17 response about Cinecast Episode 143 – An Education on Amputated Toes »

1. 

   Forgot to mention that in “An Education,” Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky) makes a brief appearance. Her role is fairly dramatic and I almost didn’t recognize her.

   Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
2. 

   Also, it appears Ballast is streaming on Netflix:
   http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Ballast/70084145

   Comment by Andrew James — November 10, 2009
3. 

   I’d like to listen to your show more often but wading through this one reminded me why I rarely do. I wanted to hear your review of The Box but to do so I had to dig it out in between reviews of films I plan on seeing when they actually open. It wouldn’t be a big deal if there were good markers throughout the episode so I could easily skip to the part I wanted.

   You’re so eager to tell us about all the movies you saw early at whichever festival. But it’s pointless, I don’t think your audience is interested in hearing reviews for films they haven’t seen.

   Meanwhile I’d love to hear a review of Serious Man but it’s buried somewhere in your archive. Stranded somewhere in your WTWTA episode that I didn’t listen to because I was avoiding spoilers for Serious Man.

   Andrew, you stopped watching trailers because of spoilers but you’re listening to Kurt straight up review Mr. Fox? That doesn’t make sense.

   I think if you kept the early reviews but put them at the end that would be a happy medium.

   Comment by Rusty James — November 11, 2009
4. 

   The early reviews are usually very much just a glance over. This episode only has about 5 minutes of Fan Fox and all it is is Kurt basically saying he liked it and the performances and which Wes Anderson film he mostly compares it to. The rest of this show are all reviews of films that are in theaters now. An Education and The Box are both in at least somewhat wide release.

   I must’ve asked a million times on the podcasts if people like it when I put the time tracks into the show notes. Does it make it easier? Is it a nice reference. Nobody really said anything and since it’s somewhat of a pain in the ass, I stopped doing it and have heard no complaints until now. This is either because A) no one actually listens to the show or B) no one cares.

   I think our BOX review begins somewhere around the 15 – 20 minute mark.

   Comment by Andrew James — November 11, 2009
5. 

   I didn’t stop watching trailers. I just stopped watching all of the extensive footage and clips that keep popping up over the internet for movies I want to see. And yes, I usually try to avoid 4 minute trailers for films I already know I’m going to see as well.

   Avatar is a good example. I saw the trailer when it came out to give me an idea of what the film is like. Then a longer, more extensive one came out late last week I believe but I’m ignoring it because I already know the general feel of what the film is and I know I’m going to go see it. So why ruin the experience by watching more footage of a movie I’ll be seeing in a couple of weeks?

   And I trust Kurt to just generally touch on a film without going into spoilers or plot too deep over some marketing douche. Especially when we expressly say in the Cinecast that we’re only going to touch on it as we’re waiting until Andrew sees the movie so we can really dig into it.

   Comment by Andrew James — November 11, 2009
6. 

   @ The early reviews are usually very much just a glance over.

   well that doesn’t sound like much of a review. What’s the point of that?

   @ And I trust Kurt to just generally touch on a film without going into spoilers or plot too deep over some marketing douche.

   I certaintly don’t. What about the time you asked him and MG not to talk about Inglourious Basterds and the two of them just drowned out your objections by loudly talking over them?

   Why do I want to listen to Kurt touch movies gently. I like to watch movies and then hear indepth discussion about them. Everything else is noise.

   Comment by Rusty James — November 11, 2009
7. 

   @ I must’ve asked a million times on the podcasts if people like it when I put the time tracks into the show notes. Does it make it easier? Is it a nice reference. Nobody really said anything

   maybe no one said anything because they were worried you’d get all defensive.

   Comment by Rusty James — November 11, 2009
8. 

   Heh. This show was a bit of an exception. In general (nearly every 2009 episode since Andrew dropped the lead in music) we jump right to the main review. The time when time tracks would be nice if we were doing TWO main reviews (likse say WtWTA and A Serious Man in the same episode).

   My Fantastic Mr. Fox glance-over (I don’t even consider it close to a review) was more along the lines of ‘don’t be worried about the animation or the characters, and expect a more mature plot than most kids films’ things that have certainly came up in the comments sections in these parts in regards to that film. We’ll have the usual spoiler filled discussion after Gamble & Andrew have caught it as it rolls out across the country (possibly in MN this Friday even? It’s getting a US limited release on the 13th)

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 11, 2009
9. 

   Well, I’ll jump in and say that the TIFF recap episode was one of my favorites (favorites among not-that-many, because I’m only now starting to get into podcasts at all, even R3 ones), didn’t make me feel like I was being spoiled for films, and was immensely helpful in helping me weed through fall filmwatching schedules as well as my Netflix queue (I tend to add everything from festivals but that’s getting too hard on my queue to do).

   I like indepth discussions of films with spoilers (if I’ve seen them), but I also like the “hey, this is a film you should look out for when it comes to your town” approach to festival and other limited releases. They’re both valuable.

   Comment by Jandy Stone — November 11, 2009
10. 

    @Rusty, “You’re so eager to tell us about all the movies you saw early at whichever festival. But it’s pointless, I don’t think your audience is interested in hearing reviews for films they haven’t seen.”

    This is a very valid point. But we do like to talk about these films, there has to be a happy medium, and usually it is in the form of a separate show (like our TIFF shows) or yes, usually pushed into the middle/end of the podcast.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 11, 2009
11. 

    I like what FilmJunk are trying with the stand alone spoiler in-depth look at certain films. I skipped The Box talk in this episode because I haven’t seen it, and it was kind of a pain to figure out when the spoilers were finished… I would feel safe and then Kurt will get back into it. That said, I think my interest in the film has waned, but on the off chance I catch it on video, I will hold off on spoilers.

    Comment by rot — November 11, 2009
12. 

    @ the TIFF recap episode was one of my favorites

    yeah, but not saying they shouldn’t do a tiff episode. Although personally I didn’t listen to either there’s or film junks for the reasons I explained.

    What bugs me is The Box packaged between Mr. Fox and Ink (which is not in “somewhat wide release” contrary to AJ’s personal beliefs.) That makes the episode hard for me to listen too.
    I just looked it up and apparently ASM was discussed after WTWTA on the Rian Johnson episode. So maybe it’s not as big a deal as I’m making it out.

    I did used to listen to this show regularly and somewhere along the line I stopped. I’m not sure why. I feel like the stuff I want to hear is hidden amidst two hours of other stuff. Maybe it’s me who has changed.
    I know not everyone can be hyper OCD like Sean Dwyer but it makes their show much easier listening.

    Comment by Rusty James — November 11, 2009
13. 

    Also, while Rusty may not be seeing the TIFF films, there is a good deal of people that are, and are interested in hearing others give their take on them. I am not privy to the Cinecast listener stats, but I think a majority (5 or 6) of them would fit the TIFF-going crowd.

    I know The Movie Blog was all about not talking about films at festivals, but me personally, I like being exposed to new things, i.e. I learned about Let the Right One In from Kurt going to Fantasia and talking it up (I probably would never have watched it without that coaxing).

    but I agree the time stamp thingy would make it easier to jump spoilers.

    Comment by rot — November 11, 2009
14. 

    Rusty, INK was released on DVD yesterday.

    Comment by Andrew James — November 11, 2009
15. 

    I’m glad that people are starting to criticize the show. Gives us a chance to improve. I must admit, the construction of the podcast is pretty informal (hence the keep coming back to things) and whatnot. It is unlikely that we’ll ever be a structured (’segment’) show. We can’t even remember to dish out regular ‘homework assignments’ and haven’t been able to put a top 5 together for some time.

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 11, 2009
16. 

    Agreed Kurt. I also like the spoiler show we do now – pretty regularly. Every podcast out there is so scared to actually talk about movies. So I’m glad we’re able to hash it out a little bit deeper.

    I know that I usually don’t even bother with the podcasts I listen to until after I’ve seen the movie they’re discussing (with the exception of Kermode). I sat on the FilmSpotting episode of “An Education” for two weeks and then went back and listened to it after I saw the movie on Saturday.

    Comment by Andrew James — November 11, 2009
17. 

    First time I’ve listened to the podcast gents…Been meaning to catch up. Maybe it’s because I know you both and have talked movies, but I like the format and the extended discussions. I could see how someone who simply wanted to hear specific items might have thought the intro section went a bit long though. I don’t mind the drifting of topics myself.

    Rusty, The Box review starts right after the 26:00 minute mark.

    As for “The Box” – comments that follow are spoilers:

    - I don’t disagree with some of your points Kurt, but I gave “The Box” more leeway due to several key things. The Arthur C. Clarke quote opens up the ability to have things like those portals happen. You can say that’s a rationalization and a cheap out for Kelly, but it allows him to work on those grand ideas. He doesn’t quite tie them all in, but I was fine with the WTF moments and liked that he tried to work all his ideas in.
    - I also agree that the play scene ended abruptly, but one of the reasons they were there is that it was a performance of Sartre’s “No Exit”.
    - Diaz lost her tuition discount which was towards the medical procedure for her foot. So in her mind that was a huge loss since she wanted it “fixed”.
    - Quoting Kurt –> “They need the money to consider their shallow existence”. Exactly. I didn’t feel sympathy for them either (oh boo hoo, you can’t be an astronaut and you can only work on the Mars mission…), but I think that’s the point. As the movie states, we all have our own boxes (houses, cars, our own concerns about outward appearances, etc.) that cause us to be self-absorbed and forget about the rest of humanity. Diaz and Marsden’s characters are exactly those people. Of course, it doesn’t help you like them a great deal, so I do understand that as an issue.
    - I still think the 70s setting is strictly based around the need to use the Mars landing. Whether he should’ve held back on the set design is another question (though I didn’t mind it)…

    Comment by Bob Turnbull — November 12, 2009

Leave a comment