Rome S1

The last two episodes dramatically escalated toward a surprisingly crushing finish, like that series I can't help comparing to (GoT). Not to say it's phenomenal TV, but it packed a punch from an unanticipated angle. Caesar's demise was genuinely sad, and there were other moments of naked drama toward the end there that dwarf the rest of the season. That also reminds me of S1 of Rings of Power. All three shows had take-it-or-leave-it first seasons up until the final two episodes.

So Caesar's fate saddened me. Why, did I like Caesar, or did I just like watching Caesar? I think there was a little of both. Hinds, though a very strange look for the part, was a joy to watch in his character's brilliance. I daresay I even felt some affection toward the dictator himself. There's that natural magnetism about a leader like that. He's one of the more appealing historical leaders to me now. You can't help being moved by the warmth he sheds on his enemies. His biggest smile in the series is welcoming those who betrayed him back into his circle of love, without a wink of a grudge. Reminds you of someone who'll come 44 years later.

Antony also, acting-wise and character-wise, was magnetic. I love that performance, of a smart yet savory individual, despicable and honorable. I have to side with this man, because I like watching him, and I don't want to disappoint him. I hope he doesn't spiral into villainy. But you know every character is right on the brink! That's the most interesting thing about this show: any hero can and probably will prove villainous at interludes. So who's the real villain? Who's the real hero? Not even Vorenus earns your consistent respect.

Usually cheesy things have cheesy conceptions of good and evil, but not Rome. For all its superficialities, all its sugary sweetness, it avoids preaching any kind of easy morality. Literally every character falls hard, whether through violence, infidelity, or excessive fidelity.

Vorenus is a solid performance, though not the performance or character I would have chosen to anchor the series. He's too straight-laced, too chilly, especially beside the charisma of Caesar, Antony, Pullo, Atia, and others. Rome is electric, but Vorenus is stone. He's crumbling under the heat, not conducting it.

Antony is magnetic, but I guess Caesar and Octavian are the most interesting characters. They're both brilliant. Octavian still looks far too young for his political and sexual escapades, like Rhaenyra a few episodes into House of the Dragon. It's a little confusing and upsetting. But it's fascinating to observe his intellect in light of what we know he'll become.

Rome thru 7 episodes

Quite like Game of Thrones, but in place of medieval/fantasy Westeros you have ancient Italy, and in place of not knowing how it will end (that Dany will ascend the throne only to be quickly assassinated by a former friend) you know how it will end (that Caesar... you know).

Similarities:

• HBO show, with all that that entails, including the next bullet
• liberal violence and sexuality, though Rome is slightly tamer than GoT
• grand political arc sprinkled with many subplots
• general tone
• kinda trashy, kinda sophisticated
• Ciaran Hinds, Indira Varma, Tobias Menzies (what a power trio of names). I even think The Hound made a cameo

Differences:

• GoT is somehow much more interesting, partly because you don't know the ending ahead of time, partly because it's probably a better production team. Maybe Martin is a better foundation than history. But lots of Rome is fictionalized, so you'd think with a great writing team the Caesar era would show great potential
• one is pure fiction, the other stays pretty close to history's general outline
• I had almost zero practical reason for watching GoT, at a time when I was super strict with TV, yet I watched it anyway; I have practical reason for Rome, and I'm not as strict anymore, yet I don't feel riveted to its continuation
• I've never heard a single person talk about Rome; I couldn't avoid GoT
• I kind of love GoT; I shall NEVER love Rome!

One Battle After Another

First, this was nothing like the 30 pages and Wikipedia-ing of Vineland I read. The names are different, the action is different, the tone is different. I wondered how and why Leo would do the "downtrodden pothead", as I called Zoyd. That description isn't inaccurate for his character in the film, but it's also not how I'd choose to characterize him; he has a different flavor in the film; less groovy, more sharp. He's Leo, after all -- his whole expression is sharp. I don't think he does hippies like Joaquin in Inherent Vice and like the Zoyd I was perceiving in Vineland. He's fundamentally sharper, and he's fundamentally more heroic. He's a lead. So I thought it was strange he was doing a subdued character like this. It's not as subdued in the film, but it's still not a hero role. His daughter is really the hero, he just ends up being the supporter who's doing his best. Quite heartwarming, actually, in the end. So Leo gives up his hero streak, and Infiniti soars into and out the roof of the picture. She was awesome. Perhaps her role was easy, as far as serious acting goes -- who wouldn't root for her -- but she wasn't an established actor, and the role did demand a variety of intense things. Easy to root for her, but she exceeds that, she gets a whole ovation.

So I only read 30 pages of Vineland, but I also read a bit about it online, and I recall nothing about the revolutionary bit, nothing about any of this plot, in fact, other than downtrodden pothead Zoyd and his cocky lawman rival, like Inherent Vice. The adaptation must have been pretty loose.

Actually, PTA takes a Pynchon novel and a CV of unconventional movies and makes a fairly conventional movie. There's even a jump cut showing someone's face from baby to teenager. There's even a sweet father-daughter moment at the end with uppity music and she's being a rascal. There's even a basic-ass car chase! In a PTA movie! There's a bunch of military content... I'd say PTA robbed this from some more mainstream director, but he made this out of Vineland... he actually made Vineland more conventional, it seems to me, where typically I'd be expecting him to artsify his sources. PTA makes a pretty straightforward movie. And Leo, box office candy, joins. He picked an odd PTA movie to join. He'd be a towering Daniel Plainview or some other iconic role; I don't think this one will be iconic; I don't think it should be; the movie is too straightforward. I'd like to see Leo in a more iconic, more serious PTA movie. The last couple haven't been quite ambitious enough.

I'm calling it a solid movie. It was pretty gripping for being sort of silly. Sometimes the situation got a little too convoluted and went a little too long, but it was generally exciting. My heart was in it. I was deeply rooting for the protagonists, deeply despising the antagonists, deeply desiring resolution. Strange these are the things I'm saying about a PTA movie, but he played it straight.

There were some nice visuals, some nice musical scoring, though those were pretty secondary. Better than the average movie of this genre, but the movie wasn't very artsy. The story was too straightforward and engaging for me to really soak in the artistic qualities.

Sean Penn was one of the more detestable specimens I've seen in recent cinematic memory. Emphasis on specimen. And good for him, that was probably his charge -- to become a physical and spiritual wrecking ball for all that is good in the movie. He gives it his all, leaving no bicep unbulged, leaving no protagonist without the feeling of having been raped by his very presence.

I liked this movie quite a bit. It was weirdly heartwarming for being PTA+Pynchon. Weirdly not deeply ambiguous. The whole thing was propellant and charged, with soft undertones. It was enjoyable and engaging. That said, it's not interesting enough or emotional enough to be a favorite. It's just a solid PTA movie that suits the mainstream better than most of his.

Leo is good. Oddly unheroic, but good.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Magnolia, There Will Be Blood

The Master, Punch-Drunk Love, Phantom Thread

One Battle After Another

Boogie Nights, Licorice Pizza

Inherent Vice

And even One Battle After Another, hovering around the mediocre center of his filmography, is at least a strong 3/4

Assassin's Creed II

Assassin's Creed II, God of War II

Scores out of 5

Combat: 2,4

World: 5,3

Story: 2,2

General polish: 3,4

Overall: 3,4

ACII was pretty boring and tedious for me. I'm too impatient with video games to savor the open world right now, which world was most of the quality of the game

GWII combat was great: difficult but doable, haptically satisfying, diverse yet consistent. ACII I never mastered in that way, nor did it serve itself to my mastery like GWII did. Fighting always felt awkward and unpredictable in ACII. GWII was clear -- you could tell when you were doing damage, you could tell when your hit was going to hit, and you could tell when it hit.

Both stories were dumb, especially the cut scenes / dialogue.

GWII had some frustrating moments, but it was typically for lack of mastery, or super tricky puzzles. But ACII had lots of frustration that I couldn't have done anything about -- basically glitchy parkour or whatnot. That stuff is so frustrating. GWII was only frustrating when it was hard; sometimes the easy moments of ACII were frustrating; that's not a good sign.

The parkour is amazing. Not always, mechanically, but generally. Freely parkouring Renaissance Florence is a killer premise for a game -- probably one of the finest I could find.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The middle half was so long. It doesn't help I watched this with commercials, but I think the movie itself was drawn out. I didn't need the Civil War side plot at all, nor much of the main plot. I just need the first quarter and last quarter, the setup of the trio and the money, and the showdown at the end. Just a little bit of journey in between.

The dub is brutal. I don't see how professionals can do such terrible work. It's distracting.

Eastwood is kind of cool. I like some of his outfits, like the poncho-hat combo at the end. Why is he constantly cringing? That must be so bad for your face? His hair is bad, and his voice is kind of high and sensitive, oddly enough. He feels too youthful to be a symbol of masculinity. But he's kind of cool.

I almost watched Once Upon a Time in the West instead, as ChatGPT told me it was more artistic. I'm glad I didn't, because ChatGPT also told me it was slower and more demanding. If GBU was supposed to be the fun one, OUTW must really not be fun.

OK Computer

I'm starting to wonder if Radiohead is not my favorite band. Today I listened to some OKNOTOK and KID A MNESIA and most of it didn't hit. I mean it hit like, cool, but not like, I enjoy this. It's so hard to say what music I actually enjoy nowadays. Certainly some jazz and classical, and otherwise the randomest of songs. I think I can honestly say I enjoyed "Uncle John's Band." But none of this Radiohead is hitting, and Kendrick feels more like a memory of adoration than adoration. My taste is up to some shenanigans I don't understand.

I'll definitely still say Radiohead is my favorite band. Hopefully In Rainbows hits so that statement doesn't feel so empty. But the fact remains, a lot of their music, especially pre-2007 and especially especially pre-2000, isn't my style. It's probably the best punky grungy music has to offer, but it's still punky and grungy. Then even some of the refined stuff is too oblique. Some of my favorite songs of theirs are their most straightforward (still oblique).

"Let Down" is clearly my #1 jam off OK Computer.

Sinners

Driving, bold, but ultimately flailing, like Django and The Menu. You got the feeling it felt like it had said something profound, like we'd all endured something life-changing, and it savored it through several false endings, when really it was just a juicy thriller that passed in a flash. The ending, and false endings, also reminded me of Casino Royale, yet in spite of Sinners' allegory and Bond's ephemerality I look back on Bond as the thicker movie.

Sinners never lulled until the end, when it drew out its long anticlimax even past the credits, overly sentimental unto itself like a first-time novelist who'd put her whole heart and soul into the thing, spending more time on the dedication, foreword, preface, prologue, epilogue, appendices, acknowledgements, and self-interview with the author than the novel itself.

I suppose the allegory is that prejudice, like vampirism, is contagious: once you let it in, it sucks out your soul. It's a fair idea, but there are two issues for me. First, this is not the setting for me to really connect with (1930s Mississippi). The idea would hit better for me if it was jazz instead of blues, or some other kind of music... something between Sinners and Kpop Demon Hunters as far as genre used to tap the supernatural. Also 1930s Mississippi is, for me, as for many others, not quite idyllic. Also there's my race. Second, the execution is sloppy. It's a sequence of ideas, one rushing into the next, with shoddy connective tissue, like a soloist more concerned with chords than counterpoint, who just bangs around each triad in the progression with no concern for voice leading.

(Yikes, I must have interpreted Franzen as an excuse for verbosity. My sentences have been more convoluted like his ever since)

They say it's a horror movie... it wasn't scary. It was more of a thematic period thriller with some black comedy -- one of those recent movies like The Menu with some big idea and some shock value that gets everyone hyped and is not actually all that great in the end.

The Django similarities go beyond the setting and the goatee. Both movies have a hard time deciding on an ending, after a climactic shootout. Both try to inject a little arrogant fun. Both unchain after a character makes a stupid decision that probably nobody would make in reality (Waltz shoots Leo, the Chinese woman invites all of the vampires in [was that intentional?]).

Is this one of those Rotten Tomatoes situations in which few critics think it's all that great, but 97% think it's good enough, so it's 97%? Is that how RT works? If so, people need to know that. 97% just means the movie is almost universally accepted, does not mean it's really good. I don't believe Sinners is really good, but easy to accept.