• Nameless fights Long Sky in Hero (2002). Image: Beijing New Picture Film
    movie reviews

    Movie Review: Hero (2002) *****

    Watching “Hero” is just me saying, “This is my favorite part!” thirty times, and then it’s over.

    Hero is a martial arts film about a figure called Nameless who claims to have killed three would-be assassins of the King of Qin. By bringing their swords to the king, Nameless can get within ten paces of the throne. The truth unfolds as Nameless tells his story.

    This is in my top 10 favorite films of all time, even though I extremely disagree with its politics.

    It turns out I actually don’t mind imperialist propaganda if it’s awesome.

    In the style of Rashomon, Hero proceeds through three intertwined narratives: the stories Nameless first tells the king, the king’s interpretations of the story, and then the truth.

    Every narrative is punctuated by distinctive martial arts sequences with different palettes. This remains one of the most visually stunning movies ever, twenty-one years after its American release. (Fun fact: Quentin Tarantino talked Miramax into releasing Hero in the USA.)

    The use of CGI is sparing relative to modern movies. You can see where it’s used (mostly in water effects), but it kinda makes the places they didn’t use CGI even more impressive. The color themes are mostly achieved through set dressing and costuming rather than heavy-handed grading. Huge numbers of extras are used in the king’s palace and battle sequences. The divine casting allows for much of the fighting to be performed by the lead actors themselves.

    Such killer visuals and a majestic score demand a worthy story, and the “he said/she said” story is beyond elegant. Most of what you learn about the characters telling their stories is expressed through the differences in the way they’re told. It’s paced brilliantly.

    I disagree with the philosophy so much, though. Everything is in service of an autocratic message. Characters die to support the empire. We’re meant to believe this king-led war is noble, the king himself is soft-hearted, and all the dying is worth it. It goes against everything I believe politically.

    Even so.

    I often say, “I like movies that are good,” and I’m sorta joking…but not really. I will watch any genre. I don’t have a lot of preferences outside seeing art executed with intention, skill, and meaning. The meaning of this one is wholly unpalatable to me, but God, does it do it well.

    Not once in my entire life have I looked as cool as Nameless walking away from something. Not even once.

    (Image: Beijing New Picture Film)

  • Chris Evans and Dakota Johnson in Materialists. Image credit: A24
    movie reviews

    Movie Review: Materialists (2025)

    Materialists is about a late-30s matchmaker who fundamentally doesn’t believe in love because she thinks she’s a bad person. She doesn’t value herself, so she can’t value anyone else, and she insincerely walks through her job saying things about love that feel hollow to her. She’s good at her job because the hollow things are generally true. She just can’t put anything into it.

    Two men enter her life at a time when her job gets hard. She used to date one, and she dumped him because she didn’t value what he could offer. She tries dating the one who is “good on paper,” but ultimately doesn’t value what he offers either (which is actually economic security, in this case).

    The heroine must learn to value herself in order to value her poor ex-boyfriend’s offering, which is simply love.

    You’ll notice I keep saying the word “value.” That’s because the characters do, too. Materialists, in its title and screenwriting, is not going for subtlety of message.

    I don’t expect a lot out of romantic movies (whether romcom or romdrama). What I want is a happily ever after, chemistry between the leads, and a fundamental belief in the redemptive power of love.

    Materialists gave me two out of three of those. I never believed the chemistry. The other two are the more important elements, so that’s okay.

    The acting is…not good. None of the leads seemed comfortable with the highly stylized dialogue. Please note it’s not *bad* dialogue; it’s just definitely not the way people actually talk, and everyone is talking to the theme of the movie, using the same keywords. And the lead trio simply do not sell it.

    Their acting was worst when it needed the highest intensity, too. I swear, none of the actors believed what they were saying. Pedro Pascal’s emotional moment seemed almost like he was laughing at the material instead of crying with vulnerability. I think Chris Evans hated the way his character talked to Dakota Johnson’s.

    Even so.

    It’s quite a good script (which was not a good fit for these generally competent actors). I liked the airy editing and the gentle pacing. It had nice music. I enjoyed the themes that they were uncomfortably talking around.

    My takeaway was pleasant because it’s hard to get fussed about a movie that does, genuinely, believe in love. Even poorly delivered dialogue doesn’t kneecap the heroine’s character arc.

    It’s got a bit of a dreamy feeling, not unlike Serendipity. It’s a lot warmer and less cynical than basically anything post-Pretty Woman in Julia Roberts’s career. It has the grounded look at real love of a Reese Witherspoon movie. And the filmmaking of an Oscar nominee, of course.

    I usually watch romcoms around the holidays, and Materialists will fit nicely in my rotation, which is the highest compliment I can pay. I think this will age well and perform favorably in the context of other romcoms. It’s not exactly an enthusiastic four star, but a very comfortable one.

    (image credit: A24)

  • movie reviews

    Review: Snow White (2025)

    I hated Lilo & Stitch, so I expected watching Snow White the next day would be an exercise in masochism. But I didn’t hate this one!

    The greatest flaws of this movie stem from all the evil things you already know are evil about Disney. For one, you’re not supposed to cast anyone actually evil to play the Evil Queen. (Ideally, you cast someone with range, too.) Gal Gadot has layers of issues – Disney was wrong to give her a paycheck and Snow White deserved to flop.

    The myth of the Royalty That Are Actually Good is a personal pet peeve of mine, but one I accept as inevitable in the context.

    The CGI for the Seven Dwarves is better than The Polar Express, but I still caught myself thinking about The Polar Express, which says enough.

    That said, I found the songs pleasant, Snow White was a good singer, and I appreciate amendments made in adaptation.

    For one, they inserted a song between Snow White and her love interest that allows her to pre-consent to kissing him while she’s unconscious. Her love interest is not Prince Charming, but more like Prince of Thieves, and has the floppy-haired appeal of young Carey Elwes.

    Snow White doesn’t decide to spend a while as Wifey Mom to the Dwarves; she tries to go out into the forest to pursue her goals. She also ends up performing a bloodless coup against the Evil Queen with peaceful military backing, which is the sort of pleasant idealism I consider the realistic limits of this type of story.

    The Seven Dwarves probably can’t be done well. Whether depicted as CGI, Little People, or full-height actors (like Snow White and the Huntsman), the Seven Dwarves are a fundamental problem. They’re the main reason I think we should just stop adapting Snow White.

    As Peter Dinklage said:

    “They were very proud to cast a Latino actress as Snow White, but you’re still telling the story of ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.’ Take a step back and look at what you’re doing there. It makes no sense to me. You’re progressive in one way, but you’re still making that fucking backward story about seven dwarfs living in a cave together.”

    There are other fairytales to adapt!

    However, the filmmakers did cast Little People to play human roles (not magical Dwarves), which seemed to be a nod to this difficulty. I noticed at least two actors. I was only half-watching while playing Valheim, so I hope there are more. I didn’t like it enough to watch again and find out.

    Disney live-action adaptations are a bar set into the ground. This one stepped over the bar at least as well as The Little Mermaid. With my expectations appropriately set for this eldritch subgenre, I give this 2.5 stars for a did-not-make-me-wish-for-death adaptation that didn’t feel completely pointless, even if the Evil Queen was a huuuge whiff.

  • movie reviews

    Lilo & Stitch (2025) – 1/2 *

    It’s not the worst-made Disney remake (which is a low bar to step over), but the changes to the story in adaptation are evil colonialist nonsense.

    Lilo & Stitch revisits the story of the 2002 cartoon. Early parts of the movie feel like a standard inferior, unnecessary remake of the original. One downside of close remakes is that it highlights an adaptation’s failure to rise to the original material. In this, pacing is rushed and lacks art; the visuals are not stunning like the original; the dialogue is labored, more obvious, and over-explains.

    We can assume this movie isn’t intended for an audience familiar with the original, though. They’re bringing Lilo & Stitch to a new generation of children. I can concede I’m gonna be put-off by a lot because the 2002 movie is from my childhood. Maybe Kids These Days really will prefer to a hurried intro. If you don’t know the original, you won’t know the luscious art you’re missing. New audiences won’t know Jumba sounds weird, nor will they know Jumba was once part of the ohana too. Lots of little stuff like that.

    Usually, when the 2025 edition parts ways with the 2002 version, it’s better. Lilo and Stitch’s shenanigans aren’t as direct in adaptation, and the actress is so cute, I didn’t mind it.

    I could give it a couple-three stars for probably entertaining children and being actually tolerable, unlike The Lion King.

    Yet this movie has had all the soul sucked out if it in exchange for blandified cuteness – and a hearty dose of propaganda. No joke.

    Nani and Lilo are islanders. The original movie centers the dissonant relationship between islanders and colonists/tourists. Lilo’s difficulty get along with her classmates, the tourist-based industry, and even her family’s economic struggle help give the 2002 movie soul. It actually believes in ohana.

    Originally, one of Lilo’s charming quirks is objectifying the tourists the way that tourists objectify Hawai’ians and their culture – and that has been stripped from this movie.

    Most background characters have been made into islanders, sucking all meaning out of moments like the one gentleman who can’t keep ice cream on his cone. Even Lilo’s bullies seem to be islanders too.

    One reason it’s so upsetting for social workers to try to separate Nani and Lilo is because it’s an intrusion by the colonial American system into the lives of islanders. Instead, here, we get a social worker urging Nani to surrender Lilo to the state, with full narrative approval. They say this will get healthcare for Lilo…except that Hawai’i has socialized medicine. They specifically state Lilo’s lack of insurance as a problem, when there’s no reason for it to be, except to separate the ohana.

    They also send Nani on a scholarship to a marine biology program in California – even though Hawai’i’s university is great with this.

    Instead of pushing together this lovely ohana – which includes Jumba as well as Pleakly, in the original – the 2025 movie splinters them, placing Lilo into foster care. Her first placement is with a neighbor. Let’s hope that lasts twelve years until Lilo is an adult and the sweet elderly neighbor doesn’t kick the bucket before then, because now Lilo is in the state’s hands.

    If you don’t know the history of separating indigenous families from each other in America – and other colonialist countries – do yourself a favor and have a google about it.

    These adaptational changes aren’t occurring in a void. They’re occurring amidst an historic and contemporary context of genocide, and it’s really no coincidence that this was the direction Disney chose. Just like it’s no coincidence that Pleakly no longer gets to spend the movie dressed as a woman.

    Going into Lilo & Stitch saying “genocide!!!” surely seems intense, but media has meaning, even when you try your darndest to take all the meaning out of it. You can’t sterilize away the real world and the way media reflects real attitudes.

    Disney has taken a warm love letter to Hawai’i and delivered propaganda encouraging separation of nonwhite families. I wouldn’t even give it a half star if it were possible on Letterboxd.

  • Watson and Moriarty from "Watson." Image source: CBS
    opinions,  television

    Watson (2025 CBS) is a lukewarm Sherlock Holmes adaptation

    The old CBS show “Elementary” is among my favorites. It might be my ultimate comfort watch. Lucy Liu and Jonny Lee Miller deliver pitch-perfect performances for seven straight seasons, and while it has its rocky story moments, no singular season is skippable, the themes are compassionate, and the stories are engaging.

    “Watson” is from the same network and the same showrunner. I didn’t feel the need to fill any void after “Elementary,” but I figured I might as well try its spiritual successor.

    In this adaptation, Holmes has fallen of Reichenbach Falls with Moriarty. Watson jumped after them in a rescue attempt. As far as Watson initially knows, he’s the only survivor.

    Doyle’s characters show up in various adapted forms, as with “Elementary”: Clyde is a robot rather than a turtle, Shinwell is a series regular, and Mary Morsten is an ex-wife instead of a boyfriend who gets poisoned. After watching so much “Elementary,” it’s a little jarring to see these characters revised in new ways from the same mind. You can tell the creation is by the same person with the same interests, but he shifted everything to the left.

    An extremely familiar story with new faces.

    “Watson” manages to stay fresh by focusing on medical drama instead of a police procedural. The cast is populated with Watson’s younger doctor apprentices, who are talented, genius, and so disinteresting to me that I can’t tell you what any of them are named. I guess I could look it up.

    All the actors rise well to the occasion presented, but Morris Chestnut is the main standout. His performance is always majestic. The man has gravitas. His Watson is concerned with medical justice as much as anything else, and he will make non-medical things his problem if injustice has been done.

    Full-season spoilers ahead.

    Moriarty is present throughout the entire season, here and there. I never got the feeling he was a powerful mad genius with amazing powers of deduction and manipulation. He was just a guy who kept blackmailing people into bad behavior.

    Gene editing allows Moriarty to target Watson’s team. Maybe this would have been more compelling if I cared about his team. By the time the twin doctor guys got sick, I was actually just hoping it would kill one of them off. I didn’t like the performance by that actor as two different guys. They weren’t very distinctive to me outside whether or not they were wearing glasses. He mumbled through all his lines. Knocking one of them off would have made sense and given the actor time to focus on developing just one of them.

    Alas, it was not to be so. All the good guys were saved. We rolled toward the end of the season leaving me feeling mildly entertained – not excited, but also not really dissatisfied.

    My opinion crashed and burned at the end.

    “Watson” ultimately lost me on its last episode. At the end, Watson chose to kill Moriarty via a fatal stroke. His argument was that Moriarty was too dangerous to let live.

    Nothing I saw from Watson to that point suggested he would be willing to kill a man, even one who demonstrably deserved it. Watson fanboys for his “dead” BFF Sherlock Holmes, but he doesn’t seem especially vengeful; he’s focused on medicine, not going after Holmes’s murderer. Watson history with the military was downplayed because he was always more doctor than soldier. He helped Irene Adler, knowing she was likely manipulating.

    He always erred on the side of doing no harm.

    Ethical gray areas don’t seem to imply a willingness to kill, either. It wasn’t like he bonded with his favorite student (whose name I still don’t remember) because she killed her father. A moment where he heatedly announced, “I would have killed him too,” might have been enough to convince me.

    Nothing like that happened. At least, not that I recall. I slammed the season in about two days – details may have escaped me.

    I thought about rewatching the season to see if they supported this character moment in ways I didn’t observe. But this is the ultimate indictment of “Watson”: I didn’t like it enough, care about the characters, or feel any desire to spend time rewatching it. At all. Even to analyze the story better.

    It feels like they just wanted to have Watson do the practical thing and kill the bad guy. It’s a long discussion in various fiction circles: isn’t the most compassionate thing a hero could do is kill a dangerous villain? Why doesn’t Batman end the Joker’s reign of terror and kill him instead of sending him to Arkham Asylum?

    I don’t buy into “Good Guys Just Don’t Do Things Like That” as an argument. But this feels like a totally unsupported character moment that exists only to say, “See? Batman really should just kill The Joker.” (Although in this case, Watson is arguably more Nightwing than Batman.)

    It’s hard to imagine anyone getting too attached to “Watson,” but let’s give it a chance.

    Lukewarm reaction aside, “Watson” deserves more seasons. I watch a lot of TV shows through the course of my day. I always have something going while I play video games, clean house, practice illustration, etc. Thus I  can authoritatively say that it’s normal for the first season of a show from any era to kinda suck.

    A wise network is one that sees the good points – of which “Watson” has many – and chooses to nurture it through an awkward phase.

    Rochelle Aytes is a great Mary Morsten who actually survived the season (which I didn’t expect). Clear ambiguity around Moriarty leaves opportunities for more stories with him, even if he’s dead.

    They cast a wonderful voice to portray Sherlock Holmes, and I would chop off my favorite toe to see Matt Berry in a homosexual love spiral with Morris Chestnut.

    Although I didn’t really care about the younger doctors, there’s a lot of sapphic potential in the tension between the two women that would make me happy to return to them.

    And who knows? Maybe they’ll knock off one of those twins and make me really happy.

    You can stream Watson Season One on CBS All Access.

  • opinions

    Does ethical generative AI usage exist?

    Generative AI remains a polarizing topic of conversation. It feels like everyone has a strong opinion, and it’s either “love it, use it” or “hate it, deride it.” I often fall on the side of “NO, no way,” but I keep vacillating between that and “why bother?” and also “eh, maybe?

    As background: I initially played around with genAI for image creation but stopped once I realized that the datasets were produced by scraping the internet without regard for the creators involved. The idea that huge companies are profiting off of this sticks in my craw.

    I can’t get over the way this helps steal labor and consolidate more wealth in the ruling class. I can’t understand how AI proponents don’t see the way this is the worst manifestation of our society in hyperdrive.

    That said, I also find I cannot stand uniformly opposed to generative AI, either. I’m usually an early adopter to tech. I love the ways that technology have changed and grown throughout my lifetime.

    What we now call “AI” has become an extremely large basin holding an extremely diverse array of technology. A lot of these uses are harmful. Others are useful. I don’t want to throw the robot baby out with the AI slop water.

    Adobe Photoshop has had “content aware fill” for a long time now. The idea is that you select a part of an image, and Photoshop will fill in what it expects should occupy that space using the pixels around it. I’ve been using content-aware fill since at least Photoshop 2019. For personal photos, this has been a quick way to remove things like telephone poles from the sky. What it produces is not much more sophisticated than a clone stamp. I class this as a useful tool–though it’s also not generative AI.

    Later, Adobe added “generative fill,” which is like content aware fill on steroids. It uses their family of generative AI models, called Firefly, to create a more complicated image that the average person will recognize as GPT-like.

    According to Adobe’s FAQ about Firefly, the dataset is trained on public domain images and its large stock library. If you’ve contributed to the stock library, your work is in the dataset. This is part of the terms of service, although I don’t know how and when this usage was added.

    How well did they inform contributors? Did everyone know in advance what this would mean? How many contributing artists belong to agencies whose managers made those decisions above their heads?

    It’s hard to say, but it’s still better than Meta deciding it’s fair use to steal from authors because their books have no value.

    Where does Microsoft’s experimental AI engine fall on this spectrum?

    John Carmack, a game dev elder and co-originator of the most classic boomer shooters, describes this AI use as a useful tool. I’m not inclined toward authoritarianism — here meaning that an authority’s opinion is only an opinion, and not above scrutiny — but I think he’s right that AI algorithms will be a growing part of the workflow.

    I tried playing Quake II (one of my all-time favorite shooters) in this format. It’s obviously not yet a playable commercial game. It’s dreamy, foggy, and forgetful. At best, we can say it’s recognizable as the original game, and you can move inside of it.

    But this is the first time I’ve glimpsed something that genuinely feels like a future successor to current game engines. Can it become markedly better? Is the output always going to be worse? Will it deprive game devs of jobs? I don’t know yet. I do find it interesting, though. I don’t want to discount it out of hand.

    Ultimately, I evaluate individual tools falling into the AI bucket like this:

    1. Does it reduce desirable work for creatives? I don’t think it’s a big deal when people use AI models for silly little personal projects. I don’t care if people want to see their face on a Bridgerton character. Also, using generative tools to make photo editing slightly less onerous will make a creative’s life more pleasant. I can’t tell you how grateful I am that it’s easier to isolate models and remove that one patch on their jacket sleeve these days. I don’t miss clone-stamping and painting that stuff away.
    2. Does it disrupt necessary career progression? Replacing junior developers with AI blasts apart the entire industry in counterproductive ways. How does a senior developer become a senior developer if she can’t make a living as a junior developer first? How will artists ever graduate from Art As A Side Job to Art As A Full Time Job if all the jobs freelancing are replaced by people whipping up some muddy AI garbage?
    3. Does its usage on an individual level harm other creatives? Using datasets with material that artists did not consent to including is harmful. When you are generating art in many models — especially when you use specific artists’ names in the prompts — you are personally inflicting harm on creatives. Whole-image generation is likelier to resemble preexisting work by a single artist, which should be regarded as plagiarism. Adobe Firefly is maybe okay to use where you would otherwise normally use Adobe Stock, although it’s a horrible gray area.
    4. How significant is the environmental impact? As with most environmental issues, individual use is never as impactful as institutional use. Microsoft’s Copilot has been forced onto vast numbers of desktop computers and devours computing power whether or not you like it. On the other hand, Apple’s on-device AI performs processing on your phone, and it might demand charging your phone slightly more. It’s probably not a big deal. And an individual doing a couple of prompts is a drop in the ocean compared to Google adding AI processing for every single search engine query. Over time, as processing power becomes overall cheaper, environmental impact will decline. It’s alarming right now. It will improve.
    5. Does it do a good job? Whole-image generation can look as glossy as you want these days, but the algorithm doesn’t have intention, purpose, and an individual’s life experience to create a distinctive lens. Even when you’re editing out errors, you’re still leaning on the most bland, generic, commercial imagery that is possible. Things tend to look plastic. Women are homogenized into their most offensively attractive forms. And I still haven’t read any AI-generated text that isn’t a circuitous, unfocused, tension-free disaster of word soup. Trying to make AI output usable takes just as much work as making the thing yourself.

    I’m sure I’m missing a few points, but these are the ones off the top of my head. And with this litmus test applied, there isn’t a ton of common AI usage that I would consider appropriate.

    But there is some.

    Many artists agree that using AI to generate mock-ups is no big deal. Anything where an individual isn’t putting AI into a final, sellable product is probably okay. AI that makes parts of unappealing labor go faster (like finding the exact code you want in a library) is helpful rather than thieving. These are natural progressions of existing technology, and they will become less damaging as environmental concerns are addressed and (hopefully) more datasets are made with material provided consentingly by accredited, compensated creators.

    The very fact I believe “appropriate AI usage” is up for personal evaluation makes me feel more generous to all the individuals involved. We’re all trying to figure out how to navigate a complicated world. The problem isn’t really the technology, but the fact a sickly society can only use new tools in sickly ways.

  • A cute pink walking salamander sitting at the bottom of a tank
    sara reads the feed,  science news

    God save the axolotls

    The axolotl is my kid’s favorite animal. What’s not to love about them? Thanks to something called obligate neoteny, axolotls are magical little amphibians who (almost) never metamorphose from their aquatic form to a terrestrial one. As I would squeal to my husband, “THEY FOREVER BABIES.” They also belong to a small ecosystem that exists only in Mexico.

    A popular pick for the exotic pet trade, the ever-smiling, feathery-gilled axolotl is easily bred in captivity, having further piqued the interest of scientists and geneticists through its ability to regenerate parts of its body, such as its limbs, eyes, heart, spinal cord and parts of its brain. As such, the species’ plight is regarded as a conservation paradox: although abundant in captivity, rampant habitat degradation and disturbance has rendered the species critically endangered in the wild.

    Even weird animals occupying small niches in the ecosystem are critical. Even if they weren’t impossibly cute, the endangerment of axolotls would be a major concern.

    But they are really cute, too.

    Scientists who are surely compelled more by ecosystem restoration than Protecting The Babies have done the important work of finding out if we can get axolotls from scientists’ fish tanks back into the wetlands where they belong.

    And indeed, it turns out that we can improve the axolotl population in Mexico by introducing captive-bred animals.

    This study evaluates the viability of restored and artificial wetlands for axolotl conservation by comparing movement patterns, home range sizes, and habitat use. Using VHF telemetry, we tracked captive-bred axolotls released into both environments. Axolotls survived and foraged successfully in both sites, with those in an artificial pond in La Cantera Oriente exhibiting larger home ranges (mean: 2,747 m²) and greater daily distances traveled than those in a restored chinampa in Lake Xochimilco, where home ranges were smaller (mean: 382 m²).

    If you read the entire abstract, you’ll find that the axolotls even gained weight under these conditions–meaning they are thriving. And chubby. Being chubby is SO important.

    NPR interviewed these cuteness-saving scientists.

    “This is pretty big news because when you have animals in captivity, they lose a lot of their behaviors. Like, they don’t know how to recognize a predator, they don’t know how to catch prey, and so we were a bit nervous when we released them because we didn’t know if they were going to be able to survive,” she continued.

    But the charmingly cartoonish salamanders, also known as Mexican walking fish, didn’t just survive in their new wild homes, they thrived.

    “The ones that we recaptured, they had gained weight. So that means they were doing really, really well,” Ramos said.

    “They were hunting, they were eating, and they were avoiding predators. So this was really big,” she said.

    This is wonderful news for the planet, of course, but also for kids who have fallen in love with axolotls thanks to Minecraft.

    There are quite a few species that are extinct in the wild and now only exist in captivity. It would be amazing if axolotls didn’t join that number.