projosd

Dr. Phil's megalomaniacal fantasy about a psychiatrist who can completely control the outcome of a trial by jury selection. The entire premise is false. Jury consultants have limited value because jury selection, in the vast majority of cases, involves a limited amount of time, is based on limited information and each side has the same number of challenges i.e. you don't "select" a jury, you "deselect" one. Neither side can "stack the jury."

In the episode I watched about a female pilot sued for crashing a plane, the defense attorney was portrayed as an unscrupulous miscreant who had to be outed and dismissed by Dr. Bull (natch), Bull sat behind counsel table unshaven and with no tie (try doing that in any courtroom in this country), during the trial counsel asked questions of the jury and requested they raise their hands in response (that never happens) and "mirror jurors" sat in the courtroom with biometric watches to evaluate the testimony (like driverless cars, that technology may someday exist but I have never seen it to this day). OK, it's TV, but at least let's get the basics right- there is no "guilty or not guilty" in a civil case. A defendant is "liable" or not liable. I would grant a summary judgment dismissing this show in its entirety.

How can you not like a movie with Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper and Robert Di Niro? Take a David O. Russell screenplay only half based on entrepreneur Joy Magano's invention of the Miracle Mop, fill it with a series of implausible straw men, then knock them down over the course of two hours leading to the happy ending we all know is coming because it's the story of the successful Miracle Mop, not the Flop Mop. People have analogized Joy's situation to Cinderella, but it seemed to me more like Rocky. Each time poor Joy takes a punch and hits the canvas, we are rooting for her ("Get up, Joy!"). The problem is that each setback is completely avoidable and, thus, becomes infuriating to the viewer. Examples: Marketing guru, Bradley Cooper, agrees to get her product on QVC but gives it to a pitchman who has never used the product and doesn't like it. When Joy insists on demonstrating the product herself (which did happen), she is dressed in a fancy outfit- just the thing you'd wear when mopping a floor! Genius, Bradley Cooper! Then the parts supplier attempts to extort Joy by raising the prices after the success of the product. What, no contract covering this? When Joy learns her intellectual property rights are not protected, it is explained that her financial backer- who meticulously monitors the expenditure of every penny- has consulted a lawyer who is not an expert in IP rights. How meticulous! Everyone but Joy throws their hands up in despair saying there is nothing to be done but file bankruptcy. Here's a thought. How about suing the lawyer for legal malpractice for giving IP advice without any expertise? When Joy learns that the real IP holder is in Texas, Joy meets him in a motel room, spins out some convoluted explanation as to why his claim over the IP rights is "fraud" and gets him to sign a one page disclaimer of all IP rights right then and there without years of litigation. The longer this movie went on, the more I hated it. Except for Joy, none of the characters were likable. Some critics apparently find it impossible to be objective because of the pedigree of the David O Russell, JLaw, Bradley Cooper collaboration (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle). But, many IMDb viewers have been courageous enough to say this emperor had no clothes and I joint their ranks.

I am not as effusive about this series as its most ardent fans, nor as dismissive as people who hate it. The first season was fantastic and it's the season where the series won the most awards. It went downhill from there. Why? First, there are the improbable scenarios, to wit: how does a person so close to the edge as Carrie Mathison make it to the highest echelons of the CIA and find herself in the middle of the most sensitive situations? Why does the series seem to misunderstand the difference between Sunnis and Shiites in loosely mixing Al Qaeda and Iran? How are Carrie and her buddies always able to talk on their cells without being tapped, but they can tap everyone else? And so on. But, the biggest flaw is the failure to recognize a cardinal rule of writing- if the readers/viewers don't care about the characters, they won't care about the story. Season One was so riveting because we cared about Nicholas Brody- a good man whose mind was messed up from years in captivity and struggled to figure it out and do the honorable thing (whatever that was). Once he was gone, we were left with Carrie, a thoroughly dislikeable and driven CIA agent constantly disobeying orders and always up in the face of others. She seems incapable of even bonding with her own child (I checked out midway through Season 4). Sahl seems to view the job as a day-to-day chess match in which he finds refuge. Quinn is a soulless black ops agent. Why should we care about any of them? Others apparently share this opinion as the number of viewers dropped precipitously after Brody was clipped. Reviewers who are "into" this series apparently find the cloak-and-dagger aspects of the series sufficient. I did not.

The good: Not all people in their 70's are in a retirement home. The not-so-good: A hipper version of Golden Girls. The writers go for the low-hanging fruit of what happens to some people when they get old- being baffled by technology, being trapped in the 1960"s (and yet, curiously, reacting to drugs as if it were the first time they were stoned), dry vaginas. The characters are stereotypical. The Sam Waterston character is particularly confusing. He is a high powered divorce lawyer who minces around as the apparent wife in the gay marriage to Martin Sheen. He could not possibly survive in the jungle that is divorce law with that persona. Some of the dialog seems forced in order to be funny rather than genuine. Perhaps the characters will develop and face real old-people problems like developing a physical ailment or losing their memory. Then we will be able to see if there is any depth to the show. I will watch Season 2.

The best cloak-and-dagger TV series since the Sopranos except that instead of crooks and cops, this show involves communists and capitalists. Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings are Soviet spies masquerading as a typical American husband and wife in the cold war 80s. Like the Sopranos, the Jennings juggle their daily dark activities with the challenges of raising two kids. So, after a day of high speed car chases, having sex in return for information, kicking, gouging, stabbing and shooting bad guys (wait, good guys?) the Jennings go home to make lasagna. Elizabeth redefines what it means to be a working mom, working girl and worker of the world.

The Americans is a superb series because the plots are complex and unpredictable, the characters are engaging and the acting is first rate. There are no weak links in the cast. One feels genuine empathy with all the characters even though half of them want to destroy the free world. One area worthy of further exploration is the Jennings' commitment to communism, a political doctrine that now seems a quaint vestige of the past except for current failed states like North Korea (China is not a communist state; it is a state capitalism state). The Jennings speak of the "cause" but what is it and why is it so important to risk life, limb and family on a daily basis? The Soviet Union was never a very nice place and even Phillip is seduced by American muscle cars and other glitzy goods. As the series moves forward to the Gorbachev era of Glasnost and Perestroika, it will be interesting to see how Phillip and Elizabeth adjust.

I binged watched this series from the pilot (on Amazon) through Season 3, now on FX. It's that good.

**********************************Spoiler Alert***********************

This is a "film about nothing,' to paraphrase the old Seinfeld joke. The film chronicles the life of a young man, his sister and divorced parents through 12 years of ordinary existence. These folks are no different from countless other people everyone has seen go through 12 years of life. Nothing really interesting or different happens to them. It's as if the director channeled George Costanza talking to Mr. Dalrymple at NBC, "What did you do this morning?" "I got up, had coffee and came to work." "There's a movie, that's a movie!" No, it's not.

This film had no point nor point of view. None of the characters were particularly appealing. None had any interesting insights. At the end, the main character, supposedly high on mushrooms, queries, "Do we seize the moment or does the moment seize us?" That's the best he can do on mushrooms?

The vast majority of "critics," i.e. people smarter than me, loved this film because it teaches that life is fleeting and time slips through one's fingers. We don't know this? Apparently, we do because many "ordinary people" submitting reviews have been flummoxed by all the fulsome praise of this film.