54 thoughts on “Movie Podcast Weekly Ep. 100: A Celebration of Over 100 Movies — Including Sin City: A Dame to Kill for (2014) and The One I Love (2014) and What If (2014) and Frontera (2014) and the MPW 100 Rap”

1. Hi guys and congratulations! I’m glad that even though I wasn’t with you when you started your journey, I’m with you now to celebrate this milestone. I love and appreciate every single one of you and what you do. You bring me joy every week (particularly when you fight). Please try to keep this going for as long as you possibly can. Long live the Movie Podcast Weekly!

   Now, let’s hear what you got. Hopefully lots of fighting! 🙂

   Reply ↓

   • We won’t let you down, Juan. Minor spoiler: In the first time in MPW history, I actually hang up on Jason during the show.

     Reply ↓

     • Hahaha well that was great! You were right Josh, I was not let down at all. This show is so good you guys, great job! I have tons to say, just let me gather my thoughts.

       Reply ↓

     • You hung up with good reason Josh. “Zodiac” is an amazing film and I had to take out my own frustration by printing out a picture of Jason to replace David Cameron on my dartboard.

       Reply ↓

   • Isn’t hanging up something girls do when they don’t have a counter point to an argument?

     😉

     Reply ↓

     • No, when the guys they are dating are complete and utter morons. It’s a show of self-respect.

       Reply ↓

       • You know, Josh. Karl has a point: You never came up with any answer on my true criticism for “Zodiac.” It has two parts:

         1.) I think it’s unwise for a story that has no ending and no resolution to lavishly spend 157 minutes of its audience’s time.

         The heart of the matter: 2.) Since we don’t know for sure (in real life) who the Zodiac killer actually was, I think Fincher should have been a man and stuck with the story; instead, sensing that it was unwise to tell a story with no ending, he tries to straddle both sides of the fence, giving us a “we don’t know who it was, but we’re pretty sure this was probably the killer” kind of pseudo-ending. He lost his nerve and chickened out. If he had chosen to commit to one side or the other, I think the film would have worked better.

         But honestly, I think this subject / story is probably better suited for a documentary film, because each theory could be spelled out.

         Reply ↓

         • I guess I didn’t find your criticism(s?) valid or worthy of response.

           I don’t even understand how Fincher’s approach–the one I feel is the most honest and most interesting–could in any way be construed as chickening out. I don’t think what you are calling the “other sides” would have been any braver, shown any more nerve, or been any more honest or entertaining.

           I think the entire movie, including the story, not just the craft, is perfect as is. And I don’t know what you’d prefer to lavish storytelling. Bland storytelling?

           You have no good point here as far as I’m concerned and they were better left unanswered.

           Reply ↓

         • Josh, I say this with the utmost respect for you, but I think you’re being a little harsh on Jason. I understand that you are very passionate about “Zodiac” but if Jason genuinely feels the way he does about that movie then it’s only fair to respect his honesty and to not dismiss his arguments outright, however much we may disagree with them.

           And disagree I do:

           1) This is pretty subjective but personally I think the running time of “zodiac” serves the story wonderfully. If this movie was reduced to 90 minutes or something then I think it would have felt rushed and lost a lot of it’s measured, precise personality. To me this is as much the story of Robert Graysmith as it is the Zodiac case, as much a detailed character study as a procedural narrative and therefore I think to bemoan the lack of resolution with regards to the case is sort of missing the point.

           2) I’ll preface this by saying that I am far from an expert on the Zodiac case but from what little I know I always thought Fincher handled the ending extremely well. Are you suggesting that the film would have been improved by taking more artistic liberties with the story (e.g. Inglourious Basterds) and having a definite killer identified? Or, on the flip-side, that the character of Arthur Leigh Allen should have been omitted entirely?

           Either way I’ve always viewed Fincher’s “Zodiac” more-so as an adaptation of Robert Graysmith’s books on the topic (though I’ve admittedly never read them) than an attempt at absolute, objective historical accuracy. As far as I’m aware those books do highlight Allen as a likely suspect, though there was never any concrete evidence, and this movie stays true to that approach.

           Reply ↓

         • Dearest, David-

           #1 I’m joking.

           #2 I actually did respond in that I legitimately don’t understand the criticism.

           Reply ↓

         • Well now I feel like a tool!

           Sometimes it’s hard to judge how seriously Jason’s maddening opinions can affect people.

           Reply ↓

         • Don’t get me wrong, Jason truly does drive me insane. I generally disagree with almost all of his opinions on film and life, but my vocal aggravation with him (and the hanging up) are just my expression of my sense of humor. He’s always trying to get under my skin too, it is just harder to tell until you get to know him because he has a passive aggressive approach. I love intense debate, but if I actually disliked Jason as much as I project, I wouldn’t be on the show.

           Reply ↓

         • The only time it actually got real and left the realm of what I consider to be good fun was Song of the South.

           Reply ↓

     • Man, don’t bring “Song of the South” up again, that was harder to listen to than Bruce Willis’ singing career.

       Reply ↓

       • I have to say that the bickering between Josh and Jay is one of the big pluses of the show for me. I love how those two stand at polar opposites yet have such a good friendship (from what I can tell). There are times though where I have a hard time differentiating between playful Josh and angry Josh. I suppose that’s in part because I don’t personally know him and so I don’t really know when he’s being serious and when he’s pulling on Jay’s chain. Still, there have been a few times where I’ve genuinely felt bad for Jay because of Josh’s harsh comments. But now that Josh has come out about Jay being a bit more conniving than he lets on, maybe he did deserves angry Josh after all haha. Anyway, the fighting is hilarious. I love it and can’t get enough of it. You guys should make a podcast where you debate your stance on controversial topics where you stand at opposite ends. Now I’d buy that for a dollar!

         Reply ↓

       • David, that is my all time favorite podcast episode I’ve ever been involved with over the 6 different podcasts I’ve been on as a co-host.

         Juan, other than that episode, I’m not sure you’ve ever seen me angry. I thrive off of and quite enjoy lively debate.

         Reply ↓

2. Man is this episode fantastic!

   Some really hilarious moments and so, so many interesting movie recommendations. The Imposter is going straight to the top of my list.

   Reply ↓

   • Glad to hear it.

     Reply ↓

     • Last night I made some popcorn and watched both “The Imposter” and “Marwencol”. Holy crap, two amazing documentaries right there. I’ll no doubt expound upon them later on once I’ve had a coffee and a cinnamon swirl.

       Reply ↓

       • So glad you watched and enjoyed them.

         Reply ↓

       • David,
         I find “The Imposter” to be truly and deeply scary, on multiple levels. I watched it during the day time, and I was actually creeped completely out! Glad you checked it out. I hope everyone does.
         Jason

         P.S. Thanks for all your great comments. I apologize that I’m not as good at Josh at responding to comments.

         Reply ↓

         • Jay, I’ve said it on HMP and I’ll say it here: There’s absolutely no reason that any of you guys need to apologise for not always being able to respond to comments. You provide us with so many hours of content (and certainly must spend many more hours producing it) for free and anything on top of that is just extra icing on the icing that’s already on the cake. Certainly the level of interactivity with you chaps is an element that really adds something special to the community and it’s always fun to have a debate or conversation with you guys but just having great podcasts to listen to and somewhere to voice our opinions, whether they garner responses or not, is awesome enough.

           Reply ↓

3. Did you count the first time I pre-recorded my reviews as a voicemail from an airplane (in Alaska, I believe)? If not, that makes 70. It’s true that my contribution to that episode actually made it worse, but Andy does that every week, so it should count.

   Reply ↓

   • Nope, I didn’t. So, yes, the number should be 70.

     Reply ↓

     • Sounds a lot better.

       Reply ↓

4. I have only listened to the first 2:15 of this episode, because I didn’t download it until heading out to run this morning, but it’s already a Top 5 of All Time MPW episode. It’s been a delight to listen to the whole thing, and a couple of moments have exploded with over-the-top excellence. Jason’s rap blew my mind (and reminded me that I still need to return Karl’s DVD copy of “Fletch Lives” — what a stupefyingly shameful admission), and then Andy’s list of “films that have been in his queue forever that he hasn’t seen yet but is going to give a rating to anyway” blew my mind (and would probably have made me laugh out loud if I hadn’t been running up a hill when he explained the concept).

   I have to quibble with Karl about Hailee Steinfeld, who gives a truly brilliant and deservedly praised performance in “True Grit,” but doesn’t for a second overshadow the unbridled awesomeness that is Jeff Bridges as Rooster Cogburn. It bothers me, at least as much as anything this trivial can really bother me, that the Jeff Bridges Career Appreciation Oscar got given for “Crazy Heart.” “Crazy Heart” is the sort of good that the word “fine” was invented to describe. It’s a fine story in the “screwed-up coot redeemed by the love of a good woman” vein. Jeff Bridges gives a fine performance in the lead role, and Hollywood realized, “Hey we’ve never given that guy an Oscar before. What’s up with that?” Just terrible timing all around, in hindsight. The very next year Jeff Bridges gives a monumental, truly exceptional performance in “True Grit,” and Hollywood has to shrug, squirm a little and say, “Damn, that was great Jeff, but you just won last year, and you’re not as awesome as Tom Hanks, plus Colin Firth is pretty good at stuttering.” So, so much better if the Academy had given it to Colin Firth for “A Single Man” in 2010 (he was also nominated that year), and then Done the Right Thing for Jeff Bridges in 2011, recognizing a far, far more creative and daring performance than his perfectly fine work in “Crazy Heart.” Plus then I’d be a smidgen happier because “True Grit” would have gone one-for-10 instead of (HUMONGOUS TRAVESTY ALERT) zero-for-10.

   Also, here’s Cody’s list of Films That Somewhat Surprisingly Did Not At Least Appear in Josh’s Honorable Mentions of The Best Documentaries of the Last 10 Years:

   1. Into Great Silence (2005)
   2. Manufactured Landscapes (2006)

   Reply ↓

   • I love your Oscar-Alternate-Universe, Cody. If only we could go back and fix all of their maddening mistakes. I may have raised the same issue with Karl had I not been writing my lists while the others were talking. Such bad form, I know.

     In fact, I might blame my snubbing of Into Great Silence and Manufactured Landscapes on my zero preparation for this episode, but I’m actually not sure whether I’ve even seen them or not. There was a period, a few years ago, that I was being sent so many documentary screeners, most of them have run together or been lost from my feeble memory, but, although those both sound familiar, I don’t think I’ve seen them. Same goes for the oft-praised The English Surgeon. I feel like I should have seen it, but I have no recollection of it. I apologize for the oversight and I thank you for the homework. I’ll get back with you for an update once I’ve screened them.

     Reply ↓

   • Cody – I agree totally with you that Jeff should have won long before “Crazy Heart” and I don’t think that’s the one he should have finally won for.
     I have said on this podcast that his FIRST Oscar should have been for his performance in “Starman” (for which he was nominated). And I would have been in complete support of him for winning in “True Grit” but I still think that Hailee’s performance is the one you are most drawn to in the film. Given that she was 14 at the time and more than held her own with 2 (or 3) film legends – it’s a rarity to say the least. A brief example of her chops and brilliance is when she’s haggling over the sale of the horses with attorney near the beginning. She has a lifelong career ahead of her.

     Reply ↓

     • Karl,

       I recently watched Starman based on your praise for Jeff Bridge’s role and I have to say that I just don’t see it. His performance was good, but not great. Yes it has a warmth and an honesty to it that makes him very likable in the role, but I didn’t think it was an Oscar worthy performance. To me, as cliché as it sounds, Jeff Bridge’s greatest performance is in The Big Lebowski as the dude. It’s such a nuanced performance and he nails it 100%. Anyway, that’s just my two cents.

       Reply ↓

5. Great Show Guys. Loved the MPW rap and Andys ratings of the movies he has not seen yet.

   Reply ↓

   • Really? Nothing about my home theater demo list? That hurts my feelings.
     I’m bringing you up for reprimand before the Home Theater Association Board.
     Turn in your projector mister.

     😉

     Reply ↓

     • Karl – I did not even hear the Home Theater Demo List – I was listening at work and missed some sections. I’m planning on playing it again to catch the parts I missed.

       Reply ↓

       • One in particular I would add to the list for Home Theater Demo is Captain Phillips. The Soundtrack on that one elevated a Great Movie to an even greater level. Both Captain Phillips and Lone Survivor were more deserving of the sound mixing and sound editing Oscars than Gravity was.

         Reply ↓

     • Karl,

       Your list is fine. I like the inclusion of Black Hawk Down and Tron Legacy, but I don’t agree with the others. It’s not that their sound was bad, but I don’t think it’s the best of the best. I’m no audiophile, but this is what my list would have been like (in no particular order):

       Gravity (watch the behind the scenes on how they handled sound and you’ll see why I picked it)
       Inception (Hans Zimmer score. Enough said)
       Saving Private Ryan (really complex first scene that will really flex the muscle of any sound system)
       Alien (the previous pics are really complex, this is something a little more subtle with more of an ambient sound)
       The Omen (just to hear that children choir in the soundtrack)

       Reply ↓

6. Anyone who doesnt love sincity is not a movie friend of mine. 🙁

   Reply ↓

   • I’ll tell the world that “Sin City” is a 10 out of 10. But what did you think of “A Dame to Kill For”?

     Reply ↓

     • Not in cinemas near me yet. Will watch it next week. This is one of the perk for living here in aus. 🙁

       Reply ↓

7. Am I the only one who finds these podcasts far too long? Perhaps. Three plus hours is a mammoth slice of anyone’s week, however great the product or special event.

   Any chance of putting timing info into the Show Notes each week so time-challenged guys like me can jump straight to full reviews, or whatever?

   Congrats on 100 though.

   Reply ↓

   • RichardHK,
     Thanks for your thoughts. Depending on the subject of the podcast, the episode duration seems to vary. For example, I produce a podcast about currency trading, and that audience likes 20- to 30-minute shows. But then I host a horror movie podcast and that audience is quite different. True story: One time I produced a 5-hour episode, and some listeners actually lamented when it was over! I couldn’t believe it.

     Movie review podcasts are generally about 2 hours long, at least the ones I listen to. MPW is usually around 2 hours. Much of our audience listens while commuting to work, or they have a job that enables them to listen all day at work. I used to have both sorts of jobs, and like much of our audience, when it came to podcasts, the longer, the better. Listener Scott Teal is a truck-driver, and he says our show helps keep him awake at night as he drives. (Good thing Andy isn’t a trucker.) ha ha.

     But I apologize if the shows are too long for you. I can appreciate that. I don’t have time to listen to podcasts myself, these days, so I’m especially impressed that you even try!

     Listeners have requested time stamps (which I also love) — and we’ve done them for short periods — but they added to my post-production time, delaying our release even further. But I agree that we need them, and I’ll try to start doing that again.

     Thanks for writing (and for listening).
     Jason

     Reply ↓

     • Thanks Jason,

       No need to apologize for length Sir! If I am in the minority then that is fine. But I do understand the podcast market a bit better now. Never though folks would be listening to podcasts instead of radio. Makes a lot of sense.

       If you did manage to put in timestamp info that would certainly help me and some others. But work work work I know.

       Thanks again for your reply. Wishing you the best.
       Richard

       Reply ↓

   • For me, extended length is one of the major appeals of podcasting over radio. Time is given for in-depth discussion. In fact, the only movie podcasts that I listen to that clock in under 2 hours are those that are also NPR or PRI public radio shows. I myself regularly listen to dozens of podcasts and I’m usually a bit sad if I start one of my favorites and see a time code anywhere under an hour and a half. I know many of our listeners, especially those on Horror Movie Podcast, feel much the same.

     There is definitely a place for short movie reviews, but it seems to me that the best usually come in written form. I’d check out Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes for a quick overview. One public radio show with extremely short reviews, that covers all the week’s movies in under 30 minutes, is Film Week on Air Talk from public radio station KPCC. I don’t always love their critics, but I’m a fan of host Larry Mantle. You can find the show in podcast form on iTunes. Or, you could always check out Movie Stream Cast, where I review streaming movies in about 10 minutes!

     Reply ↓

     • Thanks Icarusarts,

       Your point on podcasts over radio is reinforcing what I can now appreciate more. I will learn to live with it and explore some alternatives to keep up with my movie interests.

       Yes, I do use Rotten Tomatoes for quick reference, along with IMDB, and before that was an avid Roger Ebert follower before his sad departure.

       Thanks again and good viewing.
       Richard

       Reply ↓

   • Just to throw in my two cents:

     I understand your complaint Richard and really it’s a subjective issue depending on how much free time/podcast suitable time we each have in our week. Personally I’d be happy for these episodes to each be 10 hours long because I really, really enjoy the in-depth, nuts-and-bolts discussions that go on (and which I feel are a stand-out feature of this show) and I lead a fairly solitary existence.

     Reply ↓

     • I hear you Richard and I understand where you’re coming from. But personally, I’m at a point in life where podcasting is slowly taking over more and more time of my life. I’d personally love these episodes to last 10 hours if they could. They would make my commute to work a lot more pleasant. My commute can be 2 hours sometimes depending on traffic and weather (but generally it’s only an hour or so). Music works too, but right now podcasting > music for me.

       Reply ↓

       • I’m in a similar position with regards to the whole “music vs podcasts” thing. It used to be that any free minute of the day I’d be listening to music but of late I’ve found myself more and more drawn to podcasts. I can’t figure out why. I feel like a lonely grandpa basking in the vicarious company of talk radio.

         Reply ↓

8. Congratulations on hitting 100 episodes, guys! Great episode with some interesting lists and movies. (I will admit, that rap is starting to grow on me…)

   Reply ↓

9. So, as I mentioned in a previous comment, I took away a lot of recommendations from this excellent episode, two of which were the documentaries “The Imposter” and “Marwencol”. So as is per usual I’ll offer my own pseudo-intellectual, rambling and self indulgent perspective on these films:

   “The Imposter”

   Well this was one of the most gripping movies that I’ve seen in a long, long time, fiction or non-fiction. Genuine edge of the seat stuff but fortunately never willing to coast on shock value alone; this was very well put together and wonderfully paced with so many little details and clever techniques used to really amp up the effectiveness of the story; things like the use of a telephone vocal effect at just the most perfectly sinister moments of the voiceover/talking head segments sent shivers down my spine. The way that this film is produced and the way that the story unfolds quite frankly puts the majority of fictional thrillers to shame.

   To be honest I don’t think there’s that much more I can say about “The Imposter” other than that it’s a 9/10 and I’d recommend it to anyone looking for a chilling, compelling crime-thriller, documentary or otherwise.

   “Marwencol”

   Wow. This is exactly the kind of film that really gets to me: a beautiful and patient character study of an extraordinary person. I’m endlessly fascinated by “outsider” artists and Mark Hogancamp is a prime example; idiosyncratic yet absolutely sincere and full of imagination. I remember hearing Jason describe “The Devil and Daniel Johnston” as a movie that he finds creatively inspiring; an appraisal that I absolutely agree with and that I feel “Marwencol” is equally as deserving of.

   I also found myself relating to Hogancamp’s story to a certain extent. When I was about 20 I was the victim of two unprovoked and unrelated violent assaults within the space of a month. I ended up in hospital both times but the second incident stood out as the worst. About 5 or 6 guys set about me, got me on the pavement and proceeded to kick the living hell out of me and rob me. Now this isn’t particularly remarkable (most of my male friends have been victims of similar, if not quite so serious attacks) and it was nowhere near as brutal, vicious and damaging as what happened to Hogancamp but I’ve since suffered with problems relating to social anxiety that I feel are probably subconsciously linked to these events. I’ve also always been somebody who has heavily relied on creativity as an outlet for a lot of problems in my life (though while this film features astoundingly unique and extraordinary art my own process has never born anything more remarkable than my crappy lo-fi music) so I felt somewhat of a connection to and admiration for the subject of “Marwencol”. For me this was a really touching and interesting personal experience. I thought it captured perfectly both the profoundly tragic and beautifully heart-warming aspects of a life lived vicariously through art, imagination and nostalgia. 10/10.

   Also I’d love to hear more recommendations of films similar to this. Of course I’ve already seen “The Devil and Daniel Johnston” and “In the Realms of the Unreal” and I’ve been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to find a way of watching “Convento” but if there are any other similarly quirky yet touching “outsider” artist documentaries out there then I’d love to know about them.

   Finally, I rented and watched “Cleanflix” the other day (unfortunately the DVD doesn’t seem to be available with a UK region code) and I very much enjoyed it. I think I’ve written quite enough for now though, but I’ll be back later with some more in-depth thoughts.

   – David

   Reply ↓

   • The Imposter is great. I agree with your score of 9, David and I think I would score it the same. My only complain was that the film seemed to run in circles somewhere in the middle. I grew a bit impatient because the film did such a good job with providing a tense and gripping story and it advanced at a perfect pace and then it just sort of stumbled for a bit. Other than that, it’s an amazing film and I agree with Josh in that it’s superbly shot.

     Reply ↓

     • To be honest, straight after watching it I felt a little uneasy with regards to the morality of showcasing some of the unfounded insinuations towards the end of the film. It felt a little irresponsible to me, but it made me really sit and think about objectivity and subjectivity and after mulling it over for a few days it seemed to sit better with me.

       Reply ↓

       • First, Id answer that when 90% of the people interviewed in the film are unreliable narrators, some are proven liars, and all are suspects of the FBI, I think you have some leeway with the unsubstantiated. In fact, most if the information in the movie is unsubstantiated. Who here can you trust? I’d add that the filmmakers aren’t making those allegations, their characters are making them. The filmmakers are reporting and following an investigation and are careful to show the intense subjectivity all along the way. Lastly, I’d suggest that the way the movie ends justifies those “unfounded insinuations” with that giant final question mark, if nothing else.

         Reply ↓

         • Josh, I did come to a similar (though not nearly as focused and considered) conclusion after thinking it through for a few days. My brain can be particularly slow when it comes to digesting documentaries and I think that while watching “The Imposter” I was SO wrapped up in the events unfolding that I didn’t have a chance to stop and properly process the way the information was being presented. Gradually it has dawned on me that I wasn’t fully separating the objectivity of the filmmakers from the subjectivity of the characters and although I arrived at the opinion that my initial moral scruples were unfounded (and possibly a manifestation of the lingering sense of unease generated by the film) my thoughts were still somewhat wishy-washy so I’m grateful for your comment because you’ve helped to solidify my stance on this awesome movie!

           Reply ↓

10. So as I mentioned above, I finally managed to rent “Cleanflix”. I’d been planning to watch this movie ever since a comments discussion here a few months ago regarding the faith of Movie Podcast Weekly’s hosts and the Mormon church’s stance on R-rated films. In my part of the world it’s pretty rare to come across an active, practising Christian (at least in my age group) so I’m not particularly educated on this sort of thing but I do find it fascinating. Fortunately “Cleanflix” takes the time to establish and explore the community in which it is set (I was particularly thankful for this due to my aforementioned ignorance). I also very much appreciated the objectivity and restraint of the filmmaking; this came across more as a rally for debate as opposed to a film with a particular bias or political agenda. Many questions are raised throughout concerning concepts such as perceived morality versus legality, artistic ownership, sexual repression, conformity, duplicity etc. and most of these questions remain unanswered but that’s because these issues are almost never black and white or clear-cut. To force contrived answers upon us would have seemed disingenuous and condescending and thankfully “Cleanflix” instead opts to plant the seeds of conversation and ultimately lets us make up our own minds.

    Another thing that I enjoyed was the segue from issue-movie into character-study. This could easily have come across as arbitrary but for the fact that Daniel Thompson is positioned as a microcosm of the larger debate. Some of these scenes were hard to watch, sometimes cringeworthy and sometimes distressing, but Daniel and his shadow-self become a thematic master-stroke.

    Really my only criticism is that I’d liked to have heard more academic/intellectual commentary from the Mormon community in favour of the Cleanflick’s concept and with regard to why something like “Saving Private Ryan” is rendered more moral when bereft of it’s horrific scenes. A lot of the Mormons interviewed seemed to be sort of clueless students who’s attitude was “We just do what we’re told” and I’d have liked a little more insight in that regard.

    But overall an excellent, unique and very interesting documentary and I give it an 8.5/10.

    – David

    Reply ↓

    • You’re too kind.

      Reply ↓

      • Kindness has nothing to do with it Josh. If I thought your movie sucked I might not have said so out right, but I’d probably just have omitted mention of it. I’ve said before that I’m not particularly well versed when it comes to documentaries so feel free to regard my opinion as an uneducated one but for what it’s worth “Cleanflix” held my interest, never felt condescending, conjured a gamut of emotions and really made me think. Not only that but the subtext spoke to my interest in the psychological implications of repression, a topic that I seldom see covered. So as I say, kindness has nothing to do with it; in my eyes “Cleanflix” is deserving of its rating.

        Reply ↓