S03E19: The Substance: Demi Moore's Age-Defying Comeback

**Host:** Alex First **Guest Critics:** Jaqui Hammerton, Peter Krause **Episode Summary:** In this thought-provoking episode, Alex First is joined by Jaqui Hammerton and Peter Krause to discuss the latest in film and societal issues. The critics dive into Coralie Fargate's intense new film *The Substance*, starring Demi Moore. The film is dissected for its commentary on fame, beauty, and societal expectations, with discussions on its length and graphic content. The conversation then shifts to the animated family film *The Wild Robot*, praised for its stunning animation and heartfelt storyline, though not without critique of its action-packed conclusion. Finally, the Timms tackles *Transformers 1*, an animated reboot of the beloved franchise, with Alex praising its emotional depth and Peter remaining unconvinced by its narrative. The episode is rich with discussions on gender roles, societal norms, and the power of cinema to spark important conversations.00:00:00 First on film and entertainment with Jackie Hamilton and Peter Kraus
00:00:54 Alex says he thinks the film could have been shortened
00:01:23 Is the Substance too long, Jackie? The answer is yes
00:02:00 Richard Simmons says The Substance is a blistering commentary on body image
00:08:39 Peter Howell: I think the film goes on a little too long
00:12:10 Alex: Jackie, I value your opinion. Let's get something clear
00:12:51 Peter says he loved the first half of the film and then the final quarter
00:15:54 What is interesting about the film is the story. I don't know how novel the story is
00:18:59 Alex Bailey says whistling towards women is unacceptable in modern society
00:24:05 Jackie says respect must be injected into way we go forward
00:26:10 Jack says MeToo movement is changing attitudes towards women but not changing behaviour
00:29:06 All right, so let's uh, let's now go back to the movie and let's talk about a score
00:29:45 Peter: Great movie. Must be seen. With a warning of being R rated
00:32:18 Community radio station J88FM M needs your support
00:32:46 The Wild Robot is a delightful take on the Wild robot
00:36:11 Jack says the characters personalities elevate the spectacle in the new film
00:40:56 Peter: I thought it was interesting approach to robots dealing with sentient beings
00:42:35 I really liked Wild Robot. Great voice, uh, cast as always
00:43:33 Jackie gives Wild Robot eight out of 10; Peter gives lower score
00:44:54 Do you remember when Spider man transposed from live action to animated
00:45:38 Alex says Transformers 1 sits comfortably alongside the pantheon of Transformers movies
00:46:49 There are so many years between James Bond movies that you long for next one
00:47:34 The story focuses on Orion Pax, who dreams of a better life than mining
00:49:09 Jackie: I was impressed by the heft of the Transformers reboot
00:50:32 Peter Krauss: I was never impressed by the live action Transformers films**Highlights:** - **The Substance:** A deep dive into Coralie Fargate's latest film, exploring themes of fame and beauty. The critics debate its graphic nature and Demi Moore's standout performance. - **The Wild Robot:** A charming family film praised for its animation and emotional depth, though critiqued for its action-heavy ending. - **Transformers 1:** Alex applauds the animated reboot for its storytelling and character depth, while Peter remains sceptical about the franchise's direction. This episode of First on Film and Entertainment offers a blend of film reviews and broader societal discussions. From the intense themes of *The Substance* to the heartwarming journey of *The Wild Robot* and the high-octane adventure of *Transformers 1*, the critics provide insightful commentary. Join Alex, Jacqui, and Peter for engaging discussions and tune in next week for more cinematic explorations.
https://bitesz.com/podcast/first-on-film-entertainment
www.bitesz.com  
**Sponsor:**
 www.bitesz.com/nordvpn

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/first-on-film-entertainment--5645288/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
First on film and entertainment, Alex first with you and
a couple of recalcitrants. The only live human being other
than myself that adds a bit of sanity is not
here this weekend. He's gone a wall. So we've got
Jackie Hamilton and we've got Peter Krause. Gentlemen, lady, how
the hell are you both? Well? Jackie?

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Morning?

Speaker 3 (00:21):
All good?

Speaker 1 (00:21):
Thank you, fantastic. Now I'm going to get a hard time,
aren't I. I'm going to you know, all my sort
of deliriously happy reviews of shows are going to be
brought down to earth with your rum difficulties. Is that
what I'm expecting, Peter Grause?

Speaker 2 (00:38):
You'll be getting honest reviews.

Speaker 4 (00:41):
Yes, yes, I cannot wait Jackie to hear view of
one of the amazing films of the year, which I
implored you, encouraged you, berated you to go along and see.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
In fact, I think we should start there. I think
we should start with a bit of substance, shouldn't we, Jackie,
wouldn't that be good?

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Go for it?

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Alex, thank you very much. Now, it is a very
long film. It could have been shortened. I do accept
that it's two hours and twenty minutes. Firstly, without going
to any detail, do you think it should have been
short of Peter Krause.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
To some extent?

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yes, yes? Did Yes? Is it up right, Jackie?

Speaker 3 (01:25):
We haven't actually correctly given it a propertait le yet.
So we're talking about the film called The Substance.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
I said, I called it these Yes.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
What you said in an offhand way. So I'm saying
the film is called The Substance. And what was the question?
Is it too long? Yes? The answer is yes, thirty minutes.
It's thirty minutes and three hundred liters of fake blood.
Too long?

Speaker 1 (01:53):
Right? Okay, So I'm grateful that you're not saying the
whole thing should have been thirty minutes. That in itself
at least we're moving in the right direction. Okay. So
here's the question that is asked in The Substance? What
price fame? Okay. It's at the heart of one of
the most intense and I thought remarkable films of the year.
And it's about physical beauty, adoration, self love, and self loathing.

(02:18):
And it concerns the lengths to which one will go
to remain relevant. So here we have Elizabeth Sparkle that's
the character name played by Demi Moore, who makes an
amazing return to the limelight in this particular movie. And
Elizabeth Sparkle used to be a movie star before transitioning

(02:40):
to hosting a successful morning workout show on television. So
who what was the guy's name that we grew up watching?
Richard Richard Simmons Simmons, thank you very much. Indeed, right,
it's kind of that thing. But it's a female in
tights typeduction with a couple of others. She's now middle aged,

(03:04):
and her ugly natured, very ugly natured, self centered, self
serving boss who's named Harvey played by Dennis Quaid, decides
that she's dead weight, that her time's up, so he
basically gives the heave home. She's driving home with the
torments with that decision reverberating in her mind, and she's

(03:26):
involved in a car accident. She has scans, they show
no broken bones, but she breaks down in tears, and
as she leaves, she's handed a folded piece of paper
by one of the medicos which contains a USB drive
directing her to what is called the substance. Now, what

(03:48):
is it? Well, it's a cell replicating black market drug
that offers the promise of a better version of yourself.
So here we have Sparkle, whose isolated with no immediate prospects,
and she finds it galling that Harvey has placed an
ad from an eighteen to thirty year old to replace her,

(04:10):
so she throws caution to the wind. She makes a
call on the substance, namely that she'll give it a go.
A mysterious male voice when she phones the number directs
her to a run down, graffiti riddled backwater. It's there
that she picks up a cardboard box containing the necessary

(04:33):
ingredients that will allegedly restore her youth. The instructions are strict,
they need to be followed to the latter. They involve
a single use injected activator, followed by a stabilizer and
a series of food pouches. So it is that Sparkle
injects herself, and after her body contorts and falls limp,

(04:57):
she quote unquote berths her newer, younger, prettier self. Bizarre
tho this process is. That's how the perfectly proportioned and
turned out Sue played by Margaret quietly emerges. And of
course she's just what Harvey, the television producer is looking

(05:18):
for She's hired to front a new workout show and
viewer numbers skyrocket. Critically important with the substance, though, is
that Sue and Elizabeth, who are two halves of a whole,
switch back and forth every seven days. If they do
not do so, it's going to have dire, irreversible consequences.

(05:41):
Now be that as it may. Sue quickly gets caught
up in her own self importance, Elizabeth becomes enraged. As
I said, they are the same person in what becomes
a fight to the death. So the Substance is an
incendiary piece of work appointed common on men, women, societal

(06:03):
expectations and the obsession that we have with physical beauty.
The writer director is Coralie Fargot, who did Revenge, and
in this movie she continues to push the envelope throughout
and where do you think you've had an alf? She
does it again and then again and again and again.

(06:23):
Of course, that's the whole point to shine at bright
light on the saturated world in which we live, where
body image is everything, and it marks a superb return.
As I said at the outset for Demi Moore, who's
outstanding in a chilling portrayal of this fallen diva who
craves more. And Elizabeth's alter ego is really well captured

(06:46):
by Margaret Quailey, who exudes entitlement. Now it's a brilliant portrayal.
Obnoxious narcissism. They're the hallmarks of Quade's representation of the
television mover and shaker and pulling all the strings. I
said at the outset, how ugly that characterization is. The
cinematographer Benjamin krakenho did Promising Young Woman a great movie,

(07:10):
has vividly captured the contrast between shine and grunge. Andy
catapults us into the heart of darkness, desperation and despair.
It's horrifying, but ohso potent. It's dramatic. It's traumatic cinema
at its best, and it's not for the faint art.
It holds a mirror up to society and the image

(07:31):
one glances is deeply disturbing. And I say that notwithstanding
that the movie is a tad long. But Farget as
a filmmaker, in my mind, has established herself as one
of renown. This is something special. It is called the substance.
Peter Krause what do you think?

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Yes, I'm not going to take this upstance. It's okay,
look not why not?

Speaker 1 (07:57):
You can adore yourself. I mean you're about one thousand,
one hundred and forty three years old. Now it'll bring
you back to your prime in your eighteen to twenties.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Thank you very much for that. Yes, I was there
at the launch. But anyway, Look, this is an R
rated film for good reason, and.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
In a isn't it MA?

Speaker 2 (08:17):
No, it's R.

Speaker 3 (08:18):
Yes, it's a oh well, okay, eighteen plus eighteen plus.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
I looked it up earlier and I thought it was MA,
so I must have been wrong for the what mark? No,
it's sorry, the one and only TI in my life.
That's okay.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
You need to take the substance to get I do.

Speaker 3 (08:37):
I do.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
Look, this is an interesting film to watch because it
has twists and turns. In many cases, it's better not
to know in advance where the story is going. I
didn't know where this film was headed, and the way
you've described it perhaps is a few spoilers there that

(09:03):
I think audiences would want to appreciate as they are
watching the film. There is the French filmmaker Coralie Fourgier
has Fashion Day, a superb film. However, I agree that
it does go on a little bit too long. I

(09:23):
can see where the inspirations are coming from, everything from
Alien to Carry two other body horror films that I've
seen at Monsterfest and at various other places. But the
whole idea is that men in particular see women in

(09:45):
terms of their external beauty, and as soon as that
external beauty dissipates, then they are replaceable. And that's I
suppose the message of this film. Interesting also to note
that Dennis Quaid has an appearance in the film, which

(10:07):
is interesting to say the least, and the special effects
and the last third of the film are incredibly over
the top to some extent for me, too far over
the top. I thought.

Speaker 1 (10:26):
I was to say that Peter and I've discussed this
with a number of people prior to being on air
with you special individuals today, and this is the common remark.
But you think about why, you think about the purpose
of the whole movie, and to me, it goes to
that very essence, that's the reason that it needed to

(10:47):
do it that way.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
You disagree, well, I think it made its point about
two thirds into the film. And I think it was
just over the top. After that, it was it was repetitive,
and I think Corally could even though she was also
the editor of the film, she could perhaps have cut

(11:10):
back a little bit on that and so that the
message was clear without having to become repetitive. Nevertheless, it's
a really good film because it goes in directions that
you don't necessarily expect. And yes, anymore is superb. Margaret

(11:32):
quality is very good. But it's better not to know
too much in advance when you go and see the film,
because it will really startle you in many respects. The
film doesn't have a huge amount of dialogue, but visually

(11:52):
is quite stunning, as is the sound effects, which are superb,
and the use of discordant music, et cetera. There's a
lot to admire in this R rated film, even though
it's not a perfect film overall.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
Jackie, I'll be really interested to hear your view, because
I knew that this is going to sort of what's
the expression about moving your cogs? I'm sure it did that.
Tell me, yes, are.

Speaker 3 (12:23):
You interested to hear what I'm going to say?

Speaker 1 (12:25):
Because I'm right, jack Let's hang on, let's get think
clear I don't have you on this show for you
to be right. I mean, that's so far removed from
where you're at that it doesn't matter. But I value
your opinion. There you go.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
Does that tell me my pleasure? Thank you, Alex.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
There's that, kay disingenuous. It's meant to go on keeping.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
Okay, the film the substance, there are things I agree
and disagree about what each of you has just said.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
Peter, pardon me. I genuinely apologize for interrupting her, because
I do, I actually do value what you have to say.
Did you or did you not? In a word, did
you like it or not? Yes or not?

Speaker 3 (13:15):
I can't answer that with a yes or no because
I see the film as a film of two parts.
There's the plot of it and the way it starts out,
and of the way the story progresses, and then in
the final third it actually descends into a splatter flick. Peter,

(13:35):
I think you said a little bit over the top.
I thought it was way beyond what was necessary and
it actually started to destroy all the good stuff at
the start of the film. So loved the first half,
shall we say, and then the final third to quarter

(13:58):
or maybe just the final quarter. The film lost me.
And so you might say you don't want to know
too much about the film before you go there, and
I agree with that with all films really, but with
this I think the R rating there's a reason to
warn people that if they can't handle this kind of film,

(14:20):
don't see it. It's glory, it's a splatterflick. But worse
than that, it's got a lot of medical type invasive
procedures and that is wonderfully but also horribly exaggerated by
the director. And the sound effects. The squelching sounds just

(14:44):
were turning my stomach. And not just the medical procedures
that were the women were doing with each other, but
also I say, Dennis Quad's oh that scene where he's
eating the prawns, but do you remember, but I just
like designed to turn your stomach. But oh my god,

(15:09):
I just it was in massive close up and huge
sounds of him eating and inside the mouth, and I
just couldn't do that. Look everything you say about.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
Jackie Jackie, wasn't that brilliant. Wasn't that? I just thought, Oh,
what a mark.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
But then that was in the first half of the film,
and everything about the first half of the film was
just amazing.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
You know what I'm going to you know what you
are going to do for me today. You're going to
give me a score for the first well I think
it's two thirds of the film, and then you'll give
me a mark for the last third because that'll be
a fail. Why did Jackie?

Speaker 3 (15:48):
No? And stop predicting.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
Okay, I'm trying to I'm sure, yeah, you're never.

Speaker 3 (15:53):
What is interesting about the film is the store. I
don't know how novel the story, or whether it draws
on other you know, you do say aliens. Certainly I
could see that, even though I've never seen an alien
film all the way through, because I actually can't. But
it draws on really important issues that are currently all
the There are a lot of isms going on at

(16:14):
the moment, and agism is a big one that isn't
dealt with a lot in cinema, I think, and this
is a fantastic vehicle for the you know, raising the
subject of agism along with and that's all to do
with body image, and in this film it also draws

(16:35):
in you know, beauty, you know, physical beauty, and youth
and the selfishness of youth. Oh my god, did we
struggle with some of what was going on in this film.
But as for the way the film itself is put together,
the just you just it's the best thing Demi Moore

(16:56):
has ever done. And the castill I had, the three
leads in the cast, I just fantastic. But as I say,
A right at the start could have cut thirty minutes
and three hundred leaders of that fake blood and I
would have been a lot happier with it.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
Okay. So I mean, are you pleased you've seen it?

Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yes? Because I survived?

Speaker 1 (17:24):
No, no, no, no, okay?

Speaker 3 (17:27):
Is it a film that And also there's also something
about this film that genuinely made me sad because it
really was you know, I'm the same age. Oh no,
I'm actually a little bit older than Demi Moore, she's
sixty one. And it actually made me sad that we
reached this age. And it's actually a thing. No, but

(17:51):
it always has been. I don't think. I don't think
ageism is a new thing. I mean, in some cultures
there's great more respectful the seeing your generations. But you know,
physical beauty it's always mean a thing, even bucking you know,
the seventeenth century when they painted beautiful women who were,
you know, larger in body. That was their idea of

(18:13):
physical beauty. But there's always been a difference in presentation
of physical beauty between men and women and how we
respond to that.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Yes, and of course that's the whole point of making
this film by a I'm presuming she identifies as a woman.
I don't. Maybe I shouldn't presume, but regardless, that's what
makes this so poignant and powerful.

Speaker 3 (18:38):
And I don't think the gender of the director matters
at all. I think that, you know, it's.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
It's interesting to say that to me, it does because
it's being made by a person who and you've said
that the judgments are different, So I just think it
has it cuts. It's cut cuts to the quick. It
really gets cut through, even more so because it's been

(19:06):
made by someone who is of one particular sex.

Speaker 3 (19:11):
And I don't don't agree, but you okay.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
Yeah, Look, I think it'd be powerful regardless, but I
think it adds extra weight because I mean, you hear
about this more and more, and so we should. That
women in particular are judged so often by incredibly ridiculous
beauty standards. And yet is I suppose my question, which

(19:36):
is probably a cheeky one. But is that is that
a thing that we've been taught as men or is
that in our DNA? Which doesn't make it any more excusable.
But you know, I don't know the answer to that,
but you know the it's funny. And I've said this
to you before, Jackie, and you you'll have a different opinion,
I'm sure, but it's an important topic to discuss. My

(20:00):
when she walks along and you know, she's of similar
age and they and this still happens, and I'm not kidding,
and she's wolf whistled at. She sees it as a
badge of honor and I mean that right, And she
really likes it, and she always comes home and tells
me and we make a joke about it, et cetera,
and she genuinely likes it. Now, there are a lot

(20:22):
of others who would be deeply offended by that today
and it's sort of unacceptable right in modern standards. So
how do you read that? I don't know. I mean,
I'm not a woman, so I can't interpret that. But
you give me your take on what I've just said.

Speaker 3 (20:40):
Oh, well, you know, there's different levels, but you know,
it's one could say that that's at the at the
very lowest level of physical appreciation from a distance, and
then you go up all the levels to sexual being
a sexual predator, and you know it's that that's where

(21:00):
it lands. So I can't comment on your own personal experience, now, I.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
Mean, I mean, look, this is I know that often
I talk about things, and I encourage you to as well,
because I mean, I think one of the beauties of
movies or shows or events or exhibitions is they transport
you into places that perhaps you wouldn't normally talk about,
or you go to areas that you know nothing about.
And I love the fact that it sparks conversations.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
So I mean, well, Alex, it boils down to for me,
it boils down and you and I discussed this sure
ourselves too, and I've always said to you, it boils
down for me to one word respect, and that's respect
for the person. So if if someone's got this attitude

(21:47):
to a woman and it's not respectful, well I'm sorry,
but we're now standing up to say that's not.

Speaker 1 (21:53):
On yes, and so we should be. And look, just
before people, if people are listening to this for the
first time, they might think, oh, my golly, what am
I doing to poor Jackie and Peter? I mean, you know, basically,
i'd like to think we're right one to that too. Yeah,
someone stop it, go blind. No, but we are basically friends.
We've known each other, and you know that goes to

(22:14):
Peter as well. We've golly, we've known each other for
the best part of thirty to forty years, so you know,
we take the p one doubles often. But in case
you think that this is a personal attack on people,
I'd like to think it's not, even though we often
have a end of one another, and even though and Peter,

(22:35):
you're the worst at this. You don't care about football,
oh my golly, and Jackie, not you. That is deeply
offensive to me. You know that. Right now we can
move on. Okay, just on what.

Speaker 2 (22:48):
You're saying there, Alex. Just think about the wolf whistling
if it's reversed. Always think of the reverse situation if
a woman wolf whistled a man.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
That no, no, no, Peter, it's not the same, not
the same.

Speaker 1 (23:05):
Go on, keep going. I agree with you, Jackie, but
explain from your perspective.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
Well, from my perspective. Look, women have been subjugated since
the first woman ever appeared by men. And you know
this is a this is a whole new story coming
out now. And subjugation also comes into the way that
you know, someone reacts to you in the street. It's

(23:34):
you know, been with employment, it's been with being in
the home, it's been with domestic violence, it's been with
physical domination.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
M hm. So okay, let I want to go back
in time a little bit. Benny Hill we all grew
up with, and it was it was sort of a
rite of passage almost now you you've got to sort
of demean what what went on, or you can't Rea
eat and Blyton novel or whatever whatever those sorts of things. Now,

(24:05):
so where do we you know, where do we rewrite history?
Where do we say, well, that was totally unacceptable. Will
that not rewriting history? You're just injecting the word respect
into the way we go forward. But I did, actually,
I do apologize.

Speaker 3 (24:18):
I did actually interrupt Peter then and I didn't let
him finish what he's saying.

Speaker 1 (24:22):
I'm going to come back to Benny Hill, but petticip
going please.

Speaker 2 (24:26):
Call me Benny Hill anyway. You'll be chasing me around the.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
Studio moment with music too. Yes, yes, exactly.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Look, I think it's a social context issue as well.
I mean, what we regard today as being acceptable or
not acceptable. Obviously it was quite different fifty sixty years ago.
And and I agree with you, Jackie. It's always a
time period situation where women in particular have been subject

(24:59):
to subject It's been less about women subjugating men. But nevertheless,
it's a difficult situation to discuss because it's all about upbringing,
it's parenting, it's about social context. It's about the advertisements
that we see on television that propagate, for example, some

(25:22):
of this attitude. It's about what happens in schools and
how it's treated. There's so many issues in so many
ways of looking at this and how to deal with it.
And you're also right, Alex in saying that we can't
just negate the past and history and.

Speaker 1 (25:44):
Challenge to I think Peter, you've made a really important
point here the way that you are brought up by
your parents in terms of respect, and that's your word, Jackie,
and I totally agree with it. And also what's taught
in schools, because it forms the foundation of will follow.
So if you set the right example, I'd like to
think that's going to have a positive effect. And we're

(26:06):
talking about it more, which is really important. Having said
all of that, I mean, maybe we were wrongly innocent
or whatever, but there was a lot of joy that
Betty Hill brought to households. That's the reason I've referenced that,
and the fact that I grew up with the Secret
Seven and the Famous Five and at the time I

(26:27):
saw nothing wrong with that. So you know, what do
you say about that, Jack Alex.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
I suppose you think it was okay to that if
a woman was accused of being a witch back in
the sixteenth century, that if she didn't drown, it was
okay to burner at the stake. I mean, we're talking
now with the benefit of hindsight. I thought Benny Hill
was funny. Well, I'm sorry, but that's just not on now.
It was It's simply not appropriate to even but.

Speaker 1 (26:54):
Hang on, that's exactly what I'm saying, that maybe I
was naive or innocent or whatever, but no, you weren't.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Not even innocent. You were wrong and what and the
way that women have been treated has been wrong, And
it's not just family and schools, it's also the law,
the law allowed it, government allowed it. You know in Afghanistan, Now,
what's happening with women there? It's it's been allowed, not
by families and schools.

Speaker 1 (27:21):
No, but the Afghanistan situation is appalling any any I'm
not advocating. The funny thing is I always and this
is in our private conversations too, Jackie, I've always thought
much more of women than I have thought of men.
And no, you I know you do. I do. So

(27:41):
in other words, I'm saying that you know, we're our
base instincts as men are often neanderthal, and that needs
to change.

Speaker 3 (27:52):
That, that needs to be the behavior that that is
changing that.

Speaker 1 (27:57):
And that's what and that's why I'm so pleased that
it's change. So it's very difficult because the moment you
open your mouth as a male about this and you
have any views that may be contrary to the acceptable
views today, your hell down and I simply.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
Want I don't agree. I think you're mixing with the
wrong people if you're being held down, Alex.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
Now I'm saying that. I mean, I'd like to think
I was always respectful of women and the role that
they played in society because I've always thought so much
of women. But it's interesting how there has been a
quantum shift as there needed to be. The Me Too
movement has had a huge impact, as it should, and
there's so much that's going on. I mean, you know,

(28:39):
the latest allegations against a well known music star in
the United States that have emerged over the last few days.
It's chilling and it's horrifying.

Speaker 3 (28:48):
And one woman a week as dying in Australia being
killed by a partner's and you know what they want
to do. They want to set up safe times for women,
but they're not changing men's behavior.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
It's not happening quickly enough because it needs absolutely not
fair enough. All right, So let's let's now go back
to the movie and let's talk about a score out
of ten, and Jackie, I will ask you to divide it,
because I really I think that this is one of
those movies that I understand. So let's start with you, Peter.
Are you're gonna give a whole score or you're gonna

(29:22):
give a first two thirds And why don't you do
the same first two thirds and last third?

Speaker 2 (29:27):
No, I review a whole film. I don't like to
segment for a film.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
I didn't look for this one, but there you go
the whole film, because I enjoyed it from start to finish.
Now it enjoys the wrong word. I appreciated what the
director was doing, so right, okay, thank you.

Speaker 2 (29:45):
Fair enough. I just wanted to mention one thing. At
the start of the film with Demi Moore on that
exercise video, I thought immediately that they were replicating the
Jane Fonder exercise films or videos that she was part of,
and I thought, it's this an homage to Jane Fonder.

(30:07):
And then when we have the character of Sue, it
immediately reminded me. And I know this dates me of
Sue Becker. I don't know if you remember her when
she used to on television, have those exercise videos and
those no like saying, Jackie.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
Do you know Sue Becker?

Speaker 3 (30:25):
No?

Speaker 1 (30:26):
No, okay, oh my goodness?

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Oh that okay, well, all right, was that in the
seventeenth century, Peter, Absolutely, I was there when was launched.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
I think.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
Okay, A score for the substance seven out of ten.

Speaker 1 (30:44):
Mm hmm, all right, Jackie, are you splitting it two
thirds one third or not?

Speaker 3 (30:48):
I was just going to say comment on what Peter
just said, then, I really was really interested in the
shift from the I thought the first part with Demi
Moore was the more of the exercise and health rate
of the aerobics class she was taking. And then when Sue,
the younger version of herself, was doing videos, it was

(31:09):
just full on sexualized ye. And I thought that was
the big divide and that showed up the film and
how wonderful that this film actually has brought up discussion
such of this as this. However, it was the first
half of the film that brings up the discussion, and
the final bit you just could have just lost. I

(31:32):
just gave it a single score, six point five out
of ten, six and a half out of ten.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Okay, So, having heard that, what do you think I'm
going to give it?

Speaker 3 (31:41):
Jacking, Oh, probably an eight to eight and a half.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Peter, what do you think I'm giving Yeah, you'll probably
give it an eight eight.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
And a half. Great movie. Great movie must be seen,
one with a warning of being r rated. Yes again, yeah, absolutely,
you're or you're moving into territory that is not going
to be everybody's cup of tea. I accept it. But
it's a movie that should be seen for the reasons.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
That doesn't need to be a cup of tea. It's
just you need a strong stomach.

Speaker 1 (32:11):
I'd play yes, yes too, okay, and a BECKX and
the lie down, thank you very much? Okay, and having
seen it all right, well, okay, you are on JA
eighty eight FM. Now I updated my membership this week.
I paid my fifty four bucks, so so can others
who are interested in this radio station. Please, we need
your support. That's what community radio is all about. Just

(32:33):
go to jdash air dot com dot au and you
can become a member and listen to not just us,
but hopefully some healthy and intelligent programming twenty four to
seven and some pretty good music as well. On that note,
we should be talking about some again. A movie that
really surprised me in terms of how charming it was.

(32:55):
And it's my like, sure, no, I won't call there's
a children's feature. I'll call this a family movie of
the year. The Wild Robot. Oh my golly, what a
film it's now you can correct me, both of you.
It is PG raised and it runs rather than two minutes.
Any disagreement there, no, okay, So take a New York

(33:18):
Times bestseller, turn it into this charming family film face
a cake hardly and yet that is the outcome of
the delightful experience that is the cinematic take on the
wild Robot, and the body is named Rossom Unit seven
one three four Rosam spelled ro double zum and Rosam

(33:42):
has been taught to complete tasks. Or she I think
it is is shipwrecked. I don't know whether it's a
she or a he, but we'll call it a she.
She She is shipwrecked on an uninhabited island and is
awakened in Inverted Commas by animal activity. Now Roz looks

(34:02):
out for somebody to ask her, ask her, I'll try
that again, looks out for somebody to ask her to
do something, and instead all of the animals on the island,
and there's a veritable Noah's Ark runs scared and regard
the robot as a freak. Now, when Unit seven one
three four fails to find a master again in Inverted Commas,

(34:26):
she's obliged to return home for reassignment, but that too
proves problematic. In a wild chase to escape a formidable
grizzly bear named Thorn, Roz has an accident from which
he emerges literally holding a baby, and in this case
that's an egg being tracked by a wiley fox named Fink.

(34:50):
We'd love nothing more than to devour said egg, but
Roz keeps it safe and sees it hatch. Inside is
an orphan gosling, the runt of the litter, named bright Bill,
who believes Roz is her mother. And so it is
that Ros's tasked with raising her. No easy feat from

(35:12):
machine not programmed to handle such things, with unlikely assistance
from Fink. Remember, Fink is the wiley fox. Roz tentatively
begins the task, making several missteps along the way. She
hits a major roadblock when bright Bill discovers what happened
to the rest of her family. Roz can only hope

(35:35):
that with her good heart, she'll find favor again with
bright Bill and break down the barriers that exist for
both bright Bill and herself. So I reckon this is
the finest and best animated feature I've seen in quite
some time. It has such warmth, It's got great humor
and heart, and above all, it's fun. But what shouldn't

(35:56):
be overlooked is that it contains a fair share of
drama as well. I thought the animation was magnificent. I
found it so easy to connect with and relate to
the characters. Credit to all the artists associated with the production.
Of course, it all starts with a writing which I
found it was really top shelf. It's the character's personalities
that elevate the spectacle, and here we come to the

(36:16):
voice talent, which brings that to the fore right. The
whole the personality of the characters is very much about
the talent. LaPete Jongo presents Ross as being on a
steep learning curve that steps far outside the domain of
a traditional bot, and basically she goes rogue. Pedro Pascal
ensures that the lonely Fink develops other than a mercenary side,

(36:40):
as mother possum pink Tail Katherine o'haro was in Beetlejuice.
Beetle Jose is the ultimate pragmatist. Kit connoch Well sees
bright Bell overcomes huge adversity to find her own voice,
and you've got Mark Hamill from Star Wars powerful as
the island's apex predator. Sorn a fierce determination about Matt

(37:01):
Berry as a grumpy and reclusive beaver. Loved the beaver
Ving Raimes takes command as a flight instructor named Thunderbolt,
who's a predatory falcon in this movie The Wild Robot.
And there are words of wisdom from the oldest and
wisest of the geese named long Neck, the voice of

(37:21):
a very distinctive Bill Nigh. You always know it's Bill
whenever his voice is heard, or when he appears in
a picture. And The illustrated novel The Wild Robot was
originally by Peter Brown, published in twenty sixteen. Twenty sixteen
became a huge hit. The movie adaptation deserves to as well.
There's so much to it, so many adventures to be had.

(37:43):
Not a dull moment. I thought The Wild Robot was
a cracker. What did you think, Jack?

Speaker 3 (37:48):
Why? Yes, I like The Wild Robot Alex. Lots of
humor and lots of action plenty to kick the children
and adults occupied and entertained. As you said, very good writing.
Lots of nice themes in there, of belonging and family
and learning to get along and working as a team.
And a few slightly rawer themes too, of the instincts

(38:14):
of natural predators. They certainly didn't shy away from.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
No eats who.

Speaker 3 (38:21):
And if we're talking of natural instincts, there's the maternal
instinct that roars. The robot develops if you like, she
wants to just serve to start with, as she is
a robot, but she actually becomes a softer character and
a warmer character as she develops a bond with the

(38:45):
little gosling. And you know that's the maternal instinct kicking
in there. Yes, I mean the animation was just spectacular.
It's just beautiful work, you know, the anime, the animation
through water and through air and flight, and.

Speaker 1 (39:03):
The lowly nests, you know, the nest of that, that
the beautiful green grass. I mean that that was just extraordinary.
It was like a cloud. I just thought, Jackie, I'm
I just don't know how they how they do it.
Quite frankly, I was mesmerized. I agree with you. But

(39:24):
but m hmm.

Speaker 3 (39:28):
I did find it even though the dialogue and is
very it's great, it's very entertaining, it's actually quite sharp.
I did find it kept throwing out these kind of platitudes,
you know, all these kind of smooth lines about so

(39:48):
I mean maybe because that brought it down to the
kid level. I didn't think they always needed to say
that I was showing it anyway, So on the second
butt and you had that. Funnily enough, as for the substance,
the end of the film becomes a Hollywood shoot him up,

(40:08):
violent guns blazing, you know, robotic characters trying to do evil,
and it just changed the whole tenor, whole feeling, the
whole tenor. And I just didn't think it needed that.
It could have been done in a slightly different way.

(40:29):
I just thought it was you have done it?

Speaker 1 (40:31):
How would you have done it?

Speaker 3 (40:32):
I don't know how I would have done it. I'm
not a filmmaker really, but to me, it just it
just this shift at the end just kind of brought
a kind of a nasty taste to it, and I
just wanted it to be the beautiful thing it started
off for the first two thirds of the film.

Speaker 1 (40:52):
Wow, so we've had two movies that you like the
first two thirds and not the last third. All right,
what if the house would repair to you, Peter, the ending,
Let's start there.

Speaker 2 (41:02):
Actually I did because I thought it was an interesting
approach to robots or artificial intelligence dealing with sentient beings,
and how the two would in animated form, of course,
and how the two would interact, and I thought that
confrontation or that situation was an interesting one which kids

(41:26):
might want to then discuss after viewing the film. And
this whole notion of can artificial intelligence help us or
hinder us? And I think in animated form because of
the good writing in this animation from DreamWorks worked so
well for me. It was quite effective. I was worried

(41:48):
that it might get a little bit too sentimental, but
it just held back from doing that and in fact
told a good story. In fact, it matched for me
the film Robot Dreams, which was another superb film about
a robot, although obviously a different story, different approach, but

(42:10):
nevertheless had a message to say about the way robots
can interact with humans or with Centian beans. Anyway, it all.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
Start with Will Smith. What was the movie that he
made about robots? I've gone blank on its name? Anyway,
keep going.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
And not I am legend or something like that.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
You keep talking among yourselves.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
That's okay anyway. Now, I really liked World Robot. Great
voice cast as always, although for me, the voice cast
is secondary to the writing, and it's the writing that
really gets you in. And the animation is just superbly
controlled I think what they're developing in the technical skills

(42:58):
in digital filmmaking, especially now with animation, is that the
look of a film is just absolutely terrific. I mean,
we saw it with Inside Out two, which is also
an excellent animation, and with other recent animations, so I

(43:18):
was very impressed by it. I really enjoyed it. And
it's a film for both young and old and has
some nice messages I thought overall as well.

Speaker 1 (43:29):
Now I Robot of course that goes back to town. Yeah, yeah,
two thousand and four. Okay, So Jackie, you're going to
give it a lower score than presumably given that you
didn't like the last third.

Speaker 3 (43:42):
I guess I don't know a lower score than yes.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
Yes, yes, I will. It will be much lower than
me okay.

Speaker 3 (43:50):
And I would preface it by saying, Alex, if this
is going to be one of your top children's slash
family films of the year, I thoroughly reckon mean that
you're not miss seeing Runket, which for me, the Australian
live action children slush family film, is far superior. So

(44:11):
allough it's a different kind of film, it's superior. I
gave The Wild Robots seven and a half out of ten.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
Okay, that's still a very good score. And what about you, Peter.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
I agree with you, Jackie. Runt is definitely worth seeing.
It's a very enjoyable Australian films, sort of modeled on
strictly ballroom I thought. But anyway, that's another story.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
I'm trying to see that, Peter. Yeap oh, yeah, yes,
I see what you mean.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
Yeah, with Matt Day over the top eating the scenery anyway, anyway, Yes,
for Wild Robot, I gave it eight out of ten.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
And I gave it eight and a half out of ten,
So folks, there you go. This has to be on
the menu. That's what we're basically saying, because it's an
average score of eight out of ten, which is pretty
damn good. So okay, now, Jackie, you haven't seen the
last film that we're going to discuss today, but well
it's Do you remember when Spider Man transposed and went

(45:06):
from being a live action bird lordy? Yes? I do.
Oh you didn't like that, Jackie?

Speaker 3 (45:15):
Not?

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Did you like it? Peter? I?

Speaker 2 (45:18):
Actually I did. I thought that animation of Spider Man
was a well written story with good characters.

Speaker 1 (45:24):
Yes, I thought it was amazing. And now what we
have alongside one another. You've got the live version of
Spider Man and you've got the animated version, and that's
what they seem to be wanting to do with transform Its.
That's why we're going to talk about Transformers one, which, again,
to the best of my knowledge, is PG rated and

(45:44):
runs for one hundred and four minutes. And boy, there's
a lot there. I mean, it's a high octane adventure
with so many twists and turns, extremely well realized, and
you know, it's it's this sort of untold origin story
of sworn enemies. So I think it sits comfortably alongside
the pantheon of Transformers movies. I didn't actually look this up.

(46:07):
Do either of you know how many Transformers movies there
have been?

Speaker 2 (46:11):
I think it was eight I read somewhere.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
Okay, so think it's three too many. I've been linked
men and Jackie. Yes, are you still? Are you still
yearning for more Police Academy movies? Jackie? Are you.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
Good? One? I actually quite liked the I actually really
liked the first couple of Transformer films are terrific.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
Yeah, I agree, I do. Yeah, I mean the difficulty
is when they're a license to print money. They keep
doing it and then they you know, they go far,
far beyond where they should.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
I suppose the film has never been a charity. It's
a business.

Speaker 1 (46:48):
No, that's fair enough. I suppose James Bond is an
interesting one because that's why there are so many years
between James Bond movies. This you're long for the next one,
and I don't think see I find this fascinating. I
don't think James Bond is in any way worn out.
It's welcome. Why has it lasted longer than almost any
other franchise I can think of? Do you have an answer, Peter.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
It's because of the money and production that goes into
the writing and what we see on screen. It's obviously
a franchise that works really well.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
Spy films oh very well, very well indeed. But even
I like Borne Identity and Vorn whatever that's you know,
you've got three or whatever you've got and then it stops.
But James Bond keeps on giving, doesn't it. Anyway. Let's
go back to Transformers. One. Optimus Prime you might know
that name, is the supreme leader of the heroic autobots,

(47:42):
and Megatron is the diabolical commander of the Decepticons. So
you've got autobots and you've got bots and Decepticons. The
pair was once friends, but then the dynamic between them
shifted with the fate of their home planet, which is
called High Patrol in the Balance Cybertron. So the story

(48:04):
focuses on this ambitious, adventurous mining bot called Orion Pax,
who dreams of a better life than working in the
subterranean Icon City, and he never sees the light of day.
All this time is spent mining a precious energy source
called enerjohn, supplies of which are dwindling. The original priors

(48:25):
have been slaughtered in this war with and again all
of this is only going to mean something to those
people who know the Transformers universe. But in a war
with the ruthless Quinter says, how do you pronounce that,
Peter Quintessence, who are now the rulers, And Orion Pax
doesn't have any cogs, so he can't actually transform. That's
a problem. Therefore, his chances of rising above his lowly

(48:48):
station are remote, to say the least, and yet he
is driven to succeed even when the odds are stacked
against him, and the tail takes off. From there after,
he finds a way to travel to the forbid surface,
dragging his mate D sixteen with him, and at stake
is what's termed the long Lost Matrix of Leadership. So

(49:10):
Orion Pax isn't the most popular bot in the stable.
In fact, he's made to be quite a nuisance. He
regularly disobeys orders, and yet his unconventional character is what
propels him to do what he does. I was really
impressed by the heft that the director Josh Cooley managed
to imbue into his reboot of the Transformers franchise. It's

(49:33):
got emotional residence. And I mean, let's not forget that
Cooley won the Best Animated Feature OSCAR for Toy Story four.
So the pedigree is strong. And I thought that was
the worst of the Toy Stories. I'm going to say,
but there you go. Not that it was bad, but
the other three were brilliant. In this case, credit must
also go to the three writers. They've done a great job.
Andrew Barrow, Gabrielle Ferrari and Eric Pearson, and the first

(49:56):
two collaborated on Ant Man and the Wasp, and Pearson
is noted for his work on the Ragnarok so it
turns out to be a mighty compelling film. I reckon Transformers,
one at the core of which is a great deal
of subterfuge because loyalty is are tested and given how
much takes place and at a rapid rate, you do
need to concentrate to get the most out of it.

(50:17):
But if you do, I think the rewards are there.
Animation is outstanding, the computer artistry is next level, and
the personalities again of the players come to the fore.
They give the narrative depth and it marks yet another
winner for somebody you like Jackie Chris Hemsworth, who steps
into voice orion packs. There's a sort of relaxedy reverence

(50:38):
about him. It's a really fun portrayal. Sees the character
evolve into a force to be reckoned with and the
Nemethys Nemethys nemesis. Ryan PAX's antithesis is his rule following friend,
his brother in arms, who always says his back. That's
D sixteen voiced by Brian Terre Henry, and while the

(51:00):
pair does sometimes rub each other up the wrong way,
their bond is is still deep. And what I liked
about Brian Terrey Henry was the way he transitions D
sixteen in this movie and also starring in the way
of Ryan Pax. At first is is buy the book
manager Elita one vocalized by Scarlett Joanson. Now, at first

(51:21):
she's ready to turn him in for his seemingly seeming
inability to do the right thing, but in time she
does see another side of him, and Johansen, well, she's
really good at what she does. She readily channels annoyance
and respect. So it's not only action driven, it's quite humorous. Transformers.
One part of that stude of the performance of Keegan

(51:43):
Michael Key has banished. But B one two seven aka
Bumblebee again, you know Transformers, that's going to mean something
and so it's a cleverly conceived and executed film. Left
me longing for the next installment.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
What about you bet not for me, I'm afraid I
was never impressed by the live action Transformers films, especially
because they were a franchise just to promote the toys
so that children can go and buy the toys and
play around.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
The Transformers toys. Beata, it's like the modern Barbie. No
it's not, but there you go.

Speaker 2 (52:21):
Now there's a comparison that I think jack.

Speaker 1 (52:24):
I reckon, people are going to be buying Transformers for
decades to come, and Barbie has been how many years
has Barbie been? Around sixty five or something.

Speaker 2 (52:32):
I think there's a bit more depth in Barbie than
there is in the Transformers. Characters play a five one another.

Speaker 1 (52:38):
We're talking body image now, Jackie. Barbie has got an
unrealistic body image when she started, you know, sixty five
years ago. You know, what do you have to say
about that?

Speaker 3 (52:50):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (52:51):
Well, she should have taken the substance anyway. Anyway, for me,
in nineteen eighty six, the first transform As animation was made,
and I thought that set the scene reasonably well. But
the live action films don't work for me at all.
And this new animation is marginally better than that first animation,

(53:15):
and definitely better than the live action films. But for me,
they don't tell an interesting enough story. And I didn't
think the writing was that terrific. It was more about
confrontation and about loss of ability, loss of consciousness, loss

(53:36):
of conscience, loss of a whole range of things that
have to be dealt with over a long period of time. Yes,
the animation is good. It's a good looking film, but
I didn't think there was much of a story there
to begin with, So I'm afraid I'm not a great
fan at all. Out of ten, I just gave it

(53:57):
five out of ten.

Speaker 1 (53:59):
And you're not going to believe this. I gave it
eight and a half. I've had three to eight to nine.
I loved it. I thought it was terrific. So on
that note, it has been most enjoyable to have your company,
Peter Kraus and Jackie Hamerton, and we will do it
all again next week on First on Film and Entertainment.
Be kind to one another, don't wolf whistle too much,

(54:19):
and be respectful. That is obviously the message of today,
and I don't mean that in a tweeway at all.
I meet it sincerely, folks, thank you very much, and
we will speak to you again very soon.