The Writer's Poke

Briony (Saoirse Ronan) is a rather unlikable 13-year-old child. She's known Robbie (James McAvoy) her entire life. In fact, not that much earlier before the "events" of the film unfold, Robbie saved her life, and she told him that she would be "eternally grateful" to him. It seems she had a crush on him... but Robbie, of course didn't know that. She was too young, and he loved her older sister. Robbie was the family servant, but Briony's father liked him enough that he put him through Cambridge and was willing to continue putting him through medical school. Unfortunately, Briony walks in on Robbie and Ceilia (Keira Knightley) having sex in the library. Notice how the film repeats "shocking" events that Cecilia witnesses, at least between Robbie and Celicia. The first is when Cee strips to her underwear to jump into the fountain to retrieve a broken piece of porcelain. The second time is when she sees them in the library. Just prior to that mome...

"Perhaps he knew, as I did not, that the Earth was made round so that we could not see too far down the road." -- Karen, reflecting on what Denys had taught her. Karen (Meryl Streep) is a rich Danish woman. She wants to be married. She leaves Denmark and goes to Africa to get married and start a farm. The year is 1913, and European colonialization is a fact. If this is an autobiographical account of an upper-class Danish writer, then it should reflect her experiences and point of view. The beginning of the film suggests that Karen has had many lovers, and she's written about them all. Denys (Robert Redford), however, might be the most important one, and the one that's she's saved writing about for last. The setting, then, may be Africa, but this is not a story about Africans. It's about what she learned about herself, love and romance, and perhaps, life; and maybe she was only able to learn about it in Africa, because this is the only place that a man like D...

But what if Quasimodo could find love? That had to be the question screenwriters worked with when they pitched and wrote the sequel. When we watched this film last night, my daughter said, "Who asked for this sequel to be made?" I think it's a fair question. All of the voice actors, for whatever reason, came back. But the budget is clearly no longer $100 million. The songs are weaker. The animation is weaker. And, while I don't actually mind the storyline that much (except for the ending), it's weaker as well. Esmerlda and Phoebus are married. They have a son, but neither they nor the goat look any older. They haven't aged at all. Nor have their characters developed in any noticeable way. Quasimodo does seem a little more social. He goes out and about, and none of the people run from him or throw rotten vegetables at him. Everyone seems to get along. Enter this movie's "gypsies" -- the circus people. The whole plot centers around the Madellaine (...

When I was a kid, I didn't care for Disney films. Bambi was okay, and so was Lady and the Tramp, but I never went out of my way to watch any other Disney animated films. I think there were a couple of reasons for this. One, the films usually felt girly to me, because they focused on princesses, and I didn't care about princesses. And two, and maybe equally girly, they all seemed to be full of songs. I didn't care for all the singing. But by the time I saw The Lion King, and I was cool with princesses, and I didn't mind the songs. That said, The Hunchback of Notre Dame just has too many damn songs. Google says it has between 7-to-9, depending on what's counted as a song, and that it's one of the "most heavily dense" Disney animated movies with songs. The actual movie, which had a $70-100 million production budget, is quite good. They really make Esmerelda's (Demi Moore) eyes pop, for example. (By the way, Moore didn't sing Esmerelda's song. ...

I just watched The Fighting Westerner aka Rocky Mountain Mystery (1935) and gave it a 1-star rating for being almost unwatchable. So, I needed to watch another movie to cleanse my palette.  Unfortunately, I went with To the Last Man (1933), which somehow managed to be even worse.  Made in 1933, which is a few years after the end of the silent picture, this picture is so "silent." I couldn't believe it. Not only no musical score at all, but every time a new character came on the screen, their credits were put underneath them. Randolph Scott' actually doesn't just the film until about minute 25, and they're still adding the credits at that point in the film. It's a classic "feud" story. And it has, what? A Montagues and Capulets romance angle? I couldn't follow why Lynn (Scott) likes Ellen (Esther Ralston). I guess the heart likes what the heart likes, but I also get really tired of movies that must somehow end with a marriage. It's such a ...

Almost unwatchable. At least that's how I felt as I tried to watch this. And so, I go immediately to user reviews to see what the heck I'm missing, because a 2- or 3-star review should give me more insight into what I'm missing here. 2 or 3 stars should say, "Hey, this movie isn't that good, but it does have X going for it." I think the main X is just that it's a Randolph Scott flick, and so we give it an extra star for that, and maybe because an early Ann Sheridan is in it, too.  That's not enough for me.  Another reviewer did note the striking "Walter Brennan-like" acting ability of Charles 'Chic' Sale, who plays the Sheriff. And I would agree. He probably is my favorite character in the story. Otherwise, I had absolutely no interest in the story. Sadly, it's one of my least favorite movies for the entire year (of the 230 or so films that I've watched so far in 2026).