One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for our second entry in Under the Kanopy, a new series of films exploring the critically acclaimed, if not commercially successful offerings on Kanopy, a library-funded streaming service. All you need is a library card at a participating library, and you’ll get access to stream up to six movies per month free from some of the better independent distributors, like A24, Kino Lorber, and more...

Today’s film is from the Iranian film scene, and better yet, focuses on the lives of three Iranian actresses – one before the Iranian Revolution, one currently starring in Iranian cinema, and an aspiring young woman who wants to be an actress. It’s a wonderful prism to explore both the Iranian film scene, and female representations within that scene. The only other film partially funded by the Iranian film scene we’ve covered is “The Other Side of the Wind” (Episode #310), Orson Welles’ lost work that was recently reacquired from the producers and distributed by Netflix. However, don’t miss Jafar Panahi’s “Taxi”, his previous feature-length film, or Ava Lily Amanpour’s Iranian Vampire Western “A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night”. Both are top quality!

You know what else is top quality? The BiCurean podcast, starring Aicila and Erik, who cover a host of topics from new and old perspectives. We’ll be playing their promo before the review, but be sure to check out their guest review of “It Follows” (Episode #608) as part of Reign of Terror 2019. I certainly appreciated their sage wisdom and guidance.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

/////

> 

/////

Today’s movie is “3 Faces”, the Iranian drama directed by Jafar Panahi and written for the screen in collaboration with Nader Saeivar. The film follows semi-fictionalized versions of Iranian actress Behnaz Jafari and director Jafar Panahi, who venture into the Iranian countryside after receiving a suicide video from an aspiring actress named Marziyeh (Marziyeh Rezaei). However, once they arrive in the area, they find it’s not as easy to leave. 

No spoilers. 

One of the drawbacks of living in any one country is the extent to which propaganda can affect the way we look at other countries, particularly those the people in power do not consider allies. Anyone who has studied history knows the power of that propaganda, especially efforts to simplify or stereotype countries, and by extension their citizens. As someone who has lived in the Unites States, one of those countries that faces this propaganda is Iran, which dates back to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when the Shah backed by Western countries and corporations was thrown out of power by a popular uprising, which later installed a quasi-theocracy, and decades of strained relations with the United States. It also created a huge diaspora of Iranians across the world, with their own feelings and impressions of Iran then and now. 

Of course, the revolution was forty years ago, and Iran has changed a great deal since then, even if their relationship to our government has not. One of my favorite news segments in recent memory was when “The Daily Show” sent Jason Jones to see what life was like in Iran. Turns out it’s a great deal like the United States. The economy is divided by class. Religion has a moderate influence on society and government. The people are quite diverse, with a spectrum of opinions on their society and the world, with divisions between urban and rural life, traditional versus modern ideas. And women are still trying to catch up in society, often against their male counterparts and conservative interpretations of religious dogma. Propaganda teaches us the differences between our countries, but filmmaking can help us cut out the governmental middleman to help us understand each other on a human level. Which is what Jafar Panahi has been doing for years. 

Jafar Panahi has been giving us his unique perspective on Iranian life, associated with the Iranian New Wave movement, which straddles the Iranian Revolution in terms of timeline. Panahi is no stranger to his country, conscripted into the Iranian army, working as a cinematographer developing films, and eventually enrolling in film school after finishing his service. He worked as an assistant director for his mentor before his 1995 debut feature film, “The White Balloon”, winning multiple awards and beginning his overt oversight by the Iranian government. With each success, and with each poke or prod at the government, Panahi became more and more restricted in his activities, until eventually going to prison for his convictions in 2010. And for those that remember, a huge outpouring of support from the international filmmaking community followed. 

All of this prelude is to establish Panahi as someone who understands his country, on multiple levels, and knows how to work within the various restrictions placed upon him throughout his career. While imprisoned, and banned from making films, he produced “This is Not a Film”, smuggled out on a flash drive in a cake. After given more leeway, he has continued to work within any restrictions placed upon him, developing semi-experimental, semi-autobiographical films that both document and challenge Iranian society. His previous feature, “Jafar Panahi’s Taxi” tells a wide-ranging story from his vehicle, on a decidedly pedestrian level. And with “3 Faces”, Panahi takes parts of the same approach for a different kind of tale with the same unique perspective.

Panahi’s style in his later work, incorporating himself and quasi-real life characters, reminds me a great deal of Jonas Carpignano’s small shared-universe of films, the most recent of which was “A Ciambra”. Film actors are pulled from existing communities, playing characters surprisingly close to themselves. “3 Faces” uses this quasi-real casting to tell a story that looks at the rural vs. urban, male vs. female experience, using a great deal of steady-cam and fixed-cam shots that capture unique perspectives and vistas. And as in “Taxi”, we find the car windows often act as frames for the stories to be told. Longer scenes play out, letting scenes and characters breathe, devoid of almost all jump cuts. 

Jafar Panahi plays himself, in a surprisingly similar role to “Taxi”, but so also does Behnaz Jafari, an Iranian actress playing herself, the middle of the three faces we examine in this film. So too does Marziyeh Rezaei, whose first acting credit is this film, but hopefully not her last. Each actress acts as a generational view of women in Iranian society, with the woman we never see representing those silenced much like Panahi, although usually to greater extents. We also get to see all the weird gendered double standards on display, similar to many double standards in western society. The story works so well that it not only documents Iranian society in very honest ways, but also points out the cracks that will bring future changes.

“3 Faces” is the fourth film from Jafar Panahi, after he was banned from filmmaking in 2010, and is a meditation on different generations of women in Iranian filmmaking. Using his unique style, and his unique perspective, Panahi delivers an insightful and thought-provoking film beyond state propaganda, and on an exceedingly human level. Fans of independent cinema, or folks looking for a peek into Iran without governmental filters, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 98% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 78

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“3 Faces” (2018) is not rated and is currently playing on Kanopy.

Hi everyone!

We might be getting a few extra doses of Andrew Campbell this month, but you can always expect to find him here on Fridays with another Fantastic Fest feature. Today’s film is... well, I’m going to let Andrew tell you about it, because I haven’t actually seen it. And since I don’t know what else to recommend, I’m going to recommend a few recent reviews from Andrew, including “Jojo Rabbit” (Episode #631), “Parasite” (Episode #628), and “One Cut of the Dead” (Episode #625). Andrew enjoyed all three of those films a great deal. 

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our friends at the Moviedrone Podcast. Every week, Steve and Marc tackle a new feature film, give each other homework films to watch, and extort their best fans to send them questions for review. There’s also the matter of Marc’s movie impressions, a sample of which you can hear on their guest review of the low-budget darling, “The Terrifier” (Episode #606), as part of Reign of Terror 2019. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

///// 

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Back today with the second of four Netflix-produced films that played at this year’s Fantastic Fest, all of which hit the streaming service in the 30 days after the festival wrapped up in September. Each timeslot of the fest lets you choose from typically 4-5 films or events, and each film typically plays once during the first four days and gets an encore during the last four days. Excluding early morning press screenings, an attendee can see, at max, 37 films over the course of 8 days. Some people actually succeed in this, andthese people are absolute animals. That is a grueling pace which affords you just enough time to sleep 8 hours and hightail it back for the 11AM shows. If I’m not mistaken, the 2019 fest played exactly 80 first-run feature-length films along with 16 repertory screenings of older classics and oddities. Suffice it to say, you’ve got some real choices to make as an attendee.  

With Netflix showing up with multiple films, it feels a little like how the motion picture industry inched into the San Diego Comic-Con before eventually taking it over. (Can you even buy comic books there at this point?) When deciding whether or not to sit for these Netflix films you have to balance what may be your one chance to see the film on the big screen with a packed house with the fact that you can soon watch it at home and go seek out a more unique experience. With today’s film, I chose to wait. Well, that’s enough of that. Joseph, where do you want me to put this soapbox? 

Today’s movie is “In The Shadow Of The Moon”, a science-fiction mystery written by Gregory Weidman & Geoffrey Tock and directed by Jim Mickle. The film opens in 2024 as the camera pans down from the shattered window of a downtown skyscraper onto the aftermath of a riot before winding the clock back to 1988. After a couple of violent deaths one night, we meet Locke (Boyd Holbrook), a Philadelphia police officer who connects the dots between the cases. He is joined by his close partner Maddox (Bokeem Woodbine) and his skeptical brother-in-law Detective Holt (Michael C. Hall). A wild pursuit leads to the suspect having a premonition that soon comes true before the story flashes nine years into the future where the pattern of killings begins again.

This is a difficult film to discuss without spoiling the pivotal events, but essentially we follow Locke through the years as the killer appears to resurface and Locke’s obsession grows. I love time-travel stories, whether it involves an actual time machine or just flashing backward and forward to tell some large, overarching tale. “In The Shadow Of The Moon” injects time travel and the passage of time into a noir film in a way that’s unique and exciting... on paper. Some films are intentionally vague or told metaphorically. You don’t mind if you can’t completely follow the narrative if the journey itself is interesting. Here the clunky dialogue weighs down the film and some of the plot leaps unintentionally left me in the dark as the ambitious story unfolded. I was hoping for an elegantly simple story, but it’s just not packaged in a way that kept my interest. Having read some of the plot details after watching the film, too much was left unclear. 

The acting is uninspired across the board. Boyd Holbrook was decent in “The Predator” as part of an ensemble cast and plays well as the villainous cyborg leader Donald Pierce in “Logan”. However, as the primary protagonist on the first two seasons of Netflix’s “Narcos”, Holbrook is heavily overshadowed by both his DEA agent partner Javier Peña (Pedro Pascal) and Pablo Escobar (a perfectly cast Wagner Moura). 

Switching over to the supporting cast, Bokeem Woodbine absolutely stole the terrific second season of “Fargo” as the delightfully murderous Mike Milligan. The script for “In The Shadow Of The Moon” provides him little to work with and his character isn’t really given an arc; he’s just a plot device. 

I was delighted to see Michael C. Hall show up at in the Drafthouse lobby for the film’s premiere, but he feels entirely miscast here as a by-the-book detective. Certainly, that is somewhat ironic given that his most popular role saw him pursuing serial killers in “Dexter”, as well as portraying one himself. The cast just didn’t really seem invested in the film and so neither was I. 

What makes “In The Shadow Of The Moon” fantastic? Oh, I need to answer that? Um, geeze. While this film really didn’t connect with me, it’s not a total loss and still better than most of the oddball science fiction films you have to wade through on Netflix. It has an interesting twist near the end, but like the rest of the movie, it doesn’t really land the moment with much impact. This could have been a better film were it a bit shorter and a lot flashier.

“In The Shadow Of The Moon” (2019) is an ambitious time-bending story that suffers from a lack of clarity and overall excitement. Fans of low-budget time travel movies such as “Primer”, “Project Almanac”, or “Predestination” will enjoy this film. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 61%

Metacritic: 48

One Movie Punch: 6.0/10

“In The Shadow Of The Moon” (2019) is rated TV-MAand if you don’t know where to watch it by now, I can’t help you.

Come back next Friday and we’ll dip back into the Netflix well with “Fractured”. I have no idea what this film is about, but I do know it stars the actor James Cameron has hired to anchor a film franchise he is certain will gross $10B over the next decade. I’m talking A-list celebrity and star of four upcoming “Avatar” films, Sam Worthington. I’ll see you then.

Hi everyone!

It’s still catchup week and... oof, today’s film is not a good one. In fact, it’s a bad one and quite clumsy with its story and message, which is a shame given the landmark franchise opener, “First Blood”. It won’t be a favorable review, but don’t let that seem like I hate Sylvester Stallone. You can catch him in both “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” (Episode #099) and in Garrett Wright’s review for “Creed II” (Episode #335). And if you haven’t seen it, I have found “The Expendables” to be one of the most self-aware actioners of all time.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from Dave and Chris from the Comics in Motion Podcast. Every episode, they look at a film based on a comic book or graphic novel, exploring its faithfulness and effectiveness in the transition from the page to the screen, and sometimes back again. Definitely check out their guest review here of “Alien vs Predator” (Episode #605), where they fare only slightly better than the franchise did after that movie. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

///// 

>

/////

Today’s movie is “Rambo: Last Blood”, the franchise closer directed by Adrian Grunberg and written for the screen by Matthew Cirulnick and Sylvester Stallone, based on a story by Dan Gordon and Sylvester Stallone, based on the character created by David Morrell. Years after the events of “Rambo”, John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) has returned to his family’s horse ranch in Arizona, living out his years in relative peace. When his ranch manager’s granddaughter Gabriela (Yvette Monreal) is forced into sex slavery, Rambo must come to her rescue. 

No spoilers.

Franchises have always been a part of the film industry, often the cash cows that keep production and distribution companies afloat to help finance other, less profitable pictures. Our modern box office is dominated by franchises, which draw huge crowds and huge dollars to the theater. Modern franchises are heavily outfitted, with billion-dollar corporations and hundred-million-dollar special effects companies, with multi-year plans for expansion into multiple media. Huge investments that are yielding huge profits. 

But some franchises spring out of a very popular and influential first film, like the “Rambo” franchise did with the incredible “First Blood”. John Rambo, played by a youthful Sylvester Stallone, is a PTSD-laden Vietnam veteran being bullied by some yokels in a small town, who is finally pushed to the point of fighting back to survive. An exceedingly complex character that dies at the end of the novel, but survives in the film to launch an entire franchise. John Rambo, as a character in the first film, was “a man out of time”, but the subsequent films each lose another portion of the complexity behind the character, even as they upped the ante on every action scene. But if John Rambo in “First Blood” was a man out of time, this final entry in the franchise makes John Rambo a man without a time. 

So, why go back to the well? I’m guessing two reasons. First, Stallone has a great deal of attachment to his two prize franchises. The success of “Rocky” and “Rocky II” definitely played into the success of “First Blood”. Stallone has returned to both franchises as he finds investors, or more likely, as investors find him. Which brings us to the second reason for dipping back into the well: money. “Rambo: Last Blood” has made roughly $90 million on a $50 million budget, so it definitely wasn’t a loss. 

Of course, there’s a risk in going back to the well, namely tarnishing the brand that makes up your franchise. Most franchises fizzle out, although the resurgence in remakes and reboots and retcons has given new life to old franchises. One reason franchises fizzle is a string of bad, forced films, which do nothing to expand the character. “Rambo: Last Blood” feels forced, from concept through execution, intending to serve as a nostalgic capstone for a complex character, and failing horribly in the process.

Every sequel to “First Blood” seems to have taken the wrong lessons about the Rambo franchise, with each rendition of John Rambo stepping further and further away from the original character. Rather than focusing on PTSD or the relationship of solider to country, each film has doubled down on explosive action, increased firepower, and an escalating series of gruesome deaths. “Rambo: Last Blood” definitely delivers in this case, with a healthy amount of violence porn towards the end, if that’s your thing, although it definitely lacks the choreography of “The Raid” or “John Wick”. 

But that violence doesn’t make up for the criminally stupid plot or underdeveloped characters, all of which are as disposable as the henchmen in previous films. And the film, likely in an effort to be politically relevant, plays fast and loose with the current climate of the United States and Mexico border, showing Trump’s idiotic wall, painting an overly horrific picture of Mexican cartels, and ending with some misguided notion of freedom and/or patriotism. It’s definitely not the only time since “First Blood” that the franchise played poorly with politics, what with “Rambo III” being originally dedicated to the resistance fighters of Afghanistan, lead by one Osama Bin Laden at the time. 

“Rambo: Last Blood” is a disappointing franchise closer, one unworthy of the complex character that launched the franchise, but also one perfectly understandable given the franchise’s diminishing returns. While the film has all the elements that have brought box office success, it also has all the elements that have disappointed fans in the past. Rambo fans, fans of 1980s action thrillers, or fans of awkwardly patriotic films will probably enjoy parts of this film. Just be ready to forgive a lot.

Rotten Tomatoes: 27%

Metacritic: 26

One Movie Punch: 4.2/10

“Rambo: Last Blood” (2019) is rated Rand is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone! 

We’re continuing catchup week with another Certified Fresh film from the last couple of months. One Movie Spouse and I had a chance to check out “Hustlers” to see what the hype was about, and we came away impressed with considerations. I’ll get to what I mean in a bit, but a couple other films related to today’s film, check out Constance Wu in “Crazy Rich Asians” (Episode #253) and her voice work in “Next Gen” (Episode #252).

Before the review, we’ll have a promo for our friends at the Top 5 For Fighting podcast. Every episode, Greg and Mike sit down to talk about whatever is catching their interest at the time, and as you might expect, if they don’t agree on something, they’re definitely going to fight about it. Be sure to check out their guest review for “Aliens” (Episode #604) during Reign of Terror 2019. Believe it or not, they actually agree on something at the end of the episode! 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

/////

>

/////

Today’s movie is “Hustlers”, the crime drama written and directed by Lorene Scafaria, based on a magazine article by Jessica Pressler. The film follows Destiny (Constance Wu), a young woman who gets involved with stripping during the economic boom of the mid-2000s, thanks to the help of Ramona (Jennifer Lopez), an older stripper who teaches her the ropes. However, after the 2008 economic crash, Destiny, Ramona, and a few other former and current strippers take to drugging and robbing the super-wealthy to make ends meet.

No spoilers.

Truth is often stranger than fiction, but especially the truth of the lives of the ultra-wealthy. Both cinema and television have gone to great lengths to try and bring the lifestyle to viewers, sometimes glamorizing it as in the aptly titled “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” with oft-imitated, recently deceased host Robin Leach. Or more often than not, and as we’ve seen with quite a few reviews this year, criticism of the ultra-wealthy, whether that’s “Parasite” (Episode #630), the genre-bending meditation on class, or “Joker” (Episode #632). And let’s be fair, meditating on the haves and have nots is a theme as old as our current economic system.

I’m not a huge fan of wealth porn, so I normally wouldn’t have bothered to see a film like “Hustlers”. It’s not that I couldn’t be objective when examining a film that glamorizes wealth, which you can see in my review of last year’s wealth porn future classic “Crazy Rich Asians” (Episode #253). I just wouldn’t choose to watch a film unless it has something new to say, or some new way of saying something old. So, much like “Crazy Rich Asians”, I held off on watching the film until my fellow critics weighed in, and after seeing the Certified Fresh rating, I knew I should see it. And much like “Crazy Rich Asians”, this is pure wealth porn. The amount of wealth on display is obscene, not just in the suits and cars and costumes, but in the unbridled spending that marks the pre-2008 Manhattan scene. With so much money available, the stripper-client relationship is one of mutual exploitation, in addition to the stripper-owner relationship. Of course, that relationship dramatically changes after the crash, which is where “Hustlers” really takes off.

The biggest strength of “Hustlers” is the all-star cast, one somehow flexible enough to be lead-driven in Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez, and ensemble-leveraging with Cardi B, Lizzo, Keke Palmer, and a great supporting performance by Madeline Brewer. Jennifer Lopez is in top form, who manages to both defy and meet expectations, depending on the viewer, and shines in her solo performance scene. Constance Wu, who plays the lead character Destiny, is sometimes overshadowed by Lopez, ending up in a little sister role, at least until the end.

However, my problems with the characters have nothing to do with the cast or their performances. It’s that, much like “The Wolf of Wall Street”, I can’t empathize with any of them except on the most abstract level. Sure, it’s unjust when the power dynamic changes after the 2008 crash, but both the dancers and the executives are still engaged in a form of mutual exploitation. The dancers, the executives, the police, and the families all feel entitled. Even Elizabeth (Julia Stiles), the reporter trying to make a dollar off their story, seems engaged in exploitation, which makes it perhaps the perfect capitalist film. 

I may not like the themes or the characters, but I also think this film has a lot of objectively good qualities. The sets are well-chosen, bringing the balling strip club scene to life, and utilizing the common color palettes and filters for different parts of the story. The music is also well-chosen, a combination of stripper and hustler anthems, mostly female-driven. The slick art direction and cinematography, however, are sometimes upset by the jarring storytelling style, a combination of flashbacks and jump cuts, as we learn the story during a conversation between Destiny and Elizabeth after the events had taken place.

And while this might make for a great news story, it doesn’t leave the viewer with any larger message. Sure, the executives lost their money, and the dancers face varying degrees of penalties, but we’re still back in a dog-eat-dog world, where those involved still have to find a way to survive, and aside from any real estate they might own, nothing else to show for it. In the end, there’s no one to root for, just a bunch of people to root against, no matter how well performed by the cast. 

“Hustlers” is a story about mutual exploitation, and how relationships change with the presence and absence of wealth. A strong cast turns in great performances for unlikeable and entitled characters, which will maybe leave viewers dissatisfied, depending on their expectations. Fans of crime films, or films about robbing the rich, will definitely like this film. And it probably goes without saying, but be ready for a lot of skin.

Rotten Tomatoes: 88% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 79

One Movie Punch: 7.6/10

“Hustlers” (2019) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for another catchup review from yours truly! If “Joker” (Episode #630) was the best film I saw during Reign of Terror 2019, then “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot” has to be my favorite film I saw during that same time. Kevin Smith has been a huge influence and inspiration to me, finding a cinema that speaks to beta males, the working class, and pop culture nerds from across the spectrum. It’ll be the first film of his we’re covering for the podcast, but it certainly won’t be the last if his current slate is any indication.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from Daniel Shaw of The History of Violence podcast. Every episode, Daniel takes a look at how violence has impacted our world, from obvious and unique perspectives. Also, be sure to catch his guest review for “Alien” (Episode #603) as part of Reign of Terror 2019! We were so happy to have him on the show! 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

/////

>

/////

Today’s movie is “Jay And Silent Bob Reboot”, the Askewverse comedy written and directed by Kevin Smith. Almost twenty years after the events of “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”, when Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith) drove across country to stop a movie based on the comic book “Bluntman & Chronic”, which used their likenesses, they must now... drive across country to stop a reboot based on the original movie. And you know what? It totally works.

No spoilers.

Before the DC Extended Universe, before the Marvel Cinematic Universe, before the Walking Dead Universe, there was a shared universe that broke ground in exciting new ways, heavily influenced by comic books, although indirectly. In 1994, after maxing out multiple credit cards, Kevin Smith wrote and produced the microbudget classic “Clerks”, which would be the first entry into a shared universe of films known as the Askewverse. The second film, “Mallrats” would debut the following year, with a cameo by a little known comic book guy named Stan Lee, establishing Jay and Silent Bob as unique background characters in the lives of many, many other films to come. 

In high school, we watched the first two films. In college, I connected with people specifically over the Askewverse, getting a chance to see “Dogma” in theaters and “Chasing Amy” at home, and eventually seeing “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” in Burbank on my first consulting gig. Smith had a style all his own, building endearing characters, and when films weren’t working out, he became one of the podfathers of modern time, which I didn’t really get into until much later. I don’t think everyone needs to be a fan of Kevin Smith, but the fans he does have are exceptionally loyal. 

After moving to California, I ran into Kevin at Burbank Airport. I was heading to Sacramento and he was heading to Phoenix for a live recording. I had gotten some fries and he was finishing a root beer float when I walked up. Nervous as hell, I introduced myself. Calm as hell, Kevin said hello and asked if he could have a few of my fries. We chatted for a while. I asked about Jay, who has had some rough moments, but he was definitely on the mend. I asked about his career, and life, and he told me all about podcasts. His flight was leaving, so I said good-bye, and when I walked away, somebody with headphones on screamed out at me, “Was he cool?” referring to Kevin Smith. After taking a moment to process what he said, I remember screaming back, “Why wouldn’t he be?”

Smith has actually been pioneering a new kind of fan-driven, heavily processed filmmaking style the past few years. After a string of less than successful films, Smith disappeared from filmmaking, focusing more on podcasting and pitching shows and pilots. His podcasts became continuous workshopping areas, pitching ideas, and even fully forming the first two films of the True North Trilogy – “Tusk” and “Yoga Hosers” – on episodes of “Smodcast” and “Hollywood Babble On”. Podcast fans loved both films. Older fans of Smith had mixed results. Critics and the box office were allergic to both films. Other projects got stalled, and then in 2018, Smith had a heart attack, lost over fifty pounds, and went on a plant-based diet.

It’s not fair to say that he’s been milking his heart attack for publicity, but it has certainly returned a focus to his creative output by old fans, new fans, and the occasional film connoisseur. Multiple stalled projects suddenly have traction. Even Netflix has finally thrown cash at Kevin Smith for a Masters of the Universe series. But I think more importantly, Kevin has gone back to projects that he wants to do, and that includes returning to the Askewverse, with the characters he’s smartly kept control over the years. Smith always writes best when he’s passionate about something, and being more nostalgic than usual after his brush with death, “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot” becomes a perfect vehicle for reintroducing himself to fans. 

One Movie Spouse and I saw the double feature through Fathom Events, with a showing of “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” before the new movie. The original movie served as a quasi-Avengers crossover of previous movies, centered around the titular characters. The film mostly holds up, with only a few bits of humor that are outdated, in a classic Smith comedy way, a harmless, but steady assault of dick and fart jokes from characters you can’t help but love, even as you might also be rightly repulsed.

It also makes for the perfect film to reboot into “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot”. Just as the previous film summed up a memorable body of work, the new film serves as a re-introduction and a re-evaluation of that same work by someone with a new perspective on his life and his art. “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot” does re-introduce us to nearly everyone, include a few lost characters, and the introduction of new characters within the film, including Jay’s daughter Millennium Falcon (Harley Quinn Smith). And with rumors of “Clerks 3” and a gone for now “Mallrats” mini-series, perhaps we’re witnessing a true reboot of the Askewverse, as only someone who understand the culture can do. It’s a return to form, featuring everything we love about Kevin Smith, and with a self-awareness that can only come from cheating death. It may not break any new ground, but it goes back to familiar ground, and ends up being the best film from Smith in a long while. 

From the man who helped pioneer the shared universe comes a reboot, retcon, and remake all in one. “Jay and Silent Bob Reboot” serves very well as a nostalgic reflection on Smith’s early work, and perhaps an introduction of new wonders to come. You’ll laugh a lot more than you think. You’ll cry a lot more than you expect. You’ll reminisce, and if you love Jay and Silent Bob, then you’ll love seeing them back on the screen. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 71%

Metacritic: 46

One Movie Punch: 8.5/10

“Jay And Silent Bob Reboot” (2019) is rated Rand is currently playing in theaters and as part of the Jay and Silent Bob Reboot Road Tour.

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to Matinee Mondays with... Andrew Campbell! Yes, that’s right! Andrew will be popping onto the podcast a little more often in the coming weeks, as many of the films from Fantastic Fest hit theaters and streaming services, and one from a favorite director of mine, Taika Waititi. I’ve been enjoying his films since “Boy”, fell in love with his style with “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”, and laughed my ass off watching “Thor: Ragnarok” (Episode #113). And just to be fair, absolutely hated “Eagle vs. Shark”. 

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our friends at the Good Game, Great Game podcast. Every episode, the crew talks about the video games they’ve been playing, along with any related and unrelated topics. Be sure to check out Andrew Orsie’s guest review for “Scream 3” (Episode #600) as part of Reign of Terror 2019! 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

/////

>

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here. Pinch-hitting for Joseph today on Matinee Monday. If you were here on Friday for “Parasite” (Episode #620), you heard me bestow my first-ever 10-out-of-10 score on the podcast, in lock-step with every critic save perpetual troll Armand White. Maybe I just got swept up in the Fantastic Fest fervor this year, but I promise you’re not going to have to wait as long for my next perfect 10.

Today’s movie is “Jojo Rabbit”, the Nazi-skewering satire written and directed by Taika Waititi and based on the novel “Caging Skies”by Christine Leunens. Playing in theaters now, the film made its U.S. premiere at Fantastic Fest in September. “Jojo Rabbit” stars Roman Griffin Davis as Johannes Betzler, a 10-year-old boy growing up in Germany in the waning days of World War II. With his father absent for the last two years, supposedly fighting in Italy, young Johannes lives in the city with his doting mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). Coming of age in a country torn apart by a war, Johannes has been indoctrinated in his belief in Adolf Hitler as the savior of Germany. So much so that Johannes conjures up his imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi) who serves as his confidante and spirit guide. Conscripted into the Hitler Youth, a boot camp for young Nazi boys in training, the timid boy refuses to snap a rabbit’s neck, earning him the Jojo Rabbit moniker shortly before a self-inflicted grenade accident ensures the end of service. While coalescing in his home, Jojo makes a startling discovery which forces him to question the beliefs ingrained in him by society.

The news that Taika would be portraying Hitler in a comedy was initially met with some trepidation, even for the do-no-wrong Waititi. Though there were moments when the crowd was a bit unsure of how much to laugh, by the conclusion the audience was fully won over by the film and the way he handled the subject matter. 

The character being portrayed by Waititi is Jojo’s idealized version of Hitler, who bears nothing more than a physical resemblance to the dictator. While he is supportive of Jojo, this Hitler is petty, snide, somewhat effeminate, and unbelievably snotty. Supposedly, Waititi had not cast himself in this role at the outset of the project, which is tough to comprehend given how his comic genius shines through every moment he’s in frame, including the hilarious ways in which he enters and exits.

Setting aside the primary story of Jojo, the film offers up its best satire with glimpses into the Nazi government. The style is sort of a Monty Python meets Armando Iannucci mash-up (more “Death of Stalin” or “In The Loop” than “Veep”). Conflicted Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell) is on a career downslide, demoted to heading up the local Hitler youth camp.  The absurdity of teaching everything from book-burning to the art of war to these precocious children weighs on him as its apparent the tide is turning in favor of the Allied powers.

In a separate storyline, Stephen Merchant portrays Captain Deertz, a Gestapo agent in charge of sniffing out individuals undesirable to the Nazi regime who may be in hiding. 6’7” Merchant joked in the Q&A after the film that with his unique look, he was born to play a Nazi officer. I’m happy to report that he’s as funny in person as he has been in every project since debuting on the British “Office”. Captain Deertz and his crew of lackeys exchange individual “Heil Hitlers” with everyone they meet in some Vaudevillian slapstick that drags on until it has been beaten to death like some of the best “Family Guy” gags. I loved how Waititi was able to take down the Nazi regime with something so simple, portraying them as mindless drones that just want to belong to a club. 

What makes “Jojo Rabbit” fantastic?The film takes a story that only Taika Waititi’s sensibilities could bring to the silver screen and injects it with so much heart and humor that the result is an eminently rewatchable embarrassment of riches. The larger story is one that must keep being retold, not just in our current political climate, but forevermore. Jojo’s journey of self-discovery and learning that the adults that surround you aren’t always right is both charming and believable. I’m not one to make bold proclamations, but time will see this film rank alongside the best social satires in cinematic history.  

“Jojo Rabbit” is an absolute joy from beginning to end - relevant, uproarious & emotional. Fans of Nazi takedowns like “Inglourious Basterds” and “The Producers” will enjoy this film. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 80%

Metacritic: 52

One Movie Punch: 10/10

“Jojo Rabbit” (2019) is rated PG-13and is in theaters now.

Come back on Friday and we’ll talk the new Netflix film “In The Shadow Of The Moon”. Netflix went all out at Fantastic Fest this year. In addition to acquiring a handful of films that debuted at the festival, they showed up with four of their Netflix Originals. We mowed down “In The Tall Grass” (Episode #607) and we’ll cover the others over the next three Fridays, including both “Dolemite Is My Name” and “Factured”. Make sure you’re subscribed to the podcast to catch these entries.

Hi everyone!

No classic review today. We’re spending the next week or so catching up on films we watched during Reign of Terror 2019, and one of the first reviews for the new week had to be “Joker”. I’ll be going a little long today, talking not just about the movie, but the way folks have been reacting to the movie. And it will be done without spoilers, or at least anything you can’t infer from the trailer. It’s more difficult than you think. 

Only two recommendations for today’s movie, both of which are R-rated takes on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first is, of course, “Deadpool”, which while not the first R-rated take on comic book heroes, was the first commercially successful one, and opened the door for more films to follow. The second is “Logan”, which was the first commercially successful film to step through that door opened by “Deadpool”.

We haven’t reviewed either film yet for the podcast, but if you want to make us, head over to patreon.com/onemoviepunch and sign up to become a sponsor. You’ll get to force one of us to review a film of your choice, with just a few exceptions. Speaking of Patreon, don’t miss your chance to hear our full interview with Colm O’Murchu, writer and director of “Tabernacle 101” (Episode #619), where we discuss the film, his production company International Film Base, and his microbudget film school Australian Film Base. It’ll be publicly available for a limited time.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our friends at the Ocho Duro Parlay Hour. Every week, the whole crew sit down and go over a bunch of topics, from sports to comics to television and movies. Huge shoutout to the ODPH crew for all their support during Reign of Terror 2019. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go!

///// 

> 

/////

Today’s movie is “Joker”, the origin story of Gotham’s most famous psychopath, directed by Todd Phillips and written for the screen in collaboration with Scott Silver, based on characters by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, and Jerry Robinson. In the early 1980s, a troubled man named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) works in Gotham City as a clown, with dreams of being a stand-up comedian on the show of his hero Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro), while living with his mother Penny (Frances Conroy). However, with a global recession cutting services for the people and widening the gap between the rich and poor, Arthur finds what’s left of himself slowly, perhaps inevitably slipping away. 

No spoilers.

Every superhero has an origin story. A reason for their powers. An event that confirms their convictions. A death that drives them to action. Everyone knows the origin stories for Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman, especially after multiple renditions in every medium possible. However, for the enemies these superheroes faced, there wasn’t always an origin story. Henchmen were a dime a dozen, and their bosses were often generic, or simply a gimmick, or in the case of Joker, specifically designed by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, and Jerry Robinson to be an archenemy to Batman, and a disturbingly violent one at that. Robinson never wanted the character to have an origin story, but that would not always be the case.

Bill Finger would later write an origin story, with ties to the Red Hood Gang and the infamous fall into the chemical vat, right before the character was tamed by the Comics Code into a laughing trickster, the basis for the Batman ’66 television rendition by Cesar Romero. The story would be developed further by Alan Moore in ‘The Killing Joke’, adding an attempt at stand-up comedy, but also re-inserting a mystery about the truth of the story in Joker’s mind. In some ways, Moore re-established Robinson’s wish for the character using Finger’s story and made mental illness an established part of Joker. Other authors would write different takes on the same origin story, or insinuate other origin stories, so that there could never really be a definitive origin story for the character. But that also means folks are free to create their own origin stories, and that’s just what Todd Phillips and Scott Silver have done.

I absolutely did not expect a historical drama. I still have a lot of hopes for the DC Extended Universe, despite its rocky start, and all signs are still pointing towards a connected universe. As we’ve seen with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this has generally been an opportunity to reboot characters for modern times. However, the upcoming Matt Reeves Batman project is supposedly set in the 1990s, which makes a Joker origin in the early 1980s not just chronologically appropriate, but thematically appropriate as well. 

The 1980s were a very tumultuous time in the United States. Children who grew up during this time, especially suburban and rural children, grew up in a television wonderland, driven by pop culture and a nascent consumerism. However, adults living through that time were experiencing one of the greatest recessions to hit the country. Reagan was slashing government programs across the board, affecting programs that helped not just those struggling in poverty, but specifically those struggling with mental illness. Corporations were moving nearly all our manufacturing jobs overseas, driving many people out of work. We also have the rise of bully culture, driven in large part by the widening gap between the rich and poor. 

Phillips does an amazing job actualizing a 1980s Gotham just right, with stylized costumes and props from the time period, but also visual reminders like news reports and the piled up trash in the streets. Setting the stage for Gotham correctly is key to any Batman story, as the city itself is a character, but it’s also the background on which to tell this particular story. Because Joker isn’t just a single character, but a manifestation of the social chaos created by the wealthy and powerful. The crumbling infrastructure, the changing tone of mainstream discourse, and the abandonment of the mentally ill are the perfect conditions for the rise of an amoral psychopath.

You can’t do a Joker film without a strong lead actor. After Leto’s categorically disastrous rendition of Joker in “Suicide Squad”, most folks thought that Joker was over, or could never be topped by anyone after Ledger. And I definitely agree, Leto’s Joker was bad, not just poorly performed, but also poorly developed and written for that particular film. However, nearly every other rendition of Joker has been excellent. Romero’s Joker is a perfect 60’s Joker, in line with the comics of the time. Nicholson’s Joker was incredible, building off Jack’s incredible roles. Hamill’s voice work for Joker in “Batman: The Animated Series” is perfect. Ledger’s performance is absolutely legendary. And the reason for this is that Joker, as a character, has also changed and evolved over time, because of the lack of a specific origin story. It’s why I hate the “Rank the Jokers” posts I’ve seen, because they are mostly all excellent takes on the character.

I’m so glad not to be let down by Joaquin Phoenix’s performance, especially for an origin story that plays into mental illness and downward spirals. Knowing the direction that Todd Phillips and Scott Silver wanted to take the role, Phoenix actually had to develop two characters - Arthur Fleck and Joker – along with the path from one to the other. Character growth and change is common in cinema, but rarely on this level. Phoenix’s rendition of Arthur Fleck is quite brilliant, a character you can either feel pity for or empathize with, depending on the situation. Growing up bullied, as many kids were, we all carry different chips on our shoulders, which this film taps into. Arthur’s painful optimism, especially given his horrific past, is hard enough, but watching everyone else bully him for it is even worse. His heart is in the right place socially, where all our hearts should be honestly, but it’s also perfect prey for Gotham’s predatory class.

The transformation that takes place over the course of the film is subtle and seemingly inevitable. With each event in Arthur’s life, he comes to realize all the lessons he was taught by his mother were either lies or worthless, if he wanted to survive. We cheer Fleck standing up to the bullies in his life, and with the masses decrying the corruption and injustice of the times, even as we’re horrified by the escalating means of retribution. We understand the troubles with his life, from his unique medical condition to his horrific past, and while we may not agree with his actions, we can definitely understand them. And that can definitely frighten some people.

And when it comes to the reviews this film is receiving, that’s the crux. If you can empathize at all with Arthur Fleck, whether that’s having been bullied, or having systems in society fail you, or anger at the wealthy predatory class taking advantage of anyone and everyone they can for their own gain, then you will find this film to be an intense and difficult experience, that sinks into the core of our place within our community, and the value of rules that benefit the few over the many. If you can’t empathize at all with Arthur Fleck, whether through the privilege of not being bullied or through the ignorance of actual social hardship, then you will probably silently wonder why people are attracted to this film.

“Joker” is an incredible film anchored by an incredible performance, which takes a poignant crack at one of the most elusive and intriguing origin stories in comic book history. Phillips and Silver set a well-dressed stage for Phoenix to give one of the absolute best performances this year, and for his career. Comic book fans, especially Joker fans, will definitely appreciate this film, but so will fans of “The King of Comedy”, “Taxi Driver”, or other 1980s films that dealt with inequality and pedestrian struggles.

Rotten Tomatoes: 69%

Metacritic: 59

One Movie Punch: 10/10

“Joker” (2019) is rated Rand is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to One Movie Punch. One Movie Spouse is taking a break for the rest of the quarter, going back to her secret identity as an educator. Actually, that’s probably her superhero identity, as we all know teachers are heroes. So, while she’s taking a break from her weekly reviews, I’ll be starting a new series of reviews on Saturdays called “Under The Kanopy”.

One of the greatest kept secrets in the United States is a streaming service called Kanopy. Kanopy is funded by your local library and has become a great source for films that might lack commercial appeal, but definitely have critical appeal, with content agreements with heavy hitters like A24, Kino Lorber, and many others. Every month, you get six free views from a variety of mainstream and independent features, along with other great content. Starting today, and for the next six weeks, I’ll be bringing you a series of films you probably wouldn’t consider, but are freely available on Kanopy.

Like today’s film, from Jean-Luc Godard, the French-Swiss film director from France’s incredibly influential New Wave, and for his boundary-pushing avant-garde filmmaking style. The only recommendation I will make for today’s film is “Faces Places” (Episode #454), from street artist JR, and the late Agnes Varda, another member of the French New Wave. The film actually contains a sly reference to Jean-Luc Godard.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our friends at the Donna Martin Graduates podcast. Every episode, Kelly Senatra breaks down an episode of the pop-culture sensation, “Beverly Hills 90210”. Subscribe and get caught up as they continue their journey through season one. And definitely check out their guest appearance for Reign of Terror 2019 in Episode #599, with her review of “Scream 2”. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go!

///// 

>

/////

Today’s movie is “The Image Book”, the avant-garde video essay written and directed by Jean-Luc Godard. Built from a combination of color-saturated film, heavily edited video, selected musical pieces, and manipulated narration, Godard uses the cut-up film technique to say something... something that only film studies majors and the philosophically minded will appreciate.

No spoilers, but I’m not sure how I would spoil anything in this film. 

I took a class in college called “World of the Arts”, which was a general education course that gave an overview of the artworld, everything from the first cave paintings to today’s intense postmodernism. One of the lessons we learned was that technologies made many art movements possible, whether that’s creating the first dyes or placing a used toilet on a pedestal. Technologies have given us new kinds of art, including photographs, computer-rendered art, and, of course, the motion picture. Another important lesson we learned was that art movements were rarely confined to one medium, and often bleed into other media, sometimes pushing boundaries and sometimes shattering them altogether.

This latter group of experimental films can be loosely called the avant-garde. Avant-garde filmmaking was a simultaneous rebellion against the exceedingly formalist films being produced and distributed by major studios, as well as an independent revolution in filmmaking discovering new uses for old tools, and new techniques for old media. It wasn’t just film, either, but also music and stage and paintings and poetry and literature... all over the world, artists either rejected or ignored so-called rules in the pursuit of something new. But not always something accessible.

One of the leaders of avant-garde cinema, if there can be such a thing, is Jean-Luc Godard. Godard began as a film critic, something I can certainly relate to, but began to get tired of seeing films that seemed intent on recreating the stage experience on screen. Godard, and many others, knew the potential of the tools available for filmmakers, and rather than wait for permission, they took to creating films however they wanted, in whatever configuration, founding the French New Wave that raised a virulent middle finger to the establishment. Forget three act structures. Forget morality plays. Forget the standard templates. And because of that, there’s no real way to say what the avant-garde is, as it is mostly defined by what it is not, and takes on many, many forms.

“The Image Book” is reminiscent of the work by William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin with audio and literary cut-up style. A five-part essay unfolds, mashing up and juxtaposing heavily saturated film segments, sometimes mismatched with audio, sometimes cut away from the audio altogether, on a range of topics loosely based around European notions of the Arab world. And, much like the cut-up literary style, it will confound or frustrate viewers and readers who don’t abandon any hope of instant understanding to let the experience wash over them. This isn’t a film to enjoy. This is a film to study and compare and contrast and defend or decry. And that limits its audience to a small, elite few who are willing or able to spend the time to understand it.

Of course, Godard’s own work can’t be relegated to any one particular film style, however. If you knew nothing about Godard, it’s very likely someone could pull three films from his filmography and you wouldn’t know it’s the same director, at least not without a little study and knowledge. If “The Image Book” doesn’t seem like your thing, and it very well may not be, perhaps try a film from the French New Wave period from 1959 to 1967, and see what you think. Results may vary! 

“The Image Book” is an avant-garde video essay from the legendary Jean-Luc Godard. Using multiple experimental film techniques to communicate a complex topic, the overall style and themes may be inaccessible for those frustrated by avant-garde cinema as a whole. Fans of avant-garde or experimental filmmaking, however, will absolutely gobble up every frame of this film, which still manages to show a master at work.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 76

One Movie Punch: 8.2/10

“The Image Book” (2018) is not rated and is currently streaming onKanopy.

Hi everyone!

Man, what a ride! Thank you all for listening this past month to Reign of Terror 2019! 31 days of audio dramas, interviews, reviews, and outtakes is no joke! We’ve got some catching up to do, a new series of reviews, and much more in our last six weeks of content before we break for the holidays. 

Part of that catching up is getting Andrew going on his many, many reviews coming out of Fantastic Fest 2019. Today’s film is from one of my favorite modern filmmakers, and I can’t hide the fact I’m supremely jealous of Andrew reviewing it. I also can’t wait to see this film when it hits our area. For a few other South Korean favorites here, check out Andrew’s review for “Burning” (Episode #487), “The Handmaiden” (Episode #122), and “Psychokinesis” (Episode #124). And literally anything by Bong Joon Ho.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from the Fab Figmentals podcast. Every episode, Lindsey Morse delivers all sorts of lore about mythical and magical creatures. Don’t miss their recent episode on the Legend of Sleepy Hollow. And definitely make sure to catch One Movie Punch Episode #598 for Lindsey’s review of “Scream” and her best scary movie phone call voice during Reign of Terror 2019. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

///// 

> 

/////

Hello film fans! 

Andrew here. With the Reign of Terror finally at an end, what good fortune that November begins on a Friday so we can give our intrepid host a quick breather. Actually, for the rest of the month I’ll be administering a double-dose of the Fantastic each week. The 2019 festival delivered a bevy of remarkable films with October/November release dates, so buckle up.  Fridays will continue to focus on Netflix and VOD releases, and I will be taking over Matinee Mondays with a handful of films playing in theaters around the country. But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, today I am thrilled to present the first film in my tenure with the podcast that rates a perfect 10 out of 10. Let’s do this.

Today’s movie is “Parasite”, the 2019 comedic thriller from South Korea, written by Bong Joon-ho and Han Jin-won, and directed by Bong Joon-ho.  The 2019 Fantastic Fest pitted “Parasite” against critical darlings “Knives Out” and “Jojo Rabbit” and not only did the film edge those out to win the Audience Award, the Alamo Drafthouse literally renamed their flagship Austin location the Bong Joon-ho Cinema with the unveiling of a plaque and everything.

The film stars Song Kang-ho in his fourth role for the auteur director, playing Ki-taek Kim, the patriarch of a perpetually under-employed family.  Mr. Kim and his wife Chung-sook (Jang Hye-jin) have a loving and playful relationship with their young adult son and daughter. The family resides in relative poverty in a basement apartment, but their positive spirit and collective will are demonstrative of their overall happiness, at least at a surface level. When his friend moves away, the Kims’ son Ki-woo (Choi Woo-sik) takes over his job as a part-time tutor for the daughter of the wealthy Park family residing in an ultra-modern home. When the family also finds themselves in need of a caregiver for their unruly elementary-aged son, Ki-woo is quick to recommend his sister to that post. During their frequent visits to the Park home, they grow accustomed to the trappings of wealth and begin to assimilate into the Park family’s daily life.

“Parasite” may be the capstone on a thematic trilogy for director Bong, whose last three films have now dealt with class and social status. 2013’s much-lauded “Snowpiercer” saw Chris Evans as an economy-class passenger on a train circling the frozen globe, battling his way toward the oppressive Tilda Swinton in a not-so-subtle allegory for the wealthy thriving off those less fortunate. His next film, “Okja”, was released by Netflix in 2017 as one of their larger budget projects at the time. Though it falls short of “Snowpiercer”’s cult status, “Okja” received a Certified Fresh rating and contemplated the ethics of mass-scale food production; specifically, meat; more specifically, “super-pigs”. With “Parasite”, Bong strips away all of the high-concept sci-fi pretense and delivers a message that can be appreciated at both broad and human levels.

“Parasite” expertly explores class differences without making the wealthy Park family into villains. The family is kind and human, often naïve about the motivations and concerns of those in society that serve them. The conversations between members of different classes are tinged with the sort of one-sided uneasiness of a conversation between an executive and an employee several rungs below on the corporate ladder. At one point the Kims question whether the Parks are “nice because they are rich” or “nice in spite of being rich”. Either version presupposes that wealth at its core has a transformative effect on people. A lesser writer would have taken this story down a far less interesting path in the second half than Joon-ho, who is fearless in his writing and knows how to entertain while dealing with social issues. When class tensions are allowed to build unchecked in society, it inevitably bubbles over into violent clashes. The Kims and Parks are personifications of the poor v. wealthy dynamic, the former too polite to protest, the latter either totally oblivious of their privilege or just unwilling to care. This all serves to set up a shocking finale. 

What makes “Parasite” fantastic?Going in, the hype for this film was out of control. “Parasite” unanimously won the Palme d’Or at Cannes and was pronounced by several critics with great hyperbole as the best of the last 5 years, 10 years, you name it. If anything, this actually served to lower my personal expectations, thinking this film must have been built to appeal to snooty, arrogant critics. I could not have been more wrong. It is a powerful, moving story that is bitingly funny and wrought with tension. The cinematography makes even the mundane settings look gorgeous and every shot feels like a perfect portrait. 

“Parasite” (2019) is a genre-bending tour de force captured on film by a modern master. Fans of raw and honest family dramas that explore issues of class and privilege such as “Winter’s Bone” (Episode #040) or “Shoplifters” (Episode #394) will love this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 99% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 95 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 10/10 

“Parasite” is rated R and playing in select theaters.

Come back on Monday and we’ll discuss another film still playing in theaters - “Jojo Rabbit”. Based on a novel, Taika Waititi wrote and directed this satire about a young boy growing up in Nazi Germany and his imaginary friend – a wacky and whimsical version of Adolf Hitler, portrayed, of course, by Taika himself. He’s treading some perilous ground and swinging for the fences. Let’s see where this one lands. See you then.

NARRATOR: “Welcome back to Reign of Terror 2019! 31 straight days of horror movie reviews and interviews. And it has been 31 days indeed. Somehow, Joseph has managed to survive, but I know he’ll perish this time. Today’s episode isn’t bothering with a promo before the review.”

NARRATOR: “But for now, let’s turn out attention to Part Five of “THE FINAL STRETCH”!”

SCENE: Busy cityscape.

NARRATOR: “Oh, they thought they could stop me, but I designed this system! I know its ins and outs like no one else. I’m not sure how they accessed the demo keys, nor who is leading the rescue team, but they aren’t going to make it. None of them are!”

JOSEPH: “Is that you?!”

NARRATOR: “Oh, yuck. Joseph just saw Amy staring back at him, and they... yeah, they’re running to each other, and hugging, and, yes, even kissing.” 

AMY: “The rest of the team is on the way!” 

JOSEPH: “So good to see you! Thanks for orchestrating all of this!”

AMY: “I am One Movie Spouse, after all. Saving you is kinda my thing.” 

NARRATOR: “Ah, One Movie Spouse. O.M.S. Now I knew who was leading the raids into the system. Who else could it have been, besides the gorgeous and exuberant...” 

AMY: “Why thank you!”

NARRATOR: “One Movie Spouse!” 

AMY: “But really, I had very little to do with it. Computers aren’t really my thing.”

JOSEPH: “Well, thank you nonetheless! Where do we go from here?” 

AMY: “The three of us just need to make it to the building.” 

JOSEPH: “Seems like a long walk. Wait, three of us?” 

AMY: “We have everything under control.” 

NARRATOR: “And just like that, around the corner, an engine started up, followed by a familiar siren.”

JOSEPH: “No way!”

AMY: “Yes way!” 

NARRATOR: “Coming around the corner was the famous Ecto-1, and in the driver’s seat, despite not being old enough to drive...”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Come on, I can literally get my permit now!" 

NARRATOR: “...was One Movie Spawn. OH! O.M.S. Now I get it!”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Get in, losers! We’re busting some ghosts! That noobie Shane is gonna send an army after us.”

NARRATOR: “Noob? Now, see here!”

JOSEPH: “Oh man! Best. Halloween. Ever!”

NARRATOR: “They climbed into the modified hearse, hopefully a portent of doom for this new cast of characters. And they drove to the building, grimly set to the task at hand, clearly scared.”

JOSEPH: “Duh-ta-DUH-duh! DUH-duh!”

AMY: “Duh-duh-duh-duh-DUH-DUH!” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Quiet! I’m trying to drive!” 

TOGETHER: “Duh-ta-DUH-duh! DUH-duh!”

TOGETHER: “GHOSTBUSTERS!”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Don’t make me come back there!”

NARRATOR: “One Movie Spawn whipped around the streets with all the care of your average G.T.A. Five player, mowing down every single monster I’ve tried to set in their way. One Movie Spouse discovered the blaster turret and set to help clear the way. Since when did that car have a blaster turret?!”

JOSEPH: “Oh man, this is so much fun when I’m not facing certain death!”

NARRATOR: “No matter what I tried to do, nothing would stop their approach to the building, where about a dozen similar vehicles were parked. One Movie Spawn skidded to a stop...”

NARRATOR: “...and they got out.” 

JOSEPH: “Remind me to give you a few driving tips.” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Not right now. The rest are waiting upstairs.” 

AMY: “You’re going to be so happy!”

NARRATOR: “The group walked up the stairs, and since this was just a simulated environment, they didn’t tire one bit. In fact, they were singing.” 

JOSEPH: “Duh-dunt-duh.”

AMY: “Dunt-dunt-dunt-duh!”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Will you stop that?”

JOSEPH: “Where do these stairs go, Amy?” 

AMY: “Up, Joseph. They go up!” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “UGH!” 

NARRATOR: “Despite every effort to instill terror, clearly Joseph wasn’t having any of it. The group made steady progress, arriving at the top floor, where the gateway to another dimension, of pure evil, had been opened."

JOSEPH: “All right, Shane! We end this!”

SHANE: “Oh, we definitely end it now! And in the best way possible!” 

AMY: “Where’s that voice coming from?" 

JOSEPH: “He did it.”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “He did what?”

JOSEPH: “He really did it.” 

AMY: “No, it’s...” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.” 

JOSEPH: “The monster walked toward us, waddling really, like a giant harmless stuffed animal.”

AMY: “Why are you narrating?”

JOSEPH: “Shane can’t narrate when he inhabits a character. Felt empty without it.” 

SHANE: “Oh, you think you’re clever? Well, I’ve activated nightmare mode!”

JOSEPH: “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you through all that white fluff.”

SHANE: “It means I’ve activated the highest difficulty with no respawn.” 

JOSEPH: “Perfect. I confirm.” 

SHANE: “Wait, what?”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “And that locks us in.” 

AMY: “Now, what was the secret plan?”

JOSEPH: “We’re going to cross the streams.” 

AMY: “But I thought that was bad?” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Not as bad as this script.”

SHANE: “Nice one!” 

JOSEPH: “Oh, it’s bad, but it’s our only shot.”

SHAWN: “You’ll never be powerful enough to stop me in Nightmare Mode!” 

JOSEPH: “Not just us. Now, time to merge parties...” 

JOSEPH: “And just like that, spawning in around Joseph, was everyone who had helped along the way. Because it wouldn’t just be Joseph, and Amy, and One Movie Spawn. It would be...”

JOSEPH: “...and we mean business!”

SHANE: “Stop! You’ll overload the system!" 

JOSEPH: “Activate streams!” 

JOSEPH: “That’s the plan, Shane! Only by all of us coming together can we tell a fun, engaging, and entertaining story. Only by combining all our talents together, with a spirit of friendship and fun, can we defeat you.” 

SHANE: “But, but...” 

JOSEPH: “And now, Shane. It ends.”

SHANE: “No...”

JOSEPH: “On my mark...” 

SHANE: “NO!”

JOSEPH: “ATTACK!”

SHANE: “NO!”

SHANE: “OW!” 

SHANE: “STOP IT!” 

SHANE: “That one kind of tickles!” 

SHANE: “NO! MY HEALTH BAR! MY SHIELDS!”

SHANE: “NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!” 

/////

JOSEPH: “AH! EVERYTHING’S BLACK!”

AMY: “Hold on, we got you! Let me take off the goggles.” 

JOSEPH: “Ah, that’s better! What’s this hanging chair?” 

AMY: “It’s where they held you. The world is so engaging, you don’t even realize it’s fake.”

JOSEPH: “Wow! Let me give you a hug!”

AMY: “Wait, hold on...” 

AMY: “You haven’t used your legs for a while. It’s going to take some time to recover.” 

JOSEPH: “I should have...” 

AMY: “Listened? Yeah. We’ve been saying that.”

JOSEPH: “Where’s One Movie Spawn?” 

AMY: “She’s at home. Logged in remotely. You know how she is. She’ll be here in a moment.” 

JOSEPH: “I do. Proud of her.”

AMY: “So am I. And that sounds like...” 

JOSEPH: “Help me up!” 

AMY: “Here you go!" 

JOSEPH: “Well, Shane. What do you have to say for yourself?” 

SHANE: “I... I’m sorry.” 

JOSEPH: “This really wasn’t the way, man. I like video games as much as the next person, but this was too much.”

SHANE: “I know. I’m sorry.” JOSEPH: “But, it’s okay, because I forgive you.” 

AMY: “Wait, what?”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Are you serious?!” 

JOSEPH: “I am. Because something doesn’t quite add up.”

AMY: “What do you mean?” 

JOSEPH: “Well, if I’m adding everything up right, I’ve been in there 31 days.” 

AMY: “Yes, that’s right.”

JOSEPH: “But you said it was Halloween.”

AMY: “Well, yeah...”

JOSEPH: “But it can’t be, because the calendar over here says September 30th.” 

AMY: “Well, you see...”

JOSEPH: “And since you all knew that, you must have all been in on this as well.”

JOSEPH: “But it’s okay, because I forgive you all. You know why? Because this... was... AWESOME! Like, hella awesome! In fact, I have a great idea for the podcast. We’ll have to reboot the system, and work all night, but it’s going to be great. Imagine it – 31 episodes of horror movie reviews and interviews. We’ll have to stick in a few classic reviews, and a few interviews I have laying around, but if we work together... we can give the audience something they’ll really enjoy.”

AMY: *as Narrator* “And they did. The entire group worked throughout the night, and into the next few days, recalibrating the system, and churning out episode after episode, combining their immense talents and willingness to work together into a spectacular month of horror movie reviews. By the end, they had all reconciled, even Shane.”

SHANE: “Well, I wouldn’t call it so much a reconciliation, as a...” 

AMY: *as Narrator* “EVEN SHANE.”

SHANE: “Okay.” 

JOSEPH: “We could do this every year!”

AMY: *as Narrator* “And it was true. As long as there were podcasts willing to join the fun, they would always be invited back for another year of REIGN OF TERROR!”

JOSEPH: “Not bad!”

AMY: “Thank you!”

JOSEPH: “All right, let’s wrap it up. I need to say a few special words of thanks.”

JOSEPH: “I sincerely want to thank everyone who participated in this first annual Reign of Terror here at One Movie Punch. I honestly didn’t believe this would happen, but I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the support of the podcasting community. I want to thank our team of critics, including Amy Dobzynski, One Movie Spawn, Keith Lyons, Ryan L. Terry, and Andrew Campbell for pitching in for a few reviews. I want to thank Kerry G. Fleming, Johnny Daggers, and Colm O’Murchu for their interviews, especially for a tiny podcast like this one. I want to thank all of our podcast participants, including (in order of being featured): Lindsey Morse, of the Fab Figmentals podcast; Kelly Senatra of the Donna Martin Graduates podcast; Andrew Orsie of the Good Game, Great Game podcast; Daniel Shaw of the History of Violence podcast; Greg, Mike, and Susan from the Top 5 for Fighting podcast; Dave and Chris of the Comics in Motion podcast and The VHS Strikes Back Podcast; the ever incredible Marc and Steve from the Moviedrone podcast; Aicila and Erik from the Bicurean podcast; Julie and Kathleen from the How I Met Your Friends Podcast; D & C from the DC High Podcast; Niall Cooper of the Assassinations Podcast; the whole crew at Dice Tower Theatre; the whole crew at Pop Pour Review; and the podcast world’s best two investigators, Brandi and Sunni from Book of Lies Podcast. All of your contributions made this possible. I couldn’t ask for a better group of people.” 

JOSEPH: “Or a better narrator. I must give my absolute and most sincere thanks to Shane Hyde for taking on such an expansive role. I know I undersold the time commitment to him, but he has been nothing but amazing this entire podcast. If this were a stage, I would ask you to take a bow and received a standing ovation, but since I can’t...” 

JOSEPH: “You’ve really been brilliant. And I’m so glad we could make this happen. If you see Shane online anywhere, and especially on Twitter @lordkhadow, let him know what a great job he did. Because obviously, now that we’ve reconciled, we’ll never have to go through this again.” 

JOSEPH: “As a gift to myself, I’ll be reviewing ‘Ghostbusters’ today. I hope you enjoy the review. Thank you all for listening! We’ll see you next year!”

AMY: *as narrator* “But he would not see them next year...” 

JOSEPH: “I’m sorry, what did you say?” 

AMY: “Oh, nevermind...”

///// 

Today’s movie is “Ghostbusters”, the greatest horror comedy film ever made, directed by Ivan Reitman and written for the screen by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. In 1984, an ancient evil is awakening in New York City, bringing ghosts back to haunt the population. Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), and Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are three parapsychology professors, whose knowledge and research into the paranormal will allow them to form the only team that can save the city: The Ghostbusters! 

Spoilers will be all over the place, like you’ve been slimed.

One of the themes I like to explore with my reviews is the relationship between films and technology. I like exploring how production technologies, from film reels to smartphones, have expanded the pool of filmmakers and reduced production costs. I like exploring how theater technologies, from the advent of sound to 4DX mist sprayers, have changed the viewing experience. And I especially like exploring how home viewing technologies, from VHS cassettes to on-demand streaming, have changed the relationship of the audience to films.

In a world with more content than any one person can possibly watch, there is never a shortage of something to watch. However, this was definitely not always the case. I was a VHS child, spending close to ten years buying and renting films to watch, starting in middle school and continuing all the way to the rise of the DVD in my college years. And one of the first cassettes my family ever bought was “Ghostbusters”, and since we didn’t have on-demand anything, I watched the film a lot. By myself, when friends visited, and every Halloween, I tried to get in at least one viewing, a tradition I’ve tried to keep today.

Getting back into films these past few years, I’ve had to challenge my notions of a bunch of films I loved growing up. Films I enjoyed at the time for their advanced special effects look downright cheesy after the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Filmmakers I enjoyed a great deal have been revealed to be predatory monsters. And many films that were great when I didn’t know anything about film have turned out to be real duds on subsequent viewings. But I’m happy to say that every year, in keeping with my personal tradition, I have found today’s film to hold up every time.

In fact, I find new things about “Ghostbusters” every time I see it, because the film continues to influence our popular culture in ways throughout its history. If you didn’t see the movie in theaters, then you probably saw the animated series, which brilliantly proceduralized the movie into a series of fun adventures for children, with much less risqué behaviors. “Ghostbusters 2” was such a disappointment, coming too late after the initial film, and somehow losing part of the magic in the process, but also in some strange ways strengthening my relationship to the original film. The recent all-female cast “Ghostbusters” was pretty great, in my opinion, despite the needlessly heated and frankly sexist critiques of the film. And everyone loved the cosplay in “Stranger Things”, which brought a whole new generation to the original film in this 1980s pop culture renaissance.

Each new entry in the franchise makes me appreciate the rich and fertile creative ground of the original movie. Aykroyd’s original concept was heavily steeped in actual paranormal lore and literature, but would have been way too expensive, even after the incredible hit with “The Blues Brothers”. Ramis got involved with the re-write, giving us something much closer to the film that was eventually produced, with a much simpler story and mostly excellent humor against the same detailed backdrop. The story doesn’t rely on twists and turns, so much as a constant and steady evolution from start to finish, and multiple possibilities for future work, even if they may never want it.

Concept isn’t enough, though. Thankfully, nearly everything about this film is perfect. Casting is exquisite, channeling the twin audiences of SNL sketch comedy and Sigourney Weaver’s science-fiction credibility. Locations are all beautifully chosen and play into the story itself. Costumes are simple and practical, except when they shouldn’t be. But layered on top of all of this is the absolutely incredible melding of huge practical effects with targeted special effects of the time. For 1984, this cinematography was considered exemplary. And while we might be able to look back from our technological wonderland today, and perhaps believe we could do it better, the magic of this particular cinematography is that even knowing that, the practical and special effects never take away from the story. It’s real film magic.

“Ghostbusters” (1984) is one of the best horror comedy films of all time, taking a well-researched and well-developed story, an incredible cast, great comedic timing, and some of the best practical and special effects ever put on the screen. No matter how the franchise attempts to improve on the concept, it only reinforces the incredible original work that has delighted so many for so long. If you like horror comedy films, and you haven’t seen this film, go now and watch it. And if you haven’t seen it for a while, definitely check it out again. You’ll love it just as much. I certainly will be tonight.

Rotten Tomatoes: 97% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 10/10

“Ghostbusters” (1984) is rated PG and is currently streaming on Freeform and Sling TV, or by rent/purchase over VOD, or even by VHS cassette.