One Movie Punch

Hi everyone!

Welcome to our third interview episode, where I’ll be reviewing the 2018 short “Echoes of You” and speaking with lead actor Laurence Fuller about his role and his upcoming projects. Laurence reached out to me on Twitter to help promote the short, and I was able to convince him to join me during his busy schedule for a quick interview.

All this means we’re having a bit of a format switch for today. Since “Echoes of You” is a freely available short film, at least for the time being, we’re going to link to the full film on social media. Instead of the usual trailer segments, we’re going to intersperse segments from our interview throughout the review.

If you want to hear the full interview, it will be available as a Patreon exclusive on Sunday, August 18th, 2019. We will be publishing weekly exclusive content going forward, which you can get by signing up with a monthly donation at patreon.com/onemoviepunch at any level. You’ll also be eligible 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.

LAURENCE: “Yeah, I’m finishing up the fourth draft of a screenplay I’m working on called ‘Modern Art’, which is about my late father, the art critic Peter Fuller, which has been a fantastic journey for me to go on, to discover my father through making a film about him, and, kind of ties in with ‘Echoes of You’ in that way that I’m able to be moved by the mark that he left behind in his writing. That has been quite a fulfilling journey.”

And since we don’t have a trailer for “Echoes of You”, we’re going to begin first with the trailer audio for 2016’s “Road to the Well”, featuring Laurence Fuller as Frank, a man whose mundane life is upended when his old friend Jack visits, and they end up dealing with murder and its consequences. It’s currently playing on Amazon Prime. 

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 “Echoes Of You”, the uplifting short drama written and directed by Henry Quilici. The film follows the life of Andrew (Laurence Fuller), an aspiring classical pianist who works cleaning a theater while auditioning for roles to pursue his dream. While working, he meets a young homeless boy named Christopher (Zakary Risinger), and the two form a bond over a shared love of music.

No spoilers.

When I was back in high school, before the days of the Internet, and too far away from any metropolitan area to visit on a regular basis, I had to rely on the local record stores and a number of mail order catalogs and programs to find new music. Shout out to all my BMG and Columbia House patrons. My favorite catalog, however, was a new age catalog that had a plethora of books and music, and it was from that catalog that I purchased my first Windham Hill record, “December”, a solo piano recording by George Winston. It was the first of many solo piano albums I would purchase on physical media, and it’s something I look for when streaming the latest classical, folk, and Americana releases. One of the lasting legacies of Windham Hill records was its re-introduction of instrumental music to folks looking for something quieter. Something that you could feel on your terms, instead of having it assault your eardrums in discos and concerts and festivals. Softer music that says a lot with very little, which is also a perfect description of today’s film.

“Echoes of You” is the first short we’ve ever reviewed, clocking in around eighteen minutes. Short films, like most films, are made to tell a story. The Academy considers any film under forty minutes as a short, which puts today’s film right about in the middle of a huge range of stories that can be told. Writers and directors have to maximize the time they’re given, and they need to tell a story that fits. Henry Quilici manages to do just this with “Echoes of You”. 

LAURENCE: “He really nailed it. He really nailed that concept of the spiritual in art, and how the arts can be a compassionate, humanitarian thing. We treat it as a gift to someone else. And do I think I found it? Yeah. The experience of making this short was very emotional. It was an emotional part, and so it did require me to go into some vulnerable places within myself.”

I normally don’t see many short films unless they’ve been collected together, or they appear before a feature-length film. Anthology pictures, short movie festivals, and those wonderful Oscar short collections. However, bundling shorts with other films can do a disservice to the kind of storytelling you can achieve with the short film. Soft spoken shorts like “Echoes of You” get drowned out by the louder shorts, rarely offering opportunities to reflect on each film. Many short films today are either really just a single scene or rapidly decay into a continuous montage. Quilici, in developing this story, had a clear beginning, middle, and ending in mind, and ties everything together very well from start to finish.

“Echoes of You” begins by introducing us to Andrew, his dreams and his routines, giving us just enough to get us started. Wasting no time, the film quickly expands its cast, bringing in Christopher, a homeless young boy, who plays with an electronic keyboard thrown into the trash. The film focuses on building their relationship, which could only happen as well as it did by developing a good working relationship between each other. 

LAURENCE: “I’d never worked with a child before, so I guess I was... I guess I was a bit nervous before meeting him. But then, of course, I met him. He definitely has that Spielbergian quality to his youth. He was totally professional and listened to Henry. I just took Henry’s lead on that, actually, I kind of watching how Henry was directing him and more so tried to insert myself into the relationship between him and Henry.”

While “Echoes of You” is about their relationship, it’s also built off the composition they share, written by Henry’s brother Max Quilici. The music works as both backdrop, though a particularly moving montage, and the means by which they strengthen their relationship to each other. The composition permeates the film, its initial melody echoing through the short as the perfect thematic complement to the story, simultaneously uplifting and reflective. Very reminiscent of Windham Hill, with perhaps a hint of Gershwin. It’s a beautiful piece, full of emotion.

Fuller also made the commitment to learn how to play part of the composition for the role.

LAURENCE: “I only had a couple weeks, maybe it was sixteen days, before we were shooting from the time I was offered the role. So, there was no way I was going to learn that song, but I was able to learn, like, the first thirty seconds or so, because it’s quite a simple, yet effective intro to that song on the piano. And so, I didn’t want to do injustice to that, where you could just see, like, the top half of me moving around, then cut down to someone else’s hands. So when you see me play the piano, I’m playing the piano.” 

Fuller does pretty well for someone who didn’t know how to play the piano, especially given the short lead time. As a die-hard solo piano fan, I’ve seen the real deal, sometimes full of emotion, sometimes methodical. As such, I suffer from perhaps knowing too much about the art, even if I can’t play myself. Fuller makes it work for his scenes, channeling the passion, but not always the authenticity of the professional pianist. No one could do that in sixteen days, not to the level of someone auditioning for symphonies as Andrew does throughout the film.

And yet, Fuller pours himself so completely into the rest of the performance, humanizing the role in subtle, non-verbal ways which suggest so much more to the story than is actually there. Quilici gives us enough to follow the story, but also adds details that suggest a lot more, one of my criticisms of this short. I feel like there’s so much more potential in Andrew’s character, and I know there’s so much more story to tell about Christopher’s character. Inadvertently, I feel Quilici accidentally gave us too much story for a short, perhaps a necessary consequence for the film’s moving epilogue. It makes this short a great candidate for a longer feature, but Fuller didn’t see much hope for that.

LAURENCE: “My understanding is Henry wanted to keep this as a short. I know Henry has a number of other projects that I’m excited to see more about, but not ‘Echoes of You’, that’s going to stay the short.”

“Echoes Of You” is an uplifting look at the role of art in society, as told through the eyes of one aspiring pianist and the relationship he develops with a young boy. Fuller and Risinger are very effective on screen, and Quilici delivers a complete story arc, with perhaps too much left unsaid. Fans of aspirational and heartwarming stories are sure to engage with this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10 

“Echoes Of You” (2018) is not rated and is currently playing at www.laurencefuller.art/echoesofyou. A huge thanks to Laurence Fuller for taking the time to sit and talk about “Echoes of You”. The full interview will be available on Sunday, August 18thas a Patreon exclusive, where we talk more about “Echoes of You” and his many other projects. Don’t miss “Echoes of You” while it’s still freely available! We’ll be linking on social media and in the show notes.

See you next time!

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to another Takeover Tuesday! Today, we have a brand new pair of reviewers for the podcast. The Book of Lies Podcast are here to review Sam Raimi’s groundbreaking 1981 classic, “The Evil Dead”. They’ll have a promo up in a moment, but you can find out more about them at bookofliespodcast.com. And for a few other horror films in the same vein, and very likely influenced by today’s film, check out “A Dark Song” (Episode #489), “The Ritual” (Episode #045), and “Sabrina” (Episode #328).

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.

Be sure to check out Book of Lies Podcast’s latest episode on Keith Raniere and NXIVM, which turned out to be his underground Sex Cult. Yes, I’m serious, and you don’t want to miss Brandi and Sunni breaking it down, with all the juicy details.

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

/////

> 

/////

Hi!

We’re Brandi Fleeks! And this is Sunni Hepburn! From Book of Lies Podcast! We cover con artists and fraud cases. You can follow us on Twitter @bookofliespod or on Instagram and Facebook at Book of Lies Podcast. You can also visit us online at www.bookofliespodcast.com.

Today’s movie is “The Evil Dead” (1981), the horror film directed by Sam Raimi and written for the screen by Sam Raimi. What do you know? Same guy. Starring Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams and Ellen Sandweiss as Cheryl.

So this is what happens, guys. Five friends travel to the cabin in the woods, where they stumble upon a Sumerian Book of the Dead, and a tape recorder. While playing with the their newly found toys, they unknowingly release flesh-possessing demons.The characters have to learn to defeat the demons without going to pieces, so to speak.

Evil Dead uses some of the classic horror movie tropes like the foreboding objects moving by themselves, or strange sounds and whispers occurring before really getting into the meat of the horror. We even get a good jump scare or two before we actually know what we’re actually supposed to fear.

This movie garnered an NC-17 rating because of the blood and gore. They had to cut scenes from it to get an R rating. The funny thing is, nowadays it doesn’t even look real.

It really doesn’t look real.

It doesn’t at all.

It’s like, I was like AHHH... oh, uh, no.

Yeah. But when blood is green they can get away with as much of it as they want. Like, red blood.

And it was white... whatever that stuff was.

Yeah, I think it was pus.

Yuck!

As much as the director wants, they can get a PG rating, but red blood is bad for business.

This movie is such a cult film that the Starz Network developed a show, “Ash vs The Evil Dead”. Of course, it’s updated, and the effects are better, but it wouldn’t exist without the original “Evil Dead” and Bruce Campbell’s total badassery.

He was a bad ass.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I enjoyed this movie, and it’s one I’ll always watch if it’s on, and I’m just hanging out watching tv. 

I’m gonna say no. It was a good movie. I enjoyed it. I’m just not into scary movies like that. But this was very entertaining. 

It’s a horror comedy.

I felt like it was the first horror comedy ever, like with just boom, boom, boom, boom. It was good, but if it’s on, I’m just... I don’t know. I’m just saying.

“The Evil Dead” (1981) is a campy horror film that launched the careers of the indominable Bruce Campbell and the incomparable Sam Raimi.

Bruce Campbell was in “Xena: Warrior Princess”.

Uh-huh.

Loved it. 

If you haven’t seen this film, find it on your streaming service and check it out, then watch all of its sequels. Watch them all, cause I’m going to watch them, actually.

Rotten Tomatoes: 95% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 71

One Movie Punch: 9.5/10 

Yeah man!

Yeah man!

“The Evil Dead” (1981) is rated R and is available on YouTube, Amazon, and a streaming service near you!

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to another Matinee Monday, this time for a film that truly tests the limits of the blockbuster franchise. The Fast & Furious franchise is one of the highest grossing of all time, and their last film, 2017’s “The Fate of the Furious” showed no signs of slowing down. It ended up being one of my favorite films that year, with one of my favorite fight scenes, which is a sort of prequel for today’s offshoot. 

For a few other action films, check out “Deadpool 2” (Episode #141) which has an eerily similar prison fight sequence, “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (Episode #148) with some other franchise anti-heroes, and last year’s “Mission: Impossible – Fallout” (Episode #211), which also shows no sign of stopping. Before the review, we’ll be hearing a promo from the Pop! Pour! Review Podcast. Tune in every Monday for an extended discussion about movies and adventures in creating cocktails. Catch their recent episode with a retrospective on the Batman franchise, including a custom drink called The Joker. 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!

/////

>

/////

Today’s movie is “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw”, the ninth film in the Fast & Furious franchise, directed by David Leitch, and written by Drew Pearce and Chris Morgan, with a story by Chris Morgan, based on the characters created by Gary Scott Thompson. The film follows the unlikely alliance of Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), as they team up to take down a genetically enhanced supervillain named Brixton (Idris Elba). And if that wasn’t enough, there’s also a strong supporting role for Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds). Sort of.

No spoilers.

I’ve always admired the Fast & Furious franchise. Despite having an initially lackluster response from the critics, the first few films had great success at the box office, pulling in some amazing hauls with later films. Part of the success was understanding the franchise’s strengths, which involved high stakes car stunts and rapid-fire action, with just enough story to move us from one action scene to another. While other films are deep think pieces about existentialism or whatever, every Fast & Furious film is an exercise in stripping down the action film to its bare essence, and delivering a good time in the process.

I’ve also admired the way the franchise has evolved over that time. The first three films were essentially the same film, which is to say a crime story built specifically around illegal street racing, set in either Los Angeles, Miami, or Tokyo. The box office dip in “Tokyo Drift” lead to bringing back the original cast, retooling as larger action pieces and ensemble films, but with the same intensity as the car chases that form the backbone of the franchise. Critics began to absolutely drool over this franchise, with the franchise getting better and better.

“Hobbs & Shaw” is a first attempt at building a larger universe for the franchise, taking the fragments of sub-plots regarding Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw, particularly their rivalry, and smashing them together into a buddy comedy film. It seems like an obvious extension for a franchise with a solid ensemble cast. And given the ridiculous and public beef between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson, probably a politically sensitive move. And yet, it can’t seem to make it work, despite over two hours of content. 

The main problem has to do with the characters themselves. The “Fast and Furious” franchise has been an exercise in stripping down characters and story to loosely justify the incredible action scenes. It works effectively with its ensemble cast because none of the characters are that well developed. Dom Toretto and Brian O’Connor never really grow as characters throughout the franchise. Every character that has joined (or re-joined) the ensemble has been intentionally underdeveloped, including Dwayne Johnson as Luke Hobbs and Jason Statham as Deckard Shaw. We get just enough story and exposition to place the action figure on the field of the imagination, and we’re off to the races. “Hobbs and Shaw” must necessarily take a great deal of time to develop these characters to fill their own space, and without much there, it’s either recycled storytelling, in the case of Deckard Shaw and his family of misfits, or shoehorned storytelling, including an entire family drama in Samoa. The story feels more contrived than usual, especially with all the quite obvious references to their respective careers, and with the “Seriously-Guys-I’m-Not-Deadpool-Wink-Wink” show-stealing supporting performance by Ryan Reynolds as Locke, administrative support for Luke Hobbs.

The second problem has to do with pacing. For a franchise built on speed, this film can almost be criminally slow over its two hour, fifteen minute run time. Part of that has to do with needing to waste time on character development. Part of that was putting way too much emphasis on the comedic aspect of the film. The beef between Hobbs and Shaw is, at best, a sideshow in the larger “Fast and Furious” franchise. Here, it’s forced. Funny, definitely, but often at the expense of pacing. I actually felt tired watching the film, and disappointed at the end of the Moscow/Ukraine segment when I realized there was still another whole section of the film to endure. I like mindless entertainment, but not boring entertainment.

Here’s one more reflection and perhaps another point of contention. The scope of the threat within this film is probably too large for a spin-off film. Hobbs jokes quite a bit about the number of times he’s saved the world, but as with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, when there’s a massive threat to be faced, I often ask why they aren’t calling everyone else in to help. Sure, they configured the story within “Hobbs and Shaw” to isolate our protagonists, but this again feels contrived and out of step for the bonds that supposedly exist within the ensemble. I was actually half expecting the rest of the franchise to show up for the last battle, but I’m sure the beef in the franchise prevented any notion of that happening.

Critical reviews and box office numbers suggest we’re going to get sequels, or at least a continuation of the larger story, conveniently left open-ended at the end of “Hobbs and Shaw”. If they don’t decide to fold the larger threat back into the ensemble films, this combination is going to require a little retooling, much like the franchise needed moving from the fourth film to the fifth film. Hopefully future films can retool this duo in a way that capitalizes on what worked within this film, stripping out anything that slows it down, and keeping the scope right where it needs to be so the rest of the team isn’t needed. Otherwise, while the franchise will continue to be a cash cow, it will lose a lot of the ground on which it built its critical success.

“Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” is the first attempt at expanding the “Fast & Furious” franchise away from its ensemble cast. The film finds unavoidable limits within its lead characters and suffers from a lack of speed for which the franchise is known. Action fans, or fans of any of the lead characters, or anyone that wants to shut down their brain for two hours of fun action and comedy will definitely enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 67%

Metacritic: 60

One Movie Punch: 5.2/10

“Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” (2019) is rated PG-13 and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

It’s busy, busy, BUSY around here at One Movie Punch. We’re delivering seven days worth of new content this week, including a brand new critic for Takeover Tuesday covering a cult classic, our third interview episode with Laurence Fuller for Henry Quilici’s short “Echoes of You”, another Fantastic Fest review from Andrew Campbell, another review from One Movie Spouse, and more!

Last week, we had our first ever interview episode with David McCracken of Mr. Pictures for his debut feature, “Bullitt County”. The episode featured audio snippets from David McCracken about the film, but part one of the full interview is now available as our first Patreon exclusive, with part two to follow next week.

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

DAVID MCCRACKEN: “I came up with the general idea of the story, the buried Prohibition money, the Bourbon Trail, kind of thing, and then it was really just what kinds of characters would have the hardest time in a situation like that?” 

If you want to hear the whole interview, just head over to patreon.com/onemoviepunch and 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 complete interviews with Laurence Fuller, Kyle D. Hester, and experimental segments like “One Movie Punch: Zero Percent”, where I’ll be reviewing a film which received the lowest possible score at Rotten Tomatoes. All contributions go to paying our expenses and growing with our audience. 

Today’s classic review is for last year’s runaway hit on Netflix, “Set It Up”. I’ll admit it didn’t land well with me, but everyone else I know loved it. The film currently sits at a 91% Certified Fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, slightly offset by a 62 at Metacritic. It also seemed like a nice pairing to yesterday’s review from One Movie Spouse for “Someone Great” (Episode #552).

Before the review, we have a promo for our friends at the Super Media Bros Podcast. Last time they were on the podcast was during the Big Heads Media Takeover, where they reviewed “Cloverfield” (Episode #519) and made off with all of our supplies at the One Movie Punch Secret Podcasting Island Base. Check out their recent bonus mailbag episode, where they answer audience questions on a variety of topics. 

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!

/////

[SUPER MEDIA BROS PROMO]

/////

Today’s movie is “Set It Up” (2018), the Netflix Original romantic comedy written by Katie Silberman and directed by Claire Scanlon. The film follows Harper (Zoey Deutch) and Charlie (Glen Powell), two overworked assistants who try to set up their bosses Kirsten (Lucy Liu) and Rick (Taye Diggs). In the process, however, they begin to develop their own relationship, even as their matchmaking falls apart.

Spoilers ahead. 

I used to hate romantic comedies, because they all seemed to follow the same structure. Two people meet each other under odd circumstances, then slowly begin to develop a relationship, either in spite of or because of the circumstances surrounding them, including the obligatory “will they or won’t they” sequence towards the end. As my taste in movies matured, however, I came to appreciate romantic comedies that told new stories within the same old structure, or at least hired comedy writers to punch up the comedy side, to set themselves apart from other romantic comedies. But if you are looking for a romcom that meets that standard, this film is definitely not it. 

“Set It Up” is your average, middle of the road, faux high stakes romantic comedy that offers pretty much nothing new to the romantic comedy genre. In fact, it feels almost too much like every other romantic comedy, especially those between aspiring industry folks in New York City working underappreciated jobs. It is predictable by its own marketing, giving away the entire plot within the trailer, including some of the better jokes, which made me lose anticipation while watching it. And once the film used a slur making fun of the intellectually disabled, followed by the horrible bosses losing nothing and both assistants losing just about everything, I finally gave up on even trying to like it. 

The cast is not to blame at all, however. Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell have pretty good chemistry on camera, navigating their developing relationship as well as the script allows for it. Lucy Liu and Taye Diggs play rather acerbic New York elites, acting childish in funny ways, but never really fleshing out as characters. Creepy Tim (Titus Burgess) and Duncan (Pete Davidson) are great supports, with fun roles. The direction followed a lot of the standard romantic comedy setups, using New York pretty well as its own character, but mostly through known landmarks overused in romantic comedies.

“Set It Up” (2018) is a romantic comedy with a great cast and decent direction, but working with a bad, sometimes cliché script. The film is good for a few laughs, and probably a few groans, but adds nothing to the genre. Fans of romantic comedies will probably enjoy this film, but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t leave a lasting impression, at least not in a good way.

Hi everyone!

Saturdays, for the time being anyway, now belong to Amy Dobzynski, aka One Movie Spouse. She’s back this week with a Certified Fresh Netflix Original romantic comedy that is sure to entertain. Amy will be up with her thoughts in a minute, but for a few recent romantic comedies, check out her July review of “The Perfect Date” (Episode #524), our review for the smash hit “Always Be My Maybe” (Episode #513), and our review for last year’s “Love, Simon” (Episode #471). All three will be sure to put a smile on your face and deliver a hug to your heart.

And in a surprising turn of events, before we get started with Amy’s uplifting review, we’ll hear a promo from the Top 5 for Fighting Podcast! Every week, join Greg and Mike as they go head-to-head with each other on a variety of sports and media topics, including their episode ending Top 5 list showdown. Check out their recent episode looking at the Alien franchise!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation. 

Here we go!

/////

[ TOP 5 FOR FIGHTING PODCAST ]

/////

Hello! It’s me, Amy, aka One Movie Spouse back for another weekly review. 

::MWAH::

It’s been my pleasure to complete “movie review homework” this summer, and it’s my hope that once school is back in session later this month, I can keep up with my weekly reviews. I really love being a collaborator with One Movie Punch. In other news, BIG changes this week in the Twitter-verse: I changed by Twitter handle to @OneMovieSpouse. On my Twitter account you’ll find current events, positive quotes, and tidbits from life that make others laugh or smile... and, of course, MOVIES! Reach out and follow me! I’d love to hear from you.

Today’s movie is “Someone Great”, the romantic comedy written and directed by Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. YES, break ups royally suck! Stop sobbing in your bathrobe, put down that ice cream spoon, and change out of your sweatpants as you join Jenny (Gina Rodriguez) and her friends for a memorable girls’ night out.

No spoilers!

Today’s film really hits the mark on capturing the mixed emotions after a long-term break up. Robinson’s script and direction convey the deep heartache Jenny feels right after she and her boyfriend of nine years (Lakeith Stanfield) break up, right before she moves to San Francisco for a great career opportunity. I just want to wrap her up in a big hug. Thankfully, she has two girlfriends willing and ready to help her bounce back and have a memorable evening before her departure to the west coast.

When I watch a film or TV show, I love trying to guess where I’ve seen the actors before. Thankfully, IMDB comes to my rescue when I can't recall them all. This film has several familiar faces that you’ll recognize immediately: Gina Rodriguez (Jane the Virgin), Lakeith Stanfield (“Sorry to Bother You” – Episode #371), and the always fabulous RuPaul! The cast help Jenny process the breakup, as she navigates the city’s locations, songs, and food, flashing back to memories with her former boyfriend. It makes your heart ache right alongside of hers.

Now, you may be thinking: What a depressing film! Why would I want to watch this if it’s so sad and heartbreaking? Because, being a young adult is all about experiencing life - all its ups and all its downs. And when you have best friends as amazing as Erin (DeWanda Wise) and Blair (Brittany Snow), you can get through anything! This dynamic duo dropped everything to cheer up their BFF. 

Be warned that their FUN night out comes with plenty of drugs, alcohol, and sex. Oh, to be in my twenties again, and to be able to party hard without too much of a hangover the next day... Ooops, did I say that out loud?! This warning is attached here in case you were thinking of watching this film with your tween or teen; there are some scenes that while appropriate for a mature audience, not so much for the younger viewers. 

Partying aside, Jenny has some important realizations about herself and embraces the changes that will come with her big move to the west coast. These have me cheering for her as a silent fourth wheel tagging along for the evening. 

“Someone Great” is a film about unconditional love and friendship through all of life’s ups and downs. Fans of “Jane the Virgin”, romantic drama-dies, girls’ night out, and films about self-discovery will enjoy this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 82% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 63

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“Someone Great” (2019) is rated R and is currently playing on Netflix.

Join me next Saturday when I’ll be reviewing “The Hate U Give”, the critically acclaimed drama with a very powerful message.

See you next week!

Hi everyone!

Another Friday, another Fantastic Fest feature! Andrew Campbell is back with a review for a film about the birth of the shockingly violent black metal scene in Norway. The film is directed by Jonas Åkerlund, whose recent Netflix Original film “Polar” (Episode #412) was a bit of a letdown. You can catch Shane Hyde’s review if you want more information on that film, but it did not score very well with the critics at all. Will today’s film be different? Andrew will let you know in a minute.

But before we get started, we’re running a promo for our good friends on the Bicurean Podcast. Every episode, Aicila and Erik cover a wide range of political and social topics, with an eye, and an ear, towards finding common ground even in the most divergent topics. This week they sat down with well-known author, Gail Carriger, and bisexual activist, Robyn Ochs, to talk about the invisible nature of being femme and bisexual. You can find out more information at bicurean.com and subscribe to the show via your favorite podcatchers. A huge thank you to Bicurean for their support of One Movie Punch this year on Twitter!

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Here we go! 

///// 

[BICUREAN PROMO]

/////

Hello film fans!

Andrew here – staying over in Europe after our time in Hungary with “Liza the Fox-Fairy” a week ago. Traveling north, this week’s film is a co-production of Sweden and the UK, but set in Norway. My general impression of Scandinavia, particularly Sweden and Norway, is of a picturesque land and a modern culture with strong social programs where the average life-span is over 90. Recent films set in this region tell a very different story. Sweden-set “Midsommar” (Episode #527) is on its way to becoming a modern horror classic. “The Quake” (Episode #466) is an epic disaster movie that envisions the destruction of Oslo. And “22 July” (Episode #286) recounts the horrific true story of a 2011 mass shooting. Today’s film doesn’t stray from this path, recounting actual events from the early 1990s. Trigger warning on this one for realistic depictions of self-harm, including suicide.

Today’s movie is “Lords of Chaos”, written by Dennis Magnusson and Jonas Åkerlundand directed by Åkerlund. Director Åkerlundis a veteran music video director with just a handful of somewhat forgettable feature films under his belt including the 2019 Netflix acquisition “Polar” (Episode #412). ”Lords of Chaos” stars Rory Culkin, an underrated Culkin brother who was in some great films during his teen years, including “Mean Creek” and “Igby Goes Down”. Culkin portrays Euronymous, the leader and drummer of black metal band Mayhem. Euronymous is all about marketing himself and his bandmates as truly evil in order to cultivate a cult following. After the suicide of their lead singer, who went by the name Dead and was known for mutilating his body during shows, the band brings in new member Varg (Emory Cohen) a young man who had been a fan of the band. As meek Varg becomes emboldened by his mild fame, this sets off a power struggle between Euronymous and Varg that would lead to deadly consequences.

The central narrative in this story revolves around Euronymous and Varg and their escalating desire to be seen as truly evil. Euronymous manipulates those around him to commit awful acts through gaslighting and direct bullying. Reluctant to carry out crimes on his own, he manipulates his fellow band members to take action to promote Mayhem’s image. Varg, on the other hand, truly embraces his dark side, and escalates the severity of his crimes in order to wrest power over the band from Euronymous. The members of Mayhem that are alive today, 25 years after the events depicted in the film, dispute the accuracy of much of what is depicted, but there are news stories and court cases to support some of the pivotal events. 

The most striking thing about the film is the casual realism in the crimes (both violent and non-violent), as well as in the protracted (and likely accurate) suicide scene. The horrors here are truly awful, and it’s a story the audience would never imagine could be true were they not told otherwise. What we see is young men with varied upbringings and a host of psychological problems exacerbating each other’s need for attention and adoration in an environment that rewards them for it. The film delves unflinchingly into the dark corners of human nature and dares the audience to look away.

What makes “Lords of Chaos” fantastic?This is a brave story to tell as there is no protagonist worth rooting for and the subject matter is so dark that it will instantly turn off all but a few with the stomach to endure. The cinematography is staid and the various settings are pedestrian in such a way that it enhances the realism. The acting is a bit of a mixed bag scene-to-scene, but the cast nails the more visceral moments.

“Lords of Chaos” (2018) is a true story of misguided youth living in a world without consequence that is not for the faint of heart. Fans of real-life tales of violence such as “Monster”, “Dahmer”, “Badlands” or “Bully” will enjoy this film. 

Rotten Tomatoes: 74%

Metacritic: 48

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10 

“Lords of Chaos” (2018) is rated R and is currently streaming on Hulu and Hoopla.

Come back next week as we continue our European tour with a stop in France to check out “Girls with Balls”. Acquired by Netflix and released last week, the film tells the story of a stranded volleyball team on the run for their lives, hoping to turn the tables on their tormentors. Sounds like a blast. See you then.

Hi everyone!

Today’s the second interview for the podcast. Veteran working actor and new producer Kyle D. Hester contacted us for support to help fund his latest feature. Much like with yesterday’s interview, I asked if we could line up something and Kyle was more than willing to engage, as long as we put in a pitch for the final funding campaign for “Preacher Six”, and suggested we review his first credit as producer, 2016’s low-budget adaptation of Peter Simeti’s graphic novel, “The Chair”. A huge thank you to Kyle for the opportunity. 

We’re continuing with the same format switch for today. Instead of the usual trailer segments, we’re going to run the whole trailer audio for “Preacher Six” prior to the review, along with funding information. Throughout the review, I’ll be interspersing both segments from our interview and trailer clips for “The Chair” where appropriate. And if you want to hear the full interview, it will be available in two parts in late August as another pair of Patreon exclusives.

We will 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:

KYLE D. HESTER: “I’m thrilled to be here and you totally threw me off by bringing up Frank James from Pony Express Rider. I have not thought about that for years, so uh, right on. I wonder if anyone even has that game.”

JOSEPH: “I don’t even know if anyone can even play it on computers anymore, to be honest. I saw that and I thought that was a wonderful credit to mention.”

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!

/////

> 

If you want to help fund this project, head on over to gofundme.com/PreacherSixFinalFundingCampaign, where you can give any any level and acquire some excellent incentives, like having your name in the credits and on IMDB. It doesn’t get any more independent than crowdfunded cinema.

/////

Today’s movie is “The Chair”, the extreme horror thriller, directed by Chad Ferrin and written for the screen by Erin Kohut, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Peter Simeti. The film follows the story of Richard Sullivan (Timothy Muskatell), a man on death row, struggling to escape a grisly fate. Pitted against a sadistic Warden (Bill Oberst, Jr.) and his crew of cruel prison guards led by Murphy (Roddy Piper), Sullivan is forced to confront his own horrifying past as he questions his sanity at every turn.

Before we go any further, this film deserves all the trigger warnings, including, but not limited to, violence, gore, torture, and rape. We won’t be covering any of details in the review or interview, but if any of those topics are going to bother you, here’s your chance to bail out.

No spoilers! 

Before the advent of the Internet, filmmakers had to find one or more investors to take a chance on a film, making producers the de facto gatekeepers of the film industry. The producer took big risks, but also received big rewards, and sometimes those big risks resulted in huge losses, enough to push some producers out of the game entirely. As film production costs began to fall, largely in response to advancements in technology and the move away from actual film, the industry began to grow again, becoming flooded with a number of direct-to-video features that made more in overseas distribution than local viewing.

Enter crowdfunding, which takes a little bit from a lot of people, to generate some impressive funding, most notably in “The Veronica Mars Movie Project” which raised $5.7 million, which not only resulted in a movie, but quite a few other Veronica Mars related projects. It’s a method that creates a lot of possibilities. Niche audiences can now see the movies they want to see, as long as there are a sufficient number of donors, with a sufficient amount of cash. Movies like “The Chair”, by which the process of raising funds and generating interest for small projects can create a number of opportunities.

KYLE: “The way that Peter and I connected. I came onto ‘The Chair’ as an actor, and the way that that happened... Ezra Buzzington and I are Facebook friends and he’s also in the film. And I saw some really early on artwork on his Facebook page, and he said, ‘I’m gonna be in this crazy horror film!’ And I’m like, ‘Oh my God! That’s amazing! Can I get in on this?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know. Contact Peter Simeti and send him your reel and what not.’ So, I did just that. So, basically, based off Ezra’s recommendation, because we had been in some acting classes and what not together. So, that’s how I got my foot in the door with Peter Simeti.” 

In a film industry looking for fresh content, there’s been a rush to find and adapt source material from multiple creators. Netflix acquired Mark Millar’s entire line for an undisclosed, yet likely hefty sum, given the success of their already adapted books. It makes Simeti’s Alterna Comics another fertile ground for both young adult and mature readers. It also makes “The Chair”, with its tantalizing subject material, relatively small cast of characters, and few, stark settings a perfect launch for a film adaptation.

Unfortunately, “The Chair” as a movie has mixed success capturing the feel of the source material, for two key reasons. First, the comic medium allows for the still, shadowed frames and graphic stills to activate the imagination, whereas a film needs to show you everything. And this film definitely shows everything, trying to recreate the stills and the characters as faithfully as possible, and dragging out the more horrific scenes of gruesome murder and prison rape. The more they show, the less of an impact it has on the viewer, and the more likely folks will be willing to walk away from the rest of the film.

The second reason is the consequence of an extremely low budget. While some aspects of the film industry have radically dropped in cost, other aspects of the film industry have stayed the same or have increased. For the guerilla auteur, sometimes you can create gold with almost no budget, like Kevin Smith’s “Clerks” or David Lowery’s “A Ghost Story” (Episode #010). However, for the low-budget independent film scene, it is dramatically more difficult to turn limited funds into a critically acclaimed feature, as happened with last year’s under the radar success of “Mohawk” (Episode #370), which also featured Ezra Buzzington, and found fans in the theaters and later on streaming services. Expectations have to be adjusted, both for the viewer and the filmmakers. Which is why I always like to ask...

JOSEPH: “What would have been done differently if there was, say, ten times the budget? And what do you think would have been kept the same?" 

KYLE: “I think, maybe, the set could have been a little bigger. I mean, I think because of the budget constraints, we only had so much money to make the sets happen.”

KYLE: “Yeah, but like accommodations, because we would have loved to have trailers and stuff like that for Roddy Piper, but he was a champion. And everyone kind of like said, ‘All right. This is an indie and this is what we have, and nobody’s getting their own green room and that kind of stuff because we just don’t have the money for it. So everybody really pitched in and was like, ‘Let’s do this!’”

I love the spirit of independent production for those same reasons. You can tell that everyone who is involved is fully involved, rarely just showing up to put in a lame performance and walking off. Bill Oberst, Jr. brings his usual working actor presence to the film, utilizing his experience from over 180 credits for roles large and small. His portrayal of The Warden, both the real and the imagined versions, is always solid. It would also be Roddy Piper’s last feature before his passing, and as a fan of professional wrestling and the cult classic “They Live”, it was great to see him again on the big screen, even for a sadistic role like Murphy. I had to ask Kyle what it was like working with him.

KYLE: “I think Peter had reached out to Roddy through his agent. So, like, that was how that happened. They sent Roddy the script and he loved it and he wanted to be a part of it. Definitely something different than anything Roddy had done before. He was amazing. And he was the nicest person you would ever meet. A truly genuine human being and I have nothing but good things to say about him.”

Unfortunately, the great story and decent cast can’t overcome the effect of budget limitations on the film’s execution. Ferrin’s choice to focus in on the more gruesome parts of the story takes away from time that could be spent on developing the characters and the setting. The practical effects, particularly on one of the initial kills, are reminiscent of 1970s exploitation films, and not in a good way. And perhaps the most noticeable area for improvement is the lighting, which oftentimes made it difficult to figure out what’s happening on the screen when dark, and not always lining up to the time of day in the story when light. However, aside from Ferrin’s focus on the gruesome, all of these detriments could be solved with a larger budget, which would give more time and effort to better adapt the source material.

“The Chair” is a very dark and disturbing look at pure evil, through the not always trustworthy eyes and ears of the lead character. The film is best when it takes its time, and worst when rushing things, and would benefit greatly from a larger budget remake. Fans of really dark horror, bordering on and including torture porn classics like “Saw” and “Hostel” will definitely engage with this film. Everyone else, just remember all the trigger warnings, and you should be able to make the right call. 

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 4.5/10

“The Chair” (2016) is not rated and is currently playing on Amazon Prime. You can catch the full two-part interview with Kyle D. Hester as a pair of Patreon exclusives in late August. Be sure to also check out more information about “Preacher Six” at www.preachersix.com, and the final funding campaign at www.gofundme.com/PreacherSixFinalFundingCampaign. A huge thank you to Kyle Hester for the interview!

See you next time!

Hi everyone!

Today’s a big day for the podcast. Out of nowhere, Josh Riedford of Mr. Pictures contacted me to recommend their latest film, “Bullitt County”, the subject of today’s film. On a lark, I asked if they might be willing to do a Skype interview, and to my surprise, they said yes. And then I started panicking, because actual people in the actual film industry were interested in speaking with the podcast. It took a few e-mails, but we were able to work out an interview, and despite my nerves, everything went smashingly. A huge thank you to both Josh Riedford, for lining up the interview, and writer/director/actor David McCracken, for taking time to talk about “Bullitt County”. 

All this means we’re having a bit of a format switch for today. Instead of the usual trailer segments, we’re going to run the whole trailer audio prior to the review and will be interspersing segments from our interview throughout the review. If you want to hear the full interview, it will be available in two parts beginning early next week as our first two Patreon exclusives. We will 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:

DAVID MCCRACKEN: “I came up with the general idea of the story, the buried Prohibition money, the Bourbon Trail, kind of thing, and then it was really just what kinds of characters would have the hardest time in a situation like that?”

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 “Bullitt County”, the Mr. Pictures production written and directed by David McCracken. Set between the late 1960s and late 1970s on the Kentucky Bourbon Trail, Robin (Jenni Melear), Wayne (Napoleon Ryan), and Keaton (David McCracken) reunite ten years later for a bachelor party for Gordie (Mike C. Nelson). While reminiscing about their last trip, and at Gordie’s insistence, they decide to hunt for a legendary prohibition fortune buried in the woods, and end up in very dark circumstances.

No spoilers.

I’ve always found that period pieces present one of the greater challenges for filmmakers. For films set in the modern era, even in exotic locations, everyone from the writer and director to the cast and the audience can rely on their own place in time, especially in a rapidly changing and shrinking world moving at the speed of the Internet. For films set outside the modern era, the filmmakers have to capture the sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic differences in culture and society outside our direct experience and end up having that work judged by the audience, and in some cases, historians and scientists. However, period pieces also bring a lot of opportunities, as David McCracken found in developing “Bullitt County”.

DAVID: “It just suddenly dawned on me, oh, this movie feels like a 70s movie. And I think a lot of it wasn’t just, ‘Hey, there’s no cell phones, so I can get around that!’, but it was more the aesthetic. It was the themes we were kind of dealing with, because Gordie is such a repressed character. There’s a kind of feminism streak in the movie, and all of that kind of thing. The women’s movement and Vietnam and Vietnam’s percussions on masculinity and everything like that. It all just kinda felt like I had been writing a 70s movie without setting it in the 70s.

DAVID: “And then, once I made that one change, which really didn’t change much of anything else in the script, it just started unlocking a lot of potential. Thematically. Aesthetically. In the 70s you usually kind of think of browns and oranges, you know, that kind of upholstery and wood paneling and everything. And that had been the aesthetic I had been going for anyway, because of the autumn and the bourbon colors, and things. So, it was really just one of those things like I had been writing a 70s movie all along and didn’t know it. So, when I made the change, it didn’t change much, and yet, it changed everything at the same time.”

McCracken’s commitment to the time period is evident in how well he brings everything together within “Bullitt County”. Rustic, seemingly timeless locations are combined with period-specific costumes, all of which is folded into a common color palette. It is a beautiful canvas on which to tell a dark story.

Just as important as making it look good, however, is having the right cast. Many period pieces have failed to capture the time because the cast is unable to immerse their performance within the setting, or by falling back on clichés developed by mainstream films during the golden age of Hollywood. The cast of “Bullitt County” are able to give more than convincing performances, especially against the well composed canvas, and by exploiting the synergy of developing characters with specific people in mind.

DAVID: “In terms of casting, it came together fairly quickly. I had directed my thesis film at University of Southern California, and Mike Nelson was the lead in that and we got along really well. And, he’s generally more known for his comedic work, and I just saw a lot of potential for him to be able to branch out and really do a lot more than just comedy.”

DAVID: “The character of Wayne, I had also worked with him. Napoleon [Ryan], I had worked with him before as well. And then I obviously I knew I was going to be in it. So, really, it wasn’t that many roles to cast once we filled those initial roles. It was really just Robin and the older couple and some of the supporting roles.”

DAVID: “Richard really was a funny story. I had met him ten years ago, and it was right before I had started USC, and I had just told him I was getting ready to start film school. And he said, ‘Well, if you ever make a movie, keep me in mind!’. And I said, ‘I will! I would love to cast you someday.’ And so, I just gave him a call, and that was it!”

“Bullitt County” is told in two distinct parts. The first act brings the characters together, giving us glimpses into their individual lives, and the relationships amongst them. The cast shows more than the script tells, adding authenticity, and complimenting the occasional flashback to their last trip ten years ago. Eventually, we begin to see the usual strains in long-term relationships caused by time and lack of contact. Just as these feelings are coming to a head, the second act begins with a well-framed and sudden act of violence, which creates a great deal of immediate shock, progressively worse strain on their relationships, and utter chaos in their reactions. While their situation unravels around them, the viewer also learns more about their previous trip on the trail, adding context that begins to shift our perspectives about everyone, until we reach a dramatic and satisfying conclusion.

My favorite part of “Bullitt County” is the editing. The film opens up with a wonderful split-screen edit, as Gordie’s friends kidnap him in a classic opening mission reminiscent of action thrillers from the time period. The film accelerates the editing in the second act as the characters are often apart from one another, allowing McCracken to tell more story at one time, and adding to the general chaos leading up to the conclusion. The editing is never overdone, and added a nice flair to the rest of the film.

JOSEPH: “How do you know when enough is enough, though, when it comes to doing those kinds of framing edits and when it comes to cutting the various frames together?”

DAVID: “They weren’t actually built into the script or planned on, but the editor, Kevin Del Colle, he was editing while we shot, because we didn’t have pickups or anything, so it was important for him to get started on it, so if we forgot something, he could remind us to shoot it before we left. But, so he was cutting, and we were a couple days into shooting the kitchen stuff, and he called me up and said, ‘Hey, what do you think about split screens?’ and I said, ‘Oh yeah, that sounds great!’, and so pretty much all the kitchen stuff with the split screens is a first cut. I mean, he really was the one composed those kinds of things.”

DAVID: “And so, once the kitchen felt like there’s no other way to do this, we needed to find a couple other places in the screen to do split screen, so it felt like it was of a piece, and not just a weird gimmick that came out of left field in the middle of the movie. Then it became an issue of when do we use it when it absolutely needs it, because we don’t want to force it.” 

“Bullitt County”, of course, has some areas for improvement. A great deal of time is spent in the woods, which has a disorienting effect on the viewer. All the locations were well chosen for the individual scenes, but put together I had a hard time knowing where anyone might be at any given time. It’s an effective technique for a classic horror film, but not as effective in a daytime thriller. The last third also felt more drawn out than necessary, sometimes losing momentum in the chaos and revelations, and ends pretty abruptly, although I did love the flashback epilogue which closes out the film. I also felt like there was still more story to tell, not just about the survivors, but also between the characters, particularly between Gordie and Donna, to justify some of their interactions, and perhaps more of their time on an actual college campus.

Overall, “Bullitt County” is an impressive solo debut feature for David McCracken, built off an excellent script, and impressively shot on a tight budget with a convincing cast. While it may not have been a perfect film, it definitely makes me excited about future features from David McCracken and Mr. Pictures. Speaking of which...

DAVID: “I’ve been developing things concurrently with ‘Bullitt County’, and have probably ten different projects all in various stages of development, but I’m pretty sure we’re going to do a straight up horror movie next.”

Fans of 1970s period pieces, or noir thrillers, should definitely check out this film. Everyone else, check the trailer, and decide accordingly.

Rotten Tomatoes: 46%

Metacritic: 50

One Movie Punch: 8.3/10 

“Bullitt County” (2018) is not rated and is currently playing on Netflix, Hoopla, and VUDU. Don’t forget the full two-part interview will be available via Patreon at any monthly amount. The first episode will be available on August 4thand the second part on August 11th. Thanks in advance for your support!

A huge thank you to Josh Riedford and David McCracken of Mr. Pictures for their time. Looking forward to more from Mr. Pictures.

See you next time!

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to another Takeover Tuesday! This week we have a brand-new critic named Nathan Gibbons, who will be reviewing a hit-or-miss evil seed horror film from earlier this year called “The Prodigy”. Nathan is a recent follower of One Movie Punch, who was extremely enthusiastic about guesting, and has more than one film lined up for the podcast. He’ll be up in a minute with his thoughts on “The Prodigy”, but for a few other evil seed horror films, check out “Let The Right One In” (Episode #024), “Veronica” (Episode #080), “Hereditary” (Episode #525), and “The Hole in the Ground” (Episode #491). And for an evil parents film, be sure to check out “Mom and Dad” (Episode #475).

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. 

Subscribe to stay current with the latest releases.

Connect with us over social media to continue the conversation.

Take it away, Nathan!

/////

My name is Nathan Gibbons. Follow my Twitter @YaBoyGibbo and Instagram @gibbogram1. I’m a stand-up comedian from London, England and I host a podcast on Apple Podcasts called The One Where Show on which I interview comedians about themselves and a sitcom of their choice.

But for now, I’m going to talk to you about the 2019 horror film “The Prodigy”. The film is directed by Nicholas McCarthy, written by Jeff Buhler, and stars Taylor Schilling (from Orange is the New Black) and Peter Mooney, as Sarah and Jason Blume, a married couple who begin to worry about the behavior of eight-year-old son Miles (Jackson Robert Scott). Could it be that his brain is developing at a more advanced rate? Or could it be that evil supernatural forces have taken over their son?

I’m just going to start by saying that I’m kinda surprised that this wasn’t given a wide release here in the UK, but I guess it’s hard for horror films these days unless it’s a remake, or a part of the Conjuring universe. Anyway, to be honest, I had an okay time with this. It’s mid-level horror at its most mid-level. While he ain’t Damien Thorne, Jackson Robert Scott’s Miles is decently written creepy horror movie kid and has a decent performance to match the writing. Taylor Schilling also does the typical conflicted horror movie mother role quite well.

Also, credit has to go to Nicholas McCarthy who directed the thing. He knows how to get the best performance out of his young star and uses the lighting effectively to create tension. From the opening shot, it is clear that he has his heart in this project, and I couldn’t tear my eyes away from the opening sequence. Also, there are some wonderfully creepy scenes, and apart from in the first five minutes, McCarthy does not rely on pointless jump scares to keep the audience interested, and to his credit, when they are used afterwards they often serve a purpose.

Now, I have some major criticisms of the film, with the first being that the adult characters are criminally stupid. I mean, if Taylor Schilling had bothered to check the baby camera, like I’m guessing any parent who has one would, this movie would have been over in 20 minutes. Secondly, as with most horror movies recently, Peter Mooney’s role as the husband is so underwritten that when he leaves the film completely for about 30 minutes, I didn’t even notice until he had a “Hey, I’m back!” moment. And third, there is a point near the end where it should have ended but instead goes down the “I hope we get a sequel!” route and it suffers because of this.

To sum up, this is a Diet Coke version of “The Omen”. I’ll give the performances 7/10, the script gets 6/10, and the set 7/10. The message gets an 8/10: (1) because evil exists people, okay, and (2) at the film’s heart, it’s about a mother who will do anything for her son.

Rotten Tomatoes: 43%

Metacritic: 45

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

So, not great, but not a waste of time, either. If you’re in America it’s been given an R rating. It’s a 15 in the UK.

Ok, guys. That’s all from me! I’m Nathan Gibbons, and hopefully, you will hear from me again soon.

Hi everyone! 

Quentin Tarantino. What can you say that Samuel L. Jackson hasn’t said?

It seems weird, but this will be our first Tarantino feature to be reviewed by the podcast. However, it will also definitely not be the last. And based on the initial critical reviews for “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood”, it seems like it won’t be the last Tarantino film to be produced, either. I’ll talk more about my love for Tarantino in a minute, but for a couple other films in the same vein (and let’s face it, very likely directly influenced by Tarantino), check out “Brawl in Cell Block 99” (Episode #003) and “Green Room” (Episode #054). And for a few films that likely influenced Tarantino, check out “Five Deadly Venoms” (Episode #208), “The Conversation” (Episode #091), and the long take to top all long takes at the beginning of “Touch of Evil” (Episode #229).

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 “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood”, the ninth film written and directed by the legendary Quentin Tarantino. Set in 1969 Hollywood, the film follows TV star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his longtime stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), while the world around them begins to change rapidly. The film also includes Margot Robbie, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning, Timothy Olyphant, Al Pacino, Harley Quinn Smith, Kurt Russell, and a slew of other stars, including the late Luke Perry.

No spoilers! 

Quentin Tarantino is one of my favorite writers and directors, ever since I rented a copy of “Pulp Fiction” at our local video store, and watched it a few dozen times with high school friends. Of course, as a young man, I was first drawn to the profanity, violence, and drug use, but as I finished my tenth viewing, I started to realize there was a lot more happening on the screen. No Internet existed at the time, and without many film-related periodicals to peruse, I had no idea how to articulate what I could sense innately each time the film played. I couldn’t explain why his characters felt so well-developed, or how well the framing was in each shot, or how well the so-called gimmicks were done, like chapter cards and out-of-sequence storytelling. I just knew that I liked it, and I liked it a lot more than most any other film I’d seen up until that point.

Nearly 25 years later, I think I know why I, and many other Tarantino fans, are drawn to his work. It’s not just the themes or the profanity or even the characters. Tarantino, much like Kevin Smith, is someone who understands film because he’s seen a LOT of films. He made his mark at first with a series of noir crime pictures, including “True Romance”, “Reservoir Dogs”, “Pulp Fiction”, “Natural Born Killers”, a segment in “Four Rooms”, and “Jackie Brown”. Afterwards, he went into a string of homages for genre films, including “Kill Bill” for kung-fu movies (a favorite around here), the “Grindhouse” double-feature with Robert Rodriguez for 1970s exploitation films, which spawned at least four other films from the mock trailers alone, “Inglourious Basterds” for World War II films, and “Django Unchained” and “The Hateful Eight” for frontier and western stories, with an obvious nod to the “Django” franchise of old. This impressive filmography is a testament to the forgotten or besmirched areas of Hollywood, films that didn’t always have critical acclaim, but did have huge audiences. And it’s a perfect springboard for his latest project.

“Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” takes us back to the end of the Golden Age of Hollywood, in the late 1960s when major studios were losing ground to the rise of new filmmakers and more independent cinema, including the infamous Roman Polanski, played by Rafal Zawierucha in the film. Younger audiences were flocking to independent and alternative cinema, moved by the changing social demographics, rejection of outdated notions of censorship, and rejection of stereotypical roles for men and women in film. New theaters and distributors, along with more overseas film industries, were making money hand over fist by eating up a huge portion of the cinema’s market share, and with the advent of television, fewer and fewer fans of the older films were heading to the cinema, especially when you can see your fading stars of yesteryear on the small screen in the comfort of your own home. 

I feel like this period in time is a strange nexus point on which Tarantino stands in relation to Hollywood himself. His films are independently minded, but with major studio production values and skill. His films appeal salaciously to younger generations, but also appeal to older generations who remember similar films from yesteryear in the cinema. His films would turn minor distributors and players into major movers and shakers in the new millennium, but also gave homage to the stars which came before and even restarting a few careers in the process. And it provides the basis for Tarantino to write a very extended love letter to Hollywood then and now.

Like most Tarantino films, the strength of “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” is its characters, brought to life by expert casting. DiCaprio’s performance as Rick Dalton is nothing short of spectacular, encompassing the washed-up Golden Age actor role with a surprising mix of comedy and heartache. Against our better judgment, we end up feeling sorry for Dalton, who owns a home in the Hollywood Hills and poisons himself routinely with alcohol. Dalton’s well-rounded character is in stark contrast to intentional caricature Cliff Booth, who gets into a hilarious fight with Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) and plays the usual soft-spoken alpha male of yesteryear. Supporting characters weave in and out of the background, helping to drive the story towards the incredible final twenty minutes, although sometimes slowly making it from scene to scene, a privilege given to successful directors like Tarantino with massive production budgets, not to mention the incredible deal he secured after leaving The Weinstein Company in the wake of the horrendous sexual abuse scandal.

The massive budget would also be used to create some iconic shots around Hollywood, particularly Hollywood Boulevard’s makeover, the recreated signs of classic landmarks, and the still existing areas around town. This re-creation adds further authenticity to the entire film, and likely cost a significant portion of the budget, especially to get traffic on the 101 to look that empty. Everything feels like the end of the Golden Age, and that comes from someone who understands Hollywood via its many, many films and from working around and within the industry. It’s a classic film nerd’s dream, which is perhaps the too limited audience that can fully appreciate all the details in the film, although this film, overall, has the potential for Tarantino’s widest audience yet. 

One more thought before we wrap up. Last year, Netflix released “The Other Side of the Wind” (Episode #310), the so-called “Holy Grail of Cinema” from the legendary Orson Welles. Unlike Tarantino, Welles made this film in three major shoots from 1970 to 1976, often fighting financial issues and his own creative genius. However, Welles was also focusing on the changing nature of Hollywood, particular at the end of the Golden Era, and captures a great many of the same themes within today’s film. I can think of no better measure by which to judge how well Tarantino was able to capture the time period. If you haven’t yet seen that unearthed gem, and you enjoyed today’s film, you should definitely do yourself a favor and check it out, along with the companion documentary, “They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead” (Episode #312).

“Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” is a stunning period piece set at the end of the Golden Age of Hollywood, and an extended love letter to Hollywood then and now. While the film eschews quite a bit of the usual Tarantino shock and awe, it more than makes up for it with an excellent vision and the incredible precision of Tarantino’s craft. Film nerds, along with Tarantino fans, should definitely check out this film.

Rotten Tomatoes: 92% (CERTIFIED FRESH)

Metacritic: 88 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 9.3/10

“Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” (2019) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.