Stuff I watched in...November, 2025

Past Lives

Celine Song's Past Lives is a movie that reminds me why I love movies. Film is art and what purpose does art serve other than to help you experience humanity through it? Past Lives is a film about time, choices, and love. 

In 1999, Na Young and Hae Sung are 12 year olds growing up in South Korea. They have a crush on each other and they go on a date in a park. But Na Young soon moves to Toronto and changes her name to Nora.

12 years later, Hae Sung (Teo Yoo) and Nora (Greta Lee) get in touch over Facebook. They Skype constantly, but are unable to visit one another. Nora is about the go on a writer's retreat in Montauk and Hae Sung is spending the summer in China studying Mandarin. Nora suggests they take a break from talking so they can focus on living the lives right in front of them.

12 years after that, Nora is married to Arthur (John Magaro), a writer she met at the retreat. They live in New York City. Hae Sung comes to visit. His visit to NYC stirs up complicated feelings in all three individuals: Arthur wonders if he was a roadblock in a romance that should have taken place between Nora and Hae Sung; Hae Sung muses about what would have happened if Nora never left South Korea; Nora is faced with a road not taken.

The Korean concept of inyeon comes up multiple times in the film. It's the idea that people are part of one another's lives because they played a role in each other's past lives. So if two people get married, they were part of each other's past lives 8,000 times before. Nora and Hae Sung discuss how they were perhaps in each other's lives before but don't have enough inyeon to be each other's partner in this life. Hae Sung says that he loved Nora as a girl for who she was...but who she was made her "someone who leaves." But to Arthur, Nora is "someone who stays".

Inyeon is a beautiful idea and one that expands our humanity, and what is also beautiful is that Past Lives is not a movie about jealousy or adultery or competition. Hae Sung, Nora, and Arthur spend an evening in a bar with Nora translating for the two men and eventually just having a conversation with Hae Sung in Korean. When she goes to the bathroom, Hae Sung apologizes to Arthur for speaking privately with Nora, but Arthur says that it's ok and that Hae Sung made the right decision by visiting Nora. Later, after Nora sees Hae Sung off in his Uber, she weeps in her husband's arms and he just holds her. I was struck by a thought: this is what it means to love the whole person. And that includes understanding when they weep for a past love or what could have been. This kind of love is not jealous or fearful or hateful, nor is it confident or boastful. What a beautiful and courageous kind of love it is to be able to accept all of someone else, even when their love extends beyond you. 

Grade: A

***

The History of Sound

Two men who love music come to love each other in WWI era New England. Paul Mescal plays Lionel Worthing, a Kentucky boy who leaves the family farm to study voice at the New England Conservatory in 1917. There, he meets David White (Josh O'Connor), who studies composition. The men bond over their interest in folk songs and become intimate.

David invites Lionel to participate in a project where they will travel across Maine, collecting folk songs from the people who live there. They carefully record these songs on wax cylinders. Lionel moves to Europe and though he writes David monthly, he never gets a response. He moves on, but never forgets the best months of his life on that trip with David.

The History of Sound is a beautiful film despite its conventional trajectory. It's really Lionel's story--and Paul Mescal is as soulful as ever, with his sad, deep eyes. Not surprisingly, the movie has a lovely soundtrack filled with folk music and ballads, as well as choral music and even some Joy Division near the end. The final scenes, starring Chris Cooper as the elderly Lionel, who went on to become an esteemed ethnomusicologist, pushes the movie from "good" to "very good" in my opinion. I'm talking Brokeback Mountain levels of emotional catharsis. Or maybe I just have a soft spot for old, lonely men. 

Grade: B+

***

Eddington

Ari Aster's latest film is...a lot. The director's trajectory has been an interesting one to say the least. From an excellent horror film (Hereditary), to a film I consider one of my favorites of all time (Midsommar), to a very weird, yet quite funny anxiety fever dream (Beau is Afraid), to this one...a neo-Western that has a lot of say about our society during and post-covid, but doesn't really say it clearly. 

Eddington takes place in Eddington, New Mexico. A small town torn apart by covid-era politics (the film opens in May 2020). Joe Cross (Joaquin Phoenix) is the sheriff and Ted Garcia (Pedro Pascal) is the mayor. Ted enforces mask mandates and Joe prickles at being forced to wear a mask. But also, Ted is working on a deal to build a data center in Eddington, believing it will bring jobs to the community.

Pascal skillfully plays a quintessential neo-liberal politician. And Phoenix skillfully plays a borderline nutjob who *might* read as libertarian if you squint. Eddington teases at playing "both sides" politics for the first half of the movie, skewering the self-indulgence of liberal white people in particular, before veering off in a wildly different direction. 

Eddington really is a mess, but it's a very interesting (and, at times, darkly funny) mess. I saw a comment that said the film is "less about any left or right ideologies as much as it's about examining the type of people who have no actual ideology but are using a cause or message to further their own agenda". This really hits the nail on the head. It's not really about politics, it's about trying to wrest some control in an absolutely batshit out of control world. 

Is the movie good? Eh. It's not bad. It's not particularly enjoyable to watch, not because it's unpleasant, but because it's throwing a lot at the wall and not much is sticking. That said, it's quite ambitious and even audacious at times. I'll probably let it sit for a couple years and then return to it and see how I feel about it. But it's no Midsommar.

Grade: B

***

You Can Count On Me

This 2000 Kenneth Lonergan film is slice-of-life Americana, which is Lonergan's specialty (he also directed Manchester By the Sea). The quiet film follows a brother and sister, Sammy and Terry Prescott. As children, the siblings lose their parents in a car crash. As adults, Sammy (Laura Linney) is a responsible single mom who comes across as a bit uptight, but is mostly just trying to do right by her young son Rudy (Rory Culkin). Terry (Mark Ruffalo) is the ne'er-do-well sibling who lives a nomadic lifestyle, gets into random bar fights, and asks his sister for money. 

Despite Terry being a bit of a bum, Sammy loves her brother deeply and is relieved when he visits town after 3 months of no contact. Turns out, Terry was in jail. During Terry's stay, the two siblings seem to wear off on each other a bit: the uptight Sammy starts an affair with her very annoying and petty boss, Brian (Matthew Broderick), while the irresponsible Terry takes a shine to Rudy and brings a little fun into the kid's life.

However, Terry is still deeply emotionally immature and makes some seriously dumb choices, which causes Sammy to re-evaluate her own decisions. 

Lonergan, who has a cameo as a pastor in You Can Count on Me, excels in crafting films about imperfect people making foolish choices, but still being worthy of love. He's a humanist and his movies are reflective and quietly profound, if not all that exciting. You Can Count on Me is notable because when I first watched it back in 2000, it was the first time I saw Mark Ruffalo in a movie and I remember being pretty impressed. 25 years later and I think Ruffalo is one of the finest actors working today. More so than Linney and Broderick, Ruffalo's acting feels lived in. He really slips right into the skin of his character. That alone makes the movie worth watching. 

Grade: A-

***

Good Boy

Good Boy, directed by Ben Leonberg, is a horror film from the perspective of a dog. A young man, Todd (Shane Jensen), is very sick with some kind of lung disease. Against the wishes of his sister, he decides to move to his late grandfather's house out in the woods. He takes along his loyal dog, Indy (played by the director's very own "good boy", also named Indy in real life). 

Indy can sense that something is wrong with the house: he hears noises that sound like another dog coming from the basement and he can perceive someone (or something) hiding in the shadows. Meanwhile, Todd begins isolating himself as death draws near. He yells at his sister on the phone when she says she wants to visit him. He rages at a medical profession who explains that it is "too late" for experimental treatment. And finally, he even pushes Indy away. The good boy who only wants to love Todd is dismissed from the bed and told to sleep on the floor. And then outside, chained to a doghouse.

Although Indy survives the film, Good Boy is a tough one. Dog lovers' hearts will be squeezed as Indy whimpers in fear at a creature stalking the house and tries to protect his oblivious owner. But even though Todd is a real jerk to Indy at times, it's hard not to understand and sympathize with him on some level. Todd doesn't know how to deal with the fact that he is dying. He rages and then breaks down in sobs. He yells at Indy and then pulls him close for a hug. Good Boy is a pretty simple movie, but it packs an emotional punch.

Good Boy is short and spare. It's not particularly scary and it's even a bit boring. Not much happens. But it's also very unique, emotionally intense, and, of course, it stars a very, very cute dog. It's worth a watch if you're a horror fan or a dog lover (although be cautious if you don't like to see animals in distress. Although there really isn't any violence against animals, it's hard to watch Indy "act scared"...even though he is indeed acting!)

Grade: B

***

Cannibal Mukbang

With a title like Cannibal Mukbang you would think that this movie would be mindless, bloody fun. I went into it expecting a movie about a woman who does mukbangs where she, you know, eats people (for the people reading this who aren't terminally online, a mukbang is when someone makes a video of themselves eating a lot of food. It's a thing and people can make good money doing it. Is it sexual? Not typically, but it can be).

Well, the movie does contain a lot of cannibalism, but there's barely any mukbanging. Instead, the film is primarily focused on the relationship between Ash (April Consalo) and Mark (Nate Wise). Ash is a cute, perky girl who does mukbangs for a living and Mark is an autistic-coded nerdy guy who works in customer service. When Ash accidently hits Mark with her car, a romance begins to bloom.

Mark eventually discovers Ash's secret: the meat she cooks for her mukbangs are made of...people!!!! Not just any people--rapists, child molesters, and killers. Ash has an ethical code and only kills and eats men who commit heinous crimes. At first Mark is horrified, but after he witnesses her kill a man and helps her move the body, he gets sucked in to Ash's life of cannibalism.

Cannibal Mukbang was a bummer and a disappointment. The movie is so focused on Ash and Mark's relationship--there is drama and anxiety and "do you love me?" and "I want to take things slow". It feels very high school. It doesn't help that Ash is a manic pixie dream girl and the guy who plays Mark is simply a bad actor. However, he is not as bad an actor as the guy who plays Mark's brother, Maverick.

The brother character, Maverick, is such a pig, so evil, and so poorly acted with such cheesy lines I have to believe that this was a purposeful choice by the director. The character was such a cartoon, that it felt like a parody. Now, a film like Cannibal Mukbang, you might think that the whole movie is a parody--or more like, a homage--to cheesy B-horror films. B-horror films are even mentioned in the movie when Ash and Mark bond over their love of horror. But it felt like the director didn't fully commit to the film being just a ridiculous, cheesy, blood-and-guts fest. April Consalo, for example, is a good actress and does a great job portraying Ash. But then Nate Wise and Clay von Carlowitz (the guy who plays Maverick), are so, so bad at acting. I'm not sure how to explain it, but something didn't add up...it's as if director Aimee Kuge wanted to make a cheesy horror film and a sweet relationship drama and then failed at both.

Also, the ending is a massive bummer. You can see the "twist" coming from a mile away.

Spoilers ahead..

Ash asks Mark to hide in her closet while she brings a "date" home. We know that this date will be with a disgusting rapist pig of a man that Ash will kill and then harvest his body for meat. Turns out, the date is...Maverick! Mark's brother!! Instead of helping Ash kill him, Mark helps Maverick escape... and we know Maverick isn't a good guy because he nearly strangles Ash while calling her a "useless whore". Mark allows Maverick to escape, and then a weeping Ash kills Mark with an axe saying "you're all the same". 

Man, I hated this fucking ending. The pig rapist gets away, Mark proves that he's a pussy not worthy of Ash, and Ash is alone. Not that I really care about these characters, but damn. It was just like...I wanted a movie about a sexy chick who eats men on camera...not this frustrating ending after an hour and a half of relationship drama. Also, the director is a woman and it's not like female directors can't be disappointing, but I felt like she should have done a better job with the material. I was expecting subversion and I didn't get it. 

Anyway, this movie is definitely someone's jam, so if it still sounds intriguing (hopefully you didn't read the spoilers), it's worth watching it. It just wasn't the movie for me.

Grade: C+

Bugonia

Yorgos Lanthimos has cemented his place as one of my favorite working directors. I used to describe his style as, "if Wes Anderson made horror films"...but I take that back now. I've found that although Lanthimos uses the same kind of deadpan humor and elevated (some may say stilted) dialogue favored by Anderson, his films are much more emotional than Anderson's films. Although Anderson's films can certainly make you feel something, they always seem to keep emotions at an arm's length. Anderson's films feel overly controlled whereas Lanthimos' films feel out of control, with characters being plunged into absurd situations they often don't understand. 

And although Bugonia sits in the middle of my ranking of Lanthimos' films (I still love The Lobster and Poor Things the most), it is the most deeply emotional of his films, in my opinion. It really tugged at those heartstrings, but without a hint of schmaltzy sentimentalism. 

If you've seen the preview, you know the basic plot: a man kidnaps a high-powered CEO thinking that she is an alien out to destroy earth. Teddy (Jesse Plemmons) opens the film by describing to his cousin, Donny (newcomer Aidan Delbis, more on him later), how essential bees are to the earth's vegetation. And they are dying. Teddy is a man who has done his research. He believes that aliens walk among us--specifically, Andromedans--and that they are behind all of the earth's woes. And he believes that Michelle Fuller (Emma Stone), CEO of a pharmaceutical megacorporation, is one of them. 

Teddy convinces Donny to help him kidnap Michelle and force her to grant the men an audience with the Emperor of the Andromedans. Teddy believes that if he can meet with this alien Emperor, he can negotiate with the Andromedans to leave earth, thus saving it. There's only one problem: Michelle isn't an alien. 

Bugonia is a brutal watch. Although Teddy claims to not want to use force on Michelle, he does. There are scenes of male-on-female violence (thank goodness, no sexual violence) that some viewers will find difficult to watch. However, if you've seen Lanthimos' other films, you're probably at least somewhat prepared for the intensity. 

The thing that makes Bugonia different than other films that depict kidnapping, coercion, and violence is that Teddy isn't an inherently bad guy. At least, I didn't think so. Teddy truly believes his alien conspiracy--he isn't just torturing a woman for sick jollies. He really believes he is saving earth. On top of that, we see flashbacks and learn that Teddy's mother took part in a clinical trial for a drug produced by Michelle's company and is now in a coma. Although Teddy denies it, Michelle rightly points out that the kidnapping plan is influenced by Teddy's pain and anger over this turn of events. Teddy also claims that the Andromedans "killed our family". It's hard to discern where Teddy's anger at Michelle's corporation ends and his alien conspiracy begins. As with most conspiracy theorists, there is enough evidence of "them"--powerful people, rich people--being out to get you that it adds fuel to their more bizarre beliefs.

And then there's Donny. Sweet Donny. Newcomer to the screen Aidan Delbis submitted a tape during an open casting call for the role. Apparently, Lanthimos wanted Donny to be neurodivergent and Delbis is neurodivergent in real life. The first third of the movie has Teddy explaining his wild beliefs to Donny and Donny expressing skepticism before ultimately agreeing to go along with the plan. It's really heartrending when Teddy explains that the two men need to chemically castrate themselves in order to be fully focused on the task at hand and Donny says "I just thought I'd maybe want to be with someone someday" before finally accepting an injection of hormones. Now, it's true that Donny knows the difference between right and wrong, but as he explains to Michelle, he needs Teddy because Teddy is his only family left and he loves his cousin. We can see how someone who doesn't have a lot of people in his life might latch on to the one person he does have and even go along with some vile shit.

Although the movie does tease us with the "is she or isn't she an alien" throughout, it's less about that and more about how otherwise kind and intelligent people can be contorted by abuse, pain, and helplessness. The film is definitely a commentary on how megacorporations don't give a shit about how many lives they destroy in the quest to make money, but it's also about how in the face of profound helplessness, people turn to anything for answers: religion, political movements...even absurd conspiracy theories. Because if you can figure out the secret, no matter how horrible it is, you have some control. 

Perhaps I'm giving Teddy and Donny too much credit...but I think it's a testament to Plemmons and Delbis' acting chops that I didn't hate these men even though they (Teddy in particular) were acting in cruel and horrible ways. Likewise, Emma Stone is excellent as a very strong and intelligent woman who faces her captors head on with a surprising lack of fear. Is her ability to argue back against Teddy a sign that she's a corporate sociopath? Or is she...something else? 

I really dug this movie, even though it was very difficult to watch at times. It's also very funny in the uniquely dark way that all of Lanthimos' films are. There were scenes where something so shocking and horrific would happen, that I would involuntarily guffaw. If that sounds like your type of movie, you're in for a treat.

 Grade: A-

Frankenstein

Guillermo del Toro is a director whom I admire more than love. Of his movies, I've seen Pan's Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, The Shape of Water, Nightmare Alley, and his latest, Frankenstein.

I look at the above list and think that these are all good films that I don't ever really feel like rewatching (with the exception of Nightmare Alley, which is my favorite of his...and, ironically, is many folks' least favorite of his). But they're all undeniably beautiful and grotesque. They feature monsters and monstrous men. Del Toro uses practical effects and has proclaimed that he will never use AI in his films. So, even if his films don't rank among my favorites of all time, I can't help but admire his talent and craft.

I almost didn't see Frankenstein on a big screen due to some mediocre reviews coming out of the film groups I participate in on Facebook. I was just going to wait for it to hit Netflix. Thankfully, a friend of mine encouraged me to see it in a theatre. I'm so glad I did! And I saw it in a BTX theatre (which is like IMAX but for the Bowtie Cinemas chain), so it was an excellent moving-going experience.

It's been a long time since I've read Mary Shelley's masterpiece, but I do remember liking Frankenstein a lot when I read it. Although del Toro said he wanted to make a book-accurate adaptation, he changed some pretty major plot points. In the book, Victor Frankenstein is essentially a deadbeat dad who spends most of his life trying to animate dead tissue. When he finally succeeds, he almost immediately abandons his creation. The Creature is initially a gentle being who gains intelligence by reading and interacting with the blind patriarch of a family who treats him with kindness. But when the rest of the family see the Creature, they chase him away and try to kill him.

The Creature acts violently throughout the novel because he is abandoned, mistreated, and misunderstood. The novel is a tragedy about what can happen when you fuck around with nature without considering the consequences. It's also a lesson to treat people--even "monsters"--with dignity...or they might actually become the monstrosity you think them to be.

Del Toro's movie leans much more heavily into the Creature (played wonderfully by Jacob Elordi) being innocent and gentle. He just wants to be accepted by his creator. Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) is the villain of the movie. But even with him, we feel sympathy because we see how Victor's father treated him as a young boy: he beat him when he didn't perfectly memorize his anatomy lessons. 

Years later, Victor passes that lesson in cruelty on to his creation: he berates the Creature for only being able to say one word: "Victor". 

Yes, the themes are a little on the nose. The movie is basically Philip Larkin's "This Be the Verse" in movie form: they fuck you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do. They fill you with the faults they had, and add some extra just for you." At one point, Victor's brother William even says "You are the monster, Victor". OOOH BURN!

But, you know, I think subtlety is overrated. Especially in a movie as fantastical and colorful as this one. Frankenstein is filled with anguish, violence, and passion. I've seen some reviews that suggest Oscar Isaac's performance is over the top, but I thought he was great. He's an arrogant, brooding, petty little asshole. In the novel, he marries a woman named Elizabeth (who, spoiler alert, the monster kills on their wedding night). In this adaptation Elizabeth (Mia Goth) is the fiance of Victor's brother, William (Felix Kammerer), and the niece of Victor's wealthy benefactor, Henrich Harlander (Christoph Waltz). So add covetousness and lust to Victor's sins. Mia Goth is delightful as usual, but a bit underused in this role. She has chemistry with both Victor and the Creature--she understands the intelligence and drive of the former while admiring the gentleness of the latter.

Jacob Elordi's performance as Frankenstein's Creature is GREAT. Most folks know Elordi from his role as an absolutely irredeemable shit head in the HBO series Euphoria (or as a slightly less irredeemable shit head in Saltburn). What a heel turn of a role here: the Creature exudes sensitivity and vulnerability from the moment he comes to life. He is basically a puppy dog who wants nothing more to please his master, but is only chained and beaten in return for his loyalty. This might sound funny, but Elordi reminded me of Rocky from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. He's a big, strong guy who moves his body in this shy, almost feminine way. I'm going to talk about the film's eroticism in more detail below, but it's fascinating to watch a man who could lord his physicality over most people bend himself into submissive and shy stances because he doesn't know his own strength (at first). 

After Victor tries to kill his creation by blowing up his laboratory, the Creature escapes and takes shelter in a mill attached to a house where a blind older man lives with his family. When the man's family leave on an extended hunting party, the Creature reveals himself to the man. Just as in the novel, the blind man accepts the Creature immediately, calling him a friend and offering to share food and books with him. The scenes with the blind man nearly brought tears to my eyes. But, of course, kindness can't last long in the cruel world of Frankenstein. When the blind man's family discover the Creature, they try to kill him, running him off into the cold, punishing world.

The one aspect in which the film truly fails, in my opinion, is the ending. The Creature swears revenge on Victor only to...forgive him in Victor's dying moments. Victor calls the Creature his "son" and apologizes for how awful he was and the Creature forgives him. This was very much an unearned happy (or, happy-ish, as the Creature is still destined to walk the earth alone without a companion) ending and just felt...dishonest. Both to the original source material, but to the rest of the film that came before it. Kind of a bummer! I wish del Toro had the nerve here to really break our hearts, but he decided not to and the film is worse for that decision, in my opinion.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly discuss how this film is considered to be a sort of erotic or sensual adaptation of Frankenstein and people have feelings about it. I thought it really added to the charge of the film. Granted, I am very sex-motivated when it comes to movies and if a movie is sexy in a way that I personally find erotic, I'm going to like it a lot more than if it's sexless. The novel Frankenstein itself is, frankly, homoerotic. You might think that's nuts, given that it was written in 1818, but it's pretty widely accepted as a queer text. And then you have the 1931 film adaptation, which was directed by the very queer James Whale. And, of course, the aforementioned Rocky Horror Picture Show, which is a total fuckfest of a Frankenstein adaptation. 

My point is: this story is historically gay and horny. If anything, del Toro doesn't go far enough in sexing it up. But damn, Oscar Isaac wears these slutty little leather gloves in the movie that make me want to act up! And there are plenty of scenes where Victor and the Creature hold each other close and you don't know if they're about this kill each other or kiss each other. I've seen some think pieces floating around asking what "it says about us" that we, as a society, are "attracted to monsters". But we've always been attracted to monsters. Have these people not read Dracula? Attraction to monsters is not new, it's as old as stories themselves. 

Frankenstein is an imperfect film filled with beauty and grotesquerie, passion and anger, violence and love. It's not my favorite film of the year...but it's damn near close. 

Grade: A-

Ooh he gonna get it with those gloves

Stuff I watched in...October, 2025

Task 

This HBO miniseries was created by Brad Inglesby who created Mare of Easttown a couple years ago. So if you liked that show, you're bound to like this one as well. It has a very similar structure and, like Mare, it's very well-written and well-acted. 

Task follows a criminal and a detective. The criminal is Robbie Prendergrast (Tom Pelphrey), an otherwise unassuming father of two who, along with a couple friends, robs the homes of drug dealers. But not just any drug dealers: members of the Dark Hearts, a biker gang his brother used to belong to. 

The detective is Tom Brandis (Mark Ruffalo), a once priest-turned cop who is mourning the tragic loss of his wife. Brandis is assigned to a task force with three other cops after one of the robberies takes a dark turn with 4 dead bodies and a child abducted from the scene. 

The acting is excellent in this series and the secrets and motives of the characters are revealed slowly over the course of the 7 episode run. Just like Mare of Easttown, Task really has you on the edge of your seat and cursing the showrunners deciding to release one episode a week because that means you have to wait for the next one. But, dear reader, you don't have to wait because the whole show is on HBO for you to enjoy. If you like crime dramas that humanize both criminals and cops, this is definitely one to check out. 

Grade: A-

*** 

Gosford Park

Gosford Park is the first Robert Altman movie I've seen and it was SO GOOD! If you love Downton Abbey, you'll love Gosford Park (it's written by Julian Fellowes). 

The film takes place in 1932 at the estate of Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) and his wife Lady Sylvia (Kristin Scott Thomas). The couple have invited friends and family to their estate for a shooting party. These friends and family arrive with their servants. I'm not going to name all the characters because there are like 30 of them, but some of the big stars include: Dame Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Clive Owen, Kelly Macdonald, Ryan Phillippe, Helen Mirren, Emily Watson, Bob Balaban, Jeremy Northam, and Stephen Fry. The cast is an anglophile's wet dream.

In the style of Agatha Christie, a crime takes place at the estate and everyone has a motive. However, the crime and its solution are almost beside the point. Gosford Park is about the drama and gossip both upstairs and downstairs. There's a little something for everyone: secret sexual liaisons, fake identities, catty bitches, drop-dead gorgeous costumes, Dame Maggie Smith looking horrified at various faux pas. 

Gosford Park is a GREAT movie...one of the best I've seen in awhile. And I'm excited to watch it again because I will almost certainly catch things I missed the first time. I'm also excited to watch some more Altman films. 

Grade: A+

***

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

Ugh, this is a very mediocre possession film and a slightly less mediocre courtroom drama rolled into one. The movie is "inspired by true events" and if you hate how The Conjuring white-washed the scammy legacy of Ed and Lorraine Warren, you're going to hate this one too.

Tom Wilkinson plays a priest, Father Moore, who is implicated in the death of a young woman, Emily Rose, after he tries to cure her of what she believed was a demonic possession. Laura Linney is Erin Bruner, Moore's defense lawyer. 

There's some genuinely spooky imagery in the film and there's an interesting moment when Erin calls an anthropologist to the stand as an expert witness in exorcisms who suggests that Emily could have been cured of whatever it was that was tormenting her through exorcism since people who believe they're possessed may also believe in the power of exorcisms (this is the same argument, by the way, that convinces Chris MacNeil to allow her daughter, Regan, to undergo an exorcism in The Exorcist). 

But that's really all the film has to offer. Other than the aforementioned The Exorcist, nearly all possession movies suck balls. There are a few good ones, but most are just religious propaganda in scary movie sheep's clothing. They also nearly always have a weird gender thing going on with the possessed person usually being a young girl and the people "helping" her being old men. The Exorcist actually has the balls to show us some REALLY fucked up shit. All other possession movies are baby stuff in comparison.

Grade: C

***

Men in Black

Would you believe that I hadn't ever seen Men in Black before? It's always been one of my blind spots and when my friend invited me over to watch it with her kids, I figured it was time to give it a go. 

Now, you have to understand that I watched this movie with a sweet six year old girl cuddling me very aggressively and lots of commotion going on around me (as is typical in a family with two talkative and excited kids), so my movie-watching experience was a bit curtailed. But overall, it was a fun, enjoyable flick that harkens back to a time when Will Smith was known as one of the most sought-after actors for big-budget action movies and not as "that guy who slapped Chris Rock at the Oscars." Ahh, more innocent times.

But the real MVP here is Tommy Lee Jones. I think people tend to forget how funny this guy is. His naturally grumpy looks allow for some excellent deadpan humor. 

Men in Black is the perfect movie to watch with your kids, your friends' kids, or your nieces and nephews--it's just gross enough to get a fun reaction from little ones, but not too scary or crude. Next time you're babysitting or cuddling with a sassy six year old, considering queuing it up.

Grade: B

***

The Old Dark House

This horror comedy from 1932 was a fun and very mildly spooky time. Starring Boris Karloff and Gloria Stuart (whom you might know best as the elderly Rose from Titanic), The Old Dark House was directed by horror powerhouse James Whale and is essentially a satire of haunted house movies before the genre even really took off! 

Couple Philip and Margaret Waverton and their friend Roger Penderel get caught in a rainstorm and can't continue driving, so they beg for shelter and the home (the old, dark home) of siblings Horace and Rebecca Femm. The Femm's butler, Morgan (Karloff) is a mute, terrifying brute whom the siblings themselves seem scared of. Later, the group is joined by a Sir William Porterhouse and his platonic female companion Gladys DuCane. 

Secrets of the house are revealed throughout the night. Old, dark secrets. Also, there's a fair amount of bare shoulders, drinking, and canoodling, given this was a pre-Code film.

It was a good time and it made me want to check out more pre-Code films and see just how far they pushed the boundaries of what they could show on screen before the Hays Code pooped the party in 1934.

Grade: B

***

The Search for Spock

A few months ago, my partner and I watched The Wrath of Khan. I am very new to the world of Star Trek and so my partner is my guide to these "strange new worlds". 

The Search for Spock is not quite as good as The Wrath of Khan, but it's still very satisfying and comforting in that unique way Star Trek tends to be. This is comfort-watching for intellectuals. 

Notably, Christopher Lloyd plays a bad guy Klingon, Kruge, and even though he's under about 15 pounds of make-up, he still has those crazy eyes. I couldn't help but "Marty!" every time he was on screen.

This movie was also the first time I have heard of "Pon farr" outside of The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory referencing it. Man, I love Vulcans. 

I don't have much to say--good movie that I would have not watched if left to my own devices. 

Grade: B