January 11, 2024 • 51 mins
Has the superhero genre finally met its kryptonite? This episode pulls no punches as we take aim at the cinematic disappointments that marked 2023, with a particular side-eye at the superhero fatigue that "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania" so clearly embodies. We throw down the gauntlet on Marvel's relentless release schedule, debating its toll on even the most die-hard fans. But it's not all doom and gloom; we shine a light on "Across the Spider-Verse" for its breath of fresh air in a stifling year for the industry.
You thought "Barbie" was just child's play? Think again. We strip down the layers of misguided marketing that left us with more than we bargained for, peeling back the political veneer that the trailers carefully concealed. In an era where even the heavyweights like David Fincher stumble, we dissect the disconnect that left "The Killer" in the shadows of his past glory. And as for the legacy sequels like "Indiana Jones 5," we grapple with the question: Are they redefining classics or just riding on nostalgia's coattails?
We wrap things up with a reflective glance at the year's challenges and a hopeful gaze towards the horizon. Despite the stumble of DC films and the waning allure of the big screen, we spot a flicker of hope in the surprising dynamism of "Godzilla Minus One." And as we bid adieu to the year with a mixture of humor and weariness, our anticipation for "Deadpool 3" proves that our love for cinema burns eternal. So join us as we raise a toast to the past and set our sights on the cinematic adventures awaiting us in the new year.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Whoo no, we bring on the shit storm.
Oh yeah, I actually likedOppenheimer.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
But what are we All right?
Hey everyone, and welcome toanother episode of movies worth
seeing, movies not worth seeing.
Well, on this particular,barrel oh.
God, it makes me absolutelyfuming this year.
It does you need to take a shitor something?
(00:30):
What's going on?
How?
Speaker 1 (00:32):
appropriate because the contents of this toilet
stool looks like the releaseschedule of 2023.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
God makes my blood, my blood, to the boiling point.
I love how, even when you'retrying to be angry, you're still
not.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
As you can tell, we're doing the polar opposite
of the other episode that weactually just finished recording
, which was an episode all aboutthe positivity that came out of
this year, and so what is theopposite of positive?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Today's episode is about the worst of 2023.
Horrible.
They're the movies that made uscringe, the movies that we
hated, the movies that we almostwalked out of the theater.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
That is assuming I even entered the theater in the
first place.
A lot of some Well like.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
These are the only ones that I accidentally ended
up watching and didn't avoidpurely for your Enjoyment, for
your entertainment makes myblood boil.
This year does.
Oh man, I wasn't gonna watchBarbie.
There's no way I was gonnawatch Barbie if not for this.
But I did.
I Sacrificed myself, yourviewing pleasure, and now you
(01:50):
didn't even balance it.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
You didn't even try balancing it out with
Oppenheimer, the Yan to the Ying, you know dude, I'm done.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I'm done with Nolan.
Okay, and it turned me off of.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Nolan, just give it a chance.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I know what to expect now with Nolan, and I'm just
not.
I just Just give it one morechance, man, I just give it one
more chance.
It's no, come on.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It's a return to form for for Nolan, and they
actually Pay attention to sounddesign and it's actually telling
a very compelling sort of likecharacter piece.
All right, and it had you knowcold war political thrill into
it.
That was actually engaging.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It's not.
It's not the top movie.
Fuck, I can't do three ourmovies bro I.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Can't there, is that okay?
Well then, you'd have to theninclude the Martin Scorsese
movie into it as well.
Three and a half hours, yeahwell, I didn't watch that either
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I should just make a list of movies that I Should
have reviewed this year, but Ijust could not be fucked.
Killers of the flower, moon andOppenheimer definitely on there
.
Anyway, let's start off theactual list of stuff that we did
watch.
Okay, you saw this one.
I didn't Amp in.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
I have not, no.
So yeah, look, I'm just gonnasay it up front, I've given up
everything.
Marvel across the spider-versewas the exception To the robot.
I just think it's not just asuperhero fatigue or superhero
burner, it's more sort of justlike movie burnouts in general
(03:23):
this year.
There's just so much contentwhen, when you have tentpole
films after tentpole films notdoing so well at the box office,
that is what's going to sourthe general mood of the average
consumer, which again I broughtthis point up in the positive
episode, but here in the I'lljust reiterate it it's not just
(03:44):
the Marvel fans and the DC fansthat are coming to the theaters
and making box office monies,it's also the average consumer
that's not bought into the wholesummer blockbuster thing.
They'd like people did not rockup to watch blue beetle,
aquaman 2.
They don't care anymore.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
They don't care anymore, just don't care.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
We're done Exactly and everyone hated secret
invasion.
And then just Disney's puttingall of their bags into Jonathan
Majors and then him turning outto be prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So you know, slow down, modern, you'll have plenty
of time to shit on Disney lateron.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
But just a super cliff notes introduction to like
the amount of topics that we'regonna dive deep, deep into in
terms of the General sentimentsof the audience and therefore,
why 2023 has been such a Fallingoff a cliff.
Hollywood in general, man.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I just can't believe really like ant-man needs three
movies.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Really.
Yeah, it was always theunderdog of.
Like the MCU, it never was thebiggest box office draw and
Marvel knew that.
So they made it smaller stakes.
But then they attached Kang theconqueror into it.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
That's the whole thing for me is like the first
ant-man was actually a surpriseheat that like I don't think
anyone was expecting to be good,but yeah neither did Marvel, I
think yeah, no, but I had.
Yeah, I'd had the genericMarvel villain that was
underdeveloped.
But you had all this other coolstuff like a fight scene on a
toy train, because bothcharacters are shrunken down or
(05:13):
like when they're fighting inthis briefcase.
That's dropping from the skywhile playing the cure, I was
like, oh my god, this is unique.
Yeah, it's actually differentfriend.
This is shit.
I don't see all the time inthese movies and all of that
just gets taken away in Ant-Manand the wasp quantum mania and
(05:35):
then it amplifies all the worstparts of my.
So you've watched it?
No, but I watched enough toknow what I watched enough like
research and shit and looked atreviews in that I wasn't gonna
fucking pay money to see thisshit.
No, you kidding me, I'm fuckingso fatigued.
Yeah the only reason I watchedacross the spider-verse is
(05:57):
because I feel different aboutthe animated stuff.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, yeah, that was always the exception to the rule
, the spider-verse franchise, ifwe can call it that yeah, well,
the first one was amazing.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah and ha ha, because spider-man amazing
anyway, good pun there, mrmissionary pun pun intended.
The superhero movies this yearwere just some of the laziest
shit.
Marvel just bombed a lot.
She ain't been bombed flashbombed Aquaman to bombed just.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Movie fatigue, not just a super, I mean accelerated
by the whole superhero movement, where James Gunn's is still
wanting to develop a whole bunchof DC characters.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Just give it a break.
I think Marvel and DC need tolike take like five years, yeah,
and just don't produce anythingfor a while.
Well, let us miss you.
Let us fucking miss you.
We can't miss you if you'realways fucking there.
Yeah, exactly that the issueslike right.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, you need like a gap between releases, and it's
amplified by, like, how Commonthe episodic series are.
It's like there can be oneepisodic release that's like
drag out for months and monthsand then, after the series ends
or before it ends, there'salready a, the next movie comes,
has come out, and so there's nospacing in between.
Because, you know, in betweenmovie releases there's like at
(07:21):
the TV series run and, and soit's like you always feel like
you're being bombarded with someMarvel content all the time,
that you don't feel that absencein between.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
And then, if you let's say you do watch the show,
for example, wanda vision.
People almost got punished forwatching Wanda vision and then
watching multi-versa madnessbecause Of all these
inconsistencies with the story.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, and then the other side of that is like with
the Marvel's where they prettypretty much made Wanda vision
miss Marvel, whatever it'scalled, the one with Iman
Vellani like.
But they made like those twoseries pretty much essential
viewing because if you onlywatched the movies you would be
so lost as to who the littlegirl is and who Monika Rambo was
like.
That was being Like standingshoulder to shoulder with Brie
(08:08):
Larson's character.
Are you even gives a fucking?
So there's this like reallyinteresting commentary I saw
online I missed the Sundaymovies where they said we're
kind of in a phase now whereit's sort of comparable to this
right you had in the comic run.
They had the death of Supermanand that was like the big, big
draw for people.
(08:28):
That was like the bigworld-ending events.
Worlds came crumbling downbecause of that and then, after
such a big, monumental event,they then tried to recreate that
sort of moment with somethinglike, say, maybe Bane breaks
Batman's back or something, justsomething to like up the ante.
And the thing is is that comicbook numbers have just not been
(08:53):
the same since when you havesuch a big event and like
stories since then have onlygotten better.
There is that, but the salesnumbers have just never been the
same since, and we're kind ofin that phase with the movies.
After you end off soconclusively with Endgame, which
had a decade plus of build-upsand so on, now you end off with
(09:14):
such a huge battle andeverything.
The only times the post-Endgamemovie seems to be doing well is
if it's something similar interms of like Avengers scale of
like threats, world-endingevents.
They have to bring back legacySpider-Man characters to draw
people in After you have Endgame, unless it's yet another
(09:35):
world-ending events.
People don't care to watch themovies that have lower stakes,
like I think you brought thatpoint up in Doctor Strange 2,
where it's like, now that youhave this post-Endgame, why
doesn't he just bring in theother Avengers?
It's like, how do you get theaudience to care about something
that's not as serious as like aThanos, like world-ending,
(09:56):
universe-ending events?
It's like you can't get us tocare about these sorts of things
anymore.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I think most Universal Madness had a whole
bunch of issues.
That movie was just all overthe place and it had some really
dumb moments that are meamed todeath because of how stupid
they are.
And I think the problem withMarvel is there's no
cohesiveness, there's no feelingthat everything is building
(10:21):
towards something, and even whenit is supposed to be Ant-Man
and the Wasp introducing KangConqueror.
He gets defeated really easily.
And then Kang has beenmentioned in Loki, and that's
about it.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Well, loki, season 2 seemed to have ended off like
Loki's character arc, where nowthe Kang's are no longer out of
the picture.
Now, because now Loki is theone that sits at the epicenter
of everything, instead of thisKang variant that's called he
who Remains, instead of justbuilding up to like Avengers 5
or something.
See, the thing is that despitethe huge cast of characters that
(10:58):
they introduced in phases 1, 2and 3, there was still a central
3 characters there was Iron man, there was Captain America and
there was Thor.
That's like the 3 swordsmen, ifyou will, the Old Guard, and so
, yeah, there was that cohesionto it where everyone else was
like a supporting character.
And you could extend thatdefinition to beyond to say
(11:19):
include Black Widow and Hawkeyeand the Hulk, the original Six
Avengers member.
But after that you can't no onecan clearly articulate who the
central figurehead is for Phase4 and onwards.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
You could point to Iron man being like the number
one Exactly.
It was all like his arc in away.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
But now that he's gone it's almost like Marvel
doesn't know who the nextcentral person is meant to be or
whoever the central antagonistis going to be now because of in
real life court trials andprosecutions, and even if
Jonathan Majors wasn't guilty,there still has been a big
(12:02):
writing issue where they triedto treat TV series the same as
movies, where you kind of haveto pace it out differently,
though that's the problem.
But Kevin Feige was trying torun the productions like as if
it was just a film, but itdoesn't work like that, though.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
It makes the audience feel like you're doing homework
for the movie Exactly Like.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
In order to understand that movie, you
needed to have watched this,this and this series.
Just to understand somethingthat runs for less than two
hours, that's a hard sell.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Bro, I can't even watch.
I struggled to cover like oneshow.
I struggled for time.
I can only imagine, you know,families with children and stuff
like that.
They don't have time to watchall these fricking shows and
then go to the cinemas and belike, oh, I know everything, you
know, like they just want totake the kids, to shut them up
(12:55):
for an hour and a half, twohours and have a fun time.
And they can't do that becausethen the kids are probably like
I don't know what's going on andthe parents are like I don't
know what's going on either.
Can't I just watch a fuckingmovie?
Speaker 1 (13:08):
You know and not have to have you know all these
prerequisites in order tounderstand the premise of this
movie.
It's like as if we're justjumping in in the midst of an
act two.
Yeah, again, it's just moviefatigue, and I'll extend that
definition to just contentfatigue in general, when so much
stuff is releasingsimultaneously that people still
(13:29):
haven't watched, and or theystill haven't watched like all
the other Disney Plus series,because so much stuff has come
out that they've just been backlock and you will burn out just
having just staring at yourscreen for so long.
To the point, so much likesuperhero and sci-fi shows and
Star Wars shows are just can'tbe bothered.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
It takes an hour to work out.
Like all right, where do I evenstart with this shit?
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Oh yes, like it's overwhelming, yeah, and too many
cooks in the kitchen as well,like when you have too many.
Like TV shows and movies, theyare all going to have different
show runners and directors, andMarvel is infamous for its
secrecy, even amongst its ownpeople, and so when Sam Raimi is
doing one thing with thischaracter he doesn't know what
sort of transpired inWandaVision.
He was only like, given a CliffNotes version.
(14:15):
You're going to start havingand we're seeing this take
effect now where, beyond theoverwork stuff, you're seeing
just a lack of cohesion in termsof, like, well, we were going
to take this character in thatdirection, but then this one
director sort of took adifferent direction and now we
kind of have to retroactivelywork with whatever, however,
they ended off that character'sarc.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
No one has their different visions intact.
We got hooked on Multiverse ofMadness because Sam Raimi is
directing it, so you can expecta Sam Raimi movie.
And then we watched him.
Well, like, this doesn't feellike a Sam Raimi movie, this
just feels like a generic Marvelmovie.
How'd this happen?
And then you go watch Thor andyou're like, oh my God, this is
(14:57):
a complete Tycho Wattitidisaster.
There's movies that do have thedirector's vision, and then
there's other films that thedirector's vision has clearly
been silenced completely.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Just follow these dot points that we've laid out,
these blueprints that we've laidout.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
You're just there to do a job so yeah, they just want
these gun for hire directorsnow to just do what they want,
and no one has a creative kindof voice.
It's all.
They just can't all get on thesame page.
And it's too many, you know,like you said, too many cooks in
the kitchen.
But we could talk and shit onMarvel and Disney till 2024,
(15:37):
which is only a few days away atthe time of this recording.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Yes, I want to move on In two days.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
I want to move on to another movie that I'd love to
talk about, because, as a whitemale, I'm not really allowed to
talk about it.
Apparently, according to theinternet, you can see where this
is going.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
You have the floor, you have the mic.
You can see where this is going.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
That is all.
That's all I'm allowed to say.
The less said the better.
Yeah, barbie.
It was pretty funny actuallyreleasing the Barbie review this
year with my partner because Ithought to myself oh well,
having a woman on the show alsosaying that it's shit kind of
proves my point that it wasn'tjust me saying it's shit because
(16:19):
I'm a white guy, but it justwas a shit movie.
It objectively was not a goodmovie.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Yeah, the interesting point you raised in your review
of it which I didn't considerbut it made sense when you said
it was that like putting likethe politics of society, she's
also not just a really likeablecharacter.
It's not really any personalitytraits about her beyond the
politics that makes us sort offeel like feel engaged no,
(16:47):
everyone's more engaged in Kenand his arc and his story.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
He has more of a change from the start of the
movie to the end of the movie.
He is more likeable.
Ryan Gosling is funny.
He doesn't take himselfseriously.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
I'm just Ken.
So really, barbie just getspushed to the side in a way,
because she's not interesting asa character and what troubles
me is that the same examplesthat we would draw to critique
its messaging are also the exactsame examples that, like the
opposition, draws in support ofthe movie.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
If the marketing for this movie was honest about what
it was, Mission Impossiblecould have beat this.
I feel If people knew it waswoke garbage from the trailers,
they were very clever with theirmarketing because they knew we
can't show too much on thismovie because then people will
(17:47):
know what it is.
They'll know the piece of shitit is.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's an on the nose political commentary that's not
even trying to hide it.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Yeah, because because as soon as that movie starts,
you know exactly what you'regoing to get.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
And they liked it and they omitted all that in the
trailers.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Yeah, it's too fucking late, because you're
already they've already got youin.
Yeah, okay, they already hookedyou through your kitchen
kitchen kitchen bait and switch.
You know it was funny.
I was in JB Hi-Fi and there wasa couple that walked in there
and the stupid Barbie DVD wasright at the front, Uh-huh.
(18:25):
And the woman was like, oh myGod, this looks so lovely Like
we should.
She was checking it out.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
She never knew this, like the whole barbenheimer
phenomenon.
I don't know, she was like weshould watch this together,
wouldn't?
This be lovely.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And the guy was just like he didn't even say no, he
just like made a grunt and waslike, ah, okay.
And I was like good call man,good call bro.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
You just got to pick your battles, you don't?
You don't need to like explainaway like the entire ins and
outs of like why you shouldn'tjust say no and then move on,
because you're going to open upa whole can of worms.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
I've never watched a movie that had such a
condescending tone to aparticular part of the audience.
In my whole life I've neverseen a movie like that.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
I've had someone say oh well, you need to watch it
repeatedly because it's a creditgirl.
We're moving because it's acredit girl movie.
So that's why you didn'tunderstand it the first time.
I watched it twice.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Not willingly.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
There's no ambiguity to the kind of messaging that
they're trying to like shove inpeople.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
That was the worst part was all the bullshit from
people online.
Just been like you just don'tget it, man, you just don't get
it.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Okay, well then explain away then.
What is the nuance that we aremissing?
What is it that we are atotally glossing over?
That supposedly our ignoranceof the messaging speaks to our
biases and our so and so that weare part of the problem because
we don't get it.
Yeah, the movie is all aboutyou.
You're the problem becauseyou're the one that doesn't get
(20:06):
it.
Ha see, Gotcha, the internethaving that gotcha moments
thinking they pooned you becauseyou know the internet comments
section is Fabulous like that.
They think they want anargument, bit You're.
They're met with silence.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, pretty much so there's no point Glass half full
.
I do like the Ken song, I wouldadmit that, and I was singing
it, I was listening to it, Iliked it.
Also, there's a heavy use ofmatchbox 20.
The song push and that's a goodsong too, even though the
movie's trying to use it in away of saying like, oh, because
(20:43):
he's a man, he's trying to pushher around or whatever.
I was like go get fucked.
I like matchbox 20.
So I don't care.
Yeah, lots of horses, I have tosay.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
What is with the weird obsession with horses?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Okay, anyways, the less set up about Bobby, the
better, and the other thingabout Bobby is now everyone is
going to use it as an argumentto be like, see, you all say get
what go bro, but Bobby did it,bobby did it.
And it's like, yeah, because noone knew until it was too late
that it was woke.
They had already been in theswitchboard.
(21:15):
And you also had Ryan Goslingand Margot Robbie.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that too.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
And you had an intellectual property that kids
are going to want to go see.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
Yeah, and Bobby is an international figurehead, yeah
for sure.
Yeah, it's not just an Americanthing.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
So you can get away with that.
We.
What's an example?
If you made a new Spider-Mananimated movie or new Spider-Man
movie, people are going to gowatch it.
Yeah, and even if it's woke,it's probably still going to do
well at the box office.
The reception won't be good,but it'll probably still do well
(21:51):
.
They still got your ticket.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
I wonder then if it's a blessing in disguise that
with the strikes, that theActors couldn't go on to those
press tours to then push themovie, and so on.
Maybe blessing in disguise isnot the right time, because by
the lack of us hearing anythingabout barbenheimer is what drove
people to watch the moviewithout any preconceived like
bias or knowledge of thecontents of the movie and the
(22:15):
political messaging of the dualfeature releases.
Well, that was also the thingyou had two movies going up
against each other that was soRadically different from each
other and we didn't knowanything about it because of the
lack of press tour, with theongoing strikes For bidding them
from, so the only way you couldfind out what the fuss is about
is by watching it.
So then, maybe that alsocontributed to the box office
(22:38):
phenomena that we saw, with,like it, grossing over a billion
dollars, or something like that.
So I think it's a combinationof them, omitting the
on-the-nose political agendapushing and also, with the
perfect storm of this, the ofthe strikes going on.
That then led to a lack ofknowledge about what the movie
is really about and the only wayto, and also just the intrigue
(22:59):
of how do you make a movie aboutBarbie that is, people were
like all right, how's this gonnawork?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I thought it was a musical, I thought it was gonna
be a fish out of water story.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Oh, actually I should have say I thought it was gonna
be.
It should have been a fish outof water story about the
Misadventures of Barbie and Kendiscovering Southern California.
Like well, what the hell's thisroller-skating?
And it should have just beenthat, and then that's it, and
that would have been serviceable.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's the other thing is, yeah, you get away
from all the politics stuff andjust look at it for the way the
story unfolds and you're likethis movie is trying to do so
much all at once.
It's going in so many differentdirections.
I'm like I can't like Just pickone lane and we could have a
movie here.
It's trying to say too much,you know, and it's not
(23:47):
entertaining about how it'strying to convey its message at
all.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah, so I'm just.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Ken is I guess an exception, but well, that's why
that's a highlight of the movieis because it's the most
entertaining part, because it'sgetting across the characters,
motivations and strugglesthrough the musical and there's
like all this fun visual imagery.
You got the guys like fightingeach other but water guns and
(24:16):
shit and it's fun and funny.
But that's the only part.
The rest of the movie, there'snone of that the other Musical
scores were not as memorable.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, I only remember the.
I'm just Ken.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
And yeah, they had other choreographed songs in
there, but I don't remember anyof them the only other one was
the part that's the catalyst,where Everyone's just like happy
, go lucky, like oh, baby, coolday.
Yeah, I'm putting my shoes onthe water doesn't work, but oh
well, I'm still having a show.
And then it goes like that forages and ages, before the moment
(24:52):
where Barby's just like hey,does anyone ever think about
dying?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Oh yeah, that was pretty funny.
Yeah yeah, that was out of leftfield.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
What?
All right.
Moving on the killer I felt thekiller was just disappointing
in slow burn, very, very fuckingslow movie.
Such a slow movie in the worstpart.
Another movie where everyoneelse was like you just don't get
it, man, when you're watchinghim.
Just sit there.
(25:23):
It's a metaphor, man, I'm likeI don't give a fuck.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You clearly don't understand the deeper meaning
behind Michael fast bendersitting butt naked in the shower
and are seeing his butt crackthrough foggy.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Doesn't actually happen, right.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
No, doesn't that make the cut or something?
Isn't there a shot of him likein the shower, just like sitting
butt naked or something in thisand then that's.
You don't see his ass oranything.
No, I'm saying through thefoggy like shower, lots of shots
of like Michael fast benderjust staring at shit.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's like the whole fucking movie.
Okay, whether it's in a showerwhile he's taking a dump,
whatever the fuck he's doinglistening to music, there's just
a lot of staring.
Look, michael fast bend isamazing.
He's a great actor.
His performance in this, in thekiller, is fantastic.
Nothing wrong with it when yousee him.
(26:19):
I even said my review.
I was like actors would willstudy his performance in a movie
like the killer.
I'm sad that that doesn't meanthe killer is a good movie.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I haven't watched the movie but I guess my
counterpoint would be okayregarding your comment about
actors Is looking into hisperformance.
Is that a Michael fast benderthing or is that just an editing
thing where they employing thewhole cooler Shove effect?
Do you know the whole?
Like you have a shot of a manstaring, then a cutaway to
(26:51):
something pleasing like Motherwith children, then cut back to
him smiling.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
So not cool a shove effect, no, no, because it's the
exact opposite.
The shots are lingering.
But he's just staring at stufffast bender while there's voice
over narration.
Okay, maybe through the voiceover narration.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
But what if they, like, took those same shots and
then did a cutaway to like anice cream cone or something?
They don't do that?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
They don't cut away to anything.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Oh, it's just just him, it's just okay, all right,
fair enough then.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
right sure, despite that his acting is very
interesting and engaging andthere was moments where I was
like holy shit, michael fastbend is doing that single tear
thing or Just stuff with hiseyes where you can see the whole
story through just his eyes andit's incredible to watch.
It's just a shame that there'snot enough going on in the movie
(27:52):
for me to actually care.
Yeah, it was dull, bland andboring.
I felt like I was playing aMortal Kombat like test your
mind minigame and I justcouldn't do it.
It actually took me multipletries to get through the whole
movie because I kept fallingasleep.
It just reminded me of betterfilms from David Fincher that I.
I watched seven the other dayand when I started watching it,
(28:16):
even though I've seen sevenmultiple times, I still just
Could not look away.
Even though I know how it'sgoing to end and I know every
little step of the film, I can'thelp but watch it.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It's just it's the world building, it's the theme,
it's the characters yeah, thedetective duos yeah, it's the
backdrop of it all.
It's the religious undertone aswell.
The seven deadly sins, theopaqueness of the identity
behind the mastermind, behind itall it's all these things that
(28:53):
come together to make for anengaging watch that keeps you
going forward and it's buildingtowards this mystery.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You want to find out who the killer is, why they're
doing this, what the fuck istheir story?
There's so much that you'reintrigued by.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
It's a constant raining.
You know it's criminalunderworld, yeah, man, so see no
rays of sunshine.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Even as we're.
As I was talking about thekiller, we got off tangent onto
seven and now I'm like stucktalking about seven because I'm
like, oh my God, that movie isso much more interesting.
Can we just talk about seven?
And when did that movie?
Speaker 1 (29:31):
come out.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Bro.
That movie came out the year Iwas born.
And it looks like it could havecame out today If not for the
fact that, obviously, morganFreeman and Brad Pitt have aged.
That movie looks like it couldhave came out today.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Yeah, just when that movies took their time to for,
in terms of world building, thatfilm timeless looked nothing
like anything else that came outthat year.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
If you go back and look at what movies looked like
in 1995, you would not thinkthat was released in the same
year.
It was just so ahead of thecurve.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
You're talking about the visual aesthetic of the
movie.
Yeah, okay.
Well, what about, likethematically?
Speaker 2 (30:13):
as well, was it?
Speaker 1 (30:14):
also just like wow, like groundbreaking in terms of
like, how dark it got.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Everything about it.
How dark it was.
Religious undertones you knowthe themes and credibly fucked
up.
Some of the situations were theshock ending.
Oh, yes, it was without flatout showing the gore, but
alluding to the gore.
Fuck him for nominal movie.
(30:40):
If you haven't seen seven, gowatch seven.
Don't watch the killer, watchseven and then watch every other
movie David Fincher's doneexcept for this.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, oh God, it's much more interesting, it's much
more engaging talking aboutseven and all of its intricacies
than the killer then yeah.
Oh, dude, I can talk aboutseven for ages, yeah, but the
lack of passion.
In talking about the killer'smonotony, it just goes to
demonstrate just how much of afall from grace it is.
(31:09):
In like his filmography, youknow, it's just like.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
It's kind of making me think, right.
So like in seven, for example,have you seen seven?
Yeah, yeah, okay, all right,great.
So, for example, in seven theysubverting expectations of you
know the way an investigationgoes right, like how you
investigate a serial killer andtrying to get inside their mind.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
They sometimes have to not play by the book or
whatever the phrase is likedoing things by the book.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
You know, yeah, yeah, they have to skirt the lines
and like you see them struggleto investigate and find out what
this guy's deal is and wherehe's going to go next.
You see that you see them go tothe library Morgan Freeman's
character and try and find theconnections with biblical
references and stuff like that.
(32:00):
But it's interesting to watchhim work it out.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
So yeah, to watch everything unfold and also, you
know, just seeing what linesdetectors will cross, like
smashing through the door andthen paying someone to pretend
to be an eyewitness, blah, blah,blah, in order to get in
without a search warrant.
You see, you know, just like wehave to get to the bottom of
this, no matter what, theeverything is just so engaging.
It's the layering effect andthe fact that we're talking
(32:26):
about it in the year 2023.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
still, what's in the box?
You know that's in the box.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
And like that infamous scene is everyone seen
that one scene, but that's justlike a small part of the whole
equation.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
That's like there's people that haven't seen the
movie and know what I'm talkingabout.
Exactly, that's transcendent.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
That's shocking in it , that's seen a shocking itself.
But you are doing yourself adisservice if you don't watch
everything that had led up tothat moment to really feel the
gravity, the culmination ofevery moving Jigsaw piece that
had led up to that moment.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Maybe the problem with the killer is that David
Fincher is so good at his job,he's such a great innovative
director that the killer, incomparison Like if it was any
other director, I would be like,oh yeah, whatever, it's all
(33:20):
right.
But because it's David Fincher,I think to myself what the fuck
is this?
Speaker 1 (33:25):
shit.
Interesting observation.
It's the contrast, yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
It's that expectation of that pedigree that you know
and love, and the disappointmentwhen you don't get that.
That, I think, is what made meso pissed off and negative with
the killer.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I think it's only natural that when you have a
movie director that has releasedsomething so phenomenal, it's
inevitable that their otherreleases can't stand up to the
same amount of love and cultclassic status as the biggest
work.
Like you know, shindless Listor Jurassic Park.
There has to be that plateau.
(34:08):
That's still like more of apassion project and it's not
that you can't have every singleone of a movie be to the same
high.
Even Tarantino, you know he'sgot what 10 movies in his whole
life or something.
He's saying that like his 10thwill be his, like very last or
something like that.
But like you can't accept, Iexpect all 10 of those movie to
be of the exact same.
(34:28):
Like high caliber.
Some are going to have to takethe hit Some are going to have
to take the fall.
And I think that's where you'resaying your disappointment came
from that this is one of thelesser like David Fincher movies
.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
It would have been a fun experiment to watch that
movie, not knowing David Fincherwas the director.
And see what I thought You'regoing over the bias that this is
a big name movie director.
Maybe that is the problem,because it's also the same thing
that scares me off of watchingthe Irishman.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Killers of the Flower .
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Moon is.
I hold Martin Scorsese in sucha high regard that I don't want
to see this down for when theirhearts not in it or they're just
too fucking in a twilight ofhis in his late 80s or something
.
Or they're just too stuck uptheir own ass to realize that
(35:22):
not every fucking thing they dois going to be brilliant.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Yeah, that hesitation to watch, like the later movies
, which is something that Ithink is also what happened with
Indiana Jones 5.
If we were to transition totalking about that movie,
everyone thought to themselvesJames Mayn, god's directing it.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
It'll be good.
He did, logan, he's a gooddirector.
And no, that's not whathappened.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I had my skepticism.
Still, what was your skepticism?
Despite knowing that he's anaccomplished director, it's
still the circumstance, thereality that this was a
character that we did not needto see his story continue
onwards.
When you end off a timelesstrilogy with the shot of the
(36:10):
four horsemen riding into thesunset, you don't need to see
and this is an overall, biggerDisney problem.
That also happened with LukeSkywalker, where we are now
seeing legacy characters as ashell of their former selves.
We don't see them go out in ablaze of glory.
We're now witnessing thesecharacters live out the rest of
their mortal life as a shriveledold man who's past their prime
(36:34):
and can't seem to do as much andhas become a bit more jaded.
We don't want to see ourbeloved character now become
senile and be going againsttheir past ideals when they were
more youthful.
We don't want to see that.
That's just tapering off.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
We also don't want to see other characters just shit
on them, yeah, especially whenthey're meant to be characters
that we like, like his Goddaughter, whatever the fuck she
was.
We don't want to see her justput shit on him the whole time
Because you're old and becauseyou're a man and this and that
(37:11):
it's like that's the only wayyou want to go see.
When you see Indiana Jones,maybe you can subvert
expectations with the character.
You can reboot the character,like Batman or James Bond.
We saw that, we can see nowRoyale, we saw that with Batman
Begins.
But you can't do this thingwhere and I guess the problem is
(37:32):
with Indiana Jones is that he'ssynonymous with Harrison Ford,
so you can't just get a newactor to play Indiana Jones.
That's not going to work eitheras a reboot or a retelling it
worked for.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
I guess it worked for Mad Max few road with Tom Hardy
.
It actually yeah.
A retelling of the samecharacter, the same lore.
But yes, that's not exactlyapplicable to Indiana Jones, as
you said, because of just howsynonymous Harrison Ford is with
Indiana Jones, where the twoare pretty much like blurring
together.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
But with Mad Max at least you had George Miller
returning, so you had theoriginal voice.
Yeah, that's true, yeah, yeah,he's DNA and his philosophy you
could tell that with Mad MaxFury Road it was almost like
this is what George Millerwanted to do with the old Mad
Max films, but he was limited bythe technology and the way that
(38:27):
action was filmed and thebudget, but when he was given
everything, he, he just yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
No instead like after this, no instead of after the
film movie or whatever.
Like he's just got busy withdoing happy feats, so that's
that too.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Yeah, he did other stuff, so so you didn't know
what to expect.
There was such a big jump andthe other thing as well, as I
think Mad Max three wasn't asgood, so it was almost like
making up for that, what like.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Fury Road was making up for three.
You're saying yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
Whereas with this, for example if Indiana Jones
free of making up for four, yeah, but instead people, people
were ready to look past for andbe like, yeah, we're just going
to ignore Four and pretend thatit ended at three, yes, but now
they have to ignore two movies.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Oh wow, it's a.
It was a gamble they tried totake and it's failed as well.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
It didn't feel like they were going in trying to
address issues that were donewith four.
If anything, they doubled downon what made it so bad?
Man, oh why?
Speaker 1 (39:42):
And, like Harrison Ford, is not going to get any
younger, and it's impossible torecast someone that capture the
Harrison Ford persona in IndianaJones.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
So, oh, my God.
It's just make you say GI andjust yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
I guess.
But there's the Harrison Fordeffect.
So like, okay, they should havemaybe to cut their loss and end
off with four as much of ablack sheep as that is.
But now the consequence is justeven more dire than if they had
just left it alone.
Left it well enough alone.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
I mean, I guess at least if you had just done a
John Wick four and just ended itand been like, yeah, he's gone,
at least people would have beenlike, well, at least I had the
balls to fucking kill him offand just be like, no, we're not
going to do anymore, that's it.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
And in stark contrast to just like book ending a
character.
Well, this year we can finallysay goodbye to a decade long
franchise, which is the DCextended universe.
Just to briefly touch on that,you know good read.
Good readings to that.
The less said the better aboutthose again.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Wait a minute, so we're not going to get a blue
beetle to you.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, anyways, yeah.
So about the death of the DC?
No, no, look man, it was justthe perfect storm of everything
that could go wrong.
Going wrong which you know thewhole content fatigue, the, the
prosecution of Amber, heard, thedisinterest in anything that's
not Batman and just juststreaming shows everywhere,
(41:12):
People knowing that James Gunnis going to take over for a new
revitalization.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
I find it interesting that back girl got cancelled,
but then they kept going withthe flash.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Why did they double down on that?
Speaker 2 (41:25):
It just makes me feel like what the hell did back
girl do to be cancelled?
But the flash wasn't?
Yeah, like I legit feel likeEzra Miller could have killed
someone and they still wouldhave been.
Like we're still going torelease it.
This red carpet is as red asthe blood of your victims.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Oh man, why did the flash Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2
need to come out?
Well, it's because it's kind ofa case of the horses left the
barn, and so it's like they'vealready too deep into filming,
into production, that it's justlike it has to be thrown out, to
be dead on arrival.
It had to be something thatthey've already invested too
(42:08):
much into it to just shelve.
But then again, yes, again,good point Back girl.
Why did they shelve that?
But then continue on withreleasing these three as DOA
releases.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
At least with back girl.
It would have been a differentcharacter and we didn't.
We wouldn't have known what toexpect.
Shazam 2, Aquaman 2 and theflash they were all characters
from other movies or theirsequels.
So we knew what we were getting.
I think, maybe they didn't wantto take the gamble of.
It's a new character thatpeople aren't familiar with.
(42:42):
Okay, again, this is against thebackdrop of James Gunn
rebooting everything, Becausenot only did the Flash, have the
Flash, but you also had MichaelCaden's Batman Returning, which
was the big selling point formost people.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
The only selling point.
Like Luke Aegis, our friendLuke Aegis, who was in the
Scream review, he had no idea heis categorized under the
general consumer who's not intothe whole superhero movie at all
.
He had no idea the Flash wascoming out and he was like we're
talking about people who don'tcare at all the whole news about
(43:18):
Michael Caden coming back andstuff, and it's those audiences
that DC and Marvel is missingout on.
You just can't get people tocare about.
Even if you're trying to getnostalgia back from like legacy
characters that came from likefour decades ago, people just
have not shown up.
It just it despised the cameosfrom Michael Caden and George
(43:40):
Clooney as well.
So you just can't get audiencesto care about it anymore.
Apart from just the criminalcharges of the main star, no one
cares about movies in generalnowadays, which is a really bad
sign of as to the health thestates of Hollywood in general.
You know.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
The test for me was I said to my brothers who are
older than me, who grew up likethey were kids, when Michael
Caden, batman, came out.
I said to them Michael Caden isin the new Flash movie as
Batman, he's back and they werelike why.
They were like why I don't getit what the fuck?
Speaker 1 (44:20):
There's either like indifference or just the whole
why aspects Like why bring backlike decades or legacy
characters?
So they had everything workingagainst it.
Yeah, it wasn't like noSpider-Man, no way home, where
people were felt the excitementto bring back those characters.
It felt this was the opposite.
It felt like desperation,desperation, yes, just throw in
(44:42):
some like cheap lines from likehow much do you weigh?
And it's like let's you want toget nuts, let's get nuts.
Instead of it being a crowdpleaser moment, it was just
maybe met with a that feltobligatory.
It felt like he was phoning itin just trying to do nostalgia
bait.
So yeah, it was indifference orhesitation.
It did not feel earned andpeople just are not going to the
(45:06):
cinemas anymore.
And I had a watershed momentwhere the only good Marvel thing
to come out apart from Lokiseason two and the what if?
Season two is like with theGuardians three, where it's just
like I know it's good, like itwas the only good thing to come
Marvel stuff to come out thisyear, but because of the burner
I just did not feel compelled towatch it.
So just 2023 in general, itjust it just gave up on watching
(45:30):
movies to be honest, I thoughtyou were going to say I gave up
on live.
But yeah, general audience hasgiven up on the Hollywood
machine which is you know thebackdrop of why we had flops
after flops of all these 10 polemovies.
That's all it takes for thegeneral consumer sentiments to
really go down in the dumps.
And so, leading into 2024, withthe sag strikes and stuff, it's
(45:54):
going to be a drought ofcontent.
So hopefully the lack ofreleases in 2024 is going to
give Hollywood that reset, maybea sort of blank slate, but then
it's going to.
I just feel it's going to be arepeat of 2020 COVID, where the
lack of content will thenconvince executives to then
overproduce for 2025 onwards,which then would lead to more
(46:16):
news articles about overworkedfilm staff and so on, and then
we're going to be back to thesame old song and dance again.
So, just to end off this roundof negativity, we had bad movies
, which against us a very souryear.
If we want to get even moredepressed, we could go into the
economy, recessions and stuff,but 2023 is not a good year for
(46:39):
movies, for the Hollywoodindustry in general.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
Well, on that note, on that happy note, I'm going to
watch Godzilla minus one.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
So that is really good.
Okay, I will admit there'slight at the end of the tunnel.
I will give it that.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
I think that we need to step away from American
movies and branch out more, andthat might be the secret.
Because when I was looking at,that Rotten.
Tomatoes Top 100,.
A lot of those movies wereinternational, like different
countries, so it made me thinkmaybe the American cinema is
just in a real bad state rightnow.
(47:16):
But this represents anopportunity for the other
countries to avoid thosepitfalls by not going down those
routes of political virtuesignaling and superhero shit and
tired franchises beingresurrected because they don't
have those franchises to rely on.
So they have to be morecreative, which ends up creating
(47:40):
better content in the new year.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
Yeah so maybe the strikes leading to a drought of
content is a good thing.
It's going to give Hollywoodtime to a bit of reassessment,
because it's been stuck in afeedback loop of just like
overproduction, overworked stuff, unhappy working conditions and
just revitalizing of franchisesthat nobody wants we need to
look at this year as a giantwake up call to Hollywood.
Speaker 2 (48:07):
Yeah, and be hopeful that it took a couple of years
but it is catching up to themand that is how I'm looking into
2024.
But we are definitely going tolook at like movies coming out
in 2024 or the lack of movieswhich breath of fresh air.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
I'm looking forward to the lack of movies in 2024
because it gives that gap, giveus the time to catch up.
Yes well, not just to catch up,but also the absence makes the
heart grow fonder.
Give us time to miss stuff.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Yeah, man, so that is the worst movies of 2023
covered.
If you enjoyed the show, pleaselike, share and subscribe and
leave us a review.
If you enjoy the podcast andthat is me- guys.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
So ends a sour year and so ends a sour episode.
On a sour note, and to washthat taste away from your taste
buds, watch the polar opposite,the antithesis of this episode,
and I think that corner overthere the I icon for good movies
of this year, because thereactually are positive sun rays
(49:16):
at the end of the tunnel.
That is 2023, despite all thesag, strides and everything,
there were good stuff that cameout this year, and when I was
saying good as a point ofcomparison, I'm saying like it
was actually phenomenally good,you know.
So watch that episode, you'llsee what we mean.
As we try to really put on thepoker face of a smile, as we try
to keep, as we try to like pushdown this negative energy that
(49:41):
we had in us as we were doingthat whole entire episode,
because we had a lot to say.
As you can tell, that reallywas our sentiments.
Like, yeah, let's smile throughthe pain that is 2023 and all
the crap that came out of thatyear.
And now that we have let outall this negative sentiments, we
can release our shoulders.
It just feels like a hugeweight has been lifted.
My heart feels lighter as well.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
So looking forward to less movies.
It's like the moment when youadmit like you're an alcoholic.
It's just good to just let itout.
You know I need a shot afterthat.
Speaker 1 (50:16):
Yeah, he needs to visit the doctors to cure all
that.
So, happy new year everyone.
Happy new, see you whenever.
Maybe Deadpool 3, which isslated to be pretty good.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
The outro has gone really fucking long.
Just wrap it up, modern.
Whoo no, we bring on the shit storm.
Oh yeah, I actually likedOppenheimer.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
But what are we All right?
Hey everyone, and welcome toanother episode of movies worth
seeing, movies not worth seeing.
Well, on this particular,barrel oh.
God, it makes me absolutelyfuming this year.
It does you need to take a shitor something?
(00:30):
What's going on?
How?
Speaker 1 (00:32):
appropriate because the contents of this toilet
stool looks like the releaseschedule of 2023.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
God makes my blood, my blood, to the boiling point.
I love how, even when you'retrying to be angry, you're still
not.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
As you can tell, we're doing the polar opposite
of the other episode that weactually just finished recording
, which was an episode all aboutthe positivity that came out of
this year, and so what is theopposite of positive?
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Today's episode is about the worst of 2023.
Horrible.
They're the movies that made uscringe, the movies that we
hated, the movies that we almostwalked out of the theater.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
That is assuming I even entered the theater in the
first place.
A lot of some Well like.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
These are the only ones that I accidentally ended
up watching and didn't avoidpurely for your Enjoyment, for
your entertainment makes myblood boil.
This year does.
Oh man, I wasn't gonna watchBarbie.
There's no way I was gonnawatch Barbie if not for this.
But I did.
I Sacrificed myself, yourviewing pleasure, and now you
(01:50):
didn't even balance it.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
You didn't even try balancing it out with
Oppenheimer, the Yan to the Ying, you know dude, I'm done.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I'm done with Nolan.
Okay, and it turned me off of.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Nolan, just give it a chance.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
I know what to expect now with Nolan, and I'm just
not.
I just Just give it one morechance, man, I just give it one
more chance.
It's no, come on.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It's a return to form for for Nolan, and they
actually Pay attention to sounddesign and it's actually telling
a very compelling sort of likecharacter piece.
All right, and it had you knowcold war political thrill into
it.
That was actually engaging.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
It's not.
It's not the top movie.
Fuck, I can't do three ourmovies bro I.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Can't there, is that okay?
Well then, you'd have to theninclude the Martin Scorsese
movie into it as well.
Three and a half hours, yeahwell, I didn't watch that either
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
I should just make a list of movies that I Should
have reviewed this year, but Ijust could not be fucked.
Killers of the flower, moon andOppenheimer definitely on there
.
Anyway, let's start off theactual list of stuff that we did
watch.
Okay, you saw this one.
I didn't Amp in.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
I have not, no.
So yeah, look, I'm just gonnasay it up front, I've given up
everything.
Marvel across the spider-versewas the exception To the robot.
I just think it's not just asuperhero fatigue or superhero
burner, it's more sort of justlike movie burnouts in general
(03:23):
this year.
There's just so much contentwhen, when you have tentpole
films after tentpole films notdoing so well at the box office,
that is what's going to sourthe general mood of the average
consumer, which again I broughtthis point up in the positive
episode, but here in the I'lljust reiterate it it's not just
(03:44):
the Marvel fans and the DC fansthat are coming to the theaters
and making box office monies,it's also the average consumer
that's not bought into the wholesummer blockbuster thing.
They'd like people did not rockup to watch blue beetle,
aquaman 2.
They don't care anymore.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
They don't care anymore, just don't care.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
We're done Exactly and everyone hated secret
invasion.
And then just Disney's puttingall of their bags into Jonathan
Majors and then him turning outto be prosecuted.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So you know, slow down, modern, you'll have plenty
of time to shit on Disney lateron.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
But just a super cliff notes introduction to like
the amount of topics that we'regonna dive deep, deep into in
terms of the General sentimentsof the audience and therefore,
why 2023 has been such a Fallingoff a cliff.
Hollywood in general, man.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
I just can't believe really like ant-man needs three
movies.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Really.
Yeah, it was always theunderdog of.
Like the MCU, it never was thebiggest box office draw and
Marvel knew that.
So they made it smaller stakes.
But then they attached Kang theconqueror into it.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
That's the whole thing for me is like the first
ant-man was actually a surpriseheat that like I don't think
anyone was expecting to be good,but yeah neither did Marvel, I
think yeah, no, but I had.
Yeah, I'd had the genericMarvel villain that was
underdeveloped.
But you had all this other coolstuff like a fight scene on a
toy train, because bothcharacters are shrunken down or
(05:13):
like when they're fighting inthis briefcase.
That's dropping from the skywhile playing the cure, I was
like, oh my god, this is unique.
Yeah, it's actually differentfriend.
This is shit.
I don't see all the time inthese movies and all of that
just gets taken away in Ant-Manand the wasp quantum mania and
(05:35):
then it amplifies all the worstparts of my.
So you've watched it?
No, but I watched enough toknow what I watched enough like
research and shit and looked atreviews in that I wasn't gonna
fucking pay money to see thisshit.
No, you kidding me, I'm fuckingso fatigued.
Yeah the only reason I watchedacross the spider-verse is
(05:57):
because I feel different aboutthe animated stuff.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Yeah, yeah, that was always the exception to the rule
, the spider-verse franchise, ifwe can call it that yeah, well,
the first one was amazing.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Yeah and ha ha, because spider-man amazing
anyway, good pun there, mrmissionary pun pun intended.
The superhero movies this yearwere just some of the laziest
shit.
Marvel just bombed a lot.
She ain't been bombed flashbombed Aquaman to bombed just.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
Movie fatigue, not just a super, I mean accelerated
by the whole superhero movement, where James Gunn's is still
wanting to develop a whole bunchof DC characters.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Just give it a break.
I think Marvel and DC need tolike take like five years, yeah,
and just don't produce anythingfor a while.
Well, let us miss you.
Let us fucking miss you.
We can't miss you if you'realways fucking there.
Yeah, exactly that the issueslike right.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Yeah, you need like a gap between releases, and it's
amplified by, like, how Commonthe episodic series are.
It's like there can be oneepisodic release that's like
drag out for months and monthsand then, after the series ends
or before it ends, there'salready a, the next movie comes,
has come out, and so there's nospacing in between.
Because, you know, in betweenmovie releases there's like at
(07:21):
the TV series run and, and soit's like you always feel like
you're being bombarded with someMarvel content all the time,
that you don't feel that absencein between.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
And then, if you let's say you do watch the show,
for example, wanda vision.
People almost got punished forwatching Wanda vision and then
watching multi-versa madnessbecause Of all these
inconsistencies with the story.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Yeah, and then the other side of that is like with
the Marvel's where they prettypretty much made Wanda vision
miss Marvel, whatever it'scalled, the one with Iman
Vellani like.
But they made like those twoseries pretty much essential
viewing because if you onlywatched the movies you would be
so lost as to who the littlegirl is and who Monika Rambo was
like.
That was being Like standingshoulder to shoulder with Brie
(08:08):
Larson's character.
Are you even gives a fucking?
So there's this like reallyinteresting commentary I saw
online I missed the Sundaymovies where they said we're
kind of in a phase now whereit's sort of comparable to this
right you had in the comic run.
They had the death of Supermanand that was like the big, big
draw for people.
(08:28):
That was like the bigworld-ending events.
Worlds came crumbling downbecause of that and then, after
such a big, monumental event,they then tried to recreate that
sort of moment with somethinglike, say, maybe Bane breaks
Batman's back or something, justsomething to like up the ante.
And the thing is is that comicbook numbers have just not been
(08:53):
the same since when you havesuch a big event and like
stories since then have onlygotten better.
There is that, but the salesnumbers have just never been the
same since, and we're kind ofin that phase with the movies.
After you end off soconclusively with Endgame, which
had a decade plus of build-upsand so on, now you end off with
(09:14):
such a huge battle andeverything.
The only times the post-Endgamemovie seems to be doing well is
if it's something similar interms of like Avengers scale of
like threats, world-endingevents.
They have to bring back legacySpider-Man characters to draw
people in After you have Endgame, unless it's yet another
(09:35):
world-ending events.
People don't care to watch themovies that have lower stakes,
like I think you brought thatpoint up in Doctor Strange 2,
where it's like, now that youhave this post-Endgame, why
doesn't he just bring in theother Avengers?
It's like, how do you get theaudience to care about something
that's not as serious as like aThanos, like world-ending,
(09:56):
universe-ending events?
It's like you can't get us tocare about these sorts of things
anymore.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
I think most Universal Madness had a whole
bunch of issues.
That movie was just all overthe place and it had some really
dumb moments that are meamed todeath because of how stupid
they are.
And I think the problem withMarvel is there's no
cohesiveness, there's no feelingthat everything is building
(10:21):
towards something, and even whenit is supposed to be Ant-Man
and the Wasp introducing KangConqueror.
He gets defeated really easily.
And then Kang has beenmentioned in Loki, and that's
about it.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Well, loki, season 2 seemed to have ended off like
Loki's character arc, where nowthe Kang's are no longer out of
the picture.
Now, because now Loki is theone that sits at the epicenter
of everything, instead of thisKang variant that's called he
who Remains, instead of justbuilding up to like Avengers 5
or something.
See, the thing is that despitethe huge cast of characters that
(10:58):
they introduced in phases 1, 2and 3, there was still a central
3 characters there was Iron man, there was Captain America and
there was Thor.
That's like the 3 swordsmen, ifyou will, the Old Guard, and so
, yeah, there was that cohesionto it where everyone else was
like a supporting character.
And you could extend thatdefinition to beyond to say
(11:19):
include Black Widow and Hawkeyeand the Hulk, the original Six
Avengers member.
But after that you can't no onecan clearly articulate who the
central figurehead is for Phase4 and onwards.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
You could point to Iron man being like the number
one Exactly.
It was all like his arc in away.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
But now that he's gone it's almost like Marvel
doesn't know who the nextcentral person is meant to be or
whoever the central antagonistis going to be now because of in
real life court trials andprosecutions, and even if
Jonathan Majors wasn't guilty,there still has been a big
(12:02):
writing issue where they triedto treat TV series the same as
movies, where you kind of haveto pace it out differently,
though that's the problem.
But Kevin Feige was trying torun the productions like as if
it was just a film, but itdoesn't work like that, though.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
It makes the audience feel like you're doing homework
for the movie Exactly Like.
Speaker 1 (12:22):
In order to understand that movie, you
needed to have watched this,this and this series.
Just to understand somethingthat runs for less than two
hours, that's a hard sell.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Bro, I can't even watch.
I struggled to cover like oneshow.
I struggled for time.
I can only imagine, you know,families with children and stuff
like that.
They don't have time to watchall these fricking shows and
then go to the cinemas and belike, oh, I know everything, you
know, like they just want totake the kids, to shut them up
(12:55):
for an hour and a half, twohours and have a fun time.
And they can't do that becausethen the kids are probably like
I don't know what's going on andthe parents are like I don't
know what's going on either.
Can't I just watch a fuckingmovie?
Speaker 1 (13:08):
You know and not have to have you know all these
prerequisites in order tounderstand the premise of this
movie.
It's like as if we're justjumping in in the midst of an
act two.
Yeah, again, it's just moviefatigue, and I'll extend that
definition to just contentfatigue in general, when so much
stuff is releasingsimultaneously that people still
(13:29):
haven't watched, and or theystill haven't watched like all
the other Disney Plus series,because so much stuff has come
out that they've just been backlock and you will burn out just
having just staring at yourscreen for so long.
To the point, so much likesuperhero and sci-fi shows and
Star Wars shows are just can'tbe bothered.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
It takes an hour to work out.
Like all right, where do I evenstart with this shit?
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Oh yes, like it's overwhelming, yeah, and too many
cooks in the kitchen as well,like when you have too many.
Like TV shows and movies, theyare all going to have different
show runners and directors, andMarvel is infamous for its
secrecy, even amongst its ownpeople, and so when Sam Raimi is
doing one thing with thischaracter he doesn't know what
sort of transpired inWandaVision.
He was only like, given a CliffNotes version.
(14:15):
You're going to start havingand we're seeing this take
effect now where, beyond theoverwork stuff, you're seeing
just a lack of cohesion in termsof, like, well, we were going
to take this character in thatdirection, but then this one
director sort of took adifferent direction and now we
kind of have to retroactivelywork with whatever, however,
they ended off that character'sarc.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
No one has their different visions intact.
We got hooked on Multiverse ofMadness because Sam Raimi is
directing it, so you can expecta Sam Raimi movie.
And then we watched him.
Well, like, this doesn't feellike a Sam Raimi movie, this
just feels like a generic Marvelmovie.
How'd this happen?
And then you go watch Thor andyou're like, oh my God, this is
(14:57):
a complete Tycho Wattitidisaster.
There's movies that do have thedirector's vision, and then
there's other films that thedirector's vision has clearly
been silenced completely.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Just follow these dot points that we've laid out,
these blueprints that we've laidout.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
You're just there to do a job so yeah, they just want
these gun for hire directorsnow to just do what they want,
and no one has a creative kindof voice.
It's all.
They just can't all get on thesame page.
And it's too many, you know,like you said, too many cooks in
the kitchen.
But we could talk and shit onMarvel and Disney till 2024,
(15:37):
which is only a few days away atthe time of this recording.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Yes, I want to move on In two days.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
I want to move on to another movie that I'd love to
talk about, because, as a whitemale, I'm not really allowed to
talk about it.
Apparently, according to theinternet, you can see where this
is going.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
You have the floor, you have the mic.
You can see where this is going.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
That is all.
That's all I'm allowed to say.
The less said the better.
Yeah, barbie.
It was pretty funny actuallyreleasing the Barbie review this
year with my partner because Ithought to myself oh well,
having a woman on the show alsosaying that it's shit kind of
proves my point that it wasn'tjust me saying it's shit because
(16:19):
I'm a white guy, but it justwas a shit movie.
It objectively was not a goodmovie.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Yeah, the interesting point you raised in your review
of it which I didn't considerbut it made sense when you said
it was that like putting likethe politics of society, she's
also not just a really likeablecharacter.
It's not really any personalitytraits about her beyond the
politics that makes us sort offeel like feel engaged no,
(16:47):
everyone's more engaged in Kenand his arc and his story.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
He has more of a change from the start of the
movie to the end of the movie.
He is more likeable.
Ryan Gosling is funny.
He doesn't take himselfseriously.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
I'm just Ken.
So really, barbie just getspushed to the side in a way,
because she's not interesting asa character and what troubles
me is that the same examplesthat we would draw to critique
its messaging are also the exactsame examples that, like the
opposition, draws in support ofthe movie.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
If the marketing for this movie was honest about what
it was, Mission Impossiblecould have beat this.
I feel If people knew it waswoke garbage from the trailers,
they were very clever with theirmarketing because they knew we
can't show too much on thismovie because then people will
(17:47):
know what it is.
They'll know the piece of shitit is.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
It's an on the nose political commentary that's not
even trying to hide it.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Yeah, because because as soon as that movie starts,
you know exactly what you'regoing to get.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
And they liked it and they omitted all that in the
trailers.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Yeah, it's too fucking late, because you're
already they've already got youin.
Yeah, okay, they already hookedyou through your kitchen
kitchen kitchen bait and switch.
You know it was funny.
I was in JB Hi-Fi and there wasa couple that walked in there
and the stupid Barbie DVD wasright at the front, Uh-huh.
(18:25):
And the woman was like, oh myGod, this looks so lovely Like
we should.
She was checking it out.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
She never knew this, like the whole barbenheimer
phenomenon.
I don't know, she was like weshould watch this together,
wouldn't?
This be lovely.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
And the guy was just like he didn't even say no, he
just like made a grunt and waslike, ah, okay.
And I was like good call man,good call bro.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
You just got to pick your battles, you don't?
You don't need to like explainaway like the entire ins and
outs of like why you shouldn'tjust say no and then move on,
because you're going to open upa whole can of worms.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
I've never watched a movie that had such a
condescending tone to aparticular part of the audience.
In my whole life I've neverseen a movie like that.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
I've had someone say oh well, you need to watch it
repeatedly because it's a creditgirl.
We're moving because it's acredit girl movie.
So that's why you didn'tunderstand it the first time.
I watched it twice.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
Not willingly.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
There's no ambiguity to the kind of messaging that
they're trying to like shove inpeople.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
That was the worst part was all the bullshit from
people online.
Just been like you just don'tget it, man, you just don't get
it.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
Okay, well then explain away then.
What is the nuance that we aremissing?
What is it that we are atotally glossing over?
That supposedly our ignoranceof the messaging speaks to our
biases and our so and so that weare part of the problem because
we don't get it.
Yeah, the movie is all aboutyou.
You're the problem becauseyou're the one that doesn't get
(20:06):
it.
Ha see, Gotcha, the internethaving that gotcha moments
thinking they pooned you becauseyou know the internet comments
section is Fabulous like that.
They think they want anargument, bit You're.
They're met with silence.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Yeah, pretty much so there's no point Glass half full
.
I do like the Ken song, I wouldadmit that, and I was singing
it, I was listening to it, Iliked it.
Also, there's a heavy use ofmatchbox 20.
The song push and that's a goodsong too, even though the
movie's trying to use it in away of saying like, oh, because
(20:43):
he's a man, he's trying to pushher around or whatever.
I was like go get fucked.
I like matchbox 20.
So I don't care.
Yeah, lots of horses, I have tosay.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
What is with the weird obsession with horses?
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Okay, anyways, the less set up about Bobby, the
better, and the other thingabout Bobby is now everyone is
going to use it as an argumentto be like, see, you all say get
what go bro, but Bobby did it,bobby did it.
And it's like, yeah, because noone knew until it was too late
that it was woke.
They had already been in theswitchboard.
(21:15):
And you also had Ryan Goslingand Margot Robbie.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's that too.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
And you had an intellectual property that kids
are going to want to go see.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
Yeah, and Bobby is an international figurehead, yeah
for sure.
Yeah, it's not just an Americanthing.
Speaker 2 (21:30):
So you can get away with that.
We.
What's an example?
If you made a new Spider-Mananimated movie or new Spider-Man
movie, people are going to gowatch it.
Yeah, and even if it's woke,it's probably still going to do
well at the box office.
The reception won't be good,but it'll probably still do well
(21:51):
.
They still got your ticket.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
I wonder then if it's a blessing in disguise that
with the strikes, that theActors couldn't go on to those
press tours to then push themovie, and so on.
Maybe blessing in disguise isnot the right time, because by
the lack of us hearing anythingabout barbenheimer is what drove
people to watch the moviewithout any preconceived like
bias or knowledge of thecontents of the movie and the
(22:15):
political messaging of the dualfeature releases.
Well, that was also the thingyou had two movies going up
against each other that was soRadically different from each
other and we didn't knowanything about it because of the
lack of press tour, with theongoing strikes For bidding them
from, so the only way you couldfind out what the fuss is about
is by watching it.
So then, maybe that alsocontributed to the box office
(22:38):
phenomena that we saw, with,like it, grossing over a billion
dollars, or something like that.
So I think it's a combinationof them, omitting the
on-the-nose political agendapushing and also, with the
perfect storm of this, the ofthe strikes going on.
That then led to a lack ofknowledge about what the movie
is really about and the only wayto, and also just the intrigue
(22:59):
of how do you make a movie aboutBarbie that is, people were
like all right, how's this gonnawork?
Speaker 2 (23:06):
I thought it was a musical, I thought it was gonna
be a fish out of water story.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Oh, actually I should have say I thought it was gonna
be.
It should have been a fish outof water story about the
Misadventures of Barbie and Kendiscovering Southern California.
Like well, what the hell's thisroller-skating?
And it should have just beenthat, and then that's it, and
that would have been serviceable.
Speaker 2 (23:24):
That's the other thing is, yeah, you get away
from all the politics stuff andjust look at it for the way the
story unfolds and you're likethis movie is trying to do so
much all at once.
It's going in so many differentdirections.
I'm like I can't like Just pickone lane and we could have a
movie here.
It's trying to say too much,you know, and it's not
(23:47):
entertaining about how it'strying to convey its message at
all.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah, so I'm just.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Ken is I guess an exception, but well, that's why
that's a highlight of the movieis because it's the most
entertaining part, because it'sgetting across the characters,
motivations and strugglesthrough the musical and there's
like all this fun visual imagery.
You got the guys like fightingeach other but water guns and
(24:16):
shit and it's fun and funny.
But that's the only part.
The rest of the movie, there'snone of that the other Musical
scores were not as memorable.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, I only remember the.
I'm just Ken.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
And yeah, they had other choreographed songs in
there, but I don't remember anyof them the only other one was
the part that's the catalyst,where Everyone's just like happy
, go lucky, like oh, baby, coolday.
Yeah, I'm putting my shoes onthe water doesn't work, but oh
well, I'm still having a show.
And then it goes like that forages and ages, before the moment
(24:52):
where Barby's just like hey,does anyone ever think about
dying?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Oh yeah, that was pretty funny.
Yeah yeah, that was out of leftfield.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
What?
All right.
Moving on the killer I felt thekiller was just disappointing
in slow burn, very, very fuckingslow movie.
Such a slow movie in the worstpart.
Another movie where everyoneelse was like you just don't get
it, man, when you're watchinghim.
Just sit there.
(25:23):
It's a metaphor, man, I'm likeI don't give a fuck.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
You clearly don't understand the deeper meaning
behind Michael fast bendersitting butt naked in the shower
and are seeing his butt crackthrough foggy.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Doesn't actually happen, right.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
No, doesn't that make the cut or something?
Isn't there a shot of him likein the shower, just like sitting
butt naked or something in thisand then that's.
You don't see his ass oranything.
No, I'm saying through thefoggy like shower, lots of shots
of like Michael fast benderjust staring at shit.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
That's like the whole fucking movie.
Okay, whether it's in a showerwhile he's taking a dump,
whatever the fuck he's doinglistening to music, there's just
a lot of staring.
Look, michael fast bend isamazing.
He's a great actor.
His performance in this, in thekiller, is fantastic.
Nothing wrong with it when yousee him.
(26:19):
I even said my review.
I was like actors would willstudy his performance in a movie
like the killer.
I'm sad that that doesn't meanthe killer is a good movie.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I haven't watched the movie but I guess my
counterpoint would be okayregarding your comment about
actors Is looking into hisperformance.
Is that a Michael fast benderthing or is that just an editing
thing where they employing thewhole cooler Shove effect?
Do you know the whole?
Like you have a shot of a manstaring, then a cutaway to
(26:51):
something pleasing like Motherwith children, then cut back to
him smiling.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
So not cool a shove effect, no, no, because it's the
exact opposite.
The shots are lingering.
But he's just staring at stufffast bender while there's voice
over narration.
Okay, maybe through the voiceover narration.
Speaker 1 (27:16):
But what if they, like, took those same shots and
then did a cutaway to like anice cream cone or something?
They don't do that?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
They don't cut away to anything.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Oh, it's just just him, it's just okay, all right,
fair enough then.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
right sure, despite that his acting is very
interesting and engaging andthere was moments where I was
like holy shit, michael fastbend is doing that single tear
thing or Just stuff with hiseyes where you can see the whole
story through just his eyes andit's incredible to watch.
It's just a shame that there'snot enough going on in the movie
(27:52):
for me to actually care.
Yeah, it was dull, bland andboring.
I felt like I was playing aMortal Kombat like test your
mind minigame and I justcouldn't do it.
It actually took me multipletries to get through the whole
movie because I kept fallingasleep.
It just reminded me of betterfilms from David Fincher that I.
I watched seven the other dayand when I started watching it,
(28:16):
even though I've seen sevenmultiple times, I still just
Could not look away.
Even though I know how it'sgoing to end and I know every
little step of the film, I can'thelp but watch it.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
It's just it's the world building, it's the theme,
it's the characters yeah, thedetective duos yeah, it's the
backdrop of it all.
It's the religious undertone aswell.
The seven deadly sins, theopaqueness of the identity
behind the mastermind, behind itall it's all these things that
(28:53):
come together to make for anengaging watch that keeps you
going forward and it's buildingtowards this mystery.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
You want to find out who the killer is, why they're
doing this, what the fuck istheir story?
There's so much that you'reintrigued by.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
It's a constant raining.
You know it's criminalunderworld, yeah, man, so see no
rays of sunshine.
Speaker 2 (29:16):
Even as we're.
As I was talking about thekiller, we got off tangent onto
seven and now I'm like stucktalking about seven because I'm
like, oh my God, that movie isso much more interesting.
Can we just talk about seven?
And when did that movie?
Speaker 1 (29:31):
come out.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Bro.
That movie came out the year Iwas born.
And it looks like it could havecame out today If not for the
fact that, obviously, morganFreeman and Brad Pitt have aged.
That movie looks like it couldhave came out today.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Yeah, just when that movies took their time to for,
in terms of world building, thatfilm timeless looked nothing
like anything else that came outthat year.
Speaker 2 (29:56):
If you go back and look at what movies looked like
in 1995, you would not thinkthat was released in the same
year.
It was just so ahead of thecurve.
Speaker 1 (30:08):
You're talking about the visual aesthetic of the
movie.
Yeah, okay.
Well, what about, likethematically?
Speaker 2 (30:13):
as well, was it?
Speaker 1 (30:14):
also just like wow, like groundbreaking in terms of
like, how dark it got.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
Everything about it.
How dark it was.
Religious undertones you knowthe themes and credibly fucked
up.
Some of the situations were theshock ending.
Oh, yes, it was without flatout showing the gore, but
alluding to the gore.
Fuck him for nominal movie.
(30:40):
If you haven't seen seven, gowatch seven.
Don't watch the killer, watchseven and then watch every other
movie David Fincher's doneexcept for this.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Yeah, oh God, it's much more interesting, it's much
more engaging talking aboutseven and all of its intricacies
than the killer then yeah.
Oh, dude, I can talk aboutseven for ages, yeah, but the
lack of passion.
In talking about the killer'smonotony, it just goes to
demonstrate just how much of afall from grace it is.
(31:09):
In like his filmography, youknow, it's just like.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
It's kind of making me think, right.
So like in seven, for example,have you seen seven?
Yeah, yeah, okay, all right,great.
So, for example, in seven theysubverting expectations of you
know the way an investigationgoes right, like how you
investigate a serial killer andtrying to get inside their mind.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
They sometimes have to not play by the book or
whatever the phrase is likedoing things by the book.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
You know, yeah, yeah, they have to skirt the lines
and like you see them struggleto investigate and find out what
this guy's deal is and wherehe's going to go next.
You see that you see them go tothe library Morgan Freeman's
character and try and find theconnections with biblical
references and stuff like that.
(32:00):
But it's interesting to watchhim work it out.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
So yeah, to watch everything unfold and also, you
know, just seeing what linesdetectors will cross, like
smashing through the door andthen paying someone to pretend
to be an eyewitness, blah, blah,blah, in order to get in
without a search warrant.
You see, you know, just like wehave to get to the bottom of
this, no matter what, theeverything is just so engaging.
It's the layering effect andthe fact that we're talking
(32:26):
about it in the year 2023.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
still, what's in the box?
You know that's in the box.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
And like that infamous scene is everyone seen
that one scene, but that's justlike a small part of the whole
equation.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
That's like there's people that haven't seen the
movie and know what I'm talkingabout.
Exactly, that's transcendent.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
That's shocking in it , that's seen a shocking itself.
But you are doing yourself adisservice if you don't watch
everything that had led up tothat moment to really feel the
gravity, the culmination ofevery moving Jigsaw piece that
had led up to that moment.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Maybe the problem with the killer is that David
Fincher is so good at his job,he's such a great innovative
director that the killer, incomparison Like if it was any
other director, I would be like,oh yeah, whatever, it's all
(33:20):
right.
But because it's David Fincher,I think to myself what the fuck
is this?
Speaker 1 (33:25):
shit.
Interesting observation.
It's the contrast, yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
It's that expectation of that pedigree that you know
and love, and the disappointmentwhen you don't get that.
That, I think, is what made meso pissed off and negative with
the killer.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I think it's only natural that when you have a
movie director that has releasedsomething so phenomenal, it's
inevitable that their otherreleases can't stand up to the
same amount of love and cultclassic status as the biggest
work.
Like you know, shindless Listor Jurassic Park.
There has to be that plateau.
(34:08):
That's still like more of apassion project and it's not
that you can't have every singleone of a movie be to the same
high.
Even Tarantino, you know he'sgot what 10 movies in his whole
life or something.
He's saying that like his 10thwill be his, like very last or
something like that.
But like you can't accept, Iexpect all 10 of those movie to
be of the exact same.
(34:28):
Like high caliber.
Some are going to have to takethe hit Some are going to have
to take the fall.
And I think that's where you'resaying your disappointment came
from that this is one of thelesser like David Fincher movies
.
Speaker 2 (34:40):
It would have been a fun experiment to watch that
movie, not knowing David Fincherwas the director.
And see what I thought You'regoing over the bias that this is
a big name movie director.
Maybe that is the problem,because it's also the same thing
that scares me off of watchingthe Irishman.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Killers of the Flower .
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Moon is.
I hold Martin Scorsese in sucha high regard that I don't want
to see this down for when theirhearts not in it or they're just
too fucking in a twilight ofhis in his late 80s or something
.
Or they're just too stuck uptheir own ass to realize that
(35:22):
not every fucking thing they dois going to be brilliant.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Yeah, that hesitation to watch, like the later movies
, which is something that Ithink is also what happened with
Indiana Jones 5.
If we were to transition totalking about that movie,
everyone thought to themselvesJames Mayn, god's directing it.
Speaker 2 (35:43):
It'll be good.
He did, logan, he's a gooddirector.
And no, that's not whathappened.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I had my skepticism.
Still, what was your skepticism?
Despite knowing that he's anaccomplished director, it's
still the circumstance, thereality that this was a
character that we did not needto see his story continue
onwards.
When you end off a timelesstrilogy with the shot of the
(36:10):
four horsemen riding into thesunset, you don't need to see
and this is an overall, biggerDisney problem.
That also happened with LukeSkywalker, where we are now
seeing legacy characters as ashell of their former selves.
We don't see them go out in ablaze of glory.
We're now witnessing thesecharacters live out the rest of
their mortal life as a shriveledold man who's past their prime
(36:34):
and can't seem to do as much andhas become a bit more jaded.
We don't want to see ourbeloved character now become
senile and be going againsttheir past ideals when they were
more youthful.
We don't want to see that.
That's just tapering off.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
We also don't want to see other characters just shit
on them, yeah, especially whenthey're meant to be characters
that we like, like his Goddaughter, whatever the fuck she
was.
We don't want to see her justput shit on him the whole time
Because you're old and becauseyou're a man and this and that
(37:11):
it's like that's the only wayyou want to go see.
When you see Indiana Jones,maybe you can subvert
expectations with the character.
You can reboot the character,like Batman or James Bond.
We saw that, we can see nowRoyale, we saw that with Batman
Begins.
But you can't do this thingwhere and I guess the problem is
(37:32):
with Indiana Jones is that he'ssynonymous with Harrison Ford,
so you can't just get a newactor to play Indiana Jones.
That's not going to work eitheras a reboot or a retelling it
worked for.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
I guess it worked for Mad Max few road with Tom Hardy
.
It actually yeah.
A retelling of the samecharacter, the same lore.
But yes, that's not exactlyapplicable to Indiana Jones, as
you said, because of just howsynonymous Harrison Ford is with
Indiana Jones, where the twoare pretty much like blurring
together.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
But with Mad Max at least you had George Miller
returning, so you had theoriginal voice.
Yeah, that's true, yeah, yeah,he's DNA and his philosophy you
could tell that with Mad MaxFury Road it was almost like
this is what George Millerwanted to do with the old Mad
Max films, but he was limited bythe technology and the way that
(38:27):
action was filmed and thebudget, but when he was given
everything, he, he just yeah.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
No instead like after this, no instead of after the
film movie or whatever.
Like he's just got busy withdoing happy feats, so that's
that too.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
Yeah, he did other stuff, so so you didn't know
what to expect.
There was such a big jump andthe other thing as well, as I
think Mad Max three wasn't asgood, so it was almost like
making up for that, what like.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Fury Road was making up for three.
You're saying yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (39:00):
Whereas with this, for example if Indiana Jones
free of making up for four, yeah, but instead people, people
were ready to look past for andbe like, yeah, we're just going
to ignore Four and pretend thatit ended at three, yes, but now
they have to ignore two movies.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Oh wow, it's a.
It was a gamble they tried totake and it's failed as well.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
It didn't feel like they were going in trying to
address issues that were donewith four.
If anything, they doubled downon what made it so bad?
Man, oh why?
Speaker 1 (39:42):
And, like Harrison Ford, is not going to get any
younger, and it's impossible torecast someone that capture the
Harrison Ford persona in IndianaJones.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
So, oh, my God.
It's just make you say GI andjust yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
I guess.
But there's the Harrison Fordeffect.
So like, okay, they should havemaybe to cut their loss and end
off with four as much of ablack sheep as that is.
But now the consequence is justeven more dire than if they had
just left it alone.
Left it well enough alone.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
I mean, I guess at least if you had just done a
John Wick four and just ended itand been like, yeah, he's gone,
at least people would have beenlike, well, at least I had the
balls to fucking kill him offand just be like, no, we're not
going to do anymore, that's it.
Speaker 1 (40:28):
And in stark contrast to just like book ending a
character.
Well, this year we can finallysay goodbye to a decade long
franchise, which is the DCextended universe.
Just to briefly touch on that,you know good read.
Good readings to that.
The less said the better aboutthose again.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Wait a minute, so we're not going to get a blue
beetle to you.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, anyways, yeah.
So about the death of the DC?
No, no, look man, it was justthe perfect storm of everything
that could go wrong.
Going wrong which you know thewhole content fatigue, the, the
prosecution of Amber, heard, thedisinterest in anything that's
not Batman and just juststreaming shows everywhere,
(41:12):
People knowing that James Gunnis going to take over for a new
revitalization.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
I find it interesting that back girl got cancelled,
but then they kept going withthe flash.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Why did they double down on that?
Speaker 2 (41:25):
It just makes me feel like what the hell did back
girl do to be cancelled?
But the flash wasn't?
Yeah, like I legit feel likeEzra Miller could have killed
someone and they still wouldhave been.
Like we're still going torelease it.
This red carpet is as red asthe blood of your victims.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Oh man, why did the flash Shazam 2 and Aquaman 2
need to come out?
Well, it's because it's kind ofa case of the horses left the
barn, and so it's like they'vealready too deep into filming,
into production, that it's justlike it has to be thrown out, to
be dead on arrival.
It had to be something thatthey've already invested too
(42:08):
much into it to just shelve.
But then again, yes, again,good point Back girl.
Why did they shelve that?
But then continue on withreleasing these three as DOA
releases.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
At least with back girl.
It would have been a differentcharacter and we didn't.
We wouldn't have known what toexpect.
Shazam 2, Aquaman 2 and theflash they were all characters
from other movies or theirsequels.
So we knew what we were getting.
I think, maybe they didn't wantto take the gamble of.
It's a new character thatpeople aren't familiar with.
(42:42):
Okay, again, this is against thebackdrop of James Gunn
rebooting everything, Becausenot only did the Flash, have the
Flash, but you also had MichaelCaden's Batman Returning, which
was the big selling point formost people.
Speaker 1 (42:56):
The only selling point.
Like Luke Aegis, our friendLuke Aegis, who was in the
Scream review, he had no idea heis categorized under the
general consumer who's not intothe whole superhero movie at all
.
He had no idea the Flash wascoming out and he was like we're
talking about people who don'tcare at all the whole news about
(43:18):
Michael Caden coming back andstuff, and it's those audiences
that DC and Marvel is missingout on.
You just can't get people tocare about.
Even if you're trying to getnostalgia back from like legacy
characters that came from likefour decades ago, people just
have not shown up.
It just it despised the cameosfrom Michael Caden and George
(43:40):
Clooney as well.
So you just can't get audiencesto care about it anymore.
Apart from just the criminalcharges of the main star, no one
cares about movies in generalnowadays, which is a really bad
sign of as to the health thestates of Hollywood in general.
You know.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
The test for me was I said to my brothers who are
older than me, who grew up likethey were kids, when Michael
Caden, batman, came out.
I said to them Michael Caden isin the new Flash movie as
Batman, he's back and they werelike why.
They were like why I don't getit what the fuck?
Speaker 1 (44:20):
There's either like indifference or just the whole
why aspects Like why bring backlike decades or legacy
characters?
So they had everything workingagainst it.
Yeah, it wasn't like noSpider-Man, no way home, where
people were felt the excitementto bring back those characters.
It felt this was the opposite.
It felt like desperation,desperation, yes, just throw in
(44:42):
some like cheap lines from likehow much do you weigh?
And it's like let's you want toget nuts, let's get nuts.
Instead of it being a crowdpleaser moment, it was just
maybe met with a that feltobligatory.
It felt like he was phoning itin just trying to do nostalgia
bait.
So yeah, it was indifference orhesitation.
It did not feel earned andpeople just are not going to the
(45:06):
cinemas anymore.
And I had a watershed momentwhere the only good Marvel thing
to come out apart from Lokiseason two and the what if?
Season two is like with theGuardians three, where it's just
like I know it's good, like itwas the only good thing to come
Marvel stuff to come out thisyear, but because of the burner
I just did not feel compelled towatch it.
So just 2023 in general, itjust it just gave up on watching
(45:30):
movies to be honest, I thoughtyou were going to say I gave up
on live.
But yeah, general audience hasgiven up on the Hollywood
machine which is you know thebackdrop of why we had flops
after flops of all these 10 polemovies.
That's all it takes for thegeneral consumer sentiments to
really go down in the dumps.
And so, leading into 2024, withthe sag strikes and stuff, it's
(45:54):
going to be a drought ofcontent.
So hopefully the lack ofreleases in 2024 is going to
give Hollywood that reset, maybea sort of blank slate, but then
it's going to.
I just feel it's going to be arepeat of 2020 COVID, where the
lack of content will thenconvince executives to then
overproduce for 2025 onwards,which then would lead to more
(46:16):
news articles about overworkedfilm staff and so on, and then
we're going to be back to thesame old song and dance again.
So, just to end off this roundof negativity, we had bad movies
, which against us a very souryear.
If we want to get even moredepressed, we could go into the
economy, recessions and stuff,but 2023 is not a good year for
(46:39):
movies, for the Hollywoodindustry in general.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
Well, on that note, on that happy note, I'm going to
watch Godzilla minus one.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
So that is really good.
Okay, I will admit there'slight at the end of the tunnel.
I will give it that.
Speaker 2 (46:53):
I think that we need to step away from American
movies and branch out more, andthat might be the secret.
Because when I was looking at,that Rotten.
Tomatoes Top 100,.
A lot of those movies wereinternational, like different
countries, so it made me thinkmaybe the American cinema is
just in a real bad state rightnow.
(47:16):
But this represents anopportunity for the other
countries to avoid thosepitfalls by not going down those
routes of political virtuesignaling and superhero shit and
tired franchises beingresurrected because they don't
have those franchises to rely on.
So they have to be morecreative, which ends up creating
(47:40):
better content in the new year.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
Yeah so maybe the strikes leading to a drought of
content is a good thing.
It's going to give Hollywoodtime to a bit of reassessment,
because it's been stuck in afeedback loop of just like
overproduction, overworked stuff, unhappy working conditions and
just revitalizing of franchisesthat nobody wants we need to
look at this year as a giantwake up call to Hollywood.
Speaker 2 (48:07):
Yeah, and be hopeful that it took a couple of years
but it is catching up to themand that is how I'm looking into
2024.
But we are definitely going tolook at like movies coming out
in 2024 or the lack of movieswhich breath of fresh air.
Speaker 1 (48:27):
I'm looking forward to the lack of movies in 2024
because it gives that gap, giveus the time to catch up.
Yes well, not just to catch up,but also the absence makes the
heart grow fonder.
Give us time to miss stuff.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Yeah, man, so that is the worst movies of 2023
covered.
If you enjoyed the show, pleaselike, share and subscribe and
leave us a review.
If you enjoy the podcast andthat is me- guys.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
So ends a sour year and so ends a sour episode.
On a sour note, and to washthat taste away from your taste
buds, watch the polar opposite,the antithesis of this episode,
and I think that corner overthere the I icon for good movies
of this year, because thereactually are positive sun rays
(49:16):
at the end of the tunnel.
That is 2023, despite all thesag, strides and everything,
there were good stuff that cameout this year, and when I was
saying good as a point ofcomparison, I'm saying like it
was actually phenomenally good,you know.
So watch that episode, you'llsee what we mean.
As we try to really put on thepoker face of a smile, as we try
to keep, as we try to like pushdown this negative energy that
(49:41):
we had in us as we were doingthat whole entire episode,
because we had a lot to say.
As you can tell, that reallywas our sentiments.
Like, yeah, let's smile throughthe pain that is 2023 and all
the crap that came out of thatyear.
And now that we have let outall this negative sentiments, we
can release our shoulders.
It just feels like a hugeweight has been lifted.
My heart feels lighter as well.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
So looking forward to less movies.
It's like the moment when youadmit like you're an alcoholic.
It's just good to just let itout.
You know I need a shot afterthat.
Speaker 1 (50:16):
Yeah, he needs to visit the doctors to cure all
that.
So, happy new year everyone.
Happy new, see you whenever.
Maybe Deadpool 3, which isslated to be pretty good.
Speaker 2 (50:28):
The outro has gone really fucking long.
Just wrap it up, modern.
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