I enjoyed the Robert Duvall episode but it also was frustrating. They spent months watching 50+ movies only to say a couple of lines about each. Why not do retrospective episodes that are more doable and manageable instead? Do a Hal Ashby or Albert Brooks retrospective and talk about their best 5 to 8 films in length.
It sure beats playing with puppies or eating spicy food.
I thought about this re-watching The Place Beyond The Pines the other day. To me, it’s a masterpiece. And I’ve been following Cianfrance ever since hoping that he would reach those heights again. He’s solid, I enjoyed the recent Roofman. But it doesn’t come close to Pines, unfortunately.
What other directors do you feel are like him?
P.D.: Let’s skip the ones who just went off the rails like Neil Blomkampt or Richard Kelly. Those are more in the “lost cause” category.
I mean someone like Tracy Letts, who constantly does mini-reviews of old movies that aren’t necessarily classics. You discover a ton stuff thanks of patrons like him.
I was listening to the last The Big Picture episode with Tracy Letts and he mentioned these titles as “the best 5 movie run” of any director. It got my curiosity because I’ve only seen Bad News Bears and wasn’t even aware of Ritchie.
What can you say about the other four?
A lot of directors have been in the “one for me / one for them” scenario. A famous case is Cameron Crowe doing Vanilla Sky (which was a remake of a Spanish thriller) in exchange for being able to do Almost Famous (clearly a personal project).
Other times filmmakers have to take a studio gig in order to get out of director’s jail and demonstrate they can play ball and deliver something comercial under budget. There’s also cases in where they do it for the money, in order to survive. Or even to pay debts. Coppola’s “Jack” would be another one.
One that’s recent is “Flight Risk” by Mel Gibson, basically a direct-to-dvd Mark Wahlberg vehicle.
Is it just cause it’s bad?
Bill said so on today’s pod.
Funny thing about Borat, the sequel was so underwhelming that I haven’t gone back to the original since. I’m sure it still holds up, though. My watch it on the weekend.
Movie came and went on theaters, but it’s now on VOD. Worth checking out? Let me your non-spoilery thoughts.
I’m not talking about Director’s Cuts in general or movies that were stolen by the studio/producers. So let’s exclude all the Kingdom of Heaven/Brazil examples. I’m focusing only on that aughts phenomenon that had every popular comedy get an unrated/extended cut on the dvd.
There’s Something About Mary, Tropic Thunder, The Hangover, Dumb and Dumber… the list is endless. And it also happened retroactively with old titles like Stripes, The Blues Brothere… All had a longer cut that inevitably was way worse, making the story drag, with unfunny deleted scenes tacked on with no reason all so they could sell something new for the home video market. And we’re still suffering the consequencies as most times that extended cut is the only version available on streaming.
My question is, has there ever been an outlier? A comedy where the new cut is the better one?
I’d never use an AI picture of me for a dating app, as that feels wrong, but I’m not sure about LinkedIn.
The one I have currently it’s with a very different hairstyle and general look, I almost seem like a different person now. I don’t have the time to get a proper studio shot, so I’m considering using one of those AI services in where you feed it a few selfies and it generates some professional looking headshots.
But I wonder if there’s an stigma around those. What’s your take?
I’m not talking about the cliché “this is just a movie that’s 10 hours long” that some showrunners love to blab about in the prestige tv era. I mean things like Tobe Hooper’s Salem’s Lot which is 3hrs long (less than The Irishman) and clearly feels a single complete story.
Some rules:
- While a project like Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace it’s technically very short in total runtime, it’s clearly a tv show. Short episodes, each telling which it’s own story. So, no British comedies allowed.
- I’d put the cutoff line at 4hrs. So Angels In America, Chernobyl… wouldn’t qualify.
In the last Physical Media special from The Big Picture they mention him as a director who’s been forgotten in terms of Blu-Ray/4K releases. And they were comparing him with Hal Ashby, who I love.
I never seen one of his films. Where would you start? Why do you think he’s forgotten?
Some examples:
- The 45min mockumentary “Curse Of The Blair Witch” that was shown on tv around the release of “The Blair Witch Project”. It really helped prepping the viewer for all the lore. I think that if someone justs puts on the movie without that, it’s just not the same experience.
- Wes Anderson’s “The Darjeeling Limited” had a short called “Hotel Chevalier” that was shown on theaters right before the movie. Now it feels lost as if it was a random dvd extra.
- Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” has both the animated “Tales Of The Black Freighter” and a mockumentary called “Under The Hood” that are good additions to the experience.
- “Tropic Thunder” has its own “Heart Of Darkness” parody as “Rain Of Madness” following Steve Coogan’s character.
What else I’m missing?
Funny how there’s no sub or barely any mention of the podcast on Reddit at all, but the show has been going steady for more than a decade now.
I don’t listen to it weekly (only Rewatchables and Blank Check), but if I happen to watch an old movie that has been featured on it, I put on the episode on my commute the day after.
One of the hosts is C Robert Cargill, by the way. Screenwriter and producer of the Sinister movies and The Black Phone.
Couple of things
- Has anyone seen the extended/unrated cut? How is it? I know that from all the comedies of that era, these cuts were nothing but cash grabs with deleted scenes that fucked up the pacing and didn’t add anything of note. But how was this case in particular?
- There’s a 30min mockumentary on the extras (also on Youtube) called Rain Of Madness that’s a parody of the famous Apocalypse Now documentary. Funny and worth watching.
I’ve heard about the show and the premise sounds very intriguing, but the fact that it’s gonna be 5 full seasons when it ends gives me pause. It kinda feels like the story would be suited for a miniseries, not 50 hours of plot.
Am I wrong or is the show full of dead ends, navel gazing and padding?
Don’t do spoilers when making your argument either way, please.
When talking about good music biopics people tend to favour the ones that are a bit experimental (Better Man, Love and Mercy, I’m Not There), are mostly fictional (Amadeus) or focus in just a tiny part of the subject’s life (Sid and Nancy).
More traditional biopics showing the early childhood, rise to fame, drug and relationship issues, final redemption… tend to be ridiculed and the subject of parody (Walk Hard, famously). And it’s true, when badly done, they suck (see the recent Michael Jackson or Queen ones). But what about the ones who unashamedly follow every convention in the book and in spite of that are very good or even great?
Which one would you pick?