itgirlx

So Maddie is back and I couldn't be happier. Mama Termite (Check out Madigan's Pubcast on YouTube) is back from COVID lockdown and in fine form. She hits the high points of lowbrow observations on life in this America. She takes on the oldsters and the millennials, from the backwoods to Florida and back again keeping you laughing about it all.

If you've never seen Kathleen Madigan perform her unique and side-splitting brand of comedy, you're in for a treat. Check out her other specials as well; Bothering Jesus, Madigan Again, Gone Madigan, In Others Words. They are hilarious, insightful, and worth an hour any time.

I wanted to like this film. But the characters are basically unlikable. The story is familiar: BFFs, one gay, one straight, go away together and play go away, come back. Both characters behave with little maturity and toy with each other despite professing love for one another. It took several viewings to get through this film.

Scenes drag on with little resolution and do little to move the story forward. The inadequate narrative adds nothing to the basic concept of love between two women. For younger viewers: Don't behave this way.

I'm very interested in "survival" products; from home safety, backpacking/camping gear, to zombie prepping, so this show seemed a natural fit. Boy, was I wrong. The hosts of this show spend most of the time screwing around, making macho jokes and very little time with the actual products. I expected some banter, but it goes on for about 80% of the episode. The products are not named or well-described, and purchase or acquisition info is non existent. This "show" is basically an infomercial for "Battle Box." If interested in survival products, you'd do better to search YouTube or watch some customer reviews on Amazon.

I'd like it better if there were a single, likable character. Gad is most likable and yet too arrogant to bear. Really shows how shallow and ugly LA is in real life.

This won't be a popular review based on the high ratings this film is receiving but I have to say it-this film is all about Bradley Cooper rather than the star Ally. Cooper's Maine character just eats up the scenery throughout the film; Gaga's Ally just enables him despite her hurt feelings and his destructive behavior, while she is barely given the screen time to shine. There are a number of tropes from the previous incarnations of this film, some from '54 and many from the '76 issues of this great love story. I warmed to the beginning of the film and Jackson's charm while courting Ally. It soon melted into too many scenes that were disjointed and all about Jack. Ally's meteoric rose was depicted in an odd way-her music morphed into much more a Lady Gaga style which seemed not to fit the character of Ally. All the while, Jackson's dive was just more of the same stumbling drunkness without truly showing how his pain affected Ally and himself. The last 30 minutes of the film were painful to watch because I just wanted it to be over but needed to see how he dies and how she handles it. I was nonplussed. Finally, the last performance was lackluster and Bradley Cooper had to be all over that as well. Too much Brad, not enough Star.

This documentary plays much more like Reality Show that could be called, "How Codependent Are You?"

The people observed are genuinely ill in some way or another and they get little to no help or direction from Western medicine are are left to fend for themselves with mostly charlatan characters. Meanwhile, their care-givers wander minefields of eggshells trying to assist ill people who often feel desperate.

It ends up with very codependent relationships where no one is getting their needs met. Cameras documenting these awful situations may be exacerbating the codependent dynamics and do not go unnoticed.

Communication, therapy and new modalities, alternative and complementary medicine must be part of the equation for this and all patients. Illness doesn't always fit into a nice, little box. This film does nothing to further the conversation; it just makes everyone look a bit crazy.

This film reminds me why I avoid breaking laws. The criminal justice system in America is profoundly broken along with a collective moral compass.

Attorney Rudolph lost the initial trail and subsequent appeals because he failed to nail-down obvious issues like the blatant homophobia of the jury which should have been address in voir dire (jury selection) and the incompetence of the Deaver testimony. He could have and should have used his own expert (Dr. Lee) and looked into Deaver's lies about experience, etc., like he did in the request for a new trial.

His pretrial discussions touched on arguments he failed to take to completion e.g., addressing the amount of blood with medical testimony on how very much scalp lacs bleed. His reconstruction of what likely happened with this intoxicated slip and fall was half-hearted and incomplete. He mentioned making an animation of what could have happened, yet one didn't show up until after losing. He failed to make much distinction between the German stairway accident with it's brain aneurism and Kathleen's impaired state . He could have introduced the number of stairwell injuries/deaths annually to explain how very often they occur, mitigating what appeared "too coincidental."

He characterized the Peterson marriage as idyllic without addressing the bisexuality-He glossed over the infidelities without explaining the concept of a poly-amorous relationship. He was out of his depth with the sexuality aspects and didn't bother to educate himself or the jury. The female prosecutor was extremely homophobic and didn't try to conceal it. Many on the jury and the judge as well. Rudolph and his team ignored it.

The defense needed many moving parts which Rudolph neglected to install. Then, he was shocked by the failure of his defense machine. Ultimately, he deflected responsibility for his failures with his incredulity at the guilty result and he took ten-plus years correct them.

I really wanted to love this movie. Some parts I enjoyed but was repeatedly taken out of the narrative by filmmaker choices.

The editing left much to be desired-scenes are awkwardly edited where you can see it's a different take of the same scene. Many of the edits simply appeared ham-handed and amateur.

Continuity also seems an issue; the progress of the story is chunked out, like skipping around chapters in a book. The screenplay lacks the dialog which would convey the depth of the story and it's characters.

The actors are quite good but not able to fill all the missing bits of good filmmaking. The score was musically fine but seems to have been written for a different movie. The pacing too, is slow and awkward like much of this film.

The Rachels handled what little they had to work with well. The sex scene was interesting and respectfully shot but again, the editing sucked all the life out of this love story.

Though I think this film was a missed opportunity, the potential for a well-written and directed sequel could fix what didn't work in this outing.

I really wanted to like it but kinda didn't.

Those who cannot see the clear and direct parallels between this well-executed drama and the direction America is being driven, are simply delusional.

The flashbacks show the slow-motion creep of authoritarianism, cloaked in theocracy and how Americans reacted with deer-caught-in-headlights reflexivity, until it was too late.

It's a stunning, sobering, hard stare into the dystopian near-future unless Americans stand up, United and defend The Constitution of this country against those who seek to subvert it.

As many others have stated, the writing here is abysmal. The single reason this movie gets a "3" instead of a "1" is this tiny plot point: The Republican Senator who is on the take from the Russians, is murdered in the first five minutes. This foreign graft is prescient of the state of the current Congress so embroiled with Russian intrigue. Hopefully, this will remind American voters that the foxes aren't guarding the henhouse-they're in it.

On my second go-round of Season Two, it's particular looks and lines that jump out at me. My favorite arrived in episode five, "Marionettes." When Prince Philip inquires about her hair stylist's name, Princess Margaret searches her memory and recalls, "Vidal Baboon?"

This well-meaning documentary mixes old, outdated information with some current data using a template of "just say no" filtered through a dozen other perspectives, leaving a muddied view of ADHD treatment of a neuro-developmental disorder. The focus shifts between abuse of medically-indicated pharmaceuticals and street drugs, while stigmatizing ADHD itself. It contains valuable information but woven in with shame and little distinction between ADHD sufferers and thise without ADHD. Ultimately, it just makes a mess of the issue. For valuable information and resources, try YouTube Creator "How to ADHD."

Less Bonnie and Clyde, more Thelma and Louise. Except they'd be English teens and Thelma is a girl called Allysa and Louise an 18 year old boy called James who are cajoled by circumstances to plunge into an incidental crime spree across rural England. If that, then you'd have, "The End of The F***ing World.

Mickey would never be interested in Gus. Mickey's boss Dr. balding-40-something is the victim here? He was sexually inappropriate with an employee and she seduces him to keep her job-and his feelings are hurt? Please. In the "me too" era, this show just doesn't cut it. It's stupid and sexist.

Very well conceived and executed narrative about one of the most fascinating and enduring tragedies in American psycho-social lore. This meticulously constructed documentary turns one of America's most chilling murders on its head with reconstructed time lines, police records, witness interviews and media reports from 1964 through subsequent decades, revealing the facts with a despicable and haunting twist--the "38 witnesses who did nothing," and have been used as an example of urban apathy, but have been cast in a different light.

What we come to learn about the night Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered reveals the darker underside of the police, media and others who capitalized on her death. This film is a must-see for true crime fans and social scientists alike-- for this tragic death speaks not to the shocking 'bystanders who did nothing' but to the sensationalized exploitation of Kitty's murder to further careers and do something far worse than nothing--the calculated and systemic lies and distortions by those entrusted to help, solve and inform the public who go on to use her murder for self-aggrandizement. Sadly, ultimately adding to the erosion of the concept of "American Exceptionalism."

This film deserves more than one viewing, in fact, watch it a few times and see if you don't find yourself swept away by its many charms. Much of what goes unspoken in dialog is expressed in the subtlety of the the superb performances by Liv Mjönes, Ruth Vega Fernandez and the stellar supporting cast. Swedish superstar Lena Endre, so enamored of this production, became one of the films producers. The story's strength, sensitive writing and direction by Alexandra-Therese Keining brought together an ensemble of Sweden's finest actors for this relatively low budget indy film.

Another thing to keep in mind, for America audiences in particular, is this film portrays European culture which has sensibilities pronouncedly different in the expression of day-to-day human interactions than their American counterparts. How these differences play out on film is quieter and more complex than your typical rom-com or American style drama. What goes unspoken is caught and translated within the context of every expression in every frame of film. The gorgeous cinematography and lushly sublime score adds subtext to every scene, while light and color underscore the blossoming of true love.

The fresh-faced, no make-up, every-day hair and simplicity of style, lends an authenticity which engages one into the story and lets you feel the characters in every scene. Character development and the pure talent of the supporting cast, (Krister Henriksson, Lena Endre, Joakim Nätterqvist, Tom Ljungman and producer actress Josephine Tengblad) add a layer of complexity that rounds out and fills in the on-screen canvas.

Mia's anxiety is palpable and her outbursts make one as nervous as if she were sitting next to you, all the while Frida's inexorable charm and playfulness fills you with the giddiness of first love which turns out be the real story of this film. Oh, and the on-screen chemistry between Frida and Mia is a breath-taking testament to great casting and inspired performance.

So, watch "Kiss Me" again with a fresh eye, trained for how much can be said in a single look or gestures ripe with context, subtext and beautifully delivered one word lines like, "Absolut" or "Precis." Notice how that makes you feel, then remember when you found that brand of magic in your own life--or go out and find it.

Compelling, well-developed characters, great writing, interesting premise, great dialogue, good production values--why was this show canceled? I honestly don't understand NBC's claim of "under-performance." According to the American viewing public and its 3.6 million viewers, this show was worth renewing but NBC found this project apparently not worth the effort.

Returning GWOT veterans, especially those in the medical field, do a great service that few realize can and does lead to PTSD. The themes brought to the fore in this drama are done in such a palatable way, it makes the topics easier to swallow for the non-military public.

Taylor Schilling is radiant as Veronica and I hope to see her in many other projects.

Anyone else see character resemblance between Allison McAtee's 'Catherine Stark' and Sharon Stone's 'Catherine Trammell' in the 1992 sex thriller 'Basic Instinct?' Certainly the two actresses share a physical likeness, but if you ask me, Fernanda Cardoso conjured her Catherine from one of those gauzy sex dreams where you wake up feeling frisky but you can't quite put your finger on why.

There were a number of elements in the story which once touched on, were left inadequately developed--like a dream. The aggressive teacher/ingénue student dynamic was evident and others have mentioned a 'creepy factor' regarding the perceived age difference, when really it's only 10 or 12 years. As Catherine begins to fall for Jackie, she becomes more nurturing, less dominating, more vulnerable, thus the bathing scene/food-cutting/jealousy arc. Professor Stark is clearly used to being the pursuer and chooses her students because of the power she wields over them. As time goes on, you see Catherine's emotional limits begin to crumble as Jackie begins to step back into the Hollywood world where she has the power.

The actresses had good chemistry and their scenes together are the strongest but left too much to the viewer's own interpretation. With deeper development of the scenes between them, the emotional intention would have been more clear. The typical 'dyke drama' as revealed in a number scenes, e.g., both of them sleeping with men, Catherine's denial of it being a relationship, their mutual unwillingness to be a public couple, is all rather standard lesbian relationship fare. One true thing is definitely played out--in these May-December romances, the tables invariably are turned and the older partner is the one who gets hurt.

During the time this drama is set, I was deployed to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center as a member of the USAF medical corps. While a number of the depicted situations weren't perfectly accurate, they did portray the essence of combat medicine and captured many of the emotional dynamics as well.

I liked very much how the many conditions and dynamics of deployment were at least broached: insurgents, local terps, illicit recreational sex, lesbian (bisexual?)soldiers, military politics, reaching out to locals and some of the inherent trust issues that exist on both sides, and the heartbreaking violence requisite of life during wartime.

Not all kudos here, for the writing and character development could have been better, and had the tendency to lapse into stereotypical characterizations, i.e., arrogant surgeon (Dr. Hill), idealistic internist (Dr. Trang), over-achiever female surgeon (Dr. Gordon), and no-nonsense commander (Dr. Marks). Also a number of plot twists disappointed for their already-done expectedness in other media.

I appreciated this show and its complex elements; of course the medicine wasn't perfect nor were the uniforms/military protocol, but all in all, it was a rather insightful look into military medicine at its finest--saving lives under the incredible pressures of war. Additionally, I do make the note which must be bared in mind: Hollywood (or Toronto), rarely depicts occupations and their intricacies accurately simply for lack of dramatic effect. It is the provenance of the creative arts to take license with 'the truth.'

All said, I enjoyed this show and was able to comfortably relive some events from my own life, which was an engaging experience. For a fairly comprehensive look into combat hospital life, check out the 2008 documentary by Terry Sanders, "Fighting For Life" filmed at stateside and in-theater military hospitals.

Finally, in reading the varied reviews here, I find the disinterest/criticism of certain comments to be less about the content of the show and more reflective a commentary on the American (and Canadian)public's apathy toward these wars and its less than one percent of Americans engaged in them. I hope some entity will find the wherewithal to reincarnate this show and bring this much-needed perspective back on air in the future.