The Writer's Poke

  The story is lean. The run time is only 84 minutes, and the plot is just about the same -- the 84 minutes before the noon train arrives. A lot of clocks everywhere, too, to remind you just how close to noon things are getting...  At the beginning of the story, Kane (Gary Cooper) and Amy (Grace Kelly) get married. It's a Sunday morning, but they just have a small civil ceremony. Their plan is to go to a new town and run a store. That means Kane has resigned being Marshal, but for some reason his replacement won't arrive until Monday.  Then they find out that Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald) is going to be on the noon train, and three of his buddies are already in town waiting for him. The four of them are surely going to kill Kane, because Kane had arrested Miller and Miller had been sentenced to death, only to be pardoned by bureaucrats.  Kane looks for men to help him face Miller and his friends, but no one in town will step up. He seeks help at the saloon, the church...

The first time I watched Doctor Zhivago was about 30 years ago. A friend picked the movie, and I watched it over at his house with his parents. For whatever reason, they kept the volume very low, and I never bothered asking them to turn the volume up. As a result, I missed out on a lot of the dialogue, didn't follow what was going on in the plot, and got totally confused on who the characters were. Regardless, even though I was maybe 21 or 22 years old, I don't think I was the right age for this film to fully appreciate it, even if I could have heard what was going on.  Now that I'm in my 50s, and I have a little bit of life experience behind me, it's much easier for me to tap into what these characters were going through -- not that I've ever been through a World War and a Communist Revolution, but I'm maybe better at comprehending the idea of what people will do to survive, and how some people will cling to the idea that life is about more than just surviving....

As a "who done it," I'm not sure it comes as much of a surprise who done it, or even why. That said, I thought the movie told an unusual story in an unusual way.  The beginning is the end, really. The film opens with a man getting shot. Soon enough we will learn that the man is Monte Beragon (Zachary Scott). He's the person Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford) buys the property from for what will become her first restaurant.  That's all getting ahead of the story, though. Mildred ends up at the police station because when he's shot, she's married to Monte. She sits in the station telling the detective her life story. That is the movie.  Mildred's whole deal is that she will do anything for her children. Unfortunately, her oldest daughter, Veda (Ann Blyth), turns out to be an amoral spoiled brat. Are we to blame Mildred for how she turned out? Veda's dad, Bert (Bruce Bennett) more or less implies that Mildred is to blame. His view is that Mildred doesn...

This movie has one or two more twists than you probably think it will have, and they all pretty much works.  When I'm watching a "mystery thriller," I don't want to feel cheated, and withholding information or tricking the viewer in some fashion makes me feel cheated. I don't feel cheated watching Wild Things. The only "cheat" I can maybe point out is when the music "leads" you to think in a specific direction. If you watched the movie super close, you might be able to see a character act in a certain way when no one is looking that wouldn't make much sense if you thought about it, but I don't have any specific scenes in mind to point out. Overall, the coherence and integrity of the plot is good. The first hour is played straight, and then everything turns. As you watch the first hour, see if you can figure out the turn, and remember, it's going to be "turns," not just "turn." I do wonder why Denise Richards isn...

This movie had people crying in the theater at one point. I heard multiple people trying to control their sobs.  * When I was looking to buy tickets last weekend, I knew I wanted to see this film in IMAX, but the closest IMAX theaters were already almost fully booked. So, I thought, surely there will be less demand midweek. But it turns out that even the Tuesday 10 p.m. screening, the one I went to, was packed. Who are all these people? I wondered. And why are they so interested in The Odyssey? I still remember being a Graduate Student at the University of Mississippi 25 years ago. One of my jobs then was to assist a Professor with his World Literature class. This is when I first really studied The Odyssey, and while I loved it, I don't remember the undergrads in the class being overly thrilled about it. The story was there on the page, but it doesn't as easily "come to life" as Nolan's vision of it does.  And so, my thoughts about the audience I was watching the ...

Thirteen years before he played Odysseus, Matt Damon was somehow playing Liberace's loveboy, Scott Thorson. As I watched the movie, I was into the story, but I felt like the movie was only scratching the surface, just telling us part of the story. But since the script is based on Thorson's memoirs, that makes sense.  Who was Liberace? Well, I'm still not sure I know, really, but Michael Douglass's performance is amazing. He has the look and mannerisms. Everything about Liberace's relationship with Thorson, and apparently all the boys who came before him, is so incredibly wrong. The age difference, the power difference. Liberace doesn't come off as a "groomer," but he definitely took a vulnerable young man and "trapped" him in, what? A relationship of some sort -- Liberace himself didn't seem to know what he wanted -- to be a dad, a friend, a lover. Somehow, he thought it was okay to be all of the above, but he also must have known what he...

This one came out in December 1986, and I remember watching it in the theaters. I would have been about 13, and I had no idea that it was a musical. Needless to say, I hated it, and although I'm okay with watching musicals now, I haven't watched it since.  What's it like watching it now, 40 years later? Well, I love it. Specifically, I enjoy Steve Martin as Orin, the evil dentist. Martin is a weird Elvis/Jerk hybrid on giggle juice. And the best scene is when he's working with Bill Murray, who plays a bizarre dental patient (Arthur) who gets off on the pain. Orin doesn't know exactly how to handle Arthur, as the dentist lives to dish out the pain, but not to patients who like it.  As far as I know, this is the only film to feature Murray and Martin on screen together. I read that Murray did film scenes for The Jerk, but those scenes were cut.  It might seem weird, but I have sensitive ears when watching Little Shop of Horrors. That is, for whatever reason, the uses ...

When I was writing my review about Platoon (1986) this week, I noted that a lot of American war films do not present both sides of the battle; so, with that freshly in mind, I was interested that this film does include at least a bit of the German perspective. And to be quite honest, the Germans are portrayed quite decently, or at least as no better and no worse than the Allies.  At one point, the Germans try to surrender to Lt. Col. Frost (Anthony Hopkins), but he tells them to go to hell. In response, the Germans act shocked. They were trying to play by the rules of war, and the Allies refused to follow those rules. It was only then that the German Field Commander said, Fine, destroy the city.  Until that point, you get the idea at least that Germany occupied The Netherlands, but they didn't turn it into a parking lot or rubble.  At another moment in the film, a German commander gave Allied prisoners chocolate. I mean, it's small things like that humanize the Germans, b...

Give Quentin Tarantino $30,000 and a 16mm camera and see what he can do.  The budget was ultimately more than $30,000, but this has a very low-budget movie feel, not that that's a bad thing. In fact, it's almost exclusively shot in a warehouse.  As I was re-watching it, I thought about how this movie might work even better as a play. It's dramatic, sure, and it works as a film, but the focus to a single location would work very well on stage.  For the most part, the power of the film relies on the actors and the intensity in which they deliver their lines. We might not have known it in 1992, but this film includes many of what will become "Tarantino Guys" -- Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Harvey Keitel. The only "Guy" really missing is Samuel L. Jackson, who I understand auditioned for the part of Holdaway -- not a very big role, but a role that probably would have popped more with Jackson.  The movie is odd in that there is absolutely no female presence....

Compared to Castle in the Sky (1986), Howl's Moving Castle feels like Hayao Miyazaki at his full power. What makes the film for me is the characters, in particular, Calcifer (the fire) and Turnip Head (the Scarecrow). Good English voice casting, too, if you like listening to the English audio: Billy Crystal as Calcifer -- my favorite line: "She likes my spark!" (very Mike Wazowski-like in delivery) --, Christian Bale as Howl, Lauren Bacall as the Witch of the Waste, Jean Simmons as the old Sophie, etc.  Sophie is an interesting character. She's supposed to be a little Jane Eyre-like, plain and unlovable. But she's cursed by the Witch of the Waste even so. None of that matters. Howl is still her true love, and even though she kisses a Prince (under a spell) in the end, she still ends up with Howl. That's a little odd, as the Prince promises he will be back later because she is his true love, and he knows how love is capricious -- in other words, he's nice a...

I guess I never realized that Sgt. Elias (Willem Dafoe) was the soldier on the movie poster. This re-viewing hit me in a way that past viewings haven't. I'm not sure why. Why would a college student, Chris (Charlie Sheen), drop out of school to enlist as a grunt? Maybe he was looking to be treated like one of the boys, because we certainly see that low-ranking officers, like the Lieutenant, aren't respected at all.  It's the grunts who fight, and it is the grunts who basically make the war happen.  Oliver Stone gives us just about everything we need to understand the war in four simple "acts": 1. The Ambush. Chris has only been in-country a week when he's on his third nighttime patrol. No one has taught him anything about patrols, and on this patrol, they're ambushed.  In films like this, you see the Americans going out to find and engage the enemy. The enemy must be doing the same, but this film, like most American war films, doesn't show us the e...

Are we meant to be able to figure out who Jerry (Nick Nolte) is? 1. He can play the piano.  2. He can recite Hamlet. 3. While he's at lunch with Dave (Richard Dreyfuss), he's identified by a publishing agent as a famous writer. Beyond that, he's an enigma. He has some sort of charisma or animal magnetism -- he beds Dave's wife -- Barbara (Bette Midler), daughter -- Jenny (Tracy Nelson) and maid -- Carmen (Elizabeth Pena). How? Before he charms the ladies, however, he charms Dave. Why? At the opening of the film, somehow Jerry ends up in Dave's backyard. He's lost his dog, and his idea is to drown himself in this random Beverly Hills pool. Dave ends up saving his life, and then like some fable, he takes responsibility for the life he's just saved. He lets Jerry stay at the house, gives him a makeover, clothes, a credit card. And tries to give him a job, either in one of his factories or as a manager of one of his trailer parks.  Jerry's not interested in ...

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 ...