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

One Battle After Another

Paul Thomas Anderson is a director who has grown on me significantly within the past few years. I've always described his movies as "intense", "aggressive", "masculine", and "off-putting".

Now, a faithful reader of my reviews might point out, "But Jenny, aren't all your favorite movies intense, aggressive, masculine, and off-putting?" and I would have to admit that, yes, many of them are. I prefer horror to rom-coms, hard-R films to family friendly ones, and movies that have me on the edge of my seat rather than relaxed back into the couch. So, what's my issue with Paul Thomas Anderson (PTA)?

Well, PTA's movies are just...different than the other aggressive, masculine movies I like. For example, I LOVE movies directed by Quentin Tarantino. But unlike PTA, Tarantino's movies are slick and cheeky. Even if you're not a fan of violent movies, you might find yourself won over by Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction. They're funny and clever enough to provide entry points to movie watchers of a more delicate sensibility. QT's movies are also just cool. PTA strikes me as a director who doesn't really care about being "cool". His movies are like the weird guy at the party talking to you about the Hinterkaifeck murders a little too loudly. You want to back away slowly, even if the conversation is kind of interesting. 

The other thing about PTA's movies are that they are unapologetically emotional, but in a really chaotic way. His movies make me get that lump in the throat feeling (a good example is the scene in Boogie Nights where Mark Wahlberg's mom basically beats him and calls him stupid as he begs "Please don't be mean to me!" It's heartbreaking!)...but unlike movies that bring you to emotional heights and then gently bring you down, PTA just lets you crash to the ground. So there are real tearjerker moments in nearly all his films, but they are not heartwarming.

Getting back to my point...I feel like I needed to achieve a certain amount of emotional maturity to enjoy PTA's movies. Boogie Nights freaked me the fuck out when I first saw it around age 15 and now it's in my top ten films of all time. The crude and abrasive sexuality was disgusting to me as a teenager (which is a good thing!) and now it's just funny to me. Similarly, I rewatched Magnolia recently and I appreciated it as a deeply emotional and intimate film whereas when I first saw it I was just like "this is way too much".

So I went into PTA's latest film, One Battle After Another, prepared to be put off by it. And while it is certainly aggressive and intense and masculine, it was also an absolute blast. It's exhilarating in way that makes you feel alive--I was vibrating with excitement in my movie theatre seat. It's also really funny and really heartfelt. In this film, PTA returns to one of his favorite themes: fatherhood. So many of his films feature family dynamics that are very upsetting (see the above-mentioned scene from Boogie Nights) with parents or parental figures using, abusing, or just plain hating their children. One Battle After Another shows a father who is imperfect and lax, but whose devotion to his daughter comes before all else.

The plot is this: Teyana Taylor and Leonardo DiCaprio play Perfida Beverly Hills and "Ghetto" Pat Calhoun--members of the leftist revolutionary group the French 75. This group engages in acts of terrorism and political subversion: they blow up banks, fuck with the power grid, and free detained immigrants. Perfida and Pat become lovers and have a child together, Charlene. But when Perfida kills a man in a botched bank heist, she informs on the other members of the French 75 to avoid thirty years in prison. 

Oh, Perfida also has a questionably consensual relationship with a military officer, Steven Lockjaw (Sean Penn) and it's unclear who is using who in that situation. She initially uses her sexuality to dominate and humiliate Lockjaw, but he comes back into her life demanding, well, more nookie in exchange for not arresting her and turning her in. It's unclear how many times these two meet up, but they have sex at least once...which calls Charlene's paternity into question. 

Pat and baby Charlene go into hiding under new names: Bob and Willa Ferguson. Various members of the French 75 are killed, and Perfida leaves the United States for Mexico.

Cut to 16 years later. Bob has morphed into a less chill version of Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski: he gets high all the time, hangs out in his bathrobe, and is very paranoid. Willa Ferguson (Chase Infiniti in an excellent breakout performance) is a self-assured teen who pretty much has to parent Bob. 

Steven Lockjaw is a Colonel now and is interested in membership in a secret society called "The Christmas Adventurers"--a deeply, deeply, deeply racist group of incredibly wealthy white men. In order to become a member, Lockjaw can have no history of anything that a white supremacist group would look askance at. That includes possibly being the father of a biracial child.

Lockjaw knows that Willa might be his child. He dispatches troops to the city where Bob and Willa live. It's a heavily Hispanic city filled with immigrants, so he uses the guise of an immigration raid to find and Bob and Willa. He tells his men to kill Bob if they find him. If they find Willa, Lockjaw will test her paternity and kill her if her existence threatens his possible membership in this little Klan Klub. 

Luckily, the French 75 get wind of this plan when one of their members is arrested and gives up information. The members are able to get Willa to safety, and Bob only barely escapes a raid on his house. When he calls the French 75 hotline, he cannot remember the passcode and therefore is not told the rendezvous point. So he has to ask Sergio (Benicio del Toro), Willa's karate instructor, and a "Latino Harriet Tubman" who helps undocumented immigrants, for help.

So begins a wild goose chase with incredibly high stakes. One Battle After Another lives up to its title because the action does not stop. The film is both very tense and very funny...and ultimately very emotional. Willa is captured by Lockjaw and forcibly subjected to a paternity test. She says to him "It doesn't matter what that test says. I have a father and it's not you." My heart. And when Willa and Bob are reunited after a tense (and very satisfying) car chase sequence, it is pure love.

One Battle After Another has faced its share of criticism. A couple criticisms I agree with are the fact that for a movie with a very diverse cast, two white men are essentially the main characters and we follow their stories for most of the movie. Also, the film uses the very timely and serious issue of immigration and hatred of immigrants as a convenient backdrop to the actual plot of the film which is about a man trying to save his daughter. The film is very pro-immigrant and anti-cop and military, so I don't think any malice is intended, but One Battle After Another is basically playing leftist dress-up rather than being about leftist or radical ideas.

I also saw some criticism saying that the film is sexist and "both sides are bad". I see where that criticism is coming from, but I don't think this is a "both sides" movie at all. I think the movie presents one side as evil and the other as imperfect. If anything, the right-wing bad guys were too evil and would have felt cartoonish 20 years ago (now they feel like they'd fit right in at a dinner with Stephen Miller and Pete Hegseth). 

All this said, I think it's pretty remarkable that One Battle After Another, a film about violent and militant left-wing resistance, exists in this current moment. I saw that Ben Shapiro released a video criticizing it, but I'm kind of surprised I haven't heard more right-wing commentators raising a stink about it, especially after the stink they raised about The Hunt five years ago. One Battle After Another portrays the military and the cops as not just bad, but actively subverting the law and threatening and manipulating people into giving information. They portray them as evil, racist torturers and murderers. Bond villains, basically! I don't know if I've seen a film so clearly anti-cop/military in the theatre before! Maybe I'm just a basic bitch who hasn't watched enough leftist cinema, but it seemed pretty damn impressive to me. 

One more thing to mention before I wrap up: the acting is phenomenal in this film. This is one of my favorite Leo performances ever, on par with The Wolf of Wall Street. Leo can be a bit hit or miss for me, but when he gets loose, he really shines. Sean Penn is also great! I pretty much hate Sean Penn as both an actor and a person (he's a known piece of shit), but he was really great as a villain who is both scary and ridiculous. PTA always manages to wring wonderful performances out of actors who I hate both as actors and as people (Mark Wahlberg and Tom Cruise being two other examples). 

Overall, damn, this is one of the best movies I've seen this year. It's definitely the best movie-watching experience I've had this year, meaning that I was pumped the entire time. I was having to stop myself from pulling out my phone in the theatre and texting people about it (because that would have been an asshole move), which is a sign that I was REALLY FUCKING ENJOYING IT. Finally, PTA made a movie that didn't have to grow on me...I just straight up loved it the first time I watched it. 

Grade: A

Stuff I watched in...September, 2025

The Alienist (seasons 1 and 2)

Based on the novels by Caleb Carr, The Alienist is a moody, Victorian-set thriller series about Dr. Laszlo Kreizler (Daniel Bruhl), an "alienist"--better known today as a psychologist--who gets called in to help with hard-to-crack crime cases. The first season focuses on a series of murders of child sex workers (referred to in the show as "boy prostitutes"). I was surprised that a basic cable show (The Alienist originally aired on TNT) would go this dark, especially since the topic involves the sexual abuse and murder of children.

The second season, subtitled Angel of Darkness, also involves child murder--infanticide, specifically. Suffice it to say that The Alienist is not for the faint of heart. 

Although the show contains a lot of my personal catnip (Victorian-era setting, grisly crime, attractive lead actor), I found The Alienist to be just ok. There's something slightly lacking about it, despite strong acting (rounding out the main cast are Luke Evans as journalist John Moore and Dakota Fanning as secretary-turned-lady-detective Sara Howard). I have the books and plan to read them; hopefully I'll find them more satisfying than the show.

Speaking of that "attractive lead actor", watching the show inspired me to watch (or plan to watch soon) some movies starring Daniel Bruhl. I first saw him way back in college in Goodbye, Lenin! (a great movie, by the way) and proceeded to get him and Emile Hirsch mixed up for years. But it turns out that while Hirsch is a piece of shit who almost strangled a woman to death, Bruhl is actually a really cool Renaissance man with good politics. So I will continue to swoon over Bruhl as he deserves to be swooned over. 

Grade: B

***

Magnolia

Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the best directors working today and his films always, always, always take at least two watches for me to appreciate them. Every first watch of a PTA film I respond to with: "ew, gross." His films are so off-putting and aggressive and intense. And yet, when I watch them a second or third or fourth time...they have a way of growing on me.

This was my first rewatch of PTA's 1999 film Magnolia. I first saw the film probably in the early 2000s when I was 16 or 17. I remember thinking that the movie was too emotional and sad for me. William H. Macy's character--Quiz Kid Donnie Smith, a grown up child genius whose parents stole money he won on a game show--was just too much. Macy is so good at playing those pathetic, tragic characters and 16 year old Jenny couldn't take it. 

Now that I am nearly 40, there is enough scar tissue around my sensitive little heart that I can watch Magnolia and appreciate it for the beautiful, sad, funny movie that it is. It is filled to the brim with lonely people who have been abused or have abused others. The themes of the film include how we (society) take advantage of children and specifically how parents--in particular, fathers--harm and let down their kids. As George Carlin said, "Hell is full of dads" and Magnolia certainly drives that point home with three epically terrible dads. 

The acting in this film is unreal. There many stars who always turn in a good performance: the aforementioned Macy, as well as the dearly beloved Philip Seymour Hoffman (may he rest in peace), Julianne Moore, Philip Baker Hall, and John C. Reilly. But PTA also manages to coax out one of the best performances of Tom Cruise I've ever seen. I hate Tom Cruise, both as an actor and as a human. He is creepy and gross and an influential member of an abusive cult. Plus, I think he sucks as an actor! But he is good in a couple films, including this one. And that's because he lets his dark side come out. As a proto-Red Pill manosphere influencer named Frank Mackey, he says "Respect the cock. Tame the cunt" and teaches undeserving men to make women their "sperm receptacles". As a 16 year old I hated this. I was sickened by such a character. But now I appreciate the deep damage and trauma fueling Mackey. That scene where he weeps and shudders by his dying father's bedside? Chills. It just took the right director to help Cruise access those wells of hatred and despair that lead to a performance like this. No wonder PTA always works with the greatest actors alive. He is an actor's director. 

Magnolia is a great film. It's a lot, don't get me wrong. The movie is 3 hours long and jammed wall-to-wall with uncomfortable emotions. It took me two days to watch it. But it is a masterpiece. Just add it to the list of other masterpieces by Paul Thomas Anderson: Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, The Master. 

Grade: A

***

Napoleon Dynamite

When Napoleon Dynamite first came out in 2004, I found it to be dumb as hell. I ended up watching it like 3 or 4 times, mostly against my will, because my friends liked it and wanted to watch it. Even though I didn't like it, it still held a strange fascination because of how fucking weird it is. 

I decided to revisit it. It's probably been about 15 years since I last watched it. While it's still dumb as hell, the nostalgia has set in and I enjoyed it. What is interesting to me is how simultaneously real and unreal Napoleon Dynamite is. It takes place in Idaho, presumably in "present day" (the early aughts). Uncle Rico has a cell phone, for example. But because this is bumfuck Idaho, it may as well be the early 90s. Everyone dresses like the late-80s/early 90s. But also, what the fuck? Why is someone named "Napoleon Dynamite"? That's not a real name! Why does everyone act so weird? Director Jared Hess took the normal signs and signifiers of dorkiness and lower middle class aesthetics and turned it up to 11.

Hess's total commitment to the world of Napoleon Dynamite is what makes the movie work. Unlike some other cutesy-twee films of the early aughts (*cough*GardenState*cough*), the weirdness of Napoleon Dynamite doesn't feel ironic or overly studied. It doesn't feel like the writer and director sat down and thought "How do we add weird or cute stuff to this movie?". Instead, they built an entire world where pocket tater-tots and having to do a skit if you're running for class president are normal, believable things. 

I think Napoleon Dynamite was ahead of its time. People think of it as a quintessential Millennial film, but its anti-humor feels more Gen-Z to me. Or maybe Napoleon Dynamite transcends generational humor and just resides in a weird little universe unto itself. Either way, I'm voting for Pedro.

Grade: B+

***

Big Fish

It must be rewatch month for me because here is another film of the early aughts that I rewatched for the first time in about 20 years. I have a friend with whom I watch a lot of horror movies and he mentioned that this (very much non-horror) film is one of his favorites. I said "let's watch it!"

You know, it's kind of interesting that I mentioned above how Magnolia is about bad dads and Napoleon Dynamite is a movie that commits to a strange world of anti-humor and lived-in dorkiness because Big Fish takes both of those aspects and remixes them. Big Fish is also about (bad) dads. And it also commits to a strange world of impossible things. But all in a very Tim Burton way. 

Albert Finney plays Edward Bloom, an older man who is dying. His son, Will Bloom (Billy Crudup), comes to help take care of him along with his pregnant wife, Josephine (Marion Cotillard). About to become a dad himself, Will is determined to learn some true things about his father. You see, Ed Bloom is a fabulist--a man who tells tall tales and nothing but. The movie goes back and forth between present day and the past, with Ewan McGregor, always impossibly handsome and charming, as young Ed Bloom. 

Big Fish is not Burton's best work, but it's not his worst either. That unique Burton mix of bizarre and fanciful, dark and soft, sinister and kind suffuses the film. We watch Ed Bloom's younger days play out in a buttery yellow haze--an old man recounting glorious days past. But how much of it is true? How much of it is a total lie? And how much of his stories fall somewhere in between? Despite some very cheesy elements, Big Fish got to me, especially in a scene near the end where the older Bloom asks Will to tell him the story of "how he goes". Finally, the son is engaging his imagination to provide comfort to his dying father. But it's also sad because Will's pain at not being told the full truth about his father (who was living a double life) is real. I do believe that Edward Bloom is a bad father. Or, at least, not the father that Will needed and deserved. Although Ewan McGregor is handsome and charming, Albert Finney plays the more realistic version of this type of man: blustering, pontificating, interrupting, obfuscating. We all know old men like this and they aren't cute. 

But by the end of the film, Will comes to at least understand his father and realize that not all of his "big fish" stories were total bullshit. And that he helped many people. To me, it's not so much a film about reconciliation between son and father, but about a son maturing enough to forgive his father for being human. And that's just as, if not more so, beautiful than a story of straightforward forgiveness.

Grade: B

***

The Countess

I'm not going to spend much time reviewing this one. The Countess is a film about Elizabeth Bathory directed by and starring the wonderful Julie Delpy. I watched it because Daniel Bruhl is in it (see The Alienist, above, for why I am working my way through some of Bruhl's films). 

It's not very good. The movie suggests that if Countess Bathory could have married for love, maybe she wouldn't have killed all those virgins! The film also hints at the idea that the gruesome tales about the Countess and her love of blood could be slander...while also depicting said gruesome acts. 

Elizabeth Bathory is a fascinating historical figure and I'm glad there is a movie about her. But it's not really a movie worthy of her legend. If you're going to do a movie about "The Blood Countess", make it horrifying and disgusting. Just lean into it. Yes, maybe those stories about her torturing virginal women so that she could use their blood to make herself look youthful are all false. But no one wants to hear that story. We want to see the woman who inspired Dracula. We want to see a movie about a goddamn psychopath, not a lovesick and misunderstood woman. 

I look forward to the day there is a really, really good horror film about Countess Bathory (and Vlad the Impaler too, for that matter).

Grade: C

The Long Walk

General spoiler warning

Based on a novella by Stephen King (writing under the pen name "Richard Bachman"), The Long Walk is a movie about a dystopian future where everyone is miserably poor and every year 50 young men volunteer to participate in "the Long Walk" where they walk and walk and walk, never going under a 3 mph pace and never stopping until only one is left. The winner receives insane riches and a wish. The losers all die, shot down like dogs if they stop walking for too long.

Definitely a very healthy movie to watch at a time like this! (and by "this", I mean "look the fuck around"). But, honestly, I found it cathartic. I often find intense, sad movies cathartic when I am feeling intense and sad. I like what I watch and read to match the emotions inside. 

Ray Garraty, played by the wonderful Cooper Hoffman (son of beloved actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, may he rest in peace), is our main character. After being dropped off at the starting line by his distressed mother (Judy Greer), Ray meets some of his fellow walkers: spunky Hank Olson (Ben Wang), religious Art Baker (Tut Nyuot), edgy Gary Barkovitch (Charlie Plummer), stoic Collie Parker (Joshua Odjick), resilient Billy Stebbins (Garrett Wareing), and intelligent and thoughtful Peter McVries (David Jonsson).

The man running the show is known only as the Major (Mark Hamill) and he compliments the boys for having "the sack" to sign up for such an endurance test. The rules are simple: walk or die. If you fall below a pace of 3 miles per hour, you get a warning. If you get three warnings, you are shot. However, your slate is clean after an hour with no additional warnings. So, let's say you have to stop and tie your shoe. You get one warning for stopping. If it takes more than 10 seconds to tie your shoe, that's another warning. But then if you get up and keep walking for two hours with no warnings, you're back to zero.

All Walkers can get fresh canteens of water any time they ask for it. They're given food rations every day. Have to piss? Well, you're going to be pissing as you walk at a 3 mph pace. Have to shit? You can either shit while walking or take a warning or two by popping a squat. 

Got a rock in your shoe and you're already at 3 warnings? You're going to be walking a while with that rock. Thems the rules.

Oh, and if you step off the road you are shot immediately.

You can imagine the type of nasty stuff that happens as the hours of walking pass by. A kid gets a charlie horse and is able to keep up for a while, but eventually gives up, crying "it's not fair!" as a bullet it put in his brain. Same with a kid who gets the runs and keeps dropping below speed to poop. It's not a pleasant movie.

We stick with our main cast of characters. Ray, Peter, Art, and Hank call themselves the "Musketeers". Collie and Stebbins keep to themselves. And Gary is the villain. Well, sort of. He eggs one walker on, who ends up shot because of Gary's prodding. When the boys begin calling Gary a "killer", he tries to tell them he didn't want that kid to die. Gary Barkovitch is one of the most interesting characters because of his desperate desire to be part of a group of friends, but also be a tough guy. Charlie Plummer is great at portraying the edgy, tragic character.

The main message of the film is that to endure great hardship, you must have friends. The central friendship is that between Ray and Peter, both of whom don't have brothers. So they become each other's brothers for as long as they walk. But the tragedy of it is that they both know that one of them has to die so that the other may win. Without having read the novella, I was curious to see how the film would end. I hoped that Ray and Peter would do something like stop walking at the same time, each with three warnings, daring the Major to kill them both and thus have no winner of The Long Walk.

About the ending...this is where The Long Walk went from an "A-" to a "B+" for me. For a couple reasons. For one, the ending felt rushed. Ray and Peter are the final two survivors. They enter into a city, crowded with people. Peter decides to sacrifice himself for Ray and stops walking, but then Ray pulls him forward and tells him to keep walking for a while longer and Peter does so. But then Ray stops walking. And as he already had his third warning, he is shot. Peter is, of course, devastated. When the Major asks what his wish is...Peter decides to carry out Ray's wish (which Ray had privately told him about earlier in the film). He asks for a carbine rifle immediately and is given one. He shoots and kills the Major and then walks away.

My issue with this ending isn't that it's bleak. Earlier in the film, Peter and Ray have a conversation about Ray's plan to kill the Major. Even if it means Ray will die, he feels that he would be "cutting the head off" by killing the Major. Peter urges him to "choose love" if he wins and to use the money and the wish to make the world a better place--not by killing someone, but in some other way. Well, we see at the end that Peter decides to choose murder over love, for better or worse. He's betrayed his own values to get revenge for his friend. 

But MY issue is with how unrealistic it is. I find it difficult to believe that 1) they would just give the winner of The Long Walk a rifle when he asks for it even though the Major is right there and emotions are high, 2) not immediately shoot Peter in the head when he points the gun at the Major, and 3) not definitely kill him after he shoots the Major. I mean, maybe they do kill him, but we don't see it. We just see Peter walk off into the night. 

While it would have been satisfying to see Peter kill the Major, the way it's filmed is just very...anticlimactic. Like, "oh, that happened. The end." Any message, whether it's "this poor boy has lost his soul in killing the Major" or "Peter learned that sometimes killing is the right thing to do" is lost due to the way the scene plays out. Now, that's just my opinion. Others have found the ending to be powerful or appropriately bleak.

So, yeah, The Long Walk is a very good movie that stumbles (ha ha) at the end. But as I said above, the real reason to watch the film is the acting. All the actors are excellent and make you feel each painful step of the Walk. Standouts are Hoffman, who feels the most "real" of any of the characters (some of the characters feel a bit cartoonish at times, but Ray, both in dialogue and mannerisms, is very real and not cartoonish at all), Plummer, and Jonsson. 

Every time one of the boys dies during the walk, it is an absolute gut-punch. Whether they die screaming for help or die trying to fight, the gravity of what is happening hits hard. And the looks of horror, bewilderment, and agony on the other boys' faces as they force themselves to walk on is...something to behold. Given the week I had before going into this film only made it more powerful, more unsettling, and more devastating. I only recommend it if you're in the "right" headspace to see it, whatever "right" means to you. 

The Long Walk is a dystopian film for our current times. Desperation drives these boys to what is tantamount to suicide. Their pain is meaningless to the guards who shoot them like dogs if they stumble or slow down. And because this is Stephen King, who is as ruthless as he is sentimental (even cheesy, at times), the ending reads not as triumphant, but as bleak as hell. The only balm is knowing that they found friends--even brothers--along the way.

Grade: B+

Revisiting The Lord of the Rings trilogy

I've never been a Tolkien fan. That's not to say I don't like his work, I was just never into high fantasy (or low fantasy for that matter), so I never read his work with the exception of The Fellowship of the Ring, which was required reading in 11th grade English.

But of course I saw all three of The Lord of the Rings movies. You kind of had to. I remember liking The Fellowship of the Ring the most and seeing it at least 2 times, perhaps 3 times, in the early aughts. However, I only saw The Two Towers and The Return of the King once each. I saw them in the theatre and have not watched them since.

UNTIL NOW. 

IN A WORLD...fraught with division and strife...

IN A WORLD...where evil gains traction every passing day...

IN A WORLD...where the little guy has to stand up for what's right...

ONE MOVIE LOVER...has the courage to return to the past and watch a series of movies that she was convinced were overrated and boring. 

COMING RIGHT NOW TO AN INTERNET NEAR YOU is the sensation...the blog entry all the critics are talking about...

JENNY'S REVIEW OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY 

***

So it turns out that I was wrong and Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy is an absolute masterpiece of filmmaking. I watched all three films--the extended cuts of each one--in less than a week. I planned to watch one film per weekend over the course of 3 weeks, but the minute that Fellowship was over, I started The Two Towers. With Two Towers and Return of the King, I watched a few hours each night for a whole week until I was finished.

These movies got their grubby little hobbit hands in me.

I'm not going to go into plot details because I'm guessing that most of you reading this are bigger fans of the series than I am. I'll just write about some feelings that came up for me as I worked my way through the movies.

Not surprisingly, I remembered the plot of Fellowship the most since I had seen it more than once. I remember enjoying the movie when I was a teen because I had a crush on both Elijah Wood and Orlando Bloom so, you know, eye candy. Fellowship is also the lightest of all three. Upon rewatching it, I'd also say it's the weakest film of the trilogy...but when I say "weakest", what I mean is that I'd give it an "A" rating and the other two movies an "A+" rating, so, like, it's still very, very good.

When it came to revisiting The Two Towers and The Return of the King, I remembered almost nothing. I remembered Merry and Pippin being carried around my some trees in the TTT and the whole "I may not be able to carry the ring, but I can carry you Mr. Frodo!" scene from ROTK. Otherwise, these were essentially brand new films for me. 

And, like a virgin, it was like being touched by JRR Tolkien's tremendous prose for the very first time.

I was stunned by how much I enjoyed TTT and especially ROTK. This was not a situation where I was half-watching, half-playing on my phone. I was riveted to the screen. And those lines people like to quote from the trilogy hit hard. When I was watching these movies as a 16, 17, 18 year old, I was not the same person as I am now. We were not living in the same world as we are now. Gandalf's famous line, "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." hits like a fucking freight train. 

I'm still not a fan of high fantasy--that has not changed. What changed is that I grew up. As sheltered as I still am compared to many people, I'm not as sheltered as I was when I was a teenager. And while I had some semblance of "religion" back when I first saw the movies, what I have now is an actual, burgeoning concept of spirituality that is mine and mine alone, built through loss of innocence, built through experience, built through hard times, and still continuing to be built, day by day.

Even if you're a stalwart atheist, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a spiritual story. When I say "spiritual", what I mean is the idea that there is something greater than us and our lives. That we actually do need other people. That we each have unique gifts and strengths no matter who we are. And that our strengths and weaknesses fit into to the strengths and weaknesses of other people like a puzzle. 

This is the message of The Lord of the Rings: every person has unique qualities and are of value...but only in the context of being in community with others. Only Frodo could carry the ring as far as he did, but he wouldn't have made it without Sam. The Lord of the Rings says: you are not meant to be alone and to shoulder the burdens of the world by yourself. You are meant to be in relationship with other people. And they with you.

This is a message that I needed to hear and still need to hear because I struggle with two things: 1) a strong desire to be alone a lot of the time and 2) a feeling that I'm not as good as other people. My desire to be alone comes from issues with being overstimulated by other people and their noise and energy. And that's legit, but I also need to make sure that I don't retreat too much into myself. The other part of this is a feeling of creeping shame that I am not enough--not enough of an adult, not smart enough, not strong enough, and certainly not brave enough for this world.

But what LOTR says to me is: you, Jenny, are needed by other people. You, Jenny, do have strengths and skills that others don't have and they need your help. You, Jenny, can learn from others and it's not embarrassing to learn, even as you approach middle age. In fact, it's beautiful to keep learning as you get older. 

Something that I had forgotten about the trilogy is that it ends on a pretty bittersweet note. After the four hobbits return home when Sauron is conquered, they try to get on with their lives. But Frodo can't. He has seen and experienced too much to just live a "normal" life in the Shire. He ends up going to the Undying Lands with Bilbo and Gandalf--basically, like going to eternity without dying. Sam and his friends are saddened to see him go, but it's what he has to do. The Fellowship is truly broken up at this point and everyone is moving on with their lives (or afterlives). And we get that lovely last shot of Samwise Gamgee, the real hero of the movies, going back home to his wife and kids.

This is really not a typical "happy ending" and I love the trilogy for that. I love that the story suggests that sometimes we are so impacted by life events and trauma that we cannot go back to who we were--we can only move forward to who we are becoming. That's beautiful, and that's truth. 

So I rewatched these films while having a mid-life crisis and an existential crisis and a spiritual crisis...and, boy howdy, I cannot recommend these films enough if you are experiencing one or more of the above crises. It's goooood crisis-watching. 

That's all I have to say. Well done to everyone involved in the making of these films. Hopefully they know how much the movies mean to so many people.

Grade: A+

Stuff I watched in...August, 2025

The Naked Gun

It's been a REALLY long time since I watched the original (1988) The Naked Gun, but I remember thinking it was hilarious. When the positive reviews started coming out about this (sequel? reboot?) version, I figured it would be a great movie to watch with my dad--and it was!

Liam Neeson is perfect actor to take on the role of Frank Drebin Jr. (supposed to be Leslie Nielsen's son). Neeson has made his bread and butter playing straight man roles in movies both excellent and not-so-excellent. The Naked Gun is one of those movies where you need a dramatic actor playing it straight in order for the humor to work, and Neeson is up to the task.

Likewise, Pamela Anderson is wonderful as Beth Davenport, the sister of a murder victim and Frank's love interest. 

Danny Huston rounds out the cast as Richard Cane, a tech mogul with a sinister plan. Huston is always good as a villain and he's perfect as Cane.

There's not much to say about The Naked Gun except that it's one of those movies where you're laughing so much, you actually end up missing jokes. The humor runs from the absurd to potty humor to Mitch Hedberg-esque one-liners to slapstick. There's a little something for everyone. 

Grade: B

***

Final Destination: Bloodlines

Final Destination is one of my favorite horror franchises. The premise is inherently interesting and, unlike many other horror franchises, the sequels meet (or exceed) the excellence of the original film. For me, the first Final Destination film, which came out in 2000 and stars Devon Sawa, will always be the best of the franchise. However, the latest of the series, Final Destination: Bloodlines, gives the original a run for its money. 

The film starts out in the past: 1969, to be exact. Iris and Paul are a couple who have a dinner reservation during the opening night of the Sky View--a high-rise restaurant with a dance floor made of glass. After Iris has a vision of the dance floor breaking and everyone in the restaurant falling to their death, she screams at everyone to get off the dance floor and ends up saving the lives of everyone in the restaurant.

But as we know from the series, you can't cheat death. 

In 2024, Stefani Reyes keeps having dreams about the Sky View and identifies the woman in her dreams as her estranged grandmother, Iris. She begins asking the family about Iris and is told to leave well enough alone: Iris ruined her children's lives due to her obsession with safety and now lives alone as a recluse. Of course, Stefani goes to visit Iris and learns about the whole "death with find you" thing. Iris explains that because there were so many people who survived the Sky View, death has been taking years to snuff them all out. Many of those people had children. And if you're part of the bloodline of someone who was meant to die that night--you're on death's list too.

So, Stefani has to convince her family to find a way to circumvent death's plan. Which will be damned hard since no one believes her.

Final Destination: Bloodlines has some excellent kills. It's also Tony Todd's final film before his death. If you're a fan of the franchise, don't miss this one, and even if you're not, you might enjoy the movie regardless.

Grade: B

***

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

It's kind of wild that I hadn't seen this "ultimate dad movie" until now, but I really hated Russell Crowe in the early 2000s. However, time heals all wounds and I've forgiven Crowe for being a dick 20+ years ago (he wasn't a dick to me, just a dick in general).

Master and Commander is an epic sea adventure that takes place in 1805. Crowe plays "Lucky" Jack Aubrey, captain of the HMS Surprise, who is tasked with taking down the French privateer ship Acheron. The film is basically a cat-and-mouse game between the two ships and we see the various strategies Aubrey and his crew use to foil, escape from, and ultimately take over Acheron. 

This movie is based on the first in a series of novels by Patrick O'Brien. The novels focus on the relationship between Aubrey and Stephen Maturin (played in the film by Paul Bettany), a surgeon and naturalist. These two men compliment each other in strengths and weaknesses: where Aubrey is optimistic, energetic, and arrogant, Maturin is cautious, introverted, and realistic. 

I think what struck me about Master and Commander is what a perfect example of "positive masculinity" the film is: for the most part, the men of HMS Surprise help each other and lead each other. Jack Aubrey actually learns from his mistakes with the help of his friend Maturin, and Maturin likewise puts his own interests aside to help others. There are definitely some negative consequences of "groupthink" on the Surprise (the fate of Hollom), but there is also a lot of camaraderie and care. 

Master and Commander is a comfort film of sorts: there are stakes, and high ones, but at the end of the day it's about a bunch of competent people coming together for the greater good. Well, the greater good of Britain, of course. Really glad I watched it and I'm looking forward to revisiting it.

Grade: A-

***

The Blood on Satan's Claw

1971's The Blood on Satan's Claw is one of three films in the "Unholy Trinity" of original folk horror (at least British folk horror) films. The other two are Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man. In watching this one, I have now seen all three.

I don't consider The Blood on Satan's Claw to be a particularly "good" film, but it's definitely got vibes that a lot of people will fuck with. The movie, which takes place in the early 18th century, is about Pagan vs. Christian, young vs. old, sex vs. chastity, and chaos vs. order. A group of children (teenagers, really), lead by blonde popular girl Angel Blake, begin worshipping a demonic god and making sacrifices to him. The elders of the village try to stop them before the whole village descends into satanic violence.

The acting and editing of the film are not great in my opinion. It has a very low budget, cheesy 1970s feel to it. Also, it's incredibly psychosexual. What I mean by that is that there are scenes of assault and violence that are heavily sexualized. I didn't mind this and was actually pretty amused by it, but it added to the old-fashioned feeling of the movie.

I'm glad I watched The Blood on Satan's Claw, but I would consider it my least favorite of the unholy trinity (The Wicker Man is by far the best). That said, it's a must-watch for anyone into folk horror. If you don't mind a little cheesiness (and, er, significant sexual violence), it's a fun movie.

Grade: C+

***

Little Miss Sunshine

It's been a while since I've seen this iconic mid-aughts indie dramedy. Little Miss Sunshine is a movie that got lumped in with all the other "twee"/"manic pixie dream girl" movies that were so abundant from 2004-2012. Other examples of the twee genre include Garden State, Elizabethtown, 500 Days of Summer, Juno, etc. 

This type of movie is a bit maligned now that we've entered a more cynical era and, indeed, some of these movies are just plain bad and others don't hold up well. But Little Miss Sunshine rises above the rest, in my humble opinion. It still has a lot of problems (namely: what is up with the whole "grandpa teaches young granddaughter how to strip to the song "Superfreak"" thing?...we'll get to that below)...but it also has a lot of genuine emotion and sincerity that is missing from other twee movies. The problems these characters face are real ones: drug addiction, suicide, money issues, failure, and depression. I never felt like any of these characters were caricatures, but, rather, real and imperfect people.

I think there are a few standouts here: Alan Arkin as Ed Hoover (aka grandpa), who brings a lot of laughs with his crude sense of humor...but also brings tears as he assures young Olive (Abigail Breslin) that she's not a "loser". I also think there is a reason we all paid attention to this kid named Paul Dano (playing disaffected teenager Dwayne)... he went on the very next year to play Eli Sunday in There Will Be Blood. Dano is really good as Dwayne, a character who is both deeply angry and deeply sensitive. 

The film climaxes at the Little Miss Sunshine child beauty pageant which no one in the Hoover family understood was, well, a child beauty pageant. Oliver Hoover is very much not prepared to go on stage alongside 6 year olds with the same makeup and hair as Tammy Faye Baker...and that is the point of the film, which is that being yourself is more important than being a fake. But it's also just a weird choice to have Olive strip (granted, down to a bodysuit) to "Superfreak". On the one hand, it muddies the message that child beauty pageants sexualize little girls. On the other hand, the whole situation is so weird that is still kind of fits in with the movie overall. I do think the directors (Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton) wanted to say "Ironically, this young girl doing stripper moves to a sexual song is LESS SEXUAL than the more conventional children in this pageant. IS YOUR MIND BLOWN YET??" Well, message received, directors. 

Overall, I have to hand it to Little Miss Sunshine: I was impressed with how well it held up. It's funny, it's emotional, it's a bit manipulative and cheesy, but it's also weird and kinda fucked up, which balances out the cheesiness. It's not for everyone, but it is for me.

Grade: A-