"Hocus Pocus" (OG and 2)

Attempting to get into the Halloween mood I decided to watch the new "Hocus Pocus" on Disney.  However, once again, I somehow managed to miss the original version of this film way back in 1993, so I had to watch it before watching the new one.  They were ... well ...

They aren't bad, exactly.  The OG film is a bit dated, the kids okay (with the exception of a very young Thora Birch, who is fabulous).  The focus is on the witches.  They are kind of funny, but the movie literally opens (SPOILER ALERT) with the murder of a kid.  So, not so funny.  The talking cat is cute and you want to laugh at the witches trying to figure out modern times, but you don't.  They adapt quickly, without any seeming help, and are finally vanquished at the very last minute.

The second film is a virtual blueprint of the first, making the ending kind of predictable.  But the focus is more on the kids than the witches, with Whitney Peak and Belissa Escobedo bringing energy and freshness to make the whole thing a little more engaging.  There is a single twist I didn't see coming but the script, like in the OG version, it is weak overall.  As for the witches, the biggest change in 30 years is that Sarah Jessica Parker seems to struggle with playing the childlike, ditzy witch from the first film.  She's in her 50s and the lightness was gone.  One of the few really enjoyable characters is Billy Butcherson played by Doug Jones ("Star Trek:  Discovery").  He is really a gem who makes the most of his tiny role.  Otherwise, both movies are about as watchable as a Hallmark holiday movie, but that's it.  

All that being said, some numbnuts in Texas are saying the films should be banned, so they will probably get a lot of viewership.  I would recommend having something else to do while you and the kids watch.

"The Humans"

An underdog award nominee last year this one is a quiet little film with some big stars.  It's simple -- one set, one night, one story.  A family comes together at Thanksgiving.  The location is a dumpy apartment in New York City.  The hosts are a young couple, the attendees are the sister, the mother, father and grandmother.  Let the depression begin!  Everyone has issues and most of those issues are hidden.  The passive-aggressive side remarks dig and dig until they come oozing out.  In other words, your standard family holiday.  It's artsy and has silent passages meant to convey -- well, things viewers could debate about.  Based on a play I'm not sure it translates well into film.  Under two hours it feels much longer.  One element of story, they say, is the path the characters are on, internal or external.  What barriers do they find in their quests?  How do they change in the course of the tale?  The answers to those questions are not evident here.  One reviewer stated "I'm not sure of what I just watched."  I get it.  I understand ... there is drama, family drama, personal drama.  There is horror, sort of.  Early on, one character notes that aliens visiting earth realize the monsters are actually us.  The film seems to lean into that with dark lighting and various creatures skittering along the walls.  But it's too much symbolism and not enough meat (pun intended).  It's "good acting" but beyond that there isn't a lot to hang your hat on.

"Death on the Nile"

Not what I expected ... at all.  The previews left me thinking that this might be a farce of some kind, a funny "take" on an old classic.  It's not.  A class-A cast comes together to make a taut film.  Poirot is a troubled, layered, sad man.  The deaths are numerous, the growing tension palpable.  Even if you know the "who" behind the "whodunit" of the tale it's very watchable.  Characters say little of their real feelings but their faces are portraits of struggle and deceit.  It's pretty to look at, engaging to watch.  Brilliant and prolific Kenneth Brannagh directs as well as stars.  Now I have to go back and watch his take on the Orient Express.

"Flee"

Finally got to see this unique and brilliant film which was nominated for several awards last year.  It's a documentary, an animated film, a commentary on the immigrant issues of today, a nod to the struggles faced by the LGBTQ+ community.  It's beautiful and powerful and should have won over "Encanto" but it's not the most uplifting film and its unicorn status probably confused Oscar voters.  Combining personalized drawings with audio commentary and gut-wrenching live footage the movie drew me in.  I couldn't look away.  I was touched, and changed, by it.  With a run-time of only one and a half hours, it is simple, compact and powerful.  Watch it.

"East New York"

As suspected, this is on the gritty side.  More than I like.  I'm kind of a "The Rookie" person (being broadcast on the same night, at the same time, on ABC).  But it's good, and the cast is great.  There isn't a lot of original here (it's on CBS, of course).  Just your basic cop show.  But there is heart.  And storytelling.  And some people trying to do good, but maybe not for the right reasons.  In the vein of "Hill Street Blues" the line of morality is muddied ... a lot ... in this production.  The one interesting thing is the post #BLM influence.  Most of the cast, including the talented lead, Amanda Warren, are people of color.  It may be one of the most diverse casts of a cop show I've ever watched.  And that's key.  The second episode features a tale of two murders -- a white Wall Street guy and black kid from the projects.  The points are made, beautifully, without hitting you over the head.  Brava.  If I know CBS, this one will nudge viewers to widen their world without being overly pushy.  That might be a good thing, allowing people to buy in rather than tune out.

"Interview with the Vampire" (2022)

AMC takes on this classic with the kind of high-end production values we have come to see from them.  An outstanding cast -- Jacob Anderson mesmerizes and Eric Bogosian plays a perfect foil -- makes you feel like you are watching a film, not a TV show.  The story veers a good deal from the book but the quality of the script remains the same ... very rich and layered.  It can also, at times, be laugh-out-loud funny.  It is a series with layers.  This is a show you watch, not work out to.  Two episodes in, it is seriously growing on me.  There is one major caveat.  AMC, known for "Walking Dead", is pulling out the stops on the gore factor, which is deeply not my thing.  In the end it will come down to great acting and storytelling vs being physically repelled by the violence on the screen.  Which will win out, I do not know.

"Elvis"

Must be the season "for your consideration".  Few things are Oscar bait like a good biopic, and in two weeks time we have two blockbuster films -- one about Marilyn Monroe, the other about Elvis.  It's interesting, because they had a lot in common.  Both got their first big breaks in the 50s.  Both were a little innocent and deeply abused and used up by the people around them.  Both came to dislike their public personas.  Both were accused of inappropriate sexuality and both died far too young ... far, far too young ... from overdoses.  Given all of that the two movies could not be more different.  "Blonde" is a hazy, disconnected, internal view of the world from the mind of a troubled woman.  Norma Jeane is the unreliable narrator and history is "twisted" to tell the story the creators wanted to tell.  "Elvis" is a Baz Luhrmann production.  It's loud and bright and fast-paced.  Contemporary music is intertwined with tunes of the times (yes, that is Doja Cat).  At times there are as many as 12 cuts per minute.  There are split screens and the narrator isn't Elvis.  We never get inside his head.  The tale is told by a different kind of unreliable narrator -- Colonel Tom Parker, on his deathbed.  Needless to say, the man doesn't have any regrets and tries to justify all of it.  Elvis and Parker, played brilliantly by Austin Butler and Tom Hanks, are spellbinding.  The strong script has you hanging on every word, even though we all know how things are going to go.  Funny, "Blonde" was raw and personal.  This film was not.  But both made a real impression.  And I cried a bit more at the end of "Elvis" than "Blonde".  Much like my visit to Graceland I found the individual person in this tale, not the icon.  The humanizing of these people is, perhaps, the greatest gift these movies give us.  In any case, it's going to be hard to make the call during award season.

"Blonde"

Wow.  So much to unpack here.  So.  Much.  First and foremost, this is a movie about a real person based on a fictional novel, so don't look for reality.  And when it comes to Marilyn Monroe, what are the facts?  What is reality?  Much like "Spencer" this isn't a retelling of the woman's career but rather, an internal look at the mind of Norma Jeane.  It's just about a million times better than "Spencer."  The brilliance of the film is evident in a lot of ways.  Ana de Armas does a lovely job capturing the childlike innocence of the woman's public persona and allows her true intelligence and insight to break through now and then.  (My one complaint is that Ana de Armas is very petite and Marilyn was downright zaftig.  So much for Hollywood learning the lesson about trying to fit women into a set ideal of beauty.)  The filming is detailed and beautiful.  There are glimpes of her films but more than that we see the world from Norma's eyes.  There is hope and promise ... dashed, bleary-eyed/drug-induced confusion, an unconnectedness of herself to the people and of events in her life.  There is constant questioning and insecurity.  And there is a switch, so subtle at first that I missed it.  The film is in color, then in black and white, then in color again.  Back and forth, back and forth.  What are these changes meant to convey?  The past and present?  Reality vs imagination?  Norma or Marilyn?  About half-way through I decided it had something to do with her mood.  You know how depression can turn the world grey?  Like that.  Maybe.  Who knows?  And that's the rub.  We don't know the mind of Marilyn.  She has been written about, analyzed, explored for 60+ years now.  Men wanted her, women wanted to be her.  Everyone around her seemed to want to take from her, use her, abuse her.  Some people in her life wanted to own her.  But who was she, really?  Not an icon but a person.  A broken person, certainly.  One who loved often but not too wisely, perhaps.  Beyond that ... well, for all the films and books and fascination, we don't know.  We most likely will never know who she really was.  What she thought, what she felt.  She may not have known those things herself -- more the tragedy.  Collectively we put people up on these pedestals, make them into symbols or gods, and then they die (MJ, Whitney, Robin Williams, etc etc etc) and there is a nagging sense of guilt.  Did our idolization contribute to their tragics ends?  Would there have been a way of caring about them rather than being part of the vampire horde sucking them dry?  Would it have made a difference?  There is a lot of talk about this film.  Everyone has their opinions.  Me, as well (obviously).  But none of it matters.  The Marilyn we talk about today is fiction.  Norma Jeane was a human being.  One who will forever remain a mystery.  

"Uncoupled"

This Neil Patrick Harris vehicle on Netflix is light, fluffy and fun ... given the serious undertones.  It's a Darren Star production and has all the hallmarks of his work.  Characters are full of privilege, navigating New York as if it is a playland, not a city of struggles and class.  Once again, we have denizens of the great city who couldn't use a subway if they had to.  Mr. Harris hits the perfect note as a man whose husband walks out, with no apparent reason, after decades together.  He is a self-involved mess and finds a client, beautifully played by Marcia Gay Harden, who is more messed up than he is.  The production is nicely balanced with co-worker Tisha Campbell playing a wise smart-ass and two friends who put his character in his place (when needed).  I do appreciate that, for once, this is a story of mature folks, of those in their 40s and 50s trying to navigate the world rather than the young and effortlessly beautiful.  It's not deep, it's not life-changing, but it's entertaining.  And maybe, from time to time, that's all we need.

"The Evangelicals: A Struggle to Shape America" by Frances FitzGerald

I have been trying to understand our unique times.  Or are they unique?  I read through this weighty tome (more than 700 pages) to try and get a sense of how we got here.  The book starts in the 1740s and continues through American History at a snail's pace, detailing every evangelical movement, every leader, every event impacting both politics and faith.  It must have truly been a labor of love for Frances FitzGerald, who has created a virtual encyclopedia on the topic.  But it is about as fun as reading an encyclopedia -- plodding and plotless.  I really didn't need to know the biography of every faith leader of the various religious movements in the United States over past two hundred years.  All that being said, I pushed through and I learned a lot.  I really didn't know nearly as much about evangelicalism as I thought I knew, including the fact that the evangelicalism we know today is not that old.  So, maybe it was worth it.  For those who don't want to dig through it all, here are my take-aways:  Evangelicalism has meant very different things to different people in the faith community over the past 250+ years in this nation.  Evangelicals are not a single entity, but rather a large number of disparate belief systems which grew up and out through the major denominations of early America (Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and Anglicans).  There were major religious movements throughout time and these not only helped to develop the faiths but created schisms and break-off churches.  For the better part of the last 200 years, many of the various evangelical groups have not gotten along, or agreed on fundamental points.  Most evangelical groups shunned the political spotlight and preferred to keep to themselves.  That only changed when an issue of concern (such as the evolution battle of the 1920s) came up.  The groups would come together briefly to involve themselves in that single issue, then fade back into their segregated communities until another topic came up.  In the 1960s a confluence of things created the seeds of modern evangelical efforts.  Society took a sharp left with the Civil Rights acts, followed by the rights battles of women and gays.  The pill made sexual activity more prominent outside of marriage.  The streets of this country erupted with protests and hippies.  Television broadcast images and stories as far away from the "Andy Griffith Show" as you can imagine.  Televangelicals arouse, denouncing the very medium which helped them grow their memberships.  In 1979, a single person, Jerry Falwell, did what few others had done.  He brought a large number of the conservative faith groups, including evangelicals, into a single tent.  He called it the "Moral Majority".  Working with Ronald Reagan he and his people got a seat at the table -- and liked it.  The idea of re-making America into a Christian Nation was born.  The moral majority fell apart in the late 80s but the roots were there.  Leaders came together and planned out how to win more elections.  They worked at the grass-roots level rather than at the national level, where they had seen some success and a lot of failure.  They made steady gains in local and state offices, the impact of which is seen today.  They created a playbook of lasering in on a single issue of concern for the people they called "values voters" (gay rights, bad books in schools, abortion, etc) and made that the entire focus of an election.  Today, we call these "wedge issues".  The conservative leaders made it clear from the pulpits of evangelical churches that a failure to act on these issues would have a hugely detrimental impact on the freedoms, rights, even lives, of their devoted followers.  Anyone who disagreed was helping to destroy our nation.  This was an important shift.  Not only were the evangelicals of the 1980s and beyond more political than their predecessors, but they supported political messaging from pastors (which had not been the case very often in the previous two centuries) and they were vehement about stopping abortion ... which many groups had actually supported in the past! (or ignored).  The increase in conservative "news" organizations and Social Media after 2010 allowed the right wing to spread their messages more quickly, and to a wider audience, than ever before, bringing on the Presidential election of 2016.  And here we are.  I still don't buy into it, but at least now, to some degree, I get where it all came from.

"The Rookie: Feds"

Love "The Rookie" and love Niecy Nash, so this show is a natural for me.  It leans into Ms. Nash's quirky, fun personality and retains several of "The Rookie" hallmarks.  We have a person "of a certain age" starting over in a new job with plenty of doubters.  There is bodycam footage cut into the chase montages and lots of action (although the first episode had more casual violence than "The Rookie" usually has, which I didn't care for).  Ms. Nash's character is more confident, and good at her job, than Nathan Fillion's character was when the original series began.  Both characters, though, are good at connecting with people, "read" people well, which gives them an edge.  And, of course, there is the race issue -- which is dealt with in a kind of ongoing, subtle way.  It's good, to see the intersection of race and policing in the modern age from people who represent the complicated middle.  The supporting cast is terrific and includes a lot of familiar faces, including a personal favorite, Britt Robertson.  I'm not wild about the constant focus on Ms. Nash's "attributes" -- it can be distracting -- but as her character says "you be you".  ABC also didn't do the show any favors by putting the show on Tuesday nights rather than allowing it to follow the OG series on Sunday nights, but "The Rookie" has always had midling ratings with a thrive factor in DVR, so it will take time to see how it all plays out.  In the meantime if you like a little action with a lot of sass, tune in.

"So Help Me Todd"

This is classic CBS -- fun, easy, enjoyable.  It has a terrific cast headed by Skylar Astin, who brings his traditional energy and verve to the character.  His character (the aforementioned Todd) bounces all over the place and is alternately obnoxious and funny but in the end, brilliant (minus the ego).  His foil is his mother, played deliciously by Marcia Gay Harden, who is excelling of late in playing powerful, broken women.  Add in a smart sister, an engaged ex co-worker and a legal investigation of the week and you have a show which can slide into your viewing without a lot of work.  It's a pleasant way to spend an hour.  Go for it.

"Quantum Leap" (the 2022 sequel)

So far, haven't been impressed.  Like the cast but the stories are very testosterone-laden.  The first three eps:  #1 A Fast and the Furious rip-off, #2 Spacewalks during a doomed shuttle mission, #3 A boxing tale (usually a last-ditch move in many dying series).  What they seem to be missing is a core facet of the OG "Quantum Leap".  Samuel Beckett didn't jump into world-changing events or semi-famous people.  He jumped into little lives.  Forgotten lives.  A secretary being harassed by her boss.  A young man with Down's Syndrome who is written off by family and co-workers.  People who will never be in the history books.  He sometimes did big things to fix those lives but his greatest impact was in listening and caring.  The best moments?  When Sam talked with someone in a quiet voice, trying to get them to believe in themselves, to see the importance of their lives.  The new series isn't there yet.  It's focused on the events, not the people.  It's not badly made so I'm willing to wait it out ... for a while.  We'll see.

"His Dark Materials"

This new(ish) BBC version (airing on HBO Max) is about a million times better than "The Golden Compass" film from 2007.  It's deeply respectful of the book's themes (although updated to include, among other things, climate change) and filled to the brim with talented actors.  Unlike the film, which was full of "stars", this one has a cast which plays to the subtle aspects of the characters (pun intended ... if you know the books ...).  Watch the thousands of microexpressions skimming across the face of Ruth Wilson, who plays Mrs. Coulter.  The character has layers in the books.  In this production she's a crystal with more sides than you can count.  Young Dafne Keen plays the lead role and brings an energy, passion and freshness to the role.  All of the characters have layers and depth.  You connect with them, which makes it even harder when they ... well ...  

It's not a happy tale.  It never was.  From sleepy beginnings the trajectory, and the body count, ramps up very quickly.  The point is made over and over again.  War is coming.  The great war.  The war to end all wars.  There will be losses along the way.  The story may feature a young woman and man coming into their own but it's not a kid's fantasy.  It is, true to the name, a dark, troubling, difficult path.  

Love the books.  In my top 10 of all time.  Although not an easy read, by any measure, it is a thoughtful work.  One which wraps religion, politics, philosophy and more into the complex narrative.  The mini-series adds to the written work rather than diminishing it.  This is a case where the visual version builds on a strong foundation of the books and makes the story richer.  I started in and finished the first two seasons in under a week -- my heart pounding at times.  Can't wait for season three.  Although -- well, the mountain of loss will grow ...

"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"

Films and books are different mediums.  People often blast a film for "not being the book."  I argue that it shouldn't be.  The printed word is not the same as a production with images, sound, and more.  The book (which I loved) tells a story which provides for the reader a certain amount of outrage -- at the lies, the manipulations, the unfairness of it all.  Medical professionals saw Henrietta Lacks as a source, not a person.  They didn't care about her or her family and some dismissed them in gross racial terms.  The film leaves out most of the medical storyline and focuses on the the Lacks family.  Oprah Winfrey does an outstanding job subverting her big personality to truly "become" one of the troubled daughters of Henrietta.  The rest of the cast is top-notch as well.  The writing is strong, the filming delicate and pointed.  One can see, and feel, the pain of a family which was used and abused, over and over and over again.  This came out in 2016 on the (then) quiet Hulu streaming service and slipped under the radar.  If it came out today, with the preponderance of streaming material, it would have been nominated for awards.  A worthy watch, and a worthy read.  Read the book for the facts, watch the film for the feelings.

"Thor: Love and Thunder"

I really don't know what to make of this.  It starts out with one joke after another.  Thor (or is it Hemsworth?) is a little over the whole hero thing and bumbles about, being reckless, and careless, in his work.  Then comes a serious threat and an old love with a secret.  The jokes continue.  And then they don't.  The film twists into a sad seriousness at the last minute and stays there.  I typically love the work of Taiki Waititi, who wrote and directed the latest entry in the Marvel universe.  "What We Do in the Shadows" is one of my top comedies of all time and "Jojo Rabbit" was f-ing brilliant.  ("Wellington Paranormal" is also very funny and worthwhile).  The laughs are there but the balance is not.  There should be a subtlety to the humor, a kind of weaving of story elements and the ridiculousness of it all.  This movie entertains but seem to be a little all over the place.  It's your run-of-the-mill superhero tale but it doesn't resonate.

"Spencer"

Honest-to-goodness, it has been a long (long, long) time since I hated a movie this much.  First, there is the unending opening where the director has the camera stare at trees for an interminable amount of time, then we see Diana in a car.  She gets lost, she wanders into a cafe where everyone stares at her, she is overwhelmed.  She is overwhelmed throughout, and, as portrayed by Kristin Stewart, she is a simpering whisperer who seems to be evoking the spirit of Marilyn Monroe as she experiences weird visions of Anne Boleyn.  There is little dialog, just lots of artful, lingering shots of unhappy people staring at each other.  The images have, perhaps, intent, but it's all kind of lost under a thundering and inappropriate musical score.  This is one of those situations where the director had a story he wanted to tell in some sort of avant-garde way, the facts be damned.  And there are few facts here.  Did Diana make a final trip to Sandringham the Christmas before the infamous divorce?  Yes.  What occurred there?  Who knows?  Not this.  So, my issue isn't just with the "let's make the movie we want to make regardless of whatever" but the fact that Diana was a real person and her sons, still alive, have to deal with this nonsense.  It's disrespectful and gross.  If you have the chance to see it, refuse.  For the sake of Diana's memory, and that of Will and Harry.

"In the Heights"

Nowhere near "Hamilton" this is a small-scale story.  There is love -- of a boy and a girl -- but it is also about love of a people, a culture, a place.  It's a gentle, quiet tale.  You have a young man trying to make a decision, who is looking around his community for guidance.  Song and dance ensues.  It's all quite lovely and has a fresh feel, even though there is a faint reminiscence of "West Side Story".  I enjoyed it.  But, strangely enough, it wasn't memorable.  It didn't "stick" with me.  I wasn't humming the music after I heard it.  It's very worth the two + hours, which fly by, just don't expect it to be a classic you return to over and over again.

"Ender's Game"

It's easy to see why this film didn't make it.  It did have a good cast, Asa Butterfield in particular, but the script just didn't work.  For readers of the books there are too many departures, starting with the fact that they couldn't cast a seven-year old in the role.  For those who didn't read the book it's a fast-paced mash-up of the events without the foundation of the relationships.  Ender's journey as an outsider, his connection with the team he assembles -- there just isn't enough time, in a two hour format, to unfold.  We are left with some random battle simulations without much of an understanding as to why they are so important in the tale.  Should this ever be re-made, it needs to be a mini-series. 

"Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness"

The strangest part of this film is that it isn't really a movie about Doctor Strange.  It's a movie about the Scarlet Witch aka Wanda Maximoff.  Her grief, as seen in the Avengers films and "WandaVision" is a palpable thing and the resolution of that is the real focus here.  Which leads me to the following -- this film has some fun raging through various realities (not as well as "Everything Everywhere All at Once" I suspect) but is just a bit plotless.  I love the actors and enjoy the witty repertoire, but I'm getting a bit tired of every Marvel film existing for no other reason than to set up for the next Marvel film.  So, yeah, it's a needed coda for Scarlet Witch but it clearly leads into a new storyline with a dozen unfinished threads.  And I'm almost at the end of my rope with these unending Marvel sequels.