New podcast! Introducing the Very Important Podcast on The Substream

Mamo and The Substream are proud to present our brand new podcast! As an offshoot of Matt Price’s series on The Substream, Very Important Dudes and Dudettes In Film History, Team Mamo and Team Substream have come together to make a fiendish podcast-baby.

We call it The Very Important! Podcast.

Our aim is to do these roughly monthly, with a panel discussion of the career, themes, and influences of one or more Very Important Dude or Dudette in Film History. We kick things off with the Wachowskis, co-directors of Cloud Atlas. Joining us on the panel this month is special guest star / Row Three podcasting guru Kurt Halfyard.

The podcast is being submitted to iTunes even as I write this, and in the meantime you can listen to the show over on The Substream.


Anchor Bay is releasing, today, one of the best animated feature films of 2011 (second only to Rango) and then by only a razor margin. Redline is a racing science fiction action film, but really it is a spring board for the pure id-driven imagination – a collection of mayhem and nonsense that rivals Speed Racer for eyeball melting motion and colour. It was written by Funky Forest creator, Katsuhito Ishii, so zany is a good a descriptor as any and hand-animated over a whopping 3 year production cycle, and the quality and attention to detail shows. Below is my 2 minute critic segment from last years Toronto After Dark screening of the film.

You might want to pick this up on Bluray, immense re-watch value, and really excellent as background video for crazy drugged out living room ecstasy parties.

Courtesy of The Substream.


A Film’s “Intent” and “Valid” Film Criticism

I‘m not a film critic. Yes, I write some reviews and have a weekly show in which I sit around and bullshit with my friends about newly released film. In that sense sure, I guess I am a critic. But in that sense isn’t everyone a critic of any form of art or experience they have that they talk about? What I mean is that I’m not paid for what I do. It’s not a career (obviously). I didn’t go to film school and I don’t have a degree in journalism or broadcasting. I’m just a dude with an opinion in which the 21st century allows me to share that opinion with the masses.

So I think it’s time to address something that’s been bugging me for quite some time; an accusation that has been tossed around on our Cinecast (and others) far too often (of which I admit I am equally guilty). This notion that you’re “reviewing the movie not for what it is but what you wanted it to be.” I think that statement can careen down a real slippery slope and in most cases (not all) is totally invalid. Can’t you throw that accusation at anyone for just about any criticism of any movie? Our recent discussion of Rango has spurred these thoughts.

If someone were to say they didn’t like Speed Racer because the dialogue is terrible, I don’t think it’s fair to say, “well that’s just not what the movie was aiming for.” Well maybe not, but that doesn’t mean it’s an invalid criticism. The dialogue is pretty terrible in that movie. It’s hackneyed, elementary and corny. Sure it may be reminiscent of the original animated television show and sure that may be what the producers intended but that doesn’t mean someone has to like it or that it couldn’t have been done better. I personally happen to like Speed Racer quite a bit but I wouldn’t argue with anyone who walks out of the screening and says, “man I just don’t think I could’ve taken one more second of Susan Sarandon’s one dimensional character and her campy acting!” That’s an absolutely fair comment to make.

So yes, that person wanted that movie to be something different. In essence, any review out there that is negative of something is essentially saying just that isn’t it? If the film had done something just a little bit different it might be more positive looking in that particular “critic’s” viewpoint.
Would you like to know more…?

Remembering a Decade…2008

(prologue) As we can begin to hear the death rattle of the oughts, we in the third row decided to start on this continuing series throughout 2009 that will look back at our favorite films of each of the past ten years (2000-2009). This will ultimately culminate in a “ten best/favorites of the oughts” piece sometime in early 2010.

Well, this is just about it. Until our annual best of the year list arrives in early January that will account for all of the greatness that was 2009, this is pretty much the end of the decade. As we’ve looked back over the past 10 years it’s been fun to reminisce, discuss, bicker and compare. While this was maybe the easiest year in this series for all of the contributors to come to a consensus on, we had a little bit of trouble deciding between which of two films should be our fifth title on this list and which should be left off. In the end we decided that there is no absolute “rule” that says we have to have just five movies when remembering a year. So for our final bit of nostalgia (until our culminated list of top ten of the decade arrives), we give you six films from last year that really took our breath away – or at least gave us something to think about and remember. These six titles are how we remember 2008 taking shape.


Would you like to know more…?

Cinecast Episode 109 – The Business of Selling Candy


Episode 109:
This week we take a hard look at the Steven Soderbergh epic, Che, as well as a SPOILER REVIEW Eastwood’s Gran Torino. We also have DVD picks for this week and other banter.
C’mon in!

Click the Audio Icon below to listen in:

Below the fold are the Show Notes…
Would you like to know more…?