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.

Nikki Glaser these days

It's getting too dense and mathematical. It used to feel like "she's finding comic gold in every moment" but now it's like "she's forcing comic alchemy in every moment, let me breathe for a sec." The jokes are still good, but it's too dense and calculated as to feel forced. Every other word is a punchline. I think that needs to happen sometimes, but it needs to be balanced with longer setups. If your standup is all about quick punchlines, you need a relaxed delivery with pauses like Hedberg, Wright, Jeselnik. Glaser is anxiously punching us with line after line, good lines, but it's tiring, partly because we feel she must be getting tired of all of this anxious punching. Also the value of an unexpected punchline is not just the quality of the line but the fact that it was unexpected, and Glaser's style forces us to expect big punches every other word. She's not shocking anymore. Her good lines need to be great, or she needs to stop conditioning us to expect such frequent bait-and-switches.

Every joke is a self-referencing web of subjokes, all happening too quickly and consistently to surprise us anymore. But I still think she's a legend.

The Bends

I've heard this is where everything picks up, as distinct from immature Pablo Honey, but the two actually resembled one another pretty closely to me. They say "Street Spirit" is the defining moment in the acceleration (or descent) toward OK Computer... I've never particularly attached to that song. It just isn't quite my style. It's aggro sad, while I prefer melancholy sad. I prefer "Bulletproof" for sad. I prefer maj7s for sad, or at least min7s, not hard minor. "Street Spirit" is hard minor so I never connected, though it's reputed to be the album's clear highlight, like "Blind Willie McTell" foreshadowing Dylan's resurgence. That's another hard minor song I never took a shine to.

So the supposed highlights of The Bends are "Street Spirit" and probably "Fake Plastic Trees". I surely dig the latter, though this duality demonstrates how the album bounces between hard minor and hard major, it's a little too polar. "Nice Dream" is soooo gentle (besides its aggressive bridge!). Still too much grunge left over from Pablo Honey (which will haunt us through OK Computer and even to a small degree later on), and the non-grungey moments aren't typically profound.

My highlights haven't changed since I last listened through this album many years ago: "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Bulletproof". Two of the softest songs, maybe the two softest. Clearly grunge isn't my cup of tea. Nor punk -- some of this album almost sounded like Green Day from the 90s.

It seems obvious this is a progression from Pablo Honey, but not a very ambitious one. They're still a punky angsty band with a lot of talent and too much unbridled anger that they don't know how to harness other than in guitar distortion. Their emotions too easily fall into distortion, one of the cheaper ways to create musical sensation.

I can't say I love this album. Even OK Computer is hit-and-miss for me. I'm all about late-stage Radiohead... though not too late. Mid-stage: 2000-2007

Pablo Honey

Seeds of perfect songwriting and technical innovation blended with cringe grunge. Some likable songs, some talent, some ear scrapeage. I don't feel the need to remember any of these, other than "Creep" of course, which I'll remember more for its impact than its quality.

Packer poles

Highs

• ironically, the first Packer high that comes to mind happened in Minneapolis. I was watching Christian Watson's 3-TD season-turnaround game v Dallas with my close Packer-fan cousins whom I don't see often, at a bar in Minneapolis. This game was big because my renewed fandom was strengthening at the time, the Packers needed a pick-me-up, my connection to these cousins was also strengthening at the time, and I was invested in Watson. Watson was supposed to redeem the Love draft pick and his season start was brutal. This game symbolized a new hope, for Watson and therefore for the post-Love-pick Packers. Which leads me to...
• Rodgers' last win as a Packer, game 16 v Minnesota, which I attended. It was totally critical, to make the playoffs, which felt impossible a few weeks earlier. And it happened, in flying colors. IIRC Jefferson had easily his weakest game of the season, Nixon who was budding had a beautiful return TD, and the Vikings were humiliated. It was needed and it was authoritative. See my Lows for how that story ended.
• blocking the Bears' game-winning field goal last year was pretty lit
• actually, didn't they win that FG shootout where nobody could make a kick? a few years ago. I watched that in Florida with some family and it was a mood
• the last year of Rodgers/Adams was so pleasing to watch, though it was the last

Lows

• game 17 v Lions, Rodgers' last season. IIRC Lions had nothing to play for but pride (spite?), hence began a new division rivalry. I liked the Lions until this game. But in this game I had to watch Jamaal Williams antagonize his former team and watch his current team squash a Packers team who could have done something in the playoffs. You might say they couldn't have, since they couldn't beat the Lions who had nothing to play for. But sometimes loosening up with nothing to lose is exactly what you need, and anyway the Lions proved in the succeeding years that they were no joke. They played us like rivals and thus became rivals in my heart, because this is one of the first Packer seasons I deeply cared about since before ~2010.
• Love's pick that knocked us out of the playoffs two years ago. I was glad it was Love who ruined it, since he's the one who built it, so I didn't feel too tragic about how it ended, but it was tough to see that season end. Things were only looking up, and they hung so tight against a tough team that game.
• Kevin King. No idea when this was, but he blew a promising playoff run
• Watson dropping that opening pass against the Vikings week 1. See my Highs for what he, and that season, meant to me. The Love pick was so hard to stomach, Watson represented our salvation, and he blew it immediately. He never quite redeemed himself, thanks largely but not entirely to injuries.
• playing SF and Tampa in those couple of years in which Rodgers couldn't beat them, especially when it felt like we were making a Super Bowl run

I remember things like Fail Mary, 4th and 26, and the Super Bowl, but they feel remote. I was a different person with different priorities; it's hard to even map those emotions to anything I've felt recently.

KPop Demon Hunters

Easy amusement, which isn't saying much, as its cinematic and musical genres are founded on taking the easiest path to mass amusement. I don't really like the songs -- I haven't really liked any K-pop I've heard -- they all just feel a little factory-generated. The supposedly artsy songwriter of the group can't be very artsy if this is what she produces.

It was easy to pay attention through the duration, and the movie was skillfully crafted -- but skillfully crafted for mass cheap consumption, which lowers its artistic ceiling considerably.

God of War II

Why did I play through God of War II? The answer is as the wind. But here are some things that happened: I grew up in the full joy of video gaming; I beat God of War; I took many years off; I got discontent with the level of drama in my life; I realized I liked epics; I realized a little indulgence now and then doesn't really matter in the grand scheme; I realized the grand scheme is actually pretty brief; I started playing God of War II; I finished playing God of War II.

It wasn't as epic as I remember the first being. There's one scene in the first that really got me, way back when. However, it's -- of course -- generally epic, with the mighty colossus, a whole level of platforms on Atlas' face, etc etc. Epic, mythology, satisfying violence, puzzles... sounds good to me.

And the violence really was satisfying. What a terrific fighting mechanism. The haptics in the controller make it so much better. For most of the game, I just smashed square, with his original weapon, because his original weapon, under the most basic attack, is amazing. Smashing square with the blades of Athena was fast, effective, and so aesthetic. It was enough to take out all of the most elemental enemies. The harder enemies defended and fought back after a few hits, but that attack is fast enough you could connect a few and promptly somersault or jump away. Such a good original attack for a game.

I wish there was a level toward the end that was more epic. And I wish there was a level of basically meleeing a million easy enemies. There was a massive brawl of every enemy in the game, but it was squeezed into various barriers, and it involved plenty of stronger enemies, and I might add was quite stressful... I wanted the satisfaction of just brutalizing an enormous number of easy enemies. I think that would have been pleasing.

Joker 2

Dictated:

I hate how joker two has probably discouraged alt musicals. It's such a cool concept what went wrong first of all Joaquin is not really a singer. He can carry a tune, but it's like gosling in La La Land. He's not really good and his tone is just not a singer tone so listening to Joaquin saying over and over and over isn't pleasant on that note the songs seem to just keep coming in a burden some kind of way. I don't know the distinction between repetition as burden and repetition as thank you for giving me what you said you were going to give me in full dose. I guess that's just a matter of quality whether you want more or less of what identifies the thing in Joker two I wanted fewer musical numbers precisely because they were unpleasant. Why were they unpleasant? Well Joaquin's voice is one thing thing there was nothing musically satisfying about the music. It was just Joaquin poorly rendering old standards usually in a musical, either the singing or the dancing or the instruments are exciting here it was just walking in gray, pretending to be a singer and dancer. Also, his character is not very likable at this point in the series.

The White Lotus

Look no further for a fine little glimpse into some amusing lives, earnestly portrayed. Every actor succeeds in injecting just enough sympathy to keep the lot tolerable, so the series movies from zoo of aristocrats to class of people who believe they're trying their best and are only somewhat delusional in that.

The whole plot feels unstudied, amateur -- starting in medias res with a character arbitrarily chosen, rushing an oddly lightweight death at the end, and every spontaneity in between -- but the execution is so fluent it feels good all along. Well, maybe I missed some secret genius of the plot, but I suspect the essence of the show is its feel. Said feel isn't wholly contained in the production value, though the scenery, music, etc help. It's primarily contained in the acting and dialogue. These are sharp and naturalistic.

Two secondary elements I appreciated: the choral hymns that sounded a lot like my poignant alma mater song, and the thoughtful arguing about social issues. The former speaks for itself -- I love that stuff. The latter was satisfying because both the woke and the non-woke perspectives were usually portrayed naturally, convincingly, forgivably. I sympathized even with the apparent villains in those conversations, nor scorned the social crusaders. For instance, the family arguing about colonialism -- it was all very thoughtful in a normal, not-stuffy way. I mean the family is stuffy, but they voiced thoughts that normal people think. It was nice to witness such frank relatability in a world that makes you fear breaching these topics yourself.

Thank goodness it's an anthology series so I don't have to feel too much curiosity about the next seasons. I can't imagine continuing; I just believe most TV is a waste of time even when I kind of enjoy it.

The White Lotus

I watched the first three episodes of White Lotus (half the season). I wouldn't go so far as to say people talk like they do irl, but there is something natural and incidental about the happenings, like they weren't curated for TV, they just happened.

Favorite characters: Armond and the dad. The newlywed husband looks and acts like a 6 foot phallus. His wife is just a little pathetic; she too often succumbs to his charisma, she tries too hard to be pleasant. I can't get behind the mom's fixation on Zoom optics, nor Quinn's fixation on gaming, due to my technology aversion, even when those characters seem acceptable otherwise. Olivia and her friend are arrogant. The sad woman is fun, but her ditzy air just can't really be my style; her therapist is too boringly and exhaustingly affirming. That really just leaves the dad, who tries hard to be honest, and Armond, whose actor is fabulous.

Victory Lap and The Corrections

Yesterday I completed The Corrections, that desolate saga of aging. Today I read "Victory Lap" (from Tenth of December), the most heart-burstingly youth-centered thing I've witnessed in a while. The contrast is epic, the whiplash devastating, denouement euphoric. I'd like to think the difference lies not just in the differing subjects of youth and aging, so I can believe aging into and beyond my 30s doesn't place me squarely in the realm of The Corrections, with the realm of "Victory Lap" fully bygone. I'd like to think bearing children like those in "Victory Lap" isn't my only escape from Franzen's nightmare. I'd like to think the tonal discrepancy isn't fully described by the divergent subjects; that Saunders paints a more hopeful picture in general, employing children as his brightest paints but painting brightly nonetheless. I'd like to think one can choose Saunders' worldview, and one can not be deluded.

AI Summary

ChatGPT:

Here’s a comprehensive TL;DR of you as a movie lover, based on your blog Andrew Talks About Movies, Etc.:

🎬 

Your Cinematic Taste, Summarized

🧠 What You Love

• Ideas > Plot: You’re most excited when a movie plays with concepts, psychology, moral tension, or structural creativity. You seem to prefer brains over spectacle.
• Emotional contrast & rising arcs: You’re drawn to stories that give you something to hope for, even if it’s subtle or ironic. You don’t mind bleakness, but only if it feels worth it.
• Aesthetic electricity: You notice and value feeling—whether from score, performance, cinematography, or all three. You respond to movies that pulse.
• Complex but readable characters: You want people who feel like they have hidden depths and internal clarity, not just confusion.
• When form matches theme: You’re impressed when a film’s structure and mood embody its ideas (e.g., temporal disorientation in a story about memory or grief).

😤 What Bugs You

• Pointless nihilism: You have low tolerance for stories that wallow in darkness without a counterbalance of meaning, beauty, or growth.
• Pretension that doesn’t earn its keep: You’re allergic to intellectual posing—films that feel smart but don’t justify it with substance.
• Flatness in sequels and prequels: You’re wary of add-ons that reduce mystery or dilute emotional peaks (e.g., younger Vito in The Godfather Part II).
• Stylistic cowardice: You respect boldness—even flawed—but dislike when filmmakers play it safe, emotionally or visually.
• Unnecessary aesthetic ugliness: You notice when a film chooses dreariness, clutter, or shakiness without purpose.

🌟 Your Ideal Movie Might Be:

A visually distinctive, structurally clever, emotionally rich drama where characters transform visibly under real pressure. It might balance personal intensity with thematic reach, make you think and feel, and leave an aftertaste of wonder or insight, even if bittersweet.

Think: the first Godfather over the second, Boogie Nights before it turns grim, maybe Eternal Sunshine, Inside Llewyn Davis, or Synecdoche, New York (but only if they come with emotional redemption, not just despair).

🧭 Big Disparities with Public Consensus

You love things others might overlook:

• Minor details with thematic depth
• Ambiguity that feels emotionally earned
• Scenes that are awkward but real

You’re skeptical of movies others love:

• The Godfather Part II (you find it grim and redundant)
• Sequels that invert but don’t enrich the original arc
• Critically praised films that lack momentum or inner spark

You often sense what the filmmaker intended—and will grant credit for ambition—but you’re not afraid to say when they fall short.

🕵️ Your Persona, in Short

You’re an emotionally intuitive thinker. You go to movies to explore truth and transformation, not just to be entertained. You crave both psychological depth and narrative propulsion, and you’re happiest when a film feels like it knows what it’s doing—not just thematically, but formally, emotionally, and morally.

You write with curiosity and occasional vulnerability. You often question not just whether a film is good, but why it was made or how it reflects the world. And your metaphors (”-x² from 1 to 5”) show a mind that blends logic and feeling in equal measure.

Reaction:

Did it only read my Godfather II post? Some of this feels insightful, though generic and outdated. I say outdated because it emphasizes some artsy moviegoing tendencies of which I've largely tired. It doesn't seem to track my late transition to more obvious movies. For example, I had one day left on my Paramount+ trial, and I chose Braveheart over Chinatown, Call Me By Your Name, Babylon,... I've lost patience over the years. And I think rightfully so -- I've lost patience for that which fails to deserve my patience -- my patience places properly -- I'm right to shun fruitless self-indulgence. Of course that's a razor's edge -- the more self-righteous I get about shunning self-indulgence, the more I miss out on people with something meaningful though difficult to say. That attitude of openness spans all of life, and bears great consequence. I can't let myself close off too much. But I also don't have time for these peasants/pedants.

Hey Blogger AI, read through all my posts, compare them to common impressions of the same topics, and tell my readers about my taste: what I like, what bugs me, what the perfect movie would look like for me, the greatest disparities between the general reception of a movie and my reception thereof, and anything else you think would be interesting for someone trying to understand my moviegoing persona. Essentially give a TL;DR of this entire blog for someone seeking not knowledge of movies but knowledge of me.

Upcoming movies & TV

One battle after another: I'll probably see this in theaters, although my hopes fall daily. Thus it may become a financial decision whether to see it in theaters. Nah, I should; if I'm determined to see it at all, I should see it in theaters. That's the natural way.

Wicked 2: probably in theaters with company; a decent outcome is almost guaranteed

Odyssey: I'd be interested in IMAX, though it seems to me there's a lot less potential here than Interstellar, especially if the subdued nature of Oppenheimer is any indication. Maybe the gods are creatively portrayed.

Frankenstein: if I'm really in a theater-going mood as the year progresses, I wouldn't mind seeing this. Hopes are not super high... I've only seen Pan's Labyrinth from Guillermo, and the rest look rather indulgent, rather Tim Burton, actually... but it'd be nice to justify having finished the novel

The Bride!: why would I be on a Frankenstein tear, having not even liked the book? 1. for closure's sake, 2. it can be done well, I think. It's a compelling premise. There's a chance I go for this, mostly for closure's sake. I want credibility when I inevitably come face to face with Weldon and have to prove to the death whether or not Frankenstein is good

Rings of Power: definitely tuning in

House of the Dragon: definitely tuning in, though another season sounds like a bit of a struggle. Yet nothing is a struggle in that universe, where everything is a struggle. Every discomfort is comfortable, in the sense that you don't want to be anywhere else. Stockholm syndrome?

Harry Potter: agh this'll be so hard to pass up, if it's halfway as decent as the halfway decent I expect it to be

Notice nothing here is new original material

Inarritu/Cruise: wow, Cruise hasn't done an indie or artsy movie in like 15 years. This is a pivot. Remember when he used to be a well-rounded actor? Also, I wish Innaritu's last two movies would have been better, but he still clearly has some kind of magic

Bugonia: I can't keep up with Yorgos. 3 movies in 3 years, plus I missed Killing and Favourite. I feel compelled to keep up; Poor Things was a ride -- was many rides -- yet there seems to be a ceiling hovering over this man who is more interested in shock than catharsis. I'm torn.

Frankenstein (1931)

Stretching my imagination to believe anyone in the modern world could enjoy this... Okay I can see it, but it's so niche. It's an exceptional moviegoer.

This thing is so ancient. Feels more ancient than the novel published 100 years earlier, because it's a stone age relic of its medium. And it doesn't boast lasting artistic values. One of the greatest films of all time... I'll reserve such labels for movies that can still hold one's interest, or one's pleasure, or anything positive or stimulating.

Game of Thrones

I never loved Dany. I certainly rooted for her a handful of times, and she's a better choice of queen than Cersei, but she never seized my affection like the Starks. That feels strange, like she should have been my hero. First my mind goes to misogyny, considering my three favorite characters were two ubermenschen plus one tomboy. But at the same time, I loved Sansa's strong female leadership in the later seasons. But I didn't love Dany's. So the best way to illuminate my distaste for Dany may be to contrast with Sansa.

As I've said before, I wonder if it's just a matter of acting. Dany carries too much pride. Sansa is proud of her family, but her pride arrives through a history of pain, and when she's smug, you can see the pain in her eyes, and you think she deserves a moment of victory in this infinity of defeat. Dany is smug more often, and I can't see the pain in her eyes. She's a Targaryen after all... it's hard to pity the Targaryens. They are the perfect creatures, who ruled ruthlessly for so long. Dany felt much misfortune, to be sure, it's just that that doesn't come across in her countenance, I guess. When she is sad or hurt, it still feels a little pompous. She just feels like a proud princess, even though she's battling back from nothing. I've never once felt that type of pride from a Stark. So I think there's some smugness in the acting job that fails to convey the history of pain.

Had the actors switched places, how would I have felt? Sansa was smug enough, at times -- especially early on -- that it's possible to imagine her as another distasteful Dany. And I don't think Dany's appearance necessarily forces pomposity; I can see liking her as Jon's sister, for example. So there is something in the acting.

Annie Hall

I rewatched the first hour of Annie Hall. I like what I've seen of Woody Allen, though this movie converts his comic persona a little too literally onto film. It's not as much a work of cinema as a personality vomit. He's constantly telling jokes, without much visual or narrative interest. It's standup meets sitcom.

Diane Keaton is charming, in Woody's irritating way, making them a good pair and her a great grab for this movie.

A lot of the comedy is pretty forced. I'm not sure it really fits as a movie. He's essentially doing standup in between mundane activity and trying to make the transitions look natural.

I really like what I've seen of his standup though.

Braveheart

It is a bit narcissistic: Mel Gibson figures he'll direct and star in a movie that makes him the perfect man. On the battlefield he can't be felled, nor persuaded away from the front lines with his men; among the lassies he's respectful, yet irresistible enough that the French princess swoons at mere talk of him, and dismantles all politics for his rugged sake; he's a brilliant strategist; he's a farmer who speaks Latin and French; he never backs down from his noble cause; and he doesn't have a single flaw (besides the haircut) or ever do a single thing wrong, at least by Gibson's apparent values, which accommodate mass vengeant murder.

I kind of hate Braveheart, for its alleged historical inaccuracies, its self-indulgence, its cliches, and its director/star's alleged personal character. But I enjoyed it well enough, and you can't deny it makes for a decent movie. It mimics all manner of standard epic, though it predates some of those which bias me against it (LotR, GoT, Troy), and it performs effectively, so I can't ding it too much for feeling generic 30 years later. I like epics, especially ones granting me a window into history; and Braveheart does that, however inaccurate it may be. It's still another nation in another period; it's still giving me enough names, places, and events that future consumption of Scottish history may ring some bells. It's still a historical epic, and I think I got the full value of that.

So you might say I like Braveheart despite myself. It's one of the lesser epics I've seen, but it's still an exciting historical epic, so I still liked it. In another director's hands, it might have been a favorite -- William Wallace has so much potential -- in Gibson's hands, it's a competent thrill.

Favorite TV

I was asked my favorite TV show. After deliberating, I said The Office, for sentimental reasons. It was tough not to say Game of Thrones. But then when I think about actually watching Game of Thrones, it's so easy not to say it. It displeased me so much. I'm not a GOT lover; GOT isn't my GOAT.

Game of Thrones is the most intriguing series I've encountered, as intriguing as any piece of media. The world-building and the story-building are thrilling, brilliant, fascinating.

So much for building... Art isn't just about the rising action. Where it all goes is important, too; or where it chooses not to go. Most of Game of Thrones felt like drawn-out (in the sense of hanged-drawn-and-quartered) rising action, that never got anywhere until the despised final seasons. That's why I like those seasons: they offer some sort of resolution, contrasting the miserable wandering of the central few (celebrated) seasons. Typically I'd consider myself patient with hard art, but I felt so unhappy through the midsection of the series, and so giddy at the allegedly cheap ending.

I yearn for GOT/ASOIAF content. I want to revisit all of it, but I actually exhausted the show by watching most of the best parts at least twice, and the books feel tedious knowing how little I care about some of these wretched subplots. So my yearning begins to sound irrational and short-sighted, not self-aware. Yet when I think about the franchise, I get these immediate instinctual impression of beauty and terror, like that flaming sun passing by the camera in the opening credits. I get that waft of icy fire every time I think about it. I long for more. It feels higher and mightier than most of the rest of fiction. But then I think about how it all panned out... how it limps along... weak not from an absence of conviction but from its very conviction to its own brutalizing. How it falls short of its grand promise. How S1 shoots for the stars, and seasons 2-5 land squarely in the heart of the shooter. Best setup for a series of all time; greatest letdown.

Rosemary's Baby

Now this is a real movie, and it's older than Jaws. The contrast couldn't be starker: in a couple of days I watched an old movie that felt stale in every way, and an older movie that felt immediate. Everything about Rosemary's Baby was better than Jaws. I liked all four performances of the two couples. Certain shots struck me as really nice and smartly chosen. I experienced a bit of dread, built by careful screencraft, as opposed to the single moment of jump-scare fear in Jaws. None of this movie made me cringe with cheesiness; several scenes made me feel relieved to be watching a decent movie.

To my surprise, most of it was closer to psychological drama than horror. And it built slowly, with lots of pleasant material.

It reminded me of Shutter Island, with its anagram and its dubitable sanity, although Rosemary's Baby left no ambiguity by the end. Farrow's Rosemary reminded me of Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive or other Lynch blondes, enduring surreal dreams and a descent into hell, comprising heroic acting.

It was a little more straightforward than I would have liked, a little less scary, but I liked this movie. I received a 10 minute call at the very climax, which threw my nerves into an ice bath. Too bad. For the first few minutes of that call I felt paranoid and out-of-body, so engrossing was said climax; but you could say that by the end of the call, I'd ruined the climax for me. Not recommended, to slice a climax like that -- that's why more of the movies we watch should be in theaters.

Jaws

Jaws is a classic -- a classic example of how classics crumble and how everyone talking about classics is wrong. Contrary to everything I've ever heard about this movie, 50 years rendered it powerless to human feeling. Everyone in the room left totally underwhelmed. It wasn't scary, it wasn't moving, it wasn't informative, it wasn't even very entertaining.

I'm just so tried of people's inability to distinguish then from now, influence from timelessness. Let's face it: most old movies suck. In fact, most new movies suck too, but they're usually more entertaining. Almost every movie more than 20-30 years old sucks and has lost its luster. Coincidentally, I started watching movies 20-30 years ago -- but I think that 20-30 year period will actually roll on as I age, and whether I admit it or not, movies I grew up with will suck.

Movies age worse than other forms of art. We can still marvel at paintings and symphonies centuries later -- they can still be masterful and moving. Yet in the relatively short history of film, only a tiny few have endured with any sort of glimmer. Mostly they are artifacts. To find a time when paintings were merely artifacts, you're going back almost to cave art. Films age so fast.

Why? I suppose it's because they're usually engineered for maximum stimulation, and what stimulates people changes quicker than what classical music and classical visual art are engineered for (artistic innovation, contemplation, serene beauty, showcasing a single person's technical training without much technology involved,...). Film is the most stimulating and entertaining of the major media, so it must depend on the sensibilities of the era, nay, the very year, of its release. Other art forms may rely on timeliness, but probably not so instinctually. For example, a sculpture of the king shocks everyone in the 1700s because it's not as flattering as expected, or his pose is too sultry. That timeliness is more conceptual though, and can still be considered interesting centuries later. A film's timeliness may partly be conceptual like that, but it is also usually instinctual, meaning when that year's collective instincts wear off, a massive degree of the film's value wears off. The film is not built for interest, it's built for instinct, and to optimize its immediate impact, it's built for that year's instincts. Basic human instincts may be nearly timeless, but a film is supplementing that with so many highly timely instincts. It's in fact relying on the latter, because its examination of the former isn't developed enough. It's optimizing for immediate impact, and not focusing much on timeless values.

So part of the problem is the profitability of film relative to other media -- it's optimized for immediate profit because it's capable of immediate profit. Another part of the problem is film began in an era of quicker technological and cultural advancements than media like painting and music, so things go outdated quicker.

This could become a 100-page dissertation, but I don't have time.

Twin Peaks

It's all so confusing and disappointing. Not confusing because Lynch scorns coherence, confusing because it's disappointing, while the general populace doesn't seem to agree. I'll admit again I didn't experience this all anything like it was intended. I skipped so many episodes, and skipped the 25 year gap. But I just don't get the appeal.

I enjoyed the pilot, some moments in the first two seasons, much of Fire Walk With Me, and basically none of The Return. FWWM was a highlight -- super intense. Some of the most memorable scenes of the whole set involved Laura, so those must have mainly been in FWWM when she's still alive. But I also have fond memories of Dale, who isn't much featured in FWWM, so that's from the first two seasons. I'm also into BOB, who's legitimately terrifying. Most good moments involve either Cooper or BOB. The episode that unmasks Laura's killer had some good Leland moments too. The Red Room was solid, but got totally wearisome in The Return.

The Return was at almost all times either tedious or silly. I don't get it.

I remember hanging on every jumbled word mumbled in the Red Room in S1. By S3 I was skipping those scenes. Who would have the time for this whole series??

I definitely feel something for Twin Peaks. Years later I may want to rewatch a few good moments. The first few episodes of all got me pretty excited, like when I saw the first few of GoT. So much was building, while Cooper and others were surprisingly pleasant. And some of it did pay off, but only very occasionally throughout S1, 2, and FWWM. Only occasionally. But it did. The Return never paid off. But I have some fond memories of the earlier stuff. Some good frights too.

The Accountant 2

This is one of those sequels that didn't need to happen -- one that'll forever dangle vestigially off its predecessor -- one that'll go down in history as a mindless milking of a piece that didn't ask to be milked -- an udder moolestation (thanks ChatGPT). This is so typical for sequels, I know it is, but I'm not usually involved with such material, so it's still kind of confounding for me. Through my family I'm involved with this franchise, though, so I'm confronted with this mainstream conundrum of a parasitic appendix for the first time in a while.

Not only did it not need to happen, it apparently didn't know how to make it happen. It focused on the wrong things, such that it feels less like a sequel and more like there was a completely separate screenplay that wasn't deemed good enough to stand alone, so we subbed in the superficialities of The Accountant to gain that base audience. "This screenplay isn't terrible, but it won't make money, so how about we make it look like a sequel to The Accountant? Shouldn't take too much rewriting, and we'll instantly tap that whole fanbase, particularly the Bien's, who make up most of our views." It resembles its predecessor basically just in superficial characters and being a standard action movie.

The first installation at least tried to say something about autism, brothers, accounting... this one doesn't. It's just an action movie. Christian doesn't do any accounting, nor is his autism displayed in any kind of natural way. Not knowing much about autism myself, I would guess that community would decry this movie's inconsistent portrayal. Maybe I'm wrong and it got the autism right, I just doubt it based on its juvenile handling of other elements.

Some of the pacing was weirdly misguided. There were extended frivolous sequences, like the blind dating and the line dancing, that seemed intended to build character, but came off instead like those deleted scenes you occasionally encounter that you can't believe they even considered including in the movie... only in this case, not only were they considered, they were included. One problem here is the writers leaned too heavily and overtly on humor. If you're going to stall the action so long, it'd better really build character or really be funny.

Sicario

Sicario flows like the waters of Wisconsin: all sharing a general direction, but multitudinous, under multitudinous influences, winding and pooling at varying rates. Most fiction is more like the mighty Mississippi, fed by many factors but barreling forward with identity, usually in the form of a main character's personal development; Sicario focused on an arbitrary cross section of tributaries.

And I mean arbitrary -- I'm not sure why the writer chose Kate's perspective. She's a secondary character, a protagonist chosen at random. She was our hero, who ended up not being a hero; nor did she become a villain; nor did anyone else take her place. The movie left us heroless. That's okay when the whole point of the thing is moral ambiguity -- for another heroless Josh Brolin movie, see No Country for Old Men -- but this one wasn't satisfying like that one. If I remember right, that one never gave Llewelyn a protagonist's soul; I mean it was shocking when he died, but it wasn't emotionally unsatisfying like Kate never proving her strength or conquering the forces she's up against. If I remember right, NCFOM never set up Llewlyn for that kind of conflict. Anyway, Sicario has this strange ambiguity that doesn't definitively define the movie, yet precludes the movie from any other sort of definition. It's surprising to see Kate so unfulfilled by the end.

Speaking of ambiguity, I hate when characters needlessly, suavely, withhold information from the protagonist. This is so common in movies. It's all over this one. It really brings down the writing. I dislike Josh Brolin altogether here, not just his cocky character, but his cheesy action movie performance. He brings Kate along for the ride and tells her to be a sponge; that's what it's like to watch the movie. It's so confusing, partly because characters chronically conceal info for no reason other than being in a cheesy movie.

Some of the movie was pretty cool. I like the moral ambiguity too, it just missed the delivery, in a way that I'm struggling to communicate. In an effort to be gritty and ambiguous, it ended up unsatisfying.

Not a bad movie though, and I liked some of the artsy shots. I really disliked some of the dialogue.

Twin Peaks S3E3-7

Even aggressively skipping through each episode is almost too tedious to bear. Of course, it wouldn't feel so tedious if you really just sunk into them, not expecting efficient delivery. But I have not nearly the time for that, so I'm feeling really impatient. I really can't imagine this being a good season of TV. It's almost a comedy at this point, it's so silly and random. Or... it's bad TV.

I know I can't judge the series, having not watched it at all like it was intended. It's just worth pointing out how hard it is to imagine this being good.

Twin Peaks S3 beginning

Oof, if I wasn't somewhat Lynchianly experienced I would write this off. It's pretty poor. Even being somewhat Lynchianly experienced, I can only spot a couple of compelling features amid the muck. Full slice of bleh with just a dollop of intrigue on top. I watched the first episode and a half and it's hard to see how this can pay off. There are lots of new storylines, which are disappointing to have to begin, while the old stuff e.g. Red Room seems to have a low ceiling. Now, the new storylines could turn out great, and the old stuff probably has lots of untapped potential, otherwise why was this made, but it's just a little hard to see. For example, how many more hours can we endure Cooper staring silently at various cryptic figures? It needs to either get more stimulating (the wonder of the Red Room wears off, or maybe that's just because I watched the old series and the new one back to back, no decades in between) or get more coherent. Okay, it's early in the season, it's fine to kick off some stuff without explanation, I'm just a little weary immediately after going through the older material. I'm already impatient for some escalation, I guess. It's hard to see how the Red Room can escalate, but I bet it can. Also, come on, you just have to admit that Lynch is almost intolerable sometimes, with his corny dialogue that always prefaces the action. It's like when I showed someone Mulholland Drive, they commented "this is so bad!" halfway through, and then ended up getting their mind blown off -- Lynch is easily mistaken for poor filmmaking, at least in his rising action. Even by the end, in an alternate universe, you can imagine everyone agreeing he produces crap -- he sets the stage with some cheesy junk and then spins it into self-indulgent incoherence masquerading as originality. Ultimately, I like Lynch, and he's notable, though I'm not gaga like many folks.

I figured finishing FWWM and starting The Return in the same night was a bad idea, but I did it anyway, and this is what I get. I figured there belongs some volume of space in between. It's almost part of the show, that empty space, like John Cage's 4'33" or the forgone resolutions in a jazz solo. The negative space in a painting. Sometimes it's about what you don't say. And the emotional arc of the Twin Peaks fan in those intervening decades, in which Lynch said nothing of Dale Cooper, Laura Palmer, the town, or anything related, is as much a part of The Return as the shuffling and coughing of the audience in 4'33". I skipped those introspective decades, rushing from the climax of brutality and surrealism that is the end of FWWM to the patient unfolding of S3. If it's anything like his other work, it's a thickly folded piece of paper with something written inside that takes painstaking hours to reveal. Typically what it says inside is just where to find the next brutal bit of origami, and so on, until Lynch dies, which has now happened, so I guess we never find where this all leads. The point is probably just the process of the unfolding, not the message inside.

Twin Peaks and Fire Walk With Me

I heard FWWM was disappointing after S1&2, but it seemed really seamless. In fact, I think I'll have trouble remembering which events happened in which. Granted, I blazed through S1&2, but FWWM was totally in accord. I think I'll just remember it as being the prequel, which will imply to my memory that it must be Laura's story, distinct from S1&2 which were post-Laura. But that's indirect memory; directly, it blends right in with the rest.

Sheryl Lee deserves some respect for this film. Did they know she could do this when she signed up for basically just being a homecoming portrait in Twin Peaks? This is a classic Lynch task, like Watts or Dern in their respective films: "a girl in trouble" conveying all manner of joy and anguish. Also conveying conventional cheese. Also being sexually vulnerable to the max. It's a role of utter abandon, which is what Lee gives it.

Everything Twin Peaks-related is more brutal and more surreal than I expected. I thought it'd be subdued in the supernatural like Blue Velvet, while tonally tame enough for TV. FWWM certainly bucks both expectations, probably more than the series, possibly because it's a movie. But even the series is pretty extra. Where it's not extreme in its violence, sexuality, or insanity, it's extreme in its misery. I mean these characters are miserable, without redemption! Is that what S3 is for? Redemption for these characters, long after viewers were eternally changed by the tragedy of the first two seasons? Yet I can picture BOB, aged 25 years further, snickering at the suggestion that S3 finds any satisfying morsel of justice. More likely, the reality is that the folks in Twin Peaks are doomed to senseless haunting by malevolent spirits, and that's that. Anyone who tries to save them will go insane at best, get raped and murdered at worst. Actually, worst case scenario is getting brainwashed into raping and murdering your daughter first, which is exactly what happened to Leland. I doubt there's any justice for all this misery. I don't recommend living in Twin Peaks.

Twin Peaks: S1-2

Twin Peaks devotees, you'll want to Oedipus yourself before reading this. No, leave your mom alone -- I mean you won't want eyes for what I'm about to write.

I just watched the pilot, E2, parts of E3,7,8, S2E1, parts of 7 and 9, and then 22. Somewhere in there I started Fire Walk With Me.

What could possess a man to pursue this path of chaos and treachery? Two friends, one LLM, and a mild identity crisis.

Twin Peaks has been on my list for decades. Maybe it was Lynch's passing, or some offhand comments lately, coupled with my recent successes with a few other series, that launched me in. It was so appetizing to cross it off my list, and I got the sense I could skip around, eschewing subplots and tonal meditations for the sake of the crucial scenes alone. ChatGPT was far better counsel on this than I expected. I mean I have no way to confirm, but its advice sounded really measured.

The identity crisis is YOLOing myself into everything I want to watch vs. YOLOing myself into deliberate living, surgically sucking all of the marrow out of life. I gave the latter many years' glorious reign, if not wholly successfully, while GoT introduced me to the former. My path with Twin Peaks is the middle path, perhaps not a YOLO path at all -- a many-lives path, we'll call it.

Twin Peaks: Pilot

As Blue Velvet suffered after Mulholland Drive raised my expectations, so Twin Peaks profits on Blue Velvet's letdown. The plot is nothing abnormal, but you always figure Lynch could do something unexpected at any moment, and anyway the execution is oddly satisfying. I hadn't felt that with Lynch before: simple pleasure without a mind-warp. To give a clearer example, I can't say I've ever found a single moment of a Lynch movie funny, and this pilot offered a few. There's even a fun bit in which Cooper disproportionately enjoys the natural wonders of Twin Peaks and brings them up at the wrong times. That's not necessarily getting laughs, but it's pleasant. Cooper is altogether pleasant. I really wasn't thrilled with Maclachlan in Blue Velvet but he wears pride and pleasantness in proper portions. I like his style, with the dark suit and slick hair. I like him a whole lot more than in Blue Velvet.

So there are the obvious Lynch signatures, but it's more conventional than the others I've seen, and surprisingly nice. It's just an intriguing plot with some decent scenes.

Inception

Fire. This was way better than I remembered. It's been haunting my watchlists for 15 years, my subconscious must have known it was a true classic of my generation. I watched it I believe twice in high school. I saw it in theaters; I was annoyed how everyone was calling it deep. I thought it was cheesy, perhaps deep in plot but shallow in substance. Shockingly I remembered very little of it. All the better -- thus it became a fresh thrill this time around.

This has all of the elements of a good Nolan movie: it's mind-bending and epic while blending straightforward action with psychological mining. Oppenheimer has the last bit; Tenet a couple of the others; Inception joins Interstellar in striking every key.

It also features the standard stupidity of a Nolan movie. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is insufferable, and every other actor puts on some flavor of the same dumb suave. I blame Nolan more than I blame the actors. His idea of cool is fading with his generation -- it's overdone and cringey now.

Cotillard's character is provocative, though I regret her overarching affect is like a clingy witch: she can't let her husband live his real life, she must haunt him with wide wicked eyes, beckoning him back in her cauldron of id. She ended up being a sensible choice for Lady Macbeth, years later.

The top definitely wobbles at the end. Not as ambiguous as I remember it being.

Am I saying I love Inception? No, but I'm storing it in my memory as not only a meme of my generation (saying "inception" is to younger millennials what saying "the matrix" is to older millennials) but a classic of my generation. I couldn't see it at the time, but this movie did what it needed to do. I'll double down on the Matrix comparison: it planted philosophy in many minds, not an easy thing to do. It thrilled those inclined to the sensory and those inclined to the cerebral alike. It may have even turned the sensory cerebral and re-grounded the cerebral in the sensory. It missed me... I must have been just out of sync, in fact just joining the cerebral, therefore too proud of my new status. Inception would have been a regression at the moment I needed nothing but advancement, so I rejected it. It was too overtly cerebral and too unapologetically sensory at a time I needed actual sophistication. The funny thing is, for my sophistication, I'm sure I didn't understand the movie. I think that's one reason I don't remember much of it -- I must have been lost. It took full adulthood before I started keeping up with intricate plots. But I needed subtler art and secret intellect, and this movie was too gaping and gawking and obvious... and popular.