"Home Economics"

Had I not been a fan of "Single Parents" or "Life in Pieces" this would come across as being great.  Instead, it's just okay.  It's smart funny, in the vein of those other two but the kids, for the most part, are just interchangeable duds.  Part of what made the other two series great was the back and forth between kids and adults which gave them a Peanuts vibe.  This is simply misadjusted adults trying to figure it all out, and getting much of it wrong.  Kudos to Sasheer Zamata who never misses a chance to find the funny even though she is given so little.  It's entertaining but not brilliant.  I do wish the networks would commit to the "good" instead of always switching out their sitcoms for something similar in the hopes of boosting ratings.

"Superman & Lois"

The latest incarnation of a very familar territory is enjoyable and manages to mine some new stuff.  For that, I am grateful.  I also like how the show balances the needs of each family member, including Lois, with the superhero theatrics.  There is something touching about returning to Smallville.  It humanizes a story which can be more about symbols than people.  All that being said, there is room for improvement.  The CW (or is it Greg Berlanti?) has become somewhat morose.  "Arrow" was dark, that's fine, it's a dark tale.  "Batwoman" dark?  No problem.  But the darkness has expanded.  "The Flash", which opened as the polar opposite to "Arrow", is downright bleak with a touch of sadness.  And now, in "Superman & Lois", we have a Smallville which is always overcast and grey and a Superman who is partially unshaven and struggles to find the silver lining.  It's just not what Superman is.  Superman should be bright and shiny and wholesome.  Wholesome is kind of the brand, you know?  Smallville looking like Gotham?  Wrong.  The show has enough going on for it that it can hang in there for a good while (and the CW is loathe to cancel shows) but I'm hoping as it moves forward that it finds the funny and finds the dawns because more bleak I can't take.  

"Kung Fu"

Brava, brava, brava.  Not a lot to say here but very good, very contemporary, very enjoyable.  Yes, it is not only a perfect tale for our times but a terrific remake which corrects so many mistakes of the past.  Great cast, great premise, great writing.  Terrific job.

"United States of Al"

Unlike "B Positive", which I kinda sorta like, Chuck Lorre's newest offering "United States of Al" got me right out of the gate.  It's that beautiful mix Lorre is so very very good at.  "Big Bang Theory" guy-who-doesn't-fit-in.  Check. "Mom" pendulum of funny-to-serious.  Check.  "Bob (hearts) Abishola" respect for the riches brought to our nation by immigrants.  Check Check Check.  Very worthy, very watchable, very engaging.  Only one question -- this is Chuck Lorre's fifth concurrent show running on CBS.  Does the man sleep?  Does he have clones?  Seriously ... how does he do it???

"Debris"

I like Scifi.  A lot.  So, when NBC debuted their "let's see if something like Manifest will work" I was game.  And I've hung in there.  But.  Here's the thing, it's not bad.  But it's not good.  And much like the mysteries of the show I've spent way too much time trying to get my Covid-addled mind to figure out why it doesn't work.  Sure, there are a lot of threads, perhaps too many.  And there is an unexplained leap in technology -- people transport from one location to another and that's just accepted (this isn't Trek, it's planet Earth).  But that isn't it.  The actors are good, it's a top-notch cast, and the weekly debris findings have unique and unexpected twists.  And yet.  By the first or second commercial break, I'm usually glancing at my email.  All I can say is that this show doesn't have forward motion, tension, or much energy.  When a commercial break comes for "Manifest" I'm grabbing the remote because I have to see what happens next.  That's not the case here.  It isn't an overt thing, just a subtle lack which makes the show less than it should be.

And the Award Goes To … Part Three

The Series

As mentioned, and harped on, I have an issue with (almost) every nominated series being from a streaming network, however, here are my takes.

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

This is the most problematic category in the whole thing.  How do you put the moving but incredibly brief performance of Bill Camp in “The Queen’s Gambit” up against the powerhouse performance of Daveed Diggs in “Hamilton”?  And why was Daveed Diggs the only one nominated from “Hamilton”?  No Lin-Manuel Miranda?  No Leslie Odom Jr.??? And yes, Ethan Hawke got “Good Lord Bird” made but the undeniable star, the one who was the glue which made it work, was the kid, Joshua Caleb Johnson.  How is he NOT nominated???  Fortunately, there is an easy out.  Mark Ruffalo was effing BRILLIANT playing twins in “I Know This Much is True”.  As soon as I saw the first episode, he had me.  Mark Ruffalo wins.

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

Kerry Washington, “Little Fires Everywhere”.  Cate Blanchett was good, Anya Taylor-Joy is an up-and-comer, but Kerry Washington carried the ball beautiful in her roundabouts with Reese Witherspoon and it was remarkably different from “Scandal”, showing vulnerabilities Olivia Pope never had.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Drama Series

Josh O’Connor as Prince Charles for playing a role that is virtually impossible.  He got the subtlety, the pain, the ego of a man so well known that even a passing imitation is fraught with challenges.  Rege Jean-Page gets a nod here.  He manages to transcend being just too pretty, but “Bridgerton” was just too much fluff.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Drama Series

This was challenging.  Three actors from “The Crown”, which I loved, and two from “Ozark” which I didn’t.  Gillian Anderson was brilliant as Thatcher but I take issue with her “what nationality is she” game.  She will win but it’s worth looking at the other actors.  Olivia Coleman is brilliant, always, but has won before.  And reportedly hated playing the Queen.  Which leaves Emma Corrin as Diana.  She gets it.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Comedy Series

Nicholas Hoult in “The Great”.  He entirely consumed every scene he was in, making Peter the most intriguing and detestable creature ever seen on television.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Comedy Series

Since I pretty much hate “Dead to Me” and “Schitt’s Creek” I’m going for Kaley Cuoco, in “The Flight Attendant” here.  But “Schitt’s Creek” will win.

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series

This came down to “Lovecraft Country” or “The Crown”.  Both are compelling and have top-notch casts.  “The Crown” won my vote because of its ability to remain transformative and brilliant in its fourth season.  Not many shows can keep the energy going this long.  “The Crown” not only continues strong, it grows richer and MORE relevant as time passes.  Brava, Bravo.

Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

“The Flight Attendant” is a worthy runner-up but “The Great” wins this hands-down.  There is a kind of magic in how the dialog is batted around, making the show impossible to turn away from.  One of the most overlooked, I think, yet one of my favorites.

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama Series

This was surprisingly difficult in some ways.  All five nominated series have lots and lots of kick/shoot/blow ‘em ups.  And they are all a little different from each other.  “The Boys” celebrated the grotesque, having at least one body turned inside out with every episode.  “Cobra Kai”, a spin-off of “The Karate Kid” films, has plenty of martial arts but they are run of the mill rather than inventive.  In “The Mandalorian” an incalculable number of storm troopers meet their demise.  “Lovecraft Country” allows the haunted to fight back for a change, resulting in a sloppy red mess more often than not.  My vote here, however, goes to “Westworld”.  At first a simple western they have graduated and grown up, as it were.  With the addition of Samurai they have now added swords and mix that with urban warfare in a way which is fresh and unexpected.  “Thandie Newton with a Katana” is all you need to say.  “Westworld” wins.

And the Award Goes To … Part Two

First, the films

Given that most of these films never saw the inside of a movie theatre, and likely never will, this is a watershed year in terms of “what is considered a motion picture”.  More and more we are seeing small-screen films nominated for the big awards.  These are only watched by those who have streaming services, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not the majority of Americans.  There are deep questions here about the relevance of film in the modern era … but I digress. 

Here I present my votes for the SAG-Aftra Film Acting Awards for this year.  Inevitably, less than half of these will actually win, but hey, it’s a free and open vote, so there!  (Will some disgruntled actor start yelling “Stop the Steal”???  We’ll see …)

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role

This one was easy.  Chadwick Boseman.  He was totally swallowed up by the role and virtually unrecognizable.  It’s called acting.  The huge names (Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, etc) couldn’t compare to an actor “becoming” someone else.  Pure brilliance.  Rest in Power.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role

This one was tricky.  All five women are outstanding actors and gave great performances.  It was more of elimination than selection.  This wasn’t the best Amy Adams performance, Vanessa Kirby’s pain was visceral but hard to watch, Frances McDormand was, well, Frances McDormand.  Which left Viola Davis and Carey Mulligan.  Viola Davis was stunning, compelling, but … a) she’s a powerhouse but was not the star of this film and b) she’s won a few of these and I’m a firm believer in opening the door to newcomers.  And so my vote goes to Carey Mulligan in “Promising Young Woman”.  I won’t be at all unhappy if Viola Davis wins here though.

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role

This one was pretty easy.  Daniel Kaluuya in “Judas and the Black Messiah”.  Again, unrecognizable from his previous roles.  My only complaint here is that LaKeith Stanfield should have been nominated (the aforementioned Judas).  I would have voted for him.  Arliss Howard should have been nominated, too, for his Louis B. Mayer in “Mank”.  But they weren’t nominated.  Kaluuya is a bigger name.  More on that later.

Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role

And this is where I hit the wall.  It was a five-way tie.  Maria Bakalova MADE the Borat film.  Olivia Coleman turned in yet another outstanding performance which was completely different from every other role I’ve seen her play (and they were all different from each other).  Yuh-Jung Youn portrayed possibly the most complex, conflicted dutiful wife I have ever seen.  And Helena Zengel, who had very little dialog, spoke volumes in her critical role.  Leaving Glenn Close.  She has won SAG Awards but never an Oscar.  And she deserves an Oscar.  She really really does.  She’s like the Meryl Streep quality actor who everyone seems to forget about.  Yet here she is, in her 70s, still turning out brilliant performance after brilliant performance – and all of them unique and different.  Momentum at SAG might help her chances at Oscar time.  And so it goes to Glenn Close.  Although the others deserved to win, too.

Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture 

This wasn’t too hard.  “Minari”.  I liked “The Trial of the Chicago 7” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom a lot.  And “One Night in Miami” and “Da 5 Bloods” were homages to black lives with terrific ensemble performances.  But.  There is something about the family unit.  Something about people trying to build a better life.  In a time period of repeated losses this one spoke to me about the complexities of people who love one another but hate each other a little now and then.

Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

“Wonder Woman 1984”.  Duh.

And the Award Goes To … Part One

Before launching into my picks for the year I wanted to take a moment.  It’s just bizarre.  Most of these award-nominated productions began filming, and many wrapped, long before Covid.  And yet.  There is a theme.  A similarity.  There always is, of course, in one of those weird parallel cognition ways.  You tell me – does any of the following ring a bell?

The majority of films and shows this year have vast silences, huge vistas, small rooms, people trapped by incalculable personal loss, people who don’t fit into the world, people experiencing deep grief and isolation. 

The style is naturalistic, to the point of feeling like these were a series of documentaries, not films.  They have little structure, dialog and minimal progression.  Many can be seen more as a slice of life than a clear story.  A tremendous number are set in the recent past as if to say we need to pause and reflect to times which most of us remember.  There are always a lot history based tales, biographies, but they seem to dominate this year.  It creates an actor dilemma – play the motivation or play the person?

There are not a lot of laughs.  There never are.  I deliberately book-ended my viewing with the “fun stuff” (“WW84” and “The Great”) but even the fun stuff had dark streaks and sadness here and there. 

They are all good, of course.  Hundreds of worthy projects are culled to create this final list.  They have to be extraordinary to make the cut.  So the films and shows I liked the best aren’t necessarily THE best, they are simply what I found to be engaging.  And since that changes for everyone, given their interests and life experiences, it is truly impossible to say which film is “the best”.  Nonetheless, I’ll go there.  (Keep in mind my “favorites” are not reflected in my votes.  My final votes were for actors in films I didn’t care for.  Confused enough?  Read on …)

What I didn’t like --

Again, these aren’t bad, they just didn’t float my boat:  “Ramy”, “Schitt’s Creek”, “I May Destroy You”, “Dead to Me”, “Better Call Saul”, "Ozark" and “Cobra Kai” (okay, that last one is pretty weak …)

Brilliant but brutal --

Very glad to have watched them but felt like my guts were being ripped out:  “Pieces of a Woman”, “Judas and the Black Messiah”, “Minari”, “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”, “Sound of Metal”, “Lovecraft Country” and “I Know This Much is True”.

“Meh” –

Definitely worth watching but were either “off” for me, personally, or simply didn’t engage, leaving me fidgety: “Da 5 Bloods”, “News of the World”, “The Father”, “The Little Things”, “One Night in Miami …”, “The Undoing”, “The Flight Attendant”, “Bridgerton”, “The Good Lord Bird”, “The Queen’s Gambit” and “Hillbilly Elegy” which I liked more than the critics but had, IMHO, low energy.  “Mank” has been nominated for the most Oscars.  I get it but felt that it's more art than substance.  And way, way, way too white.

Biggest Winner???

“Nomadland” will likely walk away with many many awards.  Deservedly so.  But seriously not my thing.

Snubs –

I was engrossed by this year’s “Fargo”, which didn’t get any nominations.  At the very least there should have been some acting nods.  Network and even cable TV is virtually non-existent, which is a shame.  There are a number of TV shows I watch regularly which move me, touch me, engross me.  MJ Rodriguez and the entire ensemble from “Pose”?  Stunning.  They shouldn’t be ignored.  And the assumption that only Dramas have real, well, Drama, continues.  Does that mean that the actors on Sci-Fi aren’t worthy?  Is Wonder Woman’s pain any less than that of Diana on “The Crown”?  How is it that “People of Earth”, “Resident Alien” and “Miracle Workers” are overlooked?  It is a bias I will never accept. 

My Faves –

Again, not the best necessarily, but the ones which I connected to the most on a personal level: “Promising Young Woman”, “Trial of the Chicago 7”, “WW84”, “Borat:  Subsequent Moviefilm”, “Hamilton”, “Westworld”, “Mrs. America”, “The Great”, “The Crown”, “Little Fires Everywhere” and “This Is Us”, which has the distinction of being the ONLY non-streaming show nominated. 

Honorable Mentions for Buckets O Blood –

Winner: “Lovecraft Country” (I only got through half of it and had to call it quits).  Runner Ups:  “The Boys”, “Da 5 Bloods” and “Westworld”.

Honorable Mentions for Royal Sexcapades –

“Bridgerton” has all the chatter but “The Great” wins here.  Not only are the “encounters” more, um, non-traditional in “The Great” but there are more of them, including an impressive number before the credits roll on most episodes. 

Enough said.  Read on, in posts above, my picks for the SAG-Aftra Awards this year. 

"Young Rock" and "Kenan"

NBC has a new Tuesday night line-up featuring two sitcoms worthy of a watch.  The first is "Young Rock" the story of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.  Full of the ego and attitude Mr. Johnson cultivates in his public persona it was a little hard to take at first but the format, taking a theme and featuring how it impacted his life as he grew up, works.  The actors playing Johnson at different ages shine and points are made well without being moralistic.  It's funny yet grounded.  I suspect it will grow on me.

The second show, "Kenan" is also grounded, showing popular SNL performer Kenan Thompson in a very different role.  He's not ridiculous.  He has daughters, a job, a loss he is struggling with.  It could be a real launching pad for the actor to move on to other things but the first episode had many cringe-worthy moments.  It will be interesting to see, over time, if the show settles and is able to balance the comedy with the family elements.  To his credit the supporting cast is terrific -- from the smart-aleck daughters to brilliant addition of Don Johnson who is like peanut butter to Kenan's jelly.  I'm also thrilled to see Kimrie Lewis, who I adored in "Single Parents".  The show didn't exactly stick the landing but there is promise.  I'll keep watching for now.

The CW

I've finally figured out one of the problems with the CW shows.  I watch the CW more than any other network.  I love a good superhero show because they can be both engaging and escapist.  The CW has done well with the Arrowverse, creating depth in each series and providing a fresh take with every show.  And yet, while I love the shows, I find they kind of fade for me.  They start out great and then they just, kind of lose steam??? 

After I watched "The Flash" premiere I finally figured it out.  It is, to some degree, the revolving casts.  More than most shows (with the exception of maybe "Grey's Anatomy") the CW shows have a constant changeover in actors.  One might think it keeps the stories fresh, which could be true to some degree, but it also distances the viewer.  I love to connect not only to the story but to the characters.  I want to love them or hate them and I look forward to seeing them every week, discovering, along with them, the challenges and joys they encounter.  When I'm constantly trying to get to know a new set of characters I get tired.  And I stop caring.  Who is Allegra?  Don't really know.  And she's not growing on me.  Some new faces do -- I've come to like Cecile, but that took two years.  Will Allegra be around that long?  Probably not.  All of the Arrowverse shows tend to cycle through multiple major players every year.  

So, my two bits for the producers out there.  Find the humanity in your heroes and let us connect to that.  If a character is peripheral, so be it.  Just don't highlight someone and then walk away.  It's not good storytelling.

"Resident Alien"

Syfy has had a troubled past in creating shows of quality.  So, much to my surprise, "Resident Alien" is delightful.  It is complex and layered and unexpected.  Honestly, I only watched it initally because of Alan Tudyk.  I would pretty much watch Alan Tudyk in anything.  He doesn't disappoint here.  Playing an alien with less than honorable intentions he is stranded on Earth with little love or understanding of humans.  Things happen.  It is almost impossible to cover all the elements of this show which goes way beyond the word "quirky".  It is Science Fiction, Horror, Comedy, Drama and has a touch of Romance.  The characters are taken straight out of the original "Fargo" and their weirdness is barely eclipsed by Tudyk, who is hysterical in his efforts to mimic human facial expressions and speech patterns.  Definitely a male-produced show the women are thankfully "real" and varied.  At first it was almost too strange but it has grown on me with every week and quickly become "that show I have to watch" the next day after I record it.  A special shout-out to Judah Prehn who steals every scene he is in (which is not easy with Tudyk) and don't fast-forward through the credits.  The cartoon diagrams of "what to do" and "what not to do" will leave you giggling all night.  Bravo to Syfy for finally coming up with a winner. 

Why Didn't I Hear It Before?

I've been watching a lot of "old" TV on the Senior Citizen channels.  "Adam-12", "Emergency", "MASH", "Hogan's Heroes", etc.  One station has also revived the Saturday Morning Cartoons of my childhood.  I like the comfort of familiar G-rated fare in these difficult times.  But ... I'm hearing things I didn't hear before.  I've seen these things a million times.  Half-watched them while working out or doing the laundry.  But suddenly, there is a difference.  Yes, I know that gender relations have changed a good deal over the past four or five decades but I didn't realize how much.  Dialog which wasn't even noticed before now sends chills down my spine.  On "MASH", they joke about rape.  On "Emergency" Gage talks about how there are no good nurses left -- according to him they must be under 30 and under 150 pounds.  He and the others openly joke about women who are dogs.  On "Adam-12" Malloy is similarly judgmental of the women he dates.  He and Reed often refer to women as "girls" and explain to a battered wife that it's her job to calm her husband down.  

This isn't a shock.  Not too long ago a colleague and I tried to explain to a younger, "woke" woman about #MeToo and the changes we had seen in our lifetimes.  In our pasts a lot of these kinds of things happened, and it was wrong -- we knew that, but we also accepted it to some degree, the way the world was.  To this day I'm not offended by what I call "the little stuff" which others might label as microaggressions.  I grew up with it.  Yes, when it was bad, you spoke up ... carefully (or lose your job).  But you didn't swing at every pitch.  If you did you would be dismissed as one of those crazy/whiny feminists.  You wouldn't be taken seriously, no matter how serious the complaint.  

It's not an excuse, it was reality.  The world was literally different.  And it changed.  But not overnight.  Baby steps.  I interviewed with men who hit on me during the interviews (more than one) and had one boss who tried to hook me up with a friend, determined that I would be a better employee if I got laid (yes, he said this -- out loud).  I had another boss who had a good friend drop into the office every now and then.  The man had a habit of giving unwanted shoulder massages to any woman in the vicinity.  The network of women in the building let each other know when he was in the house and made a point to stay busy and avoid him.  The same was true with a co-worker who loved hugs -- long, too-long, lingering hugs.  Women just ducked out of his way every time he approached.  A male colleague, observing this, was shocked that no one had spoken up.  "To what end?" he was told.  Telling the boss wouldn't have gotten the man fired.  Also, since his behavior was already a little predatory I guess the women were afraid of what might happen if he knew how much his behavior was disliked.  

Being hit on in job interviews was particularly difficult.  You want the job, so you play along -- just enough but not too much.  It was part of the icky reality of women's lives, and still is in some fields.  I always thought women must be very brilliant to play this game to get the gig and not be destroyed in the process, but you forget that many women -- many -- were hurt.  Badly.

This was the reality of the 1950s and 60s (watch "Mad Men") but the stories I'm telling are from the 80s.  Not so long ago for my aging brain.  Should we have spoken up more?  Called them out as people do today?  It wouldn't have worked.  Anita Hill spoke clearly and eloquently about her experiences with Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.  She wasn't believed.  Not even by our current President.  The Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Justin Fairfax, faced two different charges of sexual assault a year ago ... and nothing happened.  Nothing.  Not even an investigation.  

So, we've made progress.  But not enough.  The women of Ancient Greece protested, as did Lady Godiva and the women of Seneca Falls.  They would be pleased with all we have accomplished but would they recognize that the glass ceiling is still in place?  Many young women of today don't.  Today's youth might watch these old shows and flinch at some of the behavior but see it as the past.  It isn't.  Should I turn off these shows permanently?  

No.  These shows stopped production a lifetime ago.  Boycotting them would have little effect.  I do recognize the bigotry and inapropriate comments but I also know what it was like to live in those times.  I see the shows for their totality.  They reflected their times but they also fought against it.  The "Dragnet" shows lumped gay people in with drug users (no, I really didn't remember that) but all of the Jack Webb shows also made a point of pushing against the racism of the day.  Cops and victims of crimes were both black and white, with most characters depicted as honorable and decent.  Criminals were rarely black.  Looking back, I realize how edgy that was, how it pushed the boundaries of what so many believed at the time (and still believe).  In one of their final episodes, "Adam-12" featured a female cop.  Intelligent, strong and still a woman.  The paradigm was flipped on its head.

It is a bit disingenuous.  I stopped watching Woody Allen films a long time ago.  But for me there is a line of delineation.  These shows have elements which can be offensive but what Allen did was criminal.  Advocates of #MeToo may disagree but that's my personal line in the sand.  Feel free to select your own line, putting it at a different point.  This is, at its heart, a deeply personal issue.

Yes, Foghorn Leghorn makes a comment that something is "as unlikely as getting rent from (a certain racial/ethnic minority)" and I wince.  I shake my head.  So wrong.  And, for the record, I won't be watching Foghorn Leghorn again.  But the important thing is that I hear it.  I see it.  I'm aware, unlike I was so many years ago when first watching these shows.  I note that we have moved forward.  New shows, current shows, would not do this (okay, that's a lie, "Call Me Kat" did).  There is progress.  Maybe it's not an end-goal, maybe it's an unending journey.  And there is no way of knowing how long the road is.  We can only keep putting one foot in front of the other, keeping our heads up, our ears alert, our eyes open.

"The Equalizer" Reboot

Queen. Latifah.  

Enough said?  

It's truly fabulous.  (Not to mention multi-talented Liza Lapira being generally delightful and and nicely aged Chris Noth grounding the whole thing.  There is also Adam Goldberg's dry humor and Lorraine Toussaint's luminosity).  

Watch it.

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Call it Covid Fever but the turnover in casts this year has been ... interesting (not to mention the plethora of pregnancies, but that's another story).  There have always been cast changes here and there, from "Bewitched" to "Roseanne" but this year feels different.  It is as if Covid made a lot of actors reconsider what they want out of life.  It also gave producers a chance to ditch some deadwood.  And so, some of the notables ...

"9-1-1 Lonestar".  SO much better after replacing lethargic Liv Tyler with the amazing, incredible Gina Torres.  And giving her character a husband and family?  Brilliant.  As if that weren't enough there is an Amuse Bouche for "West Wing" fans in the form of a Rob Lowe/Lisa Edelstein reunion.  More than a few Easter Eggs and nod-nod, wink-winks going on.  It's terrific.  And takes a very strong series into the stratosphere.  (And while we are on it, the addition of John Kim to "9-1-1" ain't bad either.  Loved him in "The Librarians").

"Mom".  Really didn't know how a show based on Anna Faris and Allison Janney's relationship continues without Anna Faris, but it does.  The show has already built a strong group of women who continue to carry the torch and do so with humor, struggles and a grounding in reality.  Ratings are down by almost half but all of network TV has suffered from the streaming revolution during Covid, so who knows?

"Chicago Fire" ... is changing paramedics again.  By my count this is the fourth woman to come and go in the job.  'Nuff said.

"DC's Legends of Tomorrow" has more cast changes.  Quelle surprise.  It's really news when they DON'T have cast changes.

Speaking of which, Brandon Routh has a multi-episode arc in "The Rookie".  As a bad cop.  Good guy Routh is truly terribly creepy playing a bad guy.  He's a great actor to make this shift but it makes me ache for his superhero charm complete with dopey smile.  I don't like it when I want to punch him.

Rosario Dawson and Katee Sackoff on "The Mandalorian".  SUPER COOL!

In the biggest news of the year, according to me, Javicia Leslie replaces Ruby Rose in "Batwoman".  Only a couple of eps in and there is a new energy to the show.  Ms. Rose's subtle performance may have worked in "Orange is the New Black" but seemed insufficient for the CW superheroes shows.  Ms. Leslie's character already has a fresh, mouthy, quirky style she brings to things.  Should make for good back-and-forth with Alice, Rachel Skarsten's impossible-to-take-your-eyes-off-villain.  Ms. Skarsten has had a busy dance card of projects over the past decade or so.  With good reason.  She inhabits her roles entirely.

UPCOMING:

Alan Arkin is not returning for the final season of "The Kominsky Method".  Huh?  How is that possible?  Makes the "Mom" departure seem simple in comparision.

Jensen Ackles (yum, yum) will join "The Boys".  But he likely won't be a good guy.  No kidding.  Is anyone a good guy on that show?

Jim Carrey didn't work out as the SNL Biden so there seems to be a bit of a revolving door on the role.  I'm thinking it isn't easy.  Even the late night hosts haven't really nailed the Biden thing yet.  After President Babypants I guess it's hard to get back to someone grounded in reality.

Last and not least, what's with giving female characters male names?  I bought into Michael Burnham in "Star Trek:  Discovery" but now we have a Ryan and a Jake and a Tommy.  I'm sure there is a point to it all but it hurts my brain trying to figure it out.

Three Musketeers ... or is it Four?

I've seen a few Musketeers in my time.  Frankly it comes in only second to "Robin Hood" for swashbuckling adaptations.  My first was the ever-so-famous 1973 version.  Have to say even though this was a critic favorite I've never warmed up to it, even after seeing it a few times.  Too slow and too dark.  It may be a faithful rendition of the book but if I want the book I'll read the book.  For films you have two hours to make me think about something other than Covid or, you know, real life.  With that as the benchmark I enjoy the 1993 film.  The dialog is ridiculous, the acting over the top, but it's fun.  Kiefer Sutherland is moody, Charlie Sheen is bizarrely religious and Oliver Platt is, well, Oliver Platt.  I kind of love his rude pretend superiority bit.  And Rebecca De Mornay's Milady was, IMHO, one of the best.  All the Miladys are great, frankly.  It must be fun to play the ultimate femme fatale.  De Mornay's version was just step up because the script allowed for some complicated levels in the character's motivations.  Even though I've seen it a good number of the times I still deconstruct her "ending" during every viewing (no spoiler here, Milady is a bad guy who always gets it in the end).  Recently saw a semi-new version of the Musketeer canon, filmed in 2011, which beat the fun-but cheesy 1993 film in a few important ways.  First of all it was less about highlighting Hollywood stars as it was about a group working together.  D'Artagnon's hair was still unfortunate but less so than in the '93 version.  The jokes were still there but didn't overwhelm a somewhat more serious script.  Milady gets to do something other than just seduce people and the fight sequences were terrific.  I always like fresh, new styles of stage combat and this didn't disappoint.  Critics dislike the wide berth it takes from the source material (hint:  airships) but the action is great and the story engaging, which is all I care about.  Also this one does a nicely subtle job of introducing the very real competition between England and France in a very delicate time.  Is it a classic?  No, but it's worth a few hours.  There are more to explore.  A BBC series, another upcoming film.  Who knows?  One of these days someone might make the perfect version.  But then we wouldn't have new chances to explore old material, would we?

"Radioactive"

Critics panned this new film with understandable concerns but missed the point.  They didn't like the intercuts showing after-effects of the Curie discoveries, which include the US dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, use of radiation in cancer treatments and the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant among others.  It was felt that this politicized the film, turning it into a statement piece.  There were also complaints about the lack of historical accuracy, something which often comes up in projects like this (check out the latest controversy on "The Crown").  

Here's my take.  #1 This isn't a documentary.  Neither is "The Crown" or "The Aeronauts", for the record.  The purpose of this film is to entertain.  #2  This is based on a Graphic Novel.  Most of what is in the film was in the book so if you don't like the content then blame the source material.  One critic, showing her clear lack of understanding, told folks to read the "comic book".  WRONG.  Graphic Novels are not comic books.  Dismissing them is missing, well, the entire point.  (Yes, "Maus" won the Pulitzer Prize so they can be considered REAL literature).

ANYWAY, I digress.  Is the film entertaining?  Yes.  Is it interesting?  Yes.  Are the actors good?  Yes.  Is the film, as a whole, engaging?  Yes.  Marjane Satrapi, an award-winning graphic novelist in her own right, directs the film well.  It has depth and good visuals without being distracting.  There is flow and beauty.  The character of Marie continues the trend of unlikeable female lead, something we see more and more as women direct films.  Her warts are shown, and they don't diminish her incredible accomplishments.  Is it "real"?  No.  But it isn't meant to be.  Worth checking out.

"The Watch"

So, I wasn't going to watch this, then I realized it was based on Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, so then I watched it, but now I'm not.  It's not that it's bad.  It isn't.  The diverse cast and super-fast dialog makes for some smiles but between the grubby setting and the, um, "very British" sensibilities it just took too much work to watch it.  To be honest, "Guards, Guards" (on which this is clearly based) was probably my least favorite of the Discworld books and as much as I love the series the lack of magic and focus on the commonplace in an uncommon world in this particular book just didn't appeal.  In another place and time I might hang in there on this series.  But not now.  If you're up for it, enjoy.  It is worthy -- I'm just not.

"Mr. Mayor"

Another NBC comedy from Tina Fey and the minds of "Saturday Night Live" this one packs on the heavyweights.  It stars Ted Danson and Holly Hunter along with perpetual funny-man sidekick Bobby Moynihan and a host of fresh faces.  It works but it's not the kind of sitcom one watches while cleaning the house or doing laundry.  The dialog is super-fast and the edits quick.  In the premiere I had to rewind at least three times to catch stuff.  It's the kind of funny I like -- mostly smart and a little subtle.  It also manages to be a politically-based comedy which doesn't remind you at all about the current political mess.  Which is kind of brilliant.  I say thumbs up and worth watching.  Just make sure to pay attention.  

"Earthsea"

With a strong cast, decent script, high quality production values (including score) and solid source material it feels like this should have been a great film.  It wasn't.  So many problems.  First, this was the second part of a two part mini-series, but SyFy just broadcast it like a standalone film.  So, it felt like I was being dumped into the middle of a story.  Which I was.  The biggest problem is a Hollywood one.  Much like the "Percy Jackson" tales the producers here thought they could just take a bunch of random events from the book series and squish them together.  There is a major problem with that.  Only action films tell stories through one big major event after another.  Most literary series, as this one was, have depth and subtlety.  You can't just watch a character do something you have to understand who that character is, what they are thinking and feeling, why they do what they do.  Characters can't just reference a past you have to be able to take the time to understand how that past came to be.  Building those relationships makes the story tangible and understandable.  This was, unfortunately, a hot mess.  Especially when mixed with a different world with different rules one must take a lot of time to help the audience understand the setting.  Boiling these brilliant novels down to the "big events" left me feeling like I was watching some bad clip show for two hours, veering from one moment to the next without meaning or purpose.  Skip it and read the books.

"One Child Nation"

This very difficult to watch documentary should be required for anyone concerned about China, abortion or women.  Focused on the past it has amazing repercussions for today given that the actions of the Chinese government in their "one child" era are supposedly being recreated in the plentiful workcamps with forced sterilization again becoming routine for Uyghers, Chinese Muslims and others from the western provinces.  

It haunts.  The women who were sterilized, the doctors who performed the surgeries, the artist who found, quite by accident, the bodies of aborted children in a trash yard.  Seeing this, after being in the country for nearly a month, I have a deeper understanding of the reluctance of couples, mostly free of the one-child rule, to have additional children.  I have a greater insight into the attitudes of gender in a country where male dominance is still very visceral.  That the film exists at all is a miracle given that current leadership has been in a years-long crackdown on any kind of dissent in their positivity campaigns.  

It's not easy material, but I do feel it is the kind of thing we need to know.  We need to look in the dark corners and bring light to the atrocities which exist in our modern world.