October 16, 2025 • 27 mins
In this podcast episode, HCC film professors Marie Westhaver and Mike Giuliano acknowledge that director Paul Thomas Anderson lives up to his reputation for making audacious films with "One Battle After Another," in which Leonardo DiCaprio plays a middle-aged former revolutionary who now lives as a recluse in the northern California woods. Loosely inspired by a Thomas Pynchon novel, this lengthy, densely plotted movie constantly jumps between the present and events from 16 years earlier. Although Marie and Mike have various reservations about the film, they admire every performance and especially Sean Penn as a military guy who has to be seen to be believed (or disbelieved). Look for this film to clean up with year-end awards recognition.
Marie and Mike also talk about "A Big Bold Beautiful Journey," a magical realism clunker in which Margot Robbie and Colin Farrell discover doorways that serve as portals to the past. The terrible script gives us flat characters and will have you looking for the doorway out of the theater.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Doesn't it have that quality that that I I just want to like truncate it and say,
"Well, yeah, I guess it's big. Is it bold?" I guess it's bold. Is it be beautiful? Yeah,
sometimes it is. Is it a journey? Oh, boy is it. Um, so I just think it's kind of shameless
that way. And I I I think I think it'll be quickly forgotten really because it's
it's not a film that has gotten good reviews or done well and it's just it's a misfire.
(00:27):
Hello and welcome to At the Movies with Mike and Marie, a show where two film professors talk
about movies. I'm Marie Westhaver and I'm Mike Giuliano. And today we're going to talk about one
battle after another and one a big bold beautiful journey. I always get that such a confusing title,
but let's start off with the uh one battle after another. Mike, I know you're going to have so much
(00:48):
to say about this Paul Thomas Anderson movie, so set the stage. Yeah, let's do battle. we'll we'll
enter into it immediately. Paul Thomas Anderson is such an ambitious really audacious filmmaker that
I always want to see whatever he makes and he's made a lot of films. When you think about films
like There Will Be Blood, The Master, on and on oftentimes, you know, sprawling ensemble pieces,
(01:09):
some of his earlier films, you know, you think about Robert Altman that way. But the person I
think about here actually is the novelist Thomas Pynchon. This is the second film that Anderson's
made that's loosely inspired by a Pynch novel. Well, the other one would be Inherent Vice from
2014. And I got to say at the reason I want to do battle is this. The film we're talking about one
(01:31):
battle after another. Um, as you and I speak in in the fall of 25, it's among the best reviewed films
of the year. I mean, people are really throwing out the superlatives. And I want to offer a bit of
a minority report. I mean, there's much to admire here. There there were definite strengths here
for sure. And it's like better than 90% of the films I see. So, so all that duly acknowledged,
(01:53):
but for me, and I know I obsess over running times, but this film has a running time of two
hours and 41 minutes. And for my money, it wears thin after a while. And I think that's actually,
frankly, a problem sometimes with Pynchon's novels. I mean, you know, a great novelist
and yet, you know, you have the heft of the book sometimes. And and and and another thing,
this is gets into like quasi philosophical ground. Without spoiling anything, in this film, there
(02:18):
are many scenes and indeed a few characters who I would say are borderline implausible and you know,
it's like really far-fetched satire and at some what at what point subjectively do you as a viewer
say, "Oh, come on now." like like he wouldn't do that or she wouldn't be that way or whatever
the case might be there and again that is very individualized as to how do you respond to that
but in the aggregate I think it it ultimately hurts the film and and the quasi philosophical
(02:42):
aspect though is this and a Pynchon novel there are things that when I see them on the page I
might initial I might laugh or I might scoff or I might whatever but somehow my imagination says
okay let's go with it you know and I'll go with it the nature of film of course is that sort of
uh literal-mindedness in a visual sense that you're actually seeing seeing it there and and
and for me it's sometimes like more difficult to accept it when I see it on screen than if I were
(03:05):
we'll talk about Sean Penn's character in a while but but there are things that I think oh come on
now but just to set the stage as as you want me to do uh in a concise way which I've never done
before but in in in a concise way to set the stage here there's a character Bob Ferguson played by
Leonardo DiCaprio and I got to say at the outset this is a superbly acted film I mean it's really
(03:26):
really impressively cast and acted so whatever my reservations Boy, all kudos to the actors who
will get Academy Award nominations, I'm sure. He plays a a foolish revolutionary. And and what's
interesting here is that for the length of the film, it doesn't really go into details. You're
not going to get the names of politicians. You're not going to get specific agenda items. These are
(03:48):
revolutionaries who are calling for freedom. Well, we all want freedom, but but they they
are violent and and among themselves as much as against the government and so on. There are some
scenes like a detention center for immigrants. So where how can you not make connect the dots
between our headlines and what's going on in in in the film and indeed you know the Pynchon novel
which came out in Vineland which came out in 1990 is very much set in the 1980s but looking back to
(04:13):
the 1960s. So what I think Anderson does very cleverly here is it's very much a film in our
own time and yet our protagonist if we can call him that I guess is constantly flashing back to
things from 16 years earlier. So you go back to the period when he was an active revolutionary.
Since then he's literally gone to pot. He he smokes, he drinks, he he's just he's a mess.
(04:34):
And DiCaprio really lets himself be a mess in this and and he lives in the perfect place for
this kind of recluse Northern California among the redwoods. You know, he's sort of hiding out in the
woods. And so it's a really intriguing character study in that respect. And and so the organization
he had belonged to was called French 75. And this is this is a movie movie. It's full of references.
The French 75 was a field gun. It was also the name of a cocktail in Casablanca. So, so you know,
(05:00):
I mean, this is just chalk full of things you you can talk about for hours. But anyway, it was one
of those sort of Antifa type groups going back in the day in this case. And uh sometimes groups like
that are not, however well organized they might or might not be, sometimes their ideological agenda
can be confused, can be kind of a model. And so maybe the film is realistic in that respect. In
any event, the film's going to jump back and forth uh in various ways from what he was doing 16 years
(05:24):
earlier to now when he's still very much on the run and hiding and sort of out of commission or
wants to be out of commission. The one thing I like so much about the film actually is that even
the parts of it to me seemed sort of a tenuous grasp of character and motivation and blah blah
blah. What comes through very strongly is that for all of his failures and for all of his latitude
at this point just hanging out like that, he's a devoted dad. and and and the relationship between
(05:50):
Bob that car and Bob's been known by various names throughout his history, but the the relationship
between Bob and his daughter uh Willa is really quite moving actually. It really and that's I wish
the film had more of that um just in general to keep it anchored or somehow tethered to a reality
I can relate to cuz some of the rest of it is so violent and so extreme and so relentless that that
(06:11):
I might laugh at times but after a while honestly I was just thinking enough already. So enough
already. back to you. Okay. Well, I had kind of the same reaction you did. I went in really
wanting to like it because I like this director. And you know, the interesting thing about him is
I think everybody thinks he makes great movies, but they're not movies that make a lot of money,
but this time he's got Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn. So, I think, you know, this might
(06:34):
be the one that actually breaks him. He might be the breakout film that introduces him to a wider
audience. The two main guys, Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, are both incredible in this. They they
both are kind of falling apart but in completely different ways. Leonardo DiCaprio is just sort
of he's letting it all hang out. It's all just exploding out of him and he spends most of the
(06:56):
movie you know with dirty hair and wearing a bathrobe. He looks terrible but he owns
it. Whereas Sean Penn is just this locked down. Everything that is shattering in him he is just
holding as tightly as he can. He has the most interesting walk. you just see everything he is
struggling with just even in the way he walks. I'm gonna say this will be nominated for best
(07:18):
picture and he will probably pick up another Academy Award as best supporting actor. I he
was the best part of the movie and he's the bad guy. Um it's going to receive nominations in all
the major categories. That that that's a a lock when you talk about the lock down quality of the
character. He has a great name, Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw. And so and so that's his character
(07:39):
in terms of how he walks. Sean Penn is is really really smart with how he handles the physicality
of of the character. And one of the reviews of the film said it seems like he has like like a a rod,
you know, stuck up his posterior. I'll put it politely, but but he sort of walks that way. And
there are scenes where you're meant to think that because he's walking down the road, let's say,
and you find yourself, you know, almost like in a silent film. You're watching the body language
(08:02):
of him and and and his it's a totally controlled performance. And Sean Penn's done obviously done
a lot of really good work, but this is one of his best performances. However, I might feel about
the character and sometimes the character is is so extreme there that that he almost seems like
the Jack D Ripper character in in in in Stanley Kubrick's film. I I mean, don't you sometimes
(08:23):
feel that way that it's just like this like really really extreme um you know, beyond realism into a
sort of hyper reality that way. and and and so you know it really reminds me of what what Kubrick did
and and and just the naming of the charact now the naming of the character is very this sort of thing
that you expect from Pynchon to those sort of silly quasi silly names but the Kubrick connection
(08:45):
when you think of Dr. Strangelove it really in some ways reminds me of Dr. Strangelove because
when you think of General Jack D Ripper in in in Dr. Strangelove it's it watch these movies I'm not
saying you should watch these movies back to back because you want to sue me probably on various
grounds but but if you were to watch them back to back watch Jack D Ripper in in Dr. Strangelove and
then watch Stephen J Col. Steven J. Lockjaw in in this film and the only and if if you were to have
(09:10):
a triple feature now this is really pushing it if you had a triple feature you could watch Robert
Duval's Col. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now watch how they walk watch how they right you know what I'm
getting at is the body language they they trained the same military academy but but I don't want to
spoil anything in in the story here but the Sean Penn character which keeps reminding me of Dr.
of Dr. Strangelove and that general. Um, but that character is so extreme and you know it's
(09:36):
hard to talk about the character without spoiling something but in terms of the values he represents
and the things he does and so on that's that was one aspect of the film where I thought well great
performance but problematic character. Now I know in real life and and we know from daily newspaper
headlines things take strange turns and things that should be implausible or all too real. I
know all that but but watching the film it just sometimes often times struck me as contrivance.
(09:59):
that he would do certain things. And let me let me pick your brain on this because that's actually
one of the points where much as, you know, as a movie nerd, sure, I like making connections with,
you know, Dr. Strangelove and Apocalypse Now and this, but that's a parlor game ultimately
as I'm watching the film, this film, there are times where I just wasn't quite buying it at a
visceral level. Can I sort of pick your brain on this? Because that's where I didn't entirely turn
(10:21):
against the film, but I just found that I was scoffing a bit or not not finding it quite as
funny as I was meant to find it. Well, I'll say like the Benicio del Toro character kind of gives
it a like another sort of layer because, you know, he's involved in sheltering or saving immigrants,
but he's also a karate teacher. I think that might be what you're referring to. It's like,
(10:42):
but why does he have to be a karate teacher? It's just such a like a weird sort of reason
for him to know him. Well, you know what what you're getting at there? There's a a tossed in
or tossed together quality to to a film. Like, you know what I'm getting at? It's like, well, okay,
it's already veering weird and and I like weird. It's veering weird, but let's make it weirder. So,
so they'll twist things in a way. And in real life, and and his character actually, you know,
(11:05):
is one of the humane characters. He's very capable when it comes to action and killing and this and
that, but he's a humane guy. He's helping the immigrants. He's just a decent guy. He's a
good karate teacher from what I can see. He's got all the things going for him, but but the the the
character gets slightly twisted or or or extended that way. and it's meant to make it somehow richer
or funnier, but to me that's where I see the the strings being pulled. It just seems like
(11:28):
contrivance to me. There's no reason why in real life you can't be a revolutionary or at least,
you know, a fellow traveler to revolutionaries and also be somebody helping immigrants and
and you can actually make very definite thematic connections there, you know,
in terms of what he's trying to do and so on. But in in the playing and the acting out of it, it to
me just sometimes seems like, hey, what if we do this? What if we do that? Let's make him this or
(11:50):
that. And and that's where and again logically can I prove what I'm saying? No, not really. It's more
it's more at gut level. I'm not quite buying it. There are two scenes that I really really enjoyed.
One is where Leonardo DiCaprio is following trying to follow this group of young kids
with skateboards who are all running away from the people who were after Leonardo DiCaprio. And
he's trying desperately to keep up with them, but he can't because he's not, you know, 20 anymore.
(12:15):
And some of those scenes of him trying to keep up are hilarious until he finally falls off the roof,
which is played for a laugh and he's like trying to get up and then they stut him. You know, I like
those scenes because they they are a reminder of the the contemporary quality of the film. There's
a this is very much a generational film. What what these revolutionaries were up to back in the day
16 years ago, how they are now. They're they're generally the worst for wear. It's true. Uh their
(12:40):
ideals have been squashed but are still there and trying to reconnect. And in case of DiCaprio,
his brain is so fried that when he tries to reconnect with some of the revolutionaries,
they are they're playing by the book. Like, well, what's the password before we tell you something
you need to know password? I don't remember the password. Come on, give me a break here.
I'm Bob and I'll tell you all about and those are actually like really there's a pathos to scenes
like that. They're they're funny, but also there's a pathos. But that kind of skateboarding stuff,
(13:03):
it's parkour. I actually, you know, we'll take the the skateboards like, you know, on the street,
on the rooftop, whatever, and bounce around that way. And this is an example of where it
works on two counts. One is thematically. It helps to pull the action into the present day
and showing that you know there are younger kids today. You're no longer a kid yourself. And that
underscoring works really well thematically. The second reason is technically that that Anderson,
(13:26):
no big surprise here, is is a superb technician in terms of film making and those scenes are
really well shot and edited. I mean and the and and individual episodes in this film and it is
episodic really are exciting. I mean there just if you watch them on their own they're really
superbly done. That's why when we when you were mentioning Academy Awards definitely the actors
are all going to be nominated probably film itself will definitely has a lock speaking of lock on on
(13:49):
best picture nomination best director all that but in technical categories when you get into editing
and sound and scoring for that matter one thing we haven't talked about yet there's a lot of scoring
in a sexual sense in this film but scoring in in a musical sense Johnny Greenwood's score is really
interesting. A lot of it is just simply what I call a jangly solo piano it can grade on your
nerves but it's meant to but was very carefully orchestrated in a really spare way and I thought,
(14:13):
you know, it's it's far from a conventional musical score and that's why I liked it so much.
It's one reason why the film holds on to that edgy quality even when it's starting to lose me. Um,
my ears are still very alert to it that way. So, uh, and and likewise in terms of those technical
aspects and of course this is creative as well in terms of, you know, composing a score, but
the sound of the film, the look of it, it was shot in Vista Vision. Uh it's a 35 millimeter format,
(14:38):
rarely used now and and there's there only a few theaters in the country that will show it
as it truly should be seen, but it works here because it's an unusually sharp image. So even
when the story gets really fuzzy, and it often does, um it it looks great on the screen. So,
so you and I talk a lot about and in fact my other friend and I always talk about this. He
and his wife have discussions as in well as new movies come out. What should they go to
(15:01):
see in a theater on the big screen? What should they wait to see somehow on the small screen or
smaller screen at at home? This is definitely a movie to see on the biggest screen you you can get
cuz it looks great. Even when it's not great in other ways, it looks great. There's also another
scene that's a car chase on these winding roads. Well, no, they're not winding. They're hilly. So,
you know, it's up and down and up and down and, you know, suddenly it looks like there's nobody on
(15:25):
the road. Oh, there's the car again. It it really gives you a sense of impending tension. And I make
a car connection here. Another film that was shot in Vista Vision was Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.
And when when you think about car scenes in a film like that, these directors know what they're doing
there because you you really get the panorama of the urban panorama or or rural, doesn't matter
(15:45):
really, you get a sense of the car moving through space, you know, and so if it's a car chase or
even just a car going down the street, you you're like the most alert passenger in the car at that
point. You're you're you're sharing the POV of the driver, but you're also looking out, you know,
what's alongside the road, this and that. It keeps you fully awake. like you you you don't want to be
distracted by anything else. You shouldn't like go out for popcorn or anything. You want to stay
(16:07):
and and and see what's around the corner. And and you know, any film can do that, but the one thing
about Vista Vision is it it really gets you pulled into that visual world. And you know,
don't you sense that like with one of the many great things about Vertigo is how you totally
get pulled into it? It's immersive that way. And this film uh for better, for worse, is immersive.
It doesn't work for me often times, but I can't deny it. you know, I'm I'm pulled into this world
(16:31):
and and I know a few hours later I'll be released. Well, in terms of how well you think this is going
to do at the box office, do you think this is a winner? Well, you know, I usually shy away from
questions like that because I'm wrong, you know, and I don't want I don't want to be wrong again.
But, you know, Paul Thomas Anderson's been a critical favorite for many years now. And you
made a really good observation to kick us off here that, you know, Critical Darling and and movie
(16:56):
buffs love him and so on. The films haven't always done as well at the box office, but they've done
okay. You know what I mean? Like, he's it's not like he's only riding on Critical Laurels. I mean,
he's got a box office following. It's not typically, you know, as big as some of the,
you know, superhero type movies, but his films are challenging. I mean, it's if you're looking for
like light entertainment on a Saturday night, you should definitely pick something else, you know,
(17:18):
but but you also made the very good point that u in terms of theatrical box office, but I would say
beyond that in terms of streaming and just however people watch movies now, the casting certainly
helps here. Uh Leonardo DiCaprio can carry a film goes without saying the critical kudos
extended to Sean Penn and so on. Yeah, people are going to know those names and yeah, that can only
(17:38):
help in in that respect. So I hope the film does really well because I mean it's so much better
than most of the films I see. So that's why even though mine's a minority report at least there's
a lot I can say in favor of this film that really is exciting. So many other films you know they
might be somehow more satisfying but you know by the next week I've forgotten them already.
Right. This is a film I remember. I think this is a movie people are going to go see because people
(18:02):
are talking about it. Can I say one one final observation just by way of how clever it is in
so many ways and as movie nerds we should mention this here you have the l I love the way you
describe Leonardo DiCaprio character he's really gone to pot he's really a mess he looks horrible
and and how many actors would have that much confidence in themselves to just let themselves
go I mean when he walks down the hallway in a bathroom so please you almost want to look away
(18:24):
you know life has not been kind to him in middle age but just because he's hanging out and just
passing the time when he's not you know ingesting various substances is and just looking out the
window. Uh he watches Gillo Potato Carabba's battle of Algiers from 1966. One of the all-time
great movies if I can give it a plug. But the one of the very greatest films ever about about
revolution I mean it's just an exceptional film. It's a masterpiece and the fact that in his do
(18:48):
his his middle-aged dotage he would sit watching that. It's both funny and really heartbreaking.
I mean he's thinking back to revolutionary fervor and the idealism of that period. And that movie is
very much about the Algerians fighting for their independence from France to no longer be a French
colony. So it's really very much a late 50s, early 60s kind of scenario. But this is a film
that constantly in the present looks to the past. And I thought that was an incredibly smart thing
(19:11):
for Paul Thomas Anderson to call our attention to. So it's not just the movie nerd, you know,
giving himself points for recognizing the clip. It's not just that. It's that even if you don't
quite recognize the clip, you essentially get the context, don't you? you get him watching old black
and white movies and connecting that way and you know we can even go back to Casablanca as we did
with the drink before. Well, let's move on to our second movie which is a big bold beautiful
(19:36):
journey. Now, I'm going to start off by saying that I am the viewer for this kind of a movie. I
love rom-coms. I love both of these actors, Colin Farrell and uh Margot Robbie. And I like whimsy,
but this movie was a clunker. And I'm I have to say it's it's it's got some beautiful beautiful
scenes. You could just take a a still and make a postcard out of it. I loved the um references
(20:00):
to Jacques Dei. I felt a little bit like eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, but it just didn't
the con central conceit that the GPS in your rental car is going to take you into the past
where you're going to deal with various things that happened. It just didn't work for me. I mean,
I just couldn't suspend the disbelief to to get there. How about you, Mike? Um, I'll follow in
(20:24):
your wake and say the film's a total failure. Um, I'll cut to the chase on this. It's directed
by Kogonada, but but it wants to be a Charlie Kaufman movie. That's what it wants. Um, and this
is a tricky thing. It's it's dealing in magical realism, which unless you hit it right, can be,
as you say, clunker is a good word to to use here just to to set the stage. So, we don't want people
(20:47):
to watch this movie. We want to talk about it. So, you don't watch it. But if you have the misfortune
of watching it, their character Sarah and David, played by Margot Robbie and and Colin Farrell,
they meet cute at the wedding of mutual friends. And then what happens, and this is the leap into
magical realism, they discover that doors serve as portals to the past. So, if they're particularly
(21:08):
if they're walking, they shouldn't go for walks in the woods because these will for some reason when
you walk in the woods, it leads you up to door frame. And when you go through the door frame,
it takes you into the past. And don't ask me to explain that further cuz the film sure doesn't.
It's just that's a given, right? And you go with that or you don't. And I wasn't going with it
particularly. But, you know, um if you were to go with that conceit, it's potentially interesting
that you meet somebody, you get to know them, and then somehow through some magic hocus-pocus, it
(21:34):
carries you to the past where you know, and again, you're going from past to present constantly in a
film like this. Here's the real problem in the film. It's it's with the script. You mentioned
visually how there's some striking scenes. Yeah, I'll go along with that. It, you know, eye candy
kind of appeal that way, but where it really fails is with the script because both characters are
so superficially written. They're so shallow that that as they're like, "Oh, wow. Man, that was my,
(21:59):
you know, they go those conversations. I don't know them very well. I don't care about them at
all." I mean, it sounds cold-hearted, but I really don't. So whatever revelations are meant to be
there and whatever bonding between them, the film left me not just cool but totally cold. I was so
indifferent to it after a while. I just wanted I wanted to find the portal that would get me out of
the theater. You know, that's what that's what I wanted. And the film has had mostly bad reviews a
(22:25):
and and one I think one indication of the failure of it is that the film is so heavy-handed in its
treatment of the superficiality and it starts with the film's very title. Whenever you and I talk
about this film, we have to like double check ourselves. Did we get the title right? A big,
bold, beautiful journey. Well, gosh, that's what it's going to be. You know, why not put some more
adjectives in there and just pile them on? Doesn't it have just doesn't it have that quality that
(22:49):
that I I just want to like truncate it and say, well, yeah, I guess it's big. Is it bold? I guess
it's bold. Is it be beautiful? Yeah, sometimes it is. Is it a journey? Oh, boy is it. Um, so I just
think it's kind of shameless that way. And I I I think I think it'll be quickly forgotten really
because it's it's not a film that has gotten good reviews or done well and it's just it's a misfire,
(23:11):
you know, and and I don't want to seem sadistic and like, you know, twist the knife that way,
but there's almost nothing good to say about this film. Well, I will say I completely agree
with you. The problem is the script. Because one thing I was thinking while I was watching it was,
you know what, if they just turned off the sound and I could make up what was going on
and what they were saying, it would have been a much better movie. because it's like I said,
(23:32):
it's certain scenes are gorgeous and you know, you couldn't have two prettier people playing
the leads, but they there's no chemistry. They say things people that they just don't say. It
was just most of it I was just, you know, shaking my head going, "Oh, come on." Now, apparently that
the GPS system in the original script was supposed to actually be sentient so it would actually,
(23:53):
you know, know what was going on with you and that kind of thing, which I think would have
been a better movie. But almost anything could have been done to make this a better movie. One
of my logical reservations and once you start having logical reservations here, it's all over,
right? But but okay, so they're in a car and the GPS is going to like say, "Well, turn right here."
Now, most drivers are very obedient. They follow their GPS. They don't dare disobey it. But I've
(24:16):
occasionally like I've occasionally like you know Uber rides things like that occasionally like the
Uber the GPS is saying turn right and I'm saying no you're actually better off turning left cuz
it's like you know like I I know the roads right so turn this way not that but the driver sometimes
like well no the GPS is saying so that that's our god we're accustomed to obeying the GPS always. Um
but the thing is like once they know how this this metaphysical deal works why do they keep
(24:39):
going along with it all the time? It's just like well maybe don't get in the car or get in the car
but disobey the GPS. I mean, is it that total a lock that you have to like do everything that
it tells you to do? And they're so unthinking that way. And the unthinking quality extends,
as you say, to the dialogue. It's really trite. It's really cliche. It has a really forced quasi
literate quality to it. You know, that that is and people usually don't talk quite this way,
(25:03):
but they are cuz they they're movie characters and they talk back and forth this way. It it's
it's just not very interesting and it's just not very believable. Even you realize that they're
living in a conceit. They're they're operating in this sort of conceit of these two characters are
supposed to love each other. There is absolutely zero chemistry between two very attractive actors,
right? Now, that's a feat. You get two really beautiful people and you don't feel any chemistry
(25:25):
here. That's an interesting study. What went wrong that there's no chemistry at all? You know,
I I found myself more enamored of the doorways like architecturally. What kind of door is this?
Actually, I think there was some meaning to the colors. So the pale yellow is regret,
ultramarine for denial, and blood red for acceptance. So not that I recommend you go
(25:46):
back and re-watch it to pick that up, but just for well if if you're if you're painting your
house and you want some color guides, some keys, I guess so. But then I I I like movies
typically that are color coded in a way. I like that sometimes the cleverness of how they work
certain colors in here. It's just like it's one of those well whatever responses I have, you know,
if they say, well, here here's the yellow, here's the pencil, so what? you know, I mean,
(26:07):
I I just, you know, get rid of all those colors and just let them turn left rather than right,
you know, let them have a normal relationship and maybe I'll care about them. But here they
are totally subject to imprisoner of the script that they've been given, you know, and that's why
you you can sense this in the acting actually. And I know I'm being kind of mean-spirited here,
but it's as if these actors have their lines and my line, your line. It's that kind of a thing.
(26:30):
and and I'm facing you on a screen right now and I'm speaking to you in a certain way and there
might not be any genuine feeling there, but I I got my line out, didn't I? I I said the line of
dialogue. It's it's failing at that basic level of of they they know their lines, but there's nothing
behind the lines really. Yes. There is a scene where they're in this diner and they're eating
cheeseburgers and she takes one of his onion rings and they've been talking about how, you know,
(26:53):
they're not right for each other for various reasons. She takes the onion ring and she says,
"This is the only ring I'm ever going to get from you." And it it you know it was supposed
to be funny and but it was just boring. It was boring which is the worst thing you can
do. Yeah. So it's one of the worst movies of the year and and uh we're endorsing onion rings but
but but not this onion of a movie. Not this one. This onion of a movie. Okay. That does bring us
(27:18):
to the end of the show. But don't forget to check out our other episodes at atm at hcc.podbean.com
and we'll see you next time at the movies. See you then. Thanks for
listening to Dragon Podcasts. Connect with us at podbean.com/dragonpodcasts. [Music]
Doesn't it have that quality that that I I just want to like truncate it and say,
"Well, yeah, I guess it's big. Is it bold?" I guess it's bold. Is it be beautiful? Yeah,
sometimes it is. Is it a journey? Oh, boy is it. Um, so I just think it's kind of shameless
that way. And I I I think I think it'll be quickly forgotten really because it's
it's not a film that has gotten good reviews or done well and it's just it's a misfire.
(00:27):
Hello and welcome to At the Movies with Mike and Marie, a show where two film professors talk
about movies. I'm Marie Westhaver and I'm Mike Giuliano. And today we're going to talk about one
battle after another and one a big bold beautiful journey. I always get that such a confusing title,
but let's start off with the uh one battle after another. Mike, I know you're going to have so much
(00:48):
to say about this Paul Thomas Anderson movie, so set the stage. Yeah, let's do battle. we'll we'll
enter into it immediately. Paul Thomas Anderson is such an ambitious really audacious filmmaker that
I always want to see whatever he makes and he's made a lot of films. When you think about films
like There Will Be Blood, The Master, on and on oftentimes, you know, sprawling ensemble pieces,
(01:09):
some of his earlier films, you know, you think about Robert Altman that way. But the person I
think about here actually is the novelist Thomas Pynchon. This is the second film that Anderson's
made that's loosely inspired by a Pynch novel. Well, the other one would be Inherent Vice from
2014. And I got to say at the reason I want to do battle is this. The film we're talking about one
(01:31):
battle after another. Um, as you and I speak in in the fall of 25, it's among the best reviewed films
of the year. I mean, people are really throwing out the superlatives. And I want to offer a bit of
a minority report. I mean, there's much to admire here. There there were definite strengths here
for sure. And it's like better than 90% of the films I see. So, so all that duly acknowledged,
(01:53):
but for me, and I know I obsess over running times, but this film has a running time of two
hours and 41 minutes. And for my money, it wears thin after a while. And I think that's actually,
frankly, a problem sometimes with Pynchon's novels. I mean, you know, a great novelist
and yet, you know, you have the heft of the book sometimes. And and and and another thing,
this is gets into like quasi philosophical ground. Without spoiling anything, in this film, there
(02:18):
are many scenes and indeed a few characters who I would say are borderline implausible and you know,
it's like really far-fetched satire and at some what at what point subjectively do you as a viewer
say, "Oh, come on now." like like he wouldn't do that or she wouldn't be that way or whatever
the case might be there and again that is very individualized as to how do you respond to that
but in the aggregate I think it it ultimately hurts the film and and the quasi philosophical
(02:42):
aspect though is this and a Pynchon novel there are things that when I see them on the page I
might initial I might laugh or I might scoff or I might whatever but somehow my imagination says
okay let's go with it you know and I'll go with it the nature of film of course is that sort of
uh literal-mindedness in a visual sense that you're actually seeing seeing it there and and
and for me it's sometimes like more difficult to accept it when I see it on screen than if I were
(03:05):
we'll talk about Sean Penn's character in a while but but there are things that I think oh come on
now but just to set the stage as as you want me to do uh in a concise way which I've never done
before but in in in a concise way to set the stage here there's a character Bob Ferguson played by
Leonardo DiCaprio and I got to say at the outset this is a superbly acted film I mean it's really
(03:26):
really impressively cast and acted so whatever my reservations Boy, all kudos to the actors who
will get Academy Award nominations, I'm sure. He plays a a foolish revolutionary. And and what's
interesting here is that for the length of the film, it doesn't really go into details. You're
not going to get the names of politicians. You're not going to get specific agenda items. These are
(03:48):
revolutionaries who are calling for freedom. Well, we all want freedom, but but they they
are violent and and among themselves as much as against the government and so on. There are some
scenes like a detention center for immigrants. So where how can you not make connect the dots
between our headlines and what's going on in in in the film and indeed you know the Pynchon novel
which came out in Vineland which came out in 1990 is very much set in the 1980s but looking back to
(04:13):
the 1960s. So what I think Anderson does very cleverly here is it's very much a film in our
own time and yet our protagonist if we can call him that I guess is constantly flashing back to
things from 16 years earlier. So you go back to the period when he was an active revolutionary.
Since then he's literally gone to pot. He he smokes, he drinks, he he's just he's a mess.
(04:34):
And DiCaprio really lets himself be a mess in this and and he lives in the perfect place for
this kind of recluse Northern California among the redwoods. You know, he's sort of hiding out in the
woods. And so it's a really intriguing character study in that respect. And and so the organization
he had belonged to was called French 75. And this is this is a movie movie. It's full of references.
The French 75 was a field gun. It was also the name of a cocktail in Casablanca. So, so you know,
(05:00):
I mean, this is just chalk full of things you you can talk about for hours. But anyway, it was one
of those sort of Antifa type groups going back in the day in this case. And uh sometimes groups like
that are not, however well organized they might or might not be, sometimes their ideological agenda
can be confused, can be kind of a model. And so maybe the film is realistic in that respect. In
any event, the film's going to jump back and forth uh in various ways from what he was doing 16 years
(05:24):
earlier to now when he's still very much on the run and hiding and sort of out of commission or
wants to be out of commission. The one thing I like so much about the film actually is that even
the parts of it to me seemed sort of a tenuous grasp of character and motivation and blah blah
blah. What comes through very strongly is that for all of his failures and for all of his latitude
at this point just hanging out like that, he's a devoted dad. and and and the relationship between
(05:50):
Bob that car and Bob's been known by various names throughout his history, but the the relationship
between Bob and his daughter uh Willa is really quite moving actually. It really and that's I wish
the film had more of that um just in general to keep it anchored or somehow tethered to a reality
I can relate to cuz some of the rest of it is so violent and so extreme and so relentless that that
(06:11):
I might laugh at times but after a while honestly I was just thinking enough already. So enough
already. back to you. Okay. Well, I had kind of the same reaction you did. I went in really
wanting to like it because I like this director. And you know, the interesting thing about him is
I think everybody thinks he makes great movies, but they're not movies that make a lot of money,
but this time he's got Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn. So, I think, you know, this might
(06:34):
be the one that actually breaks him. He might be the breakout film that introduces him to a wider
audience. The two main guys, Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, are both incredible in this. They they
both are kind of falling apart but in completely different ways. Leonardo DiCaprio is just sort
of he's letting it all hang out. It's all just exploding out of him and he spends most of the
(06:56):
movie you know with dirty hair and wearing a bathrobe. He looks terrible but he owns
it. Whereas Sean Penn is just this locked down. Everything that is shattering in him he is just
holding as tightly as he can. He has the most interesting walk. you just see everything he is
struggling with just even in the way he walks. I'm gonna say this will be nominated for best
(07:18):
picture and he will probably pick up another Academy Award as best supporting actor. I he
was the best part of the movie and he's the bad guy. Um it's going to receive nominations in all
the major categories. That that that's a a lock when you talk about the lock down quality of the
character. He has a great name, Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw. And so and so that's his character
(07:39):
in terms of how he walks. Sean Penn is is really really smart with how he handles the physicality
of of the character. And one of the reviews of the film said it seems like he has like like a a rod,
you know, stuck up his posterior. I'll put it politely, but but he sort of walks that way. And
there are scenes where you're meant to think that because he's walking down the road, let's say,
and you find yourself, you know, almost like in a silent film. You're watching the body language
(08:02):
of him and and and his it's a totally controlled performance. And Sean Penn's done obviously done
a lot of really good work, but this is one of his best performances. However, I might feel about
the character and sometimes the character is is so extreme there that that he almost seems like
the Jack D Ripper character in in in in Stanley Kubrick's film. I I mean, don't you sometimes
(08:23):
feel that way that it's just like this like really really extreme um you know, beyond realism into a
sort of hyper reality that way. and and and so you know it really reminds me of what what Kubrick did
and and and just the naming of the charact now the naming of the character is very this sort of thing
that you expect from Pynchon to those sort of silly quasi silly names but the Kubrick connection
(08:45):
when you think of Dr. Strangelove it really in some ways reminds me of Dr. Strangelove because
when you think of General Jack D Ripper in in in Dr. Strangelove it's it watch these movies I'm not
saying you should watch these movies back to back because you want to sue me probably on various
grounds but but if you were to watch them back to back watch Jack D Ripper in in Dr. Strangelove and
then watch Stephen J Col. Steven J. Lockjaw in in this film and the only and if if you were to have
(09:10):
a triple feature now this is really pushing it if you had a triple feature you could watch Robert
Duval's Col. Kilgore in Apocalypse Now watch how they walk watch how they right you know what I'm
getting at is the body language they they trained the same military academy but but I don't want to
spoil anything in in the story here but the Sean Penn character which keeps reminding me of Dr.
of Dr. Strangelove and that general. Um, but that character is so extreme and you know it's
(09:36):
hard to talk about the character without spoiling something but in terms of the values he represents
and the things he does and so on that's that was one aspect of the film where I thought well great
performance but problematic character. Now I know in real life and and we know from daily newspaper
headlines things take strange turns and things that should be implausible or all too real. I
know all that but but watching the film it just sometimes often times struck me as contrivance.
(09:59):
that he would do certain things. And let me let me pick your brain on this because that's actually
one of the points where much as, you know, as a movie nerd, sure, I like making connections with,
you know, Dr. Strangelove and Apocalypse Now and this, but that's a parlor game ultimately
as I'm watching the film, this film, there are times where I just wasn't quite buying it at a
visceral level. Can I sort of pick your brain on this? Because that's where I didn't entirely turn
(10:21):
against the film, but I just found that I was scoffing a bit or not not finding it quite as
funny as I was meant to find it. Well, I'll say like the Benicio del Toro character kind of gives
it a like another sort of layer because, you know, he's involved in sheltering or saving immigrants,
but he's also a karate teacher. I think that might be what you're referring to. It's like,
(10:42):
but why does he have to be a karate teacher? It's just such a like a weird sort of reason
for him to know him. Well, you know what what you're getting at there? There's a a tossed in
or tossed together quality to to a film. Like, you know what I'm getting at? It's like, well, okay,
it's already veering weird and and I like weird. It's veering weird, but let's make it weirder. So,
so they'll twist things in a way. And in real life, and and his character actually, you know,
(11:05):
is one of the humane characters. He's very capable when it comes to action and killing and this and
that, but he's a humane guy. He's helping the immigrants. He's just a decent guy. He's a
good karate teacher from what I can see. He's got all the things going for him, but but the the the
character gets slightly twisted or or or extended that way. and it's meant to make it somehow richer
or funnier, but to me that's where I see the the strings being pulled. It just seems like
(11:28):
contrivance to me. There's no reason why in real life you can't be a revolutionary or at least,
you know, a fellow traveler to revolutionaries and also be somebody helping immigrants and
and you can actually make very definite thematic connections there, you know,
in terms of what he's trying to do and so on. But in in the playing and the acting out of it, it to
me just sometimes seems like, hey, what if we do this? What if we do that? Let's make him this or
(11:50):
that. And and that's where and again logically can I prove what I'm saying? No, not really. It's more
it's more at gut level. I'm not quite buying it. There are two scenes that I really really enjoyed.
One is where Leonardo DiCaprio is following trying to follow this group of young kids
with skateboards who are all running away from the people who were after Leonardo DiCaprio. And
he's trying desperately to keep up with them, but he can't because he's not, you know, 20 anymore.
(12:15):
And some of those scenes of him trying to keep up are hilarious until he finally falls off the roof,
which is played for a laugh and he's like trying to get up and then they stut him. You know, I like
those scenes because they they are a reminder of the the contemporary quality of the film. There's
a this is very much a generational film. What what these revolutionaries were up to back in the day
16 years ago, how they are now. They're they're generally the worst for wear. It's true. Uh their
(12:40):
ideals have been squashed but are still there and trying to reconnect. And in case of DiCaprio,
his brain is so fried that when he tries to reconnect with some of the revolutionaries,
they are they're playing by the book. Like, well, what's the password before we tell you something
you need to know password? I don't remember the password. Come on, give me a break here.
I'm Bob and I'll tell you all about and those are actually like really there's a pathos to scenes
like that. They're they're funny, but also there's a pathos. But that kind of skateboarding stuff,
(13:03):
it's parkour. I actually, you know, we'll take the the skateboards like, you know, on the street,
on the rooftop, whatever, and bounce around that way. And this is an example of where it
works on two counts. One is thematically. It helps to pull the action into the present day
and showing that you know there are younger kids today. You're no longer a kid yourself. And that
underscoring works really well thematically. The second reason is technically that that Anderson,
(13:26):
no big surprise here, is is a superb technician in terms of film making and those scenes are
really well shot and edited. I mean and the and and individual episodes in this film and it is
episodic really are exciting. I mean there just if you watch them on their own they're really
superbly done. That's why when we when you were mentioning Academy Awards definitely the actors
are all going to be nominated probably film itself will definitely has a lock speaking of lock on on
(13:49):
best picture nomination best director all that but in technical categories when you get into editing
and sound and scoring for that matter one thing we haven't talked about yet there's a lot of scoring
in a sexual sense in this film but scoring in in a musical sense Johnny Greenwood's score is really
interesting. A lot of it is just simply what I call a jangly solo piano it can grade on your
nerves but it's meant to but was very carefully orchestrated in a really spare way and I thought,
(14:13):
you know, it's it's far from a conventional musical score and that's why I liked it so much.
It's one reason why the film holds on to that edgy quality even when it's starting to lose me. Um,
my ears are still very alert to it that way. So, uh, and and likewise in terms of those technical
aspects and of course this is creative as well in terms of, you know, composing a score, but
the sound of the film, the look of it, it was shot in Vista Vision. Uh it's a 35 millimeter format,
(14:38):
rarely used now and and there's there only a few theaters in the country that will show it
as it truly should be seen, but it works here because it's an unusually sharp image. So even
when the story gets really fuzzy, and it often does, um it it looks great on the screen. So,
so you and I talk a lot about and in fact my other friend and I always talk about this. He
and his wife have discussions as in well as new movies come out. What should they go to
(15:01):
see in a theater on the big screen? What should they wait to see somehow on the small screen or
smaller screen at at home? This is definitely a movie to see on the biggest screen you you can get
cuz it looks great. Even when it's not great in other ways, it looks great. There's also another
scene that's a car chase on these winding roads. Well, no, they're not winding. They're hilly. So,
you know, it's up and down and up and down and, you know, suddenly it looks like there's nobody on
(15:25):
the road. Oh, there's the car again. It it really gives you a sense of impending tension. And I make
a car connection here. Another film that was shot in Vista Vision was Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo.
And when when you think about car scenes in a film like that, these directors know what they're doing
there because you you really get the panorama of the urban panorama or or rural, doesn't matter
(15:45):
really, you get a sense of the car moving through space, you know, and so if it's a car chase or
even just a car going down the street, you you're like the most alert passenger in the car at that
point. You're you're you're sharing the POV of the driver, but you're also looking out, you know,
what's alongside the road, this and that. It keeps you fully awake. like you you you don't want to be
distracted by anything else. You shouldn't like go out for popcorn or anything. You want to stay
(16:07):
and and and see what's around the corner. And and you know, any film can do that, but the one thing
about Vista Vision is it it really gets you pulled into that visual world. And you know,
don't you sense that like with one of the many great things about Vertigo is how you totally
get pulled into it? It's immersive that way. And this film uh for better, for worse, is immersive.
It doesn't work for me often times, but I can't deny it. you know, I'm I'm pulled into this world
(16:31):
and and I know a few hours later I'll be released. Well, in terms of how well you think this is going
to do at the box office, do you think this is a winner? Well, you know, I usually shy away from
questions like that because I'm wrong, you know, and I don't want I don't want to be wrong again.
But, you know, Paul Thomas Anderson's been a critical favorite for many years now. And you
made a really good observation to kick us off here that, you know, Critical Darling and and movie
(16:56):
buffs love him and so on. The films haven't always done as well at the box office, but they've done
okay. You know what I mean? Like, he's it's not like he's only riding on Critical Laurels. I mean,
he's got a box office following. It's not typically, you know, as big as some of the,
you know, superhero type movies, but his films are challenging. I mean, it's if you're looking for
like light entertainment on a Saturday night, you should definitely pick something else, you know,
(17:18):
but but you also made the very good point that u in terms of theatrical box office, but I would say
beyond that in terms of streaming and just however people watch movies now, the casting certainly
helps here. Uh Leonardo DiCaprio can carry a film goes without saying the critical kudos
extended to Sean Penn and so on. Yeah, people are going to know those names and yeah, that can only
(17:38):
help in in that respect. So I hope the film does really well because I mean it's so much better
than most of the films I see. So that's why even though mine's a minority report at least there's
a lot I can say in favor of this film that really is exciting. So many other films you know they
might be somehow more satisfying but you know by the next week I've forgotten them already.
Right. This is a film I remember. I think this is a movie people are going to go see because people
(18:02):
are talking about it. Can I say one one final observation just by way of how clever it is in
so many ways and as movie nerds we should mention this here you have the l I love the way you
describe Leonardo DiCaprio character he's really gone to pot he's really a mess he looks horrible
and and how many actors would have that much confidence in themselves to just let themselves
go I mean when he walks down the hallway in a bathroom so please you almost want to look away
(18:24):
you know life has not been kind to him in middle age but just because he's hanging out and just
passing the time when he's not you know ingesting various substances is and just looking out the
window. Uh he watches Gillo Potato Carabba's battle of Algiers from 1966. One of the all-time
great movies if I can give it a plug. But the one of the very greatest films ever about about
revolution I mean it's just an exceptional film. It's a masterpiece and the fact that in his do
(18:48):
his his middle-aged dotage he would sit watching that. It's both funny and really heartbreaking.
I mean he's thinking back to revolutionary fervor and the idealism of that period. And that movie is
very much about the Algerians fighting for their independence from France to no longer be a French
colony. So it's really very much a late 50s, early 60s kind of scenario. But this is a film
that constantly in the present looks to the past. And I thought that was an incredibly smart thing
(19:11):
for Paul Thomas Anderson to call our attention to. So it's not just the movie nerd, you know,
giving himself points for recognizing the clip. It's not just that. It's that even if you don't
quite recognize the clip, you essentially get the context, don't you? you get him watching old black
and white movies and connecting that way and you know we can even go back to Casablanca as we did
with the drink before. Well, let's move on to our second movie which is a big bold beautiful
(19:36):
journey. Now, I'm going to start off by saying that I am the viewer for this kind of a movie. I
love rom-coms. I love both of these actors, Colin Farrell and uh Margot Robbie. And I like whimsy,
but this movie was a clunker. And I'm I have to say it's it's it's got some beautiful beautiful
scenes. You could just take a a still and make a postcard out of it. I loved the um references
(20:00):
to Jacques Dei. I felt a little bit like eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, but it just didn't
the con central conceit that the GPS in your rental car is going to take you into the past
where you're going to deal with various things that happened. It just didn't work for me. I mean,
I just couldn't suspend the disbelief to to get there. How about you, Mike? Um, I'll follow in
(20:24):
your wake and say the film's a total failure. Um, I'll cut to the chase on this. It's directed
by Kogonada, but but it wants to be a Charlie Kaufman movie. That's what it wants. Um, and this
is a tricky thing. It's it's dealing in magical realism, which unless you hit it right, can be,
as you say, clunker is a good word to to use here just to to set the stage. So, we don't want people
(20:47):
to watch this movie. We want to talk about it. So, you don't watch it. But if you have the misfortune
of watching it, their character Sarah and David, played by Margot Robbie and and Colin Farrell,
they meet cute at the wedding of mutual friends. And then what happens, and this is the leap into
magical realism, they discover that doors serve as portals to the past. So, if they're particularly
(21:08):
if they're walking, they shouldn't go for walks in the woods because these will for some reason when
you walk in the woods, it leads you up to door frame. And when you go through the door frame,
it takes you into the past. And don't ask me to explain that further cuz the film sure doesn't.
It's just that's a given, right? And you go with that or you don't. And I wasn't going with it
particularly. But, you know, um if you were to go with that conceit, it's potentially interesting
that you meet somebody, you get to know them, and then somehow through some magic hocus-pocus, it
(21:34):
carries you to the past where you know, and again, you're going from past to present constantly in a
film like this. Here's the real problem in the film. It's it's with the script. You mentioned
visually how there's some striking scenes. Yeah, I'll go along with that. It, you know, eye candy
kind of appeal that way, but where it really fails is with the script because both characters are
so superficially written. They're so shallow that that as they're like, "Oh, wow. Man, that was my,
(21:59):
you know, they go those conversations. I don't know them very well. I don't care about them at
all." I mean, it sounds cold-hearted, but I really don't. So whatever revelations are meant to be
there and whatever bonding between them, the film left me not just cool but totally cold. I was so
indifferent to it after a while. I just wanted I wanted to find the portal that would get me out of
the theater. You know, that's what that's what I wanted. And the film has had mostly bad reviews a
(22:25):
and and one I think one indication of the failure of it is that the film is so heavy-handed in its
treatment of the superficiality and it starts with the film's very title. Whenever you and I talk
about this film, we have to like double check ourselves. Did we get the title right? A big,
bold, beautiful journey. Well, gosh, that's what it's going to be. You know, why not put some more
adjectives in there and just pile them on? Doesn't it have just doesn't it have that quality that
(22:49):
that I I just want to like truncate it and say, well, yeah, I guess it's big. Is it bold? I guess
it's bold. Is it be beautiful? Yeah, sometimes it is. Is it a journey? Oh, boy is it. Um, so I just
think it's kind of shameless that way. And I I I think I think it'll be quickly forgotten really
because it's it's not a film that has gotten good reviews or done well and it's just it's a misfire,
(23:11):
you know, and and I don't want to seem sadistic and like, you know, twist the knife that way,
but there's almost nothing good to say about this film. Well, I will say I completely agree
with you. The problem is the script. Because one thing I was thinking while I was watching it was,
you know what, if they just turned off the sound and I could make up what was going on
and what they were saying, it would have been a much better movie. because it's like I said,
(23:32):
it's certain scenes are gorgeous and you know, you couldn't have two prettier people playing
the leads, but they there's no chemistry. They say things people that they just don't say. It
was just most of it I was just, you know, shaking my head going, "Oh, come on." Now, apparently that
the GPS system in the original script was supposed to actually be sentient so it would actually,
(23:53):
you know, know what was going on with you and that kind of thing, which I think would have
been a better movie. But almost anything could have been done to make this a better movie. One
of my logical reservations and once you start having logical reservations here, it's all over,
right? But but okay, so they're in a car and the GPS is going to like say, "Well, turn right here."
Now, most drivers are very obedient. They follow their GPS. They don't dare disobey it. But I've
(24:16):
occasionally like I've occasionally like you know Uber rides things like that occasionally like the
Uber the GPS is saying turn right and I'm saying no you're actually better off turning left cuz
it's like you know like I I know the roads right so turn this way not that but the driver sometimes
like well no the GPS is saying so that that's our god we're accustomed to obeying the GPS always. Um
but the thing is like once they know how this this metaphysical deal works why do they keep
(24:39):
going along with it all the time? It's just like well maybe don't get in the car or get in the car
but disobey the GPS. I mean, is it that total a lock that you have to like do everything that
it tells you to do? And they're so unthinking that way. And the unthinking quality extends,
as you say, to the dialogue. It's really trite. It's really cliche. It has a really forced quasi
literate quality to it. You know, that that is and people usually don't talk quite this way,
(25:03):
but they are cuz they they're movie characters and they talk back and forth this way. It it's
it's just not very interesting and it's just not very believable. Even you realize that they're
living in a conceit. They're they're operating in this sort of conceit of these two characters are
supposed to love each other. There is absolutely zero chemistry between two very attractive actors,
right? Now, that's a feat. You get two really beautiful people and you don't feel any chemistry
(25:25):
here. That's an interesting study. What went wrong that there's no chemistry at all? You know,
I I found myself more enamored of the doorways like architecturally. What kind of door is this?
Actually, I think there was some meaning to the colors. So the pale yellow is regret,
ultramarine for denial, and blood red for acceptance. So not that I recommend you go
(25:46):
back and re-watch it to pick that up, but just for well if if you're if you're painting your
house and you want some color guides, some keys, I guess so. But then I I I like movies
typically that are color coded in a way. I like that sometimes the cleverness of how they work
certain colors in here. It's just like it's one of those well whatever responses I have, you know,
if they say, well, here here's the yellow, here's the pencil, so what? you know, I mean,
(26:07):
I I just, you know, get rid of all those colors and just let them turn left rather than right,
you know, let them have a normal relationship and maybe I'll care about them. But here they
are totally subject to imprisoner of the script that they've been given, you know, and that's why
you you can sense this in the acting actually. And I know I'm being kind of mean-spirited here,
but it's as if these actors have their lines and my line, your line. It's that kind of a thing.
(26:30):
and and I'm facing you on a screen right now and I'm speaking to you in a certain way and there
might not be any genuine feeling there, but I I got my line out, didn't I? I I said the line of
dialogue. It's it's failing at that basic level of of they they know their lines, but there's nothing
behind the lines really. Yes. There is a scene where they're in this diner and they're eating
cheeseburgers and she takes one of his onion rings and they've been talking about how, you know,
(26:53):
they're not right for each other for various reasons. She takes the onion ring and she says,
"This is the only ring I'm ever going to get from you." And it it you know it was supposed
to be funny and but it was just boring. It was boring which is the worst thing you can
do. Yeah. So it's one of the worst movies of the year and and uh we're endorsing onion rings but
but but not this onion of a movie. Not this one. This onion of a movie. Okay. That does bring us
(27:18):
to the end of the show. But don't forget to check out our other episodes at atm at hcc.podbean.com
and we'll see you next time at the movies. See you then. Thanks for
listening to Dragon Podcasts. Connect with us at podbean.com/dragonpodcasts. [Music]
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.