"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.

"WandaVision"

Loved this.  Loved loved loved this.  It's weird, it's unexpected, it's kind of brilliant.  A lot of it, of course, has to do with Elizabeth Olsen, who gets my vote as one of the most underrated actors of our time.  She has a full range of emotions which play across her face, over and over, making every viewing a new experience as you try to understand the kaleidoscope of feelings playing out inside of her.  The concept is terrific and will leave a smile on your face if you, like me, are a long-time TV viewer.  It's a great way to address Wanda's pain and loss, and does a real honor to the roots of the character.  The end ... well, no spoilers ... but it did not go where I thought it would.  I binged the whole thing in a couple of days but kept thinking about it long after I had viewed it.  By all means, indulge.   

"Encanto"

Fun and clever, this is one of those Disney films the kids will enjoy, and most likely will want to watch over and over and over, but there isn't a lot of depth here.  Cute magic stuff, cute songs, a mild point or two ("be yourself" I guess???) and that's it.  It's not one of those clever movies where grown-ups can see stuff the kids don't.  It's not nuanced.  It's just, well, "nice".  And "We Don't Talk About Bruno" will haunt you a bit but not in the earworm way.  It was entertaining.  That's about all I can say.

"Wedding Season"

I thought this Netflix production was a series, not a film.  It might have been better as a series.  Or not.  As it is, there is a major montage in the middle to make up for lack of storytelling.  In typical Hallmark fashion there is a career-minded woman being pressured by her family to find her Mr. Right, and she and an handsome Indian fellow agree to a faux relationship to get their parents off their backs.  You know what happens next, right?  The acting is good, the plot is on the light side -- predictable and boring, and the portrayals of Indian culture is fun and engaging.  So, like any televised rom-com, it's worth having on in the background while you are doing something else but don't expect to have a deep connection with it.

The CW. Again.

So.  As it goes up for sale, the CW has done what it has never done -- cancelled, like, everything.  A fond farewell to "DC's Legends of Tomorrow", "Batwoman", "The 2200" and more.  And it's time to evaluate the new tries.  

First, there is "Bump", cementing the CW as a network of imports.  This one, from Australia, features a thoroughly unlikeable teen who has a baby.  The child's arrival is unexpected and the father isn't the girl's long-time boyfriend.  Complications abound.  Despite the half-hour format, it's not a sitcom and it's not generally funny.  But it's not bleak, either.  It's kind of ... real?  And compelling.  

"The Great Chocolate Showdown" is a game show from Canada.  I generally don't watch these competitive things.  Most weeks I hate how a chef I like, who has previously done well, is booted off for a single fail.  But there is chocolate.  A lot of it.  'Nuff said.

"Leonardo" comes from British actor Freddie Highmore's production company, paired with an Italian broadcaster.  Examining the early life of Leonardo da Vinci it does a nice job of mimicking the art in the filming and taking a subtle approach to a very complicated man.  It's not historically accurate, hardly at all, but it does create compelling characters and spins an intriguing tale.  The cast is strong and the only one fail, in my humble opinion, is trying to convincingly to fit a 40-something actor into a group of 20-something art protegees and make them all look like contemporaries.  I'm willing to overlook it and see where this goes. 

"Turning Red"

This f-ing brilliant animated film does an incredible job capturing the struggle of leaving tween years and becoming a full-on teenager.  Not as popular as "Encanto" I have to say I enjoyed this one more.  It's smart and layered.  The choices by the characters are nuanced, the resolution more real than idealized.  Just a terrific movie for young folk -- and their parents -- to watch.  Wraps Chinese culture into the story a lovely way and respects both the traditions and the struggle of younger people growing up in these cultures.  The characters aren't all good or all bad and even the lead can be irritating at times.  This one I would watch again.

"Look Both Ways"

This Netflix film sits somewhere between the NBC show "Ordinary Joe" and the film, "Sliding Doors".  It's not as depressing as the Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle but it's not quite as well-done as the NBC show.  Like James Wolk, the lead character here, Natalie, has a seminal event (pun sort of intended) at the end of her college career.  It sends the young woman down two completely different paths.  In each life she has a five-year plan which doesn't go as planned.  There is "a guy" in each iteration although they both do and don't have a major impact on Natalie's choices.  There is an attempt to portray her as an independent woman and she has the spunk for it but in typical rom-com fashion the men must be part of the equation.  The film is good but not great.  The ending is muddled -- in part because the beginning wasn't clear on location and how that location plays out in the final events.  Everything is wrapped up neatly.  Perhaps too neatly?  Almost rushed?  It is as if those who produced the movie didn't want to offend anyone and so they just made everything "okay" without passing anything even close to judgement.  It's tricky times to portray a woman in America who may or may not pregnant.  You can try to focus in on the film but may end up thinking about a woman's choice -- or lack thereof.  

"Perry Mason" (2020)

This ain't your parent's Raymond Burr version of the famous fictional lawyer.  It's a completely new take.  Gritty, dark and hard to watch at more than a few points, it's an origin story, and it is done in the style of film noir (not my favorite).  Set in the early 1930s, the violence is visceral and graphic.  Perry is an alcoholic, chain-smoking veteran with no small amount of PTSD from the Battle of Argonne.  He works for a lawyer who has chops, but is fading.  The lawyer manages to keep it together with his smart and sassy assistant, Della Reese.  Paul Drake is now a Black police officer who struggles to walk the line of an impossible existence.  The eight episodes of the first season cover a single, brutal crime.  You want to know all the who and why?  You have to watch all eight episodes.  In true film noir fashion, even the ending isn't a real ending, not in the sense that everything is tied up in a neat bow.  Things come to a natural pause, but a happy path is not in the cards here.  Besides wanting to know what it was all about, I stuck in for two of the leads.  Matthew Rhys can do nothing wrong, in my humble opinion.  And Tatiana Maslany, continuing her tradition of being a chameleon, is transfixing, as usual.  To make the story go eight episodes there are a lot of convoluted plotlines, most of which end up unfinished.  The film-making here is outstanding but I don't know if I will watch season two.  Ms. Maslany will not be back and the whole thing is just way too moody and dark.  But I can't say the first season was bad.  Not at all.  So, it's a dilemma.

"Anne of Green Gables"

The real thing.  Having watched "Anne with an E" -- and having thoroughly enjoyed it, I had to go back to the books, which I somehow never read in school.  Which is weird, because I basically read everything.  So, here's my take:  The books are good.  In a literary way, in a real teen way.  There are whole sections describing Avonlea which are like pure poetry.  The seasons, the trees, the countryside.  As a young reader I wouldn't have appreciated all of this description as much as I do now.  And there are Anne's monologues -- her never-ending stories of events in her life and thoughts she has and feelings she expresses.  These are irritating, both in the book and in the streaming series.  But they are real and they do show the unique passion, the "verve", which makes her truly special.  Characters in the streaming series are combined and threads which are subtle in the book become more dominant in the televised series (this being the 21st century and the books having been written in the 19th century).  Most events are about the same with the exception of a couple of things which happen to her friends and schoolmates.  Why didn't I read these books when I was younger?  As a city girl, I didn't see myself in the setting of the idyllic countryside.  Which the story is, to a point.  My fear, that this book was a sanitized goody-two shoes kind of tale, is a little justified.  Anne is well-liked at school, a good student, a girl who is teased at first but in the book that all goes away within the first six months or so.  "Anne with an E" is better at making the story real -- of Anne making friends but sometimes losing them, of Anne continuing to be on the outside, of her pushing too hard and the people in her life calling her out on it.  In any case I would say that the characters of the streaming series are performed with a true respect for the written characters.  One thing I would have liked about Anne had I read the books when I was young?  Her spunk.  One thing I like now?  Her introspection.  She makes mistakes, a lot of them.  But here's the thing -- she says it herself -- she never makes the same mistake twice because she learns from every event.  And that's something you can hang your hat on.  Even a straw hat with flowers.  

"The Gilded Age"

A passion project for "Downton Abbey" creator Julian Fellowes this HBO Max series boasts a lot of stars and definitely makes you think.  It's a paradox.  You hate a character for focusing on nothing but social climbing, then love her for calling out the old biddies who won't let her into the club.  You love her husband for his work ethic and devotion to family, then hate him for his ruthless business practices.  You hate the snobby "old" set but then appreciate the times they are able to show compassion and give freely.  It's a credit to the producers that these are complex people in a complex time, even if the surface story seems predictable.  Unlike "Bridgerton" this is not race-blind casting and some nifty points are made by the single storyline focusing on a Black actor.  There isn't a lot of new stuff here but it kept me watching.  I blasted through the whole first season in three days.  Yes, you hate the entitled rich people.  Who cares about rich people being mean to other rich people?  But then we are a culture which embraced "Dynasty", so ...  In any case, this is very well made and opts for the subtleties rather than hitting viewers over the head.  Take the time and enjoy it.  Flawed humans and all.

"Julia"

Brava, Bravo to the creators of this HBO Max series.  Unlike the mis-conceived film, "Being the Ricardos" this really speaks to me.  There are big names aplenty in the supporting roles but they actually went with a lesser-known British actor for the lead, who ... wait for it ... embodies the character beautifully.  You really don't look at her and say "that's not Julia Child."  In series form, as opposed to film, there is the opportunity to really examine things deeply and the producers here don't miss a beat.  It is a show of subtleties, exploring everything from the complex relationship between Julia and her husband, the issues women faced in the male-dominant work-force of the early 1960s, where LGBTQ+ sexuality was at the time, you name it.  The show is kind of brilliant (and will make you hungry -- watch with a meal).  It's not just well-acted and well-written, it's also well-shot.  Clever use of the camera, edits and choices in portraying the events of a given scene make for a tale which really draws you in.  There are eight episodes in the first season, six of which are already out.  I watched those six in a single sitting.  Enjoy, or as Julia would say, "Bon Appetit!"

"The Orville: New Horizons"

I really enjoyed this show when it first debuted on FOX in 2017.  At first, it was kind of silly and a little rude but the cast was fresh and engaging.  Instead of being a Sci-Fi spoof, it turned out that it was a love letter.  As a lifetime Trek/Star Wars fan I appreciated every homage, every Easter Egg.  Season 2 got more serious -- which was good.  And then, of course, as FOX is wont to do, it was canceled.  Fortunately, Disney+/Hulu picked it up and with season 3 I would say that the series is better than ever.  With each episode going more than an hour, with the constrictions of broadcast TV being lifted, the whole thing seems to have blossomed.  It's not just deeper, the show has texture and a ton of layers (thank some very high-end writers for this).  Storylines from the first two seasons are continued but filled out to the point where they feel complete.  Political messaging is still there but is typically more subtle than the OG Star Trek.  It touches on a wide range of topics, including the complex issues of alliances between different cultures in a time of war, the use of weapons of mass destruction and working through loss and grief.  The diverse threads of this show weave into something which leaves you thinking.  All that being said it's not depressing.  So much of today's Sci-fi has leaned into the gore and the dark view of the world.  The Orville not only maintains mostly happy endings but something even more important -- hope.  In the midst of cool technology they focus on the people.  Brava, bravo.  Looking forward to season four.

"Better Nate Than Ever"

Loved the books, by Tim Federle.  The movie, not so much.  Way (way way) too Disney-fied.  The books had depth.  It was about an awkward boy getting it all wrong as he tries so very hard to get it all right, to find a place for himself in a world which doesn't seem to have a place for him.  The film doesn't dig down.  It goes for the cheap laughs and the kind of syrupy fakeness you see in 1980s sitcoms.  There are about a thousand product placements.  Even the play Nate is auditioning for (ET:  The Musical) is changed to "Lilo and Stitch" (a Disney production).  In the film Nate doesn't sing an historical Broadway song.  He sings "Let It Go".  Also from a Disney film.  The one saving grace is that the kid, Rueby Wood, has a few really decent musical numbers.  It's the only time I really enjoyed myself.  Unfortunately, the whole thing is poisoned for me.  This should be a film about a seventh grader figuring out who he is.  Instead it becomes a 93 minute ad for Disney.  So, blech.  Read the books.

"And Just Like That"

(***SPOILER ALERT***) There’s a lot to hate about “And Just Like That …”, starting with trying to care about the problems of rich, entitled white women who are utterly clueless about the world outside of their privilege.  As many have mentioned, the attempt to diversify this show is cringeworthy at times.  How anyone, in this day and age, can be so inept at dealing with the racial and gender issues which abound in the modern world is just stunning.  And there is the aging, or lack thereof, of the leads.  Yes, it is 16 or so years later and for two of the three women, it looks like 16 years later.  That’s not a bad thing.  We’ve all aged, and the world has changed since these happy-go-lucky characters danced across 5^th Avenue in their ridiculous heels.  What is harder to watch is Kristin Davis, who has been vocal about people picking on her looks but given that this was always a series about looks, I say you reap what you sow.  That Ms. Davis has fallen into the addictive hole of face fillers is not a surprise in a business where young women, like Lady Gaga, can’t walk away from the temptation, but it is a serious challenge to watch her performance and be distracted by a face that doesn’t move and a lisp created by some weird frozen upper lip.  And, of course, there is the much-discussed issue of Big’s death.  Everyone is upset that Carrie’s first action isn’t to call 911.  If I read the filming correctly, it wasn’t meant to be literal.  First, Big is alive and looking at Carrie.  The water from the shower is off.  Then, he’s dead and the water is on.  Flashes – he’s gone, he’s not, eyes closed, eyes open.  I ~think~ it was meant to be a way of envisioning the surreal quality of finding a loved one dead, unexpectedly.  It just wasn’t done that well.  Honestly, Joss Whedon did it much better in “Buffy” with the episode “The Body.”  

All that being said, much like the original series, there is something here.  Underneath.  Something which has you coming back.  Peel away the self-obsession and stupidity (wearing four-inch heels to paint rooms in a women’s shelter?  Really???) there is a theme which hits home, albeit slowly.  You get to a certain point in life, and you think, “this is it … this is the target … this is where my life will be …”  And then.  Then, someone dies, or something shifts, and “just like that” the comfort zone you are in goes out of the window.  This isn’t a series about women looking for love.  It’s about mature women who have found and lost love, and are trying to navigate a terrain they never imagined for themselves.  And that is what got me to watch it.  FYI, shout out to Sara Ramirez, who is mesmerizing in their performance as Che – they breathe new life into the familiar.

"Never Have I Ever"

It would be easy to dismiss this as more teen drama.  And it is.  But it isn't.  Devi (and the actress who plays her, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan) is a complex person.  She is utterly self-obsessed and a truly lousy friend, but she also lost her father suddenly and is struggling, in a very real way, with the whole growing up/defining herself thing, adding in layers of a grieving mother and an Indian family.  It's rich.  It's also funny.  John McEnroe is the narrator -- and before you jump to the conclusion that he is an odd choice for the role, it fits ... perfectly.  There is snark but a connection.  McEnroe nearly tanked his career with hissy fits and temper tantrums.  He doesn't just mirror Devi's pain.  He understands it.  And that's reflected in in the tone with which he helps to tell her story.  The balance of characters, all more layered than you would think, makes the show very watchable, even with the cringe moments.  

"The Adam Project"

Somehow landing in a Ryan Reynolds phase, I came across "The Adam Project", a layered film which was both funny and thought-provoking.  It's funny.  It's sad.  It's deeper than you might think.  There is Adam, a time-traveling, smart-mouthed guy (Reynolds), who is none too nice to his childhood self.  Clearly, he has issues.  There is his younger self -- played wonderfully by Walker Scobell -- who has the same mouth but still has sees promise in the world.  A stellar cast provides the rest of the puzzle:  an absent father, an overwhelmed mother, a missing love, an evil scientist (there is always an evil scientist in these things).  And, of course, there is time travel.  Which you kind of have to wrap your head around.  If someone goes back and meets their former self and therefore changes history do they never actually go back and meet their former self and change history?  Yeah.  Time travel.  Fun.  Anyway, I found the film much more warm and touching than expected.  It had real depth for a so-called "Sci-fi" picture.  Very worthy, very deserving of praise.