Steve Pond's Blog, page 158
May 9, 2025
Where to Watch ‘Friendship’: Is Tim Robinson and Paul Rudd’s Comedy Streaming?
Tim Robinson and Paul Rudd have a budding bromance in the new A24 comedy “Friendship.”
The new film finds Robinson’s character trying to strike up a new friendship with his neighbor. He ends up wanting things to work out more than Rudd’s character and the pursuit of that friendship begins to ruin both of their lives.
Here’s everything you need to know about the new movie, how to watch “Friendship” right now and where to expect it on streaming.
When does “Friendship” come out?“Friendship” releases in theaters on Friday, May 9.
Is “Friendship” streaming or in theaters?Right now, “Friendship” is only available in theaters. The comedy enters a limited theatrical run on May 9 before expanding into wider theaters on May 23. As an A24 movie, “Friendship” will land on Max once it leaves theaters and heads to a streaming service.
Find “Friendship” showtimes and book tickets for screenings near you in the links below.
FandangoAMCRegalAtom TicketsMovieTickets.comWho is in the “Friendship” cast?“Friendship” stars Tim Robinson and Paul Rudd as two men struggling through a budding bromance. They are joined by Kate Mara, Jack Dylan Grazer, Rick Worthy, Josh Segarra, Billy Bryk and Whitmer Thomas.
What is “Friendship” about?Robinson and Rudd star as new neighbors who attempt to spark up a new friendship. Robinson’s Craig becomes much more enamored with Rudd’s Austin than vice versa, and it begins to unravel both of their lives. Here’s the official synopsis:
“A man tries to befriend his charismatic new neighbor, but it soon threatens to ruin both of their lives.
The post Where to Watch ‘Friendship’: Is Tim Robinson and Paul Rudd’s Comedy Streaming? appeared first on TheWrap.
AMC Networks Continues to Suffer From Cable Cord Cutters, Sees 7% Dip in Revenue
AMC Networks is still struggling as cable TV continues to shrink. During the company’s earnings report for the first quarter of 2025, which was reported on Friday, the company saw decreases across subscription revenues, content licensing and advertising, all of which was credited to contraction in the linear TV business.
Overall, domestic operations decreased 7% from 2024, coming in at $486 million. That includes content licensing, which decreased 13% to $54 million, and advertising revenues, which decreased 15% to $119 million primarily due to linear ratings declines. The drop in content licensing had to do with what programs were available to be licensed during the period. The first quarter of 2024 saw a boost due to the sale of AMC’s rights to “Killing Eve.”
As for subscription revenues, which also fall under domestic operations, that told a more interesting story. The category saw a 3% decrease to $313 million due to declines in cable TV. During the period, affiliate revenues declined 12% to $156 million primarily due to subscriber declines as well as contractual rate decreases when it came to renewals, though that had less of an effect. This was offset by streaming revenues, which increased 8% to $157 million largely due to a price hike AMC+ implemented in January.
{ "symbols": [["NASDAQ:AMCX|1D"]], "width": "100%", "height": "400", "locale": "en", "colorTheme": "light", "isTransparent": false, "showChart": true, "scalePosition": "right", "scaleMode": "Normal" }Also, starting this quarter and moving forward, AMC Networks has changed how it defines and reports “streaming subscribers.” The company will no longer be including subscribers who receive access to AMC’s streaming services through a video package that also includes access to the network’s linear programming. So, for example, though a Charter’s Spectrum TV subscriber would technically have access to AMC+ through a deal between Charter and AMC, that subscriber would not be counted as part of the company’s overall subscriber base. Only subscribers who pay a fee for one of AMC’s services, either directly through a direct-to-consumer (DTC) offering or through a third-party platform or channels store, such as Prime Video Channels, will be counted.
Here are the quarter’s key results:
Revenue: $555.2 million, down 6.9% year over year for the first quarter.
Net Income Attributable to Stockholders: $18 million, down 60.6% year over year for the first quarter.
Earnings per Share: $0.34, down 67% year over year for the first quarter.
Subscribers: 10.2 million, a number that’s consistent with the first quarter of 2024. However, that’s an almost 2% drop compared to the 10.4 million subscribers the company reported at the end of 2024.
More to come …
The post AMC Networks Continues to Suffer From Cable Cord Cutters, Sees 7% Dip in Revenue appeared first on TheWrap.
May 8, 2025
Jimmy Kimmel Jokes the American Pope Means ‘the Popemobile Is Now a Ford F-250 With Truck Nuts’ | Video
Jimmy Kimmel was excited by the extremely surprising news Thursday that for the first time ever, an American has been elected Pope. For those just catching up, that’s Chicago native Robert Prevost, who has since taken the Papal name Leo XIV.”
“An American Pope!” Kimmel exclaimed. “The Popemobile is now a Ford F-250 with truck nuts.”
Kimmel admitted he was very surprised by the news and joked, “Italy and America, this must have been what it felt like when they opened the first Olive Garden, you know?”
Later in the monologue, Kimmel noted that “Nuns go crazy for the Pope,” and added, “I was in college, I went to a mass at the Vatican, I almost got trampled by a line of crazed, horny nuns who had their… Oh, yeah – they were horny. Make no mistake about it. All those years of chastity erupted when they got a look at John Paul.”
Then Kimmel talked about Donald Trump’s connection to the whole thing, calling him “Pope Pompous the 18th” and “the Archbishop of Ranterbury.” Referring to the weird AI art depicting Trump as Pope, Kimmel noted Trump obviously didn’t become the Pope, joking that “another election was rigged against him.”
Kimmel then had some fun talking about how various right wing figures have complained angrily about the Pope and joked that Trump “hit the Vatican with an 80% tariff on pointy hats.”
“So, congratulations to him,” Kimmel eventually said. “This is an historic era we are living in. We have an American Pope and a Russian President.”
We assume you get the context for that joke. Watch the whole monologue below:
The post Jimmy Kimmel Jokes the American Pope Means ‘the Popemobile Is Now a Ford F-250 With Truck Nuts’ | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
‘Absolute Dominion’ Review: You Gotta Fight! For the Right! Theoooo-logy!
Okay, settle down and listen up, because this premise is a doozy. In the near future, religious extremism leads to so many terrorist attacks that all the world’s faiths finally agree to stop killing each other. Instead, they’ll each train one martial artist and hold a big fighting tournament. The faith that wins will take over the world, and all the others will be outlawed.
That’s Lexi Alexander’s “Absolute Dominion,” and if it sounds more like a Patton Oswalt routine than a real movie, Alexander seems to agree. The movie literally begins with Patton Oswalt, playing a very Patton Oswalt-ish influencer, suggesting the religious rumble off the top of his head. He seems just as surprised as anybody that it went viral, let alone got taken seriously. It says a lot about contemporary culture that whereas once our minds boggled trying to imagine how the dystopian futures of “Logan’s Run” and “The Purge” were successfully pitched and implemented, now you just have to tell us someone suggested something ridiculous on TikTok and we all just kinda went for it. Because, yeah, that basically tracks.
“Absolute Dominion” stars Désiré Mia as Sagan Bruno, a martial artist fighting on behalf of atheism. This makes him a target for every other competitor, since to most people the only thing worse than your religion losing is the whole concept of religion losing altogether. It quickly becomes clear that Sagan is a serious contender, so a corrupt official (Julie Ann Emery) starts bending the rules to make him fight tougher and tougher opponents. Eventually she just throws up her hands and calls in the assassins. I guess people who think religion is necessary to make people act morally are sometimes massive hypocrites.
Lexi Alexander’s film sounds like unambiguous pro-atheist propaganda, and perhaps it could be forgiven if it went down that road. Instead she complicates the themes of “Absolute Dominion” by making Sagan himself a messianic figure, suggesting that while atheism may be the best-case scenario for world government — you know, that whole “separation of church and state” thing that not everybody agrees on anymore — the practice of atheism in government doesn’t preclude or even necessarily challenge the existence of god. Perhaps god would want us to stop fighting over how we believe in god, has anyone ever thought of that before? It seems like a reasonable idea.
“Absolute Dominion” asks big questions and answers a few of them, but it’s not just a sci-fi movie. It’s also a fight movie. This is where you’d probably expect a Lexi Alexander film to shine, since she earned her status as a cult icon directing the outlandishly violent “Punisher: War Zone.” The fights in “Absolute Dominion” are effectively choreographed and sometimes unexpected, but they’re surprisingly muted in their presentation.
This bizarre concept naturally lends itself to a bizarre execution. Surely, for instance, the Snake Handlers would employ Snake Style, straight out of Yuen Woo-ping’s classic “Snake in Eagle’s Shadow.” Alexander chooses to ignore any such temptation towards whimsy, leaving her film feeling less like Paul Bartel’s “Death Race 2000” and more like Stuart Gordon’s “Robot Jox,” but without the stop-motion robots. (Note: All movies are improved with stop-motion robots.)
Alexander also sets the film entirely in an early wild card phase of the tournament, not the final tournament itself, which may leave room for sequels or might simply be budget-consciousness in action. The biggest downfall of “Absolute Dominion” is that the premise means that this fighting tournament, even in its early stages, should be the most important event taking place in the world. But the actual fights take place in a sterile, vaguely-futuristic gymnasium, with hardly anyone in the audience.
Did capitalism already lose this early in the game? (Be honest, we treat it like a religion.) It seems like tickets would be in high demand and cost a fortune. They even have a theatrical “Hunger Games”-esque master of ceremonies played by Alok Vaid-Menon, but as far selling the tournament goes they have every reason to go to “11” and yet for some reason their performance gets stuck at a “6.” For many reasons this movie never feels as big as we’re repeatedly told it is.
It’s disappointing that Lexi Alexander’s film doesn’t have the budget to back up its premise, but when you think of the film less like a potential blockbuster and more like an atypically intelligent straight-to-video genre film, it’s easy to admire it. It’s got an absurd premise, but that premise opens the door for characters with powerful motivations and impossibly high stakes. It’s that rare action movie that succeeds because it’s challenging and intriguing, which is a nice way of saying that maybe it could have kicked slightly more ass.
The post ‘Absolute Dominion’ Review: You Gotta Fight! For the Right! Theoooo-logy! appeared first on TheWrap.
Chris Hayes Says Health News in the Trump Era ‘Feels Like a Dark Joke’ After New Surgeon General Pick | Video
Chris Hayes reacted to the news that Donald Trump has selected “wellness” influencer Casey Means, a close ally of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as his new Surgeon General, with unsurprising bleakness.
“It feels like every single day without fail, there’s some new headline about the nation’s health infrastructure that feels like a dark joke. From the largest measles outbreak since eradication, to nearly $2 billion in research grants being canceled. And the latest is this one: Donald Trump taps wellness influencer, close to RFK Jr for Surgeon General,” Hayes said.
“Her name is Dr. Casey. Means, though she is not a licensed medical doctor, she is an online holistic wellness influencer, which means she goes on a lot of shows touting her health advice,” He continued, at which point he ran clips of various TV appearances, including a “Real Time” appearance where she shared anti-vaccines views.
Hayes then brought on Kathleen Sebelius, the former Kansa governor who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services — Kennedy’s current job — under Barack Obama, to discuss.
At one point, Hayes asked, “Some of what she’s saying, like, we, you know, have chronic disease in this country because we use too much sugar, is kind of non controversial. But then it seems like there’s a fair amount of woo-woo nonsense in there. And she’s also not a licensed, you know, physician, and her views on vaccines make me very nervous. And I guess I wonder, like, how, how bad is it?”
“Well, it can be really bad,” Sebelius replied.
“There’s no question what I’ve seen this woman say, is she’s an antivaxxer. That’s terrifying. That is a terrifying position for the Secretary to hold,” Sebelius said shortly after. “It’s a terrifying position for the Surgeon General, and it will confuse and potentially kill people in this country if parents really aren’t sure of the advice they’re given. Go after processed foods. Go after salt and sugar and food, talk to your colleague in the Ag department to take on the food industry and to you know, make sure that people can have fewer antibiotics in the meat that they eat. Those are all things that could make us healthier… but, boy, you mix that with lots of false information and making up stuff and pushing supplements that have no proven value, and then you have a real mess on your hands.”
You can watch the full conversation below:
The post Chris Hayes Says Health News in the Trump Era ‘Feels Like a Dark Joke’ After New Surgeon General Pick | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Boss Unpacks Jo and Link’s ‘Momentous’ Wedding Song, Teases Bonkers Season 21 Finale
Note: This story contains spoilers from “Grey’s Anatomy” Season 21, Episode 17.
“Grey’s Anatomy” hosted another iconic wedding, with Jo and Link tying the knot in a beautiful shotgun wedding that delivered on the big feelings — despite missing one key guest.
Episode 17, titled “Love You Like a Love Song,” followed as Jo (Camilla Luddington) and Link (Chris Carmack) prepared for their big day after only four days of planning. The bride and groom were busy ahead of the ceremony, with Jo juggling getting ready with bonding with her future mother-in-law, and Link struggling to write his vows. His struggles paid off though as he surprised his bride with a swoonworthy vow song chronicling their long love story, and promising complete devotion for their growing family.
“We’ve always wanted Chris to sing on the show, but we never wanted to do it gratuitously. We always wanted it to feel special and momentous,” showrunner Meg Marinis told TheWrap. “He probably sang that song 25 times that day on set … and he was so game to do it.”
Chris Carmack and Camilla Luddington in “Grey’s Anatomy.” (Disney/Anne Marie Fox)Marinis praised Michelle Lirtzman and Julie Wong, who wrote Episode 17 and collaborated with Carmack to write the song. The wedding also allowed for the return of Levi Schmitt (Jake Borelli) following his exit from the series earlier in Season 21, who walked Jo down the aisle and officiated the ceremony.
Beyond the happy occasion, the episode set up plenty of wild storylines ahead of the Season 21 finale. Amelia (Caterina Scorsone), Lucas (Niko Terho) and Simone (Alexis Floyd) worked to figure out a complication after the brain surgery of a young patient, whose parents (including Piper Perabo’s Jenna) were all over them after convincing them to allow the risky procedure. The case leads to a disagreement between Lucas and Simone that ends with her abruptly ending their relationship — just in time for her to meet a handsome stranger for her to sleep with at Joe’s Bar, played by Trevor Jackson.
A promo for the finale airing after Thursday’s episode raised the stakes further, revealing a potential catastrophe could befall the doctors at Grey Sloan memorial after Jenna threatens to blow up Amelia’s OR if she doesn’t save her daughter.
On top of all that, Teddy (Kim Raver) and Owen (Kevin McKidd) returned from vacation to find that Nora (Floriana Lima) was back in ER with a complication that might kill her — until Teddy comes up with a potential hail mary to save her patient, Owen’s longtime friend who he also slept with when they tried to open their marriage. When Teddy arrived to let Nora know about her potential lifesaving idea, she found Owen and Nora intimately holding each other as they mourned the possibility of her death.
“There are a lot of things in the pressure cooker,” Marinis said of the many cliffhangers ahead of next week’s finale. “Amelia is unsure if she can fix her patient. Should she not have done this? Will Lucas find out about (Simone’s mistake)? Will Teddy be able to operate knowing there might be real feelings between Nora and Owen? There’s a lot of risk here.”
TheWrap spoke with Marinis about the heartwarming episode, why Meredith (Ellen Pompeo) couldn’t make it and more.
Bess Armstrong and Camilla Luddington in “Grey’s Anatomy.” (Disney/Anne Marie Fox) TheWrap: Episode 17 features Jo and Link’s shotgun wedding, one that’s been 20 years in the making and that ABC called the next great wedding event for the show. How was it to balance the pressure of delivering an epic episode while also keeping things true to Jo?
Marinis: It’s a beautiful wedding that she definitely deserves, but of course it’s one they picked up from Mariana and Edgar (former patients who opted not to marry in a previous episode). Also, you know Link’s mother and her passive aggressive ways gave the wedding a little bit of antics. But it was perfectly Jo because we got Levi to be a part of it.
It was really exciting to have him come back. He’s even matured more since we last saw him. It’s not easy in Texas but he and James are together. Previously it was always Jo helping him through something or Jo making fun of him. This is the episode where he gets to hold her hand and help her, which was really lovely. And Jo, someone who did not grow up with a family, she was clearly surrounded by love and now has the perfect family.
Bess Armstrong and Jake Borelli in “Grey’s Anatomy.” (Disney/Anne Marie Fox) We see Levi and his boyfriend again as he comes in to officiate the wedding and be Jo’s person, and we get an update on how he’s doing in Texas and his love for former governor Ann Richards. How did that return come about and why sprinkle that bit of history into the storyline?
Crazily, it did not come from me and I’m the one from Texas. But I got the joke immediately, and burst laughing when I read the script from Michelle and Julie.
The return of Levi came about when they pitched the wedding to be in this episode. I was like, “Well, then we have to see if we can get Jake.” We can’t have Jo and Link get married without Levi. He’s promised to be there for her and she’s promised to be there for him through all these important life moments. I always thought the first time that we were going to see Levi’s return was for the birth of the twins, but then this came about before that so we were lucky enough that he was available and willing to come back and do it. It was so great to have him back home.
As for the Ann Richards references, we wanted to catch up on Levi’s life in Texas and thought, “What if they got a dog?” and when they wrote that in for its name I just started laughing. It’s a little shoutout to someone who championed women and gay couples and it was perfect. She was very outspoken, look her up!
One person who’s noticeably absent from the festivities is Meredith, making this the first big Grey’s wedding she hasn’t been either involved with or at least there as a guest. Did those schedules not work out for her to return?
We knew that we needed to get her for the finale, and when all of this was shooting it was right when “Good American Family” was premiering, so we were trying to accommodate her ability to promote her new show as well as be able to come back for the finale.
Also, it was a wedding planned in four days.
Harry Shum Jr., Anthony Hill, Kim Raver and Jason George in “Grey’s Anatomy.” (Disney/Anne Marie Fox) With a lot of chaos set up by the end of Episode 17, what can you tease about the finale ahead?
We’ve got Dylan, our patient whose parents are at their wit’s end. And this burden on Amelia because she’s unsure if she can fix her … in this season, she’s comparing herself to her brother. Should she have done this surgery? Can she fix it?
For Lucas, who’s looking at this patient’s story as a metaphor with Simone, like he doesn’t want to give up on this kid, and he feels like she is giving up on her, and their relationship before it even started. This breakup comes from a moment of anger, and out of pain Simone goes to the bar and makes this mistake. Will Lucas find out about it? Will there be consequences?
And for Teddy and Owen, she feels terrible about this woman because she’s been her doctor all this time, and she’s had complication after complication. She’s got four kids, but it’s so messy because this is the woman that slept with her husband. Even though it was a sanctioned affair, it’s still awful to be stared in the face with it. She’s got to figure out how to put her emotions aside and save this woman. And she does that, she’s able to come up with an idea. But right when she’s coming off that victory, she sees her husband holding her and it’s just like a punch in the face. There’s a lot of risk here (heading into the finale).
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
“Grey’s Anatomy” airs Thursdays at 10 p.m. ET/PT on ABC and streams the next day on Hulu.
The post ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Boss Unpacks Jo and Link’s ‘Momentous’ Wedding Song, Teases Bonkers Season 21 Finale appeared first on TheWrap.
John Landgraf Says Industry Contraction Won’t Kill Hollywood, Encourages Young Execs to ‘Keep Getting Better’
Like most professionals working in Hollywood today, John Landgraf can’t predict what the industry will look like as it continues to contract with the decline of linear and rise of streaming. But he feels bullish that Hollywood will “still be here” at the end of this period of change, and those with the mindset to persist will be there as well.
The FX chairman delivered the equal parts optimistic and realistic sentiment about the future of entertainment during a panel conversation with Disney TV studios chief Eric Schrier, moderated by filmmaker Paris Barclay and hosted by the Hollywood Radio & Television Society. Barclay brought up the topic as he jokingly asked the TV executives for a glimmer of hope that the industry would “be OK” amid layoffs and change permeating across the sector.
“And there’ll be room for all of us?” Barclay responded to Landgraf’s optimistic view.
“I don’t know about all of us,” he said. “I can’t speak for everyone. Personally, my singular strategy is just keep getting better. Early in my career, I was the bug — not the windshield. I went home feeling terrible about what had happened that day … But every day I said, ‘OK, well, what can you get better at?’ My theory was, ‘Well, I might not be good at this yet, but if I get better every day, eventually I’m going to be really good at this.’”
Disney Entertainment Television’s John Landgraf and Eric Schrier discuss the future of storytelling in an HRTS event moderated by director and producer Paris Barclay on Thursday, May 8. (Disney/Frank Micelotta)Landgraf called himself a late bloomer, having joined FX at the age of 41, and noted he didn’t start to feel confident in his role until he turned 50. His advice for the young executives in the room was to persevere and never stop learning.
“My first mentor used to say, ‘persistence is all.’ The difference between the people that are still here and that have been successful and the ones that aren’t is that the ones that are still here didn’t give up,” Landgraf said.
Beyond the encouraging words, Landgraf and Schrier shared the stage to share their insight into creating bold projects to global success and record-breaking Emmy recognition, including the ambitious epic “Shōgun,” which spent 10 years in development and launched to impressive viewership — leading to it expanding from a limited series to an additional two seasons currently in the works — and the comedy series “The Bear.”
Hiroyuki Sanada and Anna Sawai in “Shōgun” (Photo Credit: Katie Yu/FX)For “Shōgun,” Landgraf and Schrier noted the desire to put their own spin on the trend of sweeping dramas following the success of “Game of Thrones.”
“We mortgaged the farm,” Landgraf said of making the Japan-set series from Justin Marks and Rachel Kondo. “Probably every brand and every studio said, ‘I want my ‘Game of Thrones.’’ Most of what they did had swords or dragons. We were more focused on what would be an interesting way of doing an epic that was relevant to the current moment, that transcended the fraught politics of real history, which is very heavily contested terrain right now in political terms.”
“We always aspired to do an epic. It wasn’t until Disney came in and we had access to the streaming platforms that there was a capability financially to do something with that scale,” Schrier added.
Amid talk of what makes the best pitch for a show and the best way to approach giving notes to “sensitive” creatives, the conversation also touched on the larger existential crisis sparked by the current political climate, finding solace in the idea that troubling times tend to spark creativity.
“We had a meeting with Donald Glover the day after a particularly devastating election some time ago, from my point of view,” Landgraf told the panel. “Donald said, ‘It’s going to be a great time to make great art.’ And he went out and made ‘Atlanta.’”
The post John Landgraf Says Industry Contraction Won’t Kill Hollywood, Encourages Young Execs to ‘Keep Getting Better’ appeared first on TheWrap.
Jon Stewart Slams Trump as ‘F–king Wrongheaded’ About How Tariffs Impact Families: ‘No Value in Moderation for Himself’ | Video
Jon Stewart thinks Donald Trump is “f–king wrongheaded” in his moderation plans for families in the wake of his tariffs while not practicing any for himself.
At the top of this week’s “The Weekly Show With Jon Stewart” podcast, the host pointed out that Trump’s position that kids should be fine with two dolls and not 30 — an argument that went viral earlier this week — while practicing no moderation himself got to the crux of the issue with the president as a leader.
“I’m not sure there is a child that has received 30 dolls in the span of a year unless they are a Trump child, which gets us really to the crux of how f–king wrongheaded his entire approach may be,” Stewart said. “He sees no value in moderation for himself. He is not leading through the exemplar of a dignified and less consumerist life. Every time there is another press conference within the Oval Office, another gold cherub gets it’s wings.”
He continued: “F–k you for telling the American people, ‘Oh you know what? So your kids have to go without.’ Why don’t billionaires? Why doesn’t he say, ‘You know what? Maybe you don’t need $350 billion. Maybe you just need $10-12 billion.’ Why isn’t his scolding of excess in any way self-reflective and turned around to the people who have bought and sold this country?”
Stewart’s comments came after the president’s remarks on China, their import market in the U.S., and how his tariffs might empty some shelves around the country and make daily costs for American families higher.
“They made a trillion dollars with Biden selling us stuff,” the president said. “Much of it we don’t need. Somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are gonna be open.’ Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more.”
On Thursday, Vice President JD Vance further tried to explain Trump’s meaning on excess and moderation.
“What I’d ask people is not whether they want two dolls, or five dolls, or 20 dolls for their kids, I’d ask American moms and dads, ‘Would you like to be able to go into a pharmacy and know that the drugs your kids need are actually available to you as an American parent?’” Vance asked. “Would you like to — God forbid — if your country goes to a war, and your son or daughter are sent off to fight, would you like to know that the weapons that they have are good, American-made stuff, not made by a foreign adversary?”
Watch the full “Weekly Show” podcast in the video below.
The post Jon Stewart Slams Trump as ‘F–king Wrongheaded’ About How Tariffs Impact Families: ‘No Value in Moderation for Himself’ | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
‘Juliet & Romeo’ Review: Tryhard Attempt to Make Shakespeare ‘Cool’ Achieves the Opposite
Let’s get something straight: Making William Shakespeare’s plays “cool” is kind of the opposite of cool. The only thing older than trying to make Shakespeare’s plays “hip” is Shakespeare’s actual plays, which were plenty hip to begin with. Hollywood has been trying to hip up those bad boys for a hundred years. You’ll find John Gilbert and Norma Shearer making fun of studio execs trying to fix The Bard way back in “The Hollywood Revue of 1929,” as they squawked wacky lines like “Julie baby, I’m ga-ga about you” and “You’re just about the cookies for me, boyfriend.”
Generally speaking it’s the updated versions of “Romeo & Juliet” that age badly, but these versions can still have value. “West Side Story” remains the best side story. Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet” is the ninetiesest nineties movie that ever tied nines in the nineteen-nineties — so much so that it was already a relic the week it debuted — but like “West Side Story” it was made with razzle-dazzle and pizzazz.
These hip, young, modern reinterpretations captured the overwrought, adolescent pageantry of the most adolescent and overwrought pageant ever written. Sure, they’re time capsules, but the point of a time capsule is to crack it open once in a while and marvel at how times change.
Timothy Scott Bogart’s “Juliet & Romeo” is barely worth cracking open right now. It’s a pop music reimagine-actment of Shakespeare’s best-known play, which replaces all the original, beautiful, funny, thoughtful, endlessly quotable dialogue with lines like “Be cool!” followed by “This is cool!” The haunting “Queen Mab” speech is out. Well-intentioned, swelling but indistinct pop ballads whose lyrics and performances make little impression are, unfortunately, in.
Bogart’s film takes place in Verona. It’s not a great-looking Verona, nor is it a terrible-looking Verona. It’s merely a fair Verona where we lay our scene. Romeo, played by Jamie Ward, is a Montague. Juliet is a Capulet, and she’s played by Clara Rugaard (who also played Juliet in the excellent yet short-lived TV drama “Still Starcross’d”). You see, these two families hate each other, so Romeo and Juliet shouldn’t fall in love. But they do! They do fall in love! Then bad things happen. If that seems like an unremarkable summary of “Romeo & Juliet,” let this be the lesson: Dink with The Bard at your own peril.
The story unfolds not unlike how it does in the play. A few events happen out of order and a few characters get shuffled around, but we’re basically going through the old motions. At least that’s what we’re doing until the finale, which I won’t spoil. The new ending already spoils the movie plenty, all on its own. It turns out that according to “Juliet & Romeo” the only things holding back this tale for the last few hundred years was the dialogue, and the plot, and William Shakespeare’s whole point.
That’s not to say, going back a paragraph, that you can’t dink with Shakespeare and get away with it. But it’s extremely important to have a good reason. That reason can be as simple as taking the piss out of one of the most respected dramatic institutions in history (see: Karen Maine’s whimsical “Rosaline”) or to prove that the story still retains its power when there’s a penis monster involved (see: Lloyd Kaufman’s trashterpiece, “Tromeo & Juliet”). It’s upsetting to report that by the end of “Juliet & Romeo” no such motive has revealed itself, other than the vague promise of more idle revisionism in the future.
When “Juliet & Romeo” works… it’s pretty surprising. But anyway, it’s almost always because Clara Rugaard is acting rings around the rest of the cast. When you’re sharing the screen with Derek Jacobi in a Shakespeare adaptation and you make Derek Jacobi look lost by comparison, you’re doing something right. Jacobi plays the Friar, Jason Isaacs plays Lord Montague, Rupert Everett plays Lord Capulet, and Rebel Wilson plays his wife, which you’d think might mean Lady Capulet gets more than usual to do in this movie, or at least one hell of a solo. You’d be wrong to think those things, but anyway, she’s in this too.
I’m not angry at “Juliet & Romeo.” It seems like an earnest attempt to tell an old story in a slightly new way. The problem is it’s an ill-advised attempt. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but to quote Shakespeare, “Teach me how to forget to think.” I can’t help but think, no one can, and I can’t help but think rather poorly of this re-telling. Never was a film I’m more likely to forget, than this of Romeo and his Juliet.
The post ‘Juliet & Romeo’ Review: Tryhard Attempt to Make Shakespeare ‘Cool’ Achieves the Opposite appeared first on TheWrap.
Weinstein Trial: Accuser Kaja Sokola Testifies on ‘Horrifying’ Sexual Assaults When She Was 16 and 19 Years Old
Former model Kaja Sokola took the stand on Thursday to testify about being sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein when she was 16, calling the alleged incident the most “horrifying thing I ever experienced.”
Sokola is the second of three accusers to testify in the retrial and the only alleged victim that was not part of the original 2020 trial. She said that he assaulted her a second time just before her 20th birthday, forcibly performing oral sex on her at a Manhattan hotel in 2006, according to the Associated Press. The earlier assault, which allegedly took place at Weinstein’s apartment in 2002, is not part of the case as it is considered outside of the statute of limitations.
In describing the first alleged assault, Sokola said that Weinstein told the aspiring actress to take off her clothes as proof that she would be comfortable undressing in films.
Sokola said, despite her objections to him, she did as he told her, including engaging in mutual masturbation, because, “I was 16 years old, and I was alone with a man for the first time, and I didn’t know what else to do.”
She described his eyes as “black and scary” during the assault and that afterward, if she didn’t tell anyone, he would help her become a Hollywood star.
“I felt stupid and ashamed and like it’s my fault for putting myself in this position,” Sokola testified through tears.
“I never wanted anything else from Harvey Weinstein other than to honestly say if I have a chance to be an actress or no,” Sokola said. She testified that she had “absolutely not” ever had any romantic or sexual interest in him.
The 2006 assault allegedly happened after Weinstein arranged for her to be an extra for a day in the film “The Nanny Diaries.” He invited Sokola to his hotel room on the the pretense of showing her a script.
Instead, she stated, he pushed her onto a bed and stripped off her boots, her stockings and her underwear. “My soul was removed from me,” Sokola said.
She added that she begged him, “please don’t, please stop, I don’t want this,” but was unable to fight him off. Her older sister was in town for the occasion, but Sokola testified that she did not tell her about the assault at the time.
Sokola detailed the 2002 allegation in a lawsuit filed during his first trial but the case was dropped after he was convicted. After the conviction was overturned, she eventually received $3.5 million in compensation.
Another accuser, Miriam Haley, testified last week that Weinstein forced oral sex on her in 2006. A third and final accuser, Jessica Mann, has yet to testify about her alleged 2013 assault.
Weinstein’s lawyers will question Sokola on Friday. They have previously maintained that all of their client’s accusers willingly consented to sexual encounters with the powerful producer to further their careers.
Last April, the New York Court of Appeals threw out Weinstein’s conviction after ruling that the mega-producer did not receive a fair trial the first time. He had been sentenced to 23 years in prison. Weinstein has repeatedly denied every allegation of sexual assault and pleaded not guilty.
A judge ruled in April that Weinstein, who is in declining health, can stay in the hospital for the rest of the rape trial, rather than be forced to return to prison.
The post Weinstein Trial: Accuser Kaja Sokola Testifies on ‘Horrifying’ Sexual Assaults When She Was 16 and 19 Years Old appeared first on TheWrap.
Steve Pond's Blog
