4v291o

For all the infinite accolades that Lord of the Rings gets I really don’t think Tolkien gets enough credit for creating a character as unique and as dramatically evocative as Gollum. Serkis and the whole effects team nailing the part is a miracle of art.

After all these years it still slaps. Peter Jackson really got it right. The project was always going to come down to aesthetics and tone, and they are perfect for the material.

One of the hardest-working scores of all time.

This review may contain spoilers.

Not very smart or informative but packing an all time laugh out loud twist

Entitled man promised everything is mad he only got 99.9% of them everything. Now nobody likes him and he responds by trying to bully the chill guy, but it doesn’t work cause that guy actually figured out how to love himself and everyone likes being around him. 

This movie is so sweet and still looks great years later.

For me, this is Tilda at her all time hottest.

This review may contain spoilers.

David Lynch loves humans too much and completely, for all we truly are, to deny us either the joy 1.5 hours of sublime Naomi Watts innocent glowing (literally) starlet lesbian mystery or the mundane, sad reality that for (almost?) everyone life is mundane and disappointing compared with our dreams, a fact which when we cannot accept we engage in self-defeating behavior that only hurt ourselves and the people we love.

Smash the TV, we’re doing a movie. It’s Twin Peaks rated R and there’s no tight 40 minute episode arc. Despite all of the metaphysical stuff going on this read to me as an intimate, even loving exploration of Laura’s human subjective experience. Her pain, confusion, reckless coping, and fear. I was so scared for her while I watched and I’m so sad for her the day after watching.

This review may contain spoilers.

This is a great movie, the shameful depiction of Native Americans notwithstanding (it’s one of the worst instances out of any movie I can think of). At least Peter, Wendy, Hook, Tinkerbell, and even Mr. Darling have real developmental arcs and/or pathos while also representing larger concepts. Peter the narcissism, naiveté, and existential apprehension of childhood. Wendy the idealized feminine. Hook our violent, self-defeating self doing anything to ward off humiliation and death (so often a feature of masculinity). Tinkerbell the emotions of loyalty and jealousy in conflict with each other as she seeks to possess another person. Mr. Darling as a model of petty, imperious masculinity hurting others but hiding an inner child’s heart (the kind that ruins the world but culture loves to redeem when they show feelings - also Hook stands in as a mirror of him in Neverland).

And of course there is Neverland itself as the eternal, magical, mysterious experience of childhood. A place that can only be found by flying, the quintessential ability wished for by every child. A place of innocence out time, or perhaps frozen in time (Or is it purgatorial, something along the lines of what the Talking Heads meant when they said that “heaven is a place where nothing ever happens). Somewhere we can never return to but more profoundly that all else. That time of neuroplasticity when we were still becoming who we would yet be. Once upon a time when the early chapters of our stories were not yet written.

It’s a rich text to say the least, and the Disney classes adds OK music, playful action, and an appetite to lean into the dilemmas and conflicts of each of the characters (at least the ones that Mean Something More than who they are).

This review may contain spoilers.

This is a piece of copaganda about individual heroes with rigid personalities saving society from fake crises replete with stereotypical gender, race and fat jokes.

Just when things are getting interesting (the cop dog is experiencing a loss of faith in their ability to be helpful, which, good reflecting keep thinking my dude!) the movie hammers a one note emotional tone. First it has an empty affirmation from a new black friend about how he’s so brave so it doesn’t matter that he’s scared. Then the kid who runs Paw Patrol denies the reality of his fear and insists that actually he’s always been the bravest dog of all, even when he was an orphan lost in the street (something literally contradicted by the flashback portraying a terrified and completely helpless puppy). Instead of accommodating for the reality of that we are vulnerable emotionally and physically and that fear is therefore an important part of life, the movie hammers the message that one must simply be brave and that bravery is what makes one worthy. 

In the end this fragile emotional message (that the cop dog isn’t scared, actually, but is instead the bravest) leads to him trying a ridiculous jump because he alone can save the day (despite another dog literally having a helicopter and being easily able to address the problem). This of course shouldn’t work and should lead to the real message that it’s important to have fear, know our limits, and work as a team. Instead of pivoting to “even the brave among us need to work together,” however, the film insists that we are only worthy when we ignore our fears and doubts and solve everything by ourselves with no help.

The movie also doesn’t engage with a single aspect of city life despite being about paw patrol taking over social safety services it a city. It does, however, have a wildly optimistic new black girl dog who is homeless and whose great dream is to Paw Patrol. Her affirmation validates their presence in the new urban environment.

This movie sucks shit and I can’t believe my kid wanted to watch it. Congrats to the studio on all the toy money I guess.

This review may contain spoilers.

Marcus Aurelius is portrayed as a great leader for having both deeply articulated beliefs about how the world should be and an acceptance of reality such that he could accept the things he cannot change. Until he forgets that he cant just make a new political system happen because he wants to because other people have their own political interests. Pretty clear reminder that if we want to change the world we can never stop ing for reality.

Maximus, meanwhile, is a pathetic reflection of Marcus Aurelius’s “good moral side.” He tries to make the world align with some vague sense of “the idea of Rome” that he couldn’t articulate if you made him. He never has a real plan, including when he has a plan to take over with his army, and despite the end of the movie only the naive will walk away thinking this fictional Rome is likely to become a republic again.

Commodus is an equally pathetic reflections Aurelius’s political nature. He understands the importance of politics but has limited skills (just as Maximus can’t articulate a vision) and is feckless without vision anyway.

Ridley Scott is always extremely on one about immortality and mortality and this film is no exception. Belief in the afterlife is a load bearing psychological feature for several characters in the film. Embracing the inevitability of death - whether through this belief or, as some characters do, by asserting that they are in some sense already dead - is by far the strongest claim of the film. A simple one, perhaps, but not one that ever needs to be overly complicated to hit home. We’re all grappling with it all the time anyway.

A couple other thoughts:

Why do I keep watching Russell Crowe movies? Most of me finds him really boring, but there’s one minority part of me that is really drawn to him and I’m 1) embarrassed and 2) can’t figure out why.

Richard Harris is wildly charismatic that clever soft voice could talk me into anything.

Some big Pirates of the Caribbean score similarities from our guy Hans

Classic of geography to be picked up sleeping on a farm in central Spain and wake up in Africa.

Queer giraffes? An acknowledgment of queerness among animals? Didn’t expect it.

Carthage shoutout as though it still exists… sloppy shit just pick another place we vaguely know about that did exist.

Overall too much of the plot hinges on people “being good” which is stupid and basically just Ridley Scott showing his weak political mind.

She’s hope and he’s hate, but she’s his hope and he’s her hate, cause they both still have attachment to others. Her hope makes him the dark dementus. 

Be a half life and try to move on or a full life and suffer? Seems like that’s pet about how we relate to others and whether we hold onto beliefs about how the world should or not. Are you part of a society in the sense of being part of a moral project greater than yourself, part of a larger story, or are you simply part of society in of being around other people?

Looks freaking great, really inventive action sequences, absolutely books it for 2.5 hours.

Also, I quite appreciate the lack of making me watch rape despite the setting being a surely rape-filled world.

One of my favorite movies. Those with closed hearts and narrow minds might find the beautiful melodramatic conversation stilted, but if you open up to it each line is a universe unto itself. Every line delivers an entire concept.

This all time great sure hits different after seeing photos and videos of Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people in my feeds every day for more than a year.

This review may contain spoilers.

When you meet the girl of your dreams and miss the date you for sure have a nuclear wad that you need to shoot out in short order. The clock is ticking. No movie has ever been more respectful of the power of being down bad for someone you just met.

We have the power to do the nuclear apocalypse to ourselves, we don’t need any highfalutin’ nation-state to send their warheads. Turns out the nuclear apocalypse was in our hearts all along.

I’ve never seen a more lush, spectacularly made sex joke.

Outstanding dialogue with deceptively compelling politics delivered efficiently and with humor.

Just one of those movies where I marvel that it was conceived, funded, and fully realized.

I like the musical Wicked, so I loved this movie. If you didn't like the movie, it's not because it was lacking in any way. You just don't like the musical Wicked. Which is of course fine.

They really did get as much out of it as they could, and even though they stretched out Act 1 to fill a whole movie it didn't drag at all. Expanded score was great, singing and acting was great, art direction was outstanding. I'm a bit leery about asking Act 2 to hold up as a full film, however.

This review may contain spoilers.

Extremely 90s movie about race full of 90s stereotypes about Black people and a White guy who has an "I don't see race" kind of attitude that earns him the respect of an extremely "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" Samuel L Jackson, thereby anointing the White guy in the most precious of all affirmations: the respect of a Black guy.

Samuel L is wildly charismatic, Bruce Willis is satisfying, Jeremy Irons has a fantastic voice, the movie has great pace and humor.

This review may contain spoilers.

The idea that a person who learned everything they know from daytime TV would be a great person is an all time wild take. A few actually funny scenes, certainly more than I expected.

The main character brings a hot snowman to life (he’s her progeny) who is then extensively toddler- and teen-coded and with whom she then has a romantic relationship, so yeah this is some of the most purely Oedipal stuff I’ve ever seen in mainstream cultural fare. 

I don’t have any experience with Hallmark style movies, but anyone could start watching this movie at any point and be fully oriented to the plot and character arcs. Kind of impressive in a way.

This review may contain spoilers.

Takes a stab at rendering the complexities of growing old and moving on from a phase of life for a childhood audience. Would have benefited from committing to that dilemma and actually having McQueen become the mentor instead of making the pivot from “one last race” to “mentor/coach” a last second development. Keeping that character growth - the real topic of the movie with some compelling emotional juice underneath it - confined to the last few minutes kept what would be the strength of the movie reductive brief and basic. And since it happened last-minutes, the way it goes down plot-wise is accordingly unbelievable. Eh.

The movie feels appropriately tense throughout, but somehow (despite the long run time) each scene still manages to feel disted from the previous scene. We never really get the emotional context for both of the main characters and the intricate elements of the cartel and investigation are never fully linked together. The first half of the movie feels stereotypical (the movie is self-consciously in dialogue with eh Godfather, a bad choice since it doesn’t live up). It’s the building blocks of the gangster/cop parallel process, but they aren’t linked together and it ends up feeling formulaic. “This is the scene in which the cop is a bad dad.” “This is the scene in which the gangster meets his beautiful.” The second half is a bit more interconnected as we see the investigation play out. I hate to say it but a few montages showing how the cartel/investigation evolved might have lended some connection and efficiency to a bloated movie.

Denzel is, of course, electric. I felt anger every time I experienced the letdown of cutting away from him to spend time with Russell Crowe, who is adequate as usual. Most charitably I would say that the discrepancy evokes in the viewer the differential between the excitement of being a big gangster versus that of being a cop. Their lone conversation highlights the excitement/charisma differential, so maybe that was part of the idea. In a way it’s a good use of Russell Crowe.

In of realism, it’s laughable to have Russell Crowe’s character be a lawyer in the prosecution for his own case. Thematically, moreover, it would be way more compelling to show limited progress or redemption for him in the wake of the system of law taking over, even if they arrest some other baddies. This would have paired really well with the closing shot of Denzel, a gesture at the inevitable age of time and futility of life.

It’s fine, I’m glad it exists cause it’s cool to see Denzel be a big time gangster, see a Black gangster movie, and spend time in 1970s Harlem.

This review may contain spoilers.

13-year-olds are very young and it takes a lot for them to make it through the day. Kiki’s youthful struggles and strong feelings are relatable. She faces real challenges, is filled with self doubt, and needs great courage to persevere. All this will resonate with a youthful viewer. For an adult viewer, however, Kiki’s youth also elicits palpable concern for her safety. Miyazaki manages to portrays a high-trust society (oh how I wish I could like in a society like this) without shying away from the fact that danger is real and people can be mean. Kiki would be in Real Danger if a surrogate mother, father, and aunt didn’t emerge to take care of her and provide her with safe haven (unsurprisingly it is the surrogate mother and aunt that provide most of this , despite the lovability of my guy the himbo baker). We need each other to make it through life.

Kiki’s coming of age arc features (gentle) elements of loss of innocence. People are mean, you don’t always fit in easily, and it’s not always clear if things are going to work out. As we grow up we all have to say goodbye to friends, parts of ourselves, and childhood magic.

Kiki’s personal loss of innocence is mirrored by her journey from a small town to a city. This is a journey from a simple, more magical form of society to a colder, more anonymous place full of new modern dangers and even a whiff of class/caste dynamics. Some dangers (traffic) can be understood and, others (new technology like airships failing to work) may be unforeseen and unavoidable, and class dynamics take a strong stomach to tolerate when you’re not on top.

Society is also growing up, and while Kiki finds the internal fortitude and external she needs to flourish, it’s not quite so clear how things will go for society overall. Childhood magic gives way to the excitement of adolescence, but for city society to flourish even a witch coming to town and trying to knit things back together might not. Kiki’s choice of service - delivery - shows her attempt to personalize the movement of goods around an industrialized society that separates people. It’s sweet, but she can’t deliver every item and she might not be there to save the next Tombo. I guess we have to do our best to get each part of the larger society we build to help other parts along when they need it, just as Kiki's surrogate family helps her.

In the end, like any full-hearted coming of age story, Kiki’s remains in touch with the tender heart of loss that comes with all great growth and change.

And of course the score is top notch and the movie looks great.

This review may contain spoilers.

The Big Miss of the otherwise epic run of hits for Pixar stretching from the release of Toy Story (1995) to Toy Story 3 (2010). My toddler had a pretty good time which isn’t meaningless I suppose.

The whole movie feels trite. Like some air-headed Hollywood studio guys wanted to “honor” parts of “Real America” and went ahead with some stereotypes, a pretty limited and simple character arc (don’t be an asshole who thinks other people have nothing to offer), and a not-easily-anthropomorphized subject in cars.

The one compelling part of the story is the economic story of the death of small town America and the film’s evocation of significant empathy in the viewer. Of course, while I’m not an interstate fan per se the movie does decline to engage with the raw years of human life and the economic benefit of “saving ten minutes of driving” that piles up over decades and millions of trips. There's a real conversation to be had there, but this is a simple film with a simple main character arc and simple ideas from... a studio famously good at delivering complex messages to children and their families. Bummer.

This review may contain spoilers.

I see why this movie was a flop. It’s extremely Written, engages deeply with spirituality, is very grimy, and for a movie in which plot races forward in every scene it somehow manages to crawl. But also it kind of slaps. It has big time emotional payouts and, if you’re feeling like opening your heart, invites substantial reflections on the human condition. It’s definitely a reminder that we can ask more from our epics. It's clearly better to Go For It on the Big Topics.

So, “What is a man if he makes not the work better?” Well, in a spiritual context, bad, right? But is worthiness determined by the outcomes of our actions or our intent for those actions? Add on the fact that “the world always decides,” that we can only control ourselves and our impact on reality is limited - and things get hairy fast. In the finale, for example, Orlando Bloom earns… a negotiated peaceful surrender that could likely have been won without the same scale of bloodshed. So what is the point of It All? Perhaps the point is to be Right With Ourselves rather than demand the outcome of making the world objectively better. We cannot expect perfect outcomes, and those who seek perfect actions will garner great disappointment (“There will be a time when you wish you had done little evil to do great good.”).

That old pesky thing of being Right With Ourselves. We are all thrown into being with no objective meaning, a fact the movie addresses in part by showing how father figures - literal (dad) and figurative (God) - help us organize ourselves emotionally, psychologically, narratively, and spiritually. Fathers play the role of master signifier, (false) foundations on which one can try to build ever-toppling temples of meaning.

This film addresses the unstable footing of all the meaning we create by looking forward. This is an optimistic movie. It preaches the same goldfish memory that coaches cultivate in athletes: forget what just happened, there is only the next play. Annoying that trite stuff like “one play at a time” is like, meaningful and shit. All Orlando Bloom or any of us can do is imagine that a better world that is possible, look ahead to the Kingdom of Heaven, and trust our gut. Even if we come to regret our choices, it’s making them consciously as best as we can that counts.

And the very fact of making choices in this way matters. “Who are you? Will you alter the world? Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter? Yes.” We are greater in some important way when we feel aligned with a purpose. Greater in spirit and in physical strength. Don’t sweat it if the decision looks like folly later on. Nobody can be expected to comprehend everything and see how it all will play out. And , you’re the righteous goldfish. That all happened in the past. Just do your best right now.

So what is it that we are all searching for? What is this Kingdom of Heaven, this Jerusalem? “What is Jerusalem worth? Nothing. Everything” Jerusalem itself is the eternal search for meaning. It is immaterial but all-important. It doesn’t exist, and to it “no-one has claim, all have claim.” Jerusalem is where we can feel Right With Ourselves and the feeling doesn’t go away. But we will never get there. I guess we just live the next moment and keep trying.

Obligatory acknowledgment that this is a Special White Boy movie that fails the Bechdel test.

Reminds me that what I see and what other people see are not necessarily the same. When I watch this I see the fallacy of thinking you can operate by your own rules when We Live In A Society. The ordering of any society will inevitably come into conflict with whatever an individual thinks should happen, but to have things like civil liberties and clean water and schools we all have to make accommodations to a social structure. In this sense, Harry gets in his own way and hurts a lot of other people doing it.

I am aware, however, that what most people see is a compelling piece of propaganda for a police state. Having the villain be a murderous psychopath (I mean Scorpio, not Dirty Harry, but fair if you were wondering) - a rare type of person and the subject of vanishingly small amounts of what police actually do - helps justify Harry's murderous approach in the eyes of the viewer. Good movie.

There are certain moral weights, born of things that are unjustifiable, that one can bear only by putting oneself in jail forever or killing the soul.

"For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."

Low key good political education approach to hide Abu Ghraib material in a slick casino movie.

By pulling a narrative fast one and getting the viewer to have empathy for a torturer, this movie serves as a reminder that empathy for a person is not a comment on their moral worth/value. Empathy is a psychological skill that we all possess and apply to varying degrees and which underlies the foundations of society.

Rewatched a childhood fave with my toddler. The gender role politics are simply dreadful and the iconic opening scene is one of the male gaziest around. The slapstick holds up particularly well and the rest of the sense of humor is pretty fun. Good for an early toddler since it’s almost all animals.

Add Twitter to the mix and incels like this will usher in fascism. If someone’s thoughts are filtered through themselves and their own feelings/fantasies, they grow malignantly upon themselves, taking limited scraps of input and constructing monstrous castles of fantasy. We need each other to stay sane.

This review may contain spoilers.

Take finding Nemo but make the main character a one-schtick annoyance, strain the credulity of all the physical events to the point where there are no stakes, make the jokes worse, and add some ham-fisted fan service. The heartbreaking shell mausoleum of grief created and lived in by Dory’s parents was the only strong part of the film, and that was just a single image. An exemplar of the decline of Pixar.

I really appreciated a chance to learn more about Fred Hampton. Clever to portray his story and liberators politics in the framework of Jesus and Judas, a universally known story taught at a young age, thereby allowing the character drama hit hard. This also implicitly juxtaposing Jesus’s liberatory politics (everyone thinks those are good) with those of Fred Hampton (Marxist-Leninist) without making the comparison explicit. Good Trojan horse propaganda in that respect. Fred Hampton’s death was a global tragedy. 

Moves swiftly for the full two hour run time. Great acting.

The crown jewel of Pixar’s (the last great studio?) golden age. The premier reflection on parenting styles/attachment/emotional paradoxes for a whole generation of kids and parents. Powerful proof kids can handle the big stuff.

This movie moves pretty well for a 2.5 hour monstrosity. I watched it after seeing Sicario as a sort of “gritty CIA” double feature and it’s comparatively ugly (I know it’s not going for the same thing). Jessica Chastain is pretty charismatic.

I remain sad and frustrated at this nasty little American part of my brain that developed at 11 years old in the 9-11 era still somehow relishes a movie about Getting Bin Laden. It’s anathema to my politics and every other part of me. I know America’s vicious response to 9-11 was an evil disaster perpetrated by a bloodthirsty racist neocolonial power. I’m frustrated that positive feelings about getting Bin Laden are still in my brain. I’ll never let those impulses govern my political views overall, but experiencing them was a part of this viewing experience.

I would critique how bad it looked, the clunky plot, the failure to do anything with the Roman content, the childish politics, the lack of any character development, or the failure to make any use of the sci fi content, but the greatest crime of all was the exposition. Every character saying exactly what they think and feel. Every segment of the movie broken up by thesis statement title cards. Every reference made explicit. There’s nothing redemptive about exposition like that. It takes up any space where any other ideas might emerge. Sad.

This review may contain spoilers.

This abuse of emergency rescue services will not stand. Good dog name. Really apex hot and charismatic people but not great romcom chemistry, the movie’s best chemistry is Glen Powell and the Ausie guy dancing in the credits together. Most importantly it’s good to see Natasha Bedingfield get her due.

I saw this once while stoned years ago and had mediocre memories. On rewatch, it’s a beautifully shot and scored movie (in hindsight you can see 2049 and the Dune movies coming). Features a pretty gripping character arc for Emily Blunt as she, a “good soldier,” is unable to resist the CIA and other forces using her as a pawn. The cast overall is stacked and does a great job with Brolin and Benicio del Toro shining as a villainous duo. 

There is some compelling engagement with US regional drug strategy, but it remains very contemporary. Overall, the movie struggles with political fundamentals: no historical contextualization of the drug trade (and only gestures at contemporary economic and political factors), Mexican people are either monsters or subjects of pity, and an overstatement of the competency of US forces by uh, a lot. Also fails the Bechdel test, for what it’s worth. Probably the most compelling political argument put forward by the movie is “the violence we’ve been doing hasn’t been working,” but of course the answer offered is “do a different kind of violence.” Maybe the argument is fatalistic about state violence generally, but I would file this attractive movie away in the “liberals ignoring their country’s violent history to justify its violent presence cope” phylum.

Masterclass in showing how all sorts of different types of people - races, nationalities, professions, genders - can experience related types of oppression/be allies and stand in solidarity with each other. A subtly big tent vision of the political fight against a ruling class (there is even room in the tent of justice for traitors to the ruling class!).

Obviously very effective at making the viewer so freaking stressed out, which isn’t exactly my personal fave but was impressive.

Balanced, rich writing in the sense of crafting iconic, symbolic dialogue without things feeling stilted. 

Effective and accurate public education about small town budgets, political economy, and specifically civil asset forfeiture.

Love you Tom thanks for this one

This review may contain spoilers.

Returning to the strength of Raiders of the Lost Ark, this masterpiece efficiently delivers a moral reflection on deeper levels (the sea of Goodness, faith, ambiguity, redemption, etc) and personal ones (Indiana Jones’s character arc). Some examples:
- The moral awakening of adolescence - having moral impulses but living in an amoral world - as shown by the opening scene underscores the ongoing moral dilemma of Indiana’s 
- Fact vs myth in classroom underscores the ambiguous state of Indiana Jones and the search for balance, with an appeal to code as Indiana say he will see each student in turn
- A constant thrum beneath the surface of the only actual theme, that which underlies all others: reckoning with death (“My soul is prepared Dr jones, how about yours,” which doubles as an amazing capture of the moral ambiguity as well)
- Indiana’s character shows to have plenty of room to grow morally as re: the nazis he “hates these guys” - a practically social statement of personal taste - but his dad (a moral scion, his moral scion) knows they’re “the scum of the earth”
- The fertile father son relationship mirrors the relationship we all have with the big Father in the sky 
- showing an American audience indianas needed moral perspective and growth 
- In critical moment after indiana almost dies and his father thinks he’s gone and openly declare his love love Indiana, Indiana calls him “Sir.” What we say in childhood has unique depth of meaning even later in our lives, personally and spiritually.
- “Indiana, let it go” not even a lifelong quest matters more than Being Together

Also, the action sequences in this are by far the strongest of the series, it’s a very attractive movie, of course John Williams was fucking COOKING, shifting the conflict to being largely against the nazis was a massive relief after the awful colonialism and racism of the previous films, and the sexism is (relatively) dialed down.

Whereas Raiders of the Lost Ark had lots of awesome redeeming qualities to counterbalance the racism and sexism and therefore remains extremely fun and watchable, this one lacks most of those redemptive qualities while suffering from FAR worse racism and sexism. For example, Indiana Jones's character development arc is more limited, the action is more frequent but worse, the political world is thin (general colonialism as opposed tot he multifaceted dynamic world of ROTLA), there isn't a robust implicit moral dialogue, and the love interest is a walking stereotype rather than a layered character with acknowledged challenging personal history.

A specific political gripe I have is the way the movie seems to offer some good critiques of colonialism in good faith, only to wash them away with the "savagery" and "evilness" of the "native culture." Worse than not offering those critiques, it surmounts them and gives a rhetorical framework and permission structure for the colonial viewer to apply to reality (boiling down to "even if the adoption of western culture is a little imposed, it really does provide salvation).

Ke Huy Quan as Short Round, if embodying some stereotypes, is an undeniably charismatic presence and I'm so glad he made a comeback in Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Couldn’t make this movie anymore because of woke. You’d have to shed all the dumb racial colonial tropes and all you’d be left with is a neo-western with subtle, layered characterization, a light and playful tone, real moral tension embodied as a spectrum by a dynamite cast, beautiful choreography and shadow work, an incredible score, and loving homages to great cinema of the past. Clearly woke has killed movies.

Among many redeeming qualities, the way the film sets up The Corporation as a larger villain without specifying many details allows a small, physically and temporally contained monster film to exist in a vast political context and hence have a realism that not even the best effects can yield.

This review may contain spoilers.

Way more fun than I expected! Punchy sendup of masculinity and decent music. Watching Nathan Lane spit ham in the face of truly disgusting muppets is a peak experience .

It’s good and fun and extremely luscious, just doesn’t have much to offer in of interesting intellectual content

Hadn’t watched in years. Holds up as a lush sensory feast with a plot simple enough that there’s really no distraction and you can float down the beautiful river. Always tough to stomach QT’s (in this movie more latent) politics, of course.

God is the ultimate cope, but of course so is death, so what can you do?

Social isolation means you’re not regulated by the process of filtering your self through others and your self builds back upon itself as infinitum.

I watched this a month after ACL surgery and right when it ended my knee instantly swelled up a whole bunch for inexplicable reasons. Coincidence or emotionally impactful film leading to a somatic response? Who’s to say. Bumping it up half a star out of respect for the possibility that it affected my body.

This review may contain spoilers.

Brian de Palma was really on one about sound tech in movies, and ok fine about the inescapably artificial/simulated nature of experienced reality. Also de Palma really likes the big music and the big colors which is kind of fun but not something I found very moving or exciting in this movie.

Pretty limited political insight for a movie set in the context of a presidential campaign and which touches on police corruption.

“I know now why you cry, but it’s something I could never do.”

Obviously this movie is tremendous. The action sequences are creative and totally hold up. The varied explorations of insanity and its social creation are terrific. At a personal level the well-written character arcs rooted in the most fundamental type of relationship - parent and child - match the existential themes of the science fiction. And the writing is efficient too.

One thing I noticed in this rewatch was how it’s really John’s temperament in tense moments that distinguishes him as the future leader Sarah Connor was never temperamentally going to become.

Very solid flick about small town political economy and the vast existential terror most feel about the depths, with an enviable run time of two hours to boot.

This review may contain spoilers.

Cute little layered spy thriller featuring three insanely beautiful people and Guy Ritchie’s typical narrow/overstated-but-pleasing aesthetics and music

Another Johnnie To movie that treats mundane spaces with a reverent gaze. Really about the character arcs, the actually events of the plot strain credulity, but that’s kind of the point. The particulars don’t matter. As Maya Angelou put it, “People will forget what you did, people will forget what you said, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” 

Really think the Judo guy who wants to fight everyone is more of a spirit/Angel than a real character.

This review may contain spoilers.

An election of a mob leader for a term of two years is a fantastic sandbox for playing with political dynamics that arise in democratic political systems and, of course, to highlight deeper questions about whether coherent society without violent coercion is even possible. 

Also, just another Johnnie To film that moves quickly without rushing, has a beautiful score, and in which every scene is a visual ode to whichever environment in which it happens to occur, shot in whatever way is necessary to highlight compelling aesthetic or cultural aspects of that space.

The secret sauce to ending history is achieving perfect multiculturalism with extremely ideologically inflexible white Americans in charge of all facets of society. Yeah. That’ll do it. Legit great movie despite the palpable neoconservative energy.