"House of the Dragon"

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely".  Or there is a danger in interbreeding and an "unbridled lust for power".  SPOILERS AHEAD.  Much like GOT you have an entitled, privileged royal class who wage war for power with the common people taking the biggest hits.  It's engaging like GOT (have to rush to the next episode) but there is an ick factor when it comes to who is married to whom.  It was hard for me to get over.  It's also difficult to figure out who is who as they not only have similar-sounding names, two characters actually have the same name (which comes out in the line of succession ... which is very ... murky).  And they are almost all blondes and the time jumps mean constant recasting, so it gets fairly tiring asking yourself, "now who is this?"  I didn't love it, because of the aforementioned "ick" and for the basic reason that nothing goes particularly well for our so-called heroes.  For all the committed GOT fans, I have to say ... these are not good people.  I mean, some try to be good.  And some are good at certain things (Rhaenyra is a fairly good mum) but overall ... yeah, not so much.  They crave the throne, they get on the throne, and it all falls apart.  One former king, in a vision, makes a rather prophetic statement ... about how the crown corrupts, crushes and destroys all who wear it.  He's not wrong.  Watching this became an exercise in wishing that someone, anyone, could just truly be honorable.  It was not to be.  Ended up feeling like "White Lotus" meets "Medieval Times".  Just ugly acts dressed up for Middle Ages consumption. Season three felt like a chore to watch.  At least I finally got my dragons.  And season four is two years off.  So maybe I'll get over it.  Maybe I won't.

"Victoria" (2016-2019)

Binged this aborted series in a week.  Ends, abruptly, after three seasons and on a cliff-hanger.  It wasn't the best-of-the-best, but it wasn't bad.  Has all those nice historical moments woven into the tale of a young Queen and the struggles inside the royal household.  It was watchable.

The challenge I had with it was that it was trying to do too much.  With limited episodes (8 in the first and third seasons, 9 nine in the second season) it tried to be both "The Crown" and "Upstairs, Downstairs".  By cramming all the storylines in, "the" critical element, that of Victoria becoming that Queen we all know, was weakened.

She was an extremely complicated woman.  Movies and books have tried to capture her over and over, usually focusing on a singular point in time.  Her relationships after Albert's death are one, somewhat purient, interest.  But otherwise, we just see her as a monarch with a ~lot~ of children.

Starting at the beginning, when she becomes Queen, we see what she went through as a monarch in a male dominated nation, as a wife and mother.  But these scenes are snapshots.  Here she is childlike, then willful, a moment of anger, etc.  We don't really see *her* as much as we see the actor playing her (Jenna Coleman) swing from one wild caricature to another.  In other words, we are seeing her through the descriptions of others rather than seeing her internal development and growth.  It might have been the fault of writing, direction or acting, but I can't help but feel that Ms. Coleman looks weak in constrast to great actors she shares scenes with like Diana Rigg and Rufus Sewell.  Those two actors can communicate a half-dozen feelings in a look.  Coleman "flitters" about.

I get that the 18 year-old girl was not the epic matriarch who made history, but I was very curious as to how she became who she became.  I didn't get that.  Yes, the character matured throughout and I appreciated her more in the later episodes than the early ones, but there was little which pointed to the why.  Which made the show good, but not overly interesting.  Worth a summer binge but I spent a good amount of time Googling, "did that really happen?" (Hint, when it comes to the downstairs staff, the answer is "no").

"Game of Thrones"

An injury allowed me to catch up on a lot of shows I had been setting aside to stream.  Okay, this one for six years.

"Game of Thrones" surprised me in many ways.  I had heard it was exceedingly violent, expected dragons and thought it was set in some mythical never-never time.  It is actually set heavily into a medieval period, although with mythical elements here and there.  The dragons don't show up in an impactful way until nearly the end of the series and the violence is ... somewhat silly.  More like what you see on "Xena" rather than anything realistic.  

What it is really about is politics, male vs female power and who has control in a society filled with nobles of interrelated bloodlines.  As one friend mentioned, it is a bunch of British people talking in back rooms who have very similar names.  You mostly tell them apart by hair color and tattoos (inside joke).  

A complex tale, there are so many characters and threads I had to download and repeatedly refer to a chart of the family relations (accidently finding out about one character whose parenthood hadn't been revealed early on).  All of which is to say, I had to really watch it, not check my email while it was on in the background.  It was built for streaming and I pushed into the next episode (and the next, and the next) to see the wrap-up of a storyline -- sometimes staying up later at night to do so.  

No, I did not find Jon Snow all that hot, but I did appreciate how he grew up over the seasons, and the real benefit of watching it all in a matter of weeks (and, sadly, not reading the books) is that I was in no way disappointed or shocked about the ending, which many (many many) fans were upset about.  Viewing it all at once gave me a through-line I don't think the original viewers had.  One where I totally could see all the seeds being dropped and where they led to.  In many ways, I felt the ending was one I saw coming and the only ending which it could've been.  Something which many may disagree with.  My biggest negative concern was the degree to which the women were sexualized -- and very rarely for the purpose of the story.  It was just purient window-dressing.

In any case.  Peter Dinklage's character was my favorite -- he gave an arch overview of the whole grand tale with a good dose of morose humor.  The series was enjoyable.  Dense.  Engaging.  Worth it.  But I do wish there were more dragons.  On to "House of the Dragon" (have already watched season one of "Knight of the Seven Kingdoms" -- also drew me in -- but also without dragons ...)

"And the Award Goes to ..." 2026 version

Once again, I have the honor of viewing most of the Oscar/Emmy picks. 

The output this year was ... well.  A commentary, below, then the actors I voted for.

Yes, I vote for the SAG Awards, which are “similar” to Oscars and Emmys, although not quite the same.  I get free screenings for all nominated films and TV/Streaming shows.  As with previous years, I am wondering, more and more, what is wrong with Hollywood.

Trends:

• Long, long, long.  Films under two hours are getting rare.  Films approaching three hours are becoming common.  Few are worth the extra time.  Edit, for crying out loud!
• Horror is a thing.  Not my thing.  I may hate Westerns more, but not much more.  I don’t mind psychological darkness, but I really don’t need to see bodies being ripped apart (except for in “Deadpool” films, where it is so over-the-top, it doesn’t actually mean anything).  Life is scary enough.  You can keep your horror.
• “Cringe” is another thing.  Maybe because of “White Lotus”.  You watch and … just feel icky. 
• #MeToo is dead.  Women, in film after film after film, are doormats.  Ignored, underestimated or only in the project to be sexualized (I’m looking at you, “Marty Supreme” … that being said, how did Gwyneth Paltrow get a nomination and Odessa A’zion not???)  The streaming series do better at giving women their due than the films.
• The anti-hero (started by “Dexter” or “Breaking Bad”???) continues to grow in terms of lead characters.  Which concerns me.  A lot.  Is society just so broken that we can’t have heroes anymore?  And no, I’m not talking superheroes.  I’m talking films where there are people who are trying – trying to be good, trying to succeed, trying to grow, trying to love, trying to improve, you name it.  “Forrest Gump”, “Schindler’s List” – two films where you could hope along with the characters.  Where you gave a d*** about where their path took them.  Where you dreamed of a better outcome for characters.  In movie after movie after movie these days there are just bad people who start bad, act bad, end bad.  Nothing changes.  Watching a steady stream of this makes you feel like humanity is so not worth it.  Neither is spending the hours I spent watching these films.

Films I totally loathed:  “One Battle After Another”, “Marty Supreme”, “Bugonia”, “Weapons” and “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You.”  Also not a fan of:  “The Beast in Me”, “Black Rabbit”, “Dying for Sex”, “Monster:  The Ed Gein Story” and “Slow Horses.” 

Cringey:  “The Studio” and “Palm Royale.”

The good stuff?  “Sinners”.  Yes, horror.  But beautifully filmed, stunningly told.  A+ production all around.  “Frankenstein”.  Another gorgeously filmed tale, with a heart.  “Blue Moon”.  Maybe niche, but an actor’s dream production.  “Hamnet”.  A gentle, beautiful look at loss and how everyone handles it differently.  “Adolescence”.  Absolutely f****** BRILLIANT.  “All Her Fault”.  One of the few shows where the women rise up.  “The Pitt”.  Needless to say, just really really really good.

Also worth the time:  “The Diplomat”, “Nobody Wants This”, “A Man on the Inside”, “Pluribus”, and “Paradise.”

My votes, below.

Film:

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Rol

·       ETHAN HAWKE / Lorenz Hart - "BLUE MOON"

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role

·       JESSIE BUCKLEY / Agnes - "HAMNET"

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

·       JACOB ELORDI / The Creature - "FRANKENSTEIN"

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role

·       ODESSA A’ZION / Rachel Mizler - "MARTY SUPREME"

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

·       SINNERS

Television:

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series

·       STEPHEN GRAHAM / Eddie Miller - "ADOLESCENCE"

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Television Movie or Limited Series

·       SARAH SNOOK / Marissa Irvine - "ALL HER FAULT"

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series

·       NOAH WYLE / Dr. Michael "Robby" Rabinovitch - "THE PITT"

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series

·       KERI RUSSELL / Kate Wyler - "THE DIPLOMAT"

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series

·       SETH ROGEN / Matt Remick - "THE STUDIO"

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series

·       CATHERINE O'HARA / Patty Leigh - "THE STUDIO"  (Note:  Literally the day I am posting this, Catherine O'Hara died.  Devasted.  She was literally the anchor of "The Studio"  RIP, my lady)

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

·       THE PITT

      Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

·       ABBOTT ELEMENTARY

Missed Treks

There have only been two Trek series I bailed on, “Deep Space Nine” and “Enterprise” (“Lower Decks” was a challenge, but once I got it, I really enjoyed it).   But -- in moving forward, it seems nearly every series, including massively time-jumping “Discovery”, kept referencing the two series I skipped.  

And so.

With an empty DVR and way too much time on my hands, I plunged in.

And I’ve come to realize why I never finished them. (Spoilers ahead)

DS9 -- It's bleak.  Really bleak.  The first series where the light levels are low and the connections between the characters are loaded with doubt, insecurity, mistrust and grief.  

I came to like some of the characters a good bit.  Kira, Odo, Dax, Garak, and Nog were favorites.  Even bad guys, like Weyoun, played by chameleon actor Jeffrey Combs.  I grew to like Quark although the similar storylines with him became irritating.  It was great to see an expanded background on O’Brien but I felt like Worf, when brought in, was an opportunity wasted.  A big hole, however, was that I didn't love Sisko.  He's ... broody.  Comes off like a Shakespearean actor who wrings depth out of every word.  Clearly, it was a stab at replacing Picard.  But Picard was a leader who was still part of the group, he set a tone which made you understand why his crew followed him.  Sisko, from the beginning, was "apart".  The group dynamics here are just ... fractured.  Yes, Sisko's family life warmed him up.  Yes, there are various love triangles or whatever.  And there are interesting bad guys with layered motivations.  But it never gelled.  Each episode became a stand-alone.  Oh, let's focus on this character this week and this other character next week.  It turned into -- "this is a comedy, no, it's a historical show, no, it's a murder mystery ..."  And let's not go into the same establishing shot of Cardassia Prime in, like every … single … episode.

The biggest issue, of course, is that there is no ship.  No unknown worlds (exactly …).  DS9 is a way-station -- anchored in space.  Instead of a bridge, which has iconic moments (anyone up for Next Gen's Locutus reveal and Riker's reaction?) you have the equivalent of "The Office" with workers in a pit and Sisko ensconced in a walled office above them.  New characters come in and out for guest appearances but the series is weak on exploration and surprises.  (Oh!  Let’s cause a thing and bring in Klingons.  The Trek audience loves Klingons, right?)  The producers attempted to fix things with the USS Defiant ship, but, in the end, the characters always went home -- and the idea that they are forever changed by their experiences in space was muted.

The ending was … Yeah.  I guess Avery Brooks really didn’t want to keep going with the franchise.  In any case, I get all the references now, but would I go back and rewatch it, as I have the other series?  No.

Enterprise -- ~sigh~  It started … slowly.  Pace, and energy, was a factor throughout much of the series.  But that wasn’t my big issue.  The sexualization of women, particularly the T’Pol character, was unrelenting.  And exhausting.  I had hoped they would back off of that as the show progressed.  They never did.  Near the end of the series, in the Terran universe, comments and treatment of the T’Pol and Sato mirror characters is sickening.  Talk about tone deaf (the first #MeToo showed up less than a year after the show was cancelled).  “Enterprise” struggled mightily, particularly when it came to introducing new species unseen in any other Trek.  Their one shining moment, in my humble opinion, was creating a clever answer as to why TOS Klingons look different.  But character development was weak.  Anthony Montgomery gets an award for most under-used actor for four years straight.  He was clearly a token but made the most of it.  Unlike DS9, the show not only didn’t grow on me, but became a struggle to watch.  People say they didn’t like “Voyager” because of the stolen storylines, but the ripped-off tales here dwarf those of “Voyager”, and were often done proudly (“Mirror, Mirror” anyone?)  And don’t get me started on the “massive” number of time travel stuff.  The first two seasons, which were tolerable, show a certain amount of naivete and clumsiness of humans as the newest members of the galaxy travelling community.  No Prime Directive, no United Federation of Planets, a deep distrust of this newfangled transporter thingy.  Crew cabins are so small the actors had to duck under beams (which got old, fast).  It could have been interesting.  If it had been portrayed with a sense of urgency I might have bought in more, but instead it was like watching a toddler trip over his own feet.  A lot.  And a bunch of time in “shuttle pods”.  They started to lose me with season 3.  The first Trek to be made after 9/11, the whole season, like DS9, was committed to war.  Without any of the humor and love which can exist in the darkest of circumstances, the entire season was just … depressing.  It is a real sign of poor writing when you start using the phrase “I had no choice” multiple times in every episode.  In drama, characters must have choices.  That’s what makes it interesting.  By the time we got to the fourth season, there were no more stand-alone episodes.  Everything was 2 or 3 episodes with “to be continued”.  It was tiring.  I would have given up there and then if not for my pledge to “watch it all”.  When I finally was done, I felt relieved and a tad angry.  A major loss in the final minutes?  Observed by outsiders, so it is as if they wanted to separate the viewers from the emotional tsunami.  Why?  And why say it out loud before it happens so you spend the whole episode in mourning, knowing it is coming?  Prequels often stumble – you know the characters, who is going to live, the big picture of how things end.  “Strange New Worlds” is pulling it off for the most part.  “Enterprise” does not.

"Ballard"

I watched this because of Maggie Q.  I will watch anything with Maggie Q (the rest of the cast ain't bad, either).  It's your basic hard-boiled detective tale.  A grisly crime, a slightly depressed person with a troubled background trying to solve the unsolvable, a few fisticuffs, yada yada.  Yes, it's a bit predictable (I called every one of the twists).  But.  It's beautifully written, or, should I say, nicely reserved in the writing.  In one scene, a difficult one where a character needs to share information with a family member, hardly a word is said.  Two women take hands and look into each other's eyes.  We get it.  Words are not necessary.  It's well-produced.  Not overly slick, some violence and darkness but some light as well.  And, thanks to Amazon Prime, the first 10 episodes all dropped together (THANK YOU).  All of which makes it very bingeable.  SPOILER ALERT  There is a massive cliff-hanger at the end, so I'm thrilled there will be a season two.  I'm likely going to be able to guess the plotlines, but that's not the point.  It's a show that lets you see the layers within the characters, particularly the female protagonists.  Again, thank you.  It's about time. 

"Wonderwell"

This had potential.  There was an interesting, somewhat unique premise and some key players (it was the final role for Carrie Fisher).  But it just didn't come together.  As a fantasy, it included some fairly dark reality.  Wanting a storybook location, they picked Italy but had a lot of British actors doing Italian accents (this did not go well).  At 96 minutes it was actually a tad short -- there were too many threads (pun sort of intended) leaving too many questions.  The ending didn't have all the necessary notes.  Yes, there are some neat moments and I found it very watchable at the time, but as a whole it just went flat.  Ironically, the best part of the film were the two immortals -- played by Carrie Fisher and Rita Ora.  For a story which was supposed to focus on the kids, these top actors really stole the spotlight.  That's a director thing, putting the emphasis in the wrong place.  Maybe someone will come along and remake the tale into what it should have been.

"Superman"

Clearly one of the blockbusters of the summer, it's good.  It deserves summer blockbuster status.  But it's not great.  It's not going to go down as a pillar of the canon.  It's not "the next new chapter" (although many in Hollywood may disagree ...)

SPOILERS AHEAD

It gets Superman right.  He's wholesome.  Legitimately.  And that alone makes this better than most of the Superman films which came after Christopher Reeve (that being said, I do have a soft spot for Brandon Routh).  It's dark, but not as dark as the last few films.  The politics, which were reported as "subtle" is anything but, and since it's my politics, I appreciated the digs.  Nathan Fillion makes a delightful turn as a corporate shill superhero.  Rachel Brosnahan, who I love, is rightly perky and determined as unstoppable Lois Lane.  The dog is adorable.

But.  

There is a lot of action.  Like, a lot.  Like every superhero film these days, it is battle after battle after battle.  Even my stepfather, who loves Superman and was the reason we entered a movie theatre for the first time in a very long time, said it was too much.  Perhaps at the expense of story.  

There are all the elements.  The characters we have come to love (including Cat Grant??? and a somewhat more world-wise Jimmy), the fortress (inexplicably set in Antarctica, not the Arctic, which creates a moment of disbelief which is hard to swallow ... do these people not realize that the Arctic is solid ice and Antarctica is a land mass???  I digress ...)  But few of the characters outside of the leads get more than a line or two of dialog.  There is no fleshing out of, well, anyone.  Including Lex Luthor.

And that's a problem.  I'm a fan of Nicholas Hoult, and first picked up on him in the brilliant and underrated series, "The Great".  But he's not ... "it".  The character is just a self-obsessed bully.  And not only is that hard to play, it doesn't make for a good foil.  Lex is best when actors bring humor to the role, add in levels.  Gene Hackman let Lex really enjoy it all.  John Shea played it with such a level of class that you ~~almost~~ could see the attraction.  This Lex is either not written, or the actor directed, to do much more than snarl and yell and direct his minions and his robot.  It's like a sad version of a dark Ironman.  And so, without a great enemy ... well, you get it.  

There are also minor irritations.  Ma and Pa Kent are played like country bumpkins, and this is the second time in a week I've seen rural people portrayed that way.  Also, does Supergirl really have to be a drunk social media influencer?  Of course, the female superhero is dismissed as a joke.  Not cool, Hollywood.

There will be a sequel.  There are a million unaddressed threads.  And, a possible enemy worth fighting.  Maria Gabriela de Fabria makes for a creepy-as-hell adversary and there are some real questions about a message left by Jor-El and Superman's Kryptonian mom.  We'll see.  Probably takes a couple of years for another film to be put together.  I'm mildly interested in where they go from here, but would love more story, more development of the characters.  It's okay to have big fights.  But maybe less???