(no subject)

Like all things socially interactive with other people - the internet can be toxic and rewarding for ones mental health and stability. I do wish folks had better impulse control though? Sometimes it's better not to offer one's opinion on a topic and just scroll on by? It's not as if we're sending letters to each other. No one will know if someone scrolls on by.
But I think people need to feel seen?

Maybe that should be my response? I see you, that's for responding. Or I see you, thanks for posting?

Happy Mother's Day for those who celebrate, and those who wish to acknowledge it.

The assumption that everyone does or can - is a painful one. Don't. In fact there was a recent controversy regarding a card company commercial which stated that they honored those who do not wish to celebrate mother's day.
And people were like - how dare you!

Folks? Not all mothers are kind, giving, loving or nurturing. Some should not have become mothers. Some had to give up their children for various reasons and it was the best decision for all parties concerned.

And not all women can become a mother for various biological, environmental, economic, etc reasons. They may be single and choose not to raise a child on their own, or undergo the expensive and difficult artificial insemination process or do not wish to adopt (which is a difficult, expensive process and often a painful one). Others may just not have the financial resources. Others may be infertile. Or cannot carry a child to term. Or underwent numerous miscarriages.

Also many people have recently lost their mothers, and are either childless themselves or have lost their children.

So for those who do not wish to celebrate - I see you. I hear your voices. I feel your pain and I understand why.

My church has a saying that I strongly believe in - "all are welcome here".

For those who do celebrate? I see you, I hear you, I feel your joy and your pain. And I understand why.

You are also welcome here.

I think too often in this world we live in - we want to treat people as a group, or in a category and not as individuals. We generalize and categorize because it is easier, we lump people into groups. I've been noticing this.

And we all should, I think, be treated as individuals, unique unto ourselves. What works for you may not work for me, and vice versa. All mothers are different. They should be seen as unique unto themselves.

I don't know about anyone else? But I want to be seen as myself. Not as my gender, race, nationality, size, shape, color, age, etc that society uses to lump us into legal and marketing groups/demographics and define us. But me. Myself. And what I liked about interacting on fan posting boards and even here under a pseudonyme, is often I am. People couldn't tell any of those descriptors until I told them. I couldn't tell either. I saw them, not all those other things society uses to define us.

I saw them. And they saw me. And that's how I got addicted to social media, I think. Being seen - without all the other descriptors in place.

Media Reviews...

1. Casa Grande, by Lauren Swickard and Ali Afshar. (James Marsters newest television appearance, although he's a special guest star and has a relatively minor role as an antagonist rival landholder who wants the protagonist family's land).

This is good, folks. I was surprised. I did not expect it to be. Swickard is known for the California Christmas films with her attractive hubby, Josh Swickward, on Netflix (kind of a Hallmark style series of rom-coms). And Afshar is unknown.

But the series was a surprise, and I ripped through it quickly. It's just five episodes, with ads, on Amazon Freezee. It's streaming for free with ads. So no need to subscribe or pay anything. Although to find it - I had to go my Amazon App. I'm not sure if you can access it another way or not?

The series is rather dark, and kind of twisty. It's a bilingual series about migrant workers on ranches in Fresno, California. Shown from both the perspective of the ranch holders and the migrant workers, and the characters are all fully developed. You understand why they do what they do. The only ones that aren't really - are the ICE operatives - but the series is only in its first season, that could change.

The set-up? An upper-middle class rancher and his wife are trying to get ahead. But a few rash and self-serving actions to get "ahead", decimate their family and impact the lives of those around them.

It wasn't predictable, the characters weren't stock, it went in a direction I did not expect at all. And it ends on a bitter-sweet cliff-hanger, that could also wrap up the series as a cautionary tale. Very noirish ending.

I was impressed by it. And Marsters role is subtle and works, one of his better performances. Possibly the best series he's done in a long while.

Some of the dialogue could be improved, but overall a solid effort. Credits are good. Production is good. Acting is good. Casting is strong. I particularly love the actress who plays Hunter.

The ending is kind of haunting.

Overall? B+/A-

[Oh in the battle between Casa Grande (Marster's latest) and Wolf Pack (SMG's latest)? Watch Casa Grande. I've yet to get through Wolf Pack and I binged Casa Grande fast - and wanted more.]

2. Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 3 - weirdly I found Casa Grande more interesting. I don't know why. I was kind of bored and a touch disappointed by this outing. Movie Buddy liked it better than I did. Granted - I'm not exactly the demographic that Gunn and Marvel were shooting for. (I'm a woman in my mid-late 50s, they were aiming for 12-35 year old men, who play video games and argue about which pop song is better.)

It works well for what it aims to be - which is a character-centric, fast action, comedy driven, space-opera adventure flick, with a moral message at the center. I wouldn't call it a superhero flick - more of a comic book/space opera.

I tend to like these - so for the most part I was entertained. But some of the jokes went on for a bit too long. Or were repeated one too many times. (Yes, Gunn, I get it - it sucks to work with idiots. Enough already.) Also there's a lot of annoying bickering disguised as banter, but is in reality just bickering. I was over-identifying with Nebula who every once and a while would smack a few of them upside the head. Everyone in this movie bickers with each other endlessly. And the jokes are...crude and kind of nerdy to the extreme. It's a nerd fest. (If you aren't nerdy, and prefer a more subtle, dry wit - this will get on your nerves.)

If you are not a fan of the Suicide Squad flicks or the Guardians flicks, and can't stand Pratt - this baby is not for you. Also if nerdy banter and bickering gets on your nerves - look elsewhere. If you tried the first two flicks and think this film will be better? It's not. This film does not improve on the other Guardians of the Galaxy films. If you think - oh, if I didn't see the other films, I can still see this? No, you really can't. And yes, you really need to be a Guardians of the Galaxy fan to enjoy it and/or watch it. (This film is for Guardians of the Galaxy fans - there's a lot of fan-service bits, along weird actor cameos...such as Nathan Fillion, Michael Rosenbloom (Martinex - the silver headed Ravager), and Sly Stallone.

If you haven't watched the previous films - you'll be lost. If you didn't watch Endgame or Infinity War? You'll be lost. So you have to watch Guardians Vol 1, Guardians Vol II, Infinity War and Endgame - to figure out what is going on. They don't really help you that much. There's a little expository help - but it is just few sentences of dialogue here and there. (Thor: Love and Thunder isn't necessary - Movie Buddy didn't see that one and really all that one did was show why Thor was no longer with the Guardians, and why Quill was less full of himself. Spending any length of time with Thor would do that to any white guy, with the possible exception of Captain America.)

So no - this film is not for everyone. And if any of the above applies to you? Skip, you can thank me later.

If however, you do love this sort of thing, watched the other films, are ambivalent about Pratt or like him well enough or love him (I'm personally somewhere between ambivalent and like well enough) - then yes, this is enjoyable and worth watching if only to see all the character's arcs wrapped up in a neat little package and tied with a bow.

Gunn does a very good job of juggling multiple character arcs, and wrapping up all of them, without losing track of the plot.

It helps that the plot is fairly simple and the villain, interesting, but also irredeemable and somewhat one-dimensional. So he doesn't have to spend too much time on him. This film is not quite as convoluted or busy as Thor: Love and Thunder. Gunn managed, somehow, to convince Marvel to let him do a movie that did not connect to the rest of the Marvel verse (that much) and could stand outside of it (for the most part). Marvel likes to re-use villains and characters - so do not be surprised if these show up in other films. But it's unlikely you'll need to see this one to follow those. Because he was able to disconnect it from the rest of the verse (at least for the most part), it's not quite as convoluted. And the plot could be kept relatively simple.

The plot? ( spoilers )

Overall? a Solid B+ effort, for the character arcs, and plot, if nothing else. Also definitely not for everybody.

3. The Company We Keep - this is the Confidence/Spy Caper on ABC and Hulu. Well cast, well produced, but most important? Well written. Not predictable at all - and not like any of the others that I've seen to date.

The set-up a confidence man on the rebound hooks up with a CIA agent on the rebound at a nifty hotel. One catch? They don't know what each other do for a living, and both are "professional" liars. Add that this is an ensemble cast and not a rom-com, and you have a fascinating show.
( vague spoilers )

Overall? Enjoyable, gets the job down and a solid A for what it wants to accomplish. Should still be available on Hulu and On Demand on ABC. Aired on ABC.

4. Queen Charlotte - Shondra Rhimes Bridgerton Mini-series about Queen Charlotte and King George III's romance. Airs on Netflix.

Better than expected. It's not a rom-com or soap. It's not really a historical either, so much as a commentary on it? But it works. And it does a good job of exploring both racist themes and mental illness in Britain during a certain time period - or rather using Britain as a stand-in for our modern times.
( spoilers )

So far it's rather enjoyable, more so than the first Bridgerton - it is witty, and charming, and deep. Also bittersweet. Freed from the confines of the traditional historical romance, it has a nice sardonic feminist edge that keeps me coming back for more.

Solid A for now.