Rings of Power S1E2

Fair blend of grand arc (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Sauron, the rings) and fleeting heartstrings (the mortals, the struggles). If the show's vision wasn't so watered down for mass consumption -- if it was all about executing the vision -- I'd say they're doing a great job. All oars pull in the same direction, it's just the direction that's as uncontroversially central as possible. They risk not getting anywhere meaningful. They risk, so immediately, becoming utterly forgettable.

If this is indeed Gandalf, they designed him well. I'll be hard to please, as he learns the languages of Middle Earth and develops personality, but so far so good. They haven't yet insulted one of my favorite characters in all fiction.

I hope they make something great of this. Make something at all; stand out; assert a strong vision; tell us you know Tolkien better than we do, you know how to make him shine. I'm so glad the show is littered with familiar names. I couldn't get into some odd offshoot. I need the greater arc, I need it so.

Squid Game

The games are cool. The dialogue is totally cheesy. It's especially insufferable when the Americans show up -- it's like it's directly translated from Korean and none of the actors bothered to make it more natural than that. Also, is 69 a new joke in Korea?

Games cool, dialogue rough, story good, production values crisp. I can't deny it's a decent show. I'm a handful of episodes in, though I've skipped over lots of chatter in the last few, mostly focusing on the action. I don't really want to continue, at least not on my own. I mean I want to, but I doubt I will, on my own.

Rings of Power S1E1

It's novel to see Galadriel as merely another elf. In the next age, she's one of just a few great elves, but in this age, she and Elrond are still striving among many peers. They must be the ones with the courage to stick around and defend Middle Earth when all others retreat.

Elrond is so odd looking, but proper, in that he has to evolve into Hugo Weaving. Galadriel as well is cast as a precursor to Cate Blanchett. Each operates effectively, if a little too seriously. All in all I am pleased that we're dealing with these two familiar and admirable characters, and I'm pleased how they're portrayed so far.

DEI reigns, and I don't mind, other than it feels a little detached from Tolkien, for better or worse. Can't complain about an attempt to compensate for historical suppression though, whatever the risk of overcompensation. I don't think there's much risk of that so far. Just enough compensation that it's worth calling out. I don't like seeing the efforts of the artist in the art, thus I don't like seeing artistically cheap diversity efforts, but that's the thing, I'm not seeing the artist in the art here, I'm seeing the business in the product. It's not really art at all.

The ending was a thrill, akin to the final minutes of S1 of GoT. You got to imagine who's buried in the fiery crater, and it's elation. And it's full of questions, like that first glimpse of Dany and her dragons rising from the ashes.

Gil-Galad doesn't get the honor I'd expect! And Elrond isn't wholly noble, similar to Jackson's LotR. I think they intentionally harmonized with Jackson in a few areas. I'm glad. It is interesting how much conflict we see among elves, though, these nearly flawless creatures.

This episode was better than expected. I thought it would be pure Wonder Bread but it had some real grain, and some nice jam on top. The visuals were strong, if not too interesting. The characters were about what you'd expect. I mean they can't go full GoT -- Tolkien was YA-oriented after all -- so some blend of cheese and grandeur is expected.

Are these folks hobbits? Pre-hobbits? Hobo erectus?

I enjoyed the moment the meteor hit and Galadriel simultaneously took her plunge. You were thinking the meteor was evil, but alas, evil is revealing itself just as, not coincidentally, a savior is sent (a bit too Superman perhaps) and as Galadriel can no longer ignore the pull. What's cool about the simultaneity is Galadriel and presumably Gandalf strike out toward Middle Earth at the same moment, our dual saviors of the Third Age, in total sync. I love that they're secret friends, though you wonder if Rings of Power will take the romantic angle of the Hobbit movies.

Similarities to House of the Dragon: lead actor who almost looks like probably the same person (the Targaryens really are the Eldar right); casting Black in races their predecessors did not; electing a woman-driven plot out of many possibilities; same start year; similar shoes to fill. GoT was "Sopranos in Middle Earth", and HoD was the prequel; now RoP is HoD in Middle Earth, and The Many Saints of Newark is the prequel (?).

I think I will only let myself do RoP if I exercise every time all the whiles, and write about every episode.

Finishing things

I think I should relax my expectations that acclaimed works will pay off by the end, when I'm a third of the way through and it's not working. I like finishing things, I like closing off experiences, I like having fewer fully-processed experiences than many poorly-rounded experiences. So I prefer to finish something over start another thing. Less clutter in my head, more rounded ideas; more depth, less breadth.

But this breaks down when finishing the experience takes a long time. I'm several episodes into Squid Game, yet finishing the season alone, not to mention tackling the 2nd and 3rd, is daunting when I'm not getting everything I wanted out of it. I'm definitely CURIOUS how it all goes... which apparently was enough to canonize GoT for me... and I don't dislike the series at all, but it's just not quite hitting. I think I have to abandon it, understanding if it doesn't hit now, it probably won't hit, however great the ending could be.

The thing is, the greatness of an ending leans on the greatness of the rising action. If I'm not into the rising action, the ending probably can't pay off, however intrinsically good. You can't really take it intrinsically.

So I need to be more willing to abandon things despite my curiosity and despite rave reviews. Mass audiences and critics are just wrong sometimes, and other times they just don't match my taste.

I can be a little gentler with movies though. Those don't take long to finish, and if I hadn't finished Aguirre, I may always wonder.

Poor Things

First 20 minutes: sensational. Next 2 hours: empty. Ending: flop.

Of Lanthimos I've seen Dogtooth and The Lobster. I don't recall either being particularly visual, just conceptually audacious, but Poor Things was both. Lanthimos is continuously bold in concept. I'm delighted to learn he's brought visuals into the mix over the years. Poor Things is one of the more visually interesting movies I've seen, though I say that as a shallow patron of the visual. It's maximalist, and I don't mind that. I could use more of that. It's not just maximalist, it's decadent, and it needs that style to stand on when its plot falters.

The plot severely failed the early promise. 45 minutes could have been cut with no loss in artistic merit or invigorated experience. I thought of Under the Skin and like movies whose narrative development distracts from the originality and intensity of the premise. I'm not saying nothing should happen, but it must carefully preserve the original sheen. Poor Things is even worse than Under the Skin in this regard. It wanders mercilessly, through so many miserable, heartless sexcapades, through characters without meaning, through travel destinations that contribute nothing to the story. Emma Stone, a simpleton, is brutalized by so many gross men. I guess once she passes her second adolescence it's really her choice (her body) so I can't feel sorry for her there. But it is not enjoyable to witness. Even without the unfortunate sexual forays, the plot is just bad. Premise good, plot bad.

Emma Stone abandons all: posture of intellect, girl-next-door relatability, wit, clothing, anything else I can identify with her prior acting. She thrusts herself into a cognitively regressive, sexually aggressive role. It is not flattering, and I don't just mean her baby-walk -- the entire part does not suggest any charm of classical acting. She excelled through charisma in La La Land, Crazy Stupid Love and otherwise. She has plenty of it. It does not make an appearance in Poor Things. She has stupefied all charm for this part. I don't know whether she plays it well, I just know she plays it with abandon. I don't really think she deserved the Oscar, but I do think she deserves kudos for diving into a role many would find humiliating.

Beyond the story, the script is poor. Attempts at poetry just sound contrived -- as contrived as the British-accented Mark Ruffalo uttering them. And the comedy -- Lanthimos does black comedy, right? -- is a whiff. Almost every joke sounds forced. Perhaps he or the writer just doesn't really have a good sense of humor. Just not a humorous person. Each joke just sounds unhumorous.

So the concept and the visuals win; the plot and script lose.

Willem Dafoe has been used many ways, from Christ to Antichrist to the Green Goblin. This is the right way. Make him even more hideously grand than he naturally is.

I think the end was supposed to be really satisfying. It really wasn't. I think it was supposed to be because I've seen satisfying endings of similar flavor. The abusive husband is turned into a goat, the titular poor thing smiles in sick revenge and we all feel glad for her. But it wasn't satisfying. The middle section took too long, wore us out. The husband wasn't in the movie long enough to justify the treatment.

Booooo Ruffalo and Jerrod. Was Jerrod's accent supposed to be in the same universe as everyone else's? And Ruffalo degrading himself was not pleasing to watch, not like Tom Cruise in Magnolia. If you're going to be despicable, be believable. Ruffalo's performance just leaned toward the silly without actually becoming funny.

There's definitely gender commentary in this female lead, despite the author, screenwriter, and director all being male. You could be satisfied by the husband-as-goat at the end, like you were satisfied by the boyfriend-as-bear at the end of Midsommar. Or you could say what one critic said: is this really the feminism we want? Liberation from the patriarchy just entails liberation from caring when men take advantage of you? I can vouch for at least one strong point of the movie's commentary though: Bella's loss of purity sickened me like it sickened the men trying to control her in the movie, and I guess that's the point. I also heard from a friend that his fiancee loved the movie while he thought it was a bit gratuitous. Maybe that's unrelated, but I certainly felt it got gratuitous, and I certainly didn't enjoy seeing her in these unpleasant sexual situations with these power-hungry guys. I wonder if I would have felt that way if Lanthimos had toned it down a little -- made each affair a little more mutual, or each man a little cleaner, or the number of affairs fewer. Again, this movie is maximalist, so Bella has maximum "furious jumping." Maybe if Lanthimos didn't take it to 100 I wouldn't have felt the repulsion at her loss of innocence. Maybe I would have felt proud of her. But I felt a little repulsion, and so I reflect on that repulsion, and realize it's a similar repulsion the gross men feel in the movie, and realize it's not Bella that's repulsive, nor any loss of innocence; all of this is entirely voluntary. Where the movie may falter is its suggestion that Bella is liberated for simply not caring that everyone wants to control her. Ideally, liberation entails a squashing of said control.

I don't think I'll try other Lanthimos movies unless I just really get in the mood for a movie, particularly a distinctive one. Lanthimos is good for that stylish movie craving, if it comes around again, but he doesn't stack up with my favorites. He isn't someone I need to seek out. That said, I have little opposition to seeing his forthcoming sci fi movie in the theater. I've never experienced Lanthimos at the same time as everyone else -- always years later. And never in a theater. It would be something to see him new, in a theater. But in general I don't feel the need to keep up with him or go back and watch The Favorite, Sacred Deer, or Kinds of Kindness. He just doesn't quite hit me right. He's interesting, he's film buff material, or hedonist material, but he tends to fall short of what I want from him. Poor Things is as acclaimed as anything he's done, and it missed its potential.

Everybody's... with John Mulaney

I skimmed the LA version and the first episode of the new one.

Trite to call it chaotic, but Mulaney is this amazing gravity centering it all. Centering on what? Being funny, because this is comedy, so that's all you need. Bo Burnham's standup is extremely ADD but I wouldn't call it chaotic because it's all funny, and that's all you need. Everybody's... is not all funny, thus it permits the chaotic characterization, yet Mulaney is consistently funny and humane himself, thus single-handedly handling the chaos. It's actually stunning how he manages this, he on paper not being an experienced wrangler of live chaos.

So it's an interesting show in terms of comedic style. It's really unpredictable, even to its host. Lots of it completely flops. If discomfort makes you uncomfortable, you might start looking at Mulaney as a messiah, constantly flipping other people's flops, tirelessly -- he looks tired though -- rescuing us from unfunny awkwardness, even though he created the thing himself! It's giving Stockholm syndrome, or God saving us from the evil that God created. Mulaney creates chaos only to become the "spirit moving over" it. What an ambitious and egomaniacal objective. I wish I was the one giving form to void, to the ecstasy of millions.

Update: is there another show in which the audience constantly cheers for things other than what the guests are saying, to the constant confusion of the guests? What a singular TV moment, which is happening multiple times per episode.

Taste

I like my movies epic and/or highly stylized

Squid Game: first 2.5 episodes

Pros:

• real mature violence
• cool fantasy land

Cons:

• childlike characters
• slow predictable development

Bold to do a whole episode on character development so soon. They must really bank on their hook in E1. For anyone who roughly knows the premise of the series, though, the hook in E1 is expected, so E2 just feels like more predictable backstory. The characters aren't complex enough to warrant this diversion; they're all pretty archetypal. They're also dumb -- like they can't see what's coming.

While mature in premise and violence, I fear the show is already too immature in writing to give me much hope that it all pays off, even though (as usual) I'm curious how it pans out and hopeful for a colossal mind-melt.

Recent movie reflections

L'Avventura and Aguirre: amazing premise, disappointing experience

Northman, Wolf of Wall Street, American Psycho, Mad Max: straightforward, adequate

In the Mood for Love, The Book Thief: you can't really complain, nor can you cheer

Parasite, The Menu: at least it tried something

Watching so many movies in such a sprint leaves me searching. I get the sense no movies out there truly tap the medium's potential. What comes closest? I'm feeling epics. Not epics like what Wikipedia calls Boyhood and The Irishman. Those are just lengthy stories. I'm talking medieval, space, high fantasy,... I also had a recent image of a movie filmed from an alpine bird's perspective. Not relaxing bird business, nor Pixar drama, but like actual bird drama, fighting the elements and migration and other birds. That sounds epic, in visuals and story. It sounds more satisfying than any other movies I'm watching. Why doesn't something like that exist? It doesn't have to be birds -- it just has to be epic and inspiring and immersive.

Things that came closest for me in recent years: GoT, Harry Potter, Interstellar, LotR,... lot of fantasy in there. Oh and Synecdoche with its grandiosity and magical realism. I suppose magical realism promises something for me, if it shoots higher than Murakami. Even The King, a basic movie, operated on the right sphere. Les Mis yes, Napoleon for some reason no. Wicked yes, albeit a little too juvenile.

300 looks too hedonist, Lawrence of Arabia too dry, Ten Commandments too old. 2001 works. Magnolia works, in length, breadth, and magical realism, even though it's highly human. I like humans fighting greater forces, which may be true there, but the forces are too hidden.

What do I need?

Someone other than Nolan to do The Odyssey. Scorsese and Leo? PTA? I have no idea.

Dune 3

GoT expansion. Winds of Winter, for one. Not spinoffs but extensions, like what happened to everyone afterward.

That bird movie idea I mentioned.

Artsier Troy. Someone super respectable to try The Iliad.

Authoritative King Arthur. I've never seen or read anything on him, but it seems promising.

Authoritative Divine Comedy. Same, never seen any adaptations of this. I'm going to imply "authoritative" for all of these actually. Peter Jackson's LotR was authoritative, no need to redo those. They were big-budget, critically acclaimed, and popular. That's authoritative. They expanded the canon of the original.

Paradise Lost? Okay, you know what I'm saying -- epic adaptations of rich classics.

But not just adaptations. I want some original stuff too. I just don't have the patience to try imagining that right now.

American Psycho

American Psycho was a a movie, combining all of the pleasure of sitting there with the thrill of watching a screen. The sights and sounds suggested events, and sometimes those events were exaggerated. Indeed, when the illusion of motion flooded the television, I knew my emotions would play along with this deliberate suspension.

This film captures Christian Bale pretending to be a serial killer. He elicits fear and loathing, but not toward himself; rather we loathe what he is pretending to be, which they call character, while Bale himself remains unscathed. In fact, the more he acts like a serial killer, the more one might admire Bale, while simultaneously harboring no admiration for serial killers themselves. It's this contradiction that excites the viewer, seeing acts played out that they would not actually want to witness, or more accurately would fear to witness; yet it's harmless and anonymous in this case. Film like no other medium immerses one in such multi-sensory theatrics, and American Psycho was above all else a film. It is also a book but I'm not referring to that.

3/4 stars as a movie, 2/4 stars as a way to spend my night

How some recent watches fit in the bigger picture

Kevin Hart: Reality Check

This is good. This is good news for Kevin. I was worried after his last... three?... specials. That's a long losing streak. Of course he was winning in every other celebrity-oriented fashion, which I figured eclipsed his standup chops. Those things happen. You lose the motivation to practice, you get too loose.

The Tom Brady roast turned things around. I loved him in that. It made me hopeful for his new special. Between that and Northman, I justified the shortest unit of Peacock available and dove in.

It's just good comedy. His writing has rarely been elite, but his delivery sure is. He can make cheap jokes hilarious. And sometimes he writes some really good stuff. That has slowed down in recent years, even in this special, but at least in this one he blends a bit of writing with a bit of delivery instead of entirely depending on charisma and reputation like in the last few.

The Northman

Simple Hamlet story with a little paranormal intrigue, a little abstract art, an adequate amount of good clean (dirty) viking content, and a protagonist without a personality. Northman : Game of Thrones as The Batman : the Nolan trilogy. The former are so serious! I like that though. I just wish Amleth was more likable. Skarsgard is ideal for the role in form, but not in affect. Again, it feels like Pattinson's Batman who's so grim you can't really feel the tension of his potential demise. If he falls, he doesn't fall very far, right? I'll call on another grim revenge flick there too: Leo in The Revenant is so dead in all essence he may as well be in all actuality. It's hard to root for such a barren protagonist. Skarsgard is a brutal desert. How can we avoid a desert protagonist when all they've known is fear and anger? Ironically, Dune offers a clinic. Paul is charismatic, competent, growing, impressionable, wise, measured. Amleth is just a machine.

I think this is my first Eggers. I thought he'd be more visionary. Beyond a few inspired scenes -- eschewing subtlety, as I wanted! -- this was so basic. It's hard for me not to like a classic viking tale... indeed I liked it... but it wasn't very original, or even a transcendent formulation of an old form. It was just a tough tale well-told.

I can handle a very serious movie -- I might even prefer it -- but I'd like there to be some joy or love at stake. The Northman, like The Revenant, was long robbed of such hopes; revenge was the only thing at stake, which makes a very serious movie a slog. Model grim character who's still driven by prospects of love and joy: Ned Stark.

Amleth showed no hint of achieving joy or love, so I showed no hint of investing in his plight. I simply sat behind the poker table and watched.

I wonder what Keith Urban thought of his wife's performance. His taste probably ranges from Country Strong to Yellowstone. Eyes Wide Shut and The Northman fall just a bit outside that range.

I'm surprised Anya is a highly-sought heroine, as she's definitely not a stunner. But I can see how she has some kind of magnetism. She's like a fully conscious bombshell, minus being a bombshell -- that is, for people who find consciousness sensual. I'm biased though because someone told Erik she's his type. Once you hear someone is someone's type, you start to see it, especially if you typically empathize with that person.

The Book Thief

As expected: the voiceover was terrible, the acting failed to communicate the gravity of the book, everything was watered down for mass consumption, and more than anything the story lost a whole lot of interest by losing its narrator. This movie is so run-of-the-mill, while the book was remarkable.

It wasn't the child actors' fault. Liesel and Rudy were actually great, and aligned with the spirit of their literary counterparts. That's an achievement for literary adaptation. Somehow bringing in the big guns, in Geoffrey Rush, was actually one of the worst dissonances with the book, while the immature amateurs were total victories. Rush was nice in his own way but he wasn't Hans.

Without the prose narration, the story is basic. I wouldn't bat an eye at this movie if I hadn't read the book. I was just curious how they did it.

The voiceover was garbage work, like the voice acting I just talked about in Aguirre. How can professionals get away with that trash. Granted I don't know how you'd voice this narrator. But this is not the answer. No voiceover at all would have been superior. This is the cheesiest voiceover you could have chosen: old cheesy British guy. What a dumb idea.

Movies never understand how to capture the spirit of the book. The obliteration at the end is shocking in the book but not confusing in terms of tone. In the movie, it's tonally confusing, a critical sin. The movie waters down so many aspects of the book, it doesn't understand how to handle the end which can't be watered down -- everybody dies. So it just kind of skirts by it. The movie figures we can't handle the sight of Hans hitting Liesel, or being whipped by a Nazi, but it shows us everyone Liesel loves dying violently, and pretends it's peaceful, and promptly moves on. Filmmakers should know better. Who are they making this movie for?

Other than the voiceover and not understanding how to handle hard thematic material, it actually executed pretty well. I was pleased when it started: the production quality was working, Liesel was great, they really polished a nice movie. But that's all it was -- polish on the most basic interpretation of the story. It totally failed to deliver the artistry of the book. I'm not surprised.

Really like the German accents. Would have preferred full German, but that was a great touch.

Harry Potter

Are these movies some of my all-time favorites now? I'm not sure I've enjoyed any other movies more in the last ten years. I find myself reflecting on that -- "enjoy." I don't really enjoy a lot of these movies I watch. I enjoyed Harry Potter, and I'd enjoy it again, mindlessly or attentively. It's fun and interesting. Most movies are neither, precious few are both. Harry Potter is one of the few movies since college that has felt personal to me. Like part of me. I guess it helps I watched it with someone, and rewatched it with them. Made a night of it each time. Nevertheless, there's really something substantial about how much better the Harry Potter movies are, certainly better for me, than almost everything else I'm seeing. And I don't even have the nostalgia factor.

Harry Potter and Dune were some of my better cinematic experiences in recent years. L'Avventura, Breathless, Aguirre,... those were some of my worst. I guess I'm not an art film goer anymore??

Aguirre, The Wrath of God

This film definitely is drifting down a river. A slow, hopeless river. As you drift, your hopes rise, and your chances fall. At some point that divergence crosses common coping into insanity. I'm not talking about Aguirre expecting to find El Dorado, I'm talking about myself expecting this movie to pay off. A pleasurable movie was my El Dorado. And we drifted. And we drifted. And I heard rumors it was near. And I'm still drifting, like Aguirre; all my companions are dead; my raft is infested with monkeys, who never expected gold or God -- they're the wisest ones -- they're just stopping by as long as it's convenient, while I cling to my abstractions in the face of all reality. This journey is like the journey to heaven: you cherish some rumors, you search for signals, and the closer you get to the crux -- to the cross -- the less chance you stand and therefore the greater the psychological compensation: hope. Because doubting is not an option. No one can accept that suffering for nothing. So hope rises as probabilities fall, to delusional effect. Heaven and El Dorado were only ever rumors, deceiving the masses. Yet is there a better way to spend your time than drifting in the direction of such hope? Even if you never find it -- there's nothing to find -- you've sought what was worth seeking and you've lived with purpose. That is, if the purpose and the hope persist for you, as for Aguirre. If so, then no improbability should turn your raft. You should drift until you die or until your hope dies. Or until you reach it. Maybe you're the only one ever. Maybe it was meant for you.

Echoes of Apocalypse Now and Stalker: literal and figurative descent into the absurd. But Aguirre is even duller, you heard me, duller than Tarkovsky. It doesn't help that the lead is unlikable in every way, and to contrast Tarkovsky, I don't think there was really any interesting dialogue. Just Aguirre's reflection at the very end. So Aguirre really forces contemplation of the unsaid: the images and themes. However, I didn't even think the visuals were all that beautiful! Isn't the film known for that? I thought it was cool to be immersed on-location in the Amazon, but I didn't think the cinematography was all that interesting. A couple of nice mountain shots at the beginning, plenty of greenery, and some fun passing shots (I've been playing a lot of pickleball) from the drifting raft. The camera is literally on a raft.

Okay I actually love the idea of this movie, technically and artistically. Technically, the crew is actually floating on a raft in the Amazon, shooting chronologically because that's how rivers work. Artistically, you're chasing a fantasy deeper into the unknown, deeper into your own fantastical heart, at meditative speed, pausing as long as you can on the images before they float away. Are they passing you or are you passing them? Maybe you're static on standing water and time is a conveyer belt of world running by on either side. But the belt is only so long.

I also love the historical context. When I noticed this movie on my library's streaming partner, I was pretty excited. "Historical epic" is exactly what I wanted. So why didn't it work?

The dub was pretty brutal, partly because I just didn't understand it. Was this English dubbed over German? Over Spanish? Over English?? Was there a subtitled version available? This distracted me for a while. Also, what terrible work by the voice actors and their editors. What awful professional work. How do they get away with that? It's a shit match to the live actors' mouths, and an even worse match to their tones. I suppose my local children's theater director could have done a better job. Act like you're in the situation the actors are in! Act!

The woes transcend the technical though. As I mentioned, the dialogue wasn't really interesting. The characters were not likable. None of the acting hit home, and I don't just mean the voice acting. The photography was not striking enough. It was all just kind of shoddy. Amazing concept, shoddy execution.

The Wolf of Wall Street

I always thought I'd like this movie. Then when it came to watch it, all these years later, I thought maybe I knew exactly what it'd be, and maybe it wouldn't be all that much. Indeed, it was exactly what I thought it would be, and I liked it, and it wasn't all that much.

Leo is special. He's not just smirky salesman, he's all kinds of charisma, every frequency of energy. Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, and others were great choices as well, and did what they needed to do. Usually I don't comment too much on acting, especially good acting, but this was really good.

I was really wary in the first few minutes. It felt like an old director trying to sound dangerous but actually sounding old. Scorsese was in his 20s in the 60s, and he's trying to sound dangerous in 2013. It was too on-the-nose to sound believable. But it panned out into some genuine grimaces, genuine joys. 2013 was 12 years ago, and Scorsese was in his 20s in the 60s, but there's some electricity here that crosses generations.

Scorsese is going to make a decent movie. After all these years, all these movies, he's a legend just for that: always making a decent movie. I doubt I'll get much out of him again though. His taste just isn't mine. I think that conflict is epitomized by his music taste, which is totally old-fashioned and not that interesting. I like how he uses music, but it's not the right music, like "Gimme Shelter" and the pirate song in The Departed. That movie would kill me with a better soundtrack. The soundtrack is so central, and not my jam. Anyway his taste just isn't quite mine and I doubt it ever will be. I've honestly liked several of his movies, but I doubt they ever again reach the heights on which I always placed The Departed and on which culture seems to place many of his movies.

Mad Max: Fury Road

I'm 2/3 in. It's actually settled down too much. The beginning was full crack. Now it's a journey. I don't mind that there's a little heart, but the volume went from 11 to 5.

This has been on my list since it came out. The beginning did not disappoint. In fact it was more exciting than the senseless drag race I imagined. It was anchored by a character, however superficial. Now it's literally and figuratively dragging through the mud. Maybe it finds its former high, maybe it finds something else worthwhile, maybe it should have timed its high better.

Now I'm done. It never recovered its original high, but I can say it was a fun movie, which is more than I can say of most.

The guitar guy embodies it all: the supercharged and the senseless. If only Miller's vision weren't dulled by his story.

I didn't like Charlize Theron. She overacted a part that's really just brutal. Tom Hardy didn't overact, he just played this guy who doesn't have to be multi-dimensional or emotive. Theron was too emotive. Maybe she was tasked with being the movie's heart; if so, not really her fault, but the movie didn't need it, nor did it fit in. Too emotive for what should really just be a sensory trip.

Parasite

I hate watching characters buoy elaborate lies lol. I thought that in like middle school re: Meet the Parents and the thought rages now in Parasite. Surely the best parts of the movie are NOT the hijinks, though they consume ample screen time.

The hijinks do keep things moving though. All I dreaded tonight was another boring movie. I almost thought it was inevitable. I almost wondered if I'm fading on movie love nowadays. But Parasite was swift, with a satisfying ending.

I like how Saltburn didn't rely on any hijinks, it was pure manipulation. Parasite was manipulation on stilts, always on threat of toppling. I didn't like that energy. Too anxious. Saltburn was savory; Parasite spicy, like fish & chips vs buldak. I could relax at the repulsion of Saltburn; Parasite was a cringe. Until the end! See, I like when it all comes out into the light. I guess that's a valid arc though... draw out the anxiety to maximize the later relief. But I'd rather avoid the anxiety. I was surprised and pleased by how Blue Velvet revealed Jeffrey pretty quickly in Dorothy's apartment. Parasite drags on though. I mean the movie doesn't drag, but the anxiety does.

The final quarter was easily the best quarter -- just what I was waiting for.

90th best film ever in Sight and Sound 2022 is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as where my recent watches L'Avventura and In the Mood for Love tend to fall on those silly lists. Parasite was easily the most enjoyable for me, of the three, but it wasn't that creative. It's sharp, in several ways, but it's not historic. Probably none of the critics in the ranking disliked it, so it surged up beyond more polarizing (and greater) films.

Why did the dad kill the other dad?

In the Mood for Love

Refined, restrained, and a bit dull. I need more from a movie, though it didn't really do anything wrong.