Showing posts with label Woodstock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Woodstock. Show all posts

Friday, August 26, 2022

If You Like Documentaries...

[I review some new documentaries: "The Princess," "Trainwreck: Woodstock '99," "The Most Hated Man on the Internet," and "The Tinder Swindler."]


The Princess (2022)

Marking the 25th anniversary of her death, a look back on the life of Princess Diana.

There have been many books, movies, TV shows and documentaries about Princess Diana in life, and, also, since her untimely death at the age of 36, but what sets this latest documentary apart is the fact that it contains no talking heads, no dramatizations and no narration, just the chronological telling of her story since her engagement to Prince Charles, using nothing but reportage, news coverage and various comments from the public and media.  After Princess Diana's and Charles' wedding, one commentator said that this is what fairy tales are made of and fairy tales end with "And they lived happily ever after."  Well, not this time.  In fact, right after the wedding as Prince Charles helps Diana out of the carriage, he already does not look happy. No need for narration.  The footage speaks for itself.

Of course, now we all know this was a marriage of convenience for him.  He was in love with another woman.  I

Despite a bad marriage, Diana was able to mature into an accomplished woman, a spokesperson for AIDS and leprosy patients, children, the disabled, the homeless and she also helped in the call for an international eradication of land mines, something her son Prince Harry has also taken on now.

This is Diana's story through the media coverage that hounded her, and some say, contributed to her death.  She began as a shy young girl whom everyone loved. During the 80's, when England was in a recession with cultural unrest, support for the monarchy was at 50-50.  When Diana entered the picture, it became 80-20. But then as Diana matured, she upstaged Charles and created upheaval in what was a constrained and strait-laced monarchy. She became a problem for the monarchy, and thus began her love-hate relationship with the press. As much as the press loved her and needed her, they also villified her.  One commentator actually said she was a monster. 

Did this documentary reveal anything about Diana that we didn't already know?

Not really, not for me anyway, but I am one of those devotees who stayed up all night watching the hearse take her casket to Althorp, crying all the while.  But the documentary did include news coverage I had never seen.  I knew that people in the UK and the U.S. took Diana's death hard but didn't realize people were crying all over the world. And the lack of talking heads and narration creates an eerie foreshadowing. Without anyone saying anything, it is easy to see the cracks in the marriage just from the news reporting.  An example?  Just one hour after bringing baby Harry home from the hospital, Charles hops in his car and heads out to play polo.  And who was in the audience?  Camilla.

Written and directed by Ed Perkins, this documentary shows that now, 25 years after her death, Diana still casts a huge shadow.  So amazing that one woman could have such an impact on so many, that so many who had never met her would feel an emotional connection to her. I certainly felt that connection.  I wrote a tribute to her early in my blogging career ("Remembering Princess Diana").  For some strange reason, I found it comforting to know she was in this world that I, too, inhabited, even though we didn't know each other and existed thousands of miles apart.  I still think of her and feel sad we no longer share this world together. From this documentary, I see I was not alone in that.

Rosy the Reviewer was sad to relive Diana's story knowing how it would all end.  I cried once again, but I was also happy to be reminded of how, despite the odds against her, Diana went from a naive 19-year-old to a force for good in the world.  She deserves to be remembered. (HBO)

Trainwreck: Woodstock 99 (2022)

The sequel to Woodstock 69.  Don't I always say that sequels suck?

Well, I might not say it exactly like that, but I don't like sequels.  This time it's not a movie sequel but a sequel to a success, an almost once-in-a-lifetime event, and what happens when you get dollar signs in your eyes and try to recreate it.

Remember Woodstock?  Even if you don't remember it, you have probably heard of it.  Michael Lang was the man behind that 1969 music festival, where almost 500,000 people showed up and they all got along, they embodied peace and love.  Well, Lang tried to recreate Woodstock in 1994, which was supposed to be a 25th anniversary of the first one, and it was a failure because it rained every day.  So, that didn't work?  Let's try it again, but this time let's call it the 30th anniversary.  Well, that one didn't work, either. It was a riot - literally.

For Woodstock '99, a three day weekend music festival, Friday started out okay with 250,000 kids attending the festival which was set up at a decommissioned military base (no bucolic farm setting this time), and it was hot, hot, hot with no shade provided.  The concession stands were all privatized, and no one was allowed to bring in food or water and the concessionaires were charging huge amounts of money for food and water ($4.00 for a bottle of water which would be the equivalent of $7.00 in today's dollars). Korn was the headliner on Friday night. Needless to say, they riled up the crowd. 

By Saturday, it all starting falling apart. 

The toilets were overflowing (again, sanitation had been privatized and they just weren't up to it) and trash was everywhere.  One of the volunteers, a woman who had attended the original Woodstock, took it upon herself to go around handing out garbage bags and asking the kids to clean up.  The reply?  "I paid $150 to come here, you clean it up."  The infrastructure in place just could not support the people.  The attitude of the concertgoers was that if the venue didn't care, why should they care?

While Lang and his cohorts were being interviewed and cluelessly basking in what they deemed a successful festival, outside, 1000 people were being treated for heat stroke, dehydration and heat exhaustion, there was no shade, there was price gauging going on by the concessionaires, no one was dealing with sanitation and there was little security.  

By Saturday night, everyone was really pissed off and the concert goers started throwing things at the tower where the MTV coverage was taking place, and when people realized they could do whatever they wanted with no consequences, all hell broke loose. 

When Limp Bizkit came on Saturday evening, lead singer Fred Durst didn't help matters.  He really enjoyed ramping up the crowd and instigating them to go wild, so by the time Fatboy Slim came on chaos had taken over and he had to be lead off the stage.  By Sunday, women had been molested, the showers didn't work, the toilets were overflowing, mud was everywhere (and I won't elaborate on what was actually swirling around in that mud), and there was a riot going on. Now water was $12 a bottle. 

But the festival went on. Sunday night the Red Hot Chili Peppers came on to end the festival - Flea was naked, of course - and there was a rumor that someone really big would come on last as a surprise- the Stones? Michael Jackson?  So when it turned out the final act was handing out 100,000 candles for an anti-gun vigil and that was it, the festival was over...what?  No Rolling Stones? No Michael Jackson?  No surprise artist to end the festival? That's it?  After everything we have had to put up?  So with no way to protest, what to do?  Well, let's tear the place up. And look, we have lighted candles. Okay, let's start some fires.  And that's what the kids did. It didn't help that the last song the Red Hot Chili Peppers performed was the Jimi Hendrix song "Fire."

An animal mentality took over. That's what happens when people are treated like animals. It was "Lord of the Flies," except with 100,000 pissed off kids who had no way to protest their bad treatment. The vendors were vandalized, the sound towers were brought down, the trailers were set on fire and anyone associated with MTV was a target (they had to hide or get the hell out of there). Then the trailers exploded and the State Troopers arrived.

Mic drop. 

But not in a good way.

So what went wrong?  

Was it using a decommissioned military base with no shade, instead of a bucolic farm setting?  Was it not letting attendees bring in food or water and then selling the concessions to a private company that overcharged for food and water?  Or was it selling the event to Pay Per View where the cameras filming the event encouraged bad behavior?  Or was it Lang's lack of awareness about new bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit, angry bands that can really ramp up a crowd and not in a good way?  Was it good old-fashioned greed? It was probably all of those things together that sent this concert spiraling down with rape, rioting, fires and explosions. 

This is an engrossing tale of what can happen when people are treated like they don't matter.  It's also a tale of greed and incompetence. There are some dynamic musical performances, but it's the antithesis of the first Woodstock.

The first Woodstock was all about The Peace and Love Generation - 500,000 people who gathered together to smoke pot, make love not war and listen to music.  Nothing bad happened.  Woodstock '99 was the MTV and Pay Per View Generation, all about ecstacy and greed.  Never the twain shall meet.

Rosy the Reviewer know what they say about trainwrecks, right?  You can't look away and you won't be able to look away from this three-part Netflix series that reminds us that when you have an initial wonderful success, forget the sequel.  Sequels suck.  (Netflix)

The Most Hated Man on the Internet (2022)

The story of Hunter Moore, the self-proclaimed "Life ruiner."

This three-part docuseries is the story of Hunter Moore, the man who created the website, a site that encouraged people to post "revenge porn."  It's logo?  "Thank you for being evil."  And this guy really was. He not only hosted the pictures but linked them to the social media pages, the emails and sometimes the addresses of the subjects. He would also get people to do outrageous things on his site, a sort of porn meets "Jackass."  I won't even get into what he had a girl dubbed "Butt... Girl" do.

In January 2012, Moore published a topless photo of Charlotte Laws' daughter, 24-year-old Kayla.  Kayla had never sent the picture of herself to anyone, so it came to light that Moore was hacking peoples' accounts.  Law decided she had to go after this guy. Don't mess with a mother! And don't mess with a woman who wrote a book ("Meet the Stars" under the name Missy Laws) about how to crash the parties of the rich and famous. She had moxy.

Laws was able to get Moore to take the image of her daughter down, but she wasn't done with him.  Now she had a mission.  She wanted to help the other women whose images had been hacked or put up on the site by a jilted lover.  By February, she had spoken with 40 of Moore's victims. She tried to get reporters to tell this story but she was told there was no story (what)?  

Meanwhile, Moore was getting attention by appearing on talk shows, and when he appeared on the Anderson Cooper show confronted by a couple of his victims, he came off as an a**hole, but that didn't seem to matter. What is the expression about publicity? There is no such thing as bad publicity.  Moore became even more famous, especially with his followers, who called themselves "The Family."  Fitting, because Moore likened himself to Charles Manson, which should tell you something about this guy.

Many efforts from various people and groups were made to stop Moore but he just kept going.  He capitalized on the media attention and went on tour, hired for parties across the country.  What went on at these parties is not for the faint of heart. 

All of this publicity and activity finally caught the attention of the FBI and Charlotte was able to share all of her sleuthing with them.  But even when the FBI is involved, the wheels of justice move slowly.  Yes, it was discovered that Moore was indeed hacking accounts, but did he get what he deserved? You decide. 

But there is a sort of redemptive epilogue. The producers said that Moore initially said he would take part in the series and then declined, but they "decided to use his image anyway."  Touche!

However, one can't help but wonder how many other Hunter Moores are out there on the Internet.

This is a fascinating documentary about the underbelly of the Internet and a really bad guy who didn't seem to have any concern or empathy for others.  When asked if he felt bad for these women whose images were plastered all over his website, he said, no, he felt nothing. They were like emojis to him.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to know how your accounts can get hacked, this is a tutorial.

Rosy the Reviewer says...I don't even know this guy but after seeing this docuseries, I hate him too! (Netflix)

The Tinder Swindler (2022)

"One little swipe can change your life forever."  That's for sure.  Especially if you meet the wrong person on Tinder. 

Meet Simon Laviev, supposed billionaire's son.  Meet three Scandinavian women who made the mistake of swiping right on Simon, who ended up swindling them.  Simon was no catfish.  He existed and actually wined and dined these ladies in Paris, took them for rides on his private jet and literally charmed the pants off of them.  And then something happened to his credit cards and he, uh, needed a little help from them.

So how was Simon able to pull off the rich man scam?  

Why, the old Ponzi scheme, of course.  While wining and dining a new woman, he would be leeching off of earlier women. He would wow the new mark on the first few dates, and wouldn't ask for money until about a month of wooing. Then he would have some hard luck story about a temporary money squeeze, could she please lend him some money? Then, when he would get the money, he could continue his lavish lifestyle. 

But then Simon meets the wrong woman, a woman who discovers the scam and is really pissed. She partners with another of Simon's victims and they decide to take him down! The first half of the film is testimonials from the women he swindled.  The second half focuses on how Simon was tracked down. Turns out Simon had been writing bad checks and swindling people since he was 18 and he was wanted by the police in several countries.

It's shocking how gullible these women were. But as P.T. Barnum once said, "No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."  These women in the film weren't Americans but you can extrapolate that quote to entire populations who believe in the glitz and glam and overlook the lack of substance in a person. You can read into that what you want.

So does Simon get his just desserts?  Not exactly.  You will have to watch and find out.

Rosy the Reviewer says...written and directed by Felicity Morris, this is a fascinating true crime story that reminds us to beware of men who seem to be too good to be true, especially if they ask for money! (Netflix)

Thanks for reading!

See you again soon!

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to like it and share it on Facebook, Twitter, or other sites; email it to your friends and/or follow me on Facebook at 

And next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). Go to, find the movie you are interested in.  Scroll over to the right of the synopsis to where it says "Critic Reviews" - Click on that and if I have reviewed that film, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list (NOTE:  IMDB keeps moving stuff around so if you don't find "Critics Reviews" where I am sending you, look around.  It's worth it)!

(NOTE:  If you are looking for a particular movie or series, check out this cool site: JustWatch.  It tells you where you can access all TV series and movies)

Friday, September 20, 2019

"The Goldfinch" and The Week in Reviews

[I review "The Goldfinch" as well as the DVD "Transit" and the documentary "Woodstock - Three Days That Defined a Generation," now streaming on Netflix.  The Book of the Week is "I Like To Watch: Arguing My Way Through the TV Revolution" by Emily Nussbaum.  I also bring you up-to-date with "My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project" with "Cloud Capped Star."]

The Goldfinch

After a bombing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, thirteen-year-old Theo Decker helps himself to a painting, an act that will affect his life for the next 20 years.

It's not easy bringing a much-revered 700+ page Pulitzer Prize winning novel to the screen and, though the film is getting mixed reviews, I found it a satisfying film experience.  For one thing, I don't feel that a film version of a book needs to replicate the book completely.  I am not one to say, "The book was better." Literature and films are two different art forms, and should be judged as such. In this case, the film concentrates more on the plot, which is an interesting one, rather than spending much time on the underlying themes of the book: grief and how a life can be determined by trauma, guilt and the consequences of our actions. But that doesn't mean that the film isn't a good one. However, I know there are haters out there who miss the underlying themes.  I am just not one of them, but talk among yourselves.

The plot centers around thirteen-year-old Theo Decker (Oakes Fegley), who with his mother, is at the Metropolitan Museum of Art when a terrorist bomb goes off killing his mother and others.  Before being rescued, Theo encounters a man who gives him a ring and tells him to go find his partner, Hobie (Jeffrey Wright), at their antique shop.  Oh, and one more thing.  Theo helps himself to a small painting called "The Goldfinch."

Theo miraculously survives the bombing, but is now practically an orphan, because his father, who was separated from Theo's mother, is nowhere to be found. So Theo goes to live with his friend, Andy (Ryan Foust) and his family, the Barbours, a rich family overseen by a kind but reserved matriarch (Nicole Kidman). Theo also manages to find the antique store where he meets Hobie and Pippa, a young girl (Aimee Laurence) he remembers seeing at the museum right before the bomb went off.  It was her uncle who gave Theo the ring.

So Theo settles into his life with the Barbours, spending his time with them and at Hobie's antique shop and is happy until his ne'er do well father, Larry (Luke Wilson) and his skanky girlfriend, Xandra (Sarah Paulson), show up and hustle him off to a ghost town of a housing development outside of Las Vegas, where Theo meets Boris (Finn Wolfhard), a young Russian kid, with an abusive dad. Boris introduces Theo to drugs and a rather dark version of life.  All the while, the painting is wrapped in newspaper and hidden under Theo's bed.  He is not sure why he has kept it, but it reminds him of his mother.  He blames himself for her death because they were on their way to his school to talk to the principal about Theo getting caught smoking. If she hadn't had to go to his school, she would still be alive.

Years pass and adult Theo (Ansel Elgort) meets up again with Boris (Aneurin Barnard), and he and the painting lead Theo into a murky world of drugs and art theft.

So that's the gist of the story, but the film actually starts at the end with the adult Theo in a room in Amsterdam, a little worse for wear, and then the film flashes back to young Theo.  Flashbacks are fine, but in addition to the flashbacks, there is all kinds of jumping around, past, present and future, and I found that choppiness to be distracting.  I think writer Peter Straughan was trying to create some drama and mystery with that approach, but I think just telling the story in a linear fashion would have been more enjoyable and less confusing.

As I said, it's not an easy task to shrink 700+ pages into a two and a half hour film so some of the story and depth of the book was bound to be lost.  Theo has always loved Pippa and that storyline was given short shrift as well as Theo's father's storyline but that's what happens when it's a big, complicated book like this one.

Oakes Fegley as the young Theo really carries most of the film and is an awesome young actor.  Elgort, though usually a very good actor, seems stiff here and doesn't make much of the role.  Nicole Kidman is always good and adds class to a film and Jeffrey Wright exuded a believable warmth as Hobie. But Sarah Paulson as a gum-chewing floozy?  That was a stretch. 

But whatever anyone thinks of this film directed by John Crowley, most must agree it's beautiful to look at thanks to Academy Award winner Roger Deakins' cinematography.

Rosy the Reviewer says...I am sure those who loved the book will have much to say about what is wrong with this film, but I enjoyed it as a film experience, and that's all I really require of a film.

***Some Movies You Might Have Missed***
(And Some You Will Be Glad You Did)!


Transit (2018)

As fascism spreads in France, Georg, a German refugee, assumes the identity of a dead writer in order to escape the country.

Georg (Franz Rogowski) as been given some transit papers to take to Weidel, a writer, but when he arrives to deliver the papers he discovers that Weidel has killed himself. So he takes Weidel's personal effects and assumes Weidel's identity.  He reads the letters from Weidel's wife, Marie, who was urging her husband to come to Marseilles so they could get back together. He decides to go to Marseilles and use the transit papers to get on a boat to Mexico, but when he meets the writer's wife (Paula Beer), who doesn't know her husband is dead, things get complicated.

Adapted and directed by Christian Petzold, there are several side stories as Georg interacts with others who are either oppressed or stuck, trying to get out of the country. He becomes a father figure to a boy who has a deaf mother; he befriends a doctor; and then of course, he meets Marie, the dead writer's wife.

Though based on a 1942 novel by Anna Seghers about life in Nazi Germany, here the film doesn't go into detail about what has happened in France, who the Fascists are and why it's being occupied.  It's a dystopian tale that reminded me of where we could be headed today. It's a bit of film noir, a bit of existentialism and also wonderful, which is why it was on many Best Films of 2018 lists.

Rogowski looks like a young Joaquin Phoenix and his is a tour de force performance as he is in every scene. The film revolves around Georg as he experiences a world where he never quite belongs.

Rosy the Reviewer says...riveting and timely.
(In German with English subtitles)

Woodstock (2019)
("Three Days That Defined a Generation")

With never-before-seen footage, a different perspective on that iconic music festival.

Not to be confused with THAT Woodstock movie, the iconic concert film made in 1970, this one is not really a concert film.  It goes into more depth about how and why the concert happened, what went into putting the concert together, and how it affected those who attended.  It also addresses the issues of the day - Vietnam, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the sexual revolution, drugs. The time was right for a revolution and we all took solace in the music. The time was right for Woodstock.

Why and how did a concert like Woodstock come about?  How could half a million young people come together on a farm in upstate New York and create all of that peace and love despite torrential rain, no food and lots and lots of drugs?

Directed by Barak Goodman and Jamila Ephron and written by Goodman and Don Kleszy, this film brings a new perspective to the event.

It's a misconception that hippies put the Woodstock festival together.  The promoters may have had long hair and wore fringed jackets but Michael Lang and his cohorts were young entrpreneurs who wanted to make money.  And that iconic performance of "Freedom" by Richie Havens?  He made that song up on the spot because none of the other artists had arrived yet and he needed to fill up the time!  One of the kids in the crowd interviewed as an adult said that song influenced and was the basis for the whole rest of her life. 

And that's what makes this film a nice addition to the Woodstock oeuvre of films.  It has some new information and new insight from a 49 years on perspective since that first film. It also brings a really personal feel to the event as some of the now grown members of the audience relate how the festival affected their lives.

I watched this film at night on my own and the memories of those times came flooding back.  I didn't go to Woodstock and didn't even know about it until it was over (I was kind of a sheltered midwestern girl), but I was definitely a child of those times. I was fully immersed in the bell bottoms, the granny dresses, the long hair, the music, the politics and experimentation of all kinds.  

I also had a personal perspective on the issues of the day. I got married in 1967 while I was in college (not recommended) and six months later my husband was drafted and sent to Vietnam.  I didn't see him again for two years. Needless to say, that marriage didn't make it.

But Hubby, who I didn't yet know, was at Woodstock, but even though he can say he was there, he never got down close enough to the stage to really hear any of the music.  But he experienced the crowd and all of the "activities," if you know what I mean.

Rosy the Reviewer says...a wonderful remembrance of times long gone that Baby Boomers and their children will enjoy.

***My 1001 Movies I Must See Before I Die Project***

61 to go!

Have YOU seen this classic film?

Cloud-Capped Star (1960)
("Meghe Dhaka Tara")

A young woman sacrifices her own life for her family.

A family, uprooted from East Pakistan by the Partition of India, are now refugees living on the outskirts of Calcutta.  Nita (Supriya Choudhury), a beautiful young girl, has taken on the responsibility for the family as her older brother, Shankar (Anil Chatterjee) has abandoned the family for the life of a singer. He spends his days singing rather than working. The father is a teacher, but makes only a pittance. Nita is trying to go to school while also teaching local children, but when her father is injured she becomes the sole support of the family.  She faithfully works and slaves for her unappreciative family and never complains.  

I wanted to scream at the screen and tell Nita to stand up to her family and seek some happiness for herself.  But that's what women did and do, sacrificed themselves, especially in patriarchal societies. Nita also has a fiance, Sanat (Niranjan Ray), but when Nita's mother (Gita Dey) fears Nita will marry Sanat and they will no longer have her as a meal ticket, she plots to get Sanat and Nita's sister, Gita (Gita Ghatak), together instead.  So finally, Neeta, alone and ill, laments her life. A life unfulfilled.

It's a sad tale of a young, selfless woman taking on the responsibility of a family that doesn't appreciate her.  The film also shows traditional Indian and Bengali life and is director Ritwik Ghatak's response to the despair and psychological damage caused by the Partition. Nita's family had been happily middle class when they lived in Pakistan and now had fallen into poverty as refugees, and while they were moaning about their lot in life, Nita was sacrificing herself for them.

Actress Supriya Choudhury is gorgeous and wonderful in this.  However, though this film is a powerful melodrama, the other characters almost seemed like cartoon figures compared to her so, for me, that was a bit of a disconnect.

Ghatak was considered one of India's greatest and most influential directors, though he made only eight films, but almost all of his films illustrate the upheaval caused by the Partition, something that caused him great despair and which probably led to his dying an alcoholic.

Why it's a Must See: "[This film] is a searing piece of work, resonant and beautifully composed -- and it proved a rare commercial success for its director in India...See it for the grace of Ghatak's mise-en-scene, his Expressionist sound design, and the enormous sense of loss."
---"1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die"

Rosy the Reviewer says...see it also for the beautiful and talented Supriya Choudhury and the gorgeous black and white cinematography.
(In Bengali with English subtitles)

***The Book of the Week***

I Like to Watch: Arguing My Way Through the TV Revolution by Emily Nussbaum (2019)

An argument for television.

I am a child of television.  

We got our first TV when I was five, but before that, I remember standing on a neighbor's porch watching their TV through their front window.  I was already hooked and we didn't even have a TV yet!  My Dad loved TV too, especially watching the old movies that would come on late at night. He and I bonded over those.

I wrote about my love of TV back in 2013 - "Confessions of a TV Addict." In that, I talk about how in the old days people used to bond over their favorite TV shows. We liked to watch and were not afraid to admit it.

So when did we become such snobs about TV?  When did we start calling it the idiot box and shaming our friends for watching?

I don't have much patience for people who look down their noses at those of us who like to watch a bit of TV.  OK, a lot of TV, but for one thing, saying snarky things to those of us who watch is not very nice. I hear people say in a demeaning way, "I don't watch TV."  Mmmm.  Well, don't think I haven't noticed that many of you who say that know way more about what's on TV than you should if you don't watch.  Give me a break.  And what do you care what people do? If we want to watch "The Bachelor," it's none of your beeswax.

So thank you, Emily Nussbaum, for being a very smart Pulitzer Prize winning author who unashamedly watches TV. She started out as one of those TV snobs, but it was Buffy the Vampire Slayer who got her hooked. She only watched it on a whim when one of her friends recommended it.

"...what really got me was the show's peculiar originality, the ways in which it felt stealthily experimental beneath its conventional surfaces, which were low-budget and, aesthetically, nothing special.  As he would often explain in interviews, [writer Joss] Whedon had taken the bimbo victim of every exploitation film...and let her spin around and become the avenger. Thrillingly, Buffy treated this one girl's story not as something trivial, but as a grand, oceanic metaphor."

As I said, Nussbaum is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and was a TV critic and editor for New York Magazine.  In this series of essays, she smartly comments on "Sex and the City," "House of Cards," "Scandal," "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel," "Lost" and other popular shows, as well as reality TV, the legacies of Joan Rivers and Norman Lear, and how Ryan Murphy became the most powerful man on TV.  And don't think that "Game of Thrones" doesn't show up here and there.  It does.

"This book is an account of the two-decade-long argument about television, in the form of the reviews and profiles I've written...[and] what unites these essays and profiles is my struggle -- and over time, my growing frustration -- with that hidden ladder of status, the unspoken, invisible biases that hobbled TV even as it became culturally dominant."  

But more importantly, Nussbaum
beats down the whole idea that one kind of culture is better than another.  She makes it OK to confess to liking to watch, because there are a lot of reasons to watch. 

Rosy the Reviewer says...My name is Rosy and I like to watch.  There I said it.  Now mind your own business!

Thanks for reading!

See you next Friday


"Downton Abbey"


The Week in Reviews
(What To See and What To Avoid)

as well as

the latest on

"My 1001 Movies I Must See

Before I Die Project" 

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to click on the share buttons to share it on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn, email it to your friends and LIKE me on Facebook at 

Check your local library for DVDs and books mentioned.

Next time you are wondering whether or not to watch a particular film, check out my reviews on IMDB (The International Movie Database). 

Go to, find the movie you are interested in.  Scroll down below the synopsis and the listings for the director, writer and main stars to where it says "Reviews" and click on "Critics" - If I have reviewed that film, you will find Rosy the Reviewer alphabetically on the list.