The Writer's Poke

Last month I was doing a tour of Little Libraries -- I visited maybe 150 -- and this was one of two DVDs that I found. As a Cary Grant fan, I had actually never heard of this film, but I was curious to give it a watch Betsy Drake, as it turns out, is his co-star, and she was also his wife at the time -- his 3rd of 5. Drake doesn't seem to have had a very robust film career, and she didn't stay married long to Grant. There's nothing wrong with her, although it's difficult to say that she had any real star power.  That said, she was probably perfectly cast for this role -- the role of a mother with three kids of her own, but still someone caring enough to want to take on additional "problem children." it's a rather odd film, coming across almost as a propaganda film --promoting the idea that people should consider fostering/adopting older "problem" children. The Roses never actually adapt the two children that enter their family, but Anna (Drake) e...

This has to be the standard version by which all other versions of Sense and Sensibility are judged. All the main characters do such an amazing job. It's no surprise to me that Kate Winslet gives such an amazing performance as Marianne, but what about Hugh Grant as Edward? (I just love the way he stands and walks and hold his head as Edward.) Let's be honest: The men are all secondary characters, but everything depends on them, in a way, and all of them seem to be impotent. They want love and romance as much as the women, but they are also more beholden to the wishes of their family -- assuming their family has money and the power to cut off their inheritance.  That's not quite fair, because I'm sure rich women want love, too, but at least in this Austen adaptation if not the others, the focus is on the women from more modest means, and the roadblocks they face trying to secure the love of the men they want to marry, men who just happen to be "above the economic st...

While I'm sure some people might say they "like" this film, I find it hard to believe anyone could claim to "enjoy" watching it. I watched it in the theater when it was originally released, but I never had much interest in watching it again. Since I'm currently watching Mel Gibson films, I thought I'd go ahead and give it a re-watch, but I have to admit it was difficult to watch.  If you look at it cinematically, it's interesting. We have some color saturation. The Garden of Gethsemane scenes are in blue. Most of the "Jewish" scenes are drained of all color except for browns and other darker colors. The "Roman" scenes "pop," slightly, with red. And take a look at Jesus's (Jim Caviezel) left eye. Usually in films, it's the blue eyes that get oversaturated, but here we have a rare example of brown-eye over-saturation.  I did forget a few things from the original viewing: 1) Satan is with Christ in the Garden, but h...

"Freedom!" -- William Wallace's last word. Good movie? Great movie? Right now, I'm leaning more towards "good movie," but it did win Oscars for Best Director and Best Picture and three other categories, so that would indicate it should be a little bit better than just good.  Checking in on Ebert's original rating, he gave it 3.5/4 stars, and he never bumped it up to the "Great Movie" series.  What does the movie lack? Well, it's historically inaccurate in a lot of ways. That doesn't bother me. Mel Gibson is also way too old for the part of William Wallace. That doesn't bother me either.  At times the film comes across a little too melodramatic, a little too soap opera-y. Not over-the-top so, but enough so that it slightly bothers me.  I also don't like not being able to follow the timeline. What's being captured in this film happens over at least a 15–20-year time period (and that's starting from when Wallace comes back ...

Family. That's the final message the apparent ending of the franchise ends on. And I'm not going to poo-poo that message too much, because I've been wanting more focus on character development for the last two movies. At least in this movie, we get it to some degree -- as well as a little less reliance on stupid comedy. Riggs (Mel Gibson) starts remembering and mentioning his dead wife again, and both Lorna (Rene Russon) and Rog's (Danny Glover) are pregnant.  Six years have passed between film 3 and film 4; I'm guessing that means six years have passed in the timeline... have Riggs and Lorna really been together for six years and somehow not broached the subject of marriage? That seems implausible. Does Rog really not know that his daughter has been dating Lee (Chris Rock), a cop? Again, seems implausible.  The plot, however, is easier to follow. The Chinese villains are easy to villainize. Again, very one-dimensional villains, but at least I can follow who the cop...

"Let's live to regret this." Riggs (Mel Gibson) to Lorna (Rene Russo) That's not a great line, but it's what Riggs says when he's willing Lorna to hold on after the bad guy has almost fatally shot her. And it's about the only line in the movie that stood out even a little bit. Beyond that, if this film had a writer, he wasn't being paid for the dialogue.  In the first film, they immediately draw you in with a naked woman jumping to her death. In the second film, they start with a high-speed chase. In this film, we get a song playing to pretty fire behind the opening credits. Maybe the opening is foreshadowing, as the Riggs will make sure that the bad guys burns in the end, but I thought it was definitely the weakest of the three openings.  But really, after the bomb scare sequence, I checked out. Riggs wants to go in to disable the bomb, even though he has no training in that. He's willing to risk his life -- again, if he's no longer suicidal, ...

Ending lines: Riggs: Give us a kiss before they come. Roger: Where did that bullet hit you anyway? Maybe it's just silly 80s guy talk, but it's just funny to talk like that to your guy friend. At least it was in the 80s... In the first Lethal Weapon, a house blew up, and Roger tries to put out the fire on Riggs's coat by laying on top of him. "What are you, a fag?" Riggs asks. I think it was supposed to be a joke, and it probably was okay to say in 1987. Then in this one, Roger can't move off the toilet -- the classic bomb detonated to blow when he gets off the toilet scene. Riggs has the plan to pull Roger off and cover both of them in the bathtub with the bomb blanket. They make it to the bathtub, the bomb explodes, and when they realize they're not dead, they both laugh. Then Roger says to Riggs, "Would you mind getting off me. I don't want the other guys to see us like this." It's just the part of the comedy in the series, I guess. Bu...

Lethal Weapon has its own special movie wiki; I'm sure a lot of films do, especially film franchises, but this is about the first time I've looked at one before.  I was interested in the ages of the characters vs. the ages of the actors playing them. For example, Danny Glover was 41 in 1987. The character he plays, Roger, had just turned 50. Mel Gibson was 31, but his character, Riggs, was 37.  Why do I care? Because I want to make the Vietnam War background story make sense. The real Gibson was too young for the Vietnam War, and the character Glover plays would almost be a little too old...  Anyway, let's focus on Riggs being 37 and Roger being 50. That's only a 13-year age difference, but Rog feels older. In fact, I thought this might be the movie where Rog is supposed to retire, but I guess he has a few years left in him, even if he does repeatedly say, "I'm getting too old for this shit."  Riggs might be 37, but he's been through a lot. We don'...