Books: Rivals, A Novel by Jilly Cooper, 1988

The ultimate politically incorrect book!

I came across Jilly Cooper when exploring subgenres of the romance novel. What a prolific writer she is – and how popular she was in the 1980s! Her specialty is the “bonkbuster”: a novel that involves sex, glamour, wealth, power, and plenty of rivalry – business or sexual or both…Her women are “bitches” and her men are “macho”. Cooper herself once complained that her American film adaptations are “demachoing” her characters.

Cooper gets thumbs up for her satirical or quite cynical representation of the upper middle class and all the stupidity and arrogance underlying wealth. Another favorite topic of hers is talent – talented characters can get away with anything. This is exemplified in characters like Declan, Rebecca, Lizzie -a journalist, a producer, and a writer, respectivly. And the author’s ultimate favorite is a character like Rupert Campbell-Black – a sparkling combination of physical beauty, wit, and cynicism (but eventually revealing the macho’s romantic underbelly). One can’t help giving Cooper credit for being able to handle multiple characters tangled in complex relationships, intrigue, drama, failure and triumph to result eventually in a pop-culture’s trashy page-turner. Her concept of human psychology is quite superficial and her achiever characters’ motivation is mainly what passes for success – wealth, power, social recognition, and above all – “winning”!

Apart from some witty lines, the book is quite forgettable but undeniably hits some buttons that the audience always responds to – what would it be if they become suddenly very rich, handsome, sexually irresistible, smart and popular?!

Dream on, ladies…

Films: TV: Cape Fear, TV Series, 2026

Braking a major rule here – writing a review after watching only episode one of the newly released Cape Fear! But usually the first episode sets the stage for what is to be expected. And it is not good. Not good, at all. And “it is the script, stupid”!One can only feel sorry for the talented actors doing their best with such substandard material, especially given the strength of the previous adaptations.

I suppose, the major blame goes to creator Nick Antosca and a long list of staff writers.

The main flaws:

The main character Max Cady, just released from prison, is introduced in a very unintelligent way. At a major fundraising event, he takes the microphone from Ana Bowden—who seems oddly unbothered by the interruption—and proceeds to deliver a long, dull, and dumb speech. Writers, what were you thinking?

The threat that is supposed to surround the Bowden family couldn’t be more banal and silly as well – skunks drowned in their pool, front door alarm sounding, AND a real tiger appearance. To turn a tiger metaphor from the 1991 Cape Fear (Scorcese) into a zoo animal – how literal can you go!

The Bowden family itself is quite sleazy so why route for them? The ex-prisoner, the supposed embodiment of evil, lacks layers and layers of complexity so perfectly intertwining in Robert DeNiro’s interpretation of Cady in the 1991 version.

Not worth watching further.

Books: Yesteryear, A Novel by Caro Claire Burke, 2026

This book was “workshopped” by film producers and Hollywood executives from its very first draft. As a result, it becomes a product of the very process it claims to criticize: marketing shapes creation itself, substance is overtaken by image, and the fake replaces the real. The Hollywood “influencers” behind the project manufacture a business product designed to appeal to a mass audience, and that audience is implied in every sentence. That is why the book’s politics feel so transparent.

The novel sets up a simplistic opposition between the “tradwife” and “the feminist” through Natalie and Reena, two characters constructed largely as clichés. Natalie is raised with conservative Christian values and wishes to become the perfect tradwife. Deeply unhappy, however, she builds an online influencer business around a fabricated image of idyllic family life on a traditional farm. Her supposedly Christian lifestyle is carefully produced for broadcast and, beneath the performance, proves abusive both to her children and to the people working around her.

Reena, meanwhile, is presented as the embodiment of modern feminism: promiscuous, detached from family life, and unable to succeed in her desired career because she is constantly undermined by the boys’ club around her. Both women are reduced to flattened cardboard characters.

Another contrast the novel exploits to advance its political message is the opposition between the fake tradwife lifestyle and the “real” life of a pioneer woman. Through its depiction of nineteenth-century rural America, the novel ultimately arrives at the predictable conclusion that modern women, unsurprisingly, have it better.

Because the book appears to have had “too many cooks,” the plot twists often feel confusing, with characters making arbitrary choices that do not emerge from any coherent inner logic. Natalie, for example, is the supposedly devout Christian girl, yet from the very beginning she is deeply cynical and frequently turns into the kind of “angry woman” the novel seems eager to critique elsewhere.

The book also tries to catalogue nearly every contemporary social issue imaginable: gender politics, child abuse, political campaigning, the MAGA movement, and even “mother’s little helper.” It wants to address everything and everyone, all while pushing an unmistakably clear agenda: the children who do not know what the “ocean” is and have never seen it are meant to symbolize people trapped within the Bible Belt — an extremely easy metaphor. Easy metaphors may serve propaganda, but they rarely serve literature.

As literature, the novel is quite boring. It could easily have been at least 150 pages shorter. Some sections — especially those depicting the hardships of the pioneer woman — read as though they were written by AI.

It would actually be interesting to see the novel’s original draft before the workshop process reshaped it. Perhaps, in that earlier version, the witty lines prevailed.

Films: Hament, Dir.Chloé Zhao, 2025

The biggest issue is that the film is based on a very weak — not to say ridiculous — novel by Maggie O’Farrell. Chloé Zhao’s decision to adapt this particular book does not reflect especially well on her intelligence. How many stories about women-healers mistaken for witches can one endure? How many female characters cast as embodiments of “Mother Nature” are we expected to feel deeply for? And how many blood-soaked childbirth scenes hovering on the edge of death can a single film sustain?

Shakespeare’s wife giving birth among the enormous, fairy-tale roots of a tree — if this is not kitsch, what is? We see Shakespeare being slapped around by his father. Then the playwright suddenly grows restless — though we are given no real reason why — and leaves his wife to endure the birth of their second child alone. She refuses to give birth inside the house and insists on delivering the baby among the tree roots. Shall I go on?

I feel genuinely sorry for Jessie Buckley, who is a very good actress (The Lost Daughter) and deserves better material. As for Paul Mescal — less so. Throughout the entire film he looks silly and ridiculous.


Films: Sentimental Value, Dir. Joachim Trier, 2025

Isn’t it unbelievable that this film is considered the best European film of 2025?! Poor European film industry—how far it has sunk. This is not a bad film, but it is such a lightweight creation in every respect.

First of all, the script is a pathetic attempt to manufacture a Chekhovian drama out of a family-reunion story. It is heavy with clichés and obsessively focused on the self-indulgent “issues” of the so-called creatives of this world—filmmakers and actors in particular. The introductory scene centers on the main character’s stage-fright “drama,” played with ambitious self-importance and pedal-to-the-metal intensity by Renate Reinsve.

Her father, a famous director, offers her a role in his latest autobiographical film (yet another narcissistic element). They have been estranged for years, and the mother has passed away. There are grievances to be aired and guilt to be atoned for. The daughter refuses the role, and both sisters want nothing to do with the father. This is the core conflict of the film. Please! Chekhov’s characters wrestled with far greater questions—such as the meaning of life or the impossibility of happiness. Compare that to two daughters sulking over their father’s return and his failed attempts to involve them in his next film project.

Stellan Skarsgård could have played this role with his eyes closed. Meanwhile, the overachiever quality in Renate Reinsve’s performance is far too conspicuous; it is as if she approaches every scene with the attitude of, “Look how good an actress I am!”

The film’s ending does carry a certain sentimental value, but it is nowhere near enough to elevate it into genuinely good cinema.

TV:Code of Silence, TV Series, 2025

Another excellent UK thriller! The show is well-written, fresh, and has an original angle as its main character is a deaf lipreader helping with the investigation of a pending heist by a well-known criminal gang. The role of the deaf volunteer-investigator is played by the deaf actress Rose Ayling-Ellis. The success of the series is largely due to her great performance as well as the chemistry between her and a new mysterious member of the gang – Liam Barlow, “Hoodie,” played by Kieron Moore. Ayling-Ellis is a charmer who effortlessly projects both naivete and wisdom. She appears fragile but constantly surprises with unexpected demonstrations of strength and bold moves. The suspense in each consecutive episode derives from the increasing involvement of the amateur detective in the investigation: she starts acting against the advice of the police, makes her own independent decisions, and becomes emotionally involved with Hoodie – all of which makes her a threat to the success of the investigation, but also puts herself in danger. The ending is surprising but somewhat soap-operatic, with the promise of Alison, the deaf lip reader, and Liam, the cool hacker, eventually meeting up in the future – only for the sake of a second season.

Books: The Lying Life of Adults. A Novel by Elena Ferrante, 2019

I have previously had mixed feelings about the writings of Elena Ferrante. My esteem of her rose after the film adaptation of “The Lost Daughter” by Maggie Gylenhaal, a truly original and thought-provoking film. My initial complaints about her fiction were related to the first part of the Neapolitan quartet – “My Brilliant Friend” which I found cliched and uninspiring, especially her very traditional class-struggles approach. In contrast – I was impressed by “Those Who Leave and Those Who Stay” which is an example of an in-depth look into the motherhood and womanhood themes of her previous books and a sort of more incisive continuation of “The Lost Daughter.” In the former, I enjoyed the string of character studies – contradictory and complex, the prose – dense and subtle, the non-judgemental representation of opposing kinds of “femininity,” the ambiguity of female strife for independence as a mix of libration and egotism. “We all narrate our lives as it suits us.” writes Ferrante. This is the powerful message of “Those Who Stay and Those Who Leave” – and it is the meta-revelation of the first-person narrative in that novel.

In “The Lying Life of Adults,” this principle is taken to a level of arbitrariness. An exceptionally smart girl, the author wants us to believe, is debunking the “narrative” of the adults that surround her as lies. Doing that she builds her own, supposedly innocent and honest, narrative. Not a new thing, by the way (i.e. What Maisie Knew) . The problem with the narrative of the coming-of-age girl, is that at some point the “disbelief” cannot be suspended. It becomes impossible to give credit to her unusual for her age intelligence, her interest in higher matters of politics and philosophy, the impression she creates for adults and peers, and her supposedly penetrating representations of the adults in her life. This time, Ferrante is invested too much in binary oppositions: ugly-beautiful, dreamy-cynical, rich-poor, entitled-self-made, so that instead of transforming into psychological “depth” the oppositions come across as confusing and arbitrary. In the main character’s narrative everything becomes possible and hence — not engaging.

TV: Ripley, 2024, Dir. Steven Zaillian

Hands down – the best thing about the new version of “Ripley” is its black-and-white cinematography – kudos to Robert Eslwit!

Otherwise – it seems that the driving force behind the making of a new film version of Patricia Highsmith’s novel was Andrew Scott who so badly wanted to play Ripley! And there is the rub…because he is not for that role, he lacks the “charmer” aspect (even though we found him very charming in Fleabag.) And you wonder what draws these people to him?! Why would Greenleaf senior ask this particular man to persuade his son to come back from Italy? Scott (and the director) obviously emphasize the class aspect of the character – a person from the lowest strata of society, who wants to become one of the high society, who mimics their tastes, aspires to appreciate art and enjoys being surrounded by beautiful objects but at the same time has the audacity to criticize his wealthy companions for being too bourgeois (the whole line with the ice-box). So, Ripley’s is a story of hatred for the upper classes but also a deep desire to join their ranks. Scott also focuses on the sinister aspect of the hero. He is sinister even when he plays nice, of he just can’t do the latter…

Comparisons with Matt Damon and Alain Delon are inevitable and don’t go in favor of Andrew Scott.

The series becomes tedious at some point because of the lot of “fluff” in the footage just meant to turn this into a series (with a second season probably coming up, on top of that…) There are some ridiculous parts in the film – one that stands out is the “analogy” with the criminal Caravaggio! An episode that was original and striking, mostly because of the cinematographer, was the one about Dicky’s murder, an elaborate and haunting nail-biter…

TV: Feud: Capote Vs The Swans, 2023, Creator Ryan Murphy, Dir. Gus Van Sant, Max Winkler, Jennifer Lynch

Unfortunately, the second installment of Ryan Murphy’s “Feud” is not as good as the first one. The dramatization of Betty Davis’ and Joan Crawford’s conflict was really great! It involved the manipulated context of this feud, the role of the media and the industry, and two great characters – it was a really demo of dramatic writing and a great pleasure to watch with the excellent performers!

“Capote Vs The Swans” lacked the dramatic energy that draws you in, the “feud” was illustrated, not acted out. The focus was on Capote’s idiosyncrasies, his loneliness, self-destructive behavior, narcissism, relationship with his mother, etc. (Tom Hollander was great playing Capote.) But the characters on the other side were underdeveloped, they were an illustration of an age long gone now, they were the “swan song” for the socialites of 1950s New York. The series strong point was the nostalgic feeling it induced despite the intended “criticism” of the New York high society from that time. An elegy for the women who were buying their “gardening hats” at a particular time of the year or who were fussing about the perfection of the edges of the invitation cards …was that ironic or sad or glamorous! It seems – the latter…And you could sense it in the way the “swan” performers enjoyed playing their roles – Naomi Watts, Diane Lane, Calista Flockhart, Chloë Sevigny….

Film: Poor Things. Dir. Yorgos Lanthimos, 2023

Unfortunately, the film is not as good as its costume design and its production design! Comedy it is not, as it has just one witty one-liner: the prostitutes going to a socialist meeting remarking that “they own their own means of production.” This director is entirely lacking a sense of humor, unless you consider humorous some CGI images of pig-birds, or a scientist slicing brains…

The rest is at times confusing and at times very flat and didactical one-dimensional allegory of a woman’s “story of liberation.” And no, Mr. Lanthimos, the clitoris is not the fountain of a woman’s power or freedom or whatever it is you want us to believe it is. Things are a little more complicated than that…Even as an allegory, the film does not make much sense or impress as an original or cogent conceptual piece. A sort of a “Frankenstein” woman, gets her unborn child’s brain implanted in her own head. She is robot-like and “soul-less”, she “discovers” sex and pleasure in an appropriately robot-like and soul-less way, then she discovers social injustice, but then this story-line is not taken any further as a philosopher (of sorts) tells her that there is no way of making the world a better place. Regardless, she tries to improve the world by becoming a prostitute, and then after being claimed by her former husband who caused her death returns to him only to discover (again) that she is free and can kill him. Finally, the heroine finds solace in science?! The key allegorical figures – the father, the lover, the husband, and the nice guy – are made up of banalities and utter banalities to the most boring effect. Emma Stone definitely has better roles. I felt sorry for her being limited to performing so “physical” a role — playing a brainless robot in the first half of the movie and during one third of the film being engaged in graphic sexual scenes. Talk about women’s liberation! This is the deepest irony of the film. The director’s obsession with sex has been demonstrated time and time again in his previous films- and it does not go beyond that, a mere obsession, because the representation of sex in his films does not transcend anything or explain, or enlighten, or analyze… It is disturbing because it is too literal. I wonder how he is getting away with this. There is no lack of snobs in the audience and the industry, I suppose…

And a wonderful actor like Mark Ruffalo, has to play this ridiculous character, a simplistic puppet — that is almost a cinematic crime perpetrated by Mr. Lanthimos. But he has done it before — to Olivia Coleman and others…