Ja Morant is currently not with the Grizzlies as he looks to get his off court life situated and in order after a string on alleged incidents, culminating in the young star guard going on Instagram Live from a Denver-area nightclub and flashing a gun.
The other was by Glendale, Colorado police, who were looking into whether Morant violated any laws by possessing the gun in the nightclub, as there is a law against possession of a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. Ultimately, the investigation didn’t turn up any evidence of legal wrongdoing by Morant, as police announced Wednesday there would be no charges filed against the star.
— Glendale CO Police (@Glendale_PD_CO) March 8, 2023
That is obviously good news for Morant, and clears one hurdle towards his eventual return. The NBA’s investigation will be more thorough in that they will want to look into far more than just what happened at the nightclub. In the meantime, Morant remains away from the team and is trying to get himself back on track off the court for his rapid trajectory as one of the faces of the league, which would be in jeopardy if he were not to straighten out some of the things that could derail him off of the court.
Once again, the Academy has nominated 10 films for the best picture Oscar, with the telecast set to air this Sunday. In 2009, the number of nominees was expanded from five to 10. In 2011, they changed it so that anywhere between five and 10 films could be nominated depending on vote totals, and then in 2021 they went back to a set number of 10 and here we are.
Sheesh, what is this, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or my wife trying to choose a restaurant! Women do be shoppin’, but all that historical stuff aside, the rub is that we’ve once again got a nice even number of 10 films nominated for best picture this year, and there’s nothing the internet Gods love more than nice even numbers of 10. It is to them I shall sacrifice my first born listicle! May the #content crops be bountiful — you’re welcome.
That’s right, I am once again ranking the year’s best picture nominees in order of goodness to badness. And let me tell you, it’s not going to be easy for me. This year is a tough year to rank. Below my obvious top two, this year’s awards season was largely characterized by movies that were… pretty good. There was probably no Parasite and definitely no Three Billboards this year, and most here were a mixed bag of things I loved and hated. Even my bottom film had a couple scenes in it I loved.
But hey, that’s enough with the hemming and hawing. Who am I, Ernest Hemingway? Ernest Hawingway? Let’s kick this old man in the C and assign some numbers to art! Art! Art! Art! (*my editors carry me off on their shoulders*)
10. Tár
That’s right, I didn’t like Tár. Go ahead and take me off your Christmas list.
Or perhaps more accurately, I didn’t really getTár. I wanted to! It seemed kind of funny on paper! “Tár On Tár,” that’s a funny title for a fictional memoir!
The movie begins with Tár herself (Cate Blanchett) dishing on her life and work as a composer onstage at a New Yorker symposium, hosted by a real New Yorker guy. This is followed by a business luncheon (emphasis on the eon) with a character played by Mark Strong, who is equally worshipful. Together, the two scenes take up 40-50 minutes of screen time. I was hopped up on cold medicine and disassociated a few times during this stretch, like I was trying to claw my way out of my own skin.
Then there was a scene in which Tár guest lectures at Juilliard, during which she hectors a pansexual student who says they don’t listen to Bach because he’s a white cis European. They go back and forth for a while until he snaps and walks out of class. Now that was a solid, juicy scene, full of tension, with identifiable stakes, and graspable subtleties to both of their demeanors. I actually loved this scene and I thought we were finally getting somewhere.
And then the rest of the movie was mostly all innuendo and veiled references like I was watching a movie about people who had actually seen the movie I was supposed to see. I was left to try to piece together what it actually was from clues in their conversations. I actually studied for an MFA in New York City so if there were some annoying art people in-jokes you’d think I might’ve gotten them, but nope, “Tár On Tár” was the best that it got.
Then there was a climactic final scene that was clearly meant to communicate… something. Her downfall? That much I got, but the rest of it — where the event was supposed to be taking place, what it actually was, were unclear. I dunno, man. I can appreciate subtlety and plot points left up for interpretation, but I also need details to interpret. Tár felt like I was trying to watch a movie playing on my neighbor’s TV using binoculars.
East Coast critics all seem to love it, I assume because they’re punishment piggies at heart. Bore them to tears, tell them jokes that don’t make anyone laugh, and they’ll fill in the blanks about why you’re a genius.
I read Sarah Polley’s memoir earlier this year and loved it (highly recommend), but hadn’t caught Women Talking (which Polley writes and directs, adapting from the Miriam Toews novel) until last night.
Set amongst an Amish-esque religious sect in an unnamed country where the women have been systematically drugged and raped in their sleep by the male members of their clan (apparently based on a real incident that happened in a Mennonite colony in Bolivia) Women Talking is the story of the female members of the sect gathering together in a barn to vote and debate on what to do next: do nothing, stay and fight, or leave.
The cast, including Rooney Mara, Jessie Buckley, Claire Foy, and Frances McDormand, are all brilliant and Polley has an ear for dialogue. The characters in Women Talking, despite existing almost outside time and space, feel like real people, much more so than, say, The Banshees Of Inisherin.
And yet Women Talking has a very similar quality of feeling a little like it’s belaboring a theme more than it’s telling a story. At some point fairly early on in Women Talking, it becomes clear that the movie is going to end with the women having decided to do one of the three things but before they do it. Knowing that I wasn’t going to see the next chapter, I felt like I lost that thrill of “what happens next” that tends to propel a story forward.
Sure, art thrives on limitation and all of that, and Women Talking isn’t even close to the first movie to consist mostly of people standing around talking, but… maybe trick us a little? I don’t think I would’ve seen The Whale if it had been called “Fat Guy Dying In His House.” I appreciate the difficulty of what Polley and her actors pulled off here, but appreciation isn’t quite the same thing as love. (It was my mom’s favorite, for what that’s worth).
Honestly, who the hell even knows where to put Avatar 2 on this list? I was so excited for the Avatar sequel that I wrote an entire essay about how excited I was about the Avatar sequel. The gist of it was that I was thrilled that James Cameron, a lunatic genius I will devour any profile of, was at long last selling us a movie. Not a franchise or a brand, but a movie.
The industry at large has moved away from selling movies (they sell franchises, brands, merchandise, and expanded universes whose underlying IP they own, to try to turn you into a daily user of their family of products) but, so the thinking went, James Cameron was possibly the one man in the industry with enough clout, enough fuck you money, and enough balls to make whatever the hell he wanted, suits and five-year plans be damned. And what he seemed to want to make was a big crazy blockbuster. To “knock our balls up our assholes” as McG once described it (haha, remember McG?).
And then I went and spoiled it all by actually seeing the thing. James Cameron did make a big crazy blockbuster that at times delivers on its promise — all the whale scenes, Carmela Soprano drinking coffee in a mech suit. High-frame rate is still weird and distracting and detracts from the visual majesty Cameron is trying to create, but that’s forgivable.
In the end Avatar 2 did exactly what I was excited for it not to do. It sold out the emotional climax and replaced it with a tease that it would come in future sequels (an emotional Ponzi Scheme, I believe I called it when Ant-Man 3 did it).
Are we going to have to wait 13 years for those sequels too? After all the whale magic, we end the film on an overlong chase sequence that sort of drags and was arguably the weakest part of the movie. Bummer. I’ll probably still see the next one though, oink oink oink.
[Where to stream it: It’s still in theaters.]
7. Elvis
“Is Elvis any good?” is one of the toughest questions I’ve ever been asked as a film critic. Naturally, it’s a bit of a conundrum where to put it on this list. Mostly I appreciate it as Baz Luhrmann’s magnificently bugfuck fever dream. I felt like I had to take a shower afterwards and found sequins in the drain. Which is… maybe the right way to do an Elvis biopic? When the velvet Elvis painting becomes real, shoot the velvet.
In the era of estate-sanctioned, jukebox musical biopics, Baz Luhrmann gave us an Elvis movie where every song is so filtered, pastiched, and cannibalized that it’s like being in the audience for a contemporary Bob Dylan show trying to figure out what song he’s actually singing.
Tom Hanks was nominated for a Razzie for his performance as Colonel Tom Parker, perhaps because of the “strange” accent, but how is an evil Dutch carnie who reinvents himself as a Southern dandy supposed to sound? I would’ve watched an entire movie about Tom Hanks as an evil Dutch carnie/dandy, by the way, and I get the feeling that’s actually the movie Baz Luhrmann wanted to make but had to call it “Elvis” to satisfy the suits.
The Fabelmans is one of Spielberg’s best movies in years and one of the only ones where he actually allows himself to be a little weird. In the Judd Hirsch scene, Spielberg acknowledges the conflict between art and family, and manages to stage it in a way that comes off more personal, more succinct, and more enjoyable than Martin McDonagh’s entire fable built around essentially the same conflict (The Banshees Of Inisherin). Judd Hirsch got nominated for an Oscar for basically one, five-minute scene and I can’t really argue with it, he shredded that.
The other standout scene in The Fabelmans sees young Steven (er, Sammy Fabelman) basically being devoured by a young shiksa with a Jesus fetish who becomes fascinated by Sammy when she finds out he’s Jewish. Spielberg evoking the genuine bafflement he feels at encountering this deranged culture of suburban WASPs is some of the best filmmaking he’s ever done. Sammy actually turning this situation to his advantage feels almost more like Philip Roth or the Coen brothers than Spielberg.
I really hope it’s this scene that’s a harbinger of Spielberg to come and not the fact that he called his fictionalized family “The Fabelmans.” Oy.
It’s also hard to imagine two better actors worse cast than Paul Dano and Michelle Williams as Sammy Fabelman’s parents. Paul Dano is too young (he looks like a kid wearing his dad’s suit), they’re both too WASPy, and these two perennial awards contenders consistently have scenes stolen out from under them by Seth Rogen (who is fantastic in this).
Gabrielle LaBelle is solid as the teenage Sammy, but he’s saddled with distracting blue contact lenses for the entire movie because Spielberg cast a blue-eyed kid as the young Sammy and thinks he needs their eyes to match. What awful decision-making. And then the David Lynch cameo is brilliant. The whole thing is sort of a mixed bag like this.
Triangle Of Sadness is another tough movie to rank, because it’s a bit like a shit sandwich with a brilliant movie on either end as the bread. It opens with arguably the most thrilling “who’s going to pick up the check” scene ever filmed. Then the movie moves to a luxury cruise, further exploring the whole “predatory relationship between power and beauty” thing, which comes to a hilarious head in the final act with a performance-of-the-year candidate from Dolly DeLeon. “I love you, you give me fish,” is surely one of the best lines of the year.
It’s just a shame the movie grinds to a halt in the middle section, with Woody Harrelson and a drunken Russian boat captain doing memes at each other. It’s one of the few times I haven’t laughed at gratuitous vomiting. It all feels so forced and hack, especially compared to the rest of the movie which is the opposite. “A Russian capitalist and an American communist!” the Russian bellows at one point, gesturing to himself and his meming partner, Harrelson’s character.
Ah yes, I love it when characters just say the subtext of a scene out loud. It felt like someone applied Joss Whedon writing rules to European arthouse cinema, which is a combination I definitely didn’t need. It takes a lot for me not to appreciate a Woody Harrelson appearance.
The Banshees Of Inisherin is very much a Martin McDonagh movie in that it feels like the work of a clever grad student who’s trying to get an A. “Ooh, I’m Martin McDonagh, look how clever I am!” he’s always shouting, and most of the time you kind of have to begrudgingly agree.
The film is about a conflict between Padraic, played by Colin Farrell, and Colm, played by Brendan Gleeson. Colm doesn’t want to spend time with Padraic anymore because he thinks Padraic is dull and it’s a distraction from Colm’s art. Basically, it’s a conflict between a character who thinks life is about the human relationships you form while you’re alive (Padraic) and a character who thinks life is about the art you leave behind (Colm).
It’s… clever, as I’ve said, but what was it I said above about belaboring a theme instead of telling a story? (Critics love that shit). I tend to like movies with a story I can lose myself in and characters that are real people, whereas McDonagh movies can feel like he’s tacked a big theme to the wall and periodically nudges us to remember to admire it.
On a macro level, The Banshees Of Inisherin feels more like a montage of New Yorker cartoons at times than a fully-fledged story about characters who have free will. And yet there’s also the gorgeous setting, a scene-stealing donkey, and charming accents and actors who make even the most stilted dialogue sound fun and fresh. What can I say, the man can stage an incredible New Yorker cartoon.
And that’s to say nothing of Barry Keoghan, the National Rascal Of Ireland, who single-handedly injects McDonagh’s otherwise meticulously planned universe with just the element of absurdity it needs. Barry Keoghan is so good he made me remember a character’s name from Eternals. Give the man an Oscar.
Top Gun: Maverick is not just a hard movie to rank, but a fraught one. Half of the loudest people online think it’s the greatest movie ever and if you disagree you’re a communist, and the other half think it’s too stupid to be in awards contention. Allow me to thread the needle a little here: Top Gun: Maverick is great and also incredibly stupid. I’m not giving it the number three spot because I thought it was great art or thought-provoking, I’m giving it three because I had a great time watching it.
I say this as a person who has spent most of his adult life writing about movies: movies can be both very stupid and very good; that is part of the magic of movies. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that movie that is openly stupid and inescapably watchable demonstrates “movie magic” better than almost any other.
Part of the reason Top Gun: Maverick is good is crushingly obvious: fast jets are cool, and so is watching Tom Cruise openly court death. On a less obvious, Galaxy Brain kind of level, Top Gun: Maverick seems to embody the id of the zeitgeist, if probably unintentionally.
This entire film, in the works for more than a decade, was, you imagine, conceived around the notion of Tom Cruise passing the torch to a younger pilot so that this “franchise” could continue. And yet it’s an entire movie about Maverick not passing the torch. He wants to, but he just can’t. He’s just too brash a pilot! He still looks too good without a shirt on! None of these dumb zoomers and millennials could possibly hold his torch!
That he spends the entire movie refusing to acknowledge aging and refusing to cede power in any meaningful way is accidentally the perfect metaphor for our current gerontocracy, and in some ways it’s a delightful little middle finger to the movie franchise machine. Tom Cruise will not be shunted aside, he’s simply too deranged.
Also, “dogfight football” was easily one of the stupidest, most hilarious things I saw in a movie theater this year.
It seems like most of the other recent WWI movies — 1917, They Shall Not Grow Old, War Horse — have been, at some level, about technical gimmicks. The big gimmick of All Quiet On The Western Front is that it’s just a beautifully-made movie. It’s a lot more classical than it is cutting-edge. Partly because of that, it’s immersive in a way that those other movies sometimes weren’t. You don’t spend any of it thinking about the construction.
It’s also, perhaps because it’s being told from the perspective of the Germans, less a story of survival than a story of absurd, senseless tragedy. Which seems like the more salient requiem for the Great War. There are scenes in All Quiet On The Western Front that will stick with me, despite being entirely visual. It’s hard to ask more than that from a movie.
One in particular: when the main character is out on patrol when the Allies first show up with flamethrowers. It’s a nice sunny day and it’s just sort of a strange image at first, the fact that he’s in imminent danger of dying one of the most gruesome and painful deaths imaginable hasn’t really sunk in at first. Like those first few seconds after you wake up when you have to come to grips with where you are and why, only in this case with the smell of burning flesh. “The banality of horror” I suppose you could call it.
Everything Everywhere All At Once has been one of the more polarizing movies this year, and to some extent, I get where the haters are coming from. It’s an A24 movie, with a fantastic premise, directed by the guys (known collectively as “Daniels“) who began their career with a film about a farting corpse. As such it does come very close to being a Film Twitter In-Joke (I would argue this applies much more to Tár and Cocaine Bear, but I digress).
On the surface, Everything Everywhere is also a lot of like an Austin film nerd’s version of Let’s Remember Some Guys. In style, it’s manic to the point of being exhausting at times. It rides that line between kitschy-cool and kitschy-obnoxious.
AND YET.
Just when it was about to alienate with fast cuts or one too many absurdist multiverse gags, Everything Everywhere turned a corner into heartfelt and rewarded your patience. Virtually every other movie about “the multiverse” used the concept basically as a way to squeeze in more characters or justify leaps in movie logic. But how do you introduce the multiverse without questioning existence itself and What It All Means? Everything Everywhere attempts to treat this problem honestly, and yes, a little cutesily,
Another way to say it is that maybe it was a bit of a film nerd in-joke, but it was one that worked perfectly on me personally. If I could choose just one anecdote to explain why, it’s the way “Absolutely (Story Of A Girl)” worked its way into the movie. Basically, the Daniels accidentally wrote the lyrics of a 2000 one-hit-wonder song into their script, then ultimately embraced it. Then they reached out to the writer of the song, the lead singer of Nine Days, for permission to use it in the film.
As it turned out, John Hampson, who is allegedly a high school English teacher now, is also a huge cinephile and was thrilled to help. So not only did he give permission, he wrote and re-recorded three remixed versions of the songs for use as musical cues in Everything Everywhere‘s alternate universes.
While I appreciate a story that “asks the big questions,” what I love is a film that can take a passing thought or some random snippet of mental detritus and turn it into a symphony. Everything Everywhere is a $20 million movie that feels like a $100 million movie.
[Where to stream it: Showtime] Vince Mancini is on Twitter. You can read more of his reviews here.
As Tucker Carlson receives bipartisan condemnation for his coverage of exclusive January 6 footage provided to him by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Megyn Kelly is blasting Fox News for not making a bigger deal out of Carlson’s scoop. While Kelly acknowledges that Carlson’s reporting wasn’t entirely accurate thanks to his selective editing of the footage, she still thinks her former employee should’ve touted the exclusive across all of its programs.
“I mean, trust me, I worked at Fox for many years, so if somebody gets a big, big scoop, you know, you ride it, you ride the wave, you, you blanket the channel with it,” Kelly said on the latest episode of The Megyn Kelly Show. “You have it exclusively. It’s yours. Nobody else has it. The fact that it’s not ubiquitous across the channel definitely says something.”
As Kelly questioned whether the damaging revelations from the Dominion lawsuit has Fox spooked, she continues to be baffled over how the network handled the January 6 footage. Via Mediaite:
“But that’s no excuse not to ride your own reporting,” Kelly pushed back.
“Either you stand by it or you don’t. Either it belongs on the channel or it doesn’t, you know, either — If Tucker airs it, it’s fair game for the channel. You can’t just have — like run and hide once he breaks this big story, it’s like, ‘Oh, it’s not happening.’ That makes no sense to me,” Kelly said.
So, apparently, Kelly’s argument is that regardless of whether or not Tucker’s coverage was right, the network should’ve gone big or gone home. In a way, she’s kind of right because Fox News is trying to appease MAGA audiences by downplaying the January 6 attack, but it’s also attempting to maintain “integrity” by not highlighting the fact that it’s biggest personality is dismissing the chaos that everyone saw happen on their TVs in real-time. The QAnon Shaman toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube.
Drake and 21 Savage’s surprise album Her Loss was a rousing success last year and a worthy follow-up to his previous joint project with an Atlanta trap rapper, 2015’s What A Time To Be Alive with Future. And while a sequel to What A Time has apparently been in the works since before the COVID-19 pandemic, it looks like Drake’s next ATL team-up will be with a different rapper with whom he’s shown great chemistry: Lil Baby.
That’s right: Drake and Lil Baby have reportedly been working on a joint album, according to Drake’s Honestly, Nevermind collaborator Black Coffee. The South African DJ recently noted that Quality Control’s Coach K told him about the project during an interview, saying, “He had said to me Lil Baby and Drake are making an album” (Lil Baby is signed to the Atlanta-based label). He also noted that “it’s possible Drake is retiring,” which does echo a sentiment Drake himself shared with another QC artist, Lil Yachty.
Drake & Lil Baby may be making a Collab Album
According to Black Coffee this was said by Coach K (part owner of QC).
If Drake and Lil Baby really are working on a joint project together, it’ll be an appropriate way to tie off a trilogy of projects with Atlanta trap rappers whose careers he helped immensely, and the culmination of his and Baby’s growing chemistry. In 2018, Drake helped supercharge the ATLien’s rise to stardom his feature on “Yes Indeed,” leading to a string of similar collaborations like “Staying Alive” and “Wants And Needs” from Scary Hours 2. In fact, Baby was supposed to appear on “Toosie Slide” as well, but Baby was busy with other commitments at the time.
Hopefully, he’ll be able to stay on tast this time around and help deliver what’ll almost certainly be a fan-favorite project in the vein of both rappers’ beloved joint projects (Lil Baby previously worked with Gunna on Drip Too Hard). Fingers crossed, folks. You can watch Black Coffee’s full Podcast And Chill interview above.
The only thing more convoluted than the Fast and Furious timeline is the titles of the movies. Numbers come and go (The Fate of the Furious comes between Furious 7 and F9), only one of the soon-to-be 10 films uses a colon (The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift), and don’t even get me started on the ampersand in Fast & Furious. It’s chaos, but I like chaos; it’s how Ludacris’ Tej went from humble jet ski-racing beginnings to traveling into space.
But what I don’t like is how Fast X is supposed to be pronounced.
[Director Louis] Leterrier “pronounces it Fast Ten, as in ‘fast ten your seatbelts,’” the director’s Empire feature reveals, definitively settling the matter from the mouth of what may be the planet’s most legit authority on the subject. Got that? Now and forever, it’s Fast Ten and not Fast X whenever the movie comes up in actual conversation.
Between 2015 and 2019, there was a Star Wars movie, whether as part of the sequel trilogy or a standalone installment, every year. That’s a half-decade of uninterrupted Star Wars films — now we’re going that long without a new one.
But if/when the untitled film (possibly directed by Taika Waititi) comes out in 2025, will it feature a cameo from The One and Only Baby Yoda? It’s something that The Mandalorian director Rick Famuyiwa won’t rule out.
“I don’t know what the big plan of everything is, and obviously, there’s so much storytelling happening now in Star Wars. There are series, and a lot has happened in the films. So what that all means in terms of how we create things and for what medium has all started to blur,” he told the Hollywood Reporter.
That being said, Famuyiwa “wouldn’t be surprised” to see Baby Yoda or Space Amy Sedaris on the big screen. Grogu wants to show off his range in a Wes Anderson or Julia Ducournau movie, but he’ll settle for Star Wars for now.
Famuyiwa continued:
“I certainly don’t have any inside knowledge about anything that’s happening in that regard. But there’s a large storytelling community within Star Wars that is very active on the series side and continues to be active when it comes to what may be happening with the films moving forward.”
And the award for Best Actor at the 2026 Oscars goes to… the ferry droid!
Lizzo has used her platform to bring attention to several social issues both in her music and on social media. From racism, women’s rights, and fatphobia, the Grammy Award winner has even received suggestions to run for political office in the future from music legend Stevie Nicks.
In Tennessee, elected officials passed two pieces of anti-LGBTQIA+ bills (Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 9) that effectively bans all drag performances from taking place on any public property in the state. Across the country, several other states are looking to overturn pro-LGBTQIA+ bills directly related to transgendered people, and Lizzo has had enough. The singer took to Twitter to share her thoughts on the matter in an epic rant.
The musician opened the series of tweets today (March 8) by writing, “Transphobia is lookin’ real rooted in racism right about now.”
Transphobia is lookin real rooted in racism right about now…
Lizzo continued the message with, “I’ve never heard a person say why they’re racist or fatphobic. I’ve never heard a reason why someone is transphobic. I think if we knew ‘why’ these people felt this way, there would be way less support for these ideals. Because the ‘why’ is more insidious than we realize.”
I’ve never heard a person say why they’re racist…
Or fatphobic..
I’ve never heard a reason why someone is transphobic..
I think if we knew ‘why’ these people felt this way there would way less support for these ideals.
Because the ‘why’ is more insidious than we realize.
But Lizzo quoted tweeted the above tweet to add further context, writing, “Don’t get it twisted — I don’t care why people are bigoted. That’s a waste of my imagination. I feel like there’s a lot of complicit silence and apathetic participation going on that wouldn’t fly if people knew more.”
Don’t get it twisted— I don’t care why people are bigoted. That’s a waste of my imagination.
I feel like there’s a lot of complicit silence and apathetic participation going on that wouldn’t fly if people knew more. https://t.co/CxcLi86qnL
In a scene from the classic 2000 movie American Psycho (spoiler alert if you’re 23 years late), investment banker Patrick Bateman (portrayed by Christian Bale) kills a fellow investment banker named Paul Allen (Jared Leto) while listening to “Hip To Be Square” by Huey Lewis And The News. While this particular scene has become an iconic moment in cinema, Lewis admitted that over two decades after the film’s premiere, he still has not, and probably will not, watched the movie.
In an episode of Mark Hoppus’ Apple Music After School Radio show revealed exactly why he refuses to watch American Psycho (as Exclaim notes). While he happily licensed “Hip To Be Square” to be played in the movie, Lewis didn’t want the song to be featured on the soundtrack, as it would be placed alongside source music for the movie, and didn’t feel it would be fair for fans to buy the album just for that song.
“On the eve of the release of the movie, they came out with a press release that went everywhere that said that Huey Lewis had seen the movie and it was so violent that he yanked his tune from the soundtrack, to pump up interest,” Lewis recalled. “And that pissed me off, frankly, so I boycotted the film. I’ve never seen the film, but I did see the clip when we lampooned it for Funny Or Die.”
The aforementioned Funny Or Die skit was shot about a decade ago, and features Lewis recreating the scene with Weird Al Yankovic. Check that out below.
Despite recently calling for a “national divorce” that sounded a heck of a lot like a civil war, Marjorie Taylor Greene got to preside over Congress on Wednesday thanks to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Greene was a vocal and prominent supporter of McCarthy’s bid to become Speaker of the House, and she fought tirelessly to secure him the position during several tumultuous days of Matt Gaetz and a small cohort of Republicans derailing the process.
For her efforts, Greene has been awarded with choice subcommittee assignments after previously being stripped of them following a rash of blatantly anti-Semitic ramblings in 2021. There have also been serious questions about Greene’s involvement in the January 6 insurrection, but that apparently didn’t stop McCarthy from letting her play with his gavel.
According to Raw Story, Greene not only sat in McCarthy’s chair, but called Congress to order before being temporarily bestowed with the power to oversee her fellow members of Congress.
“I hereby appoint the Honorable Marjorie Taylor Greene to act as Speaker Pro Tempore on this day. Signed, Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House of Representatives,” the House clerk read.
Naturally, people had some thoughts about Greene presiding over Congress. A clip of her being sworn in as Speaker Pro Tempore went viral on Twitter as both she and McCarthy were roundly roasted for the unbelievable proceedings. You can see some of the reactions below:
Rachel Griffin Accurso, known as Ms. Rachel to her 3.16 million YouTube subscribers, didn’t intend to become a sensation with young children and their parents. But when she realized there weren’t any developmentally appropriate shows for her son, she put her teaching degree to work and made one herself.
After just 4 years in production, her show, “Songs for Littles,” has over 1.8 billion views on YouTube.
Accurso is intentional with all of her videos, doing close-ups of her mouth when introducing new words and pausing to “hear” responses from her viewers after asking a question. She stresses that everything she teaches and models on the show is backed by research.
Given what Ms. Rachel does for the smallest among us, who could have a problem with her show? Some parents became angry that Ms. Rachel featured Jules Hoffman, who uses they/them pronouns, on her show. A TikTok user who describes herself as a “traditional mom” called out Ms. Rachel for being “political,” and the video received over 300,000 views.
Nothing can change that you are worthy of love #msrachel #songsforlittles #affirmations
“When Ms Rachel introduces they/them/their pronouns so you have to stop watching her,” the TikTok creator captioned her post.
The video resulted in a backlash against Ms. Rachel on social media from certain corners. But instead of letting it get to her, on February 27, she decided to take a break from social media to put things in perspective. That’s no easy task for someone who makes a living by producing online children’s content.
Ms. Rachel returned from her social media sabbatical on March 6 and shared some lessons she learned during her time away. But this time, she wasn’t wearing her trademark overalls, pink shirt and headband.
Love > fear #msrachel #msrachelsongforlittes #selfcare
“I was able to spend some time thinking about setting social media boundaries for myself, which is a good practice for a lot of people,” Accurso says in the short clip.
“And with social media boundaries, you figure out ways to protect yourself and you recognize, ‘Oh, when I do this, I don’t feel so good and so I’m going to do less of this.’”
“And it’s a good way to practice self-care, which is very important,” she continued. “But I am here to serve children and their families every day and to share the love and kindness that we want to see reflected in the world. And thank you so much for all the love.”
She ended the video by saying “thank you” three times and captioned the clip, “Love > fear.”
Accurso’s comments are an excellent way for us to look at our lives on social media. Sometimes it’s great to take a break, think about what message we are trying to send to the world and set a clear intention for how we behave in public.
Ms. Rachel could have tried to turn the table on her critics, but instead, she looked at the situation and reaffirmed her goal to share kindness with the world. Her reaction feels a lot like how Mr. Rogers would have handled the situation. And you can never go wrong following in the footsteps of Mr. Rogers.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
(@billprady) 
:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/46073778/tumblr_nfmtrkRCM21r55h1ho1_1280.0.0.jpg){kind=link}