Monday, December 15, 2025

Holiday Rom Com Roundup: Lovelight Farms



Title: Lovelight Farms (2021)
**This is actually a book, but it read just SO much like a Hallmark movie, I had to review it this way.

Actor(s) You Know:
n/a

Plot:
Stella owns a Christmas tree farm and has entered an influencer's contest to be featured on her channels...and win $100,000. The only problem is that she said on the entry form that she owns the farm with her boyfriend. Who doesn't exist. Naturally she had to ask her best friend Luka, whom she's in love with, to be her fake boyfriend. 

Trope(s):
    Royalty
    Alternate reality
    Small town ✔
    Fake relationship ✔
    Family business getting sold/going bankrupt ✔
    Enemies-to-lovers
    Best friends-to-lovers ✔
    Second chance
    Stranded

Meet Cute: 
Ten years ago, Stella had recently lost her (single) mother. Leaving the hardware store in her little town on Maryland's Eastern Shore, she literally runs into Luka, who promptly invites her for grilled cheese. They've been best friends ever since, even though he lives in New York City. (His Italian mother is a teacher in the small town, so he has an excuse to be around a lot.)

Rundown:
    Dead parents ✔
    Montage(s)
    Christmas-related name(s) 
    Animals ✔ (A very cute litter of kittens is found and adopted by one of the other employees)
    Returns to hometown
    Is Santa a character? 
        Secretly or overtly?
    Cookie baking 
    Tree decorating ✔
    Somebody hates Christmas
    Christmas festival in a small town 
    A literal competition ✔
    Child plays matchmaker
    All work, no romance/life

    Kiss before the end of the movie ✔
    Interrupted kiss 
    Flashback to childhood
    The leads literally run into each other ✔
    Gratuitous shirtless scene
    Big Secret
    Wacky misunderstanding
    Just. Talk. To. Each. Other. 
    Someone pushing the leads together ✔ (The entire town)
    Real family = chaos / bad families = cold and not chaotic 
    Learns the meaning of Christmas
    Stranded by snowstorm
    Hot chocolate  

    Ice skating 
    D-list celebrity
    Enemy-to-friend storyline
    The love interest is an ex
    Career change
    Lying to each other
    Tries to apologize, but keeps getting cut off

    Christmas pageant 

    End with a flash-forward ✔

Did I actually like/root for the heroine? How do the lead(s) annoy me?
I found Stella incredibly frustrating. Her (married-to-another-woman) father left her mother before she was born, and Stella's mother was a nomad who then died when Stella was in her early 20s, so she has an understandable fear of abandonment. And I totally get her being afraid to admit her feelings to Luka. But she's one of those Rory Gilmore-esque characters where the entire small town is overly invested in her life, and isn't aware of it.

Is it in any way not completely generic? 
Umm. I mean, at least Stella realized she was in love with Luka the whole time, even if actually doing anything about that was terrifying.

Is the BFF actually the best? Do they need their own movie?
This is the first in a series; there are books about the two other Lovelight Farms co-owners (which I'm kind of tempted by? At least the one about Beckett, the tree expert).

How is the romantic alternative wrong for the heroine? 
n/a

Thoughts/Other Notes:
I enjoyed the book less the more I read it. I think the ultimate problem is that the fake relationship was done for this social media contest, and the influencer didn't show up until about 75% into the book...and then was barely there. There was a LOT of time where it's like, "Let's just fake date...in private, too" and where it's just incredibly obvious how Luka feels. Solid premise that needed tightening up.

Rating:
🧀
🧀🧀

Sunday, December 14, 2025

Hallmark Movie Roundup: Christmas at the Catnip Café

Title: Christmas at the Catnip Café (2025)

Actor(s) You Know:
My Boyfriend Paul Campbell (many Hallmark movies, Battlestar Galactica)

Plot:
Olivia, who works in marketing in California, inherits half-ownership of a cat café in New York State. The other half is owned by Ben, the local vet. Olivia wants to sell the café so she can have a down payment for a condo. In Oakland.

Trope(s):
    Royalty
    Alternate reality
    Small town ✔
    Fake relationship
    Family business getting sold/going bankrupt
    Enemies-to-lovers 

    Best friends-to-lovers
    Second chance
    Stranded

Meet Cute: 
Olivia first notices Ben in his vet clinic as she walks down the street; then he pops up at the cat café, where she's arranged to meet the other owner. Ben immediately susses out that Olivia wants to get rid of the café; Olivia is bewildered that he doesn't want to get rid of what seems like a bustling business. And then is again bewildered when the café employee overhears their discussion and takes away the coffee she had ordered.

Rundown:
    Dead parents
    Montage(s)
    Christmas-related name(s) 
    Animals 
    Returns to hometown ✔ (Kind of; Olivia isn't from the town, but her aunt lived there and she spent time         there growing up)
    Is Santa a character? 
        Secretly or overtly?
    Cookie baking 
    Tree decorating 
    Somebody hates Christmas
    Christmas festival in a small town 
    A literal competition
    Child plays matchmaker
    All work, no romance/life

    Kiss before the end of the movie 
    Interrupted kiss 
    Flashback to childhood 
    The leads literally run into each other
    Gratuitous shirtless scene
    Big Secret
    Wacky misunderstanding
    Just. Talk. To. Each. Other.
    Someone pushing the leads together 
    Real family = chaos / bad families = cold and not chaotic
    Learns the meaning of Christmas
    Stranded by snowstorm
    Hot chocolate 

    Ice skating
    D-list celebrity
    Enemy-to-friend storyline 

    The love interest is an ex
    Career change
    Lying to each other
    Tries to apologize, but keeps getting cut off

    Christmas pageant 

    End with a flash-forward

Did I actually like/root for the heroine? How do the lead(s) annoy me?
Olivia is THE WORST. She comes into town, looking to force Ben to sell the cat café, and doesn't seem to understand why he and the café employees aren't happy about this. She's all, "There's a developer who wants to buy this, isn't it great?!" She seemingly wasn't in touch with her aunt at all because everything about the café seems to be a surprise to her. She just...doesn't seem bright. Paul Campbell is too nice to her. You can do better, Paul Campbell.

Is it in any way not completely generic? 
There were many many adorable cats. 

Is the BFF actually the best? Do they need their own movie?
Olivia's friend seemed fine. Ben's sister also seemed cool. I don't know that I need to spend more time with either.

How is the romantic alternative wrong for the heroine? 
There is no romantic alternative, sadly. Otherwise I'd be rooting for her to get together with him.

Thoughts/Other Notes:
In addition to Olivia being the worst, the timeline in the movie makes no sense. Olivia is trying to buy a condo and wants the money from the café sale for a down payment, but we're supposed to believe that the condo is still available after the 3+ weeks she's in New York. At one point, we see an event is "December 21," but multiple days seem to pass and it's still not Christmas. I just don't know. This movie was frustrating. But I still love you, Paul Campbell.

Rating:
🧀
🧀(mostly for the cats and Paul Campbell, who is very likable in this)

Saturday, December 13, 2025

Hallmark Movie Roundup: A Keller Christmas Vacation

Title: A Keller Christmas Vacation (2025)

Actor(s) You Know: 
Jonathan Bennett (Mean Girls, many things on Food Network and Hallmark), Brandon Routh (Superman, The Nine Lives of Christmas), Eden Sher (The Middle)

Plot: 
The Keller family--sons Dylan and Cal, daughter Emory, and parents Ben and Anne--go on a river cruise through Germany in Austria for Christmas. But many of the family members have secrets they're hiding...

Trope(s):
    Royalty
    Alternate reality
    Small town 
    Fake relationship
    Family business getting sold/going bankrupt
    Enemies-to-lovers
    Best friends-to-lovers
    Second chance
    Stranded 

Meet Cute:  
This movie largely is about familial relationships, not romantic. Dylan is in a relationship, but runs into a speedbump when his boyfriend William doesn't accept his proposal. Cal is dealing with the aftermath of a divorce; Emory is just single. Cal winds up clicking with a fellow traveler, while Emory starts crushing on one of the cruise crew members.

Rundown:
    Dead parents
    Montage(s)
    Christmas-related name(s) 
    Animals
    Returns to hometown
    Is Santa a character? 
        Secretly or overtly?
    Cookie baking 
    Tree decorating
    Somebody hates Christmas
    Christmas festival in a small town 
    A literal competition
    Child plays matchmaker
    All work, no romance/life

    Kiss before the end of the movie ✔ (multiple, from multiple couplings)
    Interrupted kiss 
    Flashback to childhood
    The leads literally run into each other
    Gratuitous shirtless scene
    Big Secret ✔
    Wacky misunderstanding
    Just. Talk. To. Each. Other. 
    Someone pushing the leads together 
    Real family = chaos / bad families = cold and not chaotic
    Learns the meaning of Christmas
    Stranded by snowstorm
    Hot chocolate 

    Ice skating
    D-list celebrity
    Enemy-to-friend storyline
    The love interest is an ex
    Career change
    Lying to each other
    Tries to apologize, but keeps getting cut off

    Christmas pageant 

    End with a flash-forward

Did I actually like/root for the heroine? How do the lead(s) annoy me?
I liked pretty much everyone! I got frustrated with them at times, but they all came across as very likable. Though Cal would drive me crazy with his constant talk of protein.

Is it in any way not completely generic? 
This is very much not a typical Hallmark movie. The focus is on family, the conflicts aren't contrived. There were some things that were frustrating, as I noted--William was clearing holding something back from Dylan, the parents were acting oddly--but it all ultimately made sense. The new romances were as contrived as one would expect, and I can't imagine that Emory and Noah (the cruise crew member) will last...really, ditto Cal and his love interest. Neither of those relationships were given much depth. 

Is the BFF actually the best? Do they need their own movie?
We got glimpses of BFFs/colleagues/sidekicks for each of the kids, but didn't get to spend enough time with them to get attached.

How is the romantic alternative wrong for the heroine? 
n/a

Thoughts/Other Notes:
Really quite good. Cal's and Emory's romances were as Hallmark-y as one would expect, but the writing and acting were solid. Also, this was clearly shot on location in Germany and Austria, so it was all gorgeous. Recommend.

Rating:
🧀
🧀🧀🧀

Thursday, December 11, 2025

Adding to the "European Christmas markets" bucket list destinations

⭐⭐⭐

Last Stop on the Winter Wonderland Express is another entry in the "Sure, it was perfectly fine" Christmas romance genre.

After being left at the altar by Miles, Aubrey goes on their planned honeymoon, a Christmas-themed train trip through northern Europe, stopping at cities with Christmas markets and finishing up in igloos in Lapland, watching the northern lights. She immediately falls in with a bunch of other singles and is smitten with Jasper. Aubrey's job is planning luxury trips for couples; Jasper is a travel journalist.

The travel side of the book was excellent. The characters stop in Paris, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and other spots, and Raisin does a good job of giving the vibes of the cities without sounding like a travel guide. They all kind of blur together, but I loved the look into the different foods and highlights of the markets. Doing a tour of European Christmas markets is very much on my bucket list, so this was perfect for me.

I also appreciated the growth in the characters. When Aubrey meets the other singletons, they discuss what's gone wrong in their relationships and readers can immediately see the issues (one immediately rejects dates over minor issues on the first date, one smothers objects of their affection, and so on), even if Aubrey doesn't. But everyone learns the error of their ways and sees how they were self-sabotaging, and Aubrey realizes that her life with Miles would involve having to make compromises.

Aubrey was immediately drawn to Jasper, but didn't jump into anything immediately; I thought her time spent trying to figure out her feelings and handling the fallout from being left at the altar made sense.

Upon boarding the train, Aubrey blurted out that her husband was dead (mostly so everyone wouldn't think of her as being jilted). To her credit, she does pretty much immediately try to say that no, he's not dead--but a running gag in the book is that nobody will accept it, assuming she means that he's still with her in spirit. It's actually pretty amusing because she does actually try. Except, of course, at the moment where Jasper gives her a perfect opportunity and she doesn't take it. Naturally this has negative consequences.

So why only 3 stars? Aubrey and Jasper were almost too perfect for each other, and even though I get annoyed in this genre when people get upset about being lied to, I felt like Jasper very much had the right to be annoyed at Aubrey letting him think Miles was dead--he was far too forgiving too quickly, in my opinion.Like, yay that they found each other but maybe it would've been good for Aubrey to realize that all relationships involve some level of compromise?

Also, I think I was supposed to find Princess (another of the passengers, who's convinced that her three husbands died because she was cursed) more charming than I did; same with the on-board attendant whose name I can't be bothered to look up. Plus, the book was too padded; I reached what felt like the climax of the book and realized it still had another 50 pages to go. It did also get a bit repetitive; ultimately, it feels like it could've been tightened up a bit

Still, I'm not mad at it. Perfect for this time of year.

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Lost in space (in a good way)

⭐⭐⭐⭐
 
What an enjoyable read! In Gemini: Stepping Stone to the Moon--The Untold Story, author Jeffrey Kluger, who co-wrote the book that the movie Apollo 13 is based on, details the middle child of the early U.S. space program. The Mercury missions were the firsts for the program, and Apollo missions went to the moon. Gemini made those moon missions possible.

Kluger writes in a chatty style, and the book itself is a breezy 300 pages. Naturally there's information about the Mercury program, but I enjoyed the amount of information about the formation of NASA and the decision about where to put manned spacecraft center (Houston). There's a lot about budgets and going to Congress for money and projects going over budget. And it really struck me how many vendors NASA worked/works with to build everything. A lot of my work is basically project management, and the thought of trying to wrangle all these companies on that kind of project is exhausting.

I've read a decent amount about the space program in the 1950s and 1960s and I still learned quite a bit. There were a number of people in the astronaut program whom I don't believe I'd ever heard of, and Kluger does a good job of giving the reader a feel for these men and their personalities in pretty brief snippets. Of particular note was Scott Carpenter sucking (he wasted a bunch of fuel in space when ground control was telling him not to) and Wally Schirra, in his last mission (admittedly it was one of the Apollo missions), also refusing orders from control; Schirra had flown in space three times and knew he wouldn't go again, but the men with him who also disregarded orders were thereafter grounded. (At least the orders they refused were things involving being on television and how to wear their spacesuits, not something that endangered the actual mission, like what Carpenter did.)

Kluger provides a really solid overview of the program. It really brought home what a long shot it was for NASA to get men on the moon in the time frame Kennedy wanted. There were 10 crewed Gemini missions, and 16 men went into space; they achieved rendezvous and docking and long-duration spaceflight and spacewalks. No man was lost, but dang, so very few of the missions actually went according to plan. Gemini achieved what it was supposed to--and, notably, there wasn't a single Soviet mission during the Gemini era--but it seems all the more remarkable when you learn the details of the program.

Definitely recommend for anyone interested in the early space program.

Thanks to St. Martin's Press and NetGalley for the advance copy in exchange for my honest opinion.

Sunday, November 30, 2025

Rankin is worth your time; I don't know that this book is


⭐⭐⭐ 

I had a tough time rating Winning the Earthquake: How Jeannette Rankin Defied All Odds to Become the First Woman in Congress. (And not just because very little of it is actually about her becoming the first woman in Congress, though one could argue that everything in her life to that point would be about that.) I had heard of Jeannette Rankin; I'm into American history so of course had heard of the woman in Congress who voted against joining both World War I and World War II. And I knew she was from Montana. But that's about all I knew.

For the first maybe quarter of this book, I was thinking that this might wind up being a 5-star review. I was fascinated to learn about Rankin's upbringing in Montana and her (and her family's) progressive views. She was born in a cabin in the wilderness; her father was one of the major contributors to Missoula's growth. I was amazed at the progressiveness of this woman born in Montana in 1880, and how living there in that time shaped her:

Decisions were made by conversation and consensus, and everyone's point of view was given weight. This culture grounded in and dependent upon participatory democracy profoundly shaped Jeannette's outlook on social change and the role of government (loc. 101)
and how it learning of a massacre of Nez Pearce by the U.S. Army in 1877 that led to Jeannette's lifelong pacifism; she later compared it to My Lai in Vietnam. As a child, she lobbied her father to give ranch hands better wages and working conditions. And when the copper kings started taking over Montana, she railed against the horrors in the Gilded Age, speaking out against child labor.

She grew up and started working for women's suffrage, and Jeannette would go to women in towns throughout the West, arguing that if women had the right to vote, it would help everyone: "women voters could blanket California in protections for workers, women, and children" (loc. 1078) and "Jeannette promised women would vote to empower unions, regulate corporations, and ensure that worker protections were codified into law" (loc. 1368). She worked tirelessly and I loved reading out this fight for women's votes. Women in Montana got the right to vote, and they promptly voted Jeannette into Congress. (At the time, Montana actually had two members in the House of Representatives, and the state wasn't divided into districts. Jeannette's enemies managed to get the state districted, and that was how she was voted out.)

Jeannette made it into Congress and the trouble started, because she was very much against entry into WWI, and many women's suffrage activists were...not exactly in favor, but didn't want Jeannette to vote against it because they thought it would hurt their cause.

As I continued reading the book, I found myself more and more annoyed with author Lorissa Rinehart, whose opinions shone through the book (in this case, making comments about the East Coast women's suffrage leaders). I assume Rinehart is from the western part of the country; her opinions about Easterners echo the opinions I heard when I moved from Connecticut to Montana in high school. The book became frustrating to read at times because the author could be so strident--and I agreed with her opinions! I'd be like, "I agree, but dang, tone it down a notch."

Particularly once the book gets into Jeannette's crusade against war, which is pretty much everything from her election on. And look, I am not in favor of war, and World War I was particularly dumb. But passages like the following (about the Lusitania) kind of just made me sigh:
Jeannette saw this tragedy not as a cause for war but as a reason to turn off the spigot of money and munitions that kept the war going. Such a measure would force Europe's evenly matched old kingdoms to reach an equitable peace without victory for either side. Many in and outside the government, including most in the suffrage movement, agreed with her at the time. Ironically, if the Wilson administration had followed this advice and ceased to intervene, this pan-European war may well have been the war to end all wars rather than the one that spawned more than a century of unprecedented global bloodshed. (loc. 1879)
I just don't think that's what would've happened if the United States hadn't entered the war. I mean, maybe? And there are also weird interjections about how the Constitutional amendment for women's suffrage was also being sacrificed ("she understood that any hope of an expanded idea of democracy in America was on the verge of being forgotten and erased altogether" [loc. 2384] and "the cause of women's rights ... would be razed in [the war's] path" [loc. 2404]) when she managed to get the votes farther than expected in Congress in 1917, I think, and the thing was passed in 1919.

The fallout from her vote against WWI was interesting, and I loved learning that she helped form the ACLU, but Rinehart doesn't really go into it much. The book focuses on her anti-war activities, with occasional sidebars like "To them [the other suffragists, I believe], despite all her success, she was persona non grata and would remain so for the rest of her life and much of history" (loc. 3077) and "Another anniversary of America's entrance into the war, another turn around the sun since Jeannette refused to be bent to the will of the powerful and was broken for the rigidity of her conscience" (loc. 3210). Rinehart also seems to credit Rankin's peace group for coming up with Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which seems...not right.

She does work for organizations in the anti-war movement, and we get comments like "where leadership tried to clip her wings with organizational protocol and boardroom bylaws" (loc. 3593) and I honestly had a hard time telling if Jeannette was like, "I do things my way, screw you all!" or whether her bosses were being too micromanage-y. It was frustrating because honestly, by this point in the book, I didn't totally feel like I could trust Rinehart's narration and interpretation. Rankin's strategies for getting support for suffrage in the West in the early 20th century were obviously effective, but that doesn't necessarily mean they translate well for other goals.

Jeannette winds up getting elected to Congress again, where she was famously the only vote against joining WWII and then was promptly voted out of office. (Rinehart does note that after voting against the war, Rankin did vote in favor of appropriations and such to ensure that the soldiers got what they needed.) And we get glimpses of how Rankin spent her life, but without much detail
She spent years advocating for women's right to vote, the ability of labor unions to organize, the end of child labor, and the expansion of democratic voting rights for all. But most ardently and most often, she had worked for peace, and it could be said that all of her other efforts had been in its pursuit. (loc. 4411)

Rankin spent a lot of time in later years in India, which was interesting enough, though Rinehart focuses on that without delving into other issues Rankin worked on. At one point Rinehart mentions Rankin's participation in the civil rights movement without saying literally anything about what that involvement looked like. She spoke out against the Vietnam War, but again, we see very little of what that looked like.

(I did become more interested in Edna, Jeannette's sister, who worked for women's reproductive rights, becoming instrumental in extending the network of Planned Parenthood. That's awesome! More on her!)

Ultimately, I came to admire Rankin (who also spoke out in favor of getting rid of the Electoral College! She had many good ideas!), though she seems like she may have been frustrating to actually deal with--though many people with big ideas are that way. I enjoyed learning about her but got really frustrated actually reading this book, and I can't tell how much of that was because of the author interjecting all over the place. Which was even more frustrating, because Rankin seems like someone I agree with.

Do I recommend this book? Oof. I don't know. I do recommend learning more about Jeannette Rankin. 

Many thanks to  St. Martin's Press and NetGalley for an advanced copy of the book. All views are mine. 

Monday, November 24, 2025

A tradition worth keeping

Despite having been in Fiddler on the Roof in high school (ensemble), I'm not a huge fan of the piece. I find Tevye annoying. So when Signature Theatre announced it for this season, I was not particularly thrilled at the prospect.

I was wrong. This production is excellent and gave me a whole new appreciation for the piece.

The musical is the story of Jewish dairyman Tevye, raising his five daughters in Anatevka, Russia in the early 20th century. It's the story of his daughters rebelling against the traditions of their upbringing in how they find love for themselves, eschewing village matchmaker Yente. It's the story of how Tevye rolls with the punches...and figures out when he can no longer do so.

To life! (c) Daniel Rader
Director Joe Colarco has set the show in the round; when the audience comes in, they find themselves at a large table around which the town congregates. (And if you're in the front row, you're pretty much at the table. Cast members will brush up against you.) The cast rearrange the table throughout the show, allowing it to serve myriad functions. It was only well into the second act that I realized that parts of the table were disappearing...and what that meant. It's so subtly done that the gut punch came completely unexpectedly.

Douglas Sills's Tevye is a revelation. As I noted, I don't like Tevye. I do like Douglas Sills, whom I first saw in The Scarlet Pimpernel in the late 1990s and whom I actually met at the stage door, and let me tell you, the man was lovely and a delight. And his Tevye got to me. He had a sparkle in his eye and a clearly joyful nature. But his moments of seriousness and anger show the depth of the man. I appreciated Colarco including scenes of the rabbi and Anatevka men studying the scriptures, even if just in the background; it rooted the show in Tevye's desire, as he sings in "If I Were a Rich Man," to sit in the synagogue and pray, to discuss the scriptures. Tevye's Jewishness is always at the heart of the play, of course, but I felt it a lot more in this production. His intelligence shone through in a way I hadn't seen before.

And the bangers in the show hit. "L'Chaim" and the post-wedding celebrations are always going to be ludicrously fun. But here? Magic. And Alex Stone's Fyedka had me from his first note. (All three suitors--Jake Loewenthal's Motel and Ariel Neydavoud's Perchik being the other two--were great. Neydavoud found a great combination of idealistic scholar and reluctant love interest that worked perfectly. Also, the man can dance.) For a show that can be a real bummer, it has many moments of true joy.

And brilliance, in Tevye's dream sequence. The idea for it is fantastic, of course, but the way Colarco staged was the perfect level of terrifying. (Again, particularly when you're watching from the front row.) I don't know how much Tevye actually sees his daughter Tzeitel's marriage to a local butcher as her being shackled, but she sure does. So well done.

Ultimately, I think, this production felt more real to me than other productions I've seen. The characters were more human, the village more vibrant. And unfortunately, the times we live in make it incredibly relevant. 

I'm shocked to be in this position, but I'm actually considering trying to usher this show again. It was that good. 

Saturday, November 15, 2025

The Phantom IS there inside my mind

I can't be in any way objective about Phantom of the Opera. When it opened on Broadway in 1988, I was obsessed. My father--who, God bless him, is where I get my love of musicals from--bought the records and I listened all the time. I acted it out in the basement. My copy of the libretto is well-worn. I was for years convinced that "queue" meant "letter" because of a line in the song "Notes." So there's no way for me to write a review of the show, which I saw this week at the Hippodrome in Baltimore, where it's launching its new national tour.

(I note that I have tags for both Sondheim and Les Mis,but not for Phantom or Andrew Lloyd Webber. This is because I didn't start this blog as a 10-year-old. I grew up listening to an ALW mixtape my father made. The first two shows I saw on Broadway were Cats and Starlight Express. ALW is very much foundational to my musical theater being.)

This also means that I critique the show against how I acted it out. (I have notes about their staging of "Masquerade" compared to the one I have in my head.) I've now seen it six times and while I understand there's been some restaging, I sure couldn't point out any specifics, particularly since the last time I saw it was on Broadway, and so some things might be Broadway/tour differences. I think the backdrops/scenery might be different, and I feel like the set for the rooftop scene for "All I Ask of You" is different. Costumes might be tweaked a bit, but are largely how I remember. The effects in the "Wandering Child" sequence in the second act were not as cool as before; the Phantom doesn't shoot fire at Raoul, he just kind of sends sparks up in the air.

I did feel that that scene, particularly, didn't work as well for me as it could've. Christine wasn't looking at the Phantom as he got his hooks into her again; maybe Raoul could sense that "once again she is [the Phantom's]," but I couldn't sense it from the middle balcony. My only other real quibble is in the "Stranger Than You Dreamt It" sequence in the first act, where the Phantom winds up kind of crawling around on the floor. Like, I'm sure it's always been that way, but something about it seemed off to me. (Maybe because the Phantom in this production--Isaiah Bailey--is a Black man and it just made me uncomfortable?)

Anyway, otherwise it was, dare I say it, phantastic. Everyone was amazing. I was delighted that Madame Giry was played by Lisa Vroman, who I know because I was a huge theater geek in the 1990s, and she was in, among other things, Hey, Mr. Producer!, playing Christine Daaé, which I both watched and listened to a billion times. We saw the alternate Christine, Alexa Xioufaridou Moster, and it may have been her first performance; during the curtain call, the cast were super enthusiastic and Vroman and Midori Marsh (Carlotta) both were wiping away tears when Moster took her bow. She was amazing.

Also, the audience was great. The run in Baltimore sold out pretty quickly, I believe, and you could tell the audience was definitely excited for the show. The enthusiasm was palpable, and it was great, for instance, hearing some well-deserved "Bravo!"s after "Music of the Night."

My husband has never seen Phantom and kept exclaiming about how great the entire cast was; he noted that even Firmin (William Thomas Evans) and André (Carrington Vilmont), characters that you could get away with more for their comedic acting than singing, sounded fabulous. 

Another thing my husband commented on was how clearly horny Christine was for the Phantom, which, yes. The sexual tension was distinctly palpable. What we both found interesting was that she was also clearly into Raoul (Daniel Lopez), but in a different way. Which completely makes sense, character-wise, but I don't remember particularly noticing before. (Though people--do NOT ship Christine with the Phantom! He's not your wooby! He has killed MANY people! I get that he's sexy and has a fabulous voice, but that does NOT make him a good romantic partner!)

I did get slightly distracted thinking about Raoul and Christine's relationship and how quickly it moved. Like, they were already a little too physically friendly in their first scene in her dressing room (it just seemed improper!), and really, how long was it between Hannibal and Il Muto that they're declaring their love to each other? Also, Raoul was 100% in no way let Christine go back to the Phantom to return the ring at the very end.

But anyway. I sadly have not had the chance to see this a billion times the way I have with Les Mis that I can evaluate random background relationships. Maybe someday.

Wednesday, November 12, 2025

Saving the world, one Cheeto at a time


⭐⭐⭐⭐

Probably more of a 3.5, but I rounded up due to originality--Hollow Kingdom is the story of a post-apocalyptic world told from the point of view of animals, mostly that of S.T., a domesticated crow who's lived with Big Jim (and a hound named Dennis) in Seattle. Somethings has affected humans, and S.T. starts a quest to help pets escape the homes they're trapped in now that their humans aren't caring for them.

I don't know that I would've picked up a post-apocalyptic book right (this was a book club choice), but it's a lot funnier and heart-warming than it might first appear. I appreciated S.T.'s journey of accepting the crow part of himself after a lifetime of living with a Mofo (as he calls humans) and learning to join the animal world. I also loved the glimpses into his life in the Before Times, finding out how he gained the knowledge that he has and seeing the misconceptions he has. Author Kira Jane Buxton also intersperses shorter chapters from other animals' POVs, some of them in Seattle and some around the world, giving us a broader perspective on what happened and what is happening.

I knocked it down a bit, though, because I found it slightly repetitive (though in a way that seems pretty realistic; there were a lot of fight scenes, some animal/animal, some animal/human, and I just tend to not attend to battle scenes very well) and I felt like it could've been tightened up a bit.

Ultimately, a book I enjoyed reading but not one I was ever particularly itching to pick back up and continue. There is a sequel, but I don't know that I'll ever feel motivated to read it.

Tuesday, November 11, 2025

Living the retired life

Capers in fabulous retirement communities seem to be having a moment, between Netflix's A Man on the Inside and The Thursday Murder Club book series and Netflix movie. And honestly, I am here for it. It's good to see that kind of age representation on screen, and also for people to see life in senior living communities.

I've seen some people say that Pacific View Retirement Community isn't realistic. It seems a lot of people--and, indeed, some of the media surrounding Inside--think that it's a nursing home. And it isn't. At nursing homes, people are generally getting a lot more care; it's generally even more than what you'd get in an assisted living facility. Rather, retirement communities tend to offer a continuum of care, where residents can live independently and, if needed, eventually move to assisted living (generally still with very nice apartments and amenities) and/or memory care. They're not nursing homes.

(Coopers Chase, in Thursday Night, is possibly unrealistic. The thing is, like, a castle. It was filmed where Pippa Middleton got married, for heaven's sake! And the apartments the characters live in match the setting. Pacific View is nice, but in a way that matches my experiences. But I also certainly don't know anyone in England in a fancy retirement community.)

What really struck me with Inside is how well it showed the different levels of care in the community (though it did generally skip over assisted living; there barely was anyone even with a cane, much less a walker or wheelchair), and I loved the depiction of life for the residents. Particularly, though Ted Danson's Charles moves in and immediately starts getting to know everyone and make friends (as part of his assignment to hunt down a jewelry thief), it shows that that's not the case for everyone. And the residents talk about how they handle the knowledge that they're in a community where many of them will die, where people will deteriorate physically and mentally. 

But these are communities! The activities we see at Pacific View and Cooper's Chase are accurate. There are happy hours and classes and sports and excursions. There's gossip and cliques. There are routines and resident committees. 

There were so many little moments in the show that hit him for me. Both of my grandmothers lived in retirement communities; my dad's mother lived in a couple before winding up in an assisted living facility. My mother has lived in all parts of a retirement community--independent living, assisted living, and memory care.

Colleen E. Hayes/Netflix

Both Man and Thursday Night deal quite directly with adults with memory loss and both were so well done. In both, a main character has a spouse with memory loss (both presumably Alzheimer's, but I don't remember whether it was specified in either); I feel like the portrayal in Thursday Night is a bit more idealized, perhaps, but everyone's journey is different (and I only hope Stephen stays at that plateau for a long, long time). Man, being a series, has a bit more time to spend, so we get to not only learn about Charles's experience as a caregiver, but also experience not only residents experiencing memory loss but also, again, how the other residents handle that situation.

None of it is easy. Charles and his daughter have a conversation near the end of the series that pretty much broke me. It all rings incredibly true.

These are both very much worth watching. Man is from Michael Shur, who did the Good Place and Parks and Rec and Brooklyn Nine Nine; it is very funny. (Bonus: One of the characters is an Orioles fan!) Shur is incredibly good at finding the balance of humor and poignancy. Thursday Night is less funny--though it certainly has its moments--but is a very fun whodunit. 

And they're both excellent reminders that life doesn't end at 30...or 40...or 70.