It’s animated animals and hyphenated-titles city over there on this month’s 10x10. For the first time this year, we have sequels to previous entries to cover and a hunch that nostalgia will play a big role in both of our rankings. Let’s see if that suspicion is not unfounded and get started!

Catch Me If You Can, dir. Steven Spielberg

Jared: A very swift 2h20m breeze that, like the main character, is just always moving. Not Spielberg’s most thrilling or captivating and there’s an air that this movie thinks it’s much deeper than it really is, but the tiny bits probing into Frank Abagnale Jr.’s mindset that are present in the script are thought provoking for what they are. Frank and Carl should just get it over with and kiss already.

Julia: Shocking probably two people max, I didn’t like this film as much as Jared did. I think it’s fine and one of Steve’s better efforts but not much more than that. Unlike most of his post-Jurassic Park output there’s a genuine attempt at depth that doesn’t read as purely surface level audience gesturing, but it is at least passable. I expected to tap out after the first act but finished the entire thing. I think that’s about all he deserves.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, dir. Peter Jackson:

Jared: I don’t have the time to rewatch some of the films this month, and while I only watched this trilogy a couple years ago, I already cannot recall a SINGLE thing about this particular film which is a pretty bad sign. I remember thinking it suffered from middle-trilogy-itis, but I still rated it as high as a 4.5. hmmm.

Julia: From last month’s 10x10, my blurb about Fellowship that still applies to Two Towers: ‘I skipped this one. While I loved this trilogy when I watched it with my best friend a couple of years ago, the desire to rewatch it just simply wasn’t there. Since the next two installments are coming up soon, I may do the entire trilogy again and have more thoughts—in my childhood I thought Fellowship was the worst one, but in 2024 I gave it 4.5 stars, same as Two Towers. If I do rewatch it, it’ll likely be the extended cut, as I hear it’s the best version.’

28 Days Later, dir. Danny Boyle:

Jared: As a gigantic horror fan, it often shocks people when they learn I can’t stand the zombie subgenre. I find zombies as a creature/antagonist far too dull and uninteresting and the range of stories able to be told far too limited in the scope of the subgenre (it’s always humans holed up somewhere fighting with each other and the lesson is that humans are the REAL monsters 🙄). That said, 28 Days Later - and even the recent sequels - are a refreshing break from the formula even today. The neatly divided acts keep the movie interesting throughout and the themes and situational contexts explored are compelling.

Julia: I did not like this whatsoever. Boyle’s the only interesting thing here, as I absolutely despise Garland’s script. I didn’t rewatch this, and I never will. This entire 28 whatevers later franchise is dripping with shit I hate and the fans of this are just as annoying as the typical MCU slopbros. Nope! Not for me.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, dir. George Lucas:

Jared: Another one I didn’t have time to rewatch and can’t recall much of, except this time it sits at a 1.5-star rating as of my last watch. I’m just gonna trust past me. Those aliens with the long necks on the super rainy planet were cool I think.

Julia: A lot of my mutuals seem to think this is an example of George Lucas Auteurism. I don’t know why, it feels like a massive in-joke that I missed out on. It’s not as uninteresting as The Phantom Menace, but not many things can manage to be that boring. It feels exactly like pretty much every Star Wars film—a movie for ten year olds to watch on FX at 5pm on a Thursday. I don’t hate this and I don’t like it either. Maybe if it wasn’t so egregiously a product of its time?

City of God, dir. Fernanda Meirelles, Katia Lund:

Jared: It’s impressive how much story is squeezed into just 2 hours, I absolutely commend the editing that made that possible while keeping so many interconnected and disjointed storylines consistent and clear throughout. Said story is, however, quite unremarkable and that’s what keeps me from truly LOVING this one.

Julia: Extremely annoyed about this one. I had a really well-written review of this that sat in my notes app after I watched, and now it’s gone. I pretty much purposely tried to block this out of my memory, so any interesting critique I had is gone. My mutual Devin called this “Brazilian GTA” and that’s honestly the only thing that stuck with me. Yikes.

Lilo & Stitch, dir. Chris Sanders, Dean DeBlois:

Jared: Another prime Disney animated film. Stitch is admittedly adorable and funny, which means a lot coming from someone with as cynical a taste in film as I have. Shame they went and bastardized every aspect of this in the remake, a true testament to what Disney WAS and what they are now.

Julia: Gotta hit this with the YAWN BORING. Animation is just really not my vibe and most of these seem to be made for watching nostalgically, a quality I simply do not have. Lilo got less annoying as time went on but this was very quirk chungus. Not a fan but I didn’t despise it. I’m really seeing why I haven’t watched most of these films in the 10x10 as the months progress—I just literally do not care about a solid 80 percent of them.

Punch-Drunk Love, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson:

Jared: Something about the few PTA movies I’ve seen engage me through the story even when I have no clue what’s happening in a way that many other directors can’t and I don’t know how to explain it. The characters are always compelling, and Punch-Drunk has the added benefit of Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Julia: My PTA dislike is extremely strong, something I’ll write about once we get to 2007 and There Will Be Blood, but this is my favorite. Extremely strong performance from Sandler, whom I generally love despite my mother’s hate. I watched this while I was sick last year so it probably got a half star bump; would love to rewatch with a more technical eye but I simply ran out of time this month.

Ice Age, dir. Chris Wedge:

Jared: Yeah, it’s alright. The early 2000s have been great for animated family movies, and this one is no exception. Even though I wasn’t grabbed by anything in this, I can admit it’s a perfectly competent movie that others could enjoy. It’s good to see something that isn’t Disney/Pixar, DreamWorks or…shudders…Illumination every once in a while.

Julia: YAWN BORING X2! Remember what I said earlier about half of these animated films being popular solely due to nostalgia? Yeah. At least Lilo and Stitch was well made and you could see that these animators actually cared—I completely understand why people love it. But this? Holy hell, it’s derivative and ugly and I despise celebrity voice actors. I can’t believe I finished this one, that’s gotta count for some extra points.

Scooby-Doo, dir. Raja Gosnell:

Jared: I’ll confess I’m biased as I grew up with this movie (and its sequel) hardcore, but even rewatching it incredibly recently it stands on its own two legs as a delightful rendition of the Mystery, Inc. crew which is impeccably cast. While some moments have questionable CGI, that’s entirely offset by how impressive and consistent Scooby himself looks throughout.

Julia: James Gunn fucking sucks. I grew up watching the original show because it was one of the few cartoons my religious family allowed me to watch—not the other Scooby shows because they had magic and the villains were real and that was “not Christian”, which is stupid reasoning but whatever. Anyway, the cast is the only good thing about this and they really sell the performances. Again I’m not looking at this through a nostalgic lens so I probably seem harsh but seriously, how did Gunn get hired to do anything else after this disaster?

Spider-Man dir. Sam Raimi:

Jared: Sam Raimi is one of my GOATs and this may be one of the most faithful adaptations of a comic book. Tobey and Willem are such perfect casting choices and the suits look fantastic (especially in 4K), the only real negative thing I have to say about it is that the sequel is somehow a million times better.

Julia: For some reason, people are genuinely surprised when I say I like this film. My Spider-Man hate only extends to the MCU and what it’s done to my boy—I was Spidey for Halloween like eight straight years! That should count for something. Anyway, this is one of the closest things I have to a ‘comfort film’ despite not watching it all that much. Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, I will avenge you.

Final Rankings:

The Look Ahead

Next month is looking pretty light on family-oriented films and the first couple of romcoms are starting to appear, which is a genre I’ve actually been itching to check out. There’s more than one film from South Korea as well, so we’ll get a chance to talk about Park Chan-wook and Bong Joon Ho. I can’t speak for Julia, but this all has me truly excited for a 2000s 10x10 for once. (JULIA NOTE: I’m not.) See you then!

The problem lies in the people who don’t follow me, the guys with 20 to 200 followers who just toss out slurs and hate and scroll by. The larger my following, the more I encounter this—in a way, I miss my drive account era, where the worst comments I got were about films I had no interest in uploading. (Hi, Harry Potter!) Most of those people who only wanted links have cycled through and been replaced by others, and though I don’t mind the occasional viral tweet, anything with more than 10 likes always seems to come with a whole lot of bullshit. Again—it comes with the territory of a large(ish) following, and I’ve gotten pretty good at ignoring. It helps that I have notifications off for accounts that don’t follow me and are newly created—that cuts down on a lot of bullshit. It does ruin the fun, though. Don’t let the attitude fool you, I’m not here to make enemies. I genuinely do want to talk and make friends and have civil conversations! It’s just that Twitter is unbelievably bad for having said conversations, especially when your mental and physical health is volatile.

I feel comfortable enough saying that I have chronic illnesses of various kinds and seriousness, along with a complicated childhood and adolescence. My antidepressants save me from the worst of my depression and anxiety, but I still struggle—as do most of us. Life is not easy. It’s incredibly complicated and stressful, especially when your body and mind can’t function on a daily, consistent basis. The Twitter algorithm doesn’t know this, of course. It doesn’t go “oh she feels like shit, time to pump up her tweets”. It feels like that, sometimes, especially as more bots flood the site. In a way, I’m grateful for my brief ban, even with the reversal, because it let me find most of my mutuals on my backup without the setup of trying to convince people I actually am Julia Startofsummer.

I cannot state it enough that I’m incredibly grateful for the following I have, on multiple platforms at this point. Less than a year ago I knew every follower of mine by name on Twitter and Letterboxd: I can’t do that now. It’s dizzying at times, and I can’t imagine what it’s like for people with meteoric rises. Unfortunately, I’m just not built for it sometimes. Maybe this changes with the new doctor I’m seeing on Thursday, or maybe it doesn’t.

I’m going to keep this main account up no matter if I log out or lock the app or deactivate my backup. I try not to care about the metrics of my Patreon and Substack but being unable to share has really killed the views of my new posts. I enjoy posting 4 stills of the films I watch, that will likely continue (though not for everything) on main, along with sharing my writing. 1800 followers is still an enormous amount, but it’s a whole lot less than 5800–my hope is that I’ll have less angry people finding what I say. If it doesn’t, maybe I do just share my writing and otherwise move off social media! I feel like I’m very openly a work in progress, sometimes to my detriment, but at least I’m not making promises I can’t keep up with.

Speaking of that, my discord server will be hosting more watch parties—it’s something I like to do, even if actually streaming the film annoys me at times. I want you guys to be involved in the research I do for the pieces I write, as corny as that sounds—film is not a solo interest to me. It’s collaborative, it’s community driven. I find I’m more interested in watching something because of a discussion I have with someone than because I saw a random tweet—the watch parties are a natural extension of that to me. I know I’m doing one to celebrate baseball coming back: A Moneyball and Eephus double feature on the 25th. I think it’ll be fun! And that’s the point.

This whole writing thing is not a self-serious stuffy statement. I’m still wrapping my head around the pure numbers I have: 80ish people over two platforms (Patreon and Substack) doesn’t sound like a lot, but to me it’s enormous. When I started this in September I thought I’d get maybe 10, 15 people and most would be my friends. Something low pressure so I could figure out my style, what I wanted to write about, how I wanted to do it, if I even wanted to write! Instead almost a hundred of you decided you wanted MORE of me. Frankly, it’s terrifying. I feel this intense shame, as if I’m showing up in a sundress to the Met Gala. If you notice, I’m not charging for access to anything I write. The Supporter tier is literally just if you want to support. That’s it! The Lover tier is a fun add on. It was never meant to be something serious as if I’m Roger Ebert, paywalling access to my reviews. I have incredible commitment issues—I always start things and never finish. That’s why I’m doing the 10x10 with Jared, even though I hate half the films we watch, so I can point to 2026 ten years from now and say “hey. that’s when I actually completed a year long project for the first time.” That’s all! I just want to have fun. I hate people who say “it’s not that serious” but they’re correct in this singular instance. This is not serious. I do want to do serious things! I’m working on two projects right now that I desperately want to get published—being on social media is time taken away from working. I want to hang out with people, being angry about a Twitter interaction ruins my time with them.

I like writing, I like forcing you guys to read my thoughts on something, but the theme of this year seems to be figuring my way out of the arbitrary boxes I’ve been in. I wrote about how I’m rating less—I genuinely enjoy watching more now that I’m not spending time thinking about a number. Now, my arbitrary box seems to be myself. My constant struggle is with the capitalistic system I was raised in—everything had to be monetized and marketed, while I continue to insist this Patreon is simply for fun and a hobby. I didn’t get the benefit of figuring this out with 10 subs, had I realized there would be interest I would have made it private or planned better. That’s a flaw, always assuming there’ll be zero interest in something I do, but that’s for therapy and not y’all. I’m incredibly thankful that Apple has the ability to hide apps now, because if it’s not on my screen I will forget about it. Once I reactivate to share this, I’ll probably forget about it again, but at least it’ll be there in case people want to follow or subscribe or support—my own struggles should not preclude people from seeing what I’ve written or shared. At worst, it’ll be an archive. This is poorly thought out and almost entirely from my phone, so please don’t interact with it like a well thought out fancy post. Us Julias need editors too, okay?? Love you.

Life is but a dream (....or is it?) on this month’s sometimes life affirming/other times cynical auteur theory-filled month of the 10x10! From Lynch, Miyazaki, Andserson and Jeunet to dual Pixar/DreamWorks releases, there’s a lot of iconic films to talk about so let’s dive in!

Spirited Away, dir. Hayao Miyazaki:

Jared: Ghibli is always pretty hit or miss in my experience, and for a while Spirited Away feels like a surefire hit…until it goes on. And on. And on. I wish I could get behind this one as most people seem to be so head over heels for it, but something just didn’t click. I’ll always respect the artistry that goes into these films, however. We’ll actually get into my favorite Ghibli film (so far) later in the 10x10.

Julia: This might be the first time Jared and I completely agree, though I was a bit meaner in my Letterboxd review, calling Miyazaki “quirk chungus”. It’s good, but not good enough to warrant a full two hours—a solid 75 or 80 minute cut would do wonders for this. Porco Rosso remains my highest rated Studio Ghibli film at 3 stars. I wonder if that’ll change at some point this year, or if past Julia remains vindicated.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, dir. Peter Jackson:

Jared: When I finally sat down to watch the entire extended trilogy in one night a couple years ago for the first time, I wasn’t THAT enthralled about the whole thing, but Fellowship really set the mood right and actually got me excited to watch the next two. One of the quintessential fantasy adventure movies, regardless of the quality of its consistent yet slightly underwhelming follow-ups.

Julia: I skipped this one. While I loved this trilogy when I watched it with my best friend a couple of years ago, the desire to rewatch it just simply wasn’t there. Since the next two installments are coming up soon, I may do the entire trilogy again and have more thoughts—in my childhood I thought Fellowship was the worst one, but in 2024 I gave it 4.5 stars, same as Two Towers. If I do rewatch it, it’ll likely be the extended cut, as I hear it’s the best version.

Donnie Darko, dir. Richard Kelly:

Jared: The perfect “nothing but vibes” movie. Digging into the behind the scenes, it’s a miracle this movie is anywhere near watchable, as some of Kelly’s ideas for this thing sound absolutely putrid. Thank god there were people around to talk him down from those creative ledges because the final product is a damn banger. I watched it 3 times in a week the first time I saw it. The Head Over Heels segment is absolutely stunning and that’s the exact moment I knew this was going to be something special.

Julia: Genuinely so fucking mediocre. The first eighty minutes or so is the best part as a study of mental illness, and I felt Mary McDonnell’s pain as a mother watching her son spiral. The visuals are good, occasionally great, and I liked the soundtrack. Then it’s like Richard Kelly went “oh wait lmao let’s add some bullshit” and it’s laughable, coloring my entire opinion of the film. Ambiguity my ass. Did we really have to make the bunny a real guy? You can tell Kelly’s an idiot just from the script. Zero characterization of any supporting characters—hell, Donald himself is thinly written. I have zero desire to rewatch this, and it sounds like the director’s cut is even worse. Thank GOD the man hasn’t made anything in 17 years.

Subscribe now

Shrek, dir. Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson:

Jared: The 2000s were kinda the peak for children’s entertainment, and yes I’m 100% biased with it being the decade I grew up in. I didn’t like this as much as I did when I was a kid but that’s to be expected. This movie was EVERYTHING when it came out though, it accompanied me on so many road trips in my portable DVD player. Perfectly serviceable movie, just thought it was a bit too quickly paced and some of the pop culture references were forced and lame.

Julia: I hated this when I watched it, and even the 10x10 couldn’t make me rewatch it. Some elements are enjoyable—Eddie Murphy as Donkey, obviously—but it’s generally stupid. Lame is a good word, to crib from Jared. It’s just lame. Bonus points are given for being 90 minutes, it doesn’t overstay its welcome to the extent of Spirited Away, but it’s just not fun. The things I do for Cameron Diaz…

Monsters, Inc., dir. Pete Docter:

Jared: Oddly sloppy and shallow for a Pixar movie (especially back in the day). The worldbuilding and creativity is still there and I guess there isn’t the cheap emotional manipulation the studio relies on nowadays, but it comes at the cost of largely feeling like fluff with nothing much to say. I’m hard on family movies and this year’s entries left me wanting something more from them despite them all being quite competent stories.

Julia: Unlike a lot of the children’s films from this decade, I was actually allowed to watch this one! There’s an element of nostalgia, a la Emperor’s New Groove from last month, but in a short month with a full slate of Patron Picks, it just didn’t make the cut. With more time, I probably would have done this one, but with a semi-recent log and not that much love, I relied on Jared for this. I famously dislike children (in films…) and Boo is one of the exceptions. Always love seeing James Coburn.

Mulholland Dr, dir. David Lynch:

Jared: David Lynch, the legend that you are. While I’ll always generally like Twin Peaks a thousand times more than most of his feature film efforts, Mulholland Drive definitely stands as one of his superior pieces in that realm (maybe only topped by Blue Velvet for me). Kinda wish I hadn’t had that diner scene spoiled for me through cultural osmosis years before my first watch, and if I have to watch it one more time in film school I’m gonna end it I swear.

Julia: This one fell under the same umbrella as Monsters Inc—a time crunch in a short month with higher priorities. I actually really wanted to rewatch this in January, and I held off. Joke’s on me, because now I’m sitting here a month later having not rewatched. Oh well. It’s not my favorite film of Lynch’s, that honor still goes to Fire Walk With Me, and on some days Lost Highway, but Mulholland is a wonderful mixture of both the feminine struggle best exemplified in Twin Peaks and the noir influences that Lost Highway uses to great effect. If anything, it feels like his final thesis. The elements that define his previous films are all there, just sprinkled in and mixed together to create a final product unlike anything else. Maybe I do want to rewatch this…

Amelie, dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet:

Jared: I don’t know what it is about this movie, but this might be my most uncharacteristically arbitrary dislike I have for anything. I’ve tried watching this thing at least 4 times in 10 years and I just cannot do it. Folks, this is the first (and hopefully only, on my part) DNF of the 10x10 this year. There seems to be a running theme this month of movies that I can’t deny have charm, but other movies - ESPECIALLY ones by the very same creator - are a hell of a lot better.

Julia: I fucking hate this movie. It’s Wes Anderson for the people who only watch his films on Tiktok in 65 parts with AI voiceovers. It’s Wong Kar-wai for people who don’t like Maggie Cheung. It’s hot garbage. If Miyazaki is quirk chungus, this is evil chungus. Unlike Jared, I did finish this (though over two days), and I regret it. We HAVE to eliminate French “people”. This is my friend Cat’s favorite movie, and I love her to death, and I’m so sorry if she’s reading this, but I have to speak my truth. As with Richard Kelly, I am so grateful that Jean-Pierre Jeunet hasn’t done anything of note since. He doesn’t deserve to.

Legally Blonde, dir. Richard Luketic:

Jared: I don’t have much to say about this one, it’s a cute piece of optimistic fluff and sometimes that’s all you need. The gay stuff at the end rubbed me the wrong way but I’m expecting that to be a running theme this year on the 10x10. Can we make it through a month without a single movie having some weird gay jokes/plotlines? Please?

Julia: Murder all Jareds. I may not have had the girlhood that cis girls my age had, but in my truncated, Juliafied version, this film shaped me in immeasurable ways. Is it a little thinly written? Sure. Is it average in terms of visuals? Sure. In a rare break from form, I simply don’t care. This is an iconic film and the best thing Oz Perkins has ever been involved in. Brooke Windham I am so single please call me. If you want to text me, don’t. I’m going to go read Elle/Vivian lesbian fanfic.

Ocean’s Eleven, dir. Steven Soderbergh:

Jared: Really fantastic execution of a very simple and well-known subgenre. Although the sequels never really match up to it, the characters are so watchable throughout the trilogy and it’s the most crucial element to this first film. I also really enjoy how they shake the formula up and keep even the viewer from knowing the plan. Some might say it’s a cheap way to pull the rug out from under us but I don’t mind.

Julia: I skipped this one, solely because I’ve watched it so many times that I think eventually I’m just going to become Steven Soderbergh. I cannot express in words how well made this is, but also how much I absolutely adore Julia Roberts as Tess. I love, love love the pairing of Soderbergh and Roberts and I wish they’d done more together! Genuinely incredible film and one of my few five stars. The cast is obviously incredible. Everything here is incredible. Yes it’s my only adjective for this film why do you ask?

The Royal Tenenbaums, dir. Wes Anderson:

Jared: On the flip side of Spirited Away and Amelie, we get a career-best from Wes Anderson. This is, without a shadow of a doubt, his single best movie. It’s right in that sweet spot: teeming with his signature style but not overflowing and washing it out. I was incredibly excited to get my hands on the Criterion set last year despite all my friends knowing how annoyed I am with his recent outputs, but I had a hunch I would appreciate his early works that I hadn’t seen yet and I was proven so unbelievably correct. The characters are written with such depth and humanity through so few lines. You actually CARE about them, which I can’t say has happened in a Wes film this entire past decade. Watched it 3 times in the few months I’ve owned it on 4K and I’m already itching to watch it again.

ps. also by far his best soundtrack ever, good lord fill me up with Nico and Nick Drake and that’s an easy 5 star.

Julia: Yes, dear reader, Jared and I disagree yet again. I think this is perfectly fine and serviceable but the emotional connection that this requires just did not reach me. I’ve never been a Paltrow fan, and maybe the sticker shock of Gene Hackman in this colored the experience a little, but I’ve seen a lot better from Wes. This one goes in the Snatch/Final Destination/In the Mood for Love pile for me—one big shrug. Thankfully, I had a lot less this month than January! Here’s to hoping that continues.

Final Rankings:

The Look Ahead:

Next month is the first truly nostalgic one for me, which makes sense as it’s Julia and I’s birth years, including childhood slumber party sci-fi staples such as Spider-Man and the Star Wars prequel trilogy. It actually looks to be an underwhelming month to my eyes, and this nostalgia factor might play a big role in how my ranking shakes out.

At least, that’s what I hear constantly, rattling around in my skull along with Cream Soda Dr Pepper and whatever Daft Punk song I last listened to. It’s a fascinating response to pretty much anything, and probably causes most of my insomnia. January has always been a month of meditation for me, of self evaluation. Unfortunately with self evaluation comes harshness, which I’ve combated over the last couple years by doing…literally nothing. Putting my toe into the water always results in panicking, as Devin Morgan et al. can attest! I really did spend the entire month calling myself a failure. My chronic pain and fog have only worsened with the winter weather, and it’s left me bedridden for days at a time—depression sets in, and the cycle continues. I’ve rewritten this introduction at least five times, something I never do when I write, and at this point it’s just diminishing returns. I forget that the point of this project isn’t to become popular, or to show off my skill in marketing, even if that’s what my degree is in. The goal is to become better at writing, to stretch myself out until I’m capable of two thousand, three thousand word pieces, to get myself published. Is writing my career? Probably not. Is film? Probably not either. I enjoy doing this, though, and that’s what matters. I just have to remind myself of that.

Subscribe now

Yesterday I was looking at previous pieces to remind myself of something I’d said and I ran across my September recap that I’d posted in early October. It was my first recap, and first post outside of my little introduction. It was 500 words. I’m not embarrassed by that, but it was a reminder of how far I’ve come: I wrote and published 500 words to an audience of less than 15 people. At the time of writing this, there are 80 people who will get this into their email inboxes, and it will certainly be longer than 500 words. All this to say: I really just needed to step back and gain perspective. When I started writing in September I never thought this would be anything beyond a silly little project that would help get my mind off a horrible situation, and now look at me. I struggle in various ways, and I’m open about that, and yet even by flaunting the nonexistent rules my mind makes up I still “succeed”. Wild.

The flip side of all the extra time in front of my TV and in my bed is that I’ve been able to work on the list I created at the beginning of December. I’ve notoriously struggled with TV, and with yet another year of 500+ film logs under my belt I really just wanted to branch out, to explore more without the occasionally stressful part of maintaining focus for 2+ hours. I actually finished not just one, but TWO seasons of TV this month—Stranger Things season one, which was better than I expected, and Twin Peaks season 2. I’d stopped watching after episode 9 when Laura’s killer is revealed back in August, and it had taken me almost a year just to watch the preceding 16 episodes—yes, I’m that bad at it. Not everything is Twin Peaks, obviously, but I did watch two pilot episodes from my list before writing this so I’d have an idea of what I wanted to focus on in February. The Return/Season 3 is obviously the priority, especially with Lynch’s Mulholland Dr on the 10x10 list for this month, but if I have time in this short month I’m going to work my way through the X-Files (fascinating concept with some really great shots I’ve seen on Twitter) and True Detective S1. Yes, only the first season—I’m treating it as a limited series, and if I continue to be snowed in I may just watch the whole thing over a couple days. It’s not much for seasoned TV watchers, but for me this is a huge step forward.

As for film, I split my list into two: directors, and actors. I typically focus on directors, I hate watching a shitty movie just for a pretty girl or good actor but one could make the argument that a good enough actor can make a movie watchable—I aim to find that out for myself beyond the obvious actors like Denzel or Clint. Speaking of Clint, I have the man’s entire filmography downloaded and I still haven’t watched more than one or two. That’s probably my biggest priority, and if I haven’t watched at least three by the beginning of March you have permission to fight me. One at a time only please!

I knew I wanted to watch less movies while expanding my horizons with these lists but I wasn’t sure how it would all pan out in terms of time expenditure, or how much I’d actually desire to expand said horizons—sometimes a shitty film or rewatch is all my mind can handle, thanks to my brain fog. Sure enough I only watched 26 movies In January compared to my typical 30 plus, with 4 of those being rewatches and half of them coming in the last week of the month. I supplemented that with 20 episodes of the aforementioned shows, so it’s not like I was just wasting time: that’s exactly what I wanted to do! 20 episodes is practically an entire year’s output for me.

In addition to all these changes and new ideas, I realized that I just simply want to rate movies less. I don’t really think too much about my stars before I click them anyway, but there are times when I catch myself hemming and hawing about half star differences—who cares? I would, or rather should, be spending that time on more material, important thoughts about the film. If you follow my Letterboxd you’ve probably noticed this over the last few days! I’m also no longer including the star rating in my favorite watches section below. If it’s good enough for me to recommend, that should be good enough for you guys.

Favorite first watches:

Films are listed in diary order, not by any particular ranking system.

• People We Meet on Vacation (2026) — Cute, inoffensive! Reminds me of a classic 2000s romcom, barely looks like a Netflix original. You could do a hell of a lot worse.

• On the Silver Globe (1988) — Has entered my personal favorites. Do I really need to say more?

• The Great Silence (1968) — MMMPFGH SNOW! Only my second Corbucci and it was gorgeous. Ennio Morricone’s score probably one of the best Western scores, as usual.

• The Peacemaker (1997) — Mimi Leder deserves another shot. I’d only seen Deep Impact from her and loved it, this was just as good. Clooney-as-Ethan-Hunt-as-Bond with a startlingly great opening 15 minutes. Loved the Bosnian representation, as an honorary Bosnian woman.

My Lover tier members had me watch 9 movies this month, one of which I am yet to see. In release order they were:

• Two for the Road (1967)

• One from the Heart (1982)

• My Cousin Vinny (1992)

• Ritual (2000)

• Sexy Beast (2000)

• Treasure Planet (2002)

• mother! (2017)

• The Wolf House (2018)

• The Kid Detective (2020)

If you’d like to join and force me to watch something, the link is here. Have a happy February!

Art is inherently unrateable. My autocorrect tells me that’s not a word, and I can’t be bothered to double check that—let this be an announcement that it’s a word now. Unrateable. When you hear the word art you think of painting, probably. Who the hell would rate a painting? “Ah yeah mate saw the Mona Lisa. 3 stars at best, but I saw it in the Louvre so that’s an extra half star. What’s your Paintboxd rating?”

That’s ridiculous. Why do we hold ourselves, or each other, hostage to a static number to describe our feelings toward movies, toward shows, toward music? Motion pictures are in motion, music is finite, no set of numbers or letters can even come close to quantifying something that was made with a heart and soul. A rating to me is like a bookmark, or checking yourself into a visitor log at a museum—it proves you were there, you engaged with it, and briefly encapsulates how you felt. Why then is that treated like some untouchable thing, a statue on a pedestal?

I’m not arguing for ratings to be abolished, or even that I’ll stop using them myself. I think it’s a fascinating piece of the puzzle that is my relationship with a film or piece of music, and frankly sometimes I feel my three little stars can better represent the feeling of mediocrity than just saying “lmao meh”. But that’s just the thing—it’s a singular piece of the story. It’s almost exactly like judging a book by its cover—something universally recognized as bad. So why do we do it for movies or music?

I don’t have the answer, but I think it has something to do with what I’ve previously termed “qualityslop”— a messy word, if you even want to call it a word. Big number means something to people’s minds, so the bigger the number, the better it is. Right?

No.

People are very, very stupid. If you didn’t know that already, welcome to Earth 101, we’re so excited to have you.

It’s a self fulfilling cycle that’s reached a head with social media, wherein a previously established “good” director/artist is given a high bar to clear—if you clear it, your new work is hailed as a masterpiece and everyone who disagrees is stoned. If you don’t, and you hit your nuts on the bar, everyone laughs at you and you get stoned. Also everyone who disagrees? They get stoned too. There’s a lot of stones being thrown, it’s a real issue.

Take The Dark Knight for an example of the former. Christopher Nolan had made good movies before, and the bar was high, but The Dark Knight easily cleared it for most people, and still does. It’s pretty universally hailed as a masterpiece, and if you don’t give it 5 stars or some other equally high rating (there go the numbers again!) you’re branded as “engagement baiting” or “performative”, figuratively stoned to death by the horde of social media zombies that can’t handle that your number is different than theirs. Even if you have a well thought out explanation—as if your opinion even needs justification—the Number rules all.

This magic Number is especially powerful against dissenters during awards season—do you know how many weeks One Battle After Another has spent in the Letterboxd 250? If you don’t, Jake on Twitter will happily remind you because again: his Number is bigger than yours, and that’s why it should win awards. Sound familiar at all? Competition between art and artists certainly is nothing new (Michelangelo and Leonardo anyone?) but at least the Sistine Chapel’s IMDB score wasn’t a metric they used.

Again, I do not have a problem with ratings as a temporary or even semi permanent “bookmark” in your movie diary. There’s a reason they became prevalent, and it’s because it’s easy. You doodle your little stars, maybe write a review, and voila, you have something you can point to that says “hey, here are my thoughts”. The problem comes when you have no thoughts, and if you haven’t been here before, welcome to Earth 201: not a lot of people have thoughts. The Numbers rule all, and when your number doesn’t match…you have hell to pay. My friend Mosquito is a wonderful example of this. She’s a lovely girl, but I swear every time I see her on Twitter it’s because she’s accused of “baiting” and “being performative”. You’ll never, ever guess why.

Okay, fine. One guess. You ready? Lock it in.

If you guessed “because her Number doesn’t match popular opinion,” good job! She comes under fire at least once a week for some controversial rating or a piece of criticism for something popular. Part of it is misogyny, obviously, but a large percentage of the angry comments are just simply children who cannot handle Mosquito’s rating being different. A lot of times, I see her previously high rating for the movie in the replies with zero context, as if that’s supposed to mean something; to these people ratings must be static, opinions cannot change, and the only acceptable way is if you think more highly of their chosen movie on rewatch.

This is a twofold problem, of course. On one hand, people have such little self esteem that seeing someone with a confident yet different opinion, no matter how thoroughly it’s been expressed, is like seeing their dog die. Honestly, it’s almost worse if you explain yourself—these types of people really hate when you’re smarter than them. On the other, critical thinking and reading comprehension levels are at an all time low, and to these people’s cavemen brains, Number is Opinion. No matter how many times you explain it, you will never shift them. Even this piece, which is only about 1000 words, is 999 too long. If you stop rating entirely, you are again thrown into “performative” and “baiting” boxes. I have no illusions about my level of influence, but if I were to sum this up just to screenshot and dunk on someone later, I’d continue with the “ratings are like bookmarks” argument—to me, that’s exactly what they are. There’s no point in systems, or explanations: one man’s 3 star is another’s 1.5, and until we get on the same page that you can think critically and subjectively at the same time, situations like mine and Mosquito’s will continue.