Reviews

I think the best way to approach Beau Is Afraid is to consider it as a series of Inception-styled existentialist nightmares that the real-life Beau is experiencing as he is safely ensconced in his comfy apartment in an upscale part of town. Everything that happens in the movie is then figurative, merely how Beau's mind is trying to process and resolve the difficult aspects of his life that may be hidden from his consciousness. The story consists of three nightmares or acts, each with its distinctive theme.

In Act 1, Beau lives in his dull but orderly apartment, surrounded by the chaos that happens in his building and the lawlessness in the streets. The theme here is that the world is a dangerous place; Beau feels vulnerable, believes that bad things will happen to him, and his apartment represents his safe inner space, which is fragile as danger is always lurking beyond its four walls.

In Act 2, Beau finds himself convalescing in the home of Roger, Grace and their volatile teenage daughter, after an accident. The couple seem inordinately concerned with the welfare of a stranger, yet has placed an ankle bracelet on him. Later, they set their other deranged ward, a combat veteran with PTSD named Jeeves, after him following an incident with their daughter. The theme here is that no one can be trusted. Fleeing from Jeeves, Beau runs into a theatre troupe. During their performance, like a nightmare within a nightmare, we see a story of Beau having a family and subsequently losing them in a natural disaster, only to reunite years later and discover they were never real to begin with. This family represents the life Beau could have had if it were not for his mother's influence on him.

In Act 3, Beau finally arrives at his mother's lavish residence but is too late to the funeral. Mona reveals that she is not actually dead and the body in the coffin is that of the housekeeper, whose death she had bought. When Beau tries to stand up to Mona after years of her tyranny, he is banished to the attic where he finds his emaciated opinionated twin and a representation of his late father's genitals. Jeeves bursts in and starts attacking the father, because if the father is rendered impotent, Beau would not have been born. Jeeves is probably a manifestation of Beau's self-destructive tendencies. In the final scene, Beau stands trial accused of being ungrateful to his mother and is executed as she watches. We see him accept his fate and her shedding tears of self-pity when he disappears into the water. The theme here is subjugation; Mona had always put her needs before her son's, and made him neurotic and dependent so that she had control over him. She did not want her child to differentiate from her and become his own person. Beau Is Afraid is the tale of a narcissistic mother who enmeshed her son, hence Beau's demeanour throughout the movie is that of his young and terrified self.

It is a big ask for people to sit through three hours of this. I watched it in two halves; I was thoroughly derisive in the first half but I appreciated the overall experience and meaning of the story as the second half progressed. Hence I empathise with the detractors and those who applauded this movie alike. As much as Aster might have been self-indulgent in creating this bloated excursion possibly based on a personal experience, I hope that he found catharsis in doing so. Still, I wouldn't recommend the movie without some forewarning and clues.

This comprehensive documentary exposes the troubled teen industry for being the opposite of what it purports to do - instead of its supposed mission of helping troubled teens get back onto the "right" path in life, what we see is the systemic exploitation and abuse of disadvantaged or misunderstood teenagers who are acting out because of their childhood trauma and are being further traumatised by the program.

The son of Narvin Lichfield described his father as being a man with two faces. Just like the troubled teen industry that he established with his brother, there is the public persona and then the private persona. Such duplicity is characteristic of people with the dark triad of Machiavellians, narcissists and psychopaths. Growing up in poverty with neglectful and potentially abusive parents, the Lichfields became Machiavellian sociopaths who have no qualms about being responsible for creating an industry that benefits from the pain and suffering of others. With these individuals, there is no accountability.

It is a disturbing fact that most of the pain and suffering in the world lay in the hands of few like the Lichfields who have lost their humanity and pursue power at any cost. There is also a lack of understanding of "troubled" teens who are judged in comparison of more privileged and neurotypical children. Children cannot choose not to be born into disadvantage or not to have ADHD. Many of the teenagers enrolled in these programs, including Katherine Kubler herself, probably have ADHD and subsequently their behaviours were misunderstood. What these children need are awareness and compassion, not re-programming.

Imagine a child who was taught by those around him to believe that who or what he is is unacceptable, repulsive and deserving of deep unrelenting shame. He fashioned for himself an alternate reality and alter ego where he is the hero, flawless and beyond reproach. Grossly overcompensating for his innate sense of defectiveness, his sole aim in life is to evade his belief that he is deeply unlovable by striving to achieve the adulation and recognition of others by all means necessary, even if it means costing lives and leaving a trail of destruction. One could say that Macchiarini is in a psychic prison of his own making, unable to break free from being a wretched automaton driven by his insatiable ego because he cannot stand to face his mistakes and therefore has to commit to his own con or risk utter obliteration.

There are millions of Paolo Macchiarinis walking amongst us. As much as this Paolo Macchiarini would love to think that he is an exceptional human being and just short of godliness, he is not. As egregious and intelligent as he was to make it as far as he did, he also had help from those around him who saw him as a fast ticket to fame and fortune. A Paolo Macchiarini who was not fatally shamed in childhood could have used his intellect for good. Instead he has destroyed lives and continues to live in his fantasy world. He might have only received a sentence of 30 months in prison, but he has already been sentenced to a lifetime of self-hatred and self-delusion. The documentary would have been more complete with a look into his formative years and testimonies from those who knew him before the ignominious events at the Karolinska Institute.

The title Never Let Him Go may allude to either Steve's tenacity at seeking justice for Scott or his inability to resolve his unbridled grief and letting Scott go. The documentary itself was balanced and unbiased with accounts from all key players: from the family members to the attending officer back in 1988 to the lead investigator at unsolved murders. For a saga spanning nearly four decades, I thought the four hours runtime was appropriate.

The most interesting part to me was in episode 3 where we saw the clash between Pamela and Steve. I had a lot of empathy for Pamela and could appreciate her transference when she perceived Steve as an entitled rich white man who undermined her authority and professionalism. This was a woman who had to claw her way to the top in a white male-dominated environment. Steve on the other hand displayed no empathy towards Pamela, gloating later about how Pamela shot herself in the foot when it was he who loaded the gun by leaking her email to him to the media. Her tone remained composed while his own earlier reprimand of her can be described as spiteful.

After the killer was apprehended, found guilty and sentenced, a result that not even the family believed was possible, Steve conceded that he would never get closure and that he would keep returning to the site of Scott's death to mourn what could have been. While it is true that everyone processes grief in their own time, I wonder how much counselling if any Steve has accessed. Almost 35 years since Scott's death, he seems no closer to accepting the loss of his brother, in spite of all the effort spent in the pursuit of justice. Money may have bought him his brother's killer but it is not bringing him any peace.

Say it with me, "Association does not imply causation". That Buettner is a journalist, not a scientist, is painfully evident in the conviction with which he makes his statements and declarations. The series begins rather well with episode 1 looking at Okinawans, falters with episode 2 when the attention is turned unconvincingly towards Loma Linda, and finally crashes and burns in episode 4 where it becomes a propaganda piece for the authoritarian Singapore government.

For a program investigating centenarians, there are precious few of them featured here; I can recall only two, Giulia in Sardinia and Dora in Ikaria. Buettner revealed his ignorance of complex carbohydrates vs simple sugars when he called bread and pasta simple carbohydrates. His summary of the common factors across the five blue zones is also problematic - eating well, moving naturally, faith, purpose and connection. It disregards the benefits of structured exercise and things like yoga. People with an excess of faith sometimes reduce their life expectancy when they turn away from modern medicine.

Longevity comes down to two things: good physical health and good mental health. Contributors to good physical health include eating natural food and avoiding processed food, ample hydration, adequate sleep, regular physical activity and minimising stress. Contributors to good mental health include love and belonging, self-esteem, self-actualisation, regular physical activity and minimising stress. Modern urban life typically gets in the way of these, something that the centenarians did not have to contend with.

Life expectancy in Singapore increased due to a higher standard of living and modern medicine, like in many other nations. Australia has a similar environment to the United States - high reliance on automobiles and modern diet high in processed food - yet their overall life expectancy is still comparable to Singapore's and routinely in the world's top 10. Due to Singapore's highest cost of living in the world, its younger citizens are generally too stressed and overworked to ever have time for connection, play and spending with their parents. As a former Singaporean who moved to Australia to discover his identity and ikigai, I doubt Singapore will ever truly be a blue zone.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Couples Therapy Australia; it is simply not as good as Couples Therapy US. We see a similar waiting room, similar therapeutic space set up for the program, and couples with similar issues and dynamics that we see in the original version.

The biggest difference is the therapist, and she does not come with a dog this time. Marryam is an extremely competent therapist. In fact, I would want her as my therapist. She is so warm, welcoming, empathic and expressive, that one can sense the drain on her to be so generous and giving. But I also sense that she is inexperienced in couples therapy or at least not well-suited.

Marryam addresses each half of the couple separately and she makes this clear by insisting on a physical space between the couple sitting on the couch. It was uncomfortable watching her dissuade a husband from consoling his teary wife as he slinked across to hold her hand. This is in contrast to Orna, who allows the scene to unfold organically, while deftly shifting focus from one half of the couple to the other in a quiet harmony.

There is a noticeable absence of circular questions in Marryam's approach. When she highlighted that Cat's way of expression is preventing her from getting her needs met by her husband, she did not ask Cat to consider how her words could be perceived by him. This is fundamental in getting the couple to appreciate each other's perspective. Hence this Australian series suffers from not having a true couples therapist like Orna.

If this is indeed a based-on-a-true-story account of Gray as a 12-year-old, he seems utterly unperturbed and unrecognising of what a difficult child he used to be. It is also a childhood that is mostly unremarkable - working-class family, parents who are stable and present, annoying older brother, doting and sagely grandfather... Does Gray somehow think that his ordinary childhood is more exceptional than others and thereby deserving of a telling via motion picture?

There is an incongruence between how flagrantly disrespectful towards his parents and elders Gray's alter ego Paul was, and the trepidation the boy endured when faced with impending corporal punishment by his father. As someone who grew up with a perpetually angry and violent father, my exhibiting any disobedience would be asking for trouble, let alone flouting school rules and running afoul of the law. Also emblematic is Paul's social awkwardness and inability to connect with others, besides his grandfather; he tries hard to gain approval by being the class clown but ultimately succeeds only to further isolate himself.

Themes of family, heritage, race and privilege were suggested but unfortunately not fully fleshed out. The movie ends without the protagonist exhibiting any clear signs of growth, so it is unclear how it can be called a coming-of-age story. With such a self-indulgent approach and an unsympathetic character as the lead, it is almost as if Gray could not fully appreciate how his protagonist self can be perceived as self-absorbed and undisciplined. His young self is simply not that compelling.

Because everything Segel's character does is highly unethical: 1. Turning up to work under the influence 2. Giving advice and an ultimatum to his client 3. Bringing his own personal drama into the therapeutic space 4. Having poor professional boundaries with his clients

He says that he "used to be good at this". If he were ever good at it, he would have: 1. Taken leave to deal with his grief privately 2. Accessed a grief counsellor 3. Be aware of how his grief is impacting others, especially his own daughter 4. Ensured the safety of his clients by arranging for his colleagues to see them

I am baffled by how this ill-advised series scores 8.0. I enjoyed Scrubs and Ted Lasso (from the same creators apparently) but it is difficult to make light of a severe topic like psychotherapy, especially when the protagonist is so outlandish. The only saving grace is Ford's character, who is the voice of reason in this maddening farce.

The elder brother did not make the Olympic trials not because he was Muslim, but simply because he was not a US citizen. His father probably did not know this when boasting that his son would represent their adopted country in boxing. While the documentary expertly stitches together the footage of events, and testimonies from police, FBI, victims and journalists, it fails to spend enough time scrutinising the parents, who separated and abandoned their sons to return to Dagestan. Why did they return to Dagestan and what about their other two children?

The younger brother was described as charismatic and popular in high school but photos of him revealed an emptiness in his eyes. The charm was nothing more than a facade and survival strategy of someone who was not emotionally nourished by his family or community. It seems no coincidence that the both brothers chose to participate and identify with violent sports, instead of taking up chess or tennis. They were the product of inter-generational trauma that began with their grandfather being persecuted for being Chechen and resulted in their father's narcissism.

The father needed his children to be successful in their new country and pushed both sons to achieve. It was the shame from letting his father down by failing to make the Olympic trials that drove the elder brother to radicalisation. He could not blame his father for having lofty expectations so instead he blamed his adopted country and its Islamophobia, and recruited his own brother to his misguided cause. He could not see the forest for the trees, unlike Danny Meng who is himself a migrant from an oppressive nation and appreciates the opportunities in America in spite of the racism he will inevitably encounter.

About all the keyboard eco-warriors furiously pounding out their reviews in righteous indignation at the alleged mistreatment of these elephants. I can almost hear the blood of these armchair conservationists boil as they watch this documentary through their privileged first world lens. "I am a sponsor of an elephant trust", one declares, while another bleats, "I do not care about your (Tamil) cultural reasoning!", most likely from the safety and comfort of their modern abodes, and on devices like MacBooks that probably cost more than the annual salary of the caretakers in the documentary. In doing so, they expose their lack of any cultural sensitivity and indeed any true sense of sacrifice or worldliness.

Elephants are as revered as cows in India, because of a god, Lord Ganesha, who is part elephant. This does not mean that elephants are not used as a means of transportation like horses. It simply means that they are bestowed more respect than most animals. The elephants left behind or cast out of their tribe would very likely perish if not for human intervention. The impoverished caretakers find meaning and purpose in their lives through looking after these elephant cubs, just as the e-conservationists do so by aligning with values of animal welfare and ethical treatment without ever risking being eaten by a tiger or stabbed by an elephant. My only complaint is that the documentary was not nearly long enough.

That Jenkins shot his sister. And also no accident that the Jenkins family inadvertently raised a sociopath. Their inability to hold their son accountable for their daughter's senseless death was emblematic of their parenting style; they were both too busy working to provide for their family to pay attention to their children and their emotional development. Such a tragedy does not just happen overnight; it was the culmination of years of oversight and lack of responsibility. The family unit was dysfunctional and willfully in denial about the anti-social behaviour of the son, which only escalated the older he grew. It was complete disrespect to the memory of their late-daughter that neither parent could face the music.

This is a story of a boy who, neglected by his parents and lacking an anchor, turns to the ocean for solace and into himself for protection. He grows up into a man who is supposedly rooted in hippie mysticism and Sikhism, yet juxtaposed with high profile girlfriends and Hollywood projects. This autobiographical account of his early life has the same duality of being cathartic and being self-indulgent. Remove the neglect and there is little else of substance to the movie. Even the neglect fails to be compelling due to the idyllic setting.

Atkins wrote, directed and produced this movie, his first ever feature film. Whether it was budget constraints or Atkin's single-minded obsession with his own story, it was sorely in need of better writing and creative input. Luke Hemsworth and Rasmus King do a good job of portraying father and son, but their acting and chemistry alone are not enough to carry the movie. The film locations were lackluster and the cinematography does not capture the beauty of the east coast of Australia. In one scene, Rockit runs into Ash 126 km away from Byron Bay and yet the Gold Coast can be seen in the distance. The handling of the film is decidedly amateurish and the heavy reliance on the music of Ry X for the soundtrack did not help.

As a prequel, this is unsatisfying. I have not read the books but enjoyed the first two Witcher seasons. If this is disappointing to me, I can only imagine the outrage that the fans would feel. The series creator wrote only two of the episodes in the original seasons and it appears that there may have been little to no consultation with the original author when they wrote this series.

Basically, it is the story of seven heroes coming together to defeat a villain, whose actions changed the course of the elf kind and indirectly led to the creation of the first Witcher, told in four very condensed episodes. The entire thing feels threadbare as things happen spontaneously with no prior backdrop or character development. They also attempted to cover too many themes such as class, gender, race etc., without paying enough attention and doing justice to each.

A little background on Balor and how he came to be chief sage in spite of being lowborn would be nice. Also, how convenient that Merwyn was the only one to lay claim to the throne when the other monarchies had princes and princesses awaiting succession who were not at the massacre. One minute Fjall and Eile cannot stand each other and the next they cannot wait to tear each other's clothing off. If they had put as much effort into the storytelling as they did with the diversity, they might have had a prequel befitting The Witcher.

But a woeful gay coming-out dramedy. As one earlier comment wrote, the story lacks the sensitivity and care that would have been evident had it been written and produced by gay people. There is probably no event more momentous and potentially traumatic for a queer individual than coming out to their friends, family and community. Instead of a respectful movie about this difficult process, Love, Simon weaves it into an improbable fantasy high school drama.

However, it is not without its merits. As a gay man of colour, I am used to not only seeing heteronormativity play out in most of TV and film, but also the under-representation of people of colour in queer TV and film. Straight TV and film are actually better at racial diversity than queer ones. Recent examples, such as It's A Sin, Heartstopper, Uncoupled and Bros, portray only white protagonists. Another comment below described how disappointed he was when Simon did not end up with a white guy, while claiming that he is not being racist. For me, Love, Simon redeems itself by not going with the obvious.

... trying to find a new life. Most of us reading this thankfully live in stable democracies in which the biggest concerns of our lives are inflation, rising interest rates and ever bigger mortgages. We do not really stop to consider others whose lives are upended or stymied by war, genocide and ruthless dictators. Some of us even cast a wary glance at refugees, asylum seekers and even ordinary migrants because they had the apparent audacity to seek a better life in our countries and take our jobs (even if these are jobs no one wanted in the first place, as the COVID-19 pandemic proved).

Although it is not a cinematic masterpiece, The Swimmers tell an ample tale about the dreams and aspirations of every human being regardless of which country or family they are born into; they desire safety, shelter, community and, above all, an environment that supports their growth and allows them to find purpose and meaning in this universe. We all have but a short span of time on this planet and we should thank our lucky stars if we do not have to negotiate psychopathic and narcissistic leaders like Bashar al-Assad who put their own selfish interests before their nation's.

The wonder in this movie is their self-satisfied conviction that they are creating an intellectual masterpiece. "How about we begin and end the movie by breaking the fourth wall?" "Visionary!" This belief is misplaced, delusional and unintentionally hilarious. The Wonder is all melancholic flair and no substance.

It has only been an hour since I laboured through the movie and I am hard pressed to remember any of the characters' names, besides Anna. The storyline is so linear and utterly bereft of character development that I found myself wishing for the child to just finally starve to death so that the credits could start rolling.

Thirteen years after the end of the Great Famine and the collective Irish psyche struggles to recover from those traumatic times. A girl who doesn't eat and survives is upheld as a miracle by the clergy and maybe her family has a secret agenda to hide. An English nurse is commissioned to investigate and the situation is made more difficult for her by the enduring resentment of the Irish towards the English for their part in the famine.

Little is known about this nurse except she has seen war and lost loved ones. They could have cut to scenes depicting her earlier life or the great famine to add context to the themes of Irish vs English, religion vs science, love vs loss. It is a pity those responsible were not smart enough to create a more engaging story where one could actually care about the characters, which were as emaciated as the Irish at the height of the famine.

Dr. Stutz's eclecticism is what makes him a formidable therapist. He was schooled in psychoanalytic theory, but has blended cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness and acceptance into a simple yet potent formula to follow.

Step 1: Identify your Part X, a.k.a. Your inner saboteur. These are all the negative messages about yourself from society, community and family that you have internalised. They form barricades that prevent you from reaching your goals and attaining self-actualisaton.

Step 2: Befriend your Shadow. Most people try to run away from their shadow yet the shadow is irrevocably a part of them. It is the side of you that you are the most ashamed of and the reason you are ashamed of it is Part X, the negative messaging. Be compassionate to the shadow by refuting Part X and loving all parts of yourself.

Step 3: Beware the Snapshot. The snapshot is the thing that we think will finally bring us happiness once we have achieved it, and make up for past hurts and disappointments. Hill thought it was fame and success for him but soon plunged into depression when he realised that it did not make his shadow go away. The snapshot is a diversion.

Step 4: Get out of the Maze. This is us holding onto old grievances, demanding that life should be fair when it is not. It keeps us stuck in the past, unable to enjoy life in the present, and contaminates the future. To get out of the Maze, Stutz advocates for Active Love.

Step 5: Exercise Active Love. Embody the love that you wish to receive from the universe and project it onto those who have done you wrong so that you may forgive them for their actions. This is exercising kindness for yourself and empathy for those who have been responsible for your Part X, finally allowing yourself to let go and move on.

Step 6: Use Radical Acceptance. Try not to resist your negative thoughts and feelings. Whatever happens when you get told not to think about a pink elephant? Instead acknowledge the pink elephant, tell it kindly that you will not engage with it and turn your attention to something more productive and rewarding.

Step 7: Practice the Grateful Flow. Surmount Part X by reminding yourself the things that you are grateful for in life, no matter how big or small. This is like a mindfulness practice in that it helps us to ground ourselves and not be carried away by the incessant negative messages from the world.

Stutz says that his biggest fear is not getting enough done before he dies. He has a website offering The Tools, but there is probably an opportunity for a book like the Happiness Trap, which takes people through the steps of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT).

Let's be honest Stan/Channel 9. You are not really here to conduct a social experiment to see how successful couples can be if they set aside superficial expectations and split-second judgment, and choose each other based on how well they connected through text messages and phone calls. If you did, we would not have ended up with these contestants, who are ostensibly selected purely based on their respective insecurities and potential for drama-making.

It is almost as if they have an unscrupulous and immoral psychologist working for them to form the trios in each triangle for the worst clashes of personalities. Is it any wonder why these people are single and on this program? We have a woman who grew up with a gambling addict father, a man with self-image issues, a woman with insecurities about her race, a man who is clearly overcompensating with his looks, a woman who has sociopathic and stalking tendencies, the list goes on. These people need to be in therapy so that they can be mentally healthier people capable of a relationship, not in this program which only exploits their vulnerabilities for profit.

Because you will end up with repugnant narcissists with Napoleon Complex like Sepp Blatter. The man is clearly insecure about his height, having brought it up on two occasions unprompted in the first episode alone and lying about his actual height (he says he is 5'7" but he is arguably only around 5'3"). Imagine letting yourself be tormented by a lack of height your entire life regardless of wealth and status. While his contribution to this documentary was useful in portraying just how delusional and self-serving he is, much of it was not relevant to illustrating the corruption happening under his presidency within FIFA.

The FIFA story is just an example of what is happening across the world in companies, corporations, governments and countries. Corruption is inevitable when you have unsound people, who are narcissistic, psychopathic or Machiavellian, pulling the strings at the top. They are the ones who are ambitious and unscrupulous, displacing their good-natured and righteous opponents. The unsuspecting public are also often swayed by their empty promises and false image. To mitigate corruption, first know the enemy and stop giving them a clear path to unfettered power.