spaceghostess

Heh, the band guy's name isn't Sam, I just call him that because he played Sam on True Blood and I'm too lazy to remember his current character's name--my bad! ITA that Kate not having shut this guy down with extreme prejudice makes the character look bad. The writing for her these past couple episodes has been retro and paternalistic. There had to have been a better way to make her figure out that Toby isn't "the one" or make her choose herself, or whatever the show is trying to accomplish. Did a sleazy guy really have to be the one to trigger her self examination? How about a strong fellow female camper she could befriend?

This right here is when his behavior when so far over the line that I can't take a single thing he says/does as anything other than predatory and possibly personality disordered. His "Awkward" was a deliberate manipulation to interfere with their relationship. He didn't actually mean the situation was awkward; "awkward" isn't even on this guy's radar, otherwise he wouldn't say any of the things he says to the women there. He said that to sow seeds of doubt between two strangers so he could then sleazily capitalize on that doubt. Is the show working toward making the point that if Toby and Kate's relationship could be so easily disrupted by the machinations of a douchenozzle, it wasn't that solid to begin with? If so, the writers have chosen one of the most outdated tropes with which to illustrate that point. Also, they've taken an insultingly reductive view of Kate by making her act like a junior high girl around this guy. The things he's already said to Kate and her camp friend should have been enough to turn her off in a serious way (not the "boys are yucky" way they've shown thus far), but to have her opening up to him after that bullshit he pulled in the parking lot? Really, show? Kate couldn't figure out what he was doing? The way she's being written now feels really condescending. Just because a woman might be less experienced with horndogs following her around doesn't mean she's an idiot who can't read people. She worked in Hollywood, ffs--one would think she learned to parse out the phonies to some extent. I'd love to talk to the women on this writing staff and find out how much they have to do with any of this bullshit.

Oh, crap--it was that guy? In that case, ITA: he's a total douche, and I wouldn't attribute anything "nice" to him. Also, I didn't realize how such a move would be taken in that industry (my work experience is in a less competitive branch of a competitive/creative field), so point taken.

I also grew up in Westchester County and, as an adult, lived for many years one stop north of Wakefield. I spent 13 of my working years commuting from Mt. Vernon West station into Grand Central on the Harlem Line. With all due respect, that was most definitely not the interior of a MetroNorth train. MetroNorth commuter trains have upholstered seats, and have had for many decades (with updates from flip-over bench seats to the high-backed bucket seats they have today). The ones on the Harlem Line traditionally had/have dark blue upholstery. None of the lines (Harlem, Hudson, or New Haven) have hard plastic seats or mid-car "subway" poles as depicted in last night's episode. Having said my "train nerd" piece, I totally agree with you and Neurochick that trying to pass off whatever kind of train (maybe LA commuter rail) that was as NYC subway was ridiculous when there must be accurate "subway interior" sets that could have been used. The platforms and tunnels were wrong, too, but I could forgive that. There were so many other things that took me out of this episode, I can't even: 1. Bullshit subway (see above). 2. Bullshit "chess tournament". This really grated, because you don't teach a child tournament-level (not even little-kid, novice-tournament-level) chess in a couple hours. You just don't. Also, I don't believe for an instant that any child of Randall and Beth's would be careless enough to sign up for chess or any other competitive activity and decide to try learning the entire game the night before. These kids are smart, and it was demonstrated in an earlier episode that the older one is competitive, too--much like her dad. And you don't win a chess tournament after one night of Grandpa teaching you how to move the pieces, damn. I don't even play, but my ex did play competitively and started to teach our kids, so I know what's involved. Just lazy writing there. 3. Kevin and Sophie. I always give "I've known he/she was the one since we met at daycare"/Boy Meets World romances the side eye. Not denying it ever happens, but again, trying to sell a true love connection by having a Kevin remember that Sophie had a Punky Brewster backpack when they were nine is a lazy writers' shortcut to establishing "history". His remembering every little thing she was wearing on that fateful day in fourth grade is supposed to make us believe she'd second-guess her relationship with a "solid" guy who's fallen for the independent, twice-divorced woman with a solid career she is now? If one of my exes wanted to win me back, he'd have to bring more to the table than nostalgia. Also, as others have pointed out, S & K are boring. 4. Why must Kate's relationship "choices" consist of a needy baby-man who makes everything all about himself and a faux straight talker who's actually a sleazy, negging PA? I didn't hate Toby as much as some do, and I thought his bringing her a care package was a sweet gesture. Then he had to go ruin it by being an ass in her drumming thing and having the nerve to lay guilt because she left him alone during his recovery. Couldn't he have expressed that concern before she left for camp? Don't come along and act like you really support her efforts, only to overstep and then try to make her feel bad about objecting to YOUR overstepping. To be fair to these badly drawn male characters, they suck because of the sucky way in which Kate is written. Someone in charge decided that Kate would find guys like this charming and fall for one or both of them for reasons. If the long-term goal were to show that low self esteem causes her to make bad choices, that's one thing--but I don't get the feeling that's where Kate's story is going. I think we're supposed to relate to why she'd be tempted by one or both of these bohunks, and I just . . . don't. (P.S. Toby's grandma's ring is fug. ) 5. Randall's situation rang more true for me, as it often does. Sterling K. Brown is making more of his character than almost anyone else on this show is managing to do. I felt for what he was going through, being torn between work and home, and his denial about what's happening with William was believable in its harshness. I didn't even really think his boss was being an ass. In that situation, I might even appreciate having some of the pressure lifted (once I'd finished panicking). What came across to me was that his boss does value him, but also realizes he's going through some things at home, so he (the boss) is being pragmatic. (Side note: I'd normally be completely down with Beth's "I call marriage", but not for that bogus chess "tournament". I wish they could have had her call marriage for a better reason). 6. The flashbacks were the most bearable part of this episode for me. I got through an entire scene (best man speech) of not hating Miguel, only to be like, "dude, really?" when he talked about losing the will to bring coffee to his wife in the morning. That happens in marriage, but it doesn't have to be the death knell. I do get why that was in there, but it still made him seem kind of lame(er?). I was glad to hear Rebecca laying out how much she values Jack for Sam from True Blood, but I haven't seen next week's previews, so maybe I should reserve judgement. I usually like--not love, but definitely like--this show, but I found this episode to be an irritating combination of cloying and half-assed. I wanted it to get off my lawn.

The extra in the chintz jumpsuit is giving them a run for their money: who doesn't go shopping in her grandmother's couch upholstery?

I'm so glad you wrote this up, as I just watched it last Friday and it haunted me all weekend. I agree that it was well done, a deft balance of fact and feeling. It seemed almost like a New Yorker article come to life. I grew up in southern Westchester County, near the Bronx, however, my parents lived in queens from the mid-fifties through the early seventies (my older sibs went to P.S. 24 in Flushing) when we moved to the 'burbs. The Genovese murder happened seven years before I was born, but it was very present in our minds growing up. I remember my father mentioning it quite a few times. I also remember watching Gabe Pressman on News 4, so was all ears when Bill interviewed him. The dinners with Bill and family were fascinating and so real (loved the "no clams" complaint from Bill--been there!); the way each sibling had a slightly different take on the tragedy and how it should be handled--or not handled--now, and how, sadly, the nieces and nephews know nothing about Kitty except the way she died. I don't know if it's an Italian American thing or what, but this "We can't change it, so we bury it" response is one I've seen in my own family, examples being the death of my mother's first baby, the fact that my cousin was the product of an affair, my aunt's abusive first husband . . . things very briefly spoken of, if at all. I dunno, it kind of bothered me when Moseley's son implied that his pain was equal to the Genovese family's. No doubt growing up with your murderer father's reputation overshadowing you is its own kind of hell, but not the same, I don't think, as losing a sibling or child that way. Also, he believed every crazy thing his father--and family--told him about the murder and the Genoveses themselves? I'd like to think that in his place, I'd have questioned some of these stories--but who knows? Yeah, that "reenactment" was really eerie. I was also wondering why Bill did it, but it seemed to help him release something. I thought the actress was amazing and I cried when she and Bill embraced afterward. I was really glad to hear the stories of Kitty herself, and I hope the family finds some peace in sharing their memories of her--and the things they've learned more recently--with the younger generation. Maybe she can become woman instead of a murder victim in their minds.

Whoa, present day BAG is scary hot. I don't know how to process this change. Also? I can't believe I don't remember this Wild West idiocy. Must've missed the ep back in the day; it definitely would have made an impression.

Me, too! Usually, babies are played by twins or triplets to keep the baby's work hours within the letter of the law, however there's only one name credited for Sunny. I wonder if there are multiple babies, but it was decided to only use one name in the credits? Sometimes Klaus holds Sunny--there was one scene in which they're walking up to knock on Judge Strauss's door and he makes a little cute face and sort of coos at Sunny while he's holding her. That split-second looked completely spontaneous and not CGI (and very sweet). Also, when they part from Judge Strauss, Sunny reaches out toward her and smiles in a very real way. I've convinced myself that that was the actual baby (going off script in the most perfect way imaginable) and that the child is as crazy about Joan Cusack as I am. Overall, I think they've done a pretty good job with CGI-ing Sunny, balancing the actual child's real (and incredibly adorable) expressions with the effects. Re: how "Violet" is able to hold Sunny for so long, she's a chubby baby, but not huge--and I'll bet the takes are really short. I did see Violet do the hip jut a couple times, but yeah, her posture holding the baby is usually very straight. One strange thing I've found personally is that watching a show that has a baby (or "baby") in so many scenes makes me want to grab and cuddle any random baby I can find (so it's probably good that I'm not viewing this on a plane). Even my 11-year old son's face gets smiley and warm the way it used to when he was six and he played with his little brother, who was about Sunny's age at that time. In short, awwww!

Just watched the pilot, and I'm intrigued. I haven't read the novel (yet), but it took all of two seconds to figure out that Monroe Stahr is a stand-in for "Boy Wonder" Irving Thalberg. While Thalberg predeceased his wife, Norma Shearer, this story opens up plenty of angsty byways by making Stahr a still-grieving widower. The studio boss's daughter having a crush on him against her father's wishes is pulled from both Thalberg's time at Carl Laemmle's studio and at MGM. Thalberg dated Laemmle's daughter and her parents hoped they'd marry, while Mayer wanted Thalberg nowhere near his daughters because of the "exploding heart" risk that doomed him. Fitzgerald, who had a front seat to all manner of Hollywood shenanigans, openly admitted that Thalberg was the inspiration for Stahr. Thalberg, who died several years before Hitler invaded Poland, believed Naziism would blow over and that communism was a more insidious threat. Fitzgerald lived just long enough to find out how wrong Thalberg was about Hitler, but died before the U.S. entered WWII. I'm curious to see how the novel handles this, so I'll have to decide whether or not I want to spoil myself with it during the wait for new episodes.

My older son (age eleven) is a dedicated reader of the series, so I said we'd watch it together. This requires getting him out of bed while his little brother's sleeping (they share a room) because it's too scary for a six year old (well, for my six year old, anyway). We watched Episode One tonight, and it earned my kid's seal of approval. I enjoyed it, too. I love the Tim Burton/Wes Anderson mashup feel of the design and NPH works just fine for me as Olaf and seems to be having a ball. So happy to see Joan Cusack, too--and pleasantly surprised with Patrick Warburton's decidedly un-Puddy-like telling of the story. The kids are good; the baby's adorable. We're watching one episode per night while we're home (will take a break while visiting their grandparents for a couple of days). I'm looking forward to the hangout time with my growing-up-too-fast boy . . . he's rather Klaus-like, what with being a very intelligent bookworm who wears glasses. :-)

I know this movie--and yup, I like it! I caught in on TCM one afternoon a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed the snappy chemistry between Ball and Clifton Webb. It's one of those nifty little pictures that slipped through the cracks and feels like a treasure when one discovers it. Excellent recommendation. I'm always bowled over by just how stunning Lucille Ball was, aside from the fact that she was a really good actress.

Oh, my. Thank you so much--I'll be in my bunk . . .

Before reading this review, I texted my best friend as follows: "Oooh--The Pope Show with Jude Law (which should instantly become the title of something on British late night) is FICTIONAL, not a biopic. Whew, now I don't have to feel weird watching it . . . or do I?" And after: ". . . and I won't be watching it because I just found out it sucks." I can attest that I--a fallen, lapsed, interfaith-married, soon-to-be-divorced Catholic--was ready to overcome the imprint of the Church that remains on my psyche to watch this. But madonna mia, it sounds like a bore. National Geographic published a deeply fascinating chunk of thing on the Vatican a couple of years ago. This shit need not be a snore, or boring-weird, is what I'm saying. If all the bizarro parts could be edited into a supercut, however, that might work for me.

OMG. With all the time I spend on this site, how is it that I've only just discovered this forum?! My father instilled in me, pretty much from birth, a love for/obsession with classic film. Said love/obsession causes me to part with more money than my cheap soul would normally deem acceptable for the monthly sling subscription that delivers TCM to my cord-cut universe. I'm having a ball catching up on the insightful posts here. The many great write-ups and recommendations of movies I haven't yet seen--or have seen, but should consider viewing again through a different lens (so to speak) are greatly appreciated! I'm inspired to dash off a few lines as I munch my lunch and watch 1931's Private Lives, starring Norma Shearer and the criminally underrated Robert Montgomery. This version, is, IMHO, a charming and deft adaptation of Coward's play (despite initial reservations about Shearer's casting, Coward gave it his own stamp of approval in the end). I could write for yonks about Montgomery's intelligence and versatility (and hotness, rowr), and perhaps will in the future? Right now, however, I only have time to thank the movie gods that this puppy slipped in there before the Code stomped the sex out of everything. There is kissing between divorced and remarried (to other people) people! Long clinches and short ones, necking, and cuddling in bed (something handled with a clever little sight gag that may have helped them squeak it past any limited enforcement that may have been going on). All the physical stuff works out quite well, as the chemistry between the leads is sizzlingly delightful. I now want to watch this and and Here Comes Mr. Jordan back-to-back, the better to enjoy the contrast between Montgomery's tough-guy comic characterization and his playboy one. He was equally adept at both, and I wish he'd made a hundred more movies than he did. A brilliant man who led a fascinating life which, as far as I know, has NOT been honored with a biography. Someone should do something about that. Maybe that someone will be me. Anyway, thank you all for this place--I'm so happy to have found it!

Oh, FFS. As a native New Yorker, that article (which the writer ended with "come down and see the center for yourself" made me livid enough that I posted the following comment: Please don't encourage people to "see the place for [themselves]" Unless, of course, you want to be a party to this cult's heinous, malignant practices. They build their disgusting "churches" on the backs of their unfortunate followers' grinding--mostly unpaid--labor and by bleeding said followers of everything, most notably their money and self respect. The cult of Scientology destroys individuals and families in the name of "community outreach" and "self improvement". Appalling. I can't even with these bastards. I now live about an hour north of New Haven and decided to see what the deal was with their second property on Whalley Ave. there. I was excited to read a New Haven Register article from 2011 that said it had lost tax exempt status and the church was in a legal wrangle with the city. Unfortunately, according to an entry in Mike Rinder's blog, as of 2013, they'd straightened out their problems with the property, so they were clear (so to speak) to move ahead with developing it. Don't know what's happened with it since then, though.

I just mainlined this and loved the whole damn thing. I've read many complaints that the series finale felt contrived, and strongly disagree--not because I'm a romantic, but because I believe that ending was, in fact, earned. This show delivered an exceptional platonic pairing with Linden and Holder, but I don't consider it a betrayal to see them wind up together because all the elements to make that happen were there throughout each season. The love of my life (although not the person I ended up marrying and divorcing, so there you go . . .) was someone who was first a classmate, then a friend, then my best friend, and then more. Maybe it's the effect of bingeing, but the way this relationship wove itself from a couple of funky, loose threads into an incredible tapestry of shared history--some great and some horrific--completely worked for me. I loved watching them work together, but I'd also have happily been there for a hundred hours of "Oh snap, Linden!" in the car, with the cigarettes. There was fighting and making up; there was having each other's backs, and then there was crippling, shattering doubt--and I was there for all of it, painful as it was. I truly believe that people can be "home" for other people. These two got each other in the deepest way and they both needed home and found it in each other. Frankly, there was so much tragedy in this show (and Peter Skarsgaard, you were fucking amazing, btw) and so much agony for its profoundly fallible characters, that an ending that kept them apart--and hurt by each other--would have pretty much killed me. Having ridden the roller coaster ride with them and seen that they could survive apart, to me it just felt right to see them both on solid ground--together--at last.

I love this comment so much, and I hope you're right that the writers could be going somewhere deeper than yet another retread of "blame the mom." Can they break free of cliches about parental guilt, family dynamics, and life scripts? I see potential for a something new and different here. Fingers crossed. I know I should, but it's hard to distance myself from personal stuff when watching this. As a newly single mom who works from home and homeschools my two sons, I spend A LOT of time with my kids and am way more tuned in to their marvelousness--and their bullshit--than my ex is. The result of "knowing" them so well is, ironically, that I wade through more preconceptions in order to distinguish "Ow, he punched me, I'm going to die!"--Get-My-Brother-in-Trouble version from "Ow, he punched me, I'm going to die!"-- Ruptured Spleen Version. Viewing it through this personal lens, I couldn't judge Rebecca for jumping to what, in her experience as primary caretaker, might be the most obvious reason for Kate's not feeling well. I also didn't think she was being more "Me, me, me--it's all about meeee!" than many loving moms would be when wondering if Kate's weight issues could be traced to her parenting. I have one kid who makes healthy food choices (loves home-cooking and vegetables, the weirdo) and one who gravitates toward junk food and will eat nothing green . . . when he bothers to eat at all. They're both super-skinny because, genes--but that's not what I worry about. I worry about the fact that one is "healthy" skinny and the other is "unhealthy" skinny. I introduced them to good food in exactly the same way during their respective toddlerhoods, with drastically different results. So, rationally or not, I often ask myself if I did something terribly wrong while pregnant with kid #2 that resulted in these preferences. I don't think that's self indulgent, but maybe it is? Or maybe it is if you ask the kid, not yourself, that question. Hmmm. My sister had to do a lot of convincing to get me to watch this show, but I'm glad she did. I'm enjoying it so far because, while it often toes the borderline between earning and manufacturing "moments", it hasn't yet tipped the balance the wrong way. As an inveterate hater of holiday schmaltz, I was kind of surprised that much of the spaghetti they threw at the wall in this episode stuck, for me. I didn't even totally hate Toby's surprise barge-in--because it made Kate so happy. Having said that, I actually REALLY HATED the throwaway "Grandpa's gay/bi, DUH" line from Randall and Beth's older daughter. I so love those kids, and the actresses who play them are perfect--but that just felt . . . cheap. In an episode that managed to make me believe and embrace out-of-left-field twists like Jesse, this "from the mouths of babes" writing choice just felt unnecessary and condescending. Everything we already know about Randall's branch of the family tells us that they are not tone-deaf people. It's understood that they'd accept William's sexuality and partner, but I think that Beth and Randall would have very quickly twigged the nature of that relationship, and that should have been equally fleeting moment between adults--not a "Kids! So adorably precocious, amirite?! Thank God they're here to tell us what's really going down!" moment. It played twee when it could have played classy, and this show is usually better than that.

Love her. Wishful Drinking was everything.

I don't just want to go to here; I NEED to go to here.

So much THIS. Plus, Spector was allowed to walk the halls to visit/"meet" his son with no escort except his smitten nurse and that other doctor. I love this show and really like Anderson's and Dornan's performances, but Spector's being able to stroll around the hospital--even for just a few minutes--with no cops in sight begged even my rather generous willing suspension of disbelief.

Funny... as I was watching the first episode, I thought of Eddie Izzard, too, during the rowing scene ("Row, you bastards!" - another bit from Dress to Kill). I was just waiting for the Queen to say, "You're a plumber? What on eaaaaahhhrrrthh is that?" "Do you have a flag?"

Yup, that got me *sniff*.

I can personally attest that if you're divorcing a sociopathic narcissist, threats about kids are the norm, as are frequent attempts to alienate them from the sane parent. As a matter of fact, just this evening my soon-to-be-ex threatened (via text) to sue for sole custody. He's also tried to manipulate the kids out of seeing the family therapist and he's trying to get 50/50 custody so he won't have to pay child support. He's just a winner all around. The hell that is my divorce makes me not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole. But that same hell also makes me think it might be therapeutic. SJP isn't my favorite, but Sharon Horgan is, so there's a strong possibility I'll give it a try.

Yet another potential travesty to add to the annals of fixing things that ain't broke. I can't imagine GBBO without Mel and Sue. My kids will be so disappointed--we all loved the show just as it was.

Gah, I'm in the middle of a divorce from a malignant narcissist right now. The fact that three separate people in a single day told me my situation was the stuff of a Lifetime movie pretty much sums up my current situation. The humor, it is gallows. Based on Catastrophe, Horgan knows how to go dark. Maybe I'll watch this? Let's see how I feel next month, after the trial's over.