I haven’t felt, gazed upon, heard, smelled and marveled at an early morning rainshower in years. This was somewhere between 5:30 and 6 am this morning. The cats and I shared the same bedroom-window view…the sound alone plus the cool air…awesome.

Since Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert‘s Everything Everywhere All At Once appeared last March, I’ve been in the grip of opposing instincts. I’ve been dying to hate on this A24 release, and at the same time fearful of watching it. (Right now a 720p streamer is my only option, as I refuse to pay to see it theatrically.)

Since learning that a majority of critics have recently placed it at the very top of their Best of 2022 lists (as complied by World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy), I’ve been determined to hate it all the more. I can say with absolute confidence that I’ve never hated a movie that I’ve never seen more than EEAAO. I was therefore comforted by Jordan Ruimy’s 6.7.22 pan — actually a review of a re-watch.

Excerpt #1: “It didn’t do a damn thing for me. Yes, the cast is great, the photography nicely chosen, Chinese culture effortlessly represented, etc. But it felt as though the Daniels were just throwing every idea at the screen, and the result felt rather shallow, especially at a whopping 142 minutes.”

Except #2: “I’m not going to imply that the praise stems from this being a minority story, inventively told, with a dash of social commentary for good measure. There are [so] many people creaming their pants over this film that it can’t just be a virtue-signaling thing. It’s very well made, I’ll give it that, and its success is somewhat groundbreaking for Asians in Hollywood, so I’ll let it slide.”

Except #3: “The top-billed performances are also fantastic (especially Michelle Yeoh), the fighting choreography is visually inventive, and it’s just a very ambitious venture for these indie filmmakers. The first hour is actually fairly solid, but boy,=M does it also overstay its welcome.”

Except #4: “This is the most ‘Millennial’ movie I have ever seen, as a certain philosophy ruminates throughout the film. Cue in the nihilism. The movie basically says the world is a place that’s chaotic and devoid of meaning, so any kind of social development or progress is just an illusion, unless, of course, you learn to love. It might be the most Reddit-approved movie ever made, and its very nihilism, despite the trite messaging, renders it almost meaningless.

“So what, in the end, do we finally get from this film? An overabundance of slapstick, a fetish for over-the-top fighting, multiverses stamped upon more multiverses, and a soapy message about family and love. But at the same time it’s ice-cold…a relentless ADD-infused assault on the senses. There’s nothing cinematic about what the Daniels have done here; it feels rather like a 140-“minute music video devoid of human feeling.”

Ruimy to HE: “You need to watch it just to see how long you can last before you turn it off.”

Just remember that you can’t ask Keke Palmer about…you know. Just don’t go there. Even as an attempt to clarify whether or not Palmer had anything to do with the incident in question. (Which she may not have.) You know what I mean. Okay, you can go there but if you do, there might be consequences. Just saying.

Nope opens on 7.22.

From Matt Taibbi‘s “What is a Woman? Should Be Reviewed More, For One Thing,” posted on 6.8. The subtitle reads “Matt Walsh pranks the pants off America’s silliest intellectuals, and the sad thing is, it wasn’t hard at all.”

Excerpt #1: “The message of What Is A Woman? is not only are there no simple answers to the questions and reservations felt by millions about ‘gender affirmation’ (including huge numbers of Democrats, as polls in places like Florida show), but the movie shows academic after academic and activist after activist seething at the mere implication that they should have to explain themselves. Their attitude is positively medieval: ‘We keep the Bible in Latin for a reason!”

“They invent new nomenclature almost daily (making a priesthood of interpreting academics central to the new religion). The problem is to the uninformed, all the ‘simple truths’ seem to run in the other direction, like that it sure doesn’t look like fair competition when swimmer Lia Thomas massacres pools full of assigned-at-birth-girls.

“If you’ve been on Twitter you’ve seen it, but in the movie there’s a real interview with a real professor who goes ape when Walsh invokes the word truth, which ‘sounds transphobic’ to Herr professor:

This was perhaps the most utterly insane scene of the entire documentary, hands down… @MattWalshBlog pic.twitter.com/qF9MXvsmtv

— Kyle J. Maxwell (@khendriix_) June 2, 2022

“It’s as if these interview subjects believe winning over people who don’t already agree with them is not only not important, but offensive and beneath them. Certainly the subjects in What is a Woman? go out of their way to dismiss as utterly insignificant those who don’t share their worldview.

“When Walsh interviews gynecologist Dr. Marci Bowers, he begins by asking, ‘The critics on the other side of this issue…’ He has to pause, because Bowers recoils in exaggerated fashion, shaking her head like a person waked by revolting smelling salts.

“’There aren’t many,’ she scoffs. ‘But go ahead.’

“’There aren’t many who would disagree with what you’re saying?’

“’Well, the dinosaurs of the world are certainly out there.’

Excerpt #2: “It’ll be easy enough for mainstream critics to ignore this film, and they will. In a democracy, though, at some point you have to answer the population’s questions in a way that makes sense to them. Otherwise, they will flock to the first person who does offer a comprehensible answer.

“I saw this [syndrome] with the financial crisis, where candidates like Hillary Clinton tried incomprehensibly to blame 2008 on ‘shadow banking,’ offenders who by an extraordinary coincidence didn’t overlap with any of the roughly ten million financial institutions who’d paid her millions in speaking fees. The public had dealt with banks firsthand and didn’t buy it, believing Donald Trump more when he pointed the finger at firms like Goldman, Sachs.

“Ignoring popular discontent or confusion on principle isn’t a strategy that can ever work, for any political movement. Walsh’s movie exposes this, and give him credit — he got the people inclined to hate him the most to make his arguments for him.”

During their talk-show appearances victorious Johnny Depp attorneys Camille Vasquez and Ben Chew were naturally obliged to “stick to the narrative,” but of course the non-sequestered jury was influenced by social media messaging about the libel trial…of course they were.

Judgment-wise, the smart move on Depp’s part would be to let Amber Heard skate on the $10 million…just let it go. He’s made his point, and that’s what counts.

A smart, seasoned, socially attuned Washington Post journalist re–tweets a demeaning joke about women, and he doesn’t realize that he’s poking a hornet’s nest and literally asking to be harshly disciplined? How does this happen?

How could the respected Dave Weigel (who looks like an overweight member of a Moody Blues tribute band) not understand that if you say or do the “wrong thing” these days (i.e., if you offend or agitate college-educated Millennial & Zoomer-aged #MeToo wokesters in a business environment) that you stand an excellent chance of being professionally assassinated?

Weigel immediately apologized to the initial complainer, Felicia Sonmez, both on Twitter and Slack, and had earlier defended Sonmez in a dust -up over a condemning Kobe Bryant tweet immediately following his death…and it doesn’t matter. The Post has suspended Weigel for a month without pay.

Weigel is only 40 (DOB: 9.26.81) and therefore technically a Millennial, but he looks like a guy who over-indulges and, as noted, the moustache conveys a Justin Hayward in the late ‘60s identification of some kind. A boomer in a Millennial’s body. If Weigel looked like Neil Patrick Harris the Post probably would have only suspended him for a week.

What did Michelle Pfeiffer’s Elvira say when she first saw Tony Montana’s “cream puff” — a beige Cadillac convertible with zebra-striped upholstery? “It looks like somebody’s nightmare,” she said.

For her and husband Seth Gabel’s Los Angeles home, Bryce Dallas Howard has approved an interior design that complements her own redhead colors — pastel pinks, light greens, creamy beiges. Her house, her design, her call.

But c’mon…what kind of dude would live in this girly-girl’ed, dollhouse environment? Ernest Hemingway would scoff at such a proposition. Where are the empty beer cans and half-eaten bags of pretzels? Where’s the man-cave? Where’s the HD flatscreen tuned to ESPN?