Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

Year 13, Day 107 - 4/17/21 - Movie #3,811

BEFORE: "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one of those films that give me a ton of linking options, I could have followed it with an action film with Michael Keaton in it, a sci-fi film with Eddie Redmayne, a classy film with Mark Rylance, or even "Mudbound" with Kelvin Harrison, a Netflix film that's been on my list for what feels like forever (which then could have linked to "The United States vs. Billie Holiday", I just realized...).  Hell, I could have linked to "The Man Who Killed Hitler and then Bigfoot", which I'm very curious about - but I'm going to pass on all that and link to the "Borat" sequel, and try very hard to not go down the rabbit hole of second guessing myself.  A funny thing happened since I added this film to the list last October, it became the Oscar-nominated "Borat" sequel, with noms in the category of Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.  Umm, adapted from what, from the first film?  I'm not sure that's how things should work.  Not my problem...

Anyway, Sacha Baron Cohen carries over, and that's an obvious link, but sometimes I need those to get me where I want to go.  This also sets up my political documentary chain that starts tomorrow, which in many ways is long overdue.  We had an election and a pandemic and a riot since I last watched anything really political, unless you count the three documentary series I watched, all trying to figure out who Q is. (No spoilers here, but I don't count TV series in my mix.)

Let's check the TCM schedule for tomorrow's "31 Days of Oscar" line-up, April 18 and then get to "Borat" OK? Chenquie...

6:00 am "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" (1936) - SEEN IT

8:00 am "My Fair Lady" (1964) - SEEN IT

11:00 am "My Favorite Wife" (1940) - SEEN IT

12:30 pm "My Favorite Year" (1982) - SEEN IT

2:15 pm "Mystery Street" (1950)

4:00 pm "The Naked Spur" (1953)

5:45 pm "National Velvet" (1944)

8:00 pm "Nebraska" (2013) - SEEN IT

10:15 pm "Network" (1976) - SEEN IT

12:30 am "Night Must Fall" (1937)

2:45 am "The Night of the Iguana" (1964) - SEEN IT

5:00 am "Ninotchka" (1939)

That's a good day for me tomorrow, 7 seen out of 12.  I probably saw "National Velvet" some time when I was a kid, but I'm just not sure.  Never saw "Ninotchka", but I saw "Silk Stockings", which is essentially a remake.  Either way, I rise a bit to 886 seen out of 207, which is 41.5%

THE PLOT: Borat returns from Kazakhstan to America and this time he reveals more about the American culture, the COVID-19 pandemic and the political elections. 

AFTER: Big credit to Borat's creators for bringing him back at JUST the right time - we need laughs more than ever right now, especially laughs at the expense of Republicans, Qanon/preppers, EverTrumpers, anti-abortionists, plastic surgeons and debutante balls. Am I ready to laugh about the pandemic yet?  Hmm, I'm not sure.  Give me some time, but I do tend to watch all my news filtered through the lens of the Daily Show and other nightly talk show hosts, so there's humor to be found in anything, if you approach it from the proper angle.  When I switch to MSNBC at about 2 am, that's really when the humor stops.  

They didn't need to explain where Borat Sagdiyev has supposedly been for the last 14 years, but he's been breaking rocks in a gulag in Kazakhstan after his last moviefilm made the whole country look ridiculous and backwards.  Then they didn't need to explain why Borat/Cohen dressed as Borat can't walk down the street in the US and A without people stopping him for an autograph, only they sort of had to, and it leads to Borat/Cohen both having to adopt even better disguises than the last time, and finding people to interview who obviously didn't see the first film.  I don't tend to watch other "prank" comedy, but it's a big thing now to dupe people on camera and still somehow get them to sign a release.  Nobody really does it better than Borat/Cohen, but to be fair here, we're not really sure how much of this all was candid, and how much was staged.  The entire debutante ball seen here, for example, was a fake event, but it's possible that the attendees were not aware of that, and thought it was real.  

Same goes for the Trump rally in Olympia, Washington, where Borat dresses up as a hick to find his daughter at the rally, but he ends up on stage singing a song as "Country Steve", about the Wuhan Flu, and what to do with Fauci, reporters, basically anybody that the Trumpers don't like.  That had to be a set-up, start to finish, but who's to say?  I mean, from a filmmaking perspective the band had to know the music, security had to know what was happening, but beyond that, we're not sure who's in on it and whose reactions were genuine.  The two Qanon conspiracy guys that Borat/Cohen was staying with, didn't they wonder why this guy had a cameraman following him around, recording him all the time?  Who invites a foreigner to stay in their house for an indeterminate amount of time, during a pandemic lockdown, and then agrees to let the cameraman and sound guy come along, too?  That's a lot to ask, and it starts to call the whole cinema verité thing into question.  But I'm probably overthinking it, and should learn to just take it all as it comes, right?  Can't do it, can't shut off the "producer brain" that always wants to know how a scene was done, what went into the filmmaking process. 

The overall story-arc here is good, though, Borat is released from the gulag on a mission to America, and he's glad to "make reportings" again, now that the US&A has been taken over by an evil, corrupt presence in the White House - Obama, of course.  But the "news" is good, that a new savior is in command who's going to fix everything, and his name is "McDonald Trump".  ZING!  If the shoe fits... So Borat's sent to America on a mission, to get close to Trump, by offering a gift to VP Pence, initially this gift is Kazakhstan's Minister of Culture and greatest porn-star, Johnny the Monkey, but due to a mix-up, it turns out to be Borat's own daughter in the crate.  Facing execution for botching the mission, Borat decides instead to offer his daughter, Tutar, to Pence, because he knows for a fact how much of a ladies' man (and vagine-grabber) that Pence is.  This all is wrong on so many levels that it somehow makes perfect sense in the Borat-verse.  (The complete title of the film also includes: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, but that really gives away too much, plus it doesn't fit on a marquee, so I'm just going to refer to it by the shortened title above.)

This leads Borat and Tutar on a non-straight cross-country journey that brings them to the CPAC conference (Georgia?), the Texas State Fair, Oklahoma City, and then up to Washington state before ending in New York, and Borat is forced to adopt many new disguises (including a Klansman and Trump himself) before somehow making it to NYC in time to stop his daughter from offering herself to Rudy Giuliani, in last year's most controversial hotel room scene that just may have influenced the 2020 election.  Come on, we all knew Giuliani was dirty and had the morals of a sea slug, but the scene was interrupted and now we'll never know EXACTLY what he's capable of, even though we already know. 

At the end of it all, Kazakhstan becomes a less patriarchal society, Borat's daughter learns that women can drive cars and don't need to get breast implants, and the country's "Running of the Jew" ceremony has morphed into the "Running of the American", plus Borat learned that the Holocaust was real and Jewish people don't infect others with venom.  As personal character growth goes, this really is about the best that we can hope for.  Now, what are we all going to do about the U.S. citizens who believe FOR REAL that Democrats and Hollywood stars are running pedophile rings out of pizza restaurants, and that they drink the blood of scared babies?  I'm waiting....

I'm basing my score on how often I laughed, which was very often.  Heading in to a bunch of probably very dry political documentaries, I kind of needed this as a palate cleanser of sorts.  By no means is this a perfect film, but I appreciate how difficult it probably was to make this, and find the right comedic tone in these difficult times.  (I know I'm going to catch some flak for this from my friends..."Wait, are you saying this film was BETTER than (name of film they liked)?"  Well, in some ways, yes, but you really can't compare any two of my ratings to prove a point, each film is its own thing, and sometimes a film just HITS on a particular day, when I'm in a particular mood.)

Point of order, I watch films with the subtitles turned on whenever possible, since I got my hearing aid last year this just makes things easier - I can hear fine, but you never know when that battery is going to run out, and this also helps me avoid running sequences over again when an actor is hard to understand.  So I started watching today's film on AmazonPrime, made sure that the subtitles were toggled on, then sat down in the recliner across the room - I usually watch Amazon, Netflix and Hulu through our PlayStation, and the game controller only reaches a few feet, but our TV is so big that I sit about 10 feet away to watch.  I soon realized that the subtitles were NOT in English, they'd somehow been switched to a language I'd never heard of, Bahasa Melayu or something. This was extra bizarre, watching a film with the sound in English, characters speaking in mock-Kazakh, with subtitles in Malaysian.  Was this another prank, does this film play on Amazon with random subtitles?  If not, how did our account settings get changed?  It took me like 10 minutes to figure out how to change the subtitles back to English...

Also starring Maria Bakalova, Dani Popescu, Manuel Vieru, Miroslav Tolj, Alin Popa, Ion Gheorghe, Nicolae Gheorghe, Nicoleta Ciobanu, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pence, Brian Patrick Snyder, Macy Chanel, Jonathan Bright, Jean Sheffield, Charles Wallace, Jeanise Jones, Alan Knight, Jerry Holleman, Jim Russell, Judith Dim Evans, with a. cameo from Tom Hanks (last seen in "A Very Murray Christmas") and archive footage of Barack Obama (last seen in "This Must Be the Place"), Donald Trump (last seen in "Da 5 Bloods"), Melania Trump, Vladimir Putin (last seen in "Angel Has Fallen"), Nancy Pelosi, Justin Trudeau, Jair Bolsonaro, Kim Jong-Un and Kanye West (last seen in "Fyre Fraud").

RATING: 8 out of 10 gypsy tears

The Trial of the Chicago 7

Year 13, Day 106 - 4/16/21 - Movie #3,810

BEFORE: Yes! Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries over from "The Brothers Bloom", and I'm right where I said I would be in mid-April, watching two Oscar contenders in a row, and these will probably be the last ones I'll be able to watch before the Academy Awards telecast in just 9 days.  Tomorrow's film just would NOT link to anything but political documentaries, at least it didn't when I came up with the schedule.  (It's possible that now other links have opened up, like to that Tom Hanks film "News of the World", but it's too late, the die is cast...). Anyway, the good news is that I'm here, where I wanted to be, and I've got a clear plan through Mother's Day all the way to Memorial Day.  

What I'm looking at now is an Oscar telecast where in each category I've only seen one of the nominees, occasionally two (like with Best Animated Feature) but usually just one.  I'm OK with that, it's better than most years, and it gives me something to root for in each race, but by no means can I be considered an expert in any single category.  I'm trying to not read any of the handicappers' predictions, so I can be surprised, but if an Oscar-themed issue of Entertainment Weekly shows up in my mailbox, well, then I can hardly be held responsible. 

Tomorrow is Saturday, April 17, and here's the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" line-up for Day 17:

6:30 am "Meet Me in Las Vegas" (1956)

8:30 am "Meet Me in St. Louis" (1944) - SEEN IT

10:30 am "The Merry Widow" (1934)

12:15 pm "Midnight Lace" (1960)

2:15 pm "Mighty Joe Young" (1949)

4:00 pm "Mildred Pierce" (1945) - SEEN IT

6:00 pm "Million Dollar Mermaid" (1952)

8:00 pm "The Miracle Worker" (1962)

10:00 pm "Mister Roberts" (1955) - SEEN IT

12:15 am "Mogambo" (1953)

2:30 am "Mona Lisa" (1986)

4:30 am "Monsieur Hulot's Holiday" (1953)

Only another 3 out of 12 added to my tally tomorrow, with just 79 seen out of 195, I sink to 40.5% seen.  But I think Sunday's really going to be my day.  From Saturday's line-up, I'd consider recording "Mona Lisa", I've heard good things about it, but I just can't right now, my DVR is too full and I have no slots open, because I've been hitting Netflix really hard, and that's not going to change until the end of the month.  Maybe I'll put it on the "someday" list, down at the bottom. 

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Steal This Movie" (Movie #3,789)

THE PLOT: The story of 7 people on trial, stemming from various charges surrounding the uprising at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

AFTER: OK, I've kind of got the inside track here, because I already watched one movie about Abbie Hoffman, just three weeks ago, and this trial was a key part of his story.  But today we're doing a deep dive into basically JUST the trial, or the riots and the trial, really.  There's a great prologue of archive footage that starts the film and basically sets the scene, which is great for those of us who were too busy in 1968 getting ready to be born.  Or, you know, for the kids out there who didn't get to be alive at all during the 1960's like us cool people.  But then just as all the key figures are in place in Chicago for their demonstration, the film skips ahead 5 months, and suddenly its AFTER the election, and a new administration has to prosecute the rioters.  (IF that seems a bit familiar, hang on, many more connections to current events are coming...)

Wait, did I miss it?  I only looked away for a moment, what happened at the riots?  Ah, but the film is about the TRIAL, not the riots.  This is first and foremost a legal drama.  But we're still going to get there, the film's going to flashback to the riots quite frequently, and normally I hate these split-timeline overly flashback-y deals, but here it makes SENSE, because think about it, if the director showed you the riots and then the trial, you'd already HAVE all the information presented at the trial, so the trial would be a duplication in storytelling at that point, plus you would have already formed an opinion, most likely.  This way, it's like you're one of the jurors or something, you get to learn what happened at the riots, plus directly after, only when it's pertinent or presented in court, so now it's like YOU ARE THERE, in all ways possible, you're hanging on all the testimony as it's presented, and you have to piece it together, like anybody else would, from the evidence before you.  That's pretty cool.  I'll endure a little bending of the timestream if it can create an effect like that.  

Here's where me having the inside track, and some advance knowledge, hurt just a bit. Like, I knew that Bobby Seale would eventually be given a separate trial from the others (they weren't called "The Chicago 8", after all...) but I didn't know WHEN, exactly, this was going to happen.  And I didn't know the extremes that the judge would go to when asking him to be silent in court.  There's a legal Catch-22 presented here, because Bobby Seale's lawyer was in an accident, so he couldn't represent him in court, and whenever Seale would complain to the judge about him being tried without his lawyer present, the judge simply wouldn't listen, because it wasn't "proper" for Seale to address the judge directly, instead of through his lawyer.  Who, umm, wasn't there.  But try telling that to the judge, who was apparently incapable of seeing the conflict in the logic.  

There are many more examples that portrayed this judge (Hoffman, no relation to Abbie) as very strict, and obsessive about the rules, to the point of being close to incompetent.  He couldn't get some of the defendants' names correct, he dispensed contempt of court rulings out like candy, and seemed very unclear on how to handle certain evidence from testimony.  Still, since so many of his rulings were against the Chicago 7, there was much dispute over whether the whole trial was a sham meant to railroad them, or maybe he just didn't like hippies, any of them, and that completely colored his judgment.  As my driver's ed teacher liked to say, "Justice is whatever the judge had for breakfast."  

Why is this film particularly relevant right now?  Two reasons, the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 and the Capitol Hill riots of 2021.  For the BLM protests, it's very easy to see the connections, time and again last year we saw what began as (relatively) peaceful protests that turned ugly, and you have to ask yourself whether the police really are handling protests in the best way when they turn up in riot gear, with plastic shields, and start lobbing tear gas into the crowds to disperse them.  Is that really the best solution?  Maybe there wouldn't have been so many calls to defund the police if those police hadn't spent so much of their budgets on tear gas, pepper spray and billy clubs.  In the case of the 1968 riots, the final determination is that the violence was instigated by the police, under orders from the mayor of Chicago, and not by the hippies.  Or if there was violence from the hippies, it came from the undercover cops disguised as hippies, and that's essentially the same thing. 

Now, connecting the 1968 riots to the January 6, 2021 assault on Capitol Hill is a bit murkier, perhaps I shouldn't even go there.  But I can't say that one set of demonstrations is "right" and the other is "wrong" just because in one case the demonstrators were Democrats and in the other, they were Republicans.  But Abbie Hoffman here made a key argument in his testimony - the prosecutor asked him if he believed it was OK to overthrow the U.S. government, and Hoffman replied, "We do it every four years."  It's a valid point, there's an engine in place in our country for radical change at the end of each term, and it's (part of) what makes our country great.  The problem with the Capital Hill riots was that we'd already gone through the process, the election already happened, and one side, naturally, was unhappy with the results.  That's bound to happen, but very rarely will the people unite, take up arms, and attempt to interfere with the electoral process.  They were going to overthrow the overthrow, and that's NOT allowed.  One overthrow good, two is no bueno.  For 200 years the losing party has always complained, acted like babies and then bowed out, to lick their wounds and try to figure out a way to get back in power in the next election.  2020 was different, thanks to the internet, social media, and a President who refused to concede the election and instead magnify the lie about election fraud, and then had the audacity to use impressionable (dumb) Americans to do his dirty work by storming the Capitol, while he watched from the safety of the White House.  

What hit me on January 6, while many people were shocked by the violence, and people who seemed to have no respect for the American electoral process, I wasn't shocked at all.  That mess at the Capitol, that misguided throng of humanity, that ragtag bunch of screwed-up rednecks, ever-Trumpers and Q-Anons, THAT's America, and we have to deal with those people in some way, going forward, or it's going to happen again.  These are the same people, essentially, who dumped tea into Boston Harbor, who rose up during the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, who seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy.  They saw the country going in the wrong direction, as defined by their terms or ones handed to them, and they rose up to do something about it.  For good or bad, that's the same kind of spirit that led to the American Revolution, that got England off our backs following the Stamp Act, the Intolerable Acts, and several other Acts I can't recall.  What's that I said back in my review of "Havana", the only thing different between a revolution and an attempted coup is that one is successful, and the other less so.  

I maintain that we're all very, very lucky that none of the Capitol Hill rioters had any interest in, or aptitude for, running a country, otherwise we could have seen a man in a big furry horned hat swearing in Trump for the second time.  Instead, once they all got inside the Capitol, they just committed acts of vandalism, and when they realized that, you know, running a country might involve some hard work, they left - and now we can all spend our summer watching "The Trial of the Capitol Hill 47" or however many it turns out to be.  I'm down for that. 

Anyway, back to 1968.  Eventually we learn the details behind the riots, how Tom Hayden got arrested for letting the air out of the tires of a police car - but he was allowed to turn himself in the next day, since there were police cameras on site at the time of his infraction.  Later Hoffman, Rubin and others were leading a protest to the police station where Hayden was being held, and the police surrounded them on three sides outside a hotel window, which ended up being shattered, of course. (But where, oh where, was Pigasus?  Wikipedia confirms this animal candidate existed, but I guess he's too low-brow for an Aaron Sorkin film...)

There seem to be some other discrepancies here, as this film shows the protestors being met with armed guards on the streets, and forced back into the park, where the big battle takes place.  But Wikipedia is telling me that the big confrontation became known as "The Battle of Michigan Avenue", which seems to imply that it took place in the streets, outside the Conrad Hilton.  So, which is it?  There were definitely some skirmished in Grant Park, but since the film chose to play a little fast and loose with the timeline, it's hard after just one viewing to piece the whole timeline together. 

The most interesting part to me, from the trial part anyway, was seeing Abbie Hoffman and Tom Hayden mentally challenging each other behind the scenes.  Two people with very different outlooks, different approaches to getting the message out, and yet somehow they needed each other in the end, and two people can disagree vastly, yet still be on the same side of the political spectrum.  This stuff was fascinating, showing disrespect for the judge and the legal process was less so.  Even if you don't like the fact that the judge is ruling against you, I think you still have to respect the legal institution as a whole, because some countries don't have this.  In some countries you can get killed just for disagreeing with the government, and a protest, even a peaceful one, would be right out of the question. 

So, who wore it better, Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman, or Vincent D'Onofrio?  Hmm, it's  kind of a toss-up, I think maybe I'll Google some real photos or footage of Abbie to see who got closer with that weird accent.  (I just did, Cohen's the clear winner, except he's much too tall.)  But it's worth noting that Sacha Baron Cohen looks a LOT like the caricature of Abbie Hoffman seen in the poster for "Steal This Movie", which doesn't resemble D'Onofrio at all. Weird.  Also, "Steal This Movie" sort of cheated when they cast an actor to play Tom Hayden, they used Hayden's son, Troy Garity.  

But can it win an Oscar?  Again, I have no idea, because I've only seen one out of the eight films nominated - now it's the one I'll be rooting for.  This is up for 6 Oscars, so it might win something, I guess we'll find out in 9 days.  Sorkin was trying to get Spielberg to direct this film back in 2006, and then it took another 15 years for Sorkin to direct it himself and get it released.  If it wins, that means it will have peaked at the right time. 

Also starring Eddie Redmayne (last seen in "The Aeronauts"), Sacha Baron Cohen (last seen in "Alice Through the Looking Glass"), Alex Sharp (last seen in "The Hustle"), Jeremy Strong (last seen in "The Gentlemen"), John Carroll Lynch (last seen in "Lay the Favorite"), Noah Robbins (last seen in "Set It Up"), Daniel Flaherty (last seen in "The Meyerowitz Stories"), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (last seen in "Baywatch"), Mark Rylance (last seen in "Dunkirk"), Ben Shenkman (last seen in "Just Like Heaven"), J.C. MacKenzie (last seen in "The Irishman"), Frank Langella (last heard in "This Must Be the Place"), Kelvin Harrison Jr. (last seen in "The Birth of a Nation"), Michael Keaton (last seen in "Dumbo"), John Doman (last seen in "The Company Men"), Wayne Duvall (last seen in "Richard Jewell"), Caitlin Fitzgerald (last seen in "Adult Beginners"), Max Adler (last seen in "Sully"), C.J. Wilson (last seen in "Manchester by the Sea"), Damian Young (last seen in "Wonderstruck"), Alice Kremelberg, Alan Metoskie, Meghan Rafferty, Brady Jenness, Brendan Burke (last seen in "The Kitchen"), Tiffany Denise Hobbs, Steve Routman (last seen in "Bad Education"), John F. Carpenter, Larry Mitchell, Mike Geraghty, Michael Brunlieb, Michelle Hurst (last seen in "Frances Ha"), Kathleen Garrett, Michael A. Dean, with archive footage of Walter Cronkite (last seen in "The U.S. vs. John Lennon"), Richard J. Daley (last seen in "Steal This Movie"), Robert F. Kennedy (ditto), Lyndon Johnson (last seen in "Da 5 Bloods") and Martin Luther King (ditto).

RATING: 7 out of 10 Molotov cocktails

The Brothers Bloom

Year 13, Day 105 - 4/15/21 - Movie #3,809

BEFORE: Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries over from "Project Power", and he apparently just has a small uncredited cameo here (he's apparently in every Rian Johnson film, for good luck or something) but that counts, for my purposes.  I could have dropped this film or rescheduled, since it's the middle film of three with Mr. Gordon-Levitt, and the chain would neatly close up without it, but if I'm going to complete a 6-film tribute to Marvel's Infinity Stones (or Gems, if you read the comics), and I needed a film that symbolizes REALITY (the red one).  For my purposes I'm counting "21 Bridges" as SPACE (blue), "I'm Not Here" as MIND (yellow), "Palm Spring" as TIME (green), "Soul" as SOUL (orange) and "Project Power" as POWER (purple).  

I just didn't see tomorrow's film as a good enough stand-in for REALITY - it may be, for all I know, but a movie full of con games seemed a bit more on point.  So it's by no means a "Joseph Gordon-Levitt film", but I hope to see him in his uncredited cameo.  (Thanks, Wiki...). Then tomorrow I'll get to that Oscar contender that I've been working towards.  If not tonight, I had a slot five days after Mother's Day that this film would have fit into, but let's cross it off tonight.  If I can count Adam Goldberg seen sleeping on a train in "Before Sunrise", I can count this appearance as legit.

Before I start, here's the line-up for tomorrow, April 16, on TCM, as they cross the midpoint of their "31 Days of Oscar" schedule:

6:30 am "The Lost Patrol" (1934)

8:00 am "Love Affair" (1939)

9:45 am "Love Me or Leave Me" (1955)

12:00 pm "Lover Come Back" (1961)

2:00 pm "Lust for Life" (1956) - SEEN IT

4:15 pm "The Magnificent Ambersons" (1942) - SEEN IT

6:00 pm "The Maltese Falcon" (1941) - SEEN IT

8:00 pm "A Man For All Seasons" (1966) - SEEN IT

10:15 pm "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956) - SEEN IT

12:30 am "The Manchurian Candidate" (1962) - SEEN IT

2:45 am "Manhattan Melodrama" (1934)

4:20 am "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" (1971) - SEEN IT

Yes, I'm coming back - I've seen a big 7 out of these 12, so that's 76 out of 183 overall, and my percentage seen rises to 41.5%

FOLLOW-UP TO: "The Hustle" (Movie #3,771)

THE PLOT: The Brothers Bloom are the best con men in the world, swindling millionaires with complex scenarios of lust and intrigue.  Now they've decided to take on one last job - showing a beautiful and eccentric heiress the time of her life with a romantic adventure that takes them around the world.  

AFTER:  This is a magnificent little film, I'm so glad I watched it today.  Maybe it just looks great by comparison, it's ten times the film that "Soul" was, and it turns out that I like a really good, twisty con game film more than a mediocre non-Marvel superhero film.  Imagine a cross between the best parts of "Now You See Me" and "The Darjeeling Limited".  Or "Grand Budapest Hotel" with the soundtrack of "Rushmore" - basically it's as if Wes Anderson directed "The Spanish Prisoner", if that means anything to you, then you're in luck.

The whole first act, showing the Brothers Bloom at the age of 10 and 13, going from one foster home to another, always getting in trouble and learning better ways to scam the other kids in every town, is told as a long poem.  The combination of the narration and the dialogue all fits together in a loose rhyme scheme, kind of like "The Grinch" or something - man, that must have been tough to construct, but I also wish it could have continued for the whole film, it's unique and gorgeous...

When we catch up with the brothers 25 years later, we see just the tail end of one of their con scenarios, this one involves buried money, a mansion currently on fire, and a gun that shoots blanks combined with a squib, to make the mark think he's killed Stephen.  What seems outrageous to us is apparently quite routine to the Bloom brothers, and that's the whole point.  The younger brother, Bloom (yes, his name is Bloom Bloom, deal with it.) has been through so many fake scenarios written by his brother that he desperately needs something real in his life, just for his own sanity.  So he quits the whole game, gets off the crazy merry-go-round and heads off somewhere far away where his brother won't find him. 

Three months later, his brother finds him and says he's lined up the perfect mark, an heiress in New Jersey who's been sheltered her whole life, picked up an array of odd hobbies, and would probably be eager to go on an adventure with them, however it's one where every element is fake - or is it?  Characters keep getting introduced, there's a rare book that needs to be stolen from a museum in Prague, and to the film's credit, I was never really sure what parts of the plan were set-ups, and which were real.  Part of these cons, after all, might be creating the illusion that things aren't going to plan, which makes them more believable to the mark.  Parsing out what's real and what isn't, is therefore part of the game for the audience.  

This eventually puts the brothers in the orbit of their old confidence mentor, Diamond Dog, who seems like a really nasty sort.  But when the brothers need his help, and push comes to shove, will he enact his revenge, or go along with the scheme to get money from the heiress?  Meanwhile, Bloom has fallen in love with the heiress, of course, so his loyalties are torn, also.  There are schemes within schemes and by the end of things, nobody really knows what's fake (see, I trusted my instincts, this film is all about questioning REALITY) and by the time it's all become clear, it could be too late to fix everything.  The perfect con turns out to be one where everybody involved gets what they want (or thinks that they do) - but what, exactly, does everybody really want, deep down?

This film is FREE on Tubi (tubitv.com) or on IMDB.com - no rental fee, no monthly membership fee, just Google it and watch and enjoy - so why WOULDN'T you?  In a way, this film almost seems like it's too good to be on a free service, did I miss the boat on this one, or is it still waiting to be discovered as a future classic?  I'm not sure. 

Also starring Adrien Brody (last seen in "Third Person"), Mark Ruffalo (last seen in "13 Going on 30"), Rachel Weisz (last seen in "The Constant Gardener"), Rinko Kikuchi (last seen in "Pacific Rim: Uprising"), Maximilian Schell (last seen in "A Bridge Too Far"), Robbie Coltrane (last heard in "Brave"), Zachary Gordon (last heard in "Norm of the North"), Max Records (last seen in "The Sitter"), Andy Nyman (last seen in "The Commuter"), Noah Segan (last seen in "Brick"), Nora Zehetner (ditto), Stefan Kapicic (last heard in "Deadpool 2"), with a cameo from Lukas Haas (also last seen in "Brick") and the voice of Ricky Jay (last seen in "Tomorrow Never Dies"). 

RATING: 8 out of 10 card tricks

Project Power

Year 13, Day 104 - 4/14/21 - Movie #3,808

BEFORE: OK, a couple programming notes, I was fooling around with possible post-Mother's Day paths, and I think I found the chain that will take me from there (May 9) to something appropriate for Memorial Day.  It's not perfect, nothing really is, but all year I've managed to keep my chain going by breaking it up into little sections, just getting to the next holiday, instead of keeping an eye on the big picture, which is impossible.  I've also developed a pattern of programming too many films, then when I need to drop some films, working them in to the next chain I plan - it's worked so far in 2021, so I'm going to keep doing it.  I've got too many films scheduled for April, so I'm dropping one documentary and one film with Oprah Winfrey and they're being rescheduled...

...for July, believe it or not.  Because even though I don't have a clear path yet between Memorial Day and July 4 (wait, I think Father's Day is in between those two somewhere...) I already know what film I want to watch on July 4, and from that film it's just a couple obvious steps to some more documentaries, many of which are music-based - so it looks like I'm planning another big Summer Concert Rock Doc chain, and those films being let go from April's line-up could be a perfect lead out from that, and then I can already see how they could connect to "Hellboy" and "Black Widow", FINALLY.  Now if I can just program June with some Father's Day films, graduation and maybe even some Gay Pride films, I'll be all set until mid-July, and that's usually just a hop, skip and a jump to back-to-school films, then Shock-toberFest. 

Now, about that loose theme for the week - and I swear, this was not my intent when I programmed, it's quite accidental.  Something about seeing "Soul" in yesterday's title, and the world "Power" in this one, it struck me that those are two of the Infinity Stones from the "Avengers" films, and the Marvel comics before that.  If I stretch my imagination a little, I think I can incorporate all six stones into this week's films - "21 Bridges" was about finding two cop-killers within the confined SPACE of Manhattan, while "I'm Not Here" was all about an old man getting bogged down with all the memories in his MIND.  Then "Palm Springs" was all about a TIME-loop, then came "SOUL" and now "Project POWER".  That's 5 of the stones, and it just leaves the REALITY stone, and I think tomorrow's film is somewhat appropriate.  (OK, I'll admit that SPACE tie-in was really lame, but I realized this connection too late, and I don't think J.K. Simmons has made too many films related to outer space.)

There's little point in tracking my "31 Days of Oscar" progress if my stats get too low, but if I can get through the letter "L" I'm thinking I may have more luck with the movies beginning with "M", so here's the TCM schedule for tomorrow, April 15, essentially the halfway point:

6:00 am "Libel" (1959)

8:00 am "Libeled Lady" (1936)

10:00 am "Lies My Father Told Me" (1975)

12:00 pm "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean" (1972)

2:15 pm "The Life of Emile Zola" (1937)

4:15 pm "Life With Father" (1947) - SEEN IT

6:30 pm "Lili" (1953)

8:00 pm "Lilies of the Field" (1963) - SEEN IT

10:00 pm "Little Caesar" (1930)

11:30 pm "A Little Romance" (1979)

1:30 am "Logan's Run" (1975) - SEEN IT

3:45 am "Lolita" (1962) - SEEN IT

Just a slight dip today, because 4 seen out of 12 brings me to 69 seen out of 171, that's 40.3%.

Jamie Foxx carries over from "Soul".  Tonight's preceding short is the season finale of "Hanging With Dr. Z" on YouTube, and if you don't know what that is, you probably should.  It's a fake (?) talk show hosted by Dr. Zaius from "Planet of the Apes", and it's funny as hell, be sure to read all of the closing credits!  

THE PLOT: When a pill that gives its users unpredictable superpowers for five minutes hits the streets of New Orleans, a teenage dealer and a local cop must team with an ex-solider to take down the group responsible for its creation. 

AFTER: This is another one of those superhero films that falls into the "other" category, meaning that it's not based on a Marvel or a DC comic, it's from somewhere outside The Big Two - and it seems to have snuck out there onto Netflix during a lull in the market, since both Marvel and DC movies have been on pause, except for "Wonder Woman 1984", which was really disappointing.  I'm hoping for better things from "Black Widow" in July, and they're finally running "The New Mutants" on HBO, and of course I'm going to record that, but I may not be able to watch it until October, because of the linking.  (I could have linked from "Emma" to "The New Mutants", but that would have created thematic whiplash.)

So, until "Black Widow" in July, assuming it gets released this time, I have to make do with films like "The Old Guard" and this one.  I'm happy that superhero movies are back, don't get me wrong, but like everything else, it's going to take a while to get back up to normal-ish.  It's going to feel weird that first time you go on vacation again, or go out to dinner with a friend, or attend a rock concert, but we're going to get back there, it's just going to take time.  We're easing back into movie theaters, and I'm easing back into superhero movies.  Thank God for all the other films I've watched to stay busy, like most of Ingmar Bergman's filmography.

There's the start of a really great idea here, like what if superpowers came in a pill, would you take that pill?  (We actually have superpowers being dispensed by syringe right now, the power is called "resistance to coronavirus", and nearly everyone I know is getting a shot this week. You should too, if you haven't already - or don't you want superpowers?  And if so, WHY NOT?  Whatever possible reaction you may have - injection site pain, headache, flu-like symptoms for a day, even a blood clot, that's BETTER THAN COVID-19!). Now, the vaccine is proven safe, let me be clear here, but that's NOT the case for the "superpowers pill".  Under this scenario, you twist the pill, swallow it, and then, well, who knows?  You may get a great super-power, or you may get a power that your body can't handle, like there's a chance you might explode.

(Bear in mind, this was because the superpower pill hadn't really been tested, distributing it out on the street like a drug WAS part of the test.  The CoronaVirus vaccines have been FULLY tested, they're safe, you are NOT going to explode if you get one, you won't get COVID, you won't get autism, and there's no microchip or tracking device being injected.  All you get is protection from COVID-19, so why all the vaccine hesitancy?  I don't get it, except that some people are being misinformed.  Oddly, it's some of the same people who claimed that Trump deserves credit for the vaccine's existence, and those people are also hardcore Trumpers, but then why don't they want to get vaccinated themselves, like their "hero" Trump?  It makes no sense...)

I've seen a couple storylines in the Marvel comics like this, I think the X-Men comics did a storyline at one point where ordinary people were taking a drug that gave them mutant-like superpowers for a short time - ah, yes, the drug was called MGH, or Mutant Growth Hormone, and this might have been the same drug that the X-Man Beast used to change his form to having long blue hair all over his body.  Years later, the Young Avenger called Patriot, who had claimed to have received his superpowers due to a blood transfusion from his grandfather (Isaiah Bradley), but really, he was using MGH and was forced to quit the team.  The Disney+ show "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" recently featured the Isaiah Bradley character, he was experimented on when the U.S. was developing the Super-Soldier serum for Captain America, so of course there's a Steve Rogers connection to this concept, too.  Captain America initially got his super-powers from a drug, after all, and Marvel tried to downplay this fact for a while in the 1990's by removing the drug from Steve Rogers system, but that turned out to be a terrible idea, much like the band KISS removing their make-up, so they had to put it back.  

Here in "Project Power", in addition to those unreliable results, the effect of the drug only lasts for five minutes.  So the problem, story-wise, is that the action sequences with super-powered people are far too short - but hey, keeping them limited maybe saved some money on the special effects budget.  Anyway, there are some cool effects here, but they ended up being too few and too far-between, there's a lot of down time between the fight scenes, unfortunately.  You'd think we might learn to appreciate them more because of this, only it really doesn't work out that way.  

And about those powers - it's also unfortunate that comic books have been around for so long, nearly every possible superpower has been seen already, in one or more heroes. Flight?  Seen it. Super strength? Ditto. Invisibility? Ho hum. The strength and stickiness of a spider?  More original, but even Spider-Man's been around for almost 60 years at this point.  And the fact that you can usually find a Marvel and DC character with the same exact powers should tell you something.  Aquaman = Namor, Flash = Quicksilver, Zatanna = Scarlet Witch, Catwoman = Black Cat, and so on.  Once in a while you encounter a character like Vision or Mister Miracle and you think, "Oh, he's unique, there's no other character like him..." but it doesn't happen very often.  So here in "Project Power", the superpowers demonstrated included being covered in flame (Human Torch), having control over cold (Iceman) and then getting very big and strong (Umm, Hulk, plus so many others...).  There's also a guy who can grow claws (like Wolverine), only this guy's claws come out of his arms, not his wrists.

There's a thousand possible superpowers out there, it's really the writer's job (in comics as well as movies) to think of something NEW and fresh, but here, if you're a comic-book fan, it's mostly the same old stuff.  That's a missed opportunity, if ever there was one.  Show me something I haven't seen before, come on, I dare you.  I bet there are a bunch of Marvel and DC editors who say this to writers on an almost-daily basis.  I mean, you can't go TOO far off the reservation, or the fans won't know how to deal, but come on, surprise me at least.  The coolest power seen here isn't exactly invisibility (which is old hat) but something more like a chameleon's power, being able to blend in with any background.  That's cool - Spider-Man has an enemy called the Chameleon, but even he can't do THIS, he just wears false faces and impersonates people.

And so an ambitious New Orleans police officer, a young drug dealer who's been supplying him with "Power" and a man searching for his kidnapped daughter find themselves teaming up to take down the drug manufacturers/dealers who also kidnapped that daughter, because she's connected to the source of the drug, or something.  She may be the only real superhero in this world, but that's all just a bit unclear.  I feel essentially the same as I did after watching "The Old Guard", this is a great START to a story, but it feels rather unfinished.  Will there be a sequel to this?  I suppose that depends on how well this film did on Netflix, but I think there's more potential here, just get these heroes back together, maybe add a few new ones, get them a new supply of the drug and a new villain to take down, and I'll probably be there. 

Also starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt (last seen in "The Lookout"), Dominique Fishback (last seen in "The Hate U Give"), Colson "Machine Gun Kelly" Baker (last seen in "The King of Staten Island"), Rodrigo Santoro (last seen in "The Last Stand"), Amy Landecker (last seen in "A Serious Man"), Allen Maldonado (last seen in "Straight Outta Compton"), Kyanna Simone Simpson (last seen in "Fist Fight"), Andrene Ward-Hammond (last seen in "Instant Family"), Courtney B. Vance (last seen in "Cookie's Fortune"), Casey Neistat, Jim Klock (last seen in "The Stanford Prison Experiment"), Luke Hawx (last seen in "Logan"), Janet Rose Nguyen, Rose Bianco (last seen in "Capone"), CG Lewis (ditto), Tait Fletcher (also last seen in "The Last Stand"), Yoshi Sudarso (last seen in "Easy A"), Jane Chika Oranika, Jazzy De Lisser, Cory DeMeyers, Azhar Khan, C.J. LeBlanc (last seen in "Just Mercy"), Joseph Poliquin, Terrell Batiste, Jeanine Stander, 

RATING: 6 out of 10 metal briefcases

Soul

Year 13, Day 103 - 4/13/21 - Movie #3,807

BEFORE: I've got a loose accidental theme going for this week, one beyond racial matters or Oscar nominations, but I think I'm going to wait one more day before saying what it is, I don't want to jinx it.  But before starting "Soul" late last night, I watched two other things online - first, an episode of "Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer" at mnn.org - it turns out that I don't get this show on my cable system, because it's on Manhattan Public Access cable, and I don't live in Manhattan. (Queens public access channels are available to me, but they're just a bunch of zoom meetings right now...). But all 4,863 episodes of "Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer" are available on-line, dating back to 1973, though the archiving/indexing system leaves something to be desired.  I watched episode 4,571 dated January 27, 2020 where he interviewed Marilyn Mach vos Savant, the person with the highest certified I.Q., however it appears the episode was recorded some time in February of 1986, confirmed by their name-checking President Reagan.  Now I don't know what to think, if the newer episodes were just re-broadcasts of old episodes, or if they recorded so many episodes during the 80's and 90's that it took until 2020 to air them all, or maybe Channer died back in the early 2000's and the show managed to broadcast from the Great Beyond for twenty more years.  Either way, this whole show is something of an enigma and I think bears further investigation, or perhaps a documentary film needs to be made about Channer, and I'll get more understanding by watching that.  

Then I watched "Two Distant Strangers", which is a short film, and those just don't count towards my annual total, because those are my rules.  Feature films only, usually, no exceptions unless I say so - but I am allowed to mention them here, even if they don't count.  This is the Oscar-nominated live-action short that's somehow on Netflix, which is fine - in past years people have had to go to the movie theater to see a collection of all the Oscar-nominated shorts, which is another way to go and is also fine, but now we're putting short films on Netflix if they're important, and I believe this one is.  It's another riff on the "Groundhog Day" format, but it features a black man waking up after a romantic encounter, and he needs to get home to feed his dog, only he encounters a white racist cop every time, and this always ends badly.  In the wake of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and so many others, this was already a scenario that felt like it was on constant repeat, and this film really drives that point home.  This may be the only Oscar-nominated live-action short that I watch before the ceremony, so if this one wins, I'm totally fine with that.  Thematically it fits in perfectly for me, in-between "Palm Springs", another time-loop, and "Soul", another film about an African-American man dying, and what comes after. 

Now here's the non-repeating list of films airing tomorrow on TCM - Wednesday, April 14 is Day 14 of their "31 Days of Oscar" programming:

6:15 am "Kisses For My President" (1964)

8:15 am "Kitty Foyle" (1940)

10:15 am "Knights of the Round Table" (1953) - SEEN IT

12:15 pm "La Ronde" (1950)

2:00 pm "La Strada" (1954)

4:00 pm "Ladies in Retirement" (1941)

6:00 pm "Lady Be Good" (1941)

8:00 pm "The Lady Eve" (1941)

10:00 pm "The Ladykillers" (1955) - SEEN IT

12:45 pm 'The Last Picture Show" (1971) - SEEN IT

2:00 am "Leaving Las Vegas" (1995) - SEEN IT

4:00 am "The Letter" (1940)

Wow, TCM getting racy after midnight, I like it.  Let me remind you that TCM somehow gets a pass (because classic films deserve to NOT be censored) and therefore the channel sometimes airs classic nudity. What you do with that information is up to you - there's a very classic naked pool party in one of those films. Classic.  Anyway, I'm only hitting for another 4 out of 12, so 65 out of 159 means I'm down to 40.8%. 

June Squibb carries over from "Palm Springs".  

THE PLOT: After landing the gig of a lifetime, a New York jazz pianist suddenly finds himself trapped in a strange land between Earth and the afterlife.

AFTER: Hoo boy, where do I even START with this one?  Better buckle up, this is going to be a bumpy ride... First off, let me mention that I'm a proud agnostic, a Catholic in recovery, if you've read any of my Easter-time posts you'll know I rejected the whole Jesus-as-the-Son-of-God things ages ago, and when confronted with questions about what, if anything, comes after this thing we call life, I'm proud to say, "I have no idea."  Anyone who says otherwise, I believe, is trying to sell you something.  Probably nothing happens, a whole lot of nothing - look, what were you before you were born?  Nothing, right?  You were nothing, nowhere, in a state of non-existence.  After you die, same thing - it's simple.  I'd like to imagine otherwise, but I'm not really holding out much hope.  This is why life is important, you get one, that's all, and when it's over, it's over, so it's up to you to make the most of it, make it count, enjoy it, or don't, it's your choice.  Either way, there will be no regrets, because you won't exist, therefore incapable of feeling regret.  You might have a flash of regret on your way out, like "Oh, maybe skydiving was a bad idea..." or "Just my luck, I swam next to a very hungry shark" but it may not last long.  

So I just don't think that animation studios should even BE in the afterlife business - kids' heads are already way too full of religious dogma, passed down from their parents, that tell them that when they die, they get a deluxe split-level condo floating on a cloud somewhere, they'll be surrounded for eternity by all their previously deceased family members, plus their dead pets, they get a halo and a harp and a set of wings, and then they just have to be happy for the rest of eternity, maybe watch over an assigned human from time to time.  Unless, of course, their sins outweighed their good deeds and they spend eternity in the lake of fire.  But it's all B.S., every little bit of it.  We already had "Coco", an animated film based on the Mexican Day of the Dead, in which the departed souls live forever in apartments in a giant version of Mexico City, provided that they still have family in the living world that still remembers them.  More B.S.

To be fair, the storytellers at Pixar have crafted a new version of the afterlife that removes all the religious affiliations - a secular version of heaven, they just kept some of the parts that made no sense, like souls leaving the physical body, traveling up up UP towards heaven (umm, in which direction in outer space is that, exactly?) on a giant escalator/conveyor belt and then there's some form of administrative personnel in charge of the universe who count souls, process souls, and get them ready for either reincarnation/recycling or some form of eternal rest.  Then they discarded or omitted God, St. Peter, the hierarchy of angels, and hell, for that matter - all of which I approve of, but replacing this nonsense with a pile of other nonsense isn't really that much of an improvement, is it?  

This is bad for kids on so many levels, but here's my main problem - if heaven's such a great place, then why don't we all want to go there, as soon as possible?  Then the next illogical step is suicide, isn't it?  And we don't want kids doing that, because what if all the stories about heaven are just that, stories?  Wanting there to be a paradise in the next life doesn't make it so.  And then why are people doing their best to stay alive, take care of their health, and why are we sad when our friends and family pass away?  Because deep down, we KNOW, even if we don't want to admit it or deal with the encroaching void on a daily basis.  But come on, the sooner you acknowledge it, the sooner you can use that as personal encouragement to keep on living.  Right?  You tell your kids to be careful, look both ways when crossing the street, don't play with matches - because you know, right?  Filling their heads with nonsense about heaven, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny is a temporary fix that's only stunting their intellectual growth.  

So here we have Joe, a music teacher who dreams of playing jazz professionally, but he feels he's stuck.  First off, being a music teacher is a very noble profession - my mother was an elementary school music teacher for many years, why is that not enough for him?  Also, there's nothing about being a music teacher that would prevent him from playing jazz in a club on nights and weekends.  HE CAN DO BOTH, so why doesn't he?  I think Joe has very narrow thinking when it comes to his own abilities, millions of people have hobbies and side hustles.  Teaching kids is a great day job, he shouldn't be ashamed of it (nor should the thousands of teachers out there who may watch this film, which seems like it's out to make them feel "less than") and he could play in a band over the summer, and/or nights and weekends, does he not realize this?  Or has he placed some kind of limitation on himself and his abilities?  

Joe finally gets the gig he's been looking for, a spot playing piano for a famous saxophonist and her band - and he's so excited over this that he rushes to tell everyone, across a crowded NYC street, past a sidewalk littered with banana peels, and other cartoon clichés, leading to a very ironic death.  Hey, that's life, as soon as you feel like you're on top of the world, you're doomed, that clock starts ticking.  But as he rides that big escalator up to that big bug-zapper (?) in the sky, he feels like he's entitled to a second chance, so he starts running the other way, away from paradise.  Every other soul, mind you, has accepted their fate, and are just nonchalantly riding along to the next thing, whatever it is.  I'm with Joe on this one, get back to life, stay alive as long as you can, just in case the universe is one giant scam, and there's nothing on the other side. 

But he falls off and lands in limbo, or nowhere, or the rebranded "YouSeminar", which is where they train/mentor souls for their entry into the world.  There's a lot of ambiguity here about destiny vs. free will, because before the souls even are born, they have to pick their thing, their "spark", the thing that's going to keep them interested and entertained in their own life.  Apparently you can't be born without this - but this is another bad idea to put into kids' heads, because during the course of your lifetime, you can do more than one thing.  You could have an interest in sports when you're a teen, then find a new passion in your 30's.  You could be a soldier in your 20's, and then get out of the military for any reason and be a firefighter, or a car salesman.  You can collect stamps when you're a teenager, then realize later on that's a waste of time.  Your life can change a lot, and your interests and hobbies can change along with it.  

Anyway, Joe somehow impersonates a renowned Nobel Prize-winning psychiatrist and is assigned mentor duties to Soul #22, who's been around for thousands of years and is resistant to find her "spark" and start living.  Here's where the film can't really decide if the forces running the universe are competent ones or incompetent ones, because it somehow allows Joe to game the system by just grabbing the wrong nametag, but then when the "Hall of You" depicts moments from his life, it's definitely HIS life, not Dr. Börgensson's.  So, WHAT GIVES, who the heck is running this place?  The answer, apparently is a bunch of kindly beings all named Jerry, and one not-so-friendly accountant named Terry.  If I were a schoolteacher or an accountant, I would definitely boycott this movie.  

Despite all the little nit-picky rules about how the Great Beyond and the Great Before work, or fail to work, Joe finds a way to game the system, and returns to Earth, along with Soul #22, thanks to the humans who visit "The Zone", which is a place that living human souls go when they're in a trance, or playing good music, or, I'm guessing, really stoned.  Yet another bad idea to put into kids' heads - but since all the limbos are apparently connected, a hippie dude named Moonwind is able to help Joe, no matter which realm he's in.  But the process of returning to life is not perfect, which leads to a sort of "Freaky Friday" soul-switching situation that also calls to mind "Ratatouille", only with a cat in place of a rat. ("Ratatouille" was a fun film, but I'm thinking that it just won't hold up during a re-watch, because there's a rat in a kitchen, which is just gross, and he controls a chef's actions by pulling on his hair, which doesn't even work, anatomically speaking.)  There's also a bunch of non-specific stuff that reminded me of "Inside Out", too - I guess once you start playing with symbolic representations of what goes on inside human brains and bodies, it's a slippery slope and we end up HERE.

Can Joe get back to earth AND get his soul placed inside his own body in time for his big gig at the nightclub?  And then comes the even bigger existential question - he's achieved a life goal, now what?  OK, now it's all right to proceed into the Great Beyond, because he did a thing. NO NO NO, this is completely wrong, whose bucket list has exactly one item on it?  We're supposed to not go quietly into that good night, what happened to rage, rage against the dying of the light?  You crossed that big item off your list, go ahead and MAKE A NEW LIST, you big dummy!  Never be satisfied with your life and say, "OK, that was long enough."  Set a new goal, do another thing, see if you can juggle your teaching schedule with nights playing at the jazz club. Do you want your kids to get this final bad idea in their heads, that once they finish high school, win a championship, paint a picture, write a book, that life is suddenly OVER, they did enough?  It should NEVER be enough, you should NEVER be done, NEVER give up, just find a new thing to do, because you're not limited to doing or being just one thing!

I just can't take it, this is nothing but terrible life advice based on a complete misunderstanding of how the universe works.  I can't even imagine what the next generation of adults is going to be like if they take the messages of this film to heart. 

NITPICK POINT: The movie is called "Soul", it's about Joe having a soul, and what happens to our souls after we die, and the music that he plays is therefore - jazz?  What about SOUL music?  Jeez, that double meaning was right there, so obvious, why not take advantage of it?  I mean, sure, jazz musicians have "soul", sure, but that's an intangible quality that a film for kids just can't really explain, or even try to explain.  But what's wrong with soul music, why wouldn't that have worked here?  Jazz had its day, but that was back in like the 1920's.  Are there a lot of kids listening to jazz music right now?  No, there are not.  What, exactly is jazz, even modern jazz?  Again, the movie can't even be bothered to describe it, so I imagine an entire generation of kids scratching their heads over this.  

NITPICK POINT #2: What happens to Mr. Mittens?  We see his soul riding the big escalator to heaven, so do cats have souls?  Well, yes, according to the Vatican, there is a pet heaven, and your kittehs and doggos will be waiting for you there when you arrive, in the split-level cloud condo that the angels built for you, and you get to spend all eternity with them keeping you, if you live a good life now.  The religious leaders had a meeting, and they realized that as long as they're promising you so much outrageous stuff, what's one more thing.  Now, is there a heaven for chickens and cows and spiders and snails, too, or is heaven only for the animals we like and don't eat?  Just please clarify this for me, OK?  And when you're done telling me how the universe works, and you're not a scientist, you can just go screw yourself, OK?  Anyway, after the human soul leaves the cat's body, he's apparently FINE, so I guess his soul came back from heaven, or something?  I thought you said that wasn't possible. 

NITPICK POINT #3: It also makes no sense to assign personalities to souls before they are born.  Without getting too much into the old "nature vs. nurture" argument, it's worth pointing out that over time, one's personality also can, you know, change.  You will experience certain things during a lifetime, good and bad, and your reactions to these things will have an impact on your personality, and then there are other outside influences, like chemicals, mood-altering drugs, what you eat, drink and breathe, these things can all affect your personality over time.  Then if you realize there's a problem, you can undergo therapy or make a conscious effort to change.  My point is, there's no universe manager before you're born determining that you're going to be "a moody extroverted cynic who's extremely punctual".  This is yet another misguided concept that really sells every human being short, and doesn't belong in the minds of children. 

Also starring the voices of Jamie Foxx (last seen in "Hitsville: The Making of Motown"), Tina Fey (last seen in "Whitney"), Graham Norton (last seen in "Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga"), Rachel House (last seen in "The Hunt for the Wilderpeople"), Alice Braga (last seen in "The Shack"), Richard Ayoade (last heard in "The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part"), Phylicia Rashad (last seen in "Creed II"), Donnell Rawlings (last seen in "Jay and Silent Bob Reboot"), Questlove (last seen in "Mr. Dynamite: The Rise of James Brown"), Angela Bassett (last seen in "Avengers: Endgame"), Daveed Diggs (last seen in "Wonder"), Cora Champommier, Wes Studi (last seen in "Seraphim Falls"), Fortune Feimster (last seen in "The Happytime Murders"), Zenobia Shroff (last seen in "The Big Sick"), Margo Hall, Rhodessa Jones, Esther Chae, Cody Chesnutt, Sakina Jaffrey (last seen in "The Equalizer 2"), Calum Grant, Laura Mooney, Peggy Flood, Ochuwa Oghie, Jeannie Tirado, Cathy Cavadini, Marcus Shelby, with a cameo from John Ratzenberger (last heard in "Onward"). 

RATING: 3 out of 10 abaci

Palm Springs

Year 13, Day 102 - 4/12/21 - Movie #3,806

BEFORE: I'm going to get back to more racially diverse films tomorrow - by moving Black History month to May, and really, I don't expect everyone else to get on board with this, because most everyone seems to prefer celebrating it in February, but I just have to follow my linking.  And that means a few concessions have to be made, a couple films are in the mix that aren't very diverse at all, but they're needed to make the connections.  I missed the connection back in March this film would have fit right in, between "Hall Pass" and "Can You Keep a Secret?", only I realizedit too late - also I wasn't quite sure how much of "romance" this film is.  But it seems like a fun film and it got some streaming buzz, so I vowed to work it into the mix ASAP.  Well, here it is.  J.K. Simmons carries over again from "I'm Not Here". Maybe he'll be here today.  Maybe things worked out for the best, because I was able to schedule two films back-to-back where time is fractured or non-linear, to some degree.  

And from the past come these classic films, which will air in the future - tomorrow, April 13, as part of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" line-up:

6:00 am "Juarez" (1938)

8:15 am "Judgment at Nuremburg" (1961)

11:15 am "Juliet of the Spirits" (1965) 

1:45 pm "Julius Caesar" (1953) - SEEN IT

4:00 pm "Jungle Book" (1942)

6:00 pm "Key Largo" (1948)

8:00 pm "King of Jazz" (1930)

10:00 pm "King Solomon's Mines" (1950)

12:00 am "Kings Row" (1942)

2:15 am "Kismet" (1944)

4:15 am "Kiss Me Kate" (1953) - SEEN IT

Darn, only another 2 that I've seen.  I could have sworn I watched "Key Largo" during my Bogart chain a few years back, but I guess not.  I must be thinking of "The Big Sleep" or "To Have or Have Not".  And I watched "Kismet" during a Howard Keel chain, only it wasn't THIS "Kismet", it was the 1955 version I caught.  Drat. Just 61 seen out of 147, and I'm dropping to 41.4%. Maybe the letters L and M will be kinder to me. 

FOLLOW-UP TO: "When We First Met" (Movie #3,769)

THE PLOT: Stuck in a time loop, two wedding guests develop a budding romance while living the same day over and over again.  

AFTER: I think perhaps during the pandemic, in one form or another, we all had this kind of feeling, that we might be repeating the same day over and over, and that's one reason this film became such a big hit.  When you take away the morning commute, when there's no place to go on the weekend, with restaurants and movie theaters closed, how do you even know when the weekend is?  Take-out every night, every day is "Blursday", right?  What month is it right now, even?  Well, we never went full-on "Groundhog Day", like I'm pretty sure we all went to bed every night and woke up the next morning, but really, can we ever know for sure that we're not stuck in a time-loop?  Maybe we only THINK we remember doing something different yesterday...

As somebody who already has a plan in place for making sure every day is different and unique, at least in terms of what movie I watch, I now have an even loftier goal - there's this NYC-based cable channel, what used to be called "public access", I think, now has a channel WAY up on the dial on the Spectrum cable system (channel 1993, I think).  It's called MNN, Manhattan Neighborhood Network.  There's a guy who started hosting a talk-show there in 1973, and since then he recorded over 4,400 episodes of his talk show, "Conversations with Harold Hudson Channer".  Over time, he interviewed every major political figure, artist and intellectual figure you can imagine, and the show is still going.  There's just one little problem, though, Harold Hudson Channer died on December 31, 2020 - and the show is STILL going.  My boss gets weekly e-mails written in Channer's voice (from beyond the GRAVE! OOO-ooo-OOO!) that mention how in the future, he'll be directing most traffic to his web-site, and not the site for the channel.  But every week he's still doing promos, which is a pretty good gig for a dead guy, they apparently don't take up too much of his day.  I'm really looking forward to the show on April 16, where he interviews Marilyn Mach vos Savant, it should be interesting.  (If you're already familiar with Mr. Channer's show, you may know that the initial response to being told that Mr. Channer passed away is usually, "How can you tell?")

But it got me thinking, since my numbers are getting up there, I'm past 3,800 posts, how much longer can I go on, with just 500 movies in the hopper.  And if something should happen to me, how can I keep up the work, like Mr. Channer is doing, apparently?  There's that famous list that I use as a guide, titled "1,001 Movies to Watch Before You Die", but there's no list to tell me which movies I should watch AFTER I die, what gives?  I need some constructive advice on this.  Please note, dear readers, that I believe in the power of repetition - I've been doing this so long that it's become impossible to stop - so if there is a way for me to continue organizing films into linked chains and posting reviews after I die, I will find it.  If Harold Hudson Channer can do it, then so can I.  I'm posting a screenshot below - note that this is a NEW episode, dated 4/6/21. How do I reconcile this with the obituary notice, dated 12/30/20?

Anyway, the man's track record is impressive, dead or alive.  It gives me something to shoot for. Perhaps Mr. Channer was also caught in a time loop, and now he's finally free...which brings me to "Palm Springs", which really is an updated "Groundhog Day", in many respects.  (It's not nominated for any Oscars, but there is a SHORT film that uses the same construct, only it details a black man reliving over and over the day he gets shot by a cop - it's called "Two Distant Strangers", and it's on Netflix.  Hmm, I should watch that ASAP...). But there are some key differences, like in "Groundhog Day" we the audience were there at the start, the FIRST time weatherman Phil lives through Feb. 2 (though he's been reporting on it for years, so it probably feels like the millionth), but we see the first time THAT YEAR, then he gets stuck (how?) and has to live through the day many, many times over before becoming unstuck (again, how?  This classic film is, honestly, very lean on the metaphysical details of it all.)

When we first meet Nyles in "Palm Springs", though, he's already been through this day thousands of times - notice how he moves through the dance floor, copying the dances of certain people, because he's seen their moves over and over.  He knows JUST when to interrupt the wedding reception to prevent Sarah from being embarrassed, because she didn't know the Maid of Honor has to give a speech.  (NITPICK POINT: Has she never been to a wedding before?  How could someone NOT know this?). But it's the first time through for Sarah, however she gets caught up in Nyles' plight, and when a crazed hunter comes out of the desert and starts hunting him with a bow and arrow, she follows him into the mystical cave, which gets her all caught up in the time-loop, too.

Thankfully, Nyles already has this down to a science, he's been through this day a thousand (million?) times, and he knows how important it is to stay hydrated, he's slept with every woman at the wedding, and he's tried many times to escape, and always failed.  Whenever he dies or goes to sleep, he wakes up back at the resort on the morning of November 9, back in his girlfriend's bed. His girlfriend's cheating on him, she's planning to break up with him, but he's used to it by now, he's been through it over and over and it no longer emotionally affects him.  So he's just adopted a philosophy of "whatever", and spends half the day floating in a pool, drinking beer, then thinking up a new way to disrupt the wedding ceremony.  

But things finally change when Sarah gets stuck in the loop, too - it takes her a while to go through the same process - trying to figure it out, trying to escape, then trying to commit suicide just to end the monotony and get out of the loop somehow.  Eventually Nyles and Sarah become sort of partners in crime, learning complex dance routines together, messing with the wedding guests, getting high on mushrooms out in the desert.  There's something like a love story that develops, only it's rooted in co-dependency, but isn't that a form of love?  Nyles has been in the loop so long that he doesn't even remember his life in the before-times (just like, umm, all of us in the pandemic) but Sarah just wants out, even if she has to learn quantum relativity and blow up a few farm animals to do it.  (OK, this isn't how physics works, for sure, so were the screenwriters too lazy to learn science, or did they just figure it would be too boring for the audience?)

I could go into a rather lengthy breakdown of how this is all impossible, but what's the point?  I've done that before and I should get out of that loop myself, it just leads nowhere.  Like, are Nyles and Sarah creating or experiencing alternate realities every time they re-live the day, or are they just unstuck in time like Billy Pilgrim was?  How come the day is different for them, but not for everyone else, except that by influencing the people around them, they MAKE the day become different for others.  (Great, now my head hurts...). This film is a whole lot of fun, and that goes a long way toward making up for the appalling lack of logic and science-y stuff. If you thought "Groundhog Day" took itself way too seriously, especially showing Bill Murray trying to live the "perfect day", then this is the film for you.

Also starring Andy Samberg (last seen in "Hot Rod"), Cristin Milioti (last seen in "The Wolf of Wall Street"), Peter Gallagher (last seen in "Burlesque"), Meredith Hagner (last seen in "Set It Up"), Camila Mendes, Tyler Hoechlin (last seen in "Can You Keep a Secret?"), Chris Pang (last seen in "Charlie's Angels"), Jacqueline Obradors (last seen in "Six Days Seven Nights"), June Squibb (last seen in "I'll See You in My Dreams"), Jena Friedman, Tongayi Chirisa, Dale Dickey (last seen in "Hell or High Water"), Conner O'Malley, Brian Duffy, Martin Kildare, Lilli Birdsell (last seen in "Dreamland"), with a cameo from Clifford V. Johnson. 

RATING: 7 out of 10 cans of Akupara beer

I'm Not Here

Year 13, Day 101 - 4/11/21 - Movie #3,805

BEFORE: J.K. Simmons carries over from "21 Bridges", and since this is the middle of a three-film set, I could easily drop it - April's still just a bit too full right now, and I'm going to have to drop a film or two in the coming weeks.  But I like J.K. Simmons, I want to make sure he's included in my year-end round-up, so I'll look for a political documentary I can also drop.  Or I'll double up again, most of those docs are pretty short, usually.  

I've got two good reasons to keep this one in place - first off, it's got Sebastian Stan in it, and I just watched episode 4 of "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier" - I don't need to tie my TV series viewing in with my movies, that's not how my linking works, but just maybe it's a sign.  Also, this way I can give a birthday SHOUT-out to Mandy Moore - sure, her birthday's on April 10, but I can start watching this film late on April 10, in her honor, and then count it as my film for April 11. 

As things stand, I'm in a bit of trouble, since I went through the HBO Max platform and found a LOT of films, new and old, that could be added to the list.  I like to have a main watchlist of films, and also a secondary list - the second list contains both films that I'm considering adding to the main list, and also films on streaming platforms, that I don't have on either a DVD or my DVR, which both still feel more tangible to me somehow than something that streams.  I like to maintain the primary list at about 180 films (though recently I increased the max limit to 190) - if the list is any smaller than that, I find it hard to make connections, and if it gets much bigger, then my task seems hopeless, like I'm not making any progress.  After watching over 3800 films in 12 1/2 years, I keep thinking the pool of films to watch is going to get smaller, only it doesn't. 

And with the HBO Max additions, that secondary list just went up from 250 to 300 - I spent half of today just typing up cast lists and looking for connections, most of which will never be used, only a small percentage of those potential links will ever be important, but I have to color-code my list so that I'm at least aware of them, because you never know.  More films on the secondary list is good, right?  Because it gives me more options, it helps me make the connections between the holidays, or between where I am and where I need to be on a certain date.  But too many films is also bad, because it can give me too many options, and I don't need five paths to choose from, I'd really prefer to just have the linking suggest one obvious one.  

I'm going to treat the combined list like the ice-cube bucket in our freezer, which is supposed to be automatic, but in 15 years it's never really worked quite right.  It's got a piece of metal that hangs down over the ice, which can be put up into an "off" position, or allowed to hang down, which tells the freezer that there's space in the bucket, and it's time to make some ice.  When it's made enough ice, the pile of ice SHOULD reach the piece of metal, keep it from hanging down, and stop the production of ice temporarily, until there's space.  But what ends up happening is that the ice production will stop when there's ice ready to come out, and then it makes this grinding noise, because the motor wants to dispense the ice, but the piece of metal's in the OFF position, so it just gets stuck with the ice half-dispensed, the cubes freeze in place, and over the years I've gotten used to that sound. Hearing it means I need to reach into the freezer, dislodge the frozen ice cubes, and get the motor working again - but then I've touched the ice, which is potentially unsanitary. Anyway, this whole process is supposed to be automatic, with the ice cube maker turning itself off when it's not needed, and me reaching into the freezer only proves that something's not working right.  

The ice maker and I have negotiated a deal, under which I'll monitor the amount of ice in the hopper, and when it's up near the top, I'll flip that piece of metal up, so the ice cubes won't get frozen in place, and I won't hear the grinding noise while I'm trying to watch a movie.  And then when the amount of ice gets really low, like almost to the bottom, then I'll flip the piece of metal back down.  It's still not an automatic process, but it's the best way for man and machine to meet somewhere in the middle on peaceful terms.  That's where I am right now with my watchlist, the bucket is now overflowing with ice, so it's time to turn the machinery off for a while, stop adding films, for the love of God.  I've got another huge list of films that's newly available on Netflix (obtained a month ago while scrolling aimlessly through their recommendations) - but I'm not going to add them, not now while the bucket is full.  In two months the 300 films on the secondary list should be back down closer to 250, and I'll consider adding them then.  Because 190 on the main list and 300 on the secondary list makes nearly 500 choices overall, and that's way too much.  That's bigger than my list was when I started, back in 2009 - so, really, how much progress have I made?  Maybe the ice bucket is just always going to fill up again, and I'll never, ever be done. 

I don't think my TCM "31 Days of Oscar" stars are going to recover, though - they seem to be in freefall, and I'd started out so strong.  Here's the line-up for tomorrow, Monday, April 12, so you can set your DVRs:

6:45 am "Irene" (1940)

8:30 am "It Happened on 5th Avenue" (1947)

10:30 am "It Happened One Night" (1934) - SEEN IT

12:30 pm "It Happened Tomorrow" (1944)

2:15 pm "It Should Happen to You" (1953)

3:45 pm "It's a Great Feeling" (1949)

5:15 pm "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" (1963) - SEEN IT

8:00 pm "It's Always Fair Weather" (1955)

10:00 pm "Ivanhoe" (1952)

12:00 am "Jezebel" (1938)

2:00 am "Johnny Belinda" (1948)

4:00 am "Johnny Eager" (1942)

Another low-scoring day for me, but there's some small consolation in being on the same page as their programming again - "It Happened Tomorrow" is that film where someone gets the next day's newspaper headline somehow, so it's a non-linear time travel thing.  This movie inspired the CBS show "Early Edition" from a few years back - and I'm also on a non-linear story thing today and tomorrow.  But otherwise, 2 seen out of 12 brings me to 59 out of 136, down to 43.3%

THE PLOT: A man struggles with the tragic memories of his past to make sense of his present, but soon realizes that time isn't the enemy he thinks it is. 

AFTER: How about THIS for an unintentionally pandemic-related film?  An old man apparently never leaves his apartment, socially distant either by necessity or by choice, and he's slowly running out of food, drinks too much and his utilities are about to be shut off for lack of payment. And he seems to be suicidal - any of this hitting too close to home?  But this film was released in 2017, pre-COVID, so there's got to be another cause here.  As the man begins sifting through his memories, and the flashbacks start, we realize that too much reflection on past trauma and the mistakes he's made over the course of his life is the probable cause.  

The film then becomes a split-timeline deal, similar to "Moonlight" and several dozen other trendy films and TV shows that use this non-linear technique to slowly reveal narrative details. (see "Young Rock", "Me, Myself and I" and "This Is Us", from what I hear...) We see Steve at two other key times in his life, as a twenty- or thirty-something man, a young husband and father, and also as a 10 or 12-year old boy, during his parents' divorce and time spent with both of them shortly thereafter.  There's a lot of alcohol involved, consumed by Steve's father and then Steve, this is one of the causes in his parents' break-up, and perhaps the reason why young adult Steve can't seem to hold down a job for very long.  But it's hard to assign cause and effect rules to any of the timelines, because there's so much jumping around, and each separate timeline doesn't necessarily progress in proper date order. Admittedly, when anyone gets that old, they don't remember things in timeline order, memory tends to skip around and even become fairly unreliable. 

Finding various objects around his dwelling (is it the same house or apartment he's lived in all these years? It's so dingy in the "old man" scenes that honestly, it's hard to tell...) triggers various scenes from the past, and so we the audience are in constant "jigsaw puzzle" mode trying to figure out this old man's life story.  It's possible that J.K. Simmons doesn't have any dialogue in this film, but he's such a great actor that, honestly, it's not needed.  Emotions speak volumes, and a gaunt J.K. staring into the mirror, or holding an object and reflecting on its meaning is more than enough, in the end.  (Sebastian Stan is an OK actor, I mean, like great for the Winter Soldier, but don't hire him for emotional heavy lifting - and the kid who plays "Young Sheldon" is fairly terrible, but so are most child actors.)

After we see all of the worst moments from this man's past, we're forced to ask ourselves, is his solitary nature and negative outlook justified?  Is his suicidal nature perhaps an appropriate reaction to all the pain he's endured, some of which he caused?  I've got to say "No", because unless someone has a terminal illness, I don't regard suicide as a solution.  Things can always get better, and there's always therapy and anti-depressive medication options. I've had my dark days, don't get me wrong, but never really thought of taking that early exit, because there is still beauty in the world, great music and art and barbecue, even on one's worst day.  I've had to spend some time living by myself and getting comfortable with that, been unemployed and divorced and always tried to find a way through it, looking to the next thing or better days.  You can always travel somewhere you never thought you would go, eat something new, think about tomorrow's movie or read "War and Peace". Cross something off your bucket list, or start adding more items, whatever gets you through the night, it's all right, all right?

But then, something happens to Steve, and I'm not really sure what it is, to be honest.  I'm not sure the writer and director (Michelle Schumacher, J.K. Simmons' wife IRL) knows either - but after so many shots of adult Steve and old man Steve staring into the mirror in similar fashion, some connection is made - each one sees the other, briefly.  This could be largely symbolic, or it could mean that somehow the two timelines, past and present, have crossed, a la "Frequency".  But there's no direct communication due to a convenient electrical storm or something.  There are other little flashes of information (watch carefully, or you may miss them...) that suggest something else is going on here, other than the obvious.  I'll take a few guesses before I read reviews on-line - this film's Wikipedia page is blatantly missing a plot summary.

Guess #1 - perhaps Steve isn't just contemplating suicide, perhaps he's already done it.  This means that the apartment is really purgatory or hell, and he's forced to sort through all his memories, in the style of "Defending Your Life" while his final fate is determined.  

Guess #2 - Old man Steve isn't real, he's just an imaginary construct of adult Steve, who he COULD turn out to be if he doesn't straighten out his life, stop drinking, and pay more attention to his wife and kid.  This explains some things, but not everything.  

Guess #3 - there's a freak moment where Old Man Steve connects with adult Steve, and this changes a critical event, and thus the timeline.  Old Man Steve therefore represents a timeline that never comes into existence, at least not in this fashion.  

Guess #4 - Old Man Steve is just an unreliable narrator, he's an alcoholic who's also got dementia or Alzheimer's and is trying to remember past events before they slip away forever.  This would explain the ending somewhat, too, as his brain changes that critical event, so that he can stop thinking about the related trauma and move on, in some fashion.

Honestly, I don't know which of these, if any, is correct - perhaps it's all open to interpretation.  There's a two-man comedy routine seen in the film based on the "Schrodinger's Cat" thought experiment, and I found that one of the most insightful things.  A man, alone in his house, nobody can see him, nobody's even looking for him, he's a lot like that cat in the box, right?  And the cat had a vial of poison in the box with him, while Steve has alcohol, essentially the same thing.  So, is the cat alive or dead?  He's both/neither until you take a look inside the box.  Same goes for Steve, whose answering message is just "I'm Not Here" - but isn't he?  Is he there or not, is he alive or dead?  Yes, both/neither, maybe. 

Also starring Sebastian Stan (last seen in "Logan Lucky"), Iain Armitage (last seen in "Our Souls at Night"), Maika Monroe (last seen in "Honey Boy"), Mandy Moore (last heard in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Max Greenfield (last seen in "The Glass Castle"), Jeremy Maguire, Harold Perrineau (last seen in "28 Weeks Later"), David Koechner (last seen in "CHIPS"), Heather Mazur, David Wexler, Tony Cummings.

RATING: 5 out of 10 TV dinners