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.