Obsession

I haven't seen a lot of horror, but I wonder why every one I've seen is so uniformly plastic in character and dialogue? Do I just happen to watch satirical horror? Is it elemental to the genre that character and dialogue are shallow, as a convoluted way of juxtaposing or justifying the depth of the terror? Are horror writers just garbage at those other screenwriting tenets?

Obsession wasn't the worst version of this problem, but it was off-putting in this way. My bar is set at realistic human interaction, even if the situations to which the humans respond are not realistic. I want to see people respond as people would respond. In fact, I seem to prefer movies with unrealistic situations; but the human response has to feel real. There's no way the Obsession characters would interact like they did in this movie, even if the supernatural element were natural. And I don't think it's just an analytical matter for me, I think it also feels fake. It's cringey and frustrating.

Obsession was a nice middle-ground between all-out horror and bright, relatable movie. I don't think horror is generally a good genre for me, but this one didn't go too deep. It wasn't too disturbing. And it had some thoughtful elements to balance out the fear.

It was a fun watch, but not a very impressive movie. I'm not sure why it was so successful; I guess because it hit that middle ground I mentioned.

I really disliked the main character, in every way. His physical presence made me uncomfortable, and his actions were continuously questionable. That he hung around for so long, without seeking a solution or fleeing, can't be excused. I'm sure this lack of likability serves a narrative purpose, though I think it also just made me enjoy the movie less.

Memento

Memento has been lurking on my lists for over a decade. I think I saw it once, in high school or college, but I always wondered if I missed something. At the same time, I gradually lost interest. It feels good to check it off, definitively, now, and it feels good to have liked it. It feels good not to grow more and more resentful of Christopher Nolan.

This might be the movie of his that I can dislike the least. Not that I really dislike any of his movies -- but they all have things I dislike, all except Memento. This is the most solid, least problematic Nolan movie I've seen. Even Interstellar, my favorite of them, is totally gross at times. Half the time I find myself talking about it, I'm mocking it. Memento, though, gives me nothing to tease, other than perhaps Guy Pearce's hairdo. But that's just the era. Writing-wise, it's the mellowest affair, the modest one, brainy without being flashy, noir instead of superheroes/astronauts/demigods/time-travelers/dream-stealers. It's just a guy with a condition. It's high-concept (like Tenet) without losing its humanity (unlike Tenet). Now, I actually like the fantastical premises of his flashier movies, but I don't like how they translate to flashy, superficial characters+dialogue. I want Nolan to blend his cerebral plots with fantastical settings AND down-to-earth dialogue. He's yet to achieve that, in my memory, but Memento is one of the more successful balancing acts. As far as making a solid movie, I'd take authentic writing over flashiness, even if, for making a memorable movie, I'd take the flashiness. In that sense -- appropriately -- Memento isn't his most memorable movie, other than the fact that it was maybe his breakthrough (so it felt flashier at the time). It's like Reservoir Dogs, which isn't Tarantino's flashiest, but is a landmark and a breakthrough. In fact, it's a lot like Reservoir Dogs...

I wish they could have gotten Brad Pitt as they apparently proposed. I can't confirm that I've seen Guy Pearce in anything else, and he doesn't quite have the presence to make this all work. He's just a Guy.

The Pillars of the Earth

I watched about 1.2 episodes. It was strangely boring, for a book so enthralling. I wonder if that's because I just finished the book, hence nothing can be surprising, or because the miniseries is a lifeless staging of the plot, nothing more. Maybe it gets better; I mean, the first episode (an eighth of the series) rushed through at least a quarter of the book. Was it intentionally preliminary to what could be the real focus of the miniseries, Jack's ascension? Or is this whole shebang perfunctory?

Casting

Eddie Redmayne isn't a bad choice, since he's a reputable actor with a handsome/ugly factor. He's too handsome for young Jack, and too ugly for older Jack, but he's not a bad pick to split the difference. Nevertheless, he's not Jack to me, and I bet re-reading the book would revitalize my prior image of Jack rather than being superseded by Eddie Redmayne. I'm glad of that, and it doesn't reflect well on that casting.

Waleran is too old and tired. He needs to be sharp as a knife. This is a clear miss.

Ellen is not attractive or hypnotic enough. She must be startling to behold, only partly because of beauty. I'm imagining Zendaya in Dune -- her eyes are almost scarily blue, she's dark-toned and agile. Ellen needs to be older and golden-eyed instead, but the vibe itself would work.

Why would you drop Aliena's big dark curls? Just do the curls, man.

Matthew Macfayden is a reasonable option. He's maybe a little soft, but I'd have to watch the whole series to see how it pays off.

The biggest blunder is Tom Builder. It's so bad, I don't know why, but I knew it was bad the moment I saw him on the cover of the DVD. First, when I actually got to watching it, I saw he lacked personality. He should be warm and lovable. Second, I don't know what to say about his looks, other than they're wrong. It looks nothing like the Tom Builder I imagined. He's too dark, not big and bushy enough.

It's so strange that I'd never heard of this miniseries until researching the book last year. With this star power, and such a quality story, either I'm really under a rock in terms of TV or this thing just isn't that good. After one episode, I'm thinking it's one of those weird works that's good on paper and doesn't really do anything wrong other than lack a soul. It's functional, and it emotionally fails. [Obvious AI parallel here]

Tar

I can't join all of this Tar worship.

First, Blanchett irritated me. I think she did well overall, but she could have been amazing, if she'd acted like a real person instead of an Oscar-groping actor. I noticed this immediately, in her articulation during the early interview. The script was realistic enough -- amazingly -- but her delivery was not. I can't get behind such a lauded performance that starts so rocky. This continued through the Juilliard class and various other scenes: she had impressively down-to-earth lines to deliver, and she delivered them like a stage actor overthinking her theatrics. She had a lot of good moments; her worst moments were when she was trying to be professional and refined. I couldn't see the character's thought processes in her dialogue, I could only see that the actor already had the words behind her mouth, and was overthinking how to convey them.

Second, it just didn't level me like it needed to. It was open-ended without inspiring meditation, heartbreaking without inspiring heartbreak, frightening without being scary; in short, these worthwhile characteristics just didn't hit as hard as they should have. It's always uncomfortable to admit that an artwork very fine in form yet fails to fulfill its purpose, but that was Tar for me. Perhaps if I was more sensitive to issues of homosexuality, femininity, fame, or classical music, I would have felt differently.

Actually, as far as the music bit, I think I'm in the sweet spot: I'm musical enough to understand most of what's going on without being so refined in classical music that I could spot every inauthenticity. I'm refined enough in some things that I've hit that latter point in other movies (jazz in La La Land, physics in Interstellar, etc) but I should have been in a good position for Tar. I do think the music-related writing was strong; it just didn't hit me all that hard in the end.

I also never loved nor loathed Lydia. I didn't accept that she was a predator until just after the movie finished (I can be slow with these things), though I could see she was flying off the rails a while earlier and I therefore didn't support her. Perhaps this movie would have been more intense had I been more invested in or intimidated by her.

Okay, I don't think the movie was bad at all. Field was surgical with his writing and direction. The story was engrossing. I thought about it after it was over. I like and respect this movie. I just have to respond to any movie's general reception when my experience strays, and in this case that means slight disappointment.

Edit:

Okay, I gained some new insight. Apparently interviews are often scripted in the real world, hence not only was Cate Blanchett scripted when interviewing as Tar, Tar herself was scripted! That makes Blanchett's uncanny rigor in the way she speaks more forgivable. Had I known that, I might not have been biased against the performance from the start, and I might have treated future scenes of unnatural dialogue more sympathetically. I know that Blanchett as Tar has a forced way of speaking even outside the probably-scripted interview (Juilliard class, when she talks to her orchestra, other settings of attempted poise), but I might have found other reasons for these if I hadn't written her off so early based on incomplete information. Maybe all of this unnatural dialogue is accurate for the character, who is basically living a lie: Linda Tarr of Staten Island, unstable predator, is posing as perfect Lydia Tar. I'm not totally convinced, but I can see how that could lend more credit to Blanchett's work.

    As far as not knowing interviews are often scripted in the real world... I haven't seen lots of interviews, so I'm used to the raw spontaneity of such things as Norm Macdonald on Conan, or David Foster Wallace on Charlie Rose. These are uncomfortably authentic. So Blanchett as Tar's scripted version of herself just came off as inauthentic acting on Blanchett's part, when it may just be inauthentic acting on Tar's part.

Troy

I don't get the mediocre reception. This is a solid movie which handles its subject in an effective if not inevitable manner. It's like Titanic, taking the most straightforward cinematic angle on an epic premise; yes it's corny, but isn't almost every movie after 20 years? And you don't see rotten reception on some of the corniest ones? So I don't get it. I'm as sensitive as anyone to bad writing, and Troy's was no worse than we should have expected. No worse than 2026's adored Odyssey! I think Troy will age better and feel more definitive than The Odyssey -- perhaps not in public recognition, but for those who look closely. Troy will stand as a fair monument to The Iliad while The Odyssey withers as an expensive yet uninspired transposition.

I concede that Troy is too obvious. When Paris needs to look concerned, Orlando Bloom is too obviously trying to look concerned. Some of the dialogue is super on-the-nose. Although now that I think about it, much of the cringey obviousness just comes through the acting. Paris and Helen are in a perpetual state of questionably-acted sappiness; Hector's wife is too much; Brad Pitt can't figure out whether to play Achilles or James Dean. And acting in particular sours after 20 years, for nearly all movies. So I can't find a major blemish with this film.

I don't really think Brad Pitt did a bad job, though I can imagine better versions of his character with another actor. He's being a bit of an American heartthrob when he needs to be a Greek warrior. He's too likable -- Achilles should only be lovable, and then only in the old Greek way. Hector is decent, although again I think I could love that character with another actor. Something about Eric Bana never quite hit for me, hence my opinion of Hector was lukewarm until I read The Iliad. Now I realize he might be the best hero in the whole cycle, and Bana just wasn't exactly my speed. I don't think Orlando Bloom was actually that bad... he's a kid anyway. Same with Helen; both lovers don't seem to know how to make a facial expression, but it's fine because we can just say they're teenagers or something.

Odysseus of course is spot on. He's just doing his thing, he doesn't even need to think about his character. Just put Sean Bean in the roles that need him and (optionally) tell him what to say. Then forget he's even there -- he's got it covered, go fight other fires. Never worry about Sean Bean. My one complaint - my ONE complaint - is his bangs. We'll take it though - not his choice anyway. Sean Bean is doing what he needs to do, as usual, a beacon of reliable acting, and my one and only man-crush who I also wish was my father. And brother. And "captain and king". It's funny to see him kill the Old Bear Mormont. That would be so anti-character if it happened in GoT.

Brian Cox is effective, and the writer's characterization of Agamemnon is effective, though he's lacking the majesty of The Iliad and Nolan's Odyssey.

Okay that's enough talking about anyone other than Odysseus. This movie solidifies that he's one of my favorite characters ever. It doesn't blow it out of the water -- he's a side character, humbly written, humbly acted, leading through servitude as he says in the movie -- but that only solidifies his solidity. He doesn't need the limelight to shine. In this movie, as in The Iliad, as in GoT, he/Ned/Sean is strong, wise, a natural leader yet a devoted servant, likable and lovable, respected, sharp, honorable. Achilles respects him over every king of Greece, yet he fights for Agamemnon because that's what his country calls for. And they need him: he leads a legion while conniving the end of the war. Only Zeus knows what would have happened in Troy and what we'd be saying about it today without Odysseus' intervention. Homer calls Odysseus godlike, but let's scale it to familiar standards: Achilles is godlike, and Odysseus is nothing more or less than the best man of Greece.

What a movie The Odyssey could have bean. If it had happened 10 years ago, the timeline would have bean perfect. It would have bean strange to persist a casting across productions and personnel, though maybe Benioff would have bean the right writer anyway, so it could have lined up well enough... In fact, GoT was full-swing at that point, so it could have bean a GoT-infused, GOAT-infused Odyssey. Benioff writes, Odysseus gets Ned, Telemachos gets Robb, Penelope gets... lol Cat needs to shed a few years if she's to be the prize of Ithaca's youth. I guess Odysseus' family doesn't literally have to be Ned's family. But it almost works. Circe gets Cersei, come on. Well, names aside, Cersei and Dany could both be effective witches in the style of Circe or Kalypso. Nestor: Barristan? Athena: Sansa? Obviously Dany is an option as Athena, considering Targaryens are the closest to gods, but Athena is such a protector in The Odyssey, and Dany never made me feel warm inside.

I could use a slightly less heartthrobby Achilles. Brad Pitt is too much of a normal guy. It's like getting Matt Damon for The Odyssey, although it's better, because Brad Pitt is a little more glorious and glimmering. It's not terrible. But he's a little too soft. It's like Russell Crowe as Maximus, or Ryan Gosling as anything serious. These folks were designed to be relatable studs, not tall classical men... except that Matt Damon isn't even a heartthrob, he's just wrong for Homer altogether.

Epic heroes

I'll start with Achilles v Odysseus, because it's an obvious dichotomy: the star of the Iliad v the star of the Odyssey, Homer's two central heroes (I didn't say Homer's two greatest heroes, because the loser Hector makes a strong case for being the noblest of them all; but Achilles and Odysseus are more straightforward to evaluate, as Homer's two central Greeks). If this was Mortal Kombat, obviously Achilles wins, with his divine endurance, quickness, strength, armor, etc. But this isn't Mortal Kombat; we're wondering who's the better hero. Plato discusses this very dichotomy in Hippias Minor, in which Hippias casts Achilles as brave and straight-shooting while Odysseus is wily and false. That's a very Gryffindor v Slytherin way of seeing things, and I don't see it that way at all. Both of these heroes are Gryffindors. They're brave, strong, and true, or at least as true as the ancient pillagers get. To me, the answer is actually obvious, in an intuitive way: while Achilles is the greater warrior, he's possessed by rage; Odysseus on the other hand knows love and wisdom, and throughout his story he shows up as a consummate leader. Achilles just keeps raging and fighting, Odysseus sees the world and suffers all it has to offer, emerging on the other side victorious and loyal and humble and just - and by the way he won the war for Achilles using his intelligence. I don't like hearing Odysseus associated primarily with words like "wily" and "crafty" and "cunning." Let's respect Homer on this: Odysseus is "godlike", "resourceful", "noble", "thoughtful", "great-hearted"... and yes, I'm sure Homer calls him crafty too at some point, but that certainly isn't the predominant adjective like it is in other scholarship on Odysseus. Odysseus isn't defined by wiliness, he's defined by being a great all-around hero who also happens to be more strategic than the rest. He's remembered too much for his Trojan horse; before that ever happened -- indeed, in the entire Iliad -- he's a great and loyal warrior, very wise, who (if I remember right) doesn't even engage in much deception. He's just a model Greek. I hear that Virgil really leans into Odysseus as deceiver; I don't remember that from the Aeneid, probably because I knew Sean Bean played Odysseus, so I had no interest in trusting Virgil's characterization; and I was right to doubt, because supposedly the Romans were too narrow-minded about such things. As they say, all's fair in love and war, and I don't condemn Odysseus for the deception of the Trojan horse, nor for the trick of "Nobody", nor any other strategic victory. He's fighting for his life, for the lives of his comrades, and for his nation, and I don't recall any of his stratagems ever preying on innocents. So let's move away from the slithery Slytherin adjectives ("cunning" etc) for Odysseus, and recognize him as a model Greek Gryffindor, if there was such a one in Homer. He's Homer's "many of many turns", and he's a more well-rounded hero than Achilles. If physicality is your only metric, Achilles is your man; but Odysseus is the better man.

What's more interesting is Ned Stark v Odysseus. While Odysseus gloats over Polyphemos and the suitors, Ned never has a moment of unchecked pride - he's always right in the golden zone where humility and love coexist. While Odysseus murders a bunch of people outside the scope of war - including some housemaids - Ned only kills to disseminate an understanding of justice, or to protect the realm. Ned's sense of justice is incredibly refined relative to Homer's - indeed he comes centuries later. So Ned is certainly the nobler and more virtuous heart, and the more sophisticated mind. Odysseus is a brilliant tactician, but he can't see beyond his immediate mission (win the war, then get everyone home), unless it's to keep the gods happy; I'm sure Ned, even when at war, couldn't help but feel haunted by his values, and those values were intrinsic, not god-flattering. Ned is obviously the moral man here, with an abstract system of ethics, while Odysseus applies his mind to literal matters. That's the advantage of centuries of civilization that Odysseus didn't get to see. Actually, the more I think about this, the less I'm sure why I called this debate so interesting in the first place; I came up with it weeks ago, but it seems so obvious now: Ned is the nobler man. Perhaps, though, I saw something cold and pious and frail about Ned. Perhaps I admired Odysseus' strength, and assertive action, and glory. Ned is so grim and unsatisfying and humble; he's such a hard case; you can never be better than him, nor will he ever be happy with himself. Perhaps I enjoyed Odysseus' warmth, like the sun shining over the story: we're basking in Odysseus' exaggerated greatness. Ned is much more reserved. I bet there's something else I'm missing that originally caused me to set up this debate... but suffice it to say that Ned is the nobler man, while Odysseus is more glorious.

Project Hail Mary

It was so much sillier than I imagined. I almost want to call it a comedy-drama, which feels like an insult for a movie so devoted to its science and its sentimentality; but it routinely chose humor over gravitas, largely destroying the wonder of the space movie. I like for Ryan Gosling roles to show that he's a goofball, but I like it as a respite from the heaviness (Cianfrance, Refn, even Lars and the Real Girl), not as though he's an actual comedic actor. I mean, he plays it well enough, but it doesn't actualize him. Project Hail Mary feels like a promising movie to actualize him, but it's really just way too silly. It's occasionally funny, and a few of the best jokes would be precious if there were only a few of them, but it incessantly interrupts otherwise interesting scenes.

On the same wavelength of being too ultra-consumable, it was cheaply sentimental. His friendship with the alien is outrageous, murdering whatever sincerity the scientific fidelity offered. This is what hurt Interstellar as well - how do you do a far better job making astrophysics authentic than making normal human dialogue authentic? The obvious answer is we can't validate the astrophysics as well as we can the dialogue, but I think there's a deeper incompetence rampant in screenwriting. I'm seeing The Odyssey today - gods, I hope Nolan has figured that out long enough for three hours.

I hate when writers assume aliens are roughly the size and shape and constitution as humans... unless it's intended to be ridiculous. There was awe in the atmosphere leading up to the encounter in Project Hail Mary... which evaporated as soon as we saw the ridiculous alien which roughly looks and thinks like a human. Not just any human, but a sappy pal human. It's like a Disney movie. It's like WALL-E. I expected better from a book that I heard was scientifically authentic; that quality ended abruptly at the alien encounter.