The Writer's Poke

When you grew up, did you and your parents share outfits or wear the same brands/clothing styles? In National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983), Rusty opens the film in a Pink Izod. Clark will later wear a Pink Izod, too. So will Ellen, but it’s oversized so I’m guessing it’s Clark’s. Rusty also wears a yellow and a green Izod. Clark wears a light purple, a light blue, and a dark red Izod. Clark and Ellen also have Izod rain jackets. His is blue and hers is tan. Yes, I found myself distracted by that, although it's not a big deal. I would rather one character wear the Izod, but maybe 1983 was the year everyone wore the allegator gimmick.  I don't think this movie is very strong, but it is iconic, and a lot of my friends like it and quote it from time to time. In all honestly, I don't think I've ever actually watched it, and I wanted to finally give it a fair viewing. Additionally, I've been watching the films of John Hughes, and his Chicago-based presentation interests me. ...

  "You could learn me." -- Tessa asking Justin to marry her. What a line! And over the course of the film he does, telling her spirit that he has finally learned all of her secrets. Justin (Ralph Fiennes) and Tessa (Rachel Weisz) end up in bed together so quickly, I thought I was watching a porno for a second. But that's before. The movie starts with the "end," I suppose, with "everything" before happening in flashback. The opening shot focuses on the backs of Justin, Tessa, and Arnold. Tessa turns around briefly to say goodbye. She touches Arnold's arm briefly, and but everything feels detached and unexplained. At this moment, we don't know who these people are, or what's about to happen. We've landed at this specific moment, and it's not in the linear timeline. Justin is a very polite, very reserved British diplomat. Tessa is a woman who wants to make a difference in the world. When she asks to go to Africa with Justin, she offers...

My daughter and I went to see Birthday Massacre at First Avenue a few months ago, and I've wanted to re-watch Purple Rain ever since, just to see what First Avenue looked like in the 1980s. At the same time, I was afraid that I wouldn't like this movie any more than I did 40 years ago, which is probably the last time I watched this film, as far as I remember. It's possible that I watched it once since 1985, but I don't think so. This is definitely the first time I've watched this movie since living in Minnesota -- now going on 20 years. I kind of wondered if it would hit me differently for that reason, too. It didn't. It's still just a really bad, underwhelming movie. Prince has undeniable charisma, and his music is good. But in this film, there's no coherent story, and the acting, including Prince's, is pretty atrocious for the most part. I don't want to go through how bad it is point by point but let me just say that the movie ends with a lot o...

Keep in mind this film's premise: It is written. This isn't a film about "luck" or "chance." I think if you watch it that way, you have a right to criticize and even dislike the film. But if you watch it like a modern-day fable, how can you not view this film as a contemporary classic? As far as I recall, I've only watched this film one time previously -- more or less when it originally came out on DVD. But the film has always stayed with me. Few films are like that. Films that I "feel" I know long after I've forgotten all the plot details. Films like Shawshank Redemption (1994), Memento (2000), and maybe a handful of others. Films that "speak" to me on some "deeper" level. I've been wanting to re-watch Slumdog Millionaire for a long time now, to see if it's as good as I remember it to be -- to see if it was worth the feeling the memory of watching it has given me.  And yes, it is that good.  Jamal (Dev Patel) is...

Surely Kate Winslet has been in a few duds, but if so, what are they? I usually feel like it's a mistake to watch a film just because an actor is in it. I mean, I do, but I'm often disappointed. I often wonder: Why on earth did they pick THAT role? Why did they agree to be in THAT movie? It reminds me of actors like Bruce Willis who, at least at the end of his career, signed up to be in any movie that came his way. Granted, I get why Willis made that decision, but Winslet has never had to make that choice. She's always been able to pick provocative roles in good movies. And this is a really good movie. I did find myself saying "No... no... no..." when I realized that the film was about to end and the characters were all starting to make weird decisions. I don't believe, for example, that Sarah (Winslet) would go over to the child molester in the park late at night to see if he is okay. I don't believe that Brad (Patrick Wilson) would stop to do skating tri...

What stands out to me is how the ending is changed. In the screenplay, Magda watches from her apartment as the Landlady pulls down the screen to Tomek's room. There's no closure. In this version, Tomek has finally returned to work at the post office. Magda has been waiting for his return, and when she sees him, she pauses, goes inside, stands, smiles slightly. It's an awkward, somewhat "tense" moment. You think Tomek might run away again, but he stays in his seat, and they look at each other. Finally, he breaks the silence, letting her know that he's done peeping at her. Is she disappointed? Maybe. She has "fallen in love with him," or that's perhaps what we're supposed to gather when she answers the phone and tells the silence at the other end that "You were right." Was it Tomek on the end or someone else? It doesn't matter, really. What matters is that Magda's view of love has changed. She didn't believe in love, and n...