The Writer's Poke

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...

I came to this one by way of Detour (1945) because I was interested in seeing what Edgar Ulmer and Billy Wilder were up to.  What we get here is a lot of nice footage of Berlin in 1930. That's pretty cool in and of itself. I'm not sure it makes for much of a movie. But I do enjoy watching people just doing what people do on the weekend. We also get to see people cleaning the streets, washing their cars, and so on.  On Sundays, people dress up, go out on dates, eat chocolates, make phone calls. Captivating stuff.  The Criterion edition includes two different musical scores. I chose the one with the Orchestra, which was fine.  At the beach, one of the guys is looking at postcards, many of which feature fat women. Then the scene transitions and we see that many of the women at the beach are old and fat, maybe mothers. But the "stars" of film are younger couples in good shape. They've brought their record player and they're just enjoying the day.  It would be hard...

This one does it. While I liked The Tall T (1957) and Decision at Sundown (1957), I felt like both were just missing "something." Comanche Station feels like they found the missing ingredient. Right from the start, I noticed the landscape. Just a beautiful place to shoot a film. In addition, it was the way that Budd Boetticher does the shooting. Plenty of really nice tracking shots, including for when we're just following the characters moving on horseback. We get to see them having real conversations. It's very nicely done. Randolph Scott seems to have a better overall ensemble cast, too. He doesn't have to do all of the heavy lifting. Although he's still the star, I also felt like he blended more into the story. Frank (Skip Homeier) and Dobbie (Richard Rust) have some nice banter between them, and Claude Akins (Ben) is a nice foil to Cody (Scott). And there's also a woman, Nancy (Nancy Gates). In a sense, the Indians play the "bad guy" role. Th...

If Buchanan Rides Alone (1958) is noticeably lacking in women, at least Ride Lonesome has Karen Steele. She's pretty prominent in this movie, although I guess her main role is to be a burden for the guys that are trying to ride faster than the people chasing them. She's also someone to stare at and talk about. She's the kind of woman, we're told, that needs a man and can't be happy unless there's a man around to give her what she needs... okay. Funny thing is, I watched this movie last night, went to sleep, and now I'm a little fuzzy already on what happened to her at the end. I can see her quite vividly talking to Brigade (Randolph Scott), but did they go their separate ways? I've honestly already forgotten and need to go back and watch the ending again. In a lot of movies, you'd just expect her and Brigade, as old as he is, to get together at the end. But I don't remember that happening. I just read the Wikipedia summary of the film and even Go...

The most important thing: Does Buchanan (Randolph Scott) leave town with his money? It's funny, because he does get the money from the Sherriff's safe, but it's $250 short. But as far as I can tell, he leaves town with $1750 plus Juan's (Manuel Rojas) amazing horse. Thus, his plan to buy a stake in west Texas is intact.  While Buchanan may ride alone, he does need the help of some friends to avoid hanging. At first, he's just a stranger in town, and since they know he has money, when he's in the wrong place at the wrong time, it seems like the Sheriff decides it's easy to hang him and steal his money. The Sheriff's brother, however, makes sure that Buchanan receives a trial, and Buchanan is found not guilty. Nevertheless, the Sheriff has no intention of giving back the money and sends two men to ride Buchanan out of town. The plan is for them to shoot Buchanan.  However, Buchanan and Pecos (L.Q. Jones) discover that they're both Texas men with the sa...

One way to describe the Ranown Westerns? Minimalist. In a user review for The Tall T, someone wrote that the characters weren't developed enough. I'm not sure I agree. What's definitely true is that both The Tall T and Decision at Sundown focus on a moment in time. These are not stories that tell us much about the moment before, and they may leave us uncertain about the moment after. All we get is the Now. Sundown is the name of the town. The name itself should tell us something. Consider a town that is named Sundown as opposed to Sunrise. Sundown is somehow more foreboding. The "now" of the moment is the Tate Kimbrough (John Carroll) wedding. Even though he's been with Ruby (Valerie French), even right up to before the wedding ceremony apparently, he's marrying Lucy (Karen Steele). Why? Because Ruby isn't the marrying kind. She's lowkey made out to be a "salon worker" and all that entails. Why would Lucy put up with this? Ruby even plans...

I came to the Ranown Westerns with no knowledge of who Randolph Scott and Budd Boetticher were. I love Westerns, and I've watched about 100 John Wayne films, but beyond that, I haven't studied the genre. Thanks to Letterboxd, I also know that I haven't been watching very many Westerns in 2025-26 -- it's the genre right at the bottom of my list. But I picked up the Ronown Westerns 5-film Criterion collection during the last sale, and I'm now ready to dive in. First impressions: 1. These films are at the tail-end of Scott's career. He did around 100 films, but here he's 59 years old and probably doing his last 10 or so films. He does look a bit old, and I would assume that the parts are really meant for someone younger. His age isn't a big issue. It's just something I thought about. 2. B-Movies. So, the Ranown Westerns are supposed to be B-movies -- the "cheaper" films slapped onto a double-bill. What makes these films B-quality? The run-time...

Yes, as other reviewers have said, it does have its moments, and sure, if you were reviewing individual segments, maybe you would rate some of them better than other. Unfortunately, this isn't SCTV, and the movie has to be rated as a unified whole. In some respects, Going Berserk is a loose parody of The Manchurian Candidate (1963). John (John Candy) is a fat chauffer driver who is preparing to marry the Congressman's daughter, Nancy (Alley Mills). The Congressman has a developed an enemy in the Cult Leader Rev. Sun Yi Day (Richard Libertini). Day and his group plan to hypnotize John and have him kill the Congressmen at the wedding ceremony. Along the way, the movie happens. Much of it has little to do with the plot I've just described. Some of it is funny; much of it is weird. This is Candy's first starring role in a movie. I read that he had zero acting training prior to this movie, but his acting isn't the issue here. He's a fine comedic actor. The problem is...

Writer and Executive Producer: John Hughes (but not Director for this one). It's funny that Hughes uses his real name for his "top-tier" stuff, but uses the pen name, Edmond Dantes, for stuff he wrote that he doesn't want to be connected with. Why didn't he use Dantes for this screenplay? Seems like a good simple premise. Put John Candy and his family and the uninvited guests, Dan Akroyd and his family, in the Great Northern Forests, and see what happens. Chet (Candy) plays a kind of E.B. White "father." He remembers going up North as a kid, and he wants to give his kid the same fond memories he had. Roman (Akroyd) doesn't have a love of nature. He looks out at the great expanse of undeveloped land, and he sees dollars signs -- tree mills, mining, and places to dump toxic waste. As you would expect, there's comedic conflict between the two families, and then they come together and discover the real meaning of family. Buck (Chris Young) also gets ...

In my search for films with Charles Grodin with good ratings, I stumbled upon this one. For whatever reason, I have a difficult time finding 1970s films that I want to watch. Why is that? I mean, I have no problems finding films from any other decade, but beyond the "best well known" films of the 1970s, I tend to draw a blank.  And this one, I would have thought, would be better known. It was nominated for 14 Oscars and won 9. But nope. I went in to watching it without having a clue what the plot was about. Nor did I know that this is a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941), which features another one of my favorite actors, Claude Rains. (There's also a 1943 movie called Heaven Can Wait, but it has nothing to do with the 1978 version.) Although I'm okay with fantasy, the premise of the film is a little absurd. I could forgive that, but I don't like how the ending is handled. In brief, Joe (Warren Beatty) is a back-up quarterback for the Los Angeles Rams. He's...

Another 80s movie I've somehow never watched until now. As far as John Candy's body of work goes, this is one of the films he's still better remembered for. This is also a John Hughes film. Since I'm a fan of both men, I had to go ahead and finally watch it, hoping I would be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the "breakout star" of the film is Macaulay Culkin as 6-year-old Miles. Of the three kids, 15-year-old Tia (Jean Louisa Kelly) receives most of the story's focus, but I love the "Dragnet" sequence when Miles is asking Buck (Candy) questions about his life (with Miles record for number of consecutive questions asked being 38). In a way, this movie is "Home Alone"-lite, as the parents need to leave home quickly for the wife's dad's death. Tell me why, though, in all these various movies about parents going away (this one, Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter Is Dead, etc.), once they leave the house to do whatever, they never contac...

At the end of the movie, we see the words The End crossed out with the words The Beginning. Since I know three additional Bridget Jones movies have now been made, I take that to mean that they had at least planned for one additional Bridget Jones film, if not a full franchise. (I have no current plan to watch the sequels, but I have read the IMDb summaries, and so I know, in summary, how the following years of Jones's life have gone. Usually, I wouldn't count that against the original movie, but I feel like it's difficult with this one, as this movie is a Romance with a Romantic ending, and yet, I know "the rest of the story.") A simple love triangle. There's Daniel (Hugh Grant), a womanizing prick she knows better than to get involved with... but once he shows the least bit of interest in her, she immediately gets involved with him. Then there's Mark (Colin Firth). He's like a real man, the one she was "destined" to be with, but she can'...

For the curious, this one is available for free on YouTube (fair quality). I watched it because I wanted to see how badly it copied Double Indemnity (1944), and because I've been watching Ann Savage films. Savage plays Toni, the Barbara Stanwyck role. Hugh Beaumont plays Kenny in the Fred MacMurray role. Technically, there's an Edward G. Robinson role, but the actor doesn't stand out in his part whatsoever. Honestly, that's one of the major problems. No chemistry between characters, and no fun banter between the young male and his older boss. If Beaumont was in Double Indemnity, I think he pulls off MacMurray's part just fine. He's just as good an actor, but he just happens to be in a worse film. Although I'm watching Savage films, it's only because of her role in My Winnipeg (2007). That's what interests me about her. She's definitely a B-movie actor -- no Barbara Stanwyck. The murder in this film takes place before the halfway point. The entir...

Cool cover art. Reminds me of Sin City. I just watched Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (2007), and in it is 86-year-old Ann Savage, an actor who had been retired from the movies for over 50 years. That made really curious to see what the 24-year-old Savage was like. In My Winnipeg, I couldn't tell if she could act, or if the weirdness of the film just called for Savage to be weird. To be honest, after watching Detour, I still don't know for sure if she can act, because her performance is weird in a film noir sort of way. The basic premise is that Al (Tom Neal) needs to hitch across country. His girlfriend is in L.A. She wanted to see if she could make it there, but she quickly discovers she can't. Al wants to get out there and marry her quick. Unfortunately, "fate" isn't kind to Al. He ends up getting a ride from a guy who either died while Al was driving or who died falling out of the passenger's side door, hitting his head on a rock. Al's bad luck ...

As the ending credits begin, we're told that A Simple Twist of Fate was "suggested by the George Eliot's Silas Marner," a Victorian novel written in 1861. The movie was written by Steve Martin, and he also served as the Executive Producer. As far as I can tell, it was a box-office flop. It grossed just $3 million during its limited engagement run, and production cost certainly ran somewhere around $10 million.  No one, in other words, was clamoring for modernized retelling of Silas Marner.  Well, it's been 30 years, but I have actually read that novel, and when I decided to watch this film, it was just because I'm watching Steve Martin movies this year, and I had no idea that the movie had a Silas Marner connection.  Martin studied philosophy in college, and he does seem to have a passion for the classics, including Edmond Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac and William Shakespeare's Hamlet, etc.  All that's well and good, but how does this one work as a ...

Amir (Khalid Abdalla) learns a secret about his father after his father (Baba) is dead. Basically, even the best people are hypocrites. They believe one thing and do another. Baba wasn't a fanatic, but the film also shows how even the "most religious" people will base their beliefs on "God's Word," and then follow or enforce those beliefs selectively.  I thought about this during the "halftime show" that Amir watches as an adult. The Taliban bring out a couple found guilty of adultery. The penalty, the leader says, is death by stoning. It's the punishment God requires. And so, they carry out the punishment on the woman, stoning her to death. The man is right there next to her, but we never see them carry out the punishment on him. I'm guessing they let him live. Maybe they thought it was punishment enough being brought out in front of the crowd and shamed (not to mention having his lover killed without being able to do anything about it). I...

Roman Polanski speaks five languages -- Polish, French, English, Spanish, and Russian -- and this is the first film he directed in English. In an interview included on the Criterion DVD, he said that for him, characters matter more than the story, because you will remember the characters long after you forget what the story and the plot elements were. And at least in the case of this movie, that's probably absolutely true. We are definitely going to remember Catherine Deneuve's performance, even if we never definitely learn why the character, Carol, is as she is.  The film opens with the close-up on a human eye -- Carol's (Catherine Deneuve) eye. The names of the movie's cast and crew come and go, but the eye continues to take up the background of the screen. Who is Carol? She's a young blonde French hairdresser living in London. She lives with her older sister, who is having an affair with a married man. Carol doesn't seem to like him much. He puts his toothbru...

The theatrical version, A Short Film about Killing (1989) is about 24 minutes longer than this version. Interestingly, all additional 24 minutes take place before Jacek murders the Taxi Driver. This made me wonder: Why did Kieslowski add all the additional content to the front end of the film? The last 25 minutes of each version is basically the same. What could have been added to that section? And that got me thinking about all of the stuff that was left out or not fully explained in this version (as well as, for the most part, the other version). For example, only Piotr (Krzysztof Globisz) visits Jacek in prison. None of Jacek's family -- his brothers and mother -- visit him as he waits for his death sentence to be carried out.  We also learn about a few things by dialogue only. For example, Piotr mentions than he was in the same coffeehouse right before Jacek committed the murder. In the extended version, we actually get to see them in the coffeeshop at the same time.  Piot...

Dorota (Krystyna Janda) is mean and nobody likes her. Actually, her husband likes her. He thinks they're having a baby. Her lover also likes her. He tells her so on the phone, but she's already put the phone down and doesn't hear him. When I asked my Humanities students if they felt empathy or judgement for Dorota and the Doctor, it was unanimous. They all felt empathy for the Doctor, but they also felt judgement for Dorota. Maybe I shouldn't have presented the question as either/or. Maybe we can feel both at the same time, just as Dorota tells the Doctor that it's possible to love two men at the same time.  Actually, the class didn't have much time to discuss and think about the question. If they had had more time, I bet more students would start to feel empathetic. Dorota really wants to be a mother, for example. Anyone would be empathetic for that. She's even willing to sacrifice that want if her husband lives. The judgement comes in, of course, because s...

The one scene I appreciated was when Roger (Steve Martin) needs to win a big case, but he's prepped so much that he falls asleep in the courtroom. Edwina (Lily Tomlin) has died and somehow her spirit has entered his body. She tries to wake up "her other half," but when Roger won't wake up, she takes over and pretends, badly, to be Roger, and she almost wins the case -- until Roger does wake up, and she learns that the reasons for winning would be lie... forcing the case to be lost. Why did Edwina's spirit enter Roger's body? That was an accident. There was always another vessel in mind. But suspend your need to know how and why things happen in this film. Just focus on this: Is it funny? Does the movie hold up? I don't think so. It never kept my attention, really. Martin is in his "The Jerk" mode (just slightly muted). Tomlin is fine, but the only way we can see her spirit is when Martin looks in a mirror. I know this is just a cute way of lettin...

Ben Stiller makes a very believable 16-year-old nerd. Cameron Diaz, too, can pass as the pretty popular high school girl. I found that I really liked the opening set-up more than most of what followed. Sometimes I find myself writing a different movie than the one written. It's a bad habit, I guess, but that opening segment was so good, I just found myself a little disappointed when it then jumped ahead 13 years to the present. The movie as written: Ted (Stiller) is a nerd, but for whatever reason, the pretty girl, Mary (Diaz), likes him. She is the one who actually invites him to Prom. Stiller's smile, mouthful of braces, is so sweet. He looks like Charlie Brown got asked to the Prom by the Little Redheaded girl. Unfortunately, they never make it to Prom. A ridiculous series of events in the bathroom lands Ted in the hospital, and Mary moves away. That's odd. As nice and as considerate as Mary is, she doesn't visit Ted in the hospital, and she never contacts him again....

"My sister hit and killed a deer. My mother sees through this euphemism, for it is a euphemism. Everything that happens in this city is a euphemism. Mother understands in a second what this deer blood and fur means. And somehow, she's right. She can read our family and our civic secrets, our desire and our shame, as easily as she can read a newspaper." -- Guy Maddin (narrator) In July 2015, I spent the night in Winnipeg. I had the free time to stay longer, but one night was enough. Even in the warmer months, Winnipeg somehow managed to maintain its gloomy winter exterior. I would like to go back some day to see if it's actually like I remember it, but who knows it I will. Even though I live in Minnesota, it's still an eight-hour drive, plus the time spent crossing the border. But today I went back to Winnipeg with Guy Maddin as my tour guide. I need Maddin in my life. So many films are predictable, cut-by-numbers affairs. They're supposed to be. That's wh...