All Episodes

April 29, 2024 49 mins

Ben Stiller was recently talking  about how he wasn’t expecting to get the amount of hate and bad reviews for Zoolander 2. Mike discusses why it and other legacy sequels have flopped and shares his list of sequels that should not have been made. In the Movie Review, Mike talks about Challengers starring Zendaya which finds her in a tennis love triangle. Mike gives his thoughts on Zendaya’s stardom, the steamy scene and did it live up to the hype? In the Trailer Park, Mike breaks down Transformers One trailer which is the first-ever fully CG-animated Transformers movie. Mike is sad after realizing this movie was not made for him despite being excited for it. 

 

New Episodes Every Monday!

Watch on YouTube: @MikeDeestro

Follow Mike on TikTok: @mikedeestro

Follow Mike on Instagram: @mikedeestro

Follow Mike on Threads: @mikedeestro

Follow Mike on Twitter: @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 a list of sequels that should not exist
because Ben Stiller was out recently saying he didn't expect
all the backlash and hate that he ended up getting
for Zoolander two, to which I say, really in the
movie review, we'll be talking about Zendaya in Challengers. Was

(00:21):
it as steamy as the trailer led on? And in
the trailer park? Why I am sad after watching the
new Transformers one trailer, even though the story looks pretty interesting.
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 (00:37):
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 IMTB with
glasses from the Nashville Podcast Network. This is Movie Mike's movie.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Ben Steller was blindsided by the hate and the fact
that Zulander too flop. He said, whenever it came out,
he was convinced it was going to be a hit,
and when it flopped it blindsided him. First, Zulander came
out back in two thousand and one, and when you
break down legacy comedies, oh that one's I was making

(01:21):
a list of my top fifty favorite comedy. I don't
even think Zulander would be on that list, maybe if
it was specific to the two thousands or cult comedy hits.
But he said this on the David Ducoveny Fail Better
podcast and quote, I thought everybody wanted this, which I
think that is the part of a statement that makes
me see that sometimes even though to me, movies like

(01:45):
this seem like cash grabs, but whenever you have somebody
like Ben Steller heavily involved, I feel like that carries
a little bit more way to it. And I assume
having a movie like that in his filmography, that is
probably a question. He was asked a lot of interviews,
when are you going to make another Zoolander? When are
you going to make another Zoolander? So much so that
you start to believe, like he said that people wanted this,

(02:08):
and then he said when the movie came out and
it flopped, it really hurt him, but it allowed him
to go and do other things and focus on things
that he kind of had in the back burner, one
of those being Severance, which came out on Apple TV
Plus and dominated and people loved that show waiting for
season two right now. So it kind of goes to
show you how good things can come out of bad things.

(02:32):
I think if you do make a sequel to a comedy,
it should come out within five years of that original one. Otherwise,
once you start making comedies in different decades, that is
where you set yourself up for failure. And why do
I think that is is because comedy is a reflection
of that time period. And when you start making movies

(02:53):
in the two thousands and then wait another decade to
follow up with that, the humor is not going to
match up. What was funny in two thousand and one
with Zoolander is not going to be funny in twenty sixteen.
So I think that is a recipe for disaster. And
also when it comes to comedies, more so than any
other genre, they are very nostalgic, and what we are

(03:14):
really asking for when we want a sequel to a
comedy movie, we don't really want it. We just want
to be transported into a time where we found that
movie funny. I would love to go back to two
thousand and one being ten years old, all the things
I found hilarious. Then that is really what I want.
I've never seen a sequel come out fifteen years after

(03:36):
that is better than the original one. Can it still
have its moments? Can it still be fun and quirky
like Bill and Teded coming out with one in twenty twenty. Yes,
that can happen, but it's never listened to me. What
I say is it's never going to match that original
one because what we want is that nostalgic factor. With
that being said, I have come up with the list
of sequels that should have never been made. Some of

(03:58):
these are outright offence because not only are they bad movies,
but they tarnished the legacy of the original movie. So
for this list, it is all sequels that I believe
have not only been worse than its predecessor, but should
be burned into the ground because they were either cash
grabs or nostalgia base. Starting with the worst offender, the

(04:21):
movie I bring up so much because I hate it
with a burning passion. It is Dumb and Dumber two,
and that is to that came out back in twenty fourteen,
and this is where I learned. What I've just been
talking about is as much as you want to see
your favorite actors come back and portray the characters that
made you laugh, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are incredible together,

(04:44):
and this was one. I was on that bandwagon. I
was on Reddit, following every storyline, with every script update.
I was all in on the Dumb and Dumber sequel. Now,
technically it's not a direct sequel because they came out
with the prequel Dumb and Dumber or in two thousand
and three, which is even worse because they aren't even
associated with that movie. That's another one that should have

(05:06):
been made. But this is the sequel to Dumb and
Dumber that came out in ninety four and I remember
seeing that first image of them back in the Harry
and Lloyd costumes and being so excited. And I've never
been so disappointed in a sequel because none of the
jokes landed, and all the movie was was poking fun

(05:27):
and reminding audiences of what they did in the original one,
and that is not what we want. It's hard to
do a sequel because you need to advance what you
did in the first one and not just remind people
why that one was great and dumb and Dumber two
is the biggest offender of that Along those same lines,
will stick to Jim carrey movies Son of the Mask

(05:49):
in two thousand and five with Jamie Kennedy. Oh, this
movie does tarnish the legacy of the Mask, which is
also a nineteen ninety four movie when Jim Carrey was
really on his run of dominance. Son of the Mask
was nothing more than a cash grab because in the
first one it's so quirky and funny, but what it
does well is all of the little side gags, and

(06:12):
really you need Jim Carrey in that mask to make
it funny. Son of the Mask is one of the
most brutal experiences I've ever had watching a movie, even
in two thousand and five, where you could throw anything
on the screen and my fourteen year old self would
probably laugh at it. But this one was straight awful,

(06:32):
mostly due to the mask looking like a rubbery playto
piece of crap. So that is my second big offender.
My third biggest offender is one that came out pretty recently,
Hocus Pocus two is a movie that I just hate
that it exists because hocus Pocus won. The original has

(06:53):
been one of my go to Halloween movies since I
can remember. It was always Halloween time for me. When ever,
I'd go to school and we'd throw on hocus Pocus
Great Memories with this movie, I'd watch it every single year,
And to me, this movie is perfect. It should not
have been touched and right now, Disney isn't a weird
place of movies that come out on Disney Plus and

(07:15):
movies that come out in theaters, And what they have
really done is kind of replaced their straight to VHS
straight to DVD movies and made those Disney Plus exclusives.
Hocus Pocus two fell victim to that. The movie just
looks terrible. It looks like it had zero budget. You
bring back all the originals and completely waste them to

(07:36):
make a movie that looks like a Saturday Morning special.
And Disney has done this a lot, so much so
that I almost don't count some of these sequels that
they have done because they are pretty bad. It really
shows me how much Disney has changed and has suffered
at the box office as of late, because they used
to be so dominant that they would only put out

(07:57):
their biggest movies in theaters, and all the sequels would
go straight to VHS, which they also crushed in because
they would sell so many of them, so they would
create classics, and then they would have cheaply made sequels
with less money spent on animation. You wouldn't have the
same caliber of voice actors. You would rarely have people

(08:17):
from the original ones be on these sequels. But all
these movies I would consider should not have been remade.
And I bet they regret some of these because they
could have made sequels now instead of remaking the original ones,
which we are seeing an influx up still. But Lion
King two, Cinderella to Little Mermaid two, Hunchback of Notre
Dame to move on to Bamby two, some of these

(08:38):
you probably forgot even happened because they were really just
a way for them to sell more DVDs and Bhs's
the only one of these movies that I liked, and
I remember going to the flea market in Dallas to
get a copy of this. Out of all these movies,
this is the only one I was excited for as
a kid, and it was Lion King one and a half,

(08:58):
which is a great movie. I haven't watch it in
a very long time. I'm not sure if it's still
available on Disney Plus, but it was Lion King from
the perspective of Timone and Poomba, which as a kid,
that is what I love the most from Lion King
because Poomba and Timone are hilarious. They were the best
part of that movie. They were the comedic relief. So

(09:19):
what you had in Lion King one and a half
was their storyline from before they meet Simba, because they
really don't encounter him until about the start of the
second act of the movie, so you get to see
all of their life before that, and then you get
to see their perspective from the final battle, which is great.
So all the other ones should not have happened. Just

(09:40):
give me Lion King one and a half. Another more
recent offender is Aquaman two, which is one of the
worst superhero movies I've ever seen. I was quite honestly
surprised how big of a hit Aquaman one was. And
this one also came at a weird time of Warner
Brothers kind of closing the chapter on this DC era,

(10:01):
and I feel like this movie was dead on arrival.
It had no real chance of success. But even that
being said, I was not prepared for the annihilation on
my eyes from watching such a weak performance from Jason Momoa,
but also the worst visual effects in the last decade
when it comes to superhero movies, I thought we were
past making superhero movies this bad at a time where

(10:24):
people are starting to be fatigued with these movies. Really
good to put this one out. They should have shelled
this movie. So I think a lot of people right
now would say any sequel to any superhero movie is
one that should not be made. Even though there's so
much hype around the latest Deadpool and Wolverine trailer in
that franchise, I actually think Deadpool two is a pretty

(10:45):
weak spot, and I think it brings up a great
point of in Deadpool. The first one was so successful
because it was made on a fifty eight million dollar
budget and went on to make seven hundred and eighty
two million dollars at the box office. So then you
get the sequel of Deadpool two, which I feel is
really forgettable because the charm of the first one was

(11:05):
due to the fact that they were working with a
smaller budget. A lot of the comedy comes from that.
In the final act, whenever Deadpool is going to that
final battle, they were running out of money. They had
to cut a big amount of the budget. That's why
he forgets his guns, which leads to a much funnier
sequence of events to close out that movie and became
quintessential Deadpool. Then in the second one, they went from

(11:27):
fifty eight million dollars to one hundred and ten million
dollar budget, but it didn't really change much because you
have more room to breathe with a visual aspect, and
it did not really translate to much more box office
success because I think it only made four or five
more million dollars worldwide, even though they spent so much
more money on it. But in this case, sometimes I

(11:48):
believe a bad sequel is the bridge to a third
batter movie. So I think Deadpool two I could probably
do without. But now we get Deadpool and Wolverine, which
looks fantastic in the new trailer, which they aren't calling
this movie Deadpool three. That is what the director said.
He said, this is kind of its own thing. And
I remember giving the suit so much grief whenever we

(12:10):
had that first look at it because I thought it
looked like a motocross suit and didn't really feel like
the comic book accurate version that I was promised, And
even though the colors are pretty similar, I just felt
like that is not what I had in my head.
I wanted him to look like the iconic nineties Wolverine

(12:30):
that we all fell in love with back in the day.
But after watching the trailer and seeing that they ripped
off the sleeves, I have to say it does look
a lot better. I still wish he had the pointy boots,
and I hope at some point he has the mask on,
even if it's a quick joke. I think with that
I would be satisfied. We have had some looks at
the posters. Maybe we are gonna get Wolverine in a mask.

(12:54):
I also think we're gonna get that Hulk cameo in
Dead Pull and Wolverine. There's been a lot of little
Easter eggs put out some new posters wherever you see
the reflection of Deadpool and the reflection of Wolverine in
each of their blades, which I believe is in homage
to an iconic, Incredible Hulk comic book cover. Wherever you
see Wolverine with this blades out and you see the

(13:16):
Hulk's reflection in the blades, one of the best comic
book covers of all time. Also, in the first trailer
we had from Deadpool and Wolverine, you see Wolverine sitting
at a table in an all white tux, which is
another reference to a comic book cover with him and
the Incredible Hulk. So I'm hoping we get that cameo.
But anyway, all that to say, sometimes you need a

(13:37):
bad sequel to get to a better third movie. Another
instance in that is The Hangover two, which I don't
think that movie needed to be made. It is the
exact same thing as the first one, but in Bangkok.
And I remember being disappointed with The Hangover two in
twenty eleven because I love The Hangover Part one, one

(13:57):
of my favorite comedies of all time, And even though
I didn't love the sequel, they should have done without that.
I actually really enjoy The Hangover three because it goes
back to Vegas, because it goes back to what made
the first one great. But the only reason I love
that one is because we have that bad sequel in
the middle. You couldn't have gone from the Hangover one

(14:18):
to the Hangover three, because even more so than the
jump from one to two, it would have felt like
the exact same movie. So you get that part three
and it almost feels, even though they weren't that far apart,
kind of nostalgic for going back and reliving their days
of going to Vegas and having more and reliving some
moments from that Vegas trip. I know, on paper, it's
probably not a great movie and probably would go on

(14:41):
the list of trilogies that should not exist, but for me,
I like it. I also think sometimes you can make
a movie that is so iconic that studios feel pressure
to make a sequel, movies like Jaws. You got a
sequel to it in nineteen seventy eight. You didn't have
Steven Spielberg directing this movie, and it paled in comparison

(15:02):
to that original one. Didn't have any great characters, didn't
have any excitement, and somehow, with a better budget, managed
to make Jaws look worse. And at one point, whenever
they finally kill Jaws again, for some reason, they made
Jaws roar. Here's that moment. If you haven't seen this movie,

(15:30):
smile your this whole movie was chaotic, but for some
reason Jaws roaring like a lion and then flashing back
to the first one, the movie made no sense. So
not only is it hard to recapture what makes a
comedy great, it's also hard to recapture what makes a
thriller or horror movie great. Another case of this is

(15:52):
Speed to Cruise Control, which came out in nineteen ninety seven.
So in the first one, they can't slow down on
the bus because there's a bomb on board and if
they slow down, it's going to explode and kill everybody
in it. They took that exact same concept and moved
it to a boat. Who thought audiences wanted to see

(16:12):
Speed again, but on a boat terrible. I also wanted
to include on this list sequels you probably forgot even happened.
In some of these cases, people are still demanding sequels
to these movies, even though they already came out. I'm
talking about Mean Girls two came out in twenty eleven.
Nobody made a peep about this, even with the musical

(16:34):
version coming out earlier this year. I feel most people
wanted it to be a direct sequel to the Lindsay
Lohan version, not knowing we actually got this over fifteen
years ago. Or movies like The Sandlot two, which came
out in two thousand and five, and not only did
they do this movie, but they followed it up in
two thousand and seven with The Sandlot three. So again,

(16:55):
you can create a movie that is so iconic that
there will always be a demand there, but just because
you could doesn't mean you should in the cases of
these movies. We also fairly recently got a Christmas story Christmas,
which I feel also applies to this list, But before
that we did have a direct sequel to a Christmas story.

(17:16):
We got a Christmas Story too, which again is a
case where I feel like people forgot that that movie
happened in the middle of that. There are also some
cases of sequels that I appreciated as a kid but
now are a chore and a pain to watch, one
of those being Mortal Kombat Annihilation. I loved the Mortal
Kombat movies in the nineties as a kid, and I

(17:37):
remember when Annihilation came out. I thought it was a
pretty good movie because I loved the first one so much,
played the video game so much, and I was a
big fan of the character Raptor who just looks like
sub Zero and Scorpion, but his suit is green. I
thought that was so cool. I don't know why green
was such a cool color in the nineties. It also
reminds me of the Green Ranger from Mighty morphin Power Rangers.

(18:00):
But I thought that movie was good as a kid.
Rewatching it as an adult, it is so so painful.
And they are making another Mortal Kombat now, which is
a sequel to the one that came out in twenty
twenty one, which I actually thought was pretty good because
I think for these movies to work, they have to
feel less like the video game and more like their
own thing. So put them inside the world, but don't

(18:23):
try to do what they did back in the nineties.
They have officially wrapped on Mortal Kombat too, so hopefully
soon we get some kind of a release date of
when that movie is coming. Also, as a kid, I
remember loving an extremely goofy movie, which is a sequel
to one of my favorite Disney movies of all time,
the Goofy Movie, And this was really just cashing in
on a time in the late nineties early two thousands

(18:45):
where extreme sports were everything. Back in the Tony Hawk days.
Matt Hoffman and you could turn on the TV, primarily
on Disney Channel and see Extreme Sports because they were
so huge back then. So a lot of movies came
out year towards kids to get them excited about this.
So not the sequel I wanted to see, because it

(19:05):
was really just Max going to college and then competing
in a version of the X Games and Goofy comes in,
So yeah, that one not so good. I also remember
in twenty fifteen, Joe Dirt two came out, which is
another instance of trying to make a comedy happen again
ten plus years later. I also wanted to include sequels.
I'm glad were never made along those same lines because

(19:27):
we got movies like Joe Dirt to Zoolander two. But
sometimes it's okay to know when not to make a sequel.
On this list I have, I'm glad they never made
Super Bad Too, Wedding Crashers Too, which has been rumored
a lot with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson back. I
don't think this movie should be made. It's not going
to be what we wanted to be. Even movies like

(19:49):
Old School, two Bridesmaids two Knocked up to forty year
old version two. They would just not do well. So
every now and then we'll see these headlines come out,
we'll see actors be interviewed, are you gonna make another one?
Calm down with those questions, because we don't need them
in our lives. Although I do think a Pineapple Express
two would actually work because it's not so much about

(20:11):
the comedy in Pineapple Express. It's all the action, the
stoner comedy at its core. But it has so much
fighting and car chase scenes and people shooting each other
that I think a movie like that would actually work.
But I don't really see James Franco doing a whole
lot right now. We do have some sequels that are
already announced that I'm hesitant about. Beatlejuice two, which we're

(20:33):
getting out later this year. That last trailer looked promising,
but it also has all of the recipe of disaster
to not live up to the original movie from Disney.
We're also getting Inside Out too later this year. Pretty
soon we're getting Zootopia two, which that's a perfect animated
movie that I don't think needs another one. That one

(20:54):
really hits me in the fields. So did Inside Out.
But the thing with Inside Out. I think there's actually
a story to be told there because it's Riley getting
older and having these new emotions move in. I actually
think that could be pretty powerful for kids. Later this year,
we're also getting Gladiator to the thing that worries me
about that movie is I feel like it's a sequel
unlike all these other ones that no one really asks for.

(21:17):
There's not a passionate Gladiator fan base, but maybe Ridley
Scott just had a vision for this movie. At least
the cast looks pretty promising in that movie. And a
sequel I've been waiting for is a Detective Pikachu too.
It's the only live action Pokemon movie that we've ever got.
Not that they completely nailed it with that movie, but

(21:37):
it's the closest we've ever been as lifelong Pokemon fans
of having something that truly checks all the boxes. And
I feel like, now, with visual effects getting better, maybe
they could go back and retool some of the character
designs to make them a little bit more accurate to
the cartoon and the card game. And finally, to wrap
up here, I did see Ryan Gosling talking about why

(21:58):
his movie with Russell the nice Guys never got a sequel,
he said, because when it came out, it went up
against Angry Birds and got destroyed at the box office
in its opening weekend. And The Nice Guys this movie
came out back in twenty sixteen, and I feel is
one that really gets overlooked. I think the title really
doesn't help it a lot. The trailer didn't really do

(22:21):
the movie justice. But it is a fun crime movie
and one that I could see translate into a franchise,
much like John Wick did, even like the Knives Out movies,
where you could keep the duo together with Ryan Gosling
and Russell Crowe and just swap out the mystery. I mean,
if we keep getting all these death on the Nile movies,
why couldn't we get a franchise. It has that slapstick

(22:42):
humor but also some really solid action. So if you've
never seen The Nice Guys, and if you're like me,
really on a Ryan Gosling kick who I thought he
crushed on Saturday Night Live promoting The Fall Guy, which
is coming out this weekend, which I believe was their
most successful Saturday Night Live episode since twenty twenty one.
This is definitely one of his movies that went under

(23:03):
the radar. So that is the list. We'll come back.
I'll give my thoughts on Challengers and in the trailer
park why I'm sad after watching The Transformers one trailer.
Let's get into it now, a spoiler free review of Challengers,
one of my most anticipated movies of the year. That
trailer alone, I instantly pre ordered my tickets, even though

(23:24):
it was months before I could even pre order my tickets.
I'm a huge Zendea fan, which I'll get into later,
But what I knew about this movie going into it
given from the trailer. She plays a tennis star on
the rise, but her career gets cut short due to
an injury. You get a little glimpse of that in
the trailer, and I am somebody who struggles with any
kind of injury involving any kind of bone, and just

(23:47):
from that glimpse they gave us in the trailer, I
was anticipating that moment throughout the movie and I didn't
want to see it. But her career gets cut short.
Her name is Tashi, and then there are these two
other guys who kind of parallel her career around the
same age. One guy's name Patrick, who is very confident,
has a lot of raw talent, just kind of is
trying to play tennis as a way to make money

(24:09):
because it's all he is good at. His friend is
Art who they've been childhood friends since they were pre teenagers,
and they are both on the rise in the tennis scene.
They are starting to win, starting to make a name
from themselves, and they encounters in Deya's character about to
go to college, and they see her at this event
where she is crushing it. She has a very unique
playing style, and they approach her because she is one

(24:32):
beautiful and two because she is really good at tennis,
and they want to hang out with her. And that
is about where you get to in the trailer. We've
all seen a little bit of the scene of them
laying on the bed, and I won't get into all that.
It is an R rated movie, not as hard of
an R as the trailer leads it on to be,
which I'll get into a little bit more later. But
given the nature of this review, if there are younger

(24:53):
ears around, we are going to get into some of
that later in the review, so just be aware of that.
But again, the movie is rated R. So what this
movie does It may not come across in the trailer,
but it jumps around in time a lot, because it
starts out that she ends up with one of the
guys he is trying to win a Grand Slam title

(25:14):
and he is struggling. He is in a rut, he
is not able to win, so she is trying to
build up his confidence and signs him up for one
of these Challengers events, which that is what the movie
is named after. They are a lower tier competition in
the tennis world where somebody at the caliber that Art
has now achieved, being a pro, being famous, having all
the money, doesn't really compete in but because he is struggling,

(25:37):
she coaches him, because she's now his coach, to go
win at one of these events, crush the competition, therefore
giving you the confidence you need to go win another championship.
Art goes to this competition where his former best friend
Patrick is there, who is had the complete opposite trajectory
in his career. So that is about the first ten

(25:59):
to fifteen minutes of the movie, and then the movie
starts going back in time to fill you in on
all the gaps of how they got here, why all
of their relationships are so complicated why there's so much
tension between all of them. And I actually enjoyed the
jump around in time because it creates this level of
tension and anticipation to peel back the layers. It's a

(26:22):
really hard thing to do because you have to pay
attention while watching the movie, because at times even I
got a little bit confused on exactly what was happening
in real time and what was a flashback. But they
do a pretty good job at changing their wardrobe, changing
their hairstyle, and making a visual effort to let you

(26:43):
know that this is something happening in the past too,
this is something happening now. Cinematography in this movie is beautiful.
It really creates that sense of realism and something you
don't really see a whole lot of, or at least
a whole lot of emphasis on, is the beauty of
the clobe, which is one of the most classic things
in cinema. I'm ready for my closeup, and sometimes it's

(27:06):
just kind of a throwaway, just put the camera on
your biggest hector at any given time. But the way
they use the close ups in this movie was so powerful.
Because it's such an intimate movie, it has a relatively
low cast, but to make a movie where it's so
focused on these strong leads, giving them all a time
to shine, not just from their performance, but also from

(27:29):
putting the camera right in their face and showcasing them.
There were some really beautifully framed shots that created that
level of intimacy that you get. And what is the
most dangerous of geometric shapes, the love triangle, and that
is what this movie did. It created this level of
at times uncomfortableness and overall just had your eyes glued

(27:50):
to the scene for the moment we were all waiting
for and all promised in the trailer, the scene delivered,
and from the response in the crowd in the theater
while watching this movie, it was unlike anything I had experienced.
Now we'll get into a little bit about the R
rated nature of the movie while we're talking about it,
because not as hard of an R as I thought

(28:11):
it was going to be. The trailer makes it seem
and the rating makes it seem like it's going to
be just nudity all the time, or at least a
very big graphic scene. Not really the case. What was
most surprising is there was some male nudity that was
received with some pretty big gasps in our theater, which
is something I'm a little bit more used to now

(28:32):
because I've watched a lot of HBO, a lot of
Max Originals. Hulu is even dipping into the male nudity
where it's become a little bit more normal to me.
But I realized in that moment that there hasn't been
a movie on this scale with a wiener of that scale.
I just haven't really put those two things together. And

(28:53):
me being in a theater seat, being in public and
witnessing male nudity and seeing how other people react to it,
I thought it waskind of funny. There was some gasps,
but again not the nudity I was expecting in this movie.
Male junk and male butt. So know that going into
watching it without a doubt, hands down, the best thing
about Challengers is Zendaya's performance, who is now a dominant

(29:17):
force in Hollywood. She is right now in two major
movies currently in theaters, and without a doubt, I can
say that Zendia has the best range in Hollywood out
of any actor to go from a movie like Challengers
from coming out of the MCU, even before that being
a Disney kid, which is so hard to get out

(29:37):
of that mentality of acting on the Disney show where
everything is so over emphasized, you have to be so wacky.
She is the best actor to ever come out of
Disney and now prove that she is a dominant force,
not only winning Emmys for Euphoria, but now somebody please
give her an oscar, which I hope this movie will
be in contention for Best Picture. She deserves the Best

(30:00):
Actress nomination because she is so good in this movie
at being so convincing at all different types of characters.
She can do a sci fi role like Dune and
crush it and completely sell that, and then do a
movie like Challengers where you're not even completely one hundred
percent rooting for her. To have that kind of range

(30:20):
is amazing to me. And then go do a show
like Euphoria where you are rooting for her even though
she isn't the best character in that show, and then
to do MJ where you completely love her both on
screen and on screen with Tom Holland. She is the
real deal. If you are not on the Zendia train
by now, you have to be after watching Challengers, because

(30:42):
what I see in her performances is what I feel
is the closest to the Golden Age in Hollywood, and
that is the vibe that this movie gave me. It
had that classic cinema feel that I had been wanting
to see in twenty twenty four. It really had all
of those great classic elements, the sharp dialogue, the fantastic wardrobe,

(31:03):
and the big leads really selling the story because if
you look at a movie like this, it's fairly simple.
And it's not that there hasn't been a movie about
a love triangle before. You could argue that Past Lives
just did it last year. It's not that there hasn't
been a tennis movie like this, but there hasn't been
one that has really moved me to my core like this,

(31:24):
because it had all of these elements of watching a
classic movie, but it felt so refreshed. And I love
that all the early scenes and flashbacks took place in
the two thousands, so it almost feels like we're going
back to a period so long ago. But then you
see all the logos, like the old school taco bell logo,
which there was a lot of cleverly placed product placement

(31:45):
in this movie. You even have references to tennis stars
of the two thousands, Andy Roddick being one of them,
whose face was displayed pretty prominently in this movie, which
also has a connection to the film because all the
actors at about three months of pre operation with tennis
coach Brad Gilbert, who has taught those like Andy Roddick,
and three months may not sound like a lot of

(32:06):
time to achieve the level that the characters in the
movie have of being the best in their field, but
it shows you that there is a parallel between athletes
and actors wanting to be the best and putting in
the hours and days and weeks and months to train.
To really sell this movie because throughout it I fully
believed it. I think what also helps them is, of

(32:29):
course they had stunt doubles to sell some of the
outer shots, but also again, the cinematography really helped sell
all of those scenes. There are moments where it goes
and puts you into that first person perspective, like you
are playing. You see the ball like it's coming right
at you, You see the tennis like you're holding it
in your hand. I thought those shots were so great

(32:49):
and it looked better than just slapping a go pro
on somebody's head, which some other films have done to
give you that same perspective, but you can kind of
tell the quality in that it almost looks like it's
to like a seven to twenty p version. In this one,
it was full cinematic quality in that first person perspective,
and I thought that was such a great touch to
really put you in that action and also created a

(33:12):
level of pacing of it's that back and forth in tennis,
which this movie also emphasizes that of showing the crowd
going from left to right and showing how fast paced
it is. The cinematography and storytelling was right there. Being
fast paced during those moments such a nice detail. It
made me want to go out and buy a tennis
racket and go hit the courts, but I'm probably not

(33:33):
gonna do that. Best I could do is go like
buy a Wii from the pawn shop and play we
Tennis again. Because I used to dominate it that this
movie did so many things right, I would argue it
really didn't do anything wrong. And most movies I've seen
so far this year, I've reached a level where I'm
ready for it to be over. This was a movie
I did not want to end and the two plus

(33:54):
hour runtime just evaporated away. And the only thing I
would hold against it, I feel is maybe unfair, but
it was a really hard story to wrap up with
all of these loose ends, all the things that unfold
in the third act, which I feel maybe went on
a little bit too long for a movie that really

(34:15):
sold me in the first and second act. It almost
lost its footing a bit towards the end because it
feels like there could have been so many alternate endings
to this movie, and with all the alternate endings that
I could have seen, in my mind, I think they
picked the wrong one. But I think that's just a
personal taste for me. And sometimes it's movies ending in

(34:35):
a way that you don't want them to end as
the audience. If everything was wrapped up in a nice
little package, then all would be well. And would we
really have achieved anything? Would we really have learned anything?
Would we really have grown? And sometimes in life you
don't get the things you want, and this was a
case where I don't think I got what I want

(34:55):
out of my characters. But afterwards, I've been thinking about
it more and more in thinking how man to make
a movie where there's not necessarily a protagonist and antagonist
that you're rooting for or rooting against. You could make
an argument for either one of these characters because the

(35:16):
relationship is so just wrapped and intertwined and so messy. Again,
the most dangerous geometric shape is the triangle, because it
just all goes around and around and around, and you
could say one person was good and one person was bad,
but that person could say that person was good and
that person was bad, and the outcome is going to

(35:37):
be a bummer for everybody. And that is what I
learned after watching Challengers. So in my eyes, it is
almost a perfect movie, but still nonetheless a movie I
feel everybody should watch in a sea of remakes and
franchises and superhero movies, and to see it do fairly
well at the box office this week, and here the
universe gives you a movie that is free of all

(35:59):
those things. Maybe it's the R rating that's like, oh,
I don't want to touch that one, but it's just
inspiring for me to see a movie like this that
feels so refreshing still be able to get made and
with the movie star as big as Endea. For Challengers,
I give it four point five out of five tennis rackets.

Speaker 2 (36:22):
It's time to head down to movie Mike trailer Paul, we.

Speaker 1 (36:26):
Have our first look at Transformers one, and after watching this,
I realize, well, a couple of things. One, I'm getting
older to all the things that I loved as a
kid are now being repackage, repurposed to fit a younger generation.
And for the first time, when a trailer came out

(36:49):
over something I was excited about, I realized how much
this is not for me anymore. And I think in
my life, I've just been used to things that I've
been passionate about, things that I've loved over the years,
whether it be superheroes, things from comic books, sci fi
in general, a lot of it has been geared towards me.

(37:10):
And now it is seeing things that I grew up
with and I love. And I still think this should
be made for me because I am a fan of
the original. And now after watching this, I realize that
it's time to move on from some things and be
okay with that. Not everything is going to be for you.
And I'm thirty two years old, about to turn thirty

(37:31):
three this summer. I realize, Man, I might need to
sit this one out. What this movie is about. It
is a prequel to all of the Transformers movie It's
a never before told story. Chris Hemsworth and Brian Tyree
Henry star in this movie, who I think make a
great pairing. Both fantastic actors. Brian Tyree Henry has done

(37:52):
a lot of great work at voice acting as well.
He is also in Spider Man Into and across the
Spider Verse. Chris Hemsworth, he's stile or he's getting more
into doing movies outside of Marvel. Hasn't really found his
footing yet. Could it be voice acting. We'll figure that
out by the end of this trailer park. But the
story here is a young Optimist Prime, which is who

(38:13):
Chris Hemsworth is playing, and before he was known as
Optimist Prime, he was called Orian Pax. That is his
name in this movie. Brian Tyree Henry plays a character
named D fourteen who ends up becoming Optimist primes rival Megatron.
So this is their origin story of them being friends
before they became enemies, which I think is a great premise.

(38:34):
Other cast members include Scarlett Johansson, Keegan Michael Key, who
is and everything he plays Mumblebee. In this movie, you
also have John Hamm and Laurence Fishburn. The movie is
coming out later this year on September twentieth. Before I
get into more how I feel about this movie and
deciding it's time for me to move on a little bit,
here's just a little bit of the Transformers one trailer.

(38:54):
It's time to show him we are more than meets
the eye. Can transform now free. Uh guys, that's not good.
We've got these powers for a reason. Let's use them.

(39:17):
We stand here together.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
As one.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
A lot of things to break down from this trailer.
It is the first fully ever CG animated Transformers movie.
They have made Transformers animated movies in the past. We
also know the iconic franchise from Michael Bay, but Transformers
started out as a Saturday morning cartoon back in the eighties,
and that is what originally the demographic was for for kids,

(39:49):
more specifically to sell toys to kids. And that is
how I felt after watching this trailer, because upon first
seeing the animation here, I was completely under whelm of
how flat it looked. And the thing I love about
Transformers is how bright and vibrant all the characters are.
That is rarely what stands out in the animated show.

(40:10):
Also in the comic books, it's what makes them stand
out on shelves at toy stores, and it's also what
translated so well into the live action movies. They were
so big and glossy and shiny and slick looking Optimist
Prime and the red and the Blue Bumblebee in that
beautiful yellow. All the characters were so distinct, and in

(40:32):
the first minute of this trailer they all look completely
washed out, and it just felt like a very poor
use of animation style to make me want to see
an animated Transformers movie. But more importantly, I feel that
kids would think it looks a little bit lame. I
was hoping it would follow in the footsteps of movies

(40:54):
like into the Spider Verse, where the animated teenage Mutant
Indus Turtles movie they came out last year that blended
too and three D animation to give it a unique
look that makes it visually interesting. Now, the story here
I think could kind of match it, because it's portraying
our characters here as worker bots before they get their power,

(41:15):
so before they are able to transform, they're just regular workers,
and then somehow they get their powers and they are
able to go into battle mode. But overall, there is
nothing visually stunning that sticks out to me in this
trailer that makes me think I need to see this
on the big screen, and really nothing that I can
see that is going to translate into a great new

(41:36):
toy line, which is really the primary reason that this
movie is being made. And I can't be mad at
that because that is what the original series was back
in the day. All throughout history and anything targeted towards kids,
that has been the ultimate goal is to make a commercial,
essentially to sell a product of toys. So I just

(41:57):
think if that is the goal they are trying to
they are really lacking in the visuals department here, which
is a bit of a bummer because the voice acting
seems to be pretty right on and the story here
seems to be something that I am interested in. I
would love to see Optimist Prime and Megatron being friends,

(42:17):
seeing them actually be on the same side fighting against
the villain, and then maybe towards the end of the
movie or in a sequel, you start to see the
downfall of their relationship and you see Megatron go bad.
I just think there's more potential here to not only
appeal to the very very young kids, who is the
key demographic here, but also appealed to all those that

(42:40):
were fans of the show in the eighties or even
the reboots of the movies in the two thousands and
early twenty tens, because I think other franchises have succeeded
in that teenage mutant Ninja Turtles did that perfectly, and
it was cool to see people who are now parents
with kids take their kids to go enjoy something that
they enjoy and it's a whole bonding experience. And also

(43:02):
the fact that retro is so in right now with
TV shows like X Men ninety seven completely bringing everybody together.
I think they also missed a boat on that of
not having some animation style or even allusions to that
original animated series to give this a little bit more
color and make it just more interesting to watch. Other
than that, you're really just banking on all the A

(43:25):
list stars you have voicing the characters, which, hey, is
Carlo Johansson in an animated movie, I'm right there with you.
But aside from that, there's really nothing that sticks out
to me about this trailer. And also, where is the
uproar due to the fact that Peter Cullen is not
voicing Optimist Prime. Remember when everybody was so upset or

(43:45):
fake upset whenever Chris Evans came out as the voice
of Buzz light Year, and everybody wanted Tim Allen, even
though those two movies were supposed to be separate from
the Toy Story franchise line. Everybody was so upset about that,
and that was it's so difficult to explain that that
movie ended up not doing so well. But Peter Colin
has been the voice of Optimist Prime. He is the

(44:08):
only one I could hear doing it, and I think
he actually turned down the role because a producer said
that Peter Colin was always the go to first choice
to play Optimist Prime. But I have to believe that
he turned it down because he actually consulted Chris Hemsworth
on the voice. And you can hear it there in
that trailer clip that I played, because at times it

(44:30):
just sounds like Chris Hemsworth doing his normal voice, and
then other times you do hear him emulating Peter Colin
with that very deep Optimist Prime voice. So I'm curious
to see how that carries up throughout the entire movie.
I'm not one to jump on bashing people because they
don't sound like what I expected it to. It was
the whole same ordeal whenever Chris Pratt was announced as

(44:53):
a voice of Mario and we got that trailer and
everybody's like, he doesn't even sound like Mario. So I'm
at least lad that that conversation isn't happening right now.
But it also just shows you that people just get
outraged about the weirdest things, and then once everybody starts
jumping on it, it becomes a thing. I was just
surprised that nobody was sticking up for Peter Colin, who

(45:14):
is a voice acting legend. He also did e Or
in Winnie the Pooh. He was also the person doing
all the voice effects for Predator back in nineteen eighty seven,
and his voice has tickled all the parts of my
body while going to see his movies in theaters. You
also have Keegan Michael Key playing Bumblebee in this movie.

(45:34):
He must have the best agent in Hollywood, him and
Jesse Plemons, because Keegan Michael Key is almost without a doubt,
going to be in any animated movie you go see.
I saw him in Migration. He was also in the
Super Mario Brothers movie, and then in live action, he
was also in Wonka. I think it's because he has
such a great already animated voice and he really gets

(45:58):
into voice acting, so it's not so much that he
has to change his voice to fit all of these characters.
He just has so much just natural talent in his
voice that I feel like he is always the go
to at the top of the list. Between him and Aquafina,
there are no more voice acting roles to go around.
So after watching this trailer, I gotta remember that the

(46:20):
reason it has such a comedic tone is because it's
for kids, and that this movie is really not going
to be for me as much as I would want
it to. And I'm not opposed to going to see
kids movies. Quite honestly, I enjoy them because they have
that nostalgia feel they take me back to my childhood.
I was just hoping it was going to have a

(46:40):
little bit more of a niche to it, which was
what they were teasing at CinemaCon, of having a little
bit of emotional depth. And maybe it's just because this
trailer wants to focus on the foot elements to get
kids excited about it. I didn't really see a whole
lot going on emotionally in that, combined with really not
having a unique animation style that I was looking for

(47:01):
up until they get their powers, it does lighten up
a bit, it gets a little bit more slick. But
if you compare it to the CGI used in the
live action movies, which looks so realistic and also so
much more expensive, what this movie just kind of looks
like is a cheap version of that. So I feel
like I'm missing out of having something worth spending my

(47:21):
money on. But again, this movie is coming out on
September twentieth. Autobots roll out and that is this week's
edition of Movie min Framer par and that is going
to do it for another episode here of the podcast.
But before I go, I gotta get my listeners shout
out of the week. This week, I am going over

(47:42):
to YouTube where I post individual movie reviews, so if
you're not subscribed over there, be sure to check it out.
I got this comment on my review of Civil War.
It is coming to us from user if you like
Pina Colada's nine six six ' nine, which I have
to say is a fantastic user name. They wrote, I
love this movie. It was beautiful and shocking, easily one

(48:03):
of the best movies of the year. The more I
think about Civil War, the more I think that I
enjoyed it. I still highly encourage you to check it
out if you've not seen it in theaters because it
does have that big, loud sound that Pinicoladas was talking
about there that is worth seeing in theaters because it
will rattle your bones. So if you have seen that

(48:23):
and you missed last week's episode, and go over to
my YouTube channel a YouTube dot com slash Mike Distro.
And also, if you're listening on any podcast platform right now,
whether it be Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or iHeartRadio, make sure
you're subscribed there as well and leave a review hit
those five stars. Write a quick little something about why
you enjoy the podcast, because that really helps me grow

(48:46):
in the sense of other people are able to find it,
because that really helps me climb up in the podcast charts,
which I'm currently battling all the other movie podcasts. I'm
trying to get top ten. So if you wouldn't mind
doing that, it really goes a long way. So thank
you for listening, Thank you for being subscribed, And until
next time, go out and watch good movies and I

(49:07):
will talk to you later
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC
Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

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.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.