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-

Weapons

In 2022, director Zach Cregger, who was best known for being a cofounder of The Whitest Kids U Know, created a masterful horror film titled Barbarian. Everything about this film from how it was marketed to the way it slowly revealed its cards to its mix of humor and dread came together so perfectly. I've watched Barbarian 4 or 5 times at this point and even though I know all the twists, I still love it.

So, the question is, can lightning strike twice? After seeing Cregger's latest film, Weapons, I gotta say...yes. This dude knows how to direct a horror film. And even though I like Barbarian more on the whole, Weapons is a tense, disturbing, and very funny nightmare of a movie.

As with Barbarian, the marketing of Weapons only allows us a peek at the first part of the movie. It opens with a child narrator explaining that two years ago a class of 17 third graders all left their homes at 2:17am and "never came back". Only one child in the class, Alex Lilly (Cary Christopher), comes into school the next morning. Of course, suspicion falls on the teacher, Justine Gandy (Julia Garner), who is as baffled and horrified as anyone else.

Weapons takes place in chapters that each focus on one character's point of view. It starts with Justine's story, then Archer Graff's (Josh Brolin), a grieving and angry father who wants answers. We also see the perspective of the school principal, Marcus (Benedict Wong), a cop named Paul (Alden Ehrenreich), a homeless addict named James (Austin Abrams), and finally Alex Lilly himself. 

Each chapter builds on the previous one, answering questions that came up earlier and showing different angles of the mystery. But in the latter half of the film, Weapons shows us what exactly is going on. I'll get into spoilers below after a warning. 

For those who don't want to be spoiled, I'll just say that I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film, but especially the second half. I also laughed a lot. Cregger is really good at getting that balance of terror and levity. If anything, he leans perhaps a little too much into the levity, giving Weapons the feel of being a horror comedy at times. But despite the humor, there is a horrific and sad story at the center of Weapons. The film is absolutely worth watching--especially in a theatre filled with people--and is one of my favorites of the year so far.

Grade: A-

***

SPOILERS!!!!!

Throughout the film we see glimpses of a red-haired woman. Eventually, we find out that this is Alex's Aunt Gladys (Amy Madigan, in a wonderful performance). The tl;dr is that Gladys is a witch. She is old and sick and invited by Alex's parents to stay with them (even though they don't really like her) and she immediately begins using a holly tree and personal items to create binding spells, allowing her total control over Alex's parents. With her spells, she can take control of and weaponize (ah!) people--causing them to come to her, as she does with the children, or to hurt themselves or hurt others. 

It's never fully explained why Gladys needs to do this, other than vague allusions to the fact that she's old and sick and using her powers seems to make her more healthy and energetic. I'm sure there are breakdowns of the movie that explain exactly how Gladys uses black magic (and I plan to read some), but I'm guessing that by controlling people's souls and bodies, she takes some of their energy. Perhaps children's souls are especially potent, which is why she compels Alex to bring her an item from every one of his classmates, allowing her to call to the children and get them to come running to Alex's house that fateful night.

The film reaches its climax when Justine and Archer enter Alex's home, only to be attacked by Paul and James, who have been "bound" by Gladys's magic. Meanwhile, Alex steps over a protective line of salt and is attacked by his own parents. Alex manages to grab a strand of hair from Gladys's wig and quickly do the binding spell himself, which turns all 17 children on Gladys. They chase her down and rip her apart, breaking the binding spells for all involved. However, it's not a very happy ending. The narrator explains that Alex's parents never recovered and they are basically comatose in an assisted living home somewhere. The children are reunited with their parents and, as the final line of the film states, "some have even started talking again".

Weapons is a good, old-fashioned fairy tale about a witch preying on children. It's also a commentary on paranoia and hysteria, especially when children are involved. The parents initially (and understandably) demand answers from Justine. They assume that she, being the teacher of the class that went missing, had something to do with it. The hound her and harass her, especially Archer (whom it is revealed never managed to say "I love you" to his kid). But it's also about addiction. Cregger has said in interviews that he grew up in an alcoholic home and had to take care of himself and his parents, as we see Alex do in the movie. "I lived that chapter as a kid", he says. There are also multiple addicts in the movie: James, the meth addict who steals and pawns items to get quick cash; Paul is in recovery and relapses during a night with his ex, Justine; and Justine herself enjoys a nice, tall glass of vodka even when she should be sober and alert. 

In summary, there's a lot going on in Weapons and I look forward to rewatching it and catching more details I missed the first time. I also look forward to seeing what horrors Cregger has in store for us next time.

Grade: B+

Together

Relationships are hard, particularly if you're a naturally independent and/or introverted person. Yet the desire for connection and love with another human being is a feeling many, many of us experience. This paradox, this push-and-pull of desire and repulsion, of love and annoyance, is familiar to anyone who has been close to anyone else. Regardless of how much you love someone, sometimes you just don't want to deal with their shit--and they feel the same about you!

You can probably tell what a romantic I am by the above statement. And Michael Shanks' body horror comedy Together is a horror film for all the realist romantics out there because it captures that mixture of lust and disgust that is so common in long term relationships.

And if you're like, "what are you talking about? I feel nothing but pure, sweet love for my partner of many years" then whoop-de-doo for you, you liar! Hahaha, just kidding...

Together stars actual real life married couple Alison Brie and Dave Franco, who also happen to be perfect for their roles. Brie is Millie, a smart and slightly high-strung go-getter of a woman who is offered a teaching job in a rural area that will take her away from life in the city. Her boyfriend, Tim (Franco), moves with her but clearly is not so happy about leaving the city and all his friends. Tim is an aspiring musician and although he is offered a touring gig with his old band, he knows that living a train ride away from the city will probably put a significant damper on his career.

Tim is also mourning the death of his parents and has been sexually and emotionally distant from Millie. 

Millie and Tim go for a hike on the trails near their home one day and fall into a cave. They end up spending the night in there and Tim drinks water from a pool in the cave (Millie, understandably, refuses). Although they get out safely the next day, strange things begin to happen. Tim is inexplicably pulled towards Millie as if by supernatural means. After she drops him off at the train station so that he can travel to a gig with his band, Tim abandons his luggage and instruments at the station and walks miles to Millie's school and then fucks her in the boy's restroom, nearly getting caught by Millie's coworker, Jamie (Damon Herriman). 

Whatever Tim has inside himself, he apparently fucked it into Millie as she begins to experience the pull towards Tim. And when I say "pull", I don't mean like they really want to snuggle on the couch while watching Love Island, I mean like their bodies are becoming stuck together...and then fused together.

Together has some really gnarly body horror that is both disgusting, but also really funny. Franco and Brie have excellent chemistry and it's believable that Millie and Tim would be a couple who love each other but are also struggling in their relationship. The movie serves as a metaphor for enmeshment and codependency, but also for that feelings of both wanting to be close to your partner, but also wanting space. As an introvert, what happens to Tim and Millie is my worst nightmare...but as a romantic, I found Together to be sweet in a fucked up way.

It's hard to grade this film because I think it's stronger than a B+, but not quite an "A" level movie because I think there could have been more to it...either it could have gone harder or been less predictable. I'm going to give Together the benefit of the doubt and rate it an A- for the chemistry between the leads, the body horror, and the very appropriate use of a Spice Girls song during a critical moment. 

Grade: B+

Eye see you!

Stuff I watched in...July, 2025

The Gilded Age 

For a show that focuses on the kinds of people we joke about guillotining, The Gilded Age is pretty damn compelling. Created by Julian Fellowes, who also created Downton Abbey (and there are a LOT of similarities between the two shows, including very similar plot twists), The Gilded Age follows the ambitious Russell family as they try to integrate into the elite world of fashionable New York City in the 1880s. 

George Russell (Morgan Spector) is new money--he made his fortune through his own hard work (and on the backbreaking labor of many others, of course!). Old Money New York hates "new people" and excludes them at every turn. However, George's wife, Bertha (Carrie Coon, a force to be reckoned with), is viciously ambitious and will stop at nothing to not only force her way into society, but to dominate it completely. 

Like Downton Abbey, The Gilded Age follows a huge cast of characters, including both "downstairs" and "upstairs" people, as they navigate a period in United States history where a tiny percentage of stupidly wealthy people owned everything and everyone else worked their asses off for scraps. Sounds a bit familiar, eh? The acting is top notch, with talent such as Christine Baranski, Cynthia Nixon, Audra McDonald, and Nathan Lane among the cast. It's also, of course, gorgeous to look at (the clothing, especially). And it's amazing how quickly I got sucked into the drama. Even the wealthy cry bitter tears at night, and I'm here for it.

Grade: A

***

The Assessment

I wanted more out of this dystopian film about a future in which couples must apply to become parents. In the (not too distant?) future, Mia (Elizabeth Olsen) and Aaryan (Himesh Patel) are a successful couple living on the "new world" where resources are extremely scarce and raising a child is a luxury and a privilege. The couple applies for parenthood and an assessor, Virginia (Alicia Vikander), comes to live with them for a week to assess their parental worthiness. Things get weird real fast.

The Assessment feels like an extra long Black Mirror episode and, frankly, not one of the better episodes. The film is intriguing and certainly tense as hell, but I don't really think it says anything new about parenting or society--though it seems to want to say something new. I was left feeling pretty empty by the end of the film--not out of depression or sadness, but more in a "well, that was certainly a movie" type of way. Great acting by Olsen and Vikander. Check it out if you enjoy dystopian stories.

Grade: B

***

You'll Never Find Me

This single-location horror film fell flat. Brendan Rock plays Patrick, a man living alone in a trailer park. During a horrible storm a woman--named only "The Visitor" (played by Jordan Cowan)--knocks on his door asking to use his phone. Patrick lets her in but explains that he doesn't have a phone and she'll need to wait until the storm dies down so that he can take her to the pay phone at the edge of the park.

Scary, tense shit ensues. The audience wonders if Patrick is going to hurt the woman. Sure seems that way when he practically demands that she take a shower to "warm up". But then we wonder if she is going to hurt him. After all, wouldn't it be too obvious if the big scary man hurt the poor, soaking wet lady?

You'll Never Find Me is a straight-to-Shudder horror film and it shows. The single location suggests that it was made on a shoestring budget, which is admirable, but doesn't make for a compelling film. It starts off slow and ends up not going to a particularly interesting place. I'd say skip it and make room for a better film. 

Grade: C-

***

The Mothman Prophecies

I hadn't seen this 2002 film since it was in theatres and the only thing I remembered was "chapstick" (IYKYK). An online friend mentioned watching it and, as coincidence (or Mothman interference) would have it, I found the DVD for a buck at a thrift store not long after. I watched it with my mom and we agreed: pretty ok movie! I didn't love the frenetic, choppy editing, but the story of John Klein (Richard Gere), a man grieving the loss of his wife (Debra Messing), and then mysteriously drawn to Point Pleasant, West Virginia and beset with disturbing visions, is compelling. 

The Mothman is a cryptid that was spotted numerous times in 1966 and 1967 in Point Pleasant. In December of 1967, the Silver Bridge, connecting Ohio and West Virginia, collapsed, killing 46 people. Many folks believed there was a connection between the Mothman sightings and the bridge collapse. In 1975, journalist John Keel wrote a book about the sightings and what they could mean. That book became the basis for this film (even though the film takes place in the early 2000s). Got all that?

Mothmen have famously chapped lips

I really enjoy movies where a person becomes obsessed with something spooky--either a crime or something supernatural--and has to do a bunch of research to put all the clues together. While The Mothman Prophecies is nowhere near as good as, for example, Zodiac, it still pushes a lot of those buttons for me. It also weaves in a message about grief. John Klein is extra vulnerable to becoming obsessed with the Mothman because he is still grieving the loss of his wife (who saw and drew pictures of the Mothman before she died) and the search for answers provides both a distraction from difficult emotions and a reason for his wife's death. If he can save others, maybe his wife's death meant something.

Overall, a solid movie but not an all-timer for me, apologies to Mr. Mothman.

Grade: B-

***

The Human Centipede

I did it, y'all. I watched Tom Six's masterpiece, The Human Centipede. I have been avoiding this movie since I heard about it in 2009. I had nightmares about this movie from simply hearing the premise of it. Not even watching the trailer, which I avoided. 

Time went on, I got more into horror movies, I listened to a bunch of podcasts about The Human Centipede, and finally I realized that the movie will not scare me or even gross me out too much. So I girded my anus and sat down to watch the film. 

And you guys will be so shocked at what I found out: the movie fucking sucks.

The Human Centipede is poorly acted (with somewhat of an exception for Dieter Laser, who plays the mad Dr. Heiter with maximum camp), boring, not scary, and honestly not even that gross. The idea of people stitched ass-to-mouth is gross, but you don't really see anything. Not that I'm complaining.

Extreme horror fans will tell you that The Human Centipede 2 is really the one to watch out for and that it is absolutely disgusting and stomach churning. I had a notion that I might watch the sequels, but I somehow feel like my time might be better spent scrubbing my toilet with a toothbrush.

The Human Centipede is more of a gimmick than an actual movie. At 90 minutes, the film feels way too long. When I tell you that almost nothing happens in this movie, I'm not exaggerating. The movie is basically this: "Hey, man, I had this crazy thought! What if some crazy doctor kidnapped people and stitched them ass-to-mouth so that they were forced to eat each other's poop?! Wouldn't that be insane??" That's the movie. It's a drunken thought expressed in a bar after one too many beers. In fact, director Tom Six came up with the premise of the film after talking with a friend about the worst possible punishment for a pedophile (being stitched via mouth to an overweight trucker's asshole, apparently). Ironically, there are no pedophiles in this movie as far as I can tell, only innocent victims. Now, a movie about pedophiles being stitched ass-to-mouth might actually be interesting. But sadly, all we have is this movie, which ain't much more than a fart in the wind.

Grade: D

Stuff I watched in...June, 2025

The Girl with the Needle

(spoilers)

Filmed in luscious black and white, The Girl with the Needle is based on the true story of Dagmar Overbye, a Danish serial killer who murdered unwanted children. The movie's protagonist is Karoline (Vic Cameron Sonne), a young woman trying to eke out an existence in post-WWI Denmark. Her husband is assumed to be dead, but with no death certificate, she cannot apply for widow's assistance. She begins an affair with her boss, who gets her pregnant, but she is abandoned by him when his mother refuses to let the two marry.

Karoline tries to perform and abortion on herself with a knitting needle in a public bath, but is stopped by Dagmar (Trine Dyrholm), who tells her there is another way: have the baby and give it to her. She will find a good family for it. After Karoline gives birth, she does just that and she asks to be a wet nurse for Dagmar so that the babies left in Dagmar's care can have something to eat before Dagmar finds families for them.

Of course, if you read the first sentence of this review, you know that there are no good families taking these babies in. Just Dagmar "doing what has to be done". 

The Girl with the Needle has been described by its director, Magnus von Horn, as a "fairy tale for grown-ups"...but I don't see anything fantastical about the film. I just see a movie about women helping other women survive. Dagmar's actions are immoral. She lies to the women who are trusting her with their babies even if they are unable to raise the children themselves. But the society these women live in isn't making it easy, or even possible at all, for them to raise their children. The monster of the film isn't Dagmar, it's the patriarchy! Or society. Or Christianity. All the same boogeymen who pretend to care about women while fucking them and then fucking them over.

The Girl with the Needle is a gorgeous, brutal movie that can be a bit slow at times. I loved its defiant spirit.  

Grade: A-

***

Friendship

Confession: I have not yet watched Tim Robinson's by all accounts hilarious show I Think You Should Leave even though I know I would like it. It's just one of dozens of shows I haven't gotten around to yet. However, now that I've seen the mega-cringe movie Friendship, starring Robinson as Craig Waterman and Paul Rudd as Austin Carmichael, I feel that I've gotten a taste of I Think You Should Leave.

Directed by Andrew DeYoung, Friendship is about Craig, a suburban dad who befriends newcomer to the neighborhood, Austin. Austin is much cooler than Craig and has a group of guy friends, is in a band, and is a weatherman on a local news channel: essentially royalty in Craig's eyes. After Craig alienates Austin's friends at a guy's night in, he is friend-dumped by Austin and becomes increasingly desperate to get back into Austin's good graces. 

Friendship is often described as a "cringe comedy"--and it is, indeed, massively cringe--however, it is not cringe in the way that The Office is, where there are "normal" people like Pam and Jim who understand the rules of society and there are weirdos like Dwight and Michael Scott, who break those rules. In the world of Friendship, everyone is a little off. Austin's guy friends randomly start singing "My Boo" during their hangout, freaking out Craig. Similarly, Craig's wife, Tami (Kate Mara), has a habit of kissing their teenage son, Steven (Jack Dylan Glazer) on the lips. Although Austin, Tami, and Steven represent "normal" people...they're fuckin weird too! So while the movie is cringe comedy, it's also surreal comedy. And it walks the very fine line between being so weird it almost feels menacing and being straight up hilarious.

Friendship is not for everyone. If you're not into Tim Robinson's unique brand of unhinged humor, you'll probably feel your teeth grinding and your muscles seizing up while watching it. For a lot of people, embarrassing and awkward comedy is worse than horror. But for those who crack up at people saying absurd shit with a straight face and making fools of themselves, you're in for a treat. 

Grade: B+

***

The Exorcism 

Weirdly enough, actor Russell Crowe has been in two movies involving exorcisms within the past couple years. In one movie, The Pope's Exorcist, he plays a priest called in to perform an exorcism on a young boy. In this movie, The Exorcism, he plays a washed up, alcoholic actor who takes the role as a priest called in to perform an exorcism on a young girl in a movie. Got it? 

I was surprised to see how poorly the film is rated on Rotten Tomatoes, especially since it has this kind of interesting meta thing to it: Crowe's washed up actor is Anthony Miller. Jason Miller, an actual actor who struggled with alcoholism, played Father Karras in The Exorcist. So I assumed it would be a kind of tribute to him.

The movie starts out not too bad, but gives way to predictability and tropes by the end. This movie wants to be The Exorcist so badly. It leans into nasty language in a very performative and faux-edgy way (while Crowe is possessed, he tells his daughter "she'll never eat your pussy like I can" about said daughter's girlfriend). I was not impressed.

The Exorcism is boring and not scary. Crowe gives a good performance, but the material is beneath him. 

Grade: C-

***

Presence

Steven Soderbergh's Presence is a ghost story from the POV of the ghost. Literally. The Payne family moves into a house and daughter Chloe (Callina Liang) can feel the presence immediately. She notices things moving around on their own and feels like she's being watched all the time. Having lost a close friend recently to a drug overdose, Chloe believe the presence is her friend Nadia.

The Payne family is a dysfunctional one. Mom Rebekah (Lucy Liu) is, frankly, a bitch. She openly favors her son Tyler (Eddy Maday), a popular jock, to her introverted daughter. Her husband Chris (Chris Payne), sees how fucked up this is and tries to intervene, but is a bit of a doormat. However, he is seriously thinking about divorce.

We view the Payne family drama from the perspective of the presence, who floats around the house, peeking in on personal conversations. I went into this movie expecting it to be boring and not scary. Well, I have half right. Presence is not scary. That doesn't mean it's not a horror movie in its own way. It's also not boring. The family drama is juicy AF, even though I wanted to strangle Rebekah. 

I won't say anything further as to not spoil anything, but it's a movie worth checking out, especially if you're a fan of Soderbergh. His movies don't always hit, but he's willing to try out a lot of interesting filmmaking methods (or "gimmicks", to be less generous) and I appreciate his creativity.

Grade: B

***

The Wrath of Khan

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but my partner is and he suggested we watch this film. To my surprise, I really enjoyed it. It's basically a two-hour long episode of the original Star Trek and it brings back a villain from a 1967 episode of the original series. 

I'm not going to describe the plot. It's Star Trek. I will say I was surprised at the emotional ending of the film and was...almost crying?? What?? Let's just say that Leonard Nimoy is the GOAT and Spock is (obviously) the best character on the show. 

Grade: B

***

Skincare

This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Starring Elizabeth Banks as Hope Goldman, a celebrity aesthetician, Skincare is a sort of satirical thriller about the beauty industry in LA. Hope has her own skincare studio and her skincare line is about to be released into stores, when a new kid of the block, Angel Vergara (Luis Gerardo Mendez), opens his own skincare studio right across the street from her! The nerve!

Mysteriously fucked up things begin to happen to Hope. For example, "she" sends out what appears to be a drunken, confessional email to all her contacts one evening, humiliating her on a huge scale. Or course, Hope didn't actually send it--she was hacked. But no one seems to believe her (which, side note, I thought was weird. People get hacked all the time. Why wouldn't people--especially those close to her--believe her?). Hope blames Angel, thinking that he is trying to sabotage her.

Skincare is a deeply unpleasant film that ultimately feels pointless. Although Hope is a self-absorbed "Karen" type woman, it's upsetting to watch her be terrorized, nearly sexually assaulted, and not believed. And it's sad to watch her blame it on the Hispanic gay man next door. This movie really feels like it was written by a man (the screenplay is actually by three people, only one of whom I can confirm is a man). The movie seems to say: wow, aren't people in the LA  beauty industry shallow? Which...um, yes? What exactly is being satirized here? All I'm seeing is a woman and a man of color being tortured. 

Skip this one and rewatch The Substance instead.

Grade: C

***

Dune Prophecy 

After rewatching Dune: Part Two recently, I was like "I need more Dune content!". So I watched the HBO series Dune Prophecy, which takes place about 10,000 years before the events of Dune and follows the rise of the Bene Gesserit--the sisterhood of women who are able to tell if people are lying and influence leaders on their decision-making. 

Although I wouldn't consider Dune Prophecy to be an all-timer TV show for me, it was very enjoyable. Starring Emily Watson and Olivia Coleman as sisters Valya and Tula Harkonnen who run a school for young women in the arts of truth-saying, the show provides insight about the history of the Bene Gesserit and their multi-millennia plans to steer the direction of, well, the universe, using every tool at their disposal--ethical or not.

Dune Prophecy is like Game of Thrones in space. There are warring families and political intrigue and betrayal. There's a lot less incest and rape, however! If you like TV with strong, complicated women, this is one for you!

Grade: B+