen or so years older than them.  The opening is confusing, the script is weak.  Characters refer to San Francisco as "San Fran" (No.  Just no.).  And there is a blonde character named Tipper.  'Nuff said.  In an attempt to find something fresh, Lifetime goes with a "Big Chill" meets "Christmas Movie" meets "Locke and Key" with a dash of "Harold and Maude."  It could have been interesting.  It's not.  Mostly, it feels like something dreamed up by a person on Xanax.  I literally fell asleep while I watched it.

"Beauty and the Beast: A 30th Celebration"

This is a clever retelling of the classic tale, which mixes production information with clips of the original film and live action.  The blend is delightful and engaging.  A live audience helps build the energy and the choreography is outstanding -- mixing traditional big Disney musical-style dancing with some new and innovative pieces.  There is "hand-dancing" in the opening segment and innovative modern dance to represent the fading rose.  Casting choices show that Disney is "all in" on inclusive casting ... every kind of inclusivity.  Race, ethnicity, body size, you name it.  It works beautifully.  Rita Moreno's dulcet tones, as narrator, are a welcome thread holding it all together.  My very minor complaint comes with H.E.R. and Shania Twain.  Both have the vocal chops and H.E.R. has some real skill in acting.  But neither woman is used to singing in this style.  Both tend to "croon" -- sliding into and out of notes.  It was a distraction.  This kind of music needs super-clear consonants and the notes need to be attacked directly and cleanly.  See the work of Josh Groban and Joshua Henry as the Beast and Gaston, respectively.  You could cut glass with their specificity while singing.  It's a style issue, not a lack of skill per se.  In any case the production was incredibly entertaining.  More so than many of the holiday films.  Worth the watch.  (PS, as a giggle, I found it ... interesting ... that they referenced the Broadway show but not the live action remake.  Just sayin'.)

"Diary of a Future President"

On one hand, it's kind of adorable.  Young Tess Romero hits the perfect notes as a tween caught between childhood and the more complicated world of adults.  She's engaging and real.  It's also great to see Selena Leyva ("Orange is the New Black") back and fabulous, as always.  The show explores a lot of difficult transitions, including a gentle tale of a boy coming into his own and a widowed mother trying to figure out how the new man in her life can fit into her family.  The struggle is nuanced and treated with respect.  There are clever ties between our current political climate and the possible early steps of a young future President.  The failures of the series, which are minor, come from the "Disney-fying".  It borders on the saccharine.  Problems are miraculously solved in 22 minutes.  It's never clear why the mother's assistant is also her best friend.  The show had a lot of potential and lived too short a life but it rose above the expected in the quiet moments.  Brava.

"Must Love Christmas"

CBS has waded into the Christmas programming wars with specials and a number of films.  Unlike last year I'm being fairly circumspect about how many of these things I'm going to spend time on.  This one was very middle-of-the-road.  It's good.  Good enough that it kept me from scrolling my email while I watched.  But it's not "fabulous".  Like so (so so so) many of these things, supporting actors are sometimes weak and the whole thing feels rushed -- low production values, tired actors pushing through.  All that being said, I'm a fan of Liza Lapira and she doesn't disappoint.  Neither does her co-star Neal Bledsoe.  There is also fresh face Ian Collins, who does a lot with a little.  The story is sorta/kinda fresh, which I appreciate.  A small town does feature and there are no unexpected plotlines, but the big city isn't the enemy and the twists you see coming are enjoyable.  When Ms. Lapira's character says, near the end, "I can't believe I didn't see it," there is a small groan.  We all saw it, honey.  But it's not bad.  It didn't feel like a waste of two hours.  And that's the best I can say.

"Reindeer in Here"

CBS is going all out on Christmas this year.  They have Hallmark-worthy movies (complete with identical and forgettable plots) and new specials which include this hour-long animated story.  It's cute.  It's entertaining.  But it's not, as they say, "a new classic."  There is nothing objectionable here.  There is also not a lot which is memorable.  Offbeat characters let you know that "different is just fine" and help save the day.  The bad guy isn't all that bad, just misguided, and there are more than a few shout-outs to "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."  Viewers over a certain age will note the very subtle jabs at a certain mega-shipping company, whose name rhymes with "lamazon."  The animation is okay but not great.  Lead character Blizz has a face which has that weird flatness of the balloons at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.  The characters are all smooth looking, with little to no texture.  It's like a metaphor saying "we are here but a tad two-dimensional."  It's okay.  It's just not ... charming.  And that's interesting.  You look at all the Christmas classics and they have a certain amount of childlike delight.  And they are all older.  The Rankin-Bass classics?  1960s.  "Miracle on 34th Street", 1947.  "It's a Wonderful Life", 1945.  The best versions of "A Christmas Carol" -- mostly all before 1970.  It's like we've lost our ability to find pure joy, to create simple tales which touch the heart.  And maybe there is a reason for that.  Which I'll skip for now and just say that we live in complex times.  For me, it's back to my DVDs -- Grinch and Drummer Boy, you are up next.

"A Christmas Princess"

I've seen a lot of mediocre holiday films.  This might be the absolute worst.  And that's saying a lot.  The predictable plot meanders and wanders around, with little point or purpose.  The dialog is wooden, the acting is a complete contrast to anything energized.  Performances, in addition to being lethargic, are so unconvincing it's hard to believe anyone is buying into their characters.  The accents (mostly super-fake British, a bad french and some mish-mashy generic European) are horrendous.  Somehow, real actors Erin Gray and Gaylin Gorg got roped into this very slow, very dull trainwreck.  Every trope is explored, including the belief that real Christmas can't be celebrated in a city setting and a Prince must marry a blonde, model-looking mean-girl Duchess.  By the time the Prince realizes his true love is the caterer (in a badly scored music montage, 13 minutes before the film ends), one doesn't care.  The Queen's meaness to the young woman of interest dissolves away when she takes a bite of the caterer's food.  An instant later, the young woman has mysteriously changed from her caterer garb to a fashionable dress with a huge diamond necklace.  It's as unbelievable as every other moment.  This isn't a film to put on while cleaning the house, it's a film to forget.

"Harry and Meghan"

As usual, I am on the opposite side of popular opinion.  Reviewers on both sides of the pond have universally panned this Netflix miniseries about the former royals (or, former royal and his wife).  I like Meghan.  I liked her a long time before her union with the adorable British lad.  She is a self-actualized, confident, outspoken woman.  So, since I don't see her as the devil incarnate or a bully (two of the most-used epithets used against her), maybe I was able to watch this tale with a little less vitriol than most of those decrying it.  I do find the current press attacks as unfair as everything else they have published about Meghan.  The the press says that she and Harry "talked out of school" in the Oprah interview, insulting the royal family, and now they say this series is rubbish because it doesn't reveal enough of the inside drama.  Pick a side, people!  In any case, what Harry asks for, in the opening moments, is the chance to be seen as the people they are.  Real people, human beings, who can be surprisingly normal.  Who just want what everyone wants -- family, security, love.  Given that plea I tried to watch this series as if these were not the people we all think they are.  I tried to watch and just see two individuals.  Given that bar of measurement, the series isn't bad.  It shows pieces of their childhood, helping to round out the idea that they aren't two-dimensional figures but that they are whole entities.  This is successful, particularly in filling out Harry's understandable hatred of the paparazzi.  The look in his eyes as he talks about facing cameras in every part of his life is a visceral experience.  The show fails, if it fails at all, on the following point: it's difficult, in an age of fiscal belt-tightening, to listen to any really rich person complain about any part of their privileged life.  The production is also slick.  Perhaps too slick.  Many have wondered if it isn't an attempt to gloss over things by having the conversation cherry-picked.  On that note, I'm willing to give the couple a pass.  Plenty of negative things have been said about them.  Too much, in fact.  Letting them punch back by showing the other side of the coin is their right.  There are also awkward moments, the most notable being Meghan's discussion of her own race -- stating that she was never treated like a black woman until she was involved with Harry.  In any case, I've always seen this whole thing as a love story.  And on that point, the series succeeds.  In any case, most viewers will come to it with their opinions pre-formed.  It's not about changing minds as much as it is about letting them say their piece.  And I don't mind hearing it.  

"Derry Girls"

Honest-to-goodness, it's been decades since I've laughed this hard while watching a comedy.   In the short few days it took to binge this series, I guffawed until I was hoarse.  Maybe because it's because I'm kinda Irish?  In any case, a roared.  I laughed until I cried.  I laughed until I almost peed my pants.  Basic plot:  Four girls and one guy living in occupied Derry (1990s) are true terrors.  They have constant schemes which go about as badly as they can.  The parents of the teens, who have their own hysterical situations, aren't much help.  Add in a everyone's least favorite uncle, a nun with a bad attitude and a terrific 90s playlist and this show pretty much has it all.  Including layers.  The show may be (very) broad comedy but it is also subversive.  "The Troubles" plays out in the background throughout every episode.  It's an aside.  But it's not.  It's baked into the lives these people have, and is a foundation for the uproar and rebellion.  The show is freakin' brilliant and, had it not be for Covid interruptus, it would have been a huge award winner.  Every character is not only unique but indelible.  Quite frankly, it's far funnier than any of the so-called comedies which are Emmy darlings.  I'm still reflecting back on it a week after finishing all 19 episodes.  And oddly find myself talking with an Irish accent.  Watch it.  Slainte!

"Disenchanted"

Let's face it, the original "Enchanted" was not a perfect film.  It had terrific moments -- mostly that amazing dance number in Central Park -- but Patrick Dempsey and Amy Adams had zero chemistry.  And the ending was ... stupid.  In my humble opinion.  But it was sweet and fun and a movie which wasn't too taxing.  So here we are fifteen years later, with a sequel.  Like the original there are good moments and the whole thing was a decent way to spend two hours.  But it's what I call a "cotton candy" film.  It is watchable but quickly after viewing it just fades away into nothing.  And it's smaller, somehow, than the original.  It feels more like a TV movie than something one would put on a big screen.  Amy Adams is, as in the first film, the one to watch.  Her singing, which was tenous in the first film, is strong and confident here (and Patrick Dempsey still can't sing but gets a quick Rex Harrison/"My Fair Lady" moment, speaking his way through a verse of one song).  Ms. Adams also makes her transitions from sweet heroine to evil villian with a smoothness which is impressive.  And the chipmunk is cute.  The chipmunk is always cute.  The supporting cast ranges from the brilliance of newcomer Gabriella Baldacchino taking over the role of Morgan, to an surprisingly subdued performance by Maya Rudolph.  Ms. Rudolph's been working a lot lately, and I have to say she has been better in everything else I've seen her in than she is here.  Her character's minions are more entertaining and interesting than Rudolph's evil queen character.  There are more songs in this film than in the first one but the volume of musical numbers does not make for better.  Unlike "That's How You Know ..." there is no breakaway hit.  There are two decent pieces, one being young Morgan's "Beauty and the Beast" ripoff and the other is a duet between the two evil queens, "Badder".  (Yes, there are a ton of Disney classics easter eggs here).  Weirdly, diva Idina Menzel sings hardly a memorable note in the whole thing.  There are also strange paradoxes.  Disney tries to recognize how feminism has impacted the world by having the evil queen ask her mirror who is the most powerful of all, rather than who is the prettiest of them all.  That being said, there is concerted effort to make the female actors look liked they have hardly aged in 15 years but no effort to hide the men's aging (and both Dempsey and James Marsden, who plays Edward, are in desperate need of a shave).  Giselle's clothing company, shown at the end of the first film, isn't mentioned.  She has returned to being a Samantha-level house-frau, who worries about burning toast or fitting in with the committee moms at the local school.  So much for feminism.  All of these criticisms are picayune.  This isn't meant to be a classic.  It's meant to entertain.  And it does.  Play it in the background while wrapping packages.

"Lopez vs. Lopez"

It's just ... bad.  Full of tired tropes and forced sitcom laughter, none of the characters are dimensional and poor Mayan Lopez (George's daughter) is stretched to her acting limits.  It's cheesy and pointless and I barely made it through one episode before I bailed.  There is a reason NBC premiered this on Friday night.  It's the night shows go to die.

"Ms. Marvel"

In the "why didn't we have something like this earlier?" category comes the delightful and engaging Disney/Marvel production, "Ms. Marvel".  Layered family drama mixes with Islamic culture to create a story of a young woman who is brave, confident and body positive.  It's less of a superhero show and more of a human being show.  The cast, particularly Iman Vellani, are uniformly outstanding.  The storyline is not simple (that's a good thing) and the episodes don't go where you might expect (that's a better thing).  The production is a bright, cheery, artistic explosion of color and creativity.  I really didn't have a single qualm with this series and tore through it in a matter of days.  Can't wait until season two.

"Catherine, Called Birdy"

This is one of those rare instances when the movie might have improved on the book just a tad.  The book, by Karen Cushman, is good.  In diary form, it tells the tale of a very normal 14 year old girl.  Except she isn't normal, exactly.  She is the daughter of a destitute lord in the year 1291.  The man needs to marry the girl off to save his lands.  She is not amenable.  In the book, we see Birdy's feelings through her writing.  Yes, there is a spirit of rebellion but it is subtle.  This is a young woman, in a period of time, who can think what she wishes but in the end must bend to convention.  In the book, she does.  Resigning herself to her women's role in a man's world.  In the film, things are more complicated.  By seeing people, expressions, we learn that there are shadings, edges to the characters not explored in the diary form of the book.  Birdy is more openly rebellious.  Her father is both beastly and human.  No one fits into the mold.  Directed by Lena Dunham, this movie manages to straddle the modern and ancient by retaining language and dress but includes a contemporary soundtrack and adds in a few anachronistic bits.  The bridge works well and makes the whole thing very approachable and real.  Viewers of today will not only see Birdy's plight, they will feel it.  Lead Bella Ramsey, the intriguing Andrew Scott as her father, and the engaging, layered Lesley Sharp as the nurse are only the beginning of an outstanding cast.  Every actor brings something to the table.  It's bravas all around and ten thumbs up.  

"The School for Good and Evil"

As this is Netflix and not Disney this seeming "mean girls set in fairy tale" isn't very clean-cut.  A well-done production, it creates a raft of challenging questions and digs deep for answers.  Are people truly good or evil?  Is good just as bad as evil?  What is the difference between those called evil and true evil?  Has goodness become superficial?  Are we all teetering on an imaginary line, an action away from falling into one side or the other?  Are there truly sides?  What is true love?  Is it always a romantic thing?  Some of these questions are answered in the narrative, others are not.  And not everyone who watches this will get the many layers.  But it is a worthwhile effort, only slightly marred by turning the fight scenes into music videos.  There is a surface thing here.  The script is light, some of the performances are over-the-top.  The film is anchored, however, by the themes and young Miss Sofia Wylie, who has the most subtle yet important duties in her role.  It was an engaging two and a half hours and I didn't get ancy, as I sometimes do these days, sitting through it.  And yes, there are just creepy-enough moments to satisfy those who want to watch movies appropriate to the season.  Not a ten, but certainly worth an afternoon.  And some "deep thoughts".

"Professionals"

The latest CW import is "Professionals" (not "The" Professionals).  Tom Welling is the spy for hire with a portly Brendan Fraser as the multimillionaire tech genius.  They become entangled in international intrigue, jumping from one nation to another to unwrap an increasingly layered mystery.  It's good but it's not riveting.  It's very European.  Overbearing music doesn't counteract that the slower pacing, which is set by dialog and discoveries.  You see more exploration than car chases with bullets flying and lots of edits (although there is the obligatory car chase and a few fisticuffs).  The exposition is not a bad thing.  Could mean that this is a "smart" production, rather than just an action series full of explosions.  But some of the dialog is stilted and it's hard to tell whether it's bad writing or poor acting.  In the end, you watch it for Tom Welling and Brendan Fraser (who is delightful in, like, everything).  Only time will tell if that will be enough to sustain interest.

"Mo"

This fairly autobiographical series, starring Mohammed Amer, is comedy but it is also just very, very real.  An Arab guy who doesn't have his green card struggles to stay employed and take care of his family in an America which doesn't want him.  He is American, in almost every sense of the word.  He has no accent, he speaks Spanish as well as English, and all he wants is to be able to keep his widowed mother under her roof and buy cat food for for his mentally challenged brother.  He also has a girlfriend he loves, and jobs he can't keep because of his immigration status.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, is easy for this guy.  That being said, it's not a downer.  Mohammed has an ironic sense of humor and a "one foot forward" mentality.  And, of course, there are the challenging issues with moms and aunties.  So it has family wrapped up in politics wrapped up in a kinda sweet guy just trying to get by.  Highly, highly recommend. 

"She-Hulk: Attorney at Law"

The Marvel projects with female leads are ... different.  Some ("Captain Marvel") are flops, while others ("WandaVision") are brilliant.  I would put "She-Hulk" in the latter category.  Like most female takes on the superhero genre, it gets dragged by reviewers -- mostly young males.  One, in my area, dismissed it as action-lite and boring.  Well, yeah.  If you are a guy who has seen 35+ Marvel films and love the "bad guy -- destruction -- make a plan -- stop bad guy with lots of fisticuffs" kind of viewer.  Personally, I turn these films on and check my email while they play in the background.  The good Marvel female-made productions?  They explore things in a deeper way.  "WandaVision" was about the persistence of grief.  "She-Hulk" is about some of the essential issues of womanhood.  I love an early line -- Bruce's cousin reveals her new identity and is asked who she is.  She doesn't respond with "She-Hulk".  She says "Jennifer Walters, Attorney at Law."  The statement is powerful.  The point is that she is an educated, hardworking professional.  Her personhood is full and complex, not something to be boiled down to a catch phrase.  This sets up the struggle of the first season.  It is expected that a woman, a professional woman going into an office environment, will have attractive, well-fitting clothes.  That she will have groomed hair and wear heels and have makeup on.  This differs from men, who can show up with beer bellies, ketchup stains and stinking of whatever they choose to smoke outside the office.  It's a different standard and women know it.  Women are seen and judged, men are not.  Which leads to confusion.  Is this persona in the mirror an illusion?  Are women "who they are" based on their outward appearance?  It's a never-ending morality play, performed brilliantly by Tatiana Maslany, who turns to the camera and breaks the fourth wall with sassy asides.  In this first season she works to find her center not because of the Hulk persona, but because she can't figure out whether people want the superhero or the woman.  In the course of becoming Hulk she realizes she is losing herself.  Men reject her, use her, and she doesn't know how to direct her life.  The season ender is ironic and perfect in that sense, collecting all of these threads and encapsulating them well into something ... fresh and unexpected.  Will your average rock em sock em Marvel fans be drawn to this series?  No.  And Disney is doing it no favors by releasing only one half-hour episode a week (not to mention the beyond-irritating lack of a prompt to skip recaps and credits).  But the series resonates a bit with those it is actually targeting -- women.  Which explains why reviews are all over the board.  Either you get it or you don't.  

"Rosaline"

I thought this would be really light and fluffy and silly.  It's not.  It is funny -- laugh-out-loud at times -- but it's also smart.  Really smart.  A rom-com with a brain.  It has an amazing cast (in addition to the engaging, attractive leads there are luminaries like Bradley Whitford and Minnie Driver in supporting roles).  With the actual Italy as a backdrop the characters move through complex emotions, layered into equally challenging situations.  It's "Romeo & Juliet" as a comedy.  Really.  And it works!  Lovers of Shakespeare and of classic films will enjoy a number of Easter Eggs, including homages to the Bard's other works and movies like "The Graduate".  I didn't know how they were going to take this well-known tragedy and turn it into something else.  But they did, and we have an entertaining film which has gentle lessons about mature love, as opposed to infatuation.  As someone who has always had "issues" with the original tale, I approve, heartily.  The contemporary language and musical score works seemlessly with traditional costumes and the occasional iambic pentameter.  It's kind of brilliant.  And fresh.  Brava.

"Reginald the Vampire"

Again, like so many other things these days, this show is a surprise.  Thought it was just a funny take on vampires.  It's not.  The hour long episodes are layered.  There is humor, pathos, wonder, and a little grief.  Jacob Batalon (Spider Man franchise) brings his sweet, engaging personality.  Trapped in a world he never imagined he alternates between being horrified, outraged, and thrilled.  Mandela Van Peebles (this is the second vampire show this season with a hot, gay, Black vampire ...?!?) plays the unexpected maker and mentor.  Points are made about "fitting in" regrading Batalon's weight.  They translate well into the issues modern society has with those who don't look like the people in magazine ads and on social media.  It's gory -- overly so at times -- but that factor is balanced well with true storytelling.  Much more meat (pun not really intended) than you might imagine.  Give it a shot.  Or a bite?

"Downton Abbey: A New Era"

Title aside, there isn't a lot of new stuff here.  Mary still has man-problems, the children of the characters don't seem to play much of a role in their lives and the downstairs people still have dreams.  For fans this is a lovely coda.  It wraps up storylines.  That being said there isn't a lot of story.  There are attempts at story -- a family secret, once revealed, leaves one person wondering whether their life is on the right course.  Several issues do arise, and then evaporate into thin air.  A movie-maker and his cast come to Downton, which creates the potential for new relationships and new appreciations of the modern age.  Downton continues to  wrap historical notes into the production to underscore the uncertainty of the noble class.  I've always marvelled at the fact that few viewers seem to realize this.  In any case I enjoyed watching it but I do think we are "done".  Unless they want to jump ahead to the 1950s, when the invisible kids have grown up to have peccadilloes of their own and Downton is just a big old building in the countryside.  Or not.  It was a great series and a nice movie or two but anything more would just be beating a dead horse.  Enough.

"Hocus Pocus" (OG and 2)

Attempting to get into the Halloween mood I decided to watch the new "Hocus Pocus" on Disney.  However, once again, I somehow managed to miss the original version of this film way back in 1993, so I had to watch it before watching the new one.  They were ... well ...

They aren't bad, exactly.  The OG film is a bit dated, the kids okay (with the exception of a very young Thora Birch, who is fabulous).  The focus is on the witches.  They are kind of funny, but the movie literally opens (SPOILER ALERT) with the murder of a kid.  So, not so funny.  The talking cat is cute and you want to laugh at the witches trying to figure out modern times, but you don't.  They adapt quickly, without any seeming help, and are finally vanquished at the very last minute.

The second film is a virtual blueprint of the first, making the ending kind of predictable.  But the focus is more on the kids than the witches, with Whitney Peak and Belissa Escobedo bringing energy and freshness to make the whole thing a little more engaging.  There is a single twist I didn't see coming but the script, like in the OG version, it is weak overall.  As for the witches, the biggest change in 30 years is that Sarah Jessica Parker seems to struggle with playing the childlike, ditzy witch from the first film.  She's in her 50s and the lightness was gone.  One of the few really enjoyable characters is Billy Butcherson played by Doug Jones ("Star Trek:  Discovery").  He is really a gem who makes the most of his tiny role.  Otherwise, both movies are about as watchable as a Hallmark holiday movie, but that's it.  

All that being said, some numbnuts in Texas are saying the films should be banned, so they will probably get a lot of viewership.  I would recommend having something else to do while you and the kids watch.

"The Humans"

An underdog award nominee last year this one is a quiet little film with some big stars.  It's simple -- one set, one night, one story.  A family comes together at Thanksgiving.  The location is a dumpy apartment in New York City.  The hosts are a young couple, the attendees are the sister, the mother, father and grandmother.  Let the depression begin!  Everyone has issues and most of those issues are hidden.  The passive-aggressive side remarks dig and dig until they come oozing out.  In other words, your standard family holiday.  It's artsy and has silent passages meant to convey -- well, things viewers could debate about.  Based on a play I'm not sure it translates well into film.  Under two hours it feels much longer.  One element of story, they say, is the path the characters are on, internal or external.  What barriers do they find in their quests?  How do they change in the course of the tale?  The answers to those questions are not evident here.  One reviewer stated "I'm not sure of what I just watched."  I get it.  I understand ... there is drama, family drama, personal drama.  There is horror, sort of.  Early on, one character notes that aliens visiting earth realize the monsters are actually us.  The film seems to lean into that with dark lighting and various creatures skittering along the walls.  But it's too much symbolism and not enough meat (pun intended).  It's "good acting" but beyond that there isn't a lot to hang your hat on.

"Death on the Nile"

Not what I expected ... at all.  The previews left me thinking that this might be a farce of some kind, a funny "take" on an old classic.  It's not.  A class-A cast comes together to make a taut film.  Poirot is a troubled, layered, sad man.  The deaths are numerous, the growing tension palpable.  Even if you know the "who" behind the "whodunit" of the tale it's very watchable.  Characters say little of their real feelings but their faces are portraits of struggle and deceit.  It's pretty to look at, engaging to watch.  Brilliant and prolific Kenneth Brannagh directs as well as stars.  Now I have to go back and watch his take on the Orient Express.

"Flee"

Finally got to see this unique and brilliant film which was nominated for several awards last year.  It's a documentary, an animated film, a commentary on the immigrant issues of today, a nod to the struggles faced by the LGBTQ+ community.  It's beautiful and powerful and should have won over "Encanto" but it's not the most uplifting film and its unicorn status probably confused Oscar voters.  Combining personalized drawings with audio commentary and gut-wrenching live footage the movie drew me in.  I couldn't look away.  I was touched, and changed, by it.  With a run-time of only one and a half hours, it is simple, compact and powerful.  Watch it.

"East New York"

As suspected, this is on the gritty side.  More than I like.  I'm kind of a "The Rookie" person (being broadcast on the same night, at the same time, on ABC).  But it's good, and the cast is great.  There isn't a lot of original here (it's on CBS, of course).  Just your basic cop show.  But there is heart.  And storytelling.  And some people trying to do good, but maybe not for the right reasons.  In the vein of "Hill Street Blues" the line of morality is muddied ... a lot ... in this production.  The one interesting thing is the post #BLM influence.  Most of the cast, including the talented lead, Amanda Warren, are people of color.  It may be one of the most diverse casts of a cop show I've ever watched.  And that's key.  The second episode features a tale of two murders -- a white Wall Street guy and black kid from the projects.  The points are made, beautifully, without hitting you over the head.  Brava.  If I know CBS, this one will nudge viewers to widen their world without being overly pushy.  That might be a good thing, allowing people to buy in rather than tune out.

"Interview with the Vampire" (2022)

AMC takes on this classic with the kind of high-end production values we have come to see from them.  An outstanding cast -- Jacob Anderson mesmerizes and Eric Bogosian plays a perfect foil -- makes you feel like you are watching a film, not a TV show.  The story veers a good deal from the book but the quality of the script remains the same ... very rich and layered.  It can also, at times, be laugh-out-loud funny.  It is a series with layers.  This is a show you watch, not work out to.  Two episodes in, it is seriously growing on me.  There is one major caveat.  AMC, known for "Walking Dead", is pulling out the stops on the gore factor, which is deeply not my thing.  In the end it will come down to great acting and storytelling vs being physically repelled by the violence on the screen.  Which will win out, I do not know.

"Elvis"

Must be the season "for your consideration".  Few things are Oscar bait like a good biopic, and in two weeks time we have two blockbuster films -- one about Marilyn Monroe, the other about Elvis.  It's interesting, because they had a lot in common.  Both got their first big breaks in the 50s.  Both were a little innocent and deeply abused and used up by the people around them.  Both came to dislike their public personas.  Both were accused of inappropriate sexuality and both died far too young ... far, far too young ... from overdoses.  Given all of that the two movies could not be more different.  "Blonde" is a hazy, disconnected, internal view of the world from the mind of a troubled woman.  Norma Jeane is the unreliable narrator and history is "twisted" to tell the story the creators wanted to tell.  "Elvis" is a Baz Luhrmann production.  It's loud and bright and fast-paced.  Contemporary music is intertwined with tunes of the times (yes, that is Doja Cat).  At times there are as many as 12 cuts per minute.  There are split screens and the narrator isn't Elvis.  We never get inside his head.  The tale is told by a different kind of unreliable narrator -- Colonel Tom Parker, on his deathbed.  Needless to say, the man doesn't have any regrets and tries to justify all of it.  Elvis and Parker, played brilliantly by Austin Butler and Tom Hanks, are spellbinding.  The strong script has you hanging on every word, even though we all know how things are going to go.  Funny, "Blonde" was raw and personal.  This film was not.  But both made a real impression.  And I cried a bit more at the end of "Elvis" than "Blonde".  Much like my visit to Graceland I found the individual person in this tale, not the icon.  The humanizing of these people is, perhaps, the greatest gift these movies give us.  In any case, it's going to be hard to make the call during award season.

"Blonde"

Wow.  So much to unpack here.  So.  Much.  First and foremost, this is a movie about a real person based on a fictional novel, so don't look for reality.  And when it comes to Marilyn Monroe, what are the facts?  What is reality?  Much like "Spencer" this isn't a retelling of the woman's career but rather, an internal look at the mind of Norma Jeane.  It's just about a million times better than "Spencer."  The brilliance of the film is evident in a lot of ways.  Ana de Armas does a lovely job capturing the childlike innocence of the woman's public persona and allows her true intelligence and insight to break through now and then.  (My one complaint is that Ana de Armas is very petite and Marilyn was downright zaftig.  So much for Hollywood learning the lesson about trying to fit women into a set ideal of beauty.)  The filming is detailed and beautiful.  There are glimpes of her films but more than that we see the world from Norma's eyes.  There is hope and promise ... dashed, bleary-eyed/drug-induced confusion, an unconnectedness of herself to the people and of events in her life.  There is constant questioning and insecurity.  And there is a switch, so subtle at first that I missed it.  The film is in color, then in black and white, then in color again.  Back and forth, back and forth.  What are these changes meant to convey?  The past and present?  Reality vs imagination?  Norma or Marilyn?  About half-way through I decided it had something to do with her mood.  You know how depression can turn the world grey?  Like that.  Maybe.  Who knows?  And that's the rub.  We don't know the mind of Marilyn.  She has been written about, analyzed, explored for 60+ years now.  Men wanted her, women wanted to be her.  Everyone around her seemed to want to take from her, use her, abuse her.  Some people in her life wanted to own her.  But who was she, really?  Not an icon but a person.  A broken person, certainly.  One who loved often but not too wisely, perhaps.  Beyond that ... well, for all the films and books and fascination, we don't know.  We most likely will never know who she really was.  What she thought, what she felt.  She may not have known those things herself -- more the tragedy.  Collectively we put people up on these pedestals, make them into symbols or gods, and then they die (MJ, Whitney, Robin Williams, etc etc etc) and there is a nagging sense of guilt.  Did our idolization contribute to their tragics ends?  Would there have been a way of caring about them rather than being part of the vampire horde sucking them dry?  Would it have made a difference?  There is a lot of talk about this film.  Everyone has their opinions.  Me, as well (obviously).  But none of it matters.  The Marilyn we talk about today is fiction.  Norma Jeane was a human being.  One who will forever remain a mystery.  

"Uncoupled"

This Neil Patrick Harris vehicle on Netflix is light, fluffy and fun ... given the serious undertones.  It's a Darren Star production and has all the hallmarks of his work.  Characters are full of privilege, navigating New York as if it is a playland, not a city of struggles and class.  Once again, we have denizens of the great city who couldn't use a subway if they had to.  Mr. Harris hits the perfect note as a man whose husband walks out, with no apparent reason, after decades together.  He is a self-involved mess and finds a client, beautifully played by Marcia Gay Harden, who is more messed up than he is.  The production is nicely balanced with co-worker Tisha Campbell playing a wise smart-ass and two friends who put his character in his place (when needed).  I do appreciate that, for once, this is a story of mature folks, of those in their 40s and 50s trying to navigate the world rather than the young and effortlessly beautiful.  It's not deep, it's not life-changing, but it's entertaining.  And maybe, from time to time, that's all we need.

"The Evangelicals: A Struggle to Shape America" by Frances FitzGerald

I have been trying to understand our unique times.  Or are they unique?  I read through this weighty tome (more than 700 pages) to try and get a sense of how we got here.  The book starts in the 1740s and continues through American History at a snail's pace, detailing every evangelical movement, every leader, every event impacting both politics and faith.  It must have truly been a labor of love for Frances FitzGerald, who has created a virtual encyclopedia on the topic.  But it is about as fun as reading an encyclopedia -- plodding and plotless.  I really didn't need to know the biography of every faith leader of the various religious movements in the United States over past two hundred years.  All that being said, I pushed through and I learned a lot.  I really didn't know nearly as much about evangelicalism as I thought I knew, including the fact that the evangelicalism we know today is not that old.  So, maybe it was worth it.  For those who don't want to dig through it all, here are my take-aways:  Evangelicalism has meant very different things to different people in the faith community over the past 250+ years in this nation.  Evangelicals are not a single entity, but rather a large number of disparate belief systems which grew up and out through the major denominations of early America (Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and Anglicans).  There were major religious movements throughout time and these not only helped to develop the faiths but created schisms and break-off churches.  For the better part of the last 200 years, many of the various evangelical groups have not gotten along, or agreed on fundamental points.  Most evangelical groups shunned the political spotlight and preferred to keep to themselves.  That only changed when an issue of concern (such as the evolution battle of the 1920s) came up.  The groups would come together briefly to involve themselves in that single issue, then fade back into their segregated communities until another topic came up.  In the 1960s a confluence of things created the seeds of modern evangelical efforts.  Society took a sharp left with the Civil Rights acts, followed by the rights battles of women and gays.  The pill made sexual activity more prominent outside of marriage.  The streets of this country erupted with protests and hippies.  Television broadcast images and stories as far away from the "Andy Griffith Show" as you can imagine.  Televangelicals arouse, denouncing the very medium which helped them grow their memberships.  In 1979, a single person, Jerry Falwell, did what few others had done.  He brought a large number of the conservative faith groups, including evangelicals, into a single tent.  He called it the "Moral Majority".  Working with Ronald Reagan he and his people got a seat at the table -- and liked it.  The idea of re-making America into a Christian Nation was born.  The moral majority fell apart in the late 80s but the roots were there.  Leaders came together and planned out how to win more elections.  They worked at the grass-roots level rather than at the national level, where they had seen some success and a lot of failure.  They made steady gains in local and state offices, the impact of which is seen today.  They created a playbook of lasering in on a single issue of concern for the people they called "values voters" (gay rights, bad books in schools, abortion, etc) and made that the entire focus of an election.  Today, we call these "wedge issues".  The conservative leaders made it clear from the pulpits of evangelical churches that a failure to act on these issues would have a hugely detrimental impact on the freedoms, rights, even lives, of their devoted followers.  Anyone who disagreed was helping to destroy our nation.  This was an important shift.  Not only were the evangelicals of the 1980s and beyond more political than their predecessors, but they supported political messaging from pastors (which had not been the case very often in the previous two centuries) and they were vehement about stopping abortion ... which many groups had actually supported in the past! (or ignored).  The increase in conservative "news" organizations and Social Media after 2010 allowed the right wing to spread their messages more quickly, and to a wider audience, than ever before, bringing on the Presidential election of 2016.  And here we are.  I still don't buy into it, but at least now, to some degree, I get where it all came from.

"The Rookie: Feds"

Love "The Rookie" and love Niecy Nash, so this show is a natural for me.  It leans into Ms. Nash's quirky, fun personality and retains several of "The Rookie" hallmarks.  We have a person "of a certain age" starting over in a new job with plenty of doubters.  There is bodycam footage cut into the chase montages and lots of action (although the first episode had more casual violence than "The Rookie" usually has, which I didn't care for).  Ms. Nash's character is more confident, and good at her job, than Nathan Fillion's character was when the original series began.  Both characters, though, are good at connecting with people, "read" people well, which gives them an edge.  And, of course, there is the race issue -- which is dealt with in a kind of ongoing, subtle way.  It's good, to see the intersection of race and policing in the modern age from people who represent the complicated middle.  The supporting cast is terrific and includes a lot of familiar faces, including a personal favorite, Britt Robertson.  I'm not wild about the constant focus on Ms. Nash's "attributes" -- it can be distracting -- but as her character says "you be you".  ABC also didn't do the show any favors by putting the show on Tuesday nights rather than allowing it to follow the OG series on Sunday nights, but "The Rookie" has always had midling ratings with a thrive factor in DVR, so it will take time to see how it all plays out.  In the meantime if you like a little action with a lot of sass, tune in.

"So Help Me Todd"

This is classic CBS -- fun, easy, enjoyable.  It has a terrific cast headed by Skylar Astin, who brings his traditional energy and verve to the character.  His character (the aforementioned Todd) bounces all over the place and is alternately obnoxious and funny but in the end, brilliant (minus the ego).  His foil is his mother, played deliciously by Marcia Gay Harden, who is excelling of late in playing powerful, broken women.  Add in a smart sister, an engaged ex co-worker and a legal investigation of the week and you have a show which can slide into your viewing without a lot of work.  It's a pleasant way to spend an hour.  Go for it.

"Quantum Leap" (the 2022 sequel)

So far, haven't been impressed.  Like the cast but the stories are very testosterone-laden.  The first three eps:  #1 A Fast and the Furious rip-off, #2 Spacewalks during a doomed shuttle mission, #3 A boxing tale (usually a last-ditch move in many dying series).  What they seem to be missing is a core facet of the OG "Quantum Leap".  Samuel Beckett didn't jump into world-changing events or semi-famous people.  He jumped into little lives.  Forgotten lives.  A secretary being harassed by her boss.  A young man with Down's Syndrome who is written off by family and co-workers.  People who will never be in the history books.  He sometimes did big things to fix those lives but his greatest impact was in listening and caring.  The best moments?  When Sam talked with someone in a quiet voice, trying to get them to believe in themselves, to see the importance of their lives.  The new series isn't there yet.  It's focused on the events, not the people.  It's not badly made so I'm willing to wait it out ... for a while.  We'll see.

"His Dark Materials"

This new(ish) BBC version (airing on HBO Max) is about a million times better than "The Golden Compass" film from 2007.  It's deeply respectful of the book's themes (although updated to include, among other things, climate change) and filled to the brim with talented actors.  Unlike the film, which was full of "stars", this one has a cast which plays to the subtle aspects of the characters (pun intended ... if you know the books ...).  Watch the thousands of microexpressions skimming across the face of Ruth Wilson, who plays Mrs. Coulter.  The character has layers in the books.  In this production she's a crystal with more sides than you can count.  Young Dafne Keen plays the lead role and brings an energy, passion and freshness to the role.  All of the characters have layers and depth.  You connect with them, which makes it even harder when they ... well ...  

It's not a happy tale.  It never was.  From sleepy beginnings the trajectory, and the body count, ramps up very quickly.  The point is made over and over again.  War is coming.  The great war.  The war to end all wars.  There will be losses along the way.  The story may feature a young woman and man coming into their own but it's not a kid's fantasy.  It is, true to the name, a dark, troubling, difficult path.  

Love the books.  In my top 10 of all time.  Although not an easy read, by any measure, it is a thoughtful work.  One which wraps religion, politics, philosophy and more into the complex narrative.  The mini-series adds to the written work rather than diminishing it.  This is a case where the visual version builds on a strong foundation of the books and makes the story richer.  I started in and finished the first two seasons in under a week -- my heart pounding at times.  Can't wait for season three.  Although -- well, the mountain of loss will grow ...

"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"

Films and books are different mediums.  People often blast a film for "not being the book."  I argue that it shouldn't be.  The printed word is not the same as a production with images, sound, and more.  The book (which I loved) tells a story which provides for the reader a certain amount of outrage -- at the lies, the manipulations, the unfairness of it all.  Medical professionals saw Henrietta Lacks as a source, not a person.  They didn't care about her or her family and some dismissed them in gross racial terms.  The film leaves out most of the medical storyline and focuses on the the Lacks family.  Oprah Winfrey does an outstanding job subverting her big personality to truly "become" one of the troubled daughters of Henrietta.  The rest of the cast is top-notch as well.  The writing is strong, the filming delicate and pointed.  One can see, and feel, the pain of a family which was used and abused, over and over and over again.  This came out in 2016 on the (then) quiet Hulu streaming service and slipped under the radar.  If it came out today, with the preponderance of streaming material, it would have been nominated for awards.  A worthy watch, and a worthy read.  Read the book for the facts, watch the film for the feelings.

"Thor: Love and Thunder"

I really don't know what to make of this.  It starts out with one joke after another.  Thor (or is it Hemsworth?) is a little over the whole hero thing and bumbles about, being reckless, and careless, in his work.  Then comes a serious threat and an old love with a secret.  The jokes continue.  And then they don't.  The film twists into a sad seriousness at the last minute and stays there.  I typically love the work of Taiki Waititi, who wrote and directed the latest entry in the Marvel universe.  "What We Do in the Shadows" is one of my top comedies of all time and "Jojo Rabbit" was f-ing brilliant.  ("Wellington Paranormal" is also very funny and worthwhile).  The laughs are there but the balance is not.  There should be a subtlety to the humor, a kind of weaving of story elements and the ridiculousness of it all.  This movie entertains but seem to be a little all over the place.  It's your run-of-the-mill superhero tale but it doesn't resonate.

"Spencer"

Honest-to-goodness, it has been a long (long, long) time since I hated a movie this much.  First, there is the unending opening where the director has the camera stare at trees for an interminable amount of time, then we see Diana in a car.  She gets lost, she wanders into a cafe where everyone stares at her, she is overwhelmed.  She is overwhelmed throughout, and, as portrayed by Kristin Stewart, she is a simpering whisperer who seems to be evoking the spirit of Marilyn Monroe as she experiences weird visions of Anne Boleyn.  There is little dialog, just lots of artful, lingering shots of unhappy people staring at each other.  The images have, perhaps, intent, but it's all kind of lost under a thundering and inappropriate musical score.  This is one of those situations where the director had a story he wanted to tell in some sort of avant-garde way, the facts be damned.  And there are few facts here.  Did Diana make a final trip to Sandringham the Christmas before the infamous divorce?  Yes.  What occurred there?  Who knows?  Not this.  So, my issue isn't just with the "let's make the movie we want to make regardless of whatever" but the fact that Diana was a real person and her sons, still alive, have to deal with this nonsense.  It's disrespectful and gross.  If you have the chance to see it, refuse.  For the sake of Diana's memory, and that of Will and Harry.

"In the Heights"

Nowhere near "Hamilton" this is a small-scale story.  There is love -- of a boy and a girl -- but it is also about love of a people, a culture, a place.  It's a gentle, quiet tale.  You have a young man trying to make a decision, who is looking around his community for guidance.  Song and dance ensues.  It's all quite lovely and has a fresh feel, even though there is a faint reminiscence of "West Side Story".  I enjoyed it.  But, strangely enough, it wasn't memorable.  It didn't "stick" with me.  I wasn't humming the music after I heard it.  It's very worth the two + hours, which fly by, just don't expect it to be a classic you return to over and over again.

"Ender's Game"

It's easy to see why this film didn't make it.  It did have a good cast, Asa Butterfield in particular, but the script just didn't work.  For readers of the books there are too many departures, starting with the fact that they couldn't cast a seven-year old in the role.  For those who didn't read the book it's a fast-paced mash-up of the events without the foundation of the relationships.  Ender's journey as an outsider, his connection with the team he assembles -- there just isn't enough time, in a two hour format, to unfold.  We are left with some random battle simulations without much of an understanding as to why they are so important in the tale.  Should this ever be re-made, it needs to be a mini-series. 

"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness"

The strangest part of this film is that it isn't really a movie about Doctor Strange.  It's a movie about the Scarlet Witch aka Wanda Maximoff.  Her grief, as seen in the Avengers films and "WandaVision" is a palpable thing and the resolution of that is the real focus here.  Which leads me to the following -- this film has some fun raging through various realities (not as well as "Everything Everywhere All at Once" I suspect) but is just a bit plotless.  I love the actors and enjoy the witty repertoire, but I'm getting a bit tired of every Marvel film existing for no other reason than to set up for the next Marvel film.  So, yeah, it's a needed coda for Scarlet Witch but it clearly leads into a new storyline with a dozen unfinished threads.  And I'm almost at the end of my rope with these unending Marvel sequels.