How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days

Year 11, Day 32 - 2/1/19 - Movie #3,132

BEFORE: Matthew McConaughey carries over from "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" to play another serial dater who oozes toxic masculinity and must be shown the error of his ways (I'm guessing here).
I got very lucky with this film, since I programmed it a few months ago when it was on Netflix, and of course I've been dealing with this ongoing problem of films being removed from Netflix, because it takes me so long to get around to watching some of them.  So I checked a couple weeks ago, and sure enough, this one was gone - BUT it just started running on premium cable again, about one day before I needed to watch it.  But with good luck comes a bunch of bad - there are about 6 or 7 other films that I linked together for this year's romance chain that have ALSO vanished from Netflix.  Now I'll have to decide if I want to drop them or catch them all on iTunes for $2.99 or $3.99 each.

What a terrible business model Netflix is - OK, you can watch this film, but only for a little while!  And we're not going to give you any heads up about what's going to disappear, or when.  Jeez, even the cable On Demand films tell me what date they're going to stop being offered.  And for 6 top romance films to disappear, right before February - don't you think that's when people might want to get around to WATCHING those films, with Valentine's Day coming up?  I just don't get it.

Here's the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" line-up for tomorrow, February 2.  Tomorrow's topics are "Edge of Your Seat", "Favorite 1960's Visual Effects Winner" and "Best Battle with the Bottle".

4:15 am "Night Must Fall" (1937)
6:15 am "Sudden Fear" (1952)
8:15 am "The Third Man" (1949)
10:00 am "Panic in the Streets" (1950)
11:45 am "Suspicion" (1941)
1:30 pm "Strangers on a Train" (1951)
3:30 pm "North by Northwest" (1959)
6:00 pm "Wait Until Dark" (1957)
8:00 pm "Fantastic Voyage" (1966)
10:00 pm "Doctor Dolittle" (1967)
12:45 am "Days of Wine and Roses" (1962)
3:00 am "The Lost Weekend" (1945)

I'm scoring big today, I've seen 9 out of these 12 (all except the first two and "Panic in the Streets"), for a running score of 14 out of 23, just over 60%.  I probably won't be able to maintain that - but tune in to TCM tomorrow if you like suspense, crazy visual effects, or movies about alcoholism, or the crazy combination of those.

THE PLOT: To win a big campaign, an advertising executive bets he can make a woman fall in love with him in 10 days.  The woman he meets in a bar, however, has been assigned to write a magazine article on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days".

AFTER: Jesus, what are the odds against these crazy kids finding each other?  He's trying to prove that he can make ANY woman fall in love with him in 10 days, and she's doing research for an article to prove that she can drive a man away in the SAME EXACT period of time!  That's some class-A, prime O. Henry-level of irony right there.  Or it would be, if it didn't just feel like the biggest coincidence EVER.  Just like his character in last night's film, McConaughey's Ben Barry has apparently never had a relationship that lasted more than 1 or 2 dates - I suppose here that's because he's so focused on his cool, hip advertising career, but it doesn't seem much healthier than when he was a serial-dating (and multiple breaking-up with) fashion photographer.

But the formula doesn't work with his romantic partner, who's positioned here as his polar opposite - she supposedly does everything RIGHT when dating, and is assigned to do everything WRONG to prove a point and also write a "How not to..." sort of guide.  But if she's been doing everything right, if she's so good at dating, then why isn't she married, or in a stable relationship?  This is the point where a respectable writer should have crumpled up the paper and thrown it in the trash from across the room.  She can't possibly be a dating expert if she's also had a string of short-term relationships, even if they were all for weeks or months at a time.  The foil character is another (mousier) employee of the magazine who just broke up with her latest boyfriend, after doing everything wrong, like calling him too many times, saying "I love you" too soon, and being needy, whiny, and annoying.

Both sexes get tremendously stereotyped for this plot to occur - nobody comes out unscathed.  The "average" woman needs to be talked down to and taught to go against her natural tendencies to form a lasting partnership bond in order to not scare off a potential mate (yet her best friends are still afraid to tell her directly "Hey, you're doing it wrong...") and the men are all clueless about what makes a woman tick, and they're also too dumb to realize that they're being played, so when the women start acting in random, insane fashion, they just chalk it up to "Well, I guess I don't understand women, who act in random ways..."  Because people can't possibly learn from their mistakes and adapt their behavior to do better next time, come on, it'll just never happen.  In reality, people say "Well, I won't make THAT mistake again..." and then go on to make all new mistakes, but that's OK, it's part of the process.

The twist here seems to be intended to turn the male/female dynamic on its ear, where for once the man is trying to be the one holding the relationship together and do everything right, while the woman is trying to tear it apart and do everything wrong.  But even in that P.C. way of doing that, it sort of acknowledges that the other way would feel a little more right somehow, so that sort of negates the result.  In other words, by saying that it takes a wager and a work assignment to get a man and a woman to act against type, that acknowledges that there IS a type, and we're back where we started.  Still, there's something akin to "The Taming of the Shrew" here, where potential lovers are forced to use artifice to break down those relationship barriers, and of course accidentally fall in love in the process.  Though I'd hate to think that if Billy Shakes were alive today, he'd be writing Hollywood bedroom farces such as this.

You can watch this film, however, and think about yourself, how long would you last if someone you were dating was acting in an annoying or irrational manner, calling you too much or giving you cutesy nicknames.  I would imagine the scene where Andie asks Ben to get her a drink at the Knicks game, with one minute left on the game clock, would be a breaking point for most men.  Why didn't he just say, "Here's $5, there's the concession stand over there..."?  If you're a fan of a team, game time is sacred time.  But it's a huge NITPICK POINT to show the NY Knicks playing in the NBA Finals - right, like that could ever happen...

Another NITPICK POINT - Andie and Ben take the Staten Island Ferry out to see his family, but they also take his motorcycle along.  All vehicles were banned from the ferries after the 9/11 attacks, and this film was released in 2003, so they would not have been able to bring the cycle on the ferry.  Now, perhaps this was filmed a couple of years before it was released, but the N.P. stands.

Also starring Kate Hudson (last seen in "Rock the Kasbah"), Kathryn Hahn (last seen in "The Family Fang"), Annie Parisse (last seen in "Prime"), Adam Goldberg (last seen in "EdTV"), Thomas Lennon (last seen in "A Futile and Stupid Gesture"), Michael Michele (last seen in "Ali"), Shalom Harlow (last seen in "Melinda and Melinda"), Robert Klein (last seen in "Hooper"), Bebe Neuwirth (last seen in "Le Divorce"), Celia Weston (last seen in "Adult Beginners"), James Murtaugh (last seen in "Two Weeks"), Archie MacGregor, Samantha Quan, Liliane Montevecchi, James Mainprize, William Hill (last seen in "A Most Violent Year"), Tony Longo (last seen in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas"), with cameos from Marvin Hamlisch and the voice of Marv Albert.

RATING: 4 out of 10 family album photos

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

Year 11, Day 31 - 1/31/19 - Movie #3,131

BEFORE: I'm starting the romance chain a day early, Jan. 31 instead of Feb. 1, because this will line up the best film for Feb. 14.  Now I also see that this film can serve as a thematic bridge between the two months, because it's not only a romance, it's a film about a commitment-phobic man, who probably has a few hang-ups about women, and I'm guessing learns a few lessons and ultimately finds a better way to approach relationships.  Right?  I figure that's a safe bet.  Jennifer Garner carries over from "Wakefield".

Now, about that Turner Classic Movies "31 Days of Oscar" schedule.  It seems they've got a different theme, (or two, or three) for each day this year.  See?  Utter madness.  The first day, Friday, Feb. 1 has three viewing blocks: American Literary Adaptations, Janet Gaynor Best Actress Win for Multiple Titles, and Grittiest Streets of New York.  Those last two categories seem very specific, but they're intended as little "face-offs", like which of these two films is better, or has the "grittiest streets"?  I'm not really feeling it.  Plus I can't record movies from TCM to DVD any more, so I don't think I'll be adding many titles this time around.  Still, I'm going to play along and keep score of what I've seen.  Here's the run-down:

6:00 am "Alice Adams" (1935)
8:00 am "Little Women" (1949)
10:15 am "Billy Budd" (1962)
12:30 pm "The Old Man and the Sea" (1958)
2:00 pm "Show Boat" (1951)
4:00 pm "The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter" (1968)
6:15 pm "Tom Sawyer" (1973)
8:00 pm "Sunrise" (1927)
10:00 pm "Street Angel" (1928)
12:00 am "The French Connection" (1971)
2:00 am "Taxi Driver" (1976)

I've seen 5 of these 11 films, so I'm off to a good start - "The Old Man and the Sea", "Show Boat" (last February), "Tom Sawyer", "The French Connection" and "Taxi Driver".  But the real plus here is that the first 7 films are literary adaptations, and so is my film today - it's obviously a (very) loose adaptation of "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens.

THE PLOT: While attending his brother's wedding, a serial womanizer is haunted by the ghosts of his past girlfriends.

AFTER: True story, a few weeks back I was in Dunkin Donuts, getting my usual egg & sausage breakfast sandwich on a croissant, and I wondered if I could order it on a donut.  It seems they'll sell you a breakfast sandwich on a bagel, a wrap, an English muffin, a croissant, anything BUT a donut, but aren't donuts what they're most famous for selling?  I've heard of some baseball parks serving hamburgers on donuts, so why not a breakfast sandwich?  I asked at the counter if they would serve me my usual, with a donut instead of a croissant, but no dice.  Still, I wondered what that might taste like, maybe a unique blend of savory and sweet - now, of course I'm talking about a plain glazed donut here, not something like a raspberry jelly or a chocolate creme-filled.  (I'm a food daredevil, not a monster...)

I couldn't get it out of my mind, so I persisted - the next Friday there was a different crew serving in that location, so I asked again.  They still were very reluctant, but I asked very nicely, and I even offered to pay for the breakfast sandwich AND the cost of the donut on top of that, so they'd come out ahead financially.  And I had to walk them through the process, pointing out that if a bagel could go through the horizontal slicer, then so could a glazed donut, because it's the same shape.  During the construction of the sandwich, the problem became evident right away, the poor lady working there almost burned her fingers on the hot donut, after warming it up.  I guess that a donut just conducts heat a little too well, and the glazed donut basically melted around the egg and sausage, so it was hard to put together and almost as hard to eat.  I found it delicious, but for all I know I might be a minority of one on this matter.

My point is, just because you can alter a recipe, that doesn't mean that it's practical to do so.  Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is considered a literary classic, but also the first modern Christmas story, as well as a treatise on the class struggle in Victorian England, with Scrooge as the one-percenter taking more than his share from all the merchants and commoners who owe him interest.  In some ways, it's just as relevant as it was when it was written, but if you take away the social politics AND the holiday tie-in, and try to impose that same story structure on a modern romance story, it just doesn't work, much like the donut-based breakfast sandwich.  Perhaps it's best to leave the spooky ghosts and time-travel to the Christmas season.

Not that they don't try here, because the lead character's brother is getting married in Newport, Rhode Island, and there's snow on the ground.  If you ask me, a winter wedding in New England just isn't practical, but what do I know?  They must have had their reasons, I guess.  But wouldn't it be better to wait until spring, so everyone doesn't have to bundle up, or risk the guests getting their flights cancelled due to a blizzard?  Just saying.

But this film has to fall back on a ton of tired, worn-out stereotypes about people and relationships in order to get where it's trying to go - the famous photographer who has a "love 'em and leave 'em" philosophy and sleeps with dozens of women in a week without being able to form a lasting bond with any of them.  We've seen this before, and it's maybe just the way some people ARE, not necessarily right or wrong, but clearly there's an agenda here to say that THIS lifestyle is not preferred, but THAT one should be.  Says who?  And then there's an attempt to say that he's this way because his parents died when he was a boy, he was strongly influenced by his lothario uncle (who plays the "Marley" role here) and the fact that he missed his shot with the girl at the high-school dance, and then proceeded to sleep with every other girl in class EXCEPT her.  (really, this is a reverse of "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", where Robert Downey Jr.'s character missed his shot at the school dance, and then SHE went on to sleep with every boy in class, except him.)

Meanwhile, all bridesmaids are slutty, all nerdy groomsman are nerdy, brides are panicky bride-zillas, Asian women are Olympic archers, for some reason.  Because really, why go anywhere past broad stereotypes? 

NITPICK POINT: The best man is also the wedding photographer, the bride's father is also the officiant - was there some kind of tight limit on how many people could attend this wedding?

NITPICK POINT #2: The lead character may not believe in love or respect the wedding ceremony, but how does he not know that the champagne and wedding cake are for the reception, and you shouldn't open a bottle of bubbly or eat a piece of cake before-hand, or risk coming anywhere near it in a slapstick comedy.  Is he really that stupid?

Somewhere around the second ghost, which would be the Ghost of Girlfriends Present, the format really starts to break down, in part because the character who visits him is not dead, so how can she be a ghost?  Is she just a regular ghost who took the form of someone he knows?  Or is his assistant not a real person, has she secretly been a ghost the whole time she's been working for him?  If not, how can she be in two places at the same time?  Or is the whole scenario being generated by his subconscious?  The film gets very sketchy on these details, and then the Ghost of Girlfriends Future isn't anyone he recognizes at all, so who the heck is she supposed to be?  Again, never explained, some writer just couldn't be bothered, it seems.

They circle back to the Dickens format during the third fantasy scenario, though, since Connor ends up at his own funeral in the future, which only his brother attends.  That's sad, to be sure, and then he falls into his own grave and all his ex-girlfriends start shoveling dirt on top of him.  But wait, you just said NOBODY attended the funeral, so where did all the exes come from?  That's another N.P., only it's a dream, and they don't always have to make sense.

Thankfully, I don't have any ex-girlfriends to worry about, just an ex-wife that I never talk to any more.  She's got her life, I have mine, and that's that.  So I wouldn't ever have any ghosts appearing to me to show me the error of my ways, my conscience is clear.  But, even if they did, I'd be the guy who gets rid of the Ghost of Girlfriends Future on a technicality, by pointing out that Marley declared that I'd be visited by THREE ghosts, and that Marley himself is a ghost, therefore the future ghost would constitute a FOURTH ghost, and therefore her vision would be null and void, as per the terms of the agreement. Bye Bye.

Also starring Matthew McConaughey (last seen in "Gold"), Michael Douglas (last seen in "Ant-Man and the Wasp"), Breckin Meyer (last seen in "Clueless"), Lacey Chabert (last seen in "Lost in Space"), Robert Forster (last seen in "London Has Fallen"), Daniel Sunjata (last seen in "The Devil Wears Prada"), Emma Stone (last seen in "Battle of the Sexes"), Anne Archer (last seen in "Narrow Margin"), Amanda Walsh, Camille Guaty (last seen in "A Futile and Stupid Gesture"), Rachel Boston, Noureen DeWulf, Olga Maliouk, Micah Sherman, Albert M. Chan, Michael Anastasia, Christina Milian, Emily Foxler, Devin Brochu, Logan Miller, Kasey Russell, Christa B. Allen.

RATING: 4 out of 10 Polaroids

Wakefield

Year 11, Day 30 - 1/30/19 - Movie #3,130

BEFORE: We're just about at the end of January now, so three things are going to happen tomorrow - I'm going to start the romance chain (a day early, but what's scheduled is sort of a transitional film, I promise this will make sense tomorrow), I'm going to total up the methods I've used to watch my January films (cable, Netflix, iTunes and Academy screeners) and also I'll take a look at TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, though I just took a quick look at their method of organizing the films this year, and I can't say that I'm happy about it.  I much prefer the years where they do actor linking, like I do, or break down the films based on their stories' locations, or something like that.  What they're doing instead this year just seems like madness to me.

Oh, screw it, that's a lot to handle tomorrow so let me do the January breakdown today.  The schedule's not going to change, so here are the totals for the month based on screening method.  The reason that Cable/On Demand is on the list twice is because about 6 months ago I had to switch DVRs, and I lost the ability to dub movies from certain cable channels to DVD, because of a signal that they broadcast to prevent duplication and this includes TCM, which is a big bummer for me that makes me a lot less interested in their Oscar programming, if I can't save copies on DVD of these great movies.  What am I paying these high cable bills for?  Three major channels basically just got turned into streaming services for me, where I watch the film and poof, it's gone.  What if I want to watch that film again someday, and it's not available on cable or any streaming service at that time, what do I do THEN?  Ah, who am I kidding, I barely have to time to watch all these movies once, let alone twice - I just don't like the impermanence of it all, and I like having a collection with physical THINGS, but even those aren't permanent because VHS tapes and DVD all wear out, eventually, or get scratched or covered with dust and become unwatchable.

But anyway, here are the stats for January's films:

11 movies watched on cable (and saved to DVD): Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, Annihilation, Suburbicon, 13 Hours, Only the Brave, Seal Team Six, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, The Beaver, Mother!, Wakefield, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
9 movies watched on Cable (and not saved): Game Night, 12 Strong, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Singing Detective, Red Sparrow, Goodbye Christopher Robin, The Light Between Oceans, The Snowman, Battle of the Sexes
6 movies watched on Netflix: A Most Violent Year, Promised Land, Peter Rabbit, A Futile and Stupid Gesture, Adult Beginners, Game Over Man!
1 movie watched on iTunes: Frank
4 movies watched on Academy screeners: Mission: Impossible - Fallout, Vice, Welcome to Marwen, Last Flag Flying

See, with 20 out of 31 movies watched on cable, I can't cut the cord, not just yet.  And I still made a dent on my Netflix list, and I'm still using Academy screeners and iTunes the least, basically just to close the gaps and allow the chain to continue.  Cable also costs me the most, but that's OK if it's still providing the bulk of the films.  One movie on iTunes cost me only about $3 to rent, and Netflix and Academy screeners are both essentially free for me.  So there you go, if the numbers change radically this year I can consider switching over to streaming.

Bryan Cranston carries over from "Last Flag Flying".

THE PLOT: A man's nervous breakdown causes him to leave his wife and live in his attic for several months.

AFTER: Looking back on January now, another thing that I can keep track of is the large number of films that dealt with mental illness or trauma-related incidents, or syndromes of some kind.  Last night I mentioned the PTSD that was seen in "Last Flag Flying", "Welcome to Marwen" and "Goodbye Christopher Robin", but let's not forget that I started things off this year with "Game Night", which featured that police officer character who was unable to pick up on social cues, so he came off as creepy.  (Not as creepy as the guy in "Welcome to Marwen", but still creepy.). Then there was the lead character in "The Beaver", who suffered from depression and a terrible addiction to puppetry, which might not have been so bad if he had any ventriloquism skill at all, only he didn't. Then there was the double punch of the addiction and self-loathing in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" and the paranoia and inability to distinguish fantasy from reality in "The Singing Detective".  Fassbender portrayed the poor judgment skills resulting from both PTSD and the isolation of working at a lighthouse in "The Light Between Oceans", the abandonment issues and the self-destructive relationship behavior of a detective in "The Snowman", AND the mental illness under the giant mask of a man performing with a band.  "Adult Beginners" depicted three people suffering from arrested development, and "Battle of the Sexes" dealt with both a male chauvinist and someone coming to terms with her homosexuality, and this issue was also touched on in "Game Over, Man!".  Then there was "Suburbicon", which depicted racial hatred in the 1950's, and also a lot of messed-up people who would kill their own family members to collect the insurance money.  Damn, that's a lot of mental illness and social dysfunction for one month.  (I'm going to leave Tom Cruise alone for now, because the two characters he played in "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" and "Mission: Impossible - Fallout" were generally heroic, although somewhat addicted to danger, but really, I don't have time today to crack that nut open...)

Which brings me to "Wakefield", and there's clearly something wrong with this main character, because who would do this?  Who would drop out of a relationship, a job, and society in general, just to spend a few months living in his own garage's attic/storage space?  Is there even a name for this type of mental affliction, if that's what it is?  It's kind of voyeurism combined with a deep-seated need to see how his family would get by without him in the picture.  But it's weird, because of all the mental gymnastic he makes, like he's bending the truth around to make it seem like he's doing them a favor.  He would never LEAVE his wife, because that would hurt her greatly, and that would also make him a terrible person, by his rules.  But somehow sneaking into this attic space (with a large window that conveniently looks right into their bedroom) is OK, even though the situation must still be incredibly painful for her, not knowing where her husband WENT, since he didn't leave a note.  In his mind, he hasn't abandoned her, because he's still technically nearby, only he did abandon her, and anyway, what about his job?  Don't his boss and co-workers wonder what happened to him, and those papers he took home in his briefcase?

But again, it's really about the relationship here.  Many married people probably wonder what would happen if they died, and how long it would take their spouse to get over them, start dating again, get re-married and such.  But it's not productive thinking, like since you'll be dead, it won't matter to you, so why dwell on it at all?  This guy, however, wants to KNOW, and wants to see it happen first-hand. However, this knowledge comes at a cost, which most people would not be willing to pay.  He's got to live in a small space, with no electricity, no heat, no food and no running water.  It's like camping out, only with none of the fun.  (Correction, camping is not fun.  You want to take me to the woods, where I have to crap in the bushes and eat beans out of a can, and have no protection from the elements, and possibly get eaten by a wild animal?  Thanks, I'll pass.  You take me out to the woods, you'd better kill me, I'll be better off.).

So to satisfy his curiosity, or to find out if his wife really loves him and would miss him, or perhaps to prove a point, Mr. Wakefield endures months of no TV, no cell phone, no toilet facilities (except he sneaks out to use the group shower of a home for mentally disabled teens, conveniently located next door.) and most of the time, he eats garbage from a can, whatever his family threw out that night, provided he can get to it before the raccoons.  And again, let me remind you that he's doing this all by CHOICE, it's a self-imposed exile that's hard to believe because it seems so hard to endure.  Oh, and if he wants a new toothbrush or a pair of shoes, he has to wait for the "good" trash night, which is every two weeks, and fight off the regular trash-pickers.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem worth it.  I wouldn't have done this at all, but even if I had, I would have caved after a couple nights with no TV, no internet and no cell phone games. Or the first cold night in the storage space, whichever came first.  Even if I were afraid to go back home and face my wife for some reason, even going to couples therapy would be a preferred way to resolve any issues, over living in squalor and eating garbage.

I also have to take issue with all the time-jumping, which is a constant complaint of mine now.  Flashbacks are used here to show the audience that the Wakefield marriage might not have been perfect (whose is?) because he was often jealous and controlling, plus he felt that with two daughters and a wife, he was sort of the outsider in his house just because of his gender.  On top of that, he worked in Manhattan and often came home late because of his commute on Metro-North, so he wasn't living on the same schedule as the rest of his family, and over time that sort of thing can wear a person down.  But, didn't they spend quality time together on the weekends, and vacations and such?  I guess if he had started to feel like a stranger to his own family, then moving into a secret living space in the house made some weird kind of sense, like taking that feeling to the extreme?

The plotline says "nervous breakdown", but I don't know if that tells the whole tale here.  It seems like maybe he wanted to feel important to his family, to connect with them better, so he tried to show them what their lives would be like without him around?  Only he took it too far, and it sort of backfired, because after he'd been gone for a week, he couldn't just walk back in with no explanation, they'd be demanding to know where he was.  But then, somehow if he stayed away longer, he hoped it might be easier to come back, because they'd be more grateful to see him again - it's a twisted logic spiral to be sure.  I won't tell you how it ends, except to say that it's rather ambiguous - unfortunately that means there's a big build-up to an unsatisfying conclusion, nearly an anti-climax.

The funny thing is, a certain number of people still disappear every year - where do they all go?  It's not really that comforting for me to think that a small percentage of them maybe started living in small, confined spaces so they can spy on their grieving spouses.  And really, how many people find themselves in that situation?  I suspect that most missing people meet much darker fates.

NITPICK POINT: Who throws out the leftovers from their holiday meals?  Nobody I know, yet it seems like everyone did in this neighborhood.  After a big roast turkey dinner, my family would save whatever was not eaten on the holiday itself, because who doesn't love a nice hot turkey sandwich on toast with gravy the next day?  And then came cold turkey sandwiches with mayo, turkey noodle casserole, and eventually even turkey soup made from boiling the carcass.  I know we collectively throw out a lot of food in this country, and that's something that needs to be addressed, but I was raised to never throw out any food unless it had spoiled and was no longer good to eat.  My mother learned from her parents, who survived the Depression, and made the most out of leftovers. If the U.S. is heading toward another financial collapse, it's a valuable skill that we should all develop.

Also starring Jennifer Garner (last seen in "Butter"), Beverly D'Angelo (last seen in "Vacation"), Jason O'Mara (last seen in "In a World..."), Ian Anthony Dale (last seen in "The Hangover"), Alexander Zale, Tracey Walter (last seen in "Matilda"), Pippa Bennett-Warner, Isaac Leyva, Ellery Sprayberry, Victoria Bruno

RATING: 5 out of 10 Thanksgiving dinners

Last Flag Flying

Year 11, Day 29 - 1/29/19 - Movie #3,129

BEFORE: It's the end of the Steve Carell chain, well, I guess except for "Beautiful Boy", which I didn't include, because that's my new link to "Call Me By Your Name", and I'm not ready for that one yet, plus it doesn't get me to where I need to be on February 1.  So I'll save that one for later, it's more of a Father's Day-type film anyway, and we've had several films in the past year on that sort of topic, where a teen boy deals with drug addiction, or comes back from rehab or gay-conversion therapy.  Seriously, there was a total glut of those films on the market last year, but since both Father's Day and Gay Pride Month coincide in June, I think my path is pretty clear.

Fourth film in a row with Steve Carell, and third in a row watched on an Academy screener - this one's from 2017, though, and it hasn't hit premium cable yet, but it is available on Amazon Prime.  Now, my wife has an Amazon Prime account, but I can't get Amazon movies to work on my computer, something about a Silverlight plug-in, not my fault, though - so I either have to bug my wife to let me watch something via her Amazon account, or borrow the screener from the office.  Either way, I'm not paying - but I do promise to feel guilty about that, OK?

THE PLOT: Thirty years after they served together in Vietnam, former Navy Corpsman Larry "Doc" Shepherd reunites with his old buddies, former Marines Sal Nealon and Rev. Richard Mueller, to bury his son, a young Marine killed in the Iraq War. 

AFTER: Yeah, some heavy subject matter tonight - it's funny, I spent a few days in the 2nd week of January dealing with films about war, like "13 Hours" and "12 Strong" and "Seal Team Six", and now it seems in the latter part of the month that I'm dealing with the aftermath, like aging veterans and dying soldiers and PTSD.  Thematically it works, I just sort of wish I'd scheduled this for Veterans Day or Memorial or Armed Forces Day - umm, whenever that is.  (May 19 this year, I had to look it up.)  Plus I watched A.A. Milne recovering from World War I in "Goodbye Christopher Robin" and Dick Cheney sending troops off to Gulf Wars 1 AND 2 in "Vice". 

I've never served in the military, so I'm not the best judge of whether a film is authentic in its portrayal of veterans, or what it's like to BE a veteran of Vietnam or either Gulf War.  But I figure it's probably a complicated, sensitive subject, and it at least gets treated like one here in this film.  The three lead characters are still both guided and haunted by their actions 30 years ago - the story is set in 2003, which allows for the tie in to the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts, which began in late 2001.  So at the same time Larry Shepherd contacts two men he knew during the war, their reunion is happy at first, until he reveals the reason that he needs support and companionship at this time, his son's body is being shipped home from Iraq.

At first he just needs a ride to Arlington, after traveling all the way down from New Hampshire, presumably by bus or something, to Sal's bar in Norfolk, VA.  Together they drive to find the third member of this impromptu group, who's now a preacher in a nearby congregation.  Confusion reigns when they arrive at Arlington Cemetery, only to realize that the body's being transported to Dover Air Force Base, and they're not even in the right state.  The three men decide (eventually) to overcome their differences, and work together to get the body away from the military, so it can instead be driven up to New Hampshire for a burial closer to home.

This may be the other reason for setting the story in 2003, because much of the confusion and many of the problems they encounter along the way could have easily been resolved with the use of cell phones.  But this seems like a NITPICK POINT at first, because we did have cell phones (not smart phones, though) in 2003.  But then again, maybe it's not an N.P. because these guys are in their 50's or 60's, so maybe they wouldn't have had them.  Still, it seems a little odd that they don't know much about these new-fangled devices, so I don't know - would a preacher in his 50's in 2003 have been so clueless about cell phones?

After more confusion resulting from renting a truck (Note: one shouldn't make jokes about Arab culture or terrorists when renting a van or truck in 2003...) they end up with the body on an Amtrak train, with a one-man military escort.  (I thought maybe this was another mistake, depicting an Amtrak Acela express train in 2003, but no, that service began in 2000.).

If I've got any complaint, it's probably with Carell's character, who seems like one of those blank voids that someone forgot to give anything to do.  But perhaps this is intentional, because he's just suffered such a tragic loss (actually, two) that maybe we're supposed to feel the void within him.  Wikipedia also suggests that he's got no social filter because of a head injury from Vietnam.  It's clear that the other two characters are meant to represent opposing viewpoints that could influence him, like one's a preacher and the other doesn't believe in God, one's optimistic while the other is pessimistic, and so on.

The train stops in New York on their way to New England, and of course they get out and explore the city around Penn Station a little bit - now, that's probably a valid NITPICK POINT, because even if there's like a half-hour stop in NYC, I don't think Amtrak encourages people to leave the train, explore the city and get back on.  Besides, I know for a fact that those businesses on 8th Ave. between 31st and 30th St. were just not there in 2003 - namely Brother Jimmy's BBQ and Famous Amadeus pizza.  OK, the Blarney Stone pub was probably there, I think it's always just been there.

Also starring Bryan Cranston (last seen in "The Disaster Artist"), Laurence Fishburne (last heard in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang"), J. Quinton Johnson (last seen in "Everybody Wants Some!!"), Richard Robichaux (last seen in "Bernie"), Yul Vazquez (last seen in "Time Out of Mind"), Lee Harrington, Cicely Tyson (last seen in "The Comedians"), Kate Easton, Deanna Reed-Foster, Graham Wolfe, Ted Watts Jr.

RATING: 6 out of 10 faded photographs

Welcome to Marwen

Year 11, Day 28 - 1/28/19 - Movie #3,128

BEFORE: Hard to believe, I know, but this is my third film in a week that seems to be based on a documentary, fourth film in the last week based on true events, a theme that carries over from "Vice", along with actor Steve Carell.  "A Futile and Stupid Gesture" was based on the documentary "Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead" and "Battle of the Sexes" was based on a 2013 documentary of nearly the same name.  Today's film was based on the 2010 doc "Marwencol", which I have not seen.

I'm posting late today because my wife and I took a quick 2-day trip to Atlantic City, we hadn't been there since last spring, and we know that if you book a Sunday-Tuesday hotel stay there, you get a much better rate than if you book a Friday-Sunday stay.  The deals are out there for the taking, and then when you're spending less on the hotel, it's easier to come out ahead on the slots, or have some extra money to go to a couple of nice restaurants or a trip to the buffet.  This time we stayed at the Borgata, and took a side trip to the (relatively) new Ocean Casino, which used to be called Revel, the site of some infamous celebrity parties and encounters (Ray Rice) before it had some financial problems and changed hands.  (Huh, a casino that lost money and wasn't being managed by Donald Trump's company, what do you know...)  The new place seems very fancy, but it's not just catering to high-rollers any more, plus they have a BBQ restaurant called "The Pit Boss" that I think we should check out next time.  My wife wasn't feeling well on Monday, so we just had a brunch and then she went back to our room to relax.

But since I got lucky on the slots at Revel, I was happy to stop playing, because I always feel that if I keep playing, I'm going to eventually lose whatever I just won.  So we just took a nap, then binge-watched the Food Network all afternoon, and I went out for a proper bowl of ramen and some Asian apps at about 10 pm.

I did watch this film before we left, I just didn't have any opportunity to post a review until now.

THE PLOT: A victim of a brutal attack finds a unique and beautiful therapeutic outlet to help him through his recovery process.

AFTER: Damn, I was really looking forward to this one, because I'd heard about it's innovative blend of live-action with stop-motion (?) animation, but then about a month ago, everyone in the media just sort of stopped talking about it, and I wondered why -

Now, I know why - the use of animation here is unique, making action figures that move and resemble the actors who provide their voices, but it needed to be used in a better story, because this one is severely flawed.  Again, it's supposedly based on a true story, and they run a photo of the real Mark Hogancamp before the end credits (again, haven't seen the documentary yet...) and some might say that's the one saving grace here, but then, I suppose that's all in how you look at it.

(EDIT: I just found out that the animation process used here is motion-capture, not stop-motion.  I suppose that changes things just a bit, because stop-motion animation is a long labor of love, and mo-cap is just putting people in tight-fitting suits with dots on them and letting the computers do most of the busy work.  But then, technically it's also more work for the actors, since they have to physically DO stuff in front of a green-screen and not just lend their voices to the characters in a sound studio. This same directed made "The Polar Express" and the 2009 version of "A Christmas Carol" the same way, so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.)

Here's the thing, I don't know about the real Hogancamp, but I found Steve Carell's character, the fictionalized version of him, to be very creepy.  I know, I'm supposed to have sympathy for him because he was brutally attacked and beaten in what seemed to be a hate crime - four guys in a bar beat him up just because he said he liked wearing high-heeled shoes.  So people who are narrow-minded and fearful of anything that seems remotely queer took out all their anxieties and hatred on him.

But just because he was the victim of a crime, that doesn't excuse his weird and creepy behavior after the recovery from the incident.  Now, he supposedly doesn't remember his personal life from before the attack.  Which seems a little too convenient.  Was he gay, straight, a transvestite or just a guy with a fetish for heels?  Or maybe, was he a guy who just JOKED about wearing them?  We'll never know, because the movie doesn't say.  But, as my boss pointed out today, this constitutes a huge NITPICK POINT, because why doesn't he just ask somebody who knew him before the attack what his own deal was?  I suppose it doesn't really matter, because it's a hate crime either way - I just mean to say that by leaving things ambiguous, someone here seems to be covering all the possible bases.

But I want to call attention to what comes after the incident - he built a miniature town, set in Belgium during World War II, so he could "heal" - and he says this in the trailer, which is a little too on point.  Doesn't the writer think we, the audience, can figure out that he's doing this to heal?  You don't need to have a character say it out loud if it's so flipping obvious.  Here's the creepy part - there's a miniature version of him in the town, a G.I. named Cap'n Hogie, and there are dolls that look like Nazis, only they represent his attackers (and I think in one case, a man he meets later in the film, so that's really putting the cart before the horse...). There are also six female dolls, with impossible/unrealistic Barbie-like figures and they're all dressed in short skirts and other skimpy or very tight attire.

Over time, we learn that these six sexualized dolls represent women that he knows in the real world (or in one case, from a porno movie) - there's Wendy the bartender, who first found him after his beating; Carlala, the cook he works with in a restaurant kitchen; Roberta, the woman he buys his action figures from at the local hobby shop; G.I. Julie, a veteran he met during his rehab, and Anna, his Russian caregiver.  Suzette, the one based on the porn actress, rounds out the group.  So he's fetishized the women he knows into doll form, and acts out wartime scenarios where these dolls are wearing next-to-nothing, or occasionally topless, and they shoot guns and throw Molotov cocktails at the Nazis, and rescue him when he gets captured.  It's like Tarantino turned "Inglourious Bastards" into a children's show, or something.  Or some sick Twilight Zone episode where the dolls come to life and work out problems from the real world, combined with that issue of "Fantastic Four" where they first fought the Puppet Master, and he put the heroes' minds into little clay dolls for his own twisted pleasure.

Then a new neighbor, Nicol, moves in across the street, and she's a redhead.  Mark falls for her on sight, and works her into his weird "healing" narrative right away, via a redheaded doll - sorry, action figure.  Think about it, if you moved to a new town and meet your new neighbor, and then found out just DAYS later that he'd altered a doll to look like you, and took pictures of it interacting with his other dolls in his constructed tiny town, and he was pretending that the doll that looked like him was falling in love with the doll that looked like YOU?  That would raise a few red flags, right?  I think there's enough reason there to at least call the police, or perhaps call the movers back and get out of there right away.

Look, everyone might have, from time to time, random fantasies about people they meet, or see on the street, or people we see in movies.  But it's not appropriate to TELL near-strangers, friends or co-workers that you maybe have thought of them in that way.  You keep that to yourself.  But Mark takes PHOTOS of the dolls interacting, dancing or kissing or battling Nazis together, and he shows the photos in a gallery, I'm guessing without the consent of the people that the dolls resemble.  That's wildly inappropriate, even if it's being done to help him "heal".  Even worse, Mark seems unable to pick up on social cues and goes right to "Let's have a relationship" with Nicol.  He doesn't seem to understand that a real relationship takes time to develop, you can't just skip steps by acting out fantasies with dolls.

And even worse than THAT, he talks at length about his collection of women's shoes - 287 pairs, but who's counting? - and how when he wears the shoes of a woman, he feels like he's absorbing part of their "essence".  Ugh, that's so creepy it's almost like Buffalo Bill from "The Silence of the Lambs" talking about wearing his skin-suit.  Again, are we supposed to excuse all this creepiness just because this guy got beat up once in a bar?

Somehow, Mark doesn't drink any more because the attack beat the desire for alcohol out of him - even though that's not how drinking works - along with his memories.  In a way, it's too bad they didn't beat the creepiness out of him, too.

NITPICK POINT #2: I didn't understand any of the stuff with Deja Thoris, which I thought was the name of a princess on Mars in those books by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  But here she's some kind of demon/succubus character, who also looks like a sexualized Barbie doll, only with green hair, who terrorizes Mark but also asks him to build her a flying time machine, so she'll then stop sending the female characters light-years into the future, or something.  This felt like a very disjointed part of the storyline that seemed to serve no purpose, either as part of the therapy or part of the fantasy, so why was it there?

Ah, there's something of an explanation on Wikipedia, it seems she's supposed to symbolize his medicine, and I was supposed to pick up on this from the green color of her hair.  She (the meds) prevent any woman from getting too close to Mark, thus the symbolism of her sending the women far away.  Only after he realizes that his meds are hurting his healing process and he stops taking them can he stop having the PTSD flashbacks and potentially have a real relationship.  Only this is terrible advice for the viewers, to change a course of medicine without consulting with one's doctor.

And, I don't think it's the meds that are keeping potential girlfriends away, I think once he shows women his shoe collection and the dolls he alters to look like women he knows, I think he can accomplish keeping women away all by himself.

Also starring Leslie Mann (last seen in "The Comedian"), Diane Kruger (last seen in "Copying Beethoven"), Merritt Wever (last seen in "Into the Wild"), Janelle Monae (last seen in "Hidden Figures"), Eiza Gonzalez, Gwendolyne Christie (last seen in "Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi"), Leslie Zemeckis, Neil Jackson (last seen in "Nocturnal Animals"), Falk Hentschel (last seen in "Transcendence"), Matt O'Leary (last seen in "The Lone Ranger"), Nikolai Witschl (last seen in "Deadpool 2"), Patrick Roccas, Alexander Lowe, Eric Keenleyside (last seen in "The Edge of Seventeen"), Stefanie von Pfetten, Siobhan Williams (last seen in "Forsaken"), Conrad Coates, Veena Sood, Fraser Aitcheson, Trevor Jones, Brad Kelly, Jeff Sanca, Patrick Sabongui, Clay St. Thomas.

RATING: 3 out of 10 hand-formed meatballs

Vice

Year 11, Day 27 - 1/27/19 - Movie #3,127

BEFORE: This one's still in theaters, I spotted that the other day when I slipped out to see "Aquaman", but I'm watching it on an Academy screener.  Sure, I could go pay and see it in the theater, but I don't have the time to go into the city on a Saturday, and anyway, have you SEEN the ticket prices lately?  I can't afford more than one movie on the big screen per week.  I may be shorting them some box office, but I'm helping get the word out about this movie, so really, it's a wash.  This may be the only other Best Picture Oscar contender I'll be able to get to before the ceremony, so I've got to make it count.  As I've said before, I'm interested in seeing the others, like "Bohemian Rhapsody", "A Star Is Born" and "BlacKkKlansman", but I feel like this one is the most urgent, I can get to all the others later.  And if I've only seen 2 out of 8 Best Picture Nominees (this one and "Black Panther"), I'm OK with that, 25% is still very good for me.

Steve Carell carries over from "Battle of the Sexes".

THE PLOT: The story of Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucratic Washington insider who quietly wielded immense power as Vice President to George W. Bush, reshaping the country and the globe in ways that we still feel today.

AFTER: Now part of me is wishing I'd held off on this film, because I've been working on assembling all of my documentaries into a coherent chain, and so far only 17 of them are linking up together.  If I'd known which celebs and politicians had appeared in the archive footage in this film, I think I could have gotten that up higher, at least to 20.  Well, I can't unwatch this now and drop "Beautiful Boy" into its place, so I'm just going to have to work something else out come July.

But hey, this also works here - movie based on true events, large cast of actors with many cameos, and some actors that end up looking like their real-life counterparts, while others, hmm, not so much. The make-up work done to make Christian Bale look like Dick Cheney is ah-MAZE-balls, plus the actor has the voice down, Cheney's rhythm and pauses are spot on.  Though my wife wanted to know why Cheney here was talking "like Batman".  Carell as Rumsfeld is a solid choice, as is Amy Adams for Lynne Cheney, but then when you get to some of the lesser parts, like George H.W. Bush, who's only in one scene, it seems they just couldn't find a good look-alike for the part.  Casting Tyler Perry as Colin Powell is inspired, though, and the woman playing Condoleeza Rice also had a strong resemblance.   But then, Bill Camp as Gerald Ford had only a passing resemblance.

But I have to champion this film because it supports what I've been saying for years, that Dick Cheney was really the man in control during the Bush Jr. administrations, wielding more power than the President, and that W. was nothing more than a figurehead, a President in name only who just wanted the prestige and make his father proud of him, plus the benefits of traveling around the world on the country's dime and eating at state dinners and such.  Now, why would Cheney participate in such a scam, if he believed, as most do, that the Vice Presidency was a useless, thankless, nothing-burger of a job?  Ah, but as this film points out, Cheney didn't have the polling numbers to be President, plus his gay daughter was a potential media talking-point hazard, so the VP job was literally the next best thing, plus he'd be one heartbeat away from being President himself.

And, as depicted in this film, he could make a deal with George W. Bush to handle the boring, day-to-day matters, like, say, foreign policy.  And domestic policy, overseeing the military, the economy, energy, all the mundane stuff - which, taken together, meant he'd be running the country while W. took the credit and made all the appearances and travelled around the world.  What's that statement about absolute power again?  Through some neat little legal loopholes, Cheney's lawyer also determined that since the Vice-President is in charge of overseeing the legislative branch and breaking ties in the Senate, as a result he's part of two branches of the government, and ultimately responsible to neither (I suppose that's one interpretation...).

Look, government conspiracies are everywhere these days, both real and imagined.  The latest one I saw on the web concerned the "secret envelopes" that were given out at the George H.W. Bush funeral, because people who watch C-Span had nothing better to do than to pause the televised footage and figure out which important people got envelopes in their programs.  Why did Michelle Obama get one, but not Barack?  Why did the Bidens get an envelope, and why did Laura Bush pass one to Jeb?  More importantly, what was inside?  Theories have ranged from subpoenas or indictments to a note about Dubya's failing health.  But people ignored the simplest explanation - after a funeral the family of the deceased could invite friends over for a light meal, maybe some coffee and pastries, to thank them for their attendance.  So that's probably what it was, and you can imagine that when the guests are ex-presidents and former first ladies, there's probably a need to be discreet.  They probably all met up at some well-protected location, like a coffee shop or meeting room in a federal building, then they read the Illuminati oath aloud, drank the blood of three virgins and did unspeakable things to Thomas Jefferson's skull.  See, no big conspiracy at all...

But the Cheney things are for real - like how he was a drunk loser working on a road-crew until his wife told him he had to turn his life around, so he figured he'd go where all the dirtiest dirt-bags end up, Washington D.C.  He started as an intern for Rep. Donald Rumsfeld, who became an economic advisor to President Nixon - but after seeing the meeting for the secret bombing of Cambodia, Rumsfeld fell out of favor and was sent abroad, so Cheney was also on the outs, but only until Watergate and Nixon's resignation.  Rumsfeld came back to work for Gerald Ford as Secretary of Defense, since he wasn't tainted by the scandal, and Cheney became Ford's Chief of Staff.

He was on the outs again during the Carter years, but became Wyoming's U.S. Representative during the Reagan years, and supported all of the pro-business, pro-fossil fuel legislation, while voting against every nice like protecting endangered species and ensuring clean water, etc. etc.  Cheney served as Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush - remember Gulf War I?  But another Democratic President sidelined him again, so he was forced to slum it in the corporate world, making millions as CEO of Halliburton.  That's when he made the deal with Bush the younger to "find him his VP", but really, how hard did Cheney look, when he secretly wanted the job (and all the power) for himself?  This is illustrated in the film with a fishing metaphor, baiting the hook, then teasing the prey, sinking the hook and reeling it in.  He just had to figure out what Dubya wanted, and then pretend like it was Dubya's idea to select him when he said he could provide it.

(Part of this diabolical plan, lying in wait while supposedly looking for the right man to be Bush's vice-president, then stepping in at the last minute, meant that Cheney never went through the proper vetting process, never had to divulge his income or show his tax returns, or answer the questionnaire that all of the other candidates for the position had to fill out.  Never had to put his Halliburton earnings and stock in a blind trust while serving as VP, and never got called out for BLATANT conflicts of interest...)

From that point, the scandals come at us faster than we can process, which is a little reminiscent of the current Trump administration - we can barely wrap our heads around the stupid thing Trump did or said yesterday, when there's a new one to deal with today.  Only Cheney's things were all mean-spirited or downright EVIL, not just stupid.  Invading Iraq with very sketchy information about WMD's and ties to 9/11.  The Valerie Plame affair.  Allowing the bombing of Afghan civilians and re-defining torture as "enhanced interrogation" in order to make it legal.  Guantanamo Bay.  Wiretapping ordinary citizens.  And let's not forget he shot his friend Harry Whittington in the FACE while hunting birds.  I wish the film could have dug a little deeper into that last one, because WTF happened?  Did it happen just because Cheney was too lazy to get out of the car, or did he have some grudge against his "friend"?  And why did the shot guy have to publicly apologize to Cheney, and not the other way around?  It boggles the mind...

Throughout it all, there are the heart attacks - and I remember at one point, Cheney was being powered by some artificial heart, so for a while our country had like a cyborg VP, or to put it another way, this man literally and figuratively had no heart.  But I guess eventually they found a donor so he could continue on doing his "important work".  Geez, it would be nice if accidentally giving him some liberal or compassionate donor's heart could have made a difference in his personality, right?  Too bad the human body doesn't work that way.

The film plays a little fast and loose with the rules, much like this directors previous film, "The Big Short" did, by breaking the fourth wall and being super-aware that it's a movie, and playing with those conventions.  There are plenty of in-jokes, like having Naomi Watts appear as a newscaster, which is no doubt a nod to her portrayal of Valerie Plame in "Fair Game".

At one point there's a false ending where things appear to work out for the best, but of course it goes a little overboard with the hopey-changey stuff, so we figure out pretty quickly that it's a bunch of B.S., and the happy ending was never going to come.  Instead Bale (as Cheney) looks right in the camera and explains how he stands behind every decision he made (and therefore every underhanded or evil thing he'd ever done) and had no regrets.  Geez, that's chilling, it's like a Bond villain talking about his plan, but AFTER he'd blown up the world, and not before.   If Bale wins Best Actor for this, I think I'm pretty OK with that.  And it's up for Best Make-Up, too, not to mention Best Supporting Actor and Actress.

I probably would have scores the film higher if it had stuck to a linear narrative, and not go jumping around through Dick Cheney's life like some modern Republican version of "Slaughterhouse Five".  Still, I support what it had to say, because all through the Obama years, I wondered why nobody ever called this Cheney guy on the carpet, by, at the very least, prosecuting him for war crimes.  I'd still like to hear a solid explanation on this.

Also starring Christian Bale (last seen in "Hostiles"), Amy Adams (last seen in "On the Road"), Sam Rockwell (last seen in "Mute"), Alison Pill (last seen in "Goon: Last of the Enforcers"), Jesse Plemons (last seen in "Game Night"), Lily Rabe (last seen in "No Reservations"), Tyler Perry (last seen in "Gone Girl"), Justin Kirk (last seen in "Ghostbusters"), LisaGay Hamilton (last seen in "Lovelace"), Don McManus (ditto), Eddie Marsan (last seen in "Atomic Blonde"), Bill Camp (last seen in "Red Sparrow"), Stephen Adly Guirgus (last seen in "Birdman"), Matthew Jacobs, Adam Bartley, Kirk Bovill (last seen in "Free State of Jones"), Jillian Armenante, Fay Masterson, Shea Whigham (last seen in "Kong: Skull Island"), Joseph Beck, Paul Perri, Paul Yoo, Alex MacNicoll, Aidan Gail, Cailee Spaeny, Karolina Kennedy Durrance, Violet Hicks, with cameos from Naomi Watts (last seen in "Fair Game"), Alfred Molina (last seen in "Secret in Their Eyes"), and archive footage of Osama Bin Laden (last seen in "Seal Team Six"), Tony Blair,  John Boehner (last seen in "Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me"), Tom Brokaw, Jimmy Carter (last seen in "American Made"), Hillary Clinton (also last seen in "Seal Team Six"), Morton Downey Jr., Jane Fonda (last seen in "Michael Jackson's Journey from Motown to Off the Wall"), Whoopi Goldberg (last seen in "The Beatles: Eight Days a Week - The Touring Years"), Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Benito Mussolini, Richard Nixon (last seen in "Super Duper Alice Cooper"), Barack Obama (also last seen in "Seal Team Six"), Mike Pence, Jeff Probst, Nancy Reagan (last seen in "Long Strange Trip"), Ronald Reagan (ditto), Mr. T, Barbara Walters (last seen in "Whitney: Can I Be Me")

RATING: 6 out of 10 undisclosed locations