Journal
Everything I've watched and read, with reviews. Updated as I go. See my favorites here.
Sourced from my Letterboxd and my Goodreads.
I've seen "Sorry to Bother You" so I thought I knew how freaky/batshit/psychotic/deranged this was gonna be. Anyway... I didn't.
Had it's moments, but it was a bit too messy and unfocussed for me. Maybe I just like capitalism too much to appreciate art like this.
All in all, I really liked it, because I love the way he writes about the world. But his last two books contain less connective tissue than his first two, and therefore they were less memorable. They feel more like profound snippets and musings as opposed to fully realized novels that contain characters who undergo change.
Step 1: someone says something crazy
Step 2: quick rejoinder from Seth Rogan
Step 3: audience loses their shit
Step 4: repeat steps 1-3 for 100 minutes
Will Arnett didn’t have to be good to succeed at stand up comedy here, and a movie doesn’t need to be good to succeed at entertaining me! Pretty messy overall but it had a couple of moments
The correct time to watch this cult classic for the first time was at 8 in the morning hungover at my brother-in-law’s bachelor party
I was ready to jump out of a plane after
Weaker premise, looser pacing, but the same charm and humor as the first one. I hope to see another in the next decade.
Me watching a mom decapitate herself with a piano wire in a fucked up horror movie: “hell yeah”
Me watching a publicly humiliating incident at a wedding: “it’s just a movie it’s just a movie it’s just a movie”
Also… "shout out to Sally you're gonna fuckin die first"
I can't believe it wasn't until my 31st passover on this earth that I watched this movie
Psychotic (complementary)
If I had seen this at an impressionable young age (like the poor kid three seats to my left) it would have traumatized me just like that one scene from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (you know the one).
Honored to have watched this with Hoppers superfan Camyll.
Watched this two days after Project Hail Mary and the rest of the week was the Battle of the Earworms: Golden vs Sign of the Times
When I read the book a few years back the first thing I said was "this would work better as a movie" and you know what that was a great call.
Almost certainly would have been 4+ stars if I had seen this without knowing the plot ahead of time. Someone tell Andy to skip the prose and go right to a screenplay for the next one.
Alt review: it's a thin line between a good book and just a fine book (derogatory).
Double alt review: I am no hater of the Poor Communication Kills trope, but like, come on fam
Pre-Norway-trip rewatch
Every little tiny detail of this movie has something relatable/interesting (like dealing with a distant family member, being the low-energy friend at the hang, sad girl walks, feeling disconnected from the group, loved one's cancer, mushroom anxiety, not wanting to be a doctor, literally stopping time to smash, etc etc etc its truly ever scene)
How’d they come up with all those funny names??
This review may contain spoilers.
A remake of this but it takes place in a Google tech shuttle would do numbers on SF twitter (derogatory*)
*of tech bro twitter, not of this movie, which was lovely
Anti-baby making propaganda -- never showing this to Sarah
Just in absolute awe of how good looking Wanger Moura is regardless of his haircut
That being said, this book still delivers all the good Saunders-stuff that has him as my favorite contemporary author. He portrays his characters with a blunt sincerity that truly understands them without judgement.
Recency bias, but I found myself thinking about Joachim Trier and how his movies are filled with real, three-dimensional people instead of archetypes of good and bad. Same with Saunders (except sometimes the real people are ghosts 🤷♂️)
A $300M F1 movie finishes P2 in 2025’s driving-scene standings
Fun, mega-gnarly, dong-filled
Ralph Fiennes and Jack O'Connell carried the energy throughout. I was a bit surprised they sidelined the kid character, since he was really good in the first, but maybe he will pop off again in the third installment?
Men will literally write a best-selling novel about the most romantic night of their life in Vienna with a stranger they met on the train instead of going to therapy
The movie that made me realize I had become cat-pilled.
Coen brother's movies are so reliably wonderful. They are filled with the best kind of things films can do; make you laugh in interesting ways, make you sad in interesting ways, make you think about the meaning behind really small moments. I get to the end of one of their films and thing "yeah this is why I like movies"
The usual Park Chan-wook goodness:
- Symbolism maxxing (a decaying tooth, bugs eating thing alive, pig slaughter, forcing the bend of a bonsai tree with wire until it snaps, etc etc etc)
- Truly S-tier creativity in terms of match cuts, cross dissolves, camera locations and camera movements (the digging scenes, my god)
- Good comedy and good fucked up shit
However, like Decision to Leave, it was verging on incoherence at points and that disconnected me a bit from the story and characters.
The Handmaiden is still peak for me. It has all the good stuff I mentioned while also maintaining emotional connection to the characters and executing a legible (though convoluted) narrative.
Bechdel lives in fear of this movie.
It was between this and My Cousin Vinny to get Sarah prepped for her jury duty tomorrow.
This was a really fun new addition to the many many many ways to consume the Harry Potter world. Shall I list them all? The original books, the Jim Dale audiobooks, the Stephen Fry audiobooks, the movies,
And now this, a full-cast audiobook with mind-boggling 3D sound effects and great voice acting (some of whom you will recognize, Matthew Macfadyen so good!)
At some points I wished to have this in print format for easier flipping back and forth, but I appreciated Kindle's X-Ray feature for the first time ever, and I very much relied on its dictionary (was looking up about one word per page).
With all the cross-references and intertextual links, by the time I finished I felt like I'd read the entire book three times.
Instead of a review, check out my erudite-maxxing watch setup instead: https://imgur.com/a/29Z4QEm (haven’t read any of them btw).
This was fun because I like the New Yorker and I love the folks that work there getting airtime, but it had nothing on Very Semi-Serious.
Anodyne, saccharine, but it goes down easy
Lost half a star from that god awful scene between Dern and Sandler, how does that dialogue end up in the final cut of a Baumbach movie?
2025 “power of art” / “bad dad” triple feature with Hamnet and Sentimental Value.
The next stop on Sarah’s movie education tour
For the record, if the sexy goth Na'vi warrior gave me space coke and asked me to be her sex slave I'd say yes. Just for the record.
The underlying moral debate of this film is really interesting, but I think the delivery of that dialogue needed more character arc or plot or something else. By the end I was a little tired of everyone yelling the same questions over and over again.
On the positive note, the dark humor was great and the ending was amazing and almost, but not quite totally redeeming of my earlier boredom.
2025 has been a great year for smaller, grounded, emotionally moving flicks (Sentimental Value, Hamnet, Sorry Baby, to name a few others). Who doesn't like sitting in a dark room (or plane) with strangers (or friends, or alone) and getting a little dirt in your eyes that you have to wipe away for a minute.
I could watch a Rian Johnson mystery every single night of my life. Keep em coming!
P.S. Netflix pls don't kill movies thx
I spent a lot of the movie deciding if the first-person camera was a distracting conceit or something fundamental to telling the story and I landed a bit mixed.
It got be thinking about strong camera constraints in general (oners, bottle movies, etc etc etc) and the balance of artifice vs genuine narrative device. I asked that question of other movies I have liked like Birdman, Enter the Void, 12 Angry Men, Presence and how IMO they work a bit better with their chosen tricks.
Final decision - this story could have been told just as well (maybe even better) without the strong first-person constraint, but it will certainly be more memorable because of it. Anyway... 3.5 stars.
One of the few movies you watch then say "they don't make em like they used to" and actually be spot on.
It's the accumulation of a thousand of small, perfectly-made choices that elevate above its trope-y genre.
A movie that asks "what would you do?" when the answer is blindingly obvious: just lie and shirk off jury duty just like everyone else.
There might exist a particular mood I could have been in where I liked this a bit more, but I was not in that hypothetical mood when I watched it. I couldn't deal with the atrocious dialogue or the never-ending stream of plot holes. They kept hanging lampshades on the implausibilities but that somehow made it worse (e.g. "oh we couldn't possibly have a mistrial on this extremely high-profile case we're simply toooo busy").
That one episode of The Bear but make it 90 minutes long and also Scouse
Bonus half star because it isn't every day I discover a new example of Cockney rhyming slang (henry -> henry the eighth -> eight ball)
Just about the same amount worse than the first movie as the second act of the musical was worse than the first act of the musical.
Uphill battle for this to be good:
- no novelty effect of seeing this world realized in a film setting
- shorter source material so they have to stretch it and add filler
- fewer banger songs
- darker and less fun plot
No Good Deed was peak though.
If you have read my review of Pride & Prejudice then you know some of my thoughts on adaptations.
In general I look for two things. I want an adaptation to stay true to the tone & themes of the original. I also want it to add to the original in ways that are only possible in the form factor of the adaptation (a movie adaptation of a book should be more cinematic, a book adaptation of a movie should be more literary, a play adaptation of a novel should be more theatrical, etc etc etc for all permutations).
This adaptation was true to the tone of the book throughout, but it took till the last twenty minute to make me feel like it was doing something moving in a cinematic way that a book could never accomplish. Once it got there, it was spectacular.
I would have enjoyed the first half more if it had stuck to the non-linear narrative of the novel (you know I'm a sucker for non-linear narrative).
My short reviews usually do better on here (brevity is the soul of wit, after all) but sometime ya just have to rant.
P.S. for a recent adaptation that I think broke from the theme of the source material and it pissed me off see my review of Frankenstein.
Another understated and evocative drama from Trier. While it didn't quite have the sustained energy or personal resonance of Worst Person, the emotional crux of the film still get me like 🥺😢
Waiting for the digital release so I can re-watch the monologues back to back.
The only Frankenstein adaptation for me, thank you very much
This adaptation focusses on monster == misunderstood and good, humans == bad and evil (except for the monster-loving chick), which is incredibly on-brand for Del Toro.
IMO, Frankenstein is so much more interesting when the themes are monster == complex creature musing about life and love, humans == complex creatures musing about life and love.
Also, a lot has already been said about the "you’re the monster" line, but jfc I wanted to call up Guillermo and say "my guy, anyone who is voluntarily watching a 2.5 hour adaptation of Frankenstein is literary enough to pick up on the theme here"
My face when I realize I haven't really loved a Del Toro movie in over a decade 🙁☹️😩
This review may contain spoilers.
A full star of the review is attributed to the Chekhov's leg extension reveal and the subsequent line "it's hard to think it's not about the legs right now"
I truly believe that this could have been 4.5 stars if Dakota Johnson and Chris Evans were replaced with Emma Stone and Josh O'Conner.
Alt review: OMG Celine is right, poor people deserve to fall in love too
After the era of horror movies that were campy good, and before the era of horror movies that were good good, this was just bad.
Anti-Sorkin dialog (complimentary)
This was so small and so so good. Seriously, the dialog was so good I could listen to this movie as a podcast. It was naturalistic, awkward, profound, aching, wonderful.
Also, Lucas Hedges! Where you been at?
3.5 / 5 stars: fun to read but got a bit repetitive, draggy and aimless in the back half.
So it’s actually never the wrong night to rewatch an epic Korean psychosexual thriller like The Handmaiden
This review may contain spoilers.
Big winners:
- Bees
- Bald girls
- Conspiracy theorists
Big losers:
- Leaving the office before 5:30
- All humans
- Kneecaps
Let that be a lesson to you, no one thinks they killed the bad guy and drops the weapons literally right next to him three times in a row.
Alt review: "Tubthumping, but it's a horror flick"
Was it great? No. Am I a compete sucker for creative narrative structure. Yes. Will I watch just about any B grade indie horror thriller with my wife? Also yes.
If you liked this, go watch Sanctuary and Black Bear.
This review may contain spoilers.
I could have stopped them
If I ever licked toad, this movie would be the fever dream I never want to wake up from.
Rewatching on a plane really isolates the true laugh lines vs the crowd-thing theater laugh lines.... And the answer is still Jimp.
Didn't totally care for the low-budget cosplay (60 million, come on!) but there were some nice moments snuck in there.
Unfortunately, for me, this movie will always be overshadowed by the legacy of its trailer and the subsequent feast that hobbyist editors on TikTok had with that Kipling poem audio.
I finally understand the Dobler-Dahmer theory from HIMYM
Favorite deeper cut line from this
"What'll we do with ourselves this afternoon," cried Daisy, "and the day after that, and the next thirty years?"
Instead I got stories with in stories told in beautiful language and varying structure on themes of ambition, science, love, etc etc etc. Anyway, it was great.
Shoutout to Guillermo del Toro for the catalyst to read.
This prequel was a cameo-jammed, overly retconned, unnecessary retelling of a story that packed a bigger punch in less than ten pages of Catching Fire.
The only saving grace - even though I complained about it a sentence ago - is that each cameo did make me squeal "omg I KNOW them."
Such a solid work of literary-ish sci-fi. I could see someone criticizing this book for having an anti-climatic ending, but they would have missed the the fact that it was all about the journey.
ORIGINAL 2017 REVIEW BELOW
I'll always love a well executed, deeply intertwined, mosaic piece.
Read this very shortly after reading The Road, and the astounding differences in tone were fun to think about.
On the plus side I learned a lot about Sri Lanka and TAMIL came up in a nyt crossword while I was reading it so there's that I guess.
I am a big fan of meta-review about "cinematic moments" I had sitting in movies theaters and "literary moments" I had reading something wherever I was reading it. Well, this gave me a big one as I stayed up to finish it alone in a ski lease in Tahoe. I am putting it up there with a few other notable moments like:
- Finishing 100 Years on a boat with my family
- Reading book 7 of HP for the first time curled up in my childhood bedroom
- The end of And the Mountains Echoed on a ferry to Martha's Vineyard
- so many fucking names
- absolutely ZERO character development
- bizarre pacing, esp during scenes that should have been intense, everything just felt... flat
- filler plot that accomplishes just about nothing
- infuriatingly repetitive conversations between main characters
The only reason this gets 2 stars and not 1 is the hangover effect from the first book. I still like the world that was built and am desperate for more crumbs of information about it.
Where were you when the era of dragon smut died?
This was OK, it had a good premise but started dragging in pace about halfway through and never recovered
Re-read it after 7 years and it still hits
I have a friend who says she has read this book 6 times - should I be worried?
· The Overstory
· Lincoln in the Bardo
· Cloud Cuckoo Land
Those three books have all been my favorite in the year that I read them so naturally, I loved this book. It is a sweeping mosaic novel that is grand in scope and varied in structure. I loved almost all of the sub-stories (with one notable exception that I didn't vibe with). In the end I found that all the connective tissue of the story really held together for a cohesive whole. 10/10 will be re reading one day.
Super loose spoilers below for the first 1/3 of the book.
The writing is passable, and serves as a fine platter to serve up some heady, mind-bending time travel ideas. You know it's a good one when you're out there diagramming timelines on the back of a napkin to explain things.
Definitely got some Eternal Sunshine vibes from the beginning.
For Dark Matter, I said I wanted to see a movie adaptation directed by Denis Villeneuve or Ryan Johnson. For this one, I think Shane Carruth is the only director that could handle the complexities.
The writing was nice, but the pacing and plot felt flat and low-stakes. Also... kinda predictable!
- enormous, resounding scope
- trees
- structural complexity
- more trees
- thematic complexity
- did I mention the trees?
I felt a little far away from the book at points, that honestly might have been because I was not in a situation where I could give it full attention. This is a book that needs your full attention.
Here's to starting 2024 with a harder one, gonna go read a bunch of easy ones to buff the stats
I wish there were deeper anecdotes about IT projects. Maybe I'll write that book in a decade 👀
I forgot how frustrated I was with the end of this one until I re read it.
I think that the Hunger Games movies might be the most well cast YA-turned-cinematic-universe of all time
Alt review; if Sarah reads fantasy dragon smut, I read fantasy dragon smut
This book was full of interesting musings on memory, goodness, dignity, human connection, and love. Now I'll go watch the movie.
candy sci fi
I would rather have watched this as a movie adaptation directed by Denis Villeneuve or Ryan Johnson
I approached this with hesitancy, because I hate pop psych self help books, but it was actually good! Some parts were freshman-smoking-weed in a dorm philosophy like "we are time" and some parts were more targeted thoughts on time management. There were enough interesting points in it that kept me reading to the end
I love books within books and stories within stories and this novel had a lot of that. The writing was fantastic and I learned a lot of new words along the way.
My only true complaint is that it felt a little thesaurus-y at parts, with random SAT words smooshed in there. That being said, I am sure that same complaint could be leveled at me... so I am not trying to throw too many stones here.
In the morning, from bed, I reached for my kindle instead of my phone to keep reading, which has not happened in a really long time.
Read this with Sarah and everyday we would discuss and the main point was “shit we really know nothing about WWII history.” That’s on us for both skipping APUSH in high school
I am 9 books in the hole for my 2023 reading goals. Think I can make a historic comeback on my honeymoon??
Personal favorite was My House, but all of them were creative, profound, insane, funny, etc etc etc. You know, the usual Saunders stuff.
Some stories contained echoes of his earlier works (Liberation Day -> The Semplica-Girl Diaries and Ghoul -> Pastoralia), but all managed to inject enough new-ness that they didn't feel derivative at all.
Not sure if it was bad writing or bad translation or both, but it was nearly impossible to palate. At some points I actually put on my tin foil hat and wondered if I was reading a book written by a computer...
I was surprised by how vividly some scenes sat in my head even though I read this over a decade ago
Very good, but I probably needed to read it in a class to fully appreciate the themes and symbols.
Also I want to read the sequel. I love easy sci fi.
The title game-within-a-book reminded me of Terry Pratchett in the best way possible.
This book also gives a deeper backstory for a character from the first installment in a series of alternating chapters with the main plot. I found myself more captivated by the secondary plot, and was reminded of the second Eragon book where I was more engrossed in the Roran Stronghammer subplot than the main storyline.
Worth a read if you liked The Magicians a lot, but that being said, it was definitely a noticeable notch down in terms of writing quality.
It starts by exploring some college-age students in a magic university and transitions into an intense fantasy world quest novel, all while playing with adult themes like drugs and sex and big questions like "what if all your dreams came true but you were still unhappy?"
I love this book and have read it a few times. That being said, I can understand not liking this book if you don't like stories with characters that are hard to like (at least at first). I am re-reading now so I can remember it all before reading the third book, which I read once, but can't remember much about.
I liked the antiquated words and the use of second definitions (which were probably first definitions back then). I loved the long, winding sentences that only revealed their meaning in the ultimate or penultimate clause, and found myself often needing to re-read a paragraph to fully decode it.
Sorry Nolan
Most manipulative narrator I have read since Lolita...
All in all the story is gripping, but the characters are so sociopathic that I found it hard to immerse fully.
Much rougher, rawer, and darker than his later short stories.
The personal afterthoughts were fascinating, to learn more about his context when writing this first collection of stories.
Across 7 short stories, Saunders delivers pedagogical essays and personal afterthoughts that touch on details like form, pattern and pacing, as well as larger ideas like interiory of monologue and contextual meaning (to name only a few).
Too soon to say, but I hope (and believe) that this book has strengthened the "active reading" part of me that is constantly questioning the author's choices from all the way "across the pond".
I'll end with a quote I loved from the prologue: "To study the way we read is to study the way the mind works: the way it evaluates a statement for truth, the way it behaves in relation to another mind (i.e., the writer’s) across space and time."
Really came into its own stride with the first Dementor encounter.
Is this what Methadone feels like?
Personal favorites: Seeing Ershadi & The Husband
I thought the writing in the first third was noticeably better then the rest, but by that point I was fully engaged in the plot, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The style is light and cinematic. Really fun read
That being said, some of the short stories in this one were a little over the top for me...
Loved "I CAN SPEAK!" and "Christmas" broke my heart
Lost some energy near the end when he focusses on their solo work
Chiang masterfully blends hard science fiction tropes like time travel and parallel universes with lofty philosophical ideas like fatalism, free will, and the power of language. Some stories in the collection are so good they are worth a read and then an immediate re read.
This was one of those books I finished, and had the immediate desire to start again from the beginning.
The intense Shaker setting was at best nostalgic (she calls out my favorite mural!) and at worst intrusive (not used to my hometown being peered at from an 'outsider' for hundreds of pages).
At a young age, all humans play the if game: "But what if I had--? Or maybe if I--? What would my life be if I just--?" This book explores that to the max through 900+ pages answering questions on destiny, fatalism, soulmates, and life.
Also, I missed a lot of intense Mormon culture glorification when I read this years ago, and that wasn't exactly my cup of tea.
The New Yorker story, The Golden Vanity, is the kernel of this work, and if you like the story, then you will like the book.
Not as good as 10:04, but if you liked that you would probably like this.
It was the first book by Ian McEwan I've read, but it won't be the last.
The Goldfinch did not engage me in any way - not the language, not the plot, not the characters. I want my two weeks of reading back.
For best results, read alone in a semi-lit room.