Cinecast Episode 191 – “Interesting…”

 

 
 
Another week, another lengthy episode of the Row Three Cinecast. Eschewing The Potter-naught onslaught (but not completely), the boys spend the bulk of their time discussing two polar opposite limited releases from the UK but set in America (as opposed to American wizardry set in the UK). The first is the languid road-trip oriented science fiction drama Monsters, the other is the hyperkinetic stationary survival tale 127 Hours. There is a quick-y Gamble-First-Look at The Rock’s revenge picture, Faster. There is a fair bit of Soderbergh talk but not before letting loose on all of the over-sensitivity regarding spoilers that seems to be running rampant in a slew of podcasts these days. A loving tribute to Luchadores and Cherub Penises and the absurdity of life as Andrew takes a second look at Hitoshi Matsumoto’s Symbol. Kurt talks about The Apollo Moon missions and Brian Eno in regards to For All Mankind. A Thanksgiving Top 5, a plethora of DVD picks, and the proverbial much much more is on display as the three hosts compete to see how many times they can work the word “Interesting” into the conversation. Sorry folks!

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!

 
 

 
 

To download the show directly, paste the following URL into your favorite downloader:
http://rowthree.com/audio/cinecast_10/episode_191.mp3

ALTERNATIVE (no music track):
http://rowthree.com/audio/cinecast_10/episode_191-alt.mp3

 


 
Full show notes are under the seats…


show content



show content



show content


IN-HOUSE BUSINESS:
Background music
Movie Club Podcast (this month’s episode)
Cinecast 200th Episode
Other podcasts and spoilers


MAIN REVIEWS:
127 Hours (review/IMDb)
Monsters (review)


WHAT ELSE WE WATCHED:

Matt
Morning Glory (IMDb)
Harry Potter 7 (IMDb)
Faster (IMDb)

Andrew
Ocean’s Thirteen (Andrew’s review)
The Good German (IMDb)
Extract (IMDb)
Solitary Man (IMDb)
Symbol (IMDb)

Kurt
For All Mankind (IMDb)


KURT’S TOP 5:

Films Involving Thanksgiving:
5) For Your Consideration
4) C.R.A.Z.Y.
3) The New World


DVD PICK #1:
        ANDREW:

Disappearance of Alice Creed
(Andrew’s review)
(Netflix)

        KURT:

Deadwood
(complete series)
(IMDb)

        MATT:

Grant Morrison
(IMDb)
(Netflix)

DVD PICK #2:
        ANDREW:

I’m Still Here
(Andrew’s review)
(Netflix)

        KURT:

The Complete Metropolis
(IMDb)
(Netflix)

        MATT:

Who?
(IMDb)


OTHER DVDs NOW AVAILABLE:
The Expendables
Eat Pray Love

America Lost and Found: The BBS Story (Criterion) [Blu-ray] The Pillars of the Earth
Flipped
Jolene


OTHER STUFF MENTIONED:
“World War Z” (Amazon)


NEXT WEEK:
Faster
Burlesque
Love and Other Drugs


PRIVATE COMMENTS or QUESTIONS?
Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, or email us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew.james@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Darcy
Guest

is this one sheet of podcast, Kurt looks like Bill Hicks circa 1992, Andrew like Jeff Bridges also circa 1992. About to listen to show.

dan
Guest

This is one of your best photoshopped banners yet. Well done.

Kurt
Guest

It makes us giggle. Seriously. Thanks for the feedback on them, Andrew works really hard on 'em!

Gord
Guest

Andrew, I completely agree with you with spoiler warnings in podcast. It's one of the reasons I can't listen to the slashfilm cast anymore. Well that and two out of three hosts are completely annoying.

Antho42
Guest

For episode 200, you guys can have a VS segment.

For example:

Wong Kar Wai vs Wes Anderson

Clive Owen vs George Clooney

2001: A Space Odyssey vs Solaris

Mike Rot
Member

When I watched The Last Picture Show last week I was struck by how much Andrew looks like Jeff Bridges in that movie. I think the next banner needs to incorporate a Andrew/Bridges connection

Jandy Hardesty
Admin

What did you think of Last Picture Show, Mike?

Dan Sachar
Guest

Great Podcast.

At the end it was cut while you were talking about The Rock, though!

Andrew James
Admin

And Dan – the podcast cuts off!? I'm looking into this right now.

Andrew James
Admin

The version I downloaded from iTunes does not seem to cut off until it is supposed to at the end with Kurt's "Cheers".

Dan, were you listening to the alternate version without the music?

Mike Rot
Member

I loved The Last Picture Show, loved. Best film I have seen on Netflix yet. Very surprised at how unflinching it is towards sex, towards the sad toil of life. When the old guy starts reminiscing about his life at the pond, and the camera slowly creeps in, that is a powerful movie moment.

Mike Rot
Member

and now I see you did a finite focus on that exact scene!

http://www.rowthree.com/2010/04/09/finite-focus-t

Jay C.
Guest

Still trying to figure out why Matt responded so strongly to our apathetic review. Based on his comments, I figured the only possible explanation for such a passionate attack on our review could be because Harry Potter was written by either Grant Morrison or Alan Moore (or any comic book writer for that matter) or that it had some sort of special digital presentation at his theatre.

Why did I have no clue what was going on? I haven't seen two of the films, including the one previous to this one. Why haven't I seen them? I didn't want to. Why did I see this one? So I could sit in on our weekly podcast. Will I watch the last one? Fuck no.

Jay C.
Guest

I think some of the questions we had about the film were legitimate. Our review of HP 7 was pretty much the same — in both tone and information — as our review of Twilight: Eclipse (in which we also discuss the first Twilight) and nobody seemed to have any problem with that one. I guess it's more acceptable to be apathetic towards something people generally loath then something people generally love.

Antho42
Guest

Faster- Avoid at all cost… what a piece of @#43! It feels like a crappy, violent comic book(which is probably why Matt Gamble likes it). The most manipulative film I have seen in quite sometime; take Lars Von trier approach to film, but done in a Michael Bay style (not a good combination). Awful, just awful.

Matt Gamble
Guest

I think that Gamble responded so passionately to it because (and I’m saying this without having listened to the podcast) it was lengthy and all over the place, and un-passionate.

That was primarily it. And I agree with Jay that I think they did bring up some valid criticisms, but any of the truly interesting ones they glossed over in favor of such inane bullshit they might as well have been discussing how poorly the seams were on the Vulcan's ears.

As for your Twilight review, you had Charlotte on that one. I'll listen to her read a phonebook over anything Greg contributes. And whoever said in the comments that they thought Greg hadn't really watched the Harry Potter films I'm with them. At the very least I'm sure he texted through 90% of them.

I guess it’s more acceptable to be apathetic towards something people generally loath then something people generally love.

I'd argue that the core fanbase for Twilight loves those movies as much as the core fanbase for Potter does. One's just bigger than the other. Hell, I'd even argue the Twihards are far more devout than the Potter fans.

Jay C.
Guest

"As for your Twilight review, you had Charlotte on that one."

I was referring to our review of Eclipse in which we review Twilight sans Charlotte.

"I’d argue that the core fanbase for Twilight loves those movies as much as the core fanbase for Potter does. One’s just bigger than the other."

I'm talking about the audience that listens to our show, which is mainly a lot of men/boys that probably enjoy hearing an apathetic response to something like Twilight.

Andrew James
Admin

Surprised nobody has chimed in on the Danny Boyle debate. Anyone wanna call me out on my bullshit?

ALSO, FilmRot guys mentioned other things in the sound design in 127 Hours I forgot about. We mentioned the nerve fibers, but also the amped up sounds of the camcorder and camera. Even the water bottles and such – beyond just visually interesting, the sounds were amped up and very visceral. The more I think about this movie technically, the more and more I think it's possibly the best of the year.

rot
Guest

For me 127 Hours is solid but I find it sliding down the list as time goes by… and I am with you entirely Andrew about the violence in it… there is a lot worse than that film, and I am generally a squaemish guy when it comes to gore.

Matt Gamble
Guest

I’m talking about the audience that listens to our show, which is mainly a lot of men/boys that probably enjoy hearing an apathetic response to something like Twilight.

I don't ever remember you being apathetic towards Twilight. You pretty much shit all over it, which is exactly what your audience likes. Though i could just be remembering when you watched the first two Twilight films and discussed them.

And you should know I don't care whether or not you like a film, but I want you guys to be engaging. Instead I got 20+ minutes of you guys nitpicking details that you say weren't discussed in the film when they actually were shoving any of the legitimate criticisms to the wayside so you can spend 3 minutes on why John Hurt suddenly appears in the cellar. That shit was just brutal.

Jay C.
Guest

I may have shit on the first Twilight but we didn't shit on the third. AND, we watched that one after having not seen the second. Nobody minded.

I'm sure everyone's calibrated for your usual hyperbole but I'll clarify anyways; we didn't discuss John Hurt for three minutes. Greg asked if that was him and we said yes and Sean said he was in it previously. Still, beyond being confused by plot points (within the body of this film itself and not just the series as a whole) there were criticisms that I'm still waiting for you to refute or claim are explained within the film itself. Mainly:

– film was too long

– too much politics within the world (much like Star Wars prequels)

– wedding scene was extraneous

– Inconsistent rules in Universe (some people who suffer bodily harm can be saved while others can’t for some unexplained reason)

– Horcruxes are not a satisfactory Mcguffin and their journey to find them seems somewhat unfocused and haphazard. It plays like a stall tactic before actually confronting Voldemort

– If the bad guys knew when Harry Potter would be transported and from where, why didn’t they just attack the house?

– The Harry Potter face change disguise was a poor plot device.

– This film wasn’t as fun and magical as the first couple of films.

– The Horcrux was a cheap device to allow their otherwise perfect and pleasant characters to express natural human emotions. This shouldn’t require a necklace.

– Characters haven’t changed over the seven films (only physically).

– Wished they explored their time in the real world a little further. Fish out of water story. (Exactly what some people wanted more of in Never Let Me Go)

Still not sure how any of these complaints/criticisms are invalid. They're certainly discussed on the show. Just because they're surrounded by confusion about plot and characters doesn't mean they weren't brought up and discussed. If you could address them point by point that would be absolutely super Matthew Gramblez.

The argument is less that this was a good review rather than it's no different than many reviews of films we didn't enjoy or want to see in the past. From the perspective of someone who doesn't care about HP (Andrew) it's fine. From the perspective of someone whose life depends on HP (Matt) it isn't.

Gord
Guest

From the perspective of someone who doesn’t care about HP (Andrew) it’s fine. From the perspective of someone whose life depends on HP(Matt) it isn’t.

Zing.

Matt Gamble
Guest

I’m sure everyone’s calibrated for your usual hyperbole but I’ll clarify anyways; we didn’t discuss John Hurt for three minutes. Greg asked if that was him and we said yes and Sean said he was in it previously

Greg also asked who he was in the film, why he was in the film, what role he had in the film and if he had been in any of the other films. I believe at one point Sean even had to go IMDb him to give him the character's name so Greg would shut the hell up about it. Even still, the question of why he was in the basement was never even answered by the three of you, despite it being in the film. Congrats guys.

And seriously, you want me to do a point by point retort for every item listed? How the hell is that any more compelling? Its boring as shit. I still contend that I don't care if you guys liked or didn't like the movie, but you should have not argued over minutia. That's the exact same stuff that you and Sean jump all over Reed for.

But since you need the validation:

-film was too long (being that the three of you had varying takes on this, and Greg thought it was the shortest of the films, this critique seems erroneous at best. Hell, Greg stated he thought it seemed short, then when he found out how long it was he immediatly changed his position. You stay classy Film Junk.)

– too much politics within the world (much like Star Wars prequels) (What politics were even in the film? The Ministry of Magic? You guys didn't even know what that building was or why they were there, so how could you even know if their were politics in it or not?)

– wedding scene was extraneous (Why? Because you guys didn't know who the characters were even though they'd been introduced in previous films and what their direct relationship to Harry was.)

– Inconsistent rules in Universe (some people who suffer bodily harm can be saved while others can’t for some unexplained reason) (Specific examples please. Rules have been laid out previously that certain spells can kill and others can't and that the spells that can kill are rarely used outside of by Voldemort.)

– Horcruxes are not a satisfactory Mcguffin and their journey to find them seems somewhat unfocused and haphazard. It plays like a stall tactic before actually confronting Voldemort (Horcruxes aren't a MacGuffin. They need to be destroyed in order to kill Voldemort. Until they are he is immortal. So yes, they are integral to the plot and how Harry could potentially defeat Voldemort.)

– If the bad guys knew when Harry Potter would be transported and from where, why didn’t they just attack the house? (Explained in this film and in previous films. Harry – as are all magicians – is protected until his 18th birthday and the house is part of that protection. Not only that, they specifically lay out that they were going to attack, but they learned that the plans to move Harry early had been altered.)

– The Harry Potter face change disguise was a poor plot device. (Not really. The people chasing him didn't know who any of them were. And once the three of them were brought before people who did know who Ron and Hermione were they weren't fooled at all.)

– This film wasn’t as fun and magical as the first couple of films. (It isn't supposed to be as the tone has grown increasingly dark since the first film. Crying about a film not being how you want it when it clearly has no intentions to be that way is childish. Grow up, Prissy Pants.)

– The Horcrux was a cheap device to allow their otherwise perfect and pleasant characters to express natural human emotions. This shouldn’t require a necklace. (This I think was a valid criticism. I'm so glad I had to wait 15 minutes to hear it.)

– Characters haven’t changed over the seven films (only physically). (Erroneous at best. Characters have changed quite a bit as the whole "relationship" portion of the stories has grown increasingly prevalant in the films. Its fleshed out better in the books, but that's because the books have far more room to work with in the course of 400+ pages as opposed to 2 hours of film. Plus, considering Greg thought Severus was a good guy proves that at least one character has gone through quite a bit of change.)

– Wished they explored their time in the real world a little further. Fish out of water story. (Just because people wanted something in one movie it has little to no relevance in another film. That is, unless you want every film to explore ideas in the same way. Oh that's right, you orgasmed over The Expendables, so of course this is what you want. Also, the books never went into this so why should the movie be expected to? Its false expectations that the film never even attempted or had reason to try and achieve, thus judging it on that is solipsistic nonsense.)

/baited

Jay C.
Guest

First off, I think it's a very limited — dare I say 'fanboy-ish' — opinion to assume that the seventh film in a series based on seven books doesn't deserve a review from the perspective of someone who hasn't seen all of the films or read all of the books. Are you suggesting that the only valid opinion on Harry Potter 7 is that of the Harry Potter fan? I made it entirely clear in the review that I was coming in to it from this limited point of view. My confusion over Snapes alliance or Dumbledorff's death was not a criticism but rather an attempt to contextualize my HP headspace.

BUT….you're right Gamble. The time you've spent complaining about our Harry Potter 7 review is indeed worthwhile and much deserved. It was especially necessary to address it on your podcast as had you not, unwilling listeners may have been exposed to our audio abortion. If we ever do review HP 8 I'll take a play out of your book and just sigh audibly in the background and then proceed to yell everyone into submission until the entire conversation is killed and half the audience has tuned out. ZING!

P.S. "Horcruxes aren’t a MacGuffin. They need to be destroyed in order to kill Voldemort. Until they are he is immortal. So yes, they are integral to the plot and how Harry could potentially defeat Voldemort."

N-E-R-D

Kurt
Guest

You guys are too funny. This thread is hilariously inside-baseball, with at least three layers of comedy depending on how well folks know each of your personalities. It's been funny, but it should be clear to other folks that these two fellah's not only are good friends, but enjoy friendly sniping at each others foibles.

That is all I have to contextualize things. Carry on.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Shut the fuck up Halfyard you are out of your element.

Chay, my hyperbole is not the issue here. Oh sure you can write off my criticisms, but they are valid, and the fact you've gotten all butt hurt by them means I've probably hurt your feeling.

N-E-R-D

So what camera did they use to film Potter? What are the specs on it again? What other movies have been shot with it? oh I'm sure you'll dismiss this line of questioning, but you know that I know that you know.

And that's all that matters.

Henrik
Guest

http://www.directorsnotes.com/2010/06/30/mcguffin

I think Matt needs to see this. As for the McGuffin not being satisfactory, I assume what you mean is that the film was boring.

Henrik
Guest

Hey, and nobody argue seriously when Kurts around! Even though it may look otherwise, Kurt will make sure that everybody is convinced that we're all friendly gummy bears who play with each others tails when we're bored!

Kurt
Guest

Actually we are friendly to a fault in person…it is these hyperbolic 'in character' type debates which belie our real life behavior!

Nat Almirall
Guest

I don't know what spurred M. Gamble's malicious hate speech regarding Greg, but I think Mr. Gas nailed it in the comments for that episode when he wrote, "A film goer should not have to revisit all of the movies before seeing a new one."

And do I get credit for coining/popularizing "audial abortion" in FJ #279?

Jandy
Guest

Kind of a tangent, and I haven't listened to the podcast, but why do we assume that all films have to be self-contained and stand on their own even if they're in a series? Not necessarily sure any of y'all are saying that, but I've seen it other places in regards to HP7 Part 1, and other films in series/trilogies. We wouldn't jump into the beginning of Mad Men Season 4 and get all upset because they didn't explain who this woman in California is and why she refers to Don as Dick, or what Peggy and Don are talking about when they mention him visiting her in the hospital. We've gotten in the habit of thinking of TV as serialized and movies as discrete works, but why does it have to be that way? (Serialized movies existed much like TV, with cliffhangers and all, up through at least the 1940s.) I'm kind of working through this generalized question in my head, too, because I often have the same reaction, though it's not consistent – which is why I want to examine it. But with regard specifically to HP7, why wouldn't you assume that you'd need to see all the HP films to understand the seventh one? I get not wanting to see them all, but I'm not sure i get criticizing it based on that.

Mike Rot
Member

I have read the first and second Harry Potter books, mostly out of confusion of having grown men insist to me that there is something incredible going on in this series. I thought maybe Rowling does something that does not quite translate in the films. I simply do not get it AT ALL. I have seen all HP films except the one in theaters presently… they are all long and repetitive and long and repetitive. I barely follow the story, and after the third or fourth climax battle with Voldermot I can't possibly think what they have left to do… Dickens got paid by the word and stretched things beyond toleration, and I feel like Rowling must be doing that too.

Jandy
Guest

Right. I'm not saying you've got to see them if you have no interest, or even that you've got to see them all to talk about them, but it just seems odd to criticize them for not understanding continuity things because you haven't seen the others in the series. If that happens in a TV show that I started in the middle, I just look up some recaps or ask someone who's seen it all or accept that it'd be explained if I'd seen it all, and move on. But I haven't heard the FJ podcast either, so it may not have been critical in the precise way I'm mentioning – just asking or bringing up things that were unclear is cool.

I just find the dichotomy between "TV = serialized" and "movies = individual" an interesting one and one that probably ought to be interrogated, especially as TV becomes more like movies in terms of arc/character development/production values and movies become more like TV in terms of serialization.

wpDiscuz