Reminder: Sony Pictures Classics will distribute Jon Baird and Jeff Pope‘s Stan & Ollie, but I’m not finding a date. Will it open this year or not? The film is about the comedy duo in their early to late ’30s heyday (Pardon Us, Bonnie Scotland, Our Relations) but about a last hurrah tour of England and Ireland in 1953, when Laurel and Hardy (Steve Coogan, John C. Reilly) were in their early 60s. The London Film Festival’s Stan & Ollie premiere will happen on 10.21.

Earlier today a friend asked if I thought it was fair to go after Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over an alleged case of drunken sexual assault when he was 17. This is your standard “he was just a dopey, full-of-beans hooligan who’d had too much to drink” defense.

My first answer was yes, it’s fair because whether drunk or sober sexual assault is an ugly, bestial thing for Kavanaugh to have attempted. As boozed up as I often got when I caroused with my high-school friends on weekends, I never forcibly groped or overpowered a woman, and if I’d heard about a friend having done so I would’ve been appalled.

My second answer was that anything that can hurt Kavanaugh’s chances of being confirmed is worth pursuing and pushing. Kavanaugh is a partisan, pig-eyed Trump loyalist who would eventually help terminate Roe v. Wade if confirmed.

My third answer was that as troubling as Kavanaugh’s alleged 1982 sexual assault against Christine Blasey Ford is, the primary issue is Kavanaugh’s reported declaration that it flat-out never happened. He’ll presumably testify to this effect when he goes before the committee. But if the alleged incident could somehow be factually supported to a near certainty as well as corraborated by testimony from others, that would make Kavanaugh seem like an apparent liar and possible perjurer.

Yesterday I caught a 3:20 pm show of Panos Cosmatos’ Mandy at the IFC Center. Not bad but overhyped. Yes, it’s somewhat imaginative, atmospherically immersive, psychologically intense and impressively flourishy in portions — it’s definitely no run-of-the-mill revenge flick. But it’s been way over-rated by fanboys. Too slow and therefore too long — it would be a whole different equation if Cosmatos could have kept it down to 85 or 90 minutes.

I get and appreciate the raw cheeseball ghoul aesthetic. Mandy is not only set in ’83 — it feels like the early ’80s up, down, over and sideways, and could have been a Cannon flick. And it certainly delivers the hellish backwoods surrealism (deep shadows mixed with intense red lighting, the occasional animated insert). And I appreciate Linus Roache having the bravery to allow Cosmatos to use the less-than-impressive size of Roache’s package as a plot point. And I respect and admire the whole meta-Nic Cage-on-a-rampage thing…anger, savagery, screaming, swilling vodka in his underwear and white socks, creating his own axe weaponry in a forge, etc.

And while the televized voice of Ronald Reagan is heard at one point, there’s no discernible social metaphor in the battle between earthy, working-class Cage and the Children of the New Dawn (Mansonesque hippie freaks, satanists, perversity unbound). Or nothing, at least, that came together in my head. It’s basically just another reworking of the “don’t go into the woods or the fiends will get you” formula.

Mandy isn’t bad but the first hour is way too slow and gradual, and by lasting 121 minutes it dissipates itself. Pacing is everything. And why is it called Mandy? Its not as if Andrea Riseborough is playing some kind of dominant central figure. She’s just the arts-and-crafty girlfriend who gets kidnapped and then murdered by the sickos. They could have just as easily called it Caruthers, the character played by Bill Duke.