The Last Showgirl: Pamela Anderson’s Triumph and the Trials of Aging

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
First on film and entertainment.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Gad Day to all, and we have got some good
movies to talk about, maybe some not so good movies
as well, but generally speaking around a bit this time
of the year.

Speaker 1 (00:11):
As I've said before, we're sort of.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Into the Oscar season and there's some pretty good product around.
One of the things that surprised me, which we'll talk
about later, is the latest.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
Bridget Jones movie.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
But before we do that, there's a horror film to
talk about, and there's also a movie which surprised me
because I reckon this is the best performance of Pamela
Anderson's career. I'm talking about The Last Show Girl. To
join me to talk about this. Greg King, good, I,
how are you doing so?

Speaker 3 (00:42):
I'm good?

Speaker 1 (00:42):
How are you?

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Alex?

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Very well kindly? And Sandy k Hello.

Speaker 4 (00:47):
Hello everybody, Hello, Greg, Hello Tina.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
And there is the one that we're talking about, the
racalcitrant one, the Fossil, the guy who was there when
Adam was but a boy.

Speaker 5 (00:57):
Hello, Peter Grause, Hello from the Pterodactyl.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Hi everyone, good ey.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
Now let's talk about The Last Show Girl, which I
got to say is the.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Perfect running time.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
We're talking under an hour and a half by one
minute wow M rated movie. It's sort of a really
gritty piece about the travails of an aging Las Vegas
showgirl and those around her.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
It's got this real feel to it as far as
I'm concerned.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
And back in the day, we're talking decades ago, the
character played by Pamela Anderson, whose name is Shelley, was
one of the headline acts in a show called Lazzle Dazzle,
and that was fashioned on erotic parashows like Billido. She's
now fifty seven, so she's the eldest in the company.
The company itself is way past its prime, but the

(01:48):
show girls, well, the show must go on, as they say,
and they continue to put on happy faces and dress
in sexy lingerie, complete with rhyan stones and feathers and
of course the towering head dress for which they're known.
Truth be told, though, as I mentioned, the numbers have
dwindled those attending, and they've been overtaken by a new

(02:09):
breed of entertainment. But Shelley takes pride in what she does,
and for her, this is more than a job, it's
a calling. That's not so much the case for her contemporaries,
including rather prematic mary Anne played by Brenda Song, and
an enthusiastic nineteen year old called Jody played by Keenan

(02:30):
Shipcut Shelley Well, she lives by herself, would dearly love
a man in her life, and she's sailed troubled waters
unfortunately in that regard. When she hits the latest speed
bump because of bloke she met on the site stood
her up, she invites her friends around, and that includes
an outspoken former dancer who's now a cocktail waitress called Annette,

(02:54):
a role filled by Jamie Lee Curtis, somebody who wears
far too much makeup in this particular production, and deliberately,
I might say she left Larrazzle Dazzle six years ago
but remains very close to Shelley and to the troop. Now,
in turn, the nineteen year old Jody has extended the
invitation to this soiree to the show manager, whose name

(03:15):
is Eddie played by Dave Batista. And I'm kind of
impressed because the more I see of Dave Batista, I
see that he's capable of doing more than sort of
thug this roles, and this is one example of that.
In this case, he's a man of very few words.
Who cares about Shelley. In fact, the pair of them
has history, but there's also an awkwardness between them. Eddie

(03:36):
drops a bombshell. The new casino owners where the show's
been playing are calling time on larazzal Dazzle, and you
can imagine it does leave Shelley disconsolate. She has no
idea what to do next. She does not embrace what
she regards as the bump and grind of the New
age reviews that I referenced at the beginning. Same time,

(03:59):
she tries to reconnect with her now adult twenty two
year old daughter Hannah played by Billy Lord.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Don't be the man who's going to be with us?

Speaker 2 (04:08):
What was that some music sting in the background, which
we will ignore anyway. There now adult twenty two year
old daughter Hannah played by Billy Lord, who has a
rather checkered upbringing. They have a strained relationship mother and daughter.
Hannah struggles to forgive her mum for the choices that
she's made, so life's not easy for many of the

(04:30):
players in this one. They strive to keep their heads
above water and there are no big pardons. In the
last show Girl, I reckon that's what makes it noteworthy,
and you know it is a memorable movie. The writer
is Kate Gerston, makes her feature writing deboo. All the
more applaud its to her for that. She's pulled no
punches and the film is all the better for it.

(04:52):
Among the tensil and confected glamour, everything is a bit
of a scrap. The director is Gea Coppola. That's Francis
Ford Coppler's granddaughter, the co writer and director of Parlo Alto,
and she does a fine job letting the material breathe
and painting a rather hardened picture. The cinematographer Autumn durand

(05:13):
Arkpoor who did Black Panther Wakando Forever, taps into the
unrelenting grind that is the strip, and I really admired
Natalie Zerring's production design, which adds to the last show
Girl's authenticity. A lot to be said for the music
choices original numbers from Andrew White, he was responsible.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
For music in Barbie.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
But the star of this show unquestionably Pamela Anderson, who's
not only maintained an enviable figure but excels in the lead.

Speaker 1 (05:46):
She's really potent as.

Speaker 2 (05:48):
The spirited and vulnerable Shelley, who has had her fair
share of Knox in her life, and the pain is
quite evident.

Speaker 1 (05:54):
Cast Round is really good too. There's muscularity of voice
and demeanor.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
I mentioned Dave Batista, he revels in his less is
more gentle giant approach to this one. And then Jamie
Lee Curtis My Golly presents as larger than life, gregarious,
loud and ken and Shipka brings a naivitate to Jody
and Brenda's song lives in the moment wise to the
vagaries of an uncertain industry, so certainly worthy of attention.

(06:20):
The last show Girl, the tarnish is on full display,
and I brought into it.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
What about you, Sandy.

Speaker 4 (06:26):
I absolutely love this film for a host of different reasons.
I've never been a Pamela Anderson fan, particularly given that
I'm not male, so I never really.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
Oggled over her at all.

Speaker 4 (06:39):
But as you said, Alex, she looks fabulous, she sounds wonderful,
and the personality that comes out of her in this role.
She plays just such a sweet character. You can't help
thinking that that's kind of who she is as a person. Also,
we haven't seen her on anything really since those Baywatch days.

(07:00):
For quite a while, she's been on series like Home
Improvement and VIP, and unbeknown to me, she came to
fame and fortune when she first was Playmate of the
Month for Playboy magazine in nineteen ninety.

Speaker 1 (07:13):
Oh yes, I do remember that. I've got this for researpurpose.
This isn't, of course, Sandy.

Speaker 4 (07:19):
Her body looks the same as it did in those days.
It's incredible. She's fifty seven years old now and she
looks amazing. But her face, she's let it go. She
doesn't seem to be plumping it up with botox and fillers,
and she doesn't seem to have tattooed eyebrows because they're
very thin. And she's done all these appearances to promote

(07:42):
the film without any makeup on whatsoever.

Speaker 1 (07:45):
So cutos to her for that. I thought her acting
was wonderful.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
I thought the part she played was fabulous, And as
an aging woman myself, you can really relate to not
only one career coming to an end, and she's had,
as you said, this long standing career for thirty years
as this show girl, and it's like, what do you
do now? How do you reinvent yourself, what is she
going to do? She needs the money to live.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
She struggled with her.

Speaker 4 (08:13):
Now twenty something year old daughter in bringing her up
and having to pay attention to eking out an income
at the same time as playing mum, and she's suffering
in her adult relationship with her daughter as a result
of not being able to pay full attention to the daughter.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
I canin'd of get that too.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
For any woman who is either responsible for bringing home
the bread or is interested in having a career, something
has to give if you've got kids, and that's it.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
I love the.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
Camaraderie between the follies that the girls in the in
the troop themselves, and Jamie Lee Curtis was wonderful as
really somebody, as a cocktail waitress who was really too
old to be in that role already. It's kind of
the whole.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
Thing was really sad and really.

Speaker 4 (09:03):
Moving, but somehow uplifting at the same time, if that
makes sense. I thought it was really deeper and it
hasn't left me since I've seen it. I keep reflecting
on all the various nuances that go on in this movie.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
Totally agree with you, and it's interesting if you think
about some of the names in the ages of the
names that you've mentioned. It's been fortunate that with British
cinema you've got people who are well and truly over
sixty and over seventy, who continue to appear not so
much that I'm cognizant of in US cinema. And you've

(09:42):
had the resurrection of Demi Moore, I mean, well and truly.
You know, she's in fine form obviously in the Substance,
and Oscar nominated and so on. You've also got Jamie
Lee Curtis, who keeps on keeping on, whether it's horror
or doing something like this, and now you've got Pamela Anderson.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
So it's a year of revival. I'm very, very pleased
to know that.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
And I'm also because one of my greatest criticisms is
you get a lot of movies where they put women
in particular over the age of sixty five and their
vacuous roles. They go off and they explore and find
new love in Europe or or places like that, and
so many of them are disappointing.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
Sandy, So you know, I agree, yeah, and so you know.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
That I certainly hope that if there's decent scripts and
it gets back to the writing. If there's decent scripts
for women over the age of sixty or sixty five,
whatever it might be, well.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
You know, then you can bring out the best into people.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
But if they're vacuous roles and you're playing airheads, I mean,
that doesn't push anybody. So, Peter, what did you think
of this movie? Which at the last show go.

Speaker 5 (10:52):
Look, I liked it to some extent, but I have
misgivings about the storyline and about some of the way
it is shot. Gia Coppola has made an interesting decision
to shoot the film in widescreen handheld camera and lots
of close ups, and of course we see Pamela Anderson

(11:16):
close up a lot of the time in the film,
and I'm wondering sometimes as I was watching the film,
as if the film was lacking a backstory for her
a little bit and it was a little bit too
superficial for my liking. And this is a case where
I think the film wasn't long enough because it needed
to develop her backstory, her the mother daughter relationship, and

(11:41):
the Jamie Lee Curtis character, who I thought was such
an interesting one. When she does this impromptu total eclipse
of the heart dance during the film, I thought, Wow,
this character deserves a bit more backstory and information, and
it was nice to see Jason Schwartzman in a brief

(12:01):
but telling role in the film. But there was just
something about the film that was lacking for me in
terms of the story development, in terms of the character development,
even though Pamela Anderson is very good, although I didn't
like so much some of the close ups that she

(12:22):
was involved with.

Speaker 2 (12:24):
So I thought, it explained to me why you didn't
like those close ups because they were raw.

Speaker 5 (12:28):
They were raw, but they were repetitive, and I felt
that they were not developing the character, particularly because we
wanted more. I wanted more information, backstory and so on.
I mean, this is all part of the story about
how young women initially attracted to Broadway to Hollywood, the

(12:48):
busby Berkeley type situation where they all want to be
a star and they all want to make good in
show business, and this could have been integrated more into
this story as well. So look, I think there's much
to admire about The Last Show Girl, but there's also
some aspects of the film that I wish were better developed.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
I was going to say though, that you got the picture.
I mean it was a slow bleed.

Speaker 2 (13:16):
You got the understanding as the movie unfolded as to
what had gone on previously. Surely you didn't need that
spelled out chapter and verse before the before you know,
you saw that that was the purpose of the story.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
You didn't understand exactly what was going on with the daughter,
and then when the.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Daughter visits you get that backstory, and you also get
the backstory with her former lover, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
I would have thought that's a lot of movies do
it that way, Peter.

Speaker 5 (13:44):
Well, I would have liked a bit more story and
character development. It's a bit superficial. It's a bit dismissive. Yes,
we're given information, but it's not developed particularly strongly, hence
the short running time, which could have been banded with
a big more storyline. So yep, I'll stick to my

(14:04):
view of that.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
Eighty nine minutes. Was that enough for you, Greg King? Oh?

Speaker 3 (14:09):
Yes, more than enough.

Speaker 6 (14:10):
Actually, this is a good companion piece to the Substances
whom you referred to earlier, because both films look at
how women has rereaded in an industry that values youth
and beauty over anything else, and which can lead to
sort of problems. A better reference to the handheld camera work,
which gave us sort of an insurance intimacy to the

(14:31):
characters there. I thought this was only much more bitchy
backstage stuff too. Of the show girls there, especially the
younger showgirls. I thought there's a lot more bitchy there.
I did like Jamie Lee Curtis and that scene that
you've referenced it where her she's standing on the tabletop
to that Bonnie Tyler hit there.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
I like that scene. I thought that was good.

Speaker 6 (14:49):
Jamie Lee Curtis been something a little bit more vulnerable
to this performance there.

Speaker 3 (14:54):
Pamela Anderson here.

Speaker 6 (14:55):
We haven't seen a lot of her on the big screen,
and this is a role that sort of gives her
a perfect chance to showcase some of her acting talents
move maybe on that image of Baywatch that we all remember.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
Yes, I absolutely, I totally agree with you. So, I mean,
were you surprised at how good this was?

Speaker 6 (15:14):
Greg, Well, I weren't expecting much from to be honest.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
That's exactly what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
That you go in there thinking, oh, well, yeah, you know,
easily dismissed. But I was suitably impressed. I was seeing
he obviously Peter el and look at Las.

Speaker 3 (15:32):
Vegas sort of in all that's imperfect.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Glory, hedonism and all of those sorts of things as well.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
So okay, So in terms of what you would fault
about it, what would you highlight?

Speaker 4 (15:45):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (15:45):
Yes, I agree.

Speaker 6 (15:47):
You can get a lot of yeps about some of
the characters there as well, some of those things there.
And look, it was a little bit you know, you
like go short films here, You're probably need a bit
more insight into the back story.

Speaker 1 (16:01):
I insane it won't say it's bet made.

Speaker 2 (16:03):
Okay, Well, so I suppose that we'll go from tallest
to shortest, and we'll start with you, then, Peter. Your
score out of ten for a movie that some people
I think are going to really appreciate, and perhaps some
more than others.

Speaker 1 (16:18):
The last show.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
Girl rated M and we've talked about the running time,
what would you give it?

Speaker 5 (16:23):
Sure, I'll give it six out of ten.

Speaker 1 (16:27):
Okay, what about you? Greg?

Speaker 3 (16:29):
Six out of ten?

Speaker 1 (16:30):
All right, so high marks are going to be Sandy
and I Sandy, go for it. Ah, I'm giving it
an eight.

Speaker 4 (16:36):
I really enjoyed it, and I agree with you guys,
where you didn't expect much from it. And when you
walk into a film and you don't have expectations and
you are blown away, as I was with this, then
it makes it all the more better an experience. I
really loved the nuances of this film and I loved
how it was shot on a small budget. I think

(16:57):
Geocoppola has done a fabulous job and Pamela Anderson really
huge qutos to her for being brave enough to get
out there and play this part.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
Yeah, definitely in aight, Alex and.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
I've got an eight to an eight and a half,
So there you go. So we really are quite divided
in terms of our scores, but nevertheless, I think I
certainly would say or commend it to you as a
film that's worth seeing. That's the last show Girl on
JAIR eighty eight a FM first on Film and Entertainment.
Sandy k Peter Kraus, Greg King, and yours truly, Alex.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
First with you.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
If you want to become a member, we would love
to have you on board fifty four bucks. You just
go to jdash air dot com dot au, put down
your money and we'll be glad to have it because
you know that supports the station twenty four to seven
programming some pretty good music and some talk and entertainment
of all different forms. Let's turn to another movie called

(17:48):
The Monkey Now. This also is a short film ninety
eight minutes, m A rated and dare I say it's
a film with heaps of dastardly monkey about.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
It's over the top. Absolutely, you bet it it is.

Speaker 2 (18:02):
And it revels in beheadings, spearings, disembellment and explosions.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
So you've got humans splatter virtually everywhere. And no, I'm
not trying to turn you off. I am not.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
This is a pitch black comedy based on a nineteen
eighty short story from Stephen King, written and directed by
Osgoode Perkins, who did the rather scary Long Legs not
so many years ago. It follows a man named Hal
Shelburn who's terrorized by a drum banging and they don't
like to use the word toy, but I'm going to

(18:34):
use it by a drum banging toy primate that keeps
misfortune on whoever possesses it. And we follow Hal and
his minutes older twin brother Bill, who treats Hal shamefully.
Now we're talking two time frames here nineteen ninety nine
and the present day. These boys Hel and Bill with

(18:55):
the flower pot Man.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
No, not quite.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
They were raised by their mother Loess, played by Tatiana
Mass and that was because one day their father, Shelbourn
played by Adam Scott, who was a pilot, went out
to buy a packet of cigarettes and never returned. And
Hal first comes across this monkey among his dad's belongings
in a storage closet as the dad's traveled. As Shelbourne

(19:19):
traveled and flew about, he collected keepsakes for the boys.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Be that as it may.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
This particular keepsake, the simeon, is a portent of doom.
It's bug eyed, and once the key on the back
of the animal is turned, all hell breaks lose. So
when the monkey bangs on his drum, people die always
so after their beloved, quirky and caring mum croaks it,

(19:46):
the youngsters are brought up by their uncle and aunt,
and you can guess what happens to them. It's not
if they're knocked off, but how They've always tried to
eliminate this chimp by chopping it up and throwing it
down a dry wind well, but it always finds a
way to return and wreak even more havoc. Now, a
quarter of a century later, its mercilessness shows no signs

(20:09):
of abating, even though the brothers have been estranged at
that point for years. Now, how a single separated father
is trying to save his own son the emotional turmoil
that he faced by seeing him only very sparingly. But
the truth will out as a brother Bill comes back
into the picture. Now, one thing I should mention is

(20:31):
the only time we see the boy's father is at
the start of this movie.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
He's dressed in bloodied pilot's.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
Uniform and is trying to pourn this monkey with disastrous consequences,
and that sets the scene for the movie that follows. Now,
if you look at the book, and I'm not sure, Greg,
I'll start with you on this one soon. But he's
taken liberties with the Stephen King books. I'm not sure
where you have read the book or not.

Speaker 6 (20:55):
That's a short story in a collection of short stories called.

Speaker 3 (20:58):
Jelus and Creue.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
Okay, it has been expanded beyond what was on the page,
So it's not a book.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
It's just it's just.

Speaker 6 (21:05):
A shorts toy and anthology short stories written by seven King.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Okay, fair enough, well, he's personalized it. I was good Perkins,
That's what I was getting at. And the most significant
chain changes the addition of a twin, and Perkins wanted
that brotherly dynamic. Toxic though it is, because that's how
he Perkins grew up. It is a wild, wild ride
the monkey, and that's sort of a gross understatement. It's

(21:33):
horror mixed with humor, distasteful and over the top. Though
some will see it, others are going to wholeheartedly embrace it,
and I think that was apparent when we saw it
in the media preview. It's such an extreme movie that
really capitalizes on excess, and a line in the film
references the fact that everyone will die sometime. I really

(21:55):
appreciated the representation of the opposite good and bad twins
by Christian Convrey as children and by Theo James as adults.
Tatty Anna mass Laney's laid back attitude as their mum
also struck a chord with me. And really the director
and writer OSGARB. Perkins has embraced the grizzly and the absurd,
and as a result, this is the sort of film

(22:17):
where you have to suspend belief simply run with it
to appreciate it, don't dig too deeply into the plot.
Among the most memorable scenes is one early on where
a priest delivers a matter of fact eulogy. Can't say
I've heard anything quite like that before. And then there's
the imagery of the less than conventional ways to carget,
some of which will remain with me for a long

(22:38):
long time.

Speaker 1 (22:40):
One thing is certain. The monkey's a killer, al right,
isn't it so? Greg? What did you think of this
chip of a movie?

Speaker 3 (22:47):
Look, this is a bit of fun that.

Speaker 6 (22:49):
A lot of the gesture you know, the boy body
explosions and gore there is actually played for sort of
uncomfortable last year, So you find yourself laughing at some
in appropriate moments here.

Speaker 3 (23:01):
And this is one of two glory horror.

Speaker 6 (23:03):
Films around town at the moment on his hungry eyes
and which plays it much more seriously with the way
what he's torn apart and killed there. But this one
is a lot of fun there, and you don't quite
know what's going to be happening as the film keeps
going there, and the relationship between the two Estrange brothers
sort of comes to a crunch in the climax there.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
But I found myself enjoying this morning. I thought I would.

Speaker 6 (23:26):
But as I said, as taking liberties or as you said,
as taking liberties with a short story that wasn't sort
of particularly memorable, and it made something a bit more
memorable out of it.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, which is great.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
I mean that shows a creative talent and that's a
good thing to actually do. Now, Peter, I hesitate to
even ask you about this one, but let go for it.

Speaker 5 (23:49):
Okay, my view, I preferred Osgod perkins previous film Long
Legs with Nicholas Cage, because I thought that was a
good mix of the horror genre and the drama. This
one moves into the horror satire sort of field. And

(24:10):
we've been seeing a number of films as Greg mentioned one,
and of course Heart Eyes was another one where we
mix over the top murders, killings, beheadings, slasher type situations
with a sort of satiric bent attached to it. I
must admit this one didn't convince me at all. I

(24:31):
thought it was a very uneasy mix of those two
sort of genres. And the toy. The monkey toy didn't
make a great deal of sense to me. I thought
it was there as an object which didn't really have
any particular relevance to the plot. It was just a

(24:52):
device to try and get more murders and slasher say
into the film. I was disappointed this film. I was
expecting it to be a lot stronger, perhaps a bit funnier,
perhaps a bit cleverer, and yet it turns out to
be none of the above, unfortunately. So no, I'm not

(25:13):
a great rhaps of this film.

Speaker 6 (25:15):
Okay, I think Stephen Kingstoy we supposed to have had
a bit of a model to without being careful what
you wish for?

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Is that right? Okay?

Speaker 2 (25:23):
Well, I mean I suppose, yeah, you can see this
in the movie as well. Now, Sandy, I wouldn't have
thought this is your kind of film, but go for it.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
Oh my gosh, I think it. Absolutely detested it.

Speaker 4 (25:39):
I haven't strongly in the negative about a film for
a long time as this one.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
Well, right, I'm not the target audience. I mean the
feat people were laughing their heads off almost. That's the point.
This is what I was going to say to all
of us.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
Okay, So, Peter, do you do you accept that this
is not you because it's aimed at a different audience
or not.

Speaker 5 (26:04):
You have to acknowledge the audience it's aimed for. That
as a film reviewer, you have to see it as
you see fit.

Speaker 2 (26:12):
Well, that's what Sandy's saying as well, but she's acknowledging
which I mean. I sat next to a couple of
youngsters who were filled with glee throughout Sandy, as you've
just described it.

Speaker 4 (26:24):
What I noticed that there was mainly young men, because
I spent a lot of time looking around the audience
to see who were laughing so heartily, and it was
young men. This is a young man's movie, although my
old man partner sitting next to me was laughing out
like also, I couldn't believe it because he usually really
likes a serious, deep movie, and this is anything but

(26:46):
that stupid, antius gorgeous for the sake of gore, heads
falling off, blood spurting out, people being electrocuted.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
I don't find any of that particularly funny at all.

Speaker 4 (27:00):
But again, I'm not the target audience young men old men,
and I don't mean to be sexist here. Maybe some
women were laughing too. I couldn't see any or hear
any cackling. But no, I mean it's well done. I
suppose for what it is.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
I can't disregard that. And I mean, when it's the
Stephen King take off, that's kind of what you expect.

Speaker 4 (27:25):
You know that it's going to be a whole lot
of creepy stuff and retro and all of that. So yeah, okay,
I knew that's what we were going to have. The acting, Yeah,
it was good. The only thing I got really out
of it was that one of the twins, who when
he's grown up, was actually very good looking.

Speaker 1 (27:43):
So I was enjoying looking and listening to his voice.
They were played by the same as same actor. Oh
were they? I didn't even know that really. Wow, Well,
then he's pretty. He's pretty brilliant.

Speaker 4 (27:56):
Really, because he didn't look good as his twin brother
at all, that seems okay. Well, I enjoyed looking at him.
I certainly didn't enjoy looking at anything else. I'm not
one for blood spilling ridiculously. I mean even you know,
if you compare this to the shock horror of the
Demi Moor movie and the substance, I mean, I don't

(28:18):
like blood and gore at the best of times, and
I had to cover my eyes a couple of times
during that movie.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
But the blood made sense in that movie.

Speaker 4 (28:26):
Here it was just blood for blood's sake, gore just
to be titillating and.

Speaker 1 (28:32):
For shock value. Was it hilarious?

Speaker 4 (28:34):
And I didn't think so, not one little bit. But
everybody dies in That's Life. Yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
I didn't need this movie to paint me that picture,
I suppose.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
And it also goes to the heart of arguments that
have been around now for quite a number of years
about the propensity of movies in general to depict violence
in such a way that anybody who's in any way
left of center or gets motivated by something like this
canternity into real life. I mean, that's a very it's

(29:07):
a very difficult judgment because I like you. I mean,
I don't like guns, I don't like violence, I don't
like explosions, and don't I don't know whether you, Greg
or Peter.

Speaker 1 (29:16):
I wouldn't imagine either of you do either.

Speaker 3 (29:18):
So I mean, is it in real life but on
the screen or don't mind them?

Speaker 2 (29:22):
Well, that's it, That's what I was getting at. So
you can differentiate. But if somebody goes along to a cinema,
and you know, we've had incidents where people shoot up
cinemas and people die, and you know, they get the
wrong ideas. You know, do violent movies, TV shows plays?
You know, do they motivate them? I suppose that's the
discussion I'm triggering now, Greg, is that not a concern?

Speaker 5 (29:45):
But ne Cisco's all the way back to Clockwork, Orange
and so many other films. I do they do films
cause bad behavior? Or are they triggers for people who
already have that in their system?

Speaker 1 (29:57):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (29:58):
And look, I suppose that they're in my what Hollywood's
done in recent times. Okay, so now there's this diversity
whereby you've got to have a certain number of diverse
actors in virtually every movie. If I'm not mistaken, Now,
do they take measures with regards to violence and movies?
But I'm not aware that they've done anything in that regard.

(30:18):
They've just let the blood flow, so to speak.

Speaker 3 (30:21):
Should they Well.

Speaker 5 (30:23):
It's arguable, but I don't think that that film's cause
the sorts of things that you might be alluding to.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Well, I don't know, And I mean, ultimately, surely there
would have been some research on this or if there
hasn't been There should be some research on this.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
What's your view, sending, I.

Speaker 4 (30:43):
Don't really have an opinion on that. Does it bring
out the worst of us the ones that enjoy it?

Speaker 2 (30:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (30:48):
Probably?

Speaker 4 (30:48):
I think you probably have to have a tendency or
yes for that sort of stuff.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
I tend to agree with you there.

Speaker 5 (30:55):
Yeah. There have been so many psychological studies about the
impact of images on individuals, and the jury remains out
because there is nothing definitive that says if you watch something,
you'll replicate it. It's only for people perhaps who have
something in their system, they have psychological disturbances and so on,

(31:18):
and are looking for a trigger. And that could be
a book, it could be a film, it could be
a theatrical production, could be anything.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
A video down run the video.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Yes, that's good for example.

Speaker 2 (31:31):
Okay, so let me extend this conversation briefly to deal
with the daily news. I know a number of people
of our age who are no longer watching the news
because it's too terrifying for them.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
Now, again, that's that's real life.

Speaker 2 (31:47):
The world is a shitty place, right It can be
a great place, but it's been pretty terrible for a
long time, and it's getting there. It's not a word terribler,
you know, and so you know, and yet as shitty
as it is, not enough is being done to dampen
the negativity.

Speaker 1 (32:06):
So are we feeding the beast? Peter? Is the question?

Speaker 5 (32:11):
Well, are you talking about social control and about cinsshow.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
I'm merely posing the question because clearly whatever we've been
doing violence in our own our own city, and you
know this is a podcast that comes out of Melbourne.
I mean violence in our own city, home invasions, burglaries,
god knows what else. Carjackings, youths running ride. It's far
worse than when we were born.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
Peter.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
Now there's also there's also eight media or twenty seven
twenty eight million people in Australian hour, so I get all.
But notwithstanding that, I mean we're talking in a week
where what you've had two senior cops stood down right
in terms of and law and order is a major

(32:57):
major issue. So you know, this is what films to
The bad part about movies is they transport you to
different places. And to me, it's not so much of
a jump to go from seeing violence in all its forms,
whether it's supposedly entertaining or not to real life and

(33:17):
what we have about is that's the reason I'm asking
the question, Peter.

Speaker 5 (33:21):
Yeah, I mean I don't agree with the analysis that
you've made. And don't forget we've got media now, social
media and so much more that amplifies so much about
what we see and hear. And I mean you could
argue that in the going back twenty thirty forty years,
there was lots of violence around, but it wasn't reported

(33:43):
because media wasn't as obvious at that time. So look,
I don't think this is a valid argument. I think
the psychological studies clearly show that there is no direct
correspondence between queen relation viewing violent or correlation between viewing

(34:04):
violent and committing violence, because most of us have functions
that stop us from doing that.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
It's interesting.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
I'll go one stage further and then I'll move on.
But there are suggestions now that if somebody sees a
violent act, rather than stepping in and helping, they'll film it.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
Now, what does that say about our societies? Anti, I think.

Speaker 4 (34:29):
We're way too dependent on our phones and we view
everything through the lens of our phones.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
It's interesting, though, you know.

Speaker 4 (34:36):
As a former television reporter, and you would agree with
this to Alex that you could go into any situation
with a camera and you felt completely safe, you felt covered.
And I think that's the way people feel now with
their phones. That's the instant reaction. Whether it's violence that
you're witnessing, you automatically film it, whether it's a concert

(34:57):
that you go to, you automatically start film on your phone.
It's a level of protection somehow that distances us from
what is actually happening that we've all become so accustomed
to that it's a natural habit.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
I'm not sure it's a very good one.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
No, I look, unfortunately, I'm not sure whether you have
or not say any but I covered death, I covered bushfires,
I covered i'd seen dead people. It wasn't it wasn't
a nice experience. It stayed with me and as it should.
And so I think you're right Peter, that you know,
many people can differentially differentiate between one and the other.

(35:36):
But there've also been many instances where violent acts and
they've they've quized the people who have been prosecuted and
they admit that it's there's been triggers, triggers, you know,
for what they've done and seeing violence on screen apparently
is one of those triggers. So I don't I'm not

(35:56):
questioning that the jury is out rather than it's a
quantifiable evidence, but I think it's an important point to
raise when you're seeing a brutal movie like this one, which,
after all, this is black humor.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
That's that's the nature of it.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
I'm not even sure we're allowed to say that you
use that those two terms together, but you get my my,
my gist by saying what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (36:17):
All right, let's let's move on to another movie, which.

Speaker 3 (36:22):
A minute of score.

Speaker 2 (36:23):
So this one else, I'm sorry, I haven't even scored. Okay,
let's let's do this. So I'll probably go high high
ball on this one compared to the rest of you.
So let's start with Let's start with you, Sandy three
three out of ten.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
Okay, that's just because the production values that I thought
were quite good.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
And how good looking he is?

Speaker 6 (36:46):
See all right, he read it and that was something
like show do or something, because they would Pamela Anderson
looks you probably would have you pride us.

Speaker 4 (36:55):
Yeah, idea, although she actually doesn't look that good, really, Greg,
does she? I mean, her bodies good but her face
is not really good at all. She's really bearing all
of her fifty seven years there. I mean, she ain't
the sex symbol that she once was. I mean this
guy I'm talking about here, he's you know, in his
thirties or maybe early forties, and he's definitely a bit

(37:15):
of I Candy.

Speaker 1 (37:16):
But you know, I mean, you're a man of a
certain age.

Speaker 4 (37:19):
So if you still see Pam Anderson as a bit
of I candy, I guess that's your preromative.

Speaker 1 (37:24):
You're getting all hot and bothered again here, Sandy. This
is very good on what No, I'm not I think?
All right, well regardless, sorry Gregor, you were going to respond, no.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
I said my bit. I'll pull me hear you now?

Speaker 1 (37:38):
Very good?

Speaker 2 (37:39):
All right, Well, well, don't put you in too much.
Give me a score for the monkey.

Speaker 3 (37:42):
Oh I like a bit of a dilly pleasure. I'd
go for six to six.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
And a half right now.

Speaker 2 (37:47):
And it's m I rated ninety eight minutes ago, and Peter,
I'm scared to ask go for it.

Speaker 5 (37:53):
This is this discussion is almost turning into the Vogue
review of how people look on screen? Yes, using anyway, Now,
I give Monkey five out of ten.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
Okay, so three, five, six and I'm high market seven.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
I looked at it through the lens of the audience
that it's coveting, and in spite of everything that I've
said where I don't like violence, et cetera, if you
look at it as cartoon violence.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Perhaps perhaps that's the way to do it.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
And I mean it's it's really an excuse to see
one more form of garrotting or killing or whatever, which
I must admit as a concept doesn't appeal to me.
But I see what they've done and why they've done
what they've done.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Let us move on to a movie.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Greg, you've been surprised by the couple of films we've
talked about thus far. Here's another one that I dare say, well,
you'll feel the same way about, and that's the latest
Bridget Jones movie. Did you, I mean, before I talk
in any detail about it, were you surprised at how
surprisingly good?

Speaker 1 (38:58):
Or better? Thought?

Speaker 6 (39:00):
When I went there, I had no expectations to watch, however,
because the fourth film in the series spent nine years
since the last one, and a couple.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Of Bridget Jones sequels were pretty ordinary, so I did
know what to expect. From this one, but I found
myself pleasantly surprised.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Yeah, I mean, were you?

Speaker 2 (39:16):
I was surprised that they're going back to the Will again,
you know, like really they want to do it again?
You know, I understand what Tom Cruise and whatever I
have done with Top Gun and that Will. That worked
very well, even though it was it you, Peter who
didn't like Top Gun the sequel.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Correct. Yeah, is there anything you liked, Peter?

Speaker 5 (39:35):
Sorry, there were plenty of films I've liked.

Speaker 1 (39:40):
Okay, good, I'm very pleased to hear that.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
Okay, so well, okay, well I'll start with that question
from you. Did you were you pleasantly surprised or not?
About Bridget Joe. I can always almost taste your answer.
Bridget Jones mad about the boy?

Speaker 3 (39:57):
It's delicious.

Speaker 5 (39:59):
No, I not surprised, of course.

Speaker 1 (40:03):
Not.

Speaker 4 (40:03):
No.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
And Sandy, I want you to see this one and
see from a from a female perspective.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
Have you seen any of the Bridget joneses. I've seen
enough to know that I didn't want to see this one,
and so we can have this one all to yourselves.

Speaker 4 (40:18):
I'm really not interested, and from what I have heard
so far about it, Rene Zellwigger's acting prowess has depreciated
with her.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
Us I can't mean I have some text won The
Oscar for Judy.

Speaker 2 (40:37):
Was the first film since since Judy that she's done. Yeah,
and I think she does what she does, that's a
joy Laiden movie. There's Bridge Jones mad about the Boy.
It's long, it's probably longer than it needed to be
at two out five minutes, it's m rated, and as
far as I'm concerned, pardon.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
Me, it could be equal to the best Bridge Jones film.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
I mean it dates back to what two thousand and one,
wasn't it Greg that it started something like that?

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (41:04):
Yeah, and I mean Jones also narrates, as you know,
that's what she does, and it's filled with laughter and
romance and reverence. And best of all, she gets to
be a cougar Sandy, right.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
Who means something that I can relate to?

Speaker 2 (41:19):
No, no, no, there's no implication. All you'd need to do,
Sandy snap your fingers. The boys had gun running, Let's
be honest. Come on, you know of all ages sizes, yeah, anyway,
and all chaking. Aside that there's sort of this toy
boy hot to try, so you could have seen this
movie just for the toy boy Sandy.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Yeah, thanks, I know.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Okay, So let me tell you a little bit about
the story. Her husband, the love of her life. I'm
talking about Bridget Jones. Mark Darcy, played by a Colin Firth,
is no longer. He was killed in an explosion while
on a humanitarian mission in Dart for four years earlier.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
So Bridget was left as a widow a couple of.

Speaker 2 (41:59):
Small children torn and she still dreams of him, misses
him terribly, as do the children, a ten year old
son called Billy and a daughter Mabel, who was six,
and her life is rather chaotic. She hasn't moved on.
Most of her friends tell us she desperately needs a shag.
So one day she decides to try to take control

(42:20):
of her own future, and with a choice description, one
of her besties even signs her up to a dating app.
But it's while trying to rescue her children from the
branches of a large tree in a park that fortune
really smiles upon her, and that's when she and they
are rescued by a handsome groundkeeper. He's a grandkeeper in

(42:40):
his late twenties whose name happens to be Roster macduff.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
Now, is Rockster a real name? Roxtr? Can anybody? Yes? No?
Made up? Americ made up? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Okay, so I don't know of anybody, clearly I'm not
well read enough, Sandy.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
But is there a real Rockster in real life? Somebody
is named Rockster? I don't know any do you? You
don't know anyone called that? But wait up for the
next generation of babies born, there may well be.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Okay, hang on, while we're talking now, folks, I'm Rockster
as a name.

Speaker 1 (43:15):
I'm googling it. You know, no such thing as real
names anymore.

Speaker 4 (43:19):
It's not a commonly recognized name, but it does appear
as a surname, particularly in the UK.

Speaker 1 (43:25):
That's it.

Speaker 5 (43:26):
They've made it up.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
Yeah, okay, well but hang on. Aren't all names made us?

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Not all? No, I don't think so. Well, I guess
eventually they.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
Are, because I mean, before names were, somebody had to
name things and they made them up.

Speaker 1 (43:41):
The name of the future. Well, yeah, I actually don't
mind it.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
The interesting thing about it, and it doesn't matter whether
I mind it or not. But the interesting thing is,
of late, in the last decade or so, the x's
in names have become quite common, haven't they. Andy, there's
a lot of x's in names.

Speaker 1 (43:58):
That it used to be a c K. That's true.
Ah yeah, there you go, so Gregory.

Speaker 2 (44:04):
I'm not sure he'd put an X into greg but
I'm sure they'd find a way.

Speaker 1 (44:08):
It could be a silent ex grex. Grits.

Speaker 2 (44:15):
It's kind of the grits that somebody has in America
and their cereal. Anyway, getting back to the movie, You've
got this handsome ground keeper late twenties that texts Bridget Jones,
and suddenly everything's looking up, including the fact that she's
actually reclaimed.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
Her old job.

Speaker 2 (44:29):
If you remember she was a television producer. She hadn't
been working, according to this movie, for a period of years.
Also in the picture, and he does what he does
so damn well is Jones's male Powell former lover, the
lascivious Daniel Cleaver played by none other than Hugh Grant,
who is just killing him at the moment. I mean,

(44:51):
whatever he does seems to turn to gold. And that's
not to overlook a new science teacher at the school
that Billy and Mabel attend, whose name is Scott Wallaker
by Chiwetel Edgy four.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
He's got a distinct way of rounding up children. Would
you would you countenance that?

Speaker 6 (45:07):
Greg in no right, whistle's only any good for pa classes.

Speaker 1 (45:13):
Pe classes.

Speaker 2 (45:14):
Okay, does it work on dogs and small children at home?
I don't know anyway, that's what he does now. Helen
Fielding who wrote the book Bridge Jones's Diary, which was
the starting point for the film franchise. She also has
a big hand in writing all the film scripts, of course,
and also back on the writer's desk is Dan Maser,
who co wrote Bridge Jones's Baby. And then there's Abbie Morgan.

(45:39):
I'm getting music again. Who's Who's music.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
Playing in a background here? Now?

Speaker 2 (45:43):
Collectively they have done what I think is a terrific job.
Many of the site gags, the one line is a
price lesson. Each Bridget Jones film has a different director.
This time it's Michael Morris, who takes to the task
with relish and injects a great deal of feeling. I
thought the cast was in fine for what a formidable
group of actors they are. Jones never takes herself too

(46:03):
seriously and it's primarily upbeat, and I thought Renees Elwiger
was delightful and assured as the film centerpiece, like putting
on an old dressing gown, and we've said, well, Hugh
Grant really in his element is the gleefully inappropriate Daniel
Kleaver and Leo wood All does and says all the
right things as Roxt McDuff and chewettl Edgy Fall is

(46:24):
intelligent and responsible as mister Walliker, and he sort of
eases up as the movie. He goes on a couple
of the really great roles in this one. Emma Thompson,
wow flawless as Jones's friend and guynecologist. And Eila Fisher
our very own make sure she's noticed as a harried
mother next door neighbor to Bridget Jones. Quite a memorable
cameo from her and honored goes. I mean, you know,

(46:46):
there's a lot brought back here from the past movies,
So many juicy parts in this offering. One thing sure,
One thing is for sure, rather mad about the boy
outshone my expectations. I was worried about the dipping back
into it again, but I needed the threat it because
truth be told, I really enjoyed myself. The movie hangs
together really beautifully and puts a big smile on your face.

(47:08):
Who could ask for more?

Speaker 1 (47:10):
Greg King? Not a lot more?

Speaker 6 (47:14):
Yeah, I thought, As I said at the start, I
wasn't expecting much from this fourth in Storman, but I
was pleasantly surprised by the film. I' mu sure we
astue gan to soeld with this committed performance as Bridget Jones,
who experienced as many awkward, embarrassing incidents in the film,
which is part part of the ongoing charm of a
film there. Now this is this also repeat some of

(47:35):
the beeks from the first film there where she's got
to make a choice between two potential suitors there, the
hunky rockster and the straight laced mister Wallaker there.

Speaker 3 (47:46):
But I thought she threw herself.

Speaker 6 (47:48):
Into this role, was comfortably with all the character flaws
and idiosyncrasies there. And there's plenty of physical comedy and
lots of prapfalls which she does well snappy one miners
and sit gigs, but also deal with more serious serious
scenes like overcoming grief, family and the trials of single

(48:08):
parenthood there. So it added a bit more heft to
the material there, And there's an element of sadness permeating
early segments of this film when she's dealing with the
loss of mister Darcy. There also an ara of nostalgia
there with the casting of bringing back all all the
main characters from the other Bridget Jones films with cameos
from people like Jim Broadbent. I loved Emma Thompson is

(48:32):
the guy in the college just there, and I agree
Hugh Rant is one of the best things in the
film there he gets some of the biggest last year,
and no one plays a lectures reprobate.

Speaker 3 (48:42):
Quite like he does.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
No. I totally agree, Peter, was there any redeeming feature
for you?

Speaker 1 (48:50):
Look?

Speaker 5 (48:50):
I liked Emma Thompson. I liked some humorous bits in
the film. I like the depiction of the two children,
who I thought were really nicely portrayed, helping Bridget through
her grief to some extent. But I felt that it's
the Bridget Jones character the ways depicted in this film

(49:12):
that was a problem for me. She comes across as childlike,
as regressive, and as silly at times, and I don't
know if that's the way the character should be depicted.
I thought it would be a little bit more adult
and a bit more mature and because of that.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
But I mean, go back, go back to two thousand
and one, that's her. Do people change character? I mean,
she was an adult in the first installment as well.
Right twenty years ago, she'd be what fifty ish now,
I presume that that's the sort.

Speaker 5 (49:43):
Of correct Well when it was first depicted, it was
right for her character. But she has experienced grief, She's
experienced a lot of things over the twenty plus years
over the four films now, and I would have thought
that the character would also have grown up, developed and
been and become more interesting. So when the other characters

(50:07):
in the film, like you, Grant and everyone else, becomes
more amusing and valid and interesting, then you know you're
in trouble with the central character. And Bridget Jon.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
Let me just interrupt there for a moment.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
I mean, unfortunately, I've got a really good friend of mine,
and she's gone through quite a bit in recent times,
and but a really buoyant sort of personality. Now, you know,
I've known her for a long long time, and even
through the downtimes, she has maintained the same persona which

(50:42):
I admire so much. And so I mean, I think
I think this is I'm afraid that I think this
is real, even though it's an imagined character. I get that,
but I actually thought it was, you know, pinpoint accurate,
and I thought it was appropriate.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
So I've got a totally different view of that. Keep
it keep going over.

Speaker 5 (51:00):
Yeah, okay, I'll disagree with you because I felt that
the depiction of the character was regressive, and that's the
problem that I have with it. Look, there are some
little nice bits here and there, and the idea of
her sorting out which of the two suitors, so to speak,
are going to be her love interest, which probably will

(51:20):
create another Bridget Jones film, But I was waiting for
a diary and there's hardly one in sight.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
I would have liked.

Speaker 5 (51:30):
That's the word diary out of the title the time,
That's right, And I thought, yeah, I don't know. Look,
the film is not bad, but it's certainly not the great, humorous,
brilliant sort of fourth version of Bridget Jones that perhaps
some people are saying it is.

Speaker 3 (51:48):
There's certainly better than Bidick Jones edged reason.

Speaker 1 (51:51):
Yeah, well, okay, so Peter, you've seen all of them.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
I'm presuming, yes, where would this one sit of the
four second best?

Speaker 5 (52:02):
No? I put it as number four. I think the
first one was the best one, the second one was
not bad, and the third one had its moments here
and there. But the fourth one I think has reached
a lower level for me.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
Now, I don't think this is going to influence you
in any way, Sandy, but somebody who I know, who
I don't know very well, but who basically reads reviews
or reads various reviews.

Speaker 1 (52:31):
And I recommended this to her sent me.

Speaker 2 (52:37):
A short text because she wasn't going to see this movie,
right like you're not going to see the movie, And
she said this is what I'm reading this out without
naming her. Saw Bridget Jones today and loved it with
love hearts all over it.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
So there you go, Peta.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
There are people who you know we've got an influence here,
and I don't want you to turn everybody off Bridge
Jones mad about a boy. I'm going to start this
one rated M one hundred and twenty five minutes.

Speaker 1 (53:03):
I'm giving it an eight out of ten, Greg.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
Six out of ten.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
Pisa, are you passing it? Yes?

Speaker 5 (53:11):
But I didn't realize that we had to promote films
and always give a good review. I thought we were
meant to give our own opinions rather than being pushed
into something.

Speaker 1 (53:23):
So I don't always promote him.

Speaker 4 (53:25):
I couldn't get more honest about my opinions on exactly enough.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
And cars have reckoned pinions, steering too. Now, what's that?
It's old style, that's all I can say. No, no,
excuse me.

Speaker 1 (53:42):
There are movies I I suppose I enjoy.

Speaker 2 (53:46):
No, I won't say enjoy when you're writing a negative
review or speaking about something in a negative way.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
I don't love everything. There's there are.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
My worst movies of the year are appalling, right, So,
but I suppose at times maybe I'm more charitable or
I look at the audience instead of say okay, well,
I can see merit in that from that their perspective.
That's kind of the only different difference of opinion that
you and I. Well, no, we have a lot of

(54:17):
difference as of opinion. You don't support any football team,
in particular Essendon. I haven't mentioned Essendon for a while,
but did you want to talk about the Bombers?

Speaker 5 (54:24):
I give Bridget Jones five out of ten.

Speaker 4 (54:31):
Well, Gully all right, it is the UK's biggest film franchise.

Speaker 6 (54:36):
I have to say, well, I had the biggest box
office opening of any romantic coming in Britain.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
Yeah, is that right? Yep? How's it done in Australia.
I haven't really followed it. Is there any data?

Speaker 3 (54:49):
I don't know, but that's all I heard on your
news on the weekend.

Speaker 5 (54:54):
I thought James Bond would be the bit, the biggest
British franchise.

Speaker 1 (54:58):
Yeah, that's what I would have thought too. And by
the way, this week they've sold it, haven't they.

Speaker 3 (55:03):
They're not say Amazon, yes, yes, of it.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
I think that I was.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
I was pretty staggered by that too. I mean that
they retain fifty percent. Barbara Broccoley and Broccoli is that
her name?

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (55:17):
And who's the other one? I've gone blank, there's two
of them. I apologize, We've got to go. I've just realized, Sandy,
what a pleasure, Peter. It's an ordeal, but it's a
pleasure one.

Speaker 1 (55:30):
Saying I love you, Peter, don't no, we love you, Peter,
we do. Sticks and stones will break my bones. We
love you. And Greg we love you too. You know this?

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Thank you? This is a love Phil Can you feel
the love in the room?

Speaker 4 (55:44):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (55:45):
Yeah? On that? And Sandy, your gorgeous you know, as
I've loved, love all around.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Speak to you next week, Folks. First, on film and entertainment,
over and out,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Last Showgirl: Pamela Anderson’s Triumph and the Trials of Aging

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

The Last Showgirl: Pamela Anderson’s Triumph and the Trials of Aging

Stuff You Should Know