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.