"A Carpenter Christmas Romance"

Maybe it's me.  Finding a decent holiday romance movie this year has been seemingly impossible.  "A Carpenter Christmas Romance" is not it.  Snarky Sasha Pieterse and her visually interesting co-lead with a slightly slushy delivery, Mitchell Slaggert, play characters in deep need of anti-depressants.  The chemistry between them has minor sizzle but no real sparks.  Most of the dialog is delivered with a "just don't have the energy to make this happen" vibe.  The red meat story of a town ravaged by fire and an ex-military guy helping out the homeless didn't appeal.  Halfway through I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed.  Still looking.  Suggestions welcome.

"The Merry Gentlemen"

Talented actors and Chad Michael Murray's surreal abs can't save this holiday movie from being the epitome of every so-so Christmas movie ever.  The meet-cutes, the tropes, they are all there.  Admittedly, there is some awesome choreography but it wasn't enough.  I was checking my email half an hour in.  Love Britt Robertson but not the best project I've seen her in.  Blah blah blah.  Next ... 

"Agatha All Along"

For one of the endless Marvel spinoffs, this wasn't bad, although this one episode-a-week thing really brings down the enjoyment factor.  An incredibly high-end cast and a very neat premise, along with more than a few twists I really didn't see coming, made this a fun go-to.  In some ways it was a great show which could have gone maybe an inch or two more and been spectacular.  A follow-up to "WandaVision" (which ~was~ spectacular), it opened in a way which is both very funny and a terrific homage to the previous show.  It takes a turn, and then, after we settle into the concept, takes more turns.  There are life lessons, reflections, and a lot of learning.  I'm not saying that Agatha finds redemption in the sense of becoming a good person but I appreciate that the creators let her be ... complicated.  Kathryn Hahn is perfect for the role, bringing every sigh, look and verbal intonation one could imagine.  Her performance is so deep she is like a bottomless well.  The only downside is (spoiler alert) an amazing supporting cast which -- sadly -- don't make it through all the episodes.  Totally worth the eight episodes.

No, "Die Hard" is not a Christmas movie

Yes, "Die Hard" takes place at Christmas.  But, unlike "Home Alone", I would argue that absolutely nothing in the plot or the actions would change if it were set, say, during the Fourth of July.  My argument (spoilers ahead):  John McClane travels to see his estranged wife, a rising star in an LA firm, just before the 4th of July.  He brings a really big teddy bear for his daughter (maybe it's her birthday).  He shows up at a staff party and everything goes wrong.  He uses his cop instincts to fight back against the terrorists/thieves.  After he kills the first one, he sends the guy down the elevator in red-white-and blue hat with "God Bless America" written on the guy's shirt.  Throughout, various people hum patriotic country songs.  NOTHING else changes.  The response of the cops (who probably think the gunfire is fireworks), the ulterior motive of the bad guys, the way McClane takes each one down and figures out what's going to happen.  In other words, the fact that it is Christmas has almost nothing to do with what happens or how it happens.  That being said, it's a good film.  Bruce Willis gives his patented funny, grounded, fairly real guy in the middle of extraordinary circumstances thing.  The combination of terrorism/robbery and a kind of riff on "The Towering Inferno" makes the tight film engaging.  Bonnie Bedelia and the whole cast (particularly Reginal VelJohnson, Alan Rickman and De'voreaux White) round out a strong group of actors you want to watch.  And the leading lady isn't a size 0 Barbie girl.  See, women looked like women in films in the 80s!  It's an engaging action film.  But it's not a Christmas tale.  

"Cinderella" (2000)

I love a good Cinderella tale.  From Leslie Caron in the 1955 "The Glass Slipper" to Julie Andrews in the 1957 "Cinderella" TV special, I've been known to spend a day watching one Cinderella after another.  Which made this film ... painful.  Rarely have I seen such a simple story so badly mangled.  Set in the Middle Ages -- or 1920s -- or 1950s -- or 1970s??? it liberally steals from Shakespeare (Lear and R&J), "Beauty and the Beast", "Mary Poppins", "The Wild One", "Misery", the original Grimm tales and more.  It comes off like some weird acid-trip/film noir version of the tale with cheap porn music scoring.  Brilliant actors like Kathleen Turner and David Warner are awful.  She's fake and over-the-top, he's flat.  Not as flat as lead actor Marcella Plunket who, long before Botox, manages to spend nearly the entire film without making a single expression.  Prince Valiant (really) is just as lackluster.  He actually says "Girls aren't cool".  OMG, who wrote this tripe?  Oh, and Daddy never dies.  It's ... weird.  Kind of robs the lady of her raison d'etre, you know?  And don't get me started on what they do to the glass slipper part of the story.  The ball has all the subtley of the 1960s Batman TV show mixed with your average teen horror film.  In the end, the milquetoasts end up together, of course, but it reads more like "The Graduate" than "Happily Ever After".  Tomorrow I'm clearing my palette with "Slipper and the Rose" or "Cinderella" (1965) with Leslie Ann Warren.  I need to forever wipe this atrocity from my mind.

"Fleishman is in Trouble"

Not sure why it took so long for me to get around to watching this series.  I guess I kind of thought it was some dry humor thing set in New York City.  It's not.  Based on a novel, it's a limited series about a man getting a divorce.  It's also about a woman who's not sure she wants a divorce.  It's about raising children, facing middle life, being Jewish, finding happiness, making peace with the life you have chosen, figuring out what love is ... and so much more.  Actors are great (although Jesse Eisenberg's frenetic patter is beginning to feel a little old).  The story is compelling and identifiable and not too dark.  It's just very real.  There are some knowing smiles along the way.  It was a worthwhile weekend binge.

"Madame Web"

(Spoilers) I often like to watch films otherwise trashed by critics.  Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.  In the case of "Madam Web" the critics are not wrong.  This film fails on pretty much every level.  Casting, concept, direction, script, you name it.  There is Dakota Johnson in the lead role as Cassandra Webb (could you hit us over the head more??)  Her character, with a typical difficult backstory, is emotionally supressed.  Which translates to emotionally flat.  Her whispery voice makes her seem like a drifting waif, not a superhero.  Her flashforwards are "Inception" level confusing and gave me a bit of a headache.  And she drowns.  A lot.  Then there is Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced and Celeste O'Connor who play the rambunctious teens Ms. Webb is supposed to save.  Let's start with the fact that these women are more parodies of teens than actual teens.  They each try to overcome the stereotypes they are given (good girl, bad girl, nerd) but have little success.  There is Jose Maria Yazpik, a Mexican national, who plays a Peruvian with real heart.  But looks nothing like a Peruvian native.  Which is typical for Hollywood, which clearly thinks all Hispanics are alike.  The greatest offense here, however, is Tahar Rahim, a villian who is just ... "huh"?  He starts out evil, he ends evil, and his entire motivation is to stop a future event which is continually built up throughout the film ... but NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  It's just kind of a hot mess.  As an origin story, there is, of course, a lot of exposition.  The typical path of the character having a normal life, then getting the "gift", rejecting the gift, accepting the gift, then beating the crap out of the bad guy.  Squeeze in three more characters and keeping the film under two hours makes it feel choppy.  Events seem disconnected, characters can't develop.  Again, you have to love Hollywood, which clearly feels that a single female character can't carry a film on her own ("The Marvels").  It was also the first Marvel film in a long while without a cute cut-in during the credits.  Which sends the ultimate message:  The studio knew this was a bomb and didn't even bother to try.

"The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade" by Ann Fessler

Yes, I still read books.  But it takes a lot longer than digesting the constant flow of streaming media.  In any case, this book, which isn't new, was a revelation.  It made me think, a lot, about the hew and cry from the right that "all unwanted children can be adopted".  What these narratives show is that the issue is far, far more complicated than one might imagine.  There is the sense by the adopted child that their birth mother didn't want them, that somehow they, as children, were unworthy.  There is guilt and anger and shame from the mothers.  There are few women here who said, unequivocally, that this was the right thing to do.  But most felt pressured, lied to, manipulated.  They felt a profound loss of control.  Many turned to drugs or alchohol and dangerous pursuits.  They felt a sense of being inherently "bad" and that dictated their moods, their mental health, their choices, their lives.  This event, which they were told was momentary, colored their world, and their personalities, for decades to come.  With some facts but mostly stories, it is hard to read these very personal tales and not feel moved.  The role of women in society (then and now) underlays much of the fabric of this book and makes one sit back and wonder about the role of motherhood -- how it is portrayed, how it is in actuality.  A powerful read, this one appeared in my "Little Free Library" and I could not be more appreciative.  Not easy, but perhaps necessary.  Check it out.  

Say Goodbye ...

Much like last year, there is some blood on the floor with the summer cancellations.  Well, tears anyway.  There were the ones we knew about:  “Young Sheldon” (Waaaaahhhh!), “Bob Hearts Abishola”, “Station 19”, “Quantum Leap”, “Transplant”, “Umbrella Academy”, “A Discovery of Witches”,  “Star Trek:  Discovery” and “Sweet Tooth” (more Waaaaahhh!).  There were surprises, like “So Help Me Todd”, “Julia”,  “Not Dead Yet” and “Reginald the Vampire” (CLIFF-HANGAR!), not-surprises like “Extended Family”, “Lazarus Project” (ANOTHER CLIFF-HANGAR!) and “Spencer Sisters” and shows I had already quit on, like “La Brea”.

I wouldn’t be so sad but every year the newbie list gets thinner and the quality more iffy.  For the past five years or so I’ve said goodbye to a lot more shows than I am adding.  So far, all we have for the fall is:

CBS – “Georgie and Mandy’s First Marriage”, “Matlock”, “NCIS:  Origins”, “Poppa’s House” and “Watson”. 

ABC – “High Potential”, “Doctor Odyssey”

FOX – “Rescue:  HI-Surf”, “Murder in a Small Town”, “Universal Basic Guys”

NBC – “Brilliant Minds”, “Happy’s Place”, “St. Denis Medical”

I’m betting that this time next year fewer than three of these are keepers.  And my DVR will be even lighter than it is now.

Farewell "Manifest"

As with other things, I took a while to get around to the final episodes of this series.  It was always good.  It was never great.  But the premise was kind of fun and the characters really grew on me.  I mourned the passing of a number of them.  The show always bordered on the whole Christian thing (which it leaned into more in the end), but never went full-on preachy.  The lessons here were more about community and forgiveness and choosing good.  With a twist of L. Ron Hubbard weirdness.  I enjoyed it, particularly as the series progressed.  The weaknesses ... drawing things out too much to keep the premise going, adding in romance after romance after romance, creating circular storylines where you kind of yelled "move it ALONG" ... pretty much went away in the last ten episodes.  But the issue was ... the show went the other way.  Plotpoints were rushed or skipped altogether.  It made the flow a little bumpy.  Characters appeared and disappeared and I got a confused because information was left out.  It was like reading CliffsNotes.  I guess what I don't understand is why they didn't just lengthen the episodes to cover the needed scenes.  That's what you do in streaming.  And yet the episodes were all tailored to broadcast specs, running 42 or 43 minutes.  In any case, this is a bit picky.  The wrap-up was good.  There was a real effort to honor the characters, the storyline and to complete the mission.  In the final episode I feared a "Lost" moment -- a few times.  But they swerved.  And it was all happy-shiny time for the most part (despite one really bad attempt to use special effects to age a character down).  Loves made and lost.  99% of the characters were squared away (two weren't, but that was kind of an oversight, I think).  The resolutions were satisfying and made sense.  Final take -- it's worth the binge.

"The Curious Case of Natalia Grace"

Typically, I don't watch this kind of stuff.  I don't watch real-life crime shows, docu-dramas, etc.  I find them exploitative and watching them feels dirty.  Like tragedy porn.  But when children are involved, I'm sometimes drawn to these kinds of programs.  I guess a part of me wants to know if the kids came out of it okay.  If they got their lives back together.  I'm usually disappointed.  Rarely, if ever, is there a happy ending when abuse is involved.  And so it goes.  This two season series reveals a lot of ugly.  So much so that I kept putting it aside.  I would watch an episode or two, then stop.  It was just too sad.  There are lies upon lies.  Manipulations and fabricated tales.  When all is said and done, however, I came to a few "truths" I will hold onto.  (Perhaps the draw of these things is to play judge and jury?  To feel empowered to judge others?)  Is Natalia Grace a sociopath?  No.  Was she an adult masquerading as a child?  Absolutely no.  She was a child.  And from birth she was saddled with health issues, abused and passed along.  To more abuse.  She was ten, and had suffered a LOT, by the time she finally found herself in a situation where she was treated with decency.  Where she was finally hugged and valued.  Where she was treated as a child and truly cared for.  Does she have issues?  Oh my, yes.  She is angry.  Defensive.  Perhaps abusive in some ways.  It was all she ever knew.  But here's another bottom line for me.  She was surrounded by adults.  Were some abusive?  Absolutely.  But others, like her stepfather, say they couldn't stop the abuse.  Couldn't help.  And that, my friends, is just bull****.  There were adults and a child.  Blaming the child for her behavior as a result of her abuse, refusing, as the adults, to step in, is criminal.  Period. 

"Renfield"

Listed as a comedy, I expected something along the lines of "Reginald the Vampire" or even "What We Do in the Shadows" (both are truly fabulous, by the way).  What I got, instead, was a gorefest which made "Deadpool" look like kiddy fare.  Great actors (honestly, I would watch Awkwafina read a dictionary, not to mention the delightfully bereft Nicolas Hoult with his puppy dog expressions) can't save a film which is just ... graphic.  I mean, there's some dialog.  But nothing clever.  Nothing to grab and hold your attention.  Twenty minutes in, I was checking email and shopping online as the bodies piled up.  Oh well.  

Goodbye to "Good Trouble"

Disliking having to wait from week to week for the next episode (what happened to streaming???), I didn't take the time to binge the final episodes of "Good Trouble" until now.  It got to me ... more than I expected.  And it was perfect.  The drama (oh, so. much. drama) continued right up until the final scene.  As a gift to the viewers there was a nice wrap-up for each character, bringing them to a place of hope, of promise.  After five seasons, it was really nice to see this group of (mostly) young folk finally get the hang of adulting.  Started as a show about Callie and Mariana from "The Fosters" it quickly grew into an ensemble show ... and what an ensemble!  Every character, including the offbeat "Kelly" really added to something which became a very rich stew.  The angsty nature of their screw-ups and perpetually miserable love-lives was hard to take at times but I always came back.  I came to care about these characters, and rooted for them to find meaning and peace in their lives.  The reward for hanging in there was rewarded in the form of a finale with promise.  And I realized that between "The Fosters" and this show, I've been watching this storyline since 2013.  ELEVEN YEARS!  I can't even begin to list all the chapters I've lived in my own life in this period of time.  To the residents of the Coterie -- bonne chance!  And to these amazing actors ... thank you.  I hope to see you soon in other projects.

"Bombshell: The Hedy Lamarr Story"

This documentary is older than I thought, but quite powerful.  I was drawn to it after being reminded, again, that this was a woman who was known for her movie star status, but sadly forgotten for her brilliant inventions.  It's well-done.  The interviews, clips, structure are all solid.  For a documentary it hits the right notes with information but doesn't bore.  The pacing is good, the viewpoint is as unbiased as is possible.  It's good.  Really shines a light on one of many women whose impactful life has been lost to the shadows of memory.  This production shines a light into the dark and reminds us of the importance of the foundation which came before.

"The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar"

The brilliance of this really surprised me.  Familiar with Roald Dahl, I had not read this particular book.  The production did a terrific job of capturing the kind of quirky, oddball style of Dahl's works.  A short film (40 minutes) with an amazing cast (start with Ben Kingsley, add in Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel and more) and you have something very (very, very) watchable.  It has meaning, message, humor.  It is fresh.  It is surprising.  It is totally worthwhile (and it won an Oscar).  Watch it.  And then, maybe, watch it again ...

"All the Light We Cannot See"

This is one of those situations where I really wish I had read the book.  Anthony Doerr is a gifted author and I may have liked this better in book form???  Unlike "A Small Light", which I very much liked for its fresh qualities, this one hit a lot of familiar notes.  There is clear delineation between good and bad.  The Nazis come off like the ones from any given Indiana Jones film.  There are good actors here.  Each brings a lot more depth to roles which seem to be a bit two-dimensional, but it doesn't help.  It's sad but I felt a difficulty connecting.  The accents are distracting.  Most are British, some are vaguely European, and Mark Ruffalo, who has impressed with the wide variety of characters he has played (including identical twin brothers, where one is differently-abled), seems a little lost here.  His accent seems more like an affect than anything else.  Young Aria Mia Loberti is engaging but it is not enough.  There just isn't enough "something" to carry the story through.  Again, I have to wonder if Doerr's prose in print form would have been more engaging and would have drawn me in.  This production sadly didn't.  Maybe I'm ODing on all the Holocaust dramas out right now.  Who knows?  It's watchable.  It's just not "outstanding".  And, given the cast and the source material, I expected better.

"Wish"

It's okay.  Not bad, but not memorable.  The issue, much like "Damsel", seems to be a lack of plot.  Young Asha lives in a Utopia.  She thinks.  Early on, she discovers a dark secret, and spends the next hour and a half trying to make things right.  It's not enough to pin your hat on.  There is also a surprising flat quality to the animation.  Hands have no fingerprints.  Faces, with the exception of Asha's freckles, are uniformly smooth.  Like mannequins.  That being said, it's typical Disney fare.  There is a perky and beguiling young woman -- Asha (played by Ariana DeBose).  A notably unconflicted bad guy.  An upbeat group of friends.  A loving family.  A talking animal or two.  Quite a number of songs.  Unlike the last few Disney movies, the tunes seem to be catchier, and the lyrics worse.  They haven't found the right mix of late (in my humble opinion).  There are the messages.  A snap-back at immigration policy you might miss if you blink.  The importance of hopes and dreams, and not letting anything hold you back.  How we need community and connection.  Standard stuff.  It just didn't "stick".

"Spider-Man: No Way Home"

Time flies.  Three years after it debuted, I finally saw "Spider-Man:  No Way Home".  It's amazing.  It's devastating.  If not for the next movie in the series coming out, this would have been a perfect, if not very very sad, way to wrap things up.  Unfortunately, there is the almighty dollar to deal with.  So there will be a sequel.  A shame.  This one hit every right note.  Engaging, hysterical dialog.  Good pacing for a (really) long movie.  Terrific way of pulling the threads together (pun intended).  And the predictable but incredibly moving sacrifices the hero must always endure.  It's just lovely.  But keep the kleenex close.

"Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story"

I actually liked this so much more than "Bridgerton".  Kinda-sorta based on real history, this has more gravitas, more meat.  It's a significantly more serious tale than the marshmallow fluff which is the original series (that being said, the connections and back-story to the Bridgerton characters is quite delightful).  The cast, of course, is fabulous.  A huge shout-out to India Amartiefio, who plays the eponymous lead.  She hits the right note each and every time.  And there are a lot of notes.  It creates a symphony of struggle, of feminism, of the times, of love.  I tore through the six episodes quickly and my only regret is that it's a limited series and there will be no more.  And yes, for those who like the bedroom antics in Bridgerton, there are more here.  But they are, in my humble opinion, fairly secondary to the core issues.  It's powerful.  It's memorable.  It's worth the watch.

"Glamorous"

Oh.  Dear.  This had so much saccharine it makes me jittery.  It was like Disney meeting R-rated content.  Listed as a comedy-drama it was pretty much all broad comedy for the first six episodes.  Very, very broad.  Took me almost all of the first season to buy into these characters being anything beyond two-dimensional.  Scenes were bathed in light so bright, with so much pink and yellow, that I felt like I was having a Miami Beach hallucination.  The cast had potential.  Lead Marco Mejia is interesting and earnest.  Supporting player Jade Payton is charming.  Ayesha Harris brings needed groundedness.  But vets like Diana Maria Riva and Kim Cattrall seemed constrained.  And they are amazing ... usually.  The young folk were presented as hyper, teeny-tiny clothes wearing, very occasionally drug using drifters consumed with romances and drama over doing their jobs.  Just didn't appeal.  Took until episode seven (of ten) before it finally clicked in.  Too little, too late.  By the time they dropped some of the nonsense the train had left the station.  It was cancelled.  One season and done.  The sad thing is that it could have been so much more.

"Wonka"

Honestly, this is as close to perfect as a movie can get.  As a sequel (or prequel, more specifically) to a nearly perfect film, it's kind of a gift.  Somehow, beyond all expectations, they play homage and yet find new territory.  They wrap in beloved characters and songs but add something new, making it fresh.  There isn't a bad egg in the group (easter egg intended) and it didn't, in any way, disappoint.  Honestly wonderful.  Really should have gotten more attention around award time.  Why is it that stories which just make us feel good don't get the same attention as gut-wrenching epics?  Grab some chocolate (you really must), settle in, and enjoy.

"Damsel"

The quality of mercy is not "Damsel".  A terrific cast and high production values can't hide the fact that this is an out-and-out revenge tale.  It's also a bit thin from a storytelling persepective.  Which is to say that if you see the trailer you pretty much get what happens in the whole movie.  It's not bad.  An enjoyable way to spend an hour plus.  It's heavy-handed with the digital enhancements but again, a strong cast does make it watchable.  There just isn't a lot of there there.  We have a half hour of fairytale, an hour of retribution (think fairytale meets the upside down of "Stranger Things") and that's pretty much it.  Good and bad are pretty heavily delineated.  Characters don't have a lot of room to change and grow and make retribution.  This movie is about blood.  And squishy killing.  In other words, not a story for the kids.  I sense a sequel.  We'll see.

"Capote vs the Swans"

Tom Hollander is terrific as Capote but the production, as a whole, put me to sleep.  It's not a story about scandal.  It's just about the times.  The sixties.  Elegant women.  Cafe life.  But nothing really happens.  Not really.  Tons of atmosphere, lots of porn-like shots of food.  But the secrets?  The destruction Capote supposedly created on these superficially perfect lives?  We don't see it.  Not really.  The cameras linger.  The women are limpid and languid.  And exchangeable.  Big deal actors are left to do very little but sit and stare.  We do see a tiny and sanitized snapshot of Capote's life.  But the audience is never allowed to pull back the curtain and see the reasons behind the manipulations.  We don't see any of the big bad events Truman exposes.  They are simply talked about.  Whispered about, really, over roast duck en glace.  Even the rage, unlike in the previous season of Duel, is muted.  I'd watch Hollander again, but overall, this one left me with a big yawn.  If you are going to do a story of privilege, at least give us some real emotion.  

"Queen Cleopatra" (2023)

Calling this a "documentary" is a reach.  "Inspired by" might be better.  Here's the thing.  "The Crown" is fiction.  We accept this because no one knows what is said behind closed doors.  We don't know the state of mind of the various players, we only know, for sure, the events.  And so it is with Cleopatra.  The true answer is "we don't know".  "The Crown" takes place over much of the 20th Century.  Cleopatra's story took place more than 2,000 years ago.  Thanks to the nearly pathological need for the Romans to record everything, we know a lot.  But the dramatizations here?  Complete fiction.  When the historians start saying things like, "One might imagine ..." or "It does seem like ...", you know you are in trouble.  When one of the experts says something about how a figure in the tale was feeling, I cringed.  The actors are strong, the narrative engaging, but the insistence that this is history, and not made-up history, is distracting.  As is the makeup, dialog and costuming.  Okay, documentary budget.  But there didn't seem to be a lot of effort.  No, there was no "glitter makeup".  No, we didn't say "okay" and "yeah" back then and the hip-hop underscoring inserted a couple times pulled me right out of the narrative.  No, Mark Antony most likely did not have a beard and a Bieber-esque hairstyle.  And the costuming.  Oh, the costuming.  The guards look like they are wearing vests made of bathroom mats and the pleather you buy at the craft store.  Cleo spends half the series wearing an ensemble which looks like something from a boho music festival (and never mind the fact that 21 years pass or that she supposedly ages from 18 to 39 ???)  It was also way the heck weird when the footage of the crowds from Caesar's walkabout in Rome is identical to the scenes we see as Cleopatra takes a drive through the countryside of Egypt.  I know, I know, this was done on the fly, but if you are going to tell a story, tell a story.  And be up front about what you are doing.  And, as to the color controversy, it's kind of moot for me.  Back then, there was no "Black" or "White".  Do I believe that Cleopatra was a fair-skinned woman with European features?  No.  And I never have (sorry Elizabeth Taylor).  It just doesn't make sense.  I've always envisioned her skin as being copper or caramel colored, with dark, thick black hair.  That makes sense.  The reason it matters?  Because of the world we live in now.  Back then, well, it was back then.  I return to my original statement.  "We don't know".  Period.  In any case, I did learn a lot of things which surprised me.  I just wish that, as a production, it had been better.

"Elsbeth"

Columbo is finally back.  It took decades.  People have been trying, and trying, and copying the Columbo model for years.  With little success.  The trick wasn't to copy the idea.  Even if it was original.  The idea that we know the killer, the motive, the method in the first 20 minutes was unique.  Making this a "how are they going to get caught?" rather than a "Whodunit?" was brilliant.  But the key to it all was Peter Falk.  And he couldn't be replicated.  With Carrie Preston, however, we finally have an honorable character to pass the baton to.  Ms. Preston infuses her character, Elsbeth, with the perfect balance.  She seems innocent and simple yet has that determined annoying quality which drives killers insane.  The writing supports this and the New York setting gives it verve.  The supporting cast may take a while to gel, but overall, I say home run.

"Priscilla"

Finally got to see this wanna-be award nominee and the take is ... "meh".  Frankly, there have been a few Elvis projects out there and the bar is high.  Baz Luhrmann's "Elvis" certainly had far more energy than this production.  That film didn't do much for Priscilla's tale, though, and this movie is really about her and barely about our erstwhile musician.  And that's the problem.  To understand the relationship we need to see the heat, the passion, the two people caught in an impossible situation.  All we see is a very (very very) innocent Priscilla.  She's bored.  She's lonely.  She's bored again.  She's jealous.  She's helpless.  It's very hard to connect when she is such a ... passive ... leading lady.  She raises her voice from a whisper once ... near the end ... and it seems to come from nowhere.  The same goes with the actual ending.  We see her leave Graceland but nothing in the film leads us there as to how she finds her self-efficacy.  There is supposedly an affair (on her part) but that is glossed over.  The whole thing feels sanitized.  Maybe the book had more context but this seems more like flipping through a photo album.  "Young Priscilla".  "Sad Priscilla".  "Priscilla has a baby" -- but again, other than some shots of her with the kid, there is no structure as to what that relationship was (clearly, problematic).  I appreciate that Priscilla Presley wanted to get her story out there, but this is too heavily edited to buy into.  Like a one-sided therapy session when one party doesn't show for couples' counselling.  Oh well.  There will surely be another film or two exploring the topic.  Whether it's Elvis or Marilyn, Americans love tragedy.

"Star Trek: Short Treks"

These short films are kind of brilliant.  Very different from each other, they are like haiku.  Each episode is a little 7 to 15 minute gem.  They are like well-structured bites of drama, humor and creativity.  Animated and live action, based on characters we know or ones we don't, stand-alones or connected to other storylines, they are simply terrific.  Watched, and deeply enjoyed, all of them.  Some knowledge of other Trek events would be helpful.

"Star Trek: Lower Decks"

The frenetic pace of this PG-17 rated animated series is a bit much for me.  Not to mention the "South Park" level of profanity.  I'm not seeing a lot of character development and quickly got tired of the whiny underlings.  That being said, I tried to hang in there.  There is a crossover with "Strange New Worlds" and enough snark about Trek traditions to be a little funny.  The animation allows for different kinds of species on the ship.  It has promise.  But I haven't figured out for what yet.

"Star Trek: Strange New Worlds"

If you are a superfan of TOS (otherwise known as Star Trek, "The Original Series"), you are going to love this.  It may be called "Strange New Worlds" but it hits very familiar notes.  There is a brash captain with a certain bemused sense of humor.  There are also some familiar faces, so to speak.  A very young Spock, Nurse Chapel and Uhura.  There is a lot of "put the ship in danger" and species we know ... Andorians, Klingons, Vulcans and the like.  And Gorn.  Lots of Gorn.  There are serious episodes, funny episodes, and a little "alternative universe" stuff.  The interesting twist is how this series comes down from the tech in Discovery to the Enterprise which started it all.  The producers work it in well in ways which make perfect sense.  That's kind of true for the whole series.  Care is taken to maintain yet build on existing threads.  There are more females on the bridge and there is significantly more back-story for those characters.  The mini-skirts with black nylons are replaced by tunic-like garments with black leggings.  It appears the women on this version of the show get to make some choices in dress.  I have yet to see a single outfit which had to be glued on.  The series is streaming, so the violence is more visceral and yes, there is sex.  But the framework is very (very) recognizable.  Took me a while to buy in, though.  Needed to connect with the characters and move past all the space battles.  I got there.  And went back and re-watched the first two seasons, feeling that I had a foundation to get what was going on.  I would strongly recommend that people watch the first two seasons of Discovery before launching in (pun intended).  Season two of Discovery is the kick-off for this show and much of the beginning of the series is grounded in events from that show.  It's worthwhile.  And a bit nostalgic.  The actors get kudos for picking up the daunting task of taking on icons, and doing it with aplomb.  Looking forward to season three.

"Wild Cards"

Milo Ventimiglia's recent outing, "The Company You Keep" was cancelled right when I started buying into it.  This pale Canadian copy (this time she's the con and he's the cop) isn't bad but it isn't good, either.  It's just fluffy noise.  The bloodless crimes they solve don't leave much of an impact.  Kind of like the whole show is just a foundation to support banter.  ER's Giacomo Gianniotti's sultry disposition (and love for a hairless cat) bring a certain amount of chemistry, and Vanessa Morgan's bubbly energy helps move it along.  But this isn't a show to hang your hat on.  Just one to watch when you don't want to think too much.  Like Hallmark.  It's just "there".

"Tracker"

NBC and FOX both have their missing person shows, so I guess CBS had to get theirs.  Unlike the other two productions this one focuses more on a loner Colter Shaw (played by Justin Hartley) than a group or organization.  He has a team, of course, but the actual James-Bond level rescues are all him.  Like the other productions the character has a tortured back-story.  It's not the bestest thing in the world but it's not bad.  Typically formulaic on this network, it's not full of suprises and twists but Hartley's committment to the role works and the producers do everything possible to boost his handsome savior creds.  The supporting players are strong and the whole thing rings of compassion.  Wedged between the justifiably popular "Equalizer" and one of the "CSI" spinoffs, it should do well.  The only thing which might get in the way is the Sunday night placement.  CBS shows have struggled in this slot, as they are often delayed -- sometimes significantly -- by football.  I'm keeping it in rotation.  It's just engaging enough without being a serious concentration show.  And yes, like 007, Hartley got the girl at the end of the first episode.  I expect this will continue one way or another.  That's fine.  If the guy can rescue a kid by falling off a cliff even though he has a bullet in his arm, he deserves to get some.

"Extended Family"

Time for the very-much delayed new season.  There isn't a lot of meat here.  Only three new shows up on network TV and none of them are particularly original.  They aren't bad, they just aren't remarkable.

First up is "Extended Family."  I love Jon Cryer and Donald Faison.  Both have serious comedy creds and know how to work a moment.  I would watch Jon Cryer walk across a room (which he does, hysterically, in at least one episode of this new sitcom).  And Donald Faison has a lovely way of finding the perfect "level" -- not too little, not too much.  He hits just the right note and the irony is unmistakable.  Even Abigail Spencer, new to the genre, manages to match Cryer and Faison's wry humor.  It's a good threesome.  But that's about it.  The show is standard sitcom and has little to no depth.  The children don't impress (and, I've noticed, have appeared less and less in each successive episode).  The concept is good and the whole thing is ... unoffensive.  But it doesn't break through on any level.  I like watching it but wouldn't miss it if it were gone.  Hopefully, as things progress, it will find some layers -- minimal though they might be.  It's shows like this which make me really miss Chuck Lorre.  He only has two shows left ("Bob Hearts Abishola" and "Young Sheldon") and both of those end this Spring.  

And the Award Goes to -- 2024 edition

2024 Award Nominated Films (and TV series)

Every year I try to find a thread which binds most of the top-nominated films together.  This year that is impossible.  The productions were all over the place and it’s more like comparing apples to sofas than apples to oranges.  There was also a lot of quality this year.  More than we’ve seen in a while, which makes picking just one really hard.  At least for me.  There are huge box-office hits and movies no one has ever heard of.  There are male dominated films and female dominated films.  Marvel actors reminded us that they are real actors, not just superheroes.  There are a ~lot~~ of LGBTQIA+ characters.  I chalk that up to a pushback from Hollywood as to what is happening in this country.  There is a lot – and I mean a lot – of sex.  Very prolonged sex.  Very graphic sex.  As a writer, I always ask myself … how important is sex to the narrative?  Does portraying it in detail move the story forward?  Is it an element we need to understand the character?  In the case of these films, sometimes yes, but, in my humble opinion, most of the time, no.  Same goes for graphic violence.  There were two – yes, two – nominated titles which involved watching people eat people.  I’m just saying.  And yes, a woman brutally murdered in the woods is awful.  But do we really need to see the back of her skull falling off, showing her brain leaking out to feel bad?  Again, I have to say no.  But them’s my opinions.  As always.  Others won’t agree and the trend of rewarding the male, the violent, the sexual and the “big” productions will likely continue.  Personally, I like the quirky, thoughtful and fresh takes on who we are as people.  Oh well.  Expect “Oppenheimer” and “Succession” to be the winners.  Below, my two bits.

Best films overall:

#1  “Maestro”

#2  “Past Lives”

#3  “Oppenheimer”

#4  “Barbie”

#5  “Rustin”

#6  “The Color Purple”

#7  “American Fiction”

#8  “Nyad”

In terms of streaming series and limited series, definitely check out “A Small Light”, “Daisy Jones & the Six”, “Lessons in Chemistry”, season 4 of “The Morning Show”, “The Diplomat”, seasons 4 and 5 of “Fargo”, final seasons of “The Crown” and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”, “The Gilded Age”, “Abbott Elementary”, and “Fellow Travelers” (although I was a bit on the fence with that last one).

My SAG votes:

FILM

Male Actor in a Leading Role:  Bradley Cooper had my vote until I saw Colman Domingo in both “Rustin” and “The Color Purple”.  Talk about range!  Cooper deserves attention for the incredible work he has been doing in front of, and behind, the camera.  But this was a year with a lot of juice in the acting categories.  The award will likely go to Cillian Murphy for “Oppenheimer”.

Female Actor in a Leading Role:  Annette Benning for “Nyad”.  The film was brutally hard on a physical level and Benning didn’t flinch at portraying a complicated, unvarnished character.  Award will go to Lily Gladstone for “Killers of the Flower Moon”.  She deserves it, but so does every actor in this category.

Male Actor in a Supporting Role:  Robert Downey, Jr. in “Oppenheimer”.  #1 He was unrecognizable.  #2 A lot of attention is paid to those who die of ODs.  Downey has worked hard, very hard, to maintain his career and his sobriety.  Again, this is a very deep bench in terms of talent.  It could be Downey for the win.  Or Dafoe, or Gosling.

Female Actor in a Leading Role:  Again, again, huge talent in the pool.  I went for Danielle Brooks for “The Color Purple”.  She absolutely commands every scene she appears in – giving joy or grief or energy or all of the above.  She is, in my humble opinion, a force.  The award will likely go to Da’Vine Joy Randolph for “The Holdovers”.

Outstanding Cast:  This one was hard.  Really hard.  I went for “Barbie” because it took buy-in by every member of the cast to pull this off.

Stunt Ensemble:  “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”.  Because this film got a lot of crap it didn’t deserve.  And there are lots of car stunts, chases, and, you know … bullwhips.

TELEVISION

Male Actor in a TV Movie or Limited Series:  Matt Bomer in “Fellow Travelers”.  Role showed range.  The character was very, very, complex.  Other nominees are gifted actors, but often playing characters similar to ones they have played in the past.  Steven Yeun will likely win for “Beef”.

Female Actor in a TV Movie or Limited Series:  Another very, very hard decision.  Went with Brie Larson for “Lessons in Chemistry”.  She achieved Spock-like brilliance by giving a stoic performance with oodles of emotion … right behind her eyes.  Very close second, for me, is Bel Powley in “A Small Light”.  She literally brought light to the production.  Ali Wong will likely win for “Beef”.

Male Actor in a Drama Series:  Billy Crudup in “The Morning Show”.  Really wanted to give this to Pedro Pascal – for being a guy who did an incredible acting job in a helmet and as a Spanish speaking mother-figure in an SNL skit.  But Crudup delivers – a guy you should hate, but you just … don’t.  The prize will go to one of the actors in “Succession”.

Female Actor in a Drama Series:  Keri Russell in “The Diplomat”.  She maintains a frenetic pace, dialog which is Shakespearean in its complexity, and still manages to portray her many conflicted inner feelings.  Brava.  The award will go to Elizabeth Debicki in “The Crown”.  Cuz, duh, she plays Diana. 

Male Actor in a Comedy Series:  Bill Hader for “Barry”.  Not a weak category but didn’t like any of the nominated titles.  Don’t really like “Barry”, but like it more than the others.  Jeremy Allen White will likely win for “The Bear”.  What I don’t get is nominating the same actors year after year.  If this were up to me, Alan Tudyk, who has never been nominated, would win for “Resident Alien”.  He is nuts.  And brilliant.

Female Actor in a Drama Series:  Alex Borstein in “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”.  Honestly, can you imagine any other actor ever playing that role?  No.  The award will likely go to Quinta Brunson for “Abbott Elementary” or Ayo Edebiri for “The Bear”.  Quinta should just get an award for working her *** off.  She produces “Abbott Elementary”, appears in it, as well as appearing in other shows and a growing list of commercials.  Only other actor I’ve seen with a resume like that is Queen Latifah.

Outstanding Cast/Drama:  “The Morning Show”.  Really wanted to give this to “The Crown” or “The Gilded Age” but “The Morning Show” just keeps raising the bar.  Award will likely go to “Succession”.

Outstanding Cast/Comedy:  “Abbott Elementary”.  Which might actually win.

Stunt Ensemble:  “The Last of Us”.  Not easy choreographing fight sequences with zombies.  For a lot of reasons.

"The Marvels"

Yet another good action film which got trashed for reasons which aren't entirely clear.  I mean, it's not Shakespeare, it's Marvel.  And, like all Marvel films, you have the big bad thing, the fights, the bonding, the amusing asides, the world-ending peril which must be stopped.  The blend of actors -- Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris and Iman Vellani really works.  Each brings a needed "seasoning" -- funny, serious, hopeful, broken, angry, sad, determined.  The dialogue flows well amidst the frequent fisticuffs and, of course, there are loose threads for the next ten sequels.  Maybe it's just a last straw thing.  You really need to watch a number of Marvel films before this one to get all the references and the unfinished storylines are getting old.  I'm one of those who has been saying "ugh" lately when it's clear that a Marvel movie's only purpose is to prep for the next Marvel movie.  But I enjoyed this one.  There is singing (hee hee) and flerken -- adorable AND dangerous!  It's worth an hour and 45 minutes.  And I kind of love Iman Vellani's exuberant/over-the-top Ms. Marvel.  And her whole family.  They bring joy into my heart.  In any case, I'd be more likely watch it again than some of the other 32 (THIRTY-TWO) films in this particular cycle.  And I've seen them all.

"Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny"

Honestly don't get why people are so down on this film.  It follows the Indiana Jones canon perfectly.  Opening with a massive and ridiculous chase scene where many Nazis get killed, there is then the return to a university, a tease about an artifact ("It BELONGS in a MUSEUM!"), a strong-willed woman who wants what she wants, a trip to Morocco, a smart kid, more chases, a plane, a boat, snake-like creatures, a reversal, a clue, lots of creepy insects -- and the final battle in a great cavern full of secrets.  The true believers don't like it when producers divert from the canon, but they also complain when the story is too derivative.  That's not my criteria.  I look for the following:  Is it familiar enough that I can connect with the characters?  Is it a fun way to spend two hours?  The answer to both of these, for me, is a solid "yes" with this film.  That, plus it is light-years better than "Temple of Doom" and "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".  It's like the Star Trek movies.  Every other one is good.  And this one's good.  My only thought is this.  Harrison Ford (as well as John Rhys-Davies and Antonio Banderas) are getting old.  And they look it.  Maybe, in the world of action adventure movies, people want escapism.  Maybe they don't want to see their heroes turn into real people.

"The Last of Us"

Look, I adore Pedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey.  They are both talented and this production is extraordinarily well done.  Everything, from acting to directing to script, is terrific.  But it's a post-apocalyptic, zombie tale.  I don't like zombies.  What's the point of a bad guy who is insensate?  And, after some 20 years, I'm pretty burned out on the post-apocalyptic thing.  Put them together?  Sorry.  I just can't power through.  And it's not like I didn't try.  But it's also pretty predictable.  Zombies start eating people.  A scrappy, hardened group of survivors set up a refuge which is "fairly" secure.  Someone with military training has to leave the refuge for some reason and there is the dangerous travel, filled with killing a lot of zombies, which often lands in a place which seems really nice on the surface but has an ugly core.  The military person continues their trek and finds the end of the road.  But the end of the road is not what the military person thinks it is.  Yeah, been there, done that.  I'll take a vampire series (or witches or whatever) over zombies every time.  Sorry.  If you are into a bleak dystopia and visceral violence, this is a great addition to the canon.  If not, may I recommend "Red, White, and Royal Blue."

"The Diplomat"

I had heard good chatter about this series but didn't get around to it until Keri Russell got nominated for a SAG award.  Have to say, really liked it.  Ran through all eight episodes in less than 24 hours.  It's a delightful mix -- the politics and pace of "West Wing", the intrigue of a John le Carre novel, the marital complexities of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"  Ms. Russell is outstanding in her portrayal of a smart, hard-working woman ... who often has to navigate a world of low expectations, not to mention a husband who has his own ambitions.  Personally, I really like the fact that she is a woman who wants to do the job, not be judged for how she dresses when she does the job.  It's a rich, layered tale.  I wouldn't recommend this as a workout or "check your email" show ... you really need to pay attention.  Also, a familiarity with world politics wouldn't hurt.  This may be fiction, but it is grounded in today's events.  Short hand?  It becomes even better when you see the twists they put on things we know about -- Ukraine, Russia, Iran and more.  Definitely a worthwhile way to spend a long afternoon.  And I can't wait for season two.  Season one has quite the cliffhanger.  And I only partly saw it coming.  Lots and lots of moving pieces.

"A Small Light"

Most holocaust productions are sad, sad, sad.  Depressing.  It's the nature of the beast.  Six million people were just slaughtered.  It doesn't make for happy fare.  "A Small Light" is the story of Miep Gies, a young woman who ended up being one of the caretakers for Anne Frank and seven others while they were in hiding.  The difference here is that Bel Powly plays Miep.  Between her effervescent performance and a nicely structured script, we see the hope, the promise that "someday" things would get better.  Miep sees plenty of the darkness but she does not focus on it.  She looks to the light.  It makes this very hard story bearable.  Not that there aren't tears.  There are.  Of course.  This is a known history.  But this is a layered production.  It brings a lot of normal life -- at least as normal as possible -- to an impossible situation.  Anne is a whiny teen but has more dimension than almost any other version of her I've seen.  Miep and her husband work to figure out their relationship stuff.  The people of Netherlands each has a different response to the Nazi occupation ... just like any group of people would.  This is nothing if not a human tale.  An outstanding production and way to spend eight hours.

"Beef"

 

~Sigh~  Yet another really well made show which I really couldn't watch.  Sad, miserable people get into a road rage incident and continue to pursue and harrass each other over the course of ten hours.  Secretly, they want to die and each of them "play with" the idea of killing themselves.  It's supposed to be wryly funny I think, but I just found it depressing.  There is enough darkness in the world.  I see it every day in the news.  In the big city I live in, traffic issues are a dangerous, daily struggle.  Don't need to see a fictionalized tale of hate and bitterness.  It's just too real.  

"Past Lives"

A24 does amazing work.  This is no exception.  A little film which is powerful.  A sweet, simple story which is complicated, and, in an odd way, deeply sad.  A love story that isn't, but is.  A tale of immigration and culture which is also about finding the culture within you -- figuring out who you are and how you fit into the world.  The filming is exquisite (yeah, Celine Song definitely should have been nominated for an Oscar) and the acting is top notch.  While I didn't fully buy these 40 year-olds as college kids, they have a chemistry to die for.  In every scene the screen just crackled.  It's a beautiful story but it's not overwritten.  The pacing is concise but the actors are given time to feel the beats, be in the moments.  As it goes on you are inexplicably part of those moments, drawn into something which feels deeply real.  Real and palpable without the overt sexual scenes present in so many other films this year.  It's stunning.  An absolute winner, in my humble opinion.  (And yes, grab that kleenex).

"Poor Things"

SPOILERS 

I really liked it at first.  It is quirky, strange, offbeat, unexpected.  Much of the film is shot with a fish-eye lens, which gives it extra weirdness.  And some of the settings look like they are inspired by a favorite artist, Hieronymus Bosch.  It seems, at first, not unlike a riff on Rapunzel.  From amusing baby steps we watch an adult woman who has been given an infant's brain try to grow up and makes sense of the world.  It's funny.  It's charming.  It's a very nice acting job from Emma Stone (not to mention William DaFoe and Mark Ruffalo, who are brilliant and almost unrecognizable).  But then it takes a turn.  Sexual awakening I get.  But after that understandable, and well-done moment, the sexual adventures become pervasive.  All of a sudden, this woman trying to "get it" is only trying to "get it".  In a Victorian period she seems to always wearing see-through clothing and shorts reminiscent of a "sexy school-girl".  She runs off with a lothario, then becomes a French whore.  Because every woman in the world really wants to be debased in order to find her self-worth.  It is exploitative and demeaning.  And not exactly the female empowerment tale the film seems to be trying to project.  So, in the end, a wild premise is undone by turning the whole thing into soft porn.  Of course, this male director has been nominated for an Oscar.  Unlike the female directors this year, who nearly all got iced out. 

"Lessons in Chemistry"

Once again, Brie Larson reminds of why she was awarded an Oscar for her work in "Room" some nine years ago.  She is terrific in this limited mini-series at remaining stoic but clearly being a person who is constantly battling her inner demons.  The series is respectful of the book and maintains the core, but several elements are expanded and deepened.  Calvin becomes more of a force rather than someone who showed up in her life and then disappeared just as quickly.  Neighbor Harriet becomes a woman on a mission to save her Black neighborhood from being destroyed for a highway.  Elizabeth's relationships -- with co-workers, her daughter, have more meat on the bone (pun intended).  There is a difference between reading something and seeing it.  In this show, even when you know what is coming, the visual impact makes events and actions have more levels.  I plowed through the eight episodes quickly and thought about the series ... a lot ... after watching it.  The book gave me a great story.  The mini-series made me feel.  Brava.  Oh, and the dog is adorable.

"Killers of the Flower Moon"

Marty, Marty, Marty.  Yes, it's a fascinating story.  One we haven't heard.  And, by adding the Osage people and traditions, there is some beauty among the horrors.  But let's face it.  That's window dressing.  Once again, this is a mobster movie.  Another one.  Really, if it weren't for "Hugo" I'd really think this is all you know how to do.  You find stories of corrupt men in power who manipulate others to do terrible things.  Loyalty is a thing and when it falters, retribution is a *itch.  Robert De Niro plays the cappo, Leonardo DiCaprio the chump.  If not for Lily Gladstone and Tantoo Cardinal, there would not be a person of interest for me in this film.  It's a bleak, gory tale of manipulation and murder.  It lingers.  At three and a half hours, we see it all, in bloody detail, until it lumbers to an inevitable end.  I talked about the other historical films in award contention this year and how they brought something new to the history we know.  This doesn't bring anything fresh, per se, it just wallows.  By the end I wasn't emotional, just ancy and ready for the credits.  And I'm sorry, Marty, but you are an 81-year-old man.  Don't you know that the great majority of people can't sit through three and a half hours.  Can you?  Did some editor piss you off once upon a time?  Did you decide to never edit a film ever again?  I get it.  The point of the movie.  I got it in the first hour and a half.  Didn't really need another two hours to understand that people can be depraved.