Vee

I think it worked because they've had such a keen focus on her all month. I didn't feel it was as out of place as some other similar moments of late. It felt like a small climax in an existing storyline.

CNN just confirmed portions of the infamous Russian dossier have been corroborated.

I thought the Sharon thing was tiresome, but at least they seemed to come to a resolution. I wish she wasn't leaving with Phil, though. Diane Parish was pretty incredible as Denise ripping Kim apart. They've leaned heavily on her in the last month and she can take it; she's really very good. I just wish I had faith they'd continue to do so, as I don't remember EE giving its black characters enough in the bulk of my viewing years.

We already predicted all this, but it's official: Trump hates being President.

No, that was my reply to the headline - I agree.

??????

The whole plotline with Phil and the transplant's family was dreadful from the day that kid walked into the chip shop, and I don't often find something outright dreadful about Eastenders. Just, who cares about something like this at this point in Phil Mitchell's long run? The scene where he and Sharon fought about it and then, yet again, Phantom Michelle wafts over to tell Phil to straighten up and fly right(??!!) made me laugh. It just feels like they're straining to find anything to do with the characters, when to me what to do with the characters is either split Phil and Sharon up or, if they're so insistent on keeping them together, profoundly change them. This happy families thing seems so pat and false. Granted, I haven't watched them regularly in forever so who knows. It almost makes the domestic follies with the Carters seem propulsive. Speaking of, I didn't mind the Carters' follies too much at first as I think the actors are quite solid and engaging, but they are growing (or rather I imagine already were) increasingly episodic and sitcom-ish* outside of the understandably unpopular connection between Mick and Whitney, which along with Babe is the only thing presently holding my interest there. I don't find Mick and Whitney a thrilling couple or anything, but at least it's a soapy, messy story as opposed to day to day shenanigans. That scene with Ben and Jay in the garage practically hooting with forced Jack-the-Lad jauntiness and apparently attempting to conjure the spirit of Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins was a bit of a cringe and did not exactly make their platonic mate banter sing. Meanwhile, a damp, beleaguered Phil continues to increasingly resemble a wet elder beaver. * - this paragraph was written before viewing the Suzie Wong incident, which, whoo

K-Kon in the krosshairs

I did guffaw when the following episode has Jay annoyed at Ben in the kitchen and Ben practically pulls him in a lovers' tiff clinch on the way out the door. I mean, come on. As for the teens, I think the girl playing Bex(!) is quite good, and suited for the family. I think the story with the bullying boys seems silly, but I don't know a ton of context with any of them and it's just a little teen storyline; I think it's harmless from what I've seen. I think the girl playing Louise is variable but seems lightweight opposite her friend, or maybe that's just how the writing increasingly handles the two of them. I often wonder if they are aiming for Michelle and Sharon with them, but it's much more superficial IMO. I think Jenna Russell is increasingly dependable, but having Michelle spend 90% of her time functioning as wise talk-to to increasingly random people just doesn't seem like her to me. Then again, maybe my memories of the original Michelle are a bit jaundiced. She just seems like she floats into scenes to dispense bland wisdom (often to people I don't think she'd do it to, like Phil), then sigh to herself about her utterly sordid and unnecessary backstory which the actress unfortunately makes comes across like the lurid secret life of an oversexed librarian. I think she could do a lot more if they let her play Michelle as opposed to just bouncing between the placid, wise matron or the damaged, pervy middle-aged woman with a booze problem - both of which I think are beneath the character at this point. Where on Earth is Sonia? I couldn't quite follow whatever Bex was saying to Martin and Stacey about her. I mean, I'm in no rush, but...

I am four or five episodes behind, but: the more they have Jamie Borthwick play it up and go broad playing the ostensibly everyday lad to offset the (perfectly fine) guy playing Ben, the more chemistry Borthwick has with him. It was slapping me in the face with a giant trout - or, uh, analogies to that effect. I don't know why they just don't bite the bullet and do it, it's not like they're invested in any other part of Jay's life sans the Mitchells. And yeah, I remember them ripping Vicki a new one. She was really the one problem there in that family unit. I loved the early Den's return storyline, I thought Leslie Grantham was incredible with the family and scheming with Lucy Benjamin (Lisa), I loved Letitia Dean with Dennis/Nigel Harman. It was a sea change, but it didn't last. That's the problem with a lot of EE, it loves to do big things but it's gotten worse and worse at follow-through on evolution, it will often regress or be mercurial, or just cynical or ADD. Well, the show has evolved in a lot of ways since then, but some are good and some are bad and others are just marginal. Speaking of evolution, I am more invested in Martin and Stacey than I should be given this show's history with basically any happy couples, let alone Fowlers.

Treason. Also:

Blair Redford joins Fox's X-Men project, possibly as one of the New Mutants.

More from EW on Season 2's storyline. Dustin gets a new friend!

Kellyanne Conway asks viewers to "buy Ivanka's stuff," may be violating ban on federal employee endorsements.

There's been a lot of reporting down on Trump and his people though, especially since the election and especially since the inauguration. I'm not saying it's perfect but ignoring Sean Spicer and ignoring Kellyanne Conway or this administration doesn't work when since moment one, Spicer walked out and informed the press that it was now expected to function like state-run media in a dictatorship - printing what they say and dropping everything else. And if you allow Sean Spicer to tell the world that criticizing a bad military operation means not supporting the troops and you don't push back, that would be emboldening them just like how the media too often handled the Bush administration. Only this is much worse. If they allow them to go unchallenged, if they let up on them, if they don't point out the falsehoods and lies and manipulations day after day, and yes, if they stop mocking them then they're allowing the Trump White House freedom of movement and growth of power and legitimacy.

I know what they did 15 years ago. But what's the alternative, not report on him now? We only have one free press and they're pushing back against Trump - Door #2 would plunge us into fascism.

EW on Season 2:

They're not wrong, though.

A promo video for the first issue of new fanzine The Blue Rose, from the co-creator of the Wrapped in Plastic zine. Comes out digitally and in print 2/24.

From a new interview in a French mag with Julee Cruise:

I just