The Writer's Poke

Kids don't get the parents they want or need; that seems to be a common idea, and the Buckman kids certainly didn't have the best dad. On the other hand, maybe parents don't get the kids they want or need. Everyone seems to be something of a disappointment to everyone else, and in the end, everyone may be too self-centered to be the person that others need them to be. Is that the message of this film? Gil (Steve Martin) doesn't want to turn into his dad Frank (Jason Robards). He wants to spend time with his kids. He wants to be a good dad. Even though he tries hard, he still isn't able to have perfect kids. That bugs him. Frank knows he wasn't the perfect dad. That might bug him, too, but in a rare heart-to-heart, he tells Gil that parenthood never ends. His 27-year old son, Larry, is kind of deadbeat with a gambling problem. Frank wants to be there for him and makes him a deal. Larry, however, isn't able to change. He just takes off. Frank can't do anyt...

"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...