Mark and Allen take a break from the new format to talk about it, and various other things including shopping for an old beater!
hi its rossgood format so far with the years I hope you can keep a good pace but not burn up 30 years too soon. I m still on 1988 LoL but hey, what happened to Cronenberg? You talked a lot about him '88, but you missed The Brood & Fast Company in '79, the latter which served as a partial inspiration for Crash. And did you guys see that movie from 1979 called The Changeling? It's one of my favourite scary movies. Great poster too. There's also a couple of classic Bs from '79 that I just picked up last year: Hot Stuff with Dom Deluise and Peter Deluise's debut role & Caligula with Malcolm McDowell which is just messed up- even better in Blu Ray where hi def ensures you see every drop of blood and semen! There is also one from '79 called City on Fire, that was rereleased on Mystery Science Theatre &I can't find that one yet. It had Henry Fonda and Leslie Neilsen among others.Even worse, one I see on TBS sometimes is Beyond The Poseiden Adventure. Oh, one other film from 1979 (this one I can't find ANYWHERE) is Highpoint. Do you know where I can find a copy of this? It starred Christopher Plummer and it's about the CN Tower... that stuntman Dar Robinson does a freefall off it. Oh well, maybe you can add a bonus 1979 chapter to your podcast; I agree with the other listener that Im not looking forward to 2005. At least 1973 has Pink Flamingos.
The more that I think about it, the boys should do a 1979 Redeux (get it, get it? Like Apocolypse Now). I don't think Highpoint ever made it to DVD, but it has a wild cast. WTF, Fast Company is coming to Blu Ray in April. I watched the trailer and simply WOW! If you like obscure flicks, fire up a copy of 1979's Disco Godfather. It's the bookend to the Blaxploitation Decade.
Hey Ross...I am so embarrassed by the omissions of Fast Company, but I think we talked about The Brood! For whatever reason, Fast Company did not appear on our list of movies for 1979 – likely because it had such a very limited release in the US. Fast Company is such a different animal from Cronenberg's other works, serving his passion for cars, though I would have to say not in a Crash-esque way at all! :o) I picked up the DVD for it a few years ago, and as a bonus feature it contains a couple of his very early works; Stereo and Crimes of the Future. Both are very experimental and fit into the Conenberg wheelhouse much more comfortably than Fast Company. I always wondered if anyone bought that set not knowing much about Cronenberg and focusing more on the car aspect of the movie, or even Claudia Jennings for that matter, and put in the second disk and though, “what the hell?!?”Caligula doesn't appear on out list until 1980, when it got it's North American release, so talk of carnage and cum are still on the way! Thanx so much for posting a comment. It is always great to get some feedback. I know the shows are long, but even as long as they are, you can see how things still are missed! Everyone is harshing on 2005, but there is some good to be found there as well. Would love to see your (and anyone elses) Top 5 lists, films you thought were overlooked, or over-rated, etc. Anything we receive before recording will definitely be read on the show!Hope to hear from you again (and often! :o))-Allen
Hey Martini...yeah, perhaps 1979 should be revisited someday - it was our first kick at the can with the new format and all... Ok, Ok, We suck! :o) But it's hard to include everything, so keep pointing out the things we should not over look! It is always greatly appreciated.Disco Godfather? really? Please tell me there is some roller-skating in it!!!-Allen
Since you’re on, Allen, I wanted to follow-up the discussion you had for the 1994 Show – Namely “Forrest Gump” abuse. I agree that it was a movie that didn’t really hold up to time; hardly a classic. It deserves abuse. There are two interesting points that I wanted add:First of all, I think it was the first movie to use CGI in a non glorified way. By that I mean it wasn’t like “T2” or “Jurassic Park” where the CGI is rammed down the audience’s throats. I mean, EVERYONE has a family member or friend who swears Gary Sinise was an actual double amputee, or that the director actually followed around the floating feather with a camera gizmo. And since I’m on the subject of tracking shots – The Black Hole did an extremely complicated tracking shot at the end of the movie when Max Von Syndow is in Hell, and this was years before CGI and many people in the effects business still don’t know how it was done. But I’m off topic, the CGI in “Forrest Gump” was a tool that did not sideswipe the story in glitzy gee-shucks effects. And for that, “Forrest Gump” pioneered that innovation.Second. The Sequel Spec. Yes it’s out there: “Forrest Gump 2”, “Gump & Co.”, whatever. I read it quite a few years ago, as well as the novel – What a bad idea! Gump was getting into all sorts of 1980s wackness like The ‘New Coke’ Formula and the Iran/Contra scandal. Hanks was recently quoted that the sequel was ready to go until 9/11 hit. That’s a real shame – They should have added 9/11 to the events of the sequel. Gump could have been the Airport Guard who lets the terrorists on the plane, or he could be sitting in the World Trade Center about to finalize a world franchise for ‘Bubba Shrimp’ when WHAM. What a fitting conclusion to a story that is supposed to parallel the unraveling of American Innocence. Too soon?
My bad - It was Roth, not Hanks who gave that quote
Hey Martini...yeah, the effects in gump were subtle and complex, i will concede to that – though they were almost showy in their un-showy-ness. By that I mean they do kinda take you out of the movie to wonder “how'd they do that?” By contrast, have you seen Let The Right One In? There were a couple of shots that were so subtle it made you wonder if you really saw what you saw, or if you eyes were playing with you. They drew no attention to themselves and further convinced you of an alternate reality. I have so much hate for Gump, so your 911 ending with him responsible in some way for the events of that day would be welcomed by me, if they had to make a sequel (though I would much rather they just leave that sleeping dog lie!). I have been putting of watching Benjamin Button, a movie I was very much wanting to see, because of all the Gump comparisons I have been hearing. I really want to be able to go into it and either love it or hate it on its own merit, but now I have this Gump baggage that I am scared will taint my experience :o(Speaking of tracking shots... wasn't the computerized motion control tracking developed and used when Cronenberg was making Dead Ringers? All hail Cronenberg!!! :o)-Allen
Ross again -i am goning to get flamed for my 2005 picks but since you demanded them. I have pretty weird taste so what relevance it has for the listeners of your show is questionable. I was really excited for 2005 because I like comic crossovers. Aeon flux had me so excited but when i heard that Charleze Theron fell on her big fat ass during filming I started to get somewhat worried. And I was right. Most everything from 2005 was a HUuuge letdown / Batman, Hitchikers Guide, Fantastc 4, Constanine except for Tilda Swinton, mIrrorMASK, ANd KIng kong was the biggest shit of them all. But if Shit was directed by George Lucas, I would be first in line. Thats why my #1 pick for 2005 is Revenge of the Sith. I went in not expecting much, and I left feeling the same. Not like all the aforementionables. If there was Shit The Musical, I would like it if it had Rosario Dawson shaking that ass and singing catchy showtunes. That's why my #2 of 2005 is Rent. Grizzly Men & Enron were good, but Werner Herzog could make Grizzly Men in his sleep, and he sounds asleep while narrating. Same for Michael Apted & 49 Up. My #3 is actually a doc I saw at VIFF called Two Museums. #4 is House of Wax. I dont know why. The actng sucked. I liked the atmosphere. Somegirl I was dating last year nailed it - She called it Hillbilly Gothica. That was perfect! Then she triad to say Devils Rejects was just as good so I had to dump her ass. #5 was Capote but then I saw Infamous in 2006 and I realized that PS Hoffman was just a big lumbering retard with a lisp compared to Toby Jones's performance. So #5 would go to Harsh Times, which is like Revenge of the Sith. Its also Sci Fi Fantasy because we are lead to believe a guy like Freddy Rodriguez could actually be nailing Eva Longaria on a steady basis. Other than that - pretty good stuff. sorry this comment is solong. See you in 1973 and keep up the great work!!!
Dude - "House of Wax"? ROFL I can't stand Paris Hilton, but I guess the atmospheric aesthetics have redeeming factors. Herzog really surprised me with "Grizzly Man". It shook me up, and was one of the paltry highlights in 2005 cinema - While Joe Q. Public went all ga-ga for CGI Apes and Gay Cowboys.My list for 2005: #5 Howl's Moving Castle#4 ENRON#3 Sin City#2 Grizzly Man#1 Kung Fu HustleYes. Kung Fu Hustle CAN be debated for year of release. I also would put Innocence on my list because it came out in the USA in 2005, but Toronto premiered it late in 2004. Maybe we should decide on something that can fix all of this?
I know it's a bit ego-centric of us, but Allen and I have been using the release date to North American cinemas (and not to film festivals) as the date of release. Films like Kung Fu Hustle saw a lot of festival action, then release in the East, then more festival action, and finally "wide" release in the States in April of 2005. All that being said, it's still possible that we'll miss some or others will slip in by accident.
Maybe you should use IMDB or Wikipedia as a standard. I'm guessing it might get complicated with older movies. North American releases can be many years apart in comparison to USA and Canada.The date in (parenthesis) on a certain website is the one used. Make the rule. That's my 2 cents.
Hey Martini... The site we have been using to generate out lists is http://www.filmsandtv.com/ They seem to be very consistent in adhering to the North American, or more specifically, the US release date, which we have been defaulting to. The reason we have been using it is, if you go to http://www.filmsandtv.com/advsearch.php you will see they have a search tool that is great for filtering by year, and by genre, which has been extremely helpful to us. So if there is a title in question, check it against the date they have - it has proven to be less that comprehensive (see Fast Company!) so if it comes back not on their site at all, and you think it needs mentioning, then please bring it to out attention. I think we will continue to use it because the search tool is so exactly what we need - and unlike IMDB, which is too comprehensive, it is not bringing back results that include TV series, short films, etc. Hopefully that will clear up some confusion! :o)-Allen
Post a Comment