review

Looking for a cosy UK weekend getaway this winter? This award-winning country pub ticks all the boxes, our writer Sam Kistamah found out on a recent stay there

Approaching The Gunton Arms, we quickly realised it’s not your average local. It is a pub, but one set in a 1,000-acre deer park near Cromer in rural Norfolk, kitted out in furnishings to rival posh department store Liberty and with walls covered in art by the likes of Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst. And there’s a restaurant that’s in the Michelin Guide too. The deer park surrounds the 18th-century Gunton Hall, and The Gunton Arms was originally a farm that became the second house to Gunton Hall.

After careful restoration by art dealer Ivor Braka (hence the amazing collection), The Gunton Arms opened as a pub with bedrooms in 2011, and earlier this year was listed in the top 20 of The Good Food Guide’s best British pubs.

The food at The Gunton Arms

The Elk Room restaurant is dominated by a giant Irish elk skull, which hangs over an open fire. That’s where chef Stuart Tattersall cooks local fare, including venison from the deer park and beef from the Blickling Estate. Being four miles from the coast, The Gunton Arms also offers seafood, including a popular Cromer crab pasta dish.

We began with fried cod cheeks with caper and bronze fennel mayonnaise, and mixed beets with pickled walnuts and Binham blue. We loved the tender nuggets of cod with their zingy sauce, and the sweet beets were beautifully contrasted by creamy blue cheese and tangy slivers of walnut.

For mains, we devoured the sirloin steak, which had been perfectly cooked on the fire, and came with roast potatoes and a jug of Béarnaise sauce, and the roasted halibut special, accompanied by a buttery spinach and chive sauce and tasty Portland cockles. As keen dessert fans, we inhaled the Norfolk treacle tart with clotted cream and buttermilk pudding with honeyed fig.

The next day, we had lunch at The Gunton Arms’ sister pub The Suffield Arms, which serves outstanding Mediterranean tapas. Highlights included the corn ribs with mojito mayonnaise, and the white Andalusian prawns with garlic and chilli.

The rooms at The Gunton Arms

There are 16 rooms and we stayed in the stunning Rocksavage suite, which gave us some major inspiration for our own home renovation with its muted tones and carefully chosen pieces of art and dark wood furniture. Everything, from the marble bathroom with its roll-top tub to the sumptuous bed, oozed elegance. While the suite was traditionally decorated, we appreciated the Nespresso machine and Roberts radio, and the Norfolk Natural Living toiletries were a nice touch too.

What is there to do around The Gunton Arms?

You can explore the deer park but we were told not to approach the herd as it was rutting season when we visited – we loved watching them from the pub garden while enjoying a glass of chilled Gavi. The pretty seaside town of Cromer is a 10-minute drive away, and the pub is an ideal base for visiting the beautiful North Norfolk coast. With its towering sand dunes, Holkham Beach is a must-see spot that’s loved by the royals as it’s close to Sandringham.

How much does it cost to stay at The Gunton Arms?

Rooms at The Gunton Arms start from £145 per night.

England’s Brydon Carse dismisses Jake Weatherald lbw for one, but replays show the decision should have been overturned as Australia are made to regret their decision not to review, leaving the home side on 8-1, with a lead of 93, on day three of the third Ashes Test in Adelaide.

FOLLOW LIVE: The Ashes third Test – day three

Available to UK users only.

Therapy often gets mined for comedy but we don’t often see comedy treated as sincere therapy. “Is This Thing On?” from director and co-writer Bradley Cooper, makes the case that glum dad Alex (Will Arnett), new to Splitsville after he and his wife of 20 years, Tess (Laura Dern), mutually agree to separate, may have figured out an ideal coping mechanism by signing up for open mic night.

Not that we see this by-day finance guy reject professional help in favor of some untapped passion. (Vamping for five minutes in front of strangers negates the cover charge.) But in bringing his marital woes to the stage and getting some chuckles, Alex believes he’s hit upon something: a talking cure that comes with a fresh identity, new friends, an acceptable level of risk and a way out of unhappiness.

It’s such a frisky, alluring idea for a character study — meeting failure with the potential for more failure (and night after night to boot) — that when the movie proves to actually be about whether the marriage can be saved, instead of the granular, temperamental world of stand-up newbies, it almost feels like a bait and switch. Fortunately, the divorce saga is interesting too, featuring Dern at her best, and is plenty intelligent about the nuances of couples who have built something solid (stable lives, nice 10-year-old twin boys, etc.) at the same time they’ve grown apart. “Is This Thing On?” is that rarity: a perfectly worthy dramedy that sometimes feels off because it’s trying to cram two good movies into one.

The confidence comes from Cooper, who, after only two films in the director’s chair (“A Star Is Born,” “Maestro”), has shown himself to be not only a powerful chronicler of artistic lives but especially couples in the showbiz sphere. This time, he tantalizes us with the milieu of nightclub self-expression and a group of regular amateurs Alex gets comfortable hanging with. But over two hours Cooper makes it clear he’s simply followed his protagonist into a safe space of encouragement (featuring Amy Sedaris as a helpful veteran comic), not necessarily a complex world of personality types to be navigated. It’s codified by Cooper’s visual approach, a handheld intimacy reminiscent of European movies, in which Matthew Libatique’s camera rarely strays from tight shots of Arnett’s face, looking for change — circling it, centering it, trailing it when Alex is on the move.

Though Alex is earnest if a tad hacky with his relationship jokes, Arnett (credited as a co-screenwriter with Mark Chappell, from a story they created with John Bishop) captures a fizzy, awkward energy of midlife discovery. Invariably, the movie is unconcerned with whether Alex might be any good as a stand-up because soon it’s about how this new pep in his step registers with Tess, who’s struggling with her own sense of personal fulfillment as a former volleyball legend turned mom and how it affects their on-the-brink married friends, Christine (Andra Day) and Balls (Cooper, hilarious as a spacy actor). Christine Ebersole and Ciarán Hinds, as Alex’s parents, humorously weigh in too on what long-term togetherness entails.

After a narrative coincidence that’s entertainingly handled, “Is This Thing On?” aims to be a more serious-minded, less rom-com-ish “It’s Complicated,” with Tess and Alex seeing if there’s a new way for them to acknowledge where they went astray. The actors sell it, especially when Dern is unafraid to mix revitalized pleasure with pushing for answers. But the stand-up storyline, so promising, is dropped and it feels like a missed opportunity. Still, the highs and lows of marriage aren’t merely a punch line in “Is This Thing On?” — and that’s good.

ATLANTA — Democrats will not issue a postelection report on their 2024 shellacking after all.

The Democratic National Committee head has decided not to publish a formal assessment of the party’s defeat that returned Donald Trump to power and gave Republicans complete control in Washington.

Ken Martin, a Minnesota party leader who was elected national chair after Trump’s election, ordered a thorough review of what went wrong and what could be done differently, with the intent they would circulate a report as Republicans did after their 2012 election performance. Martin now says the inquiry, which included hundreds of interviews, was complete but that there is no value in a public release of findings that he believes could lead to continued infighting and recriminations before the 2026 midterms when control of Congress will be at stake.

“Does this help us win?” Martin said in a statement Thursday. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

Martin’s decision, first reported by the New York Times, spares top Democrats from more scrutiny about their campaigns, including former President Biden, who withdrew from the race after announcing his second-term run, and his vice president, Kamala Harris, who became the nominee and lost to Trump.

Keeping the report under wraps also means Martin does not have to take sides in the tug-of-war between moderates and progressives or make assessments about how candidates should handle issues that Trump capitalized on, such as transgender rights.

“We are winning again,” Martin said.

Martin’s announcement follows a successful string of 2025 races, both in special elections and off-year statewide votes, that suggest strong enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.

In November, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. In New York’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, defeated establishment Democrat-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo.

In U.S. House special elections throughout 2025, Democratic nominees have consistently outperformed the party’s 2024 showing, often by double-digit percentages. Democrats have flipped state legislative districts and some statewide seats around the country, even in Republican-leaning places.

Although the DNC’s report will not be made public, a committee aide said some conclusions will be integrated into the party’s 2026 plans.

For example, the findings reflect a consensus that Democratic candidates did not adequately address voter concerns on public safety and immigration, two topics that Trump hammered in his comeback campaign. They also found that Democrats must overhaul their digital outreach, especially to younger voters, a group where Trump saw key gains over Harris compared with previous elections.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Director Paul Feig has proved himself to be the preeminent purveyor of the finest high-camp trash one can find at the movie theater these days — and that’s a compliment. If he’s serving up the trash, then call me a raccoon, because I’m ready to dive in.

Feig’s special sauce when it comes to these soapy, female-driven thrillers like “A Simple Favor” and now “The Housemaid,” adapted by Rebecca Sonnenshine from a “BookTok” sensation by Freida McFadden, is clearly his comedy background. The filmmaker understands exactly the tone to deploy here; you can feel his knowing winks and nudges to the audience with every loaded glance, stray graze or wandering camera movement. It’s as if he’s saying to us and all the tipsy ladies in the audience: Check this out — LOL, right? LOL indeed, Mr. Feig.

“The Housemaid” is an erotic crime thriller that deploys silly sexual stereotypes and fantasies like the naughty maid and then flips them on their head. In the opening scene, the drably dressed, bespectacled Millie (Sydney Sweeney) interviews for a live-in maid position with the warm and friendly wife and mother Nina Winchester (Amanda Seyfried) in her gorgeously appointed Long Island mansion designed by her wealthy husband, Andrew (Brandon Sklenar of “Drop”).

But all is not what it seems, for applicant and employer. Both are hiding dark secrets but Nina hires Millie nevertheless. Millie, without any other options, gratefully accepts.

When Millie moves into the maid’s quarters in the attic, she discovers that the Winchester home isn’t as picture-perfect as it seemed. Little things are off: She can’t open her window, the groundskeeper, Enzo (Michele Morrone), glowers at her constantly, items go missing and CeCe (Indiana Elle), Nina’s daughter, is exceedingly cold.

Then there are the big things that are off, like Nina’s wild mood swings and the vicious gossip about her mental health among the other Stepford wives of the area. Millie realizes she’s in over her head with Mrs. Winchester, but her saving grace is the warm and handsome Mr. Winchester. Is that where this is going? Of course it is, we all groan together, happily.

“The Housemaid” is like “Gaslight” meets “Jane Eyre,” with a dash of “Rebecca,” and all the various roles are lightly scrambled, infused with a much sexier, nastier streak than any of those mannered mindbenders. Feig stylishly waltzes us through this steamy, twisty mystery with ease, but not necessarily sophistication — this is the kind of frothy entertainment that you can still enjoyably comprehend after a glass or two (which in fact might enhance the experience).

But it doesn’t fly without an actor of Seyfried’s caliber, who can summon unpredictable mayhem from her fingertips. Nor would it function without Sweeney, who works best in a register somewhere between ditzy blond and tough little scrapper. Both actors exude an element of the unhinged that simmers right below the doe-eyed blond surface and we know we should be a little (or a lot) afraid of these women. The film also doesn’t make sense without a heartthrob like Sklenar, since we need to fall in lust with his gorgeous exterior and intoxicatingly cuddly aura for this all to eventually make sense.

There’s not much more to say without giving it all away, so prepare to titter, gasp, scream and cheer for this juicy slice of indulgent women’s entertainment. Go on, you deserve a little treat this holiday season.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

Here’s what you need to know about potential changes to the BBC TV Licence

An annual fee in the UK could be replaced by “sliding scale” payment rates going forward. The BBC TV Licence could be due for some major changes.

The UK Government will examine reforms to the TV licence fee and explore additional commercial revenue streams for the BBC as part of proposals set out in its Royal charter review. The BBC’s existing charter, which spans a decade, concludes in December 2027.

The yearly licence fee has endured extensive examination under the previous Conservative administration, remaining static at £159 for two years before rising in April 2024 and again in April 2025 to £174.50, aligned with inflation rates.

As reported by the Daily Record, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has previously indicated she might be receptive to substituting the fixed licence fee with a graduated payment system. A fresh public consultation regarding these reforms has been initiated alongside the Green Paper and remains accessible until March 10, 2026.

The charter establishes the BBC’s public mission and serves as the constitutional foundation for the corporation, which is primarily financed through the licence fee, collected from UK households that watch television.

The Green Paper, outlining prospective BBC reforms was released on Tuesday and “consults on a wide range of options being considered for the future of the BBC”.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) stated the UK Government will examine whether licence-fee reductions require updating, possibilities for the BBC to create additional commercial income, and funding alternatives for the World Service to ensure sustainable financing for minority-language broadcasting. Lisa Nandy expressed: “We want the BBC to continue to enrich people’s lives, tell Britain’s story and showcase our values and culture at home and overseas, long into the future.

“My aims for the charter review are clear. The BBC must remain fiercely independent, accountable and be able to command public trust. It must reflect the whole of the UK, remain an engine for economic growth and be funded in a way that is sustainable and fair for audiences.

“As a Government, we will ensure that this charter review is the catalyst that helps the BBC adapt to a rapidly changing media landscape and secures its role at the heart of national life.”

Options in the Green Paper the government is considering and seeking views on in this area include:

• Strengthening the BBC’s independence so the public continues to have trust in the organisation and its programmes and content, including considering the government’s role in board appointments
• Updating the BBC’s Mission and Public Purposes to give accuracy equal importance alongside impartiality and improving transparency of editorial decision-making to ensure the BBC explains journalistic processes and how its coverage evolves, especially during high profile events
• Giving the BBC new responsibilities to counter mis/disinformation, potentially alongside additional requirements on media literacy to help the public navigate technological change and develop digital skills, including around AI
• Introducing specific duties around workplace conduct to ensure BBC staff are protected and the organisation sets the standard for the rest of the sector to follow – including new responsibilities for the BBC Board to ensure action is taken against workplace misconduct

The DCMS said: “A BBC that is sustainably funded for decades to come to support its vital public service role.”

Options the UK Government is considering and seeking views on in this area include:

• Reform of the licence fee, whether licence fee concessions should be updated, and options for the BBC to generate more commercial revenue
• Options for funding the World Service and supporting sustainable funding for minority language broadcasting, including S4C
• Options the government is considering and seeking views on in this area include:
• Placing a new obligation on the BBC to drive economic growth, build skills and support the creative economy across the UK
• Ways in which the BBC can further support the production sector across the nations and regions, including by ensuring budgets and decision-making power for commissioners are spread across the UK, and by supporting minority language broadcasting
• Empowering the BBC to be an ethical and economic leader in adapting to new digital technologies, and enabling it to invest in Research and Development to support growth and drive public service benefits
• Encouraging the BBC to deliver more through collaborations and partnerships for growth and public value outcomes, including with organisations across the creative economy, and with local news outlets

Public consultation

People across the UK are being encouraged to give their views on the UK Government’s Green Paper public consultation and answer a set of questions.

Responses will be used to help inform policy changes which will be set out in a White Paper expected to be published in 2026.

You can view the consultation on GOV.UK.

Joe Root avoids being given out for one after review shows an edge behind drops just short of Australian wicketkeeper Alex Carey, with England 42-3, still 329 runs behind Australia’s first innings score of 371 on day two of the third Ashes Test in Adelaide.

FOLLOW LIVE: The Ashes third Test – day two

Available to UK users only.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

“Stereophonic,” David Adjmi’s heralded drama that won five Tony Awards including best play, is ready for its Los Angeles close-up.

The first national tour production, which opened Wednesday at the Hollywood Pantages Theatre, seems right at home in the music capital of the world. The play about a 1970s rock band on the brink of superstardom takes place in recording studios in Sausalito and L.A., where the Laurel Canyon vibe is never out of sight.

The visual crispness of this L.A. premiere goes a long way toward dispelling doubts that the Pantages is the wrong venue for this ensemble drama. If there’s a problem, it isn’t the cavernousness of the theater. The production, gleaming with period details on a set by David Zinn that gives us clear views into both the sound and control rooms, comfortably inhabits the performance space, at least from the perspective of a decent orchestra seat.

The play, which includes original music from Will Butler, the Grammy-winning artist formerly of Arcade Fire, has a sound every bit as robust as one of the blockbuster musicals that regularly passes through the Pantages. The songs, crushed by the actors at top volume, are Butler’s indie rock re-creation of cuts for a part-British, part-American band that bears such a striking resemblance to Fleetwood Mac that a lawsuit brought by a former sound engineer and producer of the group was eventually settled.

Adjmi, like Shakespeare, takes his inspiration where he finds it. And like the Bard, he makes his sources his own, alchemizing the material for novel ends.

The touring production of “Stereophonic” makes clear just how integral the original cast was to the success of the play.

(Julieta Cervantes)

Unfolding in 1976 and 1977, “Stereophonic” offers a fly-on-the-wall perspective of a band at a crossroads. While recording a new album top-heavy with expectations, the group falls prey to romantic conflicts and self-destructive spirals, to toxic jealousies and seething insecurities. The prospect of fame magnifies pathologies that have been intensifying over time.

Diana (Claire DeJean) is the Stevie Nicks of the band. Beautiful, achingly vulnerable and awash in lyrical talent, she is entangled in a relationship with Peter (Denver Milord), the Lindsey Buckingham of the group, who strives for musical perfection no matter the cost.

Their connection is as professionally enriching as it is personally destructive. Diana’s ambition is matched by her self-doubt. She’s susceptible to a Svengali yet doesn’t want anyone to tell her how to write her songs.

Peter, angrily competitive, can’t help resenting the natural ease of Diana’s talent, even as it’s her song from their first album that has put the band back in the spotlight. His genius is ferociously exacting while hers seems to spring naturally from her soul.

Artistically they depend on each other, but the tension between them is unsustainable. And as the play makes clear, there’s no way to keep their personal lives out of the studio.

DeJean and Milord are the most captivating performers in the ensemble. The other actors are solid but this touring production makes clear just how integral the original cast was to the success of the play.

Daniel Aukin’s production, which had its New York premiere at Playwrights Horizons in 2023 before moving to Broadway the following year, hasn’t lost its confident flow. The storytelling is lucidly laid out. But the tantalizing peculiarities of the characters have been whittled down.

The British band members suffer the worst of it. Emilie Kouatchou’s Holly moves the character away from the obvious Christine McVie reference, but her role has become vaguer and less central. Cornelius McMoyler’s Simon, the drummer and weary manager, fills the bill in every respect but gravitas, which must be in place if the character’s ultimate confrontation with Peter is to have the necessary payoff.

No one could compete with Will Brill, who won a Tony for his strung-out portrayal of Reg, a deranged innocent whose addictions and dysfunctions create farcical havoc for the band. Christopher Mowod can’t quite endow this “sad man in a blanket,” as Simon dubs his bundled-up bandmate, with the same level of fey madness that Brill was able to entertainingly supply.

These casting differences wouldn’t be worth noting if it weren’t for their impact on a play that distinguishes itself by its observational detail. Everything is just a little more obvious, including the two American sound guys bearing the brunt of the artistic temperaments running riot in the studio.

Jack Barrett’s Grover, the sound engineer who lied about his background to get the job, sands off some of the character’s rough edges in a more straightforwardly appealing version of the character than Eli Gelb’s bracing portrayal in New York. Steven Lee Johnson’s Charlie, the dorky assistant sound engineer, is an amiable weirdo, though I missed the way Andrew R. Butler played him almost like a space alien in New York.

The play has been edited, but it’s still a bit of an endurance test. Art isn’t easy for the characters or for us. But the effort isn’t in vain.

Adjmi’s overlapping dialogue and gaping silences, orchestrated in a neo-Chekhovian style, renders the invisible artistic process visible. By the end of the play, the tumultuous human drama behind creative brilliance emerges in poignant, transcendent glory.

Film fans like to lament: They don’t make them like they used to, specifically the kind of wry, life-affirming dramedies that director James L. Brooks perfected back in the 1980s and ’90s like “Terms of Endearment,” “Broadcast News” and “As Good as It Gets.” Movies of that tone and character are rare these days, so it’s worth noting when a new one comes along. But with Brooks’ latest, the deeply strange “Ella McCay,” he doesn’t make them like he used to either.

“Ella McCay” is a portrait of a lady on fire, from stress. The quirky, twitchy Ella (Emma Mackey, horrifically bewigged) is the youngest lieutenant governor in her unnamed state, an awkward policy wonk serving under her mentor, Gov. Bill Moore (Albert Brooks). When he’s tapped for the Cabinet, Ella gets the promotion that she craves, sworn in as the youngest female governor of her state, even as her family life descends into chaos. But Ella’s family life has always been chaotic, as we see in flashbacks to her teenage years, wherein our narrator describes how Ella experiences seeing other happy families — as a stab in the heart.

Our narrator is Estelle (Julie Kavner, best known as the voice of Marge Simpson), Ella’s secretary, who explains that she’s biased, claiming “I’m nuts about her.” The year, by the way, is 2008, “when we could still talk to each other.” So Brooks sets this political film in the recent past, giving a wide berth to the third rail that is MAGA. But by shrinking away from political hot buttons, he renders the whole gambit frustratingly vague and meaningless. Ella lives in the “state,” she runs afoul of the “party,” but skirting these details feels too timid. It’s clear that Ella’s politics are liberal, as she champions a bill designed to support parents and kids in early childhood (she tears up over “tooth tutors”). But why play coy with the specifics?

All Ella wants to do is run her policy meetings, but the men in her life keep getting in the way. First there’s her dad (Woody Harrelson), an inveterate philanderer who would like to make amends — in order to please his new girlfriend. Then there’s Ella’s agoraphobic brother (Spike Fearn), over whom she frets (the less said about his bizarrely tacked-on romantic entanglement with an ex-girlfriend played by Ayo Edebiri, the better). Then there’s her husband (Jack Lowden), a seemingly nice if cocky guy who suddenly starts to love the warmth of the spotlight as Ella ascends.

Again and again, Ella runs in circles trying to put out fires with these men without ever getting to her meetings or doing the job she claims she loves so much (and when she finally does get to her meeting, it’s a flop). The entire movie is about how men are always getting in the way of women’s work, but it’s not entirely clear that Brooks knows this is what his film is about, as Ella happily embarks on pointless side quests with her dad and brother and becomes embroiled in the tamest political sex scandal of all time. The real scandal here is why she entertains any of these losers at all.

It never feels like Brooks has a grasp on the material, which careens aimlessly through Ella’s harried day-to-day in a handsomely bland, serviceable style. The thread about Ella’s childhood trauma resulting from her parents’ messy relationship is lost — and was never that convincing to begin with. She has an unconventional family but her aunt Helen (Jamie Lee Curtis), who helped raise her, is a fierce protector and confidant. Their relationship is fun to watch, so why bother with all these men and their inane storylines? The only worthy one in Ella’s life is her designated security detail (Kumail Nanjiani). In another movie, they’d have a romance, some sexual tension or at least a heartfelt and wise conversation. Here, his character is denied any chance of that.

As we move from broken home to political scandal to another broken home, Ella finally realizes that a woman’s place is not in the capital, but rather in the nonprofit sector (not that she has much choice in the matter). What, exactly, is Brooks trying to say? We spend two hours watching men mess things up for Ella and then she just accepts it and moves on? Even if that message weren’t profoundly weird, dramatically it falls flat, despite Estelle trying to tie it up with a positive final message: “The opposite of trauma is hope.” Whatever that means. It’s apt that this closing phrase makes as much sense as the rest of the movie, which is to say, very little.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

We should be grateful for filmmakers who have a special artistic relationship with an actor: Akira Kurosawa with Toshiro Mifune, Martin Scorsese with Robert De Niro and, by all indications, Yorgos Lanthimos and Emma Stone. Count the Italian duo of Paolo Sorrentino and star Toni Servillo among them, a fertile partnership that began nearly 25 years ago with the director’s first film (“One Man Up”) and continues with their seventh together, the political drama “La Grazia” (“Grace”).

The wielding of power seems to be a frequent backdrop for these two, with “La Grazia” — about an Italian president facing tough decisions as he ends his term of office — marking the third time Sorrentino has asked his favorite leading man to be a head of state, following their breakthrough 2008 collaboration “Il Divo” (about Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti) and 2018’s romp about Silvio Berlusconi, “Loro.”

The difference this time is that, while the other two films centered controversial real-life figures, Servillo’s character in “La Grazia” is fictional, yet pressured to deal with contentious issues. The result is a much more somber, ruminative exploration of morality in governmental authority than the stylish violence of “Il Divo” and exploitative raunch of “Loro.”

A decade after his lush Oscar-winning bacchanal “The Great Beauty” (starring an especially great you-know-who), Sorrentino is no less drawn to pictorial beauty or arresting visuals. But there’s a grayer, graver tone to the long shadows of “La Grazia,” as if the natural, appealing gravitas of Servillo playing an important man fighting a planned obsolescence was the only palette Sorrentino and cinematographer Daria D’Antonio needed.

Servillo’s Mariano De Santis has mere months left — as a leader, that is. But besides being pushed to eat healthier and stop smoking cigarettes by his daughter Dorotea (a wonderful Anna Ferzetti), the idea of ending things isn’t entirely figurative as this austere jurist-turned-president wanders the halls of his official Roman residence, the grand Palazzo del Quirinale, wryly contemplating retirement.

He’s a widower, for one thing, whose love for his deceased wife is still deep enough to keep him jealous regarding her early infidelity with a mystery man he’s eager to identify, even as his old friend, art curator Coco (a vibrant Milvia Marigliano), stays tight-lipped about what she knows. He’s also being pushed by Dorotea, a treasured advisor who is herself a legal scholar, to consider two cases of clemency for convicted spousal killers, both with circumstances that would test any arbiter of sound legal judgment. And finally, though De Santis is a devoted Catholic, on good terms with the pope (Rufin Doh Zeyenouin), he’s grappling with signing right-to-euthanasia legislation.

You wouldn’t think a movie with such heavy topics would count as escapism. But when you consider current headlines, a thoughtful leader engaging with thorny issues from a place of psychological honesty, social integrity and fatherly love could almost count as fantasy. And Sorrentino, a dedicated sensualist, does allow himself some lighter touches, including, toward the end, a fanciful visual metaphor for a burdened man’s spirit that maybe only he could get away with.

Most assuredly, though, this is a duo of director and star once more moving in concert together, maybe not as confidently as with some previous efforts, but with a knowing intelligence. Servillo is no less than magnificent, conveying a buttoned-up statesman’s management of earned wisdom and inconvenient emotion (and, at one point, an interest in rap lyrics) with enough lessons in actorly craft to fill one of his character’s treasured law tomes. The title doesn’t just describe what’s sometimes elusive in governance. “La Grazia” is Servillo in every scene.

The true story behind the family drama “Rosemead” may not be the saddest tale ever brought to the screen. But boy, it’s up there.

Inspired by a shattering 2017 Times article by then-staff writer Frank Shyong (and now the first narrative feature film from LA Times Studios), “Rosemead” has long been a passion project for its star, Lucy Liu, also a producer. It’s not hard to see why.

This powerful account of humble, terminally ill Taiwanese American widow Irene Chao (based on real-life Rosemead resident Lai Hang), who takes the fate of her schizophrenic teen son into her own hands, offers the transformational role of a lifetime for Liu. Best known for stylish, commanding turns in the “Charlie’s Angels” and “Kill Bill” movies and in TV series such as “Ally McBeal” and “Elementary,” she’s a revelation here.

But the narrative also shines a crucial spotlight on L.A.’s Asian American community and its sometimes insular approach to handling emotional trauma, particularly mental illness. Shame over the condition’s perceived stigma, language barriers and a general fear of expressing oneself add to this cultural dilemma, one that hasn’t been widely explored on the big screen.

Liu is tender and heartbreaking as Irene, who runs the local print shop that her husband (Orion Lee, seen in flashbacks) left behind several years ago. She also helps out in the herbal pharmacy run by childhood best friend Kai-Li (Jennifer Lim). Given that Irene displays a troubling cough from the start, it’s no surprise where her health is heading.

Of more immediate worry to Irene, though, is her only child, Joe (an excellent Lawrence Shou), a high school senior diagnosed with schizophrenia after his beloved dad’s untimely death — and it’s gotten worse. This downturn has impacted his grades, competitive swimming status and overall focus; he obsessively doodles eerie clusters of spiders and draws a disturbing map of his school’s floor plan.

Joe maintains a supportive circle of friends, but they, like Irene and other observers, are ever more alarmed by his bouts of extreme behavior. The boy’s abrupt, inexplicable disappearances are increasingly commonplace, as is a destructive streak.

If that wasn’t enough, Joe has secretly stopped taking his meds. He’s also seemingly become fixated on guns and the endless string of school shootings that make the news.

His deeply concerned therapist, Dr. Hsu (James Chen), assures Irene, who has kept herself at arm’s length, “Most people with schizophrenia don’t engage in violence.” But it’s cold comfort to a mother whose days are numbered by a dire diagnosis. She’s convinced that when she is no longer there to monitor and protect her son, he will hurt himself and others.

Something must be done. The result is an act so unthinkable that, if it hadn’t happened in real life, Marilyn Fu’s otherwise sensitively constructed screenplay might seem beyond repair. But, as they say, truth is stranger than fiction and viewers won’t soon forget the film’s devastating conclusion.

Eric Lin, who has served as cinematographer on such disparate indie films as “The Exploding Girl,” “My Blind Brother” and “Hearts Beat Loud,” makes a worthy feature directing debut here, even if the picture tends to unfold a bit more prosaically than its singular story might demand. Yet when Lin attempts to break out using strobe effects to reflect Joe’s schizophrenic episodes, it comes off more jarring than immersive.

Still, with an able assist from cinematographer Lyle Vincent (“A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night”), Lin vividly captures the look and feel of life in and around Rosemead. This is a special achievement since only about a quarter of the movie was shot in L.A. The rest was filmed in Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island to take advantage of New York’s tax incentives. No matter: The final product, featuring an effective array of SoCal exteriors to tie things together, looks seamless.

Enough can’t be said about Liu’s astonishing, naturalistic turn. She’s a physical marvel here, making herself as small and inconspicuous — yet also as quietly resolute — as her complex character requires. Liu, who was raised in a Chinese-speaking New York household, proves a verbal wonder as well, impeccably toggling between Irene’s halting English and her fluent native Mandarin. Prizes may elude Liu this awards season, but she should be in the conversation.

Despite the film’s downbeat subject matter and its grim finale, watching “Rosemead” isn’t as wholly depressing as it may sound. Like many films and TV shows that have dealt with life’s most unimaginable trials, there are profound human and societal lessons to be gleaned. Moreover, at this moment in time, any truthful, heartfelt story about America’s immigrant experience deserves our attention. That the film contains one of the year’s finest performances may seal the deal for more serious viewers.

TV legend Bryan Fuller, known for his cult classics “Pushing Daisies” and “Hannibal,” just earned an Independent Spirit Award nomination for first feature. It’s somehow a surprise that the well-known creator just directed his first movie, after spending almost three decades working in television on series like “Dead Like Me” and “American Gods.” Now he turns to the world of indie film, reuniting with actor Mads Mikkelsen, his Hannibal Lecter, on the dark fairy tale “Dust Bunny.”

Fuller has a thing for idioms, extending them to their most extreme ends (e.g., “pushing daisies”), and so in “Dust Bunny,” he imagines what those bits of fluff could be if our nightmares came to life. He also posits an outlandish notion: What if a kid hired an assassin to kill the monster under her bed?

Aurora (Sophie Sloan) is an imaginative young girl who hears things that roar and scream in the night. The dust bunny under her bed is a ravenous, monstrous thing. When her parents go missing, she’s convinced they’ve been eaten by the monster bunny, and seeks out the services of an “intriguing neighbor” (Mikkelsen, that’s how he’s credited) whom she has seen vanquishing dragons in the alley outside. With a fee that she purloins from a church collection plate, she implores him for help and he agrees, as he learns more about this young girl’s challenging childhood.

At first, “Dust Bunny” feels a little light, the story skittering across its densely designed surface, with very little dialogue in the first half. But it grows and grows, more bits and pieces accumulating as Fuller reveals this strange, heightened world. We meet Intriguing Neighbor’s handler, Laverne (Sigourney Weaver), revealing the larger Wickian world of killers that he inhabits.Weaver chomps through her scenes like the monster bunny chomps through the floorboards — literally, as she consumes charcuterie, dumplings and “suckling pig tea sandwiches” with gusto. Some monsters grin at us from across the table.

The film is essentially “Leon: The Professional” meets “Amélie” (one of Fuller’s favorite films), but with his distinct wit and flair. That style also means that “Dust Bunny” is quite fussy and mannered and if you don’t buy in on the film’s arch humor and stylized world, you’re liable to bounce right off of it. As Fuller opens the world up, revealing a sly FBI agent (Sheila Atim) and more baddies (David Dastmalchian, Rebecca Henderson), the plot becomes more intriguing beyond its unwieldy childhood-trauma metaphor, but there’s also not quite enough embroidered on this tapestry. It feels shallow, not fleshed out.

Fuller demonstrates a strong command over his visual domain but the pat allegory he presents about the monsters with whom we have to learn to live feels a bit muddled. Sloan and Mikkelsen are terrific together, but you feel that there is much more they could have sunk their teeth into here, and perhaps the limits of the tale reveal the limits of the budget, carefully wallpapered over with opulent production design — explosions of patterns and color crafted by Jeremy Reed, captured with shadowy but lush cinematography by Nicole Hirsch Whitaker.

It’s a first feature that feels like one — a bit of a surprise from someone so experienced. But the project has Fuller’s signature style, even if it doesn’t add up to much more than a neat kiddie-centric hard-R genre exercise.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

You often hear that short stories make the best movies, as if the notion is to take something compact and widen it with cinema’s scalability. But the reverse can also be true: Certain movies benefit from feeling pocket-sized and unfettered, as if you’ve curled up with a tight, evocative short story, filled with just enough humor, detail and feeling to evoke a warm glow.

Set over two days during the instant relationship between a desperate young man from New York and a lonely older Los Angeles street musician, the black-and-white micro-indie “Burt” from director and co-screenwriter Joe Burke is one such half-slice of heart and calories, neither too much nor undercooked. You could watch a lot of films made with its equivalent budget (think that of a used 2007 sedan) and sense an ambition straining against constraints or a deliberate attempt at slumming. Not so with “Burt,” the movie equivalent of a cherry sour drop on a day when you need something a little tart, a tad sweet and that won’t outstay its welcome.

“Burt” stars Burt Berger as, well, Burt Berger, a 69-year-old troubadour type whom we first see in a sparsely attended coffeehouse plucking away at his guitar and, as if the ’60s never went away, singing about freedom. (Via Berger’s earnest, aged voice, the concept sounds hard-won.) Watching him intently is Sammy (co-screenwriter Oliver Cooper), who asks for a moment of Burt’s time. Over a picnic table in a field, this kind-eyed, spindly musician, visibly dealing with Parkinson’s, is informed that Sammy is the son he never knew he had. To which you might think: Finally, a movie that doesn’t waste time getting straight to what we’re already thinking.

Burt is tickled by the news and very quickly wants Sammy to stay overnight in the modest North Hollywood house he shares with his live-in landlord Steve (Steven Levy), a suspicious, rules-obsessed crank with mad-prophet facial hair, a nascent vegetable garden and, he’d like this new visitor to know, a gun. The distrust is mutual for Sammy, but he’s trying to stay focused on getting to know Burt for reasons that soon become apparent and which give this quirky, Jarmusch-inflected scenario an extra dab of seriocomic urgency.

But “Burt” isn’t driven by narrative. Director Burke is way more invested in the interpersonal dynamics of oddballs than anything else and, to that end, a fair amount of humorous tension is maintained — from Sammy’s fearful accommodation of Steve’s peculiarities to some contentious phone calls with a haranguing aunt (Caitlin Adams) who lives in a trailer park, is behind on rent and apparently makes a fine soup. Meanwhile, one of the more endearingly amusing aspects of “Burt” is how spiritedly the title character takes to sudden dadhood, especially his immediate adopting of such phrases as “No son of mine is …” and “That’s my boy!”

There’s no way for a general moviegoer to know what the ratio of fiction to nonfiction in is a scruffy DIY object like “Burt,” with characters playing versions of themselves. (If Levy doesn’t have an agent, he should consider it.) And while you don’t expect things to get sentimental, there’s a quiet faith as “Burt” shuffles along — its jazz-tinged music score a little rough and the editing not always smooth — that the movie won’t ignore the feelings its director has efficiently triggered. Most notably, Berger, whose life inspired the film, is a natural, easy to root for and an ideal center for a movie with a warmhearted view of life as best appreciated when you can set aside your hang-ups and adopt the occasional stray.

Monterrey, Mexico – In April, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced the country’s aerospace industry could see sustained annual growth of as much as 15 percent over the next four years, and attributed the sector’s expansion to a robust local manufacturing workforce, increasing exports, and a strong presence of foreign companies.

But with the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) coming up – the free-trade treaty between the three countries that helped Mexico’s aerospace sector to grow and flourish – the industry’s future is no longer certain.

Stakeholders warn that ensuring investment stability and strengthening labour standards are essential to protecting the sector’s North American supply chain.

Mexico is striving to become one of the top 10 countries in aerospace production value, a goal outlined in Plan Mexico, the country’s strategic initiative to enhance global competitiveness in key sectors.

As the sixth-largest supplier of aerospace parts to the US, the industry has benefited significantly from the USMCA, which fostered regional supply chain integration, said Monica Lugo, director of institutional relations at the consulting firm PRODENSA.

However, the integration is no guarantee of business continuing to grow as the country is at an “unprecedented moment” with US President Donald Trump and his wide-ranging tariff policies.

Lugo, a former USMCA negotiator, said that recent tariffs on materials like steel and aluminium — critical to the aerospace sector— have eroded trust in the US as a reliable partner. She predicts that if current conditions continue, the sector risks losing capital, investments and jobs.

“Having this great uncertainty – one day it’s on, the next it’s off, who knows tomorrow – and based on no specific criteria, but rather on the president’s mood, creates chaos and severely damages the country and the economy,” she said.

On December 4, Trump suggested the US might let the USMCA expire next year, or negotiate a new deal. This follows comments by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to US news outlet Politico that the administration is considering separate deals with Canada and Mexico.

A booming aerospace sector

The Mexican aerospace market is valued at $11.2bn, and is expected to more than double to $22.7bn by 2029, Sheinbaum said, citing data from the Mexican Aerospace Industry Federation (FEMIA). Home to global companies like Bombardier, Safran, Airbus, and Honeywell, Mexico has established itself as a key player in the global aerospace market and is now the world’s twelfth-largest exporter of aerospace components.

Marco Antonio Del Prete, secretary of sustainable development in Queretaro, attributes this success in part to heavy investment in education and training. In 2005, the Queretaro government promised Canada’s Bombardier that it would invest in education and set up the Aeronautical University, which now offers programmes ranging from technical diplomas to master’s degrees in aerospace manufacturing and engineering.

“Since Bombardier’s arrival, an educational and training system was created that allows us to develop talent in a very efficient way, let’s say, fast track,” Del Prete told Al Jazeera.

Bombardier has served as an anchor, propelling Queretaro’s rise as a high-skilled manufacturing hub for parts and components.

While the Bombardier plant in Queretaro originally focused on wiring harnesses, it has evolved to specialise in complex aerostructures, including the rear fuselage for the Global 7500, Bombardier’s ultra-long-range business jet, and key components for the Challenger 3500, the mid-sized business jet.

Marco Antonio Carrillo, a research professor at the Autonomous University of Queretaro (UAQ), pointed out that the area’s wide educational offerings have cultivated a powerful workforce, which has gained significant attention from aeroplane makers, mainly from the US, Canada and France.

“This development [of Queretaro] has been, if you look at it in terms of time, truly explosive,” Carrillo said.

Mexico also aims to join France and the US as the third country capable of fully assembling an engine for Safran.

But the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Union, which represents more than 600,000 workers in Canada and the US, is worried that progress could lead to more advanced manufacturing and assembly work to eventually shift to Mexico, given the local investment in aeronautical universities and training.

“Right now they’re [Mexican workers] doing more entry-level type things, but our concern is that later on, larger pieces of the aerospace operation will go to Mexico,” Peter Greenberg, the IAM’s international affairs director, told Al Jazeera.

High-skilled, low-cost workforce

Of the three countries in the USMCA agreement, Mexico’s biggest attraction has been its low-cost manufacturing.

Edgar Buendia and Mario Duran Bustamante, economics professors at the Rosario Castellanos National University, cite Mexico’s low labour costs and geographical proximity to the US as the country’s key advantages. This is partly why the US has intensified pressure on the Mexican government, including during the initial USMCA negotiations in 2017, to raise wages to level the playing field and reduce unfair competition.

“Most US companies have incentives to move their production here in Mexico, given the [low] wages and the geographic location. So, to prevent that from happening, the United States is pressuring Mexico to raise labour standards, ensure freedom of association, and improve working conditions,” Buendia told Al Jazeera, things that will benefit Mexican workers even as employer-dominated labour groups worry that they may lose their advantage.

The IAM originally opposed the USMCA’s predecessor, NAFTA. Greenberg said that while they acknowledge USMCA will continue, US and Canadian workers “would probably be perfectly happy” if the agreement ended as the NAFTA deal had led to plants being shuttered and workers being laid off as jobs moved from the US and Canada to low-cost Mexico.

“There is a need for stronger incentives to keep work in the United States and Canada. We want to see the wages in Mexico go up so that it doesn’t become automatically a place where companies go to because they know they will have lower wages and workers who do not have any bargaining power or strong units,” Greenberg added.

Under Sheinbaum’s Morena party, Mexico has raised the minimum wage from 88 pesos ($4.82) in 2018 to 278.8 pesos ($15.30) in 2025, with the rate in municipalities bordering the US reaching 419.88 pesos ($23). On December 4, Sheinbaum announced a 13 percent rise in the minimum wage — and 5 percent for the border zone— set to begin in January 2026.

Despite these increases and the competitiveness of wages in the aerospace sector, researchers agree that a significant wage gap persists between Mexican workers and their US and Canadian counterparts.

“The wage gap is definitely abysmal,” said Javier Salinas, a scholar at the UAQ Labor Center, specialising in labour relations in the aerospace industry. “The [aerospace] industry average is between 402 [Mexican pesos] and 606, with the highest daily wage being 815. [But] 815, converted to US dollars, is less than $40 for a single workday.”

By contrast, Salinas estimates that a worker in the US earns an average of about 5,500 pesos, or $300, per day.

‘Protection unions’

The USMCA required Mexico to end “protection unions”, a longstanding practice where companies sign agreements with corrupt union leaders — known as “sindicatos charros” — without the workers’ knowledge. This system has been used to prevent authentic union organising, as these sindicatos often serve the interests of the company and government authorities rather than the workers.

Salinas argues that despite the 2019 labour reform, it remains difficult for independent unions to emerge. Meanwhile, “protection unions” continue to keep wages low to maintain competitiveness.

“But imagine, a competitiveness based on precarious or impoverished working conditions. I don’t think that’s the way forward,” Salinas said.

Even with new labour courts and laws mandating collective bargaining, organising in Mexico remains dangerous. Workers attempting to create independent unions frequently face firing, threats, or being blacklisted by companies.

Humberto Huitron, a lawyer specialising in collective labour law and trade unionism, explains that Mexican workers, including in the aerospace sector, often lack effective representation. “There’s discrimination during hiring or recruitment. They don’t hire workers who are dismissed for union activism,” he said.

Beyond demanding that Mexico enforce its labour reform, the IAM is calling for the expansion and strengthening of the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM), which allows the US to take action against factories if they fail to uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

While not in the aerospace sector, the US recently invoked the RRM against a wine producer in Queretaro. Previous such actions in the state had been limited to the automotive sector.

“No one knows exactly what is going on in all of the factories in Mexico,” Greenberg said.

According to FEMIA, there are 386 aerospace companies operating in 19 states. These include 370 specialised plants that generate 50,000 direct jobs and 190,000 indirect jobs.

Del Prete, however, assured Al Jazeera that, in Queretaro, unions are independent and “they have their own organisation.”

Salinas points out that in Queretaro, there has not been a strike in decades, adding, “Imagine the control of the workforce: 29, 30 years without a single strike in the private sector.”