The Writer's Poke

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...

Because Pillow Talk (1959) exists, this movie should never have been made. Do I like Rock Hudson and Doris Day together on screen? Sure I do. Do I like the sex comedy plot of two people who hate each other but somehow, through convoluted circumstances, end up falling in love because the man pretends to be someone else? Yeah, that's fun.  But at least in Pillow Talk, the Rock Hudson character starts falling in love with the Doris Day character. In Lover Come Back, Jerry (Hudson) is still the womanizing guy that will do whatever to get whatever he wants. He does not, however, begin falling for Carol (Day). He's just tricking her until she finally finds out who he is.  That's the biggest difference between the two films. And yet, Jerry and Carol STILL end up married. But the marriage is one that happens simply because they end up accidently drunk on Jerry's VIP mints. Carol doesn't magically fall in love with the real Jerry. In fact, she wants to immediately annul the ...

A rather odd genre from this era called "the sex comedy."  Jan (Doris Day) is a single, professional woman. We don't know her exact age, but Day was 37, and it's likely Jan is supposed to be in her mid-30s. So it's a rather sexist question, but audience members would likely be asking it too themselves at the time: Why is she still single? The obvious answer is that she hasn't found the right man to fall in love with. Jonathan (Tony Randall) loves her, but she doesn't love him. She even lets him give her an "exploratory kiss," but the sparks don't run down her back. That's what she wants. She wants sparks.  Brad (Rock Hudson) is the man she shares a party phoneline with. She hates him, considering him a womanizing playboy. When Brad first sees her in the flesh, though, he knows that she's pretty special. He also knows that based on their past history, he doesn't have a chance with her. So her creates a whole new persona and pretend...

With a current IMDb score of 9.3/10, this film has to be in the conversation for the best film of all time.  What makes it so special? Well, if that was so easy to say, then every movie ever made should be equally as good, right? I guess we just like the main characters, Andy (Tom Robbins) and Red (Morgan Freeman). We want good things for them, and when they are somehow able to defy all odds and have their happy ending, that feels awesome. The film also does a masterful job of showing that the happy ending was plausible. In both men's cases, they had to survive decades in prison, but as Red puts it, Andy was too pretty a bird to be caged. Red, too. He served 40 years for a horrible crime, but he was no longer the person who committed that crime. This is one of those movies that I remember pretty much from beginning to end. In a way, I would never need to watch it again, because I know it. But somehow I do return to it every 5 or 10 years, and every time I watch it, I'm left com...

Prequel, sequel, stand-alone?  I recently re-watched Prometheus (2012), but even so, I wasn't completely sure about the timeline for this one. I had to look it up, and then I learned that this one is supposed to be 10 years after Prometheus.  And yet, the colony ship didn't have a clue about the planet they decided to detour to on a lark? That seemed a little unbelievable. I get that ship in space don't get a daily newspaper, but I'm guessing they would have known about the last ship to visit, especially if no one from that ship made it off the planet.  In terms of the special effects in this one, I liked it. One of the aliens jumped scared the crap out of my wife, and the continuation of the synthetic humans storyline is cool.  Is it a little obvious about "David" at the end? Yeah, maybe, but he's a bad dude. It's neat that he had a need to create, and he didn't give a darn about humans. Why should he?  Do I feel a little "tricked" with ...

A first-love sort of Romeo and Juliet story. Bud and Wilma (Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood) are high school sweethearts. His family has come into oil money, but hers is still more working class (although her father has potential money in the stock market). As it stands, however, Bud's dad doesn't consider Wilma a match for his son... at least he doesn't want his son to marry early and kill his chances at going to college.  Women are definitely cast into two categories. Nice girls and whores. Bud's own sister is a "whore" type, which is weird, because Bud's dad wants his son to sow his wild oats with all the whores he can. At the same time, his dad warns him not to let a "nice girl" catch him, or not to "go too far" with a nice girl and then end up being required to do the responsible thing.  Bud is conflicted. He can see what has become of his sister. What any of that has to do with Wilma, I'm not sure. She's the pure girl, 100%...

Daisy Clover is a 15-year-old girl being played by a 27-year-old Natalie Wood. That's a bit of a stretch, and I have to admit that I never really got past that. She's just too old for the part, and I'm not sure that it's absolutely necessary that Daisy is 15. Why can't she just as easily be 25? Does she need to be 15 so that she can be more vulnerable to the powerful forces trying to use her? She's a minor, so her estranged sister ends up being her adult guardian, signing off on all her official paperwork. That's a small detail, though, and I'm not sure it matters that much. Just let her be 25.  Because she's supposed to be 15, though, it is a lot creepier, although the film doesn't make it as Lolita creepy as it could be. Wade Lewis (Robert Redford) is never given an age, but I suppose he's supposed to be in his 20s. Redford was 29. Anyway, Lewis and Clover end up briefly married. This is sort of where the whole film goes south for me.  What...

I like War movies, but I probably like War movies that spend more time and effort asking, "What are we fighting for?"  There's gotta be some sort of balance. I don't like War movies that go so far over the line the other way that everyone is just dying to end the war and get home. If there's a war, then let the people fighting it have a reason to fight it, and let them be into fighting it, sure. But don't give me 100% propaganda, either.  As I watched this film, I started thinking: Maybe the problem is that this is more propaganda film than war film. It was made right in the middle of World War II, and while the Allies were "winning" the war in 1942, maybe they didn't completely realize that yet.  After all, Hitler has entered Paris, and the British are being bombed and they've had to evacuate Dunkirk...  This film mentions details like that, but it's more interested in following the lives of a few men who have survived having their vesse...

I guess you call this a family bi-op. It's under 2 hours, so it doesn't quite qualify as an epic. And the actual period of time it covers is very strange. The World Wars are there as almost bookends, but the film doesn't use them as the bookends. Rather, it uses the period of time the family spent in their flat as the beginning and ending points.  So much happens in this family in roughly a 20-year period, because that's all there is, 20 years. It honestly feels like it should be a 30- or 40-year period. It feels that way because Frank and Ethel Gibbons (Robert Newton and Celia Johnson) age much more than 20 years, and Frank is on the brink of retirement, which should put him closer to 60 than 40.  Overall, I guess I like that focus on the family rather than on world events. Of course the family is impacted by what's going on in the world around them, but the drama of their day-to-day lives is what matters most. They are aware of Hitler and the prospect of a new war...

Why is Charles (Rex Harrison) so blithe? I guess that's the question I never get answered. He's married to a woman for about 5 years, and she dies unexpectedly of a heart attack. Seven years later, he's married to another woman, and things seem to be fine.  Then, I guess for fun, they and another couple invite over a weird older woman for a seance. You know she's weird because she rides a bike. Anyway, she doesn't really know what she's doing, and somehow Charles's dead wife crosses over.  This starts what I guess is supposed to be a bunch of funny shenanigans, a hilarious lovers' triangle. And maybe it's serious. Maybe the dead wife is trying to kill the husband so she can have him back on the other side?  I don't know. The humor is 1940s British, but even so, it just doesn't work for me. The female ghost is green, for reasons I never figure out. And while he can't touch her, she can touch and move physical objects. She can even drive a ...