"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.

"WandaVision"

Loved this.  Loved loved loved this.  It's weird, it's unexpected, it's kind of brilliant.  A lot of it, of course, has to do with Elizabeth Olsen, who gets my vote as one of the most underrated actors of our time.  She has a full range of emotions which play across her face, over and over, making every viewing a new experience as you try to understand the kaleidoscope of feelings playing out inside of her.  The concept is terrific and will leave a smile on your face if you, like me, are a long-time TV viewer.  It's a great way to address Wanda's pain and loss, and does a real honor to the roots of the character.  The end ... well, no spoilers ... but it did not go where I thought it would.  I binged the whole thing in a couple of days but kept thinking about it long after I had viewed it.  By all means, indulge.   

"Encanto"

Fun and clever, this is one of those Disney films the kids will enjoy, and most likely will want to watch over and over and over, but there isn't a lot of depth here.  Cute magic stuff, cute songs, a mild point or two ("be yourself" I guess???) and that's it.  It's not one of those clever movies where grown-ups can see stuff the kids don't.  It's not nuanced.  It's just, well, "nice".  And "We Don't Talk About Bruno" will haunt you a bit but not in the earworm way.  It was entertaining.  That's about all I can say.

"Wedding Season"

I thought this Netflix production was a series, not a film.  It might have been better as a series.  Or not.  As it is, there is a major montage in the middle to make up for lack of storytelling.  In typical Hallmark fashion there is a career-minded woman being pressured by her family to find her Mr. Right, and she and an handsome Indian fellow agree to a faux relationship to get their parents off their backs.  You know what happens next, right?  The acting is good, the plot is on the light side -- predictable and boring, and the portrayals of Indian culture is fun and engaging.  So, like any televised rom-com, it's worth having on in the background while you are doing something else but don't expect to have a deep connection with it.

The CW. Again.

So.  As it goes up for sale, the CW has done what it has never done -- cancelled, like, everything.  A fond farewell to "DC's Legends of Tomorrow", "Batwoman", "The 2200" and more.  And it's time to evaluate the new tries.  

First, there is "Bump", cementing the CW as a network of imports.  This one, from Australia, features a thoroughly unlikeable teen who has a baby.  The child's arrival is unexpected and the father isn't the girl's long-time boyfriend.  Complications abound.  Despite the half-hour format, it's not a sitcom and it's not generally funny.  But it's not bleak, either.  It's kind of ... real?  And compelling.  

"The Great Chocolate Showdown" is a game show from Canada.  I generally don't watch these competitive things.  Most weeks I hate how a chef I like, who has previously done well, is booted off for a single fail.  But there is chocolate.  A lot of it.  'Nuff said.

"Leonardo" comes from British actor Freddie Highmore's production company, paired with an Italian broadcaster.  Examining the early life of Leonardo da Vinci it does a nice job of mimicking the art in the filming and taking a subtle approach to a very complicated man.  It's not historically accurate, hardly at all, but it does create compelling characters and spins an intriguing tale.  The cast is strong and the only one fail, in my humble opinion, is trying to convincingly to fit a 40-something actor into a group of 20-something art protegees and make them all look like contemporaries.  I'm willing to overlook it and see where this goes. 

"Turning Red"

This f-ing brilliant animated film does an incredible job capturing the struggle of leaving tween years and becoming a full-on teenager.  Not as popular as "Encanto" I have to say I enjoyed this one more.  It's smart and layered.  The choices by the characters are nuanced, the resolution more real than idealized.  Just a terrific movie for young folk -- and their parents -- to watch.  Wraps Chinese culture into the story a lovely way and respects both the traditions and the struggle of younger people growing up in these cultures.  The characters aren't all good or all bad and even the lead can be irritating at times.  This one I would watch again.

"Look Both Ways"

This Netflix film sits somewhere between the NBC show "Ordinary Joe" and the film, "Sliding Doors".  It's not as depressing as the Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle but it's not quite as well-done as the NBC show.  Like James Wolk, the lead character here, Natalie, has a seminal event (pun sort of intended) at the end of her college career.  It sends the young woman down two completely different paths.  In each life she has a five-year plan which doesn't go as planned.  There is "a guy" in each iteration although they both do and don't have a major impact on Natalie's choices.  There is an attempt to portray her as an independent woman and she has the spunk for it but in typical rom-com fashion the men must be part of the equation.  The film is good but not great.  The ending is muddled -- in part because the beginning wasn't clear on location and how that location plays out in the final events.  Everything is wrapped up neatly.  Perhaps too neatly?  Almost rushed?  It is as if those who produced the movie didn't want to offend anyone and so they just made everything "okay" without passing anything even close to judgement.  It's tricky times to portray a woman in America who may or may not pregnant.  You can try to focus in on the film but may end up thinking about a woman's choice -- or lack thereof.  

"Perry Mason" (2020)

This ain't your parent's Raymond Burr version of the famous fictional lawyer.  It's a completely new take.  Gritty, dark and hard to watch at more than a few points, it's an origin story, and it is done in the style of film noir (not my favorite).  Set in the early 1930s, the violence is visceral and graphic.  Perry is an alcoholic, chain-smoking veteran with no small amount of PTSD from the Battle of Argonne.  He works for a lawyer who has chops, but is fading.  The lawyer manages to keep it together with his smart and sassy assistant, Della Reese.  Paul Drake is now a Black police officer who struggles to walk the line of an impossible existence.  The eight episodes of the first season cover a single, brutal crime.  You want to know all the who and why?  You have to watch all eight episodes.  In true film noir fashion, even the ending isn't a real ending, not in the sense that everything is tied up in a neat bow.  Things come to a natural pause, but a happy path is not in the cards here.  Besides wanting to know what it was all about, I stuck in for two of the leads.  Matthew Rhys can do nothing wrong, in my humble opinion.  And Tatiana Maslany, continuing her tradition of being a chameleon, is transfixing, as usual.  To make the story go eight episodes there are a lot of convoluted plotlines, most of which end up unfinished.  The film-making here is outstanding but I don't know if I will watch season two.  Ms. Maslany will not be back and the whole thing is just way too moody and dark.  But I can't say the first season was bad.  Not at all.  So, it's a dilemma.

"Anne of Green Gables"

The real thing.  Having watched "Anne with an E" -- and having thoroughly enjoyed it, I had to go back to the books, which I somehow never read in school.  Which is weird, because I basically read everything.  So, here's my take:  The books are good.  In a literary way, in a real teen way.  There are whole sections describing Avonlea which are like pure poetry.  The seasons, the trees, the countryside.  As a young reader I wouldn't have appreciated all of this description as much as I do now.  And there are Anne's monologues -- her never-ending stories of events in her life and thoughts she has and feelings she expresses.  These are irritating, both in the book and in the streaming series.  But they are real and they do show the unique passion, the "verve", which makes her truly special.  Characters in the streaming series are combined and threads which are subtle in the book become more dominant in the televised series (this being the 21st century and the books having been written in the 19th century).  Most events are about the same with the exception of a couple of things which happen to her friends and schoolmates.  Why didn't I read these books when I was younger?  As a city girl, I didn't see myself in the setting of the idyllic countryside.  Which the story is, to a point.  My fear, that this book was a sanitized goody-two shoes kind of tale, is a little justified.  Anne is well-liked at school, a good student, a girl who is teased at first but in the book that all goes away within the first six months or so.  "Anne with an E" is better at making the story real -- of Anne making friends but sometimes losing them, of Anne continuing to be on the outside, of her pushing too hard and the people in her life calling her out on it.  In any case I would say that the characters of the streaming series are performed with a true respect for the written characters.  One thing I would have liked about Anne had I read the books when I was young?  Her spunk.  One thing I like now?  Her introspection.  She makes mistakes, a lot of them.  But here's the thing -- she says it herself -- she never makes the same mistake twice because she learns from every event.  And that's something you can hang your hat on.  Even a straw hat with flowers.  

"The Gilded Age"

A passion project for "Downton Abbey" creator Julian Fellowes this HBO Max series boasts a lot of stars and definitely makes you think.  It's a paradox.  You hate a character for focusing on nothing but social climbing, then love her for calling out the old biddies who won't let her into the club.  You love her husband for his work ethic and devotion to family, then hate him for his ruthless business practices.  You hate the snobby "old" set but then appreciate the times they are able to show compassion and give freely.  It's a credit to the producers that these are complex people in a complex time, even if the surface story seems predictable.  Unlike "Bridgerton" this is not race-blind casting and some nifty points are made by the single storyline focusing on a Black actor.  There isn't a lot of new stuff here but it kept me watching.  I blasted through the whole first season in three days.  Yes, you hate the entitled rich people.  Who cares about rich people being mean to other rich people?  But then we are a culture which embraced "Dynasty", so ...  In any case, this is very well made and opts for the subtleties rather than hitting viewers over the head.  Take the time and enjoy it.  Flawed humans and all.

"Julia"

Brava, Bravo to the creators of this HBO Max series.  Unlike the mis-conceived film, "Being the Ricardos" this really speaks to me.  There are big names aplenty in the supporting roles but they actually went with a lesser-known British actor for the lead, who ... wait for it ... embodies the character beautifully.  You really don't look at her and say "that's not Julia Child."  In series form, as opposed to film, there is the opportunity to really examine things deeply and the producers here don't miss a beat.  It is a show of subtleties, exploring everything from the complex relationship between Julia and her husband, the issues women faced in the male-dominant work-force of the early 1960s, where LGBTQ+ sexuality was at the time, you name it.  The show is kind of brilliant (and will make you hungry -- watch with a meal).  It's not just well-acted and well-written, it's also well-shot.  Clever use of the camera, edits and choices in portraying the events of a given scene make for a tale which really draws you in.  There are eight episodes in the first season, six of which are already out.  I watched those six in a single sitting.  Enjoy, or as Julia would say, "Bon Appetit!"

"The Orville: New Horizons"

I really enjoyed this show when it first debuted on FOX in 2017.  At first, it was kind of silly and a little rude but the cast was fresh and engaging.  Instead of being a Sci-Fi spoof, it turned out that it was a love letter.  As a lifetime Trek/Star Wars fan I appreciated every homage, every Easter Egg.  Season 2 got more serious -- which was good.  And then, of course, as FOX is wont to do, it was canceled.  Fortunately, Disney+/Hulu picked it up and with season 3 I would say that the series is better than ever.  With each episode going more than an hour, with the constrictions of broadcast TV being lifted, the whole thing seems to have blossomed.  It's not just deeper, the show has texture and a ton of layers (thank some very high-end writers for this).  Storylines from the first two seasons are continued but filled out to the point where they feel complete.  Political messaging is still there but is typically more subtle than the OG Star Trek.  It touches on a wide range of topics, including the complex issues of alliances between different cultures in a time of war, the use of weapons of mass destruction and working through loss and grief.  The diverse threads of this show weave into something which leaves you thinking.  All that being said it's not depressing.  So much of today's Sci-fi has leaned into the gore and the dark view of the world.  The Orville not only maintains mostly happy endings but something even more important -- hope.  In the midst of cool technology they focus on the people.  Brava, bravo.  Looking forward to season four.

"Better Nate Than Ever"

Loved the books, by Tim Federle.  The movie, not so much.  Way (way way) too Disney-fied.  The books had depth.  It was about an awkward boy getting it all wrong as he tries so very hard to get it all right, to find a place for himself in a world which doesn't seem to have a place for him.  The film doesn't dig down.  It goes for the cheap laughs and the kind of syrupy fakeness you see in 1980s sitcoms.  There are about a thousand product placements.  Even the play Nate is auditioning for (ET:  The Musical) is changed to "Lilo and Stitch" (a Disney production).  In the film Nate doesn't sing an historical Broadway song.  He sings "Let It Go".  Also from a Disney film.  The one saving grace is that the kid, Rueby Wood, has a few really decent musical numbers.  It's the only time I really enjoyed myself.  Unfortunately, the whole thing is poisoned for me.  This should be a film about a seventh grader figuring out who he is.  Instead it becomes a 93 minute ad for Disney.  So, blech.  Read the books.

"And Just Like That"

(***SPOILER ALERT***) There’s a lot to hate about “And Just Like That …”, starting with trying to care about the problems of rich, entitled white women who are utterly clueless about the world outside of their privilege.  As many have mentioned, the attempt to diversify this show is cringeworthy at times.  How anyone, in this day and age, can be so inept at dealing with the racial and gender issues which abound in the modern world is just stunning.  And there is the aging, or lack thereof, of the leads.  Yes, it is 16 or so years later and for two of the three women, it looks like 16 years later.  That’s not a bad thing.  We’ve all aged, and the world has changed since these happy-go-lucky characters danced across 5^th Avenue in their ridiculous heels.  What is harder to watch is Kristin Davis, who has been vocal about people picking on her looks but given that this was always a series about looks, I say you reap what you sow.  That Ms. Davis has fallen into the addictive hole of face fillers is not a surprise in a business where young women, like Lady Gaga, can’t walk away from the temptation, but it is a serious challenge to watch her performance and be distracted by a face that doesn’t move and a lisp created by some weird frozen upper lip.  And, of course, there is the much-discussed issue of Big’s death.  Everyone is upset that Carrie’s first action isn’t to call 911.  If I read the filming correctly, it wasn’t meant to be literal.  First, Big is alive and looking at Carrie.  The water from the shower is off.  Then, he’s dead and the water is on.  Flashes – he’s gone, he’s not, eyes closed, eyes open.  I ~think~ it was meant to be a way of envisioning the surreal quality of finding a loved one dead, unexpectedly.  It just wasn’t done that well.  Honestly, Joss Whedon did it much better in “Buffy” with the episode “The Body.”  

All that being said, much like the original series, there is something here.  Underneath.  Something which has you coming back.  Peel away the self-obsession and stupidity (wearing four-inch heels to paint rooms in a women’s shelter?  Really???) there is a theme which hits home, albeit slowly.  You get to a certain point in life, and you think, “this is it … this is the target … this is where my life will be …”  And then.  Then, someone dies, or something shifts, and “just like that” the comfort zone you are in goes out of the window.  This isn’t a series about women looking for love.  It’s about mature women who have found and lost love, and are trying to navigate a terrain they never imagined for themselves.  And that is what got me to watch it.  FYI, shout out to Sara Ramirez, who is mesmerizing in their performance as Che – they breathe new life into the familiar.

"Never Have I Ever"

It would be easy to dismiss this as more teen drama.  And it is.  But it isn't.  Devi (and the actress who plays her, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan) is a complex person.  She is utterly self-obsessed and a truly lousy friend, but she also lost her father suddenly and is struggling, in a very real way, with the whole growing up/defining herself thing, adding in layers of a grieving mother and an Indian family.  It's rich.  It's also funny.  John McEnroe is the narrator -- and before you jump to the conclusion that he is an odd choice for the role, it fits ... perfectly.  There is snark but a connection.  McEnroe nearly tanked his career with hissy fits and temper tantrums.  He doesn't just mirror Devi's pain.  He understands it.  And that's reflected in in the tone with which he helps to tell her story.  The balance of characters, all more layered than you would think, makes the show very watchable, even with the cringe moments.  

"The Adam Project"

Somehow landing in a Ryan Reynolds phase, I came across "The Adam Project", a layered film which was both funny and thought-provoking.  It's funny.  It's sad.  It's deeper than you might think.  There is Adam, a time-traveling, smart-mouthed guy (Reynolds), who is none too nice to his childhood self.  Clearly, he has issues.  There is his younger self -- played wonderfully by Walker Scobell -- who has the same mouth but still has sees promise in the world.  A stellar cast provides the rest of the puzzle:  an absent father, an overwhelmed mother, a missing love, an evil scientist (there is always an evil scientist in these things).  And, of course, there is time travel.  Which you kind of have to wrap your head around.  If someone goes back and meets their former self and therefore changes history do they never actually go back and meet their former self and change history?  Yeah.  Time travel.  Fun.  Anyway, I found the film much more warm and touching than expected.  It had real depth for a so-called "Sci-fi" picture.  Very worthy, very deserving of praise.  

"Red Notice"

Just a delightful romp.  If you want one of those "Oceans Eleven" kind of escapist film to enjoy on a lazy afternoon, this is it.  Gal Gadot escapes her Wonder Woman persona just a bit, to play a very sexy, very manipulative thief.  Ryan Reynolds is his typical sarcastic but hysterical outsider.  Dwayne Johnson plays Reynolds' non-amused straight man and the "heavy".  Fresh face Ritu Arya is a good addition to the mix and provides needed perspective.  It's type-casting and only has one or two twists I didn't fully see coming but it's engaging, enjoyable, has laugh-out-loud funny moments and just works.  Enjoy.

Who is the Good Guy?

 

I’m struggling with film and television today.  I watch a lot but in the vein of award nominations and there is an interesting trend.  It’s not new.  The anti-hero.  Dexter, Mad Men, Succession, Ozark.  In comedies you have Schitt’s Creek, Dead to Me, etc.  In films there is Power of the Dog, the 50^th anniversary of the Godfather, Nightmare Alley.  They all have one thing in common … the characters aren’t very “worthy.”  They range from greedy SOBs to downright murderous fiends.  Call me old (okay, I am, a little …) but I miss the time when there was a character in a tale who you could root for, identify with.  That seems to be less and less the case with storytelling these days.  It’s … bleak.  It’s a pretty cynical view of the world.  What causes this, I wonder?  Reality TV, where we laugh at the exploits of rich people who are awful human beings?  We make ourselves feel better by looking down at others, right?  Is it that we are living in a troubled democracy where we are a country torn in two, each side feeling superiority over the other?  We see only the dark these days, right? 

Television, for me, was always about escapism.  Finding balance and humor.  I watched Hogan’s Heroes growing up – it took one of the saddest episodes of our history and found the light.  It was daring and disrespectful, but it humanized a small part of the war I think.  The battles, which were always successful thanks to Hogan and his crew, were real.  There was Adam-12 and Emergency, where good guys do good things (although, in watching some of the repeats I’ve heard a sexism I didn’t recognize at the time).  There was the ridiculousness and open laughs in Batman and The Monkeys and Laugh-in.  And, a few years later I discovered Sci-fi, the ultimate escape.  Star Trek and Star Wars and Superman.  They were all the same story, kind-of.  Good people fighting bad people to find love or save the planet or both.  Most of the time good triumphed over evil and the bad people retreated, and all things came back to the way they were supposed to be. 

Film and TV began to change, slowly, becoming more ambiguous in the 1980s.  Or maybe there had been ambiguity I hadn’t noticed before.  Certainly, Miami Vice drew some inspiration from Serpico and The Sopranos was paying a major homage to Godfather.  Barney Miller was a little angry and depressed, Cagney and Lacey faced impossible odds.  Silk Stalkings was fun if you didn’t take it (or any Stephen J. Cannell production) too seriously.  But the innocence was fading.  By the 90s the word “p***s” could be said on television, thanks to a promiscuous President.  The gritty nature of Broadway’s theatre, complete with expletive-filled plays by the likes of David Mamet, were blending into the world of film.  The century turned and 9/11 changed it all.  The most innocent of stories took on an edge.  Battlestar Galactica was remade as a grim, dark allegory for the modern age.  We went to war in the Middle East on questionable grounds and the American political rift began to deepen. 

Who were the good guys, we asked?  Are we the bad guys, some of us asked?  Cable showed up with its lack of censorship, and, desperate for ratings women’s lives were both explored and exploited.  But there were still characters we cheered on (Buffy and Xena, go, go, go!)  Drug use and violence were now shown, viscerally, which came as a bit of a shock to those of us who watched Columbo explore the cleanest of murder scenes … blood rarely came into play as he hunted the guilty.  Hospital dramas now edit in actual surgery footage.  Dead bodies are now seen with every excruciating element of the insect life which inhabit the departed.  And so where is my escapism? 

Maybe all this explains the rise of the superhero film.  The need for clear good guys (although Marvel managed to muddle that a good bit in the Avengers films).  We need people to cheer on.  Grand tales which transport us.  Stories which make us laugh and cry and connect.  So much of today’s offerings leave me cold.  Yes, we as humans are so very (very) flawed.  But is that all that Hollywood wants to show us? 

Maybe they could focus more on how we rise up and do good.  Even if it is only on a spaceship on a planet millions of miles from Earth.  I’m watching Wonder Woman right now, for the 1000^th time.  There is a reason the film is so popular, in addition to yes, being a great film.  Listen to what she says at the end, talking about the human race to Ares:  “They are everything you say they are, but they are so much more.”  “It’s not about what they deserve, it’s about what you believe.  And I believe in love.”  That’s storytelling, folks.

"Anne with an E"

I was a voracious reader in school but never delved into “Anne of Green Gables”.  It was described to me as being about an orphan girl growing up on a farm in Newfoundland.  Kind of a “Little House on the Prairie” from Canada.  My sense was that it would be treacly and bucolic and so I skipped it for darker fare.  My understanding is that this Netflix series is a re-imagining which doesn’t follow the books whole-heartedly but it has intrigued me and I’m thinking about going back and reading the books now.

This streaming series wasn’t instant love.  In the first two episodes Anne drove me more than a little crazy.  She’s emotional, damaged, over-the-top, insecure, obnoxious, doesn’t listen, she’s righteous, is self-obsessed … basically your typical teen.  But I recognized myself in her.  The girl who can’t trust that she is loved, the girl who is accused of being overly dramatic because she uses her fantastical imagination to survive difficult times.  Maybe I didn’t like seeing so much of myself.  I hung in there.  In successive episodes Anne tones down, just a bit.  She continues to make big mistakes, huge mistakes, but she grows from each one of them.  Her circle grows and begins to include people who question their position in life, often because of Anne’s presence in their world.  On a remote Canadian island in the 19^th century you have women who resist becoming wives and wives only, a privileged young man who comes to see a black man as his brother, and lots (and lots) of gay stuff.  I was shocked.  This wasn’t bucolic, it was churning, with seething frustrations and struggles in the face of tradition and repression.  And it is SO gay.  I mean, if someone had told me that I probably would have read the books!

But seriously, I loved the series more and more with every passing episode and managed to binge it all in under two weeks.  Every single character, every one, has depths and dimensions you don’t see coming.  It’s really quite well-done.  And the shots of Newfoundland, often in the winter, are breathtaking.  Brava, Anne!  To the rebel in all of us. 

"The Bureau of Magical Things"

Harry Potter meets Sabrina in this definitely tween level series.  It's cute, fun, fast-paced and has a kind of lightness to it which I am beginning to expect from Australian streaming shows.  Which is odd, because the YA lit I've read from Australia is dark.  Very very dark.  Not this production, which touches quickly on the sad stuff and goes skating on to fun.  The teens, in a magic school of sorts, always mess up and then run around for 20 minutes or so trying to fix their goofs, learning some not-too-preachy life-lessons along the way.  It can be repetitive but is entertaining.  Lead actor Kimie Tsukakochi is talented and engaging.  Is it fabulous?  No.  But it is a delightful palate cleanser to the news of the day and a great way to get out of yourself if you just want to escape it all for a brief time.  

"The Mitchells vs. the Machines"

Having watched all the SAG nominated films I was able to delve into some Oscar picks.  "The Mitchells vs. the Machines" is delightful, smart and laugh-out-loud funny.  A great film which young and old will appreciate it is packed with terrific artwork, good twists and lots of messaging which you understand without feeling preached to.  It was a great two hours.  You know it's a good review when I have nothing to pick at.  It was simply great.

"The Endgame"

I love, love, love Morena Baccarin.  So, yes, I was a little biased even before I saw the first episode.  But it was good.  Fidgeting fell by the wayside and I was riveted by this con/action/crime/mystery series.  "Blacklist" meets "Jack Ryan" meets "Nikita" meets "Killing Eve" ... I think (?) ... in this vibrant show.  Baccarin plays an arms dealer/head of a mercenary army mastermind.  She's a bad guy.  Or is she?  Clearly, she's killed and doesn't mind killing but there are hints of something greater.  And that's the key.  This is a mastermind who doesn't just look at the board in front of her, she runs the game.  The first episode is non-stop action with an interwoven "fairy tale" and twists you will not see coming.  Ryan Michelle Bathe is the Yang to her Yin and together they make every scene a fiery battle of wills.  I can't wait to see what happens next.

"Naomi"

CW shows tend to have rough starts.  It is as if they get sold on an idea but don't really delve deep into how to grow a series.  Such is definitely the case with "Naomi" which has promise but is a bit of a muddle.  The premise is interesting.  (SPOILER ALERT)  Teen Naomi is a Superman fan but believes superheroes aren't real.  Until she begins evidencing her own powers.  Quite quickly she discovers that she is an alien and gains a nicely Zen mentor.  Things progress.  Kaci Walfall, in the lead, has rich layers to her acting and really shows the thinking going on behind the extraordinary circumstances she finds herself in.  Best friend Annabelle is a terrific foil and the other teens band together well.  But some of the acting (particularly in adult roles) is a tad stiff.  Could be the direction or uninspired scripts.  A good number of the technical aspects just don't work.  Wardrobe, for instance, looks like what a costumer would put on people, not what teens actually wear.  Ms. Walfall has to fight the hair hanging over her face in far too many scenes, her beautiful expressions blocked by bouncing braids.  Every episode seems to reveal a new power or two -- are they endless?  A recent episode took cues from "Blair Witch" but that's pretty dated at this point, and it shows a certain lack of creativity on the storytelling side of things, IMHO.  The show could get better.  "Legends of Tomorrow" and "The 4400" had rocky rollouts and are now favorites, not to mention how much "Batwoman" improved after season one.  So, yes, I will hang onto this one for now.  But it needs focus and direction.

"Kim's Convenience"

Now is the time for diverse shows to show us the humanity of all people.  "Kim's Convenience" provides laughs at the ethnic eccentricity of a Korean immigrant family but also reveals to us what we have in common.  Premiering a year after "Fresh Off the Boat" this series has more meat on the bone, feels more real and more grounded, than its American counterpart (it is based in Toronto).  Laugh-out-loud funny it is extremely watchable with a host of likeable characters.  One of those streaming shows I can play for hours because I just like being invited into this world -- and I do feel like I have been invited.  Word has it that things weren't so peachy behind the scenes where a predominantly white production staff didn't give weight to the suggestions of the Korean cast but I have to say that wasn't evidenced in the final product, which rings with warmth and caring.  A great series for a divided time.

"Roma"

Having finished my award-nominated binge and with nothing on my DVR I finally got around to watching the 2018 Oscar Winner "Roma".  It was, quite frankly, freaking brilliant.  I was sucked in from the first moments and couldn't tear my eyes away.  The Spanish language is not daunting as dialog is sparse and moments are communicated through facial expressions and gorgeously framed shots.  It appears to say little but says so much.  It haunts and lingers.  Two weeks after watching it I still think back to it.  At this point it has gone onto my "Top 10 of all time" list.  A quiet little film which will grab your soul.  Amazing, touching, sad and beautiful.

My SAG Award Picks

As is usually the case, my votes will likely not reflect the winners.  Too bad.  This is what I’m voting for, and why.

FILM

Outstanding Performance by a Cast:  This came down to Belfast and CODA.  Both are just lovely family dramas.  Setting aside my personal bias of loving anything Irish, I had to go with CODA which really peeled into the layers of the complex relationships between family members.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role:  Jessica Chastain in The Eyes of Tammy Faye.  For me, none of the others even came close.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role:  Will Smith, hands down. 

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role:  This one was really tough.  A four-way race, in my humble opinion.  That being said, I went for Ariana DeBose in West Side Story.  Her performance wasn’t “better” than the others but it involved singing and dancing as well as acting and I just enjoy a fresh face.  Ms. DeBose brought so much energy to the work that the screen just shimmered when she was in a scene.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role:  This was a three-way tie for me.  In the end I went with Ben Affleck, whose presence in The Tender Bar really made the film work.  And he did an amazing job of subverting his own personality to simply “be” the character.  Bravo.

TELEVISION

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series:  I was really going to go for Handmaid’s Tale.  I ADORE Handmaid’s Tale.  But The Morning Show kind of blew me away.  There isn’t a single character who doesn’t bring 120% to the production, and it fits together like an incredibly dense puzzle.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series:  I’m the first to say that people shouldn’t get an award for playing the same role over and over every year.  That being said I voted for Elisabeth Moss in Handmaid’s Tale.  Again.  And always.  The layers of this character, as she moves from mom to rebel to, well, something else, are impossible to turn away from.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series:  Billy Crudup, The Morning Show.  He makes awful decisions.  And then tries to justify them.  And struggles with his own actions.  With a single look he communicates a million feelings.  It’s kind of brilliant.

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series:  The Great.  Always.  It won’t win.  But it should.  It really, really should.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series:  Elle Fanning, The Great.  See above.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series:  This one is tough because I basically didn’t like Ted Lasso or Only Murders in the Building.  So I went with Michael Douglas in The Kominksy Method.  It’s a default but I like the show and I like his work in it.  He really embraces who he is now, warts and all.  After seeing so many Hollywood types fight aging tooth and nail, this performance is refreshing and real.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series:  This was really tough.  I wanted to go with Cynthia Erivo, who (I’m very sad to say) was better than Jennifer Hudson at playing Aretha Franklin.  The performance was more layered, more energized.  Less sanitized.  But then there was Maid.  Margaret Qualley’s frustration, anger and desperation as she is continually boxed into corners she can’t get out of are a portrait of pain.  I went with Margaret Qualley.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series:  Really really wanted to go with Murray Bartlett from The White Lotus as his role was not only critical but just beautifully played.  But then there was Dopesick.  The show didn’t just transfix me.  And Michael Keaton proved, yet again, what a terrific actor he is.  He just metamorphized into a small-town doctor.  No ego, no echoes of the actor, just the character.  It was lovely.

STUNTS

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture:  This was tough but fun.  Almost all of these not only had great stunts but were highly watchable (particularly Dune and No Time to Die).  And it’s tricky these days.  You don’t want to reward digital effects instead of the actual stunt work.  All that being said No Time to Die, Shang-Chi and Black Widow each had a ton of stunt work and all had some fun, unique things to look at.  There was a protracted motorcycle chase up and down stairwells in a European city, a large fight on a bamboo scaffolding and two “sisters” who aren’t exactly best friends when they meet up for the first time in decades.  I went with Black Widow because, in my heart, I believe that women fight differently.  They must rely on weight shifts and unique moves more than on punches thrown with brute strength.  I loved the use of towels in the first showdown between Natasha and Yelena.  It was creative and fresh.  Brava. 

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Television Series:  Tough call.  Went with Squid Game cuz, well, yeah, these are new scenarios.  Still trying to figure out why Star Trek:  Discovery never gets a nod.  Most recent season had ****loads of stunts.  Anyway a note that stunts aside Loki was my favorite new Marvel mini-series.

TV Award Picks

The TV shows nominated for awards this year are all over the place.  You have well-respected dramatic series, a Korean take on Hunger Games, a random western and a bunch of other things.  It really left me scratching my head.  With exception the common theme seems to be rich white people with problems.  It wasn’t my favorite year.  But there are a few standouts.  Here are my takes.

Dramas:  Succession has been getting the lionshare of chatter and will probably pull a Ted Lasso or Schitt’s Creek and walk away with most of the hardware.  I only got through two episodes and called it quits.  Ditto Yellowstone.  Mare of Easttown, another uber popular series, was so bleak I just had to say no.  Scenes from a Marriage was also incredibly bleak, as was Squid Game.  Halston had its moments but I just really object to casting a straight actor in an overtly gay role (I couldn't help but think that Matt Bomer could have slayed this role).  The Falcon and the Winter Soldier was downright dour and the first time I wanted to ditch on a Marvel show.

Winners, for me, included old and new.  I adore Handmaid’s Tale and The Morning Show always wins me over for the complexity of the characters.  Maid and Dopesick had me binging the entire series over a day or so, each covering a modern crisis without feeling preachy.  Cynthia Erivo gets major snaps for besting Jennifer Hudson in the battle of the Aretha Franklins, although she had the advantage of a way better script and a longer format.

Comedies:  The White Lotus was listed as drama, which is a mistake.  It’s comedy, albeit and very very dark comedy.  And it’s brilliant.  And sad.  Kind of watching a train wreck.  You really really want to look away but you can’t.  My fave here is The Great and always will be.  It’s smart, fast, and deeply funny – until it’s not.  And that’s why it is brilliant.  A cast effort where every single actor “brings it”.  Loki was a surprise with a sense of freshness and absolutely hysterical dialog.  The Kominsky Method was nice and wrapped up the series perfectly.  The rest of the so-called comedies left me cold which proves that comedy is a very personal thing.  I mean, there is a lot of types of comedy, right?  Do you like slapstick, crude jokes, subtle smart stuff, or a show “about nothing”?  It’s a dilemma.  Many of these are well-liked and feature big-deal actors.  I just didn’t find them funny.  That includes Ted Lasso, Only Murders in the Building, The Chair and Hacks.