The Writer's Poke

For a fun drinking game, take a shot every time the film uses the word "psychiatrist."  The look of the film is great. Brad Pitt (Jeffrey) and Bruce Willis (James) act their butts off. And yet, when I finish the film, I feel unsatisfied.  I'm not happy with the ending. The virus has been released. The future hasn't been able to stop the past from happening. Well, I don't want to get into a time travel debate, but if the future fails, can't it just keep trying? This is one of those movies that has the cool idea, but then it never shows how it works. Which is fine. We get the idea that time travel is dangerous and inaccurate. The scientists use "volunteer" inmates because, I assume, they're disposable. James and Jose (Jon Seda) are two of the inmates we see, but there are other anonymous future folks keeping watch on James, too.  Ultimately, I guess much depends on that end scene. It's been referenced a number of times. James dreams it, because...

Immediate jumpstart. Seth (Jeff Goldblum) and Veronica (Geena Davis) at a party. He's about to do something world changing, he says, and she believes him enough to go back to his apartment.  At first, Veronica comes off as an opportunist. She just wants the story. But it doesn't take long for us to sense that she's into this guy. Why? He's a complete nerd with a bugged-eyed face, and that's before he blends his DNA with a fly.  For purposes of the plot, however, Veronica and Seth need to hook up quick, because he won't be human for long, and we need the drama of "Will she keep his bug baby?" Goldblum will likely be remembered solely for this role. I'm sure we could point to other good parts he's played, but honestly, this was the role he was born to play. The 1980s costume and make-up work is incredible. You could never replicate the feel with CGI or AI.  And just like the way the movie begins, it ends just as quickly. Did she decide to keep th...

How cute does this film want to be? If it's just a story about two male sex workers, then maybe I would like it more than if you try to layer in the Shakespeare. Gus Van Sant admitted that some viewers found the "Shakespearean dialogue" used in the Bob (William Richert) scenes jarring. I am among those viewers. I just didn't find it necessary. Also, I don't need to be told that the plot is "loosely based on King Henry IV." So what, really? It's not obvious, and I'm more confused about why Scott (Keanu Reeves) wants to live this "lifestyle" until he comes into his inheritance. Does he really expect that people will simply "excuse" him for being a male prostitute until he's 21? The scene that I appreciate the most is when Mike (River Phoenix) opens up to Scott. He tells Scott that he loves him. That's the best part of the film. Since Scott isn't gay, nothing happens sexually, but they do embrace. The other part of th...

Although this isn't a silent picture, it acts like one.  I even found myself saying, "Gee, I like a movie that reads like a book." Not just because it has the place cards like a silent film, but because it has characters reading from a book. Maybe 5 or 6 times we stop and read a page out of the vampire book with the characters. Maybe this was groundbreaking information -- Who the Vampires work for, what powers they have, how to kill them, etc. -- but reading a page of text on the screen is not the best way to use the film media.  So, if you're not really into slow, 1930s pictures that don't know if they want to be silent, and don't know how to "show" more than they "tell," I wouldn't recommend this one.  As one reviewer noted, it has absolutely no action. You will barely see a vampire. You will hardly see any blood. At one point, you will see a woman give a creepy smile. That's the extent of it.  And I would be okay with that, but I...

After watching Part 1, I wasn't sure I'd be watching Part 2... but I'm a completionist. I needed to watch it, and to be fair, it was better... and not a horrible conclusion to the series.  1. Too many characters means no character development. They just become "The Amazon Vampires," "The Irish Vampires," etc.  2. Bella's narration. That's new, and I don't like. It's just a lazy way to give quick exposition for everything that's going on. Now, if it's Bella writing down the story for her daughter, I can almost give it a pass, but generally, that kind of voiceover is just weak. 3. Is it creepy that Jacob imprints on Bella's daughter? If he can't have Bella, and Bella's daughter grows up quickly, I guess it's okay. I suppose we should just ask Alice.  At least in Part 2, I don't feel like we're waiting for stuff to happen. The pacing has picked up, and so I was into the story for the most part... nothing dragg...

Is there enough to justify dividing Breaking Dawn into two separate parts? I really wondered this before watching, and after watching, I can safely say, nope.  The film is 2 hours long, but you can break it down into 3 segments -- the wedding, the honeymoon, and the pregnancy. Give each segment, say, 30 minutes, or even if you want to milk one of the segments, milk the pregnancy, I guess, an extra five minutes. But clock the film at 90 minutes.  Anyway, we end up getting a lot of weird shots of Bella (Kristen Stewart). just studying her face -- either we are, or she is, or both. Is she anxious? Is she stressed? Just what is going on in her mind? The camera, I guess, works to "tell us." It lets us know the things we can't hear the characters think. Sometimes the actions or dialogue tell us, too, but it's usually the length of the camera shot. None of those characters have any real depth. It's kind of funny when you watch Bella's "life montage" -- you ...