The Writer's Poke

Is it or isn't it part of the Alien franchise? Of course it is, but for whatever reason, they make it difficult to place in the series. And so people debate whether it's a prequel, a reboot, a completely different thing, or whatever.  In many ways, it doesn't matter. Is it any good as a movie? I think it has a nice look. The acting is okay. The story. Eh. Somewhat predictable. We've seen this story before, and so no matter how nice it looks and how well the actors play their parts, something still feels like it's missing. That aside, what do we think of human curiosity? Are we worse than cats? Does our curiosity drive us, even when we might rationally know that being so curious is ultimately not in our best interest? I like Captain Janek (Idris Elba). He's a curious guy to a certain extent, but he knows where to draw the line. He's curious enough to wonder what it would be like to have sex with Meredith (Charlize Theron), but he's not curious enough to s...

When I originally watched Interiors (1978) and Stardust Memories (1980), I had watched Bergman and Fellini, but I don't remember thinking about or even making the connection that Woody Allen was simply copying (or paying tribute) to their work. I'm sure a lot of his more knowledge fans knew what he was doing, but it does make a difference to have Bergman and Fellini in mind when watching these two films. In Stardust Memories, we have a director, Sandy (Allen) trapped in his own fame. He's known for his comedies, and everyone expects comedies from him. They don't want him to be serious. They don't want him to change, but Sandy doesn't want to be trapped. -- in the types of films he makes, or in life, for that matter. If he feels serious, then he wants the artist freedom to be serious. This isn't a film about anything more than a director going about his business, professionally and personally. It really is Woody Allen's 8 1/2. The reason I don't like ...

Roger Ebert liked Woody Allen a lot, and he ended up giving 4-star ratings to nine of his films by my count. Including this one.  This was Allen's first serious film, and not coincidentally, perhaps, the first film he wrote and directed that he didn't appear in.  It's the story of three sisters. You see them on the DVD cover, in that famous, staged scene. They're carefully arranged, looking out the window at the stillness of the ocean. That's the film's last scene, much different from the roaring waters that ended up swallowing their mother.  Their mother wasn't well, and their father decided, at the age of 63, that he no longer needed to be responsible for her wellbeing. He finds another woman who makes him feel more youthful and alive, and after a month, he marries her.  It's a lot for his daughters to accept. These daughters have their own "life issues." Like a lot of Allen characters, they all want to be creative, and they all want to have ...

Early Woody Allen movies are fun to watch, and a much different brand of humor from his later works -- even most of his films after, say, Manhattan.  I watch a film like Love and Death, for example, and although I'm not an expert in Groucho Marx, that's exactly what it puts me in the mind of. In other words, the plot of the film is secondary. It's all about the gags, the one-liners, and the facial expressions. If you watch it for that, then you probably have a good time.  The setting for this one is Napoleonic Europe. Boris (Allen) doesn't want to be a fighter, but he's not built to be much of a lover. He loves his cousin, Sonja (Diane Keaton), but she loves just about everyone but him. Eventually, they do marry, and she might even admit that he turned out to be the love of her life. By that time, however, Boris is frolicking through the trees with Death.  From time-to-time, Boris breaks the fourth wall and speaks right to the camera. That's even how the film en...

The first Woody Allen movie to feature Howard Cosell. (He also appeared in archival footage in Sleeper and had a small cameo role in Broadway Danny Rose). It makes me laugh that Cosell would play his Wide World of Sports ABC self, because basically, he's acting like the opening scene assassination and the closing scene consummation of a marriage are both nothing more and nothing less than boxing contests. That's funny. Maybe the funniest bits of the film, to be honest. Fielding (Allen) is a product demonstrator. That's his job. He meets Nancy (Louise Lasser), a young activist who goes door-to-door to get people to sign petitions. And through this chance meeting, he eventually ends up trapped in a fictious Latin American country, becomes part of the rebels seeking to overthrow the new dictator, and even briefly becomes dictator himself. I think it's fair to say that a lot of Woody Allen movies feel like live-action cartoons. I see this one in the same light as maybe Grou...

Not really a "movie." Or, a movie, but told as answers to seven questions, with each "answer" being a separate "chapter" or story. Only Woody Allen appears in more than one of the stories. To fairly rate the movie, I guess one would first need to rate each chapter. Then, you would either take the individual ratings and divide by seven, or you would figure out another method to give an overall rating.  Chapter 2 -- Gene Wilder and the Sheep. Has to be my favorite. It's ridiculously stupid. An Armenian shepherd falls in love with one of his sheep. Then, he fears the sheep has lost interest in him. He flies the sheep to America so that Dr. Ross (Wilder) can see if he can help bring the two back together. In the process, however, Dr. Ross inexplicably falls in love with the sheep. His marriage and life are ruined as a result.  That's my favorite Chapter and I might give it 4/5. Only Gene Wilder and Woody Allen could pull this one off.  Chapter 6 has an...

Yep. This movie does briefly reference the first AVP movie, but if you're looking to make sense of how this one continues from the last one, good luck.  And yep. This is supposed to be the second movie in a trilogy, and if you watch the very last scene, we're introduced to a new character at the very last second -- which makes absolutely no sense if there's not going to be another movie to explain who she is...  Unfortunately, this movie killed any future plans for the next movie. Just blew it right up.  The main problems with this movie, really, is how it was shot. It's consistently too dark, and almost all of the shots are extreme close-ups. I'm guessing the budget was on the lower end, and it was simply easier and cheaper to shoot dark and too close. Beyond that, none of the human characters seem to know what's going on, except for the "Colonel." He knows, and just for the sake of adding some clarity to things, I think they really needed to develop ...

 At first, it doesn't seem very "versus," because a team of humans are placed right smack dab in the middle. But later, it becomes clear that the humans are needed just for the Aliens to have something to face jump and chest-burst out of.  Predators are the ultimate hunters. They will hunt humans, yes, but maybe Aliens are more of a sporting challenge. Alexa (Sanaa Lathan) is the smart human of the team. I don't know how much of a spoiler it is to note that she is the one that makes it out alive. None of the other humans are really all that developed as characters, and our focus is always mainly on Alexa... so I don't think it's a real spoiler.  What might be more of a spoiler is to note what kind of relationship she develops with the lead Predator. Alexa understands that the humans need to pick a side, and the side they need to be on is the Predators.  If you've seen a lot of Predator and Alien movies, you know this is the right move to make. Predators ha...

Why is this movie shot in black and white? I might Google it, but after watching it and spending a night to sleep on it, I don't have a clue.  Danny Rose (Woody Allen) is an agent, and all of his acts are pathetic. Anytime he represents an act that has any sort of potential, they immediately leave him at the earliest opportunity. And for the most part. Rose has come to terms with that.  Then he's representing Lou Canova (Nick Apollo Forte). What is he? A Lounge singer? But Canova's career has floundered, and he's thinking about seeking new representation. At the same time, he wants Rose to be his "beard" for his girl, Tina (Mia Farrow). Why? The Mafia, I guess. So Rose does that, ends up having the Mafia come after him, ends up falling in love with Tina, and so on.  This is all being told, by the way, by a group of guys, OG comedians, I guess, who are trying to tell their best Danny Rose stories? I'm not sure I get the framing technique here, or why it...

Zelig starts with a cute idea. Imagine a guy, Zelig (Woody Allen), who was famous in his time, but who is now almost completely forgotten. What made Zelig so popular? He was a human "chameleon." Just put him next to anyone else -- black, Chinese, Orthodox Jew, Native American, and he would start to take on their look, physical traits, dress.  Interestingly, I guess, he didn't have the ability to change gender. That would be a bridge too far.  But put him in a cockpit, and he could become a very bad pilot. Or, put him in a hospital, and he could become a very bad surgeon.  Anyway, the movie uses a documentary form, and the way that it captures the real look of 1920s-1940s footage is very well done. I never question if it's "real footage." I'm sure a lot is, but anything altered or created new for the film is seamlessly done. Bravo. The problem is: The human chameleon gimmick isn't enough, really, to sustain a complete film. If you think of other mocku...

Miles (Woody Allen) went to sleep in 1973 and woke up in 2173.  Until you start watching (or re-watching) the entire Woody Allen canon of films, you don't stop to think about how many of his movies have a fantasy element. Even the more "serious" of his films usually include some sort of "discussion" between science, religion, philosophy, and pseudo-science.  Sometimes the Allen "fantasy" element works for me, and sometimes it doesn't. I do, however, almost always enjoy the "discussion" element. I'm writing this down here because I'm about 16 films into my Allen re-watch, and I'm still debating if I like his work as a whole, or if I just like his "best stuff" -- his best stuff generally being "discussion" not "fantasy" (the one exception being Midnight in Paris).  Sleeper, to me, isn't one of his better films, but at least it's a film that I can watch without finding myself zoning out. I ha...

Knull is played by Andy Serkis, the director of the previous Venom movie. I like that. My problem with Knull is that I wish he had been introduced as a character in the earlier Venom movies. He just sort of appears out nowhere, as does the plot point for the third movie. We always kind of knew a lot more of Venom and his kind were out there, ready to invade Earth. But you think that over the year Venom and Eddie (Tom Hardy) have been partners, Venom would have told Eddie what was out there.  The second problem with Knull is: All he needs is the Codex, and the Codex -- the key -- is too simple -- it's just the full-bond of man and symbiote. When Knull has that, he can send a tracker to retrieve the Codex, which then ends the universe. Big threat, too simple.  Even if you can overlook the simplicity of the plot, the writing is pretty lazy in parts -- just telling us what we need to know rather than taking the time to let it develop more naturally. This movie treats its viewers l...

While the first Venom received mixed reviews, I ended up liking it. Was it deep? No, but I liked the humor, and it the pacing was good. The weird thing I noticed was that the run time was 107 minutes, but by 90 minutes, the film was running credits. Then it had a sneak-peak scene for the sequel. Then it played the full credits. And THEN it played a Spiderman multiverse clip. Yes, I know that Marvel movies do this "show a clip after the credits" business, but this somehow felt excessive.  Anyway, I wondered if the sequel, which also received mixed reviews, would be able to sustain my enthusiasm. Tom Hardy is back as Eddie and Venom, and he also received a co-writer credit. No doubt he loves this film series. And the way this film is approached is interesting. For lack of a better term, Eddie and Venom are a "couple," and in some respects, the film comes off like not just a bromance, but a full-blown romance. Eddie and Venom "break up" and then, just like in...

So the Venom reviewer on Ebert.com called this a "minor entrant" in the Marvel Universe, for people who only care about Venom because they care about Spiderman, and Venom is a Spiderman villain.  Venom in this movie, of course, is not a Spiderman villain, and, in fact, he seems like a pretty cool symbiote. "Cool" in the sense that he becomes "friends" with Eddie (Tom Hardy). He wouldn't have to be friends with Eddie, but he for some reason says he has grown to like him, and in the end, Eddie must like him too -- "We are Venom." Other symbiotes completely take over their human host. They don't "share" the space, and they don't seem to care about who they eat or what happens to the host when they decide to move on to someone else.  I'm interested, then, in this relationship. I'm interested in this Venom and its willingness to fight the symbiote who has taken over Carlton (Riz Ahmed). Lots of these symbiotes are out the...

Not all of his movies end at 90 minutes, but I've noticed that many of Woody Allen's films end just about at 90 minutes. Maybe a bit less. I wonder if he thought 90 minutes was the perfect length for a film, that he never wanted to be accused of overstaying his welcome.  In this one (run time just 88 minutes), three couple end up sharing a country home together on a vacation. They don't all know each other, really.  Andrew (Allen) and Adrian (Mary Steenburgen) are married, but their marriage is kind of hit a sexual draught.  Maxwell (Tony Roberts), a doctor, is a sort of Cassanova who doesn't believe in marriage -- "Marriage is the end of hope." He asks one woman to go away with him on this trip, but when she declines, he immediately moves on to his nurse, Dulcy (Julie Hagerty), who says yes, and agrees that sharing one room will be just fine.  Ariel (Mia Farrow) and Leopold (Jose Ferrer) are the third couple. They are about to be married. He's a professor...

Much of Allen's work on DVD is available in boxsets. This is a film that didn't make any of the boxsets, and so I left it unviewed for a long time. It's also the film that Allen and Mia Farrow were working on when they separated and Allen started dating his current wife. I was curious to finally track down a copy and watch it, not only because I wanted to see it, but because I was curious how Allen and Farrow would "act" while the drama of their personal life was also playing itself out in the background. To be honest, if anything "bled over" from their personal lives, I couldn't tell. They act just as much like they always do in previous movies. Not every Woody Allen movie needs to be funny, but I did feel like this one lacked the humor of some of his better films. The thematic material is the standard choice: Is it better to suffer through a bad marriage, or is the grass greener on the other side? And the related idea: People are "happier...

Woody Allen would later do Midnight in Paris (2011), another fantasy film where Gil (Owen Wilson), in a way never explained, transports back to the Hemingway period of Paris that he finds most ideal.  In The Purple Rose of Cairo, we have a couple of "transports" happening. First, Tom Baxter (Jeff Daniels) leaves his film to join "the real world." Later, Cecilia (Mia Farrow) will join Tom in the film world. This is a little bit different from Midnight in Paris, because these transports are actually happening, whereas in Midnight, I guess it's at least arguable that the fantasy is only happening inside Gil's mind.  I like the exploration of concept here. Tom is a film character. He follows a script and "does" only what his character is supposed to do. The way it's laid out, every time the film plays, the characters come to life, but they cannot ever change or adapt. They do the same thing in the same way every time. As I was watching, I thought a...

Storytelling technique always stands out to me for some reason, and in Woody Allen films, especially, since he tends to change approaches from film to film.  In this one, the narrator is Joe (Woody Allen -- Seth Green as the child in the film). This is okay, except he ends up telling us things that he, as a child, wouldn't have any first-hand (and sometimes, probably not even second-hand) knowledge of. I know if you just accept the conceit of the storytelling device, it's not a big deal, but little stuff like that is hard for me to ignore. The fix? Make the narrator omniscient.  Other than the characters, the real star of the film is the music. Now, this is 1940s music, so big band stuff, mainly. It plays throughout the movie. It's the soundtrack of Joe's childhood. I know if the movie was set in the 1970s or 1980s, or even the 1990s, I would appreciate the music a lot more. As is, I hear it, but it doesn't register the same way for me as it does to Joe or someone w...

I started re-watching this movie, and for some reason I had it in my mind that it was called "The Other Woman," which is what Marion (Gena Rowlands) was. But she has just turned 50, and maybe that's why this movie is called "Another Woman," because 50 has hit her as no other decade age -- 30, 40 -- has. Or maybe Hope (Mia Farrow) is another woman? Hope is the vague presence. She's mainly the woman Marion overhears through the wall when Hope is visiting her psychiatrist. Why does Marion listen in on Hope's sessions, specifically, and not anyone else's? Is Hope supposed to be a younger version of Marion? Does Marion take an interest in her because she's invested in her choices? I'm not really sure. I'm not sure how much different the movie would be if somehow Hope's entire character was cut from the final edit. I'm sure Hope is important and adds something to the film, but it's difficult to say exactly just what. One complaint I...

 Woody Allen's 21st film "There's nothing here." -- Roger Ebert An ensemble cast is pretty cool, as long as each member has time (and something) to contribute to the story. I'm not sure that's the case with this film, Often times, I simply found myself thinking, "Oh, there's Madonna," or "Oh, there's Kathy Bates," or "Hm, I wonder when Shawn Wallace will finally make an appearance?" (Gene Siskel apparently had the same reaction.) Woody Allen tries new stuff in every film, and so it's not surprising that some films will dud. This one is not necessarily a dud, but it definitely has received mixed reviews. Many suggest that the film lacks coherence and has a flop ending. I belong to that school of reviewers. Others are excited by the use of black and white, as well as Allen's paying homage, well, to whatever he's paying homage to.  Unfortunately, this is a film that never clicks for me. Kleinman (Allen) is involve...