The Big Lebowski

This is the most straightforward comedy I've seen from the Coens. Some parts were funny, though more unapologetically maximalist than I remembered. Compare The Dude and Walter cussing at each other to everything that's left unsaid in the "Minnesota nice" of Fargo. I prefer the latter. It's also just hard for me to reconcile the heroic sloth of The Dude. It's not my least vibey vibe, but I tend to take my personal growth pretty seriously. I wouldn't mind a bowling league, however. Notice they never show The Dude actually bowling? So the one thing he feels motivated to do in the movie he never does in the movie?

The Last Temptation of Christ

Sometimes incoherent movies are exciting; this one strained my attention. There were three sections: young Christ with doubts, which was odd but compelling; determined Christ up until the cross, which was traditional in story but baffling in tone; and the last temptation of Christ, which almost put me to sleep. The acting was painful throughout. What happened in the casting? I couldn't watch Keitel. Dafoe was commendable, but strange. Who would choose him? I just don't get it. Nothing felt authentic. The whole thing felt misguided, almost uncanny. What's the point of this movie? Why would anyone enjoy it? At all times it's strange, upsetting, or dull. One of the most thrilling directors of my time managed to make one of the most thrilling stories of all time alarmingly bland.

Suggestions:

Either paint an authentic portrait of Christ or go for the fresh take; this juggling doesn't work. The casting implies a fresh take, but half the movie is normal Gospels. Dafoe is not the man for normal Gospels. I'd watch a full movie of normal Gospels, with the right cast and writing, and I'd watch a full movie of Dafoe as uncanny Christ, although even then I'd ask for better writing. If I can separate the writing from the acting, it still seemed poor.

Harry Potter

My double check on Harry Potter, after a pleasantly surprising first go 2.5 years ago, did not disappoint. Rowling is fantastic, in style, plot, character, and world. Rarely can one master all elements; for example, Tolkien's unnatural dialogue and idealized characters convey Middle Earth as remote and academic. Meanwhile Rowling captures the anxious pulse of childhood while hardly lacking Tolkien's intellectual appeal. Harry Potter engages the heart and the brain with almost artificially intelligent finesse. But there's nothing engineered about it: this is the debut novel of one woman. Like Tolkien, she generates drama that excites young people and, after perhaps seeming silly to adults, reveals layers of maturity. Both authors have triggered and subsequently humiliated my incredulity at events that appeared overly convenient but turned out deterministic. The order by which the writers rescue their characters and justify said rescue would be curious to me, though hardly relevant for the final product if executed. In other words, I'm liable to call out deus when it's just machina.

Beyond Rowling, I think these are good adaptations. I suspect they'll be definitive, and synonymous with the books, for a long time, like Jackson's Lord of the Rings. What a time to be alive, 2001. Unfortunately I missed both boats. I was busy sorting and re-sorting football cards.

Of course the first few movies are painful for adults without nostalgia -- but they also ramped up, in spurts of excitement, quicker than I remembered. Some cheesy crap persists for half the series, but in another light darkness descends already by the Chamber of Secrets. Gradually it takes over until the only light left is painfully dark-aware. It starts earlier than I remembered, necessary shades from the flat light of youth in the first five or so movies.

Nope

I was fascinated throughout, with little compensation in the end. Most advancements of the movie were either underwhelming or nonsensical. I still figured they were building, based on the movie's reception. Ultimately it was not very interesting and only occasionally thrilling, while the originality felt scattered.

Dune: Part Two

Until the credits hit, I had no thought there could be a Part Three. Now I assume and await it.

Dune is sharp, through senses and story. All it left me to complain about were elements of seemingly deliberate dullness: Fremen society, comic relief, Zendaya's personality. I guess these exist, and are dull, precisely because they smooth the film's edge for the masses. I happen to like austerity. Any warmth in this movie felt out of place. I still like Zendaya here -- that arc is emotional for me -- though she's slightly too... spicy.

Chalamet is much more likable than I expected. In fact, I'm learning from him. I hadn't seen him much before, but now he's kindling an empathy that makes movies last longer than their runtime. I have to severely scale down his messianic context, but I can see myself in his decision-making, see him as a model. Without being the prophesied savior, my life is no less precious to me than his to him. I don't want to like Chalamet, maybe I envy him, but I say he's doing great work.

I'd say the same of most performances. Like I said, Zendaya is not quite right, but that's hardly worth a complaint; it may even be better this way. Otherwise, the Anya Taylor-Joy moment was weird. Too many jarring stars in this movie?

As far as mainstream movies, this goes at 3.5/4.