Overheard at Table 3: Ladies First (2026)

Ladies First (2026)

Has a lot of silly laughs, but it seems a little outdated. Yes, it just came out this year, but the theme of "males run the corporate world and women never get to the top of the corporate ladder" really seems like something that would have been more appropriate 20, or even 30 years ago.  In other words, this movie was far past its time in the making.

That said, it's always a bit of a laugh when misogynists get their comeuppance, and you know that Cohen's character does learn the error of his ways, but only by falling in love with someone he finally considers a true equal, and not by truly changing his ways.

Also, I do find it a bit of an old trope that the whole "if women ran the world" schtick always makes a world in which women act like the worst male stereotype possible: farting, belching, and cat-calling.   

To be honest, if women ran the world, they would probably be more subtle with their power.  Men would be pushed out of decision making primarily because women would consider men too short-sighted to truly take a holistic approach to solving problems.  In this movie, women change tires while men just stand around trying to look pretty.   Really, in a world in which women led, men would still do all the hard labor because of their physical strength, but that would be ALL the men would do.   It would be seen as their just, rightful, and God-given position: to work, and leaving the strategizing and higher thought processes to women.

But that's just me: don't let me forget Rosamund Pike, who is her usual splendid self as the cut-throat power hungry person who will do anything to get her way.  She will forever be the Gone Girl who Cares A Lot, in my book.  Although I do have to admit that she does play the uncertain, self-doubting career woman and mother quite well.  A great actress, but she truly shines when she is being low-key scary as hell.

The whole "bra for the testicles" thing reminded me of a feminist book I read in college (can't remember the name, it was either translated from original Norwegian or Swedish, I can't remember which) in which men were called "menwim" and were "househusbands" ... still the old trope of "if they were switched they would just have the same roles as we have now" ... but since that book was written in the 60s or 70s, that was most likely a fresh take then.   I am certain, however, that the writer & director of this film have at least some knowledge of that original book.

I did like how the standard "Oh my god I messed up I need to make sure they don't leave my life" part of the romcom was turned around by her going to his door, and the part in which Pike decided to go look after her daughter instead of staying to make the big pitch for the top job led to Cohen helping book his dentist sister for her daughter.   That was a good humanizing moment which, for me, brought the film slightly above mere silly schtick.

Regardless, I'm certain this one will probably get some negative reviews, but hey, it's an hour an a half, and at least I didn't waste it trying to plow through Citadel.

 

 

Overheard at Table 4: Mi Querida Señorita (2025)

Mi Querida Señorita (2025)

This movie reminds me much like the new biopic Michael, in that Elizabeth Martinez (the protagonist), like Jaafar Jackson, seems made for this role and this role only.   It is difficult to imagine her doing any other work that doesn't build on this role of an intersex (or trans) person.

Which is not to say that this is a bad film.  It's quite good, actually, although frankly, it does not break new ground.  Notwithstanding that it is based on the 1972 film of the same name (which I have not seen but which I am certain was more of a shock to the sensibilities of the viewers at the time than this one is), it is replete with the expected supporting cast of "outsiders" (a somewhat-girlfriend with a bubbly personality and no filter, a sexually fluid raconteur, his possible girlfriend who has foul mouth and a baby, and a priest who entered the priesthood because his lover died of AIDS).

Of all the characters, the priest is actually the most interesting to me, because it is refreshing to see a Christian portrayed as something other than an abuser.   The cast, as a whole, play their roles with great skill (especially the mother) but it does show that Elizabeth Martinez is new to acting, as her emotions often seem somewhat forced.  However, to be fair, the complexity of playing such a role would be a daunting task even for the most experienced of actors.

I hate to be critical of the movie inasmuch as I usually wish Americans would watch more Spanish cinema, which truthfully is some of the best there is, but unfortunately, this movie drags in places, seems overly melodramatic in others, and suffers from what consider to be a "cultural snobbishness" in that, being set primarily around the year 2000, it seems to be saying, "Look how much more culturally enlightened we are now."

Maybe we are, or maybe we just feel we are.  Regardless, if the movie brings that idea across, then it has diminished its primary point of showing how a person can come to full acceptance of themselves.

Now, a movie about that priest and how he came to be a priest, THAT sounds like a story arc worth telling. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overhead at Table 4: Wife Asks Husband a Question

Have you ever cheated on me?

No.

Are you sure?

Do erotic dreams about Salma Hayek count?

Yes.

Well, shit.

Overheard at Table 2: Surviving Armageddon

Billy: So ...

Joe: So ...

Jim: Yup

Bob: Survived Armageddon yesterday.

Billy: Yup.

Joe: Yet again.

Jim: Like always.

Bob: Yup.  Like always.

Billy: Good thing too, I s'pose.

Joe: Always a good thing when Armageddon doesn't happen.

Jim: Would be better if it was never threatened at all.

Bob: Now where would be the fun in that?

Billy: S'pose you're right.

Joe: Yup.

Jim: Yup.

Bob: Wonder what tomorrow might bring.

Overheard at Table 1: The Overwhelming Violence of the Ungodly Aggressor

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/26/hegseth-prayer-violence-pentagon

 

The main problem with Hegseth reciting this prayer (other than it shows that he has no original oratory but must live off the words of others) is that the context is wildly different.

When that prayer was first uttered, the USA had already been at war for four years, and they were about to attack a small island that they knew was heavily fortified and would be defended to the death.  They were sending young men into battle knowing full well that the casualty rate would be 50-75% if they were even able to take the island.

Hegseth repeats this prayer for the US military forces that have attacked a sovereign nation that poses no credible threat to the country.  Additionally, the US military in no way faces the kind of casualty rate that it expected and suffered at Iwo Jima.  

Additionally, WWII, the Pacific conflict in particular, was a response to an unprovoked attack by Japan. In the modern scenario, the USA is Japan and Iran is the USA.

And yet, here is Hegseth, praying for "overwhelming violence" - when it is the USA that is the aggressor and holds the militarily superior position.  

That's an obscenity in the eyes of God.

But, I must say, that when he asks for God to "break the teeth of the ungodly" then everyone in the USA better start looking for an orthodontist.

 

 

Overheard at Table 3: A Group of Witches

H: What is a group of witches called?

M: A PTA?

H: No, a coven.

M: Oh.

Overheard at Table 3: James Baldwin "Nothing Personal"

Nothing Personal

James Baldwin 

 

More of an extended essay than a "book" per se, this writing was originally published along with some artwork that a friend of Baldwin's had completed to go hand in hand with the words, but the editor and preface writer found this essay profound enough to present in book form, without the accompanying art.

I wish I could write solely about the essay, but frankly, the preface and the afterword overshadows the magnificent perceptive writing by Baldwin, by attempting to apply what he wrote in 1964 after the death of Medgar Evers to the Trump presidency of our present day.  They attempt to ascribe some sort of prescience to Nothing Personal; in effect, making it very personal ... to them.   

This dilutes the work itself, which speaks to a much more universal theme of the overall American character: our self-loathing, our inability to be truly honest with ourselves and our past, our inability to articulate what it is we truly long for.

While I write this, I think perhaps, then that the words written by the preface writer and the afterword are perhaps integral to that book, or that edition, to be more accurate.   Their words are not as brilliant or as thought-provoking as Baldwin's, and it is easy to see who, of the three essays in that tome, is the true master storyteller, who is the true master of thought.  It is Baldwin, and the others merely try to use Baldwin to defend the point that is emotionally painful to them in the here and the now.

But these times will move on.  They will change.  And if anybody reads this particular edition of Nothing Personal one hundred years from now, they will find that Baldwin's essay still holds some inspirational message, whereas the writings that bookend the essay will seem like antiquated rantings.