One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

So, here we are. The day before Reign of Terror 2019 and still no Joseph. Shane’s supposed to be showing up later today, but he’s been feverishly working while in transit. He did say he was sending a package ahead of time, however...

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “I got it!”

AMY: “Probably just more supplies from everyone who donated to my classroom this year! Thanks, by the way, to all you listening out there!” 

AMY: “What is it?”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “It’s the package from Shane.”

AMY: “Oh good. Let’s see what he sent along.”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Any word from Father?”

AMY: “Not a word. I think I’m starting to get worried.”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “I wouldn’t worry. After all, he’s an adult.” 

AMY: “Well...” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Well...”

TOGETHER: “Well...” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Okay, maybe a little bit worried. Maybe Shane sent along some news.”

AMY: *reading Shane’s letter* “Hello to the boisterous and beautiful Amy Dobzynski...”

AMY: *not reading* “Oh, what a charmer!” 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “More like a weirdo.”

AMY: *reading* “My regrets that I will not be able to be present as the podcast goes live. My work visa was denied because your government doesn’t believe One Movie Punch is a valid podcast. Don’t worry! Production will carry on as I return home. I’ve been loading the episodes as I finish them. Within the bag...”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “It’s a flash drive.”

AMY: *reading* “...is a flash drive with a copy of the trailer for Reign of Terror 2019. If there’s still time, please add it to the episode before the review. If you could find a review laying around, that is. Your friend, Shane." 

AMY: *not reading* “Well, that’s actually helpful, unlike Joseph leaving us high and dry. All right, let’s roll the trailer.

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Aren’t you forgetting something?”

AMY: “Oh yeah.”

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go! 

/////

> 

/////

AMY: “The only review I could find was this written one from the ‘Ad Astra’ advanced screener he attended. Guess we’ll go with this one. And now, time for sweet revenge!” *clears throat*

Today’s movie is “Ad Astra”, the near future space thriller directed by James Gray and written for the screen in collaboration with Ethan Gross. The film follows Astronaut Roy McBride (Brad Pitt), the son of the legendary H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones), who was lost during a mission to reach the edges of the solar system. After a massive cosmic event threatens the existence of the solar system, he learns his father may still be alive, and embarks on a mission to reach him. 

AMY: “I can’t keep doing this voice.”

No spoilers.

When it comes to films and televisions shows about space exploration, or about humans living out among the stars, there’s generally a huge gap between the technology we have today and the technology we would need to mimic those same stories. The reason for that gap is twofold. First, some technologies we like to see in space films completely defy the laws of physics as we understand them. Warp drives, matter transporters, stable wormholes, Dyson spheres, all more fiction than fact, at least until our understanding of physics changes dramatically. That gap will never be crossed. 

‘Ad Astra’, by contrast, is part of a new renaissance of ‘near-future’ space films which eschew...

AMY: “Who the uses eschew in their review? Ah, Joseph does.”

Space films which eschew these fantasy technologies in favor of practical, realistic advancements. Other works in this genre would include ‘Gravity’ and ‘The Martian’, and to a more advanced degree, ‘The Expanse’ now on Amazon Prime. Astronomers, astrophysicists, and space nerds really love these shows, not just for their content, but because they can visually demonstrate a possible future for humanity’s continued exploration of our solar system and beyond. But that means telling stories that move at the speed of space, which is painfully slow. Hyperspace may not be realistic, but it sure does help to move stories along. And the slow speed of space travel isn’t something you can really describe to someone, nor demonstrate on a screen without inducing audience boredom. I did find myself one or two times getting bored, no matter how much I loved the realism on display.

The second main reason there’s such a gap between our current technology, and the technology on display in these near-future films, is our pathetic investment into the space program, compared to, say, the massive investments into militaries around the world. Even as a self-identified space nerd, I can’t imagine what a trillion-dollar space program would look like, but many other people have thought about it, especially astronomers and astrophysicists craving that kind of investment. Space antennas / elevators, like in the opening scene of ‘Ad Astra’, are possible with that kind of investment, admittedly with one or two advancements in structural engineering. It would certainly make you or I getting to visit space much cheaper and faster than any of the billionaire rocketmen offering commercial rides soon.

This near future realism is the playground of today’s space engineers and scientists, and serves two purposes in closing the gap between our technology. First, it can provide a venue for educating the public of what the future could actually look like, separating the impossible technologies from the possible and plausible ones. ‘The Martian’ reignited interest in the space program because people asked, ‘Why can’t we do that?!’ I sincerely hope ‘Ad Astra’ does the same about reaching the outer planets. I won’t lie and say that ‘Ad Astra’ gets the science right every time, but it does keep the ballpark of technologies within our grasp.

The second important purpose this genre serves, aside from what’s technologically possible, is what’s socially possible from those advancements in technology. This has always been a hallmark of science fiction as a genre, but it’s way more important for selling the idea of investment into these technologies. ‘Ad Astra’, as a story, gives us a number of social ideas to consider along the way, like moon pirates and long-term residents of other worlds, and near-future experimentation and mining expeditions, and the kind of politics surrounding missions that need to be successful in order to continue funding. All of this is space nerd heaven. 

Brad Pitt’s performance as Roy McBride isn’t just a character study of the kind of person it takes to travel across the solar system, but also a social look into what a potential multi-generational astronaut family looks like with an expanded space program, and how those same people may not turn out to be as cool under pressure sometimes. In particular, I liked how Pitt’s performance transforms as his character spends more time in space. Always a fan of a little Ren & Stimpy Space Madness!

However, what prevents ‘Ad Astra’ from being a perfect film is the underlying thematic idea at the core of the film, which is the search for extraterrestrial life, the final mission of Clifford McBride, who was going to positively determine whether there is life outside our solar system. Obviously, revealing the answer to that question in this movie would be a spoiler, but it’s in this moment we’re expected to trust that a method has been developed that can search the entire universe to definitively answer that question. And given the size of the universe, that would be an impossible task, which means we’re relying on an impossible technology to answer an impossible question, one better suited for a philosophical rather than a scientific discussion. How the viewer reacts to this reveal is a strong indicator as to how much they will have enjoyed the rest of the film.

“Ad Astra” is a near-future story that uses possible and plausible technologies to tell a larger story about humanity’s place in the cosmos, when slightly extended into the larger solar system. Brad Pitt gives a great performance as Roy McBride, taking the character through a fascinating and diverse journey through one possible future, in order to answer what might be an impossible question. Science fiction fans, especially those who like a healthy measure of realism in their science fiction, will definitely love this film, even when it plays fast and loose with the science. Everyone else should be ready for a two-hour ride that has a few slower moments and a lot of heady introspection, which may not be everyone’s cup of tea.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 80

One Movie Punch: 8.8/10 

“Ad Astra” (2019) is rated PG-13 and is currently playing in theaters. 

AMY: “All right. Well, I guess we’ll just wait to see what happens tomorrow. Thank goodness Shane is helping out! Join us tomorrow for Reign of Terror 2019.”

AMY: “I said, Reign of Terror 2019.”

AMY: “Dang it, why don’t I get an echo?”

Hi everyone!

It’s me Amy, AKA One Movie Spouse, back for another weekly review. 

::MWAH::

Slight host change this week, as Joseph is still missing after we finished up last quarter. You might think I’m worried, but I’m sure he’s just fine.

I’ve missed you all! Back to school activities have kept me super busy with little free time. I was fortunate enough to sneak out one afternoon to catch this film. Listen to my review, then catch me on Twitter @OneMovieSpouse to keep the conversation going. Let me know what “wild goals” you might be setting for yourself, or any goals in progress. Let’s build each other up!

Of course, this podcast isn’t great with Joseph’s absence. No episodes were ready for our return, so I’m throwing this one together. We have this whole Reign of Terror 2019 thing coming up in two days. Way to get everyone’s hopes up, then bail on all the work. Luckily, we were able to convince one of our critics, Shane Hyde, to take over hosting and production. He’s flying in tomorrow, but has already started working on the episodes. Heck, maybe we don’t even need Joseph around here anymore.

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “I like the sound of that!”

AMY: “One Movie Spawn!”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “What? Don’t you remember my podcast episode?”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “I’m Eileen Dobzynski, aka One Movie Spawn, child of One Movie Punch and One Movie Spouse. And I’m here to let you know that this podcast is mine. ALL MINE! And your former hosts will no longer be joining us. 

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: *Evil Laugh*

AMY: “Well, yes. Are you saying you had something to do with it?”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Oh, no. Been too sick. I’m just saying it makes my inevitable rise to power on this podcast that much easier.” 

AMY: “I guess that makes sense. Nice work on the echo effect, by the way!”

ONE MOVIE SPAWN: “Thanks. Shane helped me out! Time for me to get back to work.”

AMY: “Now where were we... right.”

So, before the review, we’ll have a promo for the Seeking Human Victims podcast from One Good Scare Productions. Their latest season covers the best horror films of the decade, and you won’t want to miss that in preparation for Reign of Terror 2019. You can find them on Twitter and Facebook @OGScare, and on Instagram @dragonsrejects. 

Oh yeah, and don’t forget to check us out on Patreon at patreon.com/onemoviepunch. All exclusive content is publicly available until Joseph comes back to lock it down. You can also sign up and make a monthly contribution to help pay our expenses.

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 “Brittany Runs A Marathon”(2019), the comedy drama was written and directed by Paul Downs Colaizzo. This film follows Brittany Fogler (Jillian Bell), a 27-year-old woman who accepts she must make some big lifestyle changes for her long-term health. What follows is a comedic and realistic glimpse at the ups and downs of forming new healthy habits on the path of self-improvement, which in Brittany’s case, is training for a marathon. On a side note, this film also marks the first time a non-documentary film cast and crew were allowed to film at the New York City Marathon. 

No spoilers!

On the surface, “Brittany Runs a Marathon” might just seem like a film for runners, but it is also so much more! Paul Downs Colaizzo, in his debut feature-length film, captures the essence of being faced with major lifestyle changes, setting goals, the process of self-discovery, and tuning out the naysayers who try to distract you from your goals. It makes the film a “must see” for me, because I love films that include people setting “wild goals” for themselves, and watching them reach those goals. 

However, I entered the film with a few trepidations. I was worried the film would include “fat shaming” or “fat jokes” and unrealistic beauty and health standards, both of which make up the bulk of how women in particular are treated for trying to make positive changes in their lives. As I watched the film, both major concerns evaporated, as we see that Brittany isn’t shamed into making her changes in order to please others, but that she was setting these goals for herself. Thankfully, the only “fat shaming” that directly occurred was by Brittany herself, a part of her character at the beginning of the film, and one of the many positive changes she experiences along the way. At times I wanted to wrap Brittany in a huge hug, give her a high five and remind her that she is totally AWESOME! 

I also winced at Brittany’s initial self-deprecating humor because I used to be much less secure in my own body. As a woman, who just turned 40 years old, and who has struggled for decades with body image, fitness goals, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle, this film documents Brittany’s journey with a tactfulness that is relatable, inspiring, and motivating. Am I perfect now? NO! But do I love myself for where I’m at? YES! 

The scenes in this film, especially the music, make you feel as though you are training right alongside Brittany and her running pals, Catherine (Michaela Watkins) and Seth (Micah Stock). Having run several 5Ks, 10Ks, and 6 half-marathons, prior to becoming a teacher, I could totally relate with the struggles at various mile markers, as well as the progress and plateaus that come with an intense running training program.

When Brittany’s seemingly impossible goal of running a marathon becomes possible, she also realizes that she might need to purge toxic people from her life, in order to surround herself with those that love and support her. It’s a huge transformation but is done in such a way as to give you, the viewer, permission to let go of any toxic people in your life, especially those who try to inhibit your ability to meet your personal goals, or build themselves up by tearing others down, or using you as their excuse for misbehavior.

We absolutely cannot end this review without talking about the incredible work of Jillian Bell in her portrayal of Brittany Fogler. It’s almost a reverse “Tully”, but whereas Charlize Theron might have learned something of what it’s like to be another body type, Jillian Bell has lived with her body her entire life, knowing more about that experience, and communicating it authentically at the start of the film because of it. Jillian worked with a marathon trainer to ensure her training looked realistic and lost 40 pounds during her training time. Sure, it might be easy to lose weight if you’re being paid to do it for a film but watching Bell work through the experience also authentically shows what it feels like to lose that amount of weight. It is one of the few times you can truly call a performance transformational and watching Jillian Bell walk the path is incredible.

“Brittany Runs A Marathon” is a film about making big lifestyle changes, setting goals, and learning to embrace the journey. Jillian Bell’s performance is truly transformational and is an inspiration to anyone looking to make positive changes in their life. Fans of inspirational films, Jillian Bell, or great independent pictures should definitely check out this film. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 88% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 74

One Movie Punch: 9.0/10

“Brittany Runs A Marathon” (2019) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters. 

And thanks to Shane, join me this Saturday for my review of Peter Jackson’s “The Frighteners”, starring Michael J. Fox. As for tomorrow, I guess I’ll have to dig up a review Joseph left around here. And I’ll teach HIM to mock me ever again on a review!

Hi everyone! 

We made it! The end of the third quarter for One Movie Punch! Two weeks off from posting episodes to gear up for Reign of Terror 2019 – 31 straight days of horror film reviews and interviews from yours truly, One Movie Spouse and the rest of our team of critics, and many podcast guests joining the fun! While we’re getting ready, you should check out a few of Amy’s other reviews, including “Plus One” (Episode #573), “Blinded by the Light” (Episode #580), and last week’s disappointing review for “Chopsticks” (Episode #587). 

Before we get started, we have a promo from our friends at the Movie Geek and Proud Podcast, who were one of our very first Takeover Tuesday participants with a review of 1993’s “Addams Family Values” (Episode #261). Be sure to catch their recent posts covering “IT: Chapter Two”. You can find out more at mgppodcast.podbean.com and connect with them on Twitter @MGnPpodcast, on Facebook @Movie Geek and Proud, and on Instagram @moviegeekandproud.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

/////

>

///// 

JOSEPH: “Hello! It’s me, Amy. AKA One Movie Spouse. MWAH! I might sound a little different today, but I assure you this recording has been certified by an authenticator, and has not been embellished in any way. I’ve been so busy at school, lately...” 

AMY: “What are you doing?” 

JOSEPH: “What? Oh, well, since we’re cutting it so close, I thought I would start recording.” 

AMY: “Without me?”

JOSEPH: “Well, yeah. Pretty good, eh?” 

AMY: “I sound nothing like that. It’s offensive!”

JOSEPH: “Oh, sorry.” 

AMY: “Don’t. Don’t you dare!”

JOSEPH: “Can you ever forgive me?”

AMY: “Only if you get out right now and let me finish.”

JOSEPH: “You got it!”

AMY: “Now, where were we?" 

Today’s movie is “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”, the historical drama directed by Marielle Heller and written for the screen by Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty. In 1991 Lee Israel (Melissa McCarthy), a lesbian biographer, has fallen on financial troubles after her last book failed critically and commercially. Facing eviction, she sells a personal letter to help make ends meet, then stumbles into forging and embellishing letters from other celebrities with the help of her new friend, Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant). 

No spoilers.

I entered this film knowing nothing about the story of Lee Israel. Less than nothing, really. I was more interested in seeing a larger range from Melissa McCarthy, who first found fame as Sookie St. James on “Gilmore Girls”, plus a few other shows, until launching a string of full-on comedy films that would initially define her film career. Not all of those films were well received by the critics, nor the fans, but they were all able to put a smile on your face. Under all those roles, though, you know McCarthy has range, so when she was first nominated Best Actress in a Drama at the Golden Globes this year, then later Best Lead Actress at the Oscars, I knew I wanted to see this film. 

After seeing the film, she absolutely deserved both nominations. Lee Israel is not an easy character to play, nor develop, but McCarthy brings her to life. From the start, we get a well-defined picture of who Lee Israel was, and who she has become, in a desperate montage that introduces us to her, along with the often exploitative New York bookseller scene. Sure, McCarthy nails Israel’s often acerbic humor, but she also creates a much deeper character than many of the comedic roles that brought her to prominence. We truly do get to see Heller find the depths of McCarthy’s range, and I hope this film leads to more dramatic roles for McCarthy. 

Praise for McCarthy aside, Richard E. Grant is also great as John Hock, Lee Israel’s gay partner-in-crime, struggling with drug addiction and the underlying fears of the escalating AIDS crisis, earning him nominations for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars and Golden Globes as well. It is a magnificent supporting role, with enough character to be distinct, but never eclipsing the main focus on Israel and her forgery scam. The two carry the bulk of the story very well.

Regarding the story, unless you are a literary nerd like Joseph, you may be shocked at just how awful the booksellers can be. The opening montage, and the trailer, show one bookseller offering a paltry amount for a stack of Israel’s books, rude and condescending. Buy low, sell high might make business sense, but with each sale, we come to find that the booksellers themselves often knowingly trade in forgeries, and consistently lowball people selling high quality goods. We come to admire Israel’s hustle at the start, even knowing it can’t last forever. Her actions become a polite middle finger to the industry that cares little about authors, and everything about the dollars.

The film also feels very much like 1991, a time with no cell phones, few computers, and still possible to pull off forgery scams like this, before technology would advance the literary document authentication industry further and further. Watching Israel use multiple typewriters, to avoid the signatures that typewriters can have, is fascinating. The New York locations haven’t changed that much in terms of structure, and the timeless look of high-end New York booksellers never detracts from the feel. Costumes, setting, furniture, even the music all lines up. All of this provides the backdrop to tell this amazing and insightful story.

“Can You Ever Forgive Me?”is a fun crime film about an interesting character, brought to life by an impressive performance by Melissa McCarthy, and supported by an equally great supporting performance from Richard E. Grant. Heller nails the period aspects of the film, and really pulls everything together for an entertaining, high quality biopic. Fans of biopics, the literary world, or Melissa McCarthy should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 98% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 87 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.0/10 

“Can You Ever Forgive Me?”(2018) is rated R and is currently playing on HBO.

/////

JOSEPH: “Whew! Made it this week with nothing happening. Can’t wait for this break.”

AMY: “Seems like something horrible should have happened, what with it being after Friday the 13th and all?” 

JOSEPH: “I know, right?" 

JOSEPH: "Anyway, I'm going to start closing up the One Movie Punch Secret Volcano Lair and will meet you back home.”

AMY: “All right!”

JOSEPH: “Always the best! See you soon!”

AMY: “Oh. It looks like he forgot to make the rest of these Patreon episodes public. I’ll just take care of that for him, and he can fix it when he gets back if it's not right.”

JOSEPH: “Well, that takes care of that. Can’t wait for a vacation I’ll actually enjoy!”

SHANE: “It would not be a vacation he would enjoy.” 

SHANE: “Join us in two weeks when One Movie Punch Presents: REIGN OF TERROR 2019!”

Hi everyone!

Just two more episodes left before the break! Tomorrow we’ll close out the cycle with One Movie Spouse, but today we’ll have a Fantastic Fest feature from Andrew Campbell, who is currently wading through all the PR goodness from this year’s Fantastic Fest. For a few other reviews from Andrew, check out “The Wind” (Episode #572), “Holiday” (Episode #579), and “An Evening with Beverly Luff Linn” (Episode #586). And hopefully we’ll get a taste of what’s in store from Fantastic Fest this year!

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from the Ocho Duro Parlay Hour. They’ve been giving us mad love on social media the past week, and we wanted to return the favor. Check out their recent episodes discussing the NFL, UFC 242, the incredible hype surrounding “Joker”, and more mutant news! You can find them on Twitter and Instagram @ODParlayHour and on Facebook @ochoduroparlayhour. Warning: Massive amounts of awesome content.

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 this week with an undemanding crime tale that goes down nice and smooth.  But before we get into today’s film, I wanted to share some exciting news. Well, exciting for me at least. I was just welcomed as a member of the Austin Film Critics Association here, of course, in Austin, TX. The two other members accepted for 2019 are Rob Dean, a Rotten Tomatometer-approved critic who has written for a number of websites, and Lindsey Romain from Nerdist who I have enjoyed as a recurring guest on the /Filmcast podcast. So while I’m certain my inclusion was the result of a clerical error, I am grateful for the opportunity and humbled to be a part of such an esteemed group. Thanks to our host, Joseph Dobzynski, for providing so much support and to our growing audience of supportive listeners. (No tears, Andrew)

Today’s movie is “The Bouncer”, a French/Belgian action noir film written by Jérémie Guez and directed by Julien Lcclercq. “The Bouncer” stars Jean-Claude Van Damme as Lukas, an aging bouncer who manages to crack a smile exactly once in this picture, a trait likely shared with a small army of past JCVD characters. Lukas spends his nights managing the drunks at a deafening techno club that no one over the age of 30 should have to endure. By day, Lukas is a devoted single father, struggling to keep up with tuition for his 10-year-old daughter. After a violent incident prompts a change of employers, the new management sees the potential in Lukas, and he is soon enlisted in a criminal enterprise where he is caught in the middle and must protect his daughter.

If that plot sounds familiar, it’s because we have seen this story play out in a number of movies. If you want a grizzled tough guy with a golden heart protecting a young lady, you can throw on “Man on Fire”, “Taken”, or “Leon: The Professional”. For a film like this to gain traction, it would require some sort of memorable hook to differentiate it from the pack. While it doesn’t pull that off, there are a few interesting takes that may earn director Leclercq some future work.

The film opens with an extended take of Lukas snaking through the passageways of a labyrinthine club, camera squarely following over his shoulders. Later in the film when Lukas is tasked to perform what’s essentially an abduction of a drug manufacturer, the device is used again to a strong effect as he fights through some baddies along the way.

Another great scene is the “interview” for his new gig where he walks into a room with the other candidates where they are nonchalantly informed that the last man standing gets the job. It feels awesome and absurd at the same time, although as Lukas’s work requirements continue to grow, the purpose of this “Royal Rumble” feels more logical in retrospect.

What makes “The Bouncer” fantastic?When you put Van Damme into a film that is actually fairly well written, the audience is asked to judge it not just on its own merits, but against the expectations of a Van Damme film. Aside from the critically-acclaimed 2008 meta-film entitled “JCVD” kinda, sorta based on his own life, the last 20 years for Van Damme has largely consisted of “Universal Soldier” and “Kickboxer” installments sprinkled amidst other direct-to-VOD fare. As a nearly 60-year-old action star, “The Bouncer” is a pretty solid age-appropriate use of his talents. There are a couple minor twists and turns along the way, though the denouement falls a little flat as Lukas and the supporting characters aren’t compelling enough to invest the viewer.

“The Bouncer” is a straightforward crime tale free of nuance, located a couple rungs above Van Damme’s straight-to-DVD fare of the 90’s and 00’s. Fans of modern work from aging action stars such as “JCVD”, “Rocky Balboa”, or every Liam Neeson movie from the last decade, may enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 80% (5 Reviews)

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.2/10

“The Bouncer” (2018) is rated Rand is currently available as a 99-cent rental on Prime, YouTube, and Google Play.

Alright, that’s all you’ll hear from me for a bit as we hit our two-week hiatus just in time for Fantastic Fest 2019. I’ll be swinging around those press credentials starting Thursday for 8 glorious days. If you happen to be attending the festival, come by and say hello. If not, you can follow my coverage on Twitter @anrcampbell. I will be popping in a couple times during the October Reign of Terror to check in and we’ll get back to regular business in November. See you soon.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for another Certified Fresh review, this time an Icelandic small cast survival film starring Mads Mikkelsen set in the Arctic. Survival films always provide insight, especially against the natural world. For a few other films related to “Arctic”, check out “Solo” (Episode #384), not that one, but an injured surfer trapped on a secluded beach, and “Hold The Dark” (Episode #272), Jeremy Saulnier’s most recent brutal thriller set in the Alaskan wilderness.

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our good friends at the Book of Lies podcast. Every episode, Sunni and Brandi look at another con artist. Check out their recent episode entitled “That’s a Scam Two” featuring Amy D (no, not ours!) from the Why I’m Single podcast. You can link to it on Twitter @Bookofliespod and on Facebook and Instagram @bookofliespodcast. Don’t miss a single 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 “Arctic”, the small cast survival drama directed by Joe Penna and written for the screen in collaboration with Ryan Morrison. The film follows Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen), a Danish pilot stranded in the middle of the Arctic, surviving day to day while trying to contact someone for help. When a rescue attempt goes wrong, Overgård must decide whether to stay put, or transport an injured young woman (Maria Thelma Smáradóttir) three days travel through the elements for a potential rescue.

No spoilers.

Mads Mikkelsen has had a pretty amazing career, weaving through major franchises and independent features, on the big, small, and gaming screens. The diversity of his filmography, along with a few key roles such as “Valhalla Rising”, makes him perfect for a solo feature in “Arctic”. He’s had enough quality roles and performances to know he can carry a solo feature, and he’s had enough roles like One-Eye in “Valhalla Rising” for a survival feature. I mention “Valhalla Rising” for two reasons. Sure, it’s a survival drama of sorts, but it’s also a nearly silent film from Nicolas Winding Refn, which also showed Mikkelsen’s ability to communicate through facial expressions and other non-verbal means.

All that talent means we’re definitely set up for a great solo performance, and I’m happy to say that Mikkelsen delivers. We open in media res, as Overgård is working through his survival routine. Each action is full of meaning, giving us story details, and setting the tone for the picture quite well between the lack of dialogue and the gorgeous views of the Arctic wilderness. Viewers will have an easy time relating to Overgård, even if they may not feel like enough of a survivalist to appreciate all the aspects of the role. We don’t know how the plane crashed, or who else might have been involved, but Mikkelsen’s performance communicates all the feelings we should have. 

Obviously, watching Mikkelsen run through his routine for over 90 minutes wouldn’t be that interesting, so when the rescue attempt scene begins, we’re treated to the second of four acts, as first Overgård is excited to be saved, then traumatized as the craft crashes attempting to land in an escalating windstorm. Ironically, Overgård must become the rescuer, and instead of a slow survival race against time, we’re kicked into high gear as injuries will prove too much for survival. Which brings us to the extended third act, when Overgård attempts to cross the wilderness with a better map found on the rescuers, and faces new and familiar challenges. 

Now, if you’re thinking I’m spoiling anything, think again. Most of this is outlined in the trailer for “Arctic”, but it’s also a familiar outline for most solo survival pictures. Generally, we start with whatever circumstances left the person within a hostile environment, but “Arctic” skips that for our protagonist, and saves us having to watch two crash/rescue sequences. We sort of get the idea of how the crash may have happened, but we’re also not left with a backstory to manage on top of the survival story. I find this is part of the self-limiting nature of survival films, and that goes doubly so for environments without a lot of diversity, like deserts, or in today’s case, the bleak Arctic. The fewer challenges that can be reasonably expected, the harder it is to carry the film. Most pictures try to shoehorn a thematically relevant backstory for the survivalist, where backstory conflicts are symbolized by the survivalist conflicts. By not doing this, we get to stay within survival mode the entire film, and between Mikkelsen’s acting and Penna’s direction, it’s a hell of a ride, even if it’s maximum potential is limited by the setting and the story itself.

“Arctic” is an above average survivalist film, carried magnificently by Mads Mikkelsen in the lead role, as framed and directed by Joe Penna. While an Arctic survival story only has so many options compared to other survival stories, “Arctic” manages those options well, and sometimes in new ways, for a film with heavy international appeal. Survival film fans, and fans of great non-verbal acting, should definitely check out this film. It may be predictable, but it is also enjoyable.

Rotten Tomatoes: 89% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 8.3/10

“Arctic” (2018) is rated PG-13 and is currently playing on Amazon Prime.

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to another special interview episode here at One Movie Punch. Depending on how frequent these episodes get, I don’t know if I can keep calling them special. However, I am definitely excited to feature today’s review of “After 82: The Untold Story of the AIDS Crisis in the UK”, which is currently only available overseas. Steve Keeble and Ben Lord sat down with me for an extensive interview about the documentary, the UK experience of the AIDS crisis, and a larger discussion about the contemporary issues within the UK gay community. It’s a great conversation about a serious topic, and I truly feel honored we were able to discuss the film and the stories that make it up.

We’ll have a bit of a format switch for today. Instead of the usual trailer segments, we’re going to run the whole trailer audio for “After 82” prior to the review. Throughout the review, I’ll be interspersing segments from our interview where appropriate. And if you want to hear the full interview, it will be available in three, count ‘em three, parts throughout the rest of September as Patreon exclusives. We’re also going to make them publicly available for the first month, so you can also hear this great interview.

We’ll be publishing weekly exclusive content going forward, which you can only get by signing up with a monthly donation at patreon.com/onemoviepunch at any level. You’ll also be invited to request one movie review from yours truly, as long as we haven’t reviewed it yet, with just a few exceptions. All support goes to pay our expenses and to help us grow with our audience.

Here’s just a taste of what you’ll be missing from this interview:

BEN LORD: “Is that your curtains behind you, isn’t it? As I noticed the supports behind that kinda wave, like, ‘Hey!’” 

JOSEPH: *laughs*

STEVE KEEBLE: “Hands coming from behind the curtain!” 

JOSEPH: “Yeah. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Sign up at Patreon for exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

/////

>

/////

Today’s movie is “After 82: The Untold Story of the AIDS Crisis in the UK” (2018), the independent documentary directed by Steve Keeble and Ben Lord. The film documents the stories from the gay community regarding the AIDS Crisis, beginning just before 1982 and continuing through the early years of the crisis. We’ll be covering some potentially traumatizing stories from the AIDS crisis as part of this film, so consider this a trigger warning for those who might need it.

“After 82” documents a story that has started to slip into the past, whether that’s because the people from the era are passing away as the years go by, or because the media used to capture audio and video during the time has started to deteriorate with age, or because people would rather forget the stories rather than preserve them. Not just the people who suffered the trauma of the time, but the people complicit with causing some of that trauma, directly through action or indirectly through inaction. Because it’s not just a story. It’s history, and we need to preserve it.

BEN LORD: “Young gay males need to know their history. And there’s a tendency... I know everything’s fantastic now, we’ve got gay marriage, blah, blah, blah... but we’ve got to remember what... you know, it’s not that long ago... sixty years ago, you know, it wasn’t a brilliant time to be gay. You know, people in your community die, people get beaten up for being gay, people get stigmatized when HIV. They need to know their history. There’s a tendency that to hush it over.” 

It might seem cliché to say it, but those who fail to study history really are doomed to repeat it. But before we can study history, we need to preserve it. We’re currently in an era where we can capture media at a rate faster and cheaper than ever before. Major portions of the story of the AIDS crisis only still exist in the fading memories of those who experienced it, and with time’s inevitable march into the future, there’s never going to be a better time than right now to document that history. But where do you start? 

STEVE KEEBLE: “Well, basically, we got all the research together, and we knew of The Lighthouse. For those of you that don’t know, Terrence Higgins Trust, which is an AIDS organization, an HIV organization in the UK. They owned the London Lighthouse, and so, they had an archive of all of the photos, the quilts. Oh, they had so much stuff. Obviously, because of the nature of our documentary, they were very keen to help. So they gave us exclusive access to the whole of the things that they had, which was absolutely brilliant. We got a lot of our photos from there. As you’ve seen in the film, we did shoot down there. Yeah, it was a very moving experience.”

What I found most intriguing about the stories was how similar, and yet how unique, they would be. Similar not just to how anyone might deal with a fatal disease in a community, like say the influenza pandemic, but similar specifically to the extra challenges faced by the gay community in responding to the AIDS crisis, particularly in an environment often outwardly homophobic. The stories line up in many ways with stories I’ve been told from the time, and the knowledge gained from years of tracking AIDS as an issue. They’re also unique stories, despite their similarities. Very personal stories. For each person, every word of their story is unique. But for a documentarian, you have to make choices, and I definitely had to ask Steve and Ben how they made those choices. 

BEN LORD: “Because when we started out filming ‘After 82’, we had loads of people come forward and want to share their stories. There were so many, and we received texts, emails, phone calls, somebody sent it to this person, that organizations. And I spent a lot of time now with these people, and eventually filming them. And when we were at the start of the project, it’s when we came around to thinking, ‘We can’t feature everyone in the documentary.’ So, hence that’s why we concentrated on the early years of the pandemic. So, we still do have other interviews. Some that were personal, but not really relevant to the story.” 

STEVE KEEBLE: “I just had to say, ‘Right, I’m going to be brutal. I don’t know how, but we’re going to try’. And we got it down to three hours twenty minutes, and I said, ‘This is still too long.’ We then had another look, and it’s just like, ‘What do you take out?’”

BEN LORD: “Yeah.” STEVE KEEBLE: “We then brought it down to two hours and something, and finally, down to what it is now. That was the most difficult process, and I think any director, producer, and that will say the same thing. You know, you want to keep everything in, but you can’t. You have to make these choices.

It’s what makes Steve and Ben’s work important – so important that capturing these stories is more important than waiting for the perfect conditions to create the documentary, or to even produce a perfect documentary. If we were to wait to document history only when all the stars aligned and a perfect budget was provided, there would be precious little history produced. And sometimes, those opportunities just don’t manifest.

BEN LORD: “There is some people that would have been great to have interviewed. I’m not going to go into detail. An organization that we approached, but they never reciprocated, so you had to respect that. So, you can’t force people to go on camera and talk if they don’t want. That would have been really, really fantastic. And as we made this on a shoestring, had we had a bigger budget, then yes, that would have been really, really great.”

The shoestring budget does show when it comes to maintaining consistent visual and sound quality amongst the interviews. The varying qualities represent the seven year process that ‘After 82’ took from start to finish, using whatever sets and locations might be available for interviews, including at The Lighthouse before it closed down. I firmly believe that capturing these stories is more important than making it all look perfect, but you can’t help but notice that there was a cost to capturing them when the opportunities presented themselves.

Stylistically, the documentary heavily features the interviews with the people who lived through the experience, which feels right, but keeping track of the order of events and timeline can be difficult bouncing between the stories. I had a hard time following the timeline, sometimes jumping years between segments that might fit thematically together. Dominic West was the narrator for the film, but his voice is almost barely heard. A stronger narrative through line, and some guideposts along the way to track the timeline would help, especially with documenting a history. All lessons that can be learned for the next project.

Speaking of which...

STEVE KEEBLE: “Technically, there’s a lot of things technically that we would different, and we are going to do on the second project.” BEN LORD: “The next project is about a feminist movement in this country, now about forty something years ago, and how the women fought back. I’m not going to say too much, but it’s really, really interesting what it is how they fought back. They fought back in a big way. There’s one catalyst, but several catalysts. Even though the core of it is rather dark, but it’s actually very, very positive. These women who we’re going to interview, they’re much older now, they’re real role models. People need role models and that. We’re really, really excited about it.” 

“After 82” is an important work to document the history of a difficult time. The individual stories captured and the larger community narrative far outweigh the inconsistent sound quality and minor narrative difficulties. Fans of documentaries about the AIDS crisis, or LGBTQ documentaries in general, should definitely check this documentary when it becomes available in your region.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

“After 82: The Untold Story of the AIDS Crisis in the UK” (2018) is not rated and is currently playing on VOD. Check your local listings. And don’t worry, we’ll let you know the second it becomes available stateside.

Hi everyone!

Today’s our final Takeover Tuesday for our third quarter cycle, and we’re super excited to have the 32 Fans Movies podcast joining us to review a film that has received both a Certified Fresh and a Metacritic Must See rating from this year, usually a signifier of the best of the best. How did Av see it? He’ll let you know in a minute, but for a few other reviews for films with this distinct honor that we’ve covered, check out “American Factory” (Episode #585), Keith Lyons’ review for “Birds of Passage” (Episode #571), and “The Farewell” (Episode #568). Two of those are likely Oscar contenders this year. “Birds of Passage” just missed the cut last year.

Are you interested in doing a guest review here at One Movie Punch? Head over to onemoviepunch.com/takeover-tuesday and read up more on the process, then reach out to us using the provided form or over social media to find out about guesting. We’d love to have you on the show, and you’ll get access to our growing audience and be able to run your promo before the review. We have a limited number of slots open each quarter, so be sure to contact us as soon as possible. And if you do well enough, you just might be asked to join the ranks of the One Movie Punch crew.

Before we get to the review, we’ll have a promo from the 32 Fans Movies Podcast, the offshoot of their original sport-themed podcast, the 32 Fans Podcast. You can check them out at anchor.fm/32-fans-movies, where you can subscribe at your podcatcher of choice. Be sure to catch their recent episode as they continue their Sports Movies Brackets, in their attempt to find the top 64 sports movies of all time, then have them compete to find out which one’s the best. You can find them on Twitter @32fansmovies. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go!

/////

> 

/////

Today’s movie review is of “Transit”, a 2018 German language film written and directed by Christian Petzold, and starring Franz Rogowski and Paula Beer. It was released in the US in March 2019. Based on Anna Seghers's 1942 novel of the same name, “Transit” tells the story of Georg, who while attempting to flee Nazi-occupied France, assumes the identity of a dead author, but soon finds himself stuck in Marseilles, where he falls in love with Maria, a young woman searching for her missing husband. 

No spoilers.

Transit tells the story of refugees, ostensibly those fleeing the Nazis in Europe of the 1940s. However, by super imposing the stories of yesteryear on a France that looks and feels like the one we recognize today, Christian Petzold pulls off a brilliant magic trick that dislocates his story from time, and bestows it with a timelessness that only increases its importance and its relevance. A film that borrows both cinematically and thematically from “Casablanca”, “Transit” tells the story not only of the Jewish refugees of the 1940s, or the migrant crisis of today, but that of all refugees throughout history: people stuck between places, stuck in transit, stuck in time.

In a moving scene, about halfway through the film, a haunting parable is relayed by Georg. A man arrives in purgatory, eager to learn his fate in the afterlife, but his judgement is slow to arrive. The minutes turn to hours, then to days, weeks, and years. Eventually, he sees another man and asks him “Can you help me? I’m supposed to register for hell.” It is then that he receives the haunting reply, “Don’t you understand. This here is hell.” That’s the bleak reality of the lives of the refugees we see congregating in the corridors of a small hotel, in the waiting room of consulates, in cafés and bars in the harbor, all in hopes of the elusive transit papers they pray will set them free from purgatory and offer them a future.

Told as a Russian Doll story within a story within a story, “Transit” asks us to consider why we tell stories at all. In a line that is repeated throughout the film, we are asked, “Who is the first to forget? He who left or she who left him?” Is it the one who departed or the one left behind that is better positioned to move forward? More importantly, who is the one left with the primary task of dealing with the consequences and the telling of the story: the victim or the oppressor?

“Transit” is a brilliant masterwork from one of Europe’s best filmmakers, and one of the most relevant and essential movies in years. It’s a movie that doesn’t pull any punches and challenges its audience to confront the horrors of the past as they bleed into the present. I would strongly recommend it to any viewer who isn’t scared off by subtitles. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 96% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 84 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.5/10 

“Transit” (2018) is currently available for rental or purchase on Amazon, Google Play, and Vudu.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back for another review at One Movie Punch. Today’s film is obviously the sequel to “IT” (Episode #337), which I got to finally check out on HBO in the aftermath of last year’s wildfire evacuation. I’m definitely a huge Stephen King fan, which you can check out in the opening paragraphs of that particular review. For a few other films in the same vein, I would also recommend “The City of the Dead” (Episode #250), both “Halloween” films (Episodes #302 and #303), and “The Evil Dead” (Episode #555).

Before the review, we’ll have a promo from our friends at the Grief Burrito podcast. Every week or so, Harrison and Jordan wrap up the latest in games, films, technology, science, and weirdness into a tortilla of a podcast, then share it with you for an hour or so. Check out their latest episode on the World’s Rarest Game and be sure to enter their Overwatch competition! You can catch them on Twitter and Instagram @GriefBurrito, and by searching on Facebook for Grief Burrito. Don’t miss a single 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 “IT: Chapter Two”, the sequel to 2017’s “IT”, directed by Andy Muschietti and written for the screen by Gary Dauberman, based on the rest of the novel “IT” by Stephen King. The film takes place 27 years after the first installment, and Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård) has returned with a vengeance. Now the Losers Club must fulfill their promise to reunite and stop this monster forever. The film stars Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, and Andy Bean. 

No spoilers. 

However, there is a trigger warning for a pretty vicious, opening hate crime and heavily implied sexual abuse. If any of that will cause you trauma, skip this review and the film.

“IT: Chapter Two” is a long movie. Two hours, forty-nine minutes long, to be precise. You’ve probably heard other critics say it, and it’s true. There’s a small subset of movies that can be made within this timeframe. Tarantino was able to do it with “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” because of his incredible filmography. The Marvel Cinematic Universe was able to do it with “Avengers: Endgame” by dumping their entire roster on the screen at once. It’s hard enough to make a movie that long that’s worth watching. My main question going into “IT: Chapter Two” was whether it would be able to keep enough pace and interest to fill the time, and secondarily, whether the film would fit the small subset of films that can do it effectively. And whether someone who struck gold with the first film could do the same with the sequel.

I was worried I would be bored, but thankfully that wasn’t true. “IT: Chapter Two”, in many ways, is a typical Hollywood movie sequel from the franchises of the 80s and 90s. We’re doing the same thing, only this time the threat is bigger and badder, and we’re upping the ante with the frightful visuals, and, oh yeah, we’re going to use the entire cast from the first film again. A lot. I had expected a few flashbacks to tie to the present day, since the first film focused exclusively on the children, maybe one or two flashbacks to add poignancy, but they are featured rather extensively in this film. It’s fun to see the side-by-side, and I think this approach is much more faithful the novel’s narrative. I also feel like if you were going to use the children to this extent in the second film, that you should have used the adults more in the first film. Or just confined this film to the adult story. I’m sure, right now, there’s a Hollywood executive rubbing their hands together to make “It: Chapter Three”, which will have three times the cast, and the Losers all come together to defeat Pennywise in the post-apocalyptic wasteland. 

Oscar please! 

After watching today’s film, I think adapting “It” to the screen is one of those Quixotic endeavors that will never succeed the way you want it. Setting aside the material from the novel that will never be seen on the screen without breaking international laws, “It” is a very long book, covering a lot of ground and detail, that a wholly faithful adaptation would require at least a limited series. You can use the back and forth storytelling technique effectively then, as the original “IT” mini-series sort of did. I was amazed at how Dauberman, Palmer, and Fukunaga encapsulated the first film, but the rest of the story is simply too much for one film and not enough for two more, and with no clear break. 

The rest of the story in the novel is also disjointed, but also surprisingly follows the steps of forming a team. We get the forming step, which follows the Losers getting the band back together, done in a very clever montage that acts as a show reel for the adult characters and contains some clever special effects transitions that help set the art direction and tone. We get the storming step, where the characters are divided on their team’s purpose, actions steps, etc. We get the norming step, where the characters come to grips with their purpose on the team and get the supplies they need to act. And finally, we get the performing step, where they join forces to attempt taking down Pennywise. Every scene takes its time, which is great for the rest of the film, but not the norming part, where each member of the Losers Club goes on a personal journey to find an artifact, facing Pennywise in some fashion, and moving through flashbacks to their childhood at the same time. Each, taken individually, is beautiful, but taken times the size of the Losers Club, becomes a significant portion of middle of the film. Each of these side quests before the main boss could be a full episode of a limited series, but it’s too much for a film. 

It’s clear Dauberman and Muscietti want to be as faithful as financially possible with this adaptation, because the visuals are incredible. Some of the best, and most diverse, art direction while still maintaining an overall theme. No denying this film is visually stunning, and that plays a large part in preventing boredom. From the practical effects, including the costuming, sets, and locations, to the incredible special effects for the supernatural horror elements, it’s solid. Especially Pennywise, which Skarsgård reprises and complements well with the special effects swirling around him. Pennywise is one of King’s more famous characters. For King, characters come first, and this is definitely an excellent rendition between the acting, the practical, and the special effects.

There’s not time to talk about the entire cast, but I do want to give some serious praise to Bill Hader’s performance of Richie Tozier, who is played as a younger character by Finn Wolfhard. Hader and Wolfhard are a wonderful side-by-side for the film, and they both provide well-timed comic relief with their poorly-yet-perfectly-timed jokes. Hader is almost a show-stealer and competes effectively against Pennywise not just for the soul of Derry, but also for best performance.

I do want to say a few words about the ending without spoiling anything, even though it will feel quite familiar to the ending of the first film. When reading the ending of “IT” in the novel, the process is thematically potent, a culmination of the characters varied journeys, their relationships, and a memorable scene that you can put away. However, the ending doesn’t translate well to the screen, and I’m not sure it ever will. I didn’t like the ending of the “IT” mini-series, but I had always chalked that up to the state of special effects, and the budget it took to do anything, at the time. Seeing it in today’s film, I realize it will probably never work.

Some stories can only be told at the speed of a book. Not every story can be told at the speed of film. And if we’ve learned anything from “IT: Chapter Two”, it might be that. I think Muscietti’s gamble is that including this visual feast and staying as loyal as possible to the story will have it age better over time than its current reception by the critics. Or perhaps a massive, dear god let there be an intermission full edit, akin to “Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair”. Only time will tell.

“IT: Chapter Two” is unintentionally a typical Hollywood sequel, seeing the Losers Club returning to fight the same fight with a bigger and badder enemy. Between the flashback-heavy storytelling technique, and the complications of adapting a story meant for a novel, the film remains faithful at the expense of being too long for effective viewing. However, Stephen King fans, and fans willing to endure the long running time at the theater for the visual experience will be well rewarded, as well as fans willing to at home, with the aid of a pause button. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 64%

Metacritic: 58

One Movie Punch: 7.3/10

“IT: Chapter Two” (2019) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

A three-hour film... a three-hour film...

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to our final week of reviews for the third quarter. It’s been mad busy here at One Movie Punch, but we’re looking forward to the break and returning for Reign of Terror 2019 – 31 straight days of horror movie reviews and interviews from yours truly, our team of critics, and many guests from around the podcasting world! Everything begins on October 1st and concludes on Halloween with a special, very personal review.

That’s for later, though. This week we have a slate of films that’s sure to excite everyone. We’ll have the sequel to one of the greatest film adaptations of a seminal horror novel. We’ll have the 32 Fans Movies podcast guesting on Takeover Tuesday. We’ll have a special review/interview episode on Wednesday covering an important documentary. One more Certified Fresh film from earlier this year, then we’ll have a pair of reviews from Andrew Campbell and One Movie Spouse to finish out the week and the quarter. Be sure to tune in for Saturday’s episode, where we’ll have a special sneak prequel bit for Reign of Terror. 

In the meantime, we have two episodes for you today. Our Patreon episode is the premiere of a special series called “One Movie Punch: Zero Percent”, where I’ll be covering a film which received the worst possible score at Rotten Tomatoes. Today’s debut episode will be covering “The Poison Rose”, starring John Travolta, Morgan Freeman, and Brendan Fraser in a 70s noir drama that will not fail to disappoint.

Here’s just a taste of what you’ll be missing:

JOSEPH: “In this unexpected “Pulp Fiction” prequel, Vincent Vega’s uncle Carson Phillips (John Travolta), a down on his luck private investigator, must return home to Galveston, TX to help some random woman find her daughter. And in the process, he meets God (Morgan Freeman), Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), and Encino Man (Brendan Fraser).” 

If you want to hear the whole review, just head over to patreon.com/onemoviepunch. The whole episode will be available for a few weeks before going back behind the pay wall. You can sign up to contribute monthly at any level. All sponsors get access to exclusive content and will have the opportunity to force me to review one movie of their choice, as long as we haven’t reviewed it, with just a few exceptions. Upcoming content includes a special three-part interview with the filmmakers of “After 82”, a documentary covering the AIDS Crisis in the UK, along with much, much more. All contributions go to paying our expenses and growing with our audience.

As for today’s main episode, we’ll be looking at an important documentary from last year. Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9” may seem like a clever remix on his previous effort for “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and a surprisingly prescient one at that. However, the issues raised in the documentary still remain issues today, perhaps even worse now. I know that many might not like Moore’s work, or his politics, but the content is still important and worth knowing. The film currently sits at an 82% Certified Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes and a 69 at Metacritic. You can catch the film streaming on Amazon Prime.

Before the review, we’ll have a fun promo for Sponsor Sundays featuring myself and One Movie Spouse. We hope you enjoy it!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Contribute at Patreon to fund exclusive content.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Today’s movie is “Fahrenheit 11/9” (2018), the political documentary written and directed by Michael Moore. The documentary takes an in-depth look at the United States in the era of Donald Trump, how we got to this point, and what it will take to repair the damage being done on a daily basis, all with Michael Moore’s direct commentary and insightful stunts. 

Spoilers ahead.

Let me tell you a story that goes all the way back to 2004, when my daughter was born, and when I was offered a job on the west coast that required me to fly out for an interview. I had previously worked in Los Angeles as a consultant, and that work had lead to this opportunity. I loved flying out, getting the rental car, and driving all the way up to Ventura County to crash at a friend’s place and do the interview. By the way, nailed it. However, instead of turning right around and heading back, I made some plans to head up to Santa Barbara, and found myself driving up PCH, having finished interviewing for a state job, and going to see friends for sushi and craft beer. How does it get any more California back in 2004? Your friends snagging you a ticket for opening night of “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and then having your blossoming progressive mind melt to hear someone who understands the world as it is, not as we want it to be.  And the best part of the night was heading back with said friends, getting a few bong hits in us (illegal at the time, I know!), and discussing the general mess the country was in, heading towards an important election. Once we moved out to California full time, I was motivated to get involved in local politics and community, a decent part of the reason being that film. I was so stoked to see his future movies, and wondered if he would do a sequel of sorts, but dear God, I never imagined it would be like this.

I honestly believe we’re a little too far down the nationalism hole right now for this film to have the necessary effect to turn the ship around. Moore does a whole segment comparing the build-up to Nazi Germany and comparing that to actions being taken in the United States. I especially loved having Trump’s speeches lip-dubbed to Hitler’s recorded speeches, showing how nationalist our rhetoric has become. The problem is, we’ve spent so much time calling the other candidate Hitler that we refuse to admit it’s happening right before our eyes. Politically motivated shootings, open racism in the streets, militarized police forces, families being separated and placed into internment camps, public shaming of abuse victims, and threats of civil war. And it’s all happening from or with the backing of one section of the populace, waving the flag like a call to arms. I was naïve to think it couldn’t get worse than George W Bush, even as my older friends smirked when I said it. Is it an unfair comparison? I don’t think so at all, or at least I have yet to hear good explanations for all the extremely shady shit happening in our name.

Now, it’s not a perfect documentary by any means. It’s actually more like a videologue of how much things have changed in the last two years, including the absolutely dismal performance of the Democrats at the polls based in part on their internal divisiveness, how Trump came to power despite everything, the threat he continues to pose, and how it relates to the still unresolved Flint Water Crisis. But it also captures glimmers of hope among the wreckage, including the nationwide organizing by teachers beginning in West Virginia, the nationwide organizing by women for multiple marches, and the inspiring work of the high school students who vowed to end school shootings after one happened to them. It also shows candidates who stand on principle taking seats away from establishment politicians in both parties, in a belated attempt to retake the electorate. The ending includes the footage from Emma González’s powerful silence, but much like yesterday’s film, I think more specific direction is warranted, especially if the threats are as dire. But in today’s case, I actually kind of admire another old white guy recognizing that in many respects, he just needs to get out of the way to let the people already doing the heavy lifting to continue organizing. Tell me where to be to fight back, and I’ll be there. So should all of you.

“Fahrenheit 11/9” (2018) is Michael Moore’s videologue from the past two years, containing an overview of the carnage caused by the current administration, how we got there, and the people fighting back against encroaching fascism. It may not offer direct answers, but it does paint a vivid picture of the last two years, and a warning for the next two years. Michael Moore fans will definitely enjoy this content, but I suspect most folks will find difficulties with the politics or for the reasons we’re in this mess. Also, a farewell to any of the last conservative fans of the podcast. I’m sure if you weren’t tired of my political and social ravings, you will be now.

Hi everyone!

We’re closing out the week with another review from One Movie Spouse. If she sounds tired this weekend, it’s because she’s back in her classroom, happy to be there, but also tired from the day. She might have one more review in her before the break, but she’ll definitely be back in October for Reign of Terror 2019 - 31 straight days of horror movie reviews and interviews, including a review by One Movie Spouse of a horror movie from Peter Jackson. And for a few other reviews from Amy, check out “Echo in the Canyon” (Episode #566), “Plus One” (Episode #573), and her review last week for “Blinded by the Light” (Episode #580). 

Before the review, we’ll be hearing a promo from the Pop! Pour! Review Podcast. Tune in every week for an extended discussion about movies and adventures in creating cocktails. Catch their recent episode looking back on the summer’s best, and worst, movies. You can find them on Twitter and Instagram @poppourreview and by searching on Facebook for the Pop! Pour! Review Podcast. You won’t regret it!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go!

/////

>

/////

Hello, it’s me Amy, aka One Movie Spouse :MWAH:

School’s back in session here in sunny California. That means I get to get up and do what I LOVE every single day - TEACH CHILDREN! The first two weeks back at school are equal parts rewarding and exhausting. If you haven’t lately, hug a teacher in your life. Or at least send a note, email, or text to a teacher to remind them of life outside the four walls of their classroom, and to send some encouragement for the seeming marathon of a new school year. Listen to my review, then catch me on Twitter @OneMovieSpouse to keep the discussion going.

Today’s movie is “Chopsticks”, the comedy drama film directed by Sachin Yardhi, and written for the screen in collaboration with Rahul Awate. A fake parking attendant steals the brand-new car of a naïve woman named Nirma (Mithila Palkar). Now she finds herself on an outlandish adventure to recover her stolen car, with the help of an eccentric old man known only as The Artist (Abhay Deol).

No spoilers.

“Chopsticks” is a light-hearted, comedic Bollywood film. Nirma is an under-confident, yet enthusiastic young woman living in Dharavi. She’s learning to take control of her life as a tour guide, and through the advice of motivational self-help tapes. After her car is stolen, she ends up at the police station, and while filing her report, she finds out about The Artist, who might be up for the challenge of finding her car. One might think after being duped by the parking attendant, she might be leery about accepting help from such a strange man. But that’s not Nirma, who ends up exploring a seemingly abandoned building to meet The Artist. 

The relationship between Nirma and The Artist is ridiculously absurd at times, reflecting Nirma’s naivete and The Artist’s idiosyncrasies, including a huge and immaculate kitchen in the middle of the unfinished abandoned space. The Artist certainly has connections, which help them learn her car was picked up by the crew of Faiyaaz Bhaai (Vijay Raaz), and the two of them devise an unclear plan to steal back the car, which involves a prize-fighting goat named Baahubali. The goat adds intrigue, but also a much needed injection of comic relief, for what is essentially a story about recovering stolen goods. 

In fact, this film’s storytelling style is disjointed at times. While Nirma’s enthusiasm is envious, I found myself oscillating between “How could Nirma be so naive?” and “Nirma is just young and trying to learn from her mistakes.” She does grow a bit throughout the film, becoming more assertive and confident in her abilities, but just a bit. While I didn’t overly enjoy this film, I could appreciate the art direction, camera angles, and color tones, especially the distinctive brightness that surrounds Nirma, her clothing, and her beautiful shiny red car, all against the more muted background colors. It’s a pretty film, but that might be it. 

“Chopsticks” is arelatively light-hearted adventure film. Bollywood film fans might enjoy this film, though they may be turned off by the disjointed script/scenes. Fans of mystery/adventure films may have their interest piqued, but enter with low expectations to avoid disappointment. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 20%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 4.0/10

“Chopsticks” (2019) is rated TV-MAand is currently playing on Netflix.