Cinecast Episode 226 – A Monster Performance

 
 
You may want to turn down your speakers during the latter stages of this episode. This time it is Kurt who takes on the Gamble machine. Arguing about replicants might not be a worthwhile endeavor in some parts of the world wide web, but in the third row, it’s life or death. We do have some more recent films to mess with; including Fright Night, Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark and Our Idiot Brother. Kurt heads into the big city for a feast of Fellini and Andrew watched “Hill Street Blues” (hey, why not?). All this plus the DVDs and Netflixing of the week as well. It’s going to be a shit storm.

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_11/episode_226.mp3

 
 
Full show notes are under the seats…



  show content



  show content



  show content


IN-HOUSE BUSINESS:
– New writers: Ross and Domenic


MAIN REVIEWS:
Fright Night


OTHER REVIEWS:
Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark
Our Idiot Brother


THE WATCH LIST:

Andrew
Limitless
Get Smart
“Hill Street Blues”

Kurt
The Rocketeer
La Dolce Vita
Missing
Blade Runner

Matt
Femme Fatale
Blow Out
Conan the Barbarian
Hobo with a Shotgun
– “True Blood”
– “Entourage”
– “Kitchen Nightmares”
– “Louie”
The Beaver [spoiler]


DVD PICKS:

Unanimous Pick
– The Coen Brothers Blu-ray Boxset
(Fargo, Miller’s Crossing, Raising Arizona, Blood Simple)

Kurt
If…

Andrew
Cell 211
Norwegian Ninja

Matt
Gantz


OTHER DVDs NOW AVAILABLE:
Jandy’s DVD Triage


INSTANT WATCH NEW RELEASES/EXPIRING SOON:

Kurt
The Proposition (new)
The Thin Red Line (exp Sep 1)

Andrew
Silent Light (exp Sep 8 )
Zero Effect (new)

Matt
Scarface [1932] (exp )
Lifeforce (exp )


OTHER STUFF MENTIONED:
– Kurt’s kids talk The Rocketeer
– Opening to Hill Street Blues
– Cop Rock: “What Kind of World” (holy shit)


NEXT WEEK:
The Debt
Apollo 18
Drive
(possibly)


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
antho42
Guest

Yes! I waited all day for the episode.

antho42
Guest

Matt Gamble — You were an awesome guest host on the Director’s Club podcast.

Brittany
Guest

Not loading in itunes.

Brittany
Guest

Nevermind it’s working now.

antho42
Guest

It does not make sense that he is a replicant.
1. Why is he physically weaker slower than the other replicants.
2. Okay, Matt Gamble, I understand your reason on why the company would use a replicant to hunt down another replicant. But why give him emotions? It will make more sense if he was a emotional-less replicant.
3. In the novel he is not a replicant

antho42
Guest

My theory:
Ridley Scott adopted the Decker is a replicant theory after the film was released.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

So, according to the internets (cue grain of salt) when filming Blade Runner, Ridley Scott wanted to have a visual cue of the Replicant’s eyes sparkling (like a wolf’s eyes in the dark) and to do this they invented a process where they used a 50% reflective glass at 45 degrees to the camera. When shooting in the ‘Ennis House Set’ (i.e. Deckard’s appt, but also Timothy Dalton’s lair in Rocketeer) one shot had the light accidentally reflect off of Ford’s eyes, and that probably planted a seed for the theory that Deckard is a replicant. Then more clues (Rachel wears a Unicorn Necklace, there is a Unicorn ‘toy’ in JS Sebastian’s appt., and later the Unicorn Origami) were probably added to further make things ambiguous or push that theory. At some point, Scott starting (i.e. the UK Blade Runner doc, Dark Days) saying he advocated this theory in interviews. There are also cases where Ford, some of the screenwriters, and other crew members felt entirely the other way (don’t have anything to cite on this, alas).

I’m not saying that Scott wasn’t smart to seize these ‘accidental’ ideas and integrate them into the movie (it makes things greater, because the question of Deckard’s ‘humanity’ and the growing ‘humanity’ of the replicants, (vs. the shrinking humanity of the police, the corporations, etc.) is one of the films most lasting themes (“What is Human?” “Does biology give Rights?”)
And the paranoia of what is human and what isn’t, fits well within the literary purview of Phillip K. Dick (although the film and the book are so radically different from one another they should be treated as entirely separate entities at this point)

Do objects that are created transcend their creators? That is both a question of the Tyrell corporation, as well as the filmmakers of Blade Runner (i.e. Scott is just another interpreter of what is on screen) and the film, at this point, has probably transcended the intentions of the creators, and falls onto its audience (Making both the ‘he is a replicant’ and ‘he isn’t a replicant’ theories valid)

But I see it this way: If Deckard is a replicant, it is an ironic plot twist, end of story, and the film is not quite as interesting to me. If Deckard is human, and he learns how to be a better person from a ‘replicant’ (i.e. Roy Batty’s final act of empathy/peace; how to love and be loved from Rachel) then the film is more interesting, is it not?

Unicorn or no unicorn, I always felt that GAFF’s statements were, ‘the police are going to let you go, and not bother you and Rachel, enjoy life, it’s short and easily wasted – as has Deckard’s Blade Runner Years are evidence…’

antho42
Guest

Reason # 4: Blade Runner takes place in a CYBERPUNK universe. One of the major tropes of the genre, as seen in the film, is that companies are above human rights and governments. The companies in Blade Runner do not give a shit about saving people’s life by using replicants as detectives.

antho42
Guest

Reason #5: Occam’s razor
There are more plot holes and vague interpretations with the Decker is replicant theory than their is with Decker not a replicant theory.

Marina
Guest

Cop Rock. Holy Shit is right.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

heh. The term Cyberpunk was not even ‘invented’ when Blade Runner came out.

(Which makes Fassbinder’s WORLD ON A WIRE (1973) even MORE insane for existing.)

antho42
Guest

It still falls under the CYBERPUNK banner.

Nickolas Robertson
Guest

Deckard is not a replicant. He is physically weaker than the replicants he is chasing, he runs away and hides from Batty, he can’t make the jump that Batty does, etc.
Read Paul M. Sammon’s ‘Future Noir’, guys.
Yet again, Matt is wrong 😀

alechs
Guest

Deckard lack of strength can be explained by the fact that all of the replicants he fights are combat grade save Pris. Given the fact that Leon can punch through metal, Deckard’s surprising durability only proves he is a replicant but of a lower physical grade.

Also the theatrical release has Deckard explaining that Rachael’s life span had no termination date.

Antho42
Guest

Alechs — Occam’s Razor!

Rick Vance
Guest

I prefer Deckard as human because it makes his arc have more impact and the trials he goes through seem more like trials.

Also the line, “I’ve seen things YOU PEOPLE…..” wouldn’t make any sense the other way.

But that is the least interesting question in the movie.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Occam’s Razor isn’t used for arbitration, its just a guideline for hypotheticals, thus it has no relevance to the discussion as it would be a misapplication of the principle. Also, Occam’s Razor is hardly infallible, as Occam’s Razor was used to help rule out early concepts of continental drift, DNA as genetic carriers and meteorites to name a few in favor of focusing on the work of “simpler” theories.

BTW, while Ford stated early on that he wanted Deckard to be a replicant, both he and Scott have admitted this was a major point of contention between the two of them and something that is now resolved with Ford no longer considering Deckard to be a replicant.

Why give Deckard emotions? Have you not seen Robocop?

As Kurt pointed out the novel is not the movie. The movie wasn’t written by Dick, it wasn’t acted by Dick and it wasn’t directed by Dick. Outside of cashing a royalty check Dick had almost nothing to do with the film. You might as well argue that Adaptation is a movie about an orchid thief and that it has nothing at all to do with Charlie Kaufman trying to write a script because that never happened in the book.

Of course, I’m arguing against Kurt who still firmly believes Capturing the Friedmans is a movie about clowns. I mean, that is the movie they set out to make, and by God that is the movie he is going to watch.

Nat Almirall
Guest

You’re both slightly off: the point of Deckard is that you don’t know whether he is a Replicant or not. Personally, I don’t think he is, but Philip K Dick is all about “What is Reality?” it’s a discussion on whether you know he is or not.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Agreed Nat, Agreed. But he isn’t a replicant. 😉

Nat Almirall
Guest

Yup. And nope! Again, great podcast!

Goon
Guest

Re: Kurt saying “once the art is out there…” – By ignoring the directors intent you just justified all the BS out there misinterpreting everything. So its okay to say that Ozzys Suicide Solution intends to drive teens to kill themselves instead of being about alcoholism… sometimes the artists words or art is NOT open to such interpretations, especially when the artist has been quite explicit about their intentions.

Kurt
Guest

But art/narrative/whathaveyou gets a reaction either way, you can still decide if the interpretation of some random viewers is idiotic or has merit.

Goon
Guest

you can interpret all you want if it increases your enjoyment of the art, but you cant insist it’s the correct one.

Kurt
Guest

My point is that the ‘correct’ interpretation is murky in most cases, this one is included.

Rick Vance
Guest

I’d rather stick to what I take from the movie than assume I know what the director is thinking. What is taken from the movie is more important than what is taken from the director.

Matt Gamble
Guest

I like how in this example Kurt is arguing that he is the idiotic viewer.

For once we totally agree.

Matt Gamble
Guest

It should also be noted that Kurt is arguing that the issue is murky even though Scott has repeatedly stated which ideas/concepts in the films were intentional and which were sort of happy accidents. With Deckard being a replicant being at the forefront of being mentioned as a concious decision by Scott and The Immortal Game being referenced as a mere coincidence.

I’d rather stick to what I take from the movie than assume I know what the director is thinking.

You aren’t assuming director intent in this case, as he has stated time and again that in his film Deckard is a replicant. You have to be deliberately obtuse to not get it.

Darcy S McCallum
Guest

Do see Tetro, simply best looking black and white film since Dead Man, as for Twitx, sounds good but the trailer is cheesy as hell (deliberately given the cotent?) also Snowtown my fav film of 2011 so far is playing @ tiff, check it and be wrecked.

Nat Almirall
Guest

Okay, I’ve read over these comments about seven times. Gamble, you’re spot on about a *pardon me* fuckton of films, but are you seriously arguing that Deckard’s a replicant?

Kurt
Guest

Things are not that black and white, Mr. Gamble. They never are.

Kurt
Guest

This is off topic a bit, but I am surprised that nobody in this forum has commented that Gamble used the word “Solid” about 75 times in this episode!!!

Robert Reineke
Guest

Matt places way too much emphasis on “intent”. As far as I can tell, the only intent to suggest Deckard is a replicant emerged in the editing bay after the film was done shooting. It certainly isn’t in the script or performances.

And, frankly, I think intent as a criteria is inherently flawed. George Romero didn’t intend Night of the Living Dead to have race and political commentary, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Heck, I’m at a loss to explain what Orson Welles intended for several films as he was known to make up things as it was convenient. Still, I’ll take what’s in the text over intent 100 times out of 100. Heck, most directors of bad films didn’t intend for their films to be bad.

I think the biggest argument against Deckard being a replicant is that it makes the movie hollow. A replicant who values life teaching another replicant to value life is redundant and simplistic. A replicant teaching a human being to value life is rife with irony and meaning. When given a choice as the text of Blade Runner gives us, why choose the dopey choice?

FWIW, I don’t consider Ridley Scott an auteur. A distinctive visual stylist and terrific craftsman, yes. But, there’s hardly a throughline of ideas and themes that link his work.

I don’t necessarily consider that a bad thing. As much as I subscribe to auteurism, I still think that at least 10% of the theory is pretentious bullshit. Films aren’t made by a single person, no matter how much they are in charge.

Gord
Guest

I don’t understand argument? If Ridley Scott says he is a replicant than guess what HE IS A REPLICANT! He made the damn thing, I think he might know. And Kurt saying Ridley is wrong is about the most ludicrous thing i ever heard. And thats saying a lot because it is the Cinecast.

Goon
Guest

I am rereading some of these comments, but substituting in it being about whether or not Dumbledore is gay 😛

Rick Vance
Guest

@Gord

The argument that what the director says doesn’t matter, because the film is also what they said because he shot it staged it and approved of it. The film is what is important not what is said surrounding it and Blade Runner is a very easy film to read different things into.

antho42
Guest

Gord– Michael Bay does not think that he is a sexist filmmaker. Mel Gibson does not believe that Passion of the Christ is racist against Jews. etc…

antho42
Guest

From tvtropes:
Death Of The Author: One refuge for those that think that Deckard is not a replicant. (Also, a film has multiple authors, and in this case they disagree with each other.)

Matt Gamble’s argument is grounded too much on auteur theory.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Matt places way too much emphasis on “intent”. As far as I can tell, the only intent to suggest Deckard is a replicant emerged in the editing bay after the film was done shooting. It certainly isn’t in the script or performances.

It is certainly in the art direction and set design, which requires forethought, planning and can’t simply be concocted in an editing room. Kurt’s theory that Scott was off in his own world creating a film no one else knew about is simply pure fantasy. The primary screenwriter said he wanted the idea of Deckard being human or replicant to be ambiguous. Scott and Ford openly fought about it for years, before finally patching things up and Ford backing Scott.

But I stand by it, once a director says that he intends for something to be in his film you must operate from that vantage and then discern for yourself if they were successful in it. Flippantly and deliberately being obtuse is outright narcissism by the viewer. You can debate on how well Scott was able to convey that message but you can’t just simply whitewash it because it conflicts with what you want the film to be. Especially when their are numerous instances that support the notion throughout the film.

I still think that at least 10% of the theory is pretentious bullshit.

Well at least something you wrote is correct. 😉

Matt Gamble
Guest

Matt Gamble’s argument is grounded too much on auteur theory.

Its actually is grounded more in debunking swishy Canadian critics who think they know better than the people who made the film because they weren’t there and were 10 years old at the time of production so of course Ridley Scott is a dirty, filthy liar.

Robert Reineke
Guest

Honestly, I’ve never seen where Ridley Scott has definitively stated that Deckard is a replicant. Somebody have a citation?

In any case, there’s nothing in the text of the film that’s definitive either way. Ridley Scott can say whatever he wants, but the film itself is ambiguous at best. Trying to cite sources outside the film, no matter how definitive they may seem, doesn’t change the text of the film.

And, frankly, from everything I know about the movie I think the final story is more a happy accident than the intentions of anyone in particular. The art direction and visuals aren’t an accident, but I’d be hard pressed to claim that about anything else.

Goon
Guest
Matt Gamble
Guest

Cue the crazy Canadian to refute the viability of that clip.

antho42
Guest

Kurt: The Death of the Author argument
vs
Matt Gamble: The Anti-Death of the Author argument.

antho42
Guest

I am on Kurt’s camp. Just looking at the film itself, their is more evidence that Deckard is not a replicant. Plus R. Scott is not the only “author” of the film.

antho42
Guest

Just look at Taxi Driver. Paul Schrader can claim as much “author authority” as Martin Scorsese.

Matt Gamble
Guest

Not if you believe in the Auteur Theory, which Kurt does.

Rick Vance
Guest

You aren’t assuming director intent in this case, as he has stated time and again that in his film Deckard is a replicant. You have to be deliberately obtuse to not get it.

You are correct I am not, because I don’t care what he says about his movie outside of it I care about what I take away from watching what is on the screen, if it is something different than the filmakers so be it.

schizopolis
Guest

I completely ignored Scott’s view of Deckard being a replicant. It’s an unnecessary plot twist and I’m glad it’s very ambiguous. I saw Deckard as a cynical, apathetic Bogart-type detective that fell in love with a replicant more human than himself. Roy saw Deckard his human counterpart. Roy would not have bothered saving Deckard if he knew he was a replicant. And their final encounter and Roy’s words would’ve been less meaningful if Deckard was a replicant.

To make Deckard a replicant in the story hurts his relationships Rachel and Roy and hurts the overall themes of the film. If Deckard was a replicant, then the love story between two clones was better portrayed in Never Let Me Go and the confrontation between two replicants was just as shallow as the confrontation between Kurt Russell and Jason Scott Lee’s characters in Soldier.

I still love Blade Runner (in my top 5), but Ridley Scott was just reaching with this plot twist. Kind of a pretentious and dickhead move, IMO. He’s no David Lynch.

P.S. The “what is human” theme was better portrayed and more in-depth in the two Ghost in the Shell anime films.

Robert Reineke
Guest

Frankly, if Ridley Scott made the movie with the clear intention that Deckard is definitively a replicant, then he failed at his intention.

The ironic thing is, the film is better with that failed intention. The film works because it doesn’t give simple, definitive answers to complicated questions. Even Roy Batty’s great speech can’t be simply reduced to “Earn this” sentimentality.

Removing human beings from the “what is human” theme by putting them squarely in the background is the type of idea that a visual stylist comes up with instead of a storyteller with an eye on themes. The themes support the idea that Deckard is human or it’s at least ambiguous as to what he is. The screenwriter is clearly not in Ridley Scott’s camp and the screenplay wasn’t massively altered to make Scott’s p.o.v. central and, imo, work. And, certainly, Scott can say all he wants but the original theatrical version is pretty clearly a different animal than the subsequent cuts and given it’s prominence in theaters and on cable, that’s the version that’s likely seen the widest play and unites the fandom from casual to hardcore.

Randall Barnes
Guest

I agree with those that say Deckard is NOT a replicant. At best, it is ambiguous; at worst, it is an unnecessary and distracting plot-twist that complicates and confuses the narrative. I really don’t think Scott thought it all out. On top of all the other considerations written here regarding Deckard’s human weaknesses is – his inception. Tyrell had created Rachel as a replicant with greater “human” capabilities than the Nexus 6. So if Deckard was perceivably a even higher form of replicant or at least equal with Rachel, he’d have to have been created AFTER the Nexus 6 (or after Rachel). This clearly complicates his entrance in film and forces a backstory that isn’t there.

It would then be strange for Capt. Bryant to refer their prior relationship, or possibly his awareness of the backstories of other police officers (Gaff and Holden). I could understand if they were implanted memories, but Bryant mentions it first.

It would also seem highly unlikely for the police force to employ a “replicant” like Deckard to kill other replicants. OK, Bryant calls him a “one man slaughterhouse” but this is nowhere evidenced in the movie. It’s clearly a reference to the past, so if he’s a “replicant” than what happened to him, or why was he deliberately made weak (considering all replicants were made for specific purposes)? Was Bryant unaware of the change in Deckard? Or deluded? And it, of course, begs the question of whether Bryant knew Deckard was replicant or not.

All that said, the biggest confusion for me is that replicants were illegal on Earth. That is why the Blade Runner unit was created. So it’s a huge stretch of the imagination to think that Deckard, as a replicant, was not only allowed to flout the law, but was employed to kill those were in violation of that very same law. So what that suggests is no one knew or cared (not even the other Blade Runners, whose job would be to track him down), or possibly that Tyrell wasn’t telling anybody (which implies that he was flouting the law and also that he didn’t care that his own creation was being used to retire other products of his. All of that is terribly convoluted and would require even more backstory).

For me, the reality of Deckard being a replicant not only confuses the basic premise of the story (whether film or book), but it also forces the audience to make too many major leaps in logic.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

If the rowthree comment section is a high enough sample of the population of blade-runner viewership, then at least my assumption that the majority view that think Deckard is human (or at the very least, the unicorn merely makes this ambiguous, not actual ‘proof.’) is indeed the majority view.

Goon
Guest

The majority interpretation is thus correct? I guess this means the robots at the end of A.I. are thus aliens?

BOOOO

rot
Guest

Here is a minority view: Blade Runner sucks. It is boring, it is sloppy, it is not fun or heady.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

The majority of R3 readers GOON, not the Majority at large, but it wasn’t about what it right. It is about dealing with my own surprise when Gamble postulated that the majority/consensus opinion of Blade Runner is that Deckard is a replicant. I maintained that it is a) ambiguous to most people, and in my not-so-humble-opinion it Deckard is human.

Thus making the A.I. aliens comment, completely out of line, however tongue in cheek it was! 🙂

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

I’m not going to address Rot’s opinion on the subject. He is entitled to it, but there is no conversation or middle ground there, so I’ll agree to disagree with him.

Nat Almirall
Guest

By the way, The Rocketeer really isn’t that good of a movie. I rewatched it two years ago with the same nostalgiac binocs, thinking it was an underrated gem…and it was a struggle to get through. That film drags like nobody’s business and suffers from the same problems as a lot of Johnston’s films: really good set-ups, no follow-through. The final sequence on the blimp (it’s on a freakin’ blimp! HOW CAN THAT NOT BE COOL?) even falls flat, just like the train sequence in Captain America. It’s a really fantastic idea, but Johnston never really gets creative with it.
That said, the concept design for the Rocketeer–the helmet, the bellhop jacket, the luger–is goddamn-holy-crap-my-balls-feel-like-concrete amazing. As is the poster. And the propaganda film-within-a-film is equally awesome. The set designs, and every aspect of the art-deco feel to the film is great, but the writing doesn’t do it justice and is lack, lack, lackluster.
It also makes me want to revisit The Shadow, which I really liked at the time, but may be similarly disappointing were I to rewatch it today. Though even if it’s not that good, casting-wise, it rocks your balls off: Jonathan Winters (Jonathan Freaking Winters!), Peter Boyle, Ian McKellan, Tim Curry, and the dad from Alf.
Lastly, Kurt’s spot on (or at least I agree with him mightily) regarding the “Manly-Man” theme of the new Fright Night. This is one of the most thematically dense movies of the year, and works more as a commentary on ’80s remakes than as an actual film.
And one more thing–having just rewatched Hellboy II, are they the same Toothfairies?

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

“And one more thing–having just rewatched Hellboy II, are they the same Toothfairies?”

Heh. That’s pretty cool.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

I looked at THE ROCKETEER as a movie made in the early 1990s that has the spirit/construction/pacing of an older film. This was endearing to me, not boring to me. I like the fusion of 30s serial and 90s blockbuster (Because the Rocketeer doesn’t feel like a Lucasfilm/Spielberg 80s film at all, way less action, way more dialogue) In the end, I nobody was more surprised as me that this film was even BETTER than my ‘nostalgia-haze’ expected it to be.

schizopolis
Guest

I watched two seasons of Louie over the weekend and it’s brilliant. The writing/improv is just ahead of its time.

I have to disagree with Gamble about the technical part of the show. I found so many errors in its film grammar, especially in season one…continuity, framing, eyeline, jumpcuts, editing choices and too many unneeded close-up reaction shots. Some seemed to be intentional and worked (jumpcuts), but others were just flatout filmmaking mistakes. I’m sure Jay would notice these things too. Also noticed some inconsistencies with his apartments and his mother character, but whatever.

I also thought there were times where there was a little too much monologuing (eg. gay speech during poker night, joan rivers’ career speech and a few others). But the writing is soo damn good that I ended up forgiving almost all of it.

Too many great episodes and scenes to mention, but I loved the Bully episode, the Dane Cook confrontation, the Doug Stanhope episode, the heckler episode, the Ricky Gervais episodes and of course the Afghanistan season finale. Maybe the best sitcom in the history of television.

Nat Almirall
Guest

Fair enough, but I think Johnston is more trying to copy Spielberg (all throughout his career) than distinguish himself from him. He’s just not as good.
Though your description raises the question of your thoughts on Dick Tracy, which is about the only contemporary Warren Beatty film I can watch (anything after it is a hagiographic study of Beatty and is drop-dead shit).

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Itching to Revisit DICK TRACY, as I’ve not seen it since it played in the theaters…I wasn’t a very big fan at the time.

Nat Almirall
Guest

Dick Tracy is actually really damn good. Ebert was spot on about the design, and the supporting cast is to die for. As Big Boy, Pacino is doing a mockery of himself before he actually became a mockery of himself; Dustin Hoffman as Mumbles is fantastic and provides the movie’s best scene; Flattop and Raising Arizona are William Forsythe’s defining roles; Mandy Patinkin sings his ass off and is stellar; and yet the best performance in a seriously stacked film is by Ed O’Ross as Itchy. Add to that, James Tolkan, R.G. Armstrong, Charles Durning, Paul Sorvino, Michael Pollard, Seymour Cassel, and Dick van Dyke, plus the fact that it’s a freaking musical, and you have one of the most conceptually interesting films of the ’90s.

Jim Laczkowski
Guest

The best shows on TV right now are Louie and Breaking Bad. Can’t say enough how much Louis CK’s brand of humor is right in tune with my sensibilities.

Limitless was really terrible, in my opinion. Love the concept, but hated were it went… even just in terms of being fun. I felt a certain disconnect from the movie as it went along. Mainly because as a guy who studies neuroscience, I found a lot of the ideas to really stretch things quite a bit. I mean, granted, it’s mindless Hollywood entertainment so I shouldn’t look for cognitive accuracy. But I couldn’t separate the concept from what I’ve read about the effects of certain drugs on the brain from medical journals (which clearly the filmmakers didn’t research at all).

Whereas someone who doesn’t do research on drugs regularly… the ending might seem cool and legit. I couldn’t get past how implausible it all became. With that said, the ice skating moment… AWESOME. Not much else outside of that. You guys were way too kind to it, but it’s not something I would defend to the death since I have certain biases when watching a movie that explores this idea.

Jim Laczkowski
Guest

Limitless would’ve been a whole different movie if Terry Gilliam had directed it 😉

Nat Almirall
Guest

Not to keep going on, but among its strengths, Tracy is totally in line with the comic strip in that the protagonist is the most boring character while the villains are the showcase, and it plays up to that fact beautifully. Tracy gets the most watered-down, cliched storyline, and Beatty gives all the best moments to Pacino and the supporting cast. One could argue that Big Boy is actually the protagonist, but I think the point is that Dick Tracy completely revels in its utter lack of character arcs and embraces every villains’ superficiality, giving each of them moments to lay out every thing you need to know about them, and letting the actors do it wonderfully.

Jonathan
Admin

Boy, I could read arguments about Blade Runner all day.

schizopolis
Guest

@Andrew
When Louie uses his character as a guinea pig to deliver a joke or an idea, he definitely looks out of character. And overall sometimes the performances in some scenes feel forced. But I still love his narrative. The second season definitely improved in these aspects. I can only see the show getting better.

I’m shocked that a major premium cable network didn’t pick up Louie! HBO has CYE, but Louie is perfect for Showtime! I’m not a fan of any of their comedies (Weeds, Big C or Californication). Shame.

Jonathan
Admin

I’m in agreement. Louie is the best comedy on television. Hell, it’s one of the best shows on television.

trackback

[…] a week away, the boys from The Row Three Cinecast return…and of course, get into a passionate […]

patrik
Guest

I don´t have the energy to read through all the posts but in the book, it´s proven that Deckard is in fact NOT a replicant. He takes the Void Kampf test and passes it. The only reason those hints are there in the movie is because Ridley Scott liked the idea of Deckard being a replicant. However, no one else seemed to, Harrison Ford especially. If he is a replicant, he sure is a weak ass one compared to the rest.

Also, Matt Gamble, I do believe most real Blade Runner fans would agree that he´s not a replicant.

wpDiscuz