It finally happened.

Jimmy Kimmel mentioned Graham Platner, the Democrat with more scandals than the Nixon and Clinton administrations, combined.

Late-night activists have been loath to mention the “oyster farmer” turned Senatorial candidate for obvious reasons. Every ounce of Platner’s persona is riddled with career-ending accusations.

And, of course, the fact that he sported a Nazi tattoo on his chest for 18 years before being shamed to ink over it for political purposes.

Seems newsy, no? Not to Kimmel and co.

Yet the host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” brought Platner up Wednesday night. Now, “The Daily Show” dipped a microscopic toe in his scandalous waters before extensively shredding a Colorado Republican.

Victor Marx deserved the comic thrashing, but so does Platner.

What Kimmel said about Platner defies belief. The essential Newsbusters share the surreal monologue on the matter.

“There were primary elections in four states yesterday. In Maine, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for Graham Platner for Senate despite a number of embarrassing scandals, including revelations of a Nazi-esque tattoo on his body, sexting with women while he’s married, and allegations of abuse…”

“If Democrats cannot get him into the Senate, word is the Republicans are planning to nominate him for president in 2028.”

Huh?

No, really. Huh?

First of all, it’s not Nazi-esque. It’s a full-scale Nazi tattoo that lingered on his body for nearly two decades. Seems like great fodder for a truth-teller like Kimmel, no?

Secondly, the GOP wants nothing to do with a far-Left character like Platner, and bringing Republicans into the story smacks of desperation.

At best.

That’s Kimmel in 2026, the most popular late-night comedian who’s willing to burn every ounce of his credibility in his waning days.

After all, both he and David Letterman know the late-night format is on its last legs. He’s just hastening its departure.

Source

For generations, America told stories about itself.

Not perfect stories, but stories filled with triumph and failure, courage and contradiction, sin and redemption. Stories that reminded ordinary Americans who they were, where they came from, what had been sacrificed before they arrived, and what kind of people they were supposed to become.

Those stories once came from everywhere.

From the old publishing houses of Manhattan’s literary world. From Tin Pan Alley. From Hollywood at its best. From classrooms, front porches, churches, novels, poetry, film scores, war movies, westerns, biographies, patriotic songs, and family conversations around dinner tables.

The point wasn’t blind nationalism.

The point was inheritance.

A civilization passes along its values through story long before it passes them through politics.

Which is why I’ve found myself wondering whether many of our major cultural institutions still love America in any recognizable sense at all.

Do today’s artistic gatekeepers still see this nation, despite all its flaws, as something worthy of gratitude, preservation, affection or admiration? Do our films, novels, television shows, popular music and elite literary circles still communicate reverence for liberty, faith, sacrifice, family, courage, service, and the astonishing historical achievement that is the American experiment?

Or have patriotism, constitutional reverence, and traditional faith increasingly become objects of suspicion, embarrassment, satire or deconstruction?

These questions are not imagined.

For years, surveys have consistently shown a significant ideological divide between many Americans and the entertainment industry itself. Researchers at USC’s Lear Center have documented the influence entertainment media has on public attitudes and social perceptions, while broader polling continues to show large portions of the country believing major entertainment institutions lean culturally and politically in one direction.

That doesn’t mean artists should produce shallow propaganda or government-approved patriotism. Great art requires honesty. America’s story includes profound failures and egregious sins alongside extraordinary achievements.

Mature patriotism should be able to acknowledge both. But somewhere along the way, much of modern culture stopped distinguishing between honest critique and reflexive contempt.

And that matters.

Because culture does not merely reflect society. It helps shape it.

Why Hollywood Matters in the Big Picture

Hollywood, publishing, music, television, literature, and art do not simply follow cultural norms; they actively participate in creating them. They influence what societies celebrate, mock, admire, desire, reject, normalize, and aspire toward. They shape moral imagination. They help determine whether younger generations feel connected to their civilization or alienated from it.

For decades, some of America’s finest artistic works understood this instinctively.

The greatest American films, novels, songs and stories often carried a quiet confidence in the country itself, not because America was flawless, but because it was striving toward something larger than power, tribalism, or cynicism. There was an understanding that freedom was rare. That self-government required virtue. That faith, sacrifice, courage, and civic responsibility mattered.

Even when older films or novels criticized America, they often did so from within a deeper framework of belief in the nation’s underlying promise and goodness.

Today, that confidence feels weaker.

Irony has replaced reverence. Cynicism often passes for sophistication. Patriotism is frequently portrayed as simplistic while anti-American sentiment is treated as intellectually fashionable or morally elevated. Traditional faith is often depicted either sentimentally or suspiciously, rarely with the seriousness, intelligence, or artistic richness it deserves.

And to be fair, Christians and patriots share some responsibility here, too.

The Faith-Based Genre Suffers from Growing Pains

Too often, faith-based or patriotic entertainment has settled for safe messaging while neglecting artistic excellence. Sometimes the storytelling lacks confidence, subtlety, complexity, beauty or emotional depth. Audiences can sense when art exists merely to deliver a lesson instead of telling a compelling human story.

The truth is that great art requires conviction and craftsmanship.

The old Hollywood epics, great American novels, sweeping historical films, timeless patriotic songs and morally serious dramas worked because they believed in what they were saying without sacrificing excellence. They understood that stories change people emotionally before they ever persuade them intellectually.

Which raises another question: Have we simply forgotten how to tell these stories well?

Have we allowed history itself to become lifeless? Reduced to marble statues, disconnected dates, shallow slogans, and classroom memorization stripped of human emotion? Many tell me learning history is like eating dry oatmeal. I assure them that real history is flavorful and anything but boring!

It is filled with desperate people making impossible choices under enormous pressure. It is filled with courage, betrayal, sacrifice, faith, weakness, perseverance and redemption. The American story includes horrors and heroism alike.

• Slavery and abolition
• Division and reconciliation
• Failure and reform
• World wars fought against monstrous evil
• Humanitarian aid delivered across oceans
• Scientific breakthroughs. Economic freedom that lifted millions
• Religious liberty unlike most of human history had ever known

People did not flood to America for generations because it was perfect. They came because even imperfect freedom was still extraordinary compared to much of the world.

As America’s 250th birthday approaches, I found myself wrestling with many of these questions personally.

And somewhere in that process, I realized I may have allowed some of the wonder of America’s founding to drift too far into abstraction myself.

So I began researching again.

Then eventually, I sat down and wrote a novel.

Author David Jones III

“The Unlikely Life of Oliver Atkinson” tells the story of a runaway indentured orphan who arrives in colonial America aboard The Beaver – one of the actual ships raided during the Boston Tea Party. Eventually taken in by Paul Revere and immersed in the culture of the Sons of Liberty, Oliver experiences both a spiritual awakening and an American awakening against the backdrop of the Revolution itself.

But the deeper reason I wrote it had little to do with nostalgia.

I wrote it because I wanted history to feel alive again.

I wanted readers to experience the founding not as frozen mythology or political propaganda, but through the eyes of someone vulnerable, uncertain, frightened, hopeful, and searching for meaning. In many ways, Oliver himself mirrors the colonies: young, unformed, lacking representation, struggling to understand freedom, identity, sacrifice and purpose.

That is where storytelling still matters.

True history honestly told keeps the patriotic fires burning far better than slogans ever will.

And faith matters too.

Regardless of modern discomfort around the subject, it is impossible to seriously study early America without recognizing the enormous role biblical thought played in shaping the moral framework of the nation. Locke, Montesquieu, and Paine mattered enormously. But so did Scripture. So did sermons. So did the belief that rights came not from governments, but from God Himself.

That influence shaped the founders far more deeply than many modern retellings are comfortable admitting.

Neither China-like Messaging Nor Self-Hatred on Parade

America does not need sanitized propaganda as it approaches 250 years. But neither does it need endless cultural self-loathing masquerading as sophistication.

What we need are truthful stories. Rich stories. Human stories. Stories capable of holding complexity without abandoning gratitude. Stories that remind us we inherited something rare, fragile, flawed and still profoundly worth preserving.

Perhaps if our art once again reflects the best of the American spirit – courage, humility, sacrifice, faith, perseverance, liberty, redemption – it might not divide us further, but help call us back toward one another.

Toward memory.

Toward gratitude.

Toward what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

And perhaps, with Providence still guiding imperfect people as it always has, America’s next great era of literature, music, film, and storytelling is still ahead of us.

David Jones III is a historical fiction writer living in Myrtle Beach, SC. His book is available on Amazon. www.davidjones3.com.

Source

Jerry Seinfeld isn’t a political comedian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Seinfeld sticks to PG-rated material tied to everyday life. No headlines, please!

And it’s worked out well for him over the decades, given that he’s responsible for one of TV’s most beloved sitcoms and an enduring stand-up career.

Lately, though, he’s been dipping a toe into the culture war waters.

It started all the way back in 2015. His throwaway comment to ESPN’s Colin Cowherd about avoiding college campuses caused a commotion. 

“I don’t play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’ ”

He had a point, and that was before universities went fully woke. They even made a movie about it.

That was then.

In recent years, Seinfeld has gotten more vocal on issues he once would publicly ignore.

Take masculinity. Seinfeld weighed in on the subject, ignoring his industry’s preferred descriptors like “toxic” in the process.

Here, he shared with Bari Weiss what he misses in the culture at large. Note: It isn’t Tim Walz-like jazz hands, that’s for sure.

“I never really grew up. You don’t want to as a comedian. It’s a childish pursuit, but I miss a dominant masculinity. Yeah, I get the toxic [inaudible] but still I like a real man. That’s why I love [‘Unfrosted’ co-star] Hugh Grant. He felt like one of those guys I wanted to be. He knows how to dress. He knows how to talk. He’s charming. He has stories. He’s comfortable at dinner parties. Knows how to get a drink, that stuff.”

Seinfeld also decried the term “punching down” when it comes to comedic targets. Why? It “doesn’t exist,” he explained, despite the Left’s embrace of the term.

He even blamed the Left for the decline in modern comedy, although he later backpedaled on his statement.

Earlier this week, Seinfeld dropped by as a guest on “The Adam Carolla Show.” That podcast, like its host, has drifted to the Right in recent years due to the Left’s unhinged positions. 

So Seinfeld’s appearance on the show proved unexpected and slightly “problematic” in select circles. He went anyway.

And, as it turns out, he admires Carolla’s comic stylings, particularly his signature Rich Man/Poor Man routine.

Seinfeld drew fresh headlines this week when he snarked back at pro-Palestinian protesters. They confronted Seinfeld as he was leaving the NBA Finals Wednesday night at Madison Square Garden, demanding he say, “Free Palestine” after leaving the arena.

Palestine, he said, “doesn’t exist.”

New Yorker: “What’s up, Seinfeld? Can we get a ‘Free Palestine?’”

Seinfeld: “It doesn’t exist.” pic.twitter.com/Fnc9kvQbtw

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 11, 2026

That’s not what a celebrity is supposed to say. Didn’t Seinfeld see Javier Bardem’s Oscar protests? The comedian said it all the same.

And, right on cue, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) spat out a statement condemning the comic as “racist.”

“When a public figure like Jerry Seinfeld denies Palestinian existence, that racist rhetoric contributes to a climate in which Palestinian suffering is ignored and Palestinian rights are treated as disposable. This is the same logic that has long been used to erase Indigenous peoples, justify occupation and normalize apartheid.”

CAIR called on Seinfeld to retract the reported statement, apologize to Palestinians and use his platform to reject anti-Palestinian racism.

Seinfeld will likely do none of the above. At 72, he has all the money he’ll ever need, and then some. He’s proven that he’s willing to take common sense positions that fall outside of the approved Hollywood playbook sans punishment.

And he’s seen enough hate against his fellow Jewish people to realize apologizing is the wrong way to appease the pro-Palestinian movement.

They’ll only demand more.

Seinfeld still doesn’t stake out political positions. He may never do such a thing. He’s still willing to defend his faith and core values in ways that would scare lesser stars silly.

Source

Not every journalist gets a Hollywood closeup.

The New York Times’ Jodi Kantor received just that via the 2022 film “She Said.” And Kantor, as played by Zoe Kazan, deserved it.

Kantor and her colleague, Megan Twohey (Carey Mulligan), helped bring down serial abuser Harvey Weinstein with their dogged investigation. They won a Pulitzer Prize for their work.

Their reportage helped kick off the MeToo movement, a plea to hold male predators accountable for their actions.

The film may have flopped in theaters, but it honored their shoe-leather reporting and the victims who bravely stood up to Weinstein.

That matters.

Now, the real Kantor is doing her best to defend a politician who appears guilty of MeToo-style actions. The evidence is damning, but she tried to downplay it on live television.

The person in question? Maine Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner.

Kantor told a CNN panel earlier this week that the allegations against Platner “are not classic MeToo accusations.” And, of course, she had to name drop President Donald Trump along the way.

“They’re not about a boss and a young female employee being subjected to sexual advances. They were mostly made in the context of consensual relationships … There are these, like, very sensational texts about sex. There are allegations from former girlfriends that are not — the way my colleagues reported them were not like classic abuse allegations.”

Really?

One victim, Lyndsey Fifield, said Platner repeatedly held her so tightly it left marks on her body. He also allegedly locked her in a room overnight against her will.

If those aren’t “classic abuse allegations” … what are?

Editor’s Note: Enjoying Hollywood in Toto? I hope you’ll consider leaving a coin (or two) in our Tip Jar.

Even worse?

Kantor’s own New York Times allegedly downplayed some of the more disturbing details shared by Fifield.

[Fifield] accused the paper of spending almost as much time detailing her conservative ties as they did on her descriptions of Platner’s alarming behavior. She told The Free Press that the Timesdidn’t include her most serious allegations of physical mistreatment until nearly halfway through the story.

Kantor should be ashamed of herself, but as Jimmy Failla often says, “we’re living in the death of shame.” And, in her defense, she has plenty of company.

Platner’s fellow Democrats have been tiptoeing around his many scandals, from his 18-year-old Nazi tattoo to posting a profile on a dating site known for troubling encounters.

John Fetterman calls out Democrats’ support of Graham Platner:

“The only good thing you can say…is he happens to have a D after the end of his name…what are you going to brag about him? Is it his Nazi ink…that he used to mock American heroes…rough up former ex-girlfriends?” pic.twitter.com/gRom8Lo1nx

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 12, 2026

Kantor’s journalism got Hollywood’s attention, and rightly so. Yet that’s another progressive community that refuses to hold Platner accountable or question his fitness for office.

Jimmy Kimmel only recently mentioned Platner, but he did so to mock the GOP. Jon Stewart interviewed the would-be Senatorial candidate, but threw nothing but softballs his way.

And, worst of all, Hollywood’s MeToo army has unofficially stood down rather than protest his candidacy.

What MeToo hypocrisy do you think is the worst of the worst?

Source

We should never forget what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yes, many people died, and those early days found us confused, frightened and eager for answers. What followed was a travesty of epic proportions, from censored news to forced vaccination schedules.

Many Americans watched as their businesses collapsed under the extreme lockdown protocols. And, as we later learned, they weren’t nearly as helpful as we were told.

It might have been just the opposite, in fact.

Americans needed allies against Big Government at the time, and that’s where late-night comedians could have rallied on our behalf. The Speaking Truth to Power Crowd to the rescue!

Instead, they did the opposite.

RELATED:

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: A RARE MOMENT OF COMEDY

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: THE VAX SCENE CRINGE FEST

GOODBYE, STEPHEN COLBERT: THE C*** HOLSTER CRACK

“The Late Show’s” Stephen Colbert mocked Americans who were pummeled by lockdown mania. Some saw their earnings dry up. Others may have watched their small businesses collapse under the government’s thumb.

Now, it’s possible that those draconian measures were necessary to keep people healthy. Perhaps.

Even still, to taunt those who protested their way of life coming under attack was a very low blow. And Colbert was only too happy to oblige.

“Now we’ve all been isolating for over a month now, and some of us are starting to go a little kooky in the old squirrel cage, like a handful of idiots who were out this weekend protesting against social distancing. For instance, this man in Washington State, carrying the sign ‘Give me liberty, or give me Covid-19.’ Buddy, you’re in a large crowd, you’re not wearing a mask, you’re not six feet away from people — you might not need to choose.”

We later learned that the six-feet rule was made up. Zero science behind it. We’re still waiting for Colbert’s apology.

But he wasn’t finished.

“Many of the protesters lamented the loss of their everyday activities, like this woman in Wisconsin with the sign, ‘I want a haircut.’ Uh, looks like your sign has a typo. We fixed it for you. It should read, ‘I want to endanger the lives of your grandparents in exchange for frosted tips.’”

Did Colbert shame Rep. Nancy Pelosi for getting her hair done mid-pandemic, against all the rules she and her government tried to make us all follow? What about Gov. Gavin Newsom, dining at The French Laundry, sans masks, while his neighbors stayed at home?

The answer would be no.

And, of course, Colbert tied the protests back to you-know-who.

“To be clear, Trump is encouraging his followers to protest his own recommendations. That’s how much he needs to hear a chanting mob. He’s like angry Tinkerbell. [as Trump] ‘Quick, kids, scream “lock her up” or I’ll die.’”

Meanwhile, Colbert broadcast “The Late Show” from his home and kept collecting millions from CBS. 

Slamming the soon-to-be-ex host as a “Let Them Eat Cake” celebrity seems almost too kind, no?

There’s more to this ongoing series, but what were your least favorite Colbert moments from “The Late Show?”

Source

Louis Malle’s “My Dinner with Andre” (1981) begins with the line, “The life of a playwright is tough.”

It’s uttered by Wallace Shawn, playing himself, as his narration follows him as he scrambles down a New York street. Shawn is off to meet his friend Andre Gregory, the actor/director who had been gone for some time and is reuniting with Shawn.

The two meet for dinner in a posh restaurant, the chatter begins and we’re off into a movie unlike any other.

Malle’s film steps inside the creative process. Describing the film, which is mostly an extended conversation between two people and has mostly one location, sounds drier than toast. I avoided the film when I was young, discovered it in college and now recognize how special and one-of-a-kind it is.

Shawn, who is now known worldwide for his performances in “The Princess Bride” (1987) and as Rex in the “Toy Story” franchise (1995-present day), was 36 when he made this.

The opening narration fills us in on where these artists stood at this point in their careers (though both have subsequently noted that, despite the reality of who they are/were, the film is based on reality but not a documentary).

From the very first words uttered, their exchanges are not dull.

Shawn’s narration makes it feel less like a cinematic stunt and more like a filmed play. Once the clever narration ceases, we get into their extensive conversation, which takes some wild turns.

It helps that Gregory has a hypnotic voice and that he and Shawn are such a fascinating contrast. Topics like Chappaquiddick, Bulgakov’s “The Master and the Margarita,” fawns, Gregory’s metaphysical experience and theater’s ability to make a difference all come in and out of focus.

This isn’t claustrophobic, as reflective surfaces and reaction shots make us feel like we’re there, up close and fully engaged. Malle’s film is, of course, not for everyone but not a bore fest, either.

By the time Andre and Wallace (yes, the first Pixar short, “The Adventures of Andre and Wally B” in 1984 is named after them) get to dessert, we arrive at the core element of the discussion. A verbal crossroad is met with Shawn’s skepticism in Gregory’s recollections and Gregory’s embrace of wonder, as Shawn’s response hits upon logical vs spiritual, faith vs the scientific.

Rather than either patron resorting to histrionics or feeling a definitive conclusion on the matter must be met, they both allow the possibilities to dance in our subconscious.

As a film, “My Dinner with Andre” is alive, as the performances, cinematography and editing are at a master-class level.

For diehard fans of “The Princess Bride”: At one point, Shawn does utter the word “inconceivable.” Another fun tidbit is that the production services were provided by none other than Troma, Inc.- Thank you, Uncle Lloydie!
When the two friends bring up AI, the talk it inspires sounds relevant to right now, amazing for a film that is now 45-years old.

A decade ago, I was teaching a Films of the 1980s course at University of Colorado Springs (UCCS) and showed Malle’s film. When it ended, the response from the students was divided, with the ones who loved it admitted to appreciating it more than ever, wanting to sit through it again.

The naysayers couldn’t believe they just sat through a movie about people talking. The class shuffled out and one last student, named John, waited to talk to me. I knew that John was in a band and had a hip sense of humor, but I had no idea what he thought of the film and was not expecting what happened next.

John told me that he thought “My Dinner with Andre” was “the best movie I’ve ever seen.” I laughed, because I assumed he was kidding. He assured me the film was about things he had been thinking about, spoke to where he wanted to go in his life and was deeply connected with him.

On the last day of the class, he reminded his classmates and me that the film was still the best he had ever experienced.

Not every word of Andre and Wallace’s conversation will grab you, but the juiciest parts will stay with you. “My Dinner with Andre” is a film in love with language, people and the experience of being human.

Source

Harvey Weinstein’s downfall had a profound silver lining.

Two, actually.

One, the mega producer could no longer mistreat starlets in his orbit. Finally.

Two, his case fueled 2017’s MeToo movement. We knew folks like Weinstein weren’t restricted to Tinsel Town. Boorish men were everywhere, and women bravely took a stand against their collective cruelty.

You didn’t have to be progressive to cheer MeToo on, just a decent human being.

RELATED:

HOLLYWOOD KNEW ABOUT WEINSTEIN, BIDEN AND LOUIS CK

WOKE IS A JOKE IN WEINSTEIN’S HOLLYWOOD

WEINSTEIN’S FALL IS STAIN ON ENTERTAINMENT JOURNALISM

Except the Hollywood portion of the movement helped bring it down. Yes, Hollywood feminists marched until their feet hurt over Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House. And they raged against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, accused of a botched sexual assault with the flimsiest of evidence.

Yet when Democrats appeared to behave badly, these same stars stood down. Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo and Justin Fairfax were innocent, at least according to the celebrity silence that ensued.

(Fairfax took his own life last month after murdering his wife.)

The Cuomo hypocrisy helped bring the Time’s Up legal group to its knees. The organization, part of the MeToo revolution, actually helped the New York Governor dodge accusations that he was inappropriate with multiple women.

And, through it all, the same Hollywood feminists couldn’t stop Time’s Up from beclowning itself or support Tara Reade, the woman who accused Biden of sexual assault.

“Believe All Women” became, “Well, we shouldn’t necessarily believe women who accused Democrats of a crime…”

Biden accuser Tara Reade: ‘If something happens to me, all roads lead to Joe Biden’ https://t.co/R6CGDjVovL

— Just the News (@JustTheNews) May 8, 2023

Now, Cate Blanchett is mourning MeToo’s demise.

The actress said the movement “got killed very quickly” during a Cannes presser, neglecting to call out her peers’ role in that demise.

“There are a lot of people with platforms who are able to speak up with relative safety and say this has happened to me, and the so-called average woman on the street is saying #MeToo. Why does that get shut down?” Blanchett asked. “What [the movement] revealed is a systemic layer of abuse, not only in this industry but in all industries, and if you don’t identify a problem, you can’t solve the problem.”

It’s a complicated issue, and the male/female power imbalance means, regrettably, that the issue will never fade to black.

It’d be nice if Blanchett, or the Legacy Media outlets covering her comments, pointed out the role Hollywood played in its collapse.

Why do you think MeToo flamed out as quickly as it did?

Source

David Lowery’s “Mother Mary” is exactly the kind film I love to see in the theater, as it’s made for the big screen and an experience that is guaranteed to polarize just about everyone.

I get it, as Lowery’s latest is bizarre, challenging and, on a scene-to-scene basis, risks falling on its face.

All I knew of the film going in is that it’s “the Anne Hathaway movie where she embodies Lady Gaga.” Not an unreasonable synopsis, but there’s much, much more.

Hathaway stars as Mother Mary, a pop singer super star whose awesome stage performances suggest the elaborate production values of Lady Gaga, Madonna, that time Britney Spears danced with a snake and anything from Cirque De Solei. Mary’s music and persona are on fire with the public, while her private life is a different matter.

Mary takes a trip to a secluded countryside and reconnects with Sam, an acclaimed fashion designer (Michaela Coel) who was never given enough credit for the iconic designs she provided Mary on her tour. Sam expresses animosity and distance towards Mary, until the two come to a strange common ground: lately, they’re both haunted by the same ghost, which appears as a massive floating red silk cloth with a glowing red ball.

Long scenes of dialogue exchanges between Hathaway and Coel are broken up by Hathaway’s stage performances, which are knockout set pieces. From the widescreen cinematography, which captures the musical numbers in the most you-are-there, immersive manner possible, to the songs themselves, which are good and performed well by Hathaway, these scenes are the biggest mainstream draw the film has.

The rest of the film is take-it-or-leave-it weird and even plays that way before the supernatural elements surface. Lowery seems to be making a comment on how Mary’s stage and personal life are all, in one way or another, a performance, which explains why even the quiet scenes with only two characters are presented in a theatrical manner.

Some scene transitions are even conveyed with large doors opening into another setting, as though this were all a filmed theater piece.

To answer an obvious question – yes, “Mother Mary” could work well as a play and presumably would be an event on Broadway. As a film, even for those who love theater, heady art movies, pop music and Hathaway, will be a challenge to absorb, especially on the first viewing.

Some moments are silly and are just asking for mockery, such as when a character declares they’re about to sing “the greatest song ever written,” which we never hear (maybe Lowery knew this was too big a feat to pull off, unless Hathaway started singing “Baby Got Back.” I’m kidding).

Lowery previously wrote and directed the 2021 masterpiece, “The Green Knight,” the best blend of magical realism and grandiose storytelling from him yet. The 2016 remake of “Pete’s Dragon” is also from Lowery and easily one of the best, most refreshingly different of the live action Disney remakes, which retells the tale without simply xeroxing the original scene-for-scene (like most of the other live action Mouse House remakes).

The closest film Lowery has made to “Mother Mary” is his “A Ghost Story” (2017), which matches this film for its audacity, character-driven narratives and staging that straddles the possibilities of theater and cinema.
If Lowery keeps making movies like this, he’ll likely end up recognized as an artist making distinctive and personal works.

For now, he’s a visionary with a cult following that should be larger.

Hathaway is electric in this, on stage and in her dramatic scenes, but she’s matched by a towering performance by Coel.

The songs were written by Charli XCX, Jack Antonoff and FKA Twigs, and they’re all good enough to start popping up on an FM station. If Hathaway decides to perform on tour as Mother Mary, it wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Many will understandably hate it, a few (including me) will defend it and the rest will likely call it a future camp classic…and they’d be right.

If anything, I’m excited that something this wild is playing in mainstream theaters, though most of Hathaway’s fanbase is clearly more willing to turn up for the middle-of-the-road “The Devil Wears Prada 2.”

I applaud A24 for continuing to distribute risk-taking art movies, especially when they’re as untamed as this one.

Three Stars (out of four)

Source

The man who gave us “Religulous” has come to the Jewish people’s aid.

Bill Maher has watched in horror as antisemitism spiked worldwide following the Oct. 7 terror attacks that killed 1,200 Israelis and captured hundreds more.

It’s even worse than that. Some Democrats and Republicans have either failed to acknowledge the constant harassment, and worse, of Jewish people or promoted it.

Ask Gov. Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s popular Jewish Governor. He was incredulously passed over for the VP slot in 2024 by the Democrats, despite leading a must-win swing state.

Hmmm.

Late Night TV has been mostly silent on the issue.

So while Stephen Colbert is being feted for his “truth-telling” decade at CBS’s “The Late Show,” Maher actually did something about this rise in bigotry.

His May 15 “Real Time with Bill Maher” monologue skewered anti-Israel rage. No punches pulled.

 

“It’s everyone’s right in a free country to be Antisemitic, but enough with hiding behind Israel, or Zionism or Netanyahu,” Maher said. “[If you think] when it comes to human rights, Israel is the monster country of all time, you either don’t read or you don’t care about your own hypocrisy. Because there are so many worse places.”

“That’s how you know it’s antisemitism. It’s the inconsistency,” he added.

RELATED: 

MAHER: YOUNG DEMS HEART HAMAS

MAHER: KIMMEL ENDED OUR FRIENDSHIP OVER POLITICS

MAHER IS PERFECT CHOICE FOR MARK TWAIN PRIZE

Maher brought up The New York Times getting cozy with Hasan Piker, a rabid progressive who has compared Zionists to neo-Nazis.

Yes, Maher both-sided the matter, but there is fault on both sides.

It’s hard to even quantify where Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens currently fall on the Left/Right divide, but the anti-Israel fury isn’t confined to the new Left.

Maher brought some receipts there, too.

“The meathead manosphere and Code Pink people are on the same page,” he said. “They both went to high school in America and they don’t know anything.”

He didn’t leave out the role higher education has played in this toxic cultural turn.

“Professors now say things that would make Kanye wince,” Maher cracked before reading some stunning statements from the professorial class. And they’re still employed.

Just another day at college.

“Jew hatred isn’t just acceptable now. It’s cool. Celebrities love it and make it trendy,” he said seconds after showing images of Javier Bardem and Susan Sarandon in their best pro-Palestinian poses.

There weren’t many laughs from Maher’s studio audience. Some of this material just isn’t funny. Or, perhaps, the audience wasn’t comfortable with what their host shared.

Either way, it’s the moral clarity he shared during the segment that matters. And yes, Maher made it political.

Editor’s Note: It’s a brutal time to be an independent journalist, but it’s never been more necessary given the sorry state of the corporate press. If you’re enjoying Hollywood in Toto, I hope you’ll consider leaving a coin (or two) in our Tip Jar.

“There is a frothing anxiousness for the literal extermination of this one group. And Democrats, where are you? If any other minority group was being talked about this way, you’d break out the Kente cloth and have 10 benefit concerts,” he said. “But if you see that so many of your brainwashed by TikTok constituents have an unfavorable view of Israel you indulge them, when you should be correcting them.”

He then showed pictures of the Democrats’ possible 2028 presidential candidates who have all boasted that they don’t take money from AIPAC, the Israeli lobby.

“You take money from crypto and factory farmers and Big Tech, from Diddy and Weinstein and Epstein but AIPAC is too far?” he asked.

At a time when a late-night host’s fiery monologue gets repeated ad nauseam by Legacy Media outlets, Maher’s rant got little media traction. Fox News did its due diligence.

And, not surprisingly, Megyn Kelly came out to attack … Maher, not the problem he correctly cited. The new, improved Kelly sounds a bit like Carlson and Owens of late.

The real truth tellers in late-night TV aren’t celebrated or supported. They’re ignored. Meanwhile, Legacy Media is genuflecting over every last second of Colbert’s “The Late Show,” as if we’re losing something profound with its retirement.

Viewers can get the same information from Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, John Oliver, Jon Stewart and, to a lesser extent, Jimmy Fallon.

That isn’t true for Maher.

The HBO host remains a flawed but fascinating original, and his recent “Real Time” rant may be his finest hour.

Not bad for an atheist.

Should conservatives embrace Maher for sharing this kind of a segment? Or, does the fact that he relentlessly votes for Democrats hurt his own case?

Source

Olivier Assayas’ “The Wizard of the Kremlin” is a disappointment on its own but even more so when you compare it to the filmmaker’s earlier works.

Despite the talent involved and the lure of the subject matter, this won’t be a project anyone involved cites as a career highlight.

Assayas’ film portrays how Vadim Baranov (Paul Dano) went from a young Russian artist to a political mover and shaker during the late 20th century. Baranov has his brushes with history making, particularly when he meets the ambitious Vladimir Putin (Jude Law).

A theater visionary who changed politics, the story of Baranov seems like it can’t miss at the start, but the result is a film with too many scenes of actors on lush couches having conversations about moments in Russian history that we should be seeing.

The opening scenes are stiff and mannered, immediately making me wonder if Assayas was the right filmmaker for this story. Things get wild once the flashback structure kicks in, as we see Baranov emerge in both 1980s excess and USSR espionage.

Based on the 2022 book by Giuliano da Empoli, it shapes an imagined encounter between Baranov and Jeffrey Wright’s fictitious author, whose opening narration I prefer to Dano’s. Baranov is based on the real Vladislav Surkov, whose life should at least merit a compelling non-fiction film.

Baranov proclaims early, “My pain only augmented her boredom.” I know how she felt, as Dano spits out every line in the same whispery British accent. If there’s a way to make this bureaucrat interesting, Dano hasn’t found it.

There’s a mannered, one-note quality to his work here, a major letdown, considering how great he is elsewhere.

To address the obvious – I don’t agree with Quentin Tarantino’s public and unfortunately dismissive assessment of Dano’s acting abilities (nor what he declared regarding Owen Wilson). Dano’s performances in “The Batman” (2022), “Prisoners” (2013) and especially “Love & Mercy” (2015) are Oscar-worthy.

Also, in addition to his canny direction and quotable, unpredictable screenplays, Tarantino has a steady knack for taking underrated actors and casting them in offbeat parts, which showcase their willingness to take on offbeat material.

Dano is wrong for Baranov, but he’s a better actor than Tarantino has stated and can shine in the right role, and the director should know that.

The Batman star Paul Dano opens up about the harsh criticism he received from filmmaker Quentin Tarantino and the stars who came to his defense. https://t.co/Yfc2k7nOP5

— CBR (@CBR) February 25, 2026

“The Wizard of the Kremlin” often cuts to real-life clips and news footage so compelling that this clearly should have been made as a documentary.

The whole thing is too on-again, off-again for 136 minutes and the accents are all over the place. It would have been better with a cast of Russians speaking in subtitles to the what-is-that dialects that are used inconsistently or not at all.

Each narrative section comes with chapter headings, which don’t help. The Law-less sections are dull, which is a major problem, as his performance is, at best, an extended cameo role and he’s barely in the movie.

There are moments to savor, such as the sight of Yeltsin literally being propped up to give a speech. Likewise, I loved hearing Baranov having to explain to Putin who Daft Punk is.

Law has an uncanny resemblance to Putin, but this is undermined by his lack of a Russian accent. With his normal voice and the Putin cut, Law looks a lot more like Martin Freeman. Law is a terrific actor, but his real voice doesn’t match the appearance.

At one point, Law’s Putin declares, “we’re fighting to keep Russia from disintegrating,” suggesting a far more exciting film. Likewise, when Baranov announces in narration, “That day, Putin became a czar.” If only this would take up the focus and not be a passing moment, akin to Forrest Gump meeting JFK. We needed more of the Pygmalion angle on the making of Putin, a subject worth exploring.

Alicia Vikander steals all of her scenes as Ksenia and, like Law, isn’t in the movie nearly enough. There’s a weird cameo appearance from Matthew Baunsgard, unconvincing as Larry King.

Most cinephiles cite Assayas’ “Irma Vep” (1996) and the controversial “Demonlover” (2002) as high points but I think his best was ahead- the 2008 “Summer Hours” (2008), “Clouds of Sils Maria (2014) and the 2018 “Non-Fiction” (which has made me re-think the contemporary definition of a writer).

“Personal Shopper” (2016) remains my favorite Assayas film, a slice of life drama and supernatural thriller that stars Kristen Stewart, a sharp and original film I revisit often.

Assayas’ films aren’t like most others, as they lean into moments and character choices more than cleanly laid out narrative possibilities. The dialogue in his films is a pleasure to listen to. His latest isn’t lacking in ambition but, at best, this is cable TV movie worthy.

The boldest is the very last shot – it’s memorable but comes too late.

Two Stars

Source