Save the Last Dance

Year 18, Day 60 - 3/1/26 - Movie #5,260

BEFORE: February is over, but the romance chain still has a way to go - two more weeks at least. That damn Romance Groundhog saw his shadow this year, so we won't be ending this chain any time soon. Some more classics to get off the list, and maybe a couple of weird ones coming up in March. As promised, here are the actor links that will get me to the end of the romance chain: Julia Stiles, Miranda Richardson, Alfred Molina, Marisa Tomei, Claudia Wilkens, Amy Adams, Matthew Perry, Jon Tenney, Sean Bridgers, Jean Smart, Hayley Seat, Chris Pine, Lindsay Lohan, Jane Seymour and Parker Sawyers. I wish I could tell you what's going to happen after that but I can't, because I have no idea. I should probably work on that. 

But I've finally gotten in sync with TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, their topic today was "Oscar Goes Dancing" and my film today is about dancing, too. How about that? Now here's their line-up for tomorrow, March 2, which will be their Day 17, and the themes are "Oscar Goes on the Run" and "Oscar Goes a Few Rounds":

6:00 am "Algiers" (1938)

8:00 am "Odd Man Out" (1947)

10:00 am "Logan's Run" (1976)

12:00 pm "Running on Empty" (1988)

2:00 pm "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" (1932)

3:45 pm "The Defiant Ones" (1958)

5:30 pm "North by Northwest" (1959)

8:00 pm "The Harder They Fall" (1956)

10:00 pm "Fat City" (1972)

12:00 am "Champion" (1949)

2:00 am "Golden Boy" (1939)

4:00 am "Somebody Up There Likes Me" (1956)

Well, damn, I think I've only seen four of these: "Logan's Run", "The Defiant Ones", "North by Northwest" and "Somebody Up There Likes Me". Now, I've seen a lot of boxing movies but I just haven't seen THESE boxing movies. And I guess since I watched "The Defiant Ones" I felt no need to watch "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" - it's the same movie, right? Anyway, another four seen out of 12 brings me up to 82 seen out of 201, which is just 40.7%. I have a good feeling about tomorrow, though. 

THE PLOT: A white midwestern girl moves from the Chicago suburbs to the city, where her new boyfriend is a black teen from the South Side with a rough, semi-criminal past. 

AFTER: There's a reason I'm programming this film here, you know, this film has a reputation as a classic film made by MTV Films for the MTV generation, which is now officially OVER because the channel is going off the air after what, 45 years? Well, they had a good run, hell I still remember when all they played was music videos, and then a few years later, everything was a music video. But when the novelty wore off MTV turned to reality shows like "Teen Mom" and "Catfish" and now they only show music videos for 1 hour every week, the channel's programming has been absorbed into the giant sponge that is Paramount Plus ("One of US! "One of US!).

Well, in addition to the films "Election" and "Hustle & Flow", MTV Films also made THIS movie, about a white teen who dances ballet moving to Chicago and falling in love with a black classmate. This all comes about because Sara's mother died in a car crash and she was forced to move in with her father, who she barely knows, and he's a nightclub jazz musician in Chi-Town. Look, I'll be honest, this movie really isn't my thing, but it's bound to get some nominations for the Honky Awards at the end of this year, like "Best Romance (High School)" or "Best Romance (Inter-racial)" - yes, that's a category, and any other thing I notice that movies have in common on some level can be a category that I make up. 

But a lot of this I just can't relate to, not the ballet stuff, not the hip-hop stuff, and I also never dated in high school, I waited for college to get started there. (So, yeah, it's my ex-wife's birthday, I'm not in touch with her but that doesn't mean I can't spare a thought for her today - also the Nets were playing the Cleveland Cavaliers, and my ex-in-laws lived near Cleveland.) There are so many other topics that this film touches on, like teen mothers, single mothers, dead mothers, then also gang-bangers, dance clubs, and dance tryouts. Interracial dating, infidelity, teen sex. To say this film is all over the place would be an understatement - I kind of wish there had been a little more focus, like maybe stop and think about what first and foremost a film should be ABOUT, and then realize that every thematic deviation from that is just kind of taking the film in a different direction, and you'll never get anywhere that way, at least I don't think so. 

Sara starts having fights in gym class with Nikki, Derek's ex, and then Sara and Derek start getting it on, meanwhile Sara's father remains the most hands-off parent possible - maybe he just doesn't get bothered by much, I don't know. Derek and Sara also start dancing together, in a style that is a bit hip-hop and a bit ballet, and he convinces her to get back to her dream of studying dance at Juilliard, which she gave up after her mother died. Coincidentally, the people who audition ballet dancers for that school are coming to Chicago in about a month, so they agree to work out a routine for the "modern dance" portion of her interview. Perhaps this is the part she tanked the first time?

But Derek's friend Malakai, who is still involved in the gang lifestyle, pressures Derek to help him with a drive-by shooting, which takes place exactly when Sara's audition does, because of course, we need some kind of conflict, and Derek needs to make some kind of choice between his past and his future with Sara - don't forget he just got accepted to Georgetown, too, that university probably would not want to find out that the inner-city teen they just accepted is still causing mayhem in the streets. So Derek backs out of the gang shooting so he can be there for Sara, but really, he should have done that anyway, for his own college future's sake.  OK, so we know Derek is going to Georgetown and quite probably Sara will be going to Juilliard, so with one in Washington DC and the other in NYC, what is the future for their relationship?  Maddeningly, the film can't or won't tell us, so this all feels kind of unfinished, like the director just gave up halfway through and left it for the audience to figure out. I guess they made a sequel, but with a different cast and it seems that nobody watched it. 

Directed by Thomas Carter (director of "Coach Carter")

Also starring Julia Stiles (last seen in "It's a Disaster"), Sean Patrick Thomas (last seen in "Till"), Kerry Washington (last seen in "The Six Triple Eight"), Fredro Starr (last seen in "Clockers"), Bianca Lawson (last seen in "Primary Colors"), Vince Green (last seen in "Hardball"), Garland Whitt (last seen in "Dolemite Is My Name"), Elisabeth Oas, Artel Great (last seen in "The Soloist"), Cory Stewart, Jennifer Anglin (last seen in "The Watcher"), Andrew Rothenberg (ditto), Dorothy Martin, Kim Tlusty, Felicia Fields (last seen in "Slice"), Ora Jones (last seen in "The Weather Man"), Tab Baker (last seen in "The Ice Harvest"), Kevin Reid, Mekdes Bruk, Ronnie Ray, Tai Davis (last seen in "Widows"), Karima Westbrook (last seen in "The Rum Diary"), Erica Hubbard, Whitney Powell, Brenda Pickleman (last seen in "U.S. Marshals"), Julie Greenberg, Anna Paskevska, Malaika Paul, Jennifer Echols (last seen in "Fathers' Day"), Ellie Weingardt, Safia Jalila

RATING: 4 out of 10 cafeteria lunch trays

The House of Mirth

Year 18, Day 59 - 2/28/26 - Movie #5,259

BEFORE: It's the last day of February, so let's check the format stats for the month:

14 Movies watched on cable (saved to DVD): Cousins, The Extra Man, The Girl Next Door, The Fabelmans, Certain Women, The Tale, New in Town, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,  Babygirl, The Photograph, We Are Your Friends, Love Again, Much Ado About Nothing, The House of Mirth

3 watched on Netflix: Woman of the Hour, Lonely Planet, A Family Affair

4 watched on Amazon Prime: Puppy Love, You're Cordially Invited, The Love Punch, Imagine Me & You
2 watched on Hulu: Cat Person, Good Luck to You Leo Grande

1 watched on Pluto TV: The Wings of the Dove

3 watched on Tubi: Roger Dodger, The Last Five Years, Spin Me Round

1 watched on a random site: Vita & Virginia
28 TOTAL

Elizabeth McGovern carries over from "The Wings of the Dove", and I'll post the links until St. Patrick's Day tomorrow. But first it's time to check the line-up for Day 17 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, this is for Sunday, March 1, and the theme is "Oscar Goes Dancing". Hmm, that's going to fit right in with my film for tomorrow, I think: 

6:15 am "Hollywood Canteen" (1944)

8:30 am "42nd Street" (1933)

10:15 am "Born to Dance" (1936)

12:15 pm "Swing Time" (1936)

2:51 pm "Royal Wedding" (1951)

4:00 pm "The Band Wagon" (1953)

6:00 pm "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" (1954)

8:00 pm "West Side Story" (1961)

10:45 pm "All That Jazz" (1979)

1:00 am "The Red Shoes" (1948)

3:30 am "Fame" (1980)

I've seen seven of these 11, so that's good - "Swing Time" and everything after that, except for "The Red Shoes". Am I mistaken, or is there some actor linking going on here? Fred Astaire carries over from "Swing Time" to "Royal Wedding" and then "The Band Wagon", and Jane Powell carries over from "Royal Wedding" to "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", and then Russ Tamblyn carries over from THAT film to "West Side Story". I think TCM made this same grouping of films a few years ago when they were doing a linking thing, and maybe just liked this order and wanted to repeat it? Anyway, I'm rising to 78 seen out of 189, which is 41.2% - my score went UP!

THE PLOT: A woman risks losing her chance of happiness with the only man she has ever loved. 

AFTER: This story treads some of the same ground as "The Wings of the Dove", the two films are set around 1910 and are based on classic novels about class struggle, one written by Henry James and the other written by Edith Wharton. Wharton could be the female American version of Henry James, for all I know. Hell, they could the same person, for all I know. They both apparently excelled at writing about whatever the opposite of joy was, and of course one was European and the other American, so we've got every possible other thing carrying over as well - both films have a female lead character who has no way to improve her station unless she can get married to a richer guy, and she's having no luck with that. And in both stories the lead character is in a situation-ship with a man who has a job that doesn't make "enough" money - a reporter in the James book and a lawyer in this one. 

Wait, there's more - in both cases the lead female is beholden to her aunt, who controls her financial reputation and gives her a small allowance. The difference comes when in "The Wings of The Dove" Kate takes action to try and get the money from a rich heiress's fortune and fails, and here Lily tries to get money in various other ways - by investing, by working in a millinery, and by inheriting money from her aunt, but nothing really works, except she DOES get $10,000 when her aunt dies, however it takes a long time to collect it, and Lily has outstanding gambling debts that need to be paid, so that inheritance is spent already, essentially.  Supposedly she's going to get $9,000 of investment money from Gus Trenor, her friend Judy's husband, however after a night at the opera Gus reveals that this money is really his, he invested it on Lily's behalf, but he wants a little sumpin' sumpin' in return for that money, and Lily doesn't want to give it to him. OK, fine, but then he wants his $9,000 back. 

That lawyer that Lily romances occasionally is Lawrence Selden, but he's got a couple other relationships going on, including an affair with Bertha Dorset, another one of Lily's friends. A random woman comes to Lily's door one day with love letters sent from Bertha to Selden, and Lily pays the woman $100. WHAT? I thought Lily was deep in debt, but she's got $100 to pay off a blackmailing stranger who found some love letters?  She must really did this Selden guy, but how's he going to support a wife on a lawyer's salary?  Again, WHAT? Were lawyers paid horribly back in 1910?  These days lawyers tend to make a lot of money, but maybe things were different back then? 

Still, Lily can't seem to catch a break - Simon Rosedale does propose to her, and he owns a bunch of fancy buildings, but Lily would seem to prefer to wait for her poor lawyer boyfriend to start making some bank. Bad move, Lily, you should have taken up Rosedale on his offer, you know what they say, "Buy land, they're not making any of it any more."  Lily rejects Rosedale's proposal because reasons, and instead goes on a European cruise with the Dorsets. Sure, if you're short on cash, maybe a cruise will fix everything. Wait WHAT? HOW? She's just digging the hole deeper, isn't she? But she's desperate to get away from the bill collectors in New York. Very relatable. 

On this yacht near Monte Carlo, Lily hangs out with George Dorset while Bertha seems to enjoy the company of a young poet. George freaks out one night when Lily doesn't make it back to the ship, and he accuses Lily of knowing about his wife's affair with this poet. Lily claims to know nothing, and when Bertha is confronted about it, she claims that Lily is having an affair with George. Sure, deny everything, admit nothing, then attack attack attack. Selden, meanwhile, arrives in Monte Carlo himself and starts hanging out with Carry Fisher, yet another friend of Lily's who seems to keep putting herself in-between Lily and any available bachelor. Man, it's rough out there, I suppose. 

Fast forward a bit to New York, after the cruise, when Lily's aunt has died and the Dorsets are breaking up. Most of Lily's aunt's fortune goes to her cousin, Grace Stepney, and Lily is essentially homeless, but Carry Fisher invites her to stay with her at the Gormers' place. Again, Lily has two possible prospects for marriage, the divorced George Dorset, or Simon Rosedale, who proposed to her before and she turned him down.  Well, she blows it with both of them, because George asks Lily for the truth about his wife's affairs, and she says she knows nothing (even though she BOUGHT those love letters from the blackmailer!) and then she offers to marry Rosedale, only now HE'S not into HER. Simon thinks Lily should use those letters to get Bertha to restore her social standing, but for some reason she won't. 

Finally, Lily gets a J-O-B as a secretary and companion for socialite Mrs. Hatch, she needs the money, but working for a living isn't helping her social standing. What a commoner, working for a living. One of her responsibilities is to pick up Mrs. Hatch's sleeping medication, but Lily begins taking it herself to deal with all the troubles in her life. Mrs. Hatch breaks into society, but feels that keeping Lily employed would be a liability, so she fires her. Lily works that sewing job in a hat factory, but by now she's addicted to laudanum and doing a bad job. She tries to borrow money from Grace, her cousin who got most of her aunt's money, but is turned down. 

It really doesn't make much sense here, but Lily burns the letters that Selden wrote to Bertha, letters which she could have somehow used to get either money or social status. Then she finally FINALLY gets her $10,000 of inheritance money, but she turns it right around and pays off Gus Trenor, so there goes most of the money, and remember she still has those gambling debts, too. But this is as close as she'll ever get to a blank slate, I suppose, so with the scales balanced, she overdoses and checks out. Selden figures out what she did for him and declares his love for her, just a bit too late. 

I don't really understand why the title is "The House of Mirth", because there's really no mirth anywhere in this film. It's extremely depressing to have to watch this woman struggle to support herself and fail over and over again. It's relatable, but maybe a bit TOO relatable, especially if I have to dip into my savings account a little each month, just to finish paying my own bills. Maybe in Lily I see the need to improve my situation, coupled with the apparent inability to do so. Anyway, I base my score on how much I enjoyed a movie, and really there's no enjoyment here at all, either. Sorry. 

Directed by Terence Davies

Also starring Gillian Anderson (last seen in "Boogie Woogie"), Eric Stoltz (last seen in "Brats"), Dan Aykroyd (last seen in "Dear Ms.: A Revolution in Print"), Anthony LaPaglia (last heard in "All-Star Superman"), Laura Linney (last seen in "Genius"), Terry Kinney (last seen in "Mile 22"), Eleanor Bron (last seen in "Iris"), Jodhi May (last seen in "Einstein and Eddington"), Penny Downie (last seen in "Breathe"), Pearce Quigley (last seen in "The Way Back"), Helen Coker (last seen in "Vanity Fair"), Mary MacLeod, Paul Venables (last seen in "Skyfall"), Serena Gordon (last seen in "GoldenEye"), Lorelei King (last seen in "Shining Through"), Linda Marlowe (last seen in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"), Anne Marie Timoney, Clare Higgins (last seen in "Bigger Than the Sky"), Ralph Riach (last seen in "Copying Beethoven"), Brian Pettifer (last seen in "Conspiracy"), Philippe De Grossouvre, Trevor Martin (last seen in "Othello"), David Ashton (last seen in "The Last King of Scotland"), Lesley Harcourt, Mark Dymond (last seen in "Die Another Day"), Pamela Dwyer, Kate Wooldridge, Graham Crammond, Roy Sampson (last seen in "Macbeth"), Alyxis Daly. 

RATING: 3 out of 10 tableaux vivants

The Wings of the Dove

Year 18, Day 58 - 2/27/26 - Movie #5,258

BEFORE: It was a bit of a long road getting here, and I'm not even talking about this year's chain. This is one of the films that was on my old DVR, the one that crashed that I had to turn back in to the cable company, even though it was 75% full of movies. I lost over 45 movies that way, and some were easy to replace because they were still running on premium channels, but others were a bit rare and don't run very often, I think now there are maybe just 17 or 18 of those that I'm hoping get re-aired at some point. So I've been keeping an eye out for this one in the on-screen guide, but it hasn't popped up in the last year. I programmed it anyway, because it turned out this February to be one of those films that can serve as a valuable link to keep the chain going and make the connections between other films. So Ben Miles carries over from "Imagine Me & You" and this gets me one step closer to the end of the month. 

I got lucky with "Much Ado About Nothing", PBS aired it on a Saturday night about five days before I had it programmed - but I couldn't expect to get lucky like that twice this month. So I relegated myself to watching this on YouTube or iTunes and paying $1.99 or $2.99 for that, but I did get "lucky" of a sort in that this was available on Pluto TV, so I could watch it without paying for it, I just had to endure a few commercials and the occasional unexplained sudden jump to the middle of the movie "Mo' Money" or an episode of "NCIS". (Jeez, this movie is really hard to follow, this Victorian romance has suddenly turned into a crime show...). Anyway, I soldiered through and now I can move this film from the list of films I lost that need to be replaced to the list of films I've seen, but don't have a digital copy of. So I'm still on the hunt for it, but there's no pressure or urgency to find it. 

Let's get to the Day 16 line-up for TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, this is for Saturday, February 28 and the theme is "Oscar Goes West". Well, I've seen a lot of Westerns, so here's hoping: 

5:15 am "Cimarron" (1931)

7:30 am "How the West Was Won" (1962)

10:30 am "Calamity Jane" (1953)

12:15 pm "Stagecoach" (1939)

2:00 pm "Red River" (1948)

4:30 pm "The Naked Spur" (1953)

6:15 pm "Broken Arrow" (1950)

8:00 pm "Shane" (1953)

10:15 pm "Hondo" (1953)

11:45 pm "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971)

2:00 am "The Wild Bunch" (1969)

4:30 am "Billy the Kid" (1941)

I think I've only seen four of these - "Stagecoach", "Shane", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" and "The Wild Bunch", I guess that makes me a poser, I haven't seen most of the older ones. But I think I need to record "How the West Was Won", I've been putting it off for years and it's overdue. Now I just have to remember to set the DVR. This brings me up to 71 seen out of 178, which is 39.8% and I'm back down below the 40% benchmark. 

THE PLOT: A woman who has been forced to choose between a privileged life with her wealthy aunt and her journalist lover befriends an American heiress. When she learns the heiress is attracted to her own lover and is dying, she sees a chance to have both the life she cannot give up and the lover she cannot live without. 

AFTER: The topic of relationships and romances is a hefty one - February is coming to an end but my chain is scheduled to drag into March, past St. Patrick's Day even. That's fine, the list of romance-themed films is so long that the more movies I can take off the list, the better. At the same time, I need to leave enough films ON the list, and the RIGHT films, so I can still put a chain together next year, God willing. Hey, if I can't, I can just do a short one and devote half of February to Black History films, there's always that option. But usually enough films that fit the theme come on the list between April and December, giving me enough to work with. But this year I also took care to choose some films that have been taking up space for a LONG time, like "Cousins", "Roger Dodger", and today's film. Films from the 1990's, they've got to GO, I can't put them off another year, this is like clearance sale time.  

With "The Wings of the Dove", there was this bit of a feeling, and it's not uncommon for me, to think, "Well, this film came out in 1997, surely I must have seen it then, or shortly thereafter, right? Well, I had no proof of that, because I only started rating films on IMDB in 2009, and so anything that's rated there when I sign in, I can confirm I've seen. Before that some things get a little hazy, because I'm 57 now, I can't be expected to remember every film I saw when I was in my 20's or 30's - my memory can't really be trusted, but you know, I might have seen "Much Ado About Nothing" before, but if I did, the plot sure didn't stick in my memory, and when I started watching it this week, I did NOT get that feeling of "Oh, wait, I've seen this one..." and I have to trust my gut sometimes. I also bought a lot of DVDs in the 1990's and a bunch of VHS tapes before that, so if I don't OWN a copy, that's another good sign that I haven't seen that film. Then once I started burning my own DVDs in 2004, I kept a database of everything I dubbed and burned, so if a film's not on that spreadsheet, chances are I haven't seen it.  

I double-checked and triple-checked, so I'm 99% sure I have not seen "The Wings of the Dove" before. I didn't know one thing about the plot, I didn't get that deja vu feeling when I started watching it, and it's not in the database, it's not rated on IMDB, and I don't have a copy on the shelf. Great, because it's exactly the film I need to connect to the next film and close out the month. What a relief, I don't have to scramble at the last minute and find something to replace it. Also, it kind of fits in with the other films this week, going back to "Love Again" there's been a bit of a common thread about deception, like Rob not telling Mira he's been getting the texts she was sending to her dead boyfriend, or the couple in "Love Punch" pretending to be Texan-Americans in order to steal a diamond. Don John causing Claudio to think that Hero was being unfaithful, or Rachel not telling her husband that she had feelings for Luce. That all works for me, having a theme for the week is always great. I mean, it can't be "Classics Week" if we only have one Shakespeare play and one Henry James novel, even if tomorrow is based on another classic book, that doesn't fill up the week. 

Anyway, the deception here in today's film involves Kate Croy setting up a rich American heiress with her own boyfriend, with the idea that if they should marry, he will inherit her money when she dies, and apparently she's got some kind of fatal illness that they couldn't cure back then. The film is set in 1910, when apparently everyone in London was hurting for money and desperate to not lose their castles or estates. To be fair, the wartime economy wouldn't hit for another couple of years, and larger families were still the norm, so if you weren't the first-born son you probably didn't inherit much, and you had to live in the smaller castle or (god forbid) the guest house on the manor. And that's it you were a man, for women it was even tougher, because it's not like a woman could hold a JOB or anything, heaven forbid, they were much too fragile then. JK, down with the patriarchy. 

Kate lives with her aunt Maud, who controls the family fortune, so Kate can't marry her lover Merton, a lowly journalist, because he doesn't meet Maud's standards. Maud would rather set Kate up with Lord Mark. Kate keeps seeing Merton secretly, however, and Merton begs her to leave her aunt and move in with him, but then she'd be cut off and they'd both be poor. Kate also learns that Maud is supporting her father by sending him a few shillings each week, and if she were to run off with Merton, Maud would also stop doing that, so for the sake of her father and to not be poor herself, Kate breaks up with Merton. 

A few months later, American heiress Milly comes through town, and forms a friendship with Kate, she even suggests that Kate come with her to her next stop, Venice. Lord Mark turns his attention to Milly because he's also running out of money, and if he were to marry Milly, that would vastly improve his situation. Lord Mark also reveals to Kate that Milly is very sick, and at this point Kate's gotten back together with Merton, so she hatches a plan to go to Venice with Milly, and since Milly seems to enjoy Merton's company, bring him along so that Milly will fall in love with him and leave her money to him when she passes. 

However, Kate didn't plan on becoming jealous when watching Milly and Merton together. Kate lures Merton away one night to have sex with him, but Milly somehow suspects something, so Kate decides she needs to leave them together in Venice but return to London herself. The plan is going well until Lord Mark shows up and reveals the scheme to Milly - Kate must have told Lord Mark, but why? Milly still prefers Merton to Lord Mark, even after she knows about the plan, so it seems that without Kate around, the love between Merton and Milly became much more real, and you know, that can happen. But still Milly dies and leaves her money to Merton, so the plan worked, at least at first glance. 

It all gets wrecked after the funeral, when Kate comes back to Merton's apartment and confirms that Milly did leave him a large amount of money. But Merton says he won't take the money, and if Kate wants to be with him, she must marry him without the money. Kate agrees to this, but only if Merton can tell her that he's not still in love with the memory of Milly. Which of course he is, the fake love became real love and so Kate learns that her scheme has completely backfired. Now she can't have the money and she can't have Merton, not the way she wants him, anyway. I think we can assume Kate thought that once Milly died and Merton had some money, either he'd be a more respectable husband that Maud would approve of, or at least he could support Kate if Maud didn't approve. 

This is sort of reminiscent of that O. Henry story where the man buys his wife beautiful combs and she busy him a beautiful chain for his watch - only he sold his watch to buy her the combs and she sold her hair to buy him the chain. Nobody gets what they want - but at least here this happens to people who deserve it, it's bad karma coming back at them for trying to swindle Milly out of her money. 

Well, I guess it's not a total loss, I mean Merton still has his newspaper job, he'll probably be very busy once World War I breaks out - and Kate has still got a chance at getting money from her Aunt Maud, if she's willing to marry the right man and make his life miserable and very long. And maybe they both learned a lesson about not swindling Americans out of their money, it only leads to everybody being unhappy. 

Directed by Iain Softley (director of "Hackers" and "Inkheart")

Also starring Helena Bonham Carter (last seen in "Enola Holmes 2"), Alison Elliott (last seen in "The Phenom"), Linus Roache (last seen in "The Namesake"), Elizabeth McGovern (last seen in "A Shock to the System"), Charlotte Rampling (last seen in "Cleanskin"), Michael Gambon (last seen in "King of Thieves"), Alex Jennings (last seen in "The Phoenician Scheme"), Philip Wright, Alexander John (last seen in "Sense and Sensibility"), Shirley Chantrell (last seen in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life"), Diana Kent (last seen in "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker"), Georgio Serafini, Rachele Crisafulli,

RATING: 6 out of 10 pornographic etchings in the back of the bookstore

Imagine Me & You

Year 18, Day 57 - 2/26/26 - Movie #5,257

BEFORE: Another storm, another cable/internet outage, another two Nets games and another two difficult treks home late at night. I've got the day off tomorrow so I plan to sleep until noon, I've got a big weekend coming up with the New York International Children's Film Festival starting up on Saturday. Maybe tomorrow, Friday, I'll watch a double-feature to finish off the month because I'll be working all day Saturday.  

Gerard Horan carries over from "Much Ado About Nothing". And here's the line-up for Day 15 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", tomorrow we'll be past the halfway point. The themes for Friday, February 27 are "Oscar Goes to Sea" and "Oscar Goes to Court": 

6:30 am "Captains Courageous" (1937)

8:30 am "One Way Passage" (1932)

9:45 am "Romance on the High Seas" (1948)

11:30 am "Now, Voyager" (1942)

1:30 pm "The Last Voyage" (1960)

3:15 pm "Billy Budd" (1962)

5:30 pm "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935)

8:00 pm "12 Angry Men" (1957)

9:45 pm "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)

12:00 am "Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961)

3:15 am "Adam's Rib" (1949)

I think I'm hitting for 5 today, "Now, Voyager", "Mutiny on the Bounty", "12 Angry Men ", "Witness for the Prosecution" and "Adam's Rib".  So 5 seen out of 11 is almost half, and brings me up to 67 seen out of 166, or 40.3% - yeah I didn't expect a big increase. 

THE PLOT: A newlywed bride becomes infatuated with another woman who questions her sexual orientation, promoting a stir among the bride's family and friends. 

AFTER: This movie is bound to be triggering for me to some degree - I almost don't have to watch this because I kind of LIVED it, my first wife came out of the closet after we'd been married for four years, and at first it seemed like maybe we could make something work, like she swore up and down that realizing this about herself wasn't going to change anything, but that's pretty ridiculous because that itself represented a very big change, so you know, too late. We tried to hold it together for another year (OK, I tried) but then it just wasn't going to work, was it? To continue to be with me would mean denying that new part of herself that she was just getting in touch with, and you know, the cat's out of the bag or the bird's out of the cage or the toothpaste is out of the tube, and really there's no going back. 

I know, I know, we're supposed to celebrate when people come out, or finally realize their sexual identity or whatever you want to call it, and generally I agree with that, I support people coming out and being their true selves or finding unconventional love and all that, but it's a bit different when you're the straight husband being left behind, or essentially being told by the person who wanted you as a lover now has a new plan and you're not part of it. If you think it's tough to be the person in the middle of the love triangle, try being just one of the corners and the losing one at that. The married woman who suddenly realizes she's gay, or bi-sexual, or bi-curious is in a difficult spot, of course, she has to think about what other people are going to say if she leaves her husband in order to have a girlfriend or a wife. If she's lucky she'll have support from family and friends, advice from a therapist or what have you, just don't expect support from the husband, that's all. 

Heck, the husband here, knows he's lost the battle and steps aside, because he doesn't want to stand in the way of Rachel following her heart, realizing her true nature or at least exploring this new opportunity - and really, that's the only way this story could proceed, if Rachel acted on her attraction to Luce and then suddenly had to STOP feeling that way about her, then she'd be denying herself with every day she continues to stay with Heck, and the balance of power has already shifted, it's too late for Heck to fix things, because Rachel's going to regret staying with Heck, for sure, and if she doesn't pursue Luce, she will always question whether she should have. 

Sure, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Sure, the path not taken always seems a bit more attractive than the safe, boring one you took, get it? There's also the possibility that getting married WAS the trigger, as soon as Rachel took those vows and said "forsake all others" and "until death do we part", that's a bit too final for some people. Rachel maybe felt the walls closing in on the day of the ceremony, and Luce the florist was RIGHT THERE, looking like she looks, right around the time she was forced to wear a white dress and state publicly that she was never going to have sex with anyone else. An impossible situation has been created, as this film describes the conundrum about an unstoppable force meeting with an unmovable object.  Well, that's a contradictory thing, because something has to give, either the object is going to move or the force is going to be stopped. 

Still, this movie was released in 2005, it's twenty years old and I think it's already antiquated in the simplicity of the situation. The solutions here are binary, Rachel either stays with Heck or runs off with Luce. Why are those the only two options? These days we have people who are bi-sexual, trans-sexual, a-sexual, and poly-sexual. There are thrupples and presumably quadrupples too, there's no longer just one way to live, it used to be you're either married or you're single, gay or straight, and there was no in-between. These days you can make your own  in-between if you want, or just not play the game at all - figuring out what works for you can be part of the process. What if Rachel decided she wanted to live 6 months out of the year with Heck and then 6 months with Luce, would that be so outrageous? It probably wouldn't be fair to either Heck or Luce, but still, saying that she has to choose between one or the other seems like it maybe needs to go in the trash-bin with "gays can't get married". 

I was for gay marriage when it was a hot-button issue, I know some people might be surprised by that, but only on the condition that there also be gay divorce. Just like it wasn't fair when straight people could get married and gay people couldn't, it wouldn't be fair if gay people didn't have to suffer the same consequences as straights when things didn't work out. Hell, that was probably a whole new cottage industry for divorce lawyers, gay separations and gay custody battles and gay alimony, presumably. Fair is fair. 

Anyway, I knew how this one was going to end pretty soon after it started. Luce was acting as "the fun one" and Heck was always working. Once Rachel and Luce went out to the footy match and played "Dance Dance Revolution" together, there was no going back. But Luce said she didn't believe in breaking up a marriage to get a woman, but I guess that went right out the window because she sure seemed like she was eager to take that opportunity if she could. I know, I know, it's complicated and we all have to weigh our own happiness against the rules as we see them. But we also all have to live with ourselves and the consequences of our own actions, just saying. If someone's sexual orientation truly doesn't matter, just ask yourself if you're rooting for Rachel to leave her husband for a woman harder than you would if she were leaving her husband for another man. 

Directed by Ol Parker (director of "Ticket to Paradise" and "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again")

Also starring Piper Perabo (last seen in "Because I Said So"), Lena Headey (last heard in "DC League of Super-Pets"), Matthew Goode (last seen in "Stoker"), Celia Imrie (last seen in "The Love Punch"), Anthony Head (last seen in "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters"), Darren Boyd (last seen in "Alan Partridge"), Sue Johnston, Boo Jackson, Sharon Horgan (last seen in "Man Up"), Eva Birthistle (last seen in "Brooklyn"), Vinette Robinson (last seen in Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker"), Ben Miles (last seen in "Speed Racer"), John Thompson, Mona Hammond (last seen in "Kinky Boots"), Kellie Bright (ditto), Rick Warden (last seen in "Death on the Nile"), Ruth Sheen (last seen in "The Thursday Murder Club"), Philip Bird (last seen in "Napoleon"), Justine Mitchell (last seen in "The Mauritanian"), Angel Coulby, Ben Willbond (last seen in "King of Thieves"), Krishan Naidoo, Sharon Duncan-Brewster (last seen in "Enola Holmes 2"), James Thorne, Tom McKay, Andrew Dunford (last seen in "The Borrowers" (1997)), Carl M. Smith, Carolyn Morrison,

RATING: 5 out of 10 adult films in the video rental section

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Year 18, Day 56 - 2/25/26 - Movie #5,256

BEFORE: How about this for timing, I had put this film on my list at the start of the year, because it seemed to be a film that could serve a function, I already had two films with Emma Thompson on the romance list (OK, 3, but it looked like I couldn't put them all together in a row) so I needed another film to serve as the outro for "Good Luck to You, Leo Grande". At the time this film was only on streaming, on a couple services like Pluto and Roku, easy enough for me to watch it. But THEN it got programmed for the WNET/13 "Saturday Night at the Movies" block for LAST WEEKEND, just in time for me to record it and then have it handy on the DVR, which meant I could watch it in the comfort of the recliner in the living room, and not at my desk upstairs, where the computer is. I mean I was going to watch it today either way, but it's very nice of the universe to make it easier for me. So Emma Thompson carries over again from "Good Luck to You, Leo Grande". 

By no means is this a last-minute drop-in, this is just one of those films that you keep on the "someday/maybe" list not because you're in a hurry to watch it, but because you never know, there could be a need to quickly connect the ends of two smaller chains in order to make a larger one and complete the month. It would have been a bigger coincidence if TCM were showing something written by The Bard today, only that wasn't in the cards. 

But here's the schedule for day 14 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, the themes for Thursday, February 26 are "Oscar Goes on Strike" and "Oscar Goes to Italy":  

10:00 am "Black Fury" (1935)

11:45 am "The Organizer" (1963)

2:00 pm "The Valley of Decision" (1945)

4:00 pm "Harlan County U.S.A." (1976)

6:00 pm "On the Waterfront" (1954)

8:00 pm "Roman Holiday" (1953)

10:15 pm "A Room With a View" (1985)

12:30 am "The Talented Mr. Ripley" (1999)

3:00 am "Death in Venice" (1971)

5:15 am "Indiscretion of an American Wife" (1953)

Jeez, I've never even HEARD of some of these films. How am I supposed to have watched these films if they're totally off the radar. Not for nothing, but who plans a program of films about people going on strike and leaves out "Norma Rae"? This is some B.S. because I've only seen 5 of these, and I'm counting "Death in Venice" because they made me watch that in junior high. I've also seen "On the Waterfront", "Roman Holiday", "A Room With a View" and "The Talented Mr. Ripley". So 5 seen out of 10 brings me up to 62 seen out of 155, which is exactly 40%.

THE PLOT: Young lovers Claudio and Hero, soon to wed, conspire to get verbal sparring partners and confirmed singles, Benedick and Beatrice, to wed as well. 

AFTER: Some more coincidental timing - Emma Thompson was on "Late Show" Monday night answering the Colbert Questionert, but our cable was out, so I didn't get to see that until tonight, right after "Much Ado About Nothing". Even MORE coincidental timing, the same day I'm reviewing a Shakespeare film, I had to work a screening of "Hamnet" at the theater. Sure, I know one is based on a play and the other is based on Shakespeare's life, but still, I'll take it as a sign that I'm in the right place, watching the right movie. Sure, I'd love to watch "Hamnet" but it doesn't fit into my chain right now and anyway, I'll be working during the screening. 

Of course, this film was made back when Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson were married to each other, they were kind of the "it" couple of British indie films back in the 1990's. What's weird to me is that hardly anyone seems to remember this - of course, they've both moved on and they've both had long careers in the film business, but separately after making a bunch of films together. Another weird thing is that both of them came to the theater where I work, separately but within a couple months of each other - Branagh was there to promote his film "Belfast" and after that, Ms. Thompson showed up at a screening of "Matilda", the remake film which was based on the stage musical, which in turn was based on the movie which was based on a book. I think I was the only one who worked both of those shifts, and again, nobody else seemed to notice or care about this, it was just another gift from the universe to me. 

Anyway, let's get on to "Much Ado About Nothing", whose title may be a play on words, with the now-archaic word "noting" which meant gossip or rumor - there is a wedding that becomes undone due to a false rumor, which means an accusation that turned out to be nothing, but before it was proven to be nothing there was a lot of ado, or fuss about it. At the start of the play, a group of soldiers return to Messina, Italy (Tuscany in the film) and immediately all of the men bathe and the women shower, you know, as you do. It's a little weird that then men all bathe together in a pool and the women shower in a big collective shower, but you know, it was a different time. Individual shower stalls came along much later, so really it was all a big naked fun-fest and nobody cared - except PBS, who apparently felt the need to blur all the butts, and there were a LOT, just as many butts as there are characters, all bathing together, nothing weird about that at all. I suppose today if you saw a bunch of naked men together in a pool or a large group of women in a big shower you might draw some different conclusions. I imagine in the 1990's there might have been some big fuss over screening this film for junior high students, what with all the bathing nudity. Much Ado About Butt-things?

But once everyone's all cleaned up, romantic possibilities emerge. One of the soldiers, Claudio, is attracted to Hero, the daughter of the governor (mayor?) of the town. Don Pedro, the prince just back from the war, thinks they'd make a great couple, while Benedick, a lord and soldier, is against all marriages, they're not for him. Anyway, Don Pedro suggests a masked ball, during which he will woo the young lady Hero, disguised as Claudio, and then step back and let the couple get married. Evil Don Jon, Don Pedro's brother, gets inside Claudio's head, however, and suggests that Don Pedro's really going to woo Hero for himself, and suddenly everything is in doubt. Never fear, Don Pedro is true to his word, Hero doesn't mind that one man danced with her and now she gets to marry a different man. Wow, Pedro must have REALLY talked up Claudio, or Hero must be that desperate. 

Meanwhile, Benedick endures sarcastic comments during the masked ball from Beatrice, who is Leonato's niece and therefore Hero's cousin. One might suspect that even though Benedick was in disguise, she really knew who she was talking to, and she probably found it funny to insult Benedick right to his face. Anyway, these two have had a war of words going on for years, so they either genuinely hate each other or are secretly in love, or, you know, maybe a bit of both. Since it's a few days to the wedding, everyone decides to have a bit of fun and so the guys go where they know Benedick can hear them and start talking about how Beatrice secretly loves him, and the female characters do the same thing, they go where Beatrice can hear them and talk about how madly in love with her Benedick is. This is just crazy enough to work, both people enjoy hearing about how another person loves them, and they resolve to stop arguing and get together to see if they can get along and love each other. Wow, that was pretty easy!

But then comes the nasty stuff, Don John has his associate, Borachio, go to Hero's bedroom and start making out with Hero's chambermaid, who he sees on the regular. Don John tells Don Pedro and Claudio that Hero has been "disloyal" and when they check it out, they see Borachio making out with the maid (who happens to be Hero's size and have the same hair color) with Borachio screaming out Hero's name. So Claudio's pretty sure that Hero's no longer a virgin and also not really worthy of marrying. 

It's a scene at the wedding the next day, because Claudio calls Hero unfaithful in front of absolutely everyone, and he storms off with Don Pedro. Hero faints and her father, Leonato, expresses his disappointment, wishing her dead. But the friar still believes that Hero is innocent, and suggests that the family fake Hero's death from shame so that Claudio will be remorseful and, I don't know, change his mind or something.  Meanwhile, the stress of the wedding causes Benedick and Beatrice to declare their love for each other, however Beatrice asks Benedick to prove his love by killing Claudio, the man who she says has disgraced her cousin with a lie about her morals before calling off the wedding. 

Meanwhile, the local Watch who are a bit inept, and led by the even more inept constable, Dogberry) overhear Borachio and his buddy bragging about the "treason" and "deception" that they pulled off, without really getting into details. So the Watch arrest them, with the goal of figuring out exactly what they did at a later time - but really, they need to arrest them while they can, and they'll never get a better chance. Through use of a town official asking the right questions, they (eventually) determine what these two did that was so wrong and report their findings to Leonato - well, their confession does prove Hero's innocence and Claudio's understandable misunderstanding over what he saw, so Leonato sees a way to move forward with the wedding, after Claudio expresses his regret over accusing Hero and causing her death from shame, Leonato says Claudio can marry his niece, who is nearly Hero's "identical cousin". 

Claudio agrees, but of course that isn't Hero's cousin, it's the very alive Hero herself. Everybody wins out, except the evil Don John who left town. They send some soldiers out to catch him, but they've got a wedding to get back to!  Actually two weddings, because Benedick and Beatrice now want to get married, too, and Benedick no longer has to kill Claudio for causing Hero's death because she's back alive again, or really never died in the first place. Hooray and hey, nonny nonny, whatever that means. 

I remember that back in the 1990's, Mr. Branagh was kind of working his way through making films of all the Shakespeare plays, I know he got to "Hamlet", "Othello" and "Henry V" but I don't think he got around to ALL of them, that would be quite impossible. But he made a few with Ms. Thompson while they were together. Emma Thompson's mum also had a role here, it was kind of a family thing, I guess.  Maybe when the couple split up or Branagh realized how many plays Shakespeare wrote, his attention turned to making different kinds of films.  I guess after "Macbeth" in 2013 he needed a new muse and turned his talents toward filming Agatha Christie novels instead. Well, it's all good work if you can get it. 

Directed by Kenneth Branagh (director of "A Haunting in Venice" and "Belfast")

Also starring Kenneth Branagh (last seen in "Stan Lee"), Robert Sean Leonard (last seen in "The Age of Innocence"), Kate Beckinsale (last seen in "Fool's Paradise"), Denzel Washington (last seen in "Luther: Never Too Much"), Keanu Reeves (last seen in "A Scanner Darkly"), Richard Briers (last seen in "The V.I.P.s"), Michael Keaton (last seen in "Game 6"), Gerard Horan (last seen in "Belfast"), Imelda Staunton (last heard in "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget"), Brian Blessed (last seen in "Alexander"), Ben Elton, Jimmy Yuill (last seen in "Artemis Fowl"), Richard Clifford (last seen in "Carrington"), Phyllida Law (last heard in "Nanny McPhee"), Patrick Doyle (last seen in "Effie Gray"), Andy Hockley, Chris Barnes, Conrad Nelson, Alex Lowe (last seen in "Tulip Fever"), Alex Scott, Edward Jewesbury (last seen in "Dungeons & Dragons").

RATING: 7 out of 10 white dressing gowns (this is apparently what all the women wore while they were trying to decide what to wear, but then everybody gave up and just wore that same gown, all the time)

Good Luck to You, Leo Grande

Year 18, Day 55 - 2/24/26 - Movie #5,255

BEFORE: After the previous snowstorm that hit the tri-state area, we lost power in several rooms for a few days - now we've been hit with an even bigger storm and so far we've kept our power, but we lost our internet and cable. Whose bright idea was it to have those two things come from the same provider?  I can't continue to do this without both cable AND internet, I mean I could watch the movies that are already in my possession and on the non-popular DVD format, but the chain often needs streaming if it's going to continue. Also, the DVR I have won't even access the movies that it already recorded unless the entire system is working, someone really should be fired for designing a system that bad. I mean the movie is THERE, recorded on THIS device right in front of me, and I can't watch it because of an outage?  That's an epic design flaw, right? I should at least be able to turn the unit on and watch the digital files on it while the main system is down, but that's not where we find ourselves. If my internet is down, I can still listen to all my music via iTunes, because all the files live on my computer. Just saying. 

Emma Thompson carries over from "The Love Punch", and she'll be here tomorrow, too, at which point we're going to be faced with an 8-way tie of actors with four appearances, so that means there's no clear leader this year, we'll have to wait to see if any of them pop up frequently during the Doc Block - probably Bill Murray, given the way things are going with my documentary field tests.

Here's the line-up for Day 13 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", for Wednesday, 2/25. The two themes are "Oscar Goes Back for Even More (Remakes)" and "Oscar Goes to Church". Oh, great...

7:00 am "The Merry Widow" (1952)

9:00 am "Cimarron" (1960)

11:30 am "The Sea Hawk" (1940)

1:45 pm "Little Women" (1949)
4:00 pm "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1941)

6:00 pm "Waterloo Bridge" (1940)

8:00 pm "Going My Way" (1944)

10:15 pm "Elmer Gantry" (1960)

1:00 am "A Man for All Seasons" (1966)
3:15 am "The Shoes of the Fisherman" (1968)

6:00 am "Hallelujah" (1929)

8:00 am "One Foot in Heaven" (1941)

Damn again, I've only seen two of these, "Elmer Gantry" and "A Man for All Seasons". That's not great, now I stand at 57 seen out of 145, and I've ducked down below 40% to 39.3%.  These are the only versions of "Little Women" and "Dr. Jekyll" that I have not watched, but one of those is on my list.  

THE PLOT: A retired school teacher is yearning for some adventure, and some sex. She has a plan, which involves hiring a young sex worker named Leo Grande. 

AFTER: Well, this is a twist on the typical person-hires-sex-worker or "hooker with a heart of gold" movies, because it features a woman hiring the services of a male prostitute. (Is "sex worker" really better than "prostitute"? I'm not sure...) The circumstances dictate that this is an older woman, someone who has not had sex in a long while, not since her husband died, anyway, and even before that, the sex wasn't that great, you know, because they were married a long time ago, things were different back then, also, they were British, so that's like a triple whammy of bad sex, I guess. 

"Nancy" (not her real name) is very nervous in her first encounter with Leo, and then the second time they get together, she's more clinical, as in she's got a checklist of sexual things she's never done that she wants to get to. Well, sure, if you take away the romantic part then it's just a series of specific actions, positions to try and boxes to tick, err, so to speak. But that's taking all the fun out of it, isn't it? Leo understands this and tries to get Nancy where she wants to go, but by using dancing to music, and touching, and asking questions about her life, not just letting her try oral sex on a guy with no build-up. 

If it's a bit cliché to depict an older British woman who never had an orgasm during sex with her husband, it's even more cliché to assume that someone is doing sex work because they failed at everything else, or because they were screwed up sexually in the past and are working through some things. Yet the latter is also where we find ourselves, obviously "Leo Grande" isn't this guy's real name either, but when Nancy does a little cyber-sleuthing in-between their encounters and figures out his real name, that's like a betrayal, a definite no-no in this relationship, which was supposed to be somewhat professional and also completely anonymous. 

The tables get turned during their final meeting, because Becky, the waitress in the hotel cafe, recognizes Nancy as her former R.E. teacher back in high school. I had to look that one up - "R.E." stands for "Religious Education" and apparently that's a part of the curriculum in the U.K., since they don't have the same separation of church and state as we do, the government runs the Anglican church and so it's worked right into the school system. Parents can apparently opt their students out of R.E. but probably very few people do. Anyway the waitress obviously knows Nancy's real name, and then Nancy feels the need to apologize to Becky, for telling her that it was wrong for girls to dress like sluts and to behave morally upright at all times. Well, Nancy never really knew that she was going to hire a sex worker in the future, did she? 

Despite a few bumps in the road, these encounters do change both participants for the better - Nancy still has some way to go on her sexual journey, but Leo has proven that the journey is worth taking - and even though Leo didn't want Nancy's help or advice when it came to re-connecting with his family, he does reveal at the end that he has been in touch with his brother, although not his mother, who basically has disowned him. This turned out to be a very simple story, but you know, sometimes all you need to make a movie is two actors and a hotel room.

This film premiered at Sundance in 2022, which of course is a January thing, and then it was nominated for four BAFTAs, which I think is a February thing - so very seasonally timely. A couple of the later sex scenes reminded me of the one Emma Thompson did in a movie called "The Tall Guy" with Jeff Goldblum back in the day - of course, in that one an upright piano was involved. I guess maybe it was just that the same actress held her arms above her head the same way while she was having a certain kind of sex...

Directed by Sophie Hyde

Also starring Daryl McCormack (last seen in "Twisters"), Isabella Laughland (last seen in "Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool"), Les Mabaleka, Lennie Beare, Carina Lopes, Charlotte Ware.

RATING: 6 out of 10 school essays copied from Wikipedia

The Love Punch

Year 18, Day 54 - 2/23/26 - Movie #5,254

BEFORE: Well, I was going to record "Das Boot" but then of course I went downstairs to record it on the DVR, and I promptly forgot. So I'll have to catch it next time around - I'm a little more focused right now on scanning through some documentaries so that when it comes time to put that chain together, I'll know exactly what order to put all the films in. I guess my brain can only handle one thing at a time these days. Celia Imrie carries over from "Love Again".

Here's the line-up for Day 12 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", and we'll be at the halfway point very soon - the themes for tomorrow, Tuesday 2/24 are "Oscar Goes Down in History" and "Oscar Goes Back for More (Remakes)":

5:00 am "Disraeli" (1929)

6:30 am "Viva Villa!" (1934)

8:30 am "Rasputin and the Empress" (1932)

10:45 am "The Private Life of Henry VIII" (1933)
12:30 pm "Marie Antoinette" (1938)

3:15 pm "Julius Caesar" (1953)

5:30 pm "Sunrise at Campobello" (1960)

8:00 pm "Gaslight" (1944)

10:00 pm "Imitation of Life" (1959)

12:15 am "The Magnificent Seven" (1960)
2:30 am "A Star Is Born" (1976)

5:00 am "Showboat" (1951)

I've seen the movies about Henry VIII and Julius Caesar, plus I've seen "Gaslight" and the final three here, so that's 6 seen out of 12, which I think counts as a "push" - so that brings me up to 55 seen out of 133, which still raises me up a bit to 41.3%.

THE PLOT: A divorced couple scheme to recover the retirement money that was stolen from them. 

AFTER: Well, this wanted to be both a romance film and a heist film AND a comedy, and just maybe that's a few too many things to try to be at once, if you know what I mean. The lead characters are a divorced couple, so they already know each other a bit TOO well, and it kind of feels like they come together both for the heist and because all of their other options with other lovers have come to naught, but is that really enough of a reason to get back together? Don't get me wrong, I like both of them and they're very cute together, but they're already in the post-marriage era of familiarity, so lying to each other is sort of like the default position, and well, that's not cool.  Part of the reason that Kate agrees to go with her ex-husband Richard to the south of France is that she's been texting with a Frenchman, a potential suitor who just happens to live near where they're going. 

The other reasons for her to go include the fact that she speaks a little French (very little, it turns out...) and also it's HER retirement money too that's at risk, her husband's pension is one of many that got stolen, but his income pays for their house, where she lives, so she's got a vested interest there in terms of not being homeless. The pension thing I don't really understand - hell, I don't understand my own pension, and I've got like three retirement accounts from companies I worked for over the years, and overall I don't know how much money is in them or how to access them when I need to. I should probably look into that at some point. But Richard's company got bought and shut down, and therefore he and his co-workers lose their pensions? I'm not sure how that worked, I figure the pension funds are usually held by a separate company that everyone invested in, and even if they company changed hands those pension funds should still be safe, right?  

But I guess they pointed out here that the French businessman who bought the company may have been corrupt and stolen the funds somehow, along with closing down the company legally and liquidizing all of the assets for himself. It seems like it all should be illegal, but according to him, it's not. Then again, the Supreme Court just told our President that he has no rights to levy tariffs on international business at 10% across the board, and his response was to increase all the tariffs to 15%. Well, I guess it's all in the wording, if SCOTUS said that his tariff rate was illegal, he did change the rate, so he's in the clear?  Anyway, we're all going to find out at some point that Trump and Musk stole all the money set aside for Social Security, plus all the gold from Fort Knox, so really, none of us are going to be able to retire, we'll all be in the same boat as Richard and Kate here. 

But while they're in France, they learn that this corrupt businessman, Vincent, is about to get married to his girlfriend, Manon AND they figure he's also the mystery buyer who just bought this giant diamond at an auction as a wedding gift. So they put aside the fact that they're not criminal masterminds of any kind and they hatch a plan to attend the wedding, steal the diamond and either ransom it back for the retirement fund money, or just fence it on the black market for a possible greater value.  They enlist the help of another couple, Penelope and Jerry, and together they're going to kidnap these two businessmen from Texas who are guests at the wedding and impersonate them - all you really need to look like a Texan is a cowboy hat, right? And so now we're talking about possible kidnapping charges, on top of diamond theft, breaking and entering, in addition to crashing the wedding, which is probably some form of trespassing. It's a lot of crime for four normal people to do, even if one of them used to be James Bond. 

Even with their son doing some "hacking" for them (probably best not to dive too deep into this) is this believable? Not in the slightest. These are regular older people who probably have trouble charging their phones, or figuring out Zoom calls, really what chance do they have of pulling this off? Kate first infiltrates the bride's "hen party", pretending to be a second cousin of the groom who she's never met - and she learns a lot about how the reception is going to work, especially when Manon is going to change clothes and put the big diamond on for the reception.  Things go south when Manon enters the room and breaks down crying before they can steal the diamond and replace it with the fake one (Umm, how and when did they get a copy of the world's biggest diamond? NITPICK POINT.) 

It's a chance for the couple to confide in the bride about why they're really there, and what kind of a terrible man she's about to marry. Really all they want is the diamond, but in addition the bride calls off the wedding, and Vincent is so upset that he shuts down the affair and has security search everyone for the missing diamond before they're allowed to leave. This is where the other couple comes in, because Jerry's ability to smuggle contraband out inside his body turned out to be really handy (no, not like THAT, he swallows it) and the evil businessman sends Richard and Kate away in a van to be killed, but the bride again comes to their rescue before the van can be driven off a cliff. 

It's just a bit of fun tonight, the film's not going to win any Best Screenplay Awards, but a heist is always a great example of the "What Can Possibly Go Wrong?" writing mantra, with the answer being absolutely everything. And it's being allowed to stay in the romance chain because of the possible re-kindling of the romance between the divorced people. But it's definitely "save the pension funds" first and then worry about the rekindled romance later. Still, getting back together wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for these two people.

Directed by Joel Hopkins (director of "Hampstead" and "Last Chance Harvey")

Also starring Emma Thompson (last seen in "Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy"), Pierce Brosnan (last seen in "Black Bag"), Timothy Spall (last seen in "The Pale Blue Eye"), Louise Bourgoin, Laurent Lafitte (last heard in "The Little Prince"), Marisa Berenson (last seen in "Liza: A Truly Terrific Absolutely True Story"), Olivier Chantreau, Ellen Thomas (last seen in "Johnny English Reborn"), Tuppence Middleton (last seen in "Cleanskin"), Jack Wilkinson, Adam Byron, John Ramm (last seen in "6 Days"), Eleanor Matsuura (last seen in "The Lady in the Van"), Bruce MacEwen (last seen in "The Brothers Grimm"), Christophe Prevost (last seen in "Life" (1999)), Sabine Crossen (last seen in "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald"), Liz Coke, Max Hayter, Anna Brooke, Linda Hardy, Tom Morton, Sinan Bertrand, Jordan Jones, Spencer Kayden, Samantha Kelly

RATING: 5 out of 10 cans of champagne