August 26, 2024 • 51 mins
Movie Mike gives his Top 10 Movie Pet Peeves with the most recent examples of each. From horror cliches, product placement, the heroes never getting injured and more! In the Movie Review, Mike gives his thoughts on Blink Twice starring Channing Tatum. He plays a Tech billionaire that invites a cocktail waitress to his private island for a vacation. But strange things happen, and their dream vacation turns into a nightmare. Mike shares how he feels about it as Zoë Kravitz directorial debut, the unique cast and the main issue he had where he felt the movie fell flat. In the Trailer Park, Mike talks about Here starring Tom Hanks and Robin Wright. It’s directed by Robert Zemeckis and coming out in theaters November 1. This will be Tom Hanks and Robert’s 5th movie together with their first being Forrest Gump in 1994.
New Episodes Every Monday!
Watch on YouTube: @MikeDeestro
Follow Mike on TikTok: @mikedeestro
Follow Mike on Instagram: @mikedeestro
Follow Mike on X: @mikedeestro
Follow Mike on Letterboxd: @mikedeestro
Email: MovieMikeD@gmail.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome back to Movie Mike's movie podcast. I
am your host Movie Mike. Today I want to share
with you my top ten movie pet peeves. I watched
a movie recently that irritated me so bad it inspired
this entire episode. I'm gonna let you know all of
the weird things that make me tick. In the movie review,
we'll be talking about Channing Tatum and Blink twice psychological
(00:22):
thriller of Swords. And in the trailer park we'll be
talking about Here, starring Tom Hanks, directed by Roberts Amakas.
They first worked together in Forrest Gump back in nineteen
ninety four and have had well some decent movies along
the way, but I feel like this one could be good.
So thank you for being here, Thank you for being subscribed.
Shout out to the Monday Morning movie crew. He Now,
let's talk movies.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
In a world where everyone and their mother has a podcast,
one man stands to infiltrate the ears of listeners like
never before in a movie podcast, A man with so
much movie knowledge, he's basically like a walking IMTV with
Glad from the Nashville Podcast Network this Movie Mike Movie Podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I went to see a movie recently and it irritated
me so bad that I put together a list of
my top ten movie pet peeves. These are common occurrences
and cliches that you'll see in movies time and time
again that makes me think, why are they still doing this?
And the thing was to come up with ten was
actually pretty easy. I could have probably done the top twenty,
(01:28):
but I also asked the question online, so we'll get
into some honorable mentions what you guys said. But I'm
already irritated as I'm starting this list, so I'm gonna
get right into it at number ten. As whenever a
movie uses CGI computer generated images for something so simple
that could easily be a practical effect, this drives me nuts.
(01:49):
And we are starting to see this so much, especially
in the last couple of years, where movies are trying
to cut corners save money where they can, and obviously
with the use of AI becoming a lot more prevalent
in art, even though people don't want that. At the
end of the day, a movie is a business, so
if you're spending a lot of money on an actor,
maybe you're gonna cut corners in other places. And you
(02:10):
think the audience isn't gonna know. I notice every single time.
The last main offender in this was I watched a
movie on Apple TV plus The Instigators with Casey Affleck
and Matt Damon. Something so simple as a banner was
computer generated graphics. I could not believe it. And it
looks so fake. You're telling me you couldn't get a
(02:33):
banner to make this scene look more real. You decided
to use your graphics department to make a fake banner,
And I get it. It's a shot that's maybe a
second two seconds long. To get an entire banner for
that maybe would seem a little bit wasteful. Or you
know what, don't put a banner in there at all
if you're going to make something that looks so terrible
(02:55):
and so obvious. The other movie recently that I had
an issue with that did this Twisters. I love Twisters.
I thought the special effects when it came to the
tornadoes and all of the chase scenes, all of that
look great. This really minor detail where they decided to
use CGI to make these windmills for a movie to
come out in twenty twenty four and have windmills that
(03:18):
looked like they were in a video game from two
thousand and seven. What are you doing here? This drives
me insane. You either don't put it in the movie
at all, or you find a practical effect, get a
prop in there. It always looks better on screen, it
always ages better too. So at number ten, whenever you
(03:38):
use CGI for such a minimal detail but make it
so obvious, get out of here. At number nine, blatant
product placement. The biggest offender of this right now is Netflix,
and I think it's their model of how they produce movies,
how they hire talent. To me, a lot of the times,
(03:59):
Netfli feels more like content that you would get from
a content creator like here on YouTube and TikTok and Instagram,
which halls that is fine. Movies are a product. But
when they start putting in just blatant product placement, it
drives me nuts. And it's not like product placement. It's
such a new thing. Hold on while, like, take a
(04:21):
sip of my high brew coffee cold brew. Hmm, that
is black and bold. Product placement isn't new to movies,
TV or podcasts, but there's a way to do it well.
The worst offender of this in recent history was whenever
they remade Cheese all that and flip the genders and
(04:41):
it was He's all that. That movie had fifteen one
five unique and so conspicuous product placements that that was
the main headline when that movie came out. That's a
movie that probably shouldn't have been made. You kind of
threw together some people they pulled off of social media,
(05:01):
throw them in a movie. And really the vehicle to
even make that movie was all the product placement, taking
any shred of art or credibility out of that movie
because it was just one big giant commercial. Here, I
am going to take a call on my motor roll
a cell phone. We need to go to the grocery
(05:23):
store for some insert product placement here. It was so blatant.
Whenever you have a beverage on screen with that label out,
somebody eating from a bag of chips with that label out,
with the bag in such pristine condition, you know that
is going to drive me crazy. Other movies can do
it well. If you associate a product with the character,
(05:47):
give it a little bit of personality, I think it
could work. Go back to et back in the day
Reese's pieces. I still think about when I think about
that movie, and I don't think about it as being
a commercial for Reese's pieces. I just think of it
of et loving Reese's pieces. So it is possible to
do it well. Another big offender in the last year
(06:09):
or so was Barbie. Oh my gosh, whenever that chase
scene happened, it was so apparent what car that they
were driving. It looked like a commercial for that car.
In that instance. In Twisters, it was a little bit
more subtle. Obviously, the truck in the original one was
(06:30):
such a big part of it, Bill's red truck, so
you can obviously bring that back. But if you pay
attention to every single vehicle they are driving in that
it is all product placement. But that movie did it
pretty well. Also, like Audi and Avengers just kind of fits.
Iron Man driving a Naudy still makes sense, and it's
not so blatant that you think, oh, they have to
get that in there. That one just makes sense. But
(06:53):
whenever the car looks a little bit too clean, they
focused on a little bit too many shots of having
it in action, and that's when it starts to feel
like a commercial to me. So there is a way
to do it well. Just don't make it so obvious again.
Let me take a drink here from my hybrew coffee.
All right. At number eight is the overuse of pop
(07:14):
culture to depict teenagers. This irritates me so much. Whenever
you're placing a movie, say in twenty twenty four, and
you have a kid looking up videos on TikTok. I
don't know why, but that image of a cell phone
on screen showing somebody swiping through something, somebody pulling up Instagram.
To me, it severely dates whatever movie you are doing.
(07:36):
And I think whenever a movie tries to be so
overly relevant, look, here are teenagers. This is what teenagers do.
They're making a TikTok dance. It just feels very cringe
to me, and it feels like an older filmmaker just
trying to appeal to gen z or even younger. I
hate it when movies do that because it just feels
(07:57):
so forced and crammed in there for characters to blatantly
reference things that are happening right now in pop culture.
It doesn't work, it doesn't age well, and for me,
I think it looks terrible in a movie. So anytime
somebody pulls up TikTok or Instagram. It immediately takes me
out of it and I get irritated. I have that
(08:18):
one at number eight. At number seven, non filled coffee
cups on screen. This usually happens in lower budget movies,
but when it does, it drives me insane because the
entire time two people are talking with their disposable coffee cup,
all I can pay attention to is the fact that
I know there is no liquid in there. There's no water, nothing.
(08:42):
Those things are as light as a feather, and I
understand why they probably do that. It's easier for somebody
to hold an empty cup. You obviously don't want to
put real coffee in there because then your hand will
be hot. But fill it up with something. Because I'm
not paying attention to what they are saying. You immediately
lose me on any dialogue happening in that situation, because
(09:03):
all I can pay attention to is the fact that
there is no coffee in that cup. It's not that
hard to do, guys, because I don't want to be
hyper fixated on the fact that that thing could blow
away with one quick little gust of wind. Fill up
the coffee cups. Have that one at number seven. At
number six, I have lazy writing, which is a little
(09:23):
bit generic. Oh look at that generic when talking about
something on the list lazy writing, But I'll get more specific.
Whenever you need to tie up some loose ends or
get somebody out of a situation. The laziest writing that
I hate is someone getting hit by a bus. I
hate this trope. Whenever you have your villain in a
(09:44):
movie who is just getting everything they want. All the
things are going against the protagonist, and how do you
get out of it? What do the writers decide to do.
Let's just have them get hit by a bus. If
somebody gets hit by a bus in the movie, you
might as well take that bus and take me out too,
because I'm not going to finish that movie. It is
(10:06):
such lazy writing. Along those same lines as whenever something
just happens at the end of it to all be
a dream, or why watch the movie? I wish I
was sleeping through that entire thing because nothing was gained.
Whenever it feels like the stakes don't matter, that is
lazy writing and I can't get behind it. So that's
why I have that one at number six getting into
(10:28):
the top five. Now this one, oh, it doesn't happen
that often, but when it does, you will see the
blood boiling underneath my brown skin. Whenever a movie get
split into two parts, get it out of here. There
are a couple of things that irritate me here as
(10:50):
a movie fan, a movie love or a movie enthusiast
the movie reviewer. I always want the best story in
any single movie I see. I don't want anything to
be left on the table. Give it to me all,
make me feel, make me cry, get me excited, throw
it all in that hour and a half, two hour,
(11:12):
three hours, whatever you're gonna give to me. I don't
want to feel at the end of a movie that
the story is incomplete. I get it. If you're doing
a sequel, you set it up. Difference here, whenever a
big movie comes out and they realize they're maybe running
towards the end of this franchise and they want to
(11:32):
get more out of us, they don't just want to
get us into the theater for this one. They want
us to come back. It's a way for them to
make more money off of a franchise. Biggest offenders of
this of all time. Harry Potter split the Last Movie
into two I get it. Huge franchise. You want to
extend that out as much as possible, but why do
you have to split it into two movies? Just make
(11:53):
one the better movie, because you leave me feeling like, oh,
I need to see that movie now. If you're going
to split it into two, have that next one come
out in a month. I don't want to wait that long.
Twilight did the same thing. I think Harry Potter kind
of set the stage for that. Hunger Games did it
as well. That one probably irritated me the most, but
out of all those, I was the biggest fan of
the Hunger Games. When it came to those series of
(12:16):
book adaptations Spider Man across the Spider Verse, that just
feels incomplete to me. I know a lot of people
rated that movie a perfect score. I couldn't do it
because as much as I loved all the action, Act one,
Act two, Act three great, but then I just kind
of left your hang in movie blue Balls. I don't
want that. That is why I get so irritated with this,
(12:39):
even with the mission and possible movies, when it's a
part one in part two, when you already had so
many movies, it makes it even more confusing because this
is already like the seventh movie in the franchise, but
then you're splitting the seventh movie into two. Why why
do that? Whenever movies get split into two? That is
a pet peep of mine. That one is at number four,
(13:00):
At number four, this one happens so often, and it's
really started to irritate me more. That's why it came
in in the top five. Whenever a hero in a movie,
in an action movie, in a superhero movie, they never
get hurt. They are in full on gunfights and they
never get hit. You mean to tell me that just
(13:21):
because he is the hero of the movie or she
is the hero of the movie, they're not gonna catch
a straight bullet. They're not gonna get beaten up. It
makes no sense, especially when there are situations where a
hero has to fight a group of people and everybody
in that group just takes their turn in fighting this person,
(13:43):
Like there's some unwritten rule that you can't all gang
up on them and beat them up at once. Why
do they do that? Like, oh no, that guy went down.
That guy went down, all right, now up, Oh I
went down too, Wait for the next guy. Dude's taking
out everybody in this lineup because you're all at hacking
him one by one, and then if you have a
big shootout, they don't get shot. They come out without
(14:05):
a scratch. Maybe by the end of the movie they
have a little cut underneath their eye, they put out
a little bandage on their head, but for the most part,
they're good. At most you maybe get him in like
a slang or something, but for some reason, unless it's
a John Wick movie. That's why that is my favorite
action franchise, because Keanu Reeves will get beaten up. He
(14:25):
will show John Wick at the very very rock bottom
trying to scrape back. That's why I like an action
hero who can take a punch, who doesn't have it
in this contract that he can't lose a fight, because
you need that. You need to be able to root
for something. It's hard to root for your hero when
you know they're gonna be fine by the end of
(14:45):
the movie, because the hero never dies. That is why
that irritates me so much. The last movie I saw
that was a big offender of this was Bad Boys.
For that movie has some fantastic action, and I get
that it's not supposed to be hype realistic, but come on,
you have two heroes here and they all turn out okay.
(15:06):
That's why it irritates me. That is at number four,
where our hero never gets hit, never gets hurt, and
also when the bad guys just decide to become decent
humans and attack them one by one at number three.
This one is very personal to me. I don't know
if anybody else is gonna relate to this one, but
it's a big one for me. Whenever a movie starts
(15:29):
so quietly, it's happened so often to me, and ME
like to get into a theater, and I'm really weird
about timing out things. And when I go to a
movie I don't want to have my snack until that
movie starts. I don't want to eat them in the previews.
As soon as that first frame hits that big screen,
(15:50):
that is when I give myself clearance to dive into
my snacks. And whenever that happens, and the first opening
scene is so quiet that I can't dip into my bag,
I can't crunch on my snacks. I hate quiet opening
scenes because that is prime snacking time for me. Alien
(16:11):
Romulus was completely silent. I thought they were messing with me,
because right when I went to have my snack, you
could hear the person next to you breathing. I don't
need to hear that. Give us a little music, give
us some of those swooshing movie sound effects that we
all love. I need something at the beginning of a
movie so I can have my snack. So all the
(16:32):
filmmakers out there, I know this is very selfish of me,
but please stop making the openings to movies so quiet.
That is what I have at number three, quiet opening
scenes at number two. This was the one that inspired
this entire list. Went to go see Trap. Thought it
was a pretty decent m Night Shamalan movie. The thing
(16:54):
I love about m Night is he does take his risks.
You're either gonna love it or you're gonna hate it.
But I think at the core of every movie he makes,
he at least says to himself what would be a
good movie. So I feel like every movie for him,
in my opinion, is a case by case basis. So
I would also encourage you, if you've enjoyed any of
(17:14):
his movies and want to give him another shot, give
Trap a try, probably when it comes out on streaming.
But the thing I hated about Trap that irritated me.
That is a major pet peeve of mine that it's
not the only offender to this. It is how backstage
at a concert is depicted. It's always really the entire
(17:36):
concert going experience in this movie is just so far
off what it is. I am somebody who has been
to a lot of backstages in my life, and growing
up as a kid, it was my dream to get backstage.
My favorite band growing up was Blink when eighty two,
and I would always see them post things about having
(17:58):
backstage passes or listening to the radio, thing you can
win backstage passes to your favorite concert. I always wanted
to go backstage at a Blink within eighty two concert
because I thought it was such a magical place. In
my head. All I had to do was get my
hands on a backstage pass. Having that all access, nobody
would question me back there, and I would go and
(18:20):
be able to talk to the band, see them hanging out, partying,
probably drinking, doing things you shouldn't do, and I just
always thought of it as this magical place. Backstage is
like an amusement park when it comes to the rock
concert or any concert business, and really what it is,
it's an office, It is just people back there working.
(18:43):
You have people moving around, you have managers, you have
production people set up in offices, little makeshift offices, and
if you are back there and are not supposed to
be back there, somebody is going to notice. And just
because you have a backstage pass doesn't give you clearance
to do everything back there. And when it came to Trap,
(19:05):
they just had it all wrong. They had it this
superficial version of what backstage is, of what a touring
artist is like, and that really took me out of
that movie. And I felt the same way watching The
Idea of You, which was a movie starring Ann Hathaway,
where she dates this guy she met at Coachella. That
(19:26):
entire process of how meet and greets work, how you
would even run into somebody famous at Coachella, it just
always feels so hollywood and fake to me and so
unlike what it is in real life. Which you could
probably say that about a lot of depictions of things
in movies, but this is one that I just have
experience with, and especially when it comes to anything regarding
(19:49):
recording music. Don't even get me started on that or
in people on podcasts and radio and movies and they
don't wear headphones, and you're like, there's no way that
would even work. But for the sake of this list,
I'm going with how backstage is portrayed at concerts in
movies drives me up a wall. Backstage is not like that.
Sorry to let you down. If your dream is still
(20:10):
to go backstage. It's not that cool your favorite artists,
unless they are just a mad partier. It's probably just
hanging out back there, playing video games, doing vocal warmups,
drinking tea, and just waiting to go on stage and perform.
Nothing crazy going on back there, and it's not that
easy to get back there. Before I get to number one,
(20:31):
I did ask this question on social media. I wanted
to know what the movie crew has to say when
it comes to things that irritate you in movies. Valerie
m on X says, I hate it when the screen
on actor's phones are clearly not in call mode. This
is probably a movie with a lower budget and you
just throw a cell phone in somebody's hand as a prop.
(20:52):
So I get that one. I replied back to Valerie
and said along the same lines of this is whenever
in a movie you see somebody tech somebody that could
be their best friend, and they send that text message.
But when they show that on screen, it looks like
the first text message that they have sent to this person.
That is so unrealistic. You would have an entire conversation
(21:14):
before that if you knew this person. Somehow, it is
always the first message. And I know the technology exists
where you can take any kind of prop phone and
put anything on it, so again, it probably has to
do with somebody having a low budget. Michael on X
also said people eating meals in movies drives me crazy,
and I always pay attention to this because I like
(21:35):
paying attention to continuity errors, and that is a big
reason why people don't eat in movies. Because you're filming
multiple takes from different angles. In editing, you're going to
use the best take. And if somebody is eating a
hamburger and they are taking actual bites of that burger,
when you go back and try to cut it up,
(21:56):
you could be going from a full burger to half
a burger, to one byte left to an entire fool
burger again, so I get why, for the most part,
the actors don't take a bite unless it's a very
specific part of the movie plotline. But I would say,
don't even put the food in front of them, because
they're just kind of moving it around their plate. But
for the most part, that is because they wanted to
(22:18):
line up in post production. But again, when you do
see somebody there with a really good meal, or like
the Disney Channel original movies back in the day where
their mom would just on a random Tuesday make a
full fledged breakfast with orange juice and pancakes and waffles,
and then nobody eats the breakfast. They just walk out like, oh,
I'll just get a brand muffin, Like, well, she just
made you an entire breakfast on a Tuesday and you're
(22:40):
not gonna eat anything. What a kill for that? Growing up,
Wendy on Facebook said when nobody says goodbye when talking
on the phone, that always gets to me. I can
agree with that, but I did see a writer talking
about this on TikTok and saying that if they did
that every single time, it would just feel like wasted space,
especially when you're riding a script. If you put all
(23:02):
right goodbye in a script, it's gonna feel really weird
and unnecessary. So I think to us as a viewer,
it probably feels like that actually wouldn't happen that way,
but to keep the momentum moving along in a movie,
it just feels like something that you don't really need
in there. Along those same lines is whenever somebody meets
somebody and they're like, hell, let's go on a date.
(23:24):
How about next Tuesday? All right, and they don't really
exchange any kind of info, but yet they both show
up on that Tuesday for that date. Rebecca Martinez on
Facebook says, I love them, but the Fast and the
Furious franchise has some unbelievable scenes where they are pulling
safe through the middle of the street. Their cars are
completely destroying buildings and roads, but it looks like all
(23:44):
the pedestrians are safe and unharmed. This is a big
one for me too, especially not just in the Fast
and the Furious movies, where obviously you're gonna take some
strange You have all these cars on the side of
the roads getting hit. Insurance claim, insurance claim, insurance claim,
is what I see. But also, you know, they take
out some people in all those chases. Along those same lines.
(24:06):
Talk about this recently Superheroes when they're getting into these
crazy destructive battles in New York City. You imagine all
of that damage to the buildings alone, but you know
there were some people in those buildings, and they never
addressed that. It's a little bit irritating. I have a
few honorable mentions myself. These are very specific to me,
(24:27):
but I hate it when there are more than two
studio logos at the beginning of a movie. Two is enough,
like Universal Bad Robot, like all those at the beginning.
But I watched the movie recently where there were six
studio logos. The worst part of a movie is having
to sit through all those studio logos. If there is
two minutes of just all the production studios and film
(24:50):
houses associated with this movie, and I get it, you're
probably trying to give all those studios credit, create some
association with the viewer and their logo, and like, okay,
that studio makes good movies. But when you have two
and a half three minutes of these logos, especially on
streaming services where completion rate is so so important, and
(25:11):
you have somebody sitting there for two minutes where nothing happens,
it's gonna make me click off the thing. Another pet
peeve I have is really generic titles. Whenever something is
just the and another word, you gotta come up with
something better right now, especially when you can google a
movie like The Brick, and there are probably so many
movies called the Brick. Come up with something unique, because
(25:32):
just trying to find that one, then you have to
find what year it is, and it just seems so lazy.
Whenever a movie feels like it has a title that
was just a working title, a placeholder, and that's what
they decide to go with, that is a pet peeve
of mine. Along those same lines, whenever a movie uses
a bad font. I am really particular on fonts. I
want a big, bold font, something that has some creative
(25:53):
edge to it and looks like it was made specifically
for this. I'm talking fonts like the Indiana Jones font
that is so thinct, the Star Wars font, the Spider
Man font, the Twister font, even the et font. Give
that font some personality, try to create a logo, try
to create a brand here. Just don't hop on your
(26:14):
computer and use Times New Roman to make your movie font.
That is a pet peeve of mine. I think for
some people a pet peeve that I actually enjoy is
whenever they say the title of a movie in the
movie that is my favorite thing. I love it. I
can't get enough of that. But I feel like some
people think that's a little bit cheesy, a little bit forrest,
but for me, I love it. Those are the honorable mentions.
(26:35):
But at number one, this has to do with horror movies.
Oh and I was just watching a movie where this
happened again. I think the biggest offender of this right
now is Blumhouse. It has to do whenever the family
or the main character discovers the dark, hidden past and
they decide they have to go drive out and meet
the person associated with this. I hate this so much.
(26:58):
It is so textbook, so cliche, because all these creepy
things have been happening. They've either been dealing with a ghost,
some kind of paranormal thing inside their house and then
it gets revealed like, oh, yes, somebody died here like
one hundred years ago. This has been all these things
happening to these families. If you want to see and
find out the truth, you have to go see this
(27:19):
one person who lives two towns over, and then they
get to that person's house and that person's all creepy,
and they don't want to talk to them. This happens
time and time again. You've probably seen this in a movie.
And I'm not talking about any movie in particular right there,
but you've probably seen that movie. In the last three
years alone, I've seen that happen at least twice a
(27:39):
year in horror movies, and Blumhouse is the biggest offender
of that. Every third act in a Blumhouse movie is
exactly what I just described. They either find some kind
of document, some hidden box with all these things that like, oh,
suddenly this all makes sense. Hey, there's this person here.
I'm gonna go investigate. Oh what do you mean? Oh
(28:00):
I just I'm choking on my own rage here. It
just happens so often and kind of goes back to
one earlier bad writing, lazier writing, especially when it comes
to horror movies, where I feel the format, if you're
not really passionate about the movie you're making, you're going
to just use a template that is just placed in
front of you. Scary thing happens, person deals with it,
(28:23):
scary thing happens again, person gets a little bit more creepy.
Big scary thing happens Oh, the person has rattled a
little bit, and then another really big scary thing happens,
causing the real turmoil, causing this person, somebody to go missing,
somebody to be hurt. And that's why they decide I
need answers. I'm gonna go drive out two town's over
to Paducah and find this old lady living in a
(28:46):
basement who's gonna be hesitant to talk to me, but
she will have all the answers. That is my number one.
And I think it's also because how much I love
horror movies and how much I just have this desire
to be scared. When never that happens, I'm completely checked out.
I'm automatically deducting at least two points from your rating.
(29:08):
I watched the movie recently where that happened. I'm glad
I waited until it was streaming to watch it. I
won't say what it is, because if you do watch it,
you're gonna know, and you're gonna be irritated, and I
will not give them that satisfaction. But that is the list.
Come back and give my spoiler free review of Blink twice.
(29:28):
Let's get into it now. A spoiler free movie review
of Blink Twice, the directorial debut of Zoe Kravitz's daughter
to Lady Kravitz. She's engaged to the film star Channing Tatum.
I just love it when somebody who has been in
front of the camera for a very long time. My
favorite role of hers has been Catwoman and The Batman
with Robert Pattinson, decides get behind the camera. I think
(29:53):
the benefit of that is an actor who has worked
with different directors. They know what they like, they know
what they don't like, and therefore they know how to
get the performances out of the actors that they want
because they've been there before. We are in an age
now where I think we need new, fresh directors with
new ideas, making unique stories that aren't part of a franchise.
(30:16):
Though I do feel this movie is heavily inspired by
some recent horror movies, it doesn't have any real source material.
It is standing on its own. So what is this
movie about? Before I get into it, I will say
this is the only movie I can think of in
recent history that had a trigger warning at the beginning,
and I think it has to do with it ends
(30:38):
with us coming out a couple of weeks ago, that
movie not having a trigger warning, even though it deals
with domestic abuse, maybe some people would to go see
that not knowing that, maybe they didn't read the book.
So I think they made it a point to give
this movie a trigger warning because it does have some
sexual violence in here. So I feel like this movie
(30:59):
isn't for ever everybody, and even for me, who I've
never experienced anything like that. I sometimes like to know
when something is going to be that heavy, because sometimes
when it comes out of nowhere and you're not prepared
for it, especially if you are somebody who has dealt
with that, it can really hit you in a way
that you don't want to go into a theater and
experience with a bunch of strangers. So I'm glad they
(31:21):
put this trigger warning at the beginning. And here's what
the trigger warning said. Blink Twice is a psychological thriller
about the abuse of power. While this is a fictionalized movie,
it contains mature themes and depictions of violence, including sexual violence.
This may be upsetting and triggering to some viewers. So
what this movie is about. You have this tech billionaire
(31:42):
named Slater King played by Channing Tatum, and at the
beginning of the movie, he has been in some kind
of trouble. It doesn't really say flat out what happened,
but you kind of start to infer some things because
it starts with him giving an interview where he is apologizing.
He is saying he's sorry, he is saying is changing,
and he says in efforts to kind of make amends
and get himself better, he's going to therapy, and on
(32:05):
top of that, he has bought this island that he
just goes to, has no technology and just goes to therapy.
It's supposed to be him rebuilding and working on himself,
but he just does this interview where he's like, I'm
all good now, I'm getting better. I am sorry to everybody.
So you have to assume that he is apologizing for something,
(32:26):
and of course, given the trigger warning here, given the
fact that this movie is about the abuse of power,
you just kind of start to infer things, especially once
they get to the island. So how do we get
on this island? Well, you have a character named Frieda
who has really been down on her luck. She's been
working as a cocktail waitress and she finds a way
to meet Slater King by faking some credentials, gets into
(32:50):
a fancy party, and before you know it, she is
talking with him, she is hanging out with him, and
it is blowing her mind because she was just at
the beginning of the movie he was watching this interview
that he was doing apologizing, and now she is there
with him and he appears to have some interest in her.
And because she has been so down on her luck.
(33:10):
She has a best friend who they were just talking
at the beginning of the movie that I desperately need
a vacation. She is struggling making rent. They are living
in a rundown apartment, and then meet one of the
most famous billionaires who suddenly invites her to this island
with zero time to get anything ready. Hey, you want
to come with us? And you ask yourself, as the viewer,
(33:31):
if this was me, if I was in a really
tough point in my life. Nothing was going my way,
nobody was paying attention to me. I can't get invited
to parties, I can't even make rant. Suddenly this rich, famous, powerful,
good looking person is telling you you want to get
on my jet? Would you go do this? And I
(33:51):
feel like this is a commentary on a lot of
things the media. Thing that came to mind was Epstein Island.
Going to an island where anything happens. And you get
there and they immediately take away your cell phones. You
know something is gonna go down. But would you be
able to look the other way on all of those
red flags just because you need a vacation, you just
(34:13):
want to feel special. You go there with no belongings,
you don't have your cell phone, but suddenly they have
clothes for you to wear, they have all this nice food,
and it seems like paradise. How many red flags would
you ignore? There is something unsettling here, But obviously it's
a psychological thriller. You have to suspend belief and it
(34:34):
wouldn't be a movie if they would ignore all those
red flags. So she goes along with it. Channing Tatum
is on this island with a bunch of his other
tech friends. One of them is an actor who had
their TV show canceled, played by Haley Joe Osmit. This
movie has a really unique cast that somehow works together.
It is a very diverse group. You also have Christian Slater,
(34:58):
who I really wasn't to really enjoy in this movie.
Gina Davis, the one and only Gina Davis talking about
a league of their own. Herself has a pretty substantial
role in this movie. Adrea Rona, who I know primarily
now from Hitman with Glenn Powell. It took me a
second to realize that that was her. She showed me
(35:19):
an entirely different side from her that I already got
a glimpse of after watching her and hit Man. But again,
keeping this all spoiler free, I won't get into too
many of the plot points. All of this happens that
I'm talking about within the first thirty minutes. They get
to the island and slowly things start appearing a little
bit weird, and slowly it starts turning into a nightmare
(35:42):
where our main character is wondering are these things actually happening?
Is it all in my head? Because there are a
lot of just sinister undertones, a lot of symbolism, and
a lot of things that you, as the viewers, start
to put together. This movie was very reminiscent to me
of Get Out the Menu, which was another great psychological
(36:02):
thriller Nine Perfect Strangers of the series on Hulu. It's
almost all those things put together where you have a
group of people living on an island, a very resort
style group bonding, lots of drugs, lots of partying, all
while these really weird things are happening that everybody is
just choosing not to pay attention due And I think
(36:25):
that was the only hard thing for me to buy
into the whole pay no attention to that trope where
where something truly disturbing happens, and then you have the
main person, which in this case was Channing Tatum, just like,
pay no attention to that, don't look behind the curtain.
I don't really like that trope because it kind of
just pushes away any kind of credibility that the movie
(36:46):
starts to build because their only way of dealing with
it is telling you, as the viewer and also the
main character, is hey, pay no attention to that, when
I would be asking every single question. So really, the
only thing I felt this movie didn't do was build
that tension in the first and second act, to create
that suspense, to really have me on the edge of
my seat, which I feel other movies that this movie
(37:09):
was inspired by, like Get Out, do so well. They
give you those little pops that they feel terrifying in
the moment that they are happening, and they add to
this level of horror and suspense that keeps you really
engaged throughout the entire movie. And I wouldn't even call
it a slow burn. It just almost felt a little
bit like everybody just hanging out and you kind of
(37:31):
wondering is this even going anywhere? And with the themes
of this movie and in the genre that it is,
it is going to be one of those movies that
you were either going to love or hate. If you
have loved or hated the movies I've mentioned, like Get
Out the Menu or even Us from Jordan Peel, that
is going to really determine whether or not you enjoy
(37:51):
this movie. But I will say once this movie started
to pick up and it got to some more action,
that's where it really started to own itself. That's where
it really separated itself from all those movies I've been
mentioning and truly became its own movie. So I feel
like it was trying to have more of that Twilight
Zone vibe in the beginning and then almost turned into
(38:12):
an action or revenge in the style of Quentin Tarantino,
and that is where this movie really shined. And speaking
of Quentin Tarantino. There was a little pulp fiction easter
egg that I caught at the beginning of the movie.
If you remember Samuel L. Jackson's wallet in Pulp Fiction,
The Bad and Mempher wallet that he has, there was
a button on the main character's backpack that had that
(38:34):
same font, that same logo, in that same saying. So
I felt like that was a little bit of a
nod to that movie, maybe a little bit of a
nod to Quentin Tarantino. The other easter egg I noticed
was that Zoe Kravitz put her dad in the movie
at the beginning, where the main character is swiping through
TikTok or. I think maybe Instagram, you see the video
of Lenny Kravitz working out in full leather pants but
(38:57):
just crushing it. I love Lenny Krabt, and I forget
how many good songs he has. I forget that he
has such a talented daughter. So I really like that
she found a way to put him in the movie
without having a cheap cameo. I also thought it was
interesting that she didn't put herself in this movie, which
most directors do, especially in their debut, unless she was
hidden somewhere in there. I like the fact that she
(39:19):
didn't feel the need to put herself in her own movie.
The main character, Frida, played by Naomi Aki, I thought
was phenomenal. I really enjoyed the way she played the
character and how overall there was this really good arc
on her story. And although the movie took a little
while to get going, it's only an hour and thirty
six minutes and has a really gratifying end. And even
(39:41):
though there were some loose ends that I feel they
didn't quite tie up, I still really enjoyed it. For
Blink twice, I give it four out of five Polaroids.
It's time to head down to movie. Mike Trey lar Haar,
We're getting the band back together. A new movie. Here
(40:01):
stars Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, director Roberts the MICUs. Last
time they all worked together on a movie one of
the greatest movies in the history of film, Forrest Gump,
and this trailer looks really interesting. The thing about here
is it all takes place in a single room over
(40:24):
one hundred years and the camera does not move at all,
which is what a great concept for a movie. And
Roberts of MICUs had I would say his name weird
so apologize for mispronouncing his name. I just want to
say it's a MICUs. But he had quite the run
in the nineteen eighties nineteen nineties if you're not familiar
(40:45):
with his work. In nineteen eighty five, he is responsible
for Back to the Future, follow that up with Who
Framed Roger Rabbit? And then follow that up look at
its incredible run back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
To the Future Part two, Back to the Future Part three,
Death Becomes Her and in nineteen ninety four Forrest Gump.
(41:07):
He also did movies like Contact, What Lies Beneath, Castaway,
the Polar Express, and then kind of fell off there
in the two thousands with movies like Boe Wolf, the
Christmas Carol Movie in two thousand and nine. I think
the last good movie he probably did was back in
twenty twelve Flight. But now he is teaming up getting
the Band back together with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright
(41:29):
and what looks what I describe as a warm cinematic
hug from an old friend. So getting all these actors
and director back together, can they pull out a certified banger?
So let's take a look at the trailer for here Hey, Dad,
like didn't meet Margaret. It's nice to meet you, Margaret.
Nice to meet you, mister young Tom sure does fly
(41:51):
it on that.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (41:55):
Does you know? If you like, you could spend the
rest through their knife here. You could spend the rest
of my life here. This was our home. We lived here.
So Tom Hanks and Robin Wright play the central couple
in this movie. The really distracting thing that I could
(42:18):
not really wrap my head around just yet is the
deaging technology that they use in this movie, because what
you see in the trailer is you see the beginning
of time. You see just this piece of land where
like dinosaurs are roaming, very primitive people are walking around,
and in the process of all that, depending on how
fast this movie moves along, you see this house being
(42:38):
built from the ground up, and then the entire movie
is going to take place in this one shot, in
this one room. And I really want to know how
this movie was made. Did they only use one camera
and sit it on a tripod that was like bolted
into the ground, because if you move just a little bit,
it throws off the entire process of making this movie.
(42:59):
But I guess you could probably fixed that in post production.
That just seems like, oh man, if that is how
this whole thing is set up, seems like a recipe
for a disaster, So that part of it feels novel
to me. I don't think a movie like this has
ever been made. But I still am distracted by that
deaging technology. But I guess you want to use Tom
(43:20):
Hanks and Robin Wright throughout the majority of the movie
and showing them young, that's what you have to do.
But in those moments, to me, it doesn't feel like
either of those characters are there. It very much feels
like I'm watching an animated character of sorts, much like
I did and the other Roberts that make us movies,
Polar Express and even Beowulf. And what they actually use
(43:40):
in this movie is this new AI technology called metaphysic Live,
and that technology is able to facewat people, So you
can just map somebody's face and put it on another body.
So they probably have somebody sitting in for both of
these characters and just imposing their faces on younger bodies.
You can also dage people. I just don't think that
(44:01):
technology is quite there. I think so far, probably the
irishman has used it the best They did a pretty
good job de aging Robert Downey Junior as a young
Tony Stark. But I think for an entire full length movie,
I don't really buy into the use of this technology yet.
I think we're still maybe another five, seven, ten years
(44:21):
away from really getting this down, but it's probably so
expensive to use. So whenever it is a young Tom
Hanks on screen, I just have a real hard time
believing that that is him there, And it's not really
until you see an older Tom Hanks that I feel like, ah,
that is him, and I am all about the Tom
Hanks grandpa era, really just aging like fine wine into
(44:43):
those roles of him playing older characters. So you have
him playing a character named Richard Young. Robin Wright plays
Margaret Paul Bettany Blaize, Tom Hanks's dad in the film.
So it's gonna be about multiple families all about this
place they all inhabit, which happens to be here. It's
going to travel through different generations and really just focusing
(45:04):
on capturing the human experience in its purest form. So
I think the idea is really novel. Can Roberts of
Mechis pull this movie off? If you look at the
run just him and Tom Hanks had together Forrest Gump.
They won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture in one
of the Greatest Movie Years of all Time nineteen ninety four.
(45:27):
The Meccas also won for Best Director, Tom Hanks won
for Best Actors. So that really solidified their relationship and
their dominance in film, because when I think of Roberts
of Mecchas, I just think of film and I think
those are the really great directors where they have so
much versatility and have made so many great, essential movies
(45:47):
to our lives for so long that it's almost unbelievable
to think that one person made all of these movies.
You're telling me, the same person who was responsible for
one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time, Back
to the Future, also did Forrest Gump. They were really
only a handful of directors who I would put in
that category. They just feel like Cinema. Zamechas is one
(46:09):
of them. Obviously, Spielberg is one of them now, although
not everybody would agree with me. I think Tarantino is
also in that category, and Christopher Nolan is also easing
his way into that list for me. But they followed
that up together with Castaway in two thousand, which was
another critical and commercial success. Then into The Polar Express,
which again the mechas is always pushing technology, trying to
(46:33):
make novel movies, and that one was just, Oh, it
looks so bad. And I love The Polar Express. As
a kid, My favorite day out of the year was
around the holidays, where we were allowed to wear our pajamas.
We'd read The Polar Express, and that movie just kind
of bombed the idea of that for me. But the
last movie they did together in twenty twenty two, the
(46:54):
live action Pinocchio movie. The CGI in this movie was horrendous,
and the original Pinocchio is so good. Tom Hanks as
Jeppetto just did not work. So I feel in the
last decade plus, Zamgas has kind of fallen off. Like
I said earlier, I still believe the last good movie
he made was in twenty twelve Flight with Denzel Washington.
(47:17):
Denzel gave a fantastic performance in that movie, but since
then hasn't put out anything great. So maybe him dipping
back into the forest gump pool is him trying to
pull another hit out of his butt. The thing that
is always hard with any movie that takes place in
one location is runtime. This movie is only an hour
and forty four minutes, which is good because it is
(47:38):
so hard to keep somebody's attention for watching a movie
where the location doesn't change. But this one takes it
up a level because the camera angle doesn't change at all,
and that is a really bold thing to do. With
our attention spans getting so much shorter that we need
those quick cuts, we need things moving around, especially if
you're just in one location. That tells me that the
(48:00):
performances in this movie have to be magnificent. They have
to be a plus. It's gonna be hard for that
to come through with the use of all this AI
technology when it comes to the face swapping and the deaging.
So maybe the first thirty forty minutes of this movie
could feel like a chore to watch if it feels
like you're just watching a video game up there, Because
(48:21):
I have to say, what I'm seeing from Tom Hanks
in there doesn't look that much better than his character
looked in The Polar Express. So maybe this was also
a lower budget movie. But I'm hoping, I'm hoping that
he gives a really great performance that is gonna carry
this movie. What would have been amazing if they would
have had the boyhood approach to this movie and the
(48:42):
mechas would have been working on this since back in
the nineties and got together with the entire cast since
then in film a few scenes here and there and
you actually see them aging in real time. That would
have been a novel concept. But hey, we'll use AI
to fix it. That's the way of the world right now.
Here is coming out in theaters on November fourteenth.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
At that Bar was this week's edition of Movie by Framer.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Bar and that is gonna do it for another episode
here of the podcast. But before I go, I gotta
give my listener shout out of the week. You can
get a listener shout out by dming me on Instagram,
commenting on TikTok, replying on x You can always check
out individual movie reviews on YouTube, YouTube dot com, slash
(49:28):
Mike Distro. If you forget any of those avenues, just
check the episode notes always linked for you right there.
Also have a Facebook to email me Moviemike d at
gmail dot com. This week's listener shout Out of the
Week goes to Cynics seven eight six on TikTok, who
commented on my Alien Romulus review on TikTok and said,
(49:50):
I get that most of the movie isn't anything new,
so it's not that scary, but the last twenty minutes
was absolutely mortifying to me. And I've seen a lot
of people kind of give me some pushback on this opinion,
so appreciate that Cynics for that comment. That's why you're
this week's Listener shout out of the week. Some people
saying that I kind of misinterpreted the movie as a
(50:11):
horror movie, and I think, Siron, do you make a
good point here. It's depending on the things that you
find scary, because I still don't think that this was
a scary movie, but it had these images that are
a little bit disturbing, and if you have a weak's stomach,
they could kind of make you nauseous. So I feel
like the movie is unsettling in the sense that it's
(50:32):
a little bit gross at times and sometimes you're like, oh,
what is happening right now? But to me, that still
doesn't qualify it as a horror movie. I still feel
like it is in a different category, and I would
just put it as a good sci fi action movie.
So we could be debating this until the end of time,
but appreciate that. Thank you for listening, Thank you for
(50:53):
being a part of the movie crew. You don't mind,
tell a friend who likes movies encourage them to subscribe.
If you do that, tag me in an Instagram story,
I'll repost you and make you next week's listener shout
out of the week, and until next time, go out
and watch good movies and I will talk to you later.
Hello, and welcome back to Movie Mike's movie podcast. I
am your host Movie Mike. Today I want to share
with you my top ten movie pet peeves. I watched
a movie recently that irritated me so bad it inspired
this entire episode. I'm gonna let you know all of
the weird things that make me tick. In the movie review,
we'll be talking about Channing Tatum and Blink twice psychological
(00:22):
thriller of Swords. And in the trailer park we'll be
talking about Here, starring Tom Hanks, directed by Roberts Amakas.
They first worked together in Forrest Gump back in nineteen
ninety four and have had well some decent movies along
the way, but I feel like this one could be good.
So thank you for being here, Thank you for being subscribed.
Shout out to the Monday Morning movie crew. He Now,
let's talk movies.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
In a world where everyone and their mother has a podcast,
one man stands to infiltrate the ears of listeners like
never before in a movie podcast, A man with so
much movie knowledge, he's basically like a walking IMTV with
Glad from the Nashville Podcast Network this Movie Mike Movie Podcast.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
I went to see a movie recently and it irritated
me so bad that I put together a list of
my top ten movie pet peeves. These are common occurrences
and cliches that you'll see in movies time and time
again that makes me think, why are they still doing this?
And the thing was to come up with ten was
actually pretty easy. I could have probably done the top twenty,
(01:28):
but I also asked the question online, so we'll get
into some honorable mentions what you guys said. But I'm
already irritated as I'm starting this list, so I'm gonna
get right into it at number ten. As whenever a
movie uses CGI computer generated images for something so simple
that could easily be a practical effect, this drives me nuts.
(01:49):
And we are starting to see this so much, especially
in the last couple of years, where movies are trying
to cut corners save money where they can, and obviously
with the use of AI becoming a lot more prevalent
in art, even though people don't want that. At the
end of the day, a movie is a business, so
if you're spending a lot of money on an actor,
maybe you're gonna cut corners in other places. And you
(02:10):
think the audience isn't gonna know. I notice every single time.
The last main offender in this was I watched a
movie on Apple TV plus The Instigators with Casey Affleck
and Matt Damon. Something so simple as a banner was
computer generated graphics. I could not believe it. And it
looks so fake. You're telling me you couldn't get a
(02:33):
banner to make this scene look more real. You decided
to use your graphics department to make a fake banner,
And I get it. It's a shot that's maybe a
second two seconds long. To get an entire banner for
that maybe would seem a little bit wasteful. Or you
know what, don't put a banner in there at all
if you're going to make something that looks so terrible
(02:55):
and so obvious. The other movie recently that I had
an issue with that did this Twisters. I love Twisters.
I thought the special effects when it came to the
tornadoes and all of the chase scenes, all of that
look great. This really minor detail where they decided to
use CGI to make these windmills for a movie to
come out in twenty twenty four and have windmills that
(03:18):
looked like they were in a video game from two
thousand and seven. What are you doing here? This drives
me insane. You either don't put it in the movie
at all, or you find a practical effect, get a
prop in there. It always looks better on screen, it
always ages better too. So at number ten, whenever you
(03:38):
use CGI for such a minimal detail but make it
so obvious, get out of here. At number nine, blatant
product placement. The biggest offender of this right now is Netflix,
and I think it's their model of how they produce movies,
how they hire talent. To me, a lot of the times,
(03:59):
Netfli feels more like content that you would get from
a content creator like here on YouTube and TikTok and Instagram,
which halls that is fine. Movies are a product. But
when they start putting in just blatant product placement, it
drives me nuts. And it's not like product placement. It's
such a new thing. Hold on while, like, take a
(04:21):
sip of my high brew coffee cold brew. Hmm, that
is black and bold. Product placement isn't new to movies,
TV or podcasts, but there's a way to do it well.
The worst offender of this in recent history was whenever
they remade Cheese all that and flip the genders and
(04:41):
it was He's all that. That movie had fifteen one
five unique and so conspicuous product placements that that was
the main headline when that movie came out. That's a
movie that probably shouldn't have been made. You kind of
threw together some people they pulled off of social media,
(05:01):
throw them in a movie. And really the vehicle to
even make that movie was all the product placement, taking
any shred of art or credibility out of that movie
because it was just one big giant commercial. Here, I
am going to take a call on my motor roll
a cell phone. We need to go to the grocery
(05:23):
store for some insert product placement here. It was so blatant.
Whenever you have a beverage on screen with that label out,
somebody eating from a bag of chips with that label out,
with the bag in such pristine condition, you know that
is going to drive me crazy. Other movies can do
it well. If you associate a product with the character,
(05:47):
give it a little bit of personality, I think it
could work. Go back to et back in the day
Reese's pieces. I still think about when I think about
that movie, and I don't think about it as being
a commercial for Reese's pieces. I just think of it
of et loving Reese's pieces. So it is possible to
do it well. Another big offender in the last year
(06:09):
or so was Barbie. Oh my gosh, whenever that chase
scene happened, it was so apparent what car that they
were driving. It looked like a commercial for that car.
In that instance. In Twisters, it was a little bit
more subtle. Obviously, the truck in the original one was
(06:30):
such a big part of it, Bill's red truck, so
you can obviously bring that back. But if you pay
attention to every single vehicle they are driving in that
it is all product placement. But that movie did it
pretty well. Also, like Audi and Avengers just kind of fits.
Iron Man driving a Naudy still makes sense, and it's
not so blatant that you think, oh, they have to
get that in there. That one just makes sense. But
(06:53):
whenever the car looks a little bit too clean, they
focused on a little bit too many shots of having
it in action, and that's when it starts to feel
like a commercial to me. So there is a way
to do it well. Just don't make it so obvious again.
Let me take a drink here from my hybrew coffee.
All right. At number eight is the overuse of pop
(07:14):
culture to depict teenagers. This irritates me so much. Whenever
you're placing a movie, say in twenty twenty four, and
you have a kid looking up videos on TikTok. I
don't know why, but that image of a cell phone
on screen showing somebody swiping through something, somebody pulling up Instagram.
To me, it severely dates whatever movie you are doing.
(07:36):
And I think whenever a movie tries to be so
overly relevant, look, here are teenagers. This is what teenagers do.
They're making a TikTok dance. It just feels very cringe
to me, and it feels like an older filmmaker just
trying to appeal to gen z or even younger. I
hate it when movies do that because it just feels
(07:57):
so forced and crammed in there for characters to blatantly
reference things that are happening right now in pop culture.
It doesn't work, it doesn't age well, and for me,
I think it looks terrible in a movie. So anytime
somebody pulls up TikTok or Instagram. It immediately takes me
out of it and I get irritated. I have that
(08:18):
one at number eight. At number seven, non filled coffee
cups on screen. This usually happens in lower budget movies,
but when it does, it drives me insane because the
entire time two people are talking with their disposable coffee cup,
all I can pay attention to is the fact that
I know there is no liquid in there. There's no water, nothing.
(08:42):
Those things are as light as a feather, and I
understand why they probably do that. It's easier for somebody
to hold an empty cup. You obviously don't want to
put real coffee in there because then your hand will
be hot. But fill it up with something. Because I'm
not paying attention to what they are saying. You immediately
lose me on any dialogue happening in that situation, because
(09:03):
all I can pay attention to is the fact that
there is no coffee in that cup. It's not that
hard to do, guys, because I don't want to be
hyper fixated on the fact that that thing could blow
away with one quick little gust of wind. Fill up
the coffee cups. Have that one at number seven. At
number six, I have lazy writing, which is a little
(09:23):
bit generic. Oh look at that generic when talking about
something on the list lazy writing, But I'll get more specific.
Whenever you need to tie up some loose ends or
get somebody out of a situation. The laziest writing that
I hate is someone getting hit by a bus. I
hate this trope. Whenever you have your villain in a
(09:44):
movie who is just getting everything they want. All the
things are going against the protagonist, and how do you
get out of it? What do the writers decide to do.
Let's just have them get hit by a bus. If
somebody gets hit by a bus in the movie, you
might as well take that bus and take me out too,
because I'm not going to finish that movie. It is
(10:06):
such lazy writing. Along those same lines as whenever something
just happens at the end of it to all be
a dream, or why watch the movie? I wish I
was sleeping through that entire thing because nothing was gained.
Whenever it feels like the stakes don't matter, that is
lazy writing and I can't get behind it. So that's
why I have that one at number six getting into
(10:28):
the top five. Now this one, oh, it doesn't happen
that often, but when it does, you will see the
blood boiling underneath my brown skin. Whenever a movie get
split into two parts, get it out of here. There
are a couple of things that irritate me here as
(10:50):
a movie fan, a movie love or a movie enthusiast
the movie reviewer. I always want the best story in
any single movie I see. I don't want anything to
be left on the table. Give it to me all,
make me feel, make me cry, get me excited, throw
it all in that hour and a half, two hour,
(11:12):
three hours, whatever you're gonna give to me. I don't
want to feel at the end of a movie that
the story is incomplete. I get it. If you're doing
a sequel, you set it up. Difference here, whenever a
big movie comes out and they realize they're maybe running
towards the end of this franchise and they want to
(11:32):
get more out of us, they don't just want to
get us into the theater for this one. They want
us to come back. It's a way for them to
make more money off of a franchise. Biggest offenders of
this of all time. Harry Potter split the Last Movie
into two I get it. Huge franchise. You want to
extend that out as much as possible, but why do
you have to split it into two movies? Just make
(11:53):
one the better movie, because you leave me feeling like, oh,
I need to see that movie now. If you're going
to split it into two, have that next one come
out in a month. I don't want to wait that long.
Twilight did the same thing. I think Harry Potter kind
of set the stage for that. Hunger Games did it
as well. That one probably irritated me the most, but
out of all those, I was the biggest fan of
the Hunger Games. When it came to those series of
(12:16):
book adaptations Spider Man across the Spider Verse, that just
feels incomplete to me. I know a lot of people
rated that movie a perfect score. I couldn't do it
because as much as I loved all the action, Act one,
Act two, Act three great, but then I just kind
of left your hang in movie blue Balls. I don't
want that. That is why I get so irritated with this,
(12:39):
even with the mission and possible movies, when it's a
part one in part two, when you already had so
many movies, it makes it even more confusing because this
is already like the seventh movie in the franchise, but
then you're splitting the seventh movie into two. Why why
do that? Whenever movies get split into two? That is
a pet peep of mine. That one is at number four,
(13:00):
At number four, this one happens so often, and it's
really started to irritate me more. That's why it came
in in the top five. Whenever a hero in a movie,
in an action movie, in a superhero movie, they never
get hurt. They are in full on gunfights and they
never get hit. You mean to tell me that just
(13:21):
because he is the hero of the movie or she
is the hero of the movie, they're not gonna catch
a straight bullet. They're not gonna get beaten up. It
makes no sense, especially when there are situations where a
hero has to fight a group of people and everybody
in that group just takes their turn in fighting this person,
(13:43):
Like there's some unwritten rule that you can't all gang
up on them and beat them up at once. Why
do they do that? Like, oh no, that guy went down.
That guy went down, all right, now up, Oh I
went down too, Wait for the next guy. Dude's taking
out everybody in this lineup because you're all at hacking
him one by one, and then if you have a
big shootout, they don't get shot. They come out without
(14:05):
a scratch. Maybe by the end of the movie they
have a little cut underneath their eye, they put out
a little bandage on their head, but for the most part,
they're good. At most you maybe get him in like
a slang or something, but for some reason, unless it's
a John Wick movie. That's why that is my favorite
action franchise, because Keanu Reeves will get beaten up. He
(14:25):
will show John Wick at the very very rock bottom
trying to scrape back. That's why I like an action
hero who can take a punch, who doesn't have it
in this contract that he can't lose a fight, because
you need that. You need to be able to root
for something. It's hard to root for your hero when
you know they're gonna be fine by the end of
(14:45):
the movie, because the hero never dies. That is why
that irritates me so much. The last movie I saw
that was a big offender of this was Bad Boys.
For that movie has some fantastic action, and I get
that it's not supposed to be hype realistic, but come on,
you have two heroes here and they all turn out okay.
(15:06):
That's why it irritates me. That is at number four,
where our hero never gets hit, never gets hurt, and
also when the bad guys just decide to become decent
humans and attack them one by one at number three.
This one is very personal to me. I don't know
if anybody else is gonna relate to this one, but
it's a big one for me. Whenever a movie starts
(15:29):
so quietly, it's happened so often to me, and ME
like to get into a theater, and I'm really weird
about timing out things. And when I go to a
movie I don't want to have my snack until that
movie starts. I don't want to eat them in the previews.
As soon as that first frame hits that big screen,
(15:50):
that is when I give myself clearance to dive into
my snacks. And whenever that happens, and the first opening
scene is so quiet that I can't dip into my bag,
I can't crunch on my snacks. I hate quiet opening
scenes because that is prime snacking time for me. Alien
(16:11):
Romulus was completely silent. I thought they were messing with me,
because right when I went to have my snack, you
could hear the person next to you breathing. I don't
need to hear that. Give us a little music, give
us some of those swooshing movie sound effects that we
all love. I need something at the beginning of a
movie so I can have my snack. So all the
(16:32):
filmmakers out there, I know this is very selfish of me,
but please stop making the openings to movies so quiet.
That is what I have at number three, quiet opening
scenes at number two. This was the one that inspired
this entire list. Went to go see Trap. Thought it
was a pretty decent m Night Shamalan movie. The thing
(16:54):
I love about m Night is he does take his risks.
You're either gonna love it or you're gonna hate it.
But I think at the core of every movie he makes,
he at least says to himself what would be a
good movie. So I feel like every movie for him,
in my opinion, is a case by case basis. So
I would also encourage you, if you've enjoyed any of
(17:14):
his movies and want to give him another shot, give
Trap a try, probably when it comes out on streaming.
But the thing I hated about Trap that irritated me.
That is a major pet peeve of mine that it's
not the only offender to this. It is how backstage
at a concert is depicted. It's always really the entire
(17:36):
concert going experience in this movie is just so far
off what it is. I am somebody who has been
to a lot of backstages in my life, and growing
up as a kid, it was my dream to get backstage.
My favorite band growing up was Blink when eighty two,
and I would always see them post things about having
(17:58):
backstage passes or listening to the radio, thing you can
win backstage passes to your favorite concert. I always wanted
to go backstage at a Blink within eighty two concert
because I thought it was such a magical place. In
my head. All I had to do was get my
hands on a backstage pass. Having that all access, nobody
would question me back there, and I would go and
(18:20):
be able to talk to the band, see them hanging out, partying,
probably drinking, doing things you shouldn't do, and I just
always thought of it as this magical place. Backstage is
like an amusement park when it comes to the rock
concert or any concert business, and really what it is,
it's an office, It is just people back there working.
(18:43):
You have people moving around, you have managers, you have
production people set up in offices, little makeshift offices, and
if you are back there and are not supposed to
be back there, somebody is going to notice. And just
because you have a backstage pass doesn't give you clearance
to do everything back there. And when it came to Trap,
(19:05):
they just had it all wrong. They had it this
superficial version of what backstage is, of what a touring
artist is like, and that really took me out of
that movie. And I felt the same way watching The
Idea of You, which was a movie starring Ann Hathaway,
where she dates this guy she met at Coachella. That
(19:26):
entire process of how meet and greets work, how you
would even run into somebody famous at Coachella, it just
always feels so hollywood and fake to me and so
unlike what it is in real life. Which you could
probably say that about a lot of depictions of things
in movies, but this is one that I just have
experience with, and especially when it comes to anything regarding
(19:49):
recording music. Don't even get me started on that or
in people on podcasts and radio and movies and they
don't wear headphones, and you're like, there's no way that
would even work. But for the sake of this list,
I'm going with how backstage is portrayed at concerts in
movies drives me up a wall. Backstage is not like that.
Sorry to let you down. If your dream is still
(20:10):
to go backstage. It's not that cool your favorite artists,
unless they are just a mad partier. It's probably just
hanging out back there, playing video games, doing vocal warmups,
drinking tea, and just waiting to go on stage and perform.
Nothing crazy going on back there, and it's not that
easy to get back there. Before I get to number one,
(20:31):
I did ask this question on social media. I wanted
to know what the movie crew has to say when
it comes to things that irritate you in movies. Valerie
m on X says, I hate it when the screen
on actor's phones are clearly not in call mode. This
is probably a movie with a lower budget and you
just throw a cell phone in somebody's hand as a prop.
(20:52):
So I get that one. I replied back to Valerie
and said along the same lines of this is whenever
in a movie you see somebody tech somebody that could
be their best friend, and they send that text message.
But when they show that on screen, it looks like
the first text message that they have sent to this person.
That is so unrealistic. You would have an entire conversation
(21:14):
before that if you knew this person. Somehow, it is
always the first message. And I know the technology exists
where you can take any kind of prop phone and
put anything on it, so again, it probably has to
do with somebody having a low budget. Michael on X
also said people eating meals in movies drives me crazy,
and I always pay attention to this because I like
(21:35):
paying attention to continuity errors, and that is a big
reason why people don't eat in movies. Because you're filming
multiple takes from different angles. In editing, you're going to
use the best take. And if somebody is eating a
hamburger and they are taking actual bites of that burger,
when you go back and try to cut it up,
(21:56):
you could be going from a full burger to half
a burger, to one byte left to an entire fool
burger again, so I get why, for the most part,
the actors don't take a bite unless it's a very
specific part of the movie plotline. But I would say,
don't even put the food in front of them, because
they're just kind of moving it around their plate. But
for the most part, that is because they wanted to
(22:18):
line up in post production. But again, when you do
see somebody there with a really good meal, or like
the Disney Channel original movies back in the day where
their mom would just on a random Tuesday make a
full fledged breakfast with orange juice and pancakes and waffles,
and then nobody eats the breakfast. They just walk out like, oh,
I'll just get a brand muffin, Like, well, she just
made you an entire breakfast on a Tuesday and you're
(22:40):
not gonna eat anything. What a kill for that? Growing up,
Wendy on Facebook said when nobody says goodbye when talking
on the phone, that always gets to me. I can
agree with that, but I did see a writer talking
about this on TikTok and saying that if they did
that every single time, it would just feel like wasted space,
especially when you're riding a script. If you put all
(23:02):
right goodbye in a script, it's gonna feel really weird
and unnecessary. So I think to us as a viewer,
it probably feels like that actually wouldn't happen that way,
but to keep the momentum moving along in a movie,
it just feels like something that you don't really need
in there. Along those same lines is whenever somebody meets
somebody and they're like, hell, let's go on a date.
(23:24):
How about next Tuesday? All right, and they don't really
exchange any kind of info, but yet they both show
up on that Tuesday for that date. Rebecca Martinez on
Facebook says, I love them, but the Fast and the
Furious franchise has some unbelievable scenes where they are pulling
safe through the middle of the street. Their cars are
completely destroying buildings and roads, but it looks like all
(23:44):
the pedestrians are safe and unharmed. This is a big
one for me too, especially not just in the Fast
and the Furious movies, where obviously you're gonna take some
strange You have all these cars on the side of
the roads getting hit. Insurance claim, insurance claim, insurance claim,
is what I see. But also, you know, they take
out some people in all those chases. Along those same lines.
(24:06):
Talk about this recently Superheroes when they're getting into these
crazy destructive battles in New York City. You imagine all
of that damage to the buildings alone, but you know
there were some people in those buildings, and they never
addressed that. It's a little bit irritating. I have a
few honorable mentions myself. These are very specific to me,
(24:27):
but I hate it when there are more than two
studio logos at the beginning of a movie. Two is enough,
like Universal Bad Robot, like all those at the beginning.
But I watched the movie recently where there were six
studio logos. The worst part of a movie is having
to sit through all those studio logos. If there is
two minutes of just all the production studios and film
(24:50):
houses associated with this movie, and I get it, you're
probably trying to give all those studios credit, create some
association with the viewer and their logo, and like, okay,
that studio makes good movies. But when you have two
and a half three minutes of these logos, especially on
streaming services where completion rate is so so important, and
(25:11):
you have somebody sitting there for two minutes where nothing happens,
it's gonna make me click off the thing. Another pet
peeve I have is really generic titles. Whenever something is
just the and another word, you gotta come up with
something better right now, especially when you can google a
movie like The Brick, and there are probably so many
movies called the Brick. Come up with something unique, because
(25:32):
just trying to find that one, then you have to
find what year it is, and it just seems so lazy.
Whenever a movie feels like it has a title that
was just a working title, a placeholder, and that's what
they decide to go with, that is a pet peeve
of mine. Along those same lines, whenever a movie uses
a bad font. I am really particular on fonts. I
want a big, bold font, something that has some creative
(25:53):
edge to it and looks like it was made specifically
for this. I'm talking fonts like the Indiana Jones font
that is so thinct, the Star Wars font, the Spider
Man font, the Twister font, even the et font. Give
that font some personality, try to create a logo, try
to create a brand here. Just don't hop on your
(26:14):
computer and use Times New Roman to make your movie font.
That is a pet peeve of mine. I think for
some people a pet peeve that I actually enjoy is
whenever they say the title of a movie in the
movie that is my favorite thing. I love it. I
can't get enough of that. But I feel like some
people think that's a little bit cheesy, a little bit forrest,
but for me, I love it. Those are the honorable mentions.
(26:35):
But at number one, this has to do with horror movies.
Oh and I was just watching a movie where this
happened again. I think the biggest offender of this right
now is Blumhouse. It has to do whenever the family
or the main character discovers the dark, hidden past and
they decide they have to go drive out and meet
the person associated with this. I hate this so much.
(26:58):
It is so textbook, so cliche, because all these creepy
things have been happening. They've either been dealing with a ghost,
some kind of paranormal thing inside their house and then
it gets revealed like, oh, yes, somebody died here like
one hundred years ago. This has been all these things
happening to these families. If you want to see and
find out the truth, you have to go see this
(27:19):
one person who lives two towns over, and then they
get to that person's house and that person's all creepy,
and they don't want to talk to them. This happens
time and time again. You've probably seen this in a movie.
And I'm not talking about any movie in particular right there,
but you've probably seen that movie. In the last three
years alone, I've seen that happen at least twice a
(27:39):
year in horror movies, and Blumhouse is the biggest offender
of that. Every third act in a Blumhouse movie is
exactly what I just described. They either find some kind
of document, some hidden box with all these things that like, oh,
suddenly this all makes sense. Hey, there's this person here.
I'm gonna go investigate. Oh what do you mean? Oh
(28:00):
I just I'm choking on my own rage here. It
just happens so often and kind of goes back to
one earlier bad writing, lazier writing, especially when it comes
to horror movies, where I feel the format, if you're
not really passionate about the movie you're making, you're going
to just use a template that is just placed in
front of you. Scary thing happens, person deals with it,
(28:23):
scary thing happens again, person gets a little bit more creepy.
Big scary thing happens Oh, the person has rattled a
little bit, and then another really big scary thing happens,
causing the real turmoil, causing this person, somebody to go missing,
somebody to be hurt. And that's why they decide I
need answers. I'm gonna go drive out two town's over
to Paducah and find this old lady living in a
(28:46):
basement who's gonna be hesitant to talk to me, but
she will have all the answers. That is my number one.
And I think it's also because how much I love
horror movies and how much I just have this desire
to be scared. When never that happens, I'm completely checked out.
I'm automatically deducting at least two points from your rating.
(29:08):
I watched the movie recently where that happened. I'm glad
I waited until it was streaming to watch it. I
won't say what it is, because if you do watch it,
you're gonna know, and you're gonna be irritated, and I
will not give them that satisfaction. But that is the list.
Come back and give my spoiler free review of Blink twice.
(29:28):
Let's get into it now. A spoiler free movie review
of Blink Twice, the directorial debut of Zoe Kravitz's daughter
to Lady Kravitz. She's engaged to the film star Channing Tatum.
I just love it when somebody who has been in
front of the camera for a very long time. My
favorite role of hers has been Catwoman and The Batman
with Robert Pattinson, decides get behind the camera. I think
(29:53):
the benefit of that is an actor who has worked
with different directors. They know what they like, they know
what they don't like, and therefore they know how to
get the performances out of the actors that they want
because they've been there before. We are in an age
now where I think we need new, fresh directors with
new ideas, making unique stories that aren't part of a franchise.
(30:16):
Though I do feel this movie is heavily inspired by
some recent horror movies, it doesn't have any real source material.
It is standing on its own. So what is this
movie about? Before I get into it, I will say
this is the only movie I can think of in
recent history that had a trigger warning at the beginning,
and I think it has to do with it ends
(30:38):
with us coming out a couple of weeks ago, that
movie not having a trigger warning, even though it deals
with domestic abuse, maybe some people would to go see
that not knowing that, maybe they didn't read the book.
So I think they made it a point to give
this movie a trigger warning because it does have some
sexual violence in here. So I feel like this movie
(30:59):
isn't for ever everybody, and even for me, who I've
never experienced anything like that. I sometimes like to know
when something is going to be that heavy, because sometimes
when it comes out of nowhere and you're not prepared
for it, especially if you are somebody who has dealt
with that, it can really hit you in a way
that you don't want to go into a theater and
experience with a bunch of strangers. So I'm glad they
(31:21):
put this trigger warning at the beginning. And here's what
the trigger warning said. Blink Twice is a psychological thriller
about the abuse of power. While this is a fictionalized movie,
it contains mature themes and depictions of violence, including sexual violence.
This may be upsetting and triggering to some viewers. So
what this movie is about. You have this tech billionaire
(31:42):
named Slater King played by Channing Tatum, and at the
beginning of the movie, he has been in some kind
of trouble. It doesn't really say flat out what happened,
but you kind of start to infer some things because
it starts with him giving an interview where he is apologizing.
He is saying he's sorry, he is saying is changing,
and he says in efforts to kind of make amends
and get himself better, he's going to therapy, and on
(32:05):
top of that, he has bought this island that he
just goes to, has no technology and just goes to therapy.
It's supposed to be him rebuilding and working on himself,
but he just does this interview where he's like, I'm
all good now, I'm getting better. I am sorry to everybody.
So you have to assume that he is apologizing for something,
(32:26):
and of course, given the trigger warning here, given the
fact that this movie is about the abuse of power,
you just kind of start to infer things, especially once
they get to the island. So how do we get
on this island? Well, you have a character named Frieda
who has really been down on her luck. She's been
working as a cocktail waitress and she finds a way
to meet Slater King by faking some credentials, gets into
(32:50):
a fancy party, and before you know it, she is
talking with him, she is hanging out with him, and
it is blowing her mind because she was just at
the beginning of the movie he was watching this interview
that he was doing apologizing, and now she is there
with him and he appears to have some interest in her.
And because she has been so down on her luck.
(33:10):
She has a best friend who they were just talking
at the beginning of the movie that I desperately need
a vacation. She is struggling making rent. They are living
in a rundown apartment, and then meet one of the
most famous billionaires who suddenly invites her to this island
with zero time to get anything ready. Hey, you want
to come with us? And you ask yourself, as the viewer,
(33:31):
if this was me, if I was in a really
tough point in my life. Nothing was going my way,
nobody was paying attention to me. I can't get invited
to parties, I can't even make rant. Suddenly this rich, famous, powerful,
good looking person is telling you you want to get
on my jet? Would you go do this? And I
(33:51):
feel like this is a commentary on a lot of
things the media. Thing that came to mind was Epstein Island.
Going to an island where anything happens. And you get
there and they immediately take away your cell phones. You
know something is gonna go down. But would you be
able to look the other way on all of those
red flags just because you need a vacation, you just
(34:13):
want to feel special. You go there with no belongings,
you don't have your cell phone, but suddenly they have
clothes for you to wear, they have all this nice food,
and it seems like paradise. How many red flags would
you ignore? There is something unsettling here, But obviously it's
a psychological thriller. You have to suspend belief and it
(34:34):
wouldn't be a movie if they would ignore all those
red flags. So she goes along with it. Channing Tatum
is on this island with a bunch of his other
tech friends. One of them is an actor who had
their TV show canceled, played by Haley Joe Osmit. This
movie has a really unique cast that somehow works together.
It is a very diverse group. You also have Christian Slater,
(34:58):
who I really wasn't to really enjoy in this movie.
Gina Davis, the one and only Gina Davis talking about
a league of their own. Herself has a pretty substantial
role in this movie. Adrea Rona, who I know primarily
now from Hitman with Glenn Powell. It took me a
second to realize that that was her. She showed me
(35:19):
an entirely different side from her that I already got
a glimpse of after watching her and hit Man. But again,
keeping this all spoiler free, I won't get into too
many of the plot points. All of this happens that
I'm talking about within the first thirty minutes. They get
to the island and slowly things start appearing a little
bit weird, and slowly it starts turning into a nightmare
(35:42):
where our main character is wondering are these things actually happening?
Is it all in my head? Because there are a
lot of just sinister undertones, a lot of symbolism, and
a lot of things that you, as the viewers, start
to put together. This movie was very reminiscent to me
of Get Out the Menu, which was another great psychological
(36:02):
thriller Nine Perfect Strangers of the series on Hulu. It's
almost all those things put together where you have a
group of people living on an island, a very resort
style group bonding, lots of drugs, lots of partying, all
while these really weird things are happening that everybody is
just choosing not to pay attention due And I think
(36:25):
that was the only hard thing for me to buy
into the whole pay no attention to that trope where
where something truly disturbing happens, and then you have the
main person, which in this case was Channing Tatum, just like,
pay no attention to that, don't look behind the curtain.
I don't really like that trope because it kind of
just pushes away any kind of credibility that the movie
(36:46):
starts to build because their only way of dealing with
it is telling you, as the viewer and also the
main character, is hey, pay no attention to that, when
I would be asking every single question. So really, the
only thing I felt this movie didn't do was build
that tension in the first and second act, to create
that suspense, to really have me on the edge of
my seat, which I feel other movies that this movie
(37:09):
was inspired by, like Get Out, do so well. They
give you those little pops that they feel terrifying in
the moment that they are happening, and they add to
this level of horror and suspense that keeps you really
engaged throughout the entire movie. And I wouldn't even call
it a slow burn. It just almost felt a little
bit like everybody just hanging out and you kind of
(37:31):
wondering is this even going anywhere? And with the themes
of this movie and in the genre that it is,
it is going to be one of those movies that
you were either going to love or hate. If you
have loved or hated the movies I've mentioned, like Get
Out the Menu or even Us from Jordan Peel, that
is going to really determine whether or not you enjoy
(37:51):
this movie. But I will say once this movie started
to pick up and it got to some more action,
that's where it really started to own itself. That's where
it really separated itself from all those movies I've been
mentioning and truly became its own movie. So I feel
like it was trying to have more of that Twilight
Zone vibe in the beginning and then almost turned into
(38:12):
an action or revenge in the style of Quentin Tarantino,
and that is where this movie really shined. And speaking
of Quentin Tarantino. There was a little pulp fiction easter
egg that I caught at the beginning of the movie.
If you remember Samuel L. Jackson's wallet in Pulp Fiction,
The Bad and Mempher wallet that he has, there was
a button on the main character's backpack that had that
(38:34):
same font, that same logo, in that same saying. So
I felt like that was a little bit of a
nod to that movie, maybe a little bit of a
nod to Quentin Tarantino. The other easter egg I noticed
was that Zoe Kravitz put her dad in the movie
at the beginning, where the main character is swiping through
TikTok or. I think maybe Instagram, you see the video
of Lenny Kravitz working out in full leather pants but
(38:57):
just crushing it. I love Lenny Krabt, and I forget
how many good songs he has. I forget that he
has such a talented daughter. So I really like that
she found a way to put him in the movie
without having a cheap cameo. I also thought it was
interesting that she didn't put herself in this movie, which
most directors do, especially in their debut, unless she was
hidden somewhere in there. I like the fact that she
(39:19):
didn't feel the need to put herself in her own movie.
The main character, Frida, played by Naomi Aki, I thought
was phenomenal. I really enjoyed the way she played the
character and how overall there was this really good arc
on her story. And although the movie took a little
while to get going, it's only an hour and thirty
six minutes and has a really gratifying end. And even
(39:41):
though there were some loose ends that I feel they
didn't quite tie up, I still really enjoyed it. For
Blink twice, I give it four out of five Polaroids.
It's time to head down to movie. Mike Trey lar Haar,
We're getting the band back together. A new movie. Here
(40:01):
stars Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, director Roberts the MICUs. Last
time they all worked together on a movie one of
the greatest movies in the history of film, Forrest Gump,
and this trailer looks really interesting. The thing about here
is it all takes place in a single room over
(40:24):
one hundred years and the camera does not move at all,
which is what a great concept for a movie. And
Roberts of MICUs had I would say his name weird
so apologize for mispronouncing his name. I just want to
say it's a MICUs. But he had quite the run
in the nineteen eighties nineteen nineties if you're not familiar
(40:45):
with his work. In nineteen eighty five, he is responsible
for Back to the Future, follow that up with Who
Framed Roger Rabbit? And then follow that up look at
its incredible run back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
To the Future Part two, Back to the Future Part three,
Death Becomes Her and in nineteen ninety four Forrest Gump.
(41:07):
He also did movies like Contact, What Lies Beneath, Castaway,
the Polar Express, and then kind of fell off there
in the two thousands with movies like Boe Wolf, the
Christmas Carol Movie in two thousand and nine. I think
the last good movie he probably did was back in
twenty twelve Flight. But now he is teaming up getting
the Band back together with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright
(41:29):
and what looks what I describe as a warm cinematic
hug from an old friend. So getting all these actors
and director back together, can they pull out a certified banger?
So let's take a look at the trailer for here Hey, Dad,
like didn't meet Margaret. It's nice to meet you, Margaret.
Nice to meet you, mister young Tom sure does fly
(41:51):
it on that.
Speaker 2 (41:54):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (41:55):
Does you know? If you like, you could spend the
rest through their knife here. You could spend the rest
of my life here. This was our home. We lived here.
So Tom Hanks and Robin Wright play the central couple
in this movie. The really distracting thing that I could
(42:18):
not really wrap my head around just yet is the
deaging technology that they use in this movie, because what
you see in the trailer is you see the beginning
of time. You see just this piece of land where
like dinosaurs are roaming, very primitive people are walking around,
and in the process of all that, depending on how
fast this movie moves along, you see this house being
(42:38):
built from the ground up, and then the entire movie
is going to take place in this one shot, in
this one room. And I really want to know how
this movie was made. Did they only use one camera
and sit it on a tripod that was like bolted
into the ground, because if you move just a little bit,
it throws off the entire process of making this movie.
(42:59):
But I guess you could probably fixed that in post production.
That just seems like, oh man, if that is how
this whole thing is set up, seems like a recipe
for a disaster, So that part of it feels novel
to me. I don't think a movie like this has
ever been made. But I still am distracted by that
deaging technology. But I guess you want to use Tom
(43:20):
Hanks and Robin Wright throughout the majority of the movie
and showing them young, that's what you have to do.
But in those moments, to me, it doesn't feel like
either of those characters are there. It very much feels
like I'm watching an animated character of sorts, much like
I did and the other Roberts that make us movies,
Polar Express and even Beowulf. And what they actually use
(43:40):
in this movie is this new AI technology called metaphysic Live,
and that technology is able to facewat people, So you
can just map somebody's face and put it on another body.
So they probably have somebody sitting in for both of
these characters and just imposing their faces on younger bodies.
You can also dage people. I just don't think that
(44:01):
technology is quite there. I think so far, probably the
irishman has used it the best They did a pretty
good job de aging Robert Downey Junior as a young
Tony Stark. But I think for an entire full length movie,
I don't really buy into the use of this technology yet.
I think we're still maybe another five, seven, ten years
(44:21):
away from really getting this down, but it's probably so
expensive to use. So whenever it is a young Tom
Hanks on screen, I just have a real hard time
believing that that is him there, And it's not really
until you see an older Tom Hanks that I feel like, ah,
that is him, and I am all about the Tom
Hanks grandpa era, really just aging like fine wine into
(44:43):
those roles of him playing older characters. So you have
him playing a character named Richard Young. Robin Wright plays
Margaret Paul Bettany Blaize, Tom Hanks's dad in the film.
So it's gonna be about multiple families all about this
place they all inhabit, which happens to be here. It's
going to travel through different generations and really just focusing
(45:04):
on capturing the human experience in its purest form. So
I think the idea is really novel. Can Roberts of
Mechis pull this movie off? If you look at the
run just him and Tom Hanks had together Forrest Gump.
They won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture in one
of the Greatest Movie Years of all Time nineteen ninety four.
(45:27):
The Meccas also won for Best Director, Tom Hanks won
for Best Actors. So that really solidified their relationship and
their dominance in film, because when I think of Roberts
of Mecchas, I just think of film and I think
those are the really great directors where they have so
much versatility and have made so many great, essential movies
(45:47):
to our lives for so long that it's almost unbelievable
to think that one person made all of these movies.
You're telling me, the same person who was responsible for
one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time, Back
to the Future, also did Forrest Gump. They were really
only a handful of directors who I would put in
that category. They just feel like Cinema. Zamechas is one
(46:09):
of them. Obviously, Spielberg is one of them now, although
not everybody would agree with me. I think Tarantino is
also in that category, and Christopher Nolan is also easing
his way into that list for me. But they followed
that up together with Castaway in two thousand, which was
another critical and commercial success. Then into The Polar Express,
which again the mechas is always pushing technology, trying to
(46:33):
make novel movies, and that one was just, Oh, it
looks so bad. And I love The Polar Express. As
a kid, My favorite day out of the year was
around the holidays, where we were allowed to wear our pajamas.
We'd read The Polar Express, and that movie just kind
of bombed the idea of that for me. But the
last movie they did together in twenty twenty two, the
(46:54):
live action Pinocchio movie. The CGI in this movie was horrendous,
and the original Pinocchio is so good. Tom Hanks as
Jeppetto just did not work. So I feel in the
last decade plus, Zamgas has kind of fallen off. Like
I said earlier, I still believe the last good movie
he made was in twenty twelve Flight with Denzel Washington.
(47:17):
Denzel gave a fantastic performance in that movie, but since
then hasn't put out anything great. So maybe him dipping
back into the forest gump pool is him trying to
pull another hit out of his butt. The thing that
is always hard with any movie that takes place in
one location is runtime. This movie is only an hour
and forty four minutes, which is good because it is
(47:38):
so hard to keep somebody's attention for watching a movie
where the location doesn't change. But this one takes it
up a level because the camera angle doesn't change at all,
and that is a really bold thing to do. With
our attention spans getting so much shorter that we need
those quick cuts, we need things moving around, especially if
you're just in one location. That tells me that the
(48:00):
performances in this movie have to be magnificent. They have
to be a plus. It's gonna be hard for that
to come through with the use of all this AI
technology when it comes to the face swapping and the deaging.
So maybe the first thirty forty minutes of this movie
could feel like a chore to watch if it feels
like you're just watching a video game up there, Because
(48:21):
I have to say, what I'm seeing from Tom Hanks
in there doesn't look that much better than his character
looked in The Polar Express. So maybe this was also
a lower budget movie. But I'm hoping, I'm hoping that
he gives a really great performance that is gonna carry
this movie. What would have been amazing if they would
have had the boyhood approach to this movie and the
(48:42):
mechas would have been working on this since back in
the nineties and got together with the entire cast since
then in film a few scenes here and there and
you actually see them aging in real time. That would
have been a novel concept. But hey, we'll use AI
to fix it. That's the way of the world right now.
Here is coming out in theaters on November fourteenth.
Speaker 2 (49:04):
At that Bar was this week's edition of Movie by Framer.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Bar and that is gonna do it for another episode
here of the podcast. But before I go, I gotta
give my listener shout out of the week. You can
get a listener shout out by dming me on Instagram,
commenting on TikTok, replying on x You can always check
out individual movie reviews on YouTube, YouTube dot com, slash
(49:28):
Mike Distro. If you forget any of those avenues, just
check the episode notes always linked for you right there.
Also have a Facebook to email me Moviemike d at
gmail dot com. This week's listener shout Out of the
Week goes to Cynics seven eight six on TikTok, who
commented on my Alien Romulus review on TikTok and said,
(49:50):
I get that most of the movie isn't anything new,
so it's not that scary, but the last twenty minutes
was absolutely mortifying to me. And I've seen a lot
of people kind of give me some pushback on this opinion,
so appreciate that Cynics for that comment. That's why you're
this week's Listener shout out of the week. Some people
saying that I kind of misinterpreted the movie as a
(50:11):
horror movie, and I think, Siron, do you make a
good point here. It's depending on the things that you
find scary, because I still don't think that this was
a scary movie, but it had these images that are
a little bit disturbing, and if you have a weak's stomach,
they could kind of make you nauseous. So I feel
like the movie is unsettling in the sense that it's
(50:32):
a little bit gross at times and sometimes you're like, oh,
what is happening right now? But to me, that still
doesn't qualify it as a horror movie. I still feel
like it is in a different category, and I would
just put it as a good sci fi action movie.
So we could be debating this until the end of time,
but appreciate that. Thank you for listening, Thank you for
(50:53):
being a part of the movie crew. You don't mind,
tell a friend who likes movies encourage them to subscribe.
If you do that, tag me in an Instagram story,
I'll repost you and make you next week's listener shout
out of the week, and until next time, go out
and watch good movies and I will talk to you later.
Host
Mike D
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.