F1 Friendo: “In your 6.12 F1 riff you didn’t include my one reservation about the surprising over-reliance upon live voiceover race commentary…

“While F1 tells an affecting story, it would be impossible to follow were it not for the wall-to-wall, supposedly live stadium commentary during the multiple FI races…this is the only way for the audience to fully participate in 90% of it.

“It feels like they shot what they could of each race, edited the footage and then added race commentary to bridge the gaps and heighten involvement. All very effective, but F1 is obviously the first over-$200M film to rely on (at times) almost continuous voice over to explain key plot and action.”

HE to F1 Friendo: “Well, I didn’t want to pass along a quibbling comment. That sounds like a bit of a negative viewpoint.”

F1 Friendo: “Your regulars are complaining that your piece was too positive…that it was a puff piece.”

HE to F1 Friendo: “Well, it was a puff piece.  But if I’m going to post something contrary, it’s going to be based on my own viewing.  And I don’t think that wall-to-wall narration….well, maybe that IS a problem.  I just want to see it myself and go from there.”

F1 Friendo: “I’m not saying the loudspeaker narration is a problem. The film obviously works. It’s just that relying on wall-to-wall narration is a huge surprise for such a massive enterprise.”

As I noted a few days ago, Celine Song‘s Materialists (A24, now playing) is a better-than-decent romantic drama about a Manhattan matchmaker (Dakota Johnson‘s 35-year-old Lucy). And yet I said in the headline that it might not charm average ticket-buyers.

The fact that Materialists currently has a Cinemascore rating of B-minus doesn’t mean it’s dead in the water, but it certainly indicates that Joe and Jane Popcorn aren’t altogether happy.

People don’t liked being lied to, as I mentioned yesterday, plus (this is admittedly a peripheral issue) they probably don’t like being instructed about the advisability of interracial dating and marriage.

@baileys.bookmark Materialist (2025) Review #materialist #celinesong #pedropascal #chrisevans #dakotajohnson #booktok #filmtok ♬ original sound – bailey |

I mentioned this in my original 6.11 review but here we go again: In a second-act scene Song is clearly casting negative aspersions upon one of Lucy’s female clients, a paleface, because she’s said she’s mostly interested in finding a white boyfriend or husband. Lucy doesn’t scold the client when she hears this, but she’s obviously a bit put off.

Question: What’s so awful about a bird of a particular feather wanting to mate with someone from her own flock? Song is presumably aware that some POCs prefer the romantic company of men or women from their own tribe. She’s also presumably aware that some years ago Denzel Washington stated that he’s uncomfortable kissing white women in his films, and that he prefers hooking up with women of color. And yet in Song’s world, whites aren’t allowed to voice similar feelings.

Toward the end of the film Lucy and Chris Evans‘ John, an under-employed actor, happen to observe an inter-racial GenZ marriage ceremony in upstate New York. (Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm exchanging vows with a 20something Jimi Hendrix in a gray tux.) We all understand that black-white marriages are increasing among Zoomers, although the percentage of such unions is relatively small (between 5% and 10%). What we know for sure is that Song is conveying her approval by way of virtue signalling. I hate this shit but that’s me.

Having taken three or four weeks to re-read David McClintick‘s “Indecent Exposure“, a fascinating, well-detailed saga of the David Begelman/Columbia Pictures check-forging scandal of ’77 and ’78, I’ve come to a conclusion that two mistakes were made.

Inner-sanctum Hollywood was always a tawdry, slippery, self-protecting community, and McClintick’s portraiture makes that extra-double clear. But even in this environment Begelman’s pattern of felonious thievery — not only forging a $10K check made out to Cliff Robertson but also checks for $85K and $25K that had been made out respectively to director Martin Ritt and resturateur Pierre Groleau (mistake #1 in the aggregate) — went beyond the pale.

And yet it all blew up because Robertson, fearful of possible tax consequences and under advice from his attorney, reported Begelman’s check-forging to the authorities. And that was arguably the biggest error, certainly in a political sense. At the end of the day Begelman was mostly forgiven while Robertson wound up being blacklisted by Columbia for a long stretch.

Cliff, his wife Dina Merrill and his attorney should have kept it all within the family. They should have gone to Columbia CEO Alan Hisrchfield and said, “This is obviously illegal and sticky if the feds get wind, but if you can offer absolute assurance that Begelman’s criminality stops here and now and if you make this right as far as my standing and interests are concerned, I’m willing to sit on his whole business in order to save Columbia from embarassment and possible scandal. But don’t fuck with me.”

All hail “theycallmebigtuna“!….this is almost exactly what Materialists looks, sounds and feels like! This TikTok performer is right next door to phenomenal…seriously.

@theycallmebigtuna filmed and edited this while in line at in-n-out…where my burger at… #materialists #dakotajohnson #pedropascal #chrisevans #celinesong ♬ original sound – theycallmebigtuna

HE pisshounds called me a slut for posting a few enthused paragraphs about F1, so in their eyes Griffin Schiller is presumed to be just another roadside prostitute…right?