Screeners Podcast

The Screeners are back with another bonus episode to tide you over in those long fortnight gaps between major releases, and we have a real treat for you this time. Screenwriter Jennifer Deaton sits down with the crew to talk about the upcoming release of Jack of the Red Hearts, which also happens to be her first script that’s been produced and distributed. The movie itself tackles a difficult subject that’s very close to home for many families: relating to a child on the Autism spectrum. Jennifer has more than an episode’s worth of experiences to share with everyone, from the script’s inspiration to what it’s like on the set of an independent movie and everything in between. We’ll try to stay on topic, but we’re sure you’ll forgive us if we don’t cut her off as quickly as we would, say, Chris.

If it’s playing near you, go see Jack of the Red Hearts on opening weekend (Feb. 26-28)! You can’t go wrong supporting both independent film and improving awareness of what daily life can be like for millions of people around the world.

Marvel’s been straining the public’s tolerance for clever marketing for months now in anticipation of Deadpool. With everything from emoji billboards to non sequitur PSA’s in full costume (NSFW...maybe?), they’ve been trying to tell us that Ryan Reynolds’ character here is no Captain America. We get it; the question is, just what is he, and is he worth watching for a couple hours? As usual, the Screeners (or at least some of them) have the answers you’ve been pining for. Josh and Daniel ended up elsewhere for Valentine’s Day, but our 3 hardcore comic book fans all made it to the theater, and they’re here to tell you whether you should do the same.

Head over to Facebook to let us know if you agree!

The Screeners indulged a little in the last episode, talking about only what they wanted to talk about. Now it’s time to give the Academy their due—but before we do that, we hear there was some kind of sporting event not too long ago…

As any media wonk knows, the Super Bowl is all about the commercials. The Screeners just had to take a little time up front to review the most memorable ads of the year—that is, if there were any. The last few Super Bowls haven’t seemed like what we’re used to from the biggest ad day of the year; can this one pull us out of the slump?

After our brief journey to the small screen, it’s back to...well, technically the small screen again, but at least the Oscars are about the big screen. It’s time for the Screeners to pretend they care about awards shows. (OK, some of them actually do care, but we’re withholding their names out of professional courtesy. You can send hate mail after you’ve heard the episode.) We don’t have time for every category, but we might as well at least drop some predictions for the major awards and talk a little about the year’s biggest snubs and loudest controversies while we’re at it. Isn’t Hollywood fun?

Alright; enough TV for real. Time to go see an actual movie. Hail, Caesar! is the latest from the celebrated Coen brothers, and you might have heard by now that it hasn’t been doing so well at the box office. Before we bury the poor guy, though, let’s see if there’s any praise to be had. Surely the 15 or so household names in this film couldn’t have all signed up for a bad script. Maybe there’s something in the cinematography to grab Chris’s attention. Hey; it’s set in California—maybe there’s an earthquake in there for Daniel! Fine; at the very least, we bet there’s something everyone can argue about...

Wait; hold on a second. We just now got all those salad jokes we’ve been seeing in the headlines of reviews for Hail, Caesar! “Caesar” is a kind of salad, and you don’t like salad! Man, so clever. We hope they pay you well, movie critics. You’re worth every penny.

OK; if you’re still listening after that main event, congratulations! You’re more dedicated than Josh. Head over to Facebook to tell us what you think—unless you didn’t like Hail, Caesar! If that’s the case, you should probably go to Rotten Tomatoes; you’ll make lots of friends over there.

It’s that time of year again—the Golden Globes just happened (by now, even Josh knows about them), and the Oscars are just around the corner. It’s the perfect time for the Screeners to observe an annual tradition of looking back at last year in the theater, reminiscing about all the good times, and also doing what the Academies and Associations don’t have the guts for:  naming the year’s biggest wastes of film (“waste of hard drive space” just doesn’t have the same ring to it…).

Of course, the biggest event on the podcast last year was the addition of a new host, so we’re going to need all the time we can get if we’re going to make it through 5 top ten lists and everything else, so no pretend lightning round this time. Sorrynotsorry.

As you might have guessed, though, we’re not going to spoil the Screeners’ lists here in writing for just anyone to see. Instead, since campaign season is in full swing, we’re going to invoke another modern tradition and provide you with a simple quiz so you can determine which Screener’s choices you agree with. Those political ones take forever, though; ain’t nobody got time to fill out a 20-item questionnaire just to find out who they think should run the country. This quiz is short, simple, and gets the job done: 1 multiple-choice question, and you’re good to go:

1. I’ve seen way too many movies this year. I might need more than 10 slots.

2. My visual cortex is my brain’s primary source of dopamine. (Pretty pictures excite me. Deal with it.)

3. I don’t have to be right—I don’t even want to be right. I just want everyone to get along. WHY CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

4. I’ve seen way too many movies and my favorite movie of the year is a foreign film because my tastes are just more refined than yours.

5. I only value one aspect of cinema, and the market has been telling me for years that it’s the wrong thing. If I were an objectivist, I’d have revised my morals long ago.

Now here’s the catch: we’re not going to give you an answer key to let you know who your match is. Either you know the Screeners well enough that you can pick them out of that lineup (in which case you probably want to listen to the episode anyway), or you don’t know them that well, so you’ll have to listen to find out. Either way...gotcha.

As always, head over to Facebook to tell us who was wrong. That’s a better motivator than asking you to tell us who was right, right? See? We can learn something from Donald Trump!

It’s a double-header of greed, murder, and intrigue on this episode of the Screeners, but before we dive into the underbelly of society, we thought we’d make a quick pit stop. The Golden Globes are pretty much the entertainment industry’s way of satirizing itself—a bunch of rich people get together in a big room to get drunk, give each other awards, and put The Martian in the musical/comedy category. Ricky Gervais hosted, though, so at least everyone was uncomfortable. Other than those two things, though, was there anything the Screeners could have found worthy of comment?

No? OK; let’s just head to the main event.

First on the list is another movie Chris swears isn’t a comedy, presumably because it uses big words. The Big Short focuses on the most digestible, straightforward topic of the last few decades—shoddy financial products invented to disguise other shoddy financial products by chopping them up into tiny pieces, bundling them, then selling them to high rollers on Wall Street. You know, the stuff that tanked the economy about 8 years ago. They’re covering it in elementary school now, right?

There might be a bit of a generational difference among the Screeners when it comes to The Big Short, but diversity’s always a good thing—unless, of course, you happen to be casting a movie about the financial industry.

After everyone’s done reliving their experiences of house shopping in the age of foreclosures, it’s time to move on to material that might be even more depressing: The documentary that’s become Netflix’s most recent cultural phenomenon. Making a Murderer follows a Wisconsin man wrongfully convicted of a crime in 1985, his exoneration after 18 years in prison, and his subsequent arrest and trial for murder (the title wouldn’t have had the same punch if he’d been charged with a DUI, would it?).

Like we mentioned, the series has lit up debate on both sides of the aisle, and the Screeners just can’t help throwing in their two (four? eighteen hundred?) cents on the issue. Does the 10-hour distillation of the 10-year process work as a documentary? Is it a fair treatment? Most importantly, what do our favorite armchair lawyers think of the case’s merits?

Once again, the Screeners are short on topics, but long on talk. Join us next time for our yearly retrospective—we’ll go over everyone’s favorite and least favorite movies of 2015, find out about some underrated films you might have missed, and answer the most important question of all:  Did Josh actually see 10 movies last year, or is he just plagiarizing his lists from Buzzfeed? Until then, as always, join us on Facebook!

...because it’s sort of about Star Wars. Unless you’ve already seen The Force Awakens, in which case you’re probably also back on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and whatever else the kids are using these days. How does it feel to come back to social media? Was it hard to leave? Ever wish they’d have political debates on Hoth so that people would shut up about them too for fear of spoiling something?

Anyway, the Screeners (sans Melody, sadly) had to say something about the cultural phenomenon that is the first Star Wars release in a decade. Actually, the four of them said about an hour of somethings before editing. Some people just can’t contain their joy (or sorrow; we’re not going to spoil that part for you either).

There’s even a spoiler-free review at the beginning like usual, but we won’t blame you if you don’t believe us. Just, y’know, go see it, then give the episode a listen.

Can we just start calling both prequels and sequels “‘quels”? We’re tired of remembering which is what and debating whether a given movie is one or the other—it’s definitely one of the two, though, since originality is almost officially passé in Hollywood. Anyway, Jump Cuts features two ‘quels. (Catch that? We’re the change we wish to see.)

First up is Alien: , and guess which Screener gets to sit out this trailer review because he hasn’t seen any of the original series. Is there story left to tell, or should Scott have left well enough alone with the franchise’s success (...then failure, then moderate success again)?

Next, though, is Captain America: Civil War. Its first trailer is out now, and it’s a little different from your standard superhero punch-fest (don’t worry; there’s probably some punching in there). What are the Screeners’ first impressions of the new installment coming off their rave reviews of Winter Soldier?

This episode’s main event is a rare beast indeed—a hat trick. A triple play. Three in the hole. We’re pretty sure that last one’s not really a thing. Anyway…

First on the docket is Creed. It’s the latest in the Rocky series, or we suppose you could say that it just “takes place in the Rocky universe” since we’re all way, way too familiar with that phrase by now. Anyway, once you get past the fact that the main character’s name is Adonis, son of Apollo (should we be calling him Phoebus Apollo at this point?), it turns out there’s a good bit of discussion fodder to be had in the film. We’ll start things off here:  Is this a shameless money grab, a loving homage, or an actual story in its own right? Do we need another Rocky movie, or should we have left well enough alone after Rocky Balboa nearly a decade ago? What do we mean when we say “rags to riches”? We’re sure Josh can find something to complain about in here, too, but we’ll leave that for the episode.

Next, we’ll revisit something we teased in the last episode: The Man in the High Castle. Visual adaptations of Philip K. Dick stories are nothing new, but this is Amazon’s first attempt at portraying his brand of sci-fi. The swastika doesn’t get a lot of airtime these days, but things might be a little different if the Nazis had won World War II. That’s the theme of the show, right—swastikas? Kidding—there’s definitely more to talk about, but is it enough to win over the Screeners? We’re a little concerned it won’t have enough earthquakes for Daniel…

To round out the episode, the Screeners travel back in time a few weeks to review Pixar’s newest offering, The Good Dinosaur. It’s gotten mixed reviews, from the high praise Pixar included in the trailer all the way down to a painfully obvious slam floating around the Internet: “The Mediocre Dinosaur”. (Well done, blog critics. Must’ve taken you ages.) Pixar’s always aimed at a specific audience, though, and all of the Screeners except one have young kids now, so let’s see how this plays out.

The Flickchart session last time was embarrassing enough, right? None of that this episode; we dedicated all the game time to Hitler. See you on Facebook—and back here next episode, when we’ll be talking about Creed.

We know it’s the holiday season, but the Screeners are far too dedicated to take vacation days. OK, we lied; they totally took vacation days—that’s why this episode’s main event has been out a little while by now. You'll forgive them, right? Not like you needed an extra podcast episode to listen to while you were driving 5 hours to eat turkey with people you see twice a year or anything, right? Good.

We’ll start off with a brief news roundup, even though there’s not a ton to talk about. A listener brought us some disturbing news about a beloved cult classic on Facebook recently, but the Screeners smell something fishy about the whole deal. In the timeless words of David Letterman, is this anything?

Also worth noting is Hulu’s new original miniseries, 11/22/63, and Amazon’s Philip K. Dick adaptation, The Man in the High Castle. Alternate history and time travel are apparently hot right now; will either of the sort-of-underdog streaming platforms execute well enough to stick around in the original content game?

Whether you think it’s a vapid teen romance, a thrilling adventure tale, or are just glad it’s over, chances are you’ve at least heard of The Hunger Games. The second part of the third part of the trilogy (yeah; we’re tired of having to say that too) has been out a couple weeks, and it’s time for the Screeners to weigh in.

Reviews haven’t been stellar, and people who have actually read the books (which 3 Screeners actually admit to having done) say the third one is the worst, but so far the box office has told another story. Guess it’s up to the five Screeners to solve this once and for all.

Remember when the podcast used to have three segments? If you’re a new listener, you’ll just have to trust us on this one. We were young and naive, and our memories are fuzzy, but we’re pretty sure it happened once or twice. Now that there are 5 hosts, the Screeners have decided to give their old stomping ground at Flickchart another shot—after wiping out any trace of their old list, of course, because that thing was just embarrassing. So come along for the ride as Daniel learns again for the first time just how few movies Josh has actually seen.

OK, that does it. You know the drill:  Last one to Facebook's a...bad fan? Yeah, let's go with that; we hear guilt's a great motivator.

The Screeners have really hit a stride with this new consistent release schedule, haven’t they? It’s like every time you turn around, there’s another episode—and another episode means yet another set of show notes. The author isn’t bitter about that, though; not in the least. Why would you think otherwise?

For Jump Cuts this week, the Screeners start out with a noble goal of catching all their listeners up with the latest news. Problem is, the only news worth hearing right now seems to be Wired talking to JJ Abrams about Star Wars and how CBS has taken Star Trek hostage.

Next up, since unoriginality is now a go-to topic for the Screeners (oh, the irony), they spend some time pondering sequels. For those filling out the Screeners take-home quiz, the question is: “Can a sequel actually be better than the original? Discuss.”

To bring it back to current events, though, what’s new(s) in everyone’s media playlists? Josh surprises everyone by admitting to watching a reality show, then Chris takes it a step further by showing an almost uncomfortable level of enthusiasm for female-centric horrors and horror comedies. Oh, and Daniel still wants us to see Room. Like, really wants us to see it.

This episode’s main event is Spectre, the newest addition to the Bond franchise. As a lifelong Bond anti-fan, Josh has decided to do the ethical thing and recuse himself from reviewing this one, but that won’t ruin everyone else’s fun. Is Daniel Craig a passable Bond? How is the franchise as a whole faring these days? It turns out there’s quite a philosophical debate to be had here, should you choose to take the Bond universe seriously.

A deceptively short summary this time—trust us; there’s plenty of discussion to go around. As always, head over to Facebook to join in!

Remember last time, when we were light on non-spoilable topics to talk about in the show notes? Well, here we are again, except there’s only one Jump Cut this week. The Screeners seem to be on a campaign to make these show notes as dull as possible, so if you can’t beat ‘em…

Indulge your humble guide for a moment while he reflects on one of his favorite brunch foods. Eggs Benedict, when made properly, is a delicious dish, but it demands a certain willful ignorance toward what one is about to put in one’s mouth. Too long spent pondering the fact that it resembles a pair of warmed oysters filled with liquid, and all is lost. Cut, lift, swallow. There can be no other strategy.

OK, that was an extra paragraph. That should substitute for at least one or two missing Jump Cuts. English teachers of the world, cringe in horror. We’ll never speak of this again.

Anywho, there actually is a full-length episode in here somewhere. We start out with something that became a fairly popular topic on the Screeners Facebook page:  Remakes—er, “reboots”—or whatever euphemism studios are using these days instead of saying “We want more money, and we don’t want to give any of it to a writer.”

We’re sure everyone can probably name at least one bad remake, but were there any good ones? Are there any movies that are actually due for a remake? Are there any movies that, if they were remade, you’d spiral into a profound depression that would take years of therapy to overcome? This is serious business, people, and not just because Chad’s about to list a bunch of movies so obscure they’ll make you question his national loyalties. Oh well; we always thought there was something off about him anyway. On to the main event!

Another week, another Steve Jobs movie—and, true to the source material, each one is almost entirely incompatible with the previous version. At least this one brought a real writer and real actors to the party, but was that enough to satisfy the gamut of personal preference and emotional baggage the Screeners represent? Fun fact:  If you toss all the iPhones Chris has owned over the years in a pile on the ground, they self-organize to spell out “#firstworldproblems”.

For the second movie in this episode’s main event, though, there are no cute one-liners. Beasts of No Nation is an often unpleasant look at a grim reality. Netflix’s first feature-length movie was written, directed, and shot by Cary Joji Fukunaga, is adapted from a novel about a child caught in the middle of civil war in an African country. What makes a movie about subject matter like this “worth watching”? Tune in to see how Chad, Daniel, and Josh would answer that question, since Chris and Melody...didn’t watch it.

And that’ll do it for another episode of the Screeners. Head over to Facebook to let us know what you thought, what you’d like to hear more of, and if you have any strange cravings for eggs Benedict.