August 27, 2023 • 44 mins
Buckle up for an exhilarating rush of adrenaline as we steer you through the cinematic universe of Gran Turismo! This is one riveting ride you won't want to miss, as we discuss the thrilling world of high-speed racing.
we're going full throttle into an extensive analysis of the film's subplots and cinematography. From the character development of the antagonist to the romance subplot and the lack of female representation, we're laying it all out on the track. The film's innovative use of GoPro and FPV drone shots has added an intriguing dimension to its cinematography;
Last but not least, we're going to pull back into the pit stop and share our thoughts on Gran Turismo's overall enjoyability. How does the sound design amplify the racing scenes? How do the visuals contribute to the movie's scope? So, gear up and join us as we navigate through the fast lanes of Gran Turismo
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everyone and welcome to another episode of
Movies Worth Seeing.
I am Michael Pishonery, joinedby Martin Jung.
G'day G'day and on today'sepisode we're going to be
looking at the incredible truestory based on the video game
Gran Turismo.
This is a very different videogame movie because, instead of
it just slapping on the name ofthe video game and making some
(00:24):
random story out of it, like,say, need for Speed or Double
Dragon, any of those or theoriginal 1993 Mario Brothers.
This film has a unique hook inthat it's got a true story about
a gamer who was such a fan,such a pro at the video game
Gran Turismo, a racing simulator, that he ends up winning a
(00:48):
competition to actually competeon a professional level in the
actual in actual racing andcompete with professional racers
that have, like, trained theirwhole lives for it.
It was a good movie.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, in fact, because it was a good movie,
it's become more like an eightor nine, yeah, so you know, if
you get my meaning Like inearlier years, in like early
2000s or something like that, amovie like this would be like
maybe a seven or a six.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
But because of how shitty movies are nowadays and
how corrupted and all thepolitical virtue signalling and
all, that gender pushing.
Yeah, all that stuff that'scorrupted so many intellectual
properties.
Nowadays, gran Turismo is sucha breath of fresh air especially
after watching Barbie andreviewing that piece of shit
(01:41):
because it's just a simple story.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
It's trying to entertain its audience and it's
not trying to subvertingexpectations for the sake of it
or trying to push a certainpolitical message.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
It's not acting like the world's saviour.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
It's just acting like a movie and just telling a
straightforward classic hero'sjourney.
Three act structure, followingall the textbook cliches, but
because of the great cast likeDavid Harbour or Lindo Bloom,
and the main character is playedby Archie Maddukwi, these guys
(02:19):
do such a phenomenal job ofelevating what would look like
to be a pretty typical clichedstory, the premise, especially
for a video game movie.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
And they elevate it into something special.
They give it all these specialmoments and make it so much more
emotionally investing.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Agreed.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
You find yourself going like I know where this
roller coaster is taking me, butI'm just enjoying the ride.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I could tell what was coming up along the hero's
journey, the ups and the downs,but I never felt like they
phoned it in.
I actually could believe and beimmersed in the journey that
every character was goingthrough.
It really helped that becausethis was based on a true story
that I could actually feel andbelieve in the gravity and the
(03:06):
severity of the situation and,as a result, be emotionally
invested whenever they havetheir highs and whenever they
have their lows.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
And it was really elevated by the acting.
Like I actually felt that theyreally put in their efforts for,
like, in the pitch meeting thatthese actors would have gotten,
they would have known that itwas a video game movie and, with
the stigma of video game movies, they could have easily just
like phoned it in and so on.
But like I feel like for avideo game movie, they didn't
(03:38):
need to have a team of writersto write a very textbook movie
but they still put in.
Like, even though I think yousaid it was a pretty cookie
cutter of a script, the actingreally breathed life into it.
Yeah, made it believable.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
You could see the script was like the skeleton of
like a very cliche underdogstory.
But there's, all these funlittle moments and winks and
nods and little things that giveit that special flash where you
feel like this is more than anormal video game movie.
And the fact that the actorsaren't phoning it in.
(04:14):
You don't feel like the actorslooked at this and said, oh,
it's a frickin' video game movie.
Yeah, I'll just do this for thepaycheck.
They've actually got talentedactors Orlando Bloom and David
Harbour phenomenal in theirdifferent roles as mentor
figures for Yarn, the racer, thegamer, and David Harbour
(04:34):
especially.
He is definitely not phoning itin.
Agreed, agreed.
Yes, you feel like he is giving110% conviction in this movie
and he provides some of the bestlaughs, the most emotionally
engaging moments, and he hookedme in Like I wanted to know more
about his backstory.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Oh yeah, and they were planting the seeds
carefully throughout, like theAct One that gets a satisfying
payoff at like the later half ofthe story.
They were sort of subtly and Iwould just appreciate it, for I
don't know how predictable itwas and how well executed it was
, which is weird to say becausewe like it sounds like a
complaint Be saying that, oh, Ican predict what's coming up,
(05:16):
but the fact that it was justlike finally, a movie was just
doing textbook things, I wasjust happy to be taken on a
journey to see them like.
Oh, it's like we know this isthe archetypal mental figure
who's had a grand life in thepast and was met with some kind
of tragedy that stopped him inhis glory days.
He's like a shell of his past.
(05:37):
And now he's the mental figurewho's going to pass the torch to
our protagonist, who's going tolearn from the mistakes of the
mentor or that.
We knew all of that washappening.
We could see it from a mileaway and I never once complained
about that.
In fact, I want to see, like,just how well they executed this
textbook maneuver, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I wanted to see more detail, and I think that's not
so much a complaint, it's more.
The movie left me wanting more.
I didn't feel the movie wentover time as well, which is a
common complaint for new moviesthese days.
It left me on a high note where.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I was like yeah, perfect ending beautiful
satisfied.
Exactly.
We, as human beings, like tosee the underdog go through
obstacles and triumph overeveryone doubting them.
We like to see the hero risefrom the rise of the phoenix
from the ashes, from the lowestpoints, to a satisfying
(06:33):
conclusion.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
It's also fun to see the doubters like in a movie
like this, especially where themain protagonist is a gamer.
You know it's typical the gameplays video games all the time
and the parents are like stopplaying your freaking video
games and go outside and playball.
But this kid ends up proving toeveryone that gaming is awesome
(06:54):
and makes a career out ofplaying video games his whole
life.
It's truly the game's dream.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
What every gamer aspires to.
Yeah, I'm happy to see thenarrative slowly shifting, that
there's no longer a negativestigma that gamers like just
basement dwellers who arephysically inactive and can't
even sprint 100 meters.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It challenges the old stereotype and I think that
also comes into what the creatorof Gran Turismo was trying to
achieve was to say this game isso realistic that we are
actually teaching people how todrive racing cars, and you see
that through the game.
You see how well the video gameprepares these kids for the
(07:41):
real life racing experience.
There's obviously going to besome stuff that they have to
adjust to and realize it's notas easy.
There's things that just can'tbe done on the road, like
there's no reset button, there'sno pausing, especially during a
24 hour race, which I can'tbelieve.
That's a thing.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, like I was two days or when I learned that they
literally just like have a fewraces in rotation just for 24
hours straight, just nonstopdriving.
That has to be the loudest,like 24 hours on earth.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
The main climax.
The main race is called the LeMans race and apparently it's a
real thing and it goes for 24hours.
Who the freak watches racingfor 24 hours?
Like, why would an audience bein the crowd at the start of a
24 hour run?
Wouldn't you just leave andcome at the last, like 20
(08:38):
minutes?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
All that matters is the final few laps.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yeah, I agree, like we cricket Like when they got
the ashes that go for like threedays and shit.
I always say to myself why thehell would you want to watch a
game for an entire day?
Just shorten it.
Oh man, yeah, I don't get that.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
But I don't know, there might be cricket fans that
are fricking grabbing theirpitchforks right now.
They're grabbing their cricketbats.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
They're grabbing their cricket bats and they
probably want to hit me over thehead right now, but only if I
post this on TikTok, where thereal crazies are.
It's funny that, like nowadays,movies can be so good when they
just ignore being so like,overly political and preaching
to its audience.
And yeah, we were actuallymaking fun of the movie poster
(09:25):
on Instagram saying that thismovie, oh my God, it's a.
It's a deconstruction of toxicmasculinity.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Put it up.
Put it up, martin, in editing.
Yeah, send me the video later,please.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
It's also like one of those movies that isn't too
much to really grab onto, likethere's not a lot to talk about.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, I foresee this is going to be like a short
episode Because it's such a, youknow, textbook movie there's
really not really much to writehome about.
I don't really have much to say.
Like I mean, yeah, other thanit's so normal of a movie that,
unfortunately, in the currentlike lineup of movies we've had
in 2023 and the 2020s to behonest, covid year kind of
(10:06):
movies that post COVID year thathey, this is just a movie movie
.
Okay, it's like we shouldn't befinding this movie to be
refreshing.
What's textbook shouldn't berefreshing and that's just like
a bigger indicator of just thecurrent state of Hollywood.
I guess a conventional threeact structure hero's journey is
something that we enjoyed somuch that we actually
(10:30):
reinvigorated our love of cinema, or something.
When this movie is just thenorm, it's just what a movie
should be.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I also found it refreshing because this is an
existing IP and Hollywooddoesn't have a good track record
with existing IPs.
When there's an existing IP,it's usually either confined to
the platform, like a video gamemovie can be constrained in some
ways because it has to appealto a video game audience, but
(10:59):
then you've got movies likeBarbie that just totally flip
over and become somethingcompletely different, to the
point where you don't even knowthat it was a Mattel endorsed
product.
Whereas this had this greatbalance, grant Turismo had a
great balance where it wasappealing to the fans of it, but
(11:20):
a non-gamer could get behindthe story because it was simple
to understand.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
It tells a very pretty universally
understandable underdog risingfrom the ashes kind of story
that can be separated from, likevideo gaming, but what it just
happens that the premise is thata gamer has risen from the
bottom.
And then there's one point inthe why do video game movies
suck?
Episode that I failed to raise,which we only kind of touched
(11:47):
upon, which is that anotherreason that video game movies
have sort of the stigma of beinglike poorly realized is that
sometimes the director, theproducers and the actors
themselves, if they are notgamers themselves, then it's
harder for them to realize andbreathe life into their
(12:08):
characters, because if they'renot a gamer then it's not like
they can.
There's some kind of sourcematerial that they can read.
They actually have to put inthe hours to play the game, but
if they're not a gamer theydon't know their own character
to the full extent that a gameractually would for a certain
franchise.
You know you get what I mean.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
But the great thing is that, because this movie is
based on a true story, these arereal characters.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
You don't have to play the video games.
No.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
And the real life.
Young Martin Barrow actuallyplayed the stunt double for the
actor in this movie.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Good little trivia.
Information in the at theending yeah, and so you can tell
that this had passion.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
The acting standards are way above what you'd expect
from a video game IP, somethinglike Uncharted, which was
produced by the Sony productioncompany.
Like we had held that last andthat came out, I think, last
year or the year before.
Yeah, but when I compare Iwould not even think that
they're in the same universebecause it's so different.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Same corporate backing as well.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So the director of this film was Neil Blomkamp.
He's known for doing films likeDistrict 9, chappy.
They usually have a verysimilar look to them, but he's
good at dealing with subtext andsocial kind of commentary.
He gives his films, I feel like, a very gritty, realistic look.
(13:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's true,and this film has that.
It's not like over the top withits colours and vibrancy, it's
realism.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
So let's jump on to the next chapter of this review,
which would be about just thecinematography of it.
So it's realism, not any fancyblue and red light, none of that
sort of like euphoria kind oflook with Zendaya.
Well, it's not.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Super Mario Brothers, like you don't expect.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
They're not going for the over saturated, they're
grounding it in realism.
Good sound design reallyelevated the frantic and the
visceral nature of the car races.
The quick insert shots and thencoupled by the really rumbling
of the car engines and thezooming shots and just like the
extreme close ups really helpedto elevate us sort of exploring
(14:27):
the protagonists, psyche andadrenaline, mixed with anxiety,
fear, all that stuff Like whenwe have close ups of eyes and so
on.
And also to it's helped by the,the taller expanded 1.85 to one
aspect ratio.
So when you have a talleraspect ratio people's faces take
(14:48):
up more of the entire canvas ofthe movie.
Yeah, just really like thatfast pace sort of editing where
for the most part I wasn't beingwhiplashed by the speed of the
editing, I could follow theaction as well.
But my only caveat is and I willstick by the argument I made in
the review for the Netflixmovie Dayshift with Jamie Foxx,
(15:09):
which is that I do want the useof FPV drone shots.
So it's when like like five,like all these Dutch angle
flying through crowds and goingunder the ball thing.
I do think that for a moviejust solely on like race cars
that it does call for like thoseFPV drones shots, for like the
tracking shots.
But I still do stand by the FPVdrone should be used in
(15:33):
moderation because they wereyeah, more sparingly because
they were having shots likegoing through audience and the
crowds and under things and overthings and this was nowhere
near as bad as Dayshift.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Oh no, I remember Dayshift was like that ambulance
movie where the drone was justflying everywhere and you can
tell it was a drone in this.
I was like, oh, this could havebeen a crane shot.
Or like this makes sense, it'ssetting up the racetrack.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
It's getting us the speed of everything you know and
it's you know, yeah, it worksfor those dynamic, fluid
movement to the camera.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
But in Dayshift I was just like that's a drone shot.
That's a drone shot, Like Ithought that they were going to
have DGI just in the bottomright corner because of how much
and how blatantly obvious thedrone shots were in that movie.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, where is this?
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
It was seamless.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Yeah, they were blending them in, really well,
yeah, it makes sense for aracing movie that you use those
fast, like zooming, like flyingshots, for sure, but they must
have got the speed right on thatthing, Whereas, like in
Dayshift, I felt they had itlike maxed out this movie.
The guy was like no, let's turnit down a bit, let's install it
down yeah it matches thevelocity of the cars and stuff
(16:47):
and I there was one shot Ireally really liked which
emulated the camera behind carlook and the turning is like and
as a cinematographer I'm morelike immersed in just figuring
out logistically, likephysically, how they achieved
that shot.
So it's like you're actuallyturning and it to emulate the
(17:08):
video game look, and so on.
And the other thing I liked isthat is the overlays, the like
final lap, fourth lap, fourthplace.
They actually conveyedinformation very well.
They had like the tracking shotsaying Yen was like now 12th
place, and this is not in thecamera department, but I liked
how the antagonist was easilyidentifiable because he was
(17:32):
always colored gold.
So I liked that.
The cinematography, they keptit wide.
When they needed to be, theypunched in for closeups to
really get the adrenalinepumping and there was a clear
understanding of like the ofwhere the blocking, where
everyone was and it's and it'sreally helped by the video game
sort of overlays.
There was one bit at theintroduction in the beginning.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
There was a part where we were kind of like both
had difference of opinion, whereI didn't dislike it, just so
you know, Yen was being chasedby a cop and he was having this
car chase and the movie was justmaking all these video game
announcements like cap avoidance, and it would just slap across
the screen and, like you did it,you win all this crap and I
(18:19):
thought it was freakinghilarious.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I thought, so too.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Yeah, because it made me feel like the movie is not
taking itself.
Are you right?
Oh, jesus Christ.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
But I was saying it was so cheesy but I didn't hate
it.
I also found it funny.
I thought it was cute.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
It was nice to have those little winks and nods to
video game, especially forpeople who've played green, you
win.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You winner that thing .
We just come up.
Lead time 0.071 seconds.
Whoa, if cops evaded.
To win your winner.
It reminded me of that bit.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
It was the South Park episode.
Are you all right?
Yeah, I'm good, no, no, no,keep going.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
For those listening Martin was spilt all of his tea
all over himself.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
An actual spit take.
Yeah, spit take.
Now I'm worried about youdrinking tea.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
And now I'm just drenched everywhere.
Anyways, audio listeners withno context.
Now you have context.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
You always say something that's going to sound
dirty to people listening, withno context, and that's another
time when Martin says something.
I should make a little segmentwhere I'm like Martin says
something inappropriate,unintentional, innuendo the one
tiny, I guess, pet peeve I hadjust jumping back to.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I guess.
One final point about thecinematography before we move on
, which is kind of a negativeand a pro bit of a fence sitter
on this is that when they firstannounced this movie, I did
scoff at the idea.
I was like, oh great, it's justSony banking on a franchise to
make another movie.
And because of that, of the factthat it was a video game movie,
(19:57):
I was a bit biased in the sensethat I was conscientious of the
fact that this is a movie witha corporate incentive behind it,
where it was more of a proof ofconcept kind of movie, where
they used this movie to to sortof like demonstrate and test out
the like Sony Venice camerasand so on, like the same ones
(20:17):
they use in Top Gun.
I think it was shot in SonyVenice where the sensor block
could be separated from thecamera body and then placed in
sort of like tiny little crooksand stuff.
And then so I was thinking likeit was more so just Sony
showing off their like cinemalineup of cameras and stuff.
And then that's why, as we weresaying, I was surprised that
(20:38):
they could have just had like avery textbook script, but they
actually put in effort intoexploring the emotional like
journeys of everyone, theclearly defined character arcs
with everyone had theirmotivations and how they come
together and so on.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
They didn't need to do that, there was no point in
the movie where I felt like,okay, there's too much racing,
there's not enough characterstuff.
Oh, that's true, and other wayaround.
There was no point where I waslike bored, wondering when the
next race is happening.
I felt like they broke it upreally well to the point where
there was nothing I felt neededto be cut.
There were no scenes I feltwere too long or too short.
(21:17):
There were little things that Iwould love.
Would have loved to see more ofthat could have been probably
added, like 10, 15 minutes, like, for example, the.
It's not really like a mainantagonist, but Jan has to have
obviously a rival racer tocompete against.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
You need that antagonist to the Protangers,
and yeah, and that antagonisticforce, for sure, for sure, and
David.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Harbour's character used to train and help out with
this guy.
I think his name was KappaKappa.
Yeah, I missed that detail.
Or his team was Kappa, whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
But yes, it's Kappa.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
And this guy, you know, he plays dirty on the
racetrack.
He hits Yannica once and almostcauses a major car accident.
He almost gets Yann into somedeep shit.
Yeah, actually, and there was apoint where I thought they were
going to go full Rocky stylewith this villain and make him a
(22:11):
bigger deal than he was, butthe movie decided we're not
going to focus too much on that.
So while I would have liked tosee more of this villain, I
would have loved to see, like,what motivates him, why he's the
way he is.
The film makes little remarksto allude that he's kind of this
(22:31):
spoiled brat that's just beenhanded everything, but it would
have been nice to understandmore maybe more from a point of
view why this character has sucha problem with Yann coming from
the gaming world into theracing world, like maybe they
could take creative libertiesand exploring his psyche.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Well, I guess.
My counterpoint, though, isthat we don't want this biopic
to be like a two and a half hourmovie, I think they just needed
this to be a serviceable,surface serviceable with a
surface level antagonist, andit's one of those nice to haves,
but I don't think it'sabsolutely mandatory because it
(23:13):
would have taken attention awayfrom Yann's hero's journey.
You know what I?
Speaker 1 (23:18):
mean it's just a little bit Like maybe one more
scene with him having aconfrontation without it
extending the runtime too long.
Something small like that.
I felt like there was a momentin the film where that was going
to happen, but it didn't quitehappen.
But it's not like a big deal,it's more like, like you said,
it would have been nice, butinstead he's just kind of like
(23:42):
just looks like Anakin.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Skywalker Good typecasting, don't you agree?
It's like he's got the doucheyhaircut, you know it's got like
you know, the European look withlike the very defined cheek
bones and stuff.
Do you hate?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Europeans You're trying to like maybe, as a
villain or something.
I'm just doing that thing thatpeople on TikTok do where they
like just take apart everylittle thing you say and say
that it's racist or sexist.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
They scrutinize, like just one sentence you say, and
then they just likerecontextualize, it's like oh my
.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
God, of course you like this movie.
It's a three male lead movieand there's no girls in it.
You fucking sexist.
There were female characters inthis, but it does bring up a
good point.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
There was also a love subplot that wasn't really
given a lot of time but I don'tthink if this movie needed to
explore that in more detail,same with the antagonist.
And what would you say to that?
Do you think the romancesubplot is something that they
should have spent like maybethree more minutes on or
something, or was it serviceableenough to advance the plot?
(24:43):
Do you think?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
I think it was serviceable.
When I first saw it, I was kindof like I just didn't want to
see a lot of it.
From the first scene where Isaw her, it was a bit like okay,
I know where this is going,it's too cliched.
I'm bored by that.
So I think the movie did asmart job of being like this is
the stuff we have to put in, butwe're not going to spend too
(25:06):
much time on it.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Nothing overstays its welcome.
Same with like and you saidearlier, none of the set pieces
also fit Like.
Yeah, the things were wellspaced out.
Typically in like video gamemovies, especially movies based
on video games, they will justhave set pieces for the sake of
it, and then they try to onlyjust reverse engineer to figure
(25:28):
out in post.
How do we then string togetherthese large chunks of like
exciting, adrenaline pumpingaction scenes, like it's, those
bits in between?
That's just a bit of a dronefest.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
But yeah, good on the subplots and everything where
they just needed to do justenough and not overstay its
welcome with the romance and thesurface level villain and I
guess just something to add onto the cinematography aspect on
it, which I wanted to add on inthe Day Shift episode is that
when you're a movie viewerwatching a Hollywood movie,
(26:04):
you're going in with theknowledge that this is a
multi-million dollar project.
And so suddenly, when you'rewatching all these footages that
are shot expertly on RE camerasand RED cameras and so on, and
then you suddenly see in theediting that they cut to what's
obviously a GoPro shot, you'retaken out of the immersion
(26:25):
because you're conscious of thefact that all of a sudden they
are cutting to a camera that anyprosumer, any consumer, can
just achieve by going to theirlocal JB Hi-Fi and like just by
a camera that's off the storeshelves, and so it sort of
negatively impacts thatperception of what's supposed to
(26:47):
be an expensive project, it'salso jarring.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
It is jarring because I'm not a big cinematography
guy.
I have you for that.
I'm not a big tech guy, but Ican tell when it goes from like
1080p to 480 or potato mode.
Like you could tell, there's adifference between what they're
using, because it goes frombuttery, smooth and full HD.
(27:12):
Full detail to.
Oh my god, did someone putVaseline all over the camera?
Speaker 2 (27:16):
You, as an average consumer, recognize that it's a
GoPro because it's a verypopular camera and so when
you're conscious of that, ittakes you out of well the story.
You're more thinking about thelogistically.
They just used a suction cup inthe interior of a car to attach
a GoPro, which my son has, youknow, and I myself have shot
footage that looks like that.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Do you have a son?
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I have a son.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
I never knew I'm the father.
What's his name?
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Oh dear, oh god, I have a 13 year old son that I
never knew about What'd you doyou have a kid when you were
eight, oh god.
This episode just took a wholetalk time Speaking of FPV drones
used sparingly, yes, andGoPro's.
I'm glad they didn't useGoPro's.
(28:07):
I'm glad they still use thesame sense of log.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
It would have looked weird if they used the GoPro.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
They needed to keep up.
Keep a consistent aesthetic.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Like you were saying just realistic lighting.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Oh, and I guess, final thing, I like the sparing
use of sort of slow-mo shots toreally like build the scene.
It's the tiny moments, it's thetiny details like the wheels
kicking up the gravel and thedirt, and you can really pick up
those details.
When it's like extremeslow-motion, like high FPS, you
can see the grit and the dirtand the visceral nature of it.
(28:41):
It helps to really build that.
This racetrack, this is thereal world, this is where you
experience the G-force, this iswhere you feel the inertia from
when you initially pump on theaccelerator that you'll really
push back into your seat.
It's those tiny attention todetails that they incorporate
into the editing and along with,like, the really rumbly sound
(29:01):
design that you experience bestwhen you're in the very center
of the cinema, that really justget like, really hits you in
like heart thumping adrenaline.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
It would have been good if this was like in those
chairs that move around and shit.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
Oh, that would be cool.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
That would have been cool yeah 4D would have worked
well with this.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yeah, let's like Google and put that comment down
in the section below.
If this is like an actual thing, like some Sony theater, this
would be a good marketing sortof thing to sell to general
audience.
You know, but it is two hoursand so so it might be a bit long
for that.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
This didn't feel that long.
This did not feel like a twohour movie.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Did you feel like this movie could have some
scenes shaved down, I wonder?
I do feel like, for the scopeof the story they were telling
of this biopic, I think they didneed every minute of it.
Any scenes did you feel likecould be cut out just for like a
sort of a bridged version?
Do you think, or do you think,this was the perfect length?
Speaker 1 (29:56):
I think it was perfect.
Length yeah, felt just rightEnded.
I mean, if I don't look at myphone for a whole movie, that
means it's good pace when youtalk about cinematography,
though, one of the things thatreally got me was the car
crashes, without spoiling toomuch in the movie.
There's a car crash in thismovie that was so visceral with
(30:19):
the way it was captured insidethe driver's seat and with
everything going on.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
It actually brought up stuff for me, because I've
been in a car accident and I waslike they captured that very
well that the whole blacking outsort of it captured the psyche
of the trauma of being in a caraccident, like you're talking
about the use of thecinematography and the sound
design to sort of realize thatsort of like I'm blacking out.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Like deep breathing, sort of heart pumping, sort of
like oh my god, I'm starting tolose myself.
I'm starting to just like oh mygod, I feel like I'm going to
faint so like visions areflashing before me yeah, there
was just so many visual thingsthat were popping and made it
feel raw and like holy crap.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
even though your seat's not moving, you feel like
you're about to fly out of itand fall down into the ball pit
or whatever down where thepeople you know.
We were upstairs, so I'm likewe could have fallen over the
railing and gone down.
That's how it felt with the carcrash.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
So yeah, I guess as a cinematographer I didn't mind
the like all too obvious Sonyproduct placement and like proof
of concept advertising with thecinema line of cameras and
stuff.
And yeah, as I go home, I wouldwant to just like research what
lenses they use for, like theswirly bokeh and like when they
really close up on the eyes andstuff.
And speaking of productplacements, oh fuck, let's go
(31:45):
into that.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah, my only gripe with Sony movies is they always
have to remind you constantlythat it's a Sony movie, like you
see so many products and somany times where Sony is just
lavered all over the screen.
And normally I'm okay with it.
But there's one part in thismovie, a really emotional moment
(32:08):
, that's freaking, very wellacted and fully invested.
But then you just see a giantSony logo in the center of the
frame and you're like, fuck guys, couldn't we have like taken it
out of this scene and put insome other useless establishing
shots or something?
And there's plenty of uselessshots that have PlayStation
(32:33):
logos and Sony and Gran Turismologos.
And it's all good, I get it.
I understand that this is, Imean, ideally this is a giant
commercial for Gran Turismo.
Of course, much betterstandards than most kind of
intellectual properties, ofcourse.
But I know going into this it'sgoing to have some product
(32:53):
placement.
But there was that.
Just it really kind of irked meon that particular scene.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
The Sony.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Walkman yeah, it's like the actor's crying, he's
got tears coming down his faceand then the next shot's just a
big Sony.
I'm like you totally took meout.
You totally took me out of it.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
No, 100% agreed, 100% agree.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
I don't want to like see someone like about to die in
a movie and then a charactergoes and grabs a defibrillator
and he's like thank God I havethese Sony sponsored
defibrillators nearby, oh dear.
Click, click, click.
So that was one very smallgripe, but I knew it was coming,
(33:36):
because Sony are freakingterrible at hiding their product
placement in movies.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, it wasn't even subtle about it, especially
because it was a prop that wasused at an emotional high point
of the movie.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
But having said that, this movie is, if this is
Morbius and this is yeah, ifthis is Morbius and this is Into
the Spider-Verse, it's likearound here it's definitely more
leaning more towardsSpider-Verse than it is towards
Morbid time.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
I was wondering how Morbius got brought into this
conversation.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Because it's a Sony movie.
Oh, okay, I see what you mean.
That's why people thought thiswould be shit, because Sony
either does really fucking goodwith Spider-Man or they do
really freaking bad withSpider-Man, like Morbius and
Uncharted.
There's no in between.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Rarely.
Is there an in-between movie.
That's a good point.
No, I agree, I agree, yeah,yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a, it's a
movie, movie.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Having said that it would have been good if there
was, like maybe a post-creditsscene where Morbius just came
out and he was like I'll see you, I'll see you on the racetrack.
Morbius will return, it'smorbentime.
But yeah, I loved Gran Turismo.
I thought it was a great time,very fun movie.
Might not be the most memorablefilm, but if it's on like this
(34:59):
would be the perfect movie towatch on a plane trip or
something like that.
And you'll get invested but youwon't.
It's probably not somethingyou'll go back to, but it was an
enjoyable experience.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I think well, with the comment on like, this would
be sort of a movie to like passthe time on like a plane or
something.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
That doesn't mean bad .
Speaker 2 (35:23):
No, it's just.
I do think, though, thatbecause this for a racing movie,
there's all the more attentionput into the sound design and
sort of that larger than lifesort of scope that you would
sort of be doing at this serviceto not watch this in a theater.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Yeah or great home theater system.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Whereas if you're only watching this through
headphones, earbuds on the plane, then you would miss out a lot
on the careful attention todetail in sort of the editing
and the sound design, and you'donly be watching it for the
story.
And if you're only watching forstory then I guess it's
(36:02):
somewhat of a serviceable likeunderdog rise from the bottom to
the top sort of like.
Here is journey thing.
Yeah, if you want somethingthat's serviceable not a problem
.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
I'm saying taining fun visuals and isn't trying to
shove a political message downyour throat, then grant to Rismo
is a good time.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Yeah, no, 100% agree.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Yeah, I'd give grant to Rismo, maybe like a seven and
a half 80 out of 10.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Yeah, Mmm, let's stick around.
See, it's hard because, likethe recent slate of movies
really has dragged down sort ofmy hopes for Hollywood
storytelling.
And so when you know there's avery textbook heroes journey
where you see the incitingincident, you see the hero, you
(36:52):
know going through the obstacles, because you know obstacle,
like friction, builds character,and then you see, like at the
end of act two, the heroreaching a low point, you know,
with the big accident thathappened.
Are we talking spoilers?
Speaker 1 (37:07):
We're talking spoilers.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
We've got to let him know, yeah, spoilers.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
Spoiler warning.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Okay, here's your spoiler.
Look you just got Someone dies.
Okay, I'm just going to splitthat out.
There there was.
I didn't even count down to thespoilers, but someone dies
Spoiler.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Morbius is in the movie.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Yes, he is and.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Vulture and Spider-Man.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
But if I was to continue by that point of the
movie, we've seen the characterprogress and go through so many
doubters.
And then when he had thatreally fatal accident where his
car was going up a hill and itacted like a sail, All right, we
don't have to say exactly whathappened Okay so anyways, he is.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
You can just say he went through a trauma.
Yeah and yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
And like being indirectly responsible for the
actual death of somebody.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
You could have said the character deals with some
guilt following a trauma.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Okay, well, by that point we have.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
been so, jesus man, if we were talking about Star
Wars, would you say, oh, andDarth Vader's Luke's father?
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Now, yes, because everyone.
Yeah now.
But I'm saying if we werereviewed, back when it first
came out.
Anyways, my point is that bythat point of the story we were
so, even though we knewsomething bad had to happen,
because of us seeing the trailerwe was, by that point of the
story, we had been so engrossedin the character's progression
and invested that we reallybought into it.
(38:29):
Yeah, even though it waspredictable.
But again, like I said at thebeginning of this episode, me
saying that this movie waspredictable was not a complaint,
and so, yes, I would give it aseven, but it's like it's just
what a movie is supposed to justdo.
That's just a baseline.
So, I supposed to rate it sohigh.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
If this movie came out in another time in the world
when movies weren't so shit,this movie would probably be a
six six and a half probably.
But because of the current stateof Hollywood and with how
terrible movies are, for example, if I watched this movie right
after Thor, love and Thunder,I'd probably say it's a 10 out
(39:13):
of 10 movie, just because of howbad Thor, love and Thunder is.
But, being fair, I also went inwith low expectations, so
that's another thing whichprobably affected you.
Yeah, that's the thing.
We both thought.
It's an intellectual property,it's a video game movie and no
one was really talking about it.
(39:33):
And it's a Sony movie.
Yeah, so there's a lot ofthings working against it there,
where we say it must be shit,but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Yeah, so yeah, I guess.
Ultimately my point is it'sdefinitely above average, but
I'm hesitant to give it a higherscore than the movie honestly
is.
It's just a textbook hero'sjourney movie.
It's not meant to be arefreshing thing.
So I'll say seven, but onlyjust hesitantly.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
You know it's not groundbreaking, it's not
Nolan-esque like poignantstorytelling, you know oh
because we didn't see the caraccident at the start and then
we didn't see how it led up tothe car accident.
We didn't see that, nolan.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
Not linear, non-linear.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Oh fuck, if Nolan directed this, we wouldn't have
heard any of the freakingdialogue.
Oh no, slow down, slow down.
So, mike, is he here to tellyou why you're racing so fast?
Master Wayne, you shouldn't beracing like that, all right.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Anyway, seven and a half and seven.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
I'll give it.
I'll give it.
No, you've convinced me.
I'll give it a seven, seven.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
But I'm just questioning like our biases, has
it been dragged down by youknow?
That's basically the point ofmy argument.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
I'm going to give it seven, yeah, seven, seven Sony
Walkmans out of 10.
Yep, with Kenny G Playing, orAnya, so Refreshing.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Textbook Movies.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Refreshing Yet Textbook Interestingly.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Refreshing because it's textbook, you know.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Yeah, the simplicity of this movie is actually its
best asset.
Agreed, agreed, 100%.
Yeah, if Ryan Johnson directedthis movie, you probably would
have been like the guy dies,even though this is based on a
true story of a guy that's alive.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
There's taking creative liberties, and then
there's just absolutely shittingon the source material and
going against reality.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Yeah, he would have completely changed the whole
story.
Oh man, or maybe it would havebeen like would have had Daniel
Craig playing his Knives Outcharacter in his solving a who
done it murder?
It starts off you think it's avideo game movie and it actually
turns out to be a frickin' StarWars sequel or something like
that.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Don't reinvent the wheel, sony and wheel and I'm
glad you can Jesus, unintendedpuns, all right.
So sevens all around and, yeah,average movie, you know.
But fun, yeah, no, that's thekey word.
So it is a fun movie for sure.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
And that's us guys.
I'm Michael Pishonary, joinedby Martin Yong, and this is
Movies Worth Seeing.
Thanks for listening.
If you enjoyed the show, pleaseleave us a like, share and
subscribe, and you can alsoleave a review on Spotify or
Apple Podcast if you enjoyedlistening to this podcast.
And that is it.
That's us guys.
Take care.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
Take care, drive safe out there, like all the need
for speed games used to say atthe beginning Out in the real
world you're going to feel theG-Force.
Oh shit, not another chair Forthe audio listeners out there.
I fell, did you do that?
Speaker 1 (43:09):
First you broke a chair in one episode, and now
you want to fall off a chair.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
The G-Force man, the G-Force.
Goodbye guys, this ain't noracing game.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
Do you need a hand or are you okay?
I'm okay.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
All right Audio listeners.
You are missing so much by notwatching the YouTube video.
Hey everyone and welcome to another episode of
Movies Worth Seeing.
I am Michael Pishonery, joinedby Martin Jung.
G'day G'day and on today'sepisode we're going to be
looking at the incredible truestory based on the video game
Gran Turismo.
This is a very different videogame movie because, instead of
it just slapping on the name ofthe video game and making some
(00:24):
random story out of it, like,say, need for Speed or Double
Dragon, any of those or theoriginal 1993 Mario Brothers.
This film has a unique hook inthat it's got a true story about
a gamer who was such a fan,such a pro at the video game
Gran Turismo, a racing simulator, that he ends up winning a
(00:48):
competition to actually competeon a professional level in the
actual in actual racing andcompete with professional racers
that have, like, trained theirwhole lives for it.
It was a good movie.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, in fact, because it was a good movie,
it's become more like an eightor nine, yeah, so you know, if
you get my meaning Like inearlier years, in like early
2000s or something like that, amovie like this would be like
maybe a seven or a six.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
But because of how shitty movies are nowadays and
how corrupted and all thepolitical virtue signalling and
all, that gender pushing.
Yeah, all that stuff that'scorrupted so many intellectual
properties.
Nowadays, gran Turismo is sucha breath of fresh air especially
after watching Barbie andreviewing that piece of shit
(01:41):
because it's just a simple story.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
It's trying to entertain its audience and it's
not trying to subvertingexpectations for the sake of it
or trying to push a certainpolitical message.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
It's not acting like the world's saviour.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
It's just acting like a movie and just telling a
straightforward classic hero'sjourney.
Three act structure, followingall the textbook cliches, but
because of the great cast likeDavid Harbour or Lindo Bloom,
and the main character is playedby Archie Maddukwi, these guys
(02:19):
do such a phenomenal job ofelevating what would look like
to be a pretty typical clichedstory, the premise, especially
for a video game movie.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
And they elevate it into something special.
They give it all these specialmoments and make it so much more
emotionally investing.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Agreed.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
You find yourself going like I know where this
roller coaster is taking me, butI'm just enjoying the ride.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I could tell what was coming up along the hero's
journey, the ups and the downs,but I never felt like they
phoned it in.
I actually could believe and beimmersed in the journey that
every character was goingthrough.
It really helped that becausethis was based on a true story
that I could actually feel andbelieve in the gravity and the
(03:06):
severity of the situation and,as a result, be emotionally
invested whenever they havetheir highs and whenever they
have their lows.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
And it was really elevated by the acting.
Like I actually felt that theyreally put in their efforts for,
like, in the pitch meeting thatthese actors would have gotten,
they would have known that itwas a video game movie and, with
the stigma of video game movies, they could have easily just
like phoned it in and so on.
But like I feel like for avideo game movie, they didn't
(03:38):
need to have a team of writersto write a very textbook movie
but they still put in.
Like, even though I think yousaid it was a pretty cookie
cutter of a script, the actingreally breathed life into it.
Yeah, made it believable.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
You could see the script was like the skeleton of
like a very cliche underdogstory.
But there's, all these funlittle moments and winks and
nods and little things that giveit that special flash where you
feel like this is more than anormal video game movie.
And the fact that the actorsaren't phoning it in.
(04:14):
You don't feel like the actorslooked at this and said, oh,
it's a frickin' video game movie.
Yeah, I'll just do this for thepaycheck.
They've actually got talentedactors Orlando Bloom and David
Harbour phenomenal in theirdifferent roles as mentor
figures for Yarn, the racer, thegamer, and David Harbour
(04:34):
especially.
He is definitely not phoning itin.
Agreed, agreed.
Yes, you feel like he is giving110% conviction in this movie
and he provides some of the bestlaughs, the most emotionally
engaging moments, and he hookedme in Like I wanted to know more
about his backstory.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Oh yeah, and they were planting the seeds
carefully throughout, like theAct One that gets a satisfying
payoff at like the later half ofthe story.
They were sort of subtly and Iwould just appreciate it, for I
don't know how predictable itwas and how well executed it was
, which is weird to say becausewe like it sounds like a
complaint Be saying that, oh, Ican predict what's coming up,
(05:16):
but the fact that it was justlike finally, a movie was just
doing textbook things, I wasjust happy to be taken on a
journey to see them like.
Oh, it's like we know this isthe archetypal mental figure
who's had a grand life in thepast and was met with some kind
of tragedy that stopped him inhis glory days.
He's like a shell of his past.
(05:37):
And now he's the mental figurewho's going to pass the torch to
our protagonist, who's going tolearn from the mistakes of the
mentor or that.
We knew all of that washappening.
We could see it from a mileaway and I never once complained
about that.
In fact, I want to see, like,just how well they executed this
textbook maneuver, you know.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
I wanted to see more detail, and I think that's not
so much a complaint, it's more.
The movie left me wanting more.
I didn't feel the movie wentover time as well, which is a
common complaint for new moviesthese days.
It left me on a high note where.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
I was like yeah, perfect ending beautiful
satisfied.
Exactly.
We, as human beings, like tosee the underdog go through
obstacles and triumph overeveryone doubting them.
We like to see the hero risefrom the rise of the phoenix
from the ashes, from the lowestpoints, to a satisfying
(06:33):
conclusion.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
It's also fun to see the doubters like in a movie
like this, especially where themain protagonist is a gamer.
You know it's typical the gameplays video games all the time
and the parents are like stopplaying your freaking video
games and go outside and playball.
But this kid ends up proving toeveryone that gaming is awesome
(06:54):
and makes a career out ofplaying video games his whole
life.
It's truly the game's dream.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
What every gamer aspires to.
Yeah, I'm happy to see thenarrative slowly shifting, that
there's no longer a negativestigma that gamers like just
basement dwellers who arephysically inactive and can't
even sprint 100 meters.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It challenges the old stereotype and I think that
also comes into what the creatorof Gran Turismo was trying to
achieve was to say this game isso realistic that we are
actually teaching people how todrive racing cars, and you see
that through the game.
You see how well the video gameprepares these kids for the
(07:41):
real life racing experience.
There's obviously going to besome stuff that they have to
adjust to and realize it's notas easy.
There's things that just can'tbe done on the road, like
there's no reset button, there'sno pausing, especially during a
24 hour race, which I can'tbelieve.
That's a thing.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah, like I was two days or when I learned that they
literally just like have a fewraces in rotation just for 24
hours straight, just nonstopdriving.
That has to be the loudest,like 24 hours on earth.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
The main climax.
The main race is called the LeMans race and apparently it's a
real thing and it goes for 24hours.
Who the freak watches racingfor 24 hours?
Like, why would an audience bein the crowd at the start of a
24 hour run?
Wouldn't you just leave andcome at the last, like 20
(08:38):
minutes?
Speaker 2 (08:39):
All that matters is the final few laps.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Yeah, I agree, like we cricket Like when they got
the ashes that go for like threedays and shit.
I always say to myself why thehell would you want to watch a
game for an entire day?
Just shorten it.
Oh man, yeah, I don't get that.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
But I don't know, there might be cricket fans that
are fricking grabbing theirpitchforks right now.
They're grabbing their cricketbats.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
They're grabbing their cricket bats and they
probably want to hit me over thehead right now, but only if I
post this on TikTok, where thereal crazies are.
It's funny that, like nowadays,movies can be so good when they
just ignore being so like,overly political and preaching
to its audience.
And yeah, we were actuallymaking fun of the movie poster
(09:25):
on Instagram saying that thismovie, oh my God, it's a.
It's a deconstruction of toxicmasculinity.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Put it up.
Put it up, martin, in editing.
Yeah, send me the video later,please.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
It's also like one of those movies that isn't too
much to really grab onto, likethere's not a lot to talk about.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, I foresee this is going to be like a short
episode Because it's such a, youknow, textbook movie there's
really not really much to writehome about.
I don't really have much to say.
Like I mean, yeah, other thanit's so normal of a movie that,
unfortunately, in the currentlike lineup of movies we've had
in 2023 and the 2020s to behonest, covid year kind of
(10:06):
movies that post COVID year thathey, this is just a movie movie
.
Okay, it's like we shouldn't befinding this movie to be
refreshing.
What's textbook shouldn't berefreshing and that's just like
a bigger indicator of just thecurrent state of Hollywood.
I guess a conventional threeact structure hero's journey is
something that we enjoyed somuch that we actually
(10:30):
reinvigorated our love of cinema, or something.
When this movie is just thenorm, it's just what a movie
should be.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I also found it refreshing because this is an
existing IP and Hollywooddoesn't have a good track record
with existing IPs.
When there's an existing IP,it's usually either confined to
the platform, like a video gamemovie can be constrained in some
ways because it has to appealto a video game audience, but
(10:59):
then you've got movies likeBarbie that just totally flip
over and become somethingcompletely different, to the
point where you don't even knowthat it was a Mattel endorsed
product.
Whereas this had this greatbalance, grant Turismo had a
great balance where it wasappealing to the fans of it, but
(11:20):
a non-gamer could get behindthe story because it was simple
to understand.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
It tells a very pretty universally
understandable underdog risingfrom the ashes kind of story
that can be separated from, likevideo gaming, but what it just
happens that the premise is thata gamer has risen from the
bottom.
And then there's one point inthe why do video game movies
suck?
Episode that I failed to raise,which we only kind of touched
(11:47):
upon, which is that anotherreason that video game movies
have sort of the stigma of beinglike poorly realized is that
sometimes the director, theproducers and the actors
themselves, if they are notgamers themselves, then it's
harder for them to realize andbreathe life into their
(12:08):
characters, because if they'renot a gamer then it's not like
they can.
There's some kind of sourcematerial that they can read.
They actually have to put inthe hours to play the game, but
if they're not a gamer theydon't know their own character
to the full extent that a gameractually would for a certain
franchise.
You know you get what I mean.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
But the great thing is that, because this movie is
based on a true story, these arereal characters.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
You don't have to play the video games.
No.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
And the real life.
Young Martin Barrow actuallyplayed the stunt double for the
actor in this movie.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Good little trivia.
Information in the at theending yeah, and so you can tell
that this had passion.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
The acting standards are way above what you'd expect
from a video game IP, somethinglike Uncharted, which was
produced by the Sony productioncompany.
Like we had held that last andthat came out, I think, last
year or the year before.
Yeah, but when I compare Iwould not even think that
they're in the same universebecause it's so different.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Same corporate backing as well.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So the director of this film was Neil Blomkamp.
He's known for doing films likeDistrict 9, chappy.
They usually have a verysimilar look to them, but he's
good at dealing with subtext andsocial kind of commentary.
He gives his films, I feel like, a very gritty, realistic look.
(13:35):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's true,and this film has that.
It's not like over the top withits colours and vibrancy, it's
realism.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
So let's jump on to the next chapter of this review,
which would be about just thecinematography of it.
So it's realism, not any fancyblue and red light, none of that
sort of like euphoria kind oflook with Zendaya.
Well, it's not.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Super Mario Brothers, like you don't expect.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
They're not going for the over saturated, they're
grounding it in realism.
Good sound design reallyelevated the frantic and the
visceral nature of the car races.
The quick insert shots and thencoupled by the really rumbling
of the car engines and thezooming shots and just like the
extreme close ups really helpedto elevate us sort of exploring
(14:27):
the protagonists, psyche andadrenaline, mixed with anxiety,
fear, all that stuff Like whenwe have close ups of eyes and so
on.
And also to it's helped by the,the taller expanded 1.85 to one
aspect ratio.
So when you have a talleraspect ratio people's faces take
(14:48):
up more of the entire canvas ofthe movie.
Yeah, just really like thatfast pace sort of editing where
for the most part I wasn't beingwhiplashed by the speed of the
editing, I could follow theaction as well.
But my only caveat is and I willstick by the argument I made in
the review for the Netflixmovie Dayshift with Jamie Foxx,
(15:09):
which is that I do want the useof FPV drone shots.
So it's when like like five,like all these Dutch angle
flying through crowds and goingunder the ball thing.
I do think that for a moviejust solely on like race cars
that it does call for like thoseFPV drones shots, for like the
tracking shots.
But I still do stand by the FPVdrone should be used in
(15:33):
moderation because they wereyeah, more sparingly because
they were having shots likegoing through audience and the
crowds and under things and overthings and this was nowhere
near as bad as Dayshift.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Oh no, I remember Dayshift was like that ambulance
movie where the drone was justflying everywhere and you can
tell it was a drone in this.
I was like, oh, this could havebeen a crane shot.
Or like this makes sense, it'ssetting up the racetrack.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
It's getting us the speed of everything you know and
it's you know, yeah, it worksfor those dynamic, fluid
movement to the camera.
Speaker 1 (16:06):
But in Dayshift I was just like that's a drone shot.
That's a drone shot, Like Ithought that they were going to
have DGI just in the bottomright corner because of how much
and how blatantly obvious thedrone shots were in that movie.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Yeah, where is this?
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
It was seamless.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
Yeah, they were blending them in, really well,
yeah, it makes sense for aracing movie that you use those
fast, like zooming, like flyingshots, for sure, but they must
have got the speed right on thatthing, Whereas, like in
Dayshift, I felt they had itlike maxed out this movie.
The guy was like no, let's turnit down a bit, let's install it
down yeah it matches thevelocity of the cars and stuff
(16:47):
and I there was one shot Ireally really liked which
emulated the camera behind carlook and the turning is like and
as a cinematographer I'm morelike immersed in just figuring
out logistically, likephysically, how they achieved
that shot.
So it's like you're actuallyturning and it to emulate the
(17:08):
video game look, and so on.
And the other thing I liked isthat is the overlays, the like
final lap, fourth lap, fourthplace.
They actually conveyedinformation very well.
They had like the tracking shotsaying Yen was like now 12th
place, and this is not in thecamera department, but I liked
how the antagonist was easilyidentifiable because he was
(17:32):
always colored gold.
So I liked that.
The cinematography, they keptit wide.
When they needed to be, theypunched in for closeups to
really get the adrenalinepumping and there was a clear
understanding of like the ofwhere the blocking, where
everyone was and it's and it'sreally helped by the video game
sort of overlays.
There was one bit at theintroduction in the beginning.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
There was a part where we were kind of like both
had difference of opinion, whereI didn't dislike it, just so
you know, Yen was being chasedby a cop and he was having this
car chase and the movie was justmaking all these video game
announcements like cap avoidance, and it would just slap across
the screen and, like you did it,you win all this crap and I
(18:19):
thought it was freakinghilarious.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I thought, so too.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Yeah, because it made me feel like the movie is not
taking itself.
Are you right?
Oh, jesus Christ.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
But I was saying it was so cheesy but I didn't hate
it.
I also found it funny.
I thought it was cute.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
It was nice to have those little winks and nods to
video game, especially forpeople who've played green, you
win.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
You winner that thing .
We just come up.
Lead time 0.071 seconds.
Whoa, if cops evaded.
To win your winner.
It reminded me of that bit.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
It was the South Park episode.
Are you all right?
Yeah, I'm good, no, no, no,keep going.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
For those listening Martin was spilt all of his tea
all over himself.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
An actual spit take.
Yeah, spit take.
Now I'm worried about youdrinking tea.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
And now I'm just drenched everywhere.
Anyways, audio listeners withno context.
Now you have context.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
You always say something that's going to sound
dirty to people listening, withno context, and that's another
time when Martin says something.
I should make a little segmentwhere I'm like Martin says
something inappropriate,unintentional, innuendo the one
tiny, I guess, pet peeve I hadjust jumping back to.
Speaker 2 (19:36):
I guess.
One final point about thecinematography before we move on
, which is kind of a negativeand a pro bit of a fence sitter
on this is that when they firstannounced this movie, I did
scoff at the idea.
I was like, oh great, it's justSony banking on a franchise to
make another movie.
And because of that, of the factthat it was a video game movie,
(19:57):
I was a bit biased in the sensethat I was conscientious of the
fact that this is a movie witha corporate incentive behind it,
where it was more of a proof ofconcept kind of movie, where
they used this movie to to sortof like demonstrate and test out
the like Sony Venice camerasand so on, like the same ones
(20:17):
they use in Top Gun.
I think it was shot in SonyVenice where the sensor block
could be separated from thecamera body and then placed in
sort of like tiny little crooksand stuff.
And then so I was thinking likeit was more so just Sony
showing off their like cinemalineup of cameras and stuff.
And then that's why, as we weresaying, I was surprised that
(20:38):
they could have just had like avery textbook script, but they
actually put in effort intoexploring the emotional like
journeys of everyone, theclearly defined character arcs
with everyone had theirmotivations and how they come
together and so on.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
They didn't need to do that, there was no point in
the movie where I felt like,okay, there's too much racing,
there's not enough characterstuff.
Oh, that's true, and other wayaround.
There was no point where I waslike bored, wondering when the
next race is happening.
I felt like they broke it upreally well to the point where
there was nothing I felt neededto be cut.
There were no scenes I feltwere too long or too short.
(21:17):
There were little things that Iwould love.
Would have loved to see more ofthat could have been probably
added, like 10, 15 minutes, like, for example, the.
It's not really like a mainantagonist, but Jan has to have
obviously a rival racer tocompete against.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
You need that antagonist to the Protangers,
and yeah, and that antagonisticforce, for sure, for sure, and
David.
Speaker 1 (21:38):
Harbour's character used to train and help out with
this guy.
I think his name was KappaKappa.
Yeah, I missed that detail.
Or his team was Kappa, whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
But yes, it's Kappa.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
And this guy, you know, he plays dirty on the
racetrack.
He hits Yannica once and almostcauses a major car accident.
He almost gets Yann into somedeep shit.
Yeah, actually, and there was apoint where I thought they were
going to go full Rocky stylewith this villain and make him a
(22:11):
bigger deal than he was, butthe movie decided we're not
going to focus too much on that.
So while I would have liked tosee more of this villain, I
would have loved to see, like,what motivates him, why he's the
way he is.
The film makes little remarksto allude that he's kind of this
(22:31):
spoiled brat that's just beenhanded everything, but it would
have been nice to understandmore maybe more from a point of
view why this character has sucha problem with Yann coming from
the gaming world into theracing world, like maybe they
could take creative libertiesand exploring his psyche.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
Well, I guess.
My counterpoint, though, isthat we don't want this biopic
to be like a two and a half hourmovie, I think they just needed
this to be a serviceable,surface serviceable with a
surface level antagonist, andit's one of those nice to haves,
but I don't think it'sabsolutely mandatory because it
(23:13):
would have taken attention awayfrom Yann's hero's journey.
You know what I?
Speaker 1 (23:18):
mean it's just a little bit Like maybe one more
scene with him having aconfrontation without it
extending the runtime too long.
Something small like that.
I felt like there was a momentin the film where that was going
to happen, but it didn't quitehappen.
But it's not like a big deal,it's more like, like you said,
it would have been nice, butinstead he's just kind of like
(23:42):
just looks like Anakin.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
Skywalker Good typecasting, don't you agree?
It's like he's got the doucheyhaircut, you know it's got like
you know, the European look withlike the very defined cheek
bones and stuff.
Do you hate?
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Europeans You're trying to like maybe, as a
villain or something.
I'm just doing that thing thatpeople on TikTok do where they
like just take apart everylittle thing you say and say
that it's racist or sexist.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
They scrutinize, like just one sentence you say, and
then they just likerecontextualize, it's like oh my
.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
God, of course you like this movie.
It's a three male lead movieand there's no girls in it.
You fucking sexist.
There were female characters inthis, but it does bring up a
good point.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
There was also a love subplot that wasn't really
given a lot of time but I don'tthink if this movie needed to
explore that in more detail,same with the antagonist.
And what would you say to that?
Do you think the romancesubplot is something that they
should have spent like maybethree more minutes on or
something, or was it serviceableenough to advance the plot?
(24:43):
Do you think?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
I think it was serviceable.
When I first saw it, I was kindof like I just didn't want to
see a lot of it.
From the first scene where Isaw her, it was a bit like okay,
I know where this is going,it's too cliched.
I'm bored by that.
So I think the movie did asmart job of being like this is
the stuff we have to put in, butwe're not going to spend too
(25:06):
much time on it.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
Nothing overstays its welcome.
Same with like and you saidearlier, none of the set pieces
also fit Like.
Yeah, the things were wellspaced out.
Typically in like video gamemovies, especially movies based
on video games, they will justhave set pieces for the sake of
it, and then they try to onlyjust reverse engineer to figure
(25:28):
out in post.
How do we then string togetherthese large chunks of like
exciting, adrenaline pumpingaction scenes, like it's, those
bits in between?
That's just a bit of a dronefest.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
But yeah, good on the subplots and everything where
they just needed to do justenough and not overstay its
welcome with the romance and thesurface level villain and I
guess just something to add onto the cinematography aspect on
it, which I wanted to add on inthe Day Shift episode is that
when you're a movie viewerwatching a Hollywood movie,
(26:04):
you're going in with theknowledge that this is a
multi-million dollar project.
And so suddenly, when you'rewatching all these footages that
are shot expertly on RE camerasand RED cameras and so on, and
then you suddenly see in theediting that they cut to what's
obviously a GoPro shot, you'retaken out of the immersion
(26:25):
because you're conscious of thefact that all of a sudden they
are cutting to a camera that anyprosumer, any consumer, can
just achieve by going to theirlocal JB Hi-Fi and like just by
a camera that's off the storeshelves, and so it sort of
negatively impacts thatperception of what's supposed to
(26:47):
be an expensive project, it'salso jarring.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
It is jarring because I'm not a big cinematography
guy.
I have you for that.
I'm not a big tech guy, but Ican tell when it goes from like
1080p to 480 or potato mode.
Like you could tell, there's adifference between what they're
using, because it goes frombuttery, smooth and full HD.
(27:12):
Full detail to.
Oh my god, did someone putVaseline all over the camera?
Speaker 2 (27:16):
You, as an average consumer, recognize that it's a
GoPro because it's a verypopular camera and so when
you're conscious of that, ittakes you out of well the story.
You're more thinking about thelogistically.
They just used a suction cup inthe interior of a car to attach
a GoPro, which my son has, youknow, and I myself have shot
footage that looks like that.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Do you have a son?
Speaker 2 (27:38):
I have a son.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
I never knew I'm the father.
What's his name?
Speaker 2 (27:47):
Oh dear, oh god, I have a 13 year old son that I
never knew about What'd you doyou have a kid when you were
eight, oh god.
This episode just took a wholetalk time Speaking of FPV drones
used sparingly, yes, andGoPro's.
I'm glad they didn't useGoPro's.
(28:07):
I'm glad they still use thesame sense of log.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
It would have looked weird if they used the GoPro.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
They needed to keep up.
Keep a consistent aesthetic.
Speaker 1 (28:16):
Like you were saying just realistic lighting.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Oh, and I guess, final thing, I like the sparing
use of sort of slow-mo shots toreally like build the scene.
It's the tiny moments, it's thetiny details like the wheels
kicking up the gravel and thedirt, and you can really pick up
those details.
When it's like extremeslow-motion, like high FPS, you
can see the grit and the dirtand the visceral nature of it.
(28:41):
It helps to really build that.
This racetrack, this is thereal world, this is where you
experience the G-force, this iswhere you feel the inertia from
when you initially pump on theaccelerator that you'll really
push back into your seat.
It's those tiny attention todetails that they incorporate
into the editing and along with,like, the really rumbly sound
(29:01):
design that you experience bestwhen you're in the very center
of the cinema, that really justget like, really hits you in
like heart thumping adrenaline.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
It would have been good if this was like in those
chairs that move around and shit.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
Oh, that would be cool.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
That would have been cool yeah 4D would have worked
well with this.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Yeah, let's like Google and put that comment down
in the section below.
If this is like an actual thing, like some Sony theater, this
would be a good marketing sortof thing to sell to general
audience.
You know, but it is two hoursand so so it might be a bit long
for that.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
This didn't feel that long.
This did not feel like a twohour movie.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
Did you feel like this movie could have some
scenes shaved down, I wonder?
I do feel like, for the scopeof the story they were telling
of this biopic, I think they didneed every minute of it.
Any scenes did you feel likecould be cut out just for like a
sort of a bridged version?
Do you think, or do you think,this was the perfect length?
Speaker 1 (29:56):
I think it was perfect.
Length yeah, felt just rightEnded.
I mean, if I don't look at myphone for a whole movie, that
means it's good pace when youtalk about cinematography,
though, one of the things thatreally got me was the car
crashes, without spoiling toomuch in the movie.
There's a car crash in thismovie that was so visceral with
(30:19):
the way it was captured insidethe driver's seat and with
everything going on.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
It actually brought up stuff for me, because I've
been in a car accident and I waslike they captured that very
well that the whole blacking outsort of it captured the psyche
of the trauma of being in a caraccident, like you're talking
about the use of thecinematography and the sound
design to sort of realize thatsort of like I'm blacking out.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Like deep breathing, sort of heart pumping, sort of
like oh my god, I'm starting tolose myself.
I'm starting to just like oh mygod, I feel like I'm going to
faint so like visions areflashing before me yeah, there
was just so many visual thingsthat were popping and made it
feel raw and like holy crap.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
even though your seat's not moving, you feel like
you're about to fly out of itand fall down into the ball pit
or whatever down where thepeople you know.
We were upstairs, so I'm likewe could have fallen over the
railing and gone down.
That's how it felt with the carcrash.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
So yeah, I guess as a cinematographer I didn't mind
the like all too obvious Sonyproduct placement and like proof
of concept advertising with thecinema line of cameras and
stuff.
And yeah, as I go home, I wouldwant to just like research what
lenses they use for, like theswirly bokeh and like when they
really close up on the eyes andstuff.
And speaking of productplacements, oh fuck, let's go
(31:45):
into that.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
Yeah, my only gripe with Sony movies is they always
have to remind you constantlythat it's a Sony movie, like you
see so many products and somany times where Sony is just
lavered all over the screen.
And normally I'm okay with it.
But there's one part in thismovie, a really emotional moment
(32:08):
, that's freaking, very wellacted and fully invested.
But then you just see a giantSony logo in the center of the
frame and you're like, fuck guys, couldn't we have like taken it
out of this scene and put insome other useless establishing
shots or something?
And there's plenty of uselessshots that have PlayStation
(32:33):
logos and Sony and Gran Turismologos.
And it's all good, I get it.
I understand that this is, Imean, ideally this is a giant
commercial for Gran Turismo.
Of course, much betterstandards than most kind of
intellectual properties, ofcourse.
But I know going into this it'sgoing to have some product
(32:53):
placement.
But there was that.
Just it really kind of irked meon that particular scene.
Speaker 2 (32:58):
The Sony.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Walkman yeah, it's like the actor's crying, he's
got tears coming down his faceand then the next shot's just a
big Sony.
I'm like you totally took meout.
You totally took me out of it.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
No, 100% agreed, 100% agree.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
I don't want to like see someone like about to die in
a movie and then a charactergoes and grabs a defibrillator
and he's like thank God I havethese Sony sponsored
defibrillators nearby, oh dear.
Click, click, click.
So that was one very smallgripe, but I knew it was coming,
(33:36):
because Sony are freakingterrible at hiding their product
placement in movies.
Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, it wasn't even subtle about it, especially
because it was a prop that wasused at an emotional high point
of the movie.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
But having said that, this movie is, if this is
Morbius and this is yeah, ifthis is Morbius and this is Into
the Spider-Verse, it's likearound here it's definitely more
leaning more towardsSpider-Verse than it is towards
Morbid time.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
I was wondering how Morbius got brought into this
conversation.
Speaker 1 (34:13):
Because it's a Sony movie.
Oh, okay, I see what you mean.
That's why people thought thiswould be shit, because Sony
either does really fucking goodwith Spider-Man or they do
really freaking bad withSpider-Man, like Morbius and
Uncharted.
There's no in between.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
Rarely.
Is there an in-between movie.
That's a good point.
No, I agree, I agree, yeah,yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a, it's a
movie, movie.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Having said that it would have been good if there
was, like maybe a post-creditsscene where Morbius just came
out and he was like I'll see you, I'll see you on the racetrack.
Morbius will return, it'smorbentime.
But yeah, I loved Gran Turismo.
I thought it was a great time,very fun movie.
Might not be the most memorablefilm, but if it's on like this
(34:59):
would be the perfect movie towatch on a plane trip or
something like that.
And you'll get invested but youwon't.
It's probably not somethingyou'll go back to, but it was an
enjoyable experience.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
I think well, with the comment on like, this would
be sort of a movie to like passthe time on like a plane or
something.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
That doesn't mean bad .
Speaker 2 (35:23):
No, it's just.
I do think, though, thatbecause this for a racing movie,
there's all the more attentionput into the sound design and
sort of that larger than lifesort of scope that you would
sort of be doing at this serviceto not watch this in a theater.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
Yeah or great home theater system.
Speaker 2 (35:42):
Whereas if you're only watching this through
headphones, earbuds on the plane, then you would miss out a lot
on the careful attention todetail in sort of the editing
and the sound design, and you'donly be watching it for the
story.
And if you're only watching forstory then I guess it's
(36:02):
somewhat of a serviceable likeunderdog rise from the bottom to
the top sort of like.
Here is journey thing.
Yeah, if you want somethingthat's serviceable not a problem
.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
I'm saying taining fun visuals and isn't trying to
shove a political message downyour throat, then grant to Rismo
is a good time.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Yeah, no, 100% agree.
Speaker 1 (36:24):
Yeah, I'd give grant to Rismo, maybe like a seven and
a half 80 out of 10.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Yeah, Mmm, let's stick around.
See, it's hard because, likethe recent slate of movies
really has dragged down sort ofmy hopes for Hollywood
storytelling.
And so when you know there's avery textbook heroes journey
where you see the incitingincident, you see the hero, you
(36:52):
know going through the obstacles, because you know obstacle,
like friction, builds character,and then you see, like at the
end of act two, the heroreaching a low point, you know,
with the big accident thathappened.
Are we talking spoilers?
Speaker 1 (37:07):
We're talking spoilers.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
We've got to let him know, yeah, spoilers.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
Spoiler warning.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
Okay, here's your spoiler.
Look you just got Someone dies.
Okay, I'm just going to splitthat out.
There there was.
I didn't even count down to thespoilers, but someone dies
Spoiler.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
Morbius is in the movie.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Yes, he is and.
Speaker 1 (37:23):
Vulture and Spider-Man.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
But if I was to continue by that point of the
movie, we've seen the characterprogress and go through so many
doubters.
And then when he had thatreally fatal accident where his
car was going up a hill and itacted like a sail, All right, we
don't have to say exactly whathappened Okay so anyways, he is.
Speaker 1 (37:44):
You can just say he went through a trauma.
Yeah and yeah.
Speaker 2 (37:49):
And like being indirectly responsible for the
actual death of somebody.
Speaker 1 (37:55):
You could have said the character deals with some
guilt following a trauma.
Speaker 2 (37:59):
Okay, well, by that point we have.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
been so, jesus man, if we were talking about Star
Wars, would you say, oh, andDarth Vader's Luke's father?
Speaker 2 (38:07):
Now, yes, because everyone.
Yeah now.
But I'm saying if we werereviewed, back when it first
came out.
Anyways, my point is that bythat point of the story we were
so, even though we knewsomething bad had to happen,
because of us seeing the trailerwe was, by that point of the
story, we had been so engrossedin the character's progression
and invested that we reallybought into it.
(38:29):
Yeah, even though it waspredictable.
But again, like I said at thebeginning of this episode, me
saying that this movie waspredictable was not a complaint,
and so, yes, I would give it aseven, but it's like it's just
what a movie is supposed to justdo.
That's just a baseline.
So, I supposed to rate it sohigh.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
If this movie came out in another time in the world
when movies weren't so shit,this movie would probably be a
six six and a half probably.
But because of the current stateof Hollywood and with how
terrible movies are, for example, if I watched this movie right
after Thor, love and Thunder,I'd probably say it's a 10 out
(39:13):
of 10 movie, just because of howbad Thor, love and Thunder is.
But, being fair, I also went inwith low expectations, so
that's another thing whichprobably affected you.
Yeah, that's the thing.
We both thought.
It's an intellectual property,it's a video game movie and no
one was really talking about it.
(39:33):
And it's a Sony movie.
Yeah, so there's a lot ofthings working against it there,
where we say it must be shit,but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Yeah, so yeah, I guess.
Ultimately my point is it'sdefinitely above average, but
I'm hesitant to give it a higherscore than the movie honestly
is.
It's just a textbook hero'sjourney movie.
It's not meant to be arefreshing thing.
So I'll say seven, but onlyjust hesitantly.
Speaker 1 (40:01):
You know it's not groundbreaking, it's not
Nolan-esque like poignantstorytelling, you know oh
because we didn't see the caraccident at the start and then
we didn't see how it led up tothe car accident.
We didn't see that, nolan.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
Not linear, non-linear.
Speaker 1 (40:17):
Oh fuck, if Nolan directed this, we wouldn't have
heard any of the freakingdialogue.
Oh no, slow down, slow down.
So, mike, is he here to tellyou why you're racing so fast?
Master Wayne, you shouldn't beracing like that, all right.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
Anyway, seven and a half and seven.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
I'll give it.
I'll give it.
No, you've convinced me.
I'll give it a seven, seven.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
But I'm just questioning like our biases, has
it been dragged down by youknow?
That's basically the point ofmy argument.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
I'm going to give it seven, yeah, seven, seven Sony
Walkmans out of 10.
Yep, with Kenny G Playing, orAnya, so Refreshing.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Textbook Movies.
Speaker 1 (41:12):
Refreshing Yet Textbook Interestingly.
Speaker 2 (41:16):
Refreshing because it's textbook, you know.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
Yeah, the simplicity of this movie is actually its
best asset.
Agreed, agreed, 100%.
Yeah, if Ryan Johnson directedthis movie, you probably would
have been like the guy dies,even though this is based on a
true story of a guy that's alive.
Speaker 2 (41:34):
There's taking creative liberties, and then
there's just absolutely shittingon the source material and
going against reality.
Speaker 1 (41:43):
Yeah, he would have completely changed the whole
story.
Oh man, or maybe it would havebeen like would have had Daniel
Craig playing his Knives Outcharacter in his solving a who
done it murder?
It starts off you think it's avideo game movie and it actually
turns out to be a frickin' StarWars sequel or something like
that.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
Don't reinvent the wheel, sony and wheel and I'm
glad you can Jesus, unintendedpuns, all right.
So sevens all around and, yeah,average movie, you know.
But fun, yeah, no, that's thekey word.
So it is a fun movie for sure.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
And that's us guys.
I'm Michael Pishonary, joinedby Martin Yong, and this is
Movies Worth Seeing.
Thanks for listening.
If you enjoyed the show, pleaseleave us a like, share and
subscribe, and you can alsoleave a review on Spotify or
Apple Podcast if you enjoyedlistening to this podcast.
And that is it.
That's us guys.
Take care.
Speaker 2 (42:43):
Take care, drive safe out there, like all the need
for speed games used to say atthe beginning Out in the real
world you're going to feel theG-Force.
Oh shit, not another chair Forthe audio listeners out there.
I fell, did you do that?
Speaker 1 (43:09):
First you broke a chair in one episode, and now
you want to fall off a chair.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
The G-Force man, the G-Force.
Goodbye guys, this ain't noracing game.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
Do you need a hand or are you okay?
I'm okay.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
All right Audio listeners.
You are missing so much by notwatching the YouTube video.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com