Wednesday, April 24, 2024
Home Blog Page 188

Podcast: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Top 3 Palme d’Or Winners – Episode 223

This podcast is brought to you by PopcornTrivia. Download the app today and have fun playing great movie trivia!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Arcturus from the MGCTv podcast joins us to discuss the latest installment with Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. For a little counter-programming, we also recap this year’s Cannes Film Festival and discuss our Top 3 Palme d’Or winners of all-time.

So this week’s slate of new films in theaters was rather slim, and Baywatch was not really an option for us. Given the choices, we decided on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales since we are nostalgically tied to this franchise in some way or another. And for obvious reasons, we coupled that with the Cannes Film Festival.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales Movie Review (6:42)
Grades
JD: C
Brendan: C
Arcturus: D

Top 3 Palme d’Or Winners (42:42)
With the 2017 Cannes Film Festival wrapping last weekend, we thought it would be appropriate to discuss, not just the festival itself, but our favorite Palme d’Or winners of all-time. The award originated back in 1939, so there are a lot of winners to choose from, including some of the best films of all-time. That said, what would be your top 3?

Top 3 Sponsor: First Time Watchers Podcast

[divider]

RELATED: Listen to Episode 222 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed Alien: Covenant!

[divider]

– 2017 Cannes Film Festival (1:23:43)

This year’s Cannes Film Festival wrapped this last weekend after premiering some intriguing films, such as The Beguiled, The Killing of a Sacred Deer and much more. There was even strong buzz that Adam Sandler gave one of the best performances in is career in The Meyerowitz Stories.

**NOTE** – We recorded this episode before the announcement of the Palme d’Or and other awards.

– Music

Beyond My Beloved Horizon – Geoff Zanelli
The Third Man – Anton Karas
Carol Opening – Carter Burwell
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 223

[divider]

Next week on the show:

    Main Review: Wonder Woman
    Top 3: TBD

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Movie Review: ‘Colossal’ is imaginative and dramatically curious


Director: Nacho Vigalondo
Writers: Nacho Vigalondo
Stars: Anne Hathaway, Jason Sudeikis, Tim Blake Nelson

Synopsis: Gloria is an out-of-work party girl forced to leave her life in New York City, and move back home. When reports surface that a giant creature is destroying Seoul, she gradually comes to the realization that she is somehow connected to this phenomenon.

[/info]

Colossal is a film from Spanish director Nacho Vigalondo. It stars Anne Hathaway as Gloria, a thirty-something wastrel who would much rather be out all night drinking with her friends than growing up, getting a job etc.

When she is dumped by her boyfriend (Dan Stevens, channeling Hugh Grant) and kicked out of the flat they share, she returns to her hometown and the rental house her parents own where she almost immediately meets old school friend Oscar (Jason Sudeikis) who not only has always had feelings for his old school friend, but also happens to own a bar and employs Gloria as a waitress.

One drunken evening ends with Gloria spending the night on a playground bench, the same night a giant monster appears over Seoul wreaking havoc. Gloria slowly begins to realize that she may have something to do with this event, in fact the monster may actually be her…

This is a strange film, let’s be frank – you ain’t going to see something like this again this, or any, year. It is like a Godzilla film seen through the prism of indy self-improvement films like Garden State. Or, if you prefer, something akin to Juno with a Kaiju.

It is a film that is a little unsure of itself, despite the brilliant idea at its core. It is not a comedy, though it is fitfully amusing and the presence of Sudeikis, nor is it a ‘growing up’ movie, instead it is closer to a monster movie, but the monsters involved are not necessarily the obvious green stompy thing flattening Seoul, more the monsters that live within each and every one of us. However it never quite pulls all of its themes and plot threads together satisfactorily, perhaps it never could, and its tone is a little uneven in places. This is a film that does not go where you think the premise might take it. This is a surprisingly dark film, with unapologetic, unlikable characters that are obsessed with nihilistic, destructive emotions and struggle to repress and control them when really they wish to embrace them.

Hathaway, as far away from her traditional elfin princess appearance as she’s ever been, is effective as Gloria, though we never really warm to her. It is a measure of the actress’s skill that we are clearly not meant to ever love and root for Gloria, but we do wish the best for her, we hope she makes the ‘right’ choices that would assist her goal to get her life under control even though we know, deep down, she’s hopeless. Peering out from under an unflattering fringe, hair unkempt and unbrushed, black eye make-up and cracked lips she bears an uncanny resemblance to UK TV presenter Claudia Winkleman. Hers is a performance of charm, darkness, obsession, addiction and cruelty.

The revelation is Sudeikis who initially delivers his standard, unimpressive, nice guy shtick- a performance he is very good at, it’s just not hugely stand-out – but as the film, and Oscar, take a darker tone, Sudeikis subtly shifts gear, moving into menace and threat. It is an unstable performance, shifting suddenly and violently between nice guy and monster A man unhappy with his life, Oscar the bar owner is a thin veneer of respectability and decency wrapped around a cruel, narcissistic bully. Sudeikis brilliantly shows the veneer cracking, splitting and revealing the monster that inhabits the man. It is a very impressive performance.

The dark themes, twisted characters and bonkers premise was never going to be completed satisfactorily, and it isn’t. The plot demands the mystery is resolved and the threat dealt with and the film does so, but not as neatly or imaginatively as you might hope. It proves impossible to reconcile the two parts of the story, monster in Seoul and monster in soul, in a way that serves both threads well. It is hard to root for Gloria as she finally steps up the the heroine role the monster in Seoul story thread demands, because we’ve seen she’s really a bit of a hopeless, selfish, drunken, stupid girl.

Colossal is imaginative, flawed film blessed with exceptional performances from Stevens, Hathaway and especially Sudeikis. It is not a comedy, it is not a monster movie (though there are loads of loving homages in shots and music cues), it is not an indie redemption movie, it is all of those things together, and it is not a total success, but nor is it a total failure. It is a curiosity, and if you are cinematically curious, you should check it out.

Overall Grade: B-

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Extra Film:

[divider]

Movie Review: ‘Baywatch’ is a film that cannot save itself from drowning


Director: Seth Gordon
Writers: Damian Shannon & Mark Swift
Stars: Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Alexandra Daddario

Synopsis: Devoted lifeguard Mitch Buchanan butts heads with a brash new recruit. Together, they uncover a local criminal plot that threatens the future of the Bay.

[/info]

Dwayne Johnson was once described as “franchise Viagra.” Now that statement may seem a tad far fetched but it was and kinda still holds true. If The Rock is thrown into a movie that movie is almost guaranteed to crack a billion dollars. The G.I. Joe franchise, the Fast and Furious franchise, literally anything that The Rock is shoehorned into will grow into some sort of success for Hollywood and their pockets. Sadly his massive pectoral muscles and pearly white smile is not enough to save the absolute disaster that is Baywatch. Baywatch serves as a clear example for why people think that cinema is dying and the film does not deserve the monster box office numbers it will more than likely achieve.

When devoted, overly sensational lifeguard Mitch Buchanan (Dwayne Johnson) is forced to take a young, reckless pretty boy Matt Brody (Zac Efron) under his wing, the lifeguard crew of Baywatch discovers that there is crime afoot. Drugs, murder and scandal wash up on Mitch’s shore, he and his team must work together to bring down the force that threatens their beach. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about Baywatch, everything about this lackluster comedy is just cringe inducing.

First and foremost the comedy can hardly be described as comedy. Each joke whether it be some sort of insult or outlook on a situation, is a complete misfire. Attempting to achieve laughs through offensiveness and vulgarity, the film tries to play on the mindset of the millennial crowd. This film is clearly made for an incredibly niche audience and only a fraction of the population will find the jokes funny. Whether it be penis, butt or boob jokes, to “obliviously avoiding racist comments”, whatever angle the filmmakers try to approach the comedy is just a complete and utter disgrace.

Something that the audience can barely rip from the films heartless core is the character interaction. The dashing good looks of the cast helps with this and the entire cast practically pops on screen. However this element of seduction does not last longer than the films first ten minutes. The movie begins digging its own grave from the moment the film starts and right up until the film ends, it is constantly attempting to claw itself out of this six foot deep hole. The movie constantly tries to keep itself socially relevant by making a few jabs at social issues from time to time but just falls completely flat. When they attempt to be progressive they actually set themselves even further back. Baywatch is the cinematic equivalent of eating McDonalds, you know you don’t want to eat it but since it is always being thrown in your face you may as well just take a bite.

Baywatch tries to recreate the “buddy cop” element that works so well in comedies like 21 Jump Street or Men In Black. Sadly they completely forget to make us care about the characters in the slightest way. Baywatch throws so many characters in our face at once that it is way too difficult to have any sort of emotional connection with them. Each “emotional” scene is completely fabricated and as an audience member you could not care less about what happens to the lifeguards on Baywatch.

With a grudgingly long two hour runtime, the film barely pulls a snicker out of its audience. From ridiculous plot points, like Johnson’s characters not wearing sandals anymore, to Efron having to lift up another man’s private parts, the film is absolutely repulsive in so many different ways. With no character connection, completely fabricated emotional moments and just plain horrible jokes, Baywatch is easily already the biggest flop of 2017. From the first moments to the last, the film is constantly trying to save itself from drowning but sadly no lifeguards are around to perform CPR on the monstrosity that is Seth Gordon’s Baywatch.

Overall Grade: F

[divider]

Podcast: A Quiet Passion, Raw – Extra Film

This week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, we discuss Terence Davies’ new film A Quiet Passion and the French horror film, Raw!

JD is off this week (but stay tuned for Episode 223, where he gives his thoughts on A Quiet Passion), but Vince and Brendan offer some interesting back and forth discussion on these two films. Both are unique and should be seen, especially if you like their respective genres.

On that note, have fun listening to this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Hope you enjoy and thanks for listening!

A Quiet Passion Movie Review (10:42)
Grades
Brendan: A-
Vince: B+

Raw Movie Review (37:08)
Grades
Brendan: B-
Vince: A-

This week’s episode is brought to you by our great friends at the True Bromance Film Podcast, Next Best Picture and The Atlantic Screen Connection Podcast.

– Music

Waltz in E-flat major, B.46 – Frédéric Chopin
Raw Main Theme – Jim Williams
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes and Stitcher and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
A Quiet Passion, Raw – Extra Film

[divider]

Mobile App

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.

Featured: Anticipating ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales’

0

Well, here we are. This weekend features the next installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. By now you have either jumped ship or you’re along for the cruise. If you’re a fan of the first three Pirates films, you can at least look forward to the pseudo return of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. As for me…well…

My reaction when I heard that they were making a fifth Pirates film:

For what its worth, Jack Sparrow is one of the few recent Johnny Depp characters I can tolerate. He is actually fun in the role.

But…this sums up my excitement for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales:

In all seriousness, I do enjoy the first three films in this franchise for what they are. I can’t tell you a single thing about Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides however. Forgettable on every level. What about you though? Are you anticipating Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales at all?

[divider]

Here is what’s coming to theaters this weekend:

Baywatch
War Machine (Netflix)
The Lovers (expanding)

[divider]

ICYMI: On #222, we review Alien: Covenant and discuss our favorite movies as prayers!

Featured: Love Marvel, Tired of the MCU

If you read my review of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 from a few weeks ago, then listened to Episode 220 of the InSession Film Podcast, you may notice a slight discrepancy. I really enjoyed Guardians Vol 2, JD and Brendan didn’t.

What was interesting was that we both agreed on the same things: the last third degenerated into a CGI slugfest that was dull and uninteresting, it didn’t feel quite as fresh as the original, and there were some things that just didn’t work.

For me the first hour was frenetic, breathless frothy fun. It was a little lacking in imagination (JD is exactly right that everything is guns and explosions whereas there was a lot more creative action in the first film) and it definitely lacked a stuffy yet grudging governmental power for our heroes to bounce off – the Glenn Close/John C Reilly role in the first film.

However, for this forty-something simpleton, I was entertained. I really enjoyed myself in the movie. I laughed, I smiled and I was thrilled (a bit). When writing up a day later I came to the conclusion that the fun elements of the film outweighed the more problematic issues. One thing I didn’t mention, and which occurs to me now, is that James Gunn cannot pull the same trick again- weak villain, CGI climax, dull opponents papered over with fun sketch scenes and comedy bickering. Do this again Mr. Gunn, and people will see through you.

JD really liked Captain America: Civil War.

I didn’t. In fact I really disliked it. I disliked it so much, I voted it one of my three worst films of the year. And this was a year that included BvS and Suicide Squad.

I found Civil War dull and uninteresting. The action was neatly done, but ultimately it was indestructible character thumping indestructible character. There was no jeopardy, no peril. Do you honestly think Iron Man is going to kill off Captain America? Not a chance. Was I emotional when Cap threw down his shield? Nope. The three teenage girls in the front row were all sobbing. What had I missed?

Now I wondered if this was simply that I am not a Marvel comic book fan. I never was. Growing up in 70’s Britain I read Eagle (Dan Dare – space adventures), Tiger (anthology sports stories), Commando (stiff upper lip war stories), and 2000AD (Judge Dredd – Gritty urban sci-fi). Spandex? Flying men? Magic powers? – pah, not for this British pre-teen.

I liked Richard Donner’s Superman, but I didn’t love it. I liked Tim Burton’s Batman, but I didn’t love it. The first superhero film I really liked was Bryan Singer’s X-Men and also its first sequel, X2. The Sam Raimi Spidermans had a similar vibe – grounded in some form of recognisible reality and relatively simple to follow. One or two heroes, a villain, a threat and a satisfying resolution. Chris Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy raised this simple construction to a high art and, in the case of The Dark Knight, delivered not just a high water mark for superhero films, but a genuinely brilliant film.

Marvel started well – Iron Man 1 and 3, Captain America 1 and 2, and Thor for example – all brilliant, fun, well-crafted films with well-written stories, great dialogue, and decent characters. At the time Phase 1 of MCU was emerging the other summer blockbusters were largely forgettable, think Transformers, The Lone Ranger, the Pirates franchise and the like; dull CGI -fests with little plot and no care for the audience. All spectacle, no story. Marvel have, thankfully, never slumped to those levels.

I’ll happily admit pretty much loving every film Marvel produced in Phase 1 up to and including Avengers Assemble (as it was called in the UK for reasons too weird to explain).

The creation of Phase 1, and its interconnected films was something exciting, something new. This movie fan loves a long-form story – I was addicted to Twin Peaks, Murder One, Babylon 5, Deep Space Nine, Game of Thrones, Bosch, The West Wing – I was boxset bingeing before boxsets were even a thing.

Shoot, I even committed to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

The first Avengers movie came along and it was good, and enjoyable. It was the logical and satisfying conclusion to Phase 1 of the MCU.

But then the MCU just got bigger, and bigger, and made more and more demands of its audience. Thor: The Dark World (missed it, caught it on a flight three months later) demanded you’d seen Avengers (and Thor). The Winter Soldier (missed it, rented on Netflix over six months later) had links back into Avengers and forward into Civil War, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D expected you to know some major plot points from Winter Soldier in order to understand the TV series’ on-going story. Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 directly link into Age of Ultron and Civil War. Then we got Ant-man, and Doctor Strange (nope, didn’t bother with either – sorry).

Trouble is, if you dip in and out of a franchise, you miss stuff. Fair enough, that’s kind of to be expected, but I shouldn’t be punished for not seeing some of the other films, should I?

I recently watched Fast and the Furious 8 having not seen any of the other sequels since the second one. Likewise Underworld: Blood Wars, I hadn’t seen any other Underworld film except the first. I wasn’t really lost in either film, there was enough exposition, enough explanation, and enough acting, for me to piece the general outline of the story together – and to realize that Underworld is pretty terrible.

However the MCU doesn’t seem to want to do that. The MCU isn’t interested in helping me out if I haven’t bothered to see all the other films Marvel have released. The MCU is that it has the attitude of “you didn’t bother watching Doctor Strange? Well don’t come crying to us if you don’t understand who the heck this strange bald woman is when she appears in that Thor movie you thought looked like a fun night out.”

There’s another problem with the MCU for the casual film fan: the number of characters. Seriously, I can’t keep up. Civil War, which was not an Avengers movie, had (deep breath) Captain America, Iron Man, War Machine, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Ant-man, Scarlet Witch, Spiderman, Bucky, Black Panther, Falcon, Vision and Crossbones. And yes I did have to look that up.

The film simply cannot serve that many characters, so some, inevitably, are poorly dealt with. Some have their own films (Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Captain America) to help with that characterization but others are only bit parts in multiple films, for example Black Widow, Hawkeye, Vision and Scarlet Witch. So unless you know and understand those characters before going into the cinema, or you’ve seen every film, there are going to be blank areas for you.

Fast and the Furious 8 had a similar problem (who are all these people?), but through their actions, their interactions, the plot and the dialogue scenes it was reasonably easy to work out the group dynamic, their individual traits and hints as to their personalities and relationships.

Take a look at the Back to the Future trilogy- each film is largely self-contained (only 2 directly sets up 3, but that’s because when the original was made there were no sequels planned), the adventure has a beginning, middle and end and there’s always a scene when Marty has to explain to someone, usually Doc Brown, what has gone before. Does it intrude? No. does it grate? No. Is it subtle and well written? As a rule, yes.

Another example: every X-Men film will have a group discussion scene where Wolverine is all gruff, grumpy and up for a fight, Storm/Beast/Cyclops will be more reasoned, Mystique will be shifty, and Professor X will eventually make a decision the plot rests on: it’s easy to identify where the dramatic tensions are in the group, who’s the leader, who respects who and so on. You don’t necessarily need to know what has gone before.

But the MCU doesn’t do this. It can’t. It has to cram so much story and serve so many characters in its films now that it simply cannot spare the time to serve those more casual viewers who may not have seen (or remember) the previous films. Instead the series just assumes you’ve seen them and remember everything. A policy that shuts out casual viewers.

So this old fuddy-duddy struggled with Civil War, but Guardians? That’s a stand-alone sub-franchise and it gives us everything Marvel excels at: colorful adventure, great characters, lively dialogue which all adds up to fun, frothy entertainment. Don’t get me wrong there were flaws, major flaws, but it was a darn sight more entertaining than the po-faced Civil War. Shoot *SPOILER WARNING* Guardians killed off a character, and an important one too. Something that absolutely didn’t happen in Civil War.

In fact I didn’t buy any of the emotional motivation applied to the characters in Civil War – the whole movie felt like a playground spat to me. A lot of fuss about nothing. Only just above “he said/she said” in the heavyweight argument stakes. Nothing that a decent sit down couldn’t have sorted out. It certainly didn’t warrant flattening Frankfurt Airport.

Still, credit where credit is due, there was nothing as stupid as “Martha”.

I also feel the MCU has abandoned some of the things that made it so interesting in the first place: the choice of directors. Initially we had genuinely great, distinctive directors as Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, Joss Whedon and Shane Black. Now we have the Russo Brothers, Peyton Reed and Scott Derickson – directors who are all technically competent, but lacking in visual pizazz, or acting chops, or dialogue mastery. The craftsmanship that made Marvel stand out during Phase 1 has largely disappeared, with the honorable exception of Guardians that, for better or worse, is very much a product from the bizarro brain of James Gunn.

Instead we’re left with the storylines and the characters, and these are weakening. Kevin Smith (Clerks) pointed out that with comic books, you never, ever, get to act 3. You get act 1 (the creation of the hero), then you are permanently stuck in act 2 (the travails of the hero), but never act 3 (the end of the hero). Drama is all in act 3. Look at Logan, it is the end for Hugh Jackman as this character, the film knows it, the audience knows it. It is act 3. And it is wrenching.

If Marvel is insisting on never moving any of its characters to act 3, then its films are stuck, so let’s at least make them fun while we’re stuck. For me as a fan of cinema, I’m getting more and more turned off by the MCU’s tent pole movies because they are hollow vessels, but still really enjoying their more individual works. Right now, based on the trailers and news feeds, I’m feeling Thor:Ragnarok looks like it will be fun, as does Spiderman: Homecoming, but I am not looking forward to either Infinity War.

This is wholly different to my feelings towards the end of Phase 1 of the MCU – I was really excited to see how Joss Whedon (Joss-frickin’-Wheedon FFS!) was going to close off this stage of the story, bring all our heroes together, fight off the big bad.

Now, I really couldn’t care less – I just want to have some disposable fun. That’s all the MCU now offers me.

Which is a shame.

Poll: What is your favorite swashbuckling film?

Well, this weekend sees another Pirates of the Caribbean film in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, the fifth installment in the franchise. By now, you’ve either jumped off the ship or you’re along for the cruise. Either way, we are using it as inspiration for our poll this week. We are simply asking; what is your favorite swashbuckling film?

Vote now!


List: Top 3 Movies As Prayers

This week on Episode 222 of the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by Josh Larsen’s new book Movies Are Prayers: How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, we talked about our Top 3 movies as prayers. What does that mean exactly? Well, we define that more in our interview with Josh on the show, but essentially we narrowed it down to the films that help demonstrate how we view the world and our place in it. This could be from a perspective of faith, or not, and that’s what’s interesting about this idea. Either way, these films help emulate our deepest sense of identity – making this challenge very difficult.

On that note, what movies would make your list? Here are the one’s that made ours:

*Keep in mind we have different criteria for our lists as well*

JD

1) The 400 Blows / Warrior
2) Inside Out
3) The Lord of the Rings

Brendan

1) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
2) Blade Runner
3) The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

Ken

1) The Man Who Planted Trees
2) Persepolis
3) Ragtime

Honorable Mentions (Combined)

The Godfather, A Man Escaped, The End of the Affair, Citizen Kane, Midnight Special, Grave of the Fireflies, The Tree of Life, Star Wars, The Royal Tenenbaums, Arrival, Locke, 12 Angry Men, Modern Times, Metropolis, Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men, Pather Panchali, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Before Trilogy

Hopefully you guys enjoyed our lists and if you agree or disagree with us, let us know in the comment section below. Due to the very personal nature of this list, the possibilities are endless. That being said, what would be your Top 3? Leave a comment in the comment section or email us at [email protected].

For the entire podcast, click here or listen below.

For more lists done by the InSession Film crew and other guests, be sure see our Top 3 Movie Lists page.

Podcast: Alien: Covenant, Josh Larsen Interview, Top 3 Movies As Prayers – Episode 222

This podcast is brought to you by PopcornTrivia. Download the app today and have fun playing great movie trivia!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, film critic Ken Morefield joins us to discuss the sequel to Prometheus / prequel to Alien in Ridley Scott’s latest film Alien: Covenant. We also feature an interview with friend of the show Josh Larsen, who has a new book coming out called Movies Are Prayers: How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, which we discuss in detail and it’s also the inspiration for our Top 3 this week as we discuss the movies that are “prayers” to us personally.

For those that tune in weekly, you’ll know that we use the word “catharsis” often when articulating our thoughts on film, and that word couldn’t be more appropriate this week. We cover the entire gamut of emotions this week as we purge our frustrations on Alien: Covenant as well as our elation for our Top 3 picks. It wouldn’t be InSession Film if we didn’t include the entire spectrum. Also – a huge thanks to both Ken and Josh for joining us this week. It was an honor to have them on the show this week, and both added some great banter to the conversation.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Alien: Covenant Movie Review (6:21)
Grades
JD: C
Brendan: C+
Ken: C

– Josh Larsen Interview (44:14)

As mentioned above, Josh’s new book, Movies Are Prayers, was our inspiration for our Top 3 this week and we were honored to have Josh on the show to talk about why he wanted to write the book. Specifically, it was interesting to hear what movies and movie moments worked as “prayers” for him, and how that influenced the book.

If you want to check out Josh’s book, and we recommend you do, click here.

[divider]

RELATED: Listen to Episode 221 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed Alien and Aliens!

[divider]

Top 3 Movies As Prayers (1:16:43)
This week’s Top 3 was one of the more challenging lists we’ve ever tackled on the show. To narrow down the films that have personally influenced us the most to just three was nearly impossible, especially given some of our criteria. Despite that difficulty, we came up with some great films that help demonstrate how we view the world and our place in it. What would be your top 3?

Top 3 Sponsor: First Time Watchers Podcast

– Music

Planet 4 – Jed Kurzel
The Bathtub – The Lost Bayou Ramblers
Bundle of Joy – Michael Giacchino
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 222

[divider]

Next week on the show:

    Main Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
    Top 3: TBD

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Podcast: Their Finest, Frantz – Extra Film

This week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, we discuss Lone Scherfig’s new film Their Finest and the small German/French film Frantz!

Vince is off this week, but JD and Brendan have fun discussing these two films that both take place during the earlier parts of the 20th century. One focusing on the aftermath of WWI and the other on WWII, they both tap into how war affects people and how to cope. They are very different films, but the similarities are uncanny in some ways.

On that note, have fun listening to this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Hope you enjoy and thanks for listening!

Their Finest Movie Review (8:44)
Grades
Brendan: B-
JD: B-

Frantz Movie Review (32:40)
Grades
JD: B+
Brendan: B+

This week’s episode is brought to you by our great friends at the True Bromance Film Podcast, Next Best Picture and The Atlantic Screen Connection Podcast.

– Music

I’d Miss You – Rachel Portman
Nocturne No. 20 – Philippe Rombi
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes and Stitcher and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
Their Finest, Frantz – Extra Film

[divider]

Mobile App

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.

Movie Review: Ridley Scott brings solid horror and thrill to Alien: Covenant


Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Jack Paglen (story by), Michael Green (story by), John Logan (screenplay), Dante Harper (screenplay)
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Danny McBride, Billy Crudup

Synopsis: When her boyfriend dumps her before their exotic vacation, a young woman persuades her ultra-cautious mother to travel with her to paradise, with unexpected results.

[/info]

Alien (1979) is considered by many to be one of the best films ever made, and for a good reason. Alien was a huge success that spawned several other movies and the franchise has become a staple of mainstream culture. In the time of reboots and remakes, it’s no surprise that Alien would get the prequel treatment. Ridley Scott jumped back into the world of Xenomorph’s – sort of – with 2012’s Prometheus, rebirthing a beloved franchise that he kicked off some 30 years earlier. Not everyone loved Prometheus, although I enjoyed it for the most part, and if you did as well, you will more than likely enjoy Alien: Covenant.

Set in 2104, a decade after Prometheus, the Covenant is carrying 2,000 souls on a route toward the distant planet of Origae-6, where they hope to settle and propagate the race. If you are familiar with this franchise, then you already know that bad things are around the corner, and once that starts becoming true, our team finds itself heading to a closer planet with the intent to expedite the colonization process.

The new female heroine in this movie is Daniels, played by Katherine Waterson, and she does a great job selling the bad-ass heroine. The character of Ellen Ripley is still to this day one of the most iconic roles in all of the cinema, so it will be hard for any character to reach that same level, but Daniels has empowering qualities. Despite the pressures, Noomi Rapace (in Prometheus) and now Waterson continue the strong female characters that made this franchise a game-changer regarding gender roles. Synthetic characters also define the Alien franchise, and Michael Fassbender plays not one but two androids in Alien: Covenant. The more Fassbender we get, the better we all are. However, the performance I enjoyed the most was surprisingly from Danny McBride, who plays the chief pilot Tennessee. There are several other characters we see throughout the film, but most of them come off as dry and forgettable, another attribute we’ve seen before in this series. That said, the performances overall are good and add to the experience.

This being an Alien film, and it being Ridley Scott, there are elements of horror here. People need to die, so characters decide to venture off by themselves, as you do after getting attacked by unknown creatures. It’s a trope we’ve seen countless times before in this franchise – and the genre at large – and it’s pretty tiresome. There isn’t anything new in terms of commentary or aesthetic execution to make those actions feel earned.

On another note, baby aliens are the thing of 2017. Groot was first, and now we have the Neomorph. Although not as cute as Groot, it will steal your heart, but not in the same way. In fact, it will probably eat it. Those that were unhappy with the lack of aliens in Prometheus will be happy to know that the aliens show up here, and in a big way. Only Ridley Scott can blend the score and point the camera in the right position to get that necessary jolt, amplifying the aliens’ presence.

I am withholding most of the details of the story because watching the twist unfold is a great experience, and I would not want to ruin that for you. The first hour of this movie is fantastic in setting up this film narratively, and what its main goals are in regards to its prequel nature. That said, the second and third acts feel uneven tonally, which does become a little distracting in parts. Alien: Covenant at the very least is a popcorn movie that does its job well, and is one of the best-looking films in the past few years. The horror and gore is enough to get people in the theater and for them to have fun.

Overall Grade: B

[divider]

Hear our podcast review on Episode 222, coming soon.

[divider]

Featured: Anticipating ‘Alien: Covenant’

0

Well, if you listened to Episode 221 or our Episode 221 Bonus Content, you already know where we stand on Alien: Covenant. Where many have it as their most anticipated of the summer, that isn’t the case for us, sadly. We are huge fans of Alien and Ridley Scott overall. Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator and some of the best genre films we’ve ever seen, and the feedback on our poll this week has reverberated that feeling. On top of that, Thelma and Louise, Black Hawk Down, The Martian, and Legend are gems in their own right. Despite some recent blundering’s, Scott’s resume is excellent and a director many of us love. In that regard, I can’t help but be somewhat hopeful for Alien: Covenant, despite my severe reservations.

Speaking of, I’m on record of not being a fan of Prometheus. I respect its ambition and I adore the film visually, however its commentary on humanity’s feeble nature didn’t mix very well for me with the film’s dramatic urgency. I found those two aspects to be counterproductive in execution and working against one another. If we pretend that Alien: Resurrection or the AVP films don’t exist, Prometheus is easily my least favorite of the four main Alien films. For that reason, I’m dubious about Alien: Covenant, since it will work as a pseudo-sequel to Prometheus and the notions that film brought up originally. At the same time, from what I hear, is that it will simultaneously work as a more conventional prequel to Alien, and I am intrigued about that particular aspect. The question is – which film does Alien: Covenant swing more toward in execution?

If you’re a fan of Prometheus, you must be through the roof excited. And I’m happy for you. For me though, given my experience with Prometheus and from what I see in the trailers, I can’t help but assume disappointment for Alien: Covenant. I genuinely want it to be great and would love nothing more than to be surprised. Alien is one of my favorite films of all-time, and I loved The Martian, so there is a chance that the Scott I love could carry momentum of that success into Alien: Covenant, a franchise that I’m a big fan of overall.

Additionally – and this has been the case for many films in this franchise – the cast here is excellent. It stars Michael Fassbender, Michael Fassbender (yes I know I said his name twice), Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Carmen Ejogo and others. We’re all huge fans of Fassbender, and the more of him we get the better, but Danny McBride in a horror film? Hell yes! If McBride’s character of Tennessee dies early, I’m not even going to finish the film. I’ll leave the theater right then and there. All joking aside, I am super excited to see him here. I’m also happy to see Waterston blowing up in Hollywood right now. I fell in love with her in Inherent Vice and she’s continued to impress me in everything she does.

All in all, I’m conflicted on Alien: Covenant going into the weekend. I’m hoping for big things but at the same time I’m not sure how invested I’ll be in the Prometheus crossovers we’ll inevitably get. We shall see this weekend. I know many of you probably liked Prometheus, so I’ll be curious to hear where you stand. Are you excited for Alien: Covenant?

[divider]

Here’s what else is coming to theaters this weekend:

Everything, Everything
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul
Wakefield (limited)
Champion (limited)
The Commune (limited)

[divider]

ICYMI: Hear our thoughts on Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien: Resurrection and Prometheus as part of our Episode 221 Alien Franchise Retrospective!

Poll: All of Ridley Scott’s films are destroyed forever, except one survives – which do you choose?

Welcome to Alien: Covenant week here at InSession Film. After diving heavily into the Alien franchise this last week on Episode 221 leading up to Covenant, we’re intrigued to see what Ridley Scott has next up his sleeve. As you’ll hear on that show, we are huge fans of Alien, but are mixed on Prometheus, his return to the franchise back in 2012. Regardless of how Alien: Covenant turns out, Scott has a rich resume with some of the best films of all-time leading the charge.

With that in mind for our poll this week, all of Scott’s films have been destroyed. They’re gone forever. Except one. One survives for eternity. Which film do you think deserves to outlast all the others?

Vote now!


Podcast: Alien: Resurrection, Prometheus – Ep. 221 Bonus Content

On Episode 221, our original plan was to do a full Alien retrospective, which included our thoughts on both Alien: Resurrection and Prometheus. However, due to time, we ended up having to push back our thoughts on both films to this week’s bonus content. Fair warning, we didn’t have nice things to say about Alien: Resurrection. Enjoy 🙂

– Retrospective Discussion: Alien: Resurrection, Prometheus (1:04)
For this discussion, we not only give our thoughts on both of these films, but we also give our overall thoughts on the franchise and the grades we would give to each film individually.

Listen to Episode 221 by clicking here.

[divider]

Mobile Apps!

Listen to all of our bonus content on our apps for just a one-time fee! Whether you have an iPhone, Android or Windows phone, our apps are available in many different ways that is convenient for you. With our mobile app, not only can you listen to all of our bonus content, but our main shows and our Extra Film podcasts as well. Click here for more info!

If you don’t want to purchase our bonus content, but still want to support us, there are other you can help us out. Click here for more info.

Podcast: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 – Episode 221

This podcast is brought to you by Audible.com. Sign up today and get a free audiobook!

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, Justin from the Epic Film Guys podcast joins us to review Ridley Scott’s classic sci-fi horror film, Alien. We also retrospectively discuss James Cameron’s Aliens and David Fincher’s Alien 3. We had planned to also talk about Alien: Resurrection and Prometheus, but due to time, our discussion of those two films will be featured on our Ep. 221 Bonus Content.

Big thanks to Justin for coming on the show, he was fantastic and added some great banter to the conversation. It was nice to finally get him on the show after getting his co-host Nick on the show last year. Both of them are great and we can’t recommend the Epic Film Guys enough. This week’s show is a big one for us, given our love for Alien and Aliens in particular, two of the best sci-fi films of all-time. Hopefully we didn’t screw it up. We put a lot of effort into our discussion for these two films and we look forward to hearing your feedback.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Alien Movie Review (5:13)
Grades
JD: A+
Brendan: A+
Justin: A

– Retrospective Discussion: Aliens, Alien 3 (44:34)
While we didn’t have time to dig into these films as much as Alien, we still wanted to dive into the rest of this franchise and discuss why some of the sequels worked and others didn’t as much. For some people, Aliens is better than Scott’s original film, which we debated on our poll this week. Regardless of where you stand in that debate, we hope you enjoy the conversation and we did our best to give these films justice.

Sponsor: First Time Watchers Podcast

[divider]

RELATED: Listen to Episode 220 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2!

[divider]

– Retrospective Discussion: Alien: Resurrection, Prometheus (Ep. 221 Bonus Content)
As mentioned above, we ran out of time for these two films, so we are going to talk about them for our Ep. 221 Bonus Content. [UPDATE: Click here to listen]

– Music

The Landing – Jerry Goldsmith
Main Title (Aliens) – James Horner
Life – Harry Gregson-Williams
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 221

[divider]

Next week on the show:

    Main Review: Alien: Covenant
    Top 3: TBD

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Podcast: The Girl with All the Gifts, The Blackcoat’s Daughter – Extra Film

This week on the InSession Film Podcast: Extra Film segment, we dive into a couple of horror films including A24’s latest in The Blackcoat’s Daughter, but first we discuss the British zombie-film, The Girl with All the Gifts!

As mentioned on the show, A24 has become the king of indie film and they had a great year last year with horror films in particular, to tag on nicely with a Best Picture win. However, The Blackcoat’s Daughter has sadly halted their current winning streak. Here’s to hoping they rebound later this year.

On that note, have fun listening to this week’s Extra Film segment and let us know what you think in the comment section below. Hope you enjoy and thanks for listening!

The Girl with All the Gifts Movie Review (5:26)
Grades
Vince: B+
JD: B+

The Blackcoat’s Daughter Movie Review (28:42)
Grades
Vince: C
Brendan: D

This week’s episode is brought to you by our great friends at the True Bromance Film Podcast, Next Best Picture and The Atlantic Screen Connection Podcast.

– Music

Gifted – Cristobal Tapia De Veer
Outcantation – Elvis Perkins
The Return of the Eagle – Atli Örvarsson

We try to make this the best movie podcast we possibly can and we hope you enjoy them. Subscribe today on iTunes and Stitcher and please leave us a review on iTunes. You can also find us on Soundcloud, PlayerFM and TuneIn Radio as well. We really appreciate all your support of the InSession Film Podcast.

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Stitcher
The Girl with All the Gifts, The Blackcoat’s Daughter – Extra Film

[divider]

Mobile App

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Box app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcast’s and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and listening to our show. It means the world to us!

[divider]

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, we would greatly appreciate it! For more info, CLICK HERE.

Movie Review: ‘Snatched’ is as bad as you thought it would be


Director: Johnathan Devine
Writers: Katie Dippold
Stars: Amy Schumer, Goldie Hawn, Wanda Sykes

Synopsis: When her boyfriend dumps her before their exotic vacation, a young woman persuades her ultra-cautious mother to travel with her to paradise, with unexpected results.

[/info]

Before my screening of Snatched, Stars Goldie Hawn and Amy Schumer introduced the movie and Schumer said that we are watching this movie in the best way possible on the big screen. I do agree, but I would like to add one thing, and that is the word FREE. If you had to pick between watching this movie free on a Sprint phone on 2G and paying to watch it on the big screen, it is the only time I would say go with Sprint.

I will keep jokes to a minimum, but the only way to react to Snatched is by laughing at its extremely poor quality. Speaking of laughter though, the comedy here is hit or miss at best. Fan or not of Schumer, she is incredibly over-the-top in and tries way too hard to be funny. Schumer plays Emily Middleton, a self-centered character that is rather annoying and leaves a lot to be desired. After a break-up, she needs somebody to travel to Ecuador with her, so she invites her mom, Linda (Goldie Hawn). Goldie Hawn makes her return to the big screen after nearly 14 years away and I’m not sure exactly what drew her to this movie – because it is a trainwreck – all pun intended.

The theme of 2017 is bad editing, and since Amy Schumer’s footprint is on this, naturally it copies that trend. The narrative is disjointed as a result and some character choices are odd, even for a comedy of this type. The kidnapping trope thinks its funny than it actually is, and leads to unique situations that tries to force laughs, but the film’s editing and lazy screenplay conjures unbelievable scenes that lack coherency. We never find out why Emily and Linda are being kidnapped. For a slapstick comedy, plot doesn’t have to be the be all end all, but some narrative backbone would give strength to the film’s humor.

The script by Katie Dippold and the direction by Johnathan Devine are weighed heavily on the two leads, and neither can carry the film. The supporting cast, which includes Wanda Skyes, Joan Cusack, Ike Barinholtz, and Christopher Meloni each outperform Hawn and Schumer. The best moments of Snatched come in the form of banter between Ike Barinholtz’s character and a US Agent.

Comedy is arguably the most subjective of all art, but this film’s failures isn’t simply about it being funny or not. The filmmaking as a whole is a meandering mess. Not even baby Groot could save this movie. If you love your mother, please do not take here to see this atrocity this weekend.

Overall Grade: F

[divider]

Featured: Why ‘Alien’ and ‘Aliens’ were so so revolutionary

Throughout the years many a films come along and revolutionize the way we see a genre. Each genre has a specific film and we all view these films differently but one thing that we all can agree on is that they changed the course of said genre. Now whether you believe that the course was changed for better or for worse is your own opinion, but something changed nonetheless. Action films had Die Hard, adventure films had Indiana Jones, period pieces had Amadeus, the list goes on and on. Sometimes we are lucky enough to not only receive one film that revolutionizes a genre, but multiple. The perfect example of this is with the Alien franchise, which completely changed how we see both science fiction and horror films.

Now you may screaming at your computer screen or whatever device you’re using to read this but hear me out. Both the science fiction and horror genres have had quite a few masterpieces. Films that will stand the test of time so how can the Alien films even be allowed to be put in this category? How does Alien stack up against Star Wars and The Exorcist? I think we all can agree that both Ridley Scott’s Alien and James Cameron’s Aliens are both incredible pieces of work. The franchise definitely begins to slip in the latter films, but these first two installments had enough momentum to change the history of cinema forever. Now with that said, lets dive in.

It is always a constant battle between these two films. Almost like Star Wars VS Star Trek, Alien VS Aliens, which film is better, which will stand the test of time? Well to tell the truth, both films will stand the test of time. And to be completely fair the films do not even deserve to be compared to one another. They are two completely separate bodies of work that both deserve an immense amount of praise. Each one of them have fantastic qualities about them that deserve to be recognized but we shouldn’t be asking ourselves which is better, but why both are so revolutionary. So lets begin with Alien.

Alien was released in 1979 and boy did it take the world by storm when it first released. Directed by Ridley Scott who only had one other feature film under his belt at the time, the world was blown away when they saw the talent Scott possessed. Creating an immersive and terrifying universe within this film, it is clear that Ridley Scott had found something special with this film. Alien was just something totally unheard of and unique at the time. A science fiction horror movie was just otherworldly to the general audience and critics, but Alien found its way into peoples hearts quickly creating a cult following. Despite Alien seeming grand in scale, it is a relatively small film. Through the dutch and unnatural camera angles to the quick, jarring editing style, Alien masters a sort of claustrophobic feeling. Creating an uncomfortable and terrifying feeling within the space station, Alien seamlessly combines horror and science fiction.

Now in 1986 when a sequel to the smash hit was announced, audiences and critics alike lost their minds yet again. Aliens is directed by James Cameron who at the time already had a smash hit film with The Terminator. Aliens strays away from the horror and suspense elements that Ridley Scott mastered with the first film and instead went in more of an action oriented direction. The film was over the top, set in a much larger scale and was just overall in your face the entire runtime. Cameron did bring some of the suspense elements over in a few scenes, but overall Aliens was meant to be more of a blockbuster hit.

The Alien franchise has revolutionized science fiction and horror because each film took the genre’s in a different direction and tried something new with each installment. With the directors taking risk, whether that be for better or for worse, it is without a doubt that the Alien franchise will go down as one of the most successful and enjoyable movie franchises in history.

[divider]

Hear our Alien Retropective discussion on Episode 221 of the InSession Film Podcast, coming soon.

Movie Review: No Zzz’s here; The Lost City of Z is well worth getting lost in


Director: James Gray
Writers: James Gray (screenplay)
Stars: Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, Tom Holland

Synopsis: A true-life drama, centering on British explorer Col. Percival Fawcett, who disappeared while searching for a mysterious city in the Amazon in the 1920s.

[/info]

Some filmmakers are an acquired taste; I welcome James Gray into that category. Up until this point, Gray’s films have been so tedious and meandering in ways that felt fortuitous instead of deliberate, and ultimately emotionally distant. From the mess that was We Own the Night, the fine but uneven Two Lovers, or the empty melodrama The Immigrant, his films are beautifully shot to be sure, but emotionally stirring? That’s debatable. Surely that debate will continue with The Lost City of Z, Gray’s latest project and yet another attempt at a fashionable recreation of old Hollywood (much like The Immigrant). But this time, as the end credits rolled, my initial thought was a simple one; okay James Gray, now you finally have my full attention.

For the first time, a James Gray film finds a consistent and nicely focused through-line, where the journey from beginning to end continually adds emotional and thematic layers to that connective through-line. The Lost City of Z proves James Gray is actually a fine storyteller, something I’ve yet to notice in his previous films (and probably never will). Based on the novel by David Grann, the film tells the biographical story of Percival Fawcett, the British soldier and explorer who made it his goal to uncover an ancient civilization in the Amazon. The journey through the Amazonian jungle is violent, stirring, and unpredictable (many comparisons can be made the Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now), but Gray chooses to make the meditative journey the more interesting one, when Fawcett is not even in the jungle. It’s what grounds an already aesthetically thrilling expedition, but if it’s anything else that holds the film’s drama together it’s Charlie Hunnam’s performance.

As Percy Fawcett, Charlie Hunnam gives a rather cerebral performance, one that communicates without always speaking. With his ultimate goal in finding this lost civilization, one that the English government feels ultimately ignorant toward, Hunnam makes Fawcett into a human constantly at war with himself, battling his own selfish desires for nobility with establishing cultural open-mindedness. His intentions are honorable, but also narrow minded, and what’s heartbreaking is just how much Fawcett himself realizes that. His constant internal struggle (which just may feel like a struggle for some) is fragmented and sometimes messy, and that’s the point; he’s never content or finished in his motives, and Hunnam turns that war into something deeply psychological and heartbreaking.

This makes the film’s finally act so beautifully symbolic, a way for Fawcett to achieve that balance of his obsession without neglecting his family and friends, a realization made apparent while on the trenches of World War I. Both Hunnam and Gray rightfully use that to give The Lost City of Z a natural sense of progression. But credit must also go to Sienna Miller, Robert Pattinson, and Tom Holland as well; sometimes a performance is so good that you are given character history without the use of trite exposition, something the supporting cast wonderfully excels in here. Tom Holland especially, as Percy’s son Jack, whose initial distance with his father is deeply felt and understood simply because of Holland; any other performance may have failed in emulating that.

Perhaps it’s the film’s jungle setting that matches James Gray’s meandering tone; the film deals with doubt and uncertainty, and the sense of feeling lost in time amidst the smoky jungle landscapes feels complimentary rather than contradictory. Whether it was dumb luck or not, James Gray found a rhythm here; The Lost City of Z is a Hollywood epic in the classic sense, one that reminds us why the David Lean’s or Cecil B. DeMille’s of the time are still talked about today. Get lost in it.

Overall Grade: A

[divider]

Here our podcast review on Episode 219:

[divider]

Featured: Critic, Moi?

“Are you the critic guy?”

It was one of the attendants tearing my ticket at my local cinema. I’m not sure where he recognised me from and, to be honest, I was concentrating on not dropping my popcorn/Coke combo while he handed my ticket back to me.

It turns out I was the critic guy he was thinking of, he’d listened to my little podcast and said he enjoyed it. Smiles all round and off I wandered to find my seat.

Sitting waiting for the film to start I thought about his statement: “the critic guy”.

Was I?

Immediately I thought ‘of course not’, but then, being the nerd I am, I thought about his statement a bit more.

It was the word ‘the’ that made me dismiss the statement out of hand. I am most certainly not the critic guy. There are many many film critics, for example Mark Kermode, Jason Solomons, Robbie Collin, Catherine Shoard, Barry Norman, Jonathan and Paul Ross, Christopher Tookins and legends such as Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael – all them are significantly better qualified than me. They’ve gone to film school, studied film theory, read film studies, examined films academically, watched everything that is released, watch every film at least twice, they hone and craft their reviews, research details, develop thesies, and then wrap all that work up in eloquent, sharp, precise prose that is witty, lively, readable and authorative.

Me? I’ve seen a lot of films and I’m a gobby shite. I do not inhabit the same rarified atmosphere as these people. I am most definitely not “THE critic guy”.

But how about being just a critic?

Well I’m critical, sure. I won’t hold back on an opinion when asked, in fact my whole podcast with my good buddy Mat is all about us voicing our opinions, and sometimes those opinions are critical of the films we are talking about.

Does that make us both critics? Just because we have a broadcasting platform on which we can voice our opinion, does that really make us critics? Nowadays anyone can have a podcast and reach millions of people around the world- the broadcasting platform is not the definition.

Barry Norman is a well-respected critic. For decades he was THE film critic for Britain.He got that position because someone at the BBC saw Norman, or heard him, or read some articles written by him, and felt he had something important to say so recommended him has the anchor of the BBC’s film programme. The result? Barry Norman becomes voice of film for a couple of generations of British filmgoers.

With the advent of the internet, the barrier to entry in order to broadcast to a wide audience has all but disappeared. You no longer need to be ‘discovered’ by someone with the ability to grant you access to a broadcast platform, like the producer or talent scout that spotted Barry Norman. You can do it yourself, buy a microphone, subscribe to Libsyn and off you go. Maybe there’s an audience for your show, maybe there isn’t. But does that make us Film Critics of the same ilk as Kermode, Norman, Collin et al?

In his book Hatchet Job, Mark Kermode argues against critics who just criticise for the sake of criticism – the classic hatchet job review – saying that they are doing this simply for emotion’s sake. Likewise those critics who write for the poster, you know those classic lines like “Joanna Lumley in her best role ever” which get splattered on the side of a bus or comments from august film magazines like “Elle” or “Good Housekeeping” are, he says, useless. It is his job to watch a film and give a decent impression of the content of the film so that the general public can make up their own mind whether or not that film is for them. He even subtitles his book “love film, hate critics”.

So finally I have my answer. I’m, primarily, a film fan. I love cinema, I’ve loved it ever since I first went to a Fleapit (the Bath Odeon – now a comedy club) and saw my first film (Michael Crawford in Condorman). I’ve seen a lot of films, some I love, some I hate, and I speak from the heart when I say I like or hate this film. What is different now I have the podcast, is that I justify my opinions (as I see them) because I have to explain to Mat and our listeners why I felt this way. why they should see this film, why they should avoid it. Likewise I listen to Mat’s opinions and take them as someone else’s feelings about a film; opinions that may not be the same as mine. I am always conscious that someone else may adore a film I really dislike. Mat says I’m soft on films I don’t like, I think I’m sensitive to other audiences. I really disliked the recent XXX film, I found it unpleasantly sexist, crudely shot, poorly acted, badly written and, crucially, not any fun. However that may be someone’s ideal movie – a 5* classic in their eyes – and I have a duty to be sensitive to that.

Does that make me somehow better than other ‘citizen critics’? I don’t think so, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Does that make me somehow closer to the professional critics? Maybe. It is a discipline I have chosen to employ in my reviewing process and a standard I hold myself to. I don’t have to, no-one has insisted I do so, I just feel this is something I should do on behalf of my listeners and readers.

So all I do is give my honest opinion, explain why I felt that way, and describe the film in such a way that my audience can make up their own mind as to whether or not to see a film. Sometimes I will be critical, other times gushing, but my comments will always be mine.

So I’m a fan, with an opinion, and, thanks to the guys here at InSessionFilm, an expanding platform from which to express that opinion.

But I am not a critic. A critic has the experience, academia, study and respect behind their opinions that provide weight that I simply don’t have. So feel free to ignore me, come back and argue against me, that’s fine, my opinion has no more weight than yours.

I’m a fan, not a critic. See you in the cinema sometime.