The Writer's Poke

"And may I remind you that it does not say RSVP on the Statue of Liberty.." -- Cher, taking the pro-immigration position You can be clueless about this movie being a modern-day adaptation of Emma, but if you've never specifically watched it as Emma, then give it a shot. Watch a version of Emma first and then watch Clueless. I just did that, and I'd say it adds at least a 1/2 star to my rating. Cher (Alicia Silverston) is completely Emma. She's trying to match people, fix people, and figure herself out. And the whole movie ends with a wedding, just as it should. Let's briefly highlight the Emma of Clueless. Wallce Shawn found himself in this one, playing Mr. Hall, Cher's high school Debate teacher. He looks small and thin in this role, and I noticed that he's about 52 when he played this part... which is sick, because that's my current age. Somehow Mr. Hall hands out Cs to Cher and her friends. How dare he? (By the way, Cher narrates the story thro...

The Gwenyth Paltrow version came out the same year, and I also saw the 2020 version recently. These other adaptations have a lot to offer, and I liked each quite a bit. This one isn't bad, but Kate Beckinsale doesn't stand out to me as Emma, nor is the story all that compellingly told. It just feels muted somehow. Maybe it's partly the DVD copy, which feels a bit old and "blurry," too. When I went back to look at my review for the 2020 version, I noted how the colors "popped" and how everything was sharp and vivid. That's just not the case with this version. What I do like about this version is the way it handles some of Emma's imagination scenes. We get to do a quick look into Emma's head, and it's fun and instructive to see what she's thinking about as she's matching up different people. Of course, what's somewhat annoying about the story is the characters: They're all rich. They all live to dance, eat, gossip, and find ...

Charles Laughton can do more with a subtle shift of his left eyeball than most actors can do with their entire faces. And as Quasimodo, most of his face is hidden behind a mask. I can only imagine how much time he must have spent in the chair each day to have the mask and body suit applied. But he still had one good eye to use, and that's all he needed. Esmerelda (Maureen O'Hara) has the "It factor," and even though she's a Gypsy, every man immediately falls in love with her. Gypsies in 15th century France are enemy #1. They are banned from even entering Paris, but her mission is to get justice for her people, and perhaps, she's so beautiful that people will listen to her. The King does, for sure, most everyone else seems to be at least partially sympathetic to her cause. Anyway, every man must fall in love with her at first sight. It's funny, because O'Hara is a beautiful woman, but all of the actors playing Gypsies are portrayed as dirty and rough lo...

Montag's black. He's not married. Clarisse is an informant, not 16 and not his neighbor. Captain Beatty writes down Goodreads quotes on slips of paper and burns them. He seems conflicted, like he's really not sure which side to be on. I don't mind that this version doesn't "follow the book." It's cool to see that the firefighters rarely burn books. Their job is more to keep the culture pure. What they spend most of their time destroying is knowledge more generally -- hard drives, languages, art, and digital records -- anything they designate as cultural graffiti. Anything that they determine is a threat to peace and stability. The firefighters are also more specifically "American" -- in the film, the border exists, and getting across to Canada seems to be a possible goal. I also noticed that the film is okay borrowing from other sources. It feels like this film borrows ideas and concepts from 1984, among other sources. In other words, the fil...

This version plays up the "book" adaptation angle, but as others have noted, even though it's reading the "text" to the audience, it's not the actual text of the novel. Why read "the first paragraph or Chapter 1" and then completely change the opening? Pretty weird. Another thing to point out -- Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine are just a couple years apart in age. I think Welles is 28, which is a shockingly young Rochester -- I just watched the George C. Scott version, and Scott was at least 15 years older when played Rochester. Joan Fontaine, on the other hand, is a little too old -- maybe 26 -- to be playing the part of Jane Eyre, and she's also way too pretty... probably the best-looking Jane Eyre of all the various actresses who have played Jane Eyre.. and although Jane Eyre is supposed to be horribly plain, no version casts a plain actress. But in what universe is Joan Fontaine plain? Overall, I like this version when it goes goth and works...

The movie jumps starts with a Philip Seymour Hoffman fantasy and a Marisa Tomei nightmare. Actually, that's meant to be a joke, but I can imagine them meeting the first day, and then they have to shoot that opening scene. I can imagine the screenplay is pretty vague, saying something about a love scene in Rio for "Andy and Gina," and then director Sidney Lumet lays out his more specific vision for the two actors... not that the love scene is all that graphic, but it's an abrupt way into the movie, and it definitely does tell you something about Andy (Hoffman). Man, I don't like that big sweaty bastard from the beginning. Neither Andy nor Hank (Ethan Hawke) are all that easy to like. One does drugs, the other doesn't pay his child support. Neither have got lives together and neither have the economic resources to dig themselves out of whatever physical or psychological holes they find themselves in. And there are no lines the dudes won't cross. Hank has Thu...

Maybe Peter Pan (1953) doesn't age well, I don't know. For me, the concern isn't that Peter Pan is racist or that Captain Hook is misogynist... It's more that Wendy is. She's the storyteller, and as an adult viewer, I tend to see her as the "storyteller." Peter Pan and Hook are simply characters in her stories. Or even if we buy into the idea that Peter Pan and the Lost Boys are real, they're all kids. None of them are mature, and obviously even the pirates shouldn't be seen as beacons of maturity and good morals. So does it really matter how the movie depicts Indians or how it thinks about women? None of that is really considered in my rating of the movie. As I watch the entire canon of Disney movies again this year, I find myself wanting to use 4/5 stars as the baseline. Most Disney movies have their flaws or weaknesses, but generally speaking, they are usually good movies, fun to watch. I think I had fun watching Peter Pan, but in terms of stand...

Dumbo has a real name, it's Jumbo, Jr. That's the name Mrs. Jumbo (she doesn't have her own name) gives him, but it's only used once in the movie. Thereon out, he's Dumbo. We only see moms, no dads. When the storks come to deliver babies -- and all are delivered at the same exact time (weird) -- they drop off the bundles to the moms, and the moms are alone. Where are all the dads? It made me wonder if Circuses only wanted female animals, and if so, what do they do with all the male offspring when they start to get a little too old and a little too male? Dumbo's "villains" in this movie are funny, because they aren't the other animals who make fun of him. They are the older female elephants -- the sewing circle. They are the ones that cannot stand Dumbo's ears, as if his ears are somehow a slight on all elephants. What happens to this group of elephants? At the end of the movie, they are totally gone, as if the circus has discarded them. The DVD...

Sometimes you watch a movie and you're pleasantly surprised, and sometimes not. Based on the reviews for this one, I realized I was probably going to be disappointed watching this one. Yes, it has Ethan Hawke, Angelina Jolie, and Kiefer Sutherland, but that doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to be a good movie. But you watch the opening 5 minutes, and you think, "Well, I guess anything can happen in this one," So you're ready for anything to happen. What ends up happening is FBI agent Illeana (Jolie) falls for Costa (Hawke). He's not necessarily a suspect, and the case seems closed when she does let herself drop her guard, but even so. Her lack of judgement is disappointing, and she ends up losing her job because of it. I found it hard to believe that a woman like Jolie would fall for a guy like Hawke, but maybe that's just me. And yet, was Illeana playing to long game? Was this all part of her plan? Did she seduce him in order to capture him? No. I think ...

Lisa Loeb's "Stay" was a very cool song to me when this movie originally came out, and I graduated college in 1994. Even so, I never saw this movie.  I'm sure the fact that this is a "romance" film, and that the romance genre has never been at the top of my favorites, is one main reason... It would take 32 years and an interest in Ethan Hawke films for me to finally see this one.  The movie does play the romance angle hard. In a normal romance, the two characters meant for each other can't just easily find their way to one another, but in this movie, the separation is teased a few times, and you start to wonder, Will they ever get together, or will "reality bite"? It's cute that the "Reality Bites" title is captured in the film, as part of the "In Your Face" program made out of Lelaina's (Wyonda Ryder) home movie camera documentary. In the end, almost everyone in the film actually "gets" something. Maybe it...

I like the camera work. The camera will just sit there and capture the smokestacks, the powerlines, or children walking to school. Even in the home, if the mother is cleaning, the camera will just sit on the floor and watch her through a door or from down a hallway. At first I thought it was odd that the camera just sat on the ground, but that's also the way Japanese people sit -- on the floor -- so in a sense, it's the same view that a person would have if observing. The parents -- Shukichi (Chishû Ryû) and Tomi (Chieko Higashiyama) -- make the train trip to see their children. They're both in their 60s and it's been maybe years since they've seen their Tokyo kids, maybe meeting their grandchildren for the first time. A high level of politeness and ceremony when they arrive, but that doesn't extend to the grandchildren. They don't know their grandparents and one complains about having his desk moved for their visit. Where will he do his homework? It's o...

This is my first Lon Chaney film, and maybe I'll come back to this one after I've watched a few more... for the moment, though, I guess I'm not 100% mesmerized. I understand the film's idea, but I'm not sure I believe in the realism. If this film is a metaphor for life, sure, but as an actual representation of life, no. Paul (Lon Chaney) is a great scientist on the verge of announcing his major findings to the committee of scientists. That's a little odd, as this seems like his first meeting with other scientists, as though his first major discover is his introduction to the scientific community, as though he's been isolated and alone and never had a scientific mentor or any scientific peers. Or friends. I guess I had trouble getting passed that. Because as it happens, he does have a benefactor, who, as far as we know, is simply rich, not a scientist. He takes all of Paul's work and claims he's the one who did it all. Okay, then have him explain it. ...

Charles Laughton makes this film. His facial expressions. The small darting movements he makes with his eyes. Moreau is the prototypical mad scientist, and he seems quite calm and sane. The only way we see his insanity, other than his creations, is through Laughton's acting. Compare that to Bela Lugosi as the Law Giver. All he has to work with is his voice, and it's a great voice, but even when the camera closes in on his face, the mask he's wearing is so complete that it could be anyone underneath. In fact, although I like the close-up of the "things," and one point in the film, we go from a Lugosi closeup to an unknown actor closeup. Other than name value, it makes very little difference if Lugosi is in this film. It makes all the difference that Laughton is in the film. The plot is so simple, which makes me wonder how The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) messed it up so badly. Not that Island of Lost Souls is perfect, but it has atmosphere. It knows how to work with...

In Snow White, the evil stepmom/queen puts her daughter to sleep. In Sleeping Beauty (1959), Maleficent attempts to kill Aurora, but the three fairy godmothers step in and change the spell from death to sleep. It's no wonder I end up getting the two films confused, because in some ways, they use the same plot. Snow White is a cute movie, but like Sleeping Beauty, it leaves a lot left unexplained. Like, where is everyone? We have two kingdoms represented, and all we ever see is the Queen, the daughter, the Woodsman, and the Prince. Where are all the people? For that matter, what happened to the King? What happened to the first Queen? I understand that a lot will be left unexplained, but sometimes in Disney movies, the plot is an afterthought. They spend 10 minutes focused on Snow White cleaning the "dollhouse" the Dwarfs live in, but nothing on backstory, nothing on the PTSD that Snow White might be experiencing being forced to run for her life. Did she not know the Queen ...

The messaging of movies. It's not always something you think about, but sometimes it's easy to see when you watch older films. In this one, both the boyfriend and the father give the message: The way for women to be happy is to marry, have kids, and take care of the house. That's it. That's the secret to being content and to being truly happy. There are no alternatives. As the title suggests, the focus is on the girl, Jean (Elizabeth Taylor). She has a boyfriend who loves her and wants to marry her, Vance (Gig Court). He's rich and she's rich. They want for nothing, and yet, even though she loves him, she's worried about settling down. She wants to see what else life has to offer. That's funny to me. She's going to have servants, and she will have the money to do whatever she wants. That's never addressed in the film. There's nothing that marriage will limit her from experiencing, except other men. Does she want to sow her wild oats? It's...

Everyone likes Sam Elliott. He's the old guy with the voice and the mustache. But name three films he's been in. I can -- Tombstone, The Big Lebowski, and Frogs. Can you name a fourth? Ebert rated this movie 3.5/4 stars, but in his review, he acknowledged that this is the kind of film that will receive no buzz and will come and go without anyone noticing. Why? I'm not sure. If you like the New Mexico desert, you're going to like this film. Maybe that's a pretty obscure, select group of folks. I love the New Mexico desert, and when I see the Rio Grande, I think, cool... I know where that is. Is it a problem with the pacing? Maybe, because modern-day audiences are going to find it slow going. Most of the characters are quiet, and we aren't always sure what they're thinking, or how they ended up like they are... that's true to life, though, right? On the other hand, when I was watching the movie, the thought went through my head that this is one of those mo...

Alan Alda has written and directed a few films in his career, and this one might be the best known. Since I listen to his podcast and he had a rerun of the Carol Burnett episode recently, the film entered my radar, and I thought I'd give it a watch. During the podcast, Burnett mentioned that she tweaked her part to make it feel more "real" from a woman's perspective. I was looking for the scene, and I guess it was the one where Jack (Alda) calls Kate (Burnett) "perfect." That's surprising, though, because that's exactly what Jack would call Kate. Kate doesn't want to be called perfect, though, because that's burdensome and in some ways dehumanizes her. Basically, the film follows three friend couples through one year -- four seasons -- of their friendship. To work a little better, I think maybe instead of four back-to-back seasons, the movie should have followed them through four figurative seasons -- from friendship's beginning through t...

Written and directed by Noam Baumbach, and Wes Anderson is one of the producers. It's a filet of a film. Somehow this is the third time I've watch this film. I find it hilariously funny, and painful, and annoying, and elegant. The older son, Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) -- aka "Chicken" is a poppa's boy and lets his mom know it. He sings and plays Pink Floyd on guitar at a school talent show and tells everyone he wrote the song. Frank (Owen Kline) -- aka "Pickle," wow. The divorce messes him up, and what he does in the film (you'll know when you see it) will never leave your brain. The father, Bernard (Jeff Daniels) -- are there really English professors like him? I fear there are -- or might have been. The mother, Joan (Lauren Linney), does she have more going for her? Better writer? Why does she end up dating jocks, including Ivan (William Baldwin), Frank's tennis coach? Neither boy takes the divorce well, but omg Frank. He's drinking beer, look...

Billy Bob Thorton isn't especially known for being a director, but he did direct this one, his first directorial assignment after Sling Blade (1996). I was interested to see if anything stood out that suggested his fingerprint. Overall, I'd say not. I did notice a few close-ups on eyes, but most of the scenes and shots looked pretty standard -- not that standard is bad. The early shots of the Texas and Mexico desert were well done. The film itself logs in at just under 2 hours. Some reviewers indicated that the pacing was too slow; others note that Thorton's original cut was 4 hours long. So which is it? Is the pacing too slow? Or does the film need more time to work? I tend to think that the pacing was fine, and that yes, more time was probably needed -- to better develop all aspects of the story -- The friendship relationship, the conflict of losing John's (Matt Damon) family farm, the relationship between John and Alejandra (Penelope Cruz), and so on. When John and h...

Movies like this come and go and are easy to miss. Shainee Gabel is a director with one feature credit to her name, basically, and this is it. She hasn't made another movie since, and there's nothing about her really, to discover in a quick Google search. Where did she go, and what happened to her? And as one reviewer asked, how was she ablet to recruit Scarlett Johansson and John Travolta to spend three weeks in New Orleans one August staring in this one? That reviewer indicated that it was "the script" that drew them to these roles, and maybe that's the case. And then I start to feel bad for Travolta, because other than Pulp Fiction and maybe a very short list of two or three other films, he's not exactly known for appearing in films with good films -- either as rated by critics or viewers. Johansson, on the other hand, has typically been better at picking films with "good scripts," but she's also done her fair share of Marvel movies -- some go...