EPISODE 60: TWILIGHT BREAKING DAWN PART TWO

SHOW SYNOPSIS: They've done it! This week the boys tear into the last Twilight movie! They'll never have to review another of these again!


ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  A MOVIE?





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

REVIEW - BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD

Beasts of the Southern Wild is a peculiar animal; a beast, if you will. The film’s director, Benh Zeitlin, is an avant-garde filmmaker, if there ever was one. He reportedly never looked at the film’s dailies until after they were finished with the entire movie and even prefers his crew to learn “on the job”. His technique may be (read: is) quite unorthodox, but whatever works, right? With Beasts of the Southern Wild, Zeitlin’s approach manages to work more often than it doesn’t.

The film utilizes a heavy amount of documentary-style, reportage camera work and narration, which deftly relates the film to memories of Post-Hurricane Katrina Louisiana, even as the story’s origin had nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina or even Louisiana. The film is adapted from a play called Juicy and Delicious, which is about a young boy and his father in Southern Georgia. The play was adapted by Zeitlin and its writer Lucy Alibar; the two of them were old friends and decided to make their first film together.

I tell you all of this because I think it explains everything I feel about this film. Juicy and Delicious was written by a woman (Alibar) struggling to deal with the fact that her father was sick; thusly, it came from an incredibly authentic place (Note: I haven’t seen or read the play, but I’ve read Alibar’s words on why she wrote it.). Why, you may ask, was the film set in Louisiana, if the play was set in Georgia? Well, the answer is that  Zeitlin wanted to make a film set in Louisiana. That’s it; that’s how the film feels, to me: it feels like someone wanted to make a film set in Louisiana.

What I mean by that is the film’s relentless cinema verite pursuit for Americana undercuts the humanity of its story and its central father-child relationship. As much as I admire the director’s feel for the aesthetic and appreciate his desire to examine an almost fantastical environment, I can’t divorce that from feeling the film forcing on me that it was playing a game of hide-and-seek with reality.

There were two things this film reminded me of while I watched it: the film The Tree of Life, and the book Nine Lives: Mystery, Magic, Death, and Life in New Orleans. If you’ve seen The Tree of Life, then you’re already aware of the similarities: they’re both chimerical allegories on the difficulty of dealing with loss and a father who doesn’t know how to love. As for Nine Lives, it is also written with an air of reportage storytelling and, unlike Beasts of the Southern Wild, it actually is about Post-Katrina New Orleans (and Pre-Katrina New Orleans); that fact, for me, is likely why Nine Lives is awash with authenticity, set within a world of the compulsory believability that Beasts of a Southern Wild simply can’t muster.

However, the film’s look is exceptional and the two main characters are endearing. Which brings me to the absolute best thing about Beasts of the Southern Wild: Quvenzhane Wallis, who stars as Hushpuppy, the young girl charged with surviving the symbolic bull running through the china shop of her life. Wallis turns in an inimitable performance and undeniably steals the entire film; she rightfully earned the designation of “youngest ever to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress”. Through the film’s flaws, which I feel I’ve adequately enumerated, Wallis carries you to the finish line; when the cartoonish caricatures subside and the moral of the story approaches, the character of Hushpuppy--and Wallis’ portrayal thereof-- looks you dead in the face and forces you to care immensely for her journey toward the acceptance of life.

-John

EPISODE 43 - TOP TEN ACTION MOVIES

SHOW SYNOPSIS: After a rather lengthy hiatus the crew returns to talk about the Oscars as if they haven't already happened and give their lists for the Top Ten Action Movies of all Time. What will they agree on? What won't they? How many times will one of them bring up erections? How much does Steven really hate Will Smith's children? Find the answers to all these questions and more!


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"The Dark Knight rises above The Dark Knight Rises. Follow that." - John

"Are we on number seven? ” - Steven

"It's a big circle jerk, but as we've seen, I like those." - John

"It's the corniest gesture you could ever give, something your dad would do, but he makes that shit work."  - Steven



ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  Two Exorcism Flicks!





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 42 - A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD

SHOW SYNOPSIS: This week the team tears into A Good Day To Die Hard. It's the newest addition to the Die Hard series, it's got Bruce Willis, a mysterious woman in black leather, Chernobyl, and a bunch of explosions. But was it any good? John and Steve can't seem to come to terms on this one. Plus Steve says Stan Lee was little more than an "idea man," and there's some talk about Old Ladies Bangin' Boys 1-36. Quality stuff.


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"You're not on vacation! The only reason you went to Russia was to save your son, jackass!" - Steven

"They might as well have played Don't you Forget About Me. ” - John

"That's fine. He's on vacation." - John

"Old Ladies Bangin' Boys 1-38 has already been taken."  - Steven



ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  Top Ten Action Films of All Time





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 41 - MAXIMUM CONVICTION

SHOW SYNOPSIS: This week the crew reviews the "epic" team-up of Steven Segal and Steve Austin in Maximum Conviction and spend most of the episode laughing about how truly terrible it is. Plus John makes  Jumanji reference, Steven brings up the even creepier side of Segal, and The Flick-Off finally makes its return to the show!


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"No one has asked him to stretch his legs and I don't think he could. The way he walks, I think his knees are pretty much done for. " - Steven

"Every thing Segal says is somewhere between a whisper and exasperation. ” - John

"He fights like a blind man reads." - John

"Voltage Pictures, good luck with this."  - Steven


THE FLICK-OFF

Cars Vs. Talladega Nights
Jumanji Vs. Seven
Air Force One Vs. 8 Mile


ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  The Entire Die Hard Series





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

REVIEW - LES MISERABLES

Musicals are difficult. Musical films are even harder. Sung-through musical films are nearly impossible. It’s not only that they are fraught with exigency for those making them, but it’s almost as taxing to like them. In my opinion, this is due to the frustration of trying to relate with the characters of a musical. When you see a musical live, if it’s done well, you get to experience the actors’ performances through somewhat of an osmotic process; the audience acts as a singular organism reacting to what the actors are doing. This is because it’s only the first few rows who are getting to fully appreciate the production. However, because the actors have to perform for the entire crowd, the delivery of their lines and their movements are all necessarily exaggerated. To that end, what those front rows get to appreciate may end up being a performance distractingly similar to a cop directing traffic; there‘s a reason theatrics and histrionics are synonymous. My point? Even the best live musical has a lot of obstacles to overcome before its characters can be relatable for its audience.

With musical films, everyone is in the front row. What that means is: every member of the audience can see and hear exactly what is going on; the actors don’t have to exaggerate anything, so you can get a more nuanced performance which can hopefully help you connect with the actors. The problem? Almost every musical film has chosen to have its cast pre-record their performances and then lip-sync to them on set. The reason they do this is to make sure every line is delivered clearly and to make sure every song hits the correct notes, etc. On the surface, that kind of makes sense, but the result is that you lose so much of the relatability for the audience. You can almost always tell the actors are singing to playback, and the movie basically turns into a concert (or worse, it ends up feeling like a bad music video).  My point? It is incredibly hard to make and/or like a good musical film.

This is why Les Miserables had been in “development hell” for over 20 years. Not only is it a musical film, but it’s also a period piece with extravagant set designs; if it flopped, it would lose a lot of money. That’s where Tom Hooper came in. Fresh off his success with The King’s Speech, Hooper lept at the idea of making Les Miserables. The first thing he did? Decide that everyone would be singing live on-set (well, I think the first thing he did was cast Hugh Jackman, but definitely the second thing…). The decision to have the actors sing live is daunting, of course, which is why they don’t usually do it; it is the sole reason why Les Miserables is as good as it is, though, because it worked. It freed the actors to actually act and adapt their performance to the set and to the other cast members’ performances; it let the actors become relatable. You get the intimacy of a live performance, with the authenticity of a film. Because of that decision, every emotion in Les Miserables positively jumps from the screen.

Obviously, if you don’t know the story of Les Miserables, it’s about Jean Valjean; he’s a paroled prisoner who believes his life to be unchangeable, until he’s the recipient of an act of kindness from a Bishop. From there, he changes his identity and leads a life of kindness. Javert, a prison guard (and later policeman), pursues Valjean for the entirety of their lives. I don’t want to be any more detailed, even though it’s a 150-year-old story.

Hugh Jackman plays Valjean, and he brings an earnestness to the role, and it’s endearing; you really feel that he’s a beaten man who grows to be a great man, partly due to Jackman’s natural gravitas. Russell Crowe is Javert, and much as been said about his singing in the film. I’ll just say that I didn’t think his singing was bad; it was okay, and being an okay singer surrounded by this cast of fantastic singers is going to make him seem worse than he is. What I loved about him in the role, however, is that Russell Crowe is a fantastic actor, and that’s the Russell Crowe that showed up behind the voice and, to my mind, made up for the singing. Amanda Seyfried is excellent as Cosette, a girl Valjean takes in after her mother dies. Seyfried was in Mamma Mia!, which was an example of a musical film that ended up looking like a bad music video; she was the only one in that movie who seemed to a) want to do well and b) could sing. (also, in that movie, you see Pierce Brosnan’s acting performance did not make up for his bad singing, and I like Pierce Brosnan; all the “stars” in that movie seemed to be in it just for the vacation). Eddie Redmayne was perfectly cast; not only is he a great singer, but he played Marius in a way that made him feel like a bizarro version of Jean Valjean, if Valjean had been born into a wealthy family. Samantha Barks is Eponine, and she turns in the second-best song performance of the film, with “On My Own”.

Second-best? Which one is the best? Well, first, all of the songs are great. Of course, the entire film is a song, so I can’t really go into each one, but I’ll say I loved “On My Own”; not only Barks’ performance of that song, but the way Hooper filmed that scene was mesmerizing. And “Suddenly”, which is the new song written for this film, complements the material very well; I don’t consider the Academy Award nomination that song got to be one of pageantry. I think the song is good enough that it earned the nomination.

That brings me to the absolute best performance in a film that I’ve seen in a while, maybe since Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight: Anne Hathaway as Fantine. Maybe you’ve read Victor Hugo’s original Les Miserables novel, or maybe you’ve seen the musical performed before, or maybe you’ve seen and read every incarnation of Fantine in the history of time; you don’t know Fantine until you experience Anne Hathaway’s Fantine. I can’t even really describe how good it is, and it is wholly embodied in her performance of “I Dreamed a Dream”. I’ve heard Patti Lupone sing “I Dreamed a Dream”; I’ve listened, repeatedly, to Lea Salonga’s fantastic version of “I Dreamed a Dream”; like everyone else, I was moved when Susan Boyle belted out “I Dreamed a Dream”; but they all sound like Patti Lupone singing “I Dreamed a Dream” or Lea Salonga singing “I Dreamed a Dream”, etc. Anne Hathaway doesn’t sound like Anne Hathaway singing “I Dreamed a Dream”; she sounds like Fantine singing about her life, and it’s simultaneously heartbreaking and inspiring. I’ve heard Hathaway say something like, “To sing the pretty version felt selfish”, and I love that; it is selfish. I don’t blame anyone who has performed that song before because I feel like Hathaway was only able to make that decision because Tom Hooper wanted the songs sung live, and that resulted in Hathaway singing “I Dreamed a Dream”, I think, 20 times--live… in succession of one another. You can listen to that song and know everything that it is to be Fantine, and you hear the moment (“He took my childhood in his stride”) when Fantine’s entire life ends. You can survive for years on the sustenance provided by the quality of that scene.

As a person who doesn’t readily feel anything, I harbor no inhibition toward admitting when a film moves me, and the entirety of Les Miserables spent every bit of its two hours and forty minutes hammering on me like a raw nerve. It is an exemplary film, and it more than earns the term “movie”.

-JOHN

REVIEW - DJANGO UNCHAINED

Quentin Tarantino loves movies. Everyone knows this but, lest anyone ever forget, he intermittently makes one to remind us just how big of a cinephile he is. Django Unchained is no different. From the opening shot of slaves being led across a desert, the film oozes with influence only gained from a lifetime of poring over film after film and absorbing anything good they have to offer. As a result of Tarantino’s willingness to pay homage to the history of cinema, each of his film’s ultimately becomes a mishmash of virtually every genre you can imagine. Again, Django Unchained is no exception, but two genres undeniably shine through: ‘70s Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Western. Tarantino has somewhat visited both of these genres before.

Jackie Brown was Tarantino’s first foray into full-on blaxploitation film… almost. Jackie Brown had the names: Pam Grier and Sid Haig, both iconic faces of the blaxploitation genre; and it had the soundtrack, utilizing soul/R&B music from the like of Minnie Riperton and Bill Withers, as well as borrowing songs from ‘70s blaxploitation films, like Coffy and Foxy Brown (which both also starred Pam Grier). Jackie Brown had the look of a blaxploitation film, but it wasn’t really well-defined within the genre; the biggest reason being: it’s adapted from Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch, which is wholly and unequivocally not within the genre. Jackie Brown is a great movie, but I get the feeling Tarantino always wanted to revisit the blaxploitation genre and make a legitimate blaxploitation film.

Inglourious Basterds is 100% a Spaghetti Western… almost. With its avenger protagonists who largely operate outside of two opposing forces for an ulterior motive, heroes who prove to be nearly “superhuman” with their skills (and their reputation), and several characters who are spurned to revenge by tragedy. Beyond that, the film’s soundtrack makes use of Spaghetti Western elements, and the film’s opening scene is almost identical to the opening scene from Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven. Its theatrical poster even looks reminiscent of the poster for A Fistful of Dollars. What keeps Inglourious Basterds from being firmly placed within the Spaghetti Western genre is its war setting; it’s a war film, first and foremost. Inglourious Basterds is yet another great film, but not really a Spaghetti Western.

Django Unchained feels like the culmination of, perhaps, a little frustration on just how close to those genres Tarantino got, without really utilizing them to their fullest potential; Django Unchained is, without question, Spaghetti Western Blaxploitation, a genre blend that would be a complete mess in the hands of anyone other than Quentin Tarantino.

The Spaghetti Western half of the film is delivered by Dr. King Schulz, a lone, drifting bounty hunter; an outsider (a German in the United States), who exploits two opposing enemies in order to make money. He’s not the laconic and rugged killer that is Eastwood’s “Man with No Name”, but he embodies nearly everything else you expect from the hero of a Spaghetti Western, up to and including his nearly unbelievable proficiency with guns. He’s, of course, played by the actor with an almost addictive presence, Christoph Waltz; no matter what else is happening on screen, your eye is drawn to Waltz, and it matters only what he’s doing. Waltz also played Hans Landa, in Inglourious Basterds; I’m convinced Tarantino made Dr. King Schulz a German just to be like, “I obviously know that not all Germans are bad.” Beyond Waltz’s character, the film also makes use of Western fixtures like wide-angle lens long shots, horizon-line shifting, and the quick zoom. Also, “Dr. King”, you see what Tarantino did there?

The Blaxploitation half of the film is delivered by Django, a slave. That’s really all you need to know about that character to see why he would fit perfectly in the blaxploitation protagonist role, but there’s more: he has been separated from his wife by a racist white guy (the incomparable Leonardo DiCaprio). So, he’s obviously dealing with racism and revenge. Jamie Foxx plays Django really well; Foxx is adept at playing characters who are vulnerable on the surface but brazen on the inside. The first example of this that I think of, mainly because I think it’s a great movie, is Collateral. In that, Foxx plays a weak and frightened cab driver who slowly is forced to show who he really is. The best scene of this is when Jamie Foxx’s character is pretending to be Tom Cruise’s character; that is a fantastic scene, and it illustrates exactly what I mean about Jamie Foxx and why I liked him as Django.

Outside of these things, to erase all doubt that this is a Spaghetti Western Blaxploitation film, Tarantino made up the soundtrack from songs taken from Spaghetti Westerns, like: Django, They Call Me Trinity, Day of Anger, and The Hellbenders; and he mixed them with songs from black musicians, like: 2Pac, RZA, Anthony Hamilton, John Legend, and James Brown.

In summary, Quentin Tarantino is amazing.

-John

EPISODE 37 - THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS

SHOW SYNOPSIS: In this special holiday episode the crew digs into the classic stop-motion, Tim Burton produced holiday film, The Nightmare Before Christmas. Everything from their favorite Jack Skellington song to Tim Butron's days as a Disney animator are discussed. Also there's some porn talk. And a few mentions of Hulk Hogan. And the Hulk Hogan sex tape. Happy holidays, loyal listeners!

RATINGS:

STEVEN SAYS, SEE IT
JOHN SAYS, SEE IT


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"This is exactly like our first podcast, in reverse." - Steven

"When you look at Kermit The Frog's legs you're like, what are they?” - John

"What else do you associate with St. Patrick's Day other than a bunch of fucking drunks?" - Steven

"I'll get my Festivus pole."  - John


THE FLICK-OFF:

Planes, Trains and Automobiles Vs. Christmas With the Kranks
Inglorious Basterds Vs. Gremlins
Casablanca Vs. Pulp Fiction
30 Days of Night Vs. L.A. Confidential


ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  The Nightmare Before Christmas





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 36: PROMETHEUS

SHOW SYNOPSIS: This week the crew tries to make some sense of Ridley Scott's return to the franchise that gave him a career, Prometheus. Does it live up to expectations? Is it even any good? Why were the giant blue men walking around in diapers? During a particulary long edition of the Flick-Off they discuss the Coen Brothers, Kevin Smith, Lara Croft, and Steven admits to bawling like a little girl at the end of The Professional. Good stuff.

RATINGS:

STEVEN SAYS, SEE IT (?)
JOHN SAYS, SKIP IT


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"Guy Pearce is unrecognizable as old man testicle head.“ - Steven

"Then why don't you put your helmet back on?” - John

"I like the surgery pod. It's nice to see that in the future surgery is basically the claw game.“ - John

"weep, sob, cry...she was his only friend!”  - Steven


THE FLICK-OFF:

Ransom Vs. No Country For Old Men
The Nightmare Before Christmas Vs. Fargo
Blade Runner Vs. The Waterboy
Predator Vs. The Professional
Lethal Weapon Vs. Watchmen
Chasing Amy Vs. Young Frankenstein
Primal Fear Vs. Scarface
Aliens Vs. Saw
Gangs of New York Vs. Platoon
Laura Croft: Tomb Raider Vs. Happy Gilmore


ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  The Nightmare Before Christmas





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 35 - TWILIGHT: BREAKING DAWN PART ONE

SHOW SYNOPSIS: Twivember officially comes to a close! This week the boys are once again joined by resident Twilight expert, Nina Perez, as they attempt to find some semblance of sense in the utter nonsense that is New Moon Part One. Everything from weddings, to vampire sex, and "imprinting" on toddlers is discussed. Tom Cruise also makes an appearance, and he's wearing his placenta bib.


RATINGS:

STEVEN SAYS, SKIP IT
JOHN SAYS, SKIP IT
NINA SAYS, SEE IT


QUOTABLE QUOTES:

"If these people don't have to be there, why do I?“ - John

"She had a vampire penis in her mouth. She's past the point of worrying about chicken.” - Steven

"I actually said to myself, what the fuck am I doing here?“ - Nina

"Jacob wants to get all up in dem diapers.”  - Steven


ON THE NEXT EPISODE:  Prometheus





HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 34 - TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 31 - WARLOCK

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

REVIEW - ARGO

“Based on a true story” can mean many different things. When you use “based on a true story”, there’s a reason: you’re not being 100% accurate. Argo is not a 100% accurate portrayal of the exfiltration of six American diplomats from Tehran, Iran. There are dramatic liberties taken, and the events are seen from a perspective that places more import on the CIA (particularly Ben Affleck’s character Tony Mendez). That’s not to say the film is inaccurate, because it absolutely is not inaccurate. These events happened, and they are the kind of events that make you want to work for the CIA. Honestly, I came out of this movie ready to sign up (as if they would take me). All I’m saying, though, is that there is a reason these events are widely referred to as the “Canadian Caper”; Canada had a hell of a lot to do with what went down, and their role is fairly minimized in Argo; that’s mainly for dramatic reasons, and I think it helps the movie. (The film does include the actual source of the “Argo” name for the fake film, although it has been repurposed into a running joke throughout the movie.)

On November 4, 1979, militants stormed and took over the American embassy in Tehran, Iran. If you know anything about American history, you should at least be aware of “The Iran Hostage Crisis”; 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. It was kind of a big deal. Anyway, on November 4, 1979, when those militants stormed the embassy, there were six Americans who were able to escape into the streets of Tehran. Those six Americans eventually found themselves in the home of Ken Taylor, the Canadian ambassador to Iran. What’s not in the film is that a Canadian immigration officer named John Sheardown was instrumental in introducing the six American diplomats to Ken Taylor. Anyway, Argo starts with this and shows what went into the exfiltration of these six Americans, including the creation of the fake “Argo” film.

There is so much to like about this movie. It begins with the amazing, mostly-true adaptation of the Canadian Caper, but it doesn’t even come close to stopping with that. Obviously, this movie is a period piece set in 1979-1980, and it feels every bit like it. When you watch this movie, you will feel like you’ve been transported thirty years into the past (or more, depending when you watch it). Do you want to know what the CIA was like in 1979? It’s here! For example: there’s almost no security to go through when you come in the building. Want to know what Hollywood was like in 1979? Sure thing! The famous “Hollywood” sign is shown in its infamously deteriorated state. Granted, by 1979, the previous “Hollywoodland” sign had already been through its worst state and been restored in 1978, but it’s still a snapshot of the state of Hollywood in the 1970s. Want to smoke on an airplane? Go ahead! It’s 1979! Want to see what Iran looked like in 1979? Well, you could probably just go there, now, to see that; that’s kind of how things go in Iran; Still, though, the turmoil caused by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 is right there on the screen. Many of the things shown to have happened in Iran are things taken from actual footage of what did happen in Iran. To me, Argo perfectly captures the world within which it takes place.

Say what you will about Ben Affleck: he’s acted in some not-so-great movies, and he’s acted in some very good movies; which ones are which is up for a debate that I’m not interested in having here. What no sane person will argue, though, is that Affleck is a hell of a director. You can’t say he isn’t. If you say he isn’t, you’re wrong, and you lose all credibility. Gone Baby Gone and The Town are excellent films, and you can go right ahead and add Argo beside them. What Argo does, though, is demonstrate that Affleck isn’t just a “Boston movie” director. He doesn‘t only direct that movie; like with The Town, Affleck also stars in Argo as Tony Mendez, the film’s lead character and the guy who comes up with the “best bad idea we have” to fake a movie to rescue the diplomats. Affleck’s Mendez is separated from his wife, so it’s safe to assume he’s been focusing more on his work life than his home life. He also has a son, and Affleck plays the role of an estranged father so well here; when he speaks to his son on the phone, it’s played with such an uncomfortable melancholy. He doesn’t want to do this; it’s not because he doesn’t want to speak to his son but because he wants to be with his son when speaking to him. The role is really molded to fit Affleck, and I guess that’s one of the perks of directing yourself.

The supporting cast includes Bryan Cranston, Mendez’s supervisor. He and Affleck have a great, comedic rapport, but the character is absolutely solidified, in a key scene that is decidedly not comedic. John Goodman plays John Chambers, a Hollywood make-up artist who Mendez goes to for help faking the movie. Goodman is always great. Always. But he’s fantastic here, with the bulk of his scenes coming alongside Alan Arkin, who plays a Hollywood producer. Their scenes are hilarious. Lastly, I’ll mention Victor Garber, who plays the infinitely important role of Ken Taylor. Garber captures the dignity of the role really well. Ken Taylor committed himself to helping these six American diplomats, and he knew exactly what that could mean if the wrong people found out.

Honestly, everything about this movie is good. Like I said, I came out of the theater ready to join the CIA; I also came out liking this movie. Ever since seeing it, the more I think about it, it’s only gotten better in my mind. Seriously, I have zero complaints about Argo. If you happen to disagree, that’s fine. I only have one suggestion: Ar… Go fuck yourself!

-John

EPISODE 24 - BARBARELLA

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 22 - THE CROW

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 20 - SILENT RAGE

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

EPISODE 19 - THE MAJESTIC

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE

REVIEW - THE HUNGER GAMES

I’m prefacing this review with the fact that I have not read any of these books, and have a limited idea of what they are about. With that said, it shouldn’t matter, but it felt like it did matter, just a few times in the movie; nothing too big, though.

The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future where war has left the world in tatters, what’s left of society is segregated into 12 “districts”, and the “hunger games” itself is a competition where two kids from each district are forced to compete to the death in a confined jungle “arena”.

That’s the plot of this movie, and I like it; it’s essentially a parabolic tale of society’s affinity for voyeurism and sadistic competition. I haven’t seen the movie people claim this rips off (Battle Royale), but it seems similar to other movies like The Running Man and Death Race, where mortality is exploited for reality television. On top of that, though, The Hunger Games has layered on a very clear--and literal--representation of class warfare, with its caste system of “districts“ where one class of affluent people is dependant upon and oppressive of the lower class. All of that is great, and the film actually presents that world very well, so it feels similar to something like Children of Men (without the subtlety), and I was even reminded of the city of Ba Sing Se on Avatar: The Last Airbender; that’s just me. Those are great comparisons, in my opinion, and I mean them to be complimentary.

For some reason Gary Ross is not directing the sequel, and I don’t know why. There is no problem with the direction of this movie. The shaky cam adds to the idea that we’re seeing reality unfold, so I don’t get why everyone was so unsatisfied with the job he did. Everything that he was responsible for worked here. The pacing is good. The staging works, even though parts of the “futuristic” settings and wardrobe feel like a bad ‘80s music video, and there are some moments where the action looks like kids playing in the park. Other than those small things, the movie is directed very well.

Jennifer Lawrence is great. Her performance as Katniss Everdeen made me believe that she’s not some great hunter or warrior, but she has the strength of character to persevere. She’s reluctant to play their “games”, both those of the competition and the pomp and circumstance which surround them. Everything about her seems authentic, except for anything that has anything to do with Peeta.

Therein lies the singular problem I have with The Hunger Games, and it’s what makes me fearful for the future films in this series. Why the fuck does Peeta even exist? The only purpose that character serves is to show how great Gale is, by comparison. Everything about Peeta says the character we’ve been shown that Katniss is should have nothing to do with this Peeta jerk. He has absolutely no reluctance toward playing the politics of these games. He willfully joins the other tributes to hunt Katniss. He’s a creep, and don’t even get me started on the fact that he can camouflage himself entirely, using only what exactly? Mud and berries? Oh, but he decorated cakes! Forgive me. Anyway, his presence and that entire love story completely ruined the end of this movie, for me, because it made absolutely no sense. What really makes me hate Katniss and Peeta together is that it’s a parallel to something the movie is actually meant to deride. Within the movie, the show’s producers (or whatever they should be called) decide to exploit the “relationship” between Katniss and Peeta for *spoilery reasons that I‘m not going into*. The show’s producers create an “angle” with this relationship, and that’s precisely what the movie is doing with the relationship. The relationship is unnecessary, and we know Katniss should not have anything to do with Peeta, but the movie makes it happen, anyway, just so it has another plot device.

Like I said, I haven’t read the books, but I would guess the sequel sees the Katniss/Peeta storyline turn into a Katniss/Peeta/Gale triangle where, for some reason, Katniss actually can’t choose between the two of them. If so, I do not look forward to seeing Twilight redux, where Katniss is turned into some imbecilic Bella Swan with a bow and arrow.

Whether or not the sequel will be any good, The Hunger Games does happen to be roughly 95% of a really good movie… if only Peeta was, I don’t know, killed to death. Definitely recommend checking it out.

-JOHN

For a second opinion check out Steven's HUNGER GAMES REVIEW

REVIEW - BEL-AMI

Guy de Maupassant’s novel Bel Ami is a taut, economic commentary on the seduction of the social ladder and what we’ll do to climb it. Specifically, it captures the debauchery and inhibition of 19th century Paris and the laissez faire nature of its citizens. I suppose that gives good reason to why it has been adapted to the stage and screen no less than eight times. The 2012 film adaptation, starring Robert Pattinson, doesn’t quite capture all of that… or almost any of it…

Robert Pattinson plays Georges Duroy, a journalist looking to make it big and pull himself up from the lower class; he doesn’t care what he has to do to accomplish this. He seduces women and… well, he mainly seduces women, and that‘s basically the movie. Pattinson is an interesting dilemma. On one hand, he seems to be a decent actor, sometimes. On the other hand, Twilight exists. Throughout the bulk of Bel Ami, he’s kind of just there, and this isn’t The Libertine where Johnny Depp can just be “there” and have the movie be interesting. Robert Pattinson isn’t Johnny Depp--Hell, he isn’t even Heath Ledger in Casanova. Really, the most comparable person is Eric Bana in The Other Boleyn Girl; the problem is, The Other Boleyn Girl wasn’t really about Henry VIII, so the film could afford to have Bana’s performance be one of mere presence. Bel Ami is 100% about Georges Duroy, so when Pattinson delivers a line flatly, reacts dully, or even just looks bored, the film suffers greatly. With that said, there are a handful of moments where he does breathe some life into the character, and frankly, that is the only life the movie has.

Yes, the film also features Christina Ricci, Uma Thurman, and Kristin Scott Thomas, and I very much enjoyed seeing Christina Ricci naked, again; but that’s ostensibly all they are: sex objects. Hey, I’m fine with the idea of Christina Ricci being a sex object, but that’s not what you want from a movie--unless it’s porn; in that case, stay out of Fred Willard’s splatter zone.

Beneath the dullness and banality, there is an intriguing subtext, and it does feel like they at least tried to honor Maupassant’s novel. Every single person in this film is simultaneously married, cheating, and angry about it all, which does highlight the hypocrisy of jealousy within infidelity. It’s just laid on about eight inches too thick. I would estimate at least a dozen times in this movie where Christina Ricci gets upset with Robert Pattinson about seeing other women… yet she’s married. That was an interesting commentary on the absurdity of seduction, lust, and amour, but the movie is a one-trick pony; that’s all it has, and instead of doing its one trick really well once, it does it badly several times. If you want to see that plot device as a reflection of Duroy’s attempts to climb the social ladder, you can, but the movie doesn’t do enough to present that. You’re basically just given a story of him fucking a series of women and symbolically fucking himself into amorality, which is difficult, given the social mores of 19th century Paris.

It’s really a shallow movie that could have easily been deeper, if they had only focused more on the fact that Duroy was climbing the ladder and less on how nobody could keep it in their pants, yet everyone was really upset about it. Instead, it’s basically just the whole Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson shit--on film. If you want to see that, or if you would like to see Robert Pattinson’s disinterested, bare ass unceremoniously thrusting in the general direction of women, then I guess you should check this out. Otherwise, there’s really no reason. Watch The Libertine, or Casanova, or Marie Antoinette, or find one of the other adaptation’s of this novel and watch that; it’ll probably be better. If you’re just interested in seeing Christina Ricci naked, watch Black Snake Moan, which also happens to actually be a great movie.

-John

EPISODE SEVENTEEN - VERTIGO

HAVING TROUBLE LISTENING? Try the direct link HERE