Robert Mcfarland

"Bridgerton" attempts to echo "Vanity Fair" and Jane Austen novels, but sadly, where it could have been a contrast and comparison to the inequities of both the Regency and contemporary eras, it devolves into a soft-core porn soap opera produced with a Disney sensibility. Where the plot turns against the characters' shallow motives, it shows itself in hollow contrast to the mastery of Jane Austen and Willam Makepeace Thackeray. Is it fair to compare television writing to that in classic novels? Perhaps not, but isn't Shonda Rhimes on a campaign to place her stamp on her medium? If so, it seems she might do well to be more thoughtful about her methods. Thackeray's and Austens's characters are dimensional, often unlikeable creatures who wrestle with angels-- mature, moral situations and emotions. They communicate their feelings pointedly---sometimes ad nauseum--in adult fashion, their motives obscured by the filter of class and "propriety." But the characters in Bridgerton don't seem to be able to communicate beyond the level of modern preteens, leaping to childish conclusions, and reacting like tropes in predictable ways. In fact, the entire central plot (spoiler alert) revolves around a ridiculous oath which one of the main characters made in his childhood, but never bothers to vocalise as an adult to the woman he professes to love. Consequently, the dramatic irony seems comically "low stakes" -- unintentionally overblown and completely unconvincing. By far the worst and most dangerous aspect of this show is the constant gaslighting between the main charcters, which operates just below the surface of a "romantic" patina. When will we dispense with the stupid and damaged idea that lying and gaslighting one's partner--even under the guise of ignoble protection--is the sine of "true love?" The actors are wonderful (mostly) and those who aren't are at least toothsome and capable. The dialogue is both appropriate to its setting, and if not exactly scintillating, it manages to carry what there is of the ridiculous plot in some direction. I love Shonda Rhimes' ethnically diverse casting in an historical setting, San well as the modern sensibility which overlays the Regency ethic, right down to the classical representations of contemporary pop. There are PLENTY of sex scenes, though I eventually learned to fast-forward through them, hoping to catch up with the rambling plot on the other end. Sadly, whenever I managed to grasp the hem of events it invariably led straight into a disappointing dramatic fold. Admittedly, I couldn't finish the entire first season due to headaches from constant eye-rolling. I prefer more forethought than this show, innocent and slight like its heroine, senseless in its sensibility, has to offer. It essentially amounts to a Harlequin romance for the emotionally underdeveloped.

Bad movie. Bad, baaaaaad movie. Go to your room! Embarrassingly bad. Nothing in this movie suggests that anybody who is involved in making it cared about anything more than profit. Will Smith has some charm but it only makes you miss Robin Williams more. Williams was a force of nature as an actor, but not a stellar singer. Smith cannot compare in EITHER category. I have questions: Given the wealth of assets at “Disney Corpse’” disposal (the E is international), how does one make a movie with live action characters who are less dimensional than cartoons? Why was Will Smith pretending to be a drag queen for the first third of the movie? Why do the costumes look like they were constructed in a Chinese Halloween costume mill? 95% of this movie is CGI—including the dancers—why, dear god, would you hire artists and then digitally erase their artistry? Why are the new songs so cliche and unlistenable? Why would a producer hire writers who couldn’t come up with a more original message than “be yourself.” (Seriously.) How is it possible, in an era defined by power grabbing thieves and imposters, to write a movie about power grabbing, thieves, and imposters, and still miss your mark? So many questions. This is a bold face money grab at the expense of your childhood memories.

Important life lessons from Aquaman: 1.) Jason Momoa is a (slightly) better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2.) Nicole Kidman will likely come to your house and clean your bathroom if you pay her enough money, 3.) I would watch televised golf or stare at a blank wall for hours if there was even a slight chance that Jason Momoa will take his shirt off, 4.) 10 year olds are writing most of the movies in Hollywood, 5.) Jason Momoa wears too many clothes, 6.) $60m pays for a lot of explosives, 7.) it is possible for a movie to be so terrible that it becomes unintentionally hilarious, and therefore infinitely watchable.