"Wednesday"

I ignored this popular series when it first came out.  Not a fan of "The Addams Family" (I was more of a "Munsters" girl). I ended up watching this because the lead, Jenna Ortega, was nominated for a SAG Award.  It drew me in.  Funny and macabre, it walks just the right path across a knife's edge.  The answer is, of course, Tim Burton.  I pretty much love everything he makes.  And so here it is ... Harry Potter meets Gotham meets Harriet the Spy meets ... seriously weird.  Burton's gift is that he can celebrate the strange but somehow make it relatable.  He also fashions good story, weaving disparate elements into narratives with layers and surprises.  "Wednesday" is worthy, and another great addition to the Burton canon.

"Severance"

This might be the weirdest series I've ever watched.  Points to Apple+, which always looks for the strange and off-beat.  It's fresh, unpredictable and quite creepy.  Adam Scott and a talented cast do a great job of making the subtle shift from real world to work world.  But do I like it?  I'm not sure ...

"Babylon"

Once again we have a film full of sound and fury signifying very little.  Every few years Hollywood needs to make a masturbatory film about itself.  A few years ago, it was an overly long film with Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie called "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood."  Brad Pitt starred as a fading lead actor in the Golden Age of Hollywood, circa 1969.   In a deja vu moment, this overly long film has Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie starring as silent screen actors whose careers go crashing down as the talkies come in.  If you feel like all of this is just a tad familiar, go watch "Singin' in the Rain."  Yeah.  There is absolutely nothing original here but it takes more than three hours because, despite the frenetic pace, it's about excess.  Gratuitous, over-the-top and bloated in every way, the opening scene, at a raucous party, lasts more than half an hour and shows more women's body parts than most gyno doctors see in a month.  It has a few saving graces.  The jazz score is terrific.  Jovan Adepo gets a lovely moment when he is asked to darken his black complexion to match the dark skin of his bandmates.  Jean Smart pretty much makes the film with a monologue which embraces both permanence and the absence of longevity.  But that's about it.  Didn't have to watch much of it closely because absolutely every moment was expected a mile out.  That being said, the denouement went beyond to the extreme.  There is a five minute montage.  That's long.  Really long.  It goes places, then it goes places, then it goes more places, and all you can think is, "Where the hell is this going?"  Much like the film.  Watch at your own risk.

"The Good Nurse"

This being my fourth serial killer project I'm reviewing for the SAG Awards, getting a tad "over it".  That being said, it's a "perfectly fine" film.  SPOILERS AHEAD.  The only surprise is that in this case, unlike the other three stories, the killer isn't a creepy weirdo who makes you think, "gee, he's a serial killer".  Everything else is very pro forma.  There is a hard-working hospital staff, people who die, and a mystery which detectives can't solve without the cooperation of the hospital administration.  The hospital administration, of course, blocks the police at every turn because it's run by a big evil corporation which puts profits over people.  Short answer -- this guy killed with impunity for over a decade and wouldn't have gotten away with murdering hundreds (?) of people if just one of the nine hospitals he worked at had stepped up and worked with the authorities.  There is an over use of blue filters, which makes the whole thing look dark and depressing, and a few too many close-ups on Jessica Chastain, playing nurse Amy Loughren, as she struggles with a heart condition.  She and Eddie Redmayne are good, of course.  They are always good in whatever they do, but the film didn't really hold my attention.  Think I have OD'd on too many crime procedurals (pun not intended).  Anyway, if this is your thing, enjoy.

"George and Tammy"

It's not bad.  But it's not good.  Admittedly, I'm not a fan of country music but that being said, I loved "Walk the Line" about Johnny Cash, so it's not just the subject matter.  The issues, in my opinion, are many.  First, there isn't a lot or original here.  You could call this "George and Tammy" but you could also call it "A Star is Born".  All the elements are the same.  And Ms. Wynette's actual story is flattened a good deal, the timelines and details changed to fit a certain kind of narrative.  Another example of people wanting to tell a specific story which might not line up with the reality.  In the series, Tammy is a reserved person who is in control.  She is strong in a quiet way, a steady person who gets the eye of George Jones.  He pursues her.  The story focuses on their time together, painting it as a kind of fatalistic love story, like Romeo and Juliet.  Ms. Chastain's performance is incredibly muted compared to her award-winning work as Tammy Faye last year.  The problem with the portrayal is that Tammy Wynette was known to be a lady who liked the gentlemen, and George was the third of four marriages.  She was also someone who was seriously medicated for nearly a decade before she and George ever crossed paths.  Bottom line?  Tammy Wynette had a layered life and deserves a real biopic -- one which shows the totality of who she was and what she lived through.  This feels like the version you tell the tourists.

"Living"

Taken from a Japanese film, this is a story of a man who is told he does not have long to live.  It impacts the choices he makes.  The premise is intriguing.  The production is ... very very British.  The bulk of the film is quiet conversations in muted bars and office spaces.  Much like "Tar" viewers are removed from the action.  Events are re-capped but not shown.  If they are shown, such as when Mr. Williams spends two days carousing in a small beach town, it is from a distance and with a fuzzy lens.  Some of the supporting actors make an impact.  The unnamed man in a tavern at the beach, a young woman who worked briefly in Williams' office ... the young worker impacted by his final few months.  But overall it wasn't a film which moved or touched me in any particular way.  In fact, I found myself struggling to stay awake.  It is notable that we never learn Mr. Williams' first name.  After a very long hour and forty-five minutes, that's the least they could have done for us, the viewers.  Why should we care about a man we hardly know?

"Black Bird"

Okay, serial killer #3.  It's very good.  Good enough to get me to watch the entire mini-series, even though I'm over the whole serial killer thing.  Paul Walter Hauser does a terrific job being both innocent and creepy as hell.  Taron Egerton absolutely slays (not literally) by transforming himself again.  No, there is not a drop of his award-winning "Elton" performance here.  The violence of the attacks is not overt, although the scenes of a fictional prison riot are.  Tension is maintained throughout the six episodes and the only frustration is that of the ending which actually happened IRL.  Oh, and it's Ray Liotta's final performance.  So, yes, if you can stomach another one of these things (pun not intended), feel free to indulge. 

"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.

" A Hollywood Christmas"

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

"The Noel Diary"

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

"Holiday Harmony"

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

"A Christmas Mystery"

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

"Christmas With You"

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

"Falling for Christmas"

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

"A Christmas to Treasure"

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

"Beauty and the Beast: A 30th Celebration"

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

"Diary of a Future President"

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

"Must Love Christmas"

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

"Reindeer in Here"

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

"A Christmas Princess"

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

"Harry and Meghan"

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

"Derry Girls"

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

"Disenchanted"

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

"Lopez vs. Lopez"

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

"Ms. Marvel"

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

"Catherine, Called Birdy"

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