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 

Henry VIII: The 2003 Television Miniseries

HENRY VIII

Despite having only five monarchs in its dynasty the Tudor era is fascinating to film and television productions. Out of those five only two ever get those two productions. When was the last time anyone saw an Edward VI or Mary I biopic? The long reign of the lusty King Henry VIII continues to be big entertainment. Henry VIII, the 2003 television miniseries, perhaps spends too much time with one of our unfortunate Mrs. Tudors to the detriment of her successors. However, good performances and production design lift up Henry VIII to solid entertainment. 

The first part of Henry VIII is dominated by the love triangle at the heart of "The King's Great Matter". Henry VIII (Ray Winstone) is desperate for a male heir. His loyal wife Catherine of Aragon (Assumpta Serna), widow of his brother Arthur, has managed only one daughter, Mary (Laura Belmont). Mindful of his father's warning to bear a son to keep the dynasty and power going, the King despairs. He also despairs for the attention of the beautiful Anne Boleyn (Helena Bonham Carter). Mistress Anne will not, however, become Henry's mistress. She is also enraged that her own betrothal was overthrown by Henry's chancellor Cardinal Wolsey (David Suchet).

Mistress Anne, however, is too much for Henry to resist. He will discard Catherine for Anne, even if he has to destroy his kingdom and tear Christendom in two to do so. While Woolsey ultimately fails in his mission, Henry is still able to split from both the Catholic Church and Queen Catherine. Sadly, Queen Anne manages to pop out only yet another daughter, Elizabeth. With that, her time is up.

The second half is taken up, minus one uprising, by the fates and fortunes of Mrs. Tudors Three to Six. Jane Seymour (Emilia Fox) manages to pop out the long-awaited son, Edward. Apparently, Henry had to smack Jane around a bit to do that. Jane dies, leaving a vacancy for Queen of England. Henry's loyal chancellor Thomas Cromwell (Danny Webb) finagles a wedding to German duchess Anne of Cleves (Pia Gerard). This German heretic gets probably not even ten minutes of screentime, and I think I'm being generous. Next up is Catherine Howard (Emily Blunt), the tartish niece of Henry's courtier the Duke of Norfolk (Mark Strong). Catherine is no virgin on her wedding night, but Henry is too much in love/lust to notice or care. She will be his second spring, until he discovered her liaisons with handsome courtier Thomas Culpepper (Joseph Morgan). Howard's fall means the imprisonment of Norfolk and Cromwell's execution. 

At last, Henry turns to respectable and twice-widowed Catherine Parr (Claire Holman). She is witty and a good companion for the ailing King. She is also a tool of the Seymour brothers, courtiers who are also Prince Edward's uncles. They bide their time for two things. The first is to position themselves as regents for the future Edward VI. The second is for one of them to marry Catherine Parr, which he had always wanted. How will Henry VIII close out his reign?

Henry VIII is entertaining, with sumptuous costuming and sets that befit our noble subject. Rob Lane's music is also appropriate. It is grand and elegant.

A lot of the acting is quite solid in Henry VIII. This is one of the first if not the first major appearance of Emily Blunt. She makes Catherine Howard into a tragic figure. Catherine Howard is, like Henry, a lustful figure. However, she is also a pawn in the various machinations of her powerful family. She is quite desirous when having an affair. Yet, her end has Blunt give a deeply moving portrait of this foolish, tragic young girl. As she stands on the scaffold, making her final statement, I think audiences will feel genuine sympathy for this misguided strumpet.

Helena Bonham Carter is an old hand at costume dramas. Here, her Mistress Anne is feisty and strong. She is able to stand up to just about everyone. Anne is able to stand up to Henry, up to a point. She also shares sharp words with Serna's Queen Catherine. Like Blunt, Carter excels in showing Anne's courage against her accusers. She is even able to show dismissiveness towards their cavalier and arrogant manner. When facing her own execution, Carter again like Blunt, is moving in her performance.

Serna herself has several strong moments. Of particular note is when she is made to appear before the kangaroo court set to declare her marriage illegitimate. Defending herself as a good, loyal wife, Serna also showcases Catherine of Aragon's quiet strength.

The men are not short-changed either. David Suchet, best known as Agatha Christie's master sleuth Hercule Poirot, does fine work as Cardinal Woolsey. He is cold and unfeeling when torturing Charles Dance's rebellious Duke of Buckingham. He also shows how he is both able to match wits with Carter's Anne Boleyn and see that she is more than his match. Suchet's final scene where he pleads for his life as the guards take him away show Woolsey crumbling.

In a subplot, Sean Bean pops up as Robert Aske, a formerly loyal lieutenant outraged at the Disillusion of the Monasteries and the ensuing violence. We open the second half of Henry VIII with the violent reprisals against the monks and nuns by the state. This arouses Bean's Aske to act against this brutality. Bean expresses that fire and righteous anger. It makes the ultimately false show of friendship by Henry all the more tragic for Aske's final fate. Mark Strong's arrogant and scheming Duke of Norfolk shows his villainy and manipulation. 

In the central role of Henry Tudor, I am of mixed opinion. I struggled initially to see Ray Winstone as our virile young or even middle-aged monarch. He seemed a bit too working-class to be imagined as a regal figure. He did grow on me in the role, however. I think his large frame felt more natural as Henry grew older. However, his gravelly voice did seem a bit at odds with how I see this not-so-merry monarch.

Where I think Henry VIII does go wrong is in where it chooses to focus on. The saga of Henry and Anne Boleyn has been chronicled so many times that one wonders if Henry VIII could have done one of two things. I imagine focusing exclusively on the second Mrs. Tudor would have been old hat, even if Helena Bonham Carter made for a good Mistress Anne. The second choice, to give her story less prominence, might have been better. 

That is because the second half of Henry VIII felt almost rushed into a frenzy. I think that there was exactly one brief scene where we saw the fourth Mrs. Tudor, Anne of Cleves. She disappeared so fast from the program that one would not be blamed in wondering whatever happened to her. We learn via Derek Jacobi's voiceover at the end that Anne of Cleves outlived all the other wives. We do see her pop up at Henry's funeral. However, what she was up to all those years, or how Henry got rid of her, Henry VIII does not answer.

Jacobi's narration also seems a bit meanspirited towards other characters who were virtually invisible. Peter Morgan's screenplay refers to Henry's oldest daughter as "Bloody Mary", adding that she died "embittered and unloved". It seems unfair to trash Mary I so hard. Granted, burning people is not the best thing to do. However, Princess Mary was stripped of her title after Henry dumped her mother for his bit of fluff. She was forced to declare that she was a bastard. She was forbidden from seeing her mother, even from attending her funeral. That would be more than enough to make anyone feel embittered.

These bits of historical fudging of facts seem more editorializing than necessary to move the plot forward. It might make for good drama, but showing Henry beating up the pregnant Jane Seymour seems so odd. This is especially odd given how Henry was so desperate for a male heir. Showing that he came inches from forcing a miscarriage again seems so bizarre. 

As a side note, I figure that Aske and his Pilgrimage of Grace were needed to set up the Jane/Henry conflict. I do think, though, that the entirety of that subplot might be better suited for a miniseries of its own.

Despite some quibbles, Henry VIII does an overall good job covering this most fascinating of historical figures. Good performances and sumptuous production (albeit with some dodgy CGI castles) elevate this Henry VIII to a higher level of viewing. 

7/10

To Each His Own: A Review

TO EACH HIS OWN

To Each His Own is a very daring film for the times. The film centers around an illegitimate birth, a downright scandalous subject in 1946. To Each His Own is sadly not remembered. If it is remembered, it is because Olivia de Havilland won her first of two Best Actress Oscars for it. That is a terrible shame, for To Each His Own is a beautiful and moving film.  

The London Blitz has brought together two disparate people as air raid wardens: British Lord Desham (Robert Culver) and American expatriate and businesswoman Jody Norris (de Havilland). She is brittle and aloof. Jody is bossy and does not like being bossed. None of this, however, dissuades Lord Desham from finding her attractive. Jody is cool and dismissive, expressing no excitement at a potential romance. She does show excitement, however, for one thing. Gregory Piersen (John Lund), an Air Force pilot she knows from her hometown, is coming to London. Jody even bumps into Gregoy's fiancée, British girl Liz Lorimer (Virginia Welles), at the train station. Jody remembers Gregory or Griggsy as she nicknamed him, when she was his nanny. 

Jody is also his birth mother.

We go into her memories as they wait at the station. Jody was the local beauty, attracting all sorts of attention. She is squired by enthusiastic traveling salesman Mac Tilton (Bill Goodwin) and Alec Piersen (Phillip Terry), scion of the local bigwig. Jody delights in the male attention but won't commit to either. Then along comes Captain Bart Cosgrove (Lund in a dual role). A World War I flying ace, the town makes a big show of having this Lindbergh-like figure here. Bart is instantly attracted to Jody. For once, she reciprocates. 

A whirlwind secret romance develops. Captain Cosgrove knows the dangers of early aviation, but that will not dissuade him from the skies. It will not dissuade Jody either. They spend an unseen night of passion, and Jody gets knocked up. She discovers this when she consults a doctor who tells her that she needs surgery, which would cost her the baby. When she learns that Cosgrove has been killed in a flying accident, Jody opts to have her child in secret. She then plans to adopt her own son and tries to pull a fast one with the "baby left on her doorstep" routine. Sadly, her frenemy Corinne Piersen (Mary Anderson) has just lost her own baby. Alec, who had gone on to marry Corrine, pushes Jody to let them have this "unwanted child". Jody manages to see her son on Thursdays and every other Sunday. Eventually, Jody reveals the truth, but Corrine won't give her son up.

Despondent and with her own father dead, Jody moves away and reunites with Mac, who is now a bootlegger using the fictitious Lady Vyvyan Cosmetics as a front. To his surprise, the cops get wise to this scheme. Hurriedly, Jody takes the Lady Vyvyan line and, using her skills, transforms it into a lucrative and legitimate business. She also uses her fortune to try and take Griggsy by force. Jody uses Alec's financial troubles as leverage to try and get Greg back. This blows up in her face, and now facing the truth, sadly lets him go. Now, with Greg facing the same fate as his birth father, will Jody be able to both help and be with her long-lost son?

To Each His Own is a solid weepy, the type that would emotionally move all but the hardest hearts. Right off the bat, To Each His Own indicates that this is a deeply moving film of a mother's love thanks to Victor Young's score. As the film continues, the audience cannot help feeling for Jody's plight. 

One thing that is surprising is how Jody's premarital sex and pregnancy are handled. We do have some acknowledgment of the times. After giving birth out-of-town, Jody attempts to pass herself off as a widow. The nurse Daisy Gingras (Victoria Horne) is not fooled. "You've sinned. You'll pay for it all the rest of your life", she tells her. However, what is surprising is that Horne does not deliver this line in a harsh or condemning tone. Instead, Daisy tells Jody this very matter-of-factly, with no sharpness whatsoever. Daisy is clearly an old hand at these "birthing widows", but she does not judge. She merely points out to Jody, not directly but with understanding, that Jody opting to be a single mother has social and moral repercussions. 

It is a credit to Charles Brackett's screen story (with a screenplay by Brackett and Jacques Thery) that the issue of illegitimate birth is both in the open and without any sense of sensationalism. It is handled in quite an intelligent way. I cannot remember if the suggestion of abortion was there. My sense is that such a thing would be totally unacceptable due to the Hays Code. However, we know that Jody must either have surgery or keep the baby. This might have been a way to get around the suggestion of abortion.

To Each His Own also does well in not portraying Jody as a longsuffering saint. She joins forces with a bootlegger. That is her lesser crime. A large part of an admittedly long film is her efforts to try and buy Gregory. She uses Alec's dire straits to cajole Corinne into basically selling her child. Jody is so blinded with the idea of having her biological son back that she does not care or think how it will affect him.

As an adopted child, Gregory already feels unwanted. Jody does not think on how Greg has grown up knowing Alec and Corinne as his parents. Jody does not think that both of them have been good parents, loving and nurturing to Gregory. She might not even care. It is only when Jody sees how miserable and despondent Gregory is despite his lavish settings that she realizes how wrong she is.

Jody attempts to justify her actions by pointing out that she is Gregory's mother. "Just bringing a child into the world doesn't make you that!" Corinne angrily replies. Jody sees that painful truth. As much as she may have loved Bart, and may love the idea of being Gregory's mother, she was never in a place to be the latter. 

One feels for the unfortunate series of circumstances working against Jody. This is due to Olivia de Havilland's performance. She opens up hard and defensive. However, as To Each His Own continues, we see how Jody was playful, flirtatious and fun. She has great rapport with Griff Barnett as her father Daniel. "Don't let them wait too long", he advises his only child. "What started out as love might wind up as diabetes". De Havilland and Lund have a great scene when he tells her about the reality and danger of flying. Throughout the film, de Havilland makes Jody into someone who loves deeply but not well. Her final scene will be deeply moving to the viewer. 

Gregory and Liz are desperate to get married before he goes off to battle again. Unfortunately, his pass gives him no time to fulfill the 15-day waiting period for a marriage license. At the swanky nightclub that Lord Desham takes Jody, Greg and Liz to, His Lordship surprises them with someone ready to marry Greg and Liz. He has used his influence to get Greg and Liz an exemption. This has already moved Jody. However, at the impromptu wedding dance, Gregory asks Jody to dance. It will be hard not to shed at least one tear at this moment.

To Each His Own has many strong performances. I was surprised at how I did not dislike John Lund given that I find him generally stiff and dull. To be fair, his dual roles do not ask much of him. However, he handled both roles well. Mary Anderson was spared from playing the wicked woman stealing Jody's baby. She was at times unsympathetic to downright nasty. However, she was also given moments of tragedy, such as when she is vaguely aware that her own baby had died. 

I find it tragic that To Each His Own and Olivia de Havilland's Oscar-winning performance have pretty much been forgotten. It is a terrible shame given that To Each His Own is a solid melodrama. It also went probably further in pushing against the Hays Code than I think has been recognized. A film that should be better known, To Each His Own is one that I think audiences will remember if they ever get a chance to see it. 

DECISION: A+

With Love, Meghan Episode Eight: Feels Like Home

WITH LOVE, MEGHAN: FEELS LIKE HOME

Original Airdate: March 4, 2025

Special Guests: Alice Waters and Special Appearance by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

Mentions of "Joy": 3

Mentions of Flower Sprinkles: Yes

Passive-Aggressive Moments: 0

Gushing Praise for Markle: "Well done. You did a great job. TO YOU!"

"Why does a crêpe feel more special than a pancake?" 

Such esoteric questions are pondered by Her Royal Highness Meghan, Duchess of Sussex in Feels Like Home, the eighth With Love, Meghan episode. Is Feels Like Home the season finale of With Love, Meghan's first of two seasons? Is it the midpoint of With Love, Meghan's first and so-far only season? Like the specialness of crêpes, your answer to this unanswerable question may depend one where you stand on both With Love, Meghan and on the Duchess herself. Feels Like Home is a bit haphazard in what it covers, edible flower sprinkles and all. 

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is preparing a garden brunch party to celebrate her new venture and chapter in her life. It is the launch of her brand, formerly known as American Riviera Orchard and currently known by As Ever. To prepare the elaborate garden party, Meghan turns to Alice Waters. She is a pioneer in the farm-to-table movement and a celebrated chef. Meghan is all set to receive Ms. Waters, showing the audience the gifts that she will present her. Meghan, a former gift-wrapping instructor, creates an elaborate wrap for the book and necklace that she will present Waters.

Now there, Alice looks pleased if a bit puzzled by Meghan's enthusiasm. We learn My Guide to Farm Fresh Eggs. The eggs are acquired from little Prince Archie's henhouse, dubbed Archie's Chick Inn. The yolks are amazing.

No, none of those statements were meant as puns. This is what actually happened.

Once the various dishes were prepared, Meghan gives the viewer a crash course on menu making and penmanship. This is when she wonders about why crêpes feel more special than pancakes. With the menu set out to guide her many guests, they finally arrive. Among her guests are the Duchess' mother Doria Ragland, who asks if all these vegetables are from the garden. At Minute 31 of this 34-minute episode, we finally get a glimpse of Meghan's hereto unseen and unnamed husband. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is proud of the wifey, toasting her and mingling with the guests. All in all, a delightful summer day.

I could not help but conclude the With Love, Meghan season or midseason finale with a singular takeaway. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex works hard, very hard, to come across as friendly, casual and relatable. The end result, judging by both Feels Like Home and With Love, Meghan is that she is a real-life Tracy Flick. There is a curious obsession bordering on the psychotic when it comes to making everything presentable. Right from the get-go, Meghan seems to be scurrying around the rented garden, ensuring that everything is just so. I cannot recall, but I think she said in the opening that if someone showed up early, she would have them help her set up. 

Again, I cannot recall if she actually said that. However, I would not put it past her to do so. 

Feels Like Home feels anything but that. Meghan has presented gifts to some of the various guests that have crossed her rented home/studio threshold. If memory serves right, she did this for Daniel Martin. She did this for Delfina Figueras. She is doing this for Alice Waters. This gift-giving, however, is inconsistent. I do not think that Mindy Kaling got a welcoming or parting gift, not even those preserves that Kaling considers the most glamourous moment of her life. I do wonder what her criteria was for who would and would not receive welcoming or parting gifts. 

From my understanding, this would be the first time that Alice Waters would visit and/or work for the Duchess. As such, why Waters merited a book and a necklace is puzzling. I do not remember what the book was. I do not think that Meghan told the viewers what title Alice Waters would have by her bedside. This whole situation harkens back again to Election's queen bee. Meghan is outwardly chipper and eager to have this cooking legend visit her. She is very eager to please Waters. 

The end result, like with most everything involving Mrs. Sussex, is at times bordering if not transcending the bizarre. Meghan comes across as a student desperate to please the teacher into getting an A+ from her. Perhaps even an A++++ like what she got from Vicky Tsai. 

That is another unanswerable question. If one is still pondering about why crêpes are more meaningful than pancakes, move onto this. Why does Meghan have to give Waters not one but two gifts? Add to that, why does it need to be so elegantly wrapped? 

I genuinely do not remember much about the Sussex/Waters mashup save for one slightly peculiar part. As Meghan is cracking the eggs, Waters appears to marvel at the yolk. "I have never seen one that color. I guess it must be very specific to this place", Waters observes. The yolk from Archie's Chick Inn is a particular shade of yellow. Part of me half-expected Sussex and Waters to break out into a Coldplay duet. Part of me also wondered two other things. 

The first is whether Waters was playing along for dear life. She looked a mix of perplexed and amused at Meghan's various food preps. The second is whether Waters was a little tipsy by the end. 

In some cases, the chef is there to gush at Meghan's culinary acumen. In others, the chef actually tells Her Royal Highness that she is doing something wrong. Alice Waters in Feels Like Home is somewhere in the middle. She does not seem very impressed with how Meghan is preparing things. I think she might have been puzzled at the gifts. However, she is pleased at the bountiful vegetables. Alice Waters even hugs a large bush, which delights the Duchess.

I can't help writing out things that, like Feels Like Home, are correct but sound so odd.

The cooking is not a major part of Feels Like Home. A good amount of the episode centers around writing out menus. If I remember things correctly, Meghan writes out the various foods that will be served for her guests to know what they are seeing. This is where the Tracy Flick comparison comes closest. Granted, I would not know the difference between elderberry and elderflower. However, the very intense attention to detail on writing out everything seems almost unhealthy. She writes out all her plans almost down to the smallest detail. That seems to take the fun out of a brunch.

Feels Like Home gives us past guests for its final brunch. I think I spotted Kelly Zafjen, last spotted in Surprise and Delight. I do not recall Meghan speaking to her on-camera. The Duchess' mother, Doria Ragland, was a bit of an extra in this posh nosh. She was on screen briefly and the interaction between mother and daughter was tiny. 

We did have some words from the fifth in line to the British throne. He was congratulatory of his wife. He closed out the episode by toasting her. I trust that the toast was sincere. I also have a nagging sense that he does this every night.

"I love my guests. I need to make sure everyone's fine. We're not in the pursuit of perfection. We're in the pursuit of joy". Thus Spoke Sussex. We again have a case where something that is meant to sound welcoming ends up coming across as threatening. With Love, Meghan has, I would argue, been about pursuing perfection. How else to explain such a fixation on writing out menus and flower sprinkles (or here, edible flower blossoms)? 

Why does a crêpe feel more special than a pancake? The woman once known as Rachel Meghan Markle answers thus. "I don't know, but it does".

No word on whether or not said crêpes had edible flower sprinkles full of joy on them.

2/10

Christy: A Review

CHRISTY

When going to a biographical film, more often than not, the viewer knows the subject. I think that many people might not know who Christy Martin, the subject of Christy, is. That will actually work in the viewers' favor. Christy is a well-acted and based film, one that will move the audience.

Christy Salters (Sydney Sweeney) has a humdrum life in West Virginia. She lives with her mother Joyce (Merritt Wever), her father Johnny (Ethan Embry) and her brother Randy (Coleman Pedigo). Almost as a lark, Christy boxes in a local tournament for the small cash prize. She finds that she is a natural boxer and enjoys it, if only as an offbeat hobby.

Her skills soon attract the attention of boxing promoters. They think Christy can be both a breakout star and bring female boxing to the mainstream. They bring her to trainer Jim Martin (Ben Foster). He is efficient. He is cold towards the idea of training a woman. He is also drawn to Christy, enough to propose marriage. He also is fervently against Christy having same-sex relationships.

A few years later, the now Christy Martin continues to trudge on in her boxing career. Jim takes her money and despite endless promises still cannot get her to meet boxing impresario Don King. He also essentially pimps her out to men to box with as a way to get extra cash. Their hand-to-mouth existence finally breaks when others arrange for Don King (Chad Coleman) and Christy to meet. Only in America can a female boxer get signed by such a legendary figure, the first woman King promotes. Christy, who has a trademark look of wearing pink in the ring, now becomes boxing's "the Coal Miner's Daughter".

Christy's professional career goes from strength to strength. Soon, money is coming in. Unfortunately, the hold that Jim has over Christy does not shrink. He grows more controlling and abusive, at least once physically. He also goads her into making comments about her lack of pay. This does not sit well with King, who warns her never to complain publicly about her purses again. 

As times goes by, Christy finds it harder and harder to stay on top. She is the rare female fighter who did not form a career as a boxing legend's daughter. She has a bout scheduled with Laila Ali (Naomi Graham), daughter of the Mohammed Ali. This is an insane fight, as Laila is not just taller but younger. Despite her misgivings, Christy goes forth to poor results. Things only get worse when Jim finally crosses the line from merely controlling and into murderous. Will Christy overcome the horrifying attack on her life? Will Lisa Holewyne (Katy O'Brien), a former rival, help her make a comeback? 

Sydney Sweeney has built a career almost if not exclusively on her looks. She is a buxom woman who as of now has not been considered a legitimate actress. Christy is Sweeney's first strong effort to downplay her beauty and have us focus on her performance. To coin a phrase, you've come a long way, baby. 

Sydney Sweeney gives an incredibly strong performance as Christy Martin. She has a soft manner and vague West Virginia twang that lets the viewer focus on Christy. Even the times when Christy is cocky, she still has a charm to her that is endearing. Sweeney has made great strides in showcasing that she can actually act and is not just a voluptuous beauty. One feels for Christy: her joy, her frustrations, her fears. 

The attempted murder of Christy Martin horrifies the viewer. This is because screenwriters Mirrah Foulkes and Christy's director David Michod do what good films should do. They show just enough and leave the rest to the viewers' imagination. Using one shot, we see Jim, in a rage, stab Christy. However, we do not see the knife penetrations. We see him repeatedly thrusting the knife, but the bed blocks our view. We hear Christy's yelps of pain, shock and horror. We also see the aftereffects, which will chill the viewer. I do not think that I have heard such reactions in a screening as I have with Christy.

Sydney Sweeney shows that with the right material and right direction she can turn in a strong acting performance. It takes a lot of skill to be able to stand toe-to-toe with an especially skilled actor like Ben Foster. Under makeup and padding, Foster is also almost equally unrecognizable as Jim Martin. He shows how Jim wormed his way into being Christy's controller. One can see the darkness behind the generally soft manner. He rarely raises his voice, but we see how awful Jim is towards his wife. The film effectively shows how someone who made a living out of punching others could not fight back the same way with someone as cruel and controlling as Jim. 

Credit should also go to the supporting cast. Merritt Wever exudes antipathy as Joyce. She is harsh, judgmental and unsympathetic. After her daughter is almost murdered by Jim, Joyce orders Christy's female friend out of the room (Christy is unconscious at the time). Later, when Christy asks where her friend is, Joyce in a faux-caring voice says that she told her to leave. Joyce's disapproval of Christy's lesbianism was greater than her daughter coming close to being violently killed.

Ethan Embry is, like Foster, unrecognizable in his small role as John. He seems to want to stay out of things until he comes close to losing his daughter. His genuine pain is well-acted. Katy O'Brien also does fine work as Christy's frenemy Lisa, a rival in the ring, a helper out of it. Though his role is small, Chad Coleman has that mixture of bravado and menace as Don King. He could be the larger-than-life figure who chuckles at the thought that Jim would have any say over him. He could also be quietly menacing, as when he tells Christy to knock off the public comments on what she makes and he takes.

The boxing scenes are well-filmed and get the viewer involved. I do not remember the music, but I do not think it intrudes into scenes. 

I noted the audience reaction when watching Christy. People were involved in the story. I think I heard someone call out "BITCH!" when Joyce smugly told Christy that she ordered her potential love interest out. That kind of audience engagement is rare nowadays. I found Christy to be a well-made, well-acted film. Despite its two-hour-and-fifteen-minute runtime, one does not feel it drags. 

Christy makes a strong case that behind her bust, Sydney Sweeney has great potential as an actress. Separate from that, Christy is a film that is worth the time to see.

Born 1968

DECISION: B+

Bugonia: A Review (Review #2065)

BUGONIA

They are among us. There are those who believe that there is life outside of our humble planet. A subset of those believers hold that these aliens are not watching us from beyond the stars. Instead, they live among us. At the very least, they built the Pyramids both in Giza and in the Yucatan among other great wonders. Bugonia takes this premise and gives us wild, funny and surprisingly tragic take on the benevolence and malevolence of these things from another world.

Teddy Gatz (Jesse Plemons) is well-versed in various conspiracy theories. His most recent one involves Auxoleth Corporation's CEO Michelle Fuller (Emma Stone). He believes that she is not a 45-year-old woman. She is, rather, an Andromedan, an extraterrestrial who is here for nefarious work on humanity. He gets his intellectually disabled cousin Don (Aidan Delbis) to kidnap Michelle when she returns to her estate.

Teddy and Don have shaved Michelle's head and coated her with antihistamine cream to prevent her from contacting the mothership. Teddy's plan is to use Michelle as a bargaining chip with the Andromedan Emperor who will be coming in four days' time. Teddy insists that Michelle take Teddy and Don onto the mothership to negotiate for humanity. Michelle, finding all of this bonkers, insists that she is not an alien. She also reminds them that due to her position, a major manhunt will take place to find her.

As Bugonia continues, the audience finds many mysteries and layers to the story. Auxoleth, a pharmaceutical corporation, has treated Teddy's mother Sandy (Alicia Silverstone) for her addictions. The drug tests, unfortunately, left Sandy in a comatose state. Teddy works as a packer for Auxoleth, where he secretly delights in seeing news reports of Michelle's disappearance. Michelle soon matches wits with both Teddy and Don. 

Teddy soon comes to the conclusion that Michelle is not a mere Andromedan functionary but a member of the Andromedan Royal Family. This grants her some limited privileges, but it still puts her in danger. As the date of the lunar eclipse comes closer, who will win out in this struggle? Will bumbling sheriff Casey (Stavros Halkios), Teddy's former babysitter who probably abused him as a child, stumble upon the truth? Will Michelle manipulate Teddy into literally murdering Sandy albeit unintentionally? Is Michelle what she appears to be? More wild turns take place until the lunar eclipse comes upon Earth. In the end, we are left to ask Where Have All the Flowers Gone? with no one left to answer.

Bugonia is a remake of the South Korean film Save the Green Planet! which I have not seen. Will Tracy's screen adaptation manages to work well in keeping the story going with one turn after another. The film spends the first part giving us Teddy's beliefs and methodical manner in planning this alien abduction. As Bugonia continues, we see how Teddy became so apparently unhinged. He at one point tells Michelle that he has shifted in conspiratorial worldviews. He has gone from alt-right to Marxist beliefs in an apparent attempt to find the truth. We also learn of the various tragedies that have befallen Teddy. His mother is in a coma resulting from Auxoleth's actions. Casey, though not overtly saying so, asks Teddy for forgiveness for what Casey did to him when Teddy was a child. 

As such, Bugonia makes a strong case that Teddy's actions and thinking are a result of the various traumas that he has suffered. This is carried by Jesse Plemons' performance. Rarely does Plemons behave as a nutter. For the most part, he is eerily calm and rational for a man whose actions are anything but. There are a few times when his emotions get the best of him. Of particular note is when he becomes violently murderous towards Michelle. His eccentric calmness makes this already frightening scene more effective. His mix of tears and terror when he is attempting to save his mother is a highlight of Plemons' performance.

He is more than matched by Emma Stone. She runs the gamut of emotions. Michelle is many things. She is insincere and prickly in her efforts to make a promotional video. She is removed when first realizing that she has been abducted. We see her briefly via surveillance cameras break down emotionally. Michelle can be curt, pleading, dismissive and ultimately distressed at the end result of the human experience. Stone gives us a sense of tragedy about the human condition. 

Aidan Delbis and Stavros Halkias did well in their smaller roles. While I would not call them standout performances, both of them were efficient. At certain points, the relationship between Teddy and Don felt reminiscent of the Lenny and George relationship in Of Mice and Men. I do not know if that was intentional or not. I think Halkias was the weakest performance. He seemed nervous in Bugonia, as if he was unsure about his abilities to act. While I grant that Casey tiptoeing around his probable child abuse of Teddy is uncomfortable, he felt pretty much that way even at the end. 

As a side note, I was surprised by how relatively small the cast was. It is mainly four people: Teddy, Michelle, Dan and Casey. While there are other characters, they are pretty much irrelevant to the story.

One thing that did surprise me was how sometimes Bugonia was funny. The bumbling abduction and Teddy's final moments were amusing even if the latter was a bit grisly. I would put it down to how director Yorgos Lanthimos filmed it. Credit should also be given to how Lanthimos and Tracy kept the audience in suspense as to where the truth stood. I do not think that what might be a twist turns out the way it did is shocking. At least it was, at least within Bugonia, not totally out of left field.

The film also has a strong Jerskin Fendrix score that keeps to the eccentric tone of Bugonia (no pun intended). 

I would quibble with a few elements. While Robbie Ryan's cinematography was strong, I think shifting from color to black-and-white was a bit much. I also question how Teddy's past adventures with Andromedans came to be. 

Overall, though, Bugonia is a strong and at times amusing film. There is something of a tragic element to it when it comes to the foolishness of man. It does play with eccentric ideas of alien involvement when it comes to us Tellurians. Strong performances from Jesse Plemons and Emma Stone elevate Bugonia. When will they ever learn? That, sadly, remains to be seen. 

DECISION: B+

Frankenstein: The True Story. The Television Miniseries

FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY

Frankenstein: The True Story is a bit of a misnomer in that it does deviate from the Mary Shelley novel. While it may not actually be "the true story", Frankenstein: The True Story is still an entertaining and well-acted production. 

After a brief introduction by The True Story star James Mason, we go to the Regency-era setting. 

After the death of his younger brother William, Victor Frankenstein (Leonard Whiting) becomes convinced that he should stop death itself. At the very least, he should be able to bring the dead back to life. He finds that renegade doctor Henry Clerval (David McCallum) has managed to reanimate small animals and human body parts. They join forces to achieve the impossible: bring life out of nothing.

They take body parts and resign themselves to using a peasant's brain for their new creature. However, Dr. Clerval dies in the secret lab before being able to write a warning. Clerval has discovered to his horror that the animation process is reversable. Victor, misreading the "R" that Clerval has written to mean "Ready to begin", proceeds with his plan. Out of respect, he takes Clerval's brain to place on his creation. The Creature (Michael Sarazzin) soon begins to learn about life under Frankenstein's tutelage. 

To his horror, Frankenstein finds that the Creature is devolving from the beautiful creature into a less appealing creature. Desperate to escape his horror, the Creature jumps to his apparent death. Alas, he survives his suicide attempt. Soon, the Creature becomes friends with the blind farmer Lacey (Ralph Richardson). Lacey's daughter Agatha (Jane Seymour) and her love interest Felix (Dallas Adams) however, are horrified when they see the Creature. His actions lead to both Felix and Agatha's deaths, albeit both unintentionally.

The Creature goes to the lab, hoping Victor will bring her to life. He's in for a surprise when he finds Dr. Polidori (Mason) instead. Polidori was Clerval's mentor who had a falling out with his pupil when Clerval insisted on using the sun's power rather than Polidori's liquid methods. Now, Polidori has a new corpse, or at least head, to try out his own ideas. With that, he gives metaphorical birth to Prima.

Prima, unlike the Creature, has managed to stay beautiful and pass herself off as human. Polidori cajoles the now-married Victor to let Prima learn from his in-laws and wife Elizabeth (Nicola Pagett) about how to get along in society. Prima is no innocent. She is a hard, cold, cruel creature. She is also being groomed by Polidori into being a mistress for powerful figures as part of his plan for world domination. Those plans are brought to ruin when the Creature returns yet again to life. The chaos he unleashed will soon consume everyone involved in this sordid saga. Who if anyone will ultimately survive this series of terrors?

It has been ages since I read Frankenstein: Or the Modern Prometheus. While the television movie (edited into two parts for American television) bills itself as "The True Story", it goes against my recollections of the novel. I do not recall such things as Doctor Polidori having any role in the Creature's creation. I also do not recall a desperate flight for the Frankensteins and Polidori to the United States. I would say that in terms of fidelity to the source material, the first part is closer.

Once we get past the Creature's first survival, Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy's screenplay seems to come from their imagination rather than Shelley's novel. This is not strictly speaking a bad thing. Their screenplay does have some moments of wit in it. When the Creature seems reluctant to have Agatha's corpse seen, Polidori is having none of it. 

"Come on. I have no use for delicacy, especially in monsters", Mason says in his rich tone. His delivery seemed to border between serious and hilarious. It brought back, for good or bad, echoes of when Bugs Bunny was telling his monster about how they must lead interesting lives.

I suspect that Isherwood and Bachardy were having a grand time with The True Story. How else to explain how the Creature would sometimes misremember his name as "Polly Dolly"? How else to explain the impromptu ballet that Prima breaks out into at a ball? How else to explain how Dr. Polidori's first appearance to the Creature made him look like Fu Manchu, complete with two Chinese assistants? 

Good or bad, there was some camp within this presentation. Polidori's end ought to elicit laughter more than terror. In the midst of the tempest that the ship everyone is in is caught, the Creature manages to hoist the terrified Polidori upwards. Polidori is not so much afraid of being strangled as he is afraid of thunder. As he goes higher and higher, Mason seems to go hammier and hammier. It is to where when he meets his end, you are not taking this seriously.

This is a standout for James Mason, though perhaps not in the way he might have wanted. Mason is having a whale of a time being as grand and operatic as his skills let him be. There is something comical in how he relishes being bonkers. As he goes on about how he will use Prima as his ticket to the heights of political power, James Mason looks like he is about to climax in orgasm. It is not a bad performance. I do not think it is even an unhinged or loony performance. I would say that it is a grand, delicious performance, one where director Jack Smight did not bother restraining him. It is hard to take James Mason seriously when he is dressed like an exiled Chinese emperor. 

David McCallum too was intense. His waxing rhapsodic about a dismembered arm with a life of its own looks almost rational. However, it worked for his character of Clerval. He sometimes too leaned into theatricality. However, I found his intensity matched the downright bonkers manner of Clerval. 

I think the best performance is from Jane Seymour. She had to play two parts. She was first the innocent and sweet Agatha, caught up in an unintentional tragedy. She later had to be Prima, the female creature. She was excellent as the villainous Prima, mocking everyone around her. Her failed efforts at seducing Victor. Her simulation of pregnancy, ridiculing Elizabeth. Seymour had to make the smallest gesture with her face or lip to convey false innocence. It is almost to where one feels for her gruesome end.

Leonard Whiting will probably be best remembered for his role in Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. As Victor Frankenstein, he acquitted himself well. He was mostly soft spoken, but like with McCallum, it worked for the character. He was a strong blend of innocence and arrogance, of genuine concern and ruthless dismissal. 

I do have a caveat about Michael Sarrazin as The Creature. The True Story opted to follow Shelley's lead in making the Creature a beautiful figure. However, I do not think that Sarrazin was "beautiful". He certainly was not as beautiful as Leonard Whiting. I think it would have worked better if they had switched roles. Sarrazin was not bad in the role. He communicated the Creature's disillusionment and anger. He was not bad at all. He was just not beautiful.

The True Story is filled with excellent production work. It also moves fast despite its three-hour runtime. Some things do come across as funny, such as how Polidori is a mesmerist who can work on almost anyone. Overall thought, Frankenstein: The True Story has enough in terms of entertainment to keep the viewer interested. It may not live up to its title, but it works quite well. 

8/10