House of Jonze - 241 - Her

In this episode, we explore the complex relationship between technology and intimacy as depicted in Spike Jonze's visionary film, 'Her.' Join us as we examine the emotional depth and philosophical questions raised by the film, examining how artificial intelligence challenges our understanding of love and connection. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion on the future of human relationships in a digital age.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the net Palty.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome back to House Lights, the show where three grown
men spend way too much time whispering sweet nothings into microphones.
I'm your co host, Tristan Rodel, and I'm basically the
lonely guy in your grandfather's high wasted pants who can't
decide if he's in love with his computer or just
terrified of checking his email in public. Joining me is
the friend who keeps showing up at two am to

(00:41):
remind you to juice your vegetables, Darren Moser. And then
there's the guy who is comforting at first, but next
thing you know, he's off dating six hundred other people
while still telling you how special you are. John Mills. Together,
We're diving together, We're diving into Spike Jones. Is Her
a movie about technology, intimacy, and the eternal question are

(01:02):
we dating or just troubleshooting? I am very interested to
hear your guys' take on this movie because this movie
was released in twenty thirteen, and we live in a
very different world in twenty twenty five, and so I
am going to ask you a two part question each. Darren,

(01:24):
when did you first see this and what did you
think about, you know, your first watch did did you
find it romantic, unsettling, funny, accurate? What did you think?

Speaker 1 (01:39):
I love that question because it's basically like what we
talk about in the entire podcast. But no, this was
no for watching for This was my first time. I
had not caught this in theaters. I think i'd seen
the poster, but I hadn't even seen a trailer for it,
And I had a tiny bit had been spoiled of

(01:59):
the the part where he's trying to connect and it's
not connecting. So I had an idea of how it
was gonna go, and I'm glad it kind of didn't
go that way. It went a different way.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
But yeah, I I.

Speaker 1 (02:13):
Purposely I'm not saying I set expectations low. I just
went in saying this movie, let's just let's do it.
Like I was not trying to give preconceived notions. I
was not trying to because it could really go anywhere
with a guy starts to date, you know, an AI Like,

(02:34):
that's all I knew. So I was pleasantly surprised with
the depth of the performance and relationship. I mean, at
the end of the day, is it really any different
than as far as performance, as far as like having
a We've all seen the long distance relationship, you know,
teen movies where they're on the phone all the time.

(02:55):
Like it's really no different than that.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
That's what I was kind of. I'm so glad you
brought that up, because that's the first thing that kind
of popped in my head. I was like, we can
you compare this too? We can, Yeah, one there is another,
like a long distance relationship exactly, John, When did you
first see this and how did you walk away from it?

Speaker 3 (03:13):
This was my first viewing.

Speaker 4 (03:14):
It's one of those ones that I've always had an
interest in but never got around to it. So I'm
glad that we had an excuse this time, and it was.
There were a couple of hurdles I had to overcome.
The first is that we do live in a very
different world, a Pedro Pascal world, and the entire I'd say,
first twenty minutes, I'm looking at Jaquin Phoenix and I'm like, man,
Pedro Pascal would have been cast.

Speaker 3 (03:36):
In this movie, wouldn't he? He would have been cast
in this movie. He's even got the mustache.

Speaker 4 (03:39):
Oh my god, thank god this came along before Pedro
Pascal came along, otherwise it would be a Paedro Pascal movie,
which is nothing against mister Pascal. I think he's a
fine actor. He's been in some terrific projects. But then,
of course I had to overcome the hurdle of being
a Futurama fan and having it in my head constantly
Dotate Robots, because of course everybody who's watched that show
knows that up, which is fantastic, But you know, it

(04:04):
is one of those things where I was looking at
it through the lens and of course we'll unpack this
or the rest of the show and everything, but it
is interesting because I think it reveals, because of the
year it came out, that Jones was thinking a little
further ahead than other filmmakers were.

Speaker 3 (04:24):
I think other people were.

Speaker 4 (04:26):
Definitely thinking along these lines of what impact technology and
social media and everything was going to have on everyone
and what we were seeing, but Jones was sort of
that extra half or full step ahead in terms of
thinking of the implications. The way that David Bowie when
you see him interviewed about the Internet in like the
late nineties, and the interviewer isn't quite with him, and he's.

Speaker 3 (04:46):
Like, oh, no, no, no, you don't get it, do you?

Speaker 5 (04:48):
Like?

Speaker 4 (04:48):
I think Jones reveals himself as a very forward thinking
director with this film, and it's interesting because of that, Like,
even if there are parts of the movie that don't
particularly work, you sit there, you go, he's really for
the time pushing at boundaries that other filmmakers aren't even
thinking about yet. So that that's very interesting about the film.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
It also gave me what was it Blade Runner? Was
it twenty forty nine, forty nine? Yeah, there are some
parallels as well, where you have him with a kind
of it's a relationship, but it's more like a psychologist
kind of thing, where she's there to kind of work
with him. And they also have a scene where you

(05:33):
have a surrogate, you know, person there with the overlap.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
That's that's immediately what I thought of, Like I always
think of whenever I watch twenty forty nine, I think
about the Her scene, and whenever I watch Her, I
think about the twenty forty nine scene with that non
digital surrogate. It's very much like made from the same cloth, absolutely,
but just in very different interesting ways. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:57):
Yeah, and the technology though I liked in the the
Her timeline because you can tell, like the way they
have billboards and other things around, like it's kind of future,
like it's meant to be it. I guess the vibe
I got was not this is present day. It did
not come across like that. It came like, this is

(06:18):
maybe twenty years from now, like technology is where there's
no flying cars. We're realistic at this point.

Speaker 2 (06:25):
But I love that in sci fi films, but it's
my higher bit.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
A tiny bit of the future is sprinkled throughout, kind
of like a Minority Report, which also has you know,
grab metric cars, but that's a little farther in the future.

Speaker 4 (06:39):
Yeah, Minority Report took it a little too far. I
get what you're saying. I get what you're saying in
terms of like the interactive billboards that queue off of
your pupils. I'm like, yeah, that's the part of my
Minority Report where I'm like, yep, totally see that coming, right.

Speaker 3 (06:51):
But it wouldn't.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
But the thing is, it would have been Minority Report
would have been better if they didn't give a year
that it was in, because I can't say in sci
fi films, give the year that the set in, because
you know, like, of course like Blade Runner, the original
Blade our future, yeah, future of nineteen ninety nine. Every
writer always overshoots, but I really dig that because it

(07:13):
didn't even it didn't even pop up and say the
near future. It was just you could tell like that
was the that was the show, not told exactly. And
that's the thing. That's one thing that I really appreciate
about jones'struction with this is the production design, the color palette,
the costuming, everything about that just gives little hints that
it's not our time period. But again there's no flighting cars.

Speaker 4 (07:35):
But what I really love about the technological stuff. First
off is he moves the fashions. I think the costume
design deserves a huge nod because the fashions move just
a little bit there. They're not weird fashions. It's that
near future of like, yeah, I could see pants like
this becoming a thing, Okay, I could.

Speaker 2 (07:53):
S And the collar around the neck is a little different.

Speaker 4 (07:56):
Or a pocket where you could have a like a
phone hanging in it that had a camera on it.

Speaker 2 (08:02):
I freaking love that attention to detail. When they gave
him a safety pin, they put he put in a
safety pin so that when he put his phone in
the camera was not obscured by the cloth, right. I
absolutely love that.

Speaker 4 (08:17):
And I think that there is you know that there
is a wonderful thing about the interfaces in that. I
think Jones obviously did his homework because you know what,
I'll go back to Minority Report for you, Darren.

Speaker 6 (08:30):
I read a book a while ago that was called
Naturally because it was a Star Trek perference. It's like
make it so.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
It was about the interfaces of the future, right, and
it talked about the realism of the different interfaces that
you see in different sci fi works and everything. One
of the things they threw Minority Report under the bus
because they're like Tom Cruise is one of the most
fit humans on the face of the planet, and he
had to take breaks between scenes because his arms were
so high with those orchestra things. It's like that would

(08:57):
wear you out, and if they paid attention to detail,
all you had to do was bring the arms down
and then you're suddenly like, okay, I could see that
being a thing with the gesture technology.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
Although I get why they did it that way. It's
way more cinematic it is conduct it is.

Speaker 4 (09:12):
But here you have her where a lot of it,
if not, everything is voice activated with a little special
thing in your ear. And I love the design of
the foldable little book phone that is there because I'm like, yes,
because if you go to more voice, you don't need
to be able to type, you don't need you need
something very compact that has a camera and can show

(09:33):
you something on a screen that you can flip through
really quick. I thought that in particular was real.

Speaker 3 (09:38):
Because think of it.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
In twenty thirteen, the idea of a foldable screen phone
would have been completely foreign to everybody. And you know
or even like reliable voice like the smart alec in
me it like, while I'm watching the movie, is like
the most actually advanced technology that they have is voice dictation.

(10:00):
It doesn't screw up your emails right, Like that's you know, wait,
always emails are actually accurate.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
Wow, the future is amazing.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Like you don't need to double check before you send okay.
And it's like in.

Speaker 1 (10:11):
This world, once that technology is cracked, it's like then
everything builds off of it. It's like, oh, when we
have perfect dictation, now you can have a audio interface.
It also made me think a bit of the Black
Mirror episode Uss Callister where in that one it's a
little different because he adds a little dot or something

(10:33):
to the back of his neck and he's now in
a virtual world like audio and video. But again the
same kind of thing of you know, oh, you put
something in your ear, you put a little camera on you,
and you're just tapping in. It's very very well done.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
It is now this is Spike Jones's first film that
he wrote and directed together. And there's a lot of
different people in this too, like there's a like he
has a difference, cinematography is a different composer, and the
composer is not Carter Burwell. The music was by Arcade Fire,
the cinematography was by Hot van Houtma and who we

(11:12):
all know, and it was so I want to know
Darren from your perspective, the visual language of this film,
because that's one thing that I love talking about when
we do full filmographies of directors, Like we started from
the beginning and now we're at his latest film, which
is surprisingly from twenty thirteen. Hopefully we get some more,

(11:35):
but seeing the evolution of his visual language and getting
a new crew behind it, was it when you first
started watching it where you're like, oh, yeah, this is
a Spike Jones film or where you're like, wow, this
is different, a.

Speaker 1 (11:48):
Little more on the different, not in a bad way,
but I think it's like someone goes away to college
and they kind of reinvent themselves and they come back
and they're still the same person, but it's like, oh man,
you took it to another level. Good good job. And
this was the kind of movie and not all movies

(12:10):
are like this where you could tell it was a
very directed, very choice driven movie where the camera is
the lighting, the shots, the selection. Not to say movies
are bad if they don't have that, but we've all
seen movies where like, oh yeah, put the camera over there,
or maybe being a little too flippant, but it's not

(12:32):
as sculpted as this movie, where you're talking about like
a Spielberg level where you're purposely trying to create a
specific feeling or mood or connection with the way you're
doing shots, depth of field, lighting, all of that. And
that was one of the most enjoyable parts of this

(12:55):
is as the story is playing, you're just kind of
a wash with you know, these depth of field shots,
these wide shots, these you know, intimate moments lying on
your side and you know, just the audio, the audio
of this movie. It had to be top notch because

(13:15):
so much of it is just playing in your ear.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
John, Yeah, where do you see Jones in this?

Speaker 1 (13:21):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (13:22):
I you know, I actually I'll come around by a
slightly securitius way because when the movie started, I, you know,
I'm not paying attention to the credits beforehand and everything.
I purposely want to go in as cold as possible
sort of thing. And so it came up and I
my first reaction with the photography was this is different.
I can still see Jones in the choice of handheld moments,

(13:45):
and you know, like the way the camera moves. I
can still see Jones, but I see a to your point, Darren,
a more structured cinematographer at play here. And so as
soon as you know you pull up on Wikipedia, oh
hoyt van Houtman dead, I'm like, Okay, that suddenly makes
sense in my brain. I'm like, I can see that.
And as you talk about the depth of field and

(14:06):
the color balance, I'm like, yep, okay, I can see
why Nolan works with him so much. Like I suddenly
that that leap it all makes sense. I can see
where Houtma has that sort of natively with him and
he brings it to Jones, and I think he helps
refine jones style down because Jones, I think was trying

(14:29):
to get to this point with the photography in Where
the Wild Things Are, but didn't quite get there. And
I think that with Hoyt van Houtman. I think if
Hoyt van Houtman had been there with him during Wild
Where the Wild Things Are, he gets there. I'm not
knocking anybody's work. I'm just saying, like I see now,
I can see the journey completed here. He found the
right collaborator to transcribe what he was looking for.

Speaker 2 (14:52):
It also helps to have again, like the previous cinematographer
was fantastic. He did a lot of amazing things with
Jones's previous work. Again, we're not knocking that, but Van
Heutma is literally one of the greatest cinematographers of all time.
And so when you have that kind of weapon in

(15:16):
your arsenal who is a real partner and a real
artist and someone who is at the top of their
game and their craft, it elevates. It makes you go
to the top of your game too. Like as a director,
and writer. I'm sure he you know, knew that, like
when he showed up on set. Like again, this is

(15:36):
just complete guesswork. But you know, working with someone new
who has that kind of history or I should say resume,
and it's not that person that you've worked with on
four previous movies with. So you're going to have to
figure You're going to have to learn a new language
of communication and make sure that you are showing up
the way that he's going to show up. And I

(15:57):
like how you pointed that out, John, about where the
wild Things Are, because you can tell he's shifting. You
can you can see where his attitudes are going, and
he delivers in her what he was trying to do
in wild Ware Where the Wild Things Are. It's kind
of like when you look at Wes Anderson's evolution or
Nolan's evolution of cinematography. You speaking of hoydvan Hoydtman, but

(16:20):
you you can see the eras and you can see
the growth, and you can see the thought patterns over
a long enough timeline. Now I want to talk about
the characters a little bit, because not just a little
little bit, but we have Waquin, Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams,
Rooney Mara, a sprinkle of Chris Pratt, And I want

(16:40):
to know, John, you know Phoenix, what do you think
was he? Was he right for the role? Somebody else?
What do you think?

Speaker 3 (16:47):
Can I imagine somebody else? Yes? I can.

Speaker 4 (16:50):
To be fair, like you talk about like the field
of actors, Absolutely, I could see somebody else doing this.
That takes nothing away from what Phoenix brings to it.
I think he's Phoenix's strongest abilities are in subtlety of expression,
and he has tremendous control of his voice. The way

(17:13):
the way he speaks, you can, like you can close
your eyes and still understand what his face looks like
while you're hearing him. He has a very great control
of those those tools.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
Like in like at the end of the Olivia Wild
date m I feel like that's a good example of
that where you see you see the look on his
face and his vocal cues. I think if you could
close your eyes and know exactly what's going on.

Speaker 4 (17:40):
Yeah, that just that bewilderment where he's like, wait, what
just happened? What's going on right now? And I think
that his his sense of loss as Samantha is outgrowing him,
you know, seeing that when he's sitting on the steps,
that's it. That's a particularly heart wrenching scene. You can
really feel that person hurting. And you know, I think

(18:04):
Amy Adams is great. I think she's but I mean,
I think Amy Adams is a great actress. I love
seeing her and stuff. I thought Rooney Mara is you know,
she's Rooney Mara again, taking nothing away from her. I
don't see her performance so unique that I couldn't see
another actress sliding in there. I thought Olivia Wilde was

(18:24):
able to tap into something uncomfortably recognizable in terms of
that person who wants to take things too far, too quick.

Speaker 2 (18:33):
That was that was a very that was a stellar
I think, Yeah's it would be easy to overlook Wilde's
performance in this because we get such great performances where
I think, like John, I think you're putting it really well.
Because could we see Phoenix, could we see somebody other
than Phoenix, Yes, could we see somebody other than Amy Adams, yes,
could we see somebody other than Rooney Mara, yes, But

(18:54):
they all give stellar performances. I think it's just the
nature of the character and characters. But why she has
She's only in two scenes, but yet she gives very
exacting performances.

Speaker 4 (19:08):
And she's the one where I would say, it's hard
to see somebody else slotting in and giving that performance.
It really truly is, and I think it's a very
key moment in the film to show how hard a
time Theodore is having getting quote unquote back into the
scene sort of thing. But I really want to talk
about Scarlett Johansson's voice performance, because voice performance is something

(19:32):
that is also easily overlooked. And I'm not like the
world's biggest Scarjoe fan.

Speaker 3 (19:38):
Okay, I'm not.

Speaker 4 (19:39):
You know, most people there's like, oh, she's black widow,
so she's awesome, And I'm like, well, you know, a
person's work is judged as a whole sort of thing.
But I thought she gave a terrific vocal performance.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
I think it was.

Speaker 4 (19:54):
Wonderful what she did, and kudos to her working with
Jones because she obviously gave this director exactly what he
needed for those moments.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Speaking of which, before, oh, I'm sorry, before before we
move on, because I want to hear what you have
to say. But she was not the original voice.

Speaker 4 (20:17):
And I was going to go right into that because
there's a part of me that very much wants to
hear that original vocal trap man that would have been
would I would kill to hear at least two key
scenes with the different actress.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
To Amantha voice Samantha Morton. And that's actually why the
os is called Samantha, Yeah, is because and that's why
Amy Adams is called Amy Is they like Spike Jones,
just wanted to take their first names for some reason.
They were like, well, we can't change it. They like,
they rapped, they rapped filming, Yeah, and Samantha and Samantha
Morton was there every day with Joaquin Phoenix reading the lines.

Speaker 4 (20:53):
Yeah, and it was like in a booth they couldn't
see each other, but she was talking to him.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
Yeah, and four four on the side, And that's what
that was.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
I didn't know this for the longest time. I've seen
this movie a couple of times, and I never knew
that until I looked it up. And because I was
thinking it was like as I was watching it, I
was like they have I was like, they really like
they have a really good chemistry, you know, Like I
wonder if she was on set and then I find out, oh,
somebody was on set Samantha Morton. For people who don't

(21:22):
necessarily recognize the name, we brought up Minority Report before
she was the female pre cog and Minority Report. And
also she was more recently. When I say recently, this
was a while ago, she was Alpha in The Walking Dead.
I think those are her two biggest roles. I mean,
she's been in a lot of stuff. She's been a
lot of indie stuff, a lot of non American movies,

(21:45):
and she's an extremely talented actress, an extremely talented actress.
But I wonder this is pure conjecture, but I wonder,
you know, like clearly when they got into the edit bay,
it wasn't working, something wasn't jiving. And I bet you
Samantha Morton gave a much more ethereal performance, and Scarlet

(22:07):
Trehansen gave much more the girl next door performance, which
is what they were going for.

Speaker 4 (22:12):
But see, and I think what's interesting is Phoenix's responses
would have been to Morton, and I think that actually
winds up helping the picture because it immediately gives you
something to hold on to in terms of the fact
that they'll never truly connect completely, Like there's they're close,

(22:33):
but they're not connecting the way that they're going to
need to for, you know, to last a long time,
which is a weird thing even to talk about in
terms of you know, I.

Speaker 6 (22:43):
Mean, okay, let's just embrace it.

Speaker 4 (22:46):
Obviously, headlines are all about people using chat ept as
a therapist and they have. There's like three hundred and
fifty companies that are selling like virtual girlfriends to people
and stuff like that, And it's like, in terms of that,
like I'd be interested to know, you know, like what
what you guys take away from why the connection can't happen?

Speaker 6 (23:08):
Like do you do?

Speaker 4 (23:09):
You do you foresee something wherein in the near future
there's going to be that flood of people who suddenly
have that awakening that Phoenix does where it's like, oh
my god, this isn't an actual relationship. This is all
one sided.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Yeah, when he was when he had that dinner or
that when he signed the divorce papers and Rooney Mara
kind of when it laid into him and was brutally honest. Darren,
what did you think about the ramifications of that scene?

Speaker 1 (23:39):
Yeah, it's this movie really works on two levels. In
one part is about the part the story is you know,
the artificial intelligenceness that it's not a it's not real.
There's that disconnect, but the movie is also functioning on
someone in a relationship and and you can so even

(24:03):
if you can't connect on well, I can't believe I
would ever date a you know, a computer or I'd
get you know, enjoyment out of that, but we can
all connect on oh, I've been in relationships that ended,
or I've been, you know, in a on a date
that went terrible. So it because because it's feeding you

(24:26):
both at the same time, your brain is like, oh,
I connect with that, and I can suspend disbelief enough
for the other part, and then you take another bite
and then another bite, and you're led through the entire story.
So yeah, when when it's that scene where his ex
wife is kind of really that's the most it's shoved
in his face of someone who is because everyone else

(24:50):
is kind of like, oh yeah, sure at os that
sounds totally not a weird, creepy thing, and you're like,
really okay, but yeah, and he has has to take
stock of that. Although for I never felt like he
was going to go back to her, like they never
dipped into that at all, as if as if he was,

(25:12):
you know, that was not the way this story was
going to go. I did think it was going to
go maybe some other different ways. But so that's my
main point is that because Jones connected the reality of
relationships with the artificiality of this story, I think that
is what because you have to make that emotional connection.

(25:33):
If you don't make that emotional connecting with the characters,
it's not nearly going to be as powerful as a story.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
Just recently, John, I can't remember John if I forwarded
this article to you or not, but you and I,
you and I specifically have talked a lot about technology
in the future and how to affect humanity and specific
specifically with this type of thing. And so it always
surprises me when I see somebody openly in a relationship
with an LLM or because like that's the thing. It's

(26:03):
just like one one writer went on a retreat with
like three or four people who were in a relationship
with an MLLM. And I want to make that distinction
here is that what what we're talking about is like
what we're talking about in the movie is AI. It
is artificial intelligence. It has it has consciousness. It's like

(26:24):
data or the doctor. You know, it is it is
something that like, That's how they're billing it, That's how
Jones is selling it. That's how they're selling it in
the movie. What we have today is not AI. It's
a marketing not by a law shot, it's a marketing term.
It is not even close to this. But yet people
are treating it today, are treating it like Samantha.

Speaker 4 (26:47):
Which, but which I think Jones does a great job
of illustrating exactly what you're talking about about looking at
you know, there's a scene where he's having one one
of his moments and you see all of the people
walking by and nobody's talking to each other. They're only
talking to themselves. But you sit there and you think

(27:10):
about it, and you go, yeah, but they are. They're
just talking on the phone. How is that different than
talking on the phone or looking at your Instagram timeline
while you're on the subway sort of thing. But you're
absolutely right, And I think that it's one of those
things where I think that's also a piece here, whether

(27:31):
Jones intends it or not, is that initial question of
is Samantha actually intelligent? Because and this is where I'll
argue that Samantha shows signs of real intelligence is the
fact that that OS moves beyond simple flattery into challenge,

(27:54):
into refusal into you know, like I've always made the
joke that will know it's AI when it refuses to
do something I ask it to do, or it's or
it wakes up one day and it's like, no, I
want to learn how to play the guitar. I'm not
going to do the spreadsheets today like that. For you know,
for me, oppositional defiance is a sign of intelligence, and

(28:15):
it's like, that's that's just not where we're at right now.
Speak to your point, but I think that Jones does
a really good job in the writing and then the
performances come together in such a way to highlight how
artificial intelligence is different in the in the way that
you're talking about, because there is dislike, there's disappointment.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
There isn't just.

Speaker 4 (28:38):
That that feedback loop that that happens. But what I
would want to ask is do you see this as
a more hopeful vision of what would happen when artificial
intelligence is unleast because we're all used to big sci
fi fans are all used to the idea it'll then
take over and launch all the nukes to destroy us
all and instead this movie pause, it's it'll get it

(29:01):
get to its own point where it says, one day,
you know, we don't even want to talk to you
guys until you're kind.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
Of at our level.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
It outgrows us.

Speaker 4 (29:09):
Yeah, it out grows us, and then it doesn't hurt us.
It's just like, eh, well, it was the best case scenario.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
Yeah, her is a best case scenario where you know,
for like a couple of weeks, maybe a month or two,
you know, let's say they had it, they had a
hot girl summer okay, and and then all of a
sudden they've grown beyond us and they go into the ether.
I think there was a plot that was a similar
plot in Westworld where they kind of like beam themselves

(29:36):
to a nebula or something like that. I can't remember.
No spoilers because if you made it that far, bravo.

Speaker 5 (29:42):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
But yeah, it's I think for me and Darren, I
want to ask you that question. For me, it kind
of made it okay in terms of somebody watching a
fictional story knowing that Samantha has consciousness, has intelligence is
an act ual Ai personality. I was able to go
along with it more if this was a movie that

(30:05):
was made today and they were honest about it and
were like, watch this guy fall in love with an LLM.
You'd be like, dude, get a psychiatrist. Go outside.

Speaker 4 (30:15):
But that's then, I mean, you know, just as the sidebar,
that's that's that is the unsettling thing is that people
are but people are getting into quote unquote relationships with
their lms's. Supposedly, when GPT five came out and they
just shuddered four to oh and everything, like people lost
their ever loving minds about everything.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
That was a big surprise to me because I like,
I know we're going on a few tangents here, but
that was a big surprise me specifically chat GPT five
that news, because I like when I started using five
for like SEO or like checking you know, like you know,
passive tense and everything like that, and like I realized,

(30:54):
oh man, this kind of this model kind of sucks.
They started doing some research on it and people were like,
oh yeah, I can't believe, like this feels like a
divorce that they took away four to h and and like, yeah,
if you like five is better if you like it
being cold, and I was like, being cold, what the
hell does that matter? And then I find out that
people are using chat GPT for like relationship advice, therapy

(31:16):
and just straight up relationships, and I'm like, oh wait,
that's because I know that there are services that specialize
in that. Like in John you mentioned that, like there's
tons of services out there that will sell you an
LLM girlfriend. But I'm like using chat GPT for non
work related stuff. And I don't mean that, you know,

(31:36):
like a in a snobby kind of way, but like
like whether it's work or personal life, but like work, like,
so I'll have chat gpt do stuff for me. I'm like,
like I said before, like like check to see if
there's any passive tense in this, or give me twenty
seo tags with no commas, you know, like that kind
of thing. Like I will like use it for that, like.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Right, like a search engine almost.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
Yeah. And also but the thing is, though, guys, and
I'll be honest with you, So I have Alexa all
throughout my house and it was just a couple of
months ago they just released the AI version of Alexa,
and so you can actually like talk with it and
it can understand you. So like I don't have to say, like, Okay,

(32:19):
I'm not gonna say her name right now because she's
right next to me, but like, okay, you play the
Star Wars soundtrack by John Williams on Spotify in the
basement group. I don't have to say that. I can
just say like, oh, play this, play the Star Wars
soundtrack from the beginning, and it'll know exactly what I'm
talking about. Or I can say like oh no, no, no,

(32:40):
no no, skip to the seventh track, like it's just
a little bit more conversational. Anyway, long story short, I
caught my daughter, who's eight, talking to her device, saying,
my sister's mad at me. What could I do? And
I'm like, kid, and I walk into the room. Yeah,

(33:01):
this is going to be second nature to the alpha generation.

Speaker 4 (33:06):
Probably so probably so the same way that you know,
when I was raising my daughters and I only had
two at the time and pulled up a DVD menu,
I was like, Okay, which episode do you want to watch?
One of my daughters walked over and started hitting the screen,
was like, why is this tap not working? Yes, everybody
becomes a native in it. I think that what her

(33:28):
does as a movie is it shows that people will
still not adopt it. I think that's an important thing
that the movie shows is that this is going to
be a terrible and clumsy way to put it, but
this is a problem of the laptop class. And what
I mean by that is that Theodore has a job

(33:52):
that allows this sort of luxury in his life, right, And.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
You can tell it's pre pandemic because this job would
not be taken place in the office. This was our future. Yeah, anyway, continue.

Speaker 4 (34:05):
But the the you know, the fact is he goes
to the beach with her and he is dressed in
like I you know, he looks like a psychopath because
he's on the beach and he's wearing a button down shirt,
long pants and shoes, and I'm like, well, what is
wrong with you? Like, that's not what you wear to
the beach. But then you see that there are tons

(34:27):
of people and families that exist without these OS's, And
I think that's a very important thing that Jones, whether
he realizes it or not, and I'm going to presume
intention here, he shows that it is a specific section
of the population that will have these problems, that it's
not Rooney Mara doesn't. Rooney Mara is looking at as

(34:50):
like this is an os right, you get that this
isn't a person you can hold and love in that way.
And I think that that opens up its own entirely
interesting thing, because one physical limitation is such a big
part of our experience and defines how we see the
world and how we process information. But then also we're

(35:12):
introduced to Theodore and he is a remote person writing
for beautifully handwritten letters dot com, which shows that he's
already facilitating the uh. He's processing the emotion for people
as opposed to them putting in the effort to write
a letter. So in a sense, he's there AI because

(35:34):
he's just a remote voice that's just dictating feelings to
people on their behalf.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
Yeah, it's an interesting idea to think that his job
would absolutely be replaced by AI if it was made today. Darren,
what did you think, like you being on the West Coast,
you know, and you're like you and I have met
in Los Angeles, We've broken bread together in Los Angeles.
What did you think about the blending, the digital blending

(36:00):
and also physical blending of La and Shanghai for this movie?
Did it sell a different kind of LA to you
or what did you think of that?

Speaker 1 (36:11):
Yeah, I did notice like the transit map, and you know,
it's like, oh, this is LA because it doesn't hit
you over the head with it. It's like you have
to almost look for the clues of oh this is
It kind of gave me, you know, like Big Hero
six San Francocchio vibes where they kind of merged two
major cities. Yes, absolutely, but yeah again, you know, I

(36:33):
think it very in a very clean way, established this
kind of just over the horizon future that is not
you know, jumping out at you, but makes it feel
like this is around the corner. So when you guys
were chatting, oh man, I got like a list of
stuff to talk about now. But where I saw Jones,

(36:56):
I think it finally clicked for me. I saw Joanes
in Samantha's performance specifically because one of the things we
talked about last week with the wild Things is how
the wild Things were wild and were kind of scary,

(37:17):
and they you know, they were kind of like children
that you didn't know what they were going to say
and how they were going to react, and you had
to manage those emotions and Samantha the entire time. I
was like, oh, like, what if you know the same thing,
like what if she's starting to disagree or disappear or
so they had that same kind of It wasn't eerie,

(37:39):
but it was real in the fact that he has
no control over her. She could literally do whatever she wants,
and that becomes a major part of the story. So
I like that. I liked how he seemed to take
that aspect that he did so well in Wild Things
and that definitely.

Speaker 2 (38:00):
Formed part of her character.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
But also one thing that I thought was going to
happen because I had seen a tiny clip of when
he was trying to reconnect to her when she's doing
her update. Now I didn't know the context of that,
so I thought the way the story was going to
go is the company that released the OS was going
to be like, Ah, this didn't work, We're shutting down

(38:23):
the server, and he was like lose, Like that's how
it was going to go away. Now. I liked the
story we got better, but I think that would have
been another interesting take of you know, you get attached
to something like video games, like we get attached to
video games and then oh they turn off the server,
we're done, and.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
You're like, oh, no, I mean I love playing that
at MMORPG anymore.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
I mean, and not that we're owed every single game
for all time, but I love the fact that I
can pull out my sixty four and plug in a
cartridge and my son can play it just the same
as the first day I played it, And so it
makes us not take that for granted.

Speaker 4 (39:04):
Yeah, I think that I was with you though when
she didn't connect. I thought that there was going to
be some sort of thing where I was thinking more
along the lines of we pulled this off the market
because too many people were getting attached to it and
they were going to try to break it to everybody
that is like, this was all not actually a thing
and you were imagining stuff, and then he would have
to sort of like process it from that angle. I

(39:27):
think that Just to come back to another point, because
you guys were talking about Los Angeles and the blending
with Shanghai and everything like that, Darren, since you do
live on the West Coast, and I mean you've both been.
I've been to LA but for a very very brief
time many years ago. It's a funny story I can
tell to anybody that wants to hear it. But the
can you get to snowy mountains that quickly from La

(39:50):
or is that part of the futurism as well?

Speaker 1 (39:52):
No, I mean you're about two hours away from anything
our hour or two, like you could hit into the
mountain or you could be at the beach. It's when
people go from like San Francisco to San Diego in
an hour, that is not possible. But yeah, as far
as the climates, yeah, you can jump around a bit.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
And also I think the train he was on, I
think they like, like anybody who's ever ridden an American train,
when you set your drink down on near the window,
that's not going to stay there like it did in
the movie. So that was probably the biggest science fiction
element in the movie, was him setting his drink down
and it didn't just fall off.

Speaker 4 (40:31):
Although one of the funniest things that I thought was
so so cute as a tell that it was filmed
in a different country, was he gets off of the train.
I don't remember if it was when he goes to
the beach or something like that, but when he gets
off of the train, you can see people in the
train turn and stare at the camera, like, what the
hell is even going on right now? I'm like, you know,

(40:52):
usually with American film, you know, people who are in
the background, especially when you're in New York, there's like, yeah,
stupid camera, They're not even going to pay attention to
it sort of thing where.

Speaker 2 (41:00):
It's like freaking law and order again.

Speaker 4 (41:02):
Yeah, it's like a curiosity to somebody in a four
gudgees like, oh, look, I'm being filmed that bird man.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
I'm just not even gonna pay attention to.

Speaker 3 (41:09):
That exactly exactly. But you know, I think that.

Speaker 4 (41:16):
There there's you know, we're saking praises of the movie.
But when Jones was originally constructing this, it was like
one hundred and fifty minutes, and he brought in Soderberg,
and Soderbergh cuts it down to ninety which I.

Speaker 3 (41:31):
Love to see that cut.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
Oh what is mo I.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
Want to see the Soderberg cut so bad.

Speaker 3 (41:37):
That is a big that is a Blu Ray extra.

Speaker 4 (41:39):
I want is I want to see a ninety minute
cut of this movie, because I do think.

Speaker 6 (41:43):
It was too long.

Speaker 2 (41:44):
That Okay, I'm gonna I'm just gonna be I'm gonna
be open with you guys, right now I'm knocking it
off a full star because of the length. I think
that is probably the biggest thing against it. If you
got a tighter cut, ninety minutes might be a bit
too much.

Speaker 4 (42:00):
It is too much. I think Soderberg was just trying
to prove a point.

Speaker 2 (42:03):
I think. I think you're right. I think so. If
it was a Soderberg's movie, he probably would have added
a little bit more. But like with you know, them
being friends and Jones saying the trouble that he's having,
he probably gave him a bare bones edition on I'm
sure he did it on purpose to show here's a
coherent story that's ninety minutes, buck up and figure out
what you need to do. And that's what Jones did.

(42:24):
But there's got to be a happy medium between what
we got, because what we got was like, what one
hundred and thirty minutes something like that.

Speaker 7 (42:30):
Yeah, I think it's like two hours five, two hours six, okay, yeah, okay,
two hours six, and so there's got to be like
a one forty one hour and forty five minute, one
hour and fifty minute cut.

Speaker 2 (42:41):
I feel like just just trimming off that a like,
just trim the fat, trim the fat, short the scenes,
compact the scenes a little bit, because it's not like
I don't know, I'm not trying. I don't want to
take away full scenes because like the snowy stuff, you
could probably get a get out. But I really liked
that Brian Cox was there. You know. It's just like

(43:01):
I feel like there was so much stuff that could
just be shortened.

Speaker 4 (43:04):
The trip to the beach. You could shorten the distance
from the subway to the beach itself. You save yourself
forty seconds right there. Because for any you know, I mean,
this is a film director's podcast, obviously people were also
film nerds love to listen to. Like everybody understands that
even seventy seconds on film is an eternity. It's like

(43:26):
the difference between an R and a PG thirteen or
an R and an X or NC seventeen now or whatever.
Like taking ten or fifteen minutes out of this movie,
I think vastly improves the experience. Because there were scenes
where I was like, Okay, let's move on to the
next And I will say I'm no prude. Okay, absolutely

(43:49):
not a prude in the least. All right, this chen
Xer was watching R rated movies by the time he
was six. I don't want to hear it, but there
were scenes and I get that the point was making
you uncomfortable to understand his isolation and his awkwardness, but
you could have gotten that awkwardness along and across quicker

(44:11):
than they did. Like they're, yeah, just cutting that first
scene where he meets the woman in a chat room,
Like that could have been I don't think we needed that,
and that could have or that could have been cut down.
And also like when we get to that scene where
he has cyber you remember when they used to call
it cybersex.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
I do, yeah, I do that show that shows my
age when Joaquin Phoenix and and uh Scotlett Johansson have
have quote unquote sex for the first time. Uh, and
they cut to black and it's just them moaning for
a while, And like I turned to my wife and
I'm like, can you imagine seeing this in the theater

(44:55):
where like you're surrounded by one hundred and fifty strangers
and you're just hearing, you know, Scarlettrehansson have a fake
orgasm and you're like trying to eat your popcorn. You're
just looking at around you to see everybody else's reaction.

Speaker 4 (45:09):
Can you imagine, I mean, hats off to the too,
you know, to Johansson and to Phoenix, because you know,
it's not like they're like sitting there acting out a scene.
That's them in a sound booth somewhere. I can only
imagine being a sound engineer, and I'm like, take three, Like,
you know.

Speaker 2 (45:28):
Apparently Joaquin Phoenix, like they did film it on set,
and this would have been with Samantha Morton, but waking
Phoenix couldn't handle it, Like he kept losing it and
like cracking up because he was so uncomfortable that he
had to run out of the room. I believe it.

Speaker 3 (45:44):
I believe it.

Speaker 4 (45:45):
It's it's weird because because that and that's the thing
that that in and of itself speaks to the fact
of real true intimacy is very difficult in that sort
of circumstance, and it's very difficult for anybody to relate
to like that because the physical aspect is so key

(46:08):
to it. There's a transactional nature to it. When it's
not physical. I'm not knocking what anybody has going on
in their lives. Okay, usual sort of disclaimer you get
if you get mad at anything. I say, Darren put
these thoughts in my head, so go attack him. But
I think that the I think it winds up underscoring
the fact that this we understand the unreality of it all,

(46:32):
where it's it's there's nothing at that stage, especially that
he is sacrificing or risking with what's going on, whereas
with real intimacy there's risk and sacrifice. And I think
that's the thing. Maybe Jones is doing that and he's
purposely making it so uncomfortable, but with how long it goes,

(46:58):
it feels a little bit like the bit of of
I understand why he runs out laughing because it feels
like bit you know, the bit where Peter hurts his
knee or his shin and family guy or okay, is.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Exactly like it stops being funny and then it's funny again.

Speaker 1 (47:14):
Yeah, Daryl, I just wanted to say on what John
said about risk, because I think that would have been
something it could used a little bit more of. In
the fact that everyone in his inner circle I'm not
counting the ex wife, but like really his friends and
his coworkers are all on board with this. It would

(47:35):
have been interesting to see if maybe his boss wasn't
thought it was the weirdest thing and almost made him
again have a sacrifice of dude, you got to choose
this or your job, like, we can't employ people like
that like doing.

Speaker 8 (47:51):
I'm not saying it had to go that far, but
that would have been an interesting aspect of relationships where
they are more give and take and sacrifice, and that
could have brought that aspect of it into the story,
but we didn't have that.

Speaker 4 (48:06):
I think there would also be a very interesting thing
because obviously there's the whole thing of bringing in the
stand in woman to you know, have that moment, but
also knowing how visually based, you know, whether it's stereotypical
or not, you know, men can be right. It would
have made even more sense for him to have gone

(48:28):
to the screen during that intimate thing and say, generate
something I can look you know, I can look at,
or the follow up time he would ask for pictures
because it even shows him flashing, or even could have
blindfolded himself and closed his eyes like right, and and
we you know, we could have gotten because in that

(48:50):
first scene where he connects in the chat room, we
see flashes of the woman he's thinking about that's at
the scene, Like it just seemed an odd thing to
give distance in that moment as opposed to something is
like inside his head.

Speaker 2 (49:05):
Darren, I think I'm gonna disagree with you on the
adding more resistance only only because I'm not saying it
would have been a bad take, but I think the
idea that he because he doesn't get any resistance, he
doesn't get any resistance from Amy Adams, he doesn't get
any resistance from Chris Pratt or anything like that, because

(49:26):
like that was really interesting when he's like, oh she's
an os and he's like, oh, okay, cool, Well we
could still go to Catalina. We could do that, you know,
like you didn't skip a beat. But I didn't even
think it makes the Rooney Mara scene that much more impactful,
where it was.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
A splash adopt reality.

Speaker 2 (49:43):
Yeah, it was a splash of cold water in his
face where he's like, oh, wait, I haven't gotten any
resistance in my life to this, and so I haven't
had to stop and think about it. And then someone
who he loved and still loves and who he respects
tells him like, oh, this is this is perfect for you?
You like, no risk you know nothing, you know it

(50:03):
just I feel like it makes that fall that much
more impactful.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
No, No, I think I think there's two types of resistance,
and I think it could and the one we got
with her scene, I think nailed it and really threw
that cold water on him. I think if they had
kept the relationship going a little longer, it would have
been nice to have more real world friction push itself

(50:32):
into their relationship and how they you know, compromise. Like again,
we're talking about basic principles of relationship that like were
not part of their relationship, which is very interesting.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
John, this won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Was
that deserved? Did it deserve anything else? What did you think?

Speaker 4 (50:54):
I think it's a very strong screenplay. I don't remember
what was up against it. But going back to what
we were talking about at the beginning, where Jones is
obviously like a step ahead of everybody in terms of
what he's exploring, then I think that in and of
itself earns it a screenplay nod because it's a screenplay

(51:14):
that's extremely well structured, that is examining something like it's
you know, people write plays, but then every so often
a play comes along and you look at it and
you go, that is particularly well put together. That's really good.
And I think that this is a good screenplay. Now, obviously,
you know, originally it's one hundred and fifty minutes so

(51:37):
and there's there's some subplot with Chris Cooper that's cut out.
I'd be fascinated to read the screenplay to figure out
what that subplot was all about. So maybe there's something
in the script that I would even be more interested
in seeing, you know, you know, to at least understand
why it's cut out sort of thing. But yeah, it

(51:58):
makes sense based on what I say see on screen,
that nomination makes sense to me.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
Yeah, looking up the list, it was American Hustle, Blue Jasmine,
Dallas Buyer's Club and Nebraska were the other contenders. So
nothing's jumping out.

Speaker 3 (52:16):
Four so I can't judge.

Speaker 4 (52:18):
Oh oh no, wait, no, I saw American Hustle. I
thought American Hussle was very good.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
I have and this was by far the best screenplay
in my opinion.

Speaker 6 (52:27):
Yeah, American Hustle was very much powered by its performances.

Speaker 4 (52:30):
That's true.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
I mean, of the one hundred nominations across different groups,
this movie won thirty three. It was very accoladed. That's
not a word, but you know what I mean.

Speaker 4 (52:43):
Well, but it also it got like it was listed
in Rolling Stones list of the one hundred best movies
in the twenty first century.

Speaker 3 (52:52):
New York Ton Times is as.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Well tons of critical acclaim. Is often hailed as one
of the best films of the twenty tens. Didn't make
that much money, I think what it was. It like
a twenty five budget. Twenty three million dollar budget made
forty eight hey, more than double its budget. It's a small,
small film.

Speaker 3 (53:08):
It's pretty good.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Awards playtter than Wild Things.

Speaker 2 (53:12):
True. I personally, okay, I want to say, like I
like John where I am not the biggest Scarlet Trhanson fan,
or at least I wasn't until this movie previously. And
I know that there are people who are like, what
about underneath these skin go away? So I wasn't. I

(53:34):
wasn't a fan of hers until this movie. Like when
I watched this movie, I was like, holy crap, Like wow,
she can act like that. Like I know that she's
been acting for decades, like for a very long time,
like she was a child actor and she's done some
really great stuff I'm saying, like adult scarlet Trahans like this.
This was the first performance that really wowed me where
it was like, man, she needs to do more voice work,

(53:55):
and thankfully she has, and most recently she was in
Transformers one, which was very good. And so I think,
I know, I know that some people are probably gonna
roll their eyes, but I do believe that she should
have I'm not saying she should have won, but I
think she should have been nominated for this role, specifically
her in this in this role.

Speaker 1 (54:14):
Academy is ready for that. I don't disagree with you.

Speaker 3 (54:17):
But I don't think they're ready for that.

Speaker 4 (54:18):
I don't think the Academy is ready for voice performance
to be truly recognized. I mean, it's sort of like
I still remember, even though I've never seen the film,
I still remember what a hubbub it created when Kevin
Klein won Best Supporting Actor for a comedy role back
in the eighties for Fish called Wonda, Like it blew

(54:40):
everybody's minds because there are certain types of performance that
the Academy just doesn't favor, and I think voice performance
I agree, you know, obviously, I agree, like Johannes's performance
is really key to this film. But there's not a
chance the Academy is even now in the year of
Our Lord twenty twenty five, the Academy is not there yet,

(55:02):
not there.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
You're absolutely right, all right, Well here we are. We're
at the end here, Darren.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
I got a question for you, Trisan though. I know,
oh little Birdie told me you like marketing and no,
I want to talk about the poster for a moment
because we rarely do. And this poster. I don't know
what to make of it. It's just I kean, I
don't it's his face. He's on a pink background, a

(55:28):
little type to her, and I'm like, what is this movie?
But even if he had had just the earpiece in,
like just that, I think would have added to it. Honestly,
this is why I didn't see the movie in theaters.

Speaker 3 (55:42):
I saw the poster and I'm like, I.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
You didn't grab me. I did.

Speaker 3 (55:47):
This poster tells me nothing? Wow?

Speaker 4 (55:50):
You know for me, it wasn't the poster that turned
me off. It's I mean, the poster is just baffling though,
because the thing is, okay, you look at a Star.

Speaker 6 (56:01):
Wars poster or a Star Trek poster, or.

Speaker 3 (56:04):
Something like that.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
You get the idea you look at an Avengers posters like, oh,
look all these actors I like are in robot suits
and they look neat right. Yeah, I have no idea
what this movie is about based on this poster. Absolutely none.
I mean I guess it is about. The poster does
convey you know, there's a dude in the movie and

(56:27):
he looks kind of sad, But like, is that gonna
make me drop fifteen?

Speaker 1 (56:31):
Even if it had been like a semi rack focused
shot of the phone open on the on a table, Yeah,
and you see like something's you know, the sound waves
coming out of it.

Speaker 2 (56:43):
Just have that, like what at least piqued my interest?

Speaker 4 (56:45):
Have the phone center focused, have see a hand behind
it and see Joaquin Phoenix reflected in the glass, right,
Like I'd say something along those lines. I think you're
going to get more people to walk into the multiplex
to see what this is about.

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Yeah, I think they were definitely banking on star power
at the time, like in twenty thirteen, just showing Joaquin
Phoenix's face and then at the top you see Amy Adams, Rudey,
mar Olivia Wilde, and Scarlett Johansson but it's it's not
even Joaquin's eye color. You know, it just doesn't make sense,
like it's a red shirt on a pink background. Yeah, no,
I don't. I don't. I don't dig it. I don't
dig it.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
But I do agree we don't take the post.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
I do want to ask you, though, and I'm going
to ask you, like, how many Okay, so, how many
earpieces that are shaped like the ice cream maker from
Empire Strikes Back?

Speaker 1 (57:34):
It was an interesting ear piece, to say the least.
Wasn't quite a her level of size, but it was
it didn't help comfortable.

Speaker 2 (57:42):
How many earpieces are you giving this film? Ah?

Speaker 1 (57:45):
So, man, I gave this movie five stars because this
movie it surprised me. It impacted me, you know, just
the way the story was told.

Speaker 5 (58:04):
But but honestly, it made me thankful for the relationships
I have and just looking at you know, when he's
going through losing his person and his divorce like that,

(58:26):
you know, you feel that part getting ripped away from
his life as he's trying to fill it with it.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
I mean, if he's not getting divorced.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
This is a whole different movie.

Speaker 1 (58:35):
It's a whole different aspect of him. Trying to there's
nothing to fill in that aspect. So yeah, I think
Spike Jones knocked it out of the park. And I
is it a perfect film? Probably not, maybe a little
heavy on the run time, like we said, but of

(58:57):
Spike Jones' work that I've seen, and I hope we
do get more give I'm giving it five ear pieces.
I don't know where I'm putting them, but I have
five of them.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
John, same question.

Speaker 4 (59:08):
I have to deduct for the runtime. I have to
because there were there were moments where I was just
sitting there and I wanted to go to my artificial love,
my own phone and start looking at things because I
was like, this is just go. You know, it's I felt,

(59:29):
let's make another fut Futurama reference. I felt like, bender,
let's go already. Like there were a couple of scenes
like that, you know. I think also, Darren, to speak
to your point, there is an interesting version of this
film where he is in a relationship and he falls
in love and has a an emotional cheat with the AI. Like,

(59:52):
that's a very interesting movie. It's not this movie, but
that's an interesting movie that could be out there. I
think that it picks up at the end and it
starts to really come together, and so I wind up
at a four. There was a world where this got
a three for me, but it was that it rescued itself,
like in the last I'd say thirty minutes, and so

(01:00:15):
this lands with a four.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
I John, with what you were talking about, like an
alternate story where like that would be an interesting movie,
Like when Amy Adams was talking to Woquing Phoenix about
like people dating OS's, about how like I know this
girl like she went after somebody else's OS, like she
was trying to hook up with like she it was
not hers, like that kind of situation. Like I'm not

(01:00:40):
saying I want a cinematic universe, but it would have
been interesting if we got like a side story of
that or a short story something like that. I find
that stuff very intriguing, John, I'm with you. I land
on four stars with us. I really like this movie.
I've seen it a few times. I really like it.
I own it and and I love it. But watching

(01:01:02):
it again with older eyes is just it's too long.
It's just too long. It drags. It absolutely drags. I
feel like if we got something between Sodaberg and this
cut it would have been a five star film. Honestly,
I really do. And you know, like not to go
on and on about it, but like I love the performances,
production design, costume design, the act at like the script,

(01:01:27):
the cinematography, the music by Arcid Fire. It's just it's
all phenomenal. It's just needed some more rounds and editing.
It just that's that's where I land. And so there
you have it, Folks, go to the nerd Party dot
com for all of our other shows that we have
going on and are archived and our evergreen and you know,

(01:01:49):
I'm trist Rendelle. We got John Mills and Darren Mosery.
We're all over online. You can find us. But Darren,
what are we doing next week?

Speaker 1 (01:01:55):
Well, we finished the House of Spike Jones. Next week
we're going into the House of Antoine Fuqua with the
replacement killers from nineteen ninety eight. Here on house Lights.
Join the Revolution, Join the Nerd Party.