Cinecast Episode 151 – Feeding Time

Episode 151:

SPOILERS ALERT!
Despite the announcement at the beginning of the show about a top ten list, alas it was abandoned at the last minute. Instead you get a “spirited” talk about why vampires go crazy for blood and some nice DVD choices this week. Thanks to Matt for dropping in again.
Enjoy!

Click the Audio Icon below to listen in:


show content


show content

To download the show directly, paste the following URL into your favorite downloader:
http://www.rowthree.com/audio/cinecast_10/episode_151.mp3

TIME LISTINGS:
Intros/Opening: :00
Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (SPOILERS!): 2:47
Daybreakers (SPOILERS!): 30:26
DVD picks: 1:17:40
Closing: 1:26:36

MAIN REVIEWS:
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (Kurt’s review)
Daybreakers (IMDb)

DVD PICKS:
Andrew:
The Hurt Locker (Marina’s review)

Kurt:
In the Loop (Kurt’s review)

Matt:
Moon (Andrew’s review)

BLU RAY:
Andrew:
Moon (Andrew’s review)

Kurt:
8 1/2 and Billy Jack

OTHER DVDs:

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Shannon the Movie Mo
Guest

Haven't listened to this year (still catching up with the 2009 in Review one) but I *love* the picture – that is freaking sweet. Absolutely stellar.

Goon
Guest

picked up a copy of the Hurt Locker sight unseen, i guess i just trust that degree of praise this time.

glad to see this posted, needed a podcast to get me through a shitload of last second projects today

Goon
Guest

uh oh

Goon
Guest

I'm throwing in with the Blade II crowd. it's very fun.

Goon
Guest

"Blade II = 52 on Metacritic, 58 on Rot Tom, 6.5 on IMDb. = shit."

you use this appeal to popularity yet during the same discussion you talk about how awesome Blindness is.

Blindness = 45 on Metacritic, 41 on Rot Tom, 6.7 on IMDB

Rusty James
Guest

plus yer always saying you like movie in the 50% range on RT.

Goon
Guest

So I watched Hurt Locker finally and was very satisfied, a 4.5/5

and yet I dont feel all that passionate about it, I mean I wouldnt get into an intense argument defending it, its just one of those movies I enjoy and then move on from. There are movies I'd give a 3/5 score to that I'd argue harder in favor of. But that may just be something I have with war movies? I dont know. All I know is I saw An Education yesterday, thought it was a 4/5 and I feel more passionately about it despite having more complaints.

I think more than movie moments what makes the movie is it's general feeling, the tension, the little things Bigelow does that set the scene, and the things she chooses not to include (thankfully no stupid mission briefing scenes). The '20 days to go' device wasn't something I cared about, I mean the ending with the refresh of his number, its just unnecessary to me and falls as flat as the end of (500) Days of Summer when SPOILER the new girls name is Autumn. I thought the movie was better than that.

Renner is tremendous and shows a lot of charisma, though I think a lot of the award hype may be boosted by him being new to most viewers. I'm not sure there's an award nomination without his final scene with the kid either.

I wasnt distracted by the couple stars they peppered in and out, but the second Evangeline Lilly pops up near the end with a kid immediately the jokes came out about the final scene fading to black with the LOST logo and noise popping up.

That scene in the grocery store is also very funny too, because there's a Marc Maron comedy bit about American patriotism all boiling down to having a bigger and better cereal isle, with the punchline being that America's motto is "All you can eat" – its like when filming that scene they had this in mind, that being home is all about the cereal isle.

Goon
Guest

Yes, I'd say the sum of its parts are greater than its whole. The individual scenes pack a punch, to the point the gf who hates war movies came in the room and was getting excited as IUD's were going off, getting tense expecting something to happen at any moment.

Watching this felt a bit like when you're watching a very smart comedy that makes you smile the whole time but doesn't make you laugh – watching it knowing you're watching something very clever and tight that works on multiple levels and well constructed, but at the same time doesn't give the gratifying chuckle of a well timed out of nowhere shock joke or pratfall. I guess its whatever the action equivolent is.

I mean I watched it very much knowing I was watching a movie, appreciating its construction, the brain doesnt shut off, I was very aware of Bigelow's craftsmanship, in a way where I could still be taken in by the scene, but my brain wasn't turned off the way you are with say, The Rock, or even some of Bigelow's own other movies.

Some people would watch it the way I did and being more aware of the craftsmanship would make think she's not doing her job properly, that her hand should be invisible. Funny enough though An Education had this going on for me too, being very aware of Mulligan's performance, thinking to myself about how great she's going, rather than just soaking it in and realizing how good it was after the fact.

Me
Guest

What im outraged wheres Big Fan on your DVD picks!

Kurt
Guest

Admittedly the whole Vampire (or Zombie) as a metaphor is approaching (or has past) the breaking point.

As Near Dark is the benchmark vamp film for comparing Vampire to AIDS ridden junkies, so I do see where you are coming from on this, Andrew.

Shannon the Movie Mo
Guest

re: Doctor Parnassus, I'm with Andrew here – I do think that Parnassus bet his daughters life Rumpelstiltskin is fair comparison but she still did it.

12 Monkey is definitely the clearest I've seen of Gilliams films. After one watch, you get it – it's interesting and it gives you a lot to think about it, but you get it.

Omg… the Blade 2 discussion .. .again! I hated it.. /snore. Daybreakers was so much more enjoyable. Props to Kurt from mentioning Claudia Karvan who played Audrey – she got virtually no love and did a good job in the film. Everywhere, including the posters, only note Isabel Lucas as an actress in it and she was barely in it. It's loony!

rot
Guest

Got to side with Andrew on Daybreakers even though I could care less about the film, the nitpicking of Kurt and Matt is insane. Vampires snarling at blood is lame, what about Let the Right One In? Direct sunlight vs. indirect sunlight, we are talking fiction here, made up rules, the rules in this is clearly direct sunlight, or do you have a scientific basis to discuss the legitimacy of vampire lore? Why not nitpick over if a Vampire eats a recipe that has onions, and yet onions are part of the vegetable family as garlic and they don't like garlic… there is a time and a place for nitpicking logic, and Daybreakers ain't it.

as for how people behave in a food shortage, let's look at what happens in Haiti? Sounds like things are getting violent there.

rot
Guest

Also Matt's narrow approach to critiquing narrative structure drives me nuts, while I am not that big of a fan of Daybreakers, I do not see it as a mark against it that the whole while the cure was under their noses… the point is they were behaving in a way not knowing, so it doesn't matter what the integrity of the 'story' is in retrospect, its a story that unfolds and makes sense within it.

rot
Guest

my favorite line by Matt: "In Daybreakers when they wait in line they turn into fucking monsters"

duh. they are vampires.

rot
Guest

although if we just not think about the species difference in the argument, and think of how people cope in emergency situations I would still agree with Andrew that it would not be civilized, particularly if you are talking about starvation.

This far in of a culture of self-interest we've lost the kind of taken for granted ethical respect your neighbor mentality that we identify with the fifties, we have become weaker in every respect, and if you take our toys away from us, take the food away from us, I have no doubt in my mind that a large part of society will become violent.

rot
Guest
Kurt Halfyard
Admin

That nitpick got out of hand from my original 'pet-peeve' in vampire movies in general, the 'we-are-so-civilized-and-cultured' the gothic-romanticism turning to violence on a dime always seems forced in movies (usually acceuntuated by bad CGI and stretching jawlines in more recent time)….but really the main issue with Daybreakers is its sloppy allegory and ill-formed story married to a very dirge-y tone (with exception of Willem Dafoe who is awesome).

That being said I was entertained, if not overwhelmed by this picture, much liked the brothers' last movie, Undead. But Parnassus is the better film in the pair, here.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Direct sunlight vs. indirect sunlight, we are talking fiction here, made up rules, the rules in this is clearly direct sunlight, or do you have a scientific basis to discuss the legitimacy of vampire lore?

If it is clearly direct sunlight, then how does the mirror harm him? I'm guessing you really don't know what direct/indirect light really is, so I'll tell you.

Indirect light is light reflected at an angle greater than 90 degrees. The mirror used was at an angle of greater than 90 degrees (rough estimate would be ~135), thus it was using indirect light. This means indirect light can harm them, which means the shade would have harmed him (though shade has 4 levels of varying direct light measured by time and intensity all 4 levels of shade involve indirect light). Its a blatant contradiction and one that is painfully obvious.

That I have to argue, explain and defend rudimentary physics is what gets me upset, not the logic of the film. At least Andrew has the excuse of watching Fox News which abhors science, what's your excuse rot?

And if I wanted to nitpick, I could argue about how the intensity of the light was greater off of the reflection than it was from its direct source, which is a mathematical impossibility. But then I'd just be splitting hairs at that point.

See, I can ramble on about shit no one cares about too, rot. Of course, you can quantify and prove the things I am passionate about, unlike the elusive "mood" of A Single Man. Man, does that movie ever suck more than Taken.

rot
Guest

I equate this film logic with Gremlins who multiply when they touch water yet somehow can cross a snow strewn city no problem. Its called suspension of disbelief. If that stuff takes you out of the film it says more about you than the film.

rot
Guest

My problem with Daybreakers is that it has clearly thought out the concept, went to great expense to envision such a world, but by the second half of the film it reverts to your typical plot-driven genre film and loses all that nuance.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

On gremlins, Joe Dante has the good sense to not take that at all seriously (particularly in the sequel, where he smacks down the rules from the first one…) But it's not the rules that bother me, it is that the flimmakers cannot seem to balance hamfisted allegory and genre film and 'saying something' and 'fun.' Simply put, Daybreakers is hardly serious, but it isn't fun either.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Now, The Book of Eli (which I will probably catch sunday) looks to be even more trashy than Daybreakers, chewing on even bigger concepts, but I'm not sure how earnest or goofy it will be. It may fall into the same trap (albeit at the very least it really does look handsome.)

Matt Gamble
Guest

Matt, the angle at which light hits something makes zero difference in intensity or brightness.

I've never argued that.

I'm straight out explaining the definition of indirect light. Which is defined based on the angle of which light impacts/reflects on a surface. If it isn't 90 degrees, then its indirect light. Thus, the mirror use is indirect light, and according to rot that means it clearly doesn't harm the vampires in Daybreakers.

The second you guys claimed that only direct light harms, then you contradict the use of indirect light to harm a vampire. So if indirect light harms, then all indirect light should harm in some fashion. But according to Daybreakers indirect light doesn't harm, unless its reflected off a mirror whose radiant flux output is greater than its input, which is impossible.

On top of that, claiming that a tree is incapable of having direct light underneath it is incredibly ignorant, as the shade is a combination of direct light and the reflection from the Earth. Albedo plays little role in Daybreakers as when you stand out side in the Outback under a lone tree you are still bathed in direct and indirect light. As I said before, there are 4 types of shade (light, partial, full and dense) with only one of them (dense) having no direct sunlight at all. Not knowing that shows a lack of science education (of which I majored at University).

And really this whole thing could have been avoided if they had Hawk use a mask and some gloves. He knows he was going outside, he knows sunlight can kill him and he has no idea if he'll have protection outside of his car. It makes no logical sense for his character to wander around in the daylight without protection.

Dave
Guest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF7cO4t0o9c

The last few lines of lyrics seem particularly relevant.

Fletch
Guest

No matter which side of the many Daybreakers arguments you fall on, one thing is crystal clear: Matt and Andrew screaming at each other over such a disappointment of a film (or over anything, really) = high comedy.

Disappointed that nobody called back to the marathon ep and listed Taken as their DVD pick o' the week. 😉

Was also disappointed at the tease of the Top 10 of the decade lists only to get nothing, but I understand your wanting to cut this one shorter.

Love the Cinecasts, guys.

kurt
Guest

Fletch, all the decade stuff does exist in text, although we were reluctant to crank up the episode length to 3h+ in an effort to go thru them on the cinecast.

wpDiscuz