The Writer's Poke

I've liked Miyazaki films for 25 years now, and the ones I always tend to think about are My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke, Kiki's Delivery Service, and Ponyo. There's nothing wrong with Castle in the Sky, or any of the other Miyazaki films, but I just don't think about them as much. In fact, it's been quite a while since I've seen this one, and after re-watching it, I'm still thinking that this is pretty good, but in terms of Miyazaki good, just below top tier.  I noticed that some reviewers had an issue with Captain Mom's pirate sons. They're all probably in their 30s, but they all -- jokingly or not -- have a crush on Sheeta. Well, I don't think the kitchen scene is meant to be taken all that seriously, but the pirates are mentally closer to Sheeta's age than their "biological" age. This is a very asexual movie.  Anyway, the pirates are interested in finding the lost island for the treasure. The military and t...

For a fun drinking game, take a shot every time the film uses the word "psychiatrist."  The look of the film is great. Brad Pitt (Jeffrey) and Bruce Willis (James) act their butts off. And yet, when I finish the film, I feel unsatisfied.  I'm not happy with the ending. The virus has been released. The future hasn't been able to stop the past from happening. Well, I don't want to get into a time travel debate, but if the future fails, can't it just keep trying? This is one of those movies that has the cool idea, but then it never shows how it works. Which is fine. We get the idea that time travel is dangerous and inaccurate. The scientists use "volunteer" inmates because, I assume, they're disposable. James and Jose (Jon Seda) are two of the inmates we see, but there are other anonymous future folks keeping watch on James, too.  Ultimately, I guess much depends on that end scene. It's been referenced a number of times. James dreams it, because...

Immediate jumpstart. Seth (Jeff Goldblum) and Veronica (Geena Davis) at a party. He's about to do something world changing, he says, and she believes him enough to go back to his apartment.  At first, Veronica comes off as an opportunist. She just wants the story. But it doesn't take long for us to sense that she's into this guy. Why? He's a complete nerd with a bugged-eyed face, and that's before he blends his DNA with a fly.  For purposes of the plot, however, Veronica and Seth need to hook up quick, because he won't be human for long, and we need the drama of "Will she keep his bug baby?" Goldblum will likely be remembered solely for this role. I'm sure we could point to other good parts he's played, but honestly, this was the role he was born to play. The 1980s costume and make-up work is incredible. You could never replicate the feel with CGI or AI.  And just like the way the movie begins, it ends just as quickly. Did she decide to keep th...

How cute does this film want to be? If it's just a story about two male sex workers, then maybe I would like it more than if you try to layer in the Shakespeare. Gus Van Sant admitted that some viewers found the "Shakespearean dialogue" used in the Bob (William Richert) scenes jarring. I am among those viewers. I just didn't find it necessary. Also, I don't need to be told that the plot is "loosely based on King Henry IV." So what, really? It's not obvious, and I'm more confused about why Scott (Keanu Reeves) wants to live this "lifestyle" until he comes into his inheritance. Does he really expect that people will simply "excuse" him for being a male prostitute until he's 21? The scene that I appreciate the most is when Mike (River Phoenix) opens up to Scott. He tells Scott that he loves him. That's the best part of the film. Since Scott isn't gay, nothing happens sexually, but they do embrace. The other part of th...

Although this isn't a silent picture, it acts like one.  I even found myself saying, "Gee, I like a movie that reads like a book." Not just because it has the place cards like a silent film, but because it has characters reading from a book. Maybe 5 or 6 times we stop and read a page out of the vampire book with the characters. Maybe this was groundbreaking information -- Who the Vampires work for, what powers they have, how to kill them, etc. -- but reading a page of text on the screen is not the best way to use the film media.  So, if you're not really into slow, 1930s pictures that don't know if they want to be silent, and don't know how to "show" more than they "tell," I wouldn't recommend this one.  As one reviewer noted, it has absolutely no action. You will barely see a vampire. You will hardly see any blood. At one point, you will see a woman give a creepy smile. That's the extent of it.  And I would be okay with that, but I...

After watching Part 1, I wasn't sure I'd be watching Part 2... but I'm a completionist. I needed to watch it, and to be fair, it was better... and not a horrible conclusion to the series.  1. Too many characters means no character development. They just become "The Amazon Vampires," "The Irish Vampires," etc.  2. Bella's narration. That's new, and I don't like. It's just a lazy way to give quick exposition for everything that's going on. Now, if it's Bella writing down the story for her daughter, I can almost give it a pass, but generally, that kind of voiceover is just weak. 3. Is it creepy that Jacob imprints on Bella's daughter? If he can't have Bella, and Bella's daughter grows up quickly, I guess it's okay. I suppose we should just ask Alice.  At least in Part 2, I don't feel like we're waiting for stuff to happen. The pacing has picked up, and so I was into the story for the most part... nothing dragg...

Is there enough to justify dividing Breaking Dawn into two separate parts? I really wondered this before watching, and after watching, I can safely say, nope.  The film is 2 hours long, but you can break it down into 3 segments -- the wedding, the honeymoon, and the pregnancy. Give each segment, say, 30 minutes, or even if you want to milk one of the segments, milk the pregnancy, I guess, an extra five minutes. But clock the film at 90 minutes.  Anyway, we end up getting a lot of weird shots of Bella (Kristen Stewart). just studying her face -- either we are, or she is, or both. Is she anxious? Is she stressed? Just what is going on in her mind? The camera, I guess, works to "tell us." It lets us know the things we can't hear the characters think. Sometimes the actions or dialogue tell us, too, but it's usually the length of the camera shot. None of those characters have any real depth. It's kind of funny when you watch Bella's "life montage" -- you ...

The movie is a little different: It has 5 strong female leads. Name another movie with 5 strong female leads. Katherine Ann (Julia Roberts) is the last-minute hire at a snobbish northeastern Women's College. She doesn't belong there, and the administration and students make sure she knows it. At the same time, Amanda (Juliet Stevenson) has somehow managed to be a lesbian and maintain her employment there for years... so if you don't quite fit in, you can stay. You just have to remain invisible and a non-problem. In Amanda's case, be a lesbian, but don't distribute birth control.  At first, it feels like Katerine Ann will likely try to "do things her way" while staying under the radar. She can teach to the syllabus AND add outside content. She can teach them what they need to know, as well as what she thinks they need to know. Basically, she can teach them how to think for themselves.  Throughout the movie, maybe she's still trying to figure out how to ...

If you watched Mary and Max and then watched Memoir of a Snail (2024), I wonder if you would know everything you need to know about the creative force behind these films, Adam Elliot. I like both films, and they're both quite similar -- the visual world, the characters, the humor. If Snail was a "brown" film, then so is this one. It's obviously a sad film. Mary and Max do have more people to call friends than just one another. They each have neighbors. Mary even marries her neighbor. Does he leave her? Sure, but he's not depicted as being a bad guy for it. Max's neighbor, too, comes off as a real friend, but if Max and Mary "dream" about each other and ignore other examples of human contact, maybe Elliot is commenting on the nature of distance, and how distance sometimes helps people open up in ways they don't to those around them.  What a fun experiment, to just pick a name at random and develop a friendship with a total stranger who lives thous...

What I liked about this one was the focus. Spike Lee is often somewhat unfocused in his films, and this film forced him to hone in. We are on a bus from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. The destination is the Million Man March. That's it. What can Lee show us within these limited parameters?  What sort of men are on the bus? Young, old. Rich, poor. Willing, unwilling. Gay, straight. Dark, light.  And with nothing but time, we get to hear them tell their stories. Mistakes they've made, lessons they've learned, what they hope to learn by going to the March, and so on.  Naturally, there's some conflict between the men -- their stories, backgrounds, beliefs. There's also some unexpected camaraderie. In fact, maybe they learn more about themselves and each other during that long bus ride than they would if they had even made it to the event.  They didn't make it to the event? Well, they came close, but Jeremiah (Ossie Davis) up and has a heart attack right as they ente...

It's 2026. Who actually reads blogs anymore? Take a blog like this. Are my readers humans or bots? Bots: Let me know you're out there. I want if I'm serving your needs.

The opening sequence is unintentionally funny and really takes me out of the rest of the movie: A woman is driving at night, probably faster than conditions call for. All of a sudden, a Detour sign pops up, and so she immediately freaks out and drives over a cliff. Miraculously, she doesn't die, but the only doctor in the entire world that can save her is Dr. Vollin (Bela Lugosi). At first, he refuses to help. Why? Is he retired? Just too evil to help? Did he get his feelings hurt by the other doctors? Whatever the case, when he learns that the other doctors say he's the only one good enough for the job, and he helps. From there, the movie seems to shift. Bateman (Karloff) enters Dr. Vollin's office, demanding at gunpoint that Vollin change his face. At this point, we don't know Vollin to be an evil man. But Bateman says something that attracts Vollin's attention: Ugly people may be more prone to acting in ugly ways. Vollin calls the idea "profound" and ag...

The film is beautifully shot in black and white. Just a pleasure to watch in that regard. In terms of the basic premise, you have a Polish married couple in a private vehicle. It's a nice car, but they're squished together on the car's front bench seat. Shoulder touching shoulder, without any extra room. It's not meant to be a small compact car, but you're definitely not going to fit a more than 4 people in this car. The hitchhiker is younger. Maybe he's supposed to be half the age of the couple. Why does he walk around and hitchhike? Boredom, perhaps, although maybe the couple is bored, too. If you're rich and bored, you go out boating. If you're poor and bored, you go out hitchhiking. For whatever reason, the man decides to let the younger man ride with them. Then, he invites him to join their one-day cruise. Why? Even his wife will eventually ask him why. Is the older man "showing off"? Does he want to make the young man jealous of his life ...

Briony (Saoirse Ronan) is a rather unlikable 13-year-old child. She's known Robbie (James McAvoy) her entire life. In fact, not that much earlier before the "events" of the film unfold, Robbie saved her life, and she told him that she would be "eternally grateful" to him. It seems she had a crush on him... but Robbie, of course didn't know that. She was too young, and he loved her older sister. Robbie was the family servant, but Briony's father liked him enough that he put him through Cambridge and was willing to continue putting him through medical school. Unfortunately, Briony walks in on Robbie and Ceilia (Keira Knightley) having sex in the library. Notice how the film repeats "shocking" events that Cecilia witnesses, at least between Robbie and Celicia. The first is when Cee strips to her underwear to jump into the fountain to retrieve a broken piece of porcelain. The second time is when she sees them in the library. Just prior to that mome...

"Perhaps he knew, as I did not, that the Earth was made round so that we could not see too far down the road." -- Karen, reflecting on what Denys had taught her. Karen (Meryl Streep) is a rich Danish woman. She wants to be married. She leaves Denmark and goes to Africa to get married and start a farm. The year is 1913, and European colonialization is a fact. If this is an autobiographical account of an upper-class Danish writer, then it should reflect her experiences and point of view. The beginning of the film suggests that Karen has had many lovers, and she's written about them all. Denys (Robert Redford), however, might be the most important one, and the one that's she's saved writing about for last. The setting, then, may be Africa, but this is not a story about Africans. It's about what she learned about herself, love and romance, and perhaps, life; and maybe she was only able to learn about it in Africa, because this is the only place that a man like D...

But what if Quasimodo could find love? That had to be the question screenwriters worked with when they pitched and wrote the sequel. When we watched this film last night, my daughter said, "Who asked for this sequel to be made?" I think it's a fair question. All of the voice actors, for whatever reason, came back. But the budget is clearly no longer $100 million. The songs are weaker. The animation is weaker. And, while I don't actually mind the storyline that much (except for the ending), it's weaker as well. Esmerlda and Phoebus are married. They have a son, but neither they nor the goat look any older. They haven't aged at all. Nor have their characters developed in any noticeable way. Quasimodo does seem a little more social. He goes out and about, and none of the people run from him or throw rotten vegetables at him. Everyone seems to get along. Enter this movie's "gypsies" -- the circus people. The whole plot centers around the Madellaine (...

When I was a kid, I didn't care for Disney films. Bambi was okay, and so was Lady and the Tramp, but I never went out of my way to watch any other Disney animated films. I think there were a couple of reasons for this. One, the films usually felt girly to me, because they focused on princesses, and I didn't care about princesses. And two, and maybe equally girly, they all seemed to be full of songs. I didn't care for all the singing. But by the time I saw The Lion King, and I was cool with princesses, and I didn't mind the songs. That said, The Hunchback of Notre Dame just has too many damn songs. Google says it has between 7-to-9, depending on what's counted as a song, and that it's one of the "most heavily dense" Disney animated movies with songs. The actual movie, which had a $70-100 million production budget, is quite good. They really make Esmerelda's (Demi Moore) eyes pop, for example. (By the way, Moore didn't sing Esmerelda's song. ...

I just watched The Fighting Westerner aka Rocky Mountain Mystery (1935) and gave it a 1-star rating for being almost unwatchable. So, I needed to watch another movie to cleanse my palette.  Unfortunately, I went with To the Last Man (1933), which somehow managed to be even worse.  Made in 1933, which is a few years after the end of the silent picture, this picture is so "silent." I couldn't believe it. Not only no musical score at all, but every time a new character came on the screen, their credits were put underneath them. Randolph Scott' actually doesn't just the film until about minute 25, and they're still adding the credits at that point in the film. It's a classic "feud" story. And it has, what? A Montagues and Capulets romance angle? I couldn't follow why Lynn (Scott) likes Ellen (Esther Ralston). I guess the heart likes what the heart likes, but I also get really tired of movies that must somehow end with a marriage. It's such a ...

Almost unwatchable. At least that's how I felt as I tried to watch this. And so, I go immediately to user reviews to see what the heck I'm missing, because a 2- or 3-star review should give me more insight into what I'm missing here. 2 or 3 stars should say, "Hey, this movie isn't that good, but it does have X going for it." I think the main X is just that it's a Randolph Scott flick, and so we give it an extra star for that, and maybe because an early Ann Sheridan is in it, too.  That's not enough for me.  Another reviewer did note the striking "Walter Brennan-like" acting ability of Charles 'Chic' Sale, who plays the Sheriff. And I would agree. He probably is my favorite character in the story. Otherwise, I had absolutely no interest in the story. Sadly, it's one of my least favorite movies for the entire year (of the 230 or so films that I've watched so far in 2026). 

After watching a couple of his 1930s films, I can confirm that Randolph Scott is much more "recognizable" as his more mature self in this 1940s film. I like the way everything in this story is split in two: Farmers vs. Cowboys is the main division, but the town is also divided. On one side, it's the church and businesses (civilization) on one side of the street, and the saloons on the other side.  Dan (Scott) is the town marshal. This gives him the obligation to patrol both sides. He also has a counterpart: Sheriff Trimble (Edgar Buchanan), representing the law for the county. Dan takes his job seriously. The Sheriff would rather play cards and stay out of trouble.  We have the two love interests: Sherry (Rhoda Fleming) on the church side, and Rita (Ann Dvorak) on the saloon side. Dan likes both of them, and they both like him. But Dan has a little more "saloon side" in him. He wants to represent the good guys, but he's willing to use his gun. He's also ...