Change Your Image
JonathanWalford
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Here (2024)
A Story about Place
Everyone moves into an apartment or house and at some point wonders who lived there before them, and what happened on the very spot they are standing - that is what this film is about. From the vantage of one camera angle we witness history through the eyes of different people in different eras - layers of life and death, happiness and sadness, joy and pain in one spot.
Time flows quickly over millions of years in the first seconds of the film, but slows with the introduction of a pre-contact Native American couple. The first colonial building appears a few hundred feet away in the 1760s, and is based on William Franklin's Proprietary House (Governor's mansion) in New Jersey. There are flashes of other eras that take place in front of this house over time - the capitulation of the British in 1783 - a fireworks display in the 1840s, a picnic in the 1890s... But when a house is built across the street in 1900, the camera becomes imbedded in its living room.
The bulk of the film then jots back and forth over the next 120 years. Smaller stories about a pioneering aviator and his suffragette wife who live in the house from c. 1900 to 1920; a Bohemian couple that occupy the home in the late 1930s-early 1940s who invent the La-Z-Boy (which is complete fiction as the chair was invented in 1929 in Michigan); and an affluent black family who briefly live in the house from c. 2016 to 2023. We never see who lives in the house in the 1920s-early 30s.
The majority of the film focusses on three generations of one family who lived in the house from c. 1946 to 2016. They are the most relatable of all the storylines, but also the least interesting. Although it may have lacked a riveting story arc, I never found the film dull due in part to the gimmick of anti-aging AI that make Tom Hanks and Robin Wright age from an almost believable 17 to 77 years of age.
It wasn't a perfect film, some of the green screen acting came across a bit stilted. The costuming was generally excellent, although the mid-thigh mini skirt wedding dress was too early for 1964, shutters on the 1760s house were incorrect, and there were several questionable set decorating issues, from a 'coffee table' in the 1910s to an overstuffed sectional sofa in the 1960s...
Despite these issues - it's a great experiment in the time travel genre, typical of a Robert Zemeckis film.
Fellow Travelers (2023)
Interesting story, but unbelievable in its continuity
I appreciate the story, but I hope that the topic can be done again, and better. Matt Bomer's character Hawkins ages between 32 and 66. We know this because he reveals that his first experience was when he was in Grade 11 with his tennis playing friend, and we later see the tennis trophy with the date of 1936, which means he was born c. 1919/20. We assume, but are never told, that Jonathan Bailey's character is about 8-10 years younger. While the actors easily pass for 32 and 22(ish), neither ever looks older than 55 and 45(ish) when they need to be 65 and 55ish in 1986.
The convenience of these two characters being at the centre of every major gay story between 1953 and 1986 (minus the stonewall riot) is a little hard to believe. The story is really the experiences of two generations - those from before, and those after stonewall.
We are supposed to believe these two have a sexual chemistry, but with their fear of being discovered by McCarthy, they make an awful lot of noise in a 1950s rooming house that doesn't allow visitors... I also lost track of when they were together, as they seemed to rekindle their romance every time they met, but ended up in a fight and breaking up almost immediately after...
So, although I appreciated this production, I did feel there was room for improvement. For example, I thought the story would evolve ino Hawkins' son becoming the liberated gay man of the 70s but end up with AIDS... THAT would have made a more salient end..
Maestro (2023)
Artistic triumph, but kind of boring...
The sets, costumes, art direction, acting, attention to period details, makeup.. all truly wonderful... but about halfway through I realized I was thinking more about how sore my butt was in the seat... The conversations are long and quickly spoken in soft voices, the few scenes of music performances are also extended into long scenes...
The story is about Leonard's personal relationship with his wife and his homosexual indiscretions, but there is no gratuitous sex or nudity, which is nice for a change. I didn't feel like a voyeur, prying into Bernstein's life. Instead the audience is invited to better understand that despite his sexual orientation, Bernstein held a deep love for his wife.
It was a good film, but it is very low-key...
Bodies (2023)
Poor historical research
I am enjoying the series, if I close my eyes during the gorey scenes where history is being mutilated....
It's impossible to be 100% accurate, but sometimes the mistakes are distracting. Like many contemporary productions, this series fails to understand how people behaved in the past. There are two instances in particular that particularly stand out.
In 1890 London, the molly house with two men dressed up in corsets on the street simply wouldn't have happened in daylight in front of the police because they would have been immediately arrested. It wasn't okay to act gay in any way in public in 1890.
The other most egregious errors occur in the 1941 blitz scenes, with people screaming and running for shelter from their apartments while bombs are falling in the neighbourhood, and the crowds then being denied access to an underground station for shelter. Anyone who has ever talked to anyone who lived in London during the Blitz knows that Londoners were prepared and calmly resigned to the bombings. There were usually many minutes between the first alerts and the first bombs - enough time to make a thermos of tea and dress warmly. There were also alternate street-level shelters to the undergrounds, and many people just defied fate and waited it out at home. As well, the cars have too much light being projected from the head lamps, and the detective's apartment had no blackout curtains, so sitting in the apartment with the lights on was illegal, and he would have been fined or arrested. Covering light from windows would have been tested in drills by ARP officers from the home army in the early months of the war, well before the Blitz began.
It's too bad these blatant errors exist because they pull down the quality of the production. Period set films really need historians to check basic facts, and directors need to LISTEN to them.
The Mysterious Mr. Lagerfeld (2023)
A lot said about a little topic...
There really wasn't much new info in this voyeuristic piece of journalism that wasn't already known about Karl Lagerfeld - at least not enough to warrant a 90 minute film. His entourage of former friends and current employees at the time of his death didn't have a lot to say. The brief overview of Karl's childhood and early career, his rivalry with Yves St. Laurent, and his odd, sexless love life has already been written about ad nauseam. There was no investigation of his relationship with Chanel (they over-ruled his final request for a private funeral), and few interviews or private gossip spilled from former friends who had been shut out.
Karl had difficulty trusting people; he rewarded devotion with generous gifts and abruptly cut off anyone he perceived as disloyal. He was talented and driven, but also vain, privileged, secretive, and opinionated. In the end, he could really only share his unguarded love with a cat he called Choupette. The only mystery remaining is exactly when his personal fortune will be divided amongst the cat and a handful of heirs.
Barbie (2023)
Funny but toxic feminist tale that doesn't make sense
The movie has a very clever intro, a charming set-up filled with sight gags, and some hilarious lines (especially those spoken by the narrator - Helen Mirren).
However, it's essentially about a town of marginalized and emasculated men (the Kens) and when they discover they are only disaffected props, they create a toxic patriarchy (although we never see how they do it). The Barbies then manipulate the Kens, using feminine wiles and playing dumb, to coerce the Kens into a war with each other to distract them back into submission.
Adding to a magnum of plot holes, and an ending that takes WAY too long, is a weird 'Pinocchio' twist when Barbie only becomes satisfied with her existence when she gets a vagina.
This film panders to a pseudo-feminist audience. If you want to see a film where feminism is funny and wins in the end, see Legally Blonde.
Hello Tomorrow! (2023)
Glengarry Glen Ross on the Moon
Hello Tomorrow is a drama about salesmen scamming poor people who have failed at the American dream (losers) by offering them dreams of a life on the moon. Unfortunately, it's just not very interesting...
The characters are simple, one-dimensional people. The good guys are naive and the bad guys are bullies and manipulators. The show lacks any comedy, mystery, or action - there just isn't anything that holds your attention. We binged the first four episodes, but it never got any better. It's just a drama about salesmen and their marks. The retro futurism shtik is fun... but that's it. Otherwise it's BORING.
Harry & Meghan (2022)
Overall - it helps to understand where they come from...
H&M are intelligent, natural-born leaders, caring, eloquent (epsecially Meaghan), doting parents, and very much in love with each other. However, they are also naive, head strong, impatient, don't like being told what to do, and love the limelight.
Harry carries the death of his mother and associated hatred of the press with him, and while Meaghan can legitimately blame racism for some of the problems, it is not the entire reason.
Other than her father, who was a catalyst that got the ball rolling downhill, it's the tabloid press that were the villains. They are bullies and make it their business to ruin you if you take them on. Because they have the platform to spin everything to their advantage. The rest of the royals understand that silence is their best tool because, like bullies in middle school, reacting only makes things worse. Diana never understood this and the taunting paparazzi chased her to her death.
Meaghan made the terrible mistake in complaining to the press about how tough it had been for her during her first year of marriage and pregnancy, and the press loved it. This was the first big mistake Meaghan made - the other one imho was the Oprah interview.
Now that the the bulk of the melee has passed, and they have had time to think as well as win a moral victory in court, they have created this documentary which explains everything from their side. Although many details are never mentioned or skirted over, and some of their explanations don't tell the whole story, their point of view is valid. However, many of their issues could have been avoided if they ignored the lies and focussed on their goals. It's sad when Meghan realizes that they are still loved when they returned to the UK for their last official duty. It could have all worked out if they had just weathered the first storm. The Queen hit slumps in popularity, but always bounced back.
This documentary is TOO long - 6 hours to tell a 2 hour story, partly due to repetitive story-telling. I lost track how many times she said that she was just trying to fit in... And the music and photography is manipulative, but that's to be expected, as they are trying to win you over. My opinion of them hasn't really changed, but it has softened. I feel badly that they can't see how their actions and reactions helped to feed the situation.
The Big Brunch (2022)
A great show for an overlooked meal
The Big Brunch is a fantastic show that celebrates an oft-maligned and overlooked meal. Nothing says 'weekend' like a leisurely brunch with friends, and this show celebrates that occasion in a positive way too.
It's interesting that reality TV was the catalyst for much of the bad behaviour we now experience every day, from social media to politics. Think back twenty years to the first seasons of Survivor that encouraged disloyalty, lying, and treachery... Now, in 2022, reality TV shows like Ru Paul and Big Brunch have become models of civility, support, and encouragement.
The Big Brunch lifts your spirits as it promotes a great meal with great attitude.
Motherless Brooklyn (2019)
I was never convinced I was looking at 1957 New York
While some of the CGI scenes were impressive, like Penn station, most shots were not CGI and were filled with anachronisms. Interior shots frequently had accessories that post dated 1957, and slums filled with used appliances and furniture piled in the streets were often of a vintage that would have made them new in 1957. The streets were especially unconvincing with incorrect street lights, concrete 'jersey' barriers (a brand new idea in 1957 that were first used as highway dividers not construction sites), and store signage were distractingly anachronistic. Using more distinct 'period' materials, like corrugated metal hoarding, wall mural advertising, awnings, and metal trash cans, would have created a more period feel.
The problem is that 1957 New York is harder to find in present day New York than it was even just 20 years ago and the film may have benefitted from filming in another location, like Syracuse or Buffalo, for a more period-accurate feel.
Diana (2021)
The Latest by Max Bialystock!
Tuneless and Tasteless.... avoid this travesty of a production at all costs.
Upstairs Downstairs (2010)
Season one a 9, Season 2 a 5...
The first season is exciting to watch - the characters, the costumes, the story, the humour, the pathos... it's great! However, season is a mess. Eileen Atkins refused to return because she didn't like the scripts for season 2, and she was right. The first couple of episodes are okay, but when the writers ran out of ideas they dredged up some non-sequitur throw-away stories that include a lesbian affair and a boxing match that have no overall impact on the story. The last two episodes are dark and depressing and rush towards an unsatisfying conclusion. My advice is watch season one as a movie in three parts and pretend season 2 was never made...
The Collection (2016)
The fashions are ugly and the story boring...
In postwar Paris there is a scramble to regain its role as the leader of fashion. The government and industrialists look to promote designers who can take charge of a new look and have no blood on their hands from wartime Nazi collaboration. This is fact, and the premise upon which this series is built. It's a great concept for a story with opportunity for mystery, drama, twists and glamour, but the writers threw all these opportunities away for a mediocre, anti-climactic script with badly fitted, over-designed costumes in cheap fabrics.
Much of the storyline is lifted from real life, Dior and Lelong are obviously tapped to get the story off the ground, but then red herrings are thrown into the mix that clutter up the potential for a strong story arch.
The writing and direction are to be blamed for most of the problems, and although the actors weren't given much to work with, most do their best - although some were miscast. I am not someone who believes only gay actors for gay roles, but the only main character who is gay is played unconvincingly by a straight actor. As well, the entire production is scant in gay characters, and we are talking about the Paris postwar fashion business, which was all but entirely gay. Even the 'straight' designers like Jacques Fath were actually gay.
Not worth the time investment - I finished watching it and wish I hadn't bothered.
Ammonite (2020)
Too bad about the sex
This is a great film in many ways - the sets, costumes, acting, writing, cinematography... all excellent. The subtleties of certain scenes, like the mother's fixation over eight Staffordshire figurines that represent the children she lost as infants were touching. The film It could have been a perfect representation of female love and kindred spirits but sex got in the way.
This story is based on fact. Mary Anning was a well known amateur paleontologist, however, she was not an Anglican and therefore not eligible for funding (in the days before government taxes for funding education, research grants were provided by Anglican aligned universities.) As a woman her education was hindered but not blocked from earning the respect of accredited scientists in her field. Anning was actually well known in the scientific community during her life, which ended at the age of 47 from breast cancer. She was also remembered after her life and was the subject of an article written by Charles Dickens in 1860.
A couple of errors in the film suggest she was not recognized for her contributions such as when her name is replaced on a label in the British Museum. Anning was not in a financial position to donate her findings to the museum, so she sold them to support her work, and the buyer was recognized as the donor to the museum - this is still pretty much how it works today. During her lifetime she had many scientists support her work, who even ensured she had an annual annuity of 25 pounds so that she had some financial security.
The true friendship she had with Charlotte took place over the last two decades of Mary's life. They were BFFs and kindred souls but there is no hint to any lesbian activity in the letters they wrote to each other. They may have had desires but it is highly unlikely they were ever acted upon as Mary was devout and 'unnatural affections' were not tolerated by any church, even her Congregationalists who were the most liberal faith going in c. 1840. The attention to the sexual nature of their relationship detracts from the remarkable achievements Mary Anning accomplished, and overpowers the story-telling in the film.
I enjoyed the time travel via the attention to details, the character studies, and the subtle back stories, like Charlotte's recent miscarriage as suggested by her mourning attire and melancholia, but I was happy enough that the film didn't need any more, especially as its not a unique theme, nor probably faithful to the real people whose story this is.
I'm Your Woman (2020)
Okay, but could have been so much more...
As others have already pointed out, this is a slow-moving film. Although sometimes the slowness underscores her separation from the action that is going on off screen, and her isolation from knowing what is happening, there are also too many scenes that are just plain slow for no reason.
I felt the film was missing a storyline. We are let in on a personal back story, but we are never caught up on why the drama is taking place off screen of which we only see snippets and know very little. Sometimes that approach to storytelling works, like with Cloverfield, but in this case you just feel left out.
A worse problem is that it's unclear how she keeps being found... Without giving up any spoilers, let's just say that Sherlock Holmes would have had a hard time finding her...
Annoyingly, this takes place in the 1970s - I am guessing about 1975, but it never lets you know exactly when, and it's hard to tell from the costuming which is all over the place. I watched it to the end, but it wasn't very satisfying.
Enola Holmes (2020)
Enola was born in 1868 you movie producers.
The movie starts with Enola giving us a bit of an 'up til now' biography and begins with a scene of herself as a baby with a big '1884' date splashed on the screen. Soon we are told that she is 16. If my math is correct 1884 plus 16 is 1900, and this is underscored by the fact that we see Enola riding a bicycle typical of c. 1900.
Soon, however, it becomse apparent that the costuming is wrong for 1900. Big bustled dresses are typical of 1884, and then an important plot point regarding the Third Reform and Redistribution Act of 1884 enters the storyline, and we even see Sherlock is reading a newspaper dated 1884. How can a multi-million dollar production make such an egregious error as to suggest she is born the very year the story takes place?
The writing is thin, very thin. The plot is predictable and pointless, the women are made to look smarter than men by writing the men as stupid. Meanwhile, her mother is at the source of a plot that could kill hundreds of people, and she is written as some sort of feminist heroine.
What is a shame is that the talent was there - the idea for the film is brilliant, the actors hired were good choices, but the writing, editing, and direction are substandard.
Disclosure: Trans Lives on Screen (2020)
Important but very flawed film
This is a film that uses a rat-a-tat pace of film clips and voiceovers that overwhelms the viewer. The discussions move too quickly about specific films, to broad concepts of race and gender, to the depiction of transgender stereotypes. Interviews click back and forth while hundreds of film clips flash before your eyes. It is impossible to process what you are seeing and hearing at the same time.
For those of us who do not struggle with transgender issues we aren't familiar with the differences between many terms - like transvestite, transgender, transexual, cross dresser, drag queen... and I am not sure the documentary knows either. The main theme of the doc seems to be 'Please stop laughing at us', but we are shown pics of Milton Berle in a dress, and Flip Wilson as Geraldine Jones while discussions continue about transgendered women. These are comedians and they are funny because Merle is haplessly inept in women's clothes, and Flip Wilson is funny because he takes his character Geraldine so seriously. Every time a man puts on a dress is not a transgender moment. Sexuality is not necessarily defined by the clothes you wear, Marlene Dietrich wasn't a man because she wore trousers.
I got halfway through the film and shut if off because I was exhausted from a bombardment of film clips and voiceovers that bounced all over the place without defining terms, and with very judgemental responses to any form of cross-dressing or shaming any straight person who is shocked to discover their potential sex partner doesn't have the parts they thought they had. Perhaps the documentary eventually did define terms and lightened up, but I am sorry if transgendered people can't laugh at Victor Victoria - I can.
This documentary was made for transgender people, not for anyone who is trying to learn what being transgender is and how it has been depicted in Hollywood. This could be a good documentary but it needs to be re-edited, slowed down, reorganized and a host voice-over added -- as it is, it's too frantic and judgemental to make a point.
Making the Cut (2020)
Not worth the time investment
I liked Project Runway when it first aired, but it became more of a sewing contest than a design contest and I eventually stopped watching. I had hoped this would take all the bad bits out of Project Runway and it took out some, but it added more. As has already been pointed out by other reviewers. Heidi Klum and her pinched breasts have become too shrill, Tim Gunn is an Eeyore of angst coming in at the 11th hour to squash confidence, and the judges are just plain annoying, especially Naomi Campbell who doesn't hide her disdain for everyone else in the room.
The point of this show is to find the next big brand, and to that end, it becomes very clear early in the show who should win - and it is, in fact, the person who does win. There are a couple of contestants who I have no idea how they even got on the show, and a couple of others who are obviously not 'brand' minded but who should be creative directors for couture houses, and a couple of others who should have edgy elite boutiques in Soho or the Left Bank.
Worst of all is the production - it was a very poor decision to have fashion shows at night with busy backgrounds in open air spaces. There is a reason white backgrounds and indoor artificial lighting is preferred for fashion shows - because it shows the clothes off best. It's nearly impossible to see some the clothes through the bad lighting, frequent cuts to the judges comments, and loud music.
Another show that aired earlier this year called Next in Fashion with Tan France and Alexa Chung was far better as it focussed on the designers and their fashion creations, not branding, and the results were far more successful.
Catastrophe (2015)
Season 1 is a 10, Season 2 an 8, Season 3 a 6, and Season 4 a 4...
This series starts off with a really smart and funny premise with two likeable but very different people who navigate the realities of a sudden marriage. The quips are funny, the situations identifiable, even though the outcomes are not always comedic or satisfying.
There are a few cracks in the lead character personalities that begin to wear thin, with each other, and the audience. Rob is a smarmy jokester with a fast temper. Sharon is suspicious and uncompromising who always looks for others to blame. By the time I got to season 4 I was tired of both of them and their problems. Neither of them ever handle any situation with a realistic or measured response. If I was married to either of them, I would leave. I did finish watching the series, but season 4 for work to stick with it.
Self Made: Inspired by the Life of Madam C.J. Walker (2020)
Unwatchable
So sad to squander an opportunity like this to make an important film about black history. I kind of knew from the outset that this was likely a hot mess -- two directors, 4 writers, no mention of a costume designer, an actress playing the daughter of another actress who is only 7 years younger and it looks like it too -- these are signs of trouble... and nobody looks happy about being in the film, including Octavia. This film is plain awful. I watched half of the first episode before I began skipping through the rest to watch scenes, but it never got better.
La Bolduc (2018)
Almost great film
The acting is excellent, the sets are excellent, and the story is interesting, but there is an overwhelming 'Canadianess' about the film, like it's a giant heritage minute. There was something lacking in the script and direction that held the film back.
The storyline moves from 1913 to 1940, but there is never quite enough back story to fully develop the characters nor enough dialogue to understand context. The onset of the Depression is not defined; there are suffragettes in the 1930s when most Canadian women already have the right to vote (Inserting a conversation about Quebec women not having the vote like their English Canadian counterparts would have helped.) A confusing scene at the beginning of the film shows her being admonished by a priest until he is paid off with cash from the box office. But this is how her road show made money - by playing in rural parish halls across French-speaking Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes, and New England, but that isn't clear from this scene. The only anti-English sentiment is expressed by her husband when he tells the family to stop listening to the CBC, but it is never understood why he feels this way...
One of the best devices used for the back story is to show her constant state of child bearing during the first 15 years of marriage. Mary and Edward Bolduc are poor, but in classic Catholic duty, they have a dozen children of which only four survive. Mary is shown pregnant, in labour and burying child after child, in an almost comedic string of short scenes that moves the story from 1913 to 1928. It's only when she stops having children that her career as a famous singer/songwriter begins to take off.
Debbie Lynch-White, who plays La Bolduc is amazing. She ages believably from 19 to 41 and sings all the songs, sounding very much like the original. Without her, the film would have failed. But all the actors are equally as good in their supporting roles. This could have been a great film, rather than 143 Heritage minutes.
A Dance to the Music of Time (1997)
A life lived as an observer of other people's lives...
I have not read the novels, which is probably good so I have nothing to compare them with. What I did see was a very good memoir filled with interesting anecdotes about the people one man knows during his adult life. His school friends, his loves, his work associate... they come and go during his life, some unexpectedly.
The main character, Nick Jenkins, leads a happy, uneventful, almost bland, middle-of-the-road life. He is an author but not a great one, he serves in World War II but is never in danger, he loves his wife but not with the same passion as his first true love... The most interesting things about his life are the people he knows - they may be horrible or leave dissolute lives, but for Nick all the action happens off-screen. Their adventures are told to Nick in genteel conversations and idle gossip -- 'Did you hear about...' Occasionally he witnesses an event as a bystander because great and awful things only happen to the people around Nick, never him.
The story has a lot of characters and you have to remember names because they often come back, and not necessarily by the same actor or actress. While the adult Jenkins is played by three actors, Widmerpool is played by one. Worth the watch and probably more worthy of reading the novels, but I like these kind of 'I was there' memoirs.
Dunkirk (2017)
Yes, ANOTHER review of this movie...
I am writing this review more for myself than for any readers, as I suspect it will get lost amidst the hundreds of existing critiques. It's a great film - I was mesmerized by the emotions this film created. The desire to live amidst the panic and claustrophobia and orderly queues. Nolan's emotional story was completely absorbing. I give the film a 10 for this.
However, the film has issues. Nolan likes to tell stories out of order, and while I enjoyed how the various parts of the finale came together, the back story about the solder who was found on top of a sinking ship was too confusing to figure out what happened. Another point of confusion was created around a plane that runs out of gas and yet manoeuvres around to shoot down a German bomber while gliding through the sky in opposite directions. Another problem is that the film is filled with uniformed pasty white English boys with brown hair -- they all look alike!
My final criticism is that the props department or the director seemed to forget that EVERYBODY smoked in 1940. World War II was at the apex of smoking. There was a noticeable lack of cigarettes being smoked by the soldiers on the beach, and back in England where hot drinks, jam and bread, and cold beers are being given out to 'the boys'. Cigarettes were also freely distributed - you don't want your soldiers having nic fits...
So I took was was essentially a 10 star film, and subtracted 2 points for unnecessary storyline confusion, and historical oversight.
Tales of the City (2019)
Massive Failure
The original first series, set in 1976, was done in 1993 and was one of the best book to film adaptations ever undertaken. Unfortunately, a bunch of conservative spoil sports petitioned PBS from continuing on with the series. A different production company picked up the story and did a second and third series in 1998 and 2001 that left the story in 1981, just before AIDS changed everything. Although many of the original cast returned for the two later series, the magic had diminished.
Now, the series has been revived but set in the present day with no explanation and the math is too much to get past. The actor playing Michael Tolliver would have been 5 in 1976 when 'Mouse' first met Mary-Anne at the Safeway. At first, this leap in time seemed inexplicable, but it soon becomes clear why. The series wants to capture the same edgy look at contemporary issues, but this time its about diversity, inclusivity, non-gender/binary blah blah blah...
Mary-Anne, Brian, Mrs. Madrigal and Mouse are just a plot device to introduce a new generation of characters that are all, unfortunately, uninteresting. I don't know if I can get past the math problem of the missing 15-20 years, but I do know I am bored by Generation Z's sexual proclivities as they wade into a rehashing of the original plot that includes a blackmailing plot of Mrs. Madrigal. Although there is an excellent scene when the old queens give a tongue lashing to the twink about generational attitudes, ultimately, this series fails to hold any interest for anyone I know who knows and loves the original series and books. I folded half way through the 5th episode and watched Good Omens instead.
Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood (2017)
Sexy tales from a sad man
The salacious promises of Hollywood scandal in the previews for this film piqued my interest. Even though most of the secrets of these stars are now well known, a first hand account of what went on and with whom was too good to ignore. Scotty Bower was handsome and is still charming, extremely uninhibited, but crude at times and uses archaic slang 'baby'. He is completely believable, and even though all the stars that used his services as a lover or pimp have since passed, there are enough photos, film clips, and fellow gigolos to confirm enough of the stories to accept what can not be proven.
Even in these days of selfie nudes and sexual preferences being broadcast daily through social media, these stories from Hollywood's past are shocking - especially some of the group sex stories, as well as the odd pairings (Rock Hudson and Cary Grant, or Lana Turner and Ava Gardner). However, when Scotty Bower recounts them without a hint of shame, and even fondness, you can't help but to be pulled in by his charisma.
From the previews I thought that Scotty's wartime service, seeing his friends die during horrific battles in the Pacific, may have been the cause for Scotty to abandon conventional morality and pursue the rest of his life to having a good time. However, I was disappointed to find that he had no epiphany for the pursuit of pleasure, Scotty was molested at an early age by a neighbour, and went into pleasuring for cash as a business when he was just eleven years old. His first clients were the Roman Catholic clergy of Chicago -- a trending topic in today's headlines.
He didn't share his business plan or personal carefree sexual attitudes with his family. He still lies to his sister and doesn't tell his current wife everything he did before he met her. He also laments how he wasn't a good husband to his first wife or late daughter, because he was too busy pleasuring Hollywood. There is a deep sadness in his realization that his fun got in the way of intimacy.
Perhaps this is why he remained silent for so long.
The documentary may make promises of sexy stories, but it is, in fact, a rather sad tale of a man distracted by pleasure from having a real life. Scotty is a hoarder, saving toilets from the curbside and packing them away in garages around the city. He accumulates things, like he once accumulated clients and lovers. Ultimately, he is a selfish man who convinces himself every day that he makes others happy, and perhaps he did provide a sexual outlet for many stars, but he forgot to make himself happy in the process.