Kate Hudson and Oscar's Changing Tastes

I have been following the Oscars relatively religiously since 1995.  That was the first year I actually read, in real time, magazines like TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly trying to predict who would win, and even did my own predictions with my family.  If the old Malcolm Gladwell adage is correct, I hit 10,000 hours of expertise toward the Oscars before I could drive a car, and know a thing or two about the ceremony and its tastes.

I was struck by that while thinking about this year's Best Actress race.  I have bemoaned on this blog many times the near uniformity in the Academy's nominations compared to precursors in recent years (it's why we ended up with, for the first time since 2006, not a single person who qualified for our annual "No Globe, No SAG, No Problem!" article last year).  However, we'll get to that problem in a few weeks once the SAG nominations have been announced.  For today, I want to talk about something that Oscar has developed in this uniformity: good taste...and how it's costing us what would've been a certain Oscar nomination (and likely win) 15 years ago.

Starting in the mid-to-late 2000's, we began to see acting lineups that would always go to the same films.  The Globes, SAG, and BAFTA were at one point a pretty strong indicator of what might be in the conversation, but they didn't end the conversation-new names showed up and Oscar would pick titles and stars that didn't win previously.  But when the awards bodies began to sync, they also started to emulate other people, namely critics prizes and influential online predictors who became a circle of self-fulfilling prophecy.  In the process, acting prizes that would've been long-shots a few years ago became real threats for nominations.

The Oscars do have a history of nominating acting performances from character actors and unknowns that might have otherwise gone unnoticed, at least since the 1970's.  Some that come to mind include Emily Watson (Breaking the Waves), Isabelle Adjani (The Story of Adele H), and Massimo Troisi (Il Postino).  But looking at the Best Actress field in 2025, this seems to be almost completely a list of performances that would've all been longshots years ago.  Renate Reinsve is acting largely in Swedish, Jessie Buckley is in an introspective period drama, Rose Byrne plays in an uncomfortable black comedy, Amanda Seyfried in an unusual dramatic musical, and Tessa Thompson in a retelling of an Ibsen play.  Even established stars like Jennifer Lawrence & Emma Stone are in complicated, sometimes hard-to-watch films from prickly auteur directors that would be a stretch ten years ago.  The Best Actress field at the Oscars has historically been for crowdpleasers, for biopics and romances and uplifting dramas.  It's also been historically for nominating either sturdy dramatic movie stars (like Bette Davis or Susan Sarandon), comeback vehicles for former glory, or for honoring Hollywood's newest "princess" (or reigning America's Sweetheart).  I'm not bemoaning the change (because a good chunk of what I just said is sexist even if it's reality for the Academy), and some of these performances are really good (I've seen almost all of them).  But in an era where the Oscars have lost their identity to precursors (and in the process kind of blended into an increasingly predictable pattern), it's weird that there's one performance this year that, 15-20 years ago, Oscar would've not just nominated, but would've been the frontrunner for the win: Kate Hudson in Song Sung Blue.

Hudson has every hallmark of an Oscar winner, and in some ways matches some of the recent trends even for the modern Oscars.  She's playing a real-life person in a musical drama, and is getting a late-in-the-year release that won her a Golden Globe nomination.  She is a former America's Sweetheart, something that at one point would win women like Sally Field, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, & Reese Witherspoon their own statues and given how that phrase has largely gone out of style, she (along with Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Aniston) is one of the last actresses who may ever really carry that title (in a Hollywood desperate for nostalgia & turning back the clock, this can't be discounted).  Which gets us to something that has been a trend in recent years: she's another movie star from the 1990's & early 2000's who is still acting, and who hasn't won an Oscar yet.  In recent years we've seen the Academy fall for people of this era without a statue (Will Smith, Brendan Fraser, Robert Downey, Jr., & Demi Moore all fall into this bucket), and she'd be a solid bet as a result.  The fact that her mother and stepfather are also iconic movie stars (her mom already has an Oscar), would just add another dimension to the prize.

So why does Hudson feel like an afterthought?  Part of this is box office.  In a different era, Song Sung Blue would be the kind of movie that would be a guaranteed crowdpleaser (83% on Rotten Tomatoes, a Christmas release, two movie star leads...something that would drive people to the theaters), but in this era where anything that isn't horror feels like a risky bet at the box office, there's no guarantee that the film's gross will be there.  Box office, as ever, still matters with Oscar (if it wasn't a sleeper hit, The Substance would've had no chance last year...same with Sinners & Weapons this year), but the kinds of films that Oscar would normally gain permission to like (like, say, The Blind Side) because audiences demanded it aren't really a thing anymore, and that's impacted not just the Oscars, but other awards bodies as well.  Anyone But You, for example is a terrible film...but given it's a romantic-comedy and made $220 million in an era where movies like it never make that kind of money, in the HFPA days Sydney Sweeney & Glen Powell both would've gotten Globe nominations.  Hudson has a Globe nomination, but if you look at predictions sites, they seem to think she's an asterisk on this race rather than a more serious race for the win (or, quite frankly, even a nomination).

And they might be right.  I could be Paul Muni in The Last Angry Man being furious about the loss of the ancient texts, ones that would've pointed to Hudson being a nominee, but do those texts still matter in an era where critics seem to inform Oscars more than genre or what is populist?  It's entirely possible that me trying to look at this race from an historical angle (which would definitely say to include Hudson in your guesses) is foolish and I should focus on the nominees most likely to get stacks of precursor citations and buzz online...that might be the only correct way to predict the Oscars now.  And I haven't seen Hudson in this film (it's not out yet in Minnesota, but I will over Christmas), but her missing might be a good thing-I really like Kate Hudson (she's gotten two My Ballot nominations on this site for a reason), but I don't know that this looks like my thing.  So don't confuse this for me wishing she was in, but instead noting the passage of time and how the Oscars of my youth are very different than those of today, an era marked by far more consistency in good taste...and quite a bit more boredom in seeing who is included.

OVP: Supporting Actress (2000)

OVP: Best Supporting Actress (2000)

The Nominees Were...

Judi Dench, Chocolat

Marcia Gay Harden, Pollock

Kate Hudson, Almost Famous

Frances McDormand, Almost Famous

Julie Walters, Billy Elliot

My Thoughts: Surprises aren't really a thing in the Oscar acting races anymore, not like they once were.  Today, you might go in knowing you're going to win (Robert Downey Jr. this year), knowing you might win (Lily Gladstone this year), or knowing you won't win (Sterling K. Brown this year).  But there was a time where technically anyone could win, and what a thrill that was (the real ones will know what I just did).  In 2000, we had one of the bigger upsets in the acting races we've encountered in our My Ballots, when Marcia Gay Harden pulled off victory over far likelier contenders that year.

Let's start with Marcia.  For those who don't know, in 2000, you could've made a serious argument that Harden was in fifth place even among the nominees before she went on to win.  She got her victory through being just that good.  Her Lee Krasner is a fascinating composite onscreen.  We see the ways that Harden navigates being a wife, a female painter (in a time where they got ignored), and someone who understood the financial opportunity that came with marrying one of the great artistic minds of the 20th Century.  Adding in a fantastic bit of accent work, Harden becomes very hard to beat if you actually see her movie.

That said, her chief competition at the time was impressive too.  One of her biggest competitors was Kate Hudson, who roared into movie stardom (just like her mom) with Almost Famous, and like her mom, got an Oscar nomination to prove it.  I think people's attitudes toward Hudson in the years that followed (where she hit stardom, but not superstardom and never did something this good again) have clouded their tastes on this performance, which is really wonderful.  She embodies the beautiful hipster, trying to cling to those who are actually experiencing fame, knowing (but never showing) that this will only last while her youth continues.  It's a tragic, but very real performance, and the soul of the film.

The other competitor for the win was Judi Dench.  Just two years after her Oscar win, she was a serious threat for victory in 2000 for Chocolat (and easily the closest that Miramax came to getting that film a statue).  Her work here is pleasant.  It'd become the prototype for the "sweet old woman" roles that Dench would milk as a proper movie star in the next couple of decades, but it hadn't been established yet so it feels much fresher.  I do think that this isn't worthy of Oscar, even if it's good acting-it's a bit too paper thin, especially in her character's bigger moments.

Julie Walters is another renowned British character actress who made it into this field, and her work in Billy Elliot is also solid.  I will admit to a soft spot for both of these actresses (I'll watch anything they do), but I don't think that Walters is quite as good as, say, her costar Jamie Bell in this film.  She gives us a lot of what we'd expect from Walters (a surly disposition masking a kindly heart), but it doesn't give us quite enough more.  I wanted more hints at how she missed her own opportunities, how she also dreamed of getting out, to add more dimension to her character.  But, again, a fine piece of work that it's hard to get mad about Oscar citing.

Frances McDormand is arguably the best actress of these five women, but I do think she has the least to do in her nominated performance, and more importantly, the least impact on her film.  Her concerned mother has some humor which McDormand can ring, but it comes across as a bit one-note, or at the very least sharp as she imbues the "anxious mother who doesn't understand" character with little nuance.  It's possible that this nomination cost Hudson her win with vote-splitting, but I'd not entirely be convinced anyone looked at this and said "one of the year's five best" without it actually getting a nomination.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went with Hudson, and the same lineup as Oscar save Harden, who was pushed out for Catherine Zeta-Jones (Traffic).  SAG gave their statue to Dench, again against the Oscar lineup without Harden (here it was Kate Winslet in Quills who got the nomination).  BAFTA gave their statue to Julie Walters (see what I mean about Harden being a surprise) with McDormand, Dench, Lena Olin (Chocolat), & Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) as the nominees.  In sixth place, I think you could make a few arguments here.  Zeta-Jones was obviously in the running, but at the time she was facing something of a "too-much-too-soon" backlash (she's always been an old school "give good quip" sort of movie star, and that has occasionally hurt her with a press that wanted a docile princess-type).  So it was likely either Winslet or Connie Nielsen (Gladiator) nearly making it, both the primary female character in an all-male, Oscar-cited cast.

Actors I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices against Catherine Zeta-Jones (I don't want relatable stars), and would've nominated her splendid work in Traffic, showing how deep her talent could get two years before Oscar could no longer deny her.

Oscar’s Choice: Like I said above, Marcia Gay Harden pulled off a big upset against Dench & Hudson, a win that has aged pretty well by my estimation.

My Choice: In a very close race (both of them will show up in our My Ballot article in the next week) I will select Marcia Gay Harden over Kate Hudson, as I think she has more notable character work in her choices, but either would've made a good winner.  Behind them are Walters, Dench, and then McDormand.

Those are my thoughts-what are yours?  Does everyone agree with Marcia Gay Harden as the Oscar victor, or do people want someone else in retrospect?  When was the last time you feel we had a truly left field acting winner?  And was it Zeta-Jones, Winslet, or Nielsen in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2000: Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Supporting Actress Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Marshall (2017)

Film: Marshall (2017)
Stars: Chadwick Boseman, Josh Gad, Kate Hudson, Dan Stevens, James Cromwell, Sterling K. Brown
Director: Reginald Hudlin
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Original Song-"Stand Up for Something")
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

Biopics should never be confused with the men and women they depict.  Frequently this is something that I feel the need to underline, but especially when it comes to Thurgood Marshall, a hero to many (including me).  Marshall's career as a pioneering Civil Rights attorney and a lauded jurist (who eventually became the first black man on the Supreme Court), is riveting stuff & the sort of story that should work for a movie biopic, particularly if they continue the "slice of life" trend that biopics have done in recent years rather than try to cover decades of a person's existence.  However, Reginald Hudlin's recent treatment of Marshall, where we see him doing an early Civil Rights case about a black man accused of raping a white woman, is a cookie cutter biopic that in some stretches is just egregiously bad, poorly acted, and feels almost like a parody of an Oscar-bait film.

(Real Life Doesn't Have Spoiler Alerts) The film looks at Marshall (Boseman) in the 1940's, when he was an attorney for the NAACP that would travel the country trying to help people accused based on the color of their skin, rather than for crimes they actually committed.  He is brought to Connecticut to defend Joseph Spell (Brown) against accusations that he raped Eleanor Strubing (Hudson).  In order to be admitted to the courtroom to defend Spell, however, he needs a Connecticut attorney to vouch for him, and through a series of events this is Sam Friedman (Gad), who after a testy exchange with the judge (Cromwell), he's forced to defend Spell even though he's not a criminal attorney.

The film focuses almost exclusively on the case, rather than talk about other aspects of Marshall's life.  There are brief interludes with his wife, as well as a conversation with Langston Hughes (played by Jussie Smollett, whom I didn't know was in the film until I saw his name in the credits, but it felt right to watch some of his work in light of what happened yesterday), but mostly it's just focused on the case, and in particular underlining the racial prejudice against Spell, whom you don't have to be a rocket scientist as an audience member to know is not guilty.  The film plays out as one would expect, with Gad's Friedman initially reluctant to get involved in a case of this nature & ending up being a noted Civil Rights attorney after he gets Spell off.

This is all a feel-good history lesson, and occasionally we need those in a world that is blinded by racism & hate (thanks in large part to a White House who uses that as their point-in-trade), but it's also a dreadful movie.  The film feels like a cookie-cutter story, one that would be more at-home as a made-for-TV film from the 1980's than a major-budget motion picture.  The acting is stiff & dreadful.  I don't know that I've seen Hudson more ill-at-ease in her character, and Gad is horrendous, at one point not even able to pull off a convincing onscreen laugh without it looking staged.  Boseman is the best part of it, though he frequently feels too, well, sexy for the part, but at least he has some charisma to spare as Marshall, though his big moments feel ham-fisted.  However the script is rife with cliche, and there's no sense of art in what's happening onscreen.  The main title song is very hummable; Andra Day is too good of a singer not to command the (weirdly, considering how cardboard the rest of the film is) creative end credits, but this song isn't worthy of this movie, which is boring & unworthy of its protagonist.

OVP: Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Film: Deepwater Horizon (2016)
Stars: Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Gina Rodriguez, Dylan O'Brien, Kate Hudson
Director: Peter Berg
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Sound Editing, Visual Effects)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

One of the crucial aspects of an action movie is that you root for the main character.  The film can't really function without it, in fact.  The whole point is you are out there, cheering on the men or women (but too often just men) that are trying to prevent the city/planet/solar system from being destroyed.  Then when they do, or don't, you have a vested interest in their success or defeat.  Normally, even in movies I don't like, I don't struggle with this, but Deepwater Horizon was different.  I am not naive about where my oil comes from, but I also am not going to sit around and celebrate literally anyone involved with this disaster, and so I struggled to get through this picture without yelling vigorously at the television like I did when the initial catastrophe happened.

(Spoilers Ahead) The reality is that offshore drilling should be a last-ditch resort to get oil (and we need to be doing more to get electric cars and non-petrochemical solutions to our energy needs), so I'm already at a disadvantage because I don't view these sorts of positions with the same sort of esteem you'd expect for, say, the military or the police or firefighters or any other profession that Mark Wahlberg decides to play onscreen (he used to be such an interesting actor, and then he turned into Clint Eastwood without the occasional artistry, which is such a disappointment because his movies are too big of hits for me not to end up seeing them time-and-again).  There is little forgiveness to be had here, and knowing that everyone was at fault here-not just the crew, but BP and Transocean were cutting corners to meet deadlines that ultimately polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico, killing marine life (and wiping out populations that could take decades to recuperate), as well as harm the well-being and livelihoods of people living in coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Louisiana.

I will admit, therefore, that no amount of Michael Bay-esque blame on John Malkovich is going to allow me to forgive anyone involved here.  Everyone should have been shouting "NO!" at the top of their lungs, and the rest of the film I checked out of what was happening.  It never approaches the level of propaganda that 13 Hours achieved, but I still checked out every time I remembered this was a real story, and the overall acting in the movie is too wooden.  I am hesitant to name a "best of" in the cast, since it was probably no one (I'm a big fan of Russell and Rodriguez in general, so it'd surely be one of them but not really based on their work here but general adoration), but I have to say Kate Hudson's role in this makes me once again question how she won an Oscar nomination, and Malkovich at some point has to try again and not just play yet another version of the same creepy-John-Malkovich style character.

The film won two Oscar nominations, and this feels okay.  The sound work is a combination of loud and louder, but doesn't have the precision of something like Wahlberg's Lone Survivor a few years back, and feels like it was nominated because Sound Editing is a sucker for underwater work.  It's fun to see a movie with practical special effects nominated here, as I actually like that they mix it up (there's an enormous amount of skill required to succeed on that front today, and it shows onscreen).  I don't know that there's a lot of differentiation in the special effects, with the biggest moment being Rodriguez's giant jump with Wahlberg (which is the only action moment in the film I was truly impressed by, but I didn't love the idea of Wahlberg having to help rescue the only woman on the rig like we're in an Errol Flynn picture), but when they are creating CGI for the film, it doesn't blend well and I think this is more a nod to the technical achievement of undertaking the film than whether or not it actually succeeded in looking believable.

We're going to leave it there because there isn't much more to say about Deepwater Horizon.  For those of you who saw it (which is probably a lot of you-Wahlberg movies tend to make bank), what were your thoughts?  Were you like me where you couldn't put your real-life opinions behind you and invest in these characters, or were you rooting for Wahlberg the whole time?  And what do you think of the film's two Oscar nominations-deserved, undeserved, or perhaps you're still mad that it lost?  Share below!

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Film: Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)
Stars: Jack Black, Bryan Cranston, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, JK Simmons, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Kate Hudson
Director: Jennifer Yuh Nelson and Alessandro Carloni
Oscar History: No nominations
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

I actually reread a couple of old reviews of mine before deciding to tackle this installment of the Dreamworks' series Kung Fu Panda just to get a sense of the previous films.  Dreamworks (foolishly, in my opinion), decided to go with a Pixar-level tactic of waiting five years to come out with a new installment to one of their quintessential film franchises, hoping that overall devotion to the series could carry that long.  Considering the gross for the film was down over $100 million from the previous installment, this was probably a foolish decision (Dreamworks Animation has made several of those in the past decade), but I was also curious to read reviews because of my memory of the first two films.  I am not a fan of this animation house-despite 32 feature films, most of which I've seen, I have only really liked three of the movies they've produced, two of which of are in this series (the other being the first How to Train Your Dragon).  Revisiting what may well be the final film in the trilogy (at least I'm hoping that's the case considering how it closes) felt like a weird rush for a trio of films I initially wrote off before actually watching them and being impressed.

(Spoilers Ahead) I think there's a few reasons to really enjoy the Kung Fu Panda pictures, but one of the chief ones is that they're genuinely funny.  Jack Black is an actor of somewhat limited means, but he's a compelling onscreen presence and when he finds a role that suits him, like Po, he nails it against the wall.  Po is hilarious, albeit a character whose eventual journey to being the Dragon Master is a bit hard to follow if you hadn't immediately seen the two previous films.  I never quite know what the rules are for sequels in rehashing "scenes from the previous episode," but I will say that I felt a little lost for the first fifteen minutes or so trying to remember what had happened in the previous episode, and specifically if JK Simmons' Kai (an evil yak, because of course), was a new villain or a villain from a previous installment that I'd just misplaced in my memory.  He was, in fact, new, though here I feel like the franchise dropped the ball a bit, as no one was going to live up to Gary Oldman's evil peacock from the second installment of the series (that was a joyous creation).

The film does succeed in a number of great visual gags, though.  The fights here are some of the best I've seen in the series, and truly marvelous to behold.  The film also does a good job of balancing Po's increasing seriousness with his natural comic persona (this is, after all, still a children's movie and never had the gravitas to be able to pull off what Pixar did during it's 2007-10 Golden Age)-the scene where Po must decide whether to return to the mortal realm or not is one where the adults get what he's deciding, but for the kids it still has the playfulness where it's a panda talking to a turtle.

All-in-all, no new ground is broken here and I maintain that the second film is still the best part of the series, but there's a lot to love in this installment.  I genuinely liked most of the scenes, and felt like the movies continued to find a cultivated and strong supporting cast of players (something Dreamworks does well), except in one very obvious case: Kate Hudson's Mei Mei.  I know the story behind this part, clearly intended to be a love interest for Po that got lost in storyboarding, and originally Rebel Wilson, whose comic skills match Black's, was scheduled to play the part and then (due to scheduling conflicts) had to drop out and Hudson filled in at the last minute.  This ends up being a disaster, as her first scene feels strange (is she just a woman who is blinded by her lack of talent or is she just seducing Po-it's very hard to say?), and then she has almost no interactions onscreen with Po, but gets a ridiculously over-the-top line reading at a critically-emotional scene later on in the film where she said she was a "nunchuck chick" and yet we haven't hearkened back to her at all since her first blustery scene.  It's a badly edited choice by the directors, one where they probably should have cut her storyline entirely from the film but didn't know how to (and probably were trying to set up a potential sequel for the studio's sake), but Hudson is badly underwritten and miscast, and it wears on those scenes of the movie in a jarring way (it's the first thing I thought of wanting to write about prior to this review...never a good sign for a film I actually liked).

Those are my thoughts on (what I'm hoping, in terms of story structure) is the final Kung Fu Panda film, and by-and-large it was a successful trilogy in my opinion.  How about you?  Which is your favorite (as I mentioned above, mine's the second) and where does this rank on your Dreamworks' animation list?  Do you also feel like Rebel Wilson could have saved Mei Mei or was this simply a character without redemption?  Share your thoughts below!

A Mother's Day Celebration: Hollywood's Best Mother-Daughter Pairs

In honor of Mother's Day, I thought it would be fun to look at my five favorite mother-daughter pairs in Hollywood.  Below I have ranked the best mother-daughter pairs at the movies:

5. Diane Ladd and Laura Dern

Laura finally started to catch up with mama Diane at the Oscars this past year.  The Rambling Rose costars have had a long history with Oscar, with Ladd nominated three times versus Dern's two nominations.  Both are brilliant performers who also costarred on HBO's Enlightened.

4. Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher

Debbie was one of the biggest stars of the 1950's, headlining dozens of romantic comedies, and is still celebrated today (she recently won the SAG Life Achievement Award), while Carrie Fisher would have enormous success in front of the screen in the Star Wars films (she'll be in Episode 7 later this year) and behind the screen as a comedian and screenwriter.

3. Goldie Hawn and Kate Hudson

Goldie Hawn is perfect, and I've always LOVED these two together whenever they do interviews or talks on the red carpet.  Kate hasn't had the career her mom has, but she's always insanely fun and I constantly wish she'd pull her mom out of retirement for some sort of mother-daughter comedy (who wouldn't want that?).

2. Judy Garland and Liza Minnelli

Both legends in their own-right, two of Classic Hollywood's biggest stars both won Oscars (Judy a juvenile award, while Liza emerged victorious with Cabaret), and both became immortal for their singing prowess and stage presence.

1. Janet Leigh and Jamie Lee Curtis

Janet's a Hollywood icon, starring in three of the best films ever made (Touch of Evil, Psycho, and The Manchurian Candidate) while Jamie Lee Curtis has headlined films as diverse as Halloween, True Lies, and Freaky Friday.  Together they're not just Scream Queens of different generations-they're my favorite mother-daughter pair in Hollywood.

Those are my favorites-how about yours?  Who else would you add to this list?  Share in the comments!  And Happy Mother's Day!

Glee: Wonder-Ful (#4.21)

With only one more to go, you had a feeling that this would be more setup than actually delivery, though it was nice that we had resolutions to some story lines.  Granted, they were stories that we hadn't mentioned in months, but, well, that's Glee, isn't it?

The McKinley High Glee Club was prepping for Regionals, and, can we just stop for a second here?  With Regionals in the season finale, is there any possible way that they win the competition?  Shouldn't we have hit Regionals weeks ago if there was any shot of them going to Nationals?  After all, wouldn't that have been a plot by now if Nationals was going to be a significant achievement?  Either they're losing Regionals or they are winning Regionals and we'll find out in voiceover in the season premiere next year that they got last place or something at the National competition, which is why we'll continue seeing another round of slushies.

But I digress, as there were significant stories for Mercedes, Artie, Kurt, and Rachel this past week, which was a bit unusual, considering at one point they were the sole recipients of plots on this show (also, where was Finn?).  Mercedes, who has been basically absent all season (while Amber Riley was doing...what, precisely?) returned and it appeared that her record producer had less than reputable intentions for her.  After loving her voice and landing her record deal, she was asked to show a ton of skin in her album cover, which of course she balked at, and in turn lost her record deal.  So we now have a reason for Mercedes to return to Ohio, selling her CD on Amazon and out of her car.  The glee club-always struggling to make it work.

Artie, as well, had some second thoughts about impending success-he had been accepted at the Brooklyn Film Academy, and suddenly was having doubts about whether he could make it in New York.  Honestly, though, this seems a bit out-of-character for the overly confident Artie.  I loved that we saw his equally sassy mother (played by the brilliant Katey Sagal), but did anyone really believe that he wasn't going to go with leaving for New York (and inviting another character into the New York plot line?).  And did anyone else think that his little speech after Mercedes performed crossed the line into offensive?

Also, with this plot, I want to throw a little bit of cold water onto this story, as the success rate of these students has entered epic and silly levels.  I grew up in a small-town high school like McKinley, and maybe, just maybe, one person managed to get into the caliber of one of these students (and one person period, not one person per year).  And yet Artie is going to a school which is clearly modeled on NYU, Mike is in the Joffrey, Kurt and Rachel are clearly in a school modeled on Juilliard, Quinn is at Yale, Brittany is headed to MIT, and Mercedes landed a record deal right out of the gate.  I know that Finn, Puck, and Santana have struggled to find themselves, but shouldn't someone at some point out that the glee club is about as good at producing future stars as the 1990's era Mickey Mouse Club?

Kurt's story was a bit conventional for him (his dad was thankfully healthy and we got yet another wonderful Hummel family moment), and gave us the awkward circumstance of Blaine wanting to propose to Kurt.  Burt balked at this rightly, and while a marriage proposal from Darren Criss is always something to say yes to, I thought that this was a bit silly considering they aren't even officially dating anymore.  Though I will say that an impetuous marriage proposal is far more likely in a small town high school than someone getting accepted to Yale, so brava for realism, I guess...

The final plot was the Rachel one, and I honestly can't decide how I feel about it.  Overall, I haven't minded Kate Hudson this season (she's had a better role to play than Sarah Jessica Parker), and it's nice to know that she has at least some teacherly instincts, celebrating her student's huge achievement.  However, you know you have a problem with your story when people assume that something is a dream sequence because it's so unlikely, and that's how I felt when Hudson broke out in celebration of Rachel, doing her best Stevie Wonder (whose ear candy ditties were the theme of the episode).

The best moments of Glee are the sly fourth wall ones and the ones that celebrate the geekiness of the characters without making it a moral lesson.  My favorite fourth wall moment this week was when Kitty decided to help Artie, and she said something along the lines of her wanting to mix it up between being mean and nice, and she wasn't always sure which she was going to be (something to that effect, at least).  I felt like this was the writers speaking through her as to the fact that they're not sure what's going on with this character, just that she's far more interesting than Marley and so that's why she gets more screen-time.

And though the guys delivering the news fell into a rather ugly set of gay stereotypes, the moment when they listed out Lea Michele's competitors for the part of Fanny Brice (Sutton Foster and Mamie Gummer) was delicious.  I loved Michele rationalizing herself against Foster ("but she's doing Bunheads") and proving she doesn't know Broadway as well as she thinks she does (with Gummer, "can she even sing?").  Part of me is wishing these really are the competitors, and that the divine Foster (who at some point would have made a brilliant Fanny Brice, but is probably a wee bit too old for the part) and the lovely Gummer both make guest appearances next week.  And, considering her Emmy nominations for the series and her recent stint on the show's fictional Great White Way, why have we not seen a return of April Rhodes, as played by the great Kristin Chenoweth, this season?

And that's where we are at headed into the finale-I know the previews made it look like Blaine pops the question anyway, but aren't we all fairly certain that the surprise wedding will be Emma and Will's?  Do you think that Rachel will get the part (I'm thinking no for continuity's sake, but I'm hoping yes since it would throw the show in a new direction creatively)?  And who is the catfish (please don't let it be Kitty as it would be too obvious and too easy of an answer)?  We'll find next week on...Glee!

Glee: Swan Song (#4.9)

So, we're back (okay, I've been gone for five minutes, so not really "back"), but here we are, Glee, Part 2, and they decided to rip the band-aid off right away-the Warblers have won Sectionals, and though I suspect there's going to be some sort of silver lining in the remainder of the episode, that means no more tournaments for the remainder of the episode, and I suspect that funding will be brought into question.  Sue's evil gut-punch of telling them while Marley is collapsing and clearly sick seemed a bit harsh, even for Sue.

Whoopi Goldberg suddenly shows up, and in a silent moment, reminds us of what true presence is.  I hope at some point she's going to get to speak.  Whoopi (or Carmen, but let's be honest, Whoopi) has invited Rachel to be one of the ten performers at the prestigious Winter Concert (okay, not entirely sure at this point what Kurt called it, but apparently it's an honor worthy of winning a Tony or an Emmy or a Golden Globe or an Oscar-we could ask Whoopi if it's up to those honors, since she has all of them).

Sue has taken over the Glee club, which leads to an extraordinarily petty showdown in Figgins office (you'd be hard-pressed to find a character I find less believable than Figgins on this show-the man should have been fired about twenty times by now for the shenanigans he allows his staff to get away with, so we shall move on), but we do get treated to what Sue thinks will be the futures of the New Directions: Tina is a drug mule, Artie sells his legs to science, Blaine is now a male prostitute, and Brittany is a finance major at Brandeis, since Glee club was holding her back.

Brittany and Sam are too adorbs, and if Sam can't end up with Blaine, I think Brittany is an appropriate filler.  And I love the idea that two 18-year-olds know a classic love song by Frank and Nancy Sinatra. And Sam, you should stop being so self-conscious about your lips.  Aside from the abs, they are your best feature.

Kate Hudson has officially entered cartoon territory, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a Chicago shout-out.  And all due respect, but Catherine Zeta-Jones and Chita Rivera have left such impossible shoes to fill here, that not even the great Lea Michele can compete.  And I will say that though Rachel is right, dancing is the weakest part of her triple threat, she basically gave up at the end of that song, which is something Rachel Berry never does, and though it fits the plot, the girl who thought she could outsing Kristin Chenoweth in Season 1 should know she can blast the roof off of Kate Hudson.

Blaine in a Cheerios uniform!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Also, Ryder and Jake's pipes (and I don't mean their singing voices, I mean the mammoth gun show, and of course they joined the same club).

What is the accent Sam just attempted?  I don't think that them missing the rehearsal is going to happen, but yeah for Samany!

Rachel's overconfidence is making me nervous.  Please don't let that girl choke, Glee writers!  I need her to succeed after the breakup of the New Directions.

Rachel taking on Streisand again?  I'll take it (maybe she's trying to channel Leslie Uggams instead?)  Either way, that girl killed, absolute brilliance, and she even gets an encore!!!

39 minutes in, and Marley's eating disorder still has not been addressed-maybe the writers are as bored with her as I am?  Tina's Lloyd Bentsen-style rant earlier in the episode seems a bit on the nose.

Anyway, back to Rachel's stirring performance of "O Holy Night," and then in an only-on-Glee moment, Whoopi decides to let Kurt perform at the competition, because I'm telling you, if Scott Rudin is in the audience, they wouldn't be bringing out the amateurs.

And Kurt comes out, and though he's not as good as Rachel, he still can bring the Sondheim like few others, and totally kills with "Being Alive."  You have to also love the beautiful look on Whoopi's face at the end of the song-so clearly impressed, and glad she gave Kurt a second chance.  Man, that woman is a great actress.

The Rachel and Finn conversation seemed to be as much between the two of them as they were between the writers and the audience, the writers telling the audience that even without a Regionals or Nationals to compete for, there will still be a lot to look forward to in the upcoming weeks.

And the gang gets together for the final number, suddenly taking on Crowded House, and in true Glee fashion, the Glee club was reunited, and Kurt is offically in NYADA.  Ahh, happy endings!

Glee: Glease (#4.6)

Glee used to be for me the weekly Kleenex box run-it seemed every week that the show would throw in something that would set me off, whether it was Rachel watching her dreams get crushed or Kurt and Burt having one of their heartbreaking father-son chats, but it's been a while since Glee caught me off-guard and had me crying.  That's why the ending of this episode threw me off so much.

But before we get there, let's dive into the beginnings of the episode, and the highs and lows.  And why not start out with one of the lows, that being the Kate Hudson story line.  I know that occasionally the characters are naive, and I might have believed that Finn or Brittany or Mr. Schu would have fallen for Cassidy's lies, but Rachel and Kurt?  Two of the generally savvier characters on the show?  Come on Ryan Murphy-you could have thought of an easier way to get Rachel to abandon Brody than Cassidy tricking her into it.  What once was an interesting plot wrench (the mean teacher who faces off with Rachel) has ended up just being lazy storytelling, and I'm having none of it.  And speaking of which-Brody, apparently a massive slut!  Who knew?  My opinion of him went down the tubes quite a bit this week.

My opinion went up, however, for Ryder, who seems to be a handsome combination of Finn and Sam, and I'm liking what he's bringing to the table.  I know that the entire season so far has been pointing to Marley eventually picking Jake after a long romance with Ryder, but I gotta say that Ryder seems like a better fit for her.  And I also want to say that, with eating disorders being one of the few subjects the show hasn't tackled, the whole bulimia because of a "re-sewing the skirt hem" scheme seemed to be a bit of a stretch.  Did Marley not notice that every other one of her pieces of clothing fit?  I know this story was supposed to make me hate Kitty more and like Marley more, but I have to say it did the opposite-when is Marley going to stop playing the victim and start having a backbone?

I love that they brought back Santana to play Rizzo, because, as she pointed out, she was born to play the role.  I also wish that someone, anyone, would call Sue out on her giant hypocrisy, and I wish the writers had the guts to have Finn do just that.  Yes, Finn shouldn't have used that word, but 99% of the stuff that comes out of Sue's mouth would land her in prison (or at least the unemployment line) and so she really has only herself to blame for the way that everyone treats her.  I'm also going to skip the Unique story line until it stops mirroring verbatim the Kurt story line from Season 1.

I can't hold back my feelings for the ending any longer, so we're going to make this a shorter recap (also I have to get started on my weekend Netflix movies), so we're going to skip the shafted Tina-and-Mike reunited story because the show largely did and I will just say "huzzah" that Matthew Morrison is out of the picture for a while (for a guy I thought was kind of cute in a nerdy way in the first season, he has grown into being one of my least favorite characters on any show I watch-he's so wildly inconsistent and oblivious and self-centered, while the show never acknowledges it).  Instead, I want to focus on the final few moments for Rachel.  That scene where they show her slowly transforming into Marley on-stage, and remembering singing the song with Finn, and then suddenly it was all of the "classic" Glee stars on the stage, rather than any of the New Class, I was in tears.  I think it was the realization that, like Rachel, the show that I loved can't ever be the same as the first three seasons.  I'm hoping that they continue to realize this as the season progresses and Ryan Murphy has to decide whether this show is going to be about the new, I'm just going to say it, less interesting characters, or whether they'll make the gutsy choice to just follow a select few of the graduates and leave McKinley behind.  The subsequent scenes, when Rachel realizes that she no longer is sad about Finn leaving, and that she and Finn may never get back together (they will, but wouldn't that be a gutsy plot choice?), as well as Kurt and Blaine having a final moment of closure, all felt right for the episode.  I'll skip that those weren't the actual last scenes, and just end it there, on that bittersweet and profound note from the Glee writing room.

And what about you-did you have a favorite number (mine was "You're the One That I Want")?  What did you think about the ending for Rachel and Finn?  Did the throwback throw you off or make you cry?  And which of the guys best rocked the greased hair and skinny jeans (my vote is for Ryder or Sam)?  Sound off!

Glee: Britney 2.0 (#4.2)

Where last we left off, Kurt and Rachel had been reunited, there were two new kids (little Puck and the "new Rachel," who needs a bit more character development, I gotta say, because I could not remember her character's name until they mentioned it about fifty minutes into the episode-Marley, apparently), and Kate Hudson was channeling Sue Sylvester, Season One, with slightly more flexibility.

This week, we were asked to return to the songs of Britney Spears, and that meant, thankfully, a return to the world of one Brittany S. Pearce, as created by the one-and-only Heather Morris.  While a show couldn't run off of Morris's character alone (she's too much of a cartoon to carry every episode), that doesn't mean that she's not deserving of a solo episode every once in a while.

I'm not sure how they convinced Britney Spears's reps to sign on for them to use her songs in an episode that largely made fun of the pop icon, but there's something to be said for the way they winked at nearly every travail that this wildly popular singer has endured in the last few years-paparazzi, lip-synching scandals, crazily obsessive fans, and of course, head-shaving.  It was pretty daring considering that she's headlining one of FOX's most "we-need-this-to-succeed" shows, The X Factor, but all press is good press, I guess.  Either way, I enjoyed the way that Morris was able to find a slight sense of strategy in her character toward the end, as she was plotting a comeback all along, and now we have a potential love interest for the bisexual Brit in Sam, her fellow dimwitted blond (though I'm going to be honest, I've long thought that Sam was going to be the show's resident bi guy-I'm sorry, but he and Blaine together seems like a solid pairing, perhaps even more so than Kurt and Blaine).

Elsewhere, Kate Hudson was off wreaking havoc on our poor Rachel Berry, and she had both her best friend Kurt's shoulder to complain upon, and setting up a solid love triangle, her new admirer Brody's well-sculpted shoulder to cling to as well.  While I think that Hudson's critiques were obviously over-the-top and wildly inappropriate, I can't say she wasn't exactly wrong-Lea Michele is obviously a lovely woman, but her character doesn't really scream sex appeal.  Cute, fun, talented, pretty-sure, but the sex appeal that someone like Hudson was bringing in her scenes-not really a strong suit of our dear Rachel.  That being said, this being a Ryan Murphy show, you can already start feeling the walls falling down between the two, and within a few weeks time, you just know that Hudson's going to be cheering on Rachel.

Other than that, I can't really recall too much, and gotta say I was a bigger fan of the first episode of the season.  The musical performances were not my favorite (Artie and Blaine probably did it best with "Boys/Boyfriend"), one of my least favorite characters did a little bit too much ACTING in capital letters (that'd be Mr. Schuester and his ridiculous tirade about lip-synching, which seemed wildly out of character for a man who has taken in stride his students getting each other pregnant, beating each other up, lying, cheating, and overall committing at least a half dozen felonies a year), and we had the whole Jake/Puck not-knowing each other drama ruined in the second episode.  Mark Salling better be being a prima donna about his contract and only wanted to star in two or three episodes this season, otherwise the build-up to that scene was completely ruined.  Think of how much more effective that scene would have been if we actually knew a little bit about this new, younger Puckerman.  That's about it, except that if Blaine and Sam must wear shirts throughout entire episodes, I will say that putting them in those black t-shirts is a worthy compromise in the costuming department.

What about you?  Are you excited for next week's episode's pairings: Blaine and Sam, Brittany and Artie, Kurt and Carrie Bradshaw?  Where do you wish they'd take Kate Hudson's character?  Are you already wishing for more personality from Jake and Marley, or are they doing just fine?  And since we got (too brief) glimpses of Santana and Puck, who do you hope shows up next week to fill the void-Finn, Mercedes, Quinn, or Mike?

Glee: The New Rachel (#4.1)

All right, I'm just going to admit it, I'm super-psyched about the return of Glee.  Like many of you, I'll confess that there have been times in the past few years that I've doubted (I barely made it through that boring episode with Ricky Martin), but I'm hooked.  Like Desperate Housewives, which I stuck with devotedly for eight seasons, I've become so invested in these characters that I want them to be a part of my weekly ritual, even if I sometimes find their motivations a bit inconsistent (to put it mildly) and if Ryan Murphy has decided that he wants to give me a lecture random weeks instead of entertainment.

That being said, I've been trying to think of which of my favorite shows on TV currently would make the most sense for a weekly recap of sorts, and Glee, with its hour-long format, dozens of characters, and constant highs-and-lows seems like the most appropriate, though I might give one or two another try (and I reserve the right to go back and take a stab at some of my past favorites like the aforementioned Wisteria Lane residents or, my all-time favorite show, Lost).

(THIS IS A TV RECAP-IF YOU KEEP READING AND WANTED TO AVOID SPOILERS, YOU SHOULD REALLY FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF MORE WITH THE INTERNET, OR THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD RECAP) This week, we are given a look at what the new show format is going to be, and I have to say, I was nervous.  How would Ryan Murphy, whom I have a love/hate relationship with as a viewer (though clearly he stills gets a lot of my time, as I'm counting the days until American Horror Story: Asylum hits and The New Normal is the first new show of the season to get a Season Pass on my TiVo)?  But, I gotta say, I liked it-the whole Rachel in New York thing seems like a fresh approach for a character that occasionally gets caught in a rut, and though you just know that eventually Kate Hudson (more to come) is going to love her, it's going to be fun to see Rachel have to work for it instead of just be the star.  I was even more on-board when I found out that Kurt would be joining her in NYC-here's to hoping that some more former New Directioners also make the leap to the Big Apple (I'm looking at you Finn, Santana, and just-one-Metro-North-railroad-ride-away Quinn).

The thing I liked best about the show, though, was that it actually addressed some outstanding issues from last season-for a show that oftentimes forgets where it left a lot of plotlines, it showed that Rachel is still pining for Finn (even though the "why-was-he-not-in-my-dorm-hall" ab-ulous Dean Geyer would make anyone take an extra look), it showed that Kurt is headed to NYC, it showed that some long-term relationships don't work (sorry Mike and Tina), and it introduced us to a format that will work for the show.  It's Glee, so some story lines were left out-who is the father of Sue's baby and where was (insert-your-favorite-character-here) being chief amongst them, but overall it seemed like a solid base to build the rest of the season upon.

My favorite scenes are nearly always around the perfect Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss is my celeb crush to beat all celeb crushes), and even Blaine got some props, finally sending his love Kurt on his way to NYC, and stating that the long-term relationship thing will work for them even though their friends Tina/Mike and Rachel/Finn seem to be having some issues with it.  I gotta say, though, and don't hate me Klaine worshippers (I've been rooting for it since the beginning), but I kind of think some dating of other people would do both of them some good.  They have already broken glass ceilings with their relationship so far, but wouldn't you like to see both of them get to know the gay world outside of just the Klaine universe?

And as for Ms. Katie Hudson (I always call her Katie Hudson-I don't know why, I think it's because she looks more like a Katie-I'll try to desist as she makes her way through the next few weeks), I also am liking it.  Though it's a questionable career move for an Oscar nominee and once tres bankable actress to take a recurring role on a mid-run TV dramedy, if it's good enough for Gwyneth, it's good enough for Kate.  And while her performance cannot compete with Gwyneth (who, in her first appearance, was simply the best Glee guest star the show ever put forward), she has a lot of potential, and I can't wait to see her as a "Broadway disaster" in next week's episode.

So, with that, I'll turn it over to you-what were your thoughts as we begin a fourth year at McKinley (does that also make us Seniors)?  Whom did you miss most (for me, it's most definitely Santana, but I can see the argument for Mercedes, Mike, Emma, Puck, Quinn, or Finn)?  What side of the "Jacob Puckerman is hot" debate did you fall on (I gotta go with Sugar and Unique on this one, though of the new guys, I'll call dibs on Brody and leave Jacob to one of you fine people)?  And what "new directions" do you hope the series takes this year?