"The Fabelmans"

It's cute.  And sweet.  It paces well and the two and half hours moves quickly.  But it's ... surface.  Presentational.  A tad two dimensional at times.  The first hour feels like a reboot of "Father Knows Best".  Lead actor Gabriel LaBelle breaks through to make connections now and then.  Judd Hirsch, taking up little screen time, makes a huge impact.  He was the first character I really heard.  His appearance woke me up a bit (and did the same for the character he was speaking to).  There are "real" moments -- when the boy realizes he can see things through his lens that he is not seeing with his eyes and another time when a bully realizes his own artifice.  But mostly, this isn't something which makes you think or feel.  It's just a way to enjoy a few hours.

"Night Court" (the reboot)

Much like the latest Trek movies, there is a prayer which goes out when Hollywood tried to reinvent a classic.  "Please," we whisper, "please make it good."  In this case, the television gods responded "yes."  The original show was off-beat, unexpected, and more smile-and-reflect funny than outright-guffaws funny.  Yes, there were schlocky physical bits but the strength was in the cast and the dry, witty dialog delivered at light-speed by capable actors.  The reboot has all of this.  Melissa Rauch embodies the joy and upbeat fun of Harry Stone.  The new prosecutor, India de Beaufort, shows much of the ego and smarmyness of Dan Fielding but in a very 21st century, female-forward way.  Kapil Talwalker plays a nicely dorky assistant and Lacretta is delightfully weird as the bailiff (if you can't have Richard Moll and Marsha Warfield, I'll take a quirky combo of them both).  And then, of course, is John Larroquette.  Who is ... wonderful.  Of course.  By making him the defense attorney there is new territory to cover.  All of this makes for a watchable, enjoyable show.  Brava, Bravo.  Keep up the good work.

"Tar"

Every year, in the midst of watching all the award-nominated films, I come across a movie which tops my "hate" list.  This one excelled, going to my "top-ten hated of all time" list before the credits rolled.  SPOILERS AHEAD.  My biggest issue (there are many) is that the entire project seems designed to keep viewers at a distance -- not bring them in.  It's the opposite of what good storytelling does.  It starts at the very beginning.  The credits -- the full credits -- run for five minutes before the film actually begins.  When the movie finally commences the camera is at the back of an auditorium.  It weaves through, slowly, as voices begin to break through the silence.  It's an interview.  The amazing Lydia Tar, a female conductor, EGOT winner, philanthropist, author (etc, etc) is being interviewed.  It's a quiet exchange and includes musical terms I wasn't familiar with (this was a recurring issue).  After polite applause we go to the next scene and see Lydia having a meeting with ... someone?  Discussing the office politics of the German orchestra she runs.  Then, in scene three, she is teaching a Master's class at NYU to wanna-be conductors.  A young man explains he is not interested in the work of Bach, as he is a pansexual, 21st century guy of color.  Lydia tries to convince him otherwise, and, as he pushes back, she gets irritated, then harsh.  This is more than 30 minutes into this overly-long film and the first time we see any emotion break through Ms. Tar's icy exterior.  Things continue for the next hour and a half.  Meetings, office politics, some scenes of her home life.  But nothing revealing.  Not really.  There are hints.  Troubling emails which Ms. Tar orders her teary-eyed assistant to delete.  A couple of elderly neighbors.  None of it really comes together.  For most of the film events are referred to, not shown.  There are precious few close-ups.  Dialog is so muted I had to crank my TV volume to maximum (for the first time ever).  Lydia remains stoic until the last 30 minutes of the film but viewers are still kept at arm's length.  When she loses her daughter, the one person she kinda/sorta connects with, the brief scene is wordless and viewed from across the street through a car window.  The ending is ... bizarre.  My other really big objection is that this is one of the most anti-women films I've ever watched.  It basically says:  Women don't have power.  When women get power, they are feelingless meanies.  They are abusive.  Just as abusive and power-hungry as men, if not more so.  And, eventually, when they are shown to be incapable leaders, they melt down and become violent and then, of course, crazy.  Nope.  Just No.  It could have been so many things.  Why did it have to be this?

"Everything Everywhere All At Once"

I tried to describe the plot of this film to my parents a few weeks back and failed miserably.  This was before I had seen it.  Having seen it I can say ... I still don't know how to describe it.  Is this Sci-fi?  Fantasy?  A psychological study of familial relationships through the lens of theoretical physics?  A head-trip induced by way (way way) too many illicit drugs?  Who knows?  The first hour or so goes nonstop and I just watched intently, trying to take it all in.  Not fully understanding it.  Who can understand it?  The viewing was an intellectual exercise.  Trying to fit it all into a narrative which makes sense.  There was humor, of course.  And great physical fights and a lot of creativity when it came to showing alternate realities.  But beyond that I really wasn't sure.  And then the ending came.  An emotional gut-punch I only kind of saw coming and didn't even begin to realize the depths to which it would impact me (cue kleenex here).  Once I saw the end, I understood the overall picture a bit more -- how each incarnation of Yeoh's character doesn't just give her physical skills but adds to her understanding of her interactions with the people around her.  The production team gets major snaps for something fresh, unexpected and quite freaky.  The cast gets a thumbs up for keeping track of multiple personalities -- makes Sybil look positively sane.  In any case, strange but worthwhile.  Easy to see why it is so hot this awards season.

"The Woman King"

I had avoided this as I suspected it had visceral violence.  It does.  But it also has a story.  A rich, layered, sometimes unexpected story.  It drives into you until you can't look away.  Yes, it has elements of Black Panther, Xena and any number of superhero films ... with a critical difference.  This was real.  There is nothing supernatural here, just a historical tale of women who created an army and fought like men.  Viola Davis is stunning, as always, but she isn't alone.  Supporting cast members Thuso Mbedu, Lashana Lynch and Sheila Atim create a tapestry of complicated women pursuing a unique role.  It's powerful, sad, moving.  There are so many moments which expand beyond the screen to grab you -- that of discovery, of determination, of sheer will.  The acting is so layered that you almost want to rewind and see the flurry of emotions moving across faces.  Sterness and discipline are mixed with love and humor, grief comes in a thousand waves.  This film is so powerful, so well-done, I cannot undersand why it isn't up for more awards.  As far as I'm concerned, there should be nominations for the supporting cast as well as the ensemble, and most certainly, the fight choreography -- which is seriously real, not digital.  Award programs may not see it, but this film is excellence.  Brava, ladies.

"Till"

This is the second work on Emmett Till I have seen this year.  The first was a mini-series, called "Women of the Movement".  The mini-series and the film are similar in a lot of ways, although I prefer the mini-series.  Which I'll get to in a moment.  Both focus on Mamie more than her son.  Both portray Emmett as a fourteen-year old who is upbeat, loves music and has that belief of youth that he is invulnerable.  The facts remain the same, so can the story be told differently?  Not much.  The film is more "artsy", the mini-series has more time to go into details.  I appreciated the time taken in the mini-series and learned a lot of things from it which the film had to skip over -- like how hard it was to get Emmett's body out of Mississippi, how things might have been different if the trial had been held in a different county (his body was found in a county next to where he was murdered) and how the NAACP kicked Mrs. Till-Mobley to the curb as soon as her first husband's past was uncovered.  The mini-series is more subtle.  The scene where Mamie sees her dead son's body is similar (and well-documented) but in the mini-series the touch of Mamie's hand on Emmett becomes a mother's touch.  In the film it's just an action.  The long moments in the mini-series allow us to see Mamie's struggle to move from a quiet woman to a champion.  In the film, the long moments are grief porn.  The camera lingers on the face of Danielle Deadwyler, her still figure, while a lonely violin plays random notes.  This happens over and over again, including during her testimony in the trial.  Instead of being a wounded tiger Mamie comes off as a wounded rabbit.  She is teary-eyed from beginning to end.  I don't blame the actor.  This was clearly one of those films created to "make the point" rather than let the story unfold through the actors' work.  Both projects mess with the history but the film does it more.  In the film the wardrobe is a bit inaccurate, Ms. Deadwyler is tall and thin.  In the mini-series, Adrienne Warren provides a shorter, rounder woman and seems to embody the spirit of a complicated woman, not just a grieving mother.  I usually don't prefer mini-series over films, but in this case the mini-series created necessary layers.  Both projects are good, one is just, in my humble opinion, better.  Nonetheless, both have a single point which is well taken.  As young black men in this country succumb to violence every single day, it is critical to remember that every single one of these men had a mother.

"Hustle"

It's a top-notch cast.  Great writing.  It moves and has levels.  But it's about sports.  Which is so totally completely not my thing.  I've actually never seen "Field of Dreams" or a Rocky movie.  I consider "Moneyball" to be two and a half hours of my life I'll never get back.  I mean, okay, now I know that the 76ers is a basketball team in Philadelphia.  But do I care?  Every one of these types of movies say "this will be the sports movie which makes non-sports people like it."  And every one is wrong.  For me, anyway.  There are workouts and montages.  There is gentle humor.  There is family and heart.  There is "the incredible challenge" which is, of course, overcome by pure dedication and love of the game.  For anyone who actually likes sports, I think this is probably a great film.

"Women Talking"

An absolute gem.  This film, about a group of Mennonite women addressing a serious issue of concern is like an epic poem, unfolding with lyric beauty over the course of the tale.  It's striking, thoughtful, powerful.  Uplifting even in the dark, it shows what women can do when left to themselves.  Yes, they argue, they fight.  But they listen.  They reason.  They give weight to the experience of their elders and allow their minds to be opened to new possibilities by the voices of their children.  Without being detailed in the abuse they suffer they make it perfectly obvious how hurt, enraged and torn apart they are.  A stunning cast, a quality script and shots which look like art gallery paintings, this one is my new classic for the year.  Simple and brilliant.

"The Whale"

If the point of a cinematic feature is to connect to the viewer, elicit an emotional response and make them think, this film hits on all marks.  I smiled, I identified, I reached for kleenex.  Based on a play it has the top-notch script of a literary work.  There is humor, tension, sadness.  It's not nearly as depressing as I thought it would be.  This is in great part due to the work of the cast.  Brendan Fraser, as usual, approaches the difficult character with compassion and light.  He has range as an actor but so many of his roles include a sense of warmth and a spark of joy.  That is the case here, and it brightens up what could be a very dark tale.  Hong Chau plays the perfect foil and brings even more humanity to the piece.  Why she isn't listed as main supporting actor is beyond me.  The cast rounds out, mostly, with Sadie Sink playing a problematic teen and Ty Simpkins, whose character allows for a real discussion of faith at the brink of death.  There are other actors, including a small role of a pizza delivery driver which brings yet another touch of humanity to a layered story.  It's beautiful.  And real.  And goes to the top ten of my best-of-the-year films.

"The Patient"

This ten-part psychological thriller goes quickly, in part due to the fact that these are short episodes, not full hours.  Not sure why but these short takes do allow a level of tension to build.  Steve Carell, who I blasted in "Space Force", rises above in this production.  I've always liked his dramatic work far more than his comedy.  In the serious pieces he is thoughtful and reflective.  You can see pain and struggle etched in his face.  After "Beautiful Boy" I felt that he is perhaps one of the more underrated actors around these days.  He is able to move through darkly written works almost effortlessly, seemingly understated and doing little, but making a tremendous impact.  This is not a happy series.  There is virtually no light here.  Reflections on Judaism, on Carell's character's past, fill up some of the bleak moments but it is regret, not joy.  Taken in small bits, it's worthwhile but I can't say I liked it.  It ends badly.  But then it was never going to end well, was it?

"The Bear"

Started watching the award-nominated series and "The Bear" is near the top of the list.  It's a fictional version of a Chicago restaurant trying to turn itself around.  Most of the action takes place in the kitchen and there are a number of subplots, involving suicide, family, and more.  I watched two episodes but don't see myself returning for the rest.  It's not that it's bad, it's just not my thing.  I don't watch the "reality" chef shows -- the ones where the kitchen is frenetic and there is a lot of yelling.  I don't like the tension.  I don't like peeling back the curtain.  I go out to restaurants for a treat.  A special occasion.  I'm sorry that the behind-the-scenes isn't what it should be but honestly, I don't really want to watch it.  So, you can imagine that watching it in a scripted show, one where the tension is heightened, where the screaming is constant, would get on my nerves.  So, yes.  It's a good show.  For people who like this sort of thing.  

"Keep This Between Us"

Clearly, this is not an easy watch.  But I have a tendency to force my way through documentaries which are "important", including "One Child Nation" and "The Day I Will Never Forget".  Too many women's stories are skewed, if they are told at all.  When they are told, we need to listen.  Really.  In this four-part series director Cheryl Nichols tries to work through the sexual abuse she faced from a teacher.  As many of us know, you can put one foot in front of the other for decades after something like this but the damage is creates is pervasive.  The series doesn't just focus on what happened to Ms. Nichols but on the way this kind of thing continues to happen because of a society which: a) sexualizes young girls, b) blames the young girls, not the predatory men, c) tries to diminish and dismiss the actions of the adult men against young women as something acceptable and widespread, d) covers up and hides the actions of these men in institutions like schools.  The series creates some lasting questions -- including at what age does a woman have the capacity to recognize what is happening to her and is able to walk away from a situation which is not healthy?  The series makes it clear that this is not something you "get over" but something which becomes a part of you, something which impacts how you interact with the world.  It was a brutal viewing for me, in many ways.  But it is important.  Very important.

"Alert"

This is a mixed bag.  First, you have amazing actors -- really really love Dania Ramirez and Scott Caan.  There is fast pacing and unique storylines.  It's strucutred in a way to get your heart pumping.  On the flip side, there is ... sloppy? ... writing.  Timelines, critical to the story, were messy in the first episode.  Somehow, a flight to Las Vegas was wound into a few hours???  In the second episode, a kidnapping is witnessed via a webcam but nothing about the location can be determined (did the writers never hear of IP addresses?).  A victim's death by a fentanyl is determined by the amount of drug administered but not by his body weight or metabolism.  Naloxone is administered, and, like in too many TV shows, it is seen as the "cure" (it's not).  A child is found after a lot of years -- and no DNA test is made.  The show just pushes you to accept a lot on faith.  There is also a considerable amount of personal backstory, which I like, but it borders on being too much.  In a critical car chase, the couple argues about family drama.  Really?  So, I kinda sorta like it but feel like they need to keep polishing the scripts and tighten things up.  We'll see.

"Space Force"

After plowing through another depressing award-nominated film, I needed something fluffy and light.  I chose "Space Force" and regretted it.  This might be the first time I stopped watching a streaming series after two episodes.  To be honest, I didn't like it after one episode but I thought it might improve so I gave it a second shot.  Unfortunately, it didn't grow on me.  It's like that first date with someone who is trying way (way, way, way) too hard.  There aren't just slapstick jokes, there is a need to hit the viewers over the head with stupid.  The main character (Steve Carrell) isn't just obnoxious, he's truly hateful.  The jokes about the former POTUS date the show and when, in the second episode, there was a crack about a dog-eater and the Chinese in the same sentence, I bailed.  Watch at your own risk.

"Obi-Wan Kenobi"

Okay, so there is nothing new here.  Lots of heart-pounding action but the storyline is a virtual rip-off of Episode Four, with entire lines of dialog repeated throughout.  Obi-Wan is depressed, there is a cute kid and a couple cool droids, and apparently rescuing Leia from the Empire's grasp is what we do.  I don't mean to throw a lot of shade.  The acting is fine and the series definitely moves but I don't see how these six episodes add to the story.  Yes, we find out about what happens to Jar-Jar, and yes, there is a little insight into Leia's life path, but beyond that, the only thing this series does for me is open a hole in the original narrative.  In Episode Four, Uncle Owen doesn't know who Obi-Wan Kenobi is, claiming only that Ben Kenobi is a crazy old man up in the hills.  But at the end of Episode Three, Obi-Wan gives baby luke to Owen and his wife.  So, willing suspension of disbelief, maybe Kenobi didn't share his name with Owen.  It's a short scene.  Maybe Obi-Wan just showed up and said, "please take this child, no questions asked."  But in this series it becomes clear that Owen knows exactly who Kenobi is ... so ... ???  In any case, Moses Ingram, who was wonderful in "The Queen's Gambit", is intriguing here.  I see a spin-off ...

"Will Trent"

I tried.  I really did.  It's a top-notch cast, strong if not derivative writing (yes, we've seen this in "Psych", "Elementary" and half the detective series on television) and great production values.  There is just one thing.  Okay, maybe two.  First, it's dark.  Darker than it needs to be.  Even with the graphic violence kept outside of the frame the characters are haunted and sad.  Second, and the bigger factor here -- it's serialized.  The entire first season is a single case.  A kidnapping, no less.  The urgency in dealing with a kidnapping is lost when you spread it out over weeks and weeks.  Sorry.  If I wanted another "24" ... well, I don't.  And if I do, I'll binge the whole thing on Hulu after all the episodes are out.  In the meantime, will be giving a spin to the ~two~ other new shows which deal with kidnappings.  Hopefully in a less dour and more time-efficient manner.

"Good Luck to You, Leo Grande"

I kind of adored this quiet, short film.  It was funny, sad, touching, sweet, and thoughtful.  It stuck with me for a good while after viewing.  Brava Bravo to Emma Thompson and Daryl McCormick, who are so connected and vibrant you can't take your eyes off of them.  The script is outstanding and the subject matter ... something important.  Really important.  People say, and I've always strongly disagreed, that "Thelma and Louise" is a feminist film.  It isn't.  And I would argue the point but this film is, in my humble opinion, one of the most feminist films I've ever seen.  It's about empowerment, choice, love -- of others and of self.  It really got to me.  No other words.  It's pretty much perfect. 

"Reba McIntire's The Hammer"

This Lifetime movie, clearly a kick-off for a new mystery series (with a judge as the investigator, which is a twist), exceeded expectations.  Given that Reba McEntire was the star, I figured it would be good.  She really can do no wrong.  No matter what project she is involved in she brings charm, sparkle, and a grounded, warm feeling.  The balance in story-telling was also terrific.  There is fun, seriousness, a little social justice, you name it.  Melissa Peterman folds into the cast perfectly and the twists were just enough to be a little surprising.  Reba even gets to sing!  (Please, please, make this a feature of every film she makes).  My only minor complaint is that this feels a lot more like Texas than Nevada, but that's being picky.  It was a great way to spend an hour and a half (after you speed through the commercials).  More please.

"The Banshees of Inisherin"

Don't really know where to begin with this.  Was billed as a black comedy but it's not ... exactly.  What it is is very very very Irish.  There are some smiles throughout.  Sad smiles.  But it's dark.  And lingering.  There is death.  Of course there is.  Resignation.  A pervasive sense of the hopelessness of it all.  Long, stunning shots of a beautiful countryside and a simple people, locked in a paradoxical dance.  It's brilliant, of course.  It has hugely gifted actors and is written and directed by Martin McDonagh and is infused with deeper messaging -- about depression and self-care, about politics, you name it.  And it almost never went where I thought it would go.  But I didn't like where it went.  So does that make it a good film or bad?  Hard to say.  This is definitely one of those "eye of the beholder" things.  Viewers will get different things out of it depending on what they bring to it.

"Love, Victor"

"Love, Simon" was a great film.  A rom-com just the way I like it.  The series, "Love, Victor" is a completely other tale, and better in many respects.  As a series, it can delve deeper.  And it does.  "Love, Simon" was, all-in-all, a kind of simple story.  Victor's path is nowhere near as clear or easy.  Religion, race, and family relationships all fold in and none are easily defined.  A big thumb's up that the parents aren't two-dimensional.  All of them have edges and frailties.  They are human.  Victor's journey, and the journey of those around him, isn't just the typical teen drama, it is the building blocks of growing up and trying to figure out the world.  It is a hugely bingeable series, one which will have you hesitating to pick up the remote.  As you connect to the characters there is a real need to see what happens next.  This is an everyman's journey -- with something to connect to no matter what role you play in life.  Bravo, brava.  Outstanding.

"Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery"

It's fun.  More fun than the first film, with many (many, many) call-outs to our modern society and pop culture.  Like the first film, however, the who-did-it isn't hard to figure out and the over-the-top portrayals, particularly Daniel Craig's heavy-handed New Orleans drawl, can be grating.  It's a worthwhile watch but there is nothing deep here.  Something enjoyable to view while drinking a high-end cocktail on a Saturday night (you'll get that when you see it).  

"Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio"

Brilliant in more than one way, it is easy to see why this one is up for numerous awards.  It should be.  Beautiful, sad, touching -- it's all in there.  Far more on point than the Disney version, this one returns to the true Italian roots of the story and has dark moments and true pathos.  It's not a tale of black and white but of the subtleties which can come with fathers and sons, creators and their creations.  There is true joy and delight in young Pinocchio and real questioning of the world around him.  He comes to conclusions which are definitely not correct but come from his heart, which is saying something about a wooden boy.  There is magic and, inexplicably some songs.  They aren't musical numbers which will stay with you.  Rather, they are the kind of melody-less tunes which spring forth now and then when simple words won't do.  The narrator/cricket takes on an entirely other persona here, being both wise and a helpless observer of the world around him.  The striking impact of the stop-motion and the art of the entire film would leave you breathless even if the script wasn't good, which it is.  This work gets it right on every level.  Bravo, Guillermo del Toro.  A tender, quietly powerful tale.

"Andor"

"Andor" has gotten tremendous praise for being a powerful drama.  And it is.  There are speeches.  Lots of speeches.  Powerful speeches.  Motivating speeches.  However.  It's a prequel to "Rogue One" and I didn't care for that film, so watching a series with the same tone is ... difficult.  It's not just dark, it's bleak.  It's sad.  And, much like the film it's based on, it's fatalistic.  There is death.  A lot of death.  It's dressed up in the "grand gesture" of sacrifice for the greater good but that doesn't change the fact that there is little joy here.  I guess the big question is, if it only took two hours to tell the end of Andor's story, why does it take some 12+ hours to provide the lead-up?  Because the producers are trying to fill in a million different shadings.  It's not enough to talk about Andor, they have to tell a broad tale, of politics, revolution and more.  Authoritarianism, a vicious military, the struggle of feminism even among the bad guys, the impact of old traditions, the lack of caring about the poor, the rise of an incompetent and mentally imbalanced young man, using prisoners for slave labor, unbridled ambition being rewarded, questionable moral decisions, you name it.  It's all crammed in there.  It's grand and epic.  And it works, a bit.  Taken in small doses, the acting, script and high production values make an impact.  I guess the question is, is it a tale we need to hear?  And that's the point.  The OG Star Wars was escapism.  Fantasy.  A boy comes of age and rescues a princess.  "Andor" is, like Trek, very contemporary.  In our modern age, where oppression and fascism is on the rise, we are urged by a lead character here to stop sleeping, to fight back.  Regardless of the cost.  Because freedom cannot be taken away.  It is, oddly, a propaganda piece.  I recognize all of it.  Whether viewers will respond will be a factor of how much they recognize the themes, I think.  It's complicated.  We'll see what season two brings.  I imagine it will have something to do with the world stage.  Our world.