'Crystal Lake Memories' mythologizes 'Friday the 13th' franchise

The Friday the 13th franchise is decidedly and unabashedly lowbrow. Its main appeal are its creatively grisly kills, which may or may not be your cup of tea. A couple of the films stand a cut above the others, but they are largely all the same, which I suspect is what people like about them. They're not as fantastical and funny as the Nightmare on Elm Street movies or as atmospheric and moody as the Halloween films. They're real mean and potatoes.

Still, the epically long documentary -- Crystal Lake Memories -- seeks to elevate the series is our esteem. It's essentially copying the model of the incredibly watchable Never Sleep Again, which itself was a multi-hour trip down memory lane through all the Freddy Krueger movies.

Crystal Lake Memories isn't quite as engrossing because the movies its documenting aren't -- and yet it is still an entertaining enough watch (especially during these dog days of covd) and the experience of watching it got me thinking: what other prolific film franchises would I like to see get this same treatment.

Sure, these documentaries are arguably one long extended DVD feature, but who cares. When you're an obsessive film fan like I am you want all those little tidbits about scripting, casting, special effects et al. And what these docs do, which is fun, is really get the perspective of bit players and production people, so you really get a full sense of what making these movies was really like.

There are plenty of series that have been overly, exhaustively documented -- like Star Wars -- and maybe some of franchises I'm about the mention may have and I just missed it. But I'd happily devote 6 hours or more to.

Star Trek - I am by no means a Trekkie. I've seen a fair amount of the original TV series, but I mostly became familiar with it through the movies, especially the ones featuring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. The series is infamously uneven, but I think that would only make a documentary about their evolution that much more interesting. I think you can even stretch this into the Next Generation movies, as well as the J.J. Abrams era too.

Mission: Impossible - What started as a big budget (and wildly successful) big screen adaptation of a beloved TV series has evolved into something more over the course of six films. Each subsequent film has dramatically upped the ante in terms of the stunts that star Tom Cruise is really doing himself and I'd be fascinated to know about the behind the scenes machinations of putting these sequences together but also the arc of the franchise in general.

James Bond - This would be hard to do -- since we're talking 20+ movies here -- but there is no film franchise more durable and adaptable to its times than 007. Sadly, we've lose two of the most iconic Bonds in recent years -- Sean Connery and Roger Moore -- but there is plenty of archive footage and surviving players that can help fill in the gaps. The recent blu ray editions of the series actually have some fantastic mini docs covering the films from Dr. No through License to Kill which could serve as a blueprint.

Mad Max - Sure it's only four movies -- but each has such a strong, distinct flavor, have been hugely influential and could sustain a documentary of their own. George Miller is hard at work on his Furiosa prequel, but I'd love to hear him hold court on just how he developed this thoroughly unique cinematic world and conceived of the larger-than-life car, jeep and trunk stunts that are the franchise's trademarks. Especially, when it comes to Fury Road, which has been widely hailed as one of the last decade's best films.

Rocky - I've made no secret about my adoration for this series, which improbably became relevant again after 2006's Rocky Balboa and especially after Creed and Creed II. Naturally, this is Sylvester Stallone's greatest cinematic accomplishment, but it's really not his triumph alone and there's not just the films but the inspiration they delivered to so many fans, including Creed director Ryan Coogler, who got into the franchise because of his late father's appreciation for the criminally underrated Rocky II.

Halloween - I mentioned this one earlier and this is the likeliest candidate, since its already been done with Nightmare and Friday the 13th. The Halloween films are actually my favorite of all these horror movie franchises because I think they are cinematically more sound, the acting is generally a notch above (thanks to committed work from Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance) and the series took some interesting detours (like the Michael Myers-less Halloween III) before rebooting yet again by David Gordon Green and Danny McBride with 2018's Halloween.

'Belushi' brings home the tragedy of the SNL star's premature death

The new Showtime documentary Belushi doesn't necessarily shed too much new light on the late SNL and Animal House star's brief but incredibly popular career. If you're familiar with his story, the movie hits many of the major landmarks -- his breakout stardom on Saturday Night Live, his uneven film career and descent into deadly drug addiction -- but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable or profoundly sad.

The film employs a refreshing technique, it uses only audio (recorded by author Tanner Colby for a biography of Belushi published years ago). And it's compelling to hear the voice of say the late Harold Ramis rather than the traditional talking head. The anecdotes feel more candid and more emotional.

And the biggest takeaway from Belushi is that the combustible comedian could be a very introspective softie. There are numerous excerpts from unguarded love letters to his with Judith (voiced beautifully by Bill Hader) which show him alternately riding the highs of fame, crying for help and expressing a deep desire for the kind of love and affection his parents apparently deprived him of.

The film doesn't treat Belushi as a blameless innocent, and the movie doesn't shy away from his penchant for misogyny and self pity -- but it also does a terrific job of highlighting his intelligence, his charm and his remarkable comedic talent.

The footage will be familiar to any Belushi fan, but that doesn't make it any less enjoyable to revisit. There are many comics who have captured elements of his signature style in his wake -- Chris Farley and even his brother Jim Belushi have probably borrowed from him the most -- but he really did have a singular presence that can't be replicated.

Like so many people I became aware of Belushi through his two hit movies National Lampoon's Animal House and The Blues Brothers, and later his incredible run during the first few seasons of SNL (where he was initially overshadowed by Chevy Chase). But the great tragedy of his life -- after of course his untimely death -- was that he never got to fully explore the depths of his talent.

He was being pigeonholed as a certain type of comic who starts in a certain type of movie (one anecdote towards the end of the film is that a studio wanted him to appear in a diaper in an upcoming comedy) and therefore was something of a victim of his own success.

Only in 1981's little seen Continental Divide did he ever get to play anything close to resembling a real person and it's clear he desperately wanted to be taken seriously as an actor.  Most ex-SNL actors struggle to make this transition, with Bill Murray probably being the biggest exception to the rule and he of course has had over 40 years now of big screen acting roles to craft a nuanced popular persona.

For better or worse, Belushi is frozen in time -- at just 33 years old (although his hard living made him look much older) -- as a wunderkind comedy dynamo who made America laugh and cry in such a short span of time (roughly 1975 to 1982). 

I'm not quite sure why this is the moment filmmakers decided to revisit this material. There are no new revelations here or a totally new take on his career (like Listen to Me Marlon, which suggested that the late method actor was far more respectful of his profession than he liked to let on). It is however a great introduction for people unfamiliar with his talent and a sad reminder of what we lost for those of us who grew up idolizing him.

'The Reagans' is tough but fair on the right wing icons

It's become too glib to compare Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, but then the coincidences are unavoidable. Both burnished their political voice as TV personalities. Both were serial exaggerators and believers in the power of positive thinking. Both were masters at creating their own versions of reality and then converting millions to their worldview.

That said, Trump will gratefully be a one term (and hopefully only a one term) president and he doesn't have an ounce of the charisma Reagan had. And Reagan remains a figure of historic consequence for better or worse. Trump will too, but how much he permanently effected the landscape will have a lot to do with how much of his presidency Biden can undo.

We are now 40 years removed from Reagan's first presidential victory and we are still seeing him hyped relentlessly. Even though, Trump has stopped comparing himself to the Gipper, reaching back for Lincoln instead, as if Reagan being only recently deceased is more of a threat to his ego. So perhaps the star is fading a bit. Surely, the time is right to remove a little bit of the phony luster around him, which Showtime's terrific new documentary The Reagans aims to do.

It is as much about Nancy Reagan as it is Ronald -- and how much you enjoy it may depend on how you feel about the filmmakers casting the first lady as a bit of the arch villain of the piece. But if you're like me, you might think 'if the shoe fits.'

The Reagans does dissect both her and the former president's personalities, but it also brilliantly, profiles the sometimes shadowy forces and organizations that ushered them into power and who they in term owed fealty to. It wisely places race at the center of this narrative, where it belongs, since Reaganism is the zenith of coded racialized politics. Trump went even further and brought back old school 'it's not even a dog whistle' racism, but Reagan was the master of saying it without saying it -- and he was rewarded greatly with two landslide presidential victories which serve to overstate his popularity while in office.

The footage is so damning and the talking heads (which include Reagan allies too) so compelling that even the most ardent Reagan defenders would have a hard time defending some of this. Here is a bright, ambitious man but not a deep, introspective one,

This is a man who was a Democrat until he saw more profit in becoming a Republican and he spent the rest of his life exaggerating an imagined threat coming from left while peddling a phony idealized version or America for his fans on the right. There is no denying that Reagan's 'we're the best' ethos is an attractive, appealing one. And Reagan was an effortlessly likable guy. But that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong or also a monster.

I'm only two episodes into Showtime's daring new limited series, but they are already doing a deft job of both. They don't pussyfoot around the dirty side of Reagan's politics, while also heralding his tenacity and drive. You can see why he was such a star -- his aw shucks persona is refreshingly adorable. But it's time to be cynical about Reagan and Reaganism again, since we are now so much more aware of the collateral damage (the spread of AIDs, wealth inequality, the prison industrial complex, just to name a few). It might have been too taboo to take on even a decade ago, but now this feels like a chapter in our history that we really ought to examine now, because a more Reagan-like version of Trump may be on the way and that scares me.

Needless to say, I consider this essential viewing.

Dueling Friedkin docs make a strong case for director's legacy

William Friedkin, or 'Billy' as he is most commonly known, has always occupied a unique space in the pantheon of great '70s directors. His two biggest critical and commercial hits The French Connection, and especially The Exorcist, are what cemented his reputation, even though his best film might just be the 1977 thriller Sorcerer.

He made several other very solid to great films -- his To Live and Die in LA is riveting, his controversial Cruising is excellent in its own way, I even like his much maligned comedy Deal of the Century, it's more of a dry satire than a laugh out loud romp, but that doesn't necessarily diminish it in my mind.

He is a blunt spoken, irascible type and the makers of Friedkin Uncut wisely give him plenty of room to wax rhapsodic. It is not like Noah Baumbach's De Palma, which was simply the singular voice of its subject, Friedkin Uncut features the director's contemporaries, collaborators and fanboys -- and that makes it feel a little more conventional.

Sometimes, when it comes to actors like Gina Gershon, it seems to confirm Friedkin's reputation as a bit of an abusive jerk. Some others, like Matthew McConaughey, does a very effective job of defending the director's preference for trying to get a scene in one take.

It does it job -- it makes you want to revisit his work in a new light -- but you almost wish the film has taken a more definitive stylistic approach or a least more of a clear thruline. Ironically enough, there's another new Friedkin documentary, focused entirely on the making of The Exorcist, called Leap of Faith -- that does many of the same things this doc does but a little better.

By dwelling entirely on one movie -- Friedkin's most famous -- it makes many of the same points (and cribs some of the same anecdotes -- like how Jason Miller stole the role of Father Karras from beneath Stacey Keach), but it has a more compelling thesis statement.

Friedkin Uncut unfortunately doesn't work his way through the director's filmography or give yourself a sense of his evolution as a filmmaker. Instead it jumps around, spending too much time on some films, and not enough time on others.

When it finally gets around to Sorcerer -- which as I said earlier, might just be Friedkin's masterpiece. It's compulsively re-watchable, visually stunning and consistently underrated -- I was worried the movie wasn't going to get covered at all. And part of understanding that movie's initial perception as a failure has as much to do with when he made it as anything, on the heels of The Exorcist. Even the movie's title was a silly attempt to link it to its predecessor in Friedkin's oeuvre. 

Coppola does brilliantly sum up his and Friedkin's and arguably the rest of the so-called film brat generation's ethos when he says, "when you wanted to show something extraordinary you had to something extraordinary"

Gems like those make that doc great, while Leap of Faith makes a movie we thought we'd heard everything about somehow feel very fresh and relevant. Instead of interrogating the movie's themes of good and evil in a sort of a campy, exploitative way, it takes them seriously and artistically.

It's a somber film -- Friedkin is a great storyteller but his delivering can grow numbing.  But it certainly enshrines The Exorcist as the truly great film it was. Sometimes I think because it was a hit and a genre film people try to downplay its power. But it's a bonafide masterpiece.

I completely disagree with the film's contention (voiced aggressively by Quentin Tarantino) that Roy Scheider was ill-suited for the lead role in Sorcerer. Sure it would have been a different, bigger movie had it starred Friedkin's original choice Steve McQueen. But Scheider is no slouch. It was just the right film at the wrong time ... it opened opposite Star Wars.

And even though it 'failed,' Friedkin had final cut -- and so the finished film is still his singular vision.

The two docs about his life -- not quite -- but they are required viewing if you, like me, think Friedkin is consistently underrated. 

'Black Panther II' formally announced, backlash already ensues

The unprecedented success of Black Panther -- a nearly all-black, politically-charge and Oscar nominated phenomenon -- all but guaranteed there would be a sequel. And Marvel wisely had already re-enlisted the talented writer-director Ryan Coogler to continue exploring the big screen world he helped create.

Everything seemed to be going according to plan (with the disruption of covd, of course) until Black Panther star Chadwick Boseman died after a long concealed battle with caner. Even before he died, Boseman's performance in the leading role was legendary and iconic, but now with his untimely passing, he has come to represent even more.

Almost immediately after his death there was speculation about the future of Boseman's most famous role. Fans feared that the T'Challa character would be clumsily resurrected using technology (Marvel has reportedly already ruled this ghastly idea out) or that he would be re-cast.

I had hoped Coogler and company would take a more ambitious approach. Instead of recasting T'Challa, I would establish the character's death -- which would give a new movie stakes and emotional heft. And, his charismatic and resourceful sister Shuri (played by Letitia Wright) would stand up to take his place.

I understand that a similar narrative played out in the Black Panther comic books albeit not because of T'Challa's death. But there is no cutting around this tragedy and I think the sequel would be stronger if it addressed it head on instead of pretending the character is just taking time off (like how the Fast & Furious movies have handled Paul Walker) or attempting some kind of Frankenstein effect (like they did with Carrie Fisher in The Rise of Skywalker).

Coogler is definitely not in an enviable position. In many ways he will have to abandon a narrative that he likely intended to follow through with. And the possessiveness that so many people for the character and Chadwick Boseman's portrayal are formidable. There will be some fans who just can't or won't be pleased with whatever choice is made.

I, however, am heartened that there is already talk about Letitia Wright having a 'larger' role, although there have been few specifics released, as is the norm with these kinds of big event movies.

Wright is a great actress, who nearly stole the first film, and it's high time Marvel had a feature film with a woman of color at its center, but clearly this already heavily hyped and anticipated film will have its work cut out for it. 

There is still no clear end in sight to the closure of most cinemas around the country -- and Wonder Woman 1984, which has hoped to debut wide this year, will now be released simultaneously on HBO's streaming platform as well as the few theaters that are still open.

Black Panther II, which aims to being shooting next summer. presumably with strict covd-19 protocols in place, and it will be expected to be one of the films that can keep the moviegoing experience alive. I'm rooting for it to be great or at least just as good as the original.

Happy birthday Martin Scorsese! My fave director's top 10

Legendary director Martin Scorsese turned 78 yesterday -- and if you think that's old, don't forget that that's the age the next president will be when he's sworn in. I've made no secret out of the fact that he's my favorite filmmaker of all time. He's only made a few movies I didn't love -- New York New York, Kundun and Bringing Out the Dead and another I should probably revisit -- Silence -- but for the most part, he can do no wrong with me.

It's incredibly hard for me to pick favorites -- although I have a few -- and so I decided to be cutthroat and to come up with my top 10 list -- at least at the moment I'm writing this. These aren't necessarily his best films -- for instance, The Last Temptation of Christ is a very accomplished and challenging work that I really admire, but it's not a movie I would call a favorite.

These are the Scorsese 'pictures' that I am the most fond of and they demonstrate his formidable talent and unique worldview. Even though he often makes films about terrible men who do terrible things, he's at heart a humanist, and it's that dichotomy that makes his movies special and stand the test of time. 

Ok, but no more throat clearing, here we go.

10) The Wolf of Wall Street - My 10 spot was hotly contested, and this one was very close. I could definitely put The Age of Innocence here or Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore or Mean Streets, but I find this film more entertaining and audacious than any of those movies. It's clearly his most divisive film, with many critics feeling like it did too good a job of romanticizing the trash people it documents. Agree to disagree. This vibrant and vulgar movie is an indictment of the Trumpism before Trumpism even took hold, and it features perhaps the loosest and therefore the most enjoyable of all of his collaborations with Leonardo DiCaprio. 

9) After Hours - A funky love letter to grimy '80s New York, this dark comedy is often the most unsung and overlooked film in Scorsese's oeuvre, but it's long been one of my favorites. A series of wacky vignettes that take place during one incredibly long, unlucky night for a schlub (played to perfection by Griffin Dunne) who just wanted to get laid. The 80s were an interesting, experimental time for Scorsese (see The Color of Money for his flamboyant style at the time) and this film demonstrates that he could do accessible funny movies if he wanted to.

8) Casino - A sprawling epic, teeming with information and bursting at the seams with a trio of great performances from Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone and a bit against type Robert De Niro as something of an uptight nerd. It's usually unfairly compared to GoodFellas, which is undeniably more of a crowd pleaser, but this film is also a rich tapestry and a bit of a history lesson of Las Vegas too. It's also, like so many of Scorsese's film, insanely funny -- despite featuring some of the most brutal violence of the filmmaker's career.

7) The Departed - A wildly popular hit and probably the most mainstream genre film Scorsese ever made - and that is a good thing. It gets dinged a bit for a cutesy ending and for winning him the Oscar instead of one of his more superior film, but c'mon, cop thrillers don't get much better than this. He has an incredibly stacked cast, with scene stealing turns from Mark Wahlberg (who earned a totally deserved nomination for his work here) and a batshit Jack Nicholson in what turned out to be his last great screen role. A whole mess of bloody fun.

6) The Irishman - It should be Scorsese's final word on the genre that made him famous -- the gangster film. Another sprawling epic -- exploring the corruption and charisma of Jimmy Hoffa (a wonderful Al Pacino) and the toll that a life of crime can take. So many rich details and performances (aided by fantastic de-aging technology). A surprisingly heartbreaking film that does the opposite of glamorizing the violent life. It's simply nothing short of a masterpiece and its totally earns it's infamously long running time.

5) Raging Bull - An exceptionally crafted film about a pathologically reprehensible person that somehow has a ton of heart and humanity. De Niro gives one of his all time great performances at the titular bull, boxer Jake La Motta whose obsessive, self destructive personality leads to his inevitable undoing. This is a film that has really grown on me over time. It's not quite a biopic or a sports movie, it's ultimately a commentary on fame, drive and hubris. Another masterpiece.

4) The King of Comedy - Probably more than any other movie he ever made, this one has really grown in stature, since it predicts a kind of obnoxious reality TV type unearned fame that has come to dominate American society. De Niro's performance as the clueless Rupert Pumpkin is a revelation, as is Sandra Bernhard as his sidekick. They play hopeless losers who believe they should be somebody, which is a phenomenon as American as apple pie. Jerry Lewis is used very effectively as their foil. A really fantastic film that deserves a bigger audience.

3) GoodFellas - This is one of those just unassailable perfect movies that everyone loves. It's hard to quibble with its power. It is simply (aside from The Godfather) the most appealing film ever made about the thrill or being a gangster. People sometimes overlook its bleak ending and revel in the high of the characters' rise, but isn't the movie's fault. One of the most quotable movies ever made, with the definitive Joe Pesci performance and some of the most virtuoso work of Scorsese's career.

2) Cape Fear - Scorsese's greatest attempt at pure pop entertainment, but that doesn't mean the movie doesn't have sophistication alongside its thrills. De Niro delivers one of his wildest characterizations and Nick Nolte is the perfect subversion of the classic leading man hero in this battle of wits between an attorney and a depraved client he once railroaded. Stylish and vivid -- this is one of those movies I am never bored by and can always get sucked into at the drop of a hat.

1) Taxi Driver - One of my favorite movies of all time. A perfect mix of top notch performances, vivid storytelling and arresting visuals. An undeniably disturbing film, that will and should remain relevant for years considering its takes on racial grievance and toxic masculinity. It's always been a film I return to and I always find new rich layers upon each viewing. It's pulpy to be sure but there's also a sadness to the proceedings. I think its the fullest expression of Scorsese's genius.

Revisiting 'Tanner '88': What has and hasn't changed in our politics

One of director Robert Altman's most ambitious projects was an elaborate television mini series called Tanner '88 about a fictional candidate for president (played by Altman regular Michael Murphy) competing in the 1988 Democratic primary. 

The film tossed Murphy into actual locations alongside real candidates, and even inserted him into footage of debates. What he wound up with was part documentary -- capturing a hard fought nomination fight that came down (improbably) to Michael Dukakis and Rev. Jesse Jackson. -- part satire of how increasingly commodified politics had become.

Of course, on some level that's quaint. Campaigns have only gotten longer and more sickeningly corrupted by money. The parties have also dramatically evolved. Republicans have gotten more conservative, and although some would argue to the contrary, Democrats have gotten more liberal.

For instance, in '88 Jackson's campaign was considered radical because he supported issues like a national health care program and gay rights -- now this is an established part of Democratic orthodoxy.

It also came out at a time when television advertising had arguably never been more powerful. To this day, experts on both sides of the aisle believe a racist ad blaming Dukakis for the crimes of a furloughed black convict (named Willie Horton) played a significant role in swinging the election to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans.

Today, Democrats have outspent Republicans in the last two elections and they narrowly lost won and not so narrowly won another -- and few people think TV ads made the difference.

The Tanner character is a former '60s activist turned center left Democrat -- think a less sleazy Bill Clinton -- but that generation and style of politics has eroded. Barring some bizarre comeback in 2024, Joe Biden will almost certainly be the last person from his generation to ascend to the White House. Finally, there will be no more debates about who did and didn't serve in Vietnam.

But of course, there are things that have never changed. The circus like atmosphere around these campaigns overwhelms voters -- the actual motivations and policy positions of the candidates of often get completely buried.

I am always stunned every four years how many people say they "don't know" where either major party candidate stands on the issues. It's historically a popularity contest and one could even argue that after 2020, it's become an amateur punditry contest.

For all his strong points, Joe Biden was not chosen because he was the best person or the best candidate. He was chosen because Democratic voters (perhaps rightly) determined that he had the right elements to defeat Donald Trump, and his actual positions.

And the party loyalty has become so tribal, that it's almost as if it doesn't matter since so many people have culturally aligned themselves with one side of the other. Millions of people voted for Donald Trump not because the liked him (his approval never hit 50% once his entire time in office) but because he had an R next to his name.

In real life and in the world of Tanner '88 there was a sense that that campaign and eventually the general election represented a low point in American politics -- but we have only sunk lower in the decades since. 

Misinformation has been a dramatic, toxic force in our politics. Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, money in politics has gotten even more obscene. And we are literally in the midst of an attempted coup -- where the losing candidate is refusing to concede, claiming the 'media' has decided the race (even when they were declared president-elect in the exact same fashion) and actively trying to convince state legislatures to ignore the will of the people.

It's frightening, it's a new low. and would have been inconceivable to Robert Altman and co. over 30 years ago. 

It might be impossible to replicate what Altman did -- primary politics are so massive and unwieldy now, I doubt any director would get the access he did. So for now I will periodically revisit this amazing piece of work as the wonderful time capsule it is.

'Borat' sequel is a lot more fun post-election

I enjoyed the new Borat film (a.k.a. Subsequent Moviefilm) but was definitely anxious watching it the firs time around. It arrived, provocatively, in the waning days of Election 2020 when it seemed like anything could have an impact on the results. The film did provide a lot of fodder for Giuliani haters, as it unmistakably features the disgraced former NYC readying himself for what he thinks is going to be a sexual encounter with a reporter.

But, had Trump won, I was fully prepared for the film to be cited as yet another source of backlash -- liberal Hollywood offending Trump's base and inspiring them to turnout. It would have been silly, but in this world where everyone is a pundit and Trump's resilience does sometimes feel inexplicable, there would inevitably be a lot of finger pointing should he had won a second term.

Turns out there's a lot of finger pointing anyway -- although I think even cynical Democrats are starting to allow themselves to feel real joy about Biden's win now that the international community and at least SOME figures in the GOP establishment (not to mention Fox News!) is acknowledging the reality that he clearly has won this race.

After celebrating the results this weekend, I myself suddenly felt the urge to revisit this buzzy film. It reminded me of the first time I saw Zoolander in college. I scoffed at some of the lowbrow humor, largely dismissed the film, only to find myself quoting it and recounting scenes from it long after.

Like most sequels, Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm doesn't quite reach the heights of its predecessor, but it is not without its charms. It's a sneakily sentimental film and its ace in the hole is newcomer Maria Bakalova as Borat's daughter. There is some longshot speculation that she could be consider for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar (a rarity for a comedy performance) for her committed performance here and I am totally here for it. She's both funny, luminous, touching and triumphant in this movie and its speaks volumes about Sacha Baron Cohen's character that he appears all too happy to cede the spotlight to her.

Is the film's plot threadbare -- sure -- and the attempts to string stunts and a narrative together are at times forced and clumsy, but this is one of those movies where some of the jokes you may have missed or not fully appreciated the first time around (many of them are subtitled) can be fully enjoyed on the second viewing.

This by no means takes the sting away from some of the film's darker passages, such as: A crowd of far right protesters cheering the notion of slaughtering journalists or some Q'anon enthusiasts suggesting with a straight face that Hillary Clinton consumes children's blood for energy.

"It's been said," one of them says in defense of this madness.

Still, there's something so cathartic about being able to laugh at these people on some level without the terror that they could potential control the levers of power for four more years. It is not an exaggeration to say that an unhinged, re-elected Trump almost certainly pursue his long-stated goal to censor any media that displeases him, and without any guardrails -- why wouldn't he.

We came this close to a dictatorship in this country. Perhaps it will take time for a lot of Americans to fully recognize that, although Trump's both utterly predictable and yet still horrifying decision to make delegitimizing his election defeat the cause of his remaining days in office should illustrate just how much contempt he has always had for democracy.

And yet, the charming, subversive finale to the film suggests a day when we might able to look back on this period and laugh, or at least feel a sense of relief.

If Netflix buys Bond the movies may never come back

I've written about this many times before -- besides actual physical contact with people, there's nothing I miss more than going to the movies. I made one sojourn out to do it during covd -- to see Christopher Nolan's Tenet at a theater in Jersey City -- but for the most part movie theaters across America are dead and dying and while it's far from anyone's priority at a time when the virus is spreading even more than it was six months ago, it would be a tremendous blow to American culture to lose this institution.

The latest sign that traditional movie theaters are in real peril is the efforts on Netflix's part to buy the rights to the highly anticipated new James Bond movie No Time to Die. The movie was first scheduled to be released in April, then because of covd it got pushed to November, and right now it's in limbo -- looking at April of 2021 (insanely a full year after its initial release date) and that may still be wishful thinking since despite all of Trump's promises, there's no vaccine in sight.

So here we are. The producers of the Bond film have likely already blown a fortune (on already costly release) launching two different advertising campaigns that had to be rolled back when it became obvious that theaters could re-open nationwide. Rumor has it Netflix has been willing to pony up as much as $600 million to acquire the rights to distribute the movie now on their streaming platform.

It makes perfect sense that Netflix would want the buy the new Bond. It's a huge marquee movie -- one of the most anticipated of the year -- the kind of movie that might draw in non subscribers or people who just don't normally spend a lot of time on Netflix to seek it out. And I'm not anti-Netflix mind you, they have made some incredible movies in the past couple years (The Irishman, for instance) and been able to get more eyes on some than they might have in theaters (Da 5 Bloods, for instance).

But No Time to Die is different -- it's the kind of movie that is meant to be enjoyed by as many people as possible in as many theaters as possible. The irony is that were the movie to be release internationally it would probably enjoy something akin to a traditional release. Tenet for instance has been horribly hamstrung here in the U.S., but it's a sizable hit around the world, where covd hasn't been wiped out but is clearly better under control than it here.

The Bond producers clearly would prefer a traditional release -- this film is an event, it's Daniel Craig's last go round as 007 and it's the first film in the series in what will wind up being 6 years, the longest gap between films since the gap between the Dalton and Brosnan eras from 1989 to 1995. And yet, the movie can't sit on the shelf forever.

BTW - as I wrote this news broke the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won WOOOHOOO OMG YASSSS GOOD LORD THANK YOU THANK U YESSSSS!!!!

I personally can't wait to see this movie -- so I'm a little torn -- but I desperately want to see it as it was intended on the big screen, preferably with an audience that I can enjoy it with. In a way if the producers of this film cave in to Netflix it might mean the death knell of the theater chains around this country that rely on big releases like this one to stay afloat.

There is no easy or obvious answer to this problem. I am just watching and hoping that the Bond folks hold out just a little bit longer.

'Totally Under Control' is essential viewing prior to Election Day

Totally Under Control, documentarian Alex Gibney's sober and detailed recounting of the spread of the coronavirus and how horribly the Trump administration bungled it should stand as a stunning time capsule, regardless of what happens on Election Day. The film isn't hyper partisan, it's simply hyper factual and the facts are inescapable.

The most chilling aspect of this film is that it makes plan what Joe Biden and so many others have said about the coronavirus outbreak: that it didn't have to be this way.

Had the president taken the threat seriously, had there been a political will to stop a crisis before it started -- there is every reason to believe that the coronavirus outbreak never had to be a soul crushing event that has upended Americans lives for nearly a year now.

But instead you see Trump, in a horrendously inexcusable moment, telling the American public that the number of cases would soon be "down to zero." 

It should be obvious to anyone who followed the news during those early weeks that the stock market and appearances were all that the Trump administration was concerned with at the time -- but for anyone who's skeptical or who may not know the timeline and the players, Gibney's film is a smart, methodical and most importantly accessible piece of storytelling.

Quite frankly, no one who sees this film can walk away putting a positive spin on what has taken place here in the U.S. -- Trump and his allies are keen to point out to virus spikes abroad, but the efficient containment of covd-19 in South Korea stands as a stunning rebuke to that. This isn't a single person or organization's failure to be sure -- but no one has had more of a direct negative impact on this crisis than Donald Trump, from his denials or reality, to his spreading of misinformation and ultimately his unwillingness to take responsibility has undeniably led to the deaths of thousands of people.

It's enraging to watch Trump in February crow about how the virus was the Democrats' 'new hoax' in an effort to stop his re-election (naturally, he makes it about himself) and dumbfounding to think that someone could be so consistently wrong and callous about the biggest crisis featuring this country in the short term -- and will somehow be rewarded by millions of voters for it.

There are stunning details that have been reported on before but perhaps not fully illuminated -- like the completely haphazard and amateurish task force led by Jared Kushner to procure PPE for states -- and there are terrific, righteously indignant interviews with the medical professionals who were railroaded or ignored throughout this process.

It's hard to understate how important a movie like this can be. I am someone who follows the headlines assiduously and even I had forgotten Trump's disorganized travel ban -- which left thousands of Americans stranded or when Kushner ignorantly claiming the federal stockpile is 'ours' and not the public's. 

Every misstep cost lives and while it's inevitable that with a problem this big there would inevitably be mistakes (Gibney's film acknowledges errors made by previous administrations during virus outbreaks, too) there are fundamental, philosophical flaws in this particular administration's approach: they simply did not making saving lives the priority.

Case in point: the White House's stubborn insistence on hyping hydroxychloroquine as a cure-all for the virus despite all the evidence to the contrary. Time was wasted, more lives lost and none this appears to have permeated the consciousness of the president.

Should he be re-elected tomorrow or sometime this week -- it will not just be a tragedy for people of color, for Muslims, for people who believe in democracy -- it will also suggest that a majority of voters in some key states simply do not care that their supposed leaders are this irresponsible and destructive. And that makes me deeply sick and sad.

Over 200,000 people are dead. Blaming China is not an answer. Saying it could have been worse is not an answer. If this were any other president, the political fallout would be swift and severe. Why would we excuse this calamity? Why would we give this president a pass? If this is what his first term has wrought -- why should he deserve another?

See this film. Make sure your friends and family see it. and anyone still supporting this president why he should be forgiven for promising this virus would disappear while it continues to rage.