Category: Books, Movies, TV & Web

 

by Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

It’s been 25 years since I read Crime and Punishment. Most of the plot details escape me today, but I do recall thinking that Fyodor Dostoevsky had written a masterful novel.

This is what I wrote about it in 2000:

“[Crime and Punishment] reminds me a bit of Lolita; whereas Nabokov puts you inside the mind of a pedophile, Dostoevsky puts you inside the head of a murderer — not a very pleasant place to be, in either case. It’s a frequently fascinating place, however, and never more so than when Crime’s killer protagonist is playing cat-and-mouse with his foe, who is a sort of 19th-century, Russian version of Columbo.”

Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, on the other hand, was somewhat disappointing. This might be because the plot concerns (primarily) the squabbles and jealousies of an all-male family: a father and his three sons. I grew up with two older sisters, no brothers. The male interplay in Karamazov felt alien to me.

Of course, there’s more to the novel than the Karamazov family dynamics. There is a murder and subsequent trial. There are lengthy cogitations about Christianity, atheism, and the dual nature of man. Maybe it’s just me, but I am more interested in present-day Russia’s stance on those lofty themes.

I do know that, unlike other 19th-century classics like Anna Karenina, The Count of Monte Cristo, Crime and Punishment, and most anything by Dickens, I did not particularly enjoy this reading experience.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Alien: Romulus

 

Halfway through Alien: Romulus, when I realized that I was not likely to care about the film’s characters, I began to dread the final hour, which I (correctly) guessed would be frenzied, loud, and unoriginal. The cast, composed of attractive, vapid young people, had the charisma of teenagers trapped in cabins in the woods. This was not a crew of fleshed-out, interesting adults on a spaceship.

The plot, in which our youngsters attempt to escape manual labor on a space outpost, is just a series of greatest hits from its inspiration, the original Alien movies. Here is a partial checklist: milky android blood, acidic alien blood, chest-bursting, face-hugging, humans stuck in xenomorph goo. We saw it all before in the original films. Every time there was a reprise of some special moment, I was reminded of how much better the first flicks are.

That leaves jump scares and special effects, which are impressive, but not impressive enough to compensate for a lazy script.

I would be remiss not to mention this film’s ties to the age of “woke.” The deaths are predictable (it’s not good to be a white male; you are either evil or early alien-meat). As for our heroine, unlike beloved Ripley, whose battle chops are explained in the first two movies, young Rain (Cailee Spaeny) has no apparent training nor skills. Yet she is more than a match for the nasty aliens. And did they really swap Ripley’s pet cat for Rain’s pet black man? Doesn’t seem very woke to me. Release: 2024  Grade: C-

 

Would I watch it again? No. There are much better films in this franchise.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Nosferatu

 

There’s good news and not-so-good news about Nosferatu, Robert Eggers’s update of the 1922 classic vampire movie:

A.  Eggers’s film has wonderful visuals and a creepy atmosphere … but it’s not very scary.

B.  The plot is faithful to the original story … but Bram Stoker’s tale has been filmed so many times that it’s now overly familiar. (Long story short: Nosferatu is Dracula with changed names.)

C.  Bill Skarsgard plays the title role … but Skarsgard is so altered — facially and vocally — that his vampire seems more like a special-effects creation than an actual human.

 

The biggest problem with Nosferatu is that it’s a long movie with too many dull stretches.

Silver linings: “Knock” and knockers. Simon McBurney, as a character named Knock, chews the scenery magnificently. Katerina Bila, as a character with nice knockers, rides a horse in the nude magnificently (below). Release: 2024 Grade: B-

 

 

Would I watch it again?  It nearly put me to sleep during my first viewing, so, not likely.

 

**

 

One of Them Days

 

As the headaches mount for Dreux (Keke Palmer) and Alyssa (SZA) in One of Them Days, I was reminded of another buddy comedy, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. In Planes, an odd couple faces one obstacle after another on their quest to get home for the holidays. In Days, an odd couple is repeatedly frustrated in their struggle to pay rent by the end of the day.

Days isn’t in the same league as John Hughes’s 1987 classic; there are few laugh-out-loud moments, and the screenplay isn’t as witty. Then again, as an older white male, I’m not exactly in this film’s target audience.

But I was amused and charmed by the travails of Dreux and Alyssa. And the movie has a lot of heart. Release: 2025 Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Possibly.

 

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Watcher

 

On the surface, 2022’s Watcher is a tough sell to the casual viewer. A plot synopsis reveals that not much happens in the story. And if you’re expecting a big surprise at the end, you might be disappointed.

But here’s the thing: As written and directed by Chloe Okuno, Watcher is a moody blast from the past. It’s a mix of two classics: Roman Polanski’s Repulsion, and Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

Maika Monroe plays a newlywed American in Romania who grows increasingly lonely — and possibly paranoid — as she wanders the streets of Bucharest while her husband is at work. She doesn’t speak the language, she’s unemployed, and her new life seems, well, foreign. Because it is.

But wait — is that man in the apartment across the street spying on her? And, later, is she being followed out of a movie theater? It doesn’t help her state of mind when she discovers that a serial killer is on the prowl.

I loved the movie’s callback to poor Catherine Deneuve alone in an apartment, and I am always a sucker for Hitchcock-inspired thrills. Release: 2022  Grade: B+

 

Would I watch it again?  Yes, definitely.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Emilia Perez

 

Is Emilia Perez a great movie? No. Is it a good movie? Yes.

You might not feel that way if you listen to the film’s detractors (“Worst movie of the year!”), nor its champions (“13 Oscar nominations!”). I think the truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere in the middle.

Karla Sofia Gascon plays a fearsome Mexican-cartel leader who hires a young lawyer (Zoe Saldana) to help him accomplish two goals: transition from male to female, and, as far as his enemies know, to drop off the face of the Earth.

Did I mention that Emilia Perez is also a musical?

The songs aren’t particularly memorable, but the choreography and visuals are kick-ass. Kudos to director Jacques Audiard for that. And the acting is very good, especially by Saldana and Gascon.

My pre-viewing misgivings were largely overblown. Yes, the main character is trans, but no, the story isn’t preachy. Yes, the infamous hospital song is bizarre, but it ain’t dull.

The script does have credibility issues, but the big picture is this: The movie is interesting and it’s entertaining. Release: 2024 Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Possibly. Eventually.

 

*

 

The Menu

 

The plot:  A group of snobbish food connoisseurs is invited to an exclusive dinner on a mysterious island, where the courses are served with horrific surprises.

As a movie with a “twist,” The Menu is mundane. You expect some sort of plot surprise, and you get one, but it’s not exactly earth-shaking. The story is like a lesser episode of The Twilight Zone.

But I recommend it anyway, for one reason: Ralph Fiennes.

The late, great Bette Davis said the following in 1971:

“The English, they’ve always had the majority of great male actors. Always. We’ve (Americans) had more women. It’s always been true.”

What Davis said then still rings true today. Fiennes might be our finest British actor. He’s playing a “villain” in The Menu, yet it’s a multi-dimensional bad guy — and you can’t take your eyes off him. Release: 2022 Grade: B

 

Would I watch it again?  Despite fine work from Fiennes, probably not.

 

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

by J.D. Vance

 

I can’t explain why, but J.D. Vance remains something of an enigma to me. Netflix produced a movie based on this book, and I watched it. I also follow politics, so I’ve witnessed Vance’s rise from obscure politician to vice president of the United States. And now I’ve read this autobiography, the book that brought Vance to national prominence.

And yet, I have a tough time saying what I think of the man. His resume is certainly impressive. But what really makes him tick?

Hillbilly Elegy chronicles Vance’s life in the hills of Kentucky and in southern Ohio, from his childhood to early adulthood. It was a rough upbringing. For a kid like Vance to not only survive “hillbilly” culture, but to go on to bigger and better things (Marine, Yale Law School, and a little thing called the vice presidency) is borderline miraculous.

Vance’s description of his family life is absorbing. But he comes off somewhat detached from relatives and all the lower-middle-class chaos he endured. Maybe it’s this detachment that serves him so well in politics — and which makes him such a tough egg to crack.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Saltburn

 

Saltburn falls into the “love it or hate it” category.

I loved it and I hated it. Let me try to explain ….

 

The plot:  Shortly after meeting big-man-on-campus Felix at Oxford, young Oliver is invited to Saltburn, the aristocratic home of Felix and his, uh, eccentric family. Drama ensues.

 

What I loved:

It’s a film with a point-of-view so strong that it feels more original than it actually is. I noticed similarities to The Talented Mr. Ripley and to Brideshead Revisited. That didn’t bother me because: A) Writer-director Emerald Fennell infuses her story with enough passion, and memorable scenes, that it seems fresh. This is the kind of personal film that used to be routine in the 1970s. B) If you’re going to borrow from other stories, you can do a lot worse than The Talented Mr. Ripley and Brideshead Revisited. C) It’s a black comedy. Black comedies (good ones) are in short supply these days. D) I am a sucker for lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous settings, especially when the photography is as striking as it is in this movie.

 

What I hated:

Hate’s a strong word. Let’s go with “dislike.” A) I disliked the fact that, as a straight male, I am not likely in this movie’s target audience. Many scenes are tailored to the “female gaze” or the “gay gaze” — take your pick. I will not harp on this because, lord knows, I am a fan of movies with the “straight male gaze.” B) I am not disposed to enjoy bodily fluids on the screen. There are two scenes (the ones you probably heard about) featuring bodily fluids. Yuck. Release: 2023  Grade: B+

 

Would I watch it again?  Eventually, yes — although I might skip the last five minutes of the movie (if you know, you know).

 

*

 

The Fall Guy

 

The recipe for a romantic action-comedy: Take two well-established, glamorous movie stars; put them in an exotic location; give the director a decent budget; marinate all of that in a script with romance, action, and comedy.

My question: Why does that formula work so well for something like 1984’s Romancing the Stone, yet fall so flat in The Fall Guy?

 

The plot: Ryan Gosling plays a dimwitted stuntman who pursues the girl of his dreams, a movie director played by Emily Blunt, on the set of her debut film being shot in Australia. When the vainglorious star of the movie goes missing, complications, danger, and stunts galore ensue.

This sort of comedy worked well for Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in Stone, so why not here?

The problem is in the script. Everything (and everyone) has been “dumbed down” so as not to offend anyone in the audience.

We aren’t intended to like Gosling’s character even though he’s a lunkheaded man-child; we are intended to like him because he’s a lunkheaded man-child. You know, the way a 12-year-old adores The Three Stooges.

We aren’t intended to like Blunt’s character because she’s an empowered “girl boss”; we are intended to like her because, when the chips are down, she can morph into a female Bruce Lee.

This kind of nonsense might amuse the average 12-year-old, but it made me cringe. Romancing the Stone was unbelievable, but clever. The Fall Guy is just plain dumb. Release: 2024 Grade: D

 

Would I watch it again?  No way, Jose.

 

*

 

My Old Ass

 

The plot: During a drug-induced hallucination, a Canadian teen (Maisy Stella) meets her 39-year-old future self (Aubrey Plaza), a mystery woman who imparts advice in hopes of improving both of their lives.

When I finished watching this charming movie, I thought of another film I watched — and loved — more than a decade ago. Like My Old Ass, low-budget Short Term 12 (2013) featured a breakout performance from a young actress (Brie Larson) and a story that caught me off guard with its heartfelt sincerity.

And yet, 11 years later, I can’t recall a single thing about the plot of Short Term 12. Will the same thing happen to me with My Old Ass? Is it another “little” movie I like very much — and then forget? I hope not. Release: 2024  Grade: A-

 

Would I watch it again?  Yes.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

Conclave

 

Story: When the pope dies, cardinals are sequestered in Vatican City to elect a new one. The man in charge of this process (Ralph Fiennes) must navigate competing factions and secrets kept by the deceased pope.

 

Pros:

A.  It’s refreshing to watch an intellectual drama, as opposed to an emotional drama or, God help us, another comic-book flick or sequel.

There are scenes in Conclave that might appear dull on paper but are gripping on the screen. It’s why I love good chess movies like The Queen’s Gambit and Searching for Bobby Fischer. You don’t need chase scenes or explosions to generate suspense. Conclave uses great acting to convey a dramatic power struggle.

B.  The sets look gorgeous. The atmosphere is suitably claustrophobic.

C.  It’s educational for non-Catholics. Aside from the famous smoke signal when a new pope is elected, I knew nothing of the selection process.

 

Cons:

A.  The ending.

I am not referring to the big twist, which has been criticized as being “woke.” I thought the twist was more thought-provoking than virtue signaling. What I disliked was the scene preceding the big reveal, in which the conclave of cardinals, having listened to a stirring speech by a colleague, make a major, about-face decision about their vote. I didn’t buy it.

Release: 2024  Grade: B+

 

Would I watch it again? If I get thirsty for a brainy thriller, yes.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

by Gypsy Rose Lee

 

I was in the mood for a curiosity, so I read Mother Finds a Body, by Gypsy Rose Lee. What and Who? you might ask.

Lee was America’s most famous burlesque-and-striptease star of the mid-20th century. She penned a memoir titled Gypsy, which became a musical play and a 1962 movie with Natalie Wood and Rosalind Russell. Oh, and she wrote two murder mysteries, including this one.

I consider murder-mystery novels written by famous strippers to be a “curiosity.”

The plot:  A handful of comics and dancers traveling east with a trailer make a pit stop in Ysleta, Texas, and discover a body under the bed in their mobile home.

If you’ve watched any screwball comedies from the 1930s, what ensues is very much like those. Lots of tough talk, quaint jargon, and quirky characters.

Like one of Lee’s costumes during her act, there’s not a lot of material here — but it’s an enjoyable watch.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share

 

by Kurt Vonnegut

 

“Your government does not exist and should not exist in order to keep you or anybody else, no matter what color, no matter what race, no matter what religion, from getting your damn fool feelings hurt.” — Kurt Vonnegut

 

In the quote above, from a speech Vonnegut delivered in 2000, the celebrated author is not hectoring a gathering of liberal “snowflakes.” He is defending his right to criticize … Thomas Jefferson.

Vonnegut is possibly my favorite writer because of his style. He makes a ponderable point, then confesses that his conclusion might be wrong. His humility and self-deprecation make you want to ponder that ponderable point.

The book is a collection of Vonnegut speeches from the 1970s to the early 2000s.  Vonnegut died in 2007. I miss his wit. And his ponderable points.

 

© 2010-2025 grouchyeditor.com (text only)

Share