The Writer's Poke

Certain actors seem to pop up in movies together. Anyway, Tara Fitzgerald and Sam Neill have worked with Grant in other films, and I just wonder how the casting works, and how often actors ask for, request, or suggest other actors to appear with them in different films.  In this one, Antony (Hugh Grant) is a clergyman who is going to visit Australian artist, Norman Lindsay (Sam Neill), with the purpose of maybe convincing him to tone down the obscenity in his paintings? Antony acknowledges that nudity can be completely fine, but there's a difference between nudity and obscenity. He brings Estella (Tara Fitzgerald), his wife, along.  The Sirens are Norman's models. Norman's compound and studio is somewhere inconveniently located in the Australian outback, and as it turns out, Estella and Antony get stuck there for a few days. Sheela (Elle Macpherson) and Pru (Tziporah Malkah) are the main two Sirens, but maybe they're not the only ones to count as "sirens." Nev...

Original title: Remando al viento So the film has an English-speaking cast, but the director and crew speak Spanish. I got to be honest, I probably spent more time thinking about why a Spanish-made film was being shot in English than I did about the story being told. This is Lord Byron and the Shelleys in 19th century Europe. They were young and poetic. They agreed to write some stuff, and when Mary Shelley (Lizzy McInnerny) wrote Frankenstein -- not something the film ever dwells on -- people close to her start dying. She feels cursed, and "the Monster" starts following her around. I enjoyed the settings, as well as seeing Grant and Elizabeth Hurley on screen (she played Claire Clairmont), but beyond retaining a basic knowledge of the underlying story itself, I know this is one of those kinds of movies that I will watch and quickly forget. Although "the Monster" is featured in the film, this one was not shot as a horror movie, nor is "the Monster" meant t...

I like getting DVD collections of different actors and directors. Restoration (1995) was included in a Hugh Grant collection, and while Grant is in the film, he's in a relatively minor supporting role. This is a Robert Downey, Jr. movie. But that's fine. Sometimes "forgotten" movies need a little help to be found, and I'm glad it was included in the collection. So the year is 1662, and Merival (Downey, Jr.) is a doctor. England has just restored the monarchy, and there's also a plague. King Charles II (Sam Neill) has a mistress, but he marries her off to Merival so that she can be close to the King without arousing any suspicion. Unfortunately, Merival does the only thing in the situation he cannot afford to do: He falls in love with his "wife." Eventually, Merival has a falling out with Charles II, who takes back the estate he had given him, and Merival has to return to his friend Pearce (David Thewlis) to find a job This leads him to Katharine (Meg...

Such a fun movie. Not necessarily a 5-star movie, but really fun. Peter (Ron Livingston) is in the middle of hypnotism therapy when his therapist has a heart attack and dies. So maybe that's why he's able to decide he's okay if he doesn't continue in his meaningless job. It's funny, because although he says he's not going to go back to work, he actually does go back -- first to get an address book, but later, just to play Tetris. Meanwhile, after showing how much he doesn't care about his job to the Bobs, they decide to promote him to management. He's still going to work, even if he's not working. And that's nothing new, really, as he's already admitted going to work and not doing much when he was there before he decided not to go back to work, and not to get another job, and not to pay his bills. By the end of the movie, he's working with his neighbor, Lawrence (Dietrich Bader), as a member of a construction crew. Apparently, he's ok...

This is Robert DeNiro's second film as director, and he does a fine job. Nothing "signature" about his style, but quality work throughout. Good ensemble cast, but the main focus is on Matt Damon who plays Edward. So, what makes Edward a good shepherd? When he was a young boy, his dad committed suicide. Edward stole the suicide letter before anyone else entered the room, and then he told everyone the shooting was an accident. He admitted that secret at his Skull and Bones initiation, but that was years later. He kept the suicide note, but he didn't read it until decades later. That note turned out to be a simple apology. His father apologized for being a coward, and in the part he wrote to Edward, he encouraged him to fight for the life he wanted. Did Edward end up living the life he wanted, or did he live the life that was expected of him? In the end, was he okay with that? Edward doesn't reveal much. He has learned that to reveal is to expose vulnerabilities, and...

Roger Ebert added this one to his Great Movies canon, and I thought: Really? And since I watch all of those movies, I thought: Eventually I'm going to have to watch this one whether I want to or not. I live in Minnesota, and I've listened to the show on the radio from time-to-time. I'm not sure I've ever listened to a full episode, unless I just happened to be in the car and it was playing... My impression of the movie is that it captures the spirit of the radio show. The only real difference is that it uses some pretty big stars to play the roles of the radio show's usually much more modest cast. So, what attracted so many A-listers to make up this film's ensemble cast? Meryl Streep, Lily Tomlin, Lindsey Lohan, Woody Harrelson, John C. Reilly, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Klein, and of course, GK himself. Is Keiller so much on an American icon that they all wanted to be associated with this film? Was it because Roger Altman was directing? I'm not sure what Altman...

Although I've seen bits and pieces of this version over the years, I've never sat down to watch it from beginning to end. What I've seen was enough. I just didn't like the over-stylization. Which is funny, because when DeCaprio did that MTV version of Romeo + Juliet (1996), I loved it. Now that I've finally taken the time to watch this version, I've decided that I at least understand, at least in part, what they were going for here. Gatsby himself is a recreation, a reinvention. There is no "real" Gatsby. He's rendered in the imagination. The whole story is a fabrication, a fantasy, a dream. None of Gatsby is "real," and so why shouldn't his story be told as a CGI-enhanced fantasy? It's interesting to note the few places where the film tones down the CGI and lets the set work in a more "realistic" way. One place is when Daisy and Gatsby are in his two-story dressing "closet." He's on the second floor throwi...