...but what I doooooo that defines me.

Batman Begins — 2.5/5 (rewatch)

The Dark Knight — 4.5/5 (rewatch) 

Let us start with — what a stupid title for a movie. 'Batman Begins.' So dumb. From there, we shall proceed to: Christopher Nolan isn't given enough credit for being a bad caster. Katie Holmes, young Bruce, his dad are all sort of central to the emotions of this movie and they overall carry this feeling of 'they'll do, I just need human meat to say my lines aloud as my camera races forward.' You'd argue, then, 'but look at all the good actors in his movies', and I'd return that he makes easy choices of good actors — of course Michael Caine is a good actor, of course Morgan Freeman, of course Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson. Bale, frankly, is fine and grows into the role, but also let's remember how fucking stupid his Batman-voice is at times (to speak nothing of Tom Hardy's Bane). Whereas Wes Anderson surrounds himself with a repertoire of people who fit his vibe, Nolan surrounds himself with easy choices that can do their work aptly and then thusly get out of his way. Leading me to: I don't think Nolan actually cares about his actors, or directing talent... but I think actors like working with him because they can do whatever they want and he'll trust them. I think what he cares about is plot and energy and and editing and that rule of storytelling that he sort of breaks with overuse within 'Batman Begins': everything connects. I love when movies connect!! But, you know, thematically. Here, it's all just tangible plot details — where Batman comes from, where his armor comes from, where his ears come from. Everything here is designed to have purpose; everything here does not need purpose. It has the feeling of being smart because everything's been so thought-through. But the purpose of a storyteller is to think through everything, and then subtract until it becomes poetry again. 

And so I then watched 'The Dark Knight', which does a lot of what 'Batman Begins' does... just, you know, better. But whyyyyyy. Let us examine. First: you don't need 'Batman Begins' to enjoy this movie, but I think Nolan needed 'Batman Begins' to lay the groundwork for this movie. He needed to overly explain everything in that movie so that he could feel comfortable focusing on thematic connection in this movie. But the tangible plot stuff overly-connecting is still here!!! Everything happens so easily, everything's all going so according to the Joker's plan. BUT, within Joker, you have an almost supernatural force that allows you to excuse how preternaturally "smart" everything is. He is a Jungian force of nature, a cosmic villain, a Loki, a Bugs Bunny, a trickster god. Always in the right place, even when it seems like the wrong place. And so, in that character, Nolan finds his best character because that character fits what he needs as a filmmaker: pure connective force. A thing that pushes against everything, propels everything forward, while holding everything together. And Heath Ledger, truly, is exceptional in the role, an odd choice on the face of it, at first befitting my 'Christopher Nolan is a bad caster' thesis but also living proof that it's all up to you and what you bring to it. And it was fucking brought-en. But also proof that in order for Nolan's movies to work, it can't all just be energy: you've got to have a performance in the center from which everything can spin around.

You want to fight? Or you want to win?

Andor S2 — 3.5/5

Rogue One (re-watch)— 2/5 

Man, it feels like I just watched six seasons of television!! It shoots across four years of life in little three-episode arcs, and the result is a feeling of largeness – to its benefit, and also leaving it not entirely able to carry the weight of the world and its many spinning plates. To the subject of benefit — season 2, like 1, builds up an entire world of characters who aren't Jedis or weirdly-shaped creatures. Top-to-bottom great casting, set design, and tone that set it side-to-side with the Star Wars universe and, as with season 1, proves that there's just as much fun with manipulation and political intrigue as there is with fighting. It feels like the dream of the prequels come to life: a story about senators and issuances of orders and back-channeling as fodder for compelling television! The show's greatest strength, even, is that it makes me want to go back and revisit those prequels, and 'Rogue One,' for which this show serves as a lead-in. Unfortunately, I did that, at least in part, and 'Rogue One' sucks absolute shit. And I think, regrettably, that that little follow-up re-watch will color this review of the show. Never have I so clearly remembered my previous criticism of a movie while watching it and experiencing the same criticism all over again, beat by beat. A fun plot, cool names, beautiful scenery, and characters that immediately register as characters — and absolutely no relationship between them. Who is Andor to Erso? Who is the pilot to the Force bois? Why are they there? What purpose do they serve? They're all Chekhov's gun, minus a basic understanding of Chekhov's gun. It's Zack Snyder-esque 'cool aesthetics as reason enough.' For example: Force Boi 1 dies, leaving with 2 a message of the Force, which 2 takes on, only to die uselessly, in no way relevant to the Force. Okay, awesome. For example: The pilot, repeatedly reminded that he is a pilot, dies while trying to put a wire into a plug instead of, I don't know, flying up there to destroy the signal-blocker. For example: Let's give Cassian and Erso romantic tension, for no reason whatsofuckingever other than that they are both attractive. And, excuse the pettiness of bringing this up, but Grand Moff Tarkin and Princess Leia's unnecessary CGI-ness enrages me all over again, tantamount to seeing Fred Astaire dance with a Dirt Devil. I've stated before that I get upset when things are so close to being good and here, the first time you see Grand Moff Tarkin, he's reflected in a window. It's great. It works. Seeing Princess Leia from behind? It works. And the movie has them turn around and face the screen and jesus christ it looks so fucking dumb. You were so close. You had the characters, you had the plot, you just needed to connect them together. Which, going back to the purpose of Andor the show existing — I think the idea behind this show is great! Take a character from a movie who is hardly fleshed out, and give them flesh; dramas, motivations, characterization. A theoretical outcome of that is, when then we are to see them again in that original movie, it makes that movie better; it has given them a weight that you then take with you. In theory. But the problem of the movie ends up being the problem of the show — he's just a guy who goes from place to place, arguing for control of his life and ceding it at every turn. There's not much there to him. And so the show is stuck trying to give internal thoughts and feelings to someone who needs to line up to our first impression in 'Rogue One.' The show's answer to this is to leave Andor as mostly an interior character, surrounding him with people who are trying to pull him in or out. To middling success. As such, the show's at it's best when it has anything to do with anyone other than Andor. By a wide mile, this show is a better show about political intrigue and the nips and tucks of morality that lead to a better world. More pointedly, this is a better show about Luthen. The largeness of the show works in his favor, seeing all the decisions he believed to be right play out in both directions. Cassian then just becomes an excuse to tether a more interesting story around. Which is fine! You go get that story, girl! But, similar to my criticism of 'Furiosa,' the desire to go right to the edge of when the original starts hamstrings it. And it's better if you just stop there instead of revisiting 'Rogue One' because otherwise that movie just serves as a very mediocre series finale to a show deserving of more. 

Oh and Dedra Meero is a delight and the song playing over Brasso's death is a banger.

Your life is over. But not in a bad way.

Catastrophe S3 + S4 — 2.5/5

I struggle with this show. I think it's got very likeable leads, and I'm probably going to get excited when I see Rob Delaney in anything moving forward, but also this show reminds me of people I know, and a relationship dynamic that I'm frankly not a huge fan of. I wish the show were a bit more 'both people are toxic,' but I feel like the larger toxicity falls on the woman's shoulders. Not to say the man is perfect, but he seems to be trying to improve, or seems to be gracious in compromise. And it's not to say the woman is awful, but more that she (...and he...) can be a pile of needles, and they never will tell you exactly where the needles are on their body when you touch them. Good luck navigating that. The ending of the show, while nice and poetically vague, makes me feel like it's saying 'most marriages are to swim in dangerous waters'... and I don't disagree with that in totality... but the struggle with watching the show is that when they're good together, they're great, and when they're bad, they're awful. And yes, the sex is good. But I wouldn't pay that in trade. I wish the show had bit more of an outsider character to look in on them, to give them a model of what a good relationship can be, because it all starts to feel like staring at the abyss and are you holding hands as you descend, or are you dragging the other person down as you fall deeper?

Habitual

toe-steppers.

It only happens if it doesn't matter.

Wristcutters: A Love Story — 3/5

A great companion piece to 'Adventureland' in that both movies are essentially the same type of movie and approximately the same level of good, except this one's way better. It's biggest departure is being shoddily made, but soon enough you buy into it as part of its charm. It drops you in quickly to a new world and just expects you to keep up. It feels like a somewhat-parody of 'Everything is Illuminated' in that somebody looked at that movie and said 'I think I can make it better.' Like 'Adventureland', it's mostly a mood movie but, unlike 'Adventureland', it ladders up into an emotional catharsis that extends beyond a simple chemical connection. It went in with a point to be made. 

Guys can be shitty and women can't.

Adventureland — 2.5/5

A moodboard and that's all. I want it to be some vintage throwback to a John Hughes era, but relationships come too easy, and fall apart too easy, and come back together too easy. Jesse Eisenberg has shades of John Cusack in 'High Fidelity,' namely in "how does an average guy like me become the number one lover man in his particular postal district?" But whereas one is John Cusack, the other is Jesse Eisenberg. There's something about his character that doesn't hit the correct note. Kristin Stewart, like Winona Ryder, is often not a great actress, but unique and compelling in her way. But there is chemistry between the two, and the makings of a better movie somewhere in here. 

Please, God, don't let me fall in love and want to do disgusting things.

Mermaids — 4/5

Every person here is a fucking star. It radiates charm. I didn't know Christina Ricci was in anything before Addam's Family, but the exact quality you saw there is present here in a much younger version of her. Winona Ryder is often not a great actress, but the way in which she is not a great actress is totally unique and compelling, with bursts of great acting. Cher's role is exactly what you think of Cher the person when you close your eyes. And Bob Hoskins' Lou Landsky is one of my favorite comedic portrayals. I see in him an actor who doesn't exist anymore, in how he seems to be a throwback to an even older time of silent film comedians. He has such control over his face and hands. He feels like a cartoon, and so when he's also capable of hitting the dramatic beats, it throws you off and makes you realize how this short weird-looking man ended up being given the star vehicles he was given. The movie is based on a novel and it's got that feeling, jumping around and maybe missing some key plot or thematic ingredients, but the imperfections—as they do—add to the lightness and overall joy of watching it. On a list of perfectly cast films.

Where did you go?

Weapons — 2.5/5

I went into this mostly blind except for the hype, and I can't tell if the hype dampened this, but this movie is very fine. It's a spiritual successor to 'Hereditary' and, like that movie, doesn't have a clear 'about,' but that movie is centered around incredible centralizing performances and a genuine sense of not knowing what the fuck is going on. It had a mood! This movie has a bunch of people, none of whom I am sure is the main character, and some of which I'm not sure are relevant as characters at all. I think the 'it's actually about school shootings' thing is interesting, but then when I read that Zach Cregger doesn't know why he put that gun into the dream sequence and well that just throws that off, yeah? My problem with this movie is that it feels like it wants to be more than it is, but it doesn't know what that is. 

I'm sure it's fun to be the guy.

A Complete Unknown – 2.5/5

Title sums it up. You are no deeper to understand Bob Dylan coming out of the movie as going in. The movie often just wants to be a museum-quality re-creation of great songs, but it, or Dylan, are unable to give meaning to the songs beyond the songs. It's a showcase film for a preternaturally gifted songwriter who is condemned by his own talent to pull from and be trapped in some deep internal place. And I think the movie wants me to think he is some great rebel, but I just kind of see him as someone who can easily break a thing that other people have built, because it is easy for him to do so. 

All our endeavors are as nothing.

The House of the Dragon, Season 2 — 2/5

The show continues to form itself around its strongest weakness from season 2, which is that Alicent and Rhaenyra are people in power but totally powerless. Who the fuck are these people other than people set on a path? Rhaenyra is a queen-in-waiting and a queen-in-wanting but has no discernible queen-like ability other than she looks like a queen, doesn't she? She's got a dragon and fancy clothes and white hair and she talks seriously. Man, this show suffered a loss when Milly Alcock left this show, because Emma D'Arcy can bring nothing to this character that the writers have failed to give her. So, as with the end of season 2, the interest is in other characters who at least have a personality. Aegon is an idiot king, and Aemond is a vile king, and they are both eminently watchable as they at least and at last spur events into motion. Any time they're on screen, there are sparks, but the show then organizes its time on its principals: Daemon, who is increasingly pathetic and useless; Rhaenyra, who is all the things I've said, a door jamb in which more interesting things can revolve around; and Alicent, who at least carries some consistency in character... but consistency doesn't make for a compelling reason to watch. At the end of season 1, I was excited to see what happens next. At the end of season 2, I can't wait for it to be over. 

She had a bottom that would make any toilet beg for the brown.

The Naked Gun (2025) — 2.5/5

Went into this mostly against my desire, as the trailers mostly sucked and I hate Seth Macfarlane, but then here I was laughing at jokes. Quelle horreur. The mentality of people I'd talked to is 'not every joke lands, but they keep coming so they don't give you time to dwell on the bad ones' which is a mentality I sort of fucking hate, a 'Family Guy' mentality, but, sigh, they ain't wrong. It keeps moving, and some jokes landed and some jokes didn't, and in between, there's a general affability from Liam Neeson's commitment to the role that creates forgivability, something 'Family Guy' never engenders because all of its characters are fucking awful. All in all, it's not a great movie, but it's got a something to it. 

I am an appetite, nothing more.

Nosferatu (2024) — 3.5/5

It's most definitely my favorite of Eggers' movies because I think there's an undercurrent of humor to the whole affair. The high foreheads and high drama is all just a bit silly, isn't it? Beyond that, I waited too long between watching and writing down my thoughts so I've mostly forgotten the details, but I recall appreciating that this movie is about women fucking, and for me this movie is part of a larger theme of modern horror movies that I love where the monster is some aspect of shame; this time of having experienced orgasmic pleasure and the indignity of liking it. Nosferatu is la petite mort, writ large. 

I want to feel everything for as long as I can.

Dying For Sex (limited series) — 4/5

Weird takeaway, but it makes me feel the beauty in dying slow. And then a couple of days later I got a headache that lasted all day and man, what a stupid thing to think. So I'll dial that back and say that yes, I can see there is beauty within dying slow, and the show illustrates that wonderfully, but no, God, if you're listening, I'm not sure I'd like that for myself. Though its exploration of sex wants to be a 50/50 split between itself and death, death is what the show excels at, taking you through the process of a body and mind practicing its cessation of existence. And, similar to 'Fleishman Is in Trouble', feels like the show successfully makes you think the show is about one person only to reveal it's about the other person as well. Jenny Slater seemed like a supporting actress in the Judy Greer mold (lovable, happy to see her in anything), but she grows to be the second lead, and her life, like the dying girl's, is put on pause. Love stories about friendships are my favorite love stories. Michelle Williams is adorable, and I'm sorry she has to die, but what a way to go and thank you for taking me with you. And though I haven't finished 'Catastrophe' yet, I hope Rob Delaney's character ends in divorce so that this can be a pseudo-sequel to that show.

The order of things.

House of the Dragon S1 — 3.5/5

Were I not watching this for work, I would not have watched it, as the idea of a prequel two hundred years before a foregone conclusion gives me little to concern myself. How pleasantly surprised am I, then. The show, just as Game of Thrones did so well, has cast interesting actors as interesting characters, and very quickly I'm sucked back in to the scheming. Milly Alcock, particularly, is almost unreadable as an actress; seemingly sincere, a liar, a sweet thing, or a deviant, based on the turn of the light. The show loses something to focus on when it loses her, but it then pivots to being about the everything and all of it, distracting you with new characters and allegiances. On the whole, those characters are characters that are quickly formed, but as far as the central duo, I honestly can't tell what the show wants me to think of them. Are they vile powermongers, or just the unfortunate people caught up in it all? There's fun to be had in that lack of surety, but it mostly just makes me care about anyone else more than them. 

Not the fault of any one driver per se.

Death of a Unicorn — 2/5

Fun concept that doesn't have a tonality to match. I've grown to believe Paul Rudd is a bad actor outside of a very niche form of comedic acting. I pretty much hate him when he tries to be serious, as I can never take him as such.

Now that you know this,

what will you do?

I'm gonna let you tell me who you are.

The Fantastic Four: First Steps — 4/5

I just want to call the whole thing 'cohesive.' It's not a word that's going to drive people to the theaters, but man oh man, does everything just fit together. The style matches the tone, the art direction decisions all add up to a singular world. It feels different; it feels purposeful. The hubbub — or lack thereof — around the movie makes me want to knock it down a half-point, they're making me feel like I'm wrong, but I'm trying to hold on to how much fun I had watching it. It feels big, it's cosmic, it's got a giant Galactus roaming the streets of New York, but it also doesn't go further than is needed. The first three years of their existence is handled with a quick summary, the Thing and Johnny don't overplay their joke-y characteristics, Reed's hints at self-hatred (?) and a slightly nasal voice, a cute robot, and "yeah, sure, let's go to space" without excess fanfare. All the stylistic touches could have easily turned it into a cartoon, but they're all played casually. They live easily within the world that's been created. It gives you enough to get it, and then gets out. 

A real branding issue.

Mo S1 — 3.5/5

Largely enjoyable, though not as much a comedy as it is both a fiery and informal look into another culture. I have a soft spot for those. 

Smile, you son of a bitch.

Jaws — 4/5 (rewatch)

What strikes me most about this rewatch is how much of this movie feels like it's just a step above a TV movie. Everything about it is an example of something poorly made, done well. There is no large character arc with anyone involved, just a lot of texture in who those characters are. Shaw doesn't change, Hooper doesn't change, Brody doesn't change—but 'who they are' is very identifiable and pinpoint-able. They are rich. They are islands on a map. The plot is paper-thin: shark attacks > go kill shark. And then when the shark appears, despite the dun-DUN of it all, it appears so casually. It is just a thing that exists beneath the waves, slicing through water. The fear of the Leviathan isn't that it is coming for us; it is that it is already here, just below us. The movie has a confidence in how big it needs to be in order to work. It doesn't need to push on the primal nature of it all, just press. And, of course, that "confidence" is just an accident, a byproduct of unpredictable machinery. That's just how it goes, you know, you know. 

And, plus, my own theory of successful horror movies is laid out in this movie — "will it make you afraid to _________ again?" Freddy Krueger > "fall asleep," Jason Voorhees > "go to summer camp." Any time I walk into the ocean, I scan the horizon. 

Hope

is a deferment of responsibility.

The back row is asleep.

Opus — 2.5/5

The 'Menu' but for music critics, I guess? Feels derivative, 'Midsommar' on down, but also has that A24 weaponized cinematography that makes you want to forgive aspects of it because it knows the language of making a movie just well enough to make you think you're watching something compelling unfold. But nah, it's just a collection of images and ideas—interesting ideas! But just the starts of somethings.

Grip it and rip it.

Happy Gilmore 2 — 1/5

In the beginning of the movie, he kills his wife by hitting his golf ball too hard. What a weird, dark way to start a comedy. Every time there's a callback, they show the clip from the original movie. What a strange, awful way to film a movie. The best thing I can say about this movie is how it simply does not matter and I will forget it exists, and that I ever watched it. 

It's okay if you don't love it anymore.

The Bear S4 — 3.5/5

Still a container for big highs, but the lows are feeling lower. Carmy has transformed into Sad Sack: The Man, while there's an increasing focus on Syd who is... I think the least compelling person in the show? Her drama is having to live with everyone else's drama; her interesting is being surrounded by everyone else's interesting. Meanwhile, Richie continues to grow as a human, to the point where the series feels like it would be better served to shift its focus more to him. As he says, very beautifully, very profoundly—he is not the large rocks that make up the architecture of existence, he is the sand that connects them. And then lol the last episode tries to center him more and it doesn't quite feel genuine, oops. I guess the point of sand is not to be the center ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cool, lesson learned. This show, in its fourth season, starts to move away from those 'Ted Lasso' comparisons I was forcing on it in its previous seasons ("what it means to be a manager"), and moves towards "what it means to create a community," and the uncomfortable truth that lies within that: community is created within chaos, but can community survive the chaos that creates it? We become inextricably entwined, diamonds created within the pressure, while desiring to escape the vice grip hold it has over us. It has to be easier, right? Maybe. But also, then again—maybe not. 

Ambassadors for style and grace.

The Last Showgirl — 1/5

Stunt-casting at its best, and that's all. It's hard to separate whether Pamela Anderson is good in this, or just appropriate for it? Jamie Lee Curtis is really over-acting her way out of the past few years of goodwill? Dave Bautista's not bad? Sure, whatever, I don't know, man, it's just fucking boring. It's trying to be this Kodak light-leak of a movie; nothing to say, it just wants to show off how pretty it is. There was enough of a ground for this movie to have built something substantial: fading industry, the line between artistry and pornography, careers built on youth, the waylaid souls who wish to preserve time and beauty within amber. But it's just a tease of that, an hour and a half trailer for a more interesting movie. By the end, there is no growth, just the same tired delusion. I don't vibe with that shit. Eck. I'd love to have something interesting to say about this, but it did not lay anything at my feet. 

Do you still have faith in people?

Squid Game S3 — 3/5

Aw. I love the 'Squid Game' format. It, like 'Survivor,' is an infinitely repeatable format. New people, new inventive games, and a scooch closer to the truth at the heart of it. Had they just embraced this as a long-form show, I would have continued to enjoy it for years on end, and so much expectation wouldn't have been riding on it to end well. Oh well! Calling this a S3, instead of a back half to S2, does this season a disservice (while also doing that season a service) as, just a couple episodes in, the people we were left with weren't the people we had grown most attached to. The North Korean guard and the boat people were, ultimately, just stories that forked off of the story we cared about, without coming back to meet. And the story we cared about was now filled with people we barely knew. And a baby!!!! Who we have to be attached to because it's a baby, right? ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯ So much of Squid Game — unlike, say, Walking Dead, and its repeating cycles of 'every good thing we do only ends up hurting us' — was this cynical world that had very deep shades of hope in it. But by the end, who grows? What changes? We're just stuck in this cynical world of repeating cycles. The only thing gained is money. I suppose, for Hwang Dong-hyuk, the only way to stop it was to stop it. But, perhaps unfortunately for him, he introduced an idea, and you can't put a cork in that bottle. 

This review was chaotic, I'm sorry. I had a lot of thoughts I couldn't thread together. Oh well!  

Rubbing is racing.

Days of Thunder — 3/5

Wildly inconsistent movie with incoherent character shifts. Feels like five hours of movie stuffed into a 1h47m runtime. But man, does this thing have a quality. A quality, and the best movie names in a 50-year radius. Russ Wheeler. Rowdy Burns. Cole Trickle. These names are not only ridiculous, but they are accurate to this silly sport. They are NASCAR drag names. Which I suppose I'll use as a lead-in to a subject I've been wanting to discuss: Tom Cruise makes male musicals. The feelings are overwrought, but they're packaged up in fashionable, costumed men. The musical set piece, of course, becomes an action set piece where the characters work through their issues by banging into each other. There's a scene where Cole is having PTSD, and the only way to get over it is to speed through some burning cars. It's beautiful and stupid, but he did it: he got over his mental block by driving really fast. Just replace that with 'singing a song about feelings' and you've got your traditional musical but, you know, this isn't as gay as that, but also, guys, it really kind of is. I know Quentin Tarantino made the point that 'Top Gun' is about a man coming to terms with his homosexuality and yes, maybe, but I think these movies are more about the inability of men to do 'gay shit' (be emotional) without explicitly doing 'male shit.' It's okay to slap asses only after they've hit a dinger, dunked a ball, and won the Daytona 500. And the backdrop of all of this is a fucking lit Hans Zimmer soundtrack, so the music's still there, honcho. I think Tom Cruise's output of the last 20 years has mostly forgotten that fucking lit music is the backbone to his male musicals. This movie ain't great but, also, I fucking love this shit. I love the hair, I love the fashion, Robert Duvall puts in an all-timer performance, and then you've got Tony Scott with a grimy fucking male aesthetic. Everything feels like a hot day after a thunderstorm. Like I say, it's got a quality. 

My job is to ruin them.

The Studio, S1 — 2.5/5

Technically sound, looks nice, sounds nice, but it falls into that modern trope of anxiety-as-a-primary-driver-of-plot. I love art that has an inherent energy to it, but the Anxious Age of movie-making has taken a thing I enjoy and almost ruined it for me. Seth Rogen, who I mostly love, is at best a co-lead who needs someone who offsets his anxious energy, but here he is surrounded by people who have their own insecurities and fears and shakes. I'm not saying the show isn't accurate to the creative industry: The Pitt was a shining star that makes you feel the urgency of your job, how every decision matters, and the pressing need to make that decision quickly. And this show sort of sits beside it to show that no decision matters, it's all just random choices that maybe, hopefully, possibly might make something better. Supreme importance placed upon the nothingness of it all. Which, in theory, I like!! But it's all just a tightly wound ball of disruptive energy, and the show's directorial style is to keep that going for 30m at a time. Every single episode could use a moment to just sit down and be comfortable doing nothing. This show needs a fucking xanax.

The pus-filled

 sky.

This is not sincere.

The Rehearsal S2 — 4/5

I feel we're right around the corner from everyone deciding that Nathan Fielder is cringe, but man oh man, does he know how to land a plane. Never once do you see where he's going next, odd tangent after odd tangent, but always connecting back to a straight line. He's the raptors in 'Jurassic Park,' having you stare straight ahead while he attacks from the side. And who he is now still ties back to what he was doing on 'Nathan For You'—weaponized idiocy as a problem-solving measure. Sincerity via stupidity. It all just screams of someone who knows exactly what they're doing. 

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Catastrophe S2 — 3/5

Continues to be a charmer but I think this season's dip has to do with making Sharon seem the worst of the two. Rob's got problems but he's mostly good, come to terms with himself, and is quick to apologize. So that just makes Sharon the stinker. Imbalances aren't wrong, but it just rubs me wrong.  

It was no accident. It was a monkey.

The Monkey — 3.5/5

The first half of this is a miracle of tonality. It has a very casual absurdity to it, played seriously and then just passively stepping over the line before quickly stepping back. Theo James, at first glance, feels intensely wrong for this, but very quickly proves himself to be the right anchor-point for that line-straddling. (Contrast him with the brief cameo of Elijah Woods who is playing into the farce of it all.) The movie, for as long as possible, holds on to this wonderful tone before, understandably, losing control of the wheel in the second half. It drives headlong into the ridiculousness of it all, which is easier, and which is less interesting. But, for about an hour, as it held tightly onto the wheel as it headed down a bumpy road, it reminded me that horror-comedy is one of my favorite genres.

All that once was good.

Field of Dreams — 3.5/5

I maintain that American can only be saved if men are allowed movies like this again. It's middle-American twee, closer to anything made in the '30s or '40s than most anything made in the span of my life. Kevin Costner defined an era of acceptable man; conservative at birth, but went to Berkeley, dropped some acid—but came back home. The 'common sense' man who toyed with some new ideas, maybe took on a few, but finally realized what his dad had been telling him all these years. We need more movies that make grown men cry. But noooo, we had to make fun of this shit, we had to call it drivel, we had to make them feel stupid for having emotions and now we have a *loneliness epidemic* and their only outlet is action movies featuring fading stars who've taken on serious expressions in their later years who must come out of their mundane life to become the badasses they always were. A small life as a thing to escape from, rather than escape to. This movie holds up surprisingly well despite never really making all that much sense because there is such an intense sincerity to its proceedings that everyone has bought into and I swear to you, I promise you, the world will be a better place if we can just let men have movies where they can miss their dad. 

I like this life.

Love Hurts — 1/5

Ariana DeBose is very possibly my least favorite actress of all time. I make a solemn vow, here and now, to never see another movie that features her. The rest of the movie is chopped ham; the potential for a cute premise that wastes Ke Huy Quan's adorable qualities because it has no fucking clue how to connect characters when they're not hitting each other. The most damning praise I can give it is that the best part of the movie is a cameo from a Property Brother. lol I just watched the trailer again to remind myself of what happened and I still thought 'oh, this is probably a fun movie.' It's not. But, honestly? Ripe for a remake. Make every single character in it be in search for love in some way, and make it less about embracing the old life and trying to save this new, mundane life he's created for himself. 

Run!

Train to Busan — 2.5/5

Fine at the time—sets up clear characters at the outset, keeps the energy up from there—but in just a few days has mostly faded from memory because it never really develops the characters into anything more than the rough sketch. Teases at interesting character interactions and larger themes but nah, not really. 

We met amongst the tall trees.

Late Night With The Devil — 3.5/5

I feel like I tend to save my more pointed criticism to things that were almost something. I get frustrated at things that were almost good, almost great, because they went all this way and they got so close. This movie got so close! I love the premise! Blair Witch-adjacent, the fantasy that this might be real... an illusion which unfortunately the movie keeps breaking. Bad visual effects, from awkward CGI to faux-retro scanlines to poor Photoshops to the danged AI artwork, keep pulling you out of the movie, reminding you constantly that you are, indeed, watching a movie instead of a long-lost now-found tape from a bygone era. And a few more turns of the dial could have made the devil more real? Embrace even further the aesthetic of the time; use the tape from that era, remove the close-up documentary camera in the between-break interludes, replace it with a studio camera that was continuing to roll or an audio mic that never stopped recording. Welp, too late now! 

All that to say, despite what I have to say, this is a fun movie that I would gladly rewatch on basic cable in this, the latter half of my life.  

Pulling on your pudding.

Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore — 4/5

Here, in this movie that is nothing like what he does, is my favorite Martin Scorsese movie. I want to compare this to Jeanne Dielman; an American and American cinema version of seeing a woman go through the same repetitions, both more entertaining and with less depth. Scorsese captures a feeling of time and place and person; his rooms and cameras are art directed just enough to give it a feeling of something new without needing to steal attention from the movie's star, as it is her movie. Ellen Burstyn, appearing as a woman and a mother rarely seen, fills every frame. She's wonderful! There's a sweetness in her harshness and a fragility in her strength. No wonder they made this into a TV show, hoping it was the character instead of the actor. I've never seen it so fuck it, maybe it was? The Hollywood ending of it all betrays the movie, but it's also built up enough goodwill to that point to forgive it.

Open the door.

Alien: Romulus – 3/5

The Alien franchise is in an odd place of wanting to return to basics, essentially a slasher movie with cooler art direction, a formula that could just be repeated ad infinitum, but still this desire to expand beyond what is. Are you stalker or are you cinematic universe. Mostly, this succeeds as a return to basics, minus the Gen Z cast that feels out of a Facebook ad, this modern idea of what 'cool' looks like. But then it wants to connect to the other films through uncanny valley Ian Holm! And then the alien/human hybrid that looks like the Engineer! I don't mind the Ian Holm in theory; these types of movies work well when there's a whisper of a wider world, something to be curious about but never needing to be discovered. But it's bad visual effects which just remove you from the movie's present in its insistence to fold in the past. And then the Engineer hybrid looks stupid, shades of Alien: Resurrection, and serves as this both more subtle but more obvious attempt to connect to the other, lesser (?) movies which pushed this simple franchise into a more complicated place. I think there's two ways to view worldbuilding: how can you expand this world, and how can you expand what is possible within this world? One is more finite, a way to innovate within limitations. I think it should do more of that.

Don't you know what he did?

Last of Us S2 — 2/5

I really enjoyed the themes of season 1, but I also thought the episode-to-episode enjoyment of the series was fine. Serious people in a serious world, no room for joy. Here, that, minus any new compelling theme. It, I suppose, still follows the idea behind season 1—love as a destructive force—but it's just Ellie's revenge trip, minus nuance, minus any builds on top of that. Just that, over and over. I think this is a season that had the capacity for compelling philosophical conversations of individual needs vs the group—the fragility of community—and that's really only touched on here or there, up to everyone ultimately rationalizing and helping this damaged girl destroy everything she touches. I think we're supposed to have this revelation of 'oh shit, Ellie's the bad guy!!' but it makes that point too obvious, and unfortunately for this show, I have always struggled to follow a story with a bad guy as the hero. Ellie shows regret once, and then immediately has a greater regret that she hasn't been able to kill another. Okay. No lessons learned.

I'm free, and all it took was a bullet to the head.

Companion — 1.5/5

I think when movies have an easy logline — boy's girlfriend is a robot, say — then going into the movie requires the patience of waiting for everyone else to know what you already went into the movie knowing. I now, 41 years later, understand the easy appeal of those loglines as a way to get people in, but the trade-off is an ultimately unsatisfying first twenty minutes as we twiddle our thumbs until shit happens. And from that moment where shit happens—a totally fine movie to be enjoyed passively. It knows what it is and does it well enough.

The guy you didn't count on.

Jack Reacher 2: Never Go Back — 1/5

ugh christ, i just realized this was the sequel rather than the original. I wanted to watch this because I'm interested in exploring Christopher McQuarrie's relationship with Tom Cruise, because I fucking love 'Edge of Tomorrow' and have such extreme disinterest in the entire Mission: Impossible franchise, and 'Jack Reacher' seemed to fit into this interesting low part of Cruise's career where he could have very easily been stuck in DTV vehicles for men to watch other men fighting other men, and I'd heard enough 'hey, it's not bad' to risk entry. ugh this was trash, it was such a long two hours, and I watched the wrong fucking movie, jesus. Feels like where this lines up with Mission: Impossible is with Tom Cruise thinking people like him because he's Perfect Guy. So smart!! So talented!! And he never says anything interesting!! At least 'Edge of Tomorrow' showed the long slough of becoming flawless. The smile at the end of that movie is one of my favorite cut-to-credits moments cuz he fucking earned that shit-eating grin.

It's interesting but I'm not interested.

Love on the Spectrum, S3 — 3/5

This is my reality television trash. It's heartwarming to see these little sweet, awkward weirdos find people who match up to them. And the show, over the years, has done a good job of laying out the spectrum within "...the Spectrum." But I'm probably less interested in it than I have in other years; it's all the same beats, and this could very well be the last season I watch of it. Here's a free idea you'll never read: focus on the parents? They're interesting, and they've shown a massive amount of patience in raising these people.

Honey babe.

Drive-Away Dolls — 1.5/5

I don't think I realized how sad it was to see the Coen Bros. break up until I saw this. What a pale imitation! What a lacking! And yet, there are times when you can see what one brother clearly brought to the team, if only to then off-set that with something uninteresting. There's a very short car crash sequence that's about as fun-with-cameras as you've see with them, but that's mixed with some of the worst editorial decisions you've ever seen from them. Margaret Qualley is out here trying to have a good time, as good as anything in their lighter comedies—but she's paired with a poor man's Ayo Adebiri who cannot go tit nor tat with her energy, and leaves you constantly questioning why these two people would even be friends, much less romantic partners. It feels like someone watched a Coen Brothers movie and said 'yeah yeah, I get it, some quirky characters with competing traits, some off-color jokes taken seriously.' Bleh. It makes you realize that half of one thing isn't still worth half, it's just a broken thing, worth almost next to nothing.

Yeah, I had a great past, I'm fine.

Thunderbolts* — 3/5

It's two movies: a darker movie about depression and anxiety and mental illness through the guise of a superhero movie... and then a light buddy team-up comedy! One of these works! And works well enough that I walk away disappointed that the other side didn't work as well (or even needed to be there at all?). The comedy is technically there, the action scenes are technically there, but it lacks an energy. (Frankly, it's the same lacking I felt in 'Beef'? The end-credits scene directed by the Russo's has a back-and-forth liveliness that the rest of the movie never really captured.) It's trying to be a big tent-pole blockbuster but the smaller parts of the movie befit it better. Florence Pugh is great, and is the most defined characters and motivations of these post-Endgame superheroes. She just wants to matter! But she's also small, in relation to the larger Marvel Universe. But at least that's understood. She's the core of the movie, and only some of the people she's paired with fit her mold. Red Guardian, USAgent, Sentry all fit inside her world, and the movie would have been fine to just focus on them. But it needs to be bigger, so it adds Ghost, who's barely there (that's a pun!!), and Winter Soldier, who I love but who's lost all character motivation, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who is fine but doesn't add to the larger theme of the movie. And the too-many-people just don't gel which, sure, is the joke at the center of the movie, but I don't really like that joke. But, as with the best of these things, there was enough in here to like, and these are characters I'd like to see again.

The Math

That Moves Like A Man.

It doesn't go anywhere. You see the same things over and over. So you might as well get off.

Babylon — 2/5

Yeah yeah, you like making movies about the pros and cons of being an artist. Listen, I love that as a theme!!! I think it's great!! But where La La Land and Whiplash (which has grown in my eyes since my so-so review) manage to capture the greatness underlined with unhappiness, the trade-off that has to occur, the deal at the crossroads with the relative devils to live fulfilled but still unsatisfied lives... here it's just trainwreck. There's no sense of the highness that comes with the low, the low that are capable of highs, the majesty at the swamp. The first thirty minutes, arguably, can speak to that, but it's all just hedonistic excess, the party you want to be invited to, blown pupils from staring directly into the light, but it doesn't feel like the world I want to be a part of, so despite my enjoyment of the energy, it doesn't hook me and then when the rest of the movie tears the hook out of the fish's mouth, I in turn don't feel the pain that I think he wants me to feel. Maybe it's just a problem for me. I think your enjoyment of the movie comes down to whether you'd want to be at the party at the beginning of the movie. It's not for me. And so it's that album the artist makes after they're rich and famous and all they talk about is how much money they have and how hard it is to be famous. True, for them, and for some, but they've crossed into the void of unrelatability. In the end, it's just a bigger and lesser version of 'Hail, Caesar!'; it's final scene a poor approximation of 'Cinema Paradiso.' It's the Cary Grant quote about the trolley. It's a collage of all the worst things about the things you love.

Also, I feel bad for Margot Robbie. I feel like she's a genuinely great actress, and she does a good job in everything she's in, but the worlds around her rarely match up to what she's bringing to it, and this one doesn't fit her at all. She's outside of time and space.

Chaos

which through randomness offers beauty and clarity, and therefore isn't random at all.

Artists create the world.

Critics shape it.

We can be the good guys, or we can be the guys who save the world.

Invincible S3 — 3.5/5

There's an adage in comics that Peter Parker can't win for losing. "With great power must also come great responsibility" drives his character, but 60 years of stories are driven by the simple story trick of "every time something goes right, something goes wrong." I love it. And I don't think Spider-Man owns that trick; as seen on this show!! The one we're talking about right now!! Mark Grayson is Spider-Man vis-a-vis Superman, a normal guy with immense power who just needs to pay his rent and go out with girls, all while the world falls down around him. It's a great premise, and I could watch it play out for 60+ years.

The world is coming.

Court of Gold — 3.5/5

This is a small thing, and a mostly foregone conclusion, but the show is just a nice hagiography on people who love their country, and the game of basketball. I don't know if I loved the series as much as I just like everyone in it more than I did going in. Hard-ass shit-talker Kevin Durant crying about how much basketball means to him reshapes him entirely in my mind. But it's that "mostly foregone conclusion" that makes for interesting television. The series serves as a signal that the world's caught up; this feels like a final hurrah not just for aging basketball players, but for America on this particular stage. It gets harder from here.

We all have ADHD, and anything else would be boring as hell.

The Pitt — 4/5

Jesus Christ, I love this fucking show. It feels like addiction. You understand why these people have trouble coming into work, and then leaving, because everything is important all of the time, everyone needs you; everywhere demands your attention. It's those moments at work where I'm addicted to the little red circle on Slack or Outlook that demand my immediate response. Breaking away only means having to catch up later, so you just sit there, responding, responding, responding; better to be in the motions of it than having to re-find the groove. Better to skip a meal, better to hold in your piss, better to not have a life beyond this. Only, unlike my pissant job, someone could actually die! The show is a natural place for drama, most of it feels unforced, and even in those times when it feels like it's adding drama for drama's sake, the energy of the show just makes you forget it. It's life or death! What better way to find out who these people are?

Nah, I'll do it, but... get it together.

Catastrophe S1 — 3.5/5

I have such a raging hard-on for likeable people being likeable together. It's high stakes treated like low stakes, and a tone that I can only describe as affability. I like these people, and like having them in my life. And the final minutes of the final episode are a wonderful rug pull. It was the thing we choose not to see in others because they just seem so good together.

If you don't know where to go, go where you're needed.

Shoresy S4 — 3.5/5

With the loss of Jacob Tierney behind the camera, the first few episodes started to feel like a lesser version of itself. The cinematic language was part of the success of the show, and in the course of finding its footing, it stumbles. It threatens for a bit to be the worst of Letterkenny, just catchphrase-spouting hooligans, riding on what worked before, but as with every season thus far, it surprises you with how deep it's willing to go. By the end of the season, my criticism of those earlier episodes fell away, and Shoresy, as it always does, finds purpose in something larger than itself / himself.

There is no such thing as a friendly ghost!

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 — 2/5

The previous two movies have floated atop 'this is better than it should be'; low expectations being its main driver of success, along with a surprisingly game Jim Carrey doing evil Ace Ventura. Those low expectations have unfortunately now just become expectations, and the movie doesn't meet them. (That's the mathematical formula, sorry.) Everyone's just here, saying stuff, hoping funny voices make for a funny movie. It wants to float on personality but doesn't have much character to back it up.

I am just happy to be at the table.

White Lotus S3 — 3/5

As with before, the show's little cheat is that not every story needs to be worthwhile in order for it to be overall worth watching. It just needs to release a bunch of balloons into the air and hopefully one or two pop. But this time, it became harder to disconnect the stories from each other—for both good and ill. Characters walked in and out and among the other contestants, as though they might actually influence each others lives. But the closer together they were tied made it seem like they would all thematically align into a tidy little bouquet. Is it about money? Spirituality? Are you your form? Maybe? Sure? Sometimes? But no, it's just a few different stories that take place at the same place and same time. I think, unfortunately, the only thing that connected them was the game of "who's going to die?," death casting its long shadow over the show. It made the show fun! But it made the show worse, I think. So, to bring it back down to the individual stories, this season doesn't hit the highs of season 2. A nice beginning here, a nice ending there, but also a lot of interesting actors doing interesting things to kill the time. I will crown the winner as The Ratliff family, who were a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Who's gonna step up when it happens to us?

Severance S2 — 4.5/5

This continues to be compelling television!! I often long for the feeling of watching 'Lost' in its weekly airings—not only must you be there for the water-cooler conversations, but there's a compelling need to be there when it happens. A great thing only happens once: as it's happening. This entire show is Tom Waits' "What's he BUILDING in there?" played on loop. But, despite it only being two weeks since the finale, I've lost the individual threads of what I've enjoyed, which is just a function of my memory. So I can't really add anything useful to any sort of discussion of what I enjoyed. So then I'll probably revisit this when I rewatch it in preparation for season 3. Which is itself perhaps the highest compliment.

Fallen out

of meaning.

What if the most accurate version of me

Is acting like somebody else?

— Petey, The Milkman

I'm not being paid enough for this.

Anora — 2.5/5

I'll insult this movie by saying it would have been better as a more traditional Hollywood movie. It would have been tighter, it would have been funnier. The 30m mark should have been the 10m mark. The 50m mark should have been the 20m mark. It spends a lot of time developing a relationship that has zero chemistry. You never once believe they're in love, and she only comes to life as a character when she is suddenly put in a position to defend that love. I want to call this a lesser riff on Uncut Gems. "Embodying anxiety" has become the definitive movie-maker technique of the past five to ten years, and I think it both requires a lot of work to pull off, while also requiring you to be less thoughtful with your script. They're not saying anything interesting, they're just saying stuff a lot—and loudly. And then Igor appears and is, immediately, the star of the movie that the world is trying to position Mikey Madison as. This is his movie. In a few words, in glances, he is a defined character with a worldview. There is chemistry!!! And so the second half contains multitudes that the first half doesn't have, and does so without the surplus sexuality of that first half. That sexuality, I think, defines that movie, and I think there's a world where you didn't need it to the extent it existed in in order to be effective. The final sex scene contains no nudity, and is the most raw. I feel uncomfortable saying 'there's too much sex' because I don't want to be seen as a convervative moralist!! Sex is freeing! And I think that the movie overdoses on sexuality to paint the portrait that all of Ani's relationships are transactional. You give me this, I give you that. And so within that, it really ladders up to an amazing ending as she realizes what sex and relationships could be. And with that realization, Anora goes from one dimensions to two. But I think, ultimately, what I'm getting at, is that I'd like to have seen her maybe go from two dimensions to three? 

It's been 30 years since I've watched Pretty Woman, and I never watched it seriously then, but I want to revisit it just to see if it is, indeed, the same movie, but with my criticism applied.

Save the world,

don't leave the house.

— Chumbawumba, Pass It Along

No-one got the teeth

to bite the hand.

— Chumbawumba, Coca Colanisation (I think...)

Walking through security was like dying—

the way you had to say goodbye to everyone, the way you became just your name on a paper and gave up your money and your watch and your shoes."

— The Idiot, by Elif Batuman

The water will rise to meet you.

Flow — 4/5

Incredibly engaging to watch, mainly in that it feels like something new, even as it feels like something very familiar—a very long video game cutscene. And beyond that even, the general language of video games. The way the camera moves, often, feels like the janky ways you move your Playstation joystick, imperfect, trying to balance your character within the scenery. Third-person, but with the POV of the God-player who can see all around them. And I think all of that speaks to a growing comfort with the language of video games (re: lower fidelity), and a general comfort that a good movie is good despite its lack of fidelity. And within that, the limitation of your tools becoming the chance to explore new ways of doing things. I think there has been a discussion for many years about how movies can be more like video games, and the end result of that has always been 'be more interactive!,' and I think this movie is more closer to the truth of how to bridge those two worlds together. The style of video games is that it makes you feel as though you are the character; it's immersion, beyond the virtual reality sense of the word. The movie is good because the whole thing feels like you, along with this cat, are being carried away. You feel part of the story. It feels, thirty years later, like the dream of 'Myst' come to life. And then, beyond the mechanics of how it tells its story, it's beautifully simple in its message and how it's conveyed: in a world filled with helplessness and loss, there is the hope that something better can come out the other side.

We lived here.

Here — 2.5/5

The first 15 minutes are awful. Just trash. What an ugly space, what ugly choices. It feels like BTS of a VFX reel, an addendum on some dumb DVD. I could have turned the TV off and never looked back. But I kept watching!! And eventually I got used to the unreality of the spectacle. Which is the rub: here is a place trying to showcase the infinite realities that exist inside of a space, and it's entirely presented with such uncanniness. Robert Zemeckis' fascination with new technology to create movies is his own personal fetish porn, and he's caught Tom Hanks in his unearthly grasp. They constantly remind you that you're watching a movie. Look at the artifice, the wigs, the makeup, the AI, the acting. You look around and see nothing but choices. Eventually, it settles onto a more standard narrative and forgoes all the bits of history that occupy the place and it forms a fine enough narrative to follow—but only also by forgoing its most interesting aspect. I love the book on which this is based. For me, it says, "oh, you've run out of stories? Try harder." There are infinite realities that exist inside of a space. And I think it's a bold attempt to take the same approach to making a movie. But it lacks poetry. It is not fragments of feelings; it's a cascade of weird choice after weird choice. There's some version of this that's closer to Cloud Atlas, or Tree of Life, equally weird and equally awkward—movies made by artists as much as technicians—that I think would sit on top of this movie and make it better. Unfortunately it's not, but all that to say—a fascinating watch.

Who isn't wrought?

A Real Pain — 2.5/5

Compelling characters, connected to a relevant backdrop, and my own personal anger that they didn't manage to make anything more out of it. I think we're all realizing in real-time that Kieran Culkin is more character than actor, blitzkrieg bopping from one emotion to another, ADHD by way of BPD. He's very good at embodying the shithead kid brother; love 'em but hate 'em. But also he embodies my struggle with the characters he plays; stories about people with mental health issues are largely unsatisfying because the thing to be solved is not some external thing. It can't be solved with a conversation, or a slap to the face. His brain is leaking, and I can relate to being around those people, but I'll never be able to relate to those people. Jesse Eisenberg has a lovely emotional speech just after the halfway point that embodies the feelings towards these people who you simply can't help, but the way that it is presented, it feels like a valve opening... that then is quickly closed again. You want to repair them, and they refuse to be repaired, they will not allow you to repair them, so you're just walking around with this broken thing that you can't throw away. I think the truth of those people—a truth that I push against—is that those people know exactly how to create sympathy for themselves: they are in pain. They are, and they aren't, and that creates division in you, making you unable to pick a path, which keeps these people in your life far longer than they should be. You're a good person! A good person doesn't just discard people! And they have so much value! And the cycle continues. Hey, the movie awakens a lot of feelings in me! Good job! At best, it's probably the best story I've seen about those types of people. But at the end, the movie wants me to feel like there's some hidden thing still to be discovered and if you just said the right thing, if you just slapped them in the face, it would awaken them from their terrible slumber. I think it wants me to feel sympathy for the person, and I'm sorry, but I don't and I won't and I can't and I will not.

Last hunt.

Kraven — 1.5/5

Its casting is its best and worst aspect. Ariana DeBose is an embarrassing actor. No redeeming quality. Christopher Abbott looks ridiculous in his role. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is just here to show us how attractive he is and how much water weight he lost. And then Fred Hechinger and Alessandro Nivola are fun! They are such weird actors!! It's like this movie was cast by two different groups, each with their own idea of how to save this movie. It's stupid, and only they know how to play into its stupidity. Beyond that, just a total destruction of an interesting character in a self-serious template of a movie. Its only other redeeming quality is a movements system where Kraven behaves at different times like Captain America, Spider-Man, and Black Panther, and only by copying those other more successful things does it feel fun. Oh, but then he gets a new vest at the end, very exciting!!

If you wish to destroy a people, kill their language.

Kneecap — 4/5

Surprising little thing that I did not realize was based on a true(ish) story until the credits rolled. Good first time actors, arresting direction, and that secret thing, which is an introduction into a new world that exists inside your own. Surprisingly layered with its talk of Irish independence and words as bullets and also promoting class-A drugs. It's an interesting thing that progress comes within a casing of a lack of progress. Violence and freedom. There's a weird balance to it, no?

Kiss me on my hot mouth.

Emilia Pérez — 2/5

I enjoyed the first half of this. It is absurd (re: it's serious and silly and I think intentional). "Pe-nis to va-gi-na" is high low art. And so I was prepared, for about 60 minutes, to defend this movie from all comers. It was engaging! And then it just discards my willful attention. Who is this movie about? It's not about Emilia, nor is it about Selena's character, nor Zoe's (who is, indeed, good in her role). And before we can find out, it ends, abruptly. It has nothing to say, it's just Things That Happen, with a musical score. And then there's everything else around the film!! So anything potentially good about it just gets lost in the miasma. It just becomes an embarrassment.

What is it to be an alien?

Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story — 3.5/5

Yet another movie that makes me cry, while also leaving me empty. Do I know Christopher Reeve better? Yes. Do I have a better understanding of him? Ehhhh. Often, Dana Reeve feels like the more interesting person here. Christopher Reeve feels compelled by necessity; she feels compelled by love. He must prove something to his father. He must walk again. I believe in my whole heart that to be good, truly good, you must sacrifice something of yourself. His sacrifices are born of pain, of the world that has happened to him. Hers are born of personal choice. At the end, Christopher Reeve tries to sum up being a hero as being ordinary, and overcoming the insurmountable obstacles of everyday existence. I think that's a definition of resilience, not heroism. But I do think it sums up Christopher Reeve: he tried to bring Superman down to earth.

Stray thoughts (I will begin doing stray thoughts):

• I really enjoyed the 3D Christopher Reeve/Superman floating in space that they would often return to. It's a beautifully abstract way to connect the emotional dots of a real life story and just, in general, make a documentary more visually interesting. 

• Given the giant Superman-shaped cloud over the whole proceedings, it would have been fun to intersperse his story with that of Superman's. Namely, he (ultimately) and Dana (especially) seemed to be great parents, and they've got great kids as a result. "Doomed Planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple." That last one's the kicker. Pa and Ma Kent are integral to the origin of Superman. He was born great, but he was raised to be good.

Nothing about this feels right.

Captain America: Brave New World — 2.5/5

As a Marvel apologist, forgiving most of the sins that others struggle to forgive, I feel like this may actually be the worst thing they've put together. ("Put together" being more of a compliment than this movie may deserve.) At their worst, Marvel movies still float on compelling actors / characters, and unfortunately I just don't think Sam Wilson is all that interesting. Steve Rogers had at least a grandpa energy to him, a stoicism that felt displaced in time, but Anthony Mackie plays it with step-dad energy—"I'm not the dad, I'm just the dad that stepped up"—trying to prove he belongs but never actually becoming someone that we're interested in following. He shows up, but who actually is there? There's a touch of living up to the legacy of what came before, and into a place that white America doesn't necessarily want him to be, but most of that was explored in the preceding show, so it just becomes a very small hint of a character. The rest of the movie wants to be a smart thriller, chess pieces pushed around the board, but all the moves are dumb, resting on a villain who looks dumb, sounds dumb, and frankly, the movie hardly seems to even want to make him the villain. I love Tim Blake Nelson but wow does he not belong here. Thunderbolt Ross is a far more compelling placement for that evil energy, but they've neutered him via the love for his daughter. But within all the bad, there are some pretty good action set pieces, namely the precipice-of-World War 3 missile fight at Celestial Island, I find Shira Haas' height and posture incredibly fun to watch, and Harrison Ford and Carl Lumbly give the movie some of that grandpa energy which I did not, before this movie, realize was so integral to this franchise working. But the damning spike in the center of this is that Bucky Barnes appears for approximately 2 minutes, and infuses the whole affair with a charm that has always befit these movies, and Anthony Mackie, for his part, plays well into. While he's there, you realize what's been absent up until then. And when he leaves, Sam just turns back into Stoicism Man. He's a good man! I'd want this guy to be president! Just not the star of a movie.

The language

in which to look away.

- Omar El Akkad, talking to Chris Hedges about his book 'One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This'

Dumpster-fire of a world.

Borderlands — 1/5

This movie only makes sense if Cate Blanchett is living out a real-life version of Lydia Tár. It's bad, like everyone says, and worse, it's boring. What a fun world to be just tossed in the trash.

Wak wak.

The Penguin S1 — 1.5/5

This was bad. Colin Farrell disappears into the role, and no one stepped up to take his place. A star-fueled vehicle with zero star power. The whole show's just adding a fat-suit to a nothing premise, a nothing character. It's all talk talk talk, wak wak wak, jesus, everyone explaining themselves because everything lacks inherent characterization. At least in comic books, the rules are that you are allowed to talk, but you must do so under the guise of a fight scene. Maybe—maybe—there's a solid two hour movie inside of the fat-suit padding. If the whole show were building towards how Oz treats Victor at the end, maybe. But in its bloat, the muscles and skin just peel off. Two seconds after saying he can't afford to have family, he returns to the arms of his mother, and to his lover. It's just a lot of effort put in to barely trying.

The lost boy.

La Chimera — 3/5

It's both better and worse than the 3/5 I've given it, mainly in that it creates a compelling world but takes way too fucking long to get going. I believe I remember Alan Moore saying he wrote 'Jerusalem' to be a bit of a slog to confront and drive away casual readers. As such with this movie, and these movies in general. They challenge us to keep watching, and my constant opinion of them is "if I just force myself to finish it, it will be worthwhile" and it is worthwhile enough times to keep putting myself through it. But man, fucking, get a move on. As the last half comes around, things start to feel like something. Josh O'Connor is a star, self-evident, and even more particularly Carol Duarte is something unique. In less than 60 seconds, as she starts dancing, he, and I, fall in love with her, and the whole movie turns on its head. Alice Rohrwacher knows how to be poetic, which I'll define as being able to piece together a feeling through fragments. I can't really pinpoint what the movie's about, other than being lost with the occasional malady of not being lost, but it feels like something, something untouchable, but there in front of you all the same. It's a world of lost souls, digging through graves, trying to find something worth keeping.

You, who looks like you, but you're not yourself.

A Different Man — 3.5/5

I struggle with this one. I enjoyed it, particularly in contrast to the body-horror-in-a-different-way 'The Substance' which also plays with stylistic flourishes, though overdone and more celebrated, while this one had a humanity to it absent from that one. The first half, or even three-quarters, is a banger of low-key surrealism, centered around a sympathetic lead. Sebastian Stan does a great job of splitting himself between the before and after, feeling like the same person, but different, but the same. He does a good job of mucking up his good lucks, bringing it to a place of a guy who could be hot but doesn't know how to put himself together. By the time Adam Pearson shows up, the movie's riding high on petty jealousy that someone didn't need to change what they were to become who they were. But then that ending! Your disability doesn't make you who you are? It doesn't matter if you've changed your mask if you live inside a shell? I mean... yes? But no? It feels like telling a shy person "have you tried talking to other people?" Fuck you, friend. Or fuck me for placing too much pity on them to think that the disability does mark their life. Shit, maybe I'm in the wrong here, fuck.

But if you lick it, it costs a quarter.

Saturday Night — 2/5

There's an excitement running through the thing, a constant threat that something good might happen. But there's a paper thin line separating anxiety from excitement, and only in the last 15m does it finally cross over into the latter. For the rest of the movie, it's just an Aaron Sorkin riff, and friends, Aaron Sorkin isn't funny. And despite what the movie wants to do, when we tune in to watch a movie about the first episode of Saturday Night Live, we expect there to be humor. But, you know, real life, and too many people are miserable dicks (though at least some of the impressions were notable). I think the movie's main mistake is placing the narrative burden atop the shoulders of Lorne Michaels. As much as he plays himself as mysterious, I think it's just a cover for how less interesting he is than the world around him. His smarts, and his success, is recognizing that he isn't the star. I think Garrett Morris would have been a more interesting focal point; someone who didn't belong, but was there, watching the chaos unfold and trying to figure out what part they had to play in it.

Every time you find yourself here, it's because you chose to come back.

Severance S1 (rewatch) — 4.5/5

When a piece of art feels too overly designed, too much a director's vision, I get turned off (a decent amount of Wes Anderson, for example). Here, for whatever reason, I don't have that problem. Here, let's examine that: it feels the design goes all the way down, deeper than just a pretty still. There is a compelling mystery built on top of compelling characters who feel peculiar to their core. To my point about 'Wicked,' that movie dressed up the edges in fantastical costumes and hairdos to ascribe peculiarity, but as with the original 'Wizard of Oz,' this show features characters who have distinct, familiar characteristics but also have an uncanny unfamiliarity. They're not exactly the person they are on the show when they leave the set, but they are still someone. They don't need to try to be; they are. And their peculiarity helps to create a believable world that feels like our own, but more interesting, but colder. They feel like perfectly slotted puzzle pieces. And the show's central mystery is a puzzle where you don't have the full picture, just the corner you're working on. Each episode reveals new pieces, which only confuses you more as to what picture is being assembled. I think a good mystery feels like a maze. You know there's a center but you can only ever see the walls in front of you. Each turn could lead to a blank wall or illumination. The show has the feeling of the first season of Westworld, which itself was built around a maze, of human consciousness. I think similar work is being done here, just, unlike that show, I hope it can sustain its feeling of importance beyond the first season. And with two episodes into the new season, it thus far remains entertaining!! But also my hope is that it goes beyond human consciousness into spiritual consciousness. Here are people playing at God, creating new lives beneath old lives. What we learn down here might help us learn something about what's up there.

I'm sexy, I'm cute, I'm popular to boot.

Bring It On — 3/5 (rewatch)

Watched it many years ago and hated it, but the cultural discourse always suggested to me that I was wrong. I was! It's a fun, trifling thing. It's cheesy, but knows it's cheesy, and leans in to it. It's halfway poorly made, but with enough genuine star power and interesting bits to elevate it beyond what it could have been. Towards the end, as we get to a wider view of the competitive cheering world, it opens up in a wonderful way that could have lent itself to a 'Drop Dead Gorgeous' or 'Best In Show' vibe, but I'm comfortable with just the hint.  And to the larger cultural expose I'm doing on why I love 'Not Another Teen Movie' so much, and building on the point I made in the 'Can't Hardly Wait' review, the success of NATM rests on not making fun of bad things, but making fun of good things. With that in mind, and with this movie added to the pile, you can see NATM as much a parody as a pastiche movie—somewhere between 'Willy Wonka' and 'Scary Movie.' It's all the best parts, laid out before you.

You can't escape from yourself.

The Substance — 2/5

I think this is the signal we're in a new era, friends. Every frame is potential for some other director's future pitch treatment. It's all overdone, highly stylized to the point of not needing an actor's performance to carry the story as the camera and hyper-pop set design will communicate the feeling and editing will piece it together in post. Nothing can be boring, let there be no rest. I'm half-disappointed in myself for disliking this movie because the premise is fun and it's devolution into body horror should be fun, but at 2 hours and 20 minutes, it's mostly just tiresome. Demi and Margaret are good enough in their roles, but there's nothing to them, they're mostly empty shells, no interiority. In many ways, the movie feels like a 1920s silent movie in how BIG everything is. You don't need words to understand who the bad guys are, the visuals and wild gesticulations tell the story. And much like Emerald Fennell, the movie points you towards 'the male gaze is bad', creating an exciting villain for the leftists, only to not much do anything with that and instead focus on how women will defeat themselves in order to chase love and adoration.  "The executioner's willing citizens." They're not wrong, but the denouement could have brought those two threads together towards epiphany vs. gross-out humor. Like 'Death Becomes Her,' it'd rather be silly than say something.

Everybody does it in America.

A Fish Called Wanda — 1/5

I find the whole thing mean-spirited. Stutter jokes, gay jokes, everyone lies to each other. Does this make me a prude? I've always held Kevin Kline up to be an actor I enjoy, but this movie makes me wonder if I only want to like him.

Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose.

Somebody Somewhere S3 — 3.5/5

As Sam grows, the show grows less interesting. Sam is often left alone, left by herself to navigate the world. She wants to live in a world without romantic love, which is difficult when that's the world everyone else wants to live in. As Sam's entourage gets busier with seeking the other parts of their selves, they leave her behind—and there's a difference in choosing to be alone, and being left alone. And that second option only comes into being when you introduce people into your life. By the time she finds someone, I can't tell if it's because she wants to, or because she has no other choice but to give in. The show, at its best, is about the gentle pull of friends into a wider world, and this season felt more like a shove. That's also necessary, but in this final season as with the last season, the show separates us from the chemistry that makes the show spark. Eh, I'm nitpicking. I believe the best compliment to give someone is to miss them when they're gone, and I will now miss this show now that it's come into my life and gone.

The Coliseum is closed.

Squid Game S3 — 4/5

What a fun show to watch!! I think what the games allow for, more than a typical drama, is for you to explore the extremes of a person very quickly. Most entertainment work up towards scenes of catharsis, of character exegesis, and here they are, thrown into intense situations where they must quickly reveal who they are. Desperate, afraid, coward, decent, awful. And still more of them to discover in the rollout from there, confronted now with those things. The first couple of episodes of the show, I was worried that it couldn't retain the highs from season 1. Gi-hun does that thing that I fucking hate which is a character you love becomes dramatically different the next time you see them. Usually you see it in kids aged up, like in Slumdog Millionaire or Cinema Paradiso, the latter half of the movie showing young men with only a faint outline of the previous version you once loved. Here, similarly, he's dark and depressed, far removed from the desperate silliness he once was. But, while the show spends maybe too much time trying to find the island, once there it quickly enough introduces new people to surround him, each unique and interesting, and in only 7 episodes manages to successfully build a new world atop the old one.

And though, of course, that's not important to me, all right, why not?

Wicked — 3.5/5

A perfect 3.5/5 movie. Very flawed, but with extreme highs that make for great repeat background viewing. It's highs: Ariana's a gifted physical actress, and the handful of songs that really pop. The flaws: nothing wrong with Cynthia's performance, but Elphaba is a boring character. She's only interesting in everyone's reactions to her. In trying to pinpoint why she's boring, I think it's this: she doesn't change. In the beginning, she's a strong character. At the end, she is the same person she was then. The movie tries to make her feel bad for who she is, but she never shows anything but strength and resilience, even if just spite. The movie, briefly, tries to change her to make her more popular, but as soon as that four minute song is over, her love interest tells her she doesn't need to change. Okay! Thanks! It's a movie about acceptance, and movies about acceptance aren't about how the main character changes, it's about how everyone around them changes. Ahhhh! It was us all along! I understand why people get attached to notions like that—the world is wrong, not me. They're not wrong! But also, maybe, they're not right. And the curse of life is that you will never know which is true. The story and the music don't tell the story of Elphaba being pushed down, and thus needing to retreat from herself. But it needs that in order for the final number to work on an emotional level. The ending—the song drawn out to a dramatic 15 minutes—is a sequence that I both love, and also doesn't work dramatically. She has to have felt the weight of gravity dragging her down before she can, uh, you know.
--
I WILL ALSO ADD that, top to bottom, the original Wizard of Oz is filled with characters. Not just people who look funny, but who seem to be peculiar to their core. Here, it's funny costumes and hairdos that are made to do the work of creating a character.

Remember this feeling. It's like the first time you fell in love.

Somebody Somewhere S2 — 4/5

This show always hints at a wider world—who is Holly, where did Sam go before she came back—and while they are tantalizing mysteries, the show has zero interest in exploring them. I like that about the show! It becomes about the low-stakes gambles of day-to-day life, the easy chemistry of hanging out. It's the difference between calling up a friend and asking them to tell you everything they've been up to the past six years (and them not knowing where to start), and just wondering what they're up to today. Things will reveal themselves in pieces until eventually it forms a whole. It's casually funny and it's sad in a way that sneaks up on you. And the show, for drama's sake, feels the need to break your heart. I love when a piece of art builds up a point (friendship can save us) only then to undo that point (one person alone isn't enough to fill the god-sized hole), and this season worked towards those purposes. However, core to that attempt is breaking up the foundation of the show, which is the incredible chemistry between Sam and Joel—and thus, in parts, the show loses the true spark of why it's special. But in her hurt, you see Sam grow, because change is the only way to keep from losing something this beautiful.

Art isn't for everyone.

It's for one person.

How are you so strong!

Shrinking S2 — 3.5/5

Man, as much as I want to push against it, I fucking love Bill Lawrence's brand of schmaltz. Everything works out well for everyone! If we only made room for new people, they can expand our heart. How lovely. This season, Ted McGinley's Derek stood out as the center of the show. Always genial, always understanding. He is an everyday version of Jason Segal's Jimmy—not forcing people out of their shell, but gently coaxing, pushing here and there, a casual introduction, a piece of advice. If everyone had a Derek, they wouldn't need a therapist. Extending outwards from there, the larger cast continues to come into their own, and it's particularly become a joy to watch Harrison Ford look like he actually enjoys being there.

Ain't I a stinker?

Hundreds of Beavers — 3.5/5

I don't know if I like this movie as much as I admire it. It's so fucking silly, and the force of mind to create something so silly, so throwback, so borderless—and to do it for the length of an entire movie—is a force I admire. I will admit that I got tired of some of the hijinx, in the same way I might have tired of Bugs Bunny beyond a 10 minute segment, but the movie kept me watching out of pure appreciation for what they were doing, and then I was rewarded with a final 20 minute set piece that kept escalating the silliness further and further until I, finally, was able to give in to it totally. It feels bold to claim that a movie with a 1920s sensibility can exist and prosper in a modern climate, and here it is! All art from all time is still applicable. Glory be.

Welp ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A total acceptance of things you can absolutely change.

Who's afraid of the big, black bat?

Batman Forever — 3/5 (rewatch)

I left the theater when I was 12 years old thinking this was my favorite Batman, and cultural commentary from the schoolyard indicated to me that that was the wrong opinion to have. Here, now, retribution. If you can go full in, embracing Joel Schumacher's 1930's serial vision: it's stupid, and it's fun. This is a fun movie. It's built like an amusement ride and serves its purposes to that end. It, like Mortal Kombat, is the boyhood id, separated from the need to make it worthwhile for adults as well. Why do we like our Batman serious? Because we are adults, and adulthood is for serious people who need to rationalize their childhood interests. It's not a great movie, but it is a playground brawl, smooshing action figures together to see who comes out on top, each figure clearly articulated. Val Kilmer's got the lips, Riddler's got the costumes, Chris O'Donnell's got an earring. Everyone plays their part, though notably I'll call out Tommy Lee Jones for the thing that works the least. He's having fun—the point of the movie—but conveying fun isn't just laughing maniacally; it's taking the role seriously. As anyone who plays with kids knows—childhood games are serious business.

As sick as our secrets.

Juror #2 — 2/5

Once again, I am here to tell the American people that their opinion is wrong. What is the fucking interest in this movie, holy shit. Compelling story synopsis, to be sure, but what lack of artfulness in its creation. No tension, bland performances on top of thin characters, no case to be made for a person's worth or lack thereof. This movie is a surprise to people who haven't watched the past 20 years of Law and Order so think they've found something novel. It's a fun movie to watch and say 'oh, what would you have done?' and I would suggest you go do that instead. Or go instead watch the much superior 'Paranoid Park.' All apologies to Toni Collette and Nicholas Hoult who I continue to enjoy 🙏