Being the Ricardos: A Review

BEING THE RICARDOS

One week. So much can change in one week. Being the Ricardos, a biopic of Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball, looks into one tumultuous week that had everything from Communists to pregnancy. While it has some good elements, Being the Ricardos could have been more.

It is 1952. The CBS sitcom I Love Lucy is a smash television hit. The I Love Lucy cast and crew are rehearsing for that week's episode, Fred and Ethel Fight. I Love Lucy star Lucille Ball (Nicole Kidman) is constantly taking control of the set. She has barely concealed contempt for the episode's director, Donald Glass (Christopher Denham). Ball's husband and costar, Desi Arnaz (Javier Bardem), is more easygoing and casual about things. He has full faith that things will work out during the week. There are read-throughs, blocking, rehearsals to fix whatever issues arise.

What can't be fixed are things outside the studio. News is starting to leak out over Ball's private testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee. She had, decades earlier, registered to vote as a Communist. Ball had done that in order to please her beloved Grandfather Fred, who was deeply involved in leftist politics. Both Ball and Arnaz know that the story has no real merit, and she was cleared of any Communist ties. They also know that this news could bring a screeching halt to I Love Lucy and their careers.

There is something else that could do that. Lucille is pregnant. This is an absolute scandal as far as the network is concerned. Pregnancy, and all its implications, simply cannot be seen on television. The pregnancy is not helped by reports that Arnaz has been stepping out on Ball. He insists that all he was doing was gambling on a yacht with his friends. Ball is not fully buying this alibi. 

Ball is growing more brittle with each passing day. Her other I Love Lucy costars, Vivian Vance (Nina Arianda) and William Frawley (J.K. Simmons) attempt to help her. However, they have issues of their own. Vivian is growing frustrated that she keeps getting pushed to look less glamourous than Ball. William is an alcoholic. Vivian and William also cannot stand the other, constantly making passive-aggressive comments to and at each other.

Ball is similarly displeased at some of the writing from her longtime writers Bob Carroll (Jake Lacy) and Madelyn Pugh (Alia Shawkat). Pugh in particular wants to be more progressive in how women are shown on television. Ball pushes back somewhat, insisting that she is doing a sitcom not an empowerment movement. As the week continues, Ball and Arnaz fight battles together and apart until showtime.

There are some elements in Being the Ricardos that are quite strong. Three of the film's cast received Oscar nominations for their performances. I think they were ultimately warranted. Nicole Kidman does quite well as Lucille Ball. Ball is one of the most recognized faces and voices in television history. As such, Kidman had a hard task ahead of her. She met it with great efficiency.

Kidman got Ball's speaking voice, which was lower than her "Lucy" voice. There were a few reenactments of I Love Lucy, and Kidman could perform the "Lucy" character. On a certain level, Kidman had to play two characters. There was "Lucille Ball", savvy but damaged actress. Then there was "Lucy Ricardo", wacky housewife. Kidman has several strong moments in Being the Ricardos. There is when she and Javier Bardem's Desi have to meet at the top of Mulholland Drive due to their conflicting schedules. When having a conversation with others, Kidman also does well.

She could be navigating her frenemy status with Arianda's Vance. She could be listening to advise from Simmons' Frawley. She could be slightly irritated by Shawkat's Pugh. She could be in turns dismissive and pleading with Tony Hale's Jess Oppenheimer, her frustrated I Love Lucy producer. In almost every situation, Nicole Kidman can convince the viewer that she is Lucille Ball and not a Ball impersonator.

There was one moment where Kidman's acting was off. It is when she rushes home in a flashback to tell Arnaz that she was cast in The Big Street. This for Ball is a major coup, a chance to get top roles that would normally go to Rita Hayworth or Judy Holliday. Her scene with Bardem here felt a bit forced and theatrical. I put it down to a small misstep, for most other scenes are strong. Later in the flashback, she can barely contain her fury when told that RKO is dropping her contract. Despite The Big Street's critical success, the film is a flop. The mix of shock, anger and contempt that Ball has comes through in Kidman's performance.

The curious thing about Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz is that he makes Desi likeable and casual. We do not see that driven, contradictory figure who could gamble and win until he gambled once too often both metaphorically and literally. For the most part, Bardem played Desi as an easygoing fellow, confident that things would turn out alright. 

Simmons and Arianda, who in my view was shamefully overlooked for a Supporting Actress nomination, also did well. Simmons does not look at all like William Frawley. However, he had some wonderful moments where he gives Kidman's Ball advise on how not to emasculate Arnaz in front of others. It was unintentional, but Frawley reminds Ball that even though Arnaz loves America, he is also still Cuban. Arianda has a great scene when confronting the besieged Ball about the latter's insistence on gaining weight. We see that there is a level of jealousy between them. We also do see that there is a sense of camaraderie building. 

I think at times Being the Ricardos spent a bit too much time showing the informal rivalry between Carroll and Pugh. To be fair, both Jake Lacy and Alia Shawkat did well in their roles. I just thought that in particular with Shawkat's Pugh, we were getting less witty repartee and more speeches. 

Where I think Being the Ricardos went wrong, wildly wrong, was in how it presented history. Yes, writer/director Aaron Sorkin was not making a documentary, as the saying goes. He managed to get in one of his famous "walk and talk" scenes into Being the Ricardos. However, there were some things that I did not think worked.

Being the Ricardos was presented as a faux documentary, with older versions of Carroll, Pugh and Oppenheimer speaking to the camera. Nothing against Ronny Cox, Linda Lavin and John Rubenstein as the older versions of the three mentioned figures. However, at certain points them jumping in to supposedly fill in information seemed almost jolting. 

That perhaps would not be a major issue. The historical accuracy in Being the Ricardos, however, is. Ball goes on about how she has to struggle to get good parts that would instead go to Judy Holliday. Holliday's first film was in 1944's Winged Victory. The Big Street was released in 1942. Holliday was barely making a ripple in New York City café society at the time of The Big Street. 

It makes no sense that anyone in Hollywood would know who Judy Holliday, this nightclub performer just starting out, was at the time. Ball, who at the time was known as "Queen of the B's" as in B-pictures and had been in movies for almost a decade, would not be losing out roles to Judy Holliday. The setup is a curious one. It is more curious when one thinks that Holliday, once established, was seen more as a comedienne. Her great claim to fame came in her Oscar-winning role in 1950's Born Yesterday. Holliday had originated the role on Broadway in 1946, where she charmed audiences for three years. 

It's already a stretch to think that a virtual unknown from Broadway was routinely offered film roles over a contract player who had some name recognition. To pretty much say that a bubbly comedienne was the de facto second choice for a serious drama over someone who had worked in dramas and comedies for almost a decade seems downright bonkers. How Ball would think that Judy Holliday was being offered roles ahead of her, especially serious dramatic roles like The Big Street, is downright bizarre. One wonders if Aaron Sorkin just pulled Judy Holliday's name out of a hat and decided she would be this great rival to Lucille Ball.

Worse is Desi Arnaz's big speech. As the I Love Lucy audience arrives to see the taping, Arnaz forgoes his usual warmup act to address the headlines of "Lucille Ball a Red". In Being the Ricardos, it takes a call from none other than J. Edgar Hoover, heard by the audience, to alleviate any concerns that Ball was part of a Stalinist takeover. In reality, Arnaz's speech was an eloquent defense of Ball and her actions to humor the grandfather who had raised her and her brother. He spoke about how revolution forced him out of Cuba. He even managed to make a wisecrack about the whole affair, saying that the only thing red about Ball was her hair, and that even that was not legitimate. 

It seems sad that Arnaz's work to save I Love Lucy from potential cancellation due to the Red Scare was undermined by Sorkin opting for more "drama". The real story is dramatic enough. 

Being the Ricardos is well-acted and moves well. I would quibble with how accurate the film is when it comes to this critical moment. That is a major drawback. However, the film is just good enough for people to go see. We will always Love Lucy. We just liked Being the Ricardos.

Desi Arnaz: 1917-1986
Lucille Ball: 1911-1989

DECISION: C+

Now You See Me: Now You Don't. A Review

NOW YOU SEE ME: NOW YOU DON'T

The Four (Plus) Horsemen of Magic ride again in Now You See Me: Now You Don't. There are a few things that, from the get-go, I do not understand. I do not understand why Now You See Me 2 was not titled Now You See Me: Now You Don't. I do not understand why the third film of this series was made almost a decade after the second one. I do not understand why these films are actually popular. Up to point, I do; they can be enjoyable romps if you abandon logic altogether and accept what is given no matter how outlandish or nonsensical. As it stands, this unexpected franchise still isn't as good as it thinks it is. Now You See Me: Now You Don't is probably the best of the bunch. Granted, a low bar to cross but there it is.

Magic fans have cracked the clues to a surprise mystery show by legendary magicians the Four Horsemen. The dominant figure is rapid-fire illusionist J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg), who is the master of ceremonies. However, this reunion brings back mind reader and hypnotist Merritt McKinney (Woody Harrelson), master cards man & sleight-of-hand artist Jack Wilder (Dave Franco) and escape artist Henley Reeves (Isla Fischer). Together, they manage to steal billions of cryptocurrencies from creepy cook Brett Finnegan (Andrew Santino) and give it back to all the show attendees.

However, all this is really a set-up. The Four Horsemen were never really there. Instead, they were a mix of holograms and voice impersonators by three junior magicians. The "random magic show attendee pulled from the audience" is really Bosco LeRoy (Dominic Sessa), the mastermind of this scheme. The ringer was aided by June McClure (Ariana Greenblatt) and Charlie Gies (Justice Smith). Our Three Little Ponies think themselves clever. However, they were not expecting the real J. Daniel Atlas to pop up in their secret loft where they've been squatting. Atlas has been summoned by the powerful and mysterious society known as The Eye to get them to Antwerp.

Why? The Eye is now targeting Veronika Vanderberg (Rosamund Pike). Veronika is a South African diamond mine queen who has been laundering money for various war criminals and dictators. This is something that her father, a Nazi collaborator, had been doing, so she's keeping to the family business. Horseman Number One and his Three Little Ponies now must steal The Heart Diamond, the world's largest diamond that is rarely exhibited. It will be put up for private auction to raise more money. This heist will require not just elaborate disguises and trickery. It will require the remaining Horsemen, who appear at the chaotic auction and successfully swipe the Heart.

Now, it is off to France where they must go and solve more mysteries from The Eye. The Horsemen's frenemy Thaddeus Marcus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) is there to guide them until Veronika and the paid-off French police storm the chateau. The seven Horsemen and Little Ponies are forced apart. It will take their skills to rescue Merritt, Jack and June. It will also require the return of Lula May (Lizzie Caplan), another Horseman who is a mistress of disguise.

All but Merritt manage to escape Veronika's clutches. He, however, knows a hidden Vanderberg secret that might connect to her family's connection to a Vanderberg family murder. A deal is struck: the Heart Diamond in exchange for Merritt. Nothing is as it appears, with more twists and turns involved. Horsemen are in danger; South Africans are exposed. While ultimately everything works out, there might be room for Our Little Ponies to join the Five Horsemen thanks to the hologram of Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo).

Do people even care about logic? The two previous Now You See Me films were not exactly the most plausible of stories. I also can barely remember much of them. I should, perhaps, accept that one goes to a Now You See Me film for the implausibility of everything. Now You See Me: Now You Don't is going all-in for implausibility. 

There are things to admire in Now You See Me: Now You Don't. Some credit should be given to the writing team of Michael Lesslie, Paul Wernick, Rhett Reese and Seth Grahame-Smith for acknowledging Henley and Lula into the film. The film also gave us somewhat logical explanations for the various exploits. For example, how the Heart Diamond managed to get swiped did make some sense.

The film also had a slightly wry, winking manner in how it dealt with some of its characters. When 

We get a battle of generations between the Five Horsemen and the Three Little Ponies. I note that Jessie Eisenberg is a mere nineteen years older than Dominic Sessa. Curiously, Dave Franco and Justice Smith are only a decade apart. As such, it hardly feels like this war between Gen X and Gen Z. I believe Thaddeus described it as "wisdom and skill versus youth and arrogance". Sometimes this was played up a bit. For example, June and Jack informally competed against each other on the art of lockpicking. Gen Z managed to win, thanks in part to its love for Escape Rooms. 

Now You See Me: Now You Don't does manage to integrate the Little Ponies into the Four Horsemen. That should be a credit to director Ruben Fleisher, who kept things going in a pretty solid pace. The film is close to two hours. However, I rarely felt that it lagged. Sometimes it did seem to crawl, such as in the extended Chateau scene. Still, things went relatively smoothly.

There are some other benefits in Now You See Me: Now You Don't in terms of acting. I am nowhere near saying that the performances were good. Far from it. However, it is fascinating to watch Jesse Eisenberg and Justice Smith face off in a battle of who can play themselves the worst. Eisenberg and Smith are not actors. They have never been actors. They probably will never be actors. In every film that they are in, they play the same type. As such, seeing them together is weirdly fascinating. One wonders which one will try to play a character.

As a side note, the age gap between Eisenberg and Smith is 12 years.  

Rosamund Pike is loving her South African accent and playing this Bond villain. She's had some experience given her role in Die Another Day. In Now You See Me: Now You Don't, Pike seems to revel in Veronika Vanderberg's villainy. Her plan to off the Five Horsemen is so amusing that even a Bond villain like Drax would find it a bit absurd. Why bother sending them to the desert when you can bring the desert to them? Sure, it is easier to just shoot them, but why not give them a magic act-type trap?

In the acting range, Pike and Dominic Sessa were the standouts. Pike was delightfully evil. Sessa, building on his stellar work in The Holdovers, made the leader of Our Little Ponies into a compelling figure. He and Pike face off at the auction, where he pretends to be an environmental activist crashing the event. At one point, he shouts, "ZIP IT, SPARKLES!", which did make me laugh.

Everyone else save for two were serviceable. I am not saying that they were great. They were exactly as I said: serviceable. Harrelson, Franco, Fischer and Caplan all know their characters. They were not stretching but they were not embarrassing themselves. Ariana Greenblatt did not add or subtract in her role as the mistress of misdirection.

We now come to our non-actors. Jesse Eisenberg and Justice Smith, as stated, never actually act as in portray characters who are not themselves. It is a contest to see who can try to act and look worse. Eisenberg has a particularly bad moment when attempting to mourn Thaddeus. There was no emotion whatsoever from Eisenberg. I think he might have moved his head a bit. That, for him, is displaying deep grief.

Justice Smith, I would say, beats Eisenberg in the "bad actor even when playing himself" role. I think it is because for reasons unknown to all mankind, Now You See Me: Now You Don't choose to center the film around Charlie. I will give grudging respect to a film that has Justice Smith wear a cap reading "I Am An Twerp". I found that amusing and maybe descriptive. 

We get a twist involving Charlie that is both predictable and laughable. To be fair, little hints are dropped through the film. However, I found the shocking twist a bit preposterous.

Then again, the Now You See Me films have always hung on being preposterous. They also hang on everything going exactly right. This entire plot hangs on there being a master plan that had been decades in the making. It asks us to believe that despite being world-famous and photographed often, Veronika would not recognize famed photographer Marc Schriber (Dominic Allburn). It also asks us to believe that Schriber would be so easily fooled by Our Little Ponies. 

I suppose that I am being too harsh with Now You See Me: Now You Don't. All of the films have been fine until it goes one step too far for me. This third film, with a fourth teased at the end, is probably the best of the bunch. That is a low bar, but there it is. "You can do magic; you can have anything that you desire", the band America sings. I desire a Now You See Me film that makes sense and I can enjoy without turning my brain off.  

DECISION: C-

The Running Man (2025): A Review (Review #2070)

THE RUNNING MAN (2025)

Whatever the merits of The Running Man, it faces a very tough challenge separate from the lead character's race to survive. The makers of the 2025 adaptation insist that this Running Man is closer to the Stephen King novel than the 1987 adaptation. That, however, does not mean that it is better. Far from it. Excessively long, increasingly nonsensical, The Running Man is a sorry step down, with only its star's physique to recommend it.

In a dystopian world, Ben Richards (Glen Powell) is struggling for employment. He was terminated from his last position due to being pro-union and a whistleblower to the company's negligence. With a sick infant to care for, Ben opts to make quick cash by volunteering for one of the many deadly game shows that pay great amounts, if one survives. While he promised his wife Sheila (Jayme Lawson) that he would not go into The Running Man, that's where his skills and intense anger get him assigned. The various game shows are overseen by network/government executive Dan Killian (Josh Brolin), who sees in Richards a strong contender for ratings gold. The Running Man's flamboyant host Bobby T (Coleman Domingo) loves the theatricality of the show and plays along with everything.

The Running Man show is simple. Three contestants are given $1000 and a 12-hour head start. Once those hours are up, anyone who spots them can record, report and reward themselves after a successful execution. The contestants have to record themselves every day and send the tapes for proof of life. Ben has a leg up in that he has friends who can aid him with disguises and fake IDs. One of the contestants, Tim Jansky (Martin Herlihy) is soon eliminated on television. Ben faces many close calls, one of them in the nude. His antagonists are The Hunters, a group of elite assassins tasked with eliminating the contestants. The deadliest is McCone, who is permanently masked.

It is one daring escape after another, with various people helping the increasingly popular Richards evade the Hunters. One group is Bradley Throckmorton (Daniel Ezra), who hosts an underground video channel exposing the lies of the government television network. Another is Elton Parrakis (Michael Cera), this world's Antifa equivalent, the anarchist Che Guevara-loving revolutionary bent on avenging his father. As Ben keeps surviving, he becomes an inspiration for the population, with many viewers now cheering on the "Richards Lives" movement. 

The other contestant, Jenni Laughlin (Katy O'Brien) has been exterminated by a couple of tweens. It is no surprise given how Laughlin has been openly flaunting her excesses for all the world to see.

With Richards gathering steady payments owing to his continued survival, it becomes clear that he is a formidable opponent. He is also a ratings boon against the goons. Time, however, is running short. Circumstances force him to take a random citizen hostage. This hostage, Amelia Williams (Emilia Jones) at first believes everything that she has seen about the murderous psychopath Ben Richards. She soon sees the error of her ways. However, will she be able to help Ben Richards? Things come to a head when McCone (Lee Pace) is forced to reveal himself. Their faceoff is the brilliant season finale. However, it is also the start of the revolution.

As The Running Man kept going, I kept wondering why director and cowriter Edgar Wright (with Michael Bacall as cowriter) bothered with any of this. A good action film, a strong action film should also be a fun action film. There is little fun to be had in The Running Man. I think the problems are set up and execution.

The first maybe twenty to thirty minutes of the film are spent in showing the miserable conditions of Ben Richards' world. He lost his job because he was some kind of Karen Silkwood. He has a very sick infant daughter. His wife is I think a waitress or hostess who faces the possibility of having to sell her virtue to fund their daughter's treatment. Richards already goes into the television network complex

already angry. As such, he never changes or evolves as a character.

I imagine that Ben Richards would or should transform from someone doing The Running Man television show out of desperation into a hero to lead an uprising. Instead, he already looked like a member of the resistance. As such, there was no real character development.

We did, however, see a lot of physical development from Glen Powell. I think Powell's personal trainer ought to get a special Academy Award for turning him into this immensely muscular figure. We got a lengthy scene of him wearing nothing but a skimpy towel. As the Hunters come close to killing him, at one point he is forced to take the towel off to break a window. I do not see a logical reason for taking so much time to showcase Powell's physical beauty. I also do not see how he managed all his various escapes with such great ease. 

What are the odds that his shabby hotel room would have a grenade? 

I think Glen Powell did his best with the material that he was given. However, try as he did, and he did try, a small part of me wanted Ben Richards to be defeated. He was pretty much one-note, growly and angry from the get-go. Much better was Josh Brolin as the evil television producer. He had a slightly easier job in that he did a lot of his acting from a screen. He did not have to share the screen with many people. As such, he could snarl to his heart's content.

I sadly confess that I did a little applause at Michael Cera's first end. He was just there to spout how killing "goons" (aka cops) was a good thing. As he electrocutes the men sent to kill Richards, Cera's Elton shouted, "I like my bacon crispy!". To The Running Man, this is subtle messaging. 

Regretfully, Lee Pace is wasted here. For most of the film, he is fully masked. Once he unmasks himself, it does not provide any shock or even interest. McCone as a character is not that interesting to start with. He is, I figure, meant to be menacing. However, McCone is personality free and never seems much of a threat. Ezra too is not that interesting as his character Throckmorton. The clips of his videos (essentially info dumps) look unintentionally hilarious.

It was, I think, a great mistake to bring in Emilia Jones' Amelia so late into the film. It almost looked as if she was from a whole other draft that was just put in there. She could not be a romantic interest. She was not that interesting to begin with. She was just there. Coleman Domingo, like Glen Powell, did his best to sell his outrageous television impresario. It is unfortunate that The Running Man opted to let him have a last-minute change of heart and side with the growing revolution. 

William H. Macy is on screen probably no more than seven to ten minutes. He has two scenes, one of them where he is being tortured for information. Who exactly is he? How do he and Ben know each other? Why did the curiously named Molie (pronounced "Molly") not offer Ben the job that he said that he planned to earlier? The Running Man plants these story threads but never really starts or finishes them.

As a side note, Ben Richards never struck me as interesting enough to lead a rebellion. While the source material was published long before it, The Running Man came across as hitting some of the same notes as The Hunger Games. I half expected Richards to look into the screen and give the Katniss salute.   

There were other problems in the film. At least twice, maybe more, we had scenes that ended up being dream sequences or fake-outs. It was not strictly deceiving the audience, but they were unnecessary. In what is meant as a crucial twist, Killian informs Ben that his wife and child have been killed. Having repeatedly seen Killian fake footage of Ben, why would Ben believe that particular footage was real? Is he an idiot? I never believed that so many people would be happy to help Richards in his various dodges from the Hunters. It seemed far too convenient. 

The film also has some absolutely ghastly editing. Some of the fight scenes are almost maddeningly impossible to follow. The cutting is so frantic as to be cinematic gibberish. 

I do not compare two versions of the same film when reviewing one or the other. That is for another time. The only real nod to the original is when we see the new money featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger's face on them. For the moment, I think it is safe to say that the 1987 The Running Man will continue to be enjoyed. The 2025 version, flashy as it may be, will probably be forgotten. It helps that the 1987 version is a good half hour shorter. I never felt that version's runtime. I felt every minute of this one's though.

2025's The Running Man will not survive to see another season. It can't get cancelled fast enough.

DECISION: D+

Peter O'Toole Oscar Nomination Number Eight: An Analysis

 

PETER O'TOOLE OSCAR NOMINATION NUMBER EIGHT: 

AN ANALYSIS

In the annals of black actors who have won Oscars, certain names come quickly to mind. Hattie McDaniel. Sydney Poitier. Halle Berry. Morgan Freeman. Denzel Washington. There are other names that would crop up with some thought. Will Smith. Louis Gossett, Jr. Whoopi Goldberg. Viola Davis. Mahershala Ali. Others may get a mention but have not had as big a post-Oscar career as their talents may have promised after their recognition. Jennifer Hudson. Cuba Gooding, Jr. Mo'Nique. 

One name that probably gets left off or is altogether forgotten is Forest Whitaker. However, Whitaker is indeed an Oscar winner for Best Actor. I figure that some people were surprised to see Whitaker presenting Best Actor to Oppenheimer's Cillian Murphy alongside Sir Ben Kingsley and Brendan Fraser was the first that they had ever even heard of Whitaker being a Best Actor Oscar winner. It is almost certain that hardly anyone knows of, let alone remembers, the film for which he won: 2006's The Last King of Scotland.  

This is not a slam on Forest Whitaker or The Last King of Scotland by any means. Rather, this is a look at how I think Forest Whitaker, on his first and so far, only nomination, won over Peter O'Toole on the latter's eight and final nomination. 

In certain respects, O'Toole had as good a shot in 2006 to finally win a competitive acting Oscar as his fellow nominees. Some of his previous nominations were the sole nominations O'Toole's films received (1972's The Ruling Class, 1982's My Favorite Year). When your acting nomination is that film's only nomination, your chances of winning go considerably down. 

Glenn Close is a prime example. Despite the tide of sentimentality for her seventh nomination, Close's nod for The Wife was that film's only nomination. The Wife had a tough road to climb, especially when facing off against the ten nominations for eventual winner Olivia Coleman's film The Favourite. That film included Best Picture among its nominations. That makes me think that Academy members were watching The Favourite screeners more than they were The Wife screeners. 

Moreover, the sense of inevitability for Close may have ironically doomed her. The mindset of "well, since Close is going to win anyway, I might as well vote for Coleman" may have ended up swinging the Oscar to the latter. It was a most curious sense of non-urgency when it came to Close's The Wife nomination. There was, I think, a sense that since it was already a certainty that Close was going to win in a cakewalk. That being the case, there was no rush to pick her since "others" were going to.

It is not impossible to win Best Actress or Actor when you are the only nomination your film gets. Julianne Moore, Kathy Bates and Joanne Woodward managed to win for Still Alice, Misery and The Three Faces of Eve respectively. Men have done it too, such as Cliff Robertson for Charly. Yet, I digress.

Unlike his past nominations, O'Toole's turn in Venus being that film's only Oscar nomination was not a hinderance. In 1972, he faced off against Marlon Brando and The Godfather's eleven nods (ten if you don't count Nino Rota's revoked Original Score nomination). 1982 had O'Toole face off against the Gandhi juggernaut of eleven nominations. 2006, however, there was no great, overwhelming film or specific nomination to crush O'Toole's chances before they even began.

In a bizarre turn of events, all but one of his fellow nominees found himself in the exact same situation of being their film's only nomination. The nominees for Best Actor of 2006 were:

Leonardo DiCaprio in Blood Diamond

Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson

Peter O'Toole in Venus

Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness

Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland

Out of those listed, Gosling, O'Toole, Smith and Whitaker all were their film's only nomination. DiCaprio was the only nominee who came from a film that had more than one nomination (Blood Diamond had five counting his). Surprisingly though, DiCaprio was the one who somehow seemed the least likely to win. While Blood Diamond got five nods, it lost all of them. Moreover, DiCaprio and his costar Djimon Hounsou were the only above-the-line nominations Blood Diamond got. It wasn't in Best Picture, Director or Screenplay. Two of its nominations were for Sound back when the category was split into Mixing and Editing. This indicates little to no support for Blood Diamond, and by extension, none for DiCaprio to win.

As such, this suggests a pretty open race where any of the sole nominees could have won. Therefore, Peter O'Toole had a good chance to finally win. O'Toole also had an apparent wild card in his favor: an overdue narrative. 

Gosling was 26 years old at his nomination, the youngest of the five and one of the youngest in history. DiCaprio was 32, Smith was 38, and Whitaker was 45. This is a comparatively young slate of Best Actor nominees. Out of the five, two (Gosling and Whitaker) were on their first nomination. Smith was on his second, DiCaprio on his third. I would argue that none of them had a sense of urgency to award them an Oscar for a body of work.

O'Toole, however, was both age 74 and on his eighth nomination without a win. Venus could have served as his de facto Lifetime Achievement Oscar. It would be a way to reward O'Toole for an incredible body of work that had gone unrecognized.

Unfortunately, O'Toole already had a legitimate Honorary Academy Award, presented in 2002. As such, the memory of his eloquent acceptance speech was probably still fresh when Venus was nominated. That, I think, ended up being a strong factor in him losing yet again.

Winning a competitive Oscar after receiving an Honorary one is not impossible. Both Henry Fonda and Paul Newman managed to win Best Actor for On Golden Pond and The Color of Money respectively. Interestingly enough, both won Best Actor the year after they received Honorary Oscars. Could O'Toole have won if Venus had been released in 2003 instead of 2006?     

I would say no. Fonda and Newman were beloved by Academy members and the industry at large. They were longstanding members of the Hollywood community. O'Toole never was. He was always a bit of an outsider. Peter O'Toole was deeply respected and admired. I, however, do not think that he was loved. Even if he was, I do not think that he was loved in the way that Fonda and Newman were.

Henry Fonda and Paul Newman had other factors that helped them win competitive Oscars post-Honorary Oscars. On Golden Pond and The Color of Money were hit films and popular with audiences. On Golden Pond received ten nominations and was the second-highest grossing film of 1982. The Color of Money received four nominations and starred Tom Cruise, who is still one of the biggest names working today. 

Venus was not a hit film. It was not popular with audiences. It received one nomination. 

I would add a wild card with Henry Fonda. It was well-known that Fonda was in declining health and would die five months after the Oscar ceremony. I think that was a factor in Fonda's win.

Still, it was still theoretically possible for Peter O'Toole to ride out to a sentimental win. Even if his Honorary Oscar was still fresh in voters' memories. Even if Venus was not a hit. Even if he was not known to be dying. So, why did he ultimately lose?

I put it down to love. I think all the other nominees were respected. They may have even been liked. Their performances were respected. However, I think voters genuinely love Forest Whitaker. Again, by no means am I saying that it was sentiment and sentiment alone that got Forest Whitaker his Oscar. He is excellent as Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland. He shifts effortlessly from jolly to psychotic. That nice guy Forest Whitaker showed a tremendous range is a credit to his acting skill.

So, why did Whitaker win overall? I think we can eliminate DiCaprio. He struggles whenever he tries for an accent. His Rhodesian accent was, like all his accents, forced and focused on the technical aspects versus the character. Smith was to my mind in a similar boat. It was not so much an accent that hurt him. It was, in retrospect, too calculated and mannered. I could see a lot of acting. I could not see Chris Gardner. 

That leaves O'Toole, Gosling and Whitaker as the strongest contenders. O'Toole has wonderful moments in Venus. He balanced the comedy and drama well. However, I think simply few people watched Venus to mount a serious campaign. Sadly, the nomination was the win.

O'Toole was also in my view overshadowed by Ryan Gosling. He was a standout in Half Nelson. His Daniel Dunne is a complex, complicated and contradictory figure. He can be idealistic and enthusiastic. He can also be brutal and crumbling. Gosling shows this young man as both good and self-destructive, with no easy or pat solutions to his own self-inflicted crises. 

I think what kept him from winning was his age. Perhaps voters thought that he was too young. There would be other times where he could get recognized. 

Gosling? Too young. O'Toole? He already had an Oscar, Venus might not be what he should win for, and few people saw it. Smith? Maybe trying too hard to win be having a series of Oscar clips versus an actual film. DiCaprio? Bad accent. Little enthusiasm for Blood Diamond. With that, there could be a consensus winner. He is well-liked in the industry. He gave a strong performance. Maybe it was not a major film, but with no real major competitor to rally around, Forest Whitaker wins the Oscar.

My one issue with Forest Whitaker's win is that I never felt that he was a Lead. Had he been nominated for Supporting Actor, I would be a firm champion of his win. However, The Last King of Scotland is actually not about Idi Amin. The film is actually about Amin's Scottish physician, James McAvoy's Nicholas Garrigan. He is the lead character. The film is really about Garrigan, not Amin. As such, I struggle with the idea that Whitaker should have been a Lead Actor nominee, let alone winner.

Peter O'Toole lost his eighth and final Best Actor nomination for a variety of reasons. He was his film's sole nomination. He already had won an Honorary Oscar. He was respected, but not loved, by the film industry. Could he have won? I think ultimately that he wouldn't have. I think all those factors did him in.

Finally, who do I think should have won? Here, for what it is worth, is how I would rank the nominees:

Ryan Gosling

Peter O'Toole

Forest Whitaker

Will Smith

Leonardo DiCaprio

I would have voted for Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson for Best Actor. Peter O'Toole and Forest Whitaker are neck-and-neck. What tilts it slightly towards O'Toole for me is that he is a definite Lead performance. Whitaker, however, is iffy as whether or not he is a Lead or Supporting character. Will Smith tried too hard in my view to be dramatic. Leonardo DiCaprio should just stop trying to act with accents.  

In conclusion, the Academy made the right choice in not awarding Peter O'Toole the Best Actor Oscar for his eighth and final nomination. 

Badlands: A Review

BADLANDS

While watching Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere, I saw that The Boss was inspired, in part, by the film Badlands. Sparse, simple, Terrence Malick's feature film debut tells its story of murderous love effectively.

Badlands is told primarily in voiceover by Holly Sargis (Sissy Spacek). She is a fifteen-year-old who has recently moved from Texas to Fort Dupree, South Dakota. Holly soon attracts the attention of 25-year-old garbageman Kit Carruthers (Martin Sheen). He models himself after the actor James Dean, which adds to his allure for Holly.

Holly's father (Warren Oates) is none too pleased by this blossoming romance. Mr. Sargis kills Holly's dog as punishment for her continued romance with Kit. Holly's father senses that Kit is bad news. His instincts prove correct. Kit wants Holly to run off with him. When Mr. Sargis comes home to find this scene, he tells Kit that he's calling the police. Kit responds by shooting Mr. Sargis to death. Holly, either in shock or in idiocy, does not seem to understand that Daddy is dead.

With that, Kit confesses his crime on a record and then sets the house on fire. Holly goes with him. They go to the badlands of Montana, where they live off the land and off the grid. Bounty hunters eventually find them and Kit kills them. Now, it is off to try and get out of the United States. Kit begins a killing spree. He kills his friend Cato (Ramon Bieri) after Kit senses that Cato was close to turning them in. Two young kids who stumbled onto Cato's homestead are locked in the storm cellar. Kit shoots down at them but does not know if they were killed or not.

Kit and Holly then stumble onto a mansion where they hold the homeowners and their deaf maid hostage. They continue on the lam, somewhat aware that there is a massive manhunt for them. Will Holly and Kit go down in a blaze of glory? Will Holly leave her murderous lover or attempt to keep going to the magical land of Saskatchewan?

One of the most fascinating elements in Badlands is that while there is much violence, we see very little of it on screen. For a couple of crazy kids on a murderous crime spree, Badlands keeps things quite clean. The killings of Mr. Sargis and Cato are the only real moments of blood that I can recall. Even those killings are pretty tame, especially compared to how graphic some contemporary films can be. 

I think that Badlands is not about this killer and his accessory after the fact. Director Malick may have based his screenplay on the real-life case of Charles Starkweather and his teen girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate. However, Badlands is not a Starkweather/Fugate biopic. I would say that Badlands is about the coldness of crime. Holly does not participate in the killings. She is metaphorically and literally there for the ride. 

As played by Sissy Spacek, Holly is very passive. She narrates Badlands, and in her voice, we hear someone almost detached from things. There is a passive manner to Holly which Spacek captures exceptionally well. Holly is not a bad person by any stretch. She is just someone who might be suffering from a form of Stockholm syndrome.

In her narration, she calmly explains how Kit differentiates between lawmen and bounty hunters. As such, he appears to tell her that his killing of the three men who stumbled onto their rural hideout was justified. It would not have been had they been law enforcement officials, as it was their job. It was right if they were bounty hunters, for they were in it for the money.

Martin Sheen is also a standout in Badlands. His Kit Carruthers is surprisingly not an evil man. I would say that he is a hollow man. I found him to be more soulless than evil. In a sense, Sheen had to play two characters. He played Kit Carruthers, a man who seemed abandoned by life with no sense of the future. On the other, he also seemed to play someone attempting to be like his hero, James Dean. Sheen even manages to make Kit a bit charming at the end. He seems to delight in his notoriety among the lawmen who have captured him. There is something moody, hollow, strangely detached from things in Kit. It is a credit to Sheen's skills that he did not make Kit into a monster. Instead, he is a man who exists but who has no core to him.

Badlands has beautiful cinematography. That is no small feat given that the film had three cinematographers during its production (Tak Fujimoto, Stevan Larner and Brian Provin). It is I think impossible for the viewer to know who did what. It speaks well of Robert Estrin's editing that Badlands holds together as well as it does. 

Badlands also uses the music of Carl Orff along with composer George Tipton's original music. Of particular note is when the Sargis house is set ablaze. The music here is sad, mournful and quiet. It reflects the somber nature of Badlands.

Badlands is a quiet film. That is not to say that it does not have the power to move the viewer. By keeping things sparse, the viewer can focus on the characters. The bad romance of Kit and Holly leaves one feeling sadness for them. It does not celebrate their actions. It does give them a great sense of tragedy.

DECISION: B+

Nuremberg: A Review

NUREMBERG

It is now eighty years since the end of the Second World War. Despite all those decades, the aftereffects of World War II still reverberate through our lives. Nuremberg covers the first of a series of trials where the Nazi high command was judged by the Allies. With strong performances and an engaging story, Nuremberg brings the truth of how true evil can appear so charming.

Nuremberg is two stories that eventually fold into one. In one story, U.S. Army psychiatrist Douglas Kelly (Rami Malek) is brought in to examine the surviving Nazi leadership for evaluation. The highest-ranking Nazi official taken alive is Hermann Goring (Russell Crowe), who willingly surrendered to the Allies. Kelly examines him as well as other Nazi officials such as the fanatically antisemitic propagandist Julius Streicher (Dieter Reisle) and Labor Front director Robert Ley (Tom Keune). Kelly needs Sergeant Howie Triest (Leo Woodall) to translate for him. Kelly, however, realizes something that none of the other Americans do. Goring understands and speaks English. Eventually winning his trust, Goring soon begins if not a friendship at least a less guarded relationship with Kelly.

In exchange for getting the apparently bonkers Rudolf Hess (Andreas Pietschmann) to cooperate with the Allies, Goring asks Kelly to secretly take letters to Goring's wife Emmy (Lotte Verbeek) and daughter Edda (Fleur Bremmer). It is not long before Kelly begins blurring the line between seeing Goring and his family as human and remembering the monstrous acts that Goring oversaw and knew about.

That is the second story. Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (Michael Shannon) is anticipating that he will be named Chief Justice. He was not anticipating being the American prosecutor at the newly established International Military Tribunal. He initially struggles with the entire concept of this trial, with others pointing out that there is no international law on which to hold the Nazis accountable. He finds that many would prefer that they be shot and be done with it. Jackson, however, soon becomes convinced that this trial is needed. The prosecution and the judges will be made up of the Allies: British, French, Soviets and Americans. Jackson will work with British Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (Richard E. Grant) as the primary prosecutors.

Kelly begins working with and even bonding with the outwardly charming Goring and his family. He becomes convinced that Goring will manage to beat the rap, Jackson in Kelly's view severely underestimating Goring. Whatever fondness for Goring that Kelly might have is shattered when footage of the various extermination camps is shown. Kelly has talked to too many persuasive lips and is thrown off the case. He still can help guide Jackson in bringing the narcissist Goring to account for the horrors that he and the others committed. Will Kelly and Jackson, with some help and encouragement from Maxwell-Fyfe and even Sergeant Triest, help them unmask the satanic evil of the Nazi regime? Will justice truly be served?   

Nuremberg is a long film at close to two and a half hours. Yet for the most part, Nuremberg does not feel long or slow. The film moves remarkably well. It also never short-changes the Kelly/Goring story and the Jackson story. That is a major credit to writer/director James Vanderbilt, who adapted Jack El-Hei's book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist for Nuremberg. 

The film has many standout performances. Leading the cast is Russell Crowe as Hermann Goring. He does what all good portrayals of villains do. He rarely if ever rages or appears out of control. Crowe's Goring is cold, calculating, shrewd. He reveals Goring to be terrifying in his charming manner. One can see how Kelly could be metaphorically seduced by Goring's outwardly courtly, if pompous, manner. Kelly quickly deduces that Goring speaks and understands English when Crowe gives him a quick startled look on hearing that some of the Americans call him "Fatso". As their conversations continue, it is unclear if Goring does ultimately see Kelly as a friend or is playing him for a fool. My guess is that it is a mix. 

Crowe keeps to a correct German accent. Nuremberg should be recognized for making the situation realistic in terms of languages. Germans speak with a German accent when speaking in English. The Americans require translators. Vanderbilt does not allow for the accents to grow to cartoonish levels. Things are played perfectly straight. It is so nice to see Russell Crowe remind us of how good he can be as an actor.

Another standout is Leo Woodall as Howie Triest. He is called on to speak German and speak with an American accent. That last detail is important for two reasons. First, we get a surprising revelation about how the Detroit Tigers fan speaks flawless German. Second, Woodall himself is British. As such, both the character and the actor have to speak in an accent not their own. Woodall does an exceptional job on a technical level. He also does an exceptional job in terms of his acting. One of his final scenes, where he reveals his past, is deeply moving. 

As Nuremberg is almost two stories split into one, we had Michael Shannon give an equally strong performance as Justice Jackson. He could be prickly and ambitious. However, he could also use his moral outrage to push none other than then-Pope Pius XII to metaphorically bless the trial. It is one of Nuremberg's flaws however, that Richard E. Grant was given very little to do as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. He does have a great moment when interrogating Goring. However, it would have been nice to see him do more than look disdainful and drink tea.

The showdown between Crowe's Goring and Shannon's Jackson is one to watch. We see two actors playing well against each other. It shows Goring's cleverness and Jackson's initial bumbling. 

In their smaller roles John Slattery as the firm Colonel Andrus and Colin Hanks as Kelly's less patient fellow psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert did well.

I would say that Rami Malek is the weak link. It was not a terrible performance. However, Malek did purse his lips quite a bit. It soon became a distraction. I will give Malek and Vanderbilt credit in how it did not portray Kelly as saintly or even righteous. He was motivated by the thought of future fame. Kelly dreamed of seeing his work be the basis of a book where he could analyze evil. It helps that Gilbert, we learn, had the same idea. He did change somewhat in his motives. 

One of Nuremberg's most effective to downright shocking moments is during the trial itself. As Jackson presents footage from the extermination camps, the film uses actual archival footage rather than hide it or go with reenactments. This footage has been featured in documentaries. However, this is the first time that I can recall it being used in a feature film. I do not think something like Judgment at Nuremberg did such a thing, though to be fair that film did not center around the first trial. 

I think many people in the audience that I saw Nuremberg with had never seen this footage. The stunned silence, broken by occasional sobs and gasps, had the necessary effect. The use of this footage is a chilling reminder of how demonic the Nazi regime was. 

At a time when terms like "genocide" and "Nazi" are tossed about rather casually, seeing the images of Holocaust survivors should stun and horrify viewers. Nuremberg does not shy away from presenting us with these images of man's inhumanity towards man. The film even allows for moments of humanity to seep through. Earlier, Sergeant Triest told Kelly how he plans to mock the monstrous Streicher before he is hanged. When the Americans go to get him to the gallows, Triest sees what a pathetic, cowardly man he is. Whether he is moved to genuine compassion or sees that gloating will not bring him peace, only the viewer can answer.

"It matters. More than you know", Sergeant Howie Triest tells Dr. Douglas Kelly late in the film. Kelly had been thrown out for telling the press via a beautiful reporter that he felt Goring would demolish Jackson. Triest reminds him that remaining silent, even after all that he had seen, would be a betrayal of all those murdered. That, I think, is the theme of Nuremberg. Holding those who do evil in the sight of man and God however you perceive Him, matters.

We cannot forget. We must not forget. We must maintain permanent vigilance, lest we too fall for the charms of someone like a Hermann Goring.

DECISION: A-
 

With Love, Meghan. A Second Overview

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: A SECOND OVERVIEW

Mentions of "Joy": 12 

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: 4 

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 8 

Gushing Praise for Markle: Infinite

Did With Love, Meghan have one or two seasons? Like why a crêpe feels more special than a pancake, that question may never be answered to everyone's satisfaction. This is what is established. There was a total of eighteen half-hour episodes of With Love, Meghan filmed and released on Netflix. A set of eight episodes were released on March 4, 2025. A second set of eight episodes were released on August 26, 2025. As of this writing, I have seen only the first (batch/season) of With Love, Meghan. With halfway to go, minus a Christmas special threatened for release later this year, I look on With Love, Meghan and I wonder. 

I wonder, not about the specialness of crêpes vs. pancakes. I wonder about why With Love, Meghan exists at all.

The set up of the first eight With Love, Meghan episodes follow a simple pattern. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, tells the film crew about the special guest that will be dropping by her rented home/studio. She then informs them why they are coming and what they are going to do. It almost always is someone that Meghan knows or has heard of. Once the guests arrive, our hostess with the mostest will almost always guide her guests into some cooking or home decorating adventure. On occasion, she will have a professional chef by her side. Said chef will almost always praise the Duchess' mastery of the culinary arts. Meghan may also talk to the production crew about various tips and tricks to improve one's life. 

It could be her guide to farm fresh eggs. It could be on the subtle art of making balloon arches for children's parties. She even tells us of wonderful machines that will blow up the balloons with air, so you won't have to blow them up yourself. If you need to make lavender towels or beeswax candles for your friends, Meghan Sussex is your go-to gal pal. If you have ever wondered about how to style crudités or have the perfect floral arrangement, the Duchess of Sussex is your key to success.

With Love, Meghan is in some ways admittedly fascinating to watch. It is fascinating to see a self-exiled member of the British royal family express excitement about beeswax candles or wax rhapsodic about freezing edible flower sprinkles to use for ice cubes. There is something fascinatingly bizarre about the premise of With Love, Meghan.

I think part of that oddity comes from just the title itself. With Love, Meghan captures what Mrs. Sussex really and truly wants. She wants to be loved. Not just loved, I figure, but admired, respected, adored. She wants to be taken seriously as a domestic doyenne. She wants the world to see her as an elegant, sophisticated lady. She wants everyone to see that classy yet relaxed side of living that she curates.

With Love, Meghan suggests that she is essentially doing all of us peasants a favor. She is gifting us her entertaining acumen. I cannot help imagining that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex sees herself as a guiding light to the art of elegance. We, the little people, will be able to host wonderful children's parties thanks to Meghan Sussex. So, what if the gift bags that she proposes as parting gifts contain gardening tools for the little tykes. Don't all children love to garden? 

The end results of her efforts so far sadly do not make her that mentor of elegant living. Somehow, she comes across as less of a relatable Martha Stewart and more like a more neurotic Wallis, Duchess of Windsor.

I am not the first to make comparisons between Rachel Meghan Markle and Bessie Wallis Warfield. Both are nouveau riche American divorcees who married into the British Royal Family. Both married a popular and beloved Prince of the Blood who became less popular, if not reviled, after said marriage. Both eventually became exiles from Britian. Both obsessed over money. 

There are differences. Whatever Meghan's faults, she never knowingly cavorted with Nazis. Well, Harry did dress up like one once, but I don't think that counts. Whatever Wallis' faults, she never trashed the Windsors, at least publicly. Mrs. Sussex sees her position, tenuous as it is, as a platform to use. She appears to crave fame and fortune. Mrs. Windsor (using Meghan's methodology on surnames) kept a more dignified silence on most if not all matters. She might have craved fame and fortune, but she would not deign to hock homemade preserves. Had such a thing existed at the time, it is doubtful that the Duchess of Windsor would have posted Instagram pictures of her pugs. 

Wallis may have metaphorically (or perhaps literally) danced with Hitler, but she would not be caught dead hosting something like Wallis' Workshop. 

As for the show itself, With Love, Meghan has issues. I have long held that Markle's acting training works against her as hostess. She cannot engage the viewer. When she speaks, she looks not at the camera but at the crew. She sometimes does not even appear to look at her guests. This lack of connection prevents her from building rapport with the viewing audience. It gives the impression that she is talking at us versus to us. She comes across as someone who is not there to help. Instead, she comes across as someone who is there to lecture us.

For all the efforts at being a Martha Stewart, Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor brings to mind something from the Stewart television biopic Martha, Inc. Smugly berating K-Mart executives, Cybill Shepherd's Stewart tells them, "That's why I'm here: not to sink to your level, but to raise you to mine". I genuinely can imagine Markle saying such a thing.

Markle also struggles to come across as sincere with her guests, even the ones billed as "friends". A low point was when The Office actress Mindy Kaling stopped by. Kaling gushed endlessly to Meghan about Meghan. It was a sorry sight, something that looked like it was out of a hostage video. However, when Kaling called her "Meghan Markle", that set the Duchess off. To be fair, Meghan was not slapping Kaling. However, her "you know it's Sussex now" monologue came across as wildly passive-aggressive. She seemed irrationally defensive about the whole matter. It was uncomfortable to watch.

However, I think the nadir of the first half of With Love, Meghan was when one of the three professional chefs that she welcomed basically told her that she was doing something wrong. Chef Ramon Velazquez corrected the Duchess' handling of chicken. The stunned look on Meghan's face is revelatory. She had more passive-aggressive moments when throwing shade at Velazquez, making sharp-edged quips about his work. Again, she attempted to make them sound lighthearted. I doubt anyone would have taken them to be so.

I think Markle's manner when told that she was doing something wrong and being corrected in front of others, reveals a great deal. It reveals a sense of superiority that no amount of edible flower sprinkles can mask. Judging from With Love, Meghan, she truly believes herself to be an expert on the art of entertaining and sophisticated living. She appears to not believe that she can do no wrong in the kitchen or the garden. 

Perhaps her barely concealed hostility at having her hand metaphorically slapped is not surprising. I think just about every With Love, Meghan episode is chock-full of her guests heaping endless praise on her. Every guest, even all the chefs sans Velazquez, told her how wonderful she was. They told her how amazed they were that she even knew who they were. They told her how brilliant she was in cooking, in caring, in baking, in playing mahjong. 

Do people really want to watch endless episodes where the guests all Marvel at Markle?

I do not know if viewers actually learn how to entertain the Successful Sussex way. I figure most people would think it odd to take peanut butter pretzels from one bag and put it in another. I think people would be puzzled at the suggestion of gardening tools as birthday party favors. I also imagine that people would not actually write out the names of their guests to know which mason jar corresponds to said guests. 

What do people learn from watching With Love, Meghan? The one thing that has stuck with me is to not freeze those edible flower sprinkles in tap water. The ice cubes will become foggy. 

Meghan Markle, or Meghan Sussex, or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, makes for a bad television presenter. She comes across as remote, brittle, someone who actually does not like people. She never looks the viewer in the eye. She sometimes does not talk to her guests but at them. Her words of inspiration and proclamations of "JOY!" sound either forced or downright insipid. Try as she might, this Duchess Hostess with the Mostest does not look joyful to have people around her.

That is, unless they heap almost cartoonishly hilarious praise upon her. So far, Vicky Tsai wins the "It's the JOY of My Life to Be in Your Presence, Meghan" contest. Not that there weren't strong competitors for that crown. Mindy Kaling repeatedly said, "I LOVE IT" to everything Meghan said, suggested or did until she got Sussex-slapped. Polo queen Delfina Figueras told Meghan to her face that she, Delfina, was obsessed with Meghan's face. 

Tsai, however, was on a whole other level. I doubt making potstickers would have someone declared worthy of four to five A pluses. 

I suppose the sight of seeing people trip over themselves to declare the wonders of Meghan Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is worth stopping by With Love, Meghan. For myself, the best part of With Love, Meghan was when Chef Ramon Velazquez, humble cook, politely but firmly corrected the royal hand when it comes to tearing up chicken meat. The look of disbelief on Mrs. Sussex's face and her barely contained rage via passive-aggressive quips certainly would Elevate the Everyday.

With Love, Meghan Season One or Season One: Part One is cringe television. Watching her do some bizarre seaside-shanty type jig while talking about how "the best ships are friendships" will make people wonder whether Meghan Surname-To-Be-Determined is really human and not an audio-animatronic figure. 

I close this overview and begin reviewing the second half of Season One or the whole of Season Two of With Love, Meghan by quoting Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, herself. 

"AHOY!"

Average Episode: 2.5