Cinecast Episode 334 – 2013 Year in Review (Money Shot)

You might think the new year’s show would be all chipper and happy. But then Matt Gamble shows up: superficial and unintelligible fights ensue – none of which matter a lick. But between you and me, to hell with that guy. Before the fireworks, Kurt and Andrew have their differences on Wolf of Wall Street (SPOILERS!). Once antichrist show up, we do get into 2013 trends and themes as a whole and then our “big” reveals of Top Ten films from 2013. We do thrown in a few honorable mentions at the end.

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


show content


show content


show content

 


 

[mp3player width=560 height=76 config=cinecast.xml file=http://rowthree.com/audio/cinecast_14/episode_334.mp3] DOWNLOAD mp3 | 165 MB
if player is not working, try alternate player at bottom of this post

 

 
 
Full show notes are under the seats…

 


 

~ IN-HOUSE BUSINESS ~

– CastCast coming soon from Shorts Not Pants
Kids Talk Film – The Cat Returns (most recent)

OPENING QUOTE:
Bill Murray
in
Groundhog Day

CLOSING BUMPER MUSIC:
“Royals”
by
Lorde

 


 

~ REVIEW ~

Wolf of Wall Street

 


 

~ 2013 IN REVIEW ~

THEMES/TITLES MENTIONED:

Greed:
Wolf of Wall Street
Spring Breakers
The Bling Ring
Pain and Gain
Great Gatsby
Brass Teapot
American Hustle
The Counselor
Elysium

ANIMATION (nothing good):
Frozen
Epic
The Croods
Dspicable Me 2
The Wind Rise
Monsters U
The Fake
The Legend of Sarila
Ernest & Celestine
A letter to Momo
The Congress

BLACK AND WHITE:
Much Ado About Nothing
Fances Ha
Nebraska
Inside Llewyn Davis (kinda)
Blancanieves

HYPERBOLE:
The Lone Ranger
The Counselor
Wolf of Wall Street
The Canyons

HORROR RETURNS:
The Conjuring
World War Z
Gravity
The Purge
You’re Next
Warm Bodies
Evil Dead
Maniac
Act of Killing
Magic Magic

VOD:
Drinking Buddies
Frances Ha
Behind the Candelabra
Wrong Cops
Only God Forgives

BLOCKBUSTERS:
Gravity
Fast 6
Iron Man 3
Lone Ranger
Star Trek
Man of Steel
Oblivion
Elysium
Oz

 


 

~ TOP TEN FILMS OF 2013 ~

MATT

  1. American Hustle
  2. Drinking Buddies
  3. Spring Breakers
  4. You’re Next
  5. A Band Called Death
  6. Man of Steel
  7. Frances Ha
  8. The World’s End
  9. Pacific Rim
  10. Gravity

HM: Stoker, Mud, It’s a Disaster

KURT

  1. Mud
  2. Museum Hours
  3. Stoker
  4. Manakamana
  5. The Broken Circle Breakdown
  6. The Counselor
  7. Magic Magic
  8. Upstream Colour
  9. Her
  10. Under The Skin

HM: Night Moves, Before Midnight, Sweetwater, Nebraska, Spring Breaker, Only Lovers Left Alive, The Dirties, Lone Ranger, Gravity, The Last Stand

ANDREW

  1. Despicable Me 2
  2. Blue Jasmine
  3. Before Midnight
  4. Kon Tiki
  5. Inside
  6. Wolf of Wall Street
  7. Captain Phillips
  8. Iron Man 3
  9. Fast & Furious 6
  10. Stoker

HM: Dallas Buyers Club, Mud, Nebraska, Short Term 12, The Conjuring, The East, Side Effects, Spring Breakers, The Broken Circle Breakdown, Evil Dead

 


 

~ NEXT WEEK’S POTENTIAL REVIEW(S) ~


– Inside Llewyn Davis
– Walter Mitty

 


 

~ COMMENTS or QUESTIONS? ~

Leave your thoughts in the comment section below, otherwise feel free to contact us:
feedback@rowthree.com (general)
andrew.james@rowthree.com
kurt@rowthree.com

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Nat Almirall
Guest

I think the problem with 12 Years a Slave is that has an exceedingly passive protagonist — that is, Solomon does little to nothing to rectify his situation. And so his struggle is basically surviving day to day, which is not dissimilar to the struggle faced by every other slave in the movie. So why are we watching him when we could be watching someone who fights back? Or at least try to escape? I think two hours of the main character waiting for something to happen to him can rub a lot of audiences the wrong way.

But then, I think passivity is the point of the movie — Solomon never tries to escape, and while he resists his fate somewhat, he always takes the path of least resistance — the whipping scene is the epitome of that as well as the thematic climax, but there’s many others, too: He’s silent when the mother is forced from her child; his salvation comes through no actions of his own; even when the gal forces herself on him, he relents. And I think the point of the waterway-building sequence is to show how he’s assimilated into slavery almost without noticing. Of course he does give Paul Dano a whuppin’, but even then he’s practically forced into it.

And then there’s Cumberbatch’s character, whom I think is perhaps more despicable (or intended to be more despicable) than Fassbender’s, simply because he’s a man just like Solomon who simply accepts the status quo. He may be a kind-hearted fellow, but it’s the people like he much more than those like Fassbender who were responsible for the continuation of slavery — those who stood by and watched this injustice thrive and did nothing. (If we want to get all academic here [shut up, of course we do], the superficial running theme through McQueen’s work are the seven deadly sins, with Gluttony [for punishment or otherwise] being Hunger, Lust being Shame, and 12 Years a Slave being Sloth.)

Anyway, passiveness is rampant through 12, and I think that turned some folks off.

KurtHalfyard
Guest

@Nat Almirall I like this analysis, Nat.  I was the most frustrated with Cumberbatch’s character when I watched the movie, and mildly frustrated when Northup doesn’t use the mail/general store runs to any advantage during his time there.  
Really, however, my issue with this (and Passion of Christ, and Schindler’s List) is that it seems to revel in its glory telling you how bad we were as a species and lusting in the craft of the whipping.

Sean Kelly
Guest

Don’t write off Pixar because of Planes because THEY DID NOT MAKE THE FILM!!!!!!!!!!!! (though I’m sure Disney’s marketing of the film fooled many people)

In actuality Planes was produced by DisneyToon Studios (Disney’s direct-to-video division) and was IN FACT planned as a direct-to-video release, before they (for some reason) decided to release the film theatrically.

I am still quite supportive of Pixar and, even though they have no 2014 releases, I look forward to the TWO films they are releasing in 2015 (both of which are original stories).

ajames1
Guest

Sean Kelly Mostly I write off Pixar because of their other films of the last three years.  Cars 2, Brave and Monsters U were mediocre at best and total garbage at worst.

2014 has another Monsters spinoff in the works.  I do admit the premises for their 2015 films do sound promising.  But they have to earn back my loyalty after the last three misfires.

Rick Vance
Guest

I would be the one backing you Andrew on Furious 6 the only problem being I saw two better action movies this year than it being Ninja: Shadow of a Tear and my favorite film of the year Drug War. So there even were action films in 2013 that outdid it.

tederick
Guest

Sean KellyOh come on, of course they did.

Sean Kelly
Guest
tederick
Guest

Sean KellytederickPretty sure they did

Sean Kelly
Guest

tederick *GROAN*

KurtHalfyard
Guest

Sean Kelly tederick It doesn’t even matter who “ACTUALLY” made it, it’s Pixar’s Intellectual Property, and everyone knows CARS is Pixar, so PLANES is tarnishing the fuck out of Pixars already fast-diluting brand.

Sean Kelly
Guest

KurtHalfyard Sean Kelly tederick I think technically Disney owns the rights to anything Pixar makes.  I remember when Pixar was considering ending their association with Disney (which in hindsight might have been for the best) and Disney was planning to make sequels (such as Toy Story 3) with or without Pixar’s involvement.

tederick
Guest

Sean Kelly KurtHalfyard tederick Yeah, it’s like I said – Pixar.

DavidMerryweather
Guest

To see Captain Phillips as being pro-American military might is such a bizarre misreading of the film.

KurtHalfyard
Guest

DavidMerryweather For sure it is far far from the only thing on display in that film, but the last act, it’s undeniable.

DavidMerryweather
Guest

The fact that Jaws is pro-man-eating great white sharks is undeniable,

KurtHalfyard
Guest

DavidMerryweather Agreed.  I consider my point utterly vindicated by this statement of obviousness.  I will accept payment for being right in the form of hero-cookies.

ajames1
Guest

DavidMerryweather Yeah that was so far from my mind while watching that last act. And I’m pretty sure it was not Greengrass’ intention.  

Perhaps any movie where America wins with their military automatically qualifies as ra-ra bullshit by foreigners strictly by default.  But if that’s what you draw from the final 45 minutes, you lost your movie going experience to your own prejudices.

ajames1
Guest

DavidMerryweather Lone Survivor on the other hand?  Gag.

KurtHalfyard
Guest

ajames1 DavidMerryweather I watched the trailer for this again with the intention of going to see it late Sunday night, but as much as I adore Peter Berg, I just couldn’t bring myself to sit through 2hours of that.  Sorry.

DavidMerryweather
Guest

I mean, you would have to start off by first accepting that a British lefty like Paul Greengrass would make a film that glorifies US might – and that Tom Hanks would agree to star in it – and go from there.
Essentially, the moment in the film where a fleet of Navy Destroyers moves in on the Somali kids bobbing about in a lifeboat would have to be seen not as an ‘oh shit’ moment, but as a ‘ha, now those pirates are finally going to meet their match!’ moment. This strikes me as a bit perverse.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that our sympathies and our fears for, in the final scenes are being directed towards those in order of vulnerability. Which is basically: Hanks, prisoner to nervy, gun-toting pirates  >  the Somali, forced to desperate means to escape poverty, sputtering hopefully towards shore on a lifeboat, which is then intercepted by massive American warships full of SEALS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>forever> the sheer crushing might of the US Navy, who are about to implement a course of action for which the phrase ‘using a sledgehammer to crack a nut’ wouldn’t be enough.
Thing is, there’s just no glory in the inevitable, easy ‘victory’, no catharsis to be had in the miserable defeat of the pirates. So I don’t get the ra-ra thing at all.

KurtHalfyard
Guest

DavidMerryweather  I’m quoting Andrew O’Hehir from Salon.com:
“But not far below the surface “Captain Phillips” is also an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience, a film that’s not entirely happy with itself.
Director Paul Greengrass, a specialist in political thrillers who made http://www.salon.com/2006/04/26/united_93_2/%E2%80%8E http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000JGD24G/?tag=saloncom08-20 and the http://www.salon.com/2004/07/23/bourne_4/ and http://www.salon.com/2007/08/03/bourne/ Bourne adventures, has never before made anything this propagandistic or this characterless. His portrayal of the enormous United States military operation to free Phillips from his captors has the calm technological blankness of a Navy commercial, without the 1970s waka-waka guitar. I can’t decide if there’s meant to be anything sardonic about the presentation of the asymmetrical conflict in “Captain Phillips”: Billions of dollars of cutting-edge military hardware and hundreds of corn-fed, gym-toned Americans on one side, four malnourished men with black-market Kalashnikovs on the other. But I kind of think there isn’t […] But what we have here is a movie, not exactly a “true story,” and as cinema it plays a lot like a knockoff of http://www.salon.com/topic/zero_dark_thirty%E2%80%8E without the same ambition and scale and with dramatically lower stakes. Instead of a worldwide “terrorist” conspiracy that, at least notionally, advocates violent apocalypse, the boogeymen in “Captain Phillips” are a quartet of impoverished villagers who barely know each other, ordered out to sea in a wooden skiff by the local warlord in search of a quick cash-grab.” […]There’s a racial or cultural subtext to this film that’s right on the boundary of consciousness, and cannot entirely be ascribed to verisimilitude.[…]“Captain Phillips” is less an adventure yarn about the daring rescue of a captured American than a celebration of a huge and expensive machine that crushes disorder.

DavidMerryweather
Guest

Ha ha, what rot (not that anyone would expect much else from Salon.com, but anyway). No, I disagree with every word of that; the Somali are not “boogeymen”. That’s just mad.
Not really sure how I came to play Cap’n Save-a-Captain Phillips tonight, it’s not that it isn’t problematic, but nor is it a film I feel strongly about. Just that this take on it is beyond my comprehension.

KurtHalfyard
Guest

DavidMerryweather Again, I will reiterate that it’s not the entire film, it’s just the way the last act is shot.

Cody Lang
Guest

Hey Andrew. Not sure if you have read this article but I thought I would send your way since you’re a fan of Justin Lin and his work with the Fast and Furious franchise. http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-05-22/film/fast-and-furious-vulgar-auteurs/

Andrew James
Admin

That was a really great read. Thanks Cody!