annlevtex Reviews

The New Look (2024– )

A Very Niche WWII Drama With Some Great Performances, Plus Fashion

[8/10 · 4 April 2024]

Any French person watching this will probably have something to say about the accents. The choice to have the characters speak in English with French accents was actually a bold one. Sub-titles have become so commonly used in serious TV series that most viewers wouldn't give them a second thought. I could speak French pretty well when I was a teenager, so it would have worked for me. But they did what they did. The accents were a little inconsistent, but it didn't bother me. If you're a French speaker and they did bother you, I get it. That's fair.

That aside, this is a solid series. The acting really is top notch, especially from Mendelson and Binoche as Dior and Chanel. I was a Game of Thrones fan, and I have to say I was so pleased to see Maisie Williams holding her own among such a strong (and considerably older) cast. Her turn as young Catherine Dior is quiet, subtle, and effective. It's not a powerhouse performance but it's very promising. I hope she continues to thrive in her career.

Mendelson is great as Dior and Binoche is just terrific. I didn't know anything about the history of these two people at all, to be honest. I know their designs. I knew they were both French and adults during the war. I do know something about the history of Vichy France. That's about it. So much of this was a revelation to me.

Treating fashion as such a serious, vital subject considering what was happening might seem like a choice, but was it? That was what these people did. It was their passion, their job, their ambition and life's work. We learn how their respective pasts, presents and futures drove them, for better and worse. And the contrast between their personalities and choices is so vivid. The editing cuts between them and their storylines so fluidly, you almost forget that they don't interact throughout the series...I want to say at all? If they had a scene together, it was very early and I have forgotten it.

The production values are very solid, even if the look as a whole is a little gauzy. It seems they had a limited budget and they chose to spend more of it on the actors than on the sets, etc. That was a wise choice. This is a character driven story and it would not work at all if not for Mendelson, Binoche, Williams and the rest of the fine cast.

A not on Emily Mortimer and John Malkovich? The way JM talks has nothing to do with him speaking in a French accent. This is just how he talks. He's very affected. I think he's a fine enough actor but he's limited and it shows here.

Mortimer is a bit of comic relief (until she isn't) as Chanel's friend Elsa Lombardi. She's one of those actresses I think is very solid, but who probably would never have made it in the "Serious B-C List Actress" category if she wasn't Posh or didn't have connections and privileges. But no matter. She's pretty much perfect for the part and plays it well. I hate to say this, but she probably has known people like Elsa in real life and therefore knows how to play her. Which is fine, it's just notable.

Masters of the Air (2024)

Uneven But Worth Watching

[7/10 · 19 March 2024]

This show isn't as good as "Band of Brothers" because it isn't tightly focused enough and it adds side plots and characters that aren't necessary. I actually have only watched a little bit of "The Pacific" so I can't make a comparison to that series.

There are some very good beats and moments of fine acting, in addition to great visuals and special effects in the flying scenes. I particularly liked the actors playing Crosby and Rosenthal ("Rosie"). The core duo, AKA Buck and Bucky, are well played but don't quite come into focus enough. To be fair, I don't think this is the actors' fault. It's the script and directing. This series isn't quite sure where to shine it's light, so it ends up being too diffused.

Some English reviewers have taken offense at how the British pilots are portrayed as snobbish elites, more the adversaries of the Americans than their allies. That's fair. Even as an American I thought the scenes depiction tension and even fighting were a little much. Might they have been based on true experiences? Maybe, but it still wasn't handled well and seemed gratuitous.

Another problem with this sub-plot? It didn't go anywhere. Like much else in this series, it happens and then is left behind. I understand that's the nature of war, particularly in this case where so many were lost. Characters died in Band of Brothers too, but somehow it felt more seamless. I wasn't left wondering what happened.

The way they weaved civilians into the plot of BoB worked better too. The scenes were either very brief but telling, or long enough to be meaningful (particularly the episode where they find the concentration camp). Here, we get short plot points with characters who are briefly fleshed out only to disappear. It's disjointed. Aside from the welcome addition of the Tuskegee Airmen in the last few episodes, it doesn't work,

I will say that the show comes together pretty nicely in the last couple of episodes. We finally feel like we know the characters better. They have shown the strain of war but also experienced growth. We get to see the plight of POWs and have some moments of triumph. Yes, I wanted to see some moments of triumph. Sue me.

Note: I disagree with those who say the Germans are portrayed as "all bad." That's not really fair. They're the enemy and are portrayed as such, as it should be. But we see the fear in the eyes of the German child soldiers near of the end of the war, the despair of civilians being bombed, the humanity of the guard who briefly collapses in the snow, exhausted, while leading the POWs on a march. When I'm watching a WWII show made by and about the Allies, in English and focusing on Americans? I don't need it to be shown from the POV of the Germans. That's unrealistic and not the point of the series.

Napoleon (2023)

A Child With His Toy Soldiers

[6/10 · 13 January 2024]

The title of my review refers to the director of the movie as well as to Napoleon himself, as played by Phoenix. The battle scenes are gripping; but then it's hard to make men and horses falling through ice in full military gear less than visually arresting. Whether it actually happened (my guess is it did, at least at some point in Napoleon's reign) is beside the point.

Phoenix is a great actor. Ridley Scott obviously thinks so, to the point where it kind of seems like he just handed him the role of the Corsican General and let him do his thing with it. This Napoleon is at times brooding, intense, pouty, prurient, masterful, sentimental, resigned and just plain weird. None of it really adds up to a character arc, much less a movie plot.

Vanessa Kirby is quite riveting as Josephine, even if we struggle to understand and follow the ebb and flow of her feelings with regard to her husband. She seems intrigued and bored by him, tied by the strongest of invisible strings and yet detached enough that the character actually deserves a whole movie of her own. Make it happen please!

The movie is entertaining, but not as much as it could and should have been. The odd moments of unintentional (I think?) humor are appreciated, my favorite being one where Napoleon basically yells at a fancy dinner party that he won ALL the battles and the crown of France and therefore EARNED the lamb chop he is eating, damnit! A chop he then proceeds to throw, if I remember correctly. But maybe I don't.

The scene where Napoleon meets his Waterloo was actually my favorite, if only because it brings in more humor but also a nice bit of acting and decisiveness from the Duke Of Wellington himself. So refreshing is the famed military hero's appearance that I am almost convinced Scott made the movie in large part so he could make the English look good.

Saltburn (2023)

Well Acted And Visually Striking But Ultimately A Little Hollow

[6/10 · 12 January 2024]

The reviews that call this film derivative are 100% valid. It brings to mind Brideshead Revisited and The Talented Mr. Ripley first, with a dash of "The Cook, The Thief, HIs Wife And Her Lover." The last on that list was supposedly an allegory of Margaret Thatcher's Great Britain of the 1980s, and like "Saltburn," it left me more than a little queasy. I knew that a certain scene was happening, so I half covered my eyes when it happened. What I didn't know was that I should have covered my ears, too. That's going to haunt me a bit.

The acting is great, particularly from Barry Keoghan, Rosamund Pike and Jacob Elordi. I'm not really sure what Carey Mulligan was doing in the movie except perhaps to remind me of a Helena Bonham Carter at peak late 80s eccentric? While her character elicited one very funny line from Pike (the source of most of the humor here), otherwise she seemed unnecessary. No offense to Ms. Mulligan whose acting I admire.

The sets are gorgeous of course and the movie succeeds visually. It also succeeded in shocking me, which I think was intentional. Unfortunately that wasn't really enough to make it truly suspenseful in a way that left a lasting impression. The pacing is fine up until the third act, a denouement which takes the air out of the story's tires as much as it explains what has transpired. The final scene is gripping in its own way, and allows Keoghan to show a bit of bravery and flourish. But I was left wondering what the point of it all was.

As an American I'm not completely familiar with how the British class system works. I know it's older and more entrenched and pervasive than it is here. That said, we have our class snobbery too, our share of awkward unblessed young men with the near noses pressed against the window, trying to get into the party. "The Talented Mr. Ripley" worked so well in part because Jude Law's Dickie Greenleaf masterfully combined the charisma and casual cruelty of a his carefree young heir to the point where you feel that at least some sort of comeuppance was probably deserved. Having the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dickie's dissolute and snide but insightful friend Freddy just enriched the story.

Jacob Elordi's Felix, while a bit feckless and certainly too privileged, is not unlikeable. He's actually a pretty decent guy. The American cousin is no match for Hoffman's Freddy as the skeptical sidekick. The movie also does itself a disservice by failing to address the elephant in the room: isn't there something fishy happening here? Felix's parents are clueless, which is amusing but unrealistic. There is no sense of menace hanging over Keoghan's Oliver at the end, as there is with Matt Damon's Tom Ripley. He's as carefree as it gets.

Emerald Fennell certainly has gifts as a director, but I'm not sure to what use she is putting them in this movie. As I said, it looks great and is well acted. She gathered a good cast and was wise enough to get out of their way so they could put their stamp on the characters. She certainly hit the mark when it came to locations and set design, and she also chose some lovely music. That said, I might never forgive her for the visual association I now have with one of my favorite hymns, "Lord Of All Hopefulness." I understand that scene was improvised by the actor. Bold choice, but I need to bleach my eyes now.

The Offer (2022)

Highly Entertaining, Well Acted, Solid And Well Worth The Watch

[8/10 · 20 October 2023]

I had seen the movie "The Kid Stays In The Picture" about the legendary producer Robert Evans. When my husband started listening to the audio book of "The Offer," I sought out this series for us to watch. We both enjoyed it immensely.

First off, Mattthew Goode is a revelation as Evans. I had only ever seen him in period pieces and one rom-com with Amy Adams. He's a good actor, but he plays against type here and does it so well that I didn't realize it was him for the first couple of episodes. He nails the character's unique speech patterns and bravado and adds a comic flourish and a touch of pathos to it. He is just so much fun to watch in the role. It's a wonderful performance.

All of the other actors are great too. Kudos to the casting agent for finding the perfect Francis Ford Coppola, the perfect Al Pacino and an excellent Mario Puzo. Burn Gorman as the Big Honcho owner of the studio is great too, and Juno Temple is every bit as good here as she is on "Ted Lasso." The whole cast looks great and delivers. My only complaint is the actress they chose to play Diane Keaton. She doesn't really look like her and has almost no lines at all, if any. I felt like that was a big miss. She was an important part of the movie and deserved better.

I was a very young child when "The Godfather" came out, much too young to remember just what a huge deal it was. The book was one that I remember being on my parents' bedside table, even though their usual taste ran to things like the John Updike "Rabbitt" books, Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" and maybe books on bettering your bridge game.

But I do remember my parents and three older siblings watching it on TV when it aired (this was years before Blockbuster, when you had to wait for something to air on one of the four networks and everyone was watching). I found it boring the first time, but I remembered it. Over the years I have watched it in whole and part more times than I can count. Seeing what went into making this classic was an absolute treat.

I know that they changed things for the dramatization, particularly some things about Evans and producer Al Ruddy. But you know what? I don't care. I don't care who was on speaking terms with whom at whatever point in the process or who wanted to cut which iconic scene. The important thing is that this was sausage-making. It was messy and stressful and even dangerous at time. People put a lot on the line and the risk payed off. We almost didn't get this great movie. But we did, and the show honors that.

Great show. I hope you like it as much as I did.

Circle of Friends (1995)

Fine Film, Great Performances, Troubled Message. Spoilers!

[6/10 · 25 September 2023]

This film came out almost 20 years ago, but I am still going to include spoiler tags since plenty of people haven't seen it.

Minnie Driver is terrific as Benny, Chris O'Donnell is a perfect Jack, and it's lovely to see a young Aidan Gillan as Eve's rather awkward but sweet beau. I liked the movie when I watched it. It's very well-done, but the author (the movie is based on a Maeve Binchy novel) seems pretty judgey about sex.

I'm not saying she sides with the Catholic Church, the institution that torments poor Benny and makes her feel too guilty to have sex with the boy she loves and who loves her back. But in a more subtle way, she sides with the abstainers and paints them as more virtuous.

Nan, Benny's beautiful and ambitious friend, is the only one of the group who gives up her virginity. She does it for a wealthy local landlord, hoping to move up in the world. And who can blame her? Her family life is rough. She has a lot of siblings, they don't have any money (she is the most financially strapped of the friends), and her father is harsh. She wants something better.

The film doesn't explicitly judge Nan for sleeping with Simon. It is actually sympathetic to her, until it takes a turn. Nan betrays her friends by seducing sex-starved Jack and then pretending the baby is his, getting a proposal out of him. This is working until Eve figures out her due date and literally pulls a knife on her. She is disgraced, cast out of the circle, and that's it.

I felt like it wasn't a coincidence that the only girl who chose to have sex was also the "Big Bad" of the movie, a liar, betrayer and manipulator. Yes, she was desperate and the film does show that. But we can't help but hate her for it, can we?

By making Nan do something so low-down, the story casts a poor light on sexually active young women. I don't think Binchy did it intentionally or knowingly, but it's there nonetheless.

I've read one of her other books, whose title I don't recall, and the same thing kind of happens in that one too. Yes, the main character, Maria, has premarital sex, but she is in LOVE with her man. She's young and innocent, and he loves her and marries her when she gets pregnant. But he gets bored and his eye wanders to a younger woman who wears pink mini-skirts and sleeps with a married man. Maria is an avid baker, as wholesome as they come, despite having had sex before marriage. The mistress is portrayed as....less than wholesome.

It's hard to explain, exactly, but it really did bug me that the story treated the characters the way it did. I mean, did she have to make the only sexually active woman the one who was also a back-stabbing liar? I feel like she didn't.

Stepmom (1998)

Effective Performances, Problematic Movie

[7/10 · 1 September 2023]

I might be the first to start my review by praising Jenna Malone. Her character, 12-year-old Anna, is annoying and it's highly realistic. Her parents divorced, her Dad has a new girlfriend (fiancé), she's splitting her time between homes and, on top of that, middle school boys are jerks! She's a really fine actress. She's had a good enough career, but I can't help thinking that if she were conventionally beautiful and looked like Margot Robbie, she'd have been a star. That's Hollywood.

As for Roberts and Sarandon, they are good too. I think JR was a bit over-hyped at her zenith, but she is a very strong actress and she holds her one against Sarandon. Ed Harris is likable but he's just kind of there. Which is part of the problem.

We don't really know what led to the end of the marriage between Harris and Sarandon (Jackie), but it's pretty clear that he was the one who wanted to leave. I can't blame her for being salty about it. That said, he didn't have an affair with Robert's character, Isobel. They met after the divorce. She didn't ruin Jackie's marriage and she's not a cheater.

So on whom does Jackie vent her spleen? Isobel. She berates her for not knowing how to take care of kids as well as she does (not surprising given Isobel has never had any and is focused on her career). She tries to balance work and the kids, but she makes mistakes and Jackie is unforgiving. Jackie even makes fun of Isobel's teeth. It's not helpful and it sets a bad example for her kids, especially her daughter (Malone).

To Isobel's credit, she tries to connect in the ways she knows best: by being a friend. She asks to take Anna to a concert (Jackie says no, naturally). She even ingeniously helps out Anna with the aforementioned awful middle school boy by offering some choice put-downs and loaning her a studly young model friend to put the twerp in his place. I actually cheered at this part. I was a girl that age once.

Meanwhile, the father stays out of the drama. Even the younger child, son Ben (the boy!), stays out of the drama. So we basically get a movie that pits two women against each other and adds a future woman into the mix.....until it doesn't. Cue the hankies.

Like I said, the film is well acted and effective in many ways. There is some nice scenery and NYC settings, a lovely country home and a cool loft, good costumes, and horses. I just feel like there was too much time spent on the (mostly one-sided) conflict between Jackie and Isobel, two women who in fact have not wronged each other and don't need to be at war.

I don't think this movie would be made today, at least not in the way it was in the late 90s. And that's a good thing. It definitely passes the Bechtel Test, but not in a great way.

Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets (2023)

I Wish I Were More Surprised....

[8/10 · 6 June 2023]

I watched the Duggar's show from time to time when its was airing. I always thought they had too many children, mostly because the older ones (particularly the girls) had to parent their siblings and did not have their own needs met. I always thought that Michelle's little baby voice was creepily childlike and submissive, that the children were almost certainly not getting a real education, and that by making sex and the body itself so taboo, they were just going to create problems.

So, when Josh Duggar was found to have molested his sisters and other girls, and then to have moved on to actual child pornography, I was somewhat surprised but not entirely shocked. Like one of the escapees interviews said, monsters are created. They taught him that women should submit to men and children to adults, then built a giant wall around the subject of sex to the point that he grew up with a warped view of it. They also used corporal punishment (I didn't know how bad it was, yikes). I'm not excusing him. The guy belongs in jail. But it is certainly largely his parents' fault that he ended up like this.

I just felt heartsick and angry on behalf of all of the people interviewed who had to live like that for so many years before escaping. Cults like this really do give religion a bad name. I know plenty of people who grew up in large families and/or religious households who were treated with respect and love and grew up to be happy, productive, decent adults. I also know people who were home schooled who got good educations and went on to go to college and be successful. Notably, they were always given social outlets through sports and other activities.

This movement is rotten on every level. And yes, that includes the political wing. Peaking behind that particular dark curtain was pretty disturbing. If a couple wants to have a large family, that's their choice. But it should be a choice, not a method of keeping women barefoot, pregnant and beneath the heels of their spouses and fathers.

Rough Diamonds (2023– )

Very Solid Crime And Family Drama

[7/10 · 26 May 2023]

First things first. If you want to watch this show in English, don't even think about going for the dubbed version. I have watched three episodes with subtitles and one dubbed trailer. The dubbing just does not convey the characters, voices, subtext, or feelings well at all. That's not the fault of the voice-over actors, it's just the nature of dubbing. Unless you are visually impaired or have difficulty reading for other reasons, the subtitles are a better way to go by far.

So, this is a very solid, well acted family/crime drama with good production value. It captures the sub-culture of this extended family and their small Orthodox community quite well. I'm not Belgian or Orthodox myself but I am Jewish and it feels reasonably authentic to me. The primary actors are well cast, even the smaller roles like the patriarch and the local butcher. Shout-out to the young actor playing the main character's English son. He's quite good, very natural and likable.

So far the pacing is good and keeping me invested. The story of the "prodigal son" returned is always a good start. When you add the layer of the son having rejected the strict parameters of his family's religion and been cast out, having to make a new identity, it becomes more compelling. That part is actually very true to life and I find it fascinating.

Of course some of it is far-fetched, not so much the straits in which this old diamond-dealing family finds itself as the way the prodigal son (Noah) has transformed. I suppose it makes sense, since he would have been very young when he left (early 20s) and 15 years have passed. Still, sometimes the show relies on "tough guy" tropes from American and I assume British shows to inform his actions, words and demeanor, and it doesn't always work.

This is especially true when he uses English phrases and words out of the blue. They are only sprinkled in here and there but they always take me out of the moment. I'm American. I recognize and understand the words, I just don't know why this Belgian guy would be using them, particularly when he is speaking to Albanians? And the actress playing his son's grandmother, who is supposed to be English, uses a disjointed combination of Cockney and other accents that are clearly inauthentic.

But overall, I don't care much about accents. They are hard to get right and the actors are all doing a fine job with the stuff that really matters. It is at heart a family drama with some business and crime matters woven through it, and as that it works. Also, there is really nothing else on Cable right now like it. So, I recommend it.

Also, it makes me really think diamonds are just not all that and cost more in blood and treasure than they are really worth. But maybe that's just me.

The Night Agent (2023– )

Fun And Engaging Despite A Lot Of Poor Acting

[8/10 · 10 April 2023]

I enjoyed this series for the plot, twists and turns, and fast pace. The production value is good and the script, while full of holes, keeps things moving at a good clip. But boy is some of the acting bad!

Gabriel Basso basically carries the whole thing as Agent Peter (Sutherland, Sunderland, I can't recall). He's very solid, charismatic enough but not too swaggering. The actress who plays the Veep's daughter is quite good, as is the one who plays the sexy evil hench-woman. Most of the rest are OK.

But the grieving tech genius AKA love interest, Rose, the Chief Of Staff and the Secret Service agent who protects the Veep's daughter? None of them can act their way out of a paper bag! And they're all key characters. It's a perpetual problem. They don't improve as the show goes on, either. I don't get it. Do they have a bad casting agent, a bad director or could they just not afford decent actors?

Anyway, Basso carries his co-star enough that there is decent chemistry between Rose and Peter. So, the show works. But it's frustrating to watch so many of the actors struggle to emote. So, watch for the action and plot twists. And Gabriel Basso.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)

Worthy Effort But Should Have Been So Much Better

[20 March 2023]

This is a good film because it is based on a good book. A very good book. ATGiB is among the best coming-of-age memoirs ever written in the English language. In my opinion, it is the very best one written about and from the perspective of a girl.

The acting is fine, the settings well done. There is an appropriate balance of pathos and humor. It makes you tear and it warms your heart, as it should. That said, given how great the book is, this movie could have been so much better. I attribute a lot of the problems to the era in which it was made, The movie is dated and hasn't really withstood the test of time.

The actresses playing Katie and Sissy talk and act more like 1940s American women than pre-WWI daughters of German immigrants. Sissy seems like the archetypical tough-but-tender female character of so many 1940s and 1950s movies set in a later era. Katie is well cast enough, even if she doesn't have the signature jet black hair of the book's Katie. But she doesn't have Katie's spark.

The actor playing Johnny is certainly gifted, but he is way too old for the part. Here, Johnny seems to be at least 40 when Francie is a little girl, which makes no sense. Katie seems younger when in fact they are supposed to be the same age.

This might seem nit-picky, but their youth is actually an important aspect of the story. It is remarked upon in the book often, particularly in the case of Johnny, who feels that his life is moving too fast and has trouble rising to the occasion of providing for a family. Betty Smith writes that Johnny "had two babies before he was old enough to vote," and recounts how he falls apart and gets drunk on his 21st birthday, to the point where Sissy has to comfort him and talk him off the ledge.

The actress playing Francie is wrong, too. And that's a big problem, because she's the most important character. She's a perfectly good young actor, but she does not resemble the Francie of the book. Francie is a sensitive, introverted child, a dreamer. But she's steely, too. She's outspoken. In this movie, Francie comes across as insipid and prissy. She acts more like a sheltered child from a well-off family than one who had to raise herself while her parents worked, picking up scrap metal for pin money, caring for her younger brother and telling off the teacher and librarian who condescend to her.

I think the book is ripe for a remake, one that provides a more clear-eyed view of the Nolan's life, has a stronger young protagonist and an age-appropriate Johnny Nolan. It's a timeless story and it should feel timeless.

I wonder if Stephen Spielberg would do it? He could really do this movie justice.

Fleishman Is in Trouble (2022–2023)

Tremendous, Brilliantly Acted, Smart And Relevant TV

[9/10 · 10 January 2023]

My husband and I related to this show more than anything we have watched on TV since I can remember. We don't live in New York, or LA, or even Chicago, Atlanta, or Miami. We've raised our kids more than a thousand miles from both coasts, in a city most New Yorkers probably avoid and dread even visiting. But we still related to it.

Lizzy Caplan is the standout, IMO, as narrator Libby, a magazine writer turned housewife who searches her soul and reignites her creative mind when she gets a call from her old bestie, Jesse Eisenberg, after his divorce. She is an amazingly versatile actress. Her performance is stellar and held me almost rapt toward the end. She absolutely deserves nominations for this role.

Eisenberg is definitely Woody-Allen-ish, as others have said, as the recently divorced Toby, a liver doctor with a reverence for his chosen specialty (and organ) and a disdain for what he perceives as his ex wife's mercenary and conformist nature. He's good in the role, but not quite as good as either Danes or Caplan.

Clare Danes is well cast as Rachel, Toby's damaged and driven ex wife. She does trauma, crying spells and nervous breakdown as well as or better than any actress out there today. I mean that in a good way. It is hard to sympathize with Rachel at first but we certainly do (or at least I did) when we see what she has experienced.

Rachel's experience, and Libby's, reflect that of the well-educated, career-minded woman who also happens to be a wife and mother better than any show I have watched in recent memory . I'm a little older than they are, but these Older Milllenials (they are in their early to mid 40s) who are trying (or maybe not) to "have it all" just resonated with me so much. Not because I am just like them, but because they are authentic, complicated, infuriating and lovable at once.

Adam Brody is delightful as the confirmed bachelor BFF, the third wheel in the trio with Toby and Libby. Josh Radner is solid as Libby's stalwart husband. The child actors do a good job with their roles. I did find the storyline with Toby's daughter's Bat Mitzvah a little frustrating and hard to buy, but that's a minor quibble.

This isn't a light observational comedy as it seems like it might be when it starts. But it's something much better than that. While it does go to some dark places, including the Lincoln Tunnel, it is ultimately life-affirming. It's also genuinely funny in a smart way. I laughed out loud at a few moments and quietly at many others.

Shout-out to Christian Slater Libby's erstwhile idol, the writer of the book that gave me my biggest laugh!

Excellent show.

Notting Hill (1999)

Charming In Parts But Overrated

[6/10 · 4 January 2023]

I never understood why people thought this movie was so romantic. The premise is there, with Grant as the sweetly bumbling London bookstore owner and Roberts as the American movie starlet who is out of his league. The setting is charming, there is some good music, and Grant's friends and family (particularly his roommate and his younger sister, eccentrics both) are a winning bunch whose banter is fun and sometimes touching.

Why then, does the movie not feel at all romantic to me until the last twenty minutes or so? Because Robert's character, despite her supposed desirability, is not particularly charismatic, likable or even sympathetic. She's beautiful, famous and supposedly unattainable. She reveals a surprising vulnerability. We see that that she really yearns for love and normalcy. That should make me like her more, but it just doesn't.

This movie reminds me of "Four Weddings And A Funeral" in the sense that the heroine keeps leading the hero on, showing up for a tryst and then ghosting him. Am I supposed to be OK with this? It's cold and careless. No male lead would be allowed to get away with this and still come out a romantic winner, and I say this as a woman!

At least the leads in FWaaF had chemistry. Grant and Roberts don't really have much until, again, the very end. But that's not enough.

I was more interested in Spike and the Sister, frankly. That's a pair I could ship.

The English (2022)

A Lot To Love But The Center Doesn't Hold

[7/10 · 31 December 2022]

This series succeeds on many levels. It is beautifully shot and acted with a terrific score. Emily Blunt is wonderful as always, and Chaske Spencer is just as good if not better. Their characters are lovable and watchable individually and together. The supporting cast is very strong as well.

So what's the problem? The script. The story. The premise is solid, a classic Western paradigm of an unlikely pair on a quest for revenge on the brutal frontier. There are many satisfying moments along the way. But somehow it doesn't gel.

The structure and pacing of the story often fall short. It is painfully slow at times, meandering into philosophical voice-overs by Blunt's character and flashbacks that try to put the pieces together but never quite complete the picture.

As the story unfolds at an almost languorous pace, it is punctuated by frequent moments and outbursts of violence. This wasn't a problem for me, given the subject, period and setting. Most of it makes sense, but some seems gratuitous and indulgent. And Blunt's character, admirable as she is, becomes adept at it just a little too easily.

Overall, though, the best thing about the program is the depiction of the two main characters and their relationship. That, along with the top notch visuals and music, make it worth watching. It's hard not to fall in love with them as they fall in love with each other.

On a final note, the writer of "The English" betrays some pretty strong bias in favor of....the English. Specifically, the English aristocracy. Most of the villains of the story seem to be Cockneys and Americans of Irish and Scottish descent. It's not even subtle.

My country treated Native Americans horribly. I'm well aware of that, as are most people who have any awareness of our history. Trust me, we're not proud of it. I appreciate the show shining a light on it, but Blunt's character is pretty obtuse about the blood on the hands of her own country and class.

Why are these villains of Scottish and Irish (and lower class English) in America in the first place? Because of England and its colonization of and rule over their countries and this one. They were famine victims, economic migrants, indentured servants. Their presence was meant to enrich England and its ruling classes, which it did.

I'm not making excuses for what the US did to the people who were here long before any white European set foot on the continent. But it's pretty rich for a rich English Toff to be scolding anyone about how colonization decimates native cultures and people. Come on.

Look Both Ways (2022)

Formulaic But Cute And Enjoyable

[7/10 · 8 November 2022]

Imagine a Hallmark Christmas movie where instead of the girl having to choose between Small Town Guy and Big City Guy (and always choosing the former), we get parallel and fairly balanced stories with both, except with no Christmas and a pregnancy (scare?). That's pretty much what this movie is.

I really like Lili Reinhart. She's charming and expressive and quite a good actress. The movie wouldn't work with someone less likable in the lead role. Her character, Natalie, does have some less than admirable moments, but then so does everybody. In that sense it's realistic.

Unfortunately much of the film is quite unrealistic. In both situations things run too smoothly with only a few minor bumps that get resolved with little more than a hiccup. The housing is too nice, the stress not stressful enough, the people too supportive and steady, and the child more than a little too easy after the early baby stage. Some sleepless nights and one explosive poop situation? That's nothing.

That said, I didn't watch this movie for something realistic. I knew it would soften the blows and it did. Which is fine. I really enjoyed seeing Luke Wilson as Natalie's father. I liked the Austin setting. I loved her wardrobe. The animation sequences are brief but sweet and creative. It's a warm-hearted, fairly light story about heavy subjects, and that's fine. Overall, I would say I liked Austin Natalie better than LA Natalie, but then I live in Texas and love Austin.

If you have teen daughters, remind them that this isn't reality. The movies seldom are.

The Virgin Queen (2005–2006)

The Best Elizabeth Drama

[9/10 · 1 November 2022]

I wasn't going to compare this miniseries to the Cate Blanchett, Glenda Jackson or Helen Mirren versions of Elizabeth I, but since so many others did, here goes.

Blanchett is a brilliant actress and was luminous as Elizabeth. Mirren is also great. I remember the Glenda Jackson version from my childhood, and it was, as others have said, a staid and starchy period drama typical of its era. No disrespect to Jackson's abilities as an actress, but I prefer dramas and characters that feel alive. I prefer to see these people, grand and historically significant as they were, as human.

That's where "The Virgin Queen" outshines the others. Anne Marie Duff's vibrant performance, the use of modern takes on traditional music (the score is brilliant), and the skillful juxtaposition of composed conversational scenes and close-in action shots make the whole production sing almost from start to finish.

Duff is perfect as Elizabeth, taking her from the scared but stubborn young prisoner to the woman torn between love and duty (or is it vanity?) to the aged Queen at the twilight of her reign with a deft blend of heart, intelligence, passion and skill. She is convincing at Elizabeth's most vulnerable and admirable moments and at her most calculating and vengeful ones. She not only looks the part, she embodies it.

It is true that Tom Hardy looks too young as Dudley for much of the series, but it's not a major distraction. He's still very good (and handsome) in the role. I thoroughly believed Elizabeth's strong and complex feelings for him. A moment later in the series, when an aged Elizabeth sees a pair of young lovers at court and remembers herself as a young woman not-so-secretly brushing hands with her childhood sweetheart, is almost heartbreakingly poignant.

The production drops the ball somewhat on the challenge of aging the characters over decades, with Elizabeth looking much the same until almost forty years into her reign, when she suddenly has aged greatly. But the aging makeup is more than adequate, when used. The costumes and settings are also excellent. The supporting cast is strong across the board.

I loved it.

Catherine Called Birdy (2022)

Charming Little Film

[7/10 · 30 October 2022]

My biggest problem with "Catherine Called Birdy" is Birdy herself. Bella Ramsay is a terrific young actress and does her best with the character, a tomboy on the verge of womanhood who chafes at the bit of Medieval gender roles and restrictions. But due to the script, she sometimes comes across as selfish and difficult rather than spirited and headstrong.

Birdy calls herself "her father's biggest pest." Said father, Lord Rollo (Andrew Scott), is vain, self-indulgent, rather hapless, and at his wit's end with his daughter, whom he is trying to marry off in order to keep his family and household afloat. Naturally, Birdy has no wish to marry and is intent on scaring off all suitors, which she does in ways that range from amusing to outrageous to purely obnoxious.

Looking at it through a present day lens, we wince at Rollo's attitude and actions. But the fact is, he is merely doing what most fathers of his time and class felt was their duty, and expecting Birdy to do hers in turn. I laughed at many of her antics, but like Rollo, I found myself wanting to shake her at times. I also sympathized with her perpetually pregnant mother (Billie Piper), who is more understanding of Birdy but still wants her to be her best self.

Luckily, both young Catherine and her father have nice little character arcs. She matures, he softens, and both manage to the rise to the occasion when needed. As a result, the ending is sweet and satisfying without being unrealistic.

Andrew Scott, as always, manages to be one of the best things about this production. He stands out just as he did as the Priest in "Fleabag" and the cynical officer who appeared briefly but memorably in "1917". The character's finest moment is also a beautiful bit of acting, and the only part of the movie that I found truly moving.

The other actors turn in solid performances, including Dean Charles Chapman (who was also in "1917" with Scott) as the older brother with whom Birdy constantly butts heads. There are clever flourishes, most notably the snarky and quite funny "Bachelor"-like descriptions that appear in Medieval style script next to the various suitors and other characters as they appear. The costumes and production value are very well done.

Overall, it's an enjoyable movie to stream. It's suitable for kids of around 12 and above. Sex is treated fairly obliquely and is in any case unavoidable given the subject matter. It's a coming-of-age story that does a nice job of embracing the importance of family and friendship even as it champions the empowerment of girls and individuality.

Delicious (2021)

Lovingly Made And Beautifully Presented

[8/10 · 5 September 2022]

I did not believe this movie would be accurate when it came to French cuisine or history.....or culinary history. One reviewer points out that the first restaurant appeared long earlier than the late 18th century, that "French Fries" were not invented by the heroine. I believe that. But you don't have to suspend too much belief to enjoy this movie.

For one thing, it's fiction. Not even historical fiction, just a story set in a particular time and place. The allusions to the French Revolution, to 18th century French class stratification and oppression and intrigue, inform the characters and story. They are not wholly accurate, but they don't need to be.

This movie reminds me a little of "Like Water For Chocolate." That film took place during the Mexican Revolution and captured the feel and look of the era quite well. Did an aristocratic woman run out of a burning house naked toward one of the revolutionaries to be swept up on his horse and carried away? Probably not, but that didn't dilute the power of the story the movie told.

This is a story about people, food, social structure, and change. It pays sufficient homage to 18th century France, and to French culture and cuisine in general, that it doesn't need to be precise in its historic detail. The acting, casting, script, pacing, settings, and cinematography are all extremely thoughtful. It's sincere and sweet but not cloying.

Some might not like the ending, but I loved it. That's why one watches a movie like this. Any other ending would have subverted the message, and I don't need tropes subverted all the time.

Elvis (2022)

Great Performances In An Uneven But Solid Biopic

[8/10 · 22 August 2022]

First off, Austin Butler makes a great Elvis. He carries the performance from the singer's early days on the road as a local radio phenom to his untimely death as a Las Vegas fixture more than 20 years later. Does he look just like him? Of course not, but that hardly matters. The physical resemblance is close enough, and the acting and charisma take care of the rest.

Butler wiggles, sings, emotes, hams its up, tones it down, loves his mother and wife and friends, and generally makes you wonder at, admire, root for and pity him. I didn't scream for him like the young women watching his early gyrations did, but he made me believe it when they did. Butler's Elvis is soulful, as he should be. And though I grew up with the ghost of Young Elvis (and with "Old Elvis"......I was a kid when he died), I didn't really understand his appeal until now. His trajectory makes a lot more sense having watched this film.

Tom Hanks isn't quite as effective as Colonel Parker. He's a perfect combination of avuncular and creepy, and with the help of prosthetics etc. Gets the look right, but he's still Tom Hanks with an accent and an attitude. He really has reached the point of overexposure, IMO. They went for lesser known performers for Elvis and pretty much everyone else, why not for The Colonel too? I have nothing against Tom Hanks but there ARE plenty of other great actors out there. Use them. Please.

As a biopic, it's strong, comprehensive, and faithful. It's also artful, if not as much as one might have expected from this director handling this subject. The music is woven in and handled extremely well but without any flourish beyond that provided by the subject matter himself. But in this case, that is enough.

I was more than happy to have a guided tour through Elvis's career and life. Some larger-than-life figures are so large (and no, I do not mean that as a dig at his later weight gain) that you lose the trees for the forest. The details matter and here they are handled deftly, in a way that makes you feel their human import, which is what matters in this film.

A well-acted, beautifully produced, worthy film full of heart and soul and sadness with a touch of humor. Oh, and "The Colonel" can bite me.

The Dropout (2022)

Highly Watchable With Great Performances

[8/10 · 24 July 2022]

This is my fourth foray into "Elizabeth Holmes" territory. I listened to the audio book of "Bad Blood," by the WSJ reporter who broke open the story of Theronos' fraud. I watched the documentary. I skimmed the "Bad Blood" book version and now I am watching this version.

All are worthy of consumption. "The Dropout" is by far the most fictionalized version, maybe even the only fictionalized one, but it still draws heavily from RL characters, situations, and conversations. I think it plays a vital role, in that it is the only one that gives Holmes something of a character arc. Yes, her deeds were heinous, but this company was not the brainchild of a 30- or 40-something Silicon Valley type.

It's important to remember that Holmes was a teenager when this company took root in her mind. And yes, her relationship with Sonny Balwani was established by then. But he is not the only one who seems unable to listen to what she is communicating. Her parents and brother all tiptoe around it, as do the middle-aged and elderly men who rally to her side. And that is not a condemnation of them, but rather a commentary on how family and relationship dynamics play an outsize role on personal decisions made in a business context. Especially when so much is at stake.

By the time the series hits its peak a Jenga Tower has been born. Everyone, Elizabeth included, is afraid to pull out a piece. The powerful men (and it is telling that one of the episodes is titled "Old White Men') who sit on her board are all-in, die-hard, a more than a little intense. She is really running with the big d0gs.

Under the Banner of Heaven (2022)

Gripping Series With Outstanding Performances

[8/10 · 17 July 2022]

I read Jon Krakauer's book "Under The Banner Of Heaven" back when it was first released, and this show more than does it justice. If the book wasn't quite the page-turner that his first best seller "Into Thin Air" was, this series does itself proud by being a better adaptation than either filmed version of that story managed to be.

I admit that it's been a while since I read the book, and until I started to look at reviews on here I did not even remember that Andrew Garfield's character did not in fact exist and was invented for the series. His presence centers the story and gives it an emotional relevance and clarity that is, IMO, vital to the success of this show.

It helps that Garfield is a terrific actor and gives an excellent, nuanced, even poignant performance as the devout Mormon family man and detective facing the darkness within the faith that shapes and guides his life. The rest of the cast is outstanding as well, particularly the actors playing the wayward Lafferty brothers, who showcase their distinct personalities and roles within the family while also playing very well against each other in their ensemble scenes. You really believe they are brothers.

The whole ensemble is very tight. If the very talented Daisy Edgar-Jones seems to stand out like a flickering light as the charming and confident Brenda Lafferty, that is perhaps intentional. She seems a bit out of step with the others because the character herself is out of step. She does not fit in, and that is the crux of the story.

The flashback structure within the story threw me off a little at first. I did not expect to see scenes portraying young Joseph Smith, his wife and followers enacting some of the central stories of Mormon history, many of them brutal. But in the end it works and makes sense; it underscores how the origins of this very young, well-recorded, American-born religion could feel so immediate, present and alive to some of its followers that they lost sight of how time and the rest of the world had moved forward.

Some have said that this portrays Mormonism unfairly as a faith that "breeds dangerous men," but I don't see it that way. Any faith can breed dangerous people, attitudes or actions. There are Mormon characters on the show who are benign, enlightened, civic-minded or at worst neutral. Pointedly, there are characters who live relatively decent lives until they are led down the wrong path by a twisted interpretation of their faith.

To the extent the series has a message, it seems to be directed not at Mormons and Mormonism but fundamentalism, fanaticism, and the failure to balance religious and worldly values and concerns. In light of recent political and cultural events and trends, it is a powerful message delivered with aplomb.

Overall, a fine series with strong direction, writing and production value. But it is the acting that really makes it work.

Anatomy of a Scandal (2022)

Strong Start, Strange Finish

[6/10 · 10 June 2022]

I don't usually put spoilers in reviews, but this show's ending left me so baffled and unsatisfied and that I have to address it. It starts off well, with a solid premise, fine production value, a lot of possible angles to explore and good acting across the board, especially from Sienna Miller.

Then around the middle, things get......goofy.

The use of flashbacks to the main characters' younger selves works well enough, especially when they are always seen in dimly lit rooms or outside in the dark of night. Young Sienna and Rupert look plausible, but young Michelle does NOT. You can change your look by losing weight, straightening your hair and switching up your style, but you can't GROW several inches after university. It would have been so easy to find a young actress who could plausibly morph into adult Kate, I cannot imagine why they didn't find and cast one.

They simply don't give us enough back story as to how Kate became estranged from her mother, or her journey from Oxford drop-out to (apparently) Australia to being a beast of a prosecutor back in London. It could have worked and made sense, but it was too murky.

The ending made no sense. I appreciated the fake-out, with him being exonerated for one crime and then ending up nabbed for another. But it was impossible for me to believe that he would actually be prosecuted or convicted for the death of Alec.

So, he gave his friend illegal drugs at a university party twenty years ago and said friend chose to jump off a building. Even if the drugs were illegal, even if he fled the scene in a panic and lied to the police about what happened, that doesn't add up to a crime that would land you in a handcuffs two decades later.

He didn't push his friend or force him to take the drugs. Did Sophie lie to the police and say he did? If so, they needed to show us that. And even if she did spin that story, too much time has passed and there is no way to prove it. It's a scandal, sure. But it's not a plausible criminal case. They should have shown him resigning in disgrace, not in custody.

Anyway, as I said, Sienna Miller is very good in the role and it is satisfying to see her journey. Rupert Friend is an excellent actor, I loved him in "Homeland," but he's a bit two-dimensional here. Michelle Dockery's performance starts off well enough but sputters when she gets to the really challenging material. I always thought she was overrated as Lady Mary on Downton Abbey and her acting here does nothing to change my mind about that.

Shout out to the actress who plays defense counsel. She's very good and delivers a closing argument that I genuinely believed could sway a jury. The rest was less convincing.

The Restaurant (2017– )

Top Notch Period Drama

[9/10 · 3 May 2022]

People have compared this to "Downton Abbey." It's much better. Downton had fine production value and strong acting, but uneven scripting, scattershot character development, a lot of repetition, and a heavy dollop of misplaced nostalgia. This show has its Grand Dame in the form of the Lowander matriarch, but it does not lean too heavily on her icy quips the way Downton did on the Dowager Countess. It is top notch across the board.

The "downstairs" characters who run the kitchen in "The Restaurant" are aware of the divide and power dynamic between them and the wealthy family that owns the business, but they're not forelock-tuggers. There are strong subplots about unionization, workers fighting back when being mistreated, and a cross-class romance that is believable and develops beautifully and organically as the series unfolds. Nina and Calle, who share a spontaneous kiss in the first episode, make a compelling pairing. The actress who plays Nina is a highlight of the show.

Elsewhere, the family dynamic and rivalries are well portrayed and feel believable. Gustaf and Peter are as different as brothers can be, and their ongoing push-pull makes sense as written and acted. Unlike the 6-season-long nastiness between Mary and Edith on "Downton" (mostly Mary toward Edith), it doesn't feel gratuitous or played merely for acid humor. The drama always come back to the restaurant and the family, their roles within it and their differing visions for it and how to keep it thriving.

There are characters who come and go on the series, and what they sometimes lack in screen time or development is always balanced by strong acting. They don't feel like filler and always contribute to the plot in the manner intended. The costumes and sets are wonderful, and the dashes of humor added by repeat visitors like the General and his frisky wife who frequent the restaurant are welcome and well apportioned.

Coming back to Nina, she really is the best thing about the show. She is a radiant presence, proud and yes, privileged, but never tiresome or snobbish. Her struggle and determination to play a role in the family business and also be fulfilled as a woman, her sometimes painful journey, are always compelling viewing. I found myself caring about all of the characters, but I waited every episode to see what would happen with Nina. She's a wonderful character and the actress is amazing.

Excellent production value, costumes and sets, vigorous attention to detail, strong, subtle, touching writing. A total winner of a show.

EDIT: I am now on Season 3 and it isn't quite as strong as it was for the first two seasons, but it's still a great watch. And it's true that the show doesn't do a good job of aging the characters as time marches on. The women are made to look older with different hairstyles, makeup and clothing that also reflect the changing styles. This works to some degree, though they look like very well-preserved middle aged women. But the men, Peter in particular, look almost the same age. Peter's hair has not changed once since the first episode, nor has his face been lined. It's almost like the actor had something in his contract about it, lol. Don't Touch The Hair! Calle looks older because they cut his hair shorter, gave him glasses and a bit of a pooch. But Peter literally looks exactly the same. It's distracting.

The Last Duel (2021)

Too Much Of A Good Thing

[7/10 · 31 January 2022]

This film has fantastic performances, production value, cinematography, and special effects. It is based on a relevant and fascinating true story with enormous dramatic potential, which the movie milks to the last drop. It is, to it's credit, feminist and forward-looking. But it could have been more so at a shorter length. Sorry.

Divided into three chapters, the movie tells the story of a medieval marriage, bromance, broken bromance, and rape, not necessarily in that order, and the dramatic fallout. Matt Damon as the dour and stalwart husband, Adam Driver as the charismatic frenemy, Ben Affleck as the debauched Lord with more power than he deserves or should be wielding, and especially Jodie Comer as the wronged wife, all turn in top-rate work, even if Comer and Damon have to work harder for the goal. It's always easier to be the fun character, isn't it?

The three-part structure, with the same story being told from the POVs of Damon, Driver and Comer, is both the movie's strength and its downfall. It makes sense for the story to be approached from three POVs, but the order of telling and length of stories is off. Damon and Driver's POVs start off the film while Comer's finishes it. Even if hers is deemed as "The Truth," it's still a bit too short and too late.

No offense to Damon or Driver, but I don't need to know that one saw himself as the hero of the Battle of Limoges and one the......anti-anti-hero? When I saw the script arise over the first scene of Chapter One reading "Battle Of Limoges," it made me giggle. Sorry to all you Medieval Northwestern History majors, but all I could imagine was a bunch of dudes in armor fighting over fabulous painted teacups. Which is not that different from how they view their women.

This is a good movie, engaging, well-acted, well-produced, and serious. I applaud everyone involved for the effort to make a big budget movie that addressed, in a somewhat satisfactory way, justice for the cause of female autonomy, justice, and truth. I just wish it didn't think it needed to take so long to do it, and to tell so much of it from the male POV when it kind of seems like it was the point NOT to do that.

In the future, try not to turn a failed bromance into not-romance.

Outer Banks (2020– )

Enjoyable Regional Romp

[7/10 · 13 January 2022]

We have had lots of shows that tried to evoke regional teen experiences, most based in New York or LA. None were particularly realistic, and neither is this one, but it's still a refreshing change. My parents are from the Carolinas and I have spent a fair amount of time in the beach communities of North and South Carolina. This show captures the sense of place quite well, even if it often feels like The Hardy Boys meets Mark Twain meets......The OC? I'm not sure.

The actors look too old for their roles, or at least the male ones do, but they do LOOK like they could be Southern kids from that region. Yes, believe it or not, there is a physical type. I absolutely buy John B, Topper and JJ as white Southern boys from that region. Sarah works too. The other actors appear younger which is refreshing, and they all do a good job with the material. The sense of time and place is well established. The marshes, beaches, class structure, architecture, houses, golf courses, sartorial style, are all well done.

As for the plot, it's fun if unrealistic. This is where we get into the "Hardy Boys" marsh weeds, mixed with a bit of very late Pat Conroy in his purple ultra-nostalgic phase, Huck Finn and maybe Scream Two? One review said it was Dawson's Creek-esque. Well, I never watched that show but I know it was filmed in Wilmington. Never mind that. Wilmington is tame and bland by comparison to.....wherever this take place.

It is a little hard to buy that high school kids in this day and age would adhere to the same "Outsiders" rules of class separation that the kids do here, but what do I know? I makes it simpler for me, anyway, to know who to root for, with just the right degree of ambiguity. I do like that it is never about race, but about class. And the color of one's jacket. Nantucket Red anyone? No, please don't. It marks you as a Preppy Douche, forever.

It's a pretty addictive show, overall. Just let yourself get caught up in the world, the characters and the plot, and don't worry about the rest. You might learn something about this specific part of the USA. There is the beach, the mainland and the marsh and where do they all meet?