The Writer's Poke

Written and directed by Noam Baumbach, and Wes Anderson is one of the producers. It's a filet of a film. Somehow this is the third time I've watch this film. I find it hilariously funny, and painful, and annoying, and elegant. The older son, Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) -- aka "Chicken" is a poppa's boy and lets his mom know it. He sings and plays Pink Floyd on guitar at a school talent show and tells everyone he wrote the song. Frank (Owen Kline) -- aka "Pickle," wow. The divorce messes him up, and what he does in the film (you'll know when you see it) will never leave your brain. The father, Bernard (Jeff Daniels) -- are there really English professors like him? I fear there are -- or might have been. The mother, Joan (Lauren Linney), does she have more going for her? Better writer? Why does she end up dating jocks, including Ivan (William Baldwin), Frank's tennis coach? Neither boy takes the divorce well, but omg Frank. He's drinking beer, look...

Billy Bob Thorton isn't especially known for being a director, but he did direct this one, his first directorial assignment after Sling Blade (1996). I was interested to see if anything stood out that suggested his fingerprint. Overall, I'd say not. I did notice a few close-ups on eyes, but most of the scenes and shots looked pretty standard -- not that standard is bad. The early shots of the Texas and Mexico desert were well done. The film itself logs in at just under 2 hours. Some reviewers indicated that the pacing was too slow; others note that Thorton's original cut was 4 hours long. So which is it? Is the pacing too slow? Or does the film need more time to work? I tend to think that the pacing was fine, and that yes, more time was probably needed -- to better develop all aspects of the story -- The friendship relationship, the conflict of losing John's (Matt Damon) family farm, the relationship between John and Alejandra (Penelope Cruz), and so on. When John and h...

Movies like this come and go and are easy to miss. Shainee Gabel is a director with one feature credit to her name, basically, and this is it. She hasn't made another movie since, and there's nothing about her really, to discover in a quick Google search. Where did she go, and what happened to her? And as one reviewer asked, how was she ablet to recruit Scarlett Johansson and John Travolta to spend three weeks in New Orleans one August staring in this one? That reviewer indicated that it was "the script" that drew them to these roles, and maybe that's the case. And then I start to feel bad for Travolta, because other than Pulp Fiction and maybe a very short list of two or three other films, he's not exactly known for appearing in films with good films -- either as rated by critics or viewers. Johansson, on the other hand, has typically been better at picking films with "good scripts," but she's also done her fair share of Marvel movies -- some go...

Martin Scorsese films are long -- 138 minutes on average -- and they keep getting longer from decade to decade. But he is one of the premier American film directors, so he has earned the right. This one was 151 minutes, and I had to watch it in two parts. In fact, it was so long, I ended up watching four other films before watching the second part. Not that I wasn't into the story. It's just one of those films with a slow build, and I didn't feel any need to rush through it. I think that's a characteristic of a good film -- the feeling that you can just sit with it for a while in silence. You don't feel the need to finish quickly or check the time left over and over again. The story itself is classic: What's good? What's evil? Who can you trust? And why do you think and act as you do? All great questions. For the most part, I assume that everyone is out for themselves in this film. Maybe they're working for a greater cause, maybe they're not, a...

Flow looks unlike any other animated film I've ever seen. That's what ultimately pushes the rating up to 5/5 for me. I think it is subtle storytelling, and for a while, I was holding back a bit in my praise. The ending itself it pretty quiet, too, but I appreciated how it ended... This might be odd to say, but I felt like the animation of the background and everything OTHER THAN the animals was amazing. I'm not sure what I think about the animals themselves. They looked "weird" and somehow a little off. Not the Cat itself, but maybe just the dogs. I don't know. I don't want to make a big deal about it. What's maybe surprising is that this is a world where people obviously existed, but I thought for sure the animals would need to run across some people eventually... maybe by the end, say. But nope. No people. They are all gone. Just some cat statues, a drawing, some boats, and whatever nick-nacks lemurs collect. But what happened to all of the people? W...

When the movie starts, the animation feels very two-dimensional. It's "layered," and the animation follows simple rules of perspective, but it's still very two-dimensional. As I watched the film, either the animation changed, or I adopted to the style. Maybe both. The story itself is a little odd, with some things not really explained. For example, Maleficent isn't invited. Is the King and Queen really shocked when she shows up anyway? She has her own kingdom, right next door, I gather, but she rules over pigs and other cartoon characters, and that made me wonder why evil is represented so "cartoony." Maleficent is represented as pure evil, and I guess that means she doesn't need a reason to be evil, but I still want to know: Why is she so evil? Did she curse Aurora simply for not being invited to the party? Because she was beautiful? I don't really understand the motive. I was also confused about why Auroa's three fairy godmothers apparently...

Based on the reviews I've read, I'm not the only one who likes to watch all of the available versions of classic novel adaptations. This is the 5th version of Jane Eyre that I've watched recently, and although I was curious about this one, I definitely had low expectation. Why? I guess I thought George C. Scott was a real stretch to play Rochester, especially since this film came right after his portrayal of Patton, and I had a hard time imaging Patton playing Rochester. In addition to that, although I'm not familiar with Susannah York, I knew she was in her 30s, and Jane Eyre should be played by someone a decade younger. But I started watching, and the movie won me over. In fact, I was generally pleasantly surprised with the acting, the pacing, and the setting. Everything "clicked" for me. After reading various reviews, I learned that the video quality would probably stink, and that was certainly the case for the DVD version I bought. The color was very incon...