Bad Bunny Angers, Keira Knightley Fumbles and Other Celebrity Brouhahas

T Lo unpack some recent social media controversies about Sabrina Carpenter and Kristen Bell before launching into discussion of the Bad Bunny Super Bowl controversy and Keira Knightley's disappointing support for J.K. Rowling. Plus: a review of "The Woman in Cabin 10."

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:23):
We're Tomy Lorenzo and this is the Pop Style Opinion Fest.
Hello it and is welcome back to another edition of
the PSO. I am the team. You're te Low Tom Fitzgerald,
and I'm here with the Low and your te Lo Lorenzo.
Mark has my lovely husband, how are you love husband?

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Wonderful.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
There's a little nip in the air, which is exciting.
It's finally getting shund parts. I'm kind of ready for it,
and we have things to discuss.

Speaker 2 (00:44):
First.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Of course, once again we're a little late on this
podcast because of all the construction next door, but I
think with the colder weather they're starting to slow down.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Did we mention our Halloween collection has been It's been
so long that.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
We yes, we mentioned in the last podcast.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, I'm still adoring love.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
I already should go to Instagram. Lorenzo's taking pictures of
all or Halloween stuff. We have a range of topics
to discuss today because this podcast is going up a
little bit later than we plan. Some of them aren't
the freshest topics in the world, but they're still ongoing.
We're gonna talk a little bit about Bad Bunny and

(01:18):
all the ridiculous Brujaja surrounding his halftime show for the
Super Bowl, which isn't even in for what three months,
And we are going to talk a little bit about
Kia Knightley, who does not know how to answer unpleasant
questions and is facing a bit of a backlash at
the moment. And we're also going to take the time

(01:40):
to talk about her latest film, The Woman in capin ten,
which dropped on Netflix about two weeks ago, because that
discussion is likely well, I can't discuss movie if we're
not going to discuss the twist and how it turned
out and everything. So that's going at the end of
the podcast. Right now, We're going to kick things off

(02:02):
with Lorenzo's TikTok times. He has two celebrity stories that
he dropped on me just a few minutes ago, one
of which I know about because I followed it, and
the other one I don't know anything about, and I
once he gave me the particulars of it, I was like,
you know what I'm dropping out of that one? You
talk about it. So let's first talk about Kristen Bell
Yes and Dex Shepherd.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
Well, that's TikTok getting offended about everything and you know rightfully,
so in a way, I think in this case, Christen
Bell and Dex's Shepherd, they they posted on Instagram.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Can I just stop? I'm sorry, but just to drop
this in here. They have a long history that told
them being a weird couple that say weird on you
don't even know how to parse what they're saying. I
think a lot of what they do is they think
they're being funny. They like the attention, and they like
being seen as a weird couple in Hollywood. All right,
I'll shut up.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
That is true. And they said other things in the
pets but anyway, they posted happy twelve wedding Universe three.
She posted to the man who once said to me,
I would never kill you, and the whole thing happening
when during the domestic violence Awareness month.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
Do you want to read the rest of it? There's
a whole quote.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yeah, I have to find it. Oh, happy twelfth wedding
and versus the men who once said to me I
would never kill you. A lot of men have killed
their wives at a certain point. Even though I'm heavily
incentified in device to kill to kill you, I never would.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah. Putting aside the domestic Violence Awareness which isn't I'm
not suggesting that this is not a reason to be
offended by it. Is actually the number one reason to
be offended by it. But I'm not going to suggest
she knew that when she posted it, or that.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
She never knew anything.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
Okay, but did you know it was domestic violence Awareness
month before this?

Speaker 2 (03:50):
But I mean, I'll I'll tell you something. I don't
care what monthy. I agree with that we're being aware
of this should not be the.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
Fact is way I said, put inside domestic Violence Awareness Month.
I mean, I'm not saying that's inconsequential to it. But again,
I don't think everyone listening to this knew that it
was Domestic Blends Awareness month. Having said that, your point
is correct. Making jokes about domestic violence and murdering your spouse,
guess what I mean. Long marriage between two people, you'll

(04:22):
make jokes to each other, absolutely not about murdering each
other or but oh my god, I could kill you
right now. Of course you say stuff like that, but A,
you don't really share that kind of stuff if you're
joking around, and B this was a weirdly detailed kind
of take on it. You know it wasn't just sometimes
you drive me crazy and I could kill you. Like
that's that's normal spouse stuff. Even if it does come

(04:44):
off weird on social media, I.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
Would never post this. I mean, fans have people following.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
They like that sort of weird facts.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
And some people defended them saying, well, don't you know them,
they're they're comedians, that's what they do.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
They're not comedians.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
Well whatever, they're funny or whatever. However they said it,
it's stupid funny.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Isn't a free pass to just say any stupid offensive thing?
That is such a lame ass that's that's like the
we never did really talk about the comedians in riodd
where you think you can just go and do anything.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
Yeah, I mean even if if she had said, uh,
you know, uh he said he would never kill me,
that's you know, that's kind of okay. But when you
go on and that's no. My point is that in
your head maybe that's okay. But then when you go
and continue saying a lot of men have killed their
wives at a certain point, I mean, you're really you know, elaborating, right,

(05:33):
I mean, you're really detailing a lot of things here
that you shouldn't and and it just no matter how
you say it, it's it's a it's it's not a
great thing to say at all.

Speaker 1 (05:41):
No, I like I said, I think they're just goofy
ass attention seekers who like to be seen us as
weird and they have had just a long history of
making weird comments or anything. I mean, I would not
read anything into this. I'm not reading it, are you.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
No, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (05:56):
There's anything dark in their marriage. No, they just have
a dark as of humor and they like to be
weird in front of people.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
I think they're just being funny. But when you are
a public figure, when you have when you have a
social account, you need to be more aware aware of
what you say, especially because you have fans. You know,
you don't know what's going on with your fans.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
I mean what your social media numbers are. But I'm
sure it's in the millions, right.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Oh, which it's famous period. I mean, she has a
very famous show right now, right uh. And it's just
not I don't know, not the thing to say, not
funny at all.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
But as you noticed, she has a new show that
I mean, she has a new season of her popular show,
and maybe that's dropped and suddenly we're doing this weird
thing for attention.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
Well, you know it. I hate to say this, but
that's how PR works.

Speaker 1 (06:42):
That's how yeah, m you don't have to be weird
and offensive to get good PR though, all right, speaking
of offensive, Sabrina.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
Carpeenter, Yeah, so we're we're offended now with that, Sabrina Corportter.
And I see it. You know, you have to explain
to me so that I can see. But Sabrina Carpet
was on Saturday that Live. She was the host and
also the performer, and apparently she did really well. People
were saying how great she did and blah blah blah,
and then she saw sang one of her songs and

(07:12):
the whole set was was Japanese inspired, which to me,
right there is a red But yeah, I don't understand people.
You have all these people around you PR, people you know,
helping you, and nobody said, you know what, maybe not.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
Maynd with Japanese cultural imagery.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
Listen. I would never do that. I would never you know,
it's not gonna go well anyway. So she had this
set and apparently the flour was the tatami U floor
met the Japanese floor mets and according to the Japanese culture,
you're not supposed to step on them, uh with choose
on and apparently everybody on stage had choes on, including her.

(07:57):
So people were offended by that, saying that, you know,
how can you not do a little research and understand that,
you know, that's not something you do and if you're
going there, if you're going to get inspired by some culture,
you know, you should do a little bit of homework
and be a little more respectful. And I totally agree. Yeah,
you know, I didn't know much about it, but now
I do because everyone is talking about it, and some

(08:19):
Asian people came and explain, you know, on TikTok and
made comments. So I don't understand. I don't understand, like
why why you know, why would you do that?

Speaker 1 (08:30):
Why would you put yourself in that? Has she apologized
or anything.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
No, because everyone now is taking to tell a swift approach,
which is like, don't say anything, let it go away eventually. Yeah,
that's the way people are dealing with things right right now.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
That's how people are dealing with everything right now.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Yes, well, that's the thing. It's a trend now, you
just let it go because it's so absurd, right, and
the next one is coming. The next train is coming,
and so you have to let that train go.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Doesn't get I mean, it shouldn't give them free pass
to be culturally insane.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
However, I totally agree, but it's just where we are
right now. Yeah, I don't understand. I mean, these things
are planned by a ton of people, rehearsed everything, meaning
to get to that point. I don't understand how you
don't have someone in your team to say it, to say,
you know, uh, let's do a little more research on this. Yeah,

(09:22):
are we okay with this? Let's call let's call Asian
fran and this.

Speaker 1 (09:25):
On the other hand, I did want to jump in
and say, in terms of cultural appropriation and a well
planned team, that louver heist.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
I gotta say, oh my god. Anyway, that's also something
everyone is talking.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Yeah, I mean we were both like, it's not really
our purview, but let's song is going to make a
movie out of that someday. Oh and I should reveal.
Reveal grand reveal is that people are waiting with waiting.
We're going to Paris in two weeks.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
So we're very excited about it.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
Yeah, we have a very short everyone says the same thing,
that's not enough time in Paris. It's five days. And
the thing is, this was one of those points and
miles things where it's like, let's just put together an
entire trip that we don't have to pay for. And
the last few we've been traveling a lot. In the
last few trips were long, like ten days to two
weeks long. And that was actually really hard on our cats,

(10:14):
who are used to having us at home all day
every day. So it's not that it's not that we
never leave the house, but you know, they are so
bonded to us that ten to twelve days without us,
they had some meltdowns. So we're only going for five days.
But we've been to Paris before. It was very very
early in our relationship. We were only I was thinking

(10:35):
about it today. We were two years into our relationship
and a year away from moving in together, and we
went to Paris, and I always think of that. To me,
that was our honeymoon equivalent. I thought we had just
met now, but we were together two years wow, and
we haven't been back. We haven't been back since then,

(10:55):
so I didn't I do want to go back, you know,
go back to Paris and do a little bit more.
But this time I said, you know what, I have
like three things I want to see. The Louver was
not one of them because I knew it would eat
up a whole day. And I said, the rest of
the time, I am fine with just sitting in parks
and cafes, begettes and croissants and drinking wine. And she

(11:19):
you know, that's it.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
I don't want to relax.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
Yeah, I want to see Notre Dame because they refer
you know, they redid the whole thing.

Speaker 2 (11:25):
And we saw it how it was before.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
So I want to go. Instead of going to the
loub We're going to the Mucid that. I love that
museum and it's doable. Right a second, I don't even know, Well,
you want to go to the Eiffel Tower, which is
really funny because when we went back then, that's why
you were a big snob and you were like, no,
everybody goes there. So we we went to Paris, but

(11:48):
we never went to the Eiffel Tower, and now you're
a big no. We got near American tourist, I know.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
But we got near it, and I was like, oh,
I know, I don't want a picture I don't want that.

Speaker 1 (11:58):
Oh no, that's not you know, now I do.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
Now you do anyway?

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Oh you want the T shirt and the magnet and
the Christmas ornament. You want to go and do all
the touristy things. No. Yeah, So we had said right
from the I had said right from the jump when
we planned this, I was like, let's not try and
do the Loop. It just eats up so much time
and everything. And then this happened and I was like, well,
now I kind of want to go to the Loop.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
I know, well back to the Loover thing. It's really incredible,
the incredible, Yeah, that these people were alder park a
fucking truck, put a.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
Walk away with Crown jewels and then dropped the crown.
They want to do the streets of Paris like jewels,
just dropping off the break a window. That's a muppet caper.
It's not even fair.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
It's just ridiculous. And and all this stuff is coming
out that uh, you know that the the staff was
complaining they were understaff, overcrowded.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
That the security alarm actually worked, but I guess they
must have moved in and out so quickly that they
never got caught.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
But the fact that you have a truck with a
letter outside and and that didn't bring any bell I
mean like come on, or.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
That you could just access those windows. Those windows were
just easily. What did they do? Did they break it
or did they saw it open? I don't remember.

Speaker 2 (13:09):
I saw it open and then they got in and
it was like the whole thing was like seven men.
And the thing is that the music. It's packed with tourists.
So these people heard, I mean all the noise and
all the stuff they saw them coming, and can you
imagine that's just so bizarre. The last thing is bizarre.
I think I don't understand how a museum like it's

(13:29):
the most famous museum in the whole freaking world.

Speaker 1 (13:32):
I was reading some I don't know, I mean really
I don't know anything about this, but I've been reading
up on it, and there they interviewed some experts on this,
and they said this does not smack of like expert
international jewel theory. This this is like a literal smash
and grab jewel. And so that fascinates me because who
would come up with this idea and then have the

(13:54):
nerve to do it. Listen, I don't necessarily want to
romanticize this, But I will be completely honest about this.
I'm not really shedding any tears over crowns and jewels.
I'm just not if they were works of art. And yes,
I understand that jewelry design can be works of art.
But we went to see the crown jewels at the
Tower London last year and they were stunning. But I

(14:15):
was nauseated.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
Right.

Speaker 1 (14:17):
I wasn't sorry to have gone to see them, but
after that, I was like, I'm never really going to
pay money to see something like this again.

Speaker 2 (14:24):
You also, I wish we were nauseated by a lot
of things.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
But I'm generally just all the European jewels were culturally appropriated,
the stolen from countries, the exploitation involved to create those things.
Not to mention the stunning you know, income level, You
know that it represented the fact that society was so
much more stratified when these crowns sat on heads and

(14:48):
people were dying in the mud, while these people were
walking around with fucking banks on their heads. So I
don't have a hugely romanticized idea. I get that they
are historically significant. I get that they are culturally significant
in France, and that the country itself might be feeling
a bit wounded by this. I think it's an embarrassment
because let me just I just want to say, if

(15:08):
it was artwork, I would be appalled, right, but if this,
I'm actually I'm more amused than anything. Sorry to all
the French out there, but I am. Go ahead.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
I know, I well today, I mean, you know, the
things they're doing at museums, like you know, throwing paint
at paintings and stuff like that. I mean, I don't
even know anymore, but I think it's an embarrassment for friends.
You know, this is their point of view because it's
it's just like.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
It's such a symbol of the love is such a
symbol of their country.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
Yeah, I mean, it's a huge part of the history,
you know, all the Napoleon stuff, the crowns and all that.
The fact that you know they were they left on scooters,
you know, and drapping crowns scooters and the dropping stuff,
and that's why they found one of them, and it
it I don't know. I have a ton of questions

(15:59):
because first of all, like do they know it's specifically
what they were getting or they just figure out that
that window was easy way in and then they grab whatever.
I doubt because I feel like they knew exactly what
they were going for, and I don't know, maybe they
had help inside help, who knows. I mean the fact
that these people were part a truck up that that
surprised me. That you don't have security around the museum

(16:21):
to see what's going on.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is I think, I say,
but there is a certain sense of a superiority involved
here that, you know, just lazy superiority that well, we're
the louver who would do this, and they really didn't
have the kind of security in place that a place
like that has. I think I think that you could

(16:43):
make the case that there was a little bit of
French superiority that that tripped them up in this case.
But you know, I'm pissing off the French enough as
it is.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
The irony is that you go to museum in specialty
in Europe and they're so like protective of everything like.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
That you don't mean you touching anything, but apparently you
can smash windows and.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
They they're they're kind of like sometimes rude to you
when you all can and and you know, they search
you and all that stuff. I get all that, but
meanwhile there's someone putting a ladder outside.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
But I mean, the reason this happened is because no
one ever thought it would happen. So I really don't
think there's gonna be a rash of ladder thieves.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Okay, europe fine truck and ladder fine, nobody thought of that.
But you don't have security outside walking around them, walking
around the museum to see what's going on outside, you know,
around the walls, windows and all that. I mean, it's
just bizarre. And the whole thing about them saying that, oh,
they're going to dismantle all these pieces and jew you know,

(17:39):
jams and all that melt the gold, I don't know.
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (17:43):
I said by now that most of it is recoverable,
it's probably not going to get recovered, and.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Who knows, maybe maybe someone with a lot of money
bought them.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
And I have to say that I don't let me
put it to you this way. Fascinate by who would
pull this off. But I'm not offended by it. And
there's a part of me that's like, yeah, go, I
hope you managed to, you know, sell all this stuff off,
But no, I don't feel that much. I'm not the same.

(18:13):
I just don't feel ooh boo, who crown jewels. I
just don't feel like I said any work of art,
I would probably and yeah, I'm going to get disagreement
on this, and people are going to say the Crown
jewels are works of art, but they are also some
of the most exploitive items in the history of the world.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
Right, Maybe that's why they did it.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
Maybe that's why they did it, And that's why I'm
kind of like, I'm willing for a little while to
give this a statement, a sort of romantic gloss to it.
And I'm torn because part of me is like I
want them to get away with it. Not not one
hundred percent, not really, but part of me really wants
them to be caught because I'm like, who are these guys?
I need to find out who do they look like?
Brad Pitt and George Clooney, like, well, who are these guys?

(18:51):
Do they look like your idea of like jewel hus
guys or are they just a couple of thugs who
had a smart idea?

Speaker 2 (18:56):
I mean, those are the questions. And did you know
exactly what you were looking for or you just thought
that that window was an easy way.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
In or no, they knew what they were doing.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
Are you making a statement here? That's why you got
crowns and all that stuff.

Speaker 1 (19:10):
Could be But someone would have put out a statement
by now this had really been a right.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
And again I also questioned that you know, there's a
ton of billionaires out there who would pay anything for
that kind of stuff. Who knows.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
That's the other thing. I mean, that's the kind of
thing that you know, you get some corrupt billionaires, as
I thought, Oh, I'm sorry, but I repeat myself, if
you get some billionaires who are willing to hire a
team to do this for them. Yeah, the list of
sics is ye, sky high. Anyway, enough titillation. We're going
to take a short break and then we're going to
get back to pop culture and we're going to talk

(19:41):
about Bad Bunny. We'll be right back. We're back, And
I was going to say, we're here to bat around
the stale news of Bad Bunny's Super Bowl concert and
the controversy surrounding it. But how stale can it be
when the concert is still three months away? Right, it's
not a concert, it's a halftime show, still three months away,
and there's still I just read before we've turned on

(20:03):
the mics that there's a new petition to get him
taken off. So Bad Money one of the most popular
recording artists in the world right now, and I'm pretty
certain he's probably the most popular Spanish language or Latin America. Yeah,
I would imagine probably of Yeah, he's got a huge,

(20:23):
huge fan base, which makes him a perfect choice for
the halftime show, because you want someone with a lot
of appeal to them, not with a niche appeal, but
with a lot of appeal. And he applies. He absolutely
applies by every standard. However, this is twenty twenty five
in America. We are an increasingly overtly racist country in

(20:47):
the sense that it has become in more and more
common and easier for racist to just come out and
say whatever rac friggin thing they want to say, and
that includes everybody at the top echelons, our government and media. Hooray,
So bad Bunny is. You know, he's not what I
would call a controversial artist at all, but he is

(21:09):
an artist. He's a Puerto Rican artist who refuses to
sing not really well. He chooses to sing all of
his songs in Spanish, not to frame it that he
refuses to speak in English or sing in English is
actually a little no.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
He's just his music is in Spanish.

Speaker 1 (21:24):
It's culturally Puerto Rican. His music a lot of it
pulls from his own culture. He knows that his fan
base is largely Latin American in Spanish speaking, not all
of them, of course, because like I said, he has
a huge crossover appeal. And you know, an artist can
sing in their language, American or not. So many Americans
seem to have a problem with the fact that there

(21:45):
are huge portions of our country where Americans speaks Spanish,
and to get annoyed that Puerto Rico is one of
those places is just so backwards. It's it's really frankly
un American. Put aside the racism to claim that Porto
Rico doesn't never write or shouldn't have the right to
make Spanish their primary language.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
It's just the whole thing started, which is laughable, with
the fact that they were saying, well, you know, we
should choose an American.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
He is an American.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Well he's an American, and you know, and something else.
The prick was part of the United States. Yeah, they
always forget that. They don't think New Mexico was part
of the United States. If you don't want parts of
your lynn speak another language, don't claim them then yeah,
you know, it's part of the United States, and they
speak Spanish there. That's it. Now.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
Before the MINC's flipped on, Lorenzo and I talked back
and forth about the fact that he would be performing
entirely in Spanish for the Super Bowl halftime show, which
I'm pretty sure is something that has never been done.
I pointed out that Jalo and Shakira were did the
halftime show several years back, and I know part of
that was in Spanish. Some of the songs were partially

(22:51):
in Spanish, but as you noted, they were partially in Spanish,
and it was a different you know, the country wasn't
it's a different is right now back then.

Speaker 2 (23:01):
And in fact, Bad Bunny was invited when Jennif Philips
and Shakira s thing. I guess he was one of
the guests in twenty twenty.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
Oh, he was on stage.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, that's that was That's my understanding.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
I seem to recall that.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, so, I think the main difference here is that
they both sing in English mostly and and they also
incorporated Spanish into the songs, and he is one hundred
percent Spanish Spanish speaking.

Speaker 1 (23:26):
I believe he has learned English. I know early in
his career he didn't know much. He didn't know much English,
and he didn't feel that he needed to use it
in his interviews.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
Which it's something you know, that's not the point, right, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
But I think that's sort of thing sets sets racist
people off.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
Well right now, you know, anything Latin is triggering all
these people.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
I mean, they're bombing Venezuelans and.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
Yeah, so so I let's not even so choosing someone
who only sings in Spanish and all that. It's you know,
that's not what they want, and they're they're, you know,
they're complaining about it obviously.

Speaker 1 (23:59):
So that petition, and there are several of them, turning points.
USA Charlie Kirk's organization is going to put on some
alternate halftime show, although it is unclear where it would
be hosted or if it would be broadcast. I don't
even see how that happens. And now there's another petition
that I just read an hour ago. That's fifty thousand signatures,

(24:20):
as Entertainment Weekly breathlessly covered and I was like yeah,
I think you need more than fifty thousand people to
watch the Super Bowl pay for those ads, fifty thousand
signatures to replace Bad Bunny with the country western singer
George Strait, who is seventy three years old, like not
broad appeal people. And that's what's sort of laughable about

(24:42):
this is that all the attempts to substitute someone else
or to push him off the stage are like the
most niche performers with no following. I have thought about
this about whether the NFL or whoever is in charge.
I honestly didn't look it up. I don't know who
was in charge of making these decison for the super Bowl,
although I cannot imagine the NFL is not involved, and

(25:05):
that is not an organization that's like, yeah, let's piss
off Trump, let's piss off the mag of people. So
I really don't think he was picked to piss anybody off.
I do think they were naive, but they didn't think
there was going to be some sort of backlash.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
No, I don't know. Maybe they maybe they're enjoying it.

Speaker 1 (25:20):
I don't think so. I mean gets back to the
American Eagle thing. I don't really think the NFL is
looking to piss off anybody like the super Bowl is
not a political statement. The halftime show is about popularity.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
But I can't imagine them picking him and not expecting it.

Speaker 1 (25:35):
That's my point though, I mean, I think maybe they
were naive or something. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
These people are never naive anyway.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
Why would they want backlash for the super Bowl? Why
would they invite that?

Speaker 2 (25:43):
The thing with bad money is it? I'm I'm I
don't know much about his music, to be honest. I mean,
but I do love what I've heard. But I enjoy
every time he's saying he's a.

Speaker 1 (25:53):
Great performer because it's very live and you know, and
say as hell.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
And it's just great music. But I'm not a fan,
and honestly, I can't even name one of the songs.
But he's great on stage, a lot of presence, you know,
He's just great. Yeah, So I can see why they
chose him. I do understand why people would kind of
like question someone singing in Spanish the whole time. I

(26:17):
can understand that.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
I'll be honest and admit that he would help his
case if he hadn't come out and said that he
wasn't going to sing a single word in English, because honestly,
it is the Super Bowl.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
It feels a little odd. I mean, we're talking about
the super Bowl here, and you know.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
It's not a Spanish be it's not it's not soccer
or or you know, it's not a Spanish sporting event.

Speaker 2 (26:37):
And as other people pointed out, it's not an international event.
That's what I mean. I know, the Olympics or something
big with international people.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
I just I don't want to take this line of
the conversation too far because it does get into you
have to speak English when you're in America, and I
don't believe that. And I don't believe you need to
sing so, you know, in English to be at the
Super I do think coming out and making a statement
that you're not going to sing in English at all,
I think you are asking for a certain level of

(27:07):
controversy there. And I don't know, I don't know what
the correct thing. I don't want to make concessions to
people who are whose opposition to him is entirely racist
in tone.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
Well maybe he'll bring guests with something like that. People
were saying, well, maybe he'll bring Jennifer Lop.

Speaker 1 (27:22):
Business, anybody like if that's fine. But again though it's like, well,
we'll accept it if there's a white girl or something
like that there. It's so problematic, But I don't want
to give. What I'm saying is it's so problematic to
try and parse this using the framing that the racists
have used. He is an extremely popular, hugely successful recording artist,

(27:45):
and that alone makes him an appropriate choice for, you know,
for the venue. I Aside from that, it's like, I
can understand people being a little briskly about him not
singing in English for this event. This isn't you know,
but not to the point that I think there should
be anything should be done about it. I just don't
think there's a single thing that should be done about it.

(28:06):
And I hope everybody ignores all this stupid bullshit.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
Yeah, I think the problem here, the main problem here
is that people are very open about the racism these days.
It's very scary and there nobody's hiding anything anymore. And
you know, they're going after this guy for various reasons.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
And no, his music is not political, right he has made.
His one comment was he's not performing in America because
he's afraid. He has so many Latin American fans. He's
afraid I are going to arrest people at his shows,
and yeah, that is political, but that's also exactly what's
happening in the country. He's not wrong. And then of
course Christinome came out and said that she was going

(28:44):
to arrest people at the super Bowl blah blah blah blah,
which is just bullshit. They're trying to scare people, like really,
they're going to start pulling people out of their seats
at the super Bowl. It's it's just all it is
is indicative of the complete morass of culture and politics
where in right now in this country. Just a mess, mess, mess,
mess mess. And my solution is, yes, we can par

(29:06):
some of this as you and I just did, but
that's actually no. Let's just tell these people no, your
fucking assholes. He's a hugely popular singer. Shut up.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
Maybe everybody tune in right, well, that's the thing. Maybe
some other time, people, I mean, how long is this thing?
Twenty minutes?

Speaker 1 (29:20):
I don't know, it's a little bit longer than that.

Speaker 2 (29:22):
Whatever, half an hour? I mean, like you know, it
would have been just half an hour of your time.
And then you question, huh, you only go over to Fox.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
And where they're gonna have you know, but not this
kid Rock and George Straight and you can watch.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
That obsessive you know debate for months.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
No, there should be no debate. I know you and
I just tossd a few things around, but honestly, at
the end of the day, there is no debate because
you're conceiving. You're conceiving the framing to racists. There's nothing
wrong with him being up there. It makes completely sense,
for complete sense for him to be up there. And
he is not the first person to sing in another
language at the Super Bowl. So shut up, all of you.

(29:58):
That's all I have to say, honestly. And I hope
we wear something super hot. I know he'll probably wrap
himself in the Puerto Rican flag. Oh god, yeah, I'm
almost certain he'll probably do something extremely Puerto Rican in tone,
which I know.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
That's yeah.

Speaker 1 (30:13):
All right, we'll take another break and then we're going
to come back and oh, miss Kiera Knightley much to
say about her. We'll be right back. We're back, and
now we're going to talk about Miss Kiera Knightley. I
just want to say one thing before we start. I
was watching women in The Woman in Cabin ten which
we're going to get to in a in a while.
And I really like her as an actress. She's incredibly

(30:36):
watchable as an actress, even in middling work. But I
especially like her latter work, where she has gotten away
from all those period pieces that she was doing earlier,
because she is so great at playing like stressed modern women.
It's she almost and she's one of those actresses who
in some ways seems to embody a certain class and
type of woman. So she's playing in the in The

(30:58):
Woman in Cabin tenant, she's playing this stressed out, you know,
London reporter. And then in that the one she did
last year, Black Doves.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
Which I haven't watched twenty times.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
No, dressed out London spot like. She's just good at
that stuff. So this week or no, actually a couple
of weeks ago. Actually again we're a little stale with
this stuff. She was doing press for The Woman in
Cabin ten and at the end of an interview a
reporter asked, and I have to say, I really should
have shouted out the reporter because it was it was

(31:29):
well presented and well asked in a way that didn't
feel like a gotcha. It just felt like I need
to follow up on this, And she asked her, I
have one more question. You're doing? Who is she playing?
Do you know she's doing audio for one of the
Harry Potter audio adaptation it's.

Speaker 2 (31:43):
A professor something I forget.

Speaker 1 (31:44):
Well, they're all professors. I mean she stop playing one
of the kids. It actually doesn't matter. She is in
and I doubt it's a small part. So she's doing
the audio versions, these audio adaptations of Harry Potter. And
someone was asked ask her, this reporter as her, well,
what do you say about the people who have problems

(32:05):
with you know, people who are working on JK rowling stuff?
And again, if you don't know this, can't imagine if
you're listening to us that you don't know this. But
if you don't know this, Harry Potter author JK. Rowling
is a billionaire who has spent the last decade using
her enormous wealth to attack trans people and to get

(32:26):
laws overturned in England and so essentially, and she has
been very open that she will continue to use any
money she makes on this cause, to which she is deeply,
deeply devoted. She sees it as feminism because she feels
that she is protecting women from the curse of transgenderism

(32:47):
and that she's protecting them from all this horrible transgender
rapists which only exist in her fucking mind.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Yeah, and that mean, just say one more thing about her,
because I can't even say her name. It started with
her very like life Lee pointing out the issue with
trans people like, oh, I know, I think they asking questions. Yeah,
I'm just asking questions. I truly believe they have the
right to exist. I'm just ques gone at this point,
that is all gone now. It's all full own hatred

(33:16):
towards trans people. You do not deserve to.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
Like every freaking billionaire, with the exception of Taylor Swift,
she has had her mind poisoned by social media. Yeah,
and they get on social media and they have all
this money and they think the entire world is supposed
to bowl down to them. And you get on social
media and people are it's it's an open square. People
can say anything they want to you, and people are

(33:39):
feral on social media.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
She's kind of quiet now about it, but she kind
of she tries.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
She's got project, but she tried. No. I mean, you know,
the woman Rowling. She's got projects. They're doing an adaptation
of HBO.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
She's kind of quiet. Now what I mean by that
is that she kind of tried to expand her hatred
towards more queer people.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
Uh huh.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
And then you know she dialed it back, She doubted
back a little bit because she was ready to expand she's.

Speaker 1 (34:06):
Nothing for her next opening. She has not been chasened
on this. In fact, there's no reason for her to
feel chasened on this, because Harry Potter fandom snaps up
anything the video games, you know, any sort of adaptation.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
I see that all the time. I see people going
to all these things, you know, Harry Potter everywhere in Europe, here, everywhere,
and they go because they read the books. They're fans
and you know, and they feel like they can separate both.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
Well, this is not a case of separating the art
from the artists, because the artist is using the money
you pay her exactly to hurt people, to destroy lives.
This isn't hypothetical, This is all documented. She has made
it very very clear that this is what she is
using her money for, and she has already made inroads

(34:54):
into getting laws changed in England. And if she is
successful in that, more billionaires are going to start throwing
their money into this, which we have seen them do
just to destroy the lives of queer people and Latin
American people and black people. This is all part of
the same continuum of a bunch of billionaires deciding to

(35:19):
take on the divine right of kings. And I'm sorry,
but the only I think we're only going to break
this the same way we broke the divine right of kings.
And that's the most revolutionary thing I'm going to say
on this podcast anyway. So kier Knightley's response was she
clearly was caught off guard and she didn't have a
good response. And oh, Carrie, here's a little bit of advice.

(35:41):
There is no good response. You could have workshopped this
to death, and there is no good way of saying, yes,
I am taking money from a known transphobia transphobe, and
this money that will be made off my work is
going to be used to destroy people's There is no
answer to that. So instead she gave this efensively boilerplate response,

(36:03):
which was I believe we all have to learn to
live together. And I'm going to say it well, bitch,
you are working for someone who is ensuring that we
can't live together. This isn't about a difference of opinion.
It's not like people are saying, how can you work
with someone who feels this way? It's how can you
work for someone who is doing the things that she's doing.

(36:24):
It's not about learning to live together. It's about not
you not doing work that causes harm to other people.

Speaker 2 (36:31):
Well, here's the thing. First of all, she was very dismissive.
You have to watch the vdo to understand, and you
can say, well, you know, British people tend to be
a little sarcastic and you know, some weird humor about things,
and maybe that's what came across.

Speaker 1 (36:45):
I don't know, but she's she's an international stick.

Speaker 2 (36:48):
She says, I'm very sorry, and this is the point
that we're all going to have to figure out how
to live together, aren't we. Well, yeah, and do you
think that woman is trying to figure out how to
live together with other people? She's not.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
That's the point. Trans people are being driven out of
their homes and communities. They are being denied medical care,
they are being denied uh, you know, their hormones and
that sort of thing. Everything you claim and JK Rowling
is getting that done. She's using her money to get
that done. And if you don't think she's doing it
in America, you're very naive.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
Yeah, because she keeps going. And we've all got very
different opinions. Again, this is not about opinions. So I
hope that we can all find respect. Do you think
she's no, And do you think she's respecting the trans community.
She's not. So this was all wrong. And you know,
people were making the point on TikTok saying, you know,
we need to we need to stop, uh, you know,

(37:41):
harassing these people. They they need to you know, they
they're allowed to make their choices of work or you know.

Speaker 1 (37:48):
They are not allowed to have those choices go unquestioned
by the public.

Speaker 2 (37:53):
And you know, I and I honestly feel like I'm
disappointed because I think I think I love her work.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
There's a whole bunch of British stars. I'm disappointed care
and Nightley.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
I really like her. I think she's great, you know,
very talented. I find it very intelligent. I do.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
And then there's the whole we should point out that
there was an entire HBO adaptation right that, I don't
know if you hear the phones ring, there's an entire
HBO adaptation that's being worked on right now with an
enormous cast, a very well known British actors, all of
whom I have lost respect for because they all gave
the same sort of boiler plate Well, I don't know
anything about it, which is bullshit. If you're in England,

(38:33):
there's no way you don't know who JK. Rowling is
and what she's done. There's no way.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
That's the thing. You can't claim that you don't know
what's going on. I mean, everybody knows what's going on.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Come on, and you took the money. You wanted the money,
and you're.

Speaker 2 (38:46):
Telling me that your publicist of somebody said, well, here's
an offer, but let's talk about it before you make
a decision. Right, You don't have that person.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
You figured you could write it out, or you figured
that the fandom was big enough that it wouldn't matter,
and you know what, you might be right.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Again. I mean, and I can understand if you are you.
I can sort of understand if you're an up and
coming actor who is taken this opportunity to you know,
start your career and you don't want to think about
these things. But you are a well established actor.

Speaker 1 (39:19):
Yeah, almost, well not, it's not true, but a lot
of the casts of the adaptation on HBO are some
fairly well known, well established actors. Except for the kids,
of course.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
I don't think you need the money.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
And I just want to say it's well known that
part of the reason JK. Rowling pushed for this second
adaptation of her work is because all three of all
the kids that were in the first ones spoke out
against her transphobia, and she's not speaking to them anymore.
So she wants a nice, new, clean version, yes, where
everybody buys into her transphobia from the beginning, because no

(39:50):
one's going to speak out against it. Now they've all
accepted the checks from her. She has a nice, obedient
cast that will not speak out against her or try
and stop her from what she's doing. It is so
insidious and it's grotesque, and I almost feel bad that
we're going to segue into reviewing Karen Knightley's film. But
I struggle with this because I'm I'm not sure I

(40:16):
would agree that we're supposed to boycott all of these
actors work, because I honestly don't. I'm not sure that
would get through to them. I think the main thing
to do is to boycott anything having to do with Ralling.
If you boycott all of Karen Knightley's movies, well, then
she's just an unpopular actress. If you boycott this one thing, yes,
then it sends a message that this one thing is

(40:37):
a bad thing to do.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
You have to go I mean, you can be disappointed
with her, against her, but you have to go against
the thing itself, right, you have to go against what's
causing the root.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
It's not for me to tell people who they should
support and not support. I'm just saying that from my perspective. Yeah,
that they're going to do another season of that blacked
up show, and I loved it so much that I
will watch, Oh my god, I love this sh and
we're going to sit here and review her her new movie.
And I'm not sure who else I didn't bother looking
up the entire cast of the HBO adaptation. I know

(41:10):
John Lithgow is in it, and he made some very
disappointing things. He said some very disappointing things. I know
Nick Frost is in it and again, I'm probably not
going to boycott their entire uh you know, body of work.
I think it's more important to keep your boycott's focused
on anything JK. Rowling does. But that's not I mean,

(41:31):
that's what I'm doing. Do you want to talk about
do anything else to say about that?

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Or no? I do feel like I was going and
I was reading the list of all the actors who
are part of the audio project, and you know you
have Kit Harreton for example.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
Right, I couldn't remember it.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Yeah, and you know you could have gone. You can
make the argument that, well, they didn't go after him,
but I don't know.

Speaker 1 (41:51):
He wasn't doing pressive.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
He's not doing any interview yet. Maybe they'll they'll question
him later.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
I'm sure the next time he has a project, right,
they're going to all of these people are going to
have this question follow them, right, although I think a
lot of them are going to try and make sure
that journalists that it's struck like they won't do publicity
John's unless that question isn't asked, which you know that
could be just as bad happens.

Speaker 2 (42:12):
Yeah, I don't know. I just I just feel like that,
you know, her answer that she.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
Didn't know what was going on, and that she she
really didn't expect it. I mean silly to me, very
very silly to me.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
Oh, I mean honestly, just say you don't want to
answer that question. You're not prepared to answer that question.
I mean, I think that's even that's more honest than this.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
We all need to live together things, which is just offensive, is.

Speaker 2 (42:35):
Because it's just yeah, it's it's it's bullshit.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
All right, Lorenzo. Uh, it was his suggestion, he said,
why don't why don't we wrap this up by watching
The Woman in Cabin Intent He had already seen it.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
Yeah. The thing is that it's it's it's a book. Uh.
And I was actually very curious about it. I'm not
saying you don't know that it's a book, but uh anyway, Uh,
I just I was, first of all, I love her work,
and I was very curious to Uh, I was dying
to watch this movie. And then I was, you know, disappointed.

(43:06):
But go ahead. I'm sorry. It didn't mean to to
rupt to you.

Speaker 1 (43:08):
No, that's all right, I'm sorry, tabs, but it's right
in my tab hunter our cat is, but it's right
in our face. What was I gonna say, oh, so
Lorenzo said, well, you know, why didn't you watch this?
So I watched it last night, and I remember I
clicked on it on Netflix and I was like, oh,
an hour and thirty five minutes, that's that's a movie

(43:28):
after my own heart. This is gonna be great, I
because I just was only in the mood for something short, uncompact,
and it looked like a decent thriller. So we're going
to eventually spoil this. I I'm trying to start off
by saying, what I recommend this to someone, because I

(43:48):
think it's such a deeply flawed movie that I'm like,
on the other hand, there were it's a Netflix movie,
it's a folding laundry movie. Clearly by design, it is
a folding laundry movie.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
I was.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
I was just oh god, it was so many missed
opportunities with this.

Speaker 2 (44:03):
I thought it was very predictable.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
I don't want to get into that part yet, because
I want to talk about the twist. I'll just say
let me start off by saying this, it had everything
on paper that should have made it a great spectacular cast,
incredible locations. I mean, it looked beautiful. They were on
a yacht on a cruise, and they were literally on
a yacht on a cruise, so it was all these

(44:27):
breath taking locations and it was like a billionaire shot.
So it was gorgeous, unbelievable. Cast guy Piers, Hannah Wattingham,
a whole bunch of people were in it. And the
setup is great. The premise was great. It was a
bunch of wealthy people on a yacht and Kiera Knightley's

(44:48):
character thinks that someone went overboard, but no one can
but there's nobody missing on the boat, and she insists
that she saw a woman that nobody else saw on
the boat. All of that great, I mean, spect specular setup.
Yeah yeah, yeah, I mean I'm all in for that
so much so that with the location and the cast

(45:08):
and the premise, you've got to kind of work to
screw that up. And I do think director Simon Stone
with Stone, it's very interesting to me because I was like, oh,
it's so short, that's great, it's gonna be really compact,
and then literally every character and the slightly convoluted setup

(45:32):
of the story was in place. I checked four minutes
into it. Four minutes into it, you find out that
Kiera Knightley is a London journalist who's traumatized by something
in her past and she needs a break, and she's
invited on this cruise ship which is nothing but millionaires
because the owner of it's not cruise ship, yacht because
the owner of the yacht's wife is dying of cancer.

(45:54):
And this is some sort of fundraiser. I don't even
know what that is. And Kiera Knightley and her ex
boyfriend who she hasn't seen in months, have both been
who was a photographer photo journalist, have both been invited
onto this boat to document this moment. All of that

(46:15):
and every single character, every millionaire on the boat were
all introduced by minute four. That is ridiculous. That is
like ridiculous. I do love when a film doesn't take
too long to set things up, And in the beginning
of the film, I was like, well, this is kind
of brisk, and then I'm like spending the rest of
the movie trying to figure out what everybody's names are

(46:39):
and what the point of all this was. It had
real heft to it. There was a real sense of
menace to it, being stuck on a ship with nothing
but super powerful people who all seem to have it
out for you, because that was Kiera Knightley's perspective. That
is great tension, great love it, but things moved too quickly.

(47:05):
I'm not going to reveal what the twist was just yet,
but I was surprised at where the twist came, which
was roughly at the halfway mark of the film.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Right, But then it got really weird, like towards Dan,
and then.

Speaker 1 (47:17):
The setup completely collapses. It just collapses. So I can't
talk further until I get into more specifics. So why
don't you talk a little bit about the general stuff
before we get into the twist and the ending, because
I'm assuming some of you if you don't want to, no, no, no,
I mean what did you think of the Castle's say?

Speaker 2 (47:35):
That's what I mean. I I enjoyed it because I
I we posted on our site and I couldn't wait
to watch it, and because as you said, it looked beautiful,
very stylish, great cast and and kind of interesting story.
Reminded me a lot of of I know Erkley, Poor Roe,
and you know, and and it I got to Chris
that whole thing exactly know who's done it type of thing.

(47:56):
But it then it fell apard because certain things didn't
make sense.

Speaker 1 (48:00):
And you know why, he could have made one choice
as a director that would have had the whole entire
movie make sense. And I'll get to that because it
reveals the twist, the one thing.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
I'm sorry, And I also agree that everybody else didn't
have much to do or say. I mean, they're just
hanging around the boat.

Speaker 1 (48:15):
You know, they don't have Nanna Wattingham and I know
or and google Google about the raw was she had
like two lines in the whole thing. She wasn't on
the boat, she was Kira's editor. I do want to
address that point, especially with you bringing up Agatha Christie.
If you're doing a story like this, like literally every
person on the boat was just unpleasant the second you

(48:36):
met them, and that's that's makes sense. They're all wealthy
millionaires and she wasn't, so of course they're going to
be snotty to her. But Agatha Christie knew something when
she would get a group of very wealthy, privileged people together,
very unlikable people together, is that you need to make
them entertaining to watch and read. Event right, they have
to be fun, bitchy people or so bizarrely whatever they

(48:58):
have to be captivating. Everyone of them was a cliche.
None of them had more than five lines. I mean,
they were just and they were just sour, nasty, wealthy people.
No other I'm not asking to sympathetic portrayal, and there was.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
No black and white perspective. They all started hating.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Her immediately immediately, and it wasn't because they were all
in on something. It was just assholes. Yeah, she was.

Speaker 2 (49:22):
Just you know, distracting them or or annoying them or whatever.
But it's just so weird. Nobody questioned her or really,
I mean, they just got annoyed with her because she
was you know.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
Yeah. So the pacing on this was just bizarre, and
I mean one thing you really have to get right
with a thriller is the pacing. You have to ratchet
up that tension. And when they revealed the twist halfway
through it, I was like, I'm you lost a lot
of tension with that, So let me you know, this
is the end of the podcast, so if you don't
want to hear that, you can just love you mean

(49:54):
it by bye. But we're spoilers now. Okay, So all
through the first half of them thing, I was like,
why is everybody being shot from so far away? All
the characters were in long or midshot. There wasn't a
single close up except for Kieran Knightley's face and her
boyfriend's face. And see, that's the kind of thing I know.
And the light one was very dim on this yacht,

(50:16):
and I I was kind of and it felt like
a stylistic choice because it was so consistent, and I
kept trying to unpack it, and I was like, why
did everyone so far away? Why is he doing this?
And then the twist came before I mention it. Did
you did you figure it out?

Speaker 2 (50:30):
No?

Speaker 1 (50:31):
Yeah, I have to give him credit. The reason he
shot her from so far that was the reason he
shot everybody from so far away is because halfway through
the story spoiler, the wife who's dying of cancer gets
thrown overboard and someone else is brought into impersonator. And
that was shocking to me.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
I did yeah, I did not. I didn't see.

Speaker 1 (50:54):
And I listen. It's hard to fall. I'm not the brag.
It's hard to fool me with stuff like that, very hard.
And like I said, I was right on the birds
of because I did notice the second time she spoke
to the wife. She made up comment about being on medication,
and in the previous discussion, the wife had said she
had stopped all medication. So I was like, oh, whatever
this is. She can't keep her story talked about.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
She couldn't remember that they had a meeting that she
had said, I couldn't.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
Remember the lyrics to some song, and I was like,
I don't know, she can't keep her story straight. But
I didn't think it was a completely different woman, and
it was. It was a completely different actress, and that's
why everything was shot far away, And I was like, okay, clever, yes,
But then that reveal is revealed at the halfway mark,
only to care a Knightley. Nobody else knows it, and

(51:41):
then I'm stuck with half of the film going. I'm sorry.
I mean, that works if you keep her far away
and in the dark, but all these people are sitting around
the table and this is supposedly one of their oldest friends, right,
And while the two actresses did have a remarkable resemblance,
I'm sorry, that's not it. I mean, you're getting into
Clark Kent himself with glasses, and that might work for Superman,

(52:03):
but a thriller like this where the entire story hinges
on nobody noticing. Nobody noticed that it was two different women.
In fact, the only person that figured it out was
Kiera Knightley, who had never met either of these women before,
but everybody else on the boat had been friends with
her for decades. Completely utterly falls apart. And it's a
real shame. And I said, all he had to do, really,

(52:25):
all he had to do cast the same actress. It's classic.
It's classic thriller. Doubles story, is you just cast the
same actress. Yes, you have to buy into that there
are two people who are completely identical, but that's what
the story hinges on. So yeah, that's the buy in.
Like I said, the two actresses, I'd look them both up.

(52:47):
They actually don't look all that much. I mean they're similar,
very similar bone structure, but they were made up to
look alike. They both had their heads shaved and that helped.
But no, that story falls apart. Everyone's like sitting right
next to her, people who have known her for twenty
years or whatever, and they can't tell that it's a
different woman.

Speaker 2 (53:06):
Right, And once they hit are off the boat, then
forget it. That the whole thing it's gorgeous.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
They go to Norway to this incredible location to have
a gala dinner and absolutely stunning. This is when I
was like, oh my god, this is all so wasted.
Amazing cast, fun set up, stunning. Look, this could have
been a killer thriller.

Speaker 2 (53:24):
I haven't read the book. People were saying that it's
much better. The book is much better, of course they
always say this, but maybe it is maybe something.

Speaker 1 (53:30):
But you don't have that issue of two different people
playing you know. Yeah, that immediately removes you from the story.

Speaker 2 (53:36):
Maybe it couldn't be translated, you know into I don't know.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
And then it gets to this thing with Guy Pears
holding a knife to the fake wife's throat in front
of entire like one hundred people. Okay, what's the end
game here? This is dumb. I know, we got into
stupid shit.

Speaker 2 (53:50):
Now, it was stupid towards the end of the last
twenty minute, Yeah, with the knife and the whole thing. Yeah,
it was just so ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
Care nightly, incredibly watchable, perfectly perfect in this. I mean,
that's that's the role she's born to me to do.
Guy Piers is always going to be the perfect sleazy
husband he's great at that. In fact, he's so good
at it that literally from the start, you're like, well,
whatever's going on, he's behind it, right, even though he
was very charming.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Potential, Like I said, maybe the book is better, great cast,
but it just didn't have enough.

Speaker 1 (54:23):
It didn't pull together and that that twist does not
work at all. But if you haven't seen it and
you're folding laundry or something like that, or you're you're like,
that's what I do, sick on the counts, full of medication,
it would probably be great for you. Like I said,
it's her, it's that location, it's that cast. It's not unwatchable,
but if you think about it, it's it's just dumb.

(54:44):
It's just dumb. And the pacing on it is extremely
extremely weird.

Speaker 2 (54:48):
Yeah pretty, but yeah empty.

Speaker 1 (54:51):
I think part of that is that weird pacing is
because he needed to keep you from figuring it out
or something. And again, to his credit, Simon Stone, I
did not. I was actually shocked. But it doesn't hold
up at all because there are.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
So many things. The boyfriend, you know, the boyfriend telling
everyone what she told him, and.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
I was like, throw that guy overboard? What is going
on there. Yeah. Yeah, I mean she was a woman
in peril, but a lot of it was down to
everyone around her being stupid. Anyway, I think that's it.
I think we've covered everything that we wanted to cover
this week.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Yes, yes, yes, yes yes.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
We'll be back next week. We'll tell you a little
bit more about our upcoming Paris trip, and we'll have
more ship to complain about, like we always do. Until then,
I'll take care of yourself. Love you mean it.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Bye bye bye