Constructor: David Tuffs

Relative problem: Easy

THEME: “similar characters” — well-known motion pictures are clued as having the “similar characters” as another motion pictures (or TV exhibits), solely on this case the clues (clearly) imply “characters” as in “letters (within the titles),,” not “roles (within the exhibits themselves)”

Theme solutions:

• “FATAL ATTRACTION” (17A: 1987 thriller that includes the identical characters as TV’s “Californication”?)
• “SISTER ACT” (23A: 1992 comedy that includes the identical characters because the movie “Secretariat”?)
• “TOTAL RECALL” (39A: 1990 motion movie that includes the identical characters because the movie “Collateral”?)
• “DAREDEVIL” (54A: 2003 Marvel film that includes the identical characters as TV’s “Riverdale”?)
• “SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN” (61A: 1952 musical that includes the identical characters as TV’s “Stranger Things”?)

Word of the Day: “GOTTI” (22A: Travolta movie with a 0% score on Rotten Tomatoes) —

Gotti is a 2018 American biographical crime movie about New York Citymobster John Gotti, directed by Kevin Connolly, and written by Lem Dobbsand Leo Rossi. It stars John Travolta as Gotti, alongside his real-life spouse Kelly Preston as Gotti’s spouse Victoria in her penultimate movie. […] Gotti underperformed each critically and commercially; it grossed simply $6 million in opposition to a $10 million manufacturing price range and obtained universally destructive critiques from critics, who lamented the writing, aesthetics and performances, though its use of make-up and Travolta’s efficiency obtained some reward. It is one of many few movies to carry an approval score of 0% on the web site Rotten Tomatoes. (wikipedia)

• • •

As for the theme, I by no means noticed it. That is, as I used to be filling within the final themer (“SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN“), I assumed “wait, there isn’t any revealer clue? … what is that this theme?” Then I seen that the theme clues had data in them past “1987 thriller” and “2003 Marvel film” (which had been all I’d wanted to get the solutions). So the primary themer clue I truly learn all through was the final one. I after all knew immediately that “SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN” and “Stranger Things” do not share any characters, so I knew immediately that “characters” meant “letters.” And that was that. I’m kinda glad I spared myself that revelation till the very finish as a result of it meant that as I used to be fixing I no less than had some *hope* {that a} intelligent revealer was on its approach. If I’d seen the “character” pun very first thing, nicely, the puzzle would’ve been even more durable to endure than it was, and it was fairly onerous to endure, *in spite* of being *exceedingly* straightforward to unravel. Once once more (that is occurring an terrible lot currently), I could not even make it out of the NW nook with out pondering “that is numerous subpar fill for one small nook, I hope it isn’t all gonna be like this.” But it was. ADE to ATT to ITT to OER to OBI to ETE to IDA (crossing IDAHO). And I’m leaving numerous different unhappy repeaters off that listing. The fill was so complacent. So yesteryear. I do not perceive the entire lack of emphasis on clear grids at this institution. The theme is (apparently) all the things, and all you must do is get the fill into believable “yeah I’ve seen that earlier than” form. I’ll say that the SE nook is 10x higher than the NW nook, and “I CAN’T SEE!” is an sudden reply, vigorous in its urgency (41A: “It’s too darkish in right here!”). But for probably the most half, filling this grid in was a dreary train. I used to be writing in solutions virtually as quick as I may learn the clues: nonetheless dreary.

There’s one thing miserable about losing one of many longer solutions on a cross-reference that sends the fixing clear to another a part of the grid for the opposite a part of the reply, which finally ends up simply being unhealthy brief fill they’re making an attempt to decorate up (on this case, the DEE from DEE / REYNOLDS). That’s like somebody seen “Hey, we have got this cruddy DEE sitting right here, possibly we will spruce it up by tying it to REYNOLDS?”). But you are not “sprucing” something, you are simply making the clear up extra clunky and awkward (and never fooling anybody: DEE is DEE is DEE, beneath common). MAPLE / TREE was additionally a disappointing crossref. I’ve to return to my left to get a second phrase as apparent and semi-redundant as TREE? Come on.

[MIRIAM!]