The Writer's Poke

Man. The team that did the 2nd Final Destination is back with another chance. They have a $40 million budget. How do they use it? They don't hire any high-end acting talent. They don't use it to write a script. And quite honestly, I can't say they use it for special effects, because I've seen equivalent CGI used in C-level films. Nick (Bobby Campo) is the one with the visions. Is there a reason he would need to have visions in CGI? Going into this film, I cheated and looked ahead. What I saw scared me. First, they dropped the number from the film. Second, for an already gimmicky franchise, they filmed this one, apparently, in 3D. Third, whereas in the first film, when they took the time to be clever with character names, in this one, they don't even bother to name most of the characters -- Cowboy, Racist, Racist's Wife, MILF, Girl on Top.  And, a personal note: No Bludworth? Seriously? As minor a character as Bludworth has been, you could find a way to include h...

The premise of these movies is always that people are fated to die, and yet, for some unexplained reason, someone always has the vision that they are about to die. These deaths are not just about the person with the premonition. They are about a group of people -- generally young people. First it was the airplane crash, then it was the multiple-car pile up, and for this movie, it's the roller coaster. All of these events are out of the ordinary, as are the ways that Death "recovers" the lives of the people fated to die. I guess that's all necessary for the purposes of movie magic, but I'd prefer deaths that are a little bit more boring and mundane. When the death scenes get too crazy, I lose all sense of verisimilitude. I want to watch a movie that feels like real life, or in this case, real death. Even something like this: Why not have the character survive death and then have the character go to the doctor and find out that they have incurable cancer? Now that w...

“What did you think?” I asked my daughter. "It was okay," she said. "About equal to the first one." I thought so, too, but if the second one is no better, no worse than the first one, why make it? Money, I know. Money. But definitely not for "art." There's nothing really artistic about these movies, and no one is pretending that they are going to be changing cinema forever by making the Final Destination movies.  Bludworth. What a wasted character. I've looked ahead, and I know he's the character recurring the most in the series. I still hold out hope that his character will eventually be developed and mean something. In the first film, it felt like they didn't know who he was or what to do with him. Same feeling in this sequel. He basically plays the same one scene role here. In fact, I'd say less effectively, as he comes off a little too hammy, not as creepy or as eerie as in the original.  Alex (Devon Sawa) does off camera -- never m...

I'm not sure what I expect when I watch movies like this. It doesn't seem right to say, "I expect to see people killed in graphic and cool ways," but I suppose that's part of it. If a woman steps one inch out into the road and gets slammed by a bus going 75 miles an hour, that's one thing. But if another character gets their head sawed off right below the eyeballs, that's something else... The movie is somewhat intriguing because the "Jason/Freddy" villain isn't human... it's just Death (not even Death personified... not even the Grim Reaper).  This is a movie I've seen before, but the first time, I wasn't paying attention to the "classic horror names" some of the characters had -- there's the obvious, like Billy Hickcock (Seann William Scott), but then there's also the "deeper cuts," like Valerie Lewton (Kristen Cloke), aka "Val Lewton."  Even the minor throwaway characters sometimes had cool...

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...