The Wedding Banquet (2025): A Review (Review #2078)

THE WEDDING BANQUET (2025)

One might not think that the 1993 film The Wedding Banquet would be remake material. Apparently, the comedy that blended gay and culture clashes needed updating. Thus, we get 2025's The Wedding Banquet, a wild and misguided effort that plays like tragedy.

Seattle is awash with gay Asians. There is lesbian couple Angela (Kelly Marie Tran) and Lee (Lily Gladstone). They are struggling to conceive via invitro fertilization. There is gay couple Chris (Bowen Yang) and Min Hyun (Ha Gi-Chan). Chris and Min are staying in the shed in Lee's backyard. Chris and Angela met in college, where they had a one-night stand. Now, our foursome is committed to their partners and each other.

Things become complicated when artist Min feels pressure from his wealthy Korean grandparents to take a greater role in the company.  Min's grandmother Ja-Young (Youn Yuh-jung) puts gentle pressure on Min to return to Korea. He, however, does not for a few reasons. One, he likes his artistic life in Seattle. Two, he is deeply in love with Chris, even though Chris will not commit. Three, he is still closeted to his traditional Korean family.

Chris, forever hesitating on everything, turns down Min's marriage proposal. Despite having been together five years, Chris protests that Min just wants to stay in America. The solution to Min's dilemma is simple: he will have a quick marriage to Angela. In turn, he will pay for a third round of IVF treatment. Angela did not count on her PFLAG waving mother, May Chen (Joan Chen) to be flummoxed by all this. Our four couples permit themselves a bachelorette party. The end results are Angela and Chris going at it again in a drunken state. 

Min, however, did not count on Grandmother Ja-Young coming to Seattle. Everyone will have to try and keep up the rouse. Ja-Young, however, is no fool and quickly figures things out. She will go along with the rouse so that there be no scandal back in Korea. How will things work out for our potentially expecting mothers and thwarted lovers?

I confess that as of this writing, I have not seen the original The Wedding Banquet. I do know a little bit about it, though. As such, I think I have some idea of differences between the two. However, a comparison between 1993 and 2025 is for another time. Right now, I should focus on this version. 

It is terrible. It is like seeing highlights from a bad sitcom played out. Director Andrew Ahn cowrote The Wedding Banquet with Andrew Schamus. Schamus cowrote the original. Judging by the final product, I think Schamus got a little muddled. 

The Wedding Banquet thinks that by expanding things to two couples, one lesbian and one gay, it improves things. It does not. Whatever conflict Min may have about staying closeted get watered down by Angela and Lee. It is almost as if The Wedding Banquet was made up of two separate stories that were welded together.

You have the Angela and Lee relationship. We have to see their dramas. There is Angela's barely enthusiastic support for Lee being a mother. There is Angela's barely concealed anger at how May is showing wildly enthusiastic support for her lesbian daughter. 

You then have to shift to Chris and Min's story. There is Chris' total lack of commitment. It is not just a lack of commitment to Min. Chris is a birder who guides birdwatchers rather than finish his almost decade-long dissertation. There is Min's fear of coming out. There is Min's concerns about having to go back. 

That is a lot of material already. That, however, does not touch that The Wedding Banquet is supposed to be a comedy. There was very little comedy in The Wedding Banquet, which is odd. It is odder when we do see some stabs at comedy. They fall horrendously flat. Of particular note is the elaborate Korean wedding scene itself. I figure many of the audience members are not Korean. As such, things like the best man having to carry a duck (or in this case, duck figure) and having the bride hop on the groom as he gives her a piggyback ride look bizarre. 

Granted, all of these things may be part of the Korean wedding ceremony. They should be given respect. However, it is hard to make that case when we are treated to Angela vomiting over Min as he carries his bride around on his back while both are wearing traditional Korean clothes.

You do get some chuckles. Min, seeing Angela's wedding ensemble for the first time, says that she looks like Queen Amidala from Star Wars. Learning that Grandmother Ja-Young referred to Angela as "a lesbian snake" is amusing. Angela and Chris' discovery of their second one-night stand did make me chuckle. Yes, it was more out of embarrassment than actual amusement. However, The Wedding Banquet treated things with such seriousness that it failed to be amusing. 

The overall performances do not help. Ha Gin-chan was probably the worst. His line delivery at what I presume were meant as humorous lines were uncomfortable to watch. After having his marriage proposal turned down, Ming says "This is all very hard on my ego". I figure the line was meant to be funny. The end result was anything but. Earlier, Ming rails against Chris' suggestion that he wants to marry him just for the green card. "Your trains are so slow, and I never know how much to tip! I don't even want to be an American!" he exclaims. Again, as written, they were meant to be funny. As delivered, they were not.

I figure that it might be an uncomfortableness with English. Gin-chan was more relaxed when speaking in Korean. He had to spend many scenes with an online Youn Yuh-jung, speaking to her via laptop or large screen. However, Gin-chan was more expressive and less hesitant.

Ha Gin-chan has the language to explain his weak performance. None of the others save Yuh-jung have that excuse. She was good in her role both in Korean and English. Her last scene where she talks about how surprisingly similar her marriage circumstances are to her grandson's is effective.

The rest of the cast though failed to rise above sitcom level. That might be expected out of Bowen Yang. He seems to play the same type of parts: obnoxious, gay, requisite Asian or a combination thereof. He was not funny when he was supposed to be. He was not dramatic when he was supposed to be. To use dialogue from the film, he was a dick with a duck. 

Kelly Marie Tran's Angela just came across as a surly, obnoxious bitch. Forever scowling, Angela was a terrible character. To be fair, the dialogue does not help. When she and Lee contemplate a future child, Angela comments that they can live it up when the brat is at summer camp. That reveals Angela to see a child as a burden rather than a blessing. What kind of person would feed her partner's desire for a child in such a fashion.

Lily Gladstone was better than the material. She could play the drama well. She just did not have anything when attempting comedy. Bobo Le as Chris' quippy cousin Kendall is a thoroughly useless character. She contributes nothing to the plot. The few times that she is there, it is bad. When 

At one point in The Wedding Banquet, the lesbian couple and Chris are scurrying around the house. They need to remove everything that suggests sapphic love. "Everything in this house is gay!" one of them shouts. This keeps to the sitcom level of The Wedding Banquet. Unfortunately, it fails to be a comedy or a drama. 

DECISION: D+

The Good Earth: A Review

THE GOOD EARTH

Confucius, I doubt, would say that The Good Earth was right in how it was cast. Now hampered by yellowface, The Good Earth is barely passable despite itself.

Simple Chinese farmer Wang Lung (Paul Muni) is excited and anxious. Today is his wedding day, but he has yet to meet the bride. It is off to the Great House, where he comes to collect his new bride. She is O-Lan (Luise Rainer), a simple slave girl. She is simple, humble and a willing partner for Wang.

Soon, she provides a son, the first of three children. Wang manages to start buying up property, convinced that there is wealth in the good earth. He is initially right, as China is experiencing prosperity and good weather. However, soon drought comes to their world. Wang comes close to selling his land, but O-Lan quietly talks him out of it. Instead, the Lung family along with Wang's Uncle (Walter Connolly) go to the big city in the south to look for work and food.

The Lung family struggles to keep body and soul together. They are forced to resort to stealing, begging and taking the jobs of dead people to scrape together an existence. They, however, also have the gods smile on them in this dark hour. They learn that the rains have returned to their area. A revolution also unwittingly helps them. O-Lan gets caught up in the storming of a mansion. Though she is not a willing participant, she spots a bag of diamonds that can provide badly needed funds. She barely escapes with her life when the troops sent in to restore order and shoot looters are recalled before they search her.

Now, the Lung family is restored to fortune. Wang Lung has grown so wealthy that he can afford to send his two sons to university. He can also fall prey to the temptress Lotus (Tilly Losch). This erotic dancer has bewitched Wang so much that he does something he had never contemplated. He takes her as his second wife. He, however, does not need to divorce his first wife. O-Lan meekly goes along with this, though she mourns having to surrender her beloved pearls to Number Two Wife.

Number Two Wife, however, finds Number Two Son (Roland Liu) a tasty morsel. He does his best to resist his stepmother's siren call, but he eventually succumbs. Will Wang Lung disown his Second Son after the liaison is revealed? Will the Elder Son (Keye Luke) and O-Lan be a bridge between them? Will the locust destroy the Lung fortune and way of life?

Even for 1937 the casting in The Good Earth should have been seen as downright scandalous. The characters of Wang Lung and O-Lan are simple Chinese peasants. Who are cast in those parts? A Hungarian and an Austrian. 

It is already bad enough that neither Paul Muni nor Luise Rainer spoke English as their first language. Muni started his career in Yiddish theater. Luise Rainer had made several German-language films before being essentially imported to America as a potential successor to Greta Garbo. Almost ninety years on, seeing these two Europeans valiantly, perhaps foolishly, trying to pass themselves off as Asian is still troubling.

The yellowface in The Good Earth cannot be ignored. It should not be downplayed. However, is it possible to look at Muni and Rainer's performances stripped away from the decision to cast European actors for Asian roles? I think it can be based on this. The Good Earth gave the characters a dignity and nobility that was probably in short supply with Asian, specifically Chinese, roles. Wang Lung and O-Lan were for the most part good people. They cared about each other. They cared about their family. They cared about the land. 

I would put the overall positive portrayal of Wang and O-Lan on the original Pearl Buck novel versus any forethought by Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Studios. I found that Muni and Rainer were not horrendous in The Good Earth. I think that has to do less with their acting skills than with the roles themselves.

Muni gets a chance to play Wang Lung as a complex figure. He can be jolly. He can be desperate. He can be wise and foolish. Muni does give Wang Lung a complexity and dignity. This is a man who will work to keep what he has. Yes, it is still inexcusable that a non-Asian is playing an Asian. In a just world, Sessue Hayakawa would have been better suited for the role. Yes, he was Japanese, so a Hayakawa casting might still be a bit dubious. However, at least the film would have had an Asian playing an Asian. 

Luise Rainer, however, is another matter entirely. Her casting came about in a most perplexing way. Anna May Wong had lobbied hard for the part of O-Lan. She was Chinese. She had a respected film career. She, unlike Rainer, grew up speaking English and was American by both birth and custom. However, Wong lost out the lead in part of the miscegenation laws at the time. These laws prohibited interracial romances between Caucasians and non-Caucasians. Since the German Paul Muni was playing Wang Lung, it seems that the studio thought having Anna May Wong play his wife would violate said miscegenation laws.

I find that line of thinking idiotic. It would not be a romantic relationship between Muni and Wong. It would be a romantic relationship between Wang Lung and O-Lan. You, in a manner of speaking, would have two Asians involved, not a white and Asian. Moreover, in a bizarre twist, Walter Connolly's Uncle was paired with Soo Yong as Aunt. Yong was Asian, playing an Asian and in a cinematic marriage to a white actor in yellowface. The thinking behind the contradictory casting (no to Wong because Muni is white but yes to Yong despite Connolly being white) is so oddball.

It makes things more awful when one learns that Wong was offered another part. Instead of the heroine O-Lan, Anna May Wong was offered the smaller role of the villainous temptress Lotus. That part went to Tilly Losch, who like Rainer was Austrian. Now things get more muddled if downright loony. The rationale against casting Anna May Wong, a Chinese American, as a Chinese character was that her costar, who was playing a Chinese character, was white. However, she was instead offered a part where she still would have ended up having a torrid romance with not one but two Asian characters. Yet, I digress.

It, in retrospect, might have been difficult for Anna May Wong to play O-Lan, but for a surprising reason. Wong was seen as a glamorous screen figure. Could she have been convincing as a simple, humble, meek peasant girl?

I think Anna May Wong would have been far more believable than Luise Rainer separate from the yellowface. Luise Rainer, to be fair, does not embarrass herself in The Good Earth the way that she did in The Great Ziegfeld. In the latter, Rainer's Anna Held was all fluttery to where I thought that Held was genuinely stupid. Here, Rainer was the complete opposite. She was meek, silent, spending much time looking down and downcast. I do not think that characters have suffered the way that Luise Rainer's O-Lan has. 

That impression of range might be why Luise Rainer won Best Actress for The Good Earth. She earned a place in Oscar history as the first person to win consecutive acting Academy Awards. Luise Rainer went the complete opposite of Anna Held. In The Good Earth, her O-Lan rarely looked up. She was meek and weak, forever downcast. Looking at her performance now, I think she was better than she was in The Great Ziegfeld. At least she was on screen longer to justify, somewhat, a Best Actress nomination. I still think it is not a good performance overall. It is her stillness that becomes frustrating. You struggle to think that O-Lan as played by Luise Rainer would have the inner courage to sacrifice her child or the family ox. You struggle believing that within O-Lan there is a bit of iron. Instead, her passivity, her eternal acceptance of all sorts of indignities, makes for sometimes frustrating viewing. 

As a side note, I think that is another reason why Anna May Wong might not have been the best person for the part. You would not think that Anna May Wong would be as docile and weak as Luise Rainer was as O-Lan.

The Good Earth at least allows for some authentic Asians in Asian roles. I can only wonder what Roland Liu and Keye Luke must have thought in seeing Muni and Rainer play their parents. Liu in particular was good as the Younger Son. He was deeply troubled by Lotus' wiles, desperate to get away from her. However, circumstances forced them together to near-ruinous results.

One thing that The Good Earth cannot be criticized for is its cinematography, the second of its Oscar wins and of the film's five nominations. There are some beautiful visual moments in the film thanks to Karl Freund's camera work. The concluding locust attack is still wildly impressive, as is a storm early in the film.

The Good Earth is probably mostly remembered for Luise Rainer's consecutive Best Actress win. This is not the time to comment on whether she should have won. It is not the time to suggest which of her fellow Best Actress nominees should have, though she beat out Irene Dunne, Greta Garbo and Barbara Stanwyck, all of whom never won competitive Oscars. The film is a bit stodgy and slow, most likely due to it being seen as a prestige production. However, The Good Earth has barely enough to make it passable viewing. This is something that in the right hands might be worth a remake.

Said remake would at least afford a chance for correct casting. 

DECISION: C+

Eddington: A Review

EDDINGTON

For the first hour, hour and a half of Eddington, we got a sharp satire of the madness that was the 2020 Summer of Love. The blend of COVID-19 hysteria and the "racial reckoning" post-George Floyd deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. However, as Eddington continues, it starts dragging. It then goes beyond dragging and turns into a dull, chaotic convoluted mess. 

It is late May 2020. Sevilla County, New Mexico Sheriff Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) may be asthmatic, but he does not care for the COVID-19 restrictions going on about him. The compulsory mask wearing plays havoc with his breathing. Sheriff Cross is also cross about how his fellow Eddington residents are slipping into paranoia and anger. Grocery store patrons chase others out if they walk in maskless. The store itself maintains strict social distancing and patron limits.

For Eddington Mayor Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal), every restriction is worth it if it saves just ONE life! He is running for reelection and thinks that he will stay in office. The only major problem that Garcia faces is his son, Eric (Matt Gomez Hidaka). He pretty much skirts the restrictions, even if they would save just ONE life! Eric is also deeply attracted to Sarah Allen (Amelie Hoeferle). She is using her white privilege to speak up and speak out against all the oppression going on in America. Sarah will fight for the racial reckoning, the stolen land, the oppression of all non-whites in Eddington. 

That there is no racial strife in Eddington is irrelevant. Social justice waits for no one. She also is the object of desire for many a young man. There is Eric. There is his frenemy Brian (Cameron Mann), who soon learns the language of the Woke. One man who is not enamored of our Commie revolutionary is Michael Cooke (Micheal Ward). He is her ex, but he is also one of the two deputies.

Joe and Ted have more than differences on COVID responses. They share a woman, Louise Bodkin (Emma Stone). Louise is Joe's wife now. However, long ago she and Ted had a relationship. How far that relationship went is a matter of debate. Joe, frustrated at how things are, almost on the spur of the moment, opts to run for Mayor. 

That one decision leads to a cascade of chaos and murder. Louise's already fragile mental help is not helped by any of this. Accusations of rape, of racism, jealous young men, angry middle-aged men all manage to get people killed. The situation in little Eddington, already on edge due to a controversial data collection facility proposed, explode. Throw in online conspiracy theorist Vernon Jefferson Peak (Austin Butler) and nosy Native American detective Butterfly Jimenez (William Belleau) and not everyone will survive the literal Battle of Eddington, New Mexico.

Eddington is a film that starts out well. Director/screenwriter Ari Aster build up, slowly but steadily, a good satire on COVID reactions. Looking at the events of 2020 with some distance, we can see that things were at times bordering on the hysterical. The film opens with Detective Butterfly driving up to Sheriff Cross and reprimanding him for not wearing a mask. This leads to a brief argument about borderlines. What is mandatory in the Native American area may not be required in neighboring Sevilla County. The Black Lives Matter protesters are also brought in for ridicule. Sarah is an insufferable self-righteous scold. She at one point berates Deputy Michael Cooke for working for the Sheriff's Department. He should be with the George Floyd protesters, made up primarily of high schoolers. Why should he be with them? 

Simple. Michael Cooke is black. Why should his fellow Deputy Guy (Luke Grimes) take a knee? The craziness, the self-righteousness and at times total lunacy of the Summer of Love is captured well in the film. At one point, Brian tells his parents about how they should essentially be anti-white. They, curiously enough, are not sympathetic.

Eddington, however, is not some right-wing screed. Joe Cross is not shown in the best light either. Wavering, at times foolish, inconsiderate and at times bonkers, Cross is shown as sane only because everyone else seems to outdo him.

The film is quite well-acted. I flat out did not recognize Austin Butler in his small role of Vernon Peak, the online nutjob who spins eccentric conspiracies mixed with vague pseudo-Christianity. Emma Stone's role is small. However, her performance of Louise is good, this woman barely hanging on to sanity slipping outside of it due to Joe's wild accusations against Ted.

For as ubiquitous as Pedro Pascal has been, he did quite well here too as the wimpy, shady Mayor Ted. He is weak as a leader and father. He also shows himself as a totally insincere person. The fake election ad is hilarious in its total insincerity. Hidaka too left a strong impression as Eric, the arrogant scion who screws family and friends over. 

Joaquin Phoenix as Joe Cross blends the character's commitment to his ideals with his growing paranoia. The film really centers around his character. Phoenix makes Cross a figure of righteousness and frustration.

It is, however, once we get a shocking twist in Eddington that the film falls apart for me. Without giving too much away, I could not help thinking of Charlie Kirk at a certain point. It comes out of nowhere, and throwing Eric into things makes things worse. Had there been a genuine mystery about Ted and Eric, Eddington might have worked better. That was not what happened. 

The final, bloody end to Eddington also troubled me. I was troubled by the graphic nature of it all. I was troubled by the end results of what happened to some people. I also thought that it made the film much longer and a little bit more illogical. There were already points of logic that bothered me. I do not think that official sheriff department vehicles would have been permitted to be used for Joe's political campaign. The sheriff department's truck was full of Joe Cross banners and stickers. This is already dubious. That one of the signs read "Your Being Manipulated" when it should be "You're" just gets at me to no end.

Length is a big issue with Eddington. At nearly two and a half hours, you start feeling it. I wanted the film to end. It just seemed to be going all over the place, desperate to find a conclusion. It settled on a very weak and bizarre one.  

Eddington came close to being one of the better films of the year. Unfortunately, it soon disintegrated. A mix of excessive length and wild leaps of logic sunk what had been a good film. 

Half a decade after a collective collapse of worldwide sanity, we still seek out a good satire on the 2020 Summer of Love. Eddington is not it. It is a start, but not what we need. 

DECISION: D-

Wicked: For Good. A Review (Review #2075)

WICKED: FOR GOOD

I find that in life, people overcomplicate things. Case in point, Wicked: For Good. This is the sequel to Wicked and a spiritual if not literal prequel to 1939's The Wizard of Oz. Therein perhaps lies the problem. The original Wicked musical has been adored by many. I am not among them. Wicked: For Good did not win me over. In fact, I did literally cover my eyes at some moments.

After she defied the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum), the witch Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) thwarts his work at every turn that she can. This means being the Ozian PETA, freeing the animals from doing such work as building the Yellow Brick Road. It also means being in the crosshairs of the Wizard's henchwoman, Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh).

Caught in the middle is Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande, billed as Ariana Grande-Butera). She is a willing front for the Wizard and Morrible, using her positive cache to win the various Oz residents to the Wizard's side. However, she also still thinks of Elphaba as her friend. She does not want to her now-frenemy. She also wants to keep her surprise engagement to Winkie Prince Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey). The engagement is a surprise to Fiyero, Captain of the Guard sent to track down and capture Elphaba, now dubbed "The Wicked Witch of the West".

He is conflicted, as he has feelings for Elphaba. Are those feelings sexual desire? True love? Sympathy for her plight and cause? Someone who has none of those things is Elphaba's sister Nessarose (Marisa Bode). Now the Governess of Munchkinland, she is not a tyrant. She is, however, that way to Munchkin Boq (Ethan Slater). Nessa wants Boq in every way possible. Boq, however, still has eyes only for Glinda. Nessa has no problem using her political power to go beyond enforcing anti-Oz animals to keep them silent. She goes one step further, imposing restrictions on the Munchkins themselves. Both animals and Munchkins can no longer travel freely, without permission anyway. Nissa's amorous desires for Boq have led her, albeit accidentally, to turn him into the Tin Woodsman. Elphaba did try to control the spell, but it ended up being a disaster for Boq.

The hunt for Elphaba continues as she attempts to fight for the animals. She eventually makes contact with Glinda, who attempts to negotiate between her and the Wizard. Things start looking Wonderful, with The Wizard agreeing to Elphaba's terms for animal liberation. However, we learn that all this is a ruse, with Glinda as a dupe. Things go from bad to worse in Oz.  Elphaba's discovery of an animal dungeon within the Emerald City enrages her to where she frees them on Glinda and Fiyero's wedding ceremony. Glinda gets more bad news when Fiyero turns against them and flees with Elphaba. Devastated and enraged, Glinda suggests using Nissa to get Elphaba. Morrible whips up a cyclone that manages to sweep a house from Kansas into Oz, with poor Nissa having the house fall on her.

Now enters a mysterious young girl desperate to go home. Elphaba and Glinda battle it out. Fortunately for the former, she and Fiyero had a night of passion. Unfortunately for the Winkie prince, he is turned into a Scarecrow. Elphaba already has an enemy in a Cowardly Lion (Coleman Domingo). Now with this Kansas trollop and an enraged Boq, will Elphaba find herself melting? Will Glinda manage to overcome being The Girl in the Bubble to help her friend? Who will end up triumphant in the Battle Sorceress? 

The first Wicked was fine, with some solid production work and a couple of pleasant songs. For full disclosure, Popular and Defying Gravity are the only Wicked songs that I recognize. I think the same can be said about Wicked: For Good, though to a lesser degree. The costumes and set design are still quite strong. They are elaborate and big, befitting the wonderful world that Wicked takes place in.  

In terms of song, I simply would not know which songs are from the stage musical and which were written specifically for Oscar consideration, I mean, for the film. I found that both The Girl in the Bubble and No Place Like Home were written specifically for Wicked: For Good.  I think the former has the stronger chance to win Best Original Song. I do not remember the song at all. I do remember the other song, though not for the right reasons. No Place Like Home is clearly meant to echo dialogue from the 1939 The Wizard of Oz. That, I found tacky enough. 

That it is apparently a song of empowerment about talking animals makes it look almost loony. I was working to suppress chuckles at the sight of Elphaba singing of the importance of home to animals who did not seem all that interested in hearing her. Out of all the musical numbers, the only one that I do recall is Wonderful. I would not say that I thought Wonderful lived up to its name. I also wonder if Wonderful needed to be there just to have a more upbeat number in Wicked: For Good. 

Perhaps the biggest flaw I found in Wonderful was that I never bought the premise. Somehow, I never believed that Elphaba would come close to agreeing to join the Wizard even with his promises at reform. The entire setup felt contrived. That is unfortunate. So is how for myself, I found pretty much all the songs with the possible exception of Wonderful pretty much the same. I could not tell one song from another. I also was growing more irritated by the number of musical numbers. I realize that this is a strange criticism of a musical. However, I think the wall of sound coupled with the similar nature of the songbook made me wonder if I was listening to just one endless song. 

I have a very big problem with Wicked: For Good in terms of plot. If one knows Oz only through the 1939 Wizard of Oz, a lot of Wicked is not going to make any sense. Wicked: For Good appears to want to tie itself to the 1939 film. However, that film's narrative will not allow itself to tie into Wicked: For Good. We got a Tin Woodsman origin story in Wizard of Oz that is sharply different from that of Wicked: For Good. The Wicked Witch of the West is supposed to continually want to set the love of her life on fire? Nissa's demise seemed rather quick, with no buildup.

You also have the issue of the slippers. The Wizard of Oz has them as ruby. In the original book, they were silver. Wicked: For Good tries to have it both ways. When Dorothy leaves Munchkinland, the slippers are silver. When Elphaba goes to Nissa for a surprise visit, she levitates her disabled sister and has her slippers shift color from silver to a red/silver blend. You also have the reasons for the Wicked Witch of the West's desire for the slippers. In The Wizard of Oz, they would grant her great powers. In Wicked: For Good, Elphaba wants them basically for sentimental reasons. 

I never shook the idea that Wicked: For Good wants to both separate and tie into The Wizard of Oz. It is a bit hard when songs and dialogue crib from the 1939 film. We got the aforementioned No Place Like Home song. We also have Madame Morrible say, "These things need to be done delicately" when contemplating attacking Elphaba. This is a direct quote from The Wizard of Oz's Wicked Witch, who says that about her plans to remove the ruby slippers from Dorothy by any means necessary.

I think Wicked: For Good pretty much wants its cake and to eat it too. It cannot be both a prequel to The Wizard of Oz and independent of it. For those unfamiliar with the musical and familiar only with the Judy Garland film, Wicked: For Good will be a bit puzzling. 

The film has serviceable acting. When it comes to the singing, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are still able to metaphorically hit the high notes. Credit should be given where credit is due. Jonathan Bailey is also fine when he sings. I cannot say the same when he or anyone else is acting. The worst of the bunch is Michelle Yeoh. She was wildly miscast as Madame Morrible. Not only did she give a bad performance overall, but she also cannot sing. The few times that she was required to try and hit a few notes, Yeoh failed spectacularly as to be cringe-inducing. 

I am at a loss to understand why Ariana Grande is singled out for a likely Best Supporting Actress Oscar win. Is it a good thing that she made Glinda into something of an airhead? I felt for both Bode and Slater. Both were wildly underused as was their subplot. Coleman Domingo was held as a great casting coup as the Cowardly Lion. I do not think that he sang or added much to the overall plot.

I do not understand how director Jon M. Chu continues to be given musicals. I thought In the Heights was poorly constructed. I was not overwhelmed with Wicked. With Wicked: For Good, we got some surprisingly awful moments. The idea of Fiyero and Elphaba being so passionate for and about each other is amusing, but in the wrong way. I was pushing down laughter at their love scene. The performances of Bailey and Erivo were totally unconvincing. They looked slightly uncomfortable, as if they could not believe their characters would do anything like this.

I also go to what I consider a cheat involving Elphaba's end. This might be true to the original musical. However, it strips away from any sense of poignancy when it comes to both her and Glinda's fates. 

Bette Davis in a perhaps apocryphal story was asked to comment about Joan Crawford's death. "When someone dies, you do not say anything bad, only good. Joan Crawford is dead. GOOD!" was allegedly her bitchy reaction to the death of her bitterest foe. I felt something similar when I think of Wicked: For Good. Unlike Davis, however, I will say something good about Wicked: For Good. 

At least the costumes and art direction are nice. 

DECISION: F

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+