The Writer's Poke

What a pleasant surprise. Robert (Rock Hudson) has exactly what he wants. Lisa (Gina Lollobrigida) is his September girl. Every September, he leaves Rome for his villa in the country, and he spends the whole month with Lisa. When the month is up, he says goodbye and goes back to Rome.  He's happy with that arrangement. I guess we're to assume that he thinks she's happy with that arrangement, too. Does he have other girls in Rome, or other girls for different months? Not that we know of. In his own way, he might be "faithful" to Lisa. But do they ever talk the other eleven months of the year? The last time Robert left for Rome, Lisa ended up meeting another man. It's July, and she's set to marry this other guy, but as luck would have it, Robert decides to go to his villa a couple months early. But how had Lisa been seeing this other guy for seven months without Robert ever knowing? This is when he learns the servant that takes care of his villa has started ...

The premise of this one: Samuel (Charles Coburn) is getting older, and he regrets that the love of his life got away. Before he dies, he's interested in leaving his fortune to the family of that woman's children. But he first wants to vet them to make sure they're worthy of his money.  So he goes undercover as John Smith and manages to live with the family as a boarder. They seem like a nice enough bunch, but with two kids in college, a mortgage to pay, as well as drugstore business to run, they're broke. The $8 a week he's going to pay them as a boarder will go a long way...  Meanwhile, Samuel becomes closer to the family, and he decides to give them, anonymously, $100,000 -- just to see how they'll handle the money. Harriet (Lynn Bari), the mother, goes nuts. But everyone else in the family just goes along with it? They sell the drugstore, sell the house, buy a mansion, and somehow make $100,000 feel like a billion dollars... and everyone in town believes, rig...

This is the second DVD I found in a Litte Library, and I'm glad I did, because somehow -- how? -- it completely went under my radar. Think about all the great stars in this one -- John Malkovich, Brad Pitt, George Cloney, Frances McDormand -- how could this ensemble cast not make a banger of a film? Well, it is a banger. Yes, it's a comedy, but it works because everyone plays it straight. All of the characters are "quirky," but somehow, they are all playing it straight. Not once does the film go for a laugh. It's not like, say, The Big Lebowski or Fargo. I mean, those are also movies that more or less play it straight, too, but the places to laugh are more obvious, and the quirky characters in those films cross some sort of "quirky/laugh line." I have a feeling that some viewers think this movie is "second tier" Coen Brothers, because the laughs aren't as obvious. I actually don't hold that against it. No, I don't quite think it...

Last month I was doing a tour of Little Libraries -- I visited maybe 150 -- and this was one of two DVDs that I found. As a Cary Grant fan, I had actually never heard of this film, but I was curious to give it a watch Betsy Drake, as it turns out, is his co-star, and she was also his wife at the time -- his 3rd of 5. Drake doesn't seem to have had a very robust film career, and she didn't stay married long to Grant. There's nothing wrong with her, although it's difficult to say that she had any real star power.  That said, she was probably perfectly cast for this role -- the role of a mother with three kids of her own, but still someone caring enough to want to take on additional "problem children." it's a rather odd film, coming across almost as a propaganda film --promoting the idea that people should consider fostering/adopting older "problem" children. The Roses never actually adapt the two children that enter their family, but Anna (Drake) e...

This has to be the standard version by which all other versions of Sense and Sensibility are judged. All the main characters do such an amazing job. It's no surprise to me that Kate Winslet gives such an amazing performance as Marianne, but what about Hugh Grant as Edward? (I just love the way he stands and walks and hold his head as Edward.) Let's be honest: The men are all secondary characters, but everything depends on them, in a way, and all of them seem to be impotent. They want love and romance as much as the women, but they are also more beholden to the wishes of their family -- assuming their family has money and the power to cut off their inheritance.  That's not quite fair, because I'm sure rich women want love, too, but at least in this Austen adaptation if not the others, the focus is on the women from more modest means, and the roadblocks they face trying to secure the love of the men they want to marry, men who just happen to be "above the economic st...

While I'm sure some people might say they "like" this film, I find it hard to believe anyone could claim to "enjoy" watching it. I watched it in the theater when it was originally released, but I never had much interest in watching it again. Since I'm currently watching Mel Gibson films, I thought I'd go ahead and give it a re-watch, but I have to admit it was difficult to watch.  If you look at it cinematically, it's interesting. We have some color saturation. The Garden of Gethsemane scenes are in blue. Most of the "Jewish" scenes are drained of all color except for browns and other darker colors. The "Roman" scenes "pop," slightly, with red. And take a look at Jesus's (Jim Caviezel) left eye. Usually in films, it's the blue eyes that get oversaturated, but here we have a rare example of brown-eye over-saturation.  I did forget a few things from the original viewing: 1) Satan is with Christ in the Garden, but h...

"Freedom!" -- William Wallace's last word. Good movie? Great movie? Right now, I'm leaning more towards "good movie," but it did win Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture and three other categories, so that would indicate it should be a little bit better than just good.  Checking in on Ebert's original rating, he gave it 3.5/4 stars, and he never bumped it up to the "Great Movie" series.  What does the movie lack? Well, it's historically inaccurate in a lot of ways. That doesn't bother me. Mel Gibson is also way too old for the part of William Wallace. That doesn't bother me either.  At times the film comes across a little too melodramatic, a little too soap opera-y. Not over-the-top so, but enough so that it slightly bothers me.  I also don't like not being able to follow the timeline. What's being captured in this film happens over at least a 15–20-year time period (and that's starting from when Wallace comes back ...

Family. That's the final message the apparent ending of the franchise ends on. And I'm not going to poo-poo that message too much, because I've been wanting more focus on character development for the last two movies. At least in this movie, we get it to some degree -- as well as a little less reliance on stupid comedy. Riggs (Mel Gibson) starts remembering and mentioning his dead wife again, and both Lorna (Rene Russon) and Rog's (Danny Glover) are pregnant.  Six years have passed between film 3 and film 4; I'm guessing that means six years have passed in the timeline... have Riggs and Lorna really been together for six years and somehow not broached the subject of marriage? That seems implausible. Does Rog really not know that his daughter has been dating Lee (Chris Rock), a cop? Again, seems implausible.  The plot, however, is easier to follow. The Chinese villains are easy to villainize. Again, very one-dimensional villains, but at least I can follow who the cop...

"Let's live to regret this." Riggs (Mel Gibson) to Lorna (Rene Russo) That's not a great line, but it's what Riggs says when he's willing Lorna to hold on after the bad guy has almost fatally shot her. And it's about the only line in the movie that stood out even a little bit. Beyond that, if this film had a writer, he wasn't being paid for the dialogue.  In the first film, they immediately draw you in with a naked woman jumping to her death. In the second film, they start with a high-speed chase. In this film, we get a song playing to pretty fire behind the opening credits. Maybe the opening is foreshadowing, as the Riggs will make sure that the bad guys burns in the end, but I thought it was definitely the weakest of the three openings.  But really, after the bomb scare sequence, I checked out. Riggs wants to go in to disable the bomb, even though he has no training in that. He's willing to risk his life -- again, if he's no longer suicidal, ...

Ending lines: Riggs: Give us a kiss before they come. Roger: Where did that bullet hit you anyway? Maybe it's just silly 80s guy talk, but it's just funny to talk like that to your guy friend. At least it was in the 80s... In the first Lethal Weapon, a house blew up, and Roger tries to put out the fire on Riggs's coat by laying on top of him. "What are you, a fag?" Riggs asks. I think it was supposed to be a joke, and it probably was okay to say in 1987. Then in this one, Roger can't move off the toilet -- the classic bomb detonated to blow when he gets off the toilet scene. Riggs has the plan to pull Roger off and cover both of them in the bathtub with the bomb blanket. They make it to the bathtub, the bomb explodes, and when they realize they're not dead, they both laugh. Then Roger says to Riggs, "Would you mind getting off me. I don't want the other guys to see us like this." It's just the part of the comedy in the series, I guess. Bu...

Lethal Weapon has its own special movie wiki; I'm sure a lot of films do, especially film franchises, but this is about the first time I've looked at one before.  I was interested in the ages of the characters vs. the ages of the actors playing them. For example, Danny Glover was 41 in 1987. The character he plays, Roger, had just turned 50. Mel Gibson was 31, but his character, Riggs, was 37.  Why do I care? Because I want to make the Vietnam War background story make sense. The real Gibson was too young for the Vietnam War, and the character Glover plays would almost be a little too old...  Anyway, let's focus on Riggs being 37 and Roger being 50. That's only a 13-year age difference, but Rog feels older. In fact, I thought this might be the movie where Rog is supposed to retire, but I guess he has a few years left in him, even if he does repeatedly say, "I'm getting too old for this shit."  Riggs might be 37, but he's been through a lot. We don'...

Can a good movie adaptation of Huckleberry Finn be made? That's a serious question. I think the answer is probably yes, but I'll need to keep looking, because this one isn't it.  Huckleberry Finn is not a children's story, but because the protagonist of the story is a boy, I have a feeling that most movie versions treat it as such. And maybe that could work, but I think I would prefer the movie to find a way to treat it as a serious story with adult themes. I want to see Huck realize that he needs to "grow up," even as he tries to escape "being civilized."  Michael Curtiz directed this film, and he's capable of doing a much better job (see Casablanca as Exhibit A). Maybe by this point, his best work was long behind him, I don't know. Maybe the budget for this one wasn't that much, or maybe he didn't know what audience to make it for. Maybe he didn't know what the heart of the story should be. Maybe he just needed a better child ac...

What keeps me from pulling the trigger and giving this one 5 stars? I'm not sure. Every time I watch it, I really like it, but maybe it's just the unexplained fantasy elements that keeps me at 4 stars. I'm not sure that's fair, but that's just how I feel about it.  "Is this heaven?" -- Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta)  "No... (dramatic pause)... This is Iowa." -- Ray (Kevin Costner) I love that joke, and the film does too, because they use it twice. It's funny both times, but maybe once would be enough?  Ray was an English major in college, which says a lot about him. But somehow, he ends up being a farmer with 200 acres of prime farmland in Iowa. At age 36, his life seems alright, but farming was certainly never his dream, and although he's got what appears to be a good life -- happy marriage with a well-adjusted daughter -- he must wonder if this is all his life will be -- an early midlife crisis.  He hears the voice and is compelled t...

"Movies used to be weird." -- Somebody's entire Letterboxd review. Is this movie "weird"? Yeah, but there's quite a bit to unpack.  Different groups inhibit this Pacific island. First, you have the natives. Second, you have the white Christians who came to civilize them -- and with them, the other white people who govern the island, offer support services, like the doctor, and their wives. Third, you have the U.S. Marines, either there to protect the island, or simply leftovers from past hostilities with Japan.  Then, enter Sadie Thompson. Why is she there, and where is she going? She's in transit, but her temporary presence disrupts the balance. All the Marines want to be with her, the other white people question who she is -- based on how she looks and acts, and the natives just want to be left alone.  Rita Hayworth's performance is incredibly annoying.  I mean, I've watched other Hayworth films, and I'm not sure what she's going for in...

"This is the part I really like. This is the part where she does that shit with her hair." -- Red (Morgan Freeman) to Andy (Tim Robbins) as they watch Gilda in Shawshank prison, The Shawshank Redemption (1994) In Madonna's song "Vogue," there's the line, "Rita Hayworth gave good face." It's a silly line that always sticks in my head. Her face is good. In some ways, it's overly big and her features are broad and expressive. Her cheekbones and jawline are ridiculously defined, and her 40s hairstyle pops with vitality and color even in movies shot in black and white.  First, I want to say that Glenn Ford deserves equal billing in Gilda, but there's no doubt the hair flip introduction of Gilda (Rita Hayworth) is one of the most icon entrances in film. How can Ford do anything to compete with that?  Second, there are a couple of other Gilda moments that are almost as iconic: One, when she marries Johnny (Ford) in her black wedding/mourning d...

This film was a bust at the box office, and it's hard to see how this one would ever play for an American audience. Would a British audience like it better? Perhaps, but why would a film ever want to limit itself to a one-country market? For that matter, even if the British might like it better, it would still be a small segment of British filmgoers who might want to see it, I think.  Although the title is a Peter Pan quote, the quote is not an obvious one. The theater troupe performs Peter Pan on stage, but the play itself remains pretty hidden in the background. Meredith (Hugh Grant) is the director and P.L. O'Hara (Alan Rickman) plays Captain Hook. The troupe itself is simply there. I don't really connect with any of the characters. The main character is Stella (Georgina Cates), and from the start, the first thought about her that enters my mind is: What's wrong with her? I have that thought because the film opens up with the World War II Blitz of London, and she...

Reviewer's curse? I just wrote a Hugh Grant film review in which I said Hugh Grant comes across so natural in his performances that it doesn't even seem like he's acting. What I was also saying, as a compliment, is that I love watching films that feel real -- like I'm just there observing life, and not a film.  Now, it's a rare film that cloaks itself into invisibility. Obviously when you watch a film, most of the time you're aware that you're watching a film. And sometimes that's an enjoyable experience. I like watching Wes Anderson and Quentin Taratino films for just that reason.  But Mickey Blue Eyes: You are always aware that you're watching a film. And I then I try to figure out what type of film. Is this a romantic comedy, like so many Hugh Grant films are? Is it a mob spoof? I've mentioned this before, too, but when films try to check off a lot of genre boxes, that can be cool, but it can also lead to a mess.  Unfortunately, this film migh...

Another Hugh Grant rom com that is better than my low expectations going in predicted. Sometimes I'll buy an actor's 4-pack and then let it sit on the coffee table DVD pile unwatched for months. I just didn't have much motivation to watch this collection, but Two Weeks Notice (2002) was pretty good, so now I'm in. No, I don't think this one was quite as good, but it does have its moments.  I might be one of the few people to notice, too, that Jason Antoon is in the trilogy of Grant movies directed by Marc Lawrence. Antoon has bit parts, and I'm wondering if he was cast simply for his creepy bug eyes. And who is this director, Marc Lawrence? He did a trio of Hugh Grant films in the early 2000s, but other than that, what's his actual full-time job? I only ask because he's only directed a few other films beyond the three with Grant.  Roger Ebert didn't do a full review for this one, but he was likely still recovering from having his jaw removed in 2006....

"Romantic films are the comfort food of the movies." -- Roger Ebert According to Letterboxd, Drama is my favorite genre of movies. What continues to surprise me, however, is how many Romances I watch -- the number of comedies and the number of romances I watch run neck and neck for my second favorite genre. Maybe what Ebert said about "Two Weeks Notice" -- and romantic films more generally -- explains why I watch them. More than just about any other genre, I know to expect. And part of the payoff is the happy ending. When a rom com works, the ending feels valid and natural. When it doesn't, well, then it feels like a toddler trying to force a square block into a circular hole. In this film, I feel like the ending is okay, but the premise getting there is a bit beyond belief. Lucy (Sandra Bullock) is a crunchy-granola community activist. George (Hugh Grant) is a good-looking developer who rubs shoulders with Donald Trump -- and probably shares his values. Lucy ac...

If you've watched this movie, I bet you remember Wilson. You remember the time Chuck (Tom Hanks) spends stranded on the island. That's probably 2/3s of the film, and we see Chuck as he learns how to sustain himself, how he learns how to open coconuts and use the blade of an ice skate as a cutting tool and mirror. How he has to knock out his own infected tooth with a rock and the skate's blade. We also don't visually see but learn how he's able to spearfish and use math to plan his escape the tide that surrounds the island.  But I'm convinced that without the frame of the movie -- the beginning 20 minutes, but especially the ending 20 minutes, this film wouldn't be nearly as good as it is. I've been watching a lot of rom coms lately, and this is not a rom com, although it does have elements of romance, for sure.  Kelly (Helen Hunt) never gave up believing that Chuck was alive. That said, four years pass, and she has to live her life. That means she got ma...

This is a romance, a musical, and a war/propaganda film. In other words, it has a lot of boxes to check off.  Beautifully shot in technicolor, I kind of understand why some people write, "Who cares if there's a plot? It's beautiful."  Kind of understand, but sorry... a film still needs to be good.  One of the first problems with the plot, I guess, is that Rosalind (Rita Hayworth) can do better. Or to put it another way, she can have any man she wants. Paul (Lee Bowman) tries to make a quick move on her, and she sees it happening and calls him on it.  Which isn't to say that she shouldn't give him a second chance, but what exactly do they have in common? And, the second problem with films like this: They've known each other for a minute, and she's going to marry him and give up her dancing career just like that? Huh?  Tommy (Marc Platt) is in love with Rosalind, too. But not only does he not say anything to her, but he essentially never shows it in any ...

Since this movie has such a low Letterboxd and IMDb rating, I avoided watching it for a while... but guess what? It honestly isn't that bad for a Karate Kid movie. I would still rank the original movie a smidge higher, because it has the original movie mystique going for it; that said, I have to admit I'd rather see Mr. Miyagi working with Julie (Hilary Swank) than Daniel (Ralph Macchio). She's just a better actor.  Getting Mr. Miyagi to Boston is a bit of a plot stretch. He somehow convinces Julie's grandmother to fly out to California for a house swap. I mean, maybe she was at her wits end with Julie, but it's funny, because we once she leaves for Mr. Miyagi's place out West, we never see or hear from her again.  Michael Ironside (as Dugan) is a perfect replacement for Kreese (Michael Kove). He's the leader of some sort of student patrol group at the school. (Listen to his first speech. He could easily be the prototype for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeset...

The third in the Doris Day/Rock Hudson/ Tony Randall trilogy, and I'm surprised to find out, the best of the three.  I'd like to know more about Doris Day's hair. In this film, sometimes it looks like her normal hair, and sometimes it looks three times the size. It sort of reminds of NFL football player helmets -- the standard helmet versus the special helmet some players wear to protect their heads from concussions.  But in all seriousness, I'm guessing that Day wore wigs for at least some of the scenes in this film, but if she did and didn't wear them for all scenes, I'm just left confused. Why did she have to wear wigs in some of the scenes? And why did they have to be so big? Meanwhile, Tony Randall has a little bit better part here. In the first two films, he's a rich friend of Rock Hudson, and he goes to a psychiatrist. That's really all we know about him. In this film, he's a lawyer and neighbor, and he's got a drinking problem. He's m...