Suzan Shatto

The title of this film is a warning of its content. Very few characters in this film are stable or safe, much less happy. Every character is in pain. The entire plot is centered around the tragic death of Jason, who, for a reason not explained in the film, chose to park his truck on a country road with the lights off to have a romantic moment of starry night and sweet declarations of love with his girlfriend, Maben. Garrett Hedlund plays “Russell,” the drunk driver who drove his truck into Jason’s truck, killing Jason and subsequently serving 11 years in prison. The movie starts with Russell’s release from prison, and his severe revenge-beating by Jason’s brother, “Larry,” an angry, alcoholic who’s estranged via restraining order from his wife and teenage son, “Cody,” caused by his violent behaviors; and another close friend of the deceased Jason. That’s just the beginning. More misery and desperation is taking place across town. Having fallen on years of hard times after having poor dead Jason’s child, “Annalee,” now around 5 years old, Maben is abducted and raped by a very deranged deputy sheriff, who then calls all his friends to come have a night of “fun” with his trapped, naked, terrified quarry, Maben, who’s ONLY thought is that her 5 year old daughter is alone in a cheap motel room across town. Desperate, she finds the cruel deputy’s pistol laying inside his front seat, takes it, and shoots him dead; picking up the bullet casings. Mel Gibson, who is a foot shorter, and has no resemblance to Garrett Hedlund whatsoever is cast as Russell’s loving and protective father. The actors all do a great job, but this film is about a lot of people who mean well doing the wrong thing, and suffering endless consequences. In fact, the story ends with yet, another injustice. Turns out Russell’s best friend is also a deputy sheriff, who finds himself swept up in the mess. I felt exhausted at the end of the film.

If teachers would show films like this to their students, World History would be a lot more interesting, and would make more sense. This movie was made several years ago, but I find myself watching and re-watching it, and wish there were a hundred more just like it today. Every scene is captivating. The costumes are stunning and remind the audience of how over-indulgent and wasteful these teenager rulers were accustomed to being during that period. They didn’t know anything about leading a country, or managing a budget, and were surrounded by handlers who slid forms for signatures under their noses. All they really knew how to do was play, eat, drink, have parties, have sex, have babies, and repeat. The cast couldn’t have been any better. Rose Byrne stole the show, as did Jamie Dornan, and the incomparable Judy Davis. Kirsten Dunst was spot on, as usual; and Jason Schwartzmann was the perfect blend of naive with a dash of entitlement thrown in, but well mannered as a well bred heir would be. Kirsten and Jason were able to create a chemistry that made sense for an arranged marriage between royals, with a sweet quality of mutual admiration and support. Rip Torn was perfect. His dying scene was very moving. Last, and almost my favorite character, was the fabulous soundtrack. So much energy and glamour in sumptuous surroundings, being enjoyed and consumed voraciously to the modern rhythms and catchy tunes enjoyed by happy, carefree teenagers. It couldn’t last forever, and it didn’t. A delightful film.

I had high hopes that Amy Winehouse’s story would be told with a focus on Amy’s remarkable talent and originality; her sass, her unworldly channeling of classic jazz thru her modern interpretations; and her courage to stand her ground as a strong, talented, woman with a gift. What I watched was a story attempting to exonerate the two men in Amy’s life who took her love and trust for granted, and failed to put Amy’s best interests before their own. More shockingly, a female director used some very talented actors to perpetuate the revision of history, and failed to give credit where credit is due regarding Amy Winehouse’s rise to fame. So…in the end, the entire film feels dishonest, and biased in favor of depicting the formidably gifted and fascinatingly original star as a doomed, co-dependent, unstable, quivering mess who’s real dream was being a wife and mother, orbiting her insecure boyfriend, and pleasing Daddy. Even Mark Ronson got an honorable mention. Nobody created Amy Winehouse, but Amy Winehouse. And that should be the story. The rest is incidental. So you can rewrite the story, but you can’t erase the facts.

As storytelling goes, this one seemed full of holes. Some details would’ve told a story. Instead, some amazingly talented actors were wasted because there was very little storytelling. All the audience knows is this 22 year old woman was kidnapped at 4 years of age from a bouncy house at a birthday party, her mother was present for, by a man who’d been raised in multiple foster homes. Somehow the missing child’s parents managed to stay married, yet their marriage imploded almost the moment their daughter was returned to them. The mother became obsessed with forcing her very obviously traumatized adult daughter to immediately trust her and express long lost love for her, and suddenly, as if on a dime, the movie became all about the traumatized mother. The immensely talented Saoirse Ronan played a lifeless, expressionless, sad character who had no idea who her biological parents were, and longed to be reunited with her imprisoned captor, played very briefly by the scruffy and unremorseful Jason Isaacs, who apparently raised this girl in captivity for 18 years. We’re never told why? How? Some detail and character development would have added some otherwise lacking richness and cohesiveness to this film. Not everyone understands what “Stockholm Syndrome” is. The counselor in the story seemed to be insecure in the presence of her patient’s unflinching gaze and blunt responses, as if she didn’t know how to treat or help her patient. Perhaps her character could’ve started by explaining the syndrome so we’d all be on the same page. And why weren’t the parents in counseling? Makes no sense. Cynthia Nixon’s character expressed enough pain for everyone involved. She came apart. But nobody worried about her instability. I felt relieved when Leia escaped her own mother.

There are so many things wrong with this movie, it’s hard to rank them by order of priority. First of all, I’ve never been so tired of hearing Diane Keaton’s voice as in this movie. She has way too much screen time, all about the same subject: clawing and controlling her adult daughter’s love life to an abnormal degree, as if it has to be fixed today, as if it’s broken in the first place, and as if it’s ANY OF HER BUSINESS! Second: Who would ever believe the tall, gorgeous, charming Mandy Moore would ever have a shortage of male attention?! Come on. And, yes it’s a comedy, but a psychiatrist sister played by Lauren Graham who, not only hesitated to speak up to this overbearing mother and direct her to seek counseling, but is flippant with her suicidal patient. Not so funny. Piper Perabo barely has a part, other than to look pretty and sing a little. What a waste. The story’s premise sets women back 100 years: People can’t be happy unless they’re paired. A woman needs a man to be completed. A parent’s love for their children can make them a little crazy. It’s normal for a mother to obsess about, and interfere in their adult children’s personal relationships. If a woman dates and has sex with more than one man at a time, she’s “sleeping around.” (Yeah, we can do that.) And what about those male stereotypes in the movie? A musician, as a less desirable match for a woman who makes her living cooking and catering events. An architect must be controlling and lack sensuality or creativity, bc he’s rich. A single father with an unruly, hyperactive son who can’t seem to pronounce the word “vagina.” Who wrote these characters? They seem sophomoric. The singing scenes seemed like an excuse to give Mandy Moore a moment to showcase her area of comfort as a musician. Did we have to include the other 3? None of whom are particularly noted for their vocal abilities? And finally, that pathetic scene where Daphne, the mother, asks Molly, her youngest daughter what an orgasm feels like. Dear lord, does this woman not have women friends in her own demographic to talk to? Why would a mother who claims to love her daughter so much seek sympathy, and reverse roles? Twisted logic there. There are some boundaries that support healthy parent-child relationships. My favorite part of this movie was the wise choice to give Diane Keaton’s character laryngitis. Blessed relief.

Is this all anyone could come up with for purposes of showcasing the talents of Lily Depp? It’s just a grind to watch this series, and I’m only 3 episodes in. The gratuitous sex scenes aren’t appealing, and there is ZERO chemistry between Jocelyn and Tedros, who is very miscast. Nobody would be charmed or mesmerized by this psycho metro male, who has no manners, abuses her staff, and has so little respect for Jocelyn, he dangles his control over her like some big, shiny, vulgar trophy. I don’t find anything believable or honest about this story. It’s clearly about the exploitation of a sad pop star who recently suffered the loss of her mother. But Jocelyn herself seems to be pretty clear on where she wants her career to go. In her position, with her connections, how hard could it be to make changes to her team? Or hire songwriters, choreographers, producers, who are more closely aligned with Jocelyn’s creative goals? From watching Lily Depp in other films, she’s more than a pretty face and a hot bod, yet in this series, she’s mostly naked, or being penetrated so frequently, it’s mechanical and boring. And mostly sad, as we learn that she’s had a Pavlov type conditioning of being motivated by physical and emotional abuse by her now deceased mother. So Tedros, the self appointed outhouse psychologist, is sliming his way into replacing that role in an effort to “help?” Sorry. Jocelyn just doesn’t come across as being that dumb. The supporting cast is way more interesting than the lead. Jane and Hank are pure entertainment. Casting Lily Rose Depp in this role is the most glaring evidence of exploitation in this grimy story. It’s been done already: Little Red Riding Hood.

This movie really hits its mark on depicting the sheer terror of being in 8th grade, and how little relief parents are able to give, no matter how sincere their efforts are. The main character, Kayla, is deftly played by Elsie Fisher who brilliantly conveys how many faces a teenager develops in order to cope with issues of social awkwardness, loneliness, acceptance, inclusion, and sexual longing. She is perfectly cast as a teenage girl being raised by a single father, with no siblings, bad skin, an imperfect body with poor posture, and endearingly crooked teeth, which gives her character even more authenticity. Her character, Kayla, is slowly developed throughout the film, and the viewer is allowed to be present in her skin, experience her social anxiety, and empathize with her longing to belong. The film’s subject matter is universal and timeless, reminding viewers of every age that, for whatever reason, groups form societies and set standards for what is and is not “cool;” and that each of us at some time when we were very young and inexperienced, found ourselves deciding how much we were willing to compromise for what seemed, at that age, to be a membership of sorts in that fickle club of cool kids. Elsie’s vulnerability was painful to watch as she tried too hard to impress, made up falsely exaggerated sexual experiences, snarled at her father’s clumsy efforts to relate, and filmed her self improvement videos for social media. Overall, this film is a very sensitive and honest portrayal of what an eighth grade girl feels like and deals with.

This movie is pure entertainment. Well written, well acted, and well directed. Perfect comedy timing from beginning to end from actors that I’ve seen in serious dramatic roles, ie. Jeremy Northam. Steve Zahn is at his crazy best. Illeana Douglas is a fragile southern belle, and your favorite school teacher. Ally Walker is a tall, naturally beautiful girl Nextdoor with a perfect Texas accent. (Native Texan here.) All the supporting actors are natural and priceless as small town neighbors looking out for each other. Ally Walker and Jeremy Northam have a genuinely sweet and easy chemistry. The plot is wonderfully wacky and original. Very funny, with subtle references, and double entendres aplenty. Even the children are funny, and Steve Zahn’s interactions with a troupe of little dancing girls is just a treasure. Star packed and beautifully done. I never get tired of watching this wonderful film.

A fun ride thanks to the fine acting chops of the co-stars, Lily James and Sebastian Stan. I enjoyed learning about Pam and Tommy’s love story, and love how their characters were played as unapologetically outrageous and sincere at the same time. I can only imagine that this role was a great deal of fun for both actors, but especially for Sebastian Stan, who really went the distance to play Tommy Lee as a wild man in love. And while, at first glance these roles may seem like impersonations, these talented actors were able to make me care about characters that, up to now, came across as boringly shallow narcissists in the press. This series humanized both Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee, as people who happen to be rich and famous entertainers, and who appear to be thoroughly enamored of each other. Only Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee know if their characters and their stories were depicted accurately, but from a sheer entertainment standpoint, Lily and Sebastian played them as anything but cheap charicatures. The characters were given more depth than I ever expected. Seth Rogen was great as always. His mullet was a great touch. And Offerman delivers as usual. Taylor Schilling was a nice addition. I had never given much attention to the stories about the sex tape when it originally broke, but had the mistaken belief that it was a raunchy, distasteful publicity trick by Pamela and Tommy. Finally, the truth of the situation is spelled out for the world to see. They’re just silly, hormonal young adults, self indulgent, somewhat self destructive in their love of excesses, who found playmates in each other. Definitely worth watching.

Based on reviews, I was excited to see K-Stew carry a lead, master an accent, and conquer an impersonation of one of the most photographed and beloved women in history. Well….The wig made me crazy, and was a distraction the entire film. Such sumptuous sets and costumes, yet a wig that is so obviously a wig. How can you get the hairstyle so wrong? The acting was actually more like over-acting, breathy delivery that I could understand maybe 50% of the time. Typical fidgeting, self conscious Kristen Stewart. The British accent sounded forced and unnatural. The mannerisms and gestures were a decent effort at a mimic, but they added to the real Diana’s attractiveness while they only served to demonstrate Kristen’s attempts to appear broken. I’ve seen enough interviews with Princess Diana to know that, while she may have endured struggles during her marriage to Prince Charles, she also proved herself to be a shining star of generosity, kindness, charity, and dedication to hundreds of charitable organizations. She shared her strength with those less fortunate and did her part to remain physically attractive, fashionable, and the personification of grace. In every photograph of the royal family, it is Diana who appears the most majestic, the most imperial, and the natural leader of the group. “Spencer” attempts to depict Diana as a woman falling apart, after being married into her situation for 15+ years, which, by now has become more of a job, a role, with no surprises left. I find it hard to believe that, at a point where the marriage is ending, Diana would be anything less than hopeful of starting her life outside the purview of the royal family. I give 1 star for showing Diana to be a loving, playful, and protective mother, which in fact she was. However, the film also went so far as to imply that Diana’s children had been informed of their mother’s fragile emotional state, and that they “took care” of her during her manic moments. Diana’s children are still alive, and nothing positive can come from portraying such sensitive relationships as damaging. All parents have stress in their lives at some time or another, and to villify Diana, while letting the flagrant cheater Charles off the hook as the cause of her distress is simply more of Hollywood’s tradition of misogyny. Kristen Stewart’s nervousness created the necessary appearance of the intense anxiety of a woman coming undone. But that’s Kristen, not Diana. Onscreen, Diana has always exuded self control, confidence, intelligence, and self effacing humor. Shyness is something both Diana and Kristen have in common. And while Kristen is very beautiful, she looks nothing like Diana. She looked awkward in the various outfits. Diana was 5’10” and wore clothing like a royal super model. And how many times do we need to see the barfing to get the point of bullimia across? What is the fascination of putting the vulnerabilities of dead beautiful women under a microscope? Of disclosing secrets and personal demons after a person has died, and cannot defend themselves? It seems cowardly. I’m baffled at all the positive reviews of this film and chalk it up to cognitive dissonance. Or Hollywood gas lighting.