Caught Stealing: A Review

CAUGHT STEALING

Crime capers do not come as fast, as furious, or as amusing as Caught Stealing. With strong performances and a well-paced story, Caught Stealing works as a breezy if a bit gruesome crime caper.

Former baseball phenom Hank Thompson (Austin Butler) is still devoted to his hometown San Francisco Giants. That does, however, make him an outlier in gritty 1998 Lower East Side New York City. Here, Hank tends bar while drinking and having a mostly sexual relationship with Yvonne (Zoe Kravitz). 

Just before another one-night stand with Yvonne, Hank is interrupted by his next-door neighbor, Russ Miner (Matt Smith). The punk rocker asks Hank for a simple favor: watch Russ' cat Bud while he has to fly back home to London due to his father's sudden illness. Hank would rather not, but Yvonne takes a liking to Bud.

This seemingly simple favor soon sends Hank into a maelstrom of chaos, crime and murder. Russian mobsters want something that Russ has. They viciously beat Hank, thinking that he has what they are after. This brings in New York Detective Roman (Regina King), who seems willing to help. However, things are not what they appear.

The Russian mobsters are also working with a Puerto Rican kingpin, Colorado (Benito Martinez Ocasio, better known as Bad Bunny). Colorado threatens Hank. This comes after the Russians' attack forced Hank to have his kidney removed. It also comes after Yvonne is murdered. Oh, and there are two Hasidic Jews who had at one point followed Hank.

What is their role in all this? Who killed Yvonne? These stories are tied to a key that Hank found in Bud's litter box, hidden in a plushy toy. Now we find that Roman is in on the take, and the bodies start piling up. That includes Hank's boss Paulie (Griffin Dunne) and Colorado. Things do not clear up when Russ returns. He clears up some things. Russ has been selling drugs for the Hasidic Jews, who are the Drucker Brothers. Russ, fearing for his life, had gotten the corrupt Roman and the Russians into this scheme. If not for his father's sudden illness and death, Russ would have split the four million dollars between all the parties. Now Russ plans to flee with all of it, with Hank holding the bag.

That, however, won't work for the resourceful Hank. He is determined to live and save his mom, who calls him every day to talk about the Giants race for a wild card postseason spot. How will Hank get out of this situation? Will the Drucker siblings Schmully (Vincent D'Onfrio) and Lipa (Liev Schreiber) be a help or hindrance to Hank? Will Hank be able to heal physically and emotionally from his past, one that cost him both his promising baseball career and his high school friend's life decades past? More people have to die for Hank to see if he can pull himself out.

Caught Stealing deftly balances dark humor with gritty action. We see this when Hank is taken by the Druckers to shabbat dinner. I figure that Charlie Huston's novel (which he adapted for the film) was not deliberately attempting to echo something out of Goodfellas. However, we do have a light moment when Schmully and Lipa's Bubbe (Carol Kane) serves Hank some food. She is told in Yiddish that Hank is half-Jewish, which she accepts. In her brief performance, one senses that Bubbe is not fooled by this goy boy popping in. She also, I think shows that she knows Hank to be a good young man. 

I think almost all the performances in Caught Stealing are good. Austin Butler continues to build up a strong resume with his turn as Hank. He keeps to the humor in the film, such as when he is forced to be nude to show that he's not carrying any weapons. There is a droll manner to the situation that makes for amusing viewing. However, he is also able to show his genuine concern for Yvonne and his mom (Laura Dern in a cameo). Hank is someone who at the end, seems to have fully atoned for his actions that cost him a baseball career and a friend's life. The film reveals this in flashbacks, which never interrupt the overall flow of Caught Stealing.

Moreover, by structuring them in the way they were, the conclusion works well. All of Hank's desperation, lucky breaks, idiocy, heartbreak and cleverness come through in Butler's performance.

Regina King does a standout job as Detective Roman. The audience picks up on how she is an effective, efficient cop. However, you also sense in King's performance that there may be more than she is willing to say. king more than holds her own, showing us both a serious and slightly humorous side. In her small role, Zoe Kravitz did well as Yvonne, the intelligent and caring individual who meets a shocking end. 

I would say that both D'Onfrio and Schreiber leaned a bit more into Yiddish humor as the Druckers (or as Russ calls them, "the Hebrews"). However, as Caught Stealing was a black comedy, I was not troubled by their more deadpan manner. Nikita Kukushkin as Pavel (nicknamed Microbe) and Yuri Kolokolnikov as Alexei were a strong double-act. Pavel was the brutal, intense, probably crazed one. He kept mocking Hank, especially his love for baseball, persistently misquoting Take Me Out to the Ball Game and calling Hank "Mr. Baseball". Alexei was the calmer but no less dangerous of the two. They managed to make the Russians dangerous while keeping just a touch of humor.

One can tell the level of Bad Bunny's acting ability by how Caught Stealing opted to kill him off. Granted, this might be how Colorado (his nickname earned due to his red hair) is in the novel. However, this is the second film where Bad Bunny is killed off pretty quickly. Perhaps Bad Bunny is simply drawn to action comedies where he dies quickly. It gives him a chance to show that he can act while not requiring him to do much acting.

I found Matt Smith the weak link in Caught Stealing. He was not bad in the film. He just seemed a bit too exaggerated as this Cockney punk rocker. Were they still around in 1998? Again, it was not a terrible performance. It just was not the best that I have seen.

Caught Stealing had something of a time capsule manner. I think that was director Darren Aronofsky's intention. The film is full of the era's music. It also has a surprisingly light and breezy manner amidst all the mayhem and murder. The film does have a good score and songs from Rob Simonsen and band Idles respectively. However, the soundtrack also blends time-appropriate songs to some of the situations. 

I recognized Marcy Playground's Sex and Candy playing while Yvonne and Hank flirt with each other. Seeing a drunken Hank both belt out and dance on a pool table to Meredith Brooks' B*tch was amusing. As the Druckers were driving to the Russian club for them to take out the mobsters, we hear Barry Manilow's Copacabana start. The film is, if anything, self-aware. I was, however, surprised that Jane's Addiction's Been Caught Stealing did not make the playlist. I would have thought that would have easily been part of the film. 

Caught Stealing is a sly, clever film. It is logical, or at least within its own world. Running a surprisingly brisk hour and forty-odd minutes, Caught Stealing is a bit gory for my tastes.  Overall, the film is a spry delight. 

DECISION: B+

With Love, Meghan Episode Ten: It's Way Past Our Bread-Time

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: IT'S WAY PAST OUR BREAD-TIME

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guest: Chrissy Tiegen (and a touch of John Legend)

Mentions of "Joy": 1

Mentions of Edible Flower Sprinkles: 0.5

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 2

Gushing Praise for Markle: "This is the most ideal day that I can imagine".

It is said that great minds think alike. Can the same also be said for insipid minds? Chrissy Tiegen and Meghan Markle share more than a few similarities. Both were "Briefcase Girls" on the television game show Deal or No Deal. Both are married to men who were better-known than they were at the time of their engagements. Both have achieved notoriety for their domestic and culinary presentations. Both have been accused of bullying. At last, these two mavens of cookery reunite in the tenth With Love, Meghan episode It's Way Past Our Bread-Time. 

Talk about moldy bread.

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex starts out by going through each day of the six days it took to make sourdough bread. "Sourdough is a labor of love, or stress, depending on how you do it," Mrs. Sussex comments. After those days pass, enters someone whom Markle describes as "the ultimate multi-hyphen". Chrissy Tiegen pops in, seemingly unannounced and by total surprise. Also popping in is Tiegen's husband. Singer-songwriter John Legend clearly does not want to be there and does not bother to hide his total disinterest.

The appearance of Mr. Stephens comes as a complete surprise to Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor. "I would have told Aitch to come", she tells Legend before he scurries off to let the girls have their fun-filled day. They chat about their love of animals. According to Tiegen, people are aware of how she cares for dogs. In fact, she is such a Mother Teresa of the animal set that people send her dogs to care for. Tiegen is eager to do what needs to be done. "PUT ME TO WORK!" Tiegen squeals with delight.

What to do, what to do. The perfect thing to do is for them to make pressed jewelry for their various children. At least the ones that they can remember. In one of With Love, Meghan's most embarrassing moments, Chrissy Tiegen cannot remember much about the children that she has. Not even the tattoos that she has marking their birthdays can help. Tiegen cannot remember the exact birthday of one of her children. She has to holler to the Legend of the hidden guesthouse to give her the exact date. As if that were not cringe-inducing enough, Tiegen also cannot remember whether that birthday is for her son Wren or her other son Miles.

Off they go to pick various flowers from the garden. The flowers for the pressed jewelry will correspond to each of the children's birth months. "I hear joyful sounds", Meghan shouts as Tiegen struggles to sometimes get up. It should be pointed out that Tiegen at 39 is actually five years younger than Markle. They have finished collecting the flowers and head off to the craft barn. "Welcome to the craft barn", Meghan says in a sing-song manner. As our pair sort things out, they reminisce about their time on Deal or No Deal. They recall reusable eyelashes. They marvel about how the other is now world-famous.

As they go on, they begin preparing delightful snacks. Meghan is absolutely astounded to learn that there is such a thing as a Cheeze-It Museum. She also is already prepared for a special gift for Tiegen. We learn How to Make Rosewater. Only the very best for Chrissy Tiegen and from Meghan, Duchess of Sussex will do. This rosewater will require Pope John Paul II rose pedals, a flower that is a particular favorite of Mrs. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  

It is back to the pressed jewelry for Archie & Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor and for Esti, Wren, Luna and Miles Stephens. One child who will not be getting pressed jewelry is the mysterious Hawthorn. In a section both bizarre and perhaps a little shady, Chrissy Tiegen seems to think that "Hawthorn" is not one of the flower names. She thinks it is the name of Meghan's previously unknown child. 

The jewelry is done, but it requires a twenty-four hour wait time before they are finished. "I'm going to send it to you with so much love", Meghan tells Chrissy. With that, John Legend pops out again, not hiding his disinterest bordering on contempt for being anywhere near this Montecito madhouse.

It's Way Past Our Bread-Time shows that men and women really are different. Markle and Tiegen were all so enthusiastic about chatting and pressed flower jewelry. Legend could not give an Aitch about any of this. Perhaps he was not literally dragged to the Montecito rented home/studio to make this cursory appearance. If not, he appeared to be there under duress. One of the more curious elements is when Tiegen has to shout to Legend to give her Wren or Miles' actual birthdate. 

It's Way Past Our Bread-Time, we are led to believe, has Legend just sitting in the next room, waiting for the Missus to finish. I struggle with the idea that John Legend has nothing better to do than sit around to pop in twice. I also struggle with the idea that executive producer Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was caught totally off-guard about Legend being there at all. 

Perhaps there is a strange and curious parallel being made here, subconsciously. Tiegen and Markle need to remind people that their husbands are internationally known and more famous than they are. Would anyone genuinely care about Chrissy Tiegen and/or Meghan Markle if they weren't Mrs. John Legend and Mrs. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor? 

If memory serves right, Markle comments that she had not seen Tiegen in close to twenty years but had recently reconnected. I think that there was a very curious effort for one to one-up the other. Tiegen comments that despite having all those dogs sent to her, the kids want a cat too. "You're becoming a cat lady", Markle comments. I think she aimed it to be a humorous quip. However, I thought that she was throwing shade at Tiegen. Meghan Markle may have never heard of the word "slurry" before. I am dubious that she has never heard of the expression "cat lady" before, let alone not know its meaning.

More shade is thrown Tiegen's way when Markle marvels that Tiegen is now famous. At most, I would qualify that sentiment as a left-handed compliment. This Briefcase Girl reunion seems more a subtle catfight than joyful get-together.

That is not to say that Tiegen, at least once, seem to give the Duchess as good as she got. As they worked on the pressed jewelry for their children, Tiegen wondered about Hawthorn. In between chuckles, she seemed to think that Hawthorn was a third Markle child. Markle seems to be genuinely taken aback at the thought of there being a pre-Harry child running around. I cannot remember her exact phrase. I think she commented that if she had been able to keep that a secret, it would have been amazing. 

Poor Hawthorn Markle. Forgotten by his royal mummy. 

As a side note, "Hawthorn Mountbatten-Windsor" sound like a better name than "Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor". 

I genuinely do not know if even the QR Code will give the viewer anything of value. I would be willing to wager the deed to my house that not one of the combined six Sussex or Legend children (seven if you count Hawthorn) will ever wear the jewelry their mothers made. I can't figure out why any mother would go through all the trouble to make such a gift. Are there enough Deal or No Deal fans who want to hear about Chrissy and Meghan's eyelash issues? 

Every conversation is so stilted and embarrassing for them. They do not look like they are people joyful to be reunited, and it does not feel good. I cannot imagine that Tiegen and Markle could actually be this stiff in real life.

It's Way Past Our Bread-Time is cringe, total cringe. It has, however, two things that elevate it. The first is seeing John Legend not bother pretending to care about anything here. The second is to speculate on the fate of Hawthorn Markle.

1/10

Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After. The Television Movie

CHARLES AND DIANA: 

UNHAPPILY EVER AFTER

When the now-King Charles III and his first wife, the late Diana, Princess of Wales were first married, the public was treated to two television movies. The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana and Charles & Diana: A Royal Love Story were fairy tales. I do not believe that Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is accurate either. Oddly more interested in the York saga than the Wales one, Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is curiously quite kind to our battling couple.

The royal romance of Charles, Prince of Wales (Roger Rees) and his new bride, Lady Diana Spencer (Catherine Oxenberg) seemed to be born out of genuine affection. Charles does try to guide Diana into her new life and responsibilities as the Princess of Wales. He even brings her orange juice after she made a faux pas of going into the kitchen, shocking the kitchen staff with her informality. However, cracks start emerging.

The biggest crack is Charles' dear friend, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Jane How). He enjoys Camilla's company more than he does Diana's. It does not help that Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II (Amanda Walker) is not sympathetic to Diana's plight. Diana fortunately has an ally in Sarah Ferguson (Tracy Brabin), who soon becomes Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York. Sarah is all about having fun. Diana, who is married to a stick-in-the-mud like Charles, is also just a girl who wants to have fun. Charles for his part loves being a father. He also detests the popularity that his wife has achieved. 

Sarah makes a spectacle of herself when photos of her "consulting with her financial advisor" come to light. Will the Yorks outdo the Waleses in embarrassing headlines and a failed marriage? Will Diana be able to confront his husband's mistress?

There were at least two elements in Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After that I found curious. The first is how for a film supposedly centered around the Waleses, the film gave a great deal of attention to the Yorks. The film, I think, pretty much ends on Sarah and the now-Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Benedict Taylor). My sense is that the production crew found the tawdry antics of Fergie to be more interesting than those of the near-saintly Diana. 

One almost feels for Sarah, Duchess of York. Poor Tracy Brabin had very little to do other than talk endless about how she wanted nothing but fun. I think that except for her final scenes with Andrew and Diana, the word "fun" was used every time that Ferguson was on screen. What Fergie's toe-sucking tricks have to do with Charles and Diana one can only guess at. 

A lot of attention was paid to Sarah Ferguson. People walking into this might be confused if told that it was about Charles and Diana. 

The other element is how surprisingly sympathetic Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is to both of them. Rees made Charles into a mostly kind and loving husband. He starts out as someone who encourages and supports his wife. Other film and television projects about the Wales marriage show him as quick to anger, seething with rage and at many times verbally abusive towards Diana.

Not in Unhappily Ever After. He helps Diana in learning and speaking Welsh. He brings her orange juice after she moans that all she wanted was orange juice. For most of the telefilm, Rees' Charles is actually a pretty pleasant fellow. He can be jealous and thoughtless, but did I mention that he brought her orange juice?

He also is shown as one under immense pressure by his disapproving parents. Even at his son's baptism, he is warned against Diana's growing popularity. It must be hard to be told by your father at your son's christening how wrong you are. 

Nancy Sackett's screenplay also does something that I had not seen before in a Charles and Diana biographical production. In all other versions, Diana deliberately threw herself down a flight of stairs in an effort to cause Charles harm. Unhappily Ever After, conversely, had the fall be an accident. In this version, Diana tripped down the flight of stairs after an argument with Charles. Here, Charles at most did not stand with Diana in her firm opposition to giving birth at Buckingham Palace which was the expressed wish of Her Majesty. 

Near the end of the telefilm, Charles is openly enraged but apparently with good cause. He has seen newspaper photographs of Diana dancing the night away with men. It is a mix of public embarrassment and private hurt that upsets Charles. It might not have been the television movie's intentions. The end result, however, is a production that likes Charles.

Turning to the acting, I find a unique situation. Catherine Oxenberg, daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Yugoslavia, is a second cousin to now-King Charles III. She also has the rare distinction of having played Diana, Princess of Wales more than once. She had played the young Lady Diana in The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana a decade prior. Now, she is back in the role. 

I found Oxenberg to have somehow devolved from her first go-round. Her voice was rather breathy and light. There was little to suggest that Diana was evolving into a strong woman. Even her confrontation with How's Camilla came across as a bit flat.

Roger Rees did much better as Charles. He did not look nor sound like the then-Prince of Wales. However, he made Charles into a dignified man, who tried to do right no matter what. He did look early on as someone who was in love with his wife. As such, his liaison with Camilla did look a bit like it was in Diana's imagination. 

It does not help that I kept confusing Jane How's Camilla Parker-Bowles for Charles' sister, Anne the Princess Royal (Cate Fowler). I think that is because Jane How did not come across as a mistress. She barely came across at all. 

Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After is a bit of a misnomer in that they did not end up staying unhappy ever after. I get the pun in the title. It just did not work. Still, the telefilm was serviceable if not particularly insightful into the War of the Waleses. Pity that they did not go with what appears to have been their real desire and made an Andrew & Fergie biopic.

6/10

With Love, Meghan Episode Nine: A Sweet and Savory Adventure

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: A SWEET AND SAVORY ADVENTURE

Original Airdate: August 26, 2025

Special Guests: Daniel Martin, David Chang and Christina Tosi

Mentions of "Joy": 2

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: 0.5

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 0

Gushing Praise for Markle: "You'd be a hell of a samurai".

It is another jolly jaunt with the Duchess Hostess with the Mostest as we start Season Two (or Season One: Part Two) of With Love, Meghan. It is still unclear whether A Sweet and Savory Adventure is the first episode of a second season or the ninth episode of the first season. I'm not splitting hairs on this issue. It is the ninth episode overall, so I am going with the latter. It may be A Sweet and Savory Adventure, but this With Love, Meghan episode is one of the dullest half hours that I have endured with Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. 

Meghan's BFF Daniel Martin is back for a second round of Montecito madness. Joining her Suits makeup artist are two figures both billed as "chef and entrepreneur". They are David Chang and Christina Tosi. Meghan has a host of fun, fun, fun activities planned out for our terrific trio. First, they will do some flower arrangements in an informal competition. Once that is done, our Fab Four will go into the rented kitchen where Christina will show us how to make crackers for special homemade s'mores. In the midst of all that, Meghan will show us My Guide to Water Marbling, which looked like a fancy way to tie-dye handkerchiefs and scarves for her illustrious guests. With all the fun activities done, our couples can enjoy making s'mores over an open fire, celebrating the joy of such a pleasant day.

With the second half of With Love, Meghan it remains clear that, to quote a song involving another Henry, "second verse same as the first". We have Mrs. Sussex feigning sugary sweetness to her guests. Said guests will participate in all the activities that our de facto summer camp counselor has planned out. We will hear the guests gush at how brilliant Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor is. We, the audience, will be bored, endlessly bored with it all.

To be fair, there is one element in the second half (or second season) of With Love, Meghan that is different. Perhaps the Duchess heard that the audience never got actual instruction or guidance when it came to all those recipes featured last go-round. At the end of A Sweet and Savory Adventure, a QR Code popped up, directing those who dare scan it for "recipes and more". I opted not to scan the QR Code, terrified that it would send me to the As Ever site where I could get $65 edible flower candles. I simply shudder at what the "and more" could mean.

Apart from that, A Sweet and Savory Adventure was anything but. When the professional chefs started making food, I pretty much had tuned out. I do not think that I could be blamed. By the time we got Christina Tosi using a fork to make the holes for our peanut butter crackers, the audience had already endured quite a bit of hijinks.

We had gone through Meghan Saxe-Coburg and Gotha go on about water marbling. She seemed dazzled at the various colors that she blended. All of this marveling at water marbling was so that she could present her guests with gifts. I remain, not puzzled but perplexed as to Markle's pathological need to give her guests gifts. 

We also had gone through a very lengthy flower arrangement segment that was simultaneously boring and revelatory about Markle's worldview. We had been told by Markle that this would be the first joyful activity that Martin, Chang and Tosi would do. I genuinely do not know if any of them genuinely thought such a thing would be either fun or a worthwhile task. Nevertheless, she persisted. It became something of a competition. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex demurred at the concept of it being anything like that. When Chang said that the flower arranging could get competitive, Meghan said, "No, I'm not". 

Those viewers still awake would probably be howling with laughter. I think Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, might be a trifle competitive. I think such a thing is within the realm of possibility. As Martin, Chang and Tosi struggled with making their arrangements, we see the nearly effortless Markle manner in putting together all these flowers. "How special to be able to create something so unique", she philosophizes. All three of A Sweet and Savory Adventure's guests insist that this activity is a delight. 

That leads us to another of With Love, Meghan's signature elements: the ebullient praise for Rachel. "Can I just say this is maybe one of the most joyful days", Tosi remarks. Christina Tosi got married. Christina Tosi has given birth. I do not know if I can accept that struggling to find a vase that does not leak is "one of the most joyful days" that Tosi has lived. 

I recalled the lyrics to I'm Henry VIII I Am while watching A Sweet and Savory Adventure. I recalled another song at the end of the flower arrangement segment. "Well, I hear you went up to Saratoga, and your horse naturally won" literally played in my mind after we saw the end results of their individual efforts. Surveying the four arrangements, David Chang said, "I mean it's clear that Meghan won". This unconscious quoting of You're So Vain came right after we learned of ikebana.  

David informed us that samurai would do both flower arrangements and calligraphy for hand-eye coordination. Meghan seemed downright shaken by this information. How amazing is it, she opined, that she was a mistress of both flower arrangements and calligraphy. This led the group to the realization that Meghan might have made the ultimate Shogun. Why settle for being a mere Duchess when your acumen should lead you to be Empress?

Surprisingly, David Chang managed to outdo the Duchess in oddball delights. "I'm excited for this vinaigrette", he says in the equally lengthy cooking section. Those are words that I do not think I have ever heard from any person in my lifetime. At least until now.

I confess to losing all interest in the various cooking and food preparation that Markle, Martin, Chang and Tosi were engaged in. All the scurrying around the kitchen soon became background noise. I was technically watching A Sweet and Savory Adventure. I just was not invested in anything about it. It was like the time when I managed to literally sleep through Oliver Stone's Alexander while simultaneously being aware of what I was watching. I do not know how I managed to be totally unconscious with both eyes open. Somehow, I did manage this incredible feat. This ability, however, is no match to water marbling.

Who knew that I could be both awake and asleep while the regal Martha Stewart is leading us through the joys of s'mores? 

A Sweet and Savory Adventure, according to Christina Tosi, was maybe one of the most joyful days. She got the full summer camp treatment, down to making s'mores by a campfire at night. For those of us unimpressed with flower arrangements or water marbling, we would find other things to spark joy.

S'mores? More like snores. 

2/10

The Last Rodeo: A Review

THE LAST RODEO

Few songs capture the lives of rodeo cowboys than Amarillo by Morning. Curiously, the song never became a Number One hit. Similarly, The Last Rodeo is both an ode to this line of work and not a Number One hit. Pleasant, predictable but with sincerity, The Last Rodeo drives home its message of redemption and seeking one last chance.

Joe Wainwright (Neal McDonough) is a rodeo legend long retired due to injuries. He is pleased that his grandson Cody (Graham Harvey) is starting to follow in Grandpa Joe's footsteps with small, youth-oriented rodeos. Cody's mother Sally Wainwright (Sarah Jones) is most displeased. She would prefer that Cody go more into his other passion: baseball. Joe, who has had a fraught relationship with Sally ever since his wife's death, will go with whatever she wishes.

Things take a terrible turn when Cody starts feeling ill. He is soon diagnosed with a brain tumor. Sally's insurance will not cover the full amount. Joe, while comfortable, does not have enough to make up the difference either. He does, however, have a very outside chance. The Professional Bull Riders Association has long invited Wainwright along with other past winners for a Legends Tournament. Here, the former champions would face off against the up-and-comers for glory, a $750,000 prize and a new truck. Over Sally's very vocal objections but Cody's quiet delight, Joe decides to take up the invitation even after throwing away the repeated invites.

To get him back into the bull ring, he turns to his friend and trainer Charlie Williams (Mykelti Williamson). Joe puts a bit of a squeeze on PBR impresario Jimmy Mack (Christopher McDonald) to let him in as a last-minute entry. Joe will be the oldest rider. He is also a haunted man. He had to retire from the sport after injuring his neck while riding drunk. His past, coupled with his long-term grief over his wife's death, still plague his mind, body and heart. With all that, bull riding phenom Billy Hamilton (Daylon Ray Swearingen) is more of an annoyance.

Joe ought to watch for Billy, who is a formidable if albeit beatable opponent. Charlie, who has embraced Christianity in the ensuing years, nudges Joe to ask for forgiveness and forgive himself. Will Joe manage to overcome his troubles to help save Cody?

Director and cowriter Jon Avnet is not reinventing the wheel with The Last Rodeo. Cowriting with Derek Presley and star McDonough, the story is pretty straightforward. In some ways, it is quite predictable save for one slight twist at the end that is not completely unsurprising. 

What makes The Last Rodeo a good film to watch is how everyone involved gives it their all. What the film has is a lot of heart. It treats the characters and situations that they are in with total sincerity, even compassion. That is a rare quality in film. The Last Rodeo never talks down to its audience. It never mocks them for wanting to care about these people. It respects both viewer and character. At a time when diversity is all the rage, The Last Rodeo manages this by having characters that are of distinct backgrounds without it being anything extraordinary. 

Charlie, a black rodeo expert, has been in a long and happy marriage to Agisa (Irene Bedard). She is a Native American, who offers comfort and wisdom to both Joe and Sally. This is a good way to have diversity, where we see the individual and not the background. 

Again and again, the idea of sincerity came to mind while watching. The Last Rodeo is unashamed of being about redemption. It is not preachy. I do not remember any great moment where Joe breaks down and accepts Christ as his Savior. Instead, Joe's redemption arc comes about gradually. It also is not afraid to show our characters with flaws. If memory serves correct, Charlie started a barroom brawl with another PBR contestant, Marco (Gabriel Sousa). 

Acting-wise, The Last Rodeo keeps to its sincerity. Neal McDonough has some wonderful moments of quiet. We see his regret when working with an equally strong Mykelti Williamson as his frustrated friend Charlie. He has an equally great scene when mending his relationship with Sally. I think Sarah Jones is a bit weak in the film, but it is not a dealbreaker. Christopher McDonald plays his PBR kingpin with a good blend of concern and contempt for Joe. Jimmy Mack does think well of him, but he also does not know him very well. In their first meeting, Mack continues pressing Joe to have a drink. I would have thought that Joe could easily have told Mack that he'd given it up. I think Mack would have understood. Why Joe opts to take a quick swig when a simple "I don't drink anymore" is something that I do not understand.  

As a side note, there is much talk about how beat up and broken Joe Wainwright is physically. The various shirtless shots of Neal McDonough prove that he is quite fit for someone nearing sixty. 

If there is anything that really holds The Last Rodeo back, it is in how it is a bit too much inside baseball. We see this in Daylon Sweringen's alleged performance. Sweringen is truly terrible as an actor. I quickly suspected that he was a professional bull rider, which he is. One can see that he cannot act. I am puzzled over why he did not just play himself. Other professional bull riders did in The Last Rodeo. The announcers too are figures that those who follow PBR would know. 

That is in the end a minor issue. The Last Rodeo may not be unique, but it is sincere. I cannot fault a film for hitting its intended target.     

DECISION: C+

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.