February 13th, 2023

Babylon: Damien Chazelle has brought forth this star-studded film with much fanfare and Oscar hype to tell a fictional story (loosely based on fact) regarding Hollywood as it transitions in the 1920s from silent films to talkies. Chazelle is known for films such as Whiplash, La La Land and First Man. As the film opens, there is an outrageous party taking place which the Margot Robbie character crashes. Attending would be the superstar actor of the time played by Brad Pitt.

There is a jazz band playing and Margot does her level best to make herself the centre of attention in the hopes of catching someone’s attention, since in her mind she is star material. She is successful as she gets a small part in a western cowboy movie where she steals the scene, set in a tavern. Told in much the same way as Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, the story follows a number of the main characters including the black trumpet player of the jazz band at that party. I mention his race because there is a critical scene for him when he is working in a sound film as he is meant to build on the success of Al Jolson.

This movie is 3 hours and 9 mins long. It should be about two and a half. It becomes overly cumbersome in its own stories. There is a cameo by Tobey McGuire which could have been removed in its entirety. I am thankful that I didn’t watch this in a theatre,and pay good money for it. Is it a big screen film, in the same way that Top Gun Maverick or Avatar is? Absolutely not. The overall theme is the shifting of skills from silent films, where facial expression and physical abilities are paramount, versus in speaking films where the voice and delivering a line becomes the primary skill. So if you had an offensive speaking voice, you could get away with it in silent films. No more. Voice coaches, accents and delivering lines that had to be memorized is crucial. Yet despite this the stories which get recycled from silent films and show these new skills are very popular, just with different stars. Hollywood is a fickle place. One day you are at the top, then someone younger or prettier or eloquent arrives to take your place. Or the local Hollywood reporter picks up stories about you and writes about you to impact the overall perception about you. No matter what the era in Hollywood there will always be the allure of sex,drugs,alcohol, gambling and other vices. That is a constant. It impacts people in different ways, and the consequences are predictable. So is this movie. The stories are not really that unique. Even though these stories aren’t “real” they can be a composite of other people from the time like the Robbie character who has some similar traits as Clara Bow. The Oscar voters also were not impressed by this rather depressing tale. It garnered three nominations for Production Design, Score and Costume Design. No acting nods.

I will admit that I not a real Margot Robbie fan. The Aussie actress seems to play very similar roles as the somewhat wacky woman looks to her sex appeal to make up for a lot of ordinary traits in her. Apparently Emma Stone was considered for the role of Robbie and ended up turning it down. I shudder to think what Stone would have done with this, since she doesn’t have the looks of a Robbie (not in my mind anyway). But Chazelle used her in La La Land and maybe he wanted to continue the relationship. Overall I found this film to be an over indulgence with scenes that were too busy, bombarding the senses visually making it difficult to concentrate. There is too much excess. I am sure that this reflects the reality, but is disturbing as you can see someone self-destructing. I cannot recommend. There were some pretty pictures and scenes but just not worth the time invested.

Pleasure: This is a 2021 movie that I stumbled upon looking at the movies available on Crave. I had never heard of it before, which makes sense because it really isn’t a mainstream film with known actors. In many ways though it mirrors some of the themes in the better hyped Babylon. Much like the Margot Robbie character, Sofia Kappel plays a young Swedish woman, called Bella Cherry, looking to make her mark and become famous. She targets being a porn actress as opposed to mainstream silent films. But the approach is the same.

Bella has ambition and is determined to make something of herself, and will do virtually anything to become known. She takes criticisms and suggestions about her current state to heart and will, to her credit, act on them to move forward towards her goal. She wants to be the top porn actress. What were boundaries which she initially had, wash away in the desire to gain notoriety, followers on social media and becoming popular with those who have the power in that industry. She takes part in scenes that are uncomfortable to watch and I am certain to perform in. If the viewer has any illusions that this industry is about pleasure, the curtains will be pulled to the side and a clear window into it will be shown.

Much like Robbie, she sells her soul for the golden chalice. She had some friends that she lived with, a couple of who had some modest success in the business, she Bella wants more. To that end she will betray those around her to get ahead. Friendship be damned, her singular mission doesn’t have time to stop and be sympathetic. To her credit, Bella is take charge and doesn’t wait for others to create opportunities for her. Robbie the same. They both make things happen, and make the best of circumstances as they present themselves in the moment. For Bella, it can be attending a convention where she is just one of many “talent” on the floor and then making herself front and centre upstaging the better known star. The underlying theme is “be careful what you ask for, you might just get it”. In the same way that Tony Montana in Scarface wanted to be a King of the World, unbridled ambition can leave the soul crumbling, with no one there to be beside you to enjoy it. Despite the uncomfortable scenes, I think Kappel has a magnetism, with a presence on screen. We’ll see what else she can be doing in the future. No matter what the industry, whether main stream films, porn or any other, when one digs deeper into the power and people involved, you can have your eyes opened to the reality of it.

Gladiator 2: Alison shared this news item with me that I wanted to share. The title of course is a little surprising since in the original Gladiator the Russell Crowe character Maximus dies on the floor of the Coliseum, along with Caesar. But apparently, the 85yo Ridley Scott is looking to have a sequel to Gladiator telling the story of young Lucius, who was the son of Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus Aurelius

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/gladiator-sequel-release-date-ridley-scott-paul-mescal-1235512045/

The Aftersun actor Paul Mescal will play Lucius. The rest of the details are unknown except a release date scheduled for 2024. I am not sure how to feel about this. I like Gladiator, certainly the Hans Zimmer score was excellent, I hated the CGI especially of the Coliseum, but the story and Russell Crowe was really good. The film won Best Film and Best Actor for Crowe in 2001. Ridley Scott is also one of my favourite directors. So we will see what he can come up with. Like Clint Eastwood, he keeps cranking out movies and working. There is apparently no retirement age in Hollywood, and especially directors.

February 6th, 2023

M3GAN: If you are watching social media news, you realize that M3GAN has become a thing these days. People dressing up en masse as the new toy from the movie and parading around public places.

M3GAN is a thriller with unexpected twists and turns, but it isn’t a slasher film like CHUCKY in Child’s Play. CHUCKY was a possesed doll, who then went on a killing spree. M3GAN has more social commentary about the current state of society with a single, female toy executive with no children who ends up with her sister’s child. The toy executive, played by Alison Williams from Get Out, is developing a realistic doll with a thinking microchip that pairs with, and interacts with the child. In this case, her niece. Parents back in the 1970s plopped their kids in front of the TV to allow them some daily freedom, whereas now kids have their phones and gaming to keep them occupied. The niece gets attached to M3GAN, who is a prototype that the Williams character wants to roll out nationally as a campaign.

Although the plot is pretty typical, the social commentary reflects that parents are relying way too much on technology to keep their children occupied. They are spending less time with them. There can be negative consequences to that. And like a Terminator from T2 onwards, M3GAN is there to protect the pair daughter. So this movie, which I thought would be predictable and not engaging, was better than expected. The toy executive needs to re-evaluate her priorities and we as a society need to realize that occupying a child’s mind is more than just handing them a device. It sounds like there is a sequel in the works as this movie had a budget of $12M and has so far grossed $158M.

Street Gang: How We Got to Sesame Street: Speaking of engaging with young children, back in the late 1960s there was a study that spoke about the number of hours that pre-school children were watching TV. Other than sleeping, it was the number one activity for them. The number of hours were even higher for inner city children. Some very astute TV people came up with the idea that if young children are going to watch all this TV, then perhaps they could learn something while doing it. They set about the engage with teachers, psychologists, health professionals to form what they called the Children’s Television Workshop. They would have a variety show with learning as part of the agenda. The masterstroke through all of this was engaging with puppeteer Jim Henson with his muppets. Muppets were not initially for kids, but rather they were on the slapstick comedy circuit.

This fascinating documentary, that is found on Crave for me, outlines the early days and into the more well known show that we know today. It is interesting to hear that the PBS (publicly funded) show was very popular in the north of the US, but that publicly funded stations in the South like Mississippi refused to put it on; there was too much of a mixed cast for their taste. Eventually demand for it overcame the political issues surrounding it. We see Frank Oz and Jim Henson interact as various characters like Bert and Ernie and Grover and Kermit the Frog. We learned about the music and how that was developed brilliantly. This was one of the first truly diverse shows and by simply having a varied cast (and all different colours and furs on monsters too) that a child was learning about acceptance, listening to the quality of a persons perspective and everyone wanting joy and being happy. I was a Sesame Street kid. Still love many of the skits and characters to this day. This show was the first of its kind and many followed thereafter. I hadn’t realized a number of things but a fun fact was that Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch are both voiced and acted by the same man! Talk about a split personality. This is worth your time to check out.

Devotion: If you have seen Tog Gun Maverick, you have seen Glen Powell. He was the cocky, arrogant pilot with the new recruits who they called Hangman, because he would leave his fellow pilots hung out to dry. He is spending more time in the cockpit in this movie, set in the Korean War trading F-18 Super Hornets for a Corsair. Playing Tom Hudner, he is friends with the first black carrier aircraft pilot in the Navy, Jesse Brown played by Jonathan Majors.

Majors portrays Brown as a complex and talented man. He was a great, skilled pilot who also had to deal with prejudice in all phases of his training and ongoing status of being a Naval aviators. It makes you wonder how you can trust those who have your life in their hands, like a flagmen on the carrier you are looking to land on, when you know that they resent you and don’t feel that you belong in that aircraft or on that ship. Brown is shown as a loving a devoted husband, who is also a father to a little girl. He wanted very badly to be more fully involved in the Korean War conflict. He was just never given the chance. There are some quality flying sequences filmed, mostly CGI, but effectively done. The story is good and based upon the truth. There are aspects of it that I find rather hard to believe in certain combat situations but one takes those as they come. You care for the characters. You feel for the situation. One wonders how Brown could have been able to get to this position with all the barriers placed before him. He was just that good it seems, and he felt that he was born to fly. Friendship comes in all forms, and you never know who you will meet, and who will enter your life that will have a profound effect on you. I think that this story tells that very well. Worth checking out.

Cunk on Britain: Philomena Cunk is a made up British TV personality played by the brilliant actress Diane Morgan. My first introduction to Morgan was in the Ricky Gervais series After Life. Morgan played one of Ricky’s single co-workers. She is much more engaging in this role which of course is required as she is the host, rather than a supporting player.

Philomena is there to (badly) explain her version of history and historical events to various experts. Netflix has picked up the series On Earth, available now, and you can watch the episodes on Britain and on Christmas, Shakespeare and other things on YouTube. Each episode for me is one laugh after another as she puts her own spin on events with her sensibilities and will periodically throw in randon irrelevant music videos or past TV shows within a particular episode. Maybe you need to have that British dry wit to fully appreciate this, but for me it is just spot on. The looks on the faces of experts to her questions and comments can be priceless. Here below she is commenting on Romeo and Juliet.

I stumbled upon this series rather by mistake, but I am so very happy that I did. Everyone can use a laugh every once in a while. Stand up comedy is a great place for it. Shows like this too which poke fun at more traditional and staid versions of these informational programs are simply a joy to watch.

January 30th, 2023

Oscar nominations were just announced this past week on Tuesday. We learned that there are ten nominees for Best Picture. I, after this week, have seen all the nominees except for Women Talking. There were some notable stubs, as there always are for these awards. James Cameron was not nominated for Best Director. Cameron’s films use cutting edge technology and Avatar in particular was visually stunning. His ability to get these images on screen is quite remarkable. Tom Cruise was not nominated for Top Gun Maverick. Viola Davis was not nominated for Best Actress in Woman King. Everything Everywhere All At Once was nominated for the most awards with 11, and is reviewed by me below. The awards will be on March 12th!

Troll: This was released last year on Netflix. It is a Norwegian/European King Kong really if I had to do a comparison. It was actually decently done and I didn’t hate it. I watched in the original Norwegian with English subtitles. At it’s core, it is a father and daughter story with the surrounding issue of fairy tales and dealing with the unknown. It begins with a father and a young daughter, named Nora, looking at a mountain in Norway. The father implores the daughter that she “must believe” before she can see the images of the trolls in the mountain face. Nora grows and becomes a paleantologist searching for dinosaurs in the Norwegian swamp land, low country. There has been an incident at a nearby mine where they want to put a train, and they need some expert help with what has occurred. The Prime Minister requests someone with Nora’s skills.

Nora is no nonsense and provides straightforward, if unbelievable insight into the situation unfolding. Played by Ine Marie Wilmann she is effective. Part of the research into dealing with the phenomenon is for Nora to go back to her father, who is regarded as mentally challenged with his obsession with fantasy and fairy tales. They are estranged. But he explains more and they venture off together with the military and PM’s office to better understand what is taking place. Each of the actors is effective and believable in their roles. None are mainstream Hollywood, at least North American. Ultimately we see this massive troll, who is a mix between a Lord of the Rings Ent, covered in moss and rock and King Kong with a tail or Godzilla if you will. The troll seems to just get angrier at conventional weapons and the team looks then to the fairy tales about the trolls. The troll seems to be moving towards Oslo, the Capital, and the humans need to figure out what to do. The plot continues. Is this believable? Of course not. But it is escapism with a message. I enjoyed this and if you are wondering what you can watch that isn’t overly violent, and won’t tax your mental capacity too much, you can do worse than looking into this.

Everything Everywhere All At Once: If you want to tax yourself with looking to unravel a movie and its plot, look no further than this Michelle Yeoh, most Oscar nominated film of the year. Where to start? Yeoh plays a married middle aged woman, with a teenage daughter and an older father running a laundromat which is being audited by the IRS. It’s not going so well with the wonderful Jamie Lee Curtis (almost unrecognizable) playing the IRS agent.

What starts as a pretty standard story with the family and its struggles amongst its members, turns into more of an adventure on different existential plains quickly. Not too unsurprisingly, we learn that frumpy, sad, downtrodden Yeoh, is leading a variety of different lives in these different plains that she gets to morph into from time to time. She wears a headset which seems to allow her this power to flip from one to the other, while still continuing in her drab current existence. She is married to Waymond, played by Ke Huy Quan, which older viewers will be interested to hear was the annoying young Asian boy in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Yea, THAT guy!!

Without going too much further into the plot, because to explain it is to suggest that I fully understand it, it contines to tell the story of Yeoh’s character and how she is going to address her situation. I don’t fully understand all of it, and the sets that were brought forward to the viewer. What I will say that it is a very complex way of showing that this woman has issues with her family; all of them. From daughter, to husband, to father, to her IRS auditor, she has challenges with each of them. Some are funny. Some are fun. Some are more touching and others just strange (like a world consisting of people with fingers that are long floppy weiners! (Yea, I KNOW!). What layers get added on to the otherwise bland existence in the present plain include martial arts for which Yeoh has always been known and excellent, but also strange and bizarre. It all adds up to a visually stunning piece with different sets/ plains which are a wonder to someone’s imagination. I think that the acting nominations given here to all principal members of this cast are completely deserved. They each need to embody someone very different than their main character, while still remaining recognizable. They do it believably and with all the campy fun attached to it. Is this the Best Picture? Not sure. It is escapism with a message, certainly a different message than Troll above. I do think that the average movie goer, or my Mom trying to watch at home, wouldn’t have the patience for it. It demands quite a bit from the audience, and many simply don’t want to work that hard for it. We will see, as the Academy can like films like this with examples like Birdman, or The Artist.

Bardo False Chronicle and A Handful of Truths: This was another Best Picture nominee that I noted was already on Netflix. It certainly did not get a lot of fanfare in being listed there. After seeing this and Everything Everywhere, I am now down to only one movie for Best Picture that I haven’t seen which is Women Talking.

Speaking about Birdman, this movie is also from the same Director, Alejandro González Iñárritu. Set in Mexico, the Mexican director has a story that delves more deeply into the history of Mexico and its people, it’s relationship to the US, all through the story of this well-known filmmaker and his family. Daniel Gimenez Cacho, unknown to me, plays Silverio Gacho. He is a Mexican national, who makes films and lives in both Mexico and LA in the US. He has a wife and kids. He is about to get an award for his more recent film. Through all of the cast members we see and explore his experiences with being a Mexican man, who desired to leave Mexico, and who creates some satire/scathing commentary about his homeland. Some of his friends resent him for it. His family finds him focused too much on his work and not with the people who should matter most to him.

I have to admit that much like Everything Everywhere, I didn’t completely follow this plotline. It manages to jump all over the place. It is visually stunning. Some of the set design and production design is just incredible. The time and effort that would have gone in to set up these shots would have been remarkable as seen below.

What I do know is that I don’t know a lot of Mexican history. There is a sequence with a discussion with the explorer Cortez which is remarkable. Remarkable because it speaks to a country that seems to shun the person who “discovered” it, unlike Columbus in the US. Overall this is about this man’s life but deals with dreams and death and being displaced along with who can really claim to be a “native” of anywhere? What is a National? There are some confusing scenes, which seem out of place. There are dream sequences that are dropped in with different effectiveness for me. The final act was quite surprising and amazing to me. I liked this, and I say that hesitantly because I am not sure that I fully understood it. It’s hard to recommend and like what you don’t fully understand. But movies are there to entertain, but also to inform and shed light on things that the audience may not be aware. I think that this movie can do all of those things. Once again, like Everything Everywhere it demands much on its audience. It is more serious and less campy fun, but that doesn’t take away from it. Well worth watching and seeing how it can do for the Oscars.

January 23, 2023

One Pale Blue Eye: Netflix just dropped this movie in the past week or so, starring Christian Bale, who I quite like from a number of his past roles. As an aside about Bale, he seems to be getting the Marbles-in-the-Mouth affliction that has also infected Jeff Bridges long ago. Seems that their tongues are too big for their mouths. Bale has had this growing for a number of years. It can be distracting. But I digress. This movie also has an almost unrecognizable Robert Duvall and the quality of Gillian Anderson.

Set in early 1800s in the American colonies it focuses on a military academy for boys. The Academy’s second-in-command Colonel has ridden out to meet up with the Bale character, a widowed detective living alone after his daughter has left recently. He is enlisted to investigate a cadet who was found hanged on the nearby grounds. This invitation wasn’t an option, but a command. Upon arrival Bale learns that the hanged cadet also had his heart removed in a surgical manner. The plot thickens. It seems to be more of a ritualistic killing. Bale and the Colonel conduct examinations for the young deceased cadet. Enlisted to help is a young, penguin-like looking cadet named Edgar Allan Poe (picture above). Together he and Bale start putting together the clues and arrive at a motive. Then another killing takes place. Things continue at a slow pace, and ultimately there is a conclusion for which I was neither surprised nor interested.

The trouble with this is that there is a terrible waste of talent. It is a very good cast. But the story that they have to work with is weak, and has been done before. Why, for example, does the experienced detective always saddled with a vice (here drink) that is mentioned but is later ignored throughout. Why is Edgar Allan Poe involved in this at all? Why him, instead of any other random cadet? Do we get any insight into this awkward young man, who is an outcast but still a talent with words, notably poetry. In some way it takes away some of the slow building tension that the real Poe lived to be 40 years old. Finally do they manage to get the worst performance of Gillian Anderson’s professional life? I really like Anderson, and have felt that she was the real talent in X-Files. She has gone on to to do some really great work. Notably last season of the Crown she played Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher brilliant, finding sympathy for a complex woman with a hard exterior. Here, oh what a mess with her tyrade at the dinner table which adds little to her character. Add this movie to yet another made during COVID that doesn’t intrigue nor really entertain.

Nope: Jordan Peele’s Nope is a difficult film to pin down. I came into it from just seeing the movie poster and marketing that this was an alien invasion movie. From the perspective it shares some similarities with 2002’s Signs, with Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix (“swing away Merrill”), it definitely is! But it’s also quite different. On a secluded California horse farm is OJ and and his sister Emerald, who recently lost their father in a bizarre accident while he was tending to a horse. The family rents the horses to Hollywood productions. A series of strange events occur which are also reminiscent of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with power going in and out, including battery operated cellphones. Lights flash, things get dark and quiet and there is a presence felt. In the distance at times they think they see a ship of some sort. Looking to investigate further, they go to the local Fry’s Electronic Store (Canadians think Best Buy) to set up some cameras to try and film these strange events. They see this as a key to fame and fortune to finally accurately document the existence of UFOs and extra-terrestrials. The young cashier is interested in their story and gets more involved than you might expect.

Together these three try to explore this strange phenomenon. There are some predictable attempts to try and shock while creating tension. It isn’t a scary movie. Nor is it a gross out, which many of these movies can be these days. It has some genuinely funny momentsin which principally OJ voices what everyone in the audience is thinking. At the same time he also acts in ways that I can’t imagine that anyone would where in a barn he takes out his phone for picture rather than run like crazy. Sister played by Keke Palmer is so very annoying in virtually every scene. Maybe that was the point, but her constant distraction takes away from the overall enjoyment. I will say that I think that there are some stunning visuals involved. One which takes place in the neighbouring amusement park provides a fascinating perspective. It informs and shocks at the same time. There are some practical realities which I won’t delve into further because it would be more of a spoiler than is merited. But it’s something that when I pondered it after viewing, it didn’t make a whole helluva sense in dealing with the vastness and vacuum of space. Of all the Jordan Peele movies, I have to admit to liking Black Klansman the most. His Get Out, also starring Daniel Kaluuya, I just didn’t quite understand all the hype that was sent its way. Kaluuya is a presence and has done some very good roles. It had some moments, but it wasn’t what I was expecting and the sci fi aspects were average overall.

George and Tammy: This series on Showtime stars the compelling Jessica Chastain and Michael Shannon as the country music icons. It is six episodes long and details the turbulent relationship between the main characters, two people who fate brought together but they just couldn’t overcome the challenges that their careers and their vices brought to them. Jones was a living tornado who reeked trouble everywhere he went. His battles with drugs and alcohol were legendary along with his violent temper. He was an angry drunk. He lashed out, and the narcissist that he was, thought that everything revolved around him. It seemed that the press and those around him, even when he tried to get sober, wanted to see that drunk George and see just what he would do. How much more outrageous he could be! Sad that there weren’t some friends or handlers who could try and steer him away from those temptations. He suffered as a result.

I tried to like this. At every turn it seemed the main characters were making poor choices. George especially was just such an unlikeable man, who despite his obvious love for Tammy Wynette, he just couldn’t imagine doing something for her, or treating her as she deserved. He would profess his love, but then the demons of addiction would settle in and possess him.

This is yet another tale of how fame and fortune cannot make up for the hurt and loss from a person’s life. It can mask it, and one from the outside can think the person “has everything” but in truth they are missing peace and peace of mind. It seems here, like with many of these performers, that the stage was their refuge with everyday life being the daunting challenge. I think that both Chastain and Shannon sang their own songs here, but they aren’t George Jones nor Tammy Wynette. However much they tried. So I cannot recommend this, but certainly if you are fan of country music and wanted to see a little bit about these two interacted, I did learn a few things. Watching this and then something like the Shania Twain documentary, you see how the modern country scene is very different than it was then.

January 16th, 2023

This week’s post was delayed since I was on a plan returning from BC. So worth it!

Willow: I had noted through commercials that Disney+ was streaming a new series called Willow. A sequel to the original film from Lucas Film back in 1988, directed by Ron Howard.

It followed Return of the Jedi but preceded Lord of the Rings (not a Lucas project but rather Peter Jackson) which for me is the closest that it resembles. Why? It involves a journey with the leader who is vertically challenged. I am hard pressed to think of another movie in which so many little people are used. Lucas himself used many as Ewoks in Star Wars. The Wizard of Oz way back in the day with the Munchkins. But the story also borrows from the New Testament with Herod and Jesus. There is a female baby born that was foretold in ancient stories to replace the existing Queen. The Queen orders all newborn female children to be killed. A determined servant escapes the city and sets the child upon a river to the unknown. Hearing the news of the escape, the Queen sends her daughter to fulfill her wishes, she is played Joanne Whaley.
Our hero Willow (played both times by Warwick Davis) is the father of two young children himself with wife in the story, and his children find the babe in the river and then he takes a reluctant liking to the infant and is put in charge by a town council with returning her to safety.

He is joined by a small band of his fellow villagers. Along the way they run into a man encased in a cage hung from a tree. Played by Val Kilmer, he is a scoundrel seemingly a sword for hire. Of note this is the movie that Kilmer meets Joanne Whaley and they later marry in real life.

My memories of this movie were better than the second viewing. Once again it seems that George Lucas is challenged with writing any type of believable romantic aspect in a story. It was Lucas’ story, but he didn’t write the screenplay. It is evident on any viewing where that the story falls down on this front. Elsewhere Lucas and Howard have more success for the love of the town which is very similar to the Shire. A couple of the challenges for me include: the Queen who is the picture of evil, and yet takes so long to complete her ultimate task that she should be a Bond villain. Or at least Dr Evil in shockingly allowing a small band to try and infiltrate what would seem to be an impregnable castle. Also, the trolls are silly with a crude early use of CGI that was not effective. Then the monster in castle near the end also does not hold up well to today’s technology unlike Return of the Jedi with the Rancor in Jabba’s palace which was very similar in use of technology.
George Lucas did look to branch out in new ways post Star Wars with this and movies like Labryinth but the money of Star Wars just was too tempting it would seem and thus began the prequels totally financed by Lucas. Of course he was involved with a little project too called Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark that had some modest success itself!! Having seen this once again I don’t feel the need to watch the series. I think Disney+ has shown itself to have less than a stellar record in creating series based upon earlier material.

January 9th, 2023

The Menu: As I thought about watching this, I was thinking that this could be a good companion piece to Glass Onion as a who-dunnit, murder mystery. I knew very little about, but had seen a couple of the commercials so it was not much to go on. The premise is simple enough, a world reknowned chef, played by Ralph Fiennes, invites an exclusive number of guest to his remote island restuarant that is extremely expensive. Once at the restaurant, he and his staff prepare, serve and provide commentary on the course that the guests are about to eat. Much like Glass Onion, you don’t know the make up and background of those that were invited. We are initially introduced to Tyler, played by Nicholas Hoult and his date Margot, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. She, much like Emma Stone, has an odd face where it appears as though her eyes are far too far apart.

We learn as they rush to get to the boat and then check in, that Margot was not an invited guest. She was a reaplcement guest for Tyler. Tyler is enamoured with Chef Slovik, being at the pinnacle of the culinary game which he reveres. He has watched all the shows about cooking like Chef’s Table and knows all the insider lingo. The story progresses and introduces us to more of the guests, including a celebrity with his date, three Wall Street-like dudes and an older couple. Seems husband might actually know Margot. The plot thickens.

For me, at the conclusion I thought to myself, “is this it?” As a satire/dark comedy it is over the top, as I suppose that it needs to be. The social commentary about today, with the general fixation on these chefs, like Gordon Ramsey or Guy Fieri, who have turned their work into celebrity and restaurants is interesting. Also is the idea that every one of us can become reviewers of their craft, their art, which requires more than just the ability to amass a number of well known ingrediants. In many ways, what I do here is the same thing; I can’t make a movie, but I have eyes and I can make commentary on the craft of a director and the team that put images on celluloid and show it to the public. My take on food is that I don’t need to eat art. I would prefer to feel satisfied and enjoy what I taste. I want to leave a restaurant feeling satisfied, and not needing to fill myself up with a burger when it’s done. Not everyone shares in my attitude clearly. Many of those types, including the food critic, is explored in more detail. Each course gets to be a little more over the top. Of course it becomes ridiculous like satire can become. This is where it departs too from Glass Onion. A statement is made about the evening and how it will unfold which surprises the guests, as it rightfully should. In many ways it reminds me of my reaction in Banshees of Inisherin with Colm’s response in dealing with Padraic’s actions. Banshees is also set on an island, just like Glass Onion. In the end, I thought that it was ridiculous. Fiennes plays creepy, reserved with an inner turmoil/anger very well. He has his own agenda, but the end result isn’t satisfying for me.

Triangle of Sadness: For most viewers, the only recognizable star in this movie is Woody Harrelson. This is an interesting character study of a relationship, and particularly the man in the relationship (Carl, played by Harris Dickinson) along with a more general exploration about the nature of mankind. Separated into chapters, in the same way as The Menu is, there are two young pretty people, we should say that as they are both models, and there is an in depth discussion about the picking up of the cheque from a restaurant. Carl’s girlfriend is named Yaya apparently makes more money than Carl does but simply says a distracted “thanks” as she ignores the fact that the bill arrives to the table. In the conclusion of the chat, Carl says that he wants to avoid becoming stereotypical roles in a relationship and wants to be “partners and best friends”.

Carl and Yaya head onto a Yacht, with numerous other passengers. They are “influencers” and were offered this cruise for free in return for social media exposure. They interact with other passengers. They are part of a privileged group on board, much in the same way as the guests in The Menu. There are guests and there are staff who are meant to “do whatever the guests” would like them to do. The staff of course are looking for tips in exchange for their devoted services. Class is definitely an aspect of the cruise. The Captain is played by Woody Harrelson, and he isn’t exactly the typical Captain. He is generally drunk, and is difficult to raise from his room by the staff. There is a Captain’s dinner, although it is delayed because one of the passengers has decided that the staff each deserve to have a swim in the ocean. And what the passengers want, the staff complies, no matter the disruption to the scheduled events for everyone.

There are some genuinely funny moments in this movie. Some might be unintentional, but I laughed anyway. Likely my warped sense of humour but suffice it to say that the cruise ends in a fashion that is quite unexpected. The Captain has drunkenly debated socialist/communist dogma contrary to capitalism. The Captain is a socialist, believing that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes while the passenger is a rich man who has built himself up from literally selling shit/manure. The third act sees the dynamic of the group turned upside down. The existing class structure is changed based upon the skills that each individual brings to the group. No longer is wealth the measuring stick for power and decision making. This circles back to the earlier discussion with Carl and Yaya who are now adjusting to the updated hierarchy in the group. The role reversal is fun to see as it plays itself out. Carl and Yaya don’t exactly support one another in the equal partnership that Carl was earlier on contemplating. Carl’s actions belie his views and he speaks out of two sides of his face.

I liked this movie. I laughed, it made me think, and there were some situations that were unexpected. Unlike The Menu which didn’t resonate with me as well, I was able to be entertained with the observations of mankind, but also about gender roles. How in a group where skills dictate your worth, the person who has those skills can take advantage of those that are beneficiaries of the services. When that updated hierarchy is challenged in some way, people act in ways that you as the viewer, can sadly anticipate. Needless to say, however much even those who profess to be looking out for the interests of all collectively, they can still be quite selfish in protecting their own particular station in the class system. Even though there are similarities between these two movies this week, and I do think that they are good companion pieces, I would recommend Triangle of Sadness before The Menu.

January 2nd, 2023 (Happy New Year)

The Whale: I had seen the coverage from one of the film festivals where Brendan Fraser in attendance at the cinema was given a rousing 10+ minute standing ovation for his performance in this stage play turned into a film. I was intrigued by this film directed by Darren Aronofsky. It has a simple setting and only a few characters which explain the treatment on the live stage. This is not an uplifting film, but far more down telling the tale of this middle aged man who is slowly but surely ending his life one bite at a time. All the characters involved in some have an element of self-loathing, shame and anger at the world. They aren’t a collective group that you would want to share holiday time.

Charlie is an online university English Literature professor. He appreciates the written word and he can write and teach effective essay writing. For his students, he tells them that his computer camera isn’t working and so while he can see them, they cannot see him. He is ashamed of himself and what he has become. He lives alone. Beyond delivery people, his only visitor is a nurse with her own backstory. A young man drops in by chance for a visit from “the church”. This young man also has his own story. Things happen. It turns out that Charlie was once married and that he has a daughter. He would like to try and reconnect with her. Daughter and Mom each have their own issues to address.

For me, none of the characters are very likeable. Each has their own challenges in the way that they have dealt with their circumstances. The principal focus of course being Charlie, and he continues to be his own worst enemy. From a practical standpoint, this is yet another example of a story that would be very different if it took place in any other country than the US. You see, Charlie has no health insurance, and he cannot afford to have crippling doctor bills. Much like Breaking Bad, and many other such situations if he lived in Canada, for example, he would have universal health care. He wouldn’t have to choose between getting treatment and leaving some financial assistance behind for his family. He would simply go to the hospital, see a doctor and get treated. Our system isn’t perfect, and this isn’t the forum to talk about it at length, but the Western World (save the US) long ago realized that health care is a right.

Beyond this, Charlie is making poor choices about eating and his health, but that is the point. He is smart enough to know better. He sees what is happening to him. He has made choices in life, and has suffered the inevitable consequences that we all do. He chooses to deal with it in a manner that many likely would not. Seeing him stuff unhealthy meal after unhealthy meal into his face is disconcerting. He feels disgusting on the inside, so he wants his outside to match it. His performance is very good, and will garner acting nominations with the Oscar seemingly a given. It is a welcome comeback for the Canadian actor, who has gone from being a heartthrob leading man with The Mummy and George of the Jungle to care less about his appearance. James Cordon apparently auditioned for the part of Charlie, and I will say that Fraser is I think a better choice for the character. For all his girth, Fraser has these sympathetic blue eyes that shown his inner turmoil. In the end, the daughter Ellie who likely already needed a good deal of therapy will likely need more. If you want to be uplifted and feel better when you leave a theatre, then this movie isn’t for you. If you want to see a really good performance, with some insight into other people and the pain that they have, then this is a good choice. You don’t need to see this on the big screen.

Somebody Feed Phil: Netflix has this TV series on created by Phil Rosenthal who worked on the show Everyone Loves Raymond, which I did not watch. The premise of this show is for Phil to travel the world and eat really cool local food. Phil is a foodie and clearly enjoys eating. He also likes sharing his food with his crew. I like that. Much like Stanley Tucci, Phil is doing a travel log as well as a food recommendation episode. He doesn’t limit himself to Italy, however, and I have watched the episodes on Lisbon, Madrid, Nashville and Montreal. I think the Lisbon episode was excellent showing the city, a city that I play to see later this year and this gave me some really good ideas on where to stop.

Phil sits at a restaurant with tables on a jetty in Lisbon. Amazing!

Phil enthusiastically eats five different types of shrimp at a different eatery. The show gives one a great sense of the place while introducing the food that is known in that area. In some ways it is like Rick Steves but without the historical background, see the markets, bakeries and restaurants. I heartily recommend this for anyone interested in food and/or travel. Phil certainly will have visited somewhere that will pique your interest, and your appetite.

December 26th, 2022 Boxing Day

The Fabelmans: This really should be called The Spielbergs, because it is more or less the autobiography of a young Steven Spielberg with his family as they move around the country before the parents divorce. Directed and produced by Spielberg, this was released at TIFF back in September. It is a very personal story, from the eyes of a young man as he comes of age as a young Jewish man surrounded by Christians in various places including Phoenix and California. Dad (played by Paul Dano) is an engineer of note who has cutting edges about computers and networks. His artistic wife (played by Michelle Williams) was a very talented concert pianist, but gave that up when her husband and children came along. Young Steven, named Sammy Fabelman (played by Gabriel Labelle) from a very young age was interested in movies and getting images onto film. In the movie one of the earliest scenes has him watching a train wreck. He then looks to duplicate it at home, which his Mom recognizes and Dad was oblivious.

Like any family, there are challenges, but Sammy’s filming allows him a greater eye in viewing the comings and goings of his family. As he edits a short film to cheer up his Mom, he sees something that was unexpected. It changes the family dynamic. One of the themes in the movie is the power of film, and the editing of the film. A film made later at the high school as a Senior Day Off at the beach in California is editted such that some fellow students are made uncomfortable. The short, nerdy, filmmaker gets to wield a great of power in that position. The film follows the family, their moves as the children go through their formative years.

I have to admit that I was never a big fan of Michelle Williams, from the days of Dawson’s Creek with Katie Holmes to her take on Marilyn Monroe and as various long suffering housewives, like Brokeback Mountain. I begrudgingly admit that I think that she did an admirable portrayal of the wife who we see in her vulnerabilties while she puts a brave face in front of her family at the same time sacrificing much of who she is. As a child, one doesn’t see that in a parent. They’re not people, that is your MOM and DAD! As we age, they are people who have their own thoughts, dreams, hope and ambitions. They’re not always coming true. For Mom in the movie, she is deeply distressed in the move to California. We learn more details, as Sammy struggles himself in this new high school. I liked this more than I thought that I would. It was engaging. I did think that Judd Hirsch who plays an Uncle was really good, adressing those who are so fixated in their art that the rest of their life can suffer. it seems that this stuck with Spielberg and seems to be very true for him and his life. I also think that Seth Rogan was effective as a family friend, who seems to be everywhere where the family goes. This has been nominated for a Best Picture Golden Globe. It won the People Choice Prize at TIFF, which usually guarantees at least an Oscar nomination and often a win. So expect to see more awards for Mr Spielberg who has taken his love for movies to reshape the Hollywood landscape. From here you get to see, with a wink every now and then, the origins of this ambitious career which Spielberg has taken to heights that even he could never have dreamed! Well worth seeing.

RRR: I have heard some bizz about this movie on some Best Of lists, and it was on Netflix. I haven’t ever watched East Indian/Hindi movies which were very long musicals, usually involving a love story with an extravagant wedding. But the buzz was such that I wanted to check it out. It didn’t disappoint.

I won’t delve deep into the plot other than to highlight that the story generally involves the oppressive British rules, with accompanying ruling class treating the native Indian people horribly. A young girl is taken by a nasty British baroness, being bought for a token from her family, and the rest of the movie focuses on getting her back into her small village.

There are some stunning scenes, with a dance sequence is a marvel to get on film, no matter how unbelievable some of the visuals, especially involving animals. The animals are of course all CGI, but it shows you just how far the technology has come, and how it can be utilized. The movie is long. The British are as offensive as you could expect them to be. Some of the scenes are over the top in how much punishment an individual can take, but think of it like WWE wrestling with plenty of jumps and punches and very little bruising. There are plenty of religious imagery included too. Rather than try to explain it all, it’s best to view fresh and just to experience. This is dubbed into English, which for such an action filled movie is helpful so you don’t miss the action for reading the dialog.

With the holiday season here, and some time off, I hope to see The Whale, with Brendan Fraser and also the 3 hour, 10 min Babylon. Why can’t they make a two hour movie anymore?! Hell, Avatar had 30 full mins of previews and commercials before the 3:10 screening which makes for a long time to have your ass go numb.

December 19th, 2022

Avatar: The Way of Water: I went out to see at the IMAX 3D theatre on Friday the $350M James Cameron sequel to his ground breaking sci fi story, thirteen years in the making. Apparently the word is that this movie must make $2B before in breaks even. Recognizing that my ticket in Imax was about $25, this means that filling theatres around the globe should make this easier to attain, than what that scary number would mean before this time. It seems James Cameron is ALWAYS breaking expense records when he makes his films, as Titanic was also a record cost of $200M back in 1997. It made $3.4B from the theatre and DVD sales. The real question everyone wants to know, and my primary question going in was “Did it suck?” Followed by “is it worth the money?” In short, it didn’t suck and it was worth the money to see it in the biggest screen I could find.

I had been very careful to avoid all trailers and any preview information before seeing this. So I went in cold with only me memories of the original as a starting point. I hadn’t even recently re-watched the original in preparation so some of my memories had faded a bit. So let’s talk about the Pros and Cons of this epic.

The Pros: This movie is visually stunning from beginning to end. Pandora is a character in the film. The scenes throughout take the viewer to a new world, with all new characters accompanied by creatures that however fictional still seem very much part of this place. I give full credit too all the artists who create the characters large and small. This from both the forest to the ocean.

Then there are the people who inhabit these different worlds. Pandora believes in Darwinian adapting to one’s surrounding environment and the Sea-People are very different than the Forest-People. There is an underlying physiology that is the same but they are different.

The movie is escapism in its purist form. For 3 hours and 10 mins (yes!) it whisks you away to another world which can capitivate your imagination. It sticks with you as well. After a busy weekend I am still thinking through many aspects of it, that I don’t think is fully attributable to me looking to write about it. It likely needs a second viewing for me to have me catch more of the subtleties that it brings. Cameron has attention to detail if nothing else. So I think it is a success in hopefully attracting people back to the theatre through a busy holiday season where the lulls can be for the family to experience something together.

The Cons: For all the stunning visuals, the story isn’t anywhere near as strong as one would hope. In any science fiction/fantasy film, of course one has to check reality at the door. But beyond that, there are many aspects of the storyline that don’t make a lot of sense.

Alison had asked me to get back to her about how a human, who merges into being a Navee can father a child, let alone multiple children. A good question. Presumably sperm is sperm to put it simply, and the children are not pure Navee in that they have more fingers on their hands. It remains a good question, as the whole experiment if you think through it could go horribly wrong, from the size discrepancy alone.

The villain for me is a convoluted storyline that wasn’t necessary. It didn’t have to go that way, because in truth in the first Avatar humans ARE the villain, and we have plenty of those to go around! Even as the movie progresses (and if you choose to buy into this villain) what happens later didn’t make a lot of sense either. I will leave it at that without over-sharing too much about the plot.

The transition from the forest world to the sea is a clunky one for me. I can understand of course looking to protect one’s family. However as things unfolded, it actually delayed the inevitable, which Jake should have clearly seen and it becomes just an excuse to bring in this whole different world with challenges that Swiss Family Robinson had to take on and then some! I am not so clear too how in a manner of weeks/months that skills which have been acquired over generations can be so quickly learned. I don’t care how long I have to practise, I won’t be holding my breath while holding onto a sea creature for the length of time required (or be able to equalize my ears during that time!). But nevermind.

I struggle with the overall cost in equipment, lives and money in order for the human hoard to be seeking out one guy. One could argue I suppose that the American effort to take down Osama Bin Laden was comparable, and in many ways Jake Sully is a terrorist leader for the humans but still! Further, I am not convinced about the need to address fatherhood throughout this film, and notably with the Grace character which was a real stretch for me. Apparently beyond Dory in Finding Nemo we learn that there are other characters than can speak whale! Who knew? But it is a skillset that on first blush shouldn’t be apparent, nor needed. I see the parallels throughout to previous human history, but I am not also clear why the human hoard should be re-directing their efforts away from the mining of the Unobtainium (cool name!) into something far more offensive. So all in all there are plenty of laughable “Yea Right” moments to remind you that this is a Hollywood production.

I didn’t feel the length of the movie and wasn’t shifting in my seat. I will note that before my film even began there were 30 minutes of previews! Including a sneak peak into a stunt for the new Mission Impossible movie. Add to that the new trailer for Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, and a couple silly superhero movies that I won’t see and that makes a long movie even longer for the audience. In the end, this is a worthy sequel to Avatar. It should be filling theatres over the Christmas holiday, and if you are a movie fan, it should be you too. Updated that Avatar made $435M globally over this past weekend.

Lady Chatterley’s Lover: Netflix has released this re-telling of the D.H. Lawrence book, not read by me with Emma Corrin who starred as Lady Diana in The Crown Season 4. It is a period piece set around the time of WWI, in the English countryside. Newly married Connie is part of a wealthy, established, land-owning household, not dissimilar to Downton Abbey and the Crawleys, with her husband Clifford. He is about to head off to war. He comes back a man in a wheelchair and the challenges of life become readily apparent to the young couple. Clifford is painfully aware of his situation, as a husband and lover, but also importantly as the head of a name and household that needs an heir. He approaches his wife with a proposition that she can, without telling him any details, take on a lover and find a way to produce an heir. She had wanted children, but initially pushed back on his suggestion.

On the estate there is a gamekeeper, Oliver, who attracts her attention. The story unfolds with these two at her insistence engaging in an affair that becomes deeper than either had expected. I am sympathetic to all three involved in this triangle. None of whom had asked for this to take place and are doing what they can to maintain the current state. Certainly Clifford never wanted any of this, and he is trying to assist in keeping his bloodline. Connie has her place but wants a family and some love and affection from her husband which just isn’t happening. The most sympathetic for me is the innocent Oliver whose heart is overlooked as Connie initially looks for a transaction to take place. It never was taken into consideration that he may develop feelings for Connie. He calls this out directly. Over time, Clifford has trouble with this arrangement and acts out against it and others. He is less likeable and more cruel.

The acting was good, and Connie and Oliver have no difficulty with the nudity required in this film, which has been remade time and again in series and movies over the years. I haven’t read the book, but a part of me thinks that the resolution in it can’t be as it is here. I was thinking more along the lines of unrequited love, and money and power overcoming feelings of emotion with a woman and an employee. But watching some of these previous versions may inform that knowledge into the story a bit more. This is a rare occurence where Netflix becomes a littele more racey with nudity. If you like a period piece, then this could be for you.

Golden Globes: The nominations came out and I was surprised that Avatar was nominated for Best Picture. I don’t think that it is. Joining it is Top Gun: Maverick, Tar, The Fabelmans, and Elvis. The only one that I haven’t seen yet is The Fabelmans, which should be remedied over the holidays. It is a lean year. Much is being made about the snub of Tom Cruise as well as Will Smith. I guess they don’t need any more slapping incidents at this year’s awards ceremony. I am pleased that Ana De Armas was nominated for Blonde. I am surprised that Banshees of Inisherin gets all this love, for Best Picture Musical or Comedy, as well as acting nominations. I think those that run off to see this may have expectations set too high in what they are going to get. Either that or I missed the point entirely! Del Toro’s Pinnochio was nominated as Best Animated. The Awards take place on January 10th.

https://www.goldenglobes.com/articles/golden-globes-2023-nominations-80th-golden-globes-have-been-announced

December 12, 2022

Pinocchio (Guillermo Del Toro version) 2022: This is NOT the Disney version of this story. It is done through stop motion animation, a very different process than drawn cell animation as the Disney version was done back in the day. Stop motion animation involves models that are painstakenly moved just tiny amounts for each shot of the film making process. So there are models, sets, background all created in which a person then needs to manipulate the characters within it. There are also different sized models to have scale for some of the shots. This was an expensive movie at $35M, and one can see why given all the details. A-list actors were also involved like Ewan McGregor, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Switon, Christoph Walz and David Bradley (from Harry Potter and Game of Thrones).

Guillermo Del Toro has a look about his movies. He has often employed fantastical characters within those movies. Think about Pan’s Labryinth or The Shape of Water. They can be dark, exploring the darkess of humans and how they treat one another. Generally I like his films, as I find him someone with a unique way of telling the stories. I had wondered allowed before seeing this on the Netflix menu whether I really needed to see another Piunocchio movie? I was skeptical. At the end, I decided to watch the Making Of Pinocchio 30 minute special, and I was more engaged and compelled with the making of this movie more than the movie itself. The details and the artistry within each frame is remarkable, and notably Gepetto and Pinocchio themselves. But the movie itself was a Meh for me.

The Disney story of Pinocchio for me has always been a bit clunky, with scenes of the young puppet, who gets distracted going to school, then ends up in a circus, followed by an island of misfit children, and more implausibly the insides of a whale (of all things). Much of the same ground is covered in this story. However it travels deeper, with themes of life and death, depression, belief in people as they are, and other areas. There is some time reference added with the introduction of Mussolini (yes the Italian dictator in the Second World War), along with a Nazi-like character. We have more backstory into Gepetto and his relationship with his son Carlo. What is a Disney story without death? In this case, Carlo dies tragically and Gepetto is depressed, angry and drunk, unable to shake the tragedy that has befallen him. The fairy of Life shows up, and brings the wooden puppet alive to make Gepetto’s life more full. We learn that Pinocchio can’t die, as seen with a new mythical character Death in an underground lair. One can see the influence of the Faun in these characters. They add depth to it, with a new wrinkle of how something that can’t die could be used in wartime. Much of the art is just beautiful. Taken on its own, it is a remarkable achievement. I thought that whale interpretation was excellent. This is a deeper movie for this story than I had anticipated. I am more impressed with the artistry in getting this movie on film. Yes, there are some songs, but this isn’t a musical. It is a movie with music in it. None of the songs are as memorable as “When You Wish Upon a Star” or “I Got No Strings”, and in truth they could have been skipped as far as I am concerned. In the end the question remains, “did I need to see another Pinocchio at this time?” The longer answer is that no only did Del Toro have this new version of the story, Disney themselves have released another on Disney+ with Tom Hanks from director Robert Zemekis (Forrest Gump and Back to the Future). I certainly didn’t need to see two of them! I haven’t watched the Disney re-make and have no intention on doing so. I would imagine that IF you need to see one, that this one is the one to choose.

She Said: From real-life drama to on screen drama with actors in a few short months seems to be where Hollywood is going. No sooner has disgraced, famed movie producer Harvey Weinstein from Miramax film been incarcerated for 23 years, there is a movie out starring Carey Mulligan and Zoe Kazan as the female version of Woodward and Bernstein from Watergate in Watergate, this time researching and outing Harvey and his predatory actions which were overlooked by the Hollywood establishment, including his own company for years. The real question becomes: why? Why would Miramax the company have an executive acting in this way, and settling numerous lawsuits with accompanying Non-Disclosure Agreement gag orders without doing something about it? People knew. Assistants, handlers, associates, and his own brother knew exactly what was going on! Harvey was enabled, protected, shielded and permitted to continue in his compulsive actions against young women.

The two New York reporters, get hold of the story about workplace sexual harrassment, focusing on the incidents from Miramax. Interestingly Megan Twohey, played by Mulligan, was part of reporting on the Donald Trump incidents before the election where even when reported, he was still elected. Fellow reporter Jodi Kantor was already running with the Miramax story, and getting stonewalled with no one willing to talk, and she decided to join in the story to assist in fereting out the truth with the people involved. Quickly they realized that there would only be a full release of stories if numerous victims came forward together. In time, it is found out that 12-18 settlements/gag orders were made with various victims. This became the basis on which the story was released. I had not realized that Ashley Judd, seen in the movie playing herself, was one of the early whistle blowers who went on record for the initial story. Rose McGowan I had certainly read about as one of the first people to come forward.

I found the movie itself to be rather slow. We know the end of the story, as it was in the recent headlines, so the key for me is what is uncovered along the way and the process that took place to get there. Reporting with the necessity in reputable publications involves research, fact-checking and corroborating sources to verify the facts. This discipline has been worn away with recent years in the age of opinion rather than facts. The lines of “news” have been blurred on political lines with the “fake news” accusations from the highest office in the US. The deeper question about why is it that the system protects the powerful, rich, perpetrator remains unanswered. There could be those who continue to argue that these aspiring actresses would have done anything to get famous and be part of these movies. The whole defense of Weinstein hinged on it, with their “consent” to these “consensual acts”. What emerges is a pattern in Weinstein’s actions that show the bully for what he truly was and is.

It has been in the news since incarceration that his health is ailing, with his teeth being the latest issue. He is in a wheelchair and was involved in smuggling Milk Duds into the prison which is against the rules. In short, he is requesting mercy from the Court, all the while facing additional charges against him for sexual impropriety. The vast majority of people, like me in this case, would think that karma is a bitch and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. As a movie this was okay. It is presently in the theatres and didn’t show much more than I had already seen or read about as the story unfolded. I think that Carey Mulligan is overrated. Just my opinion.