27 thoughts on “Movie Podcast Weekly Ep. 103: The Drop (2014) and God’s Pocket (2014)”

1. Jason you know why u like alien 4 because u like insidious . That tells u something lol . And u why it got so much jokes because it was written by joss Wedoen

   Reply ↓

2. Hey nice going getting this episode up early Jay. I’ve had a rough few days and listening to you, Karl and William has cheered me up.

   I always love to hear some talk of the “Alien” franchise. I personally don’t hate the latter two films; “Alien³” is a 5/10 for me and “Alien: Resurrection” is probably a 6.5/10. I understand why people dislike it but I think it’s a fairly fun film and has some very imaginative stuff going on in it. Neither are anywhere near the same league as the first two movies but I’d watch them a million times over rather than sit through that god-awful “AVP” piece of crap again.

   Also, Karl is on a roll so far when it comes to picking movies for his new segment. “Blade Runner” and “The Elephant Man” are a 10/10 and a 9.5/10 respectively for me.

   Reply ↓

3. Avp 2 is much betten then one . That was the studio messing that up for everybody .

   Reply ↓

   • Willis, I’ve heard lots of conflicting things about the second “AVP” movie but I’ve never been able to bring myself to watch it. I think I might be safer sticking to the comic books.

     Reply ↓

     • David, please listen to the voice of reason and skip AVP2. The first one is not too bad, but you’ll still feel bad for watching it. If you want to watch a bad movie with predators in it, you’re better off watching Predators. If anything, it’s got a much better cast. Parts of it were shot at Hamilton Pool near Austin which I’ve been to, so it gets an extra half point for that.

       Reply ↓

       • I didn’t mind “Predators” too much, I certainly liked it better than AVP, but it still had a lot of problems. Some of the stuff regarding a character revelation in the movies climax just seemed totally ridiculous to me. Who writes these lame twists?

         Reply ↓

     • All I got to say is a child with a chestbuster coming out his chest . And a pregent lady with 3 chestbusters coming out her belly . It’s worth that alone

       Reply ↓

4. Shameful Admission No. 1: I am still very much in touch with my 13-year-old self, so I cracked up along with Karl and Jay and when William Rowan Jr. said that he wanted to plug his wife. In that same vein, I was amused that Jay followed up his introduction to “The Other Woman” by saying that he tends to be “hard on” comedies. I know what you meant, Jay, it was just amusing because of the proximity to the leering comments about Kate Upton.

   Shameful Admission No. 2: Like Karl, I have never seen “Raging Bull.” (Like a lot of people who dig movies, I could make many other Shameful Admissions on that score. I probably need to be like Andy and watch all of the AFI movies.)

   I’m not sure what I said (or when I said it) to get Karl riled up about “Starman.” I think he may have me confused with Juan. A few episodes back, I commented about the brilliance of Jeff Bridges in “True Grit,” and described how unjust/ironic/flukey it is that he won an Oscar for a merely “fine” performance in “Crazy Heart,” just a year before giving a truly exceptional (and also Oscar-nominated) performance in “True Grit.” Karl, in responding to that comment, brought up “Starman” as an early example of J.B.’s Oscar-worthiness. Then Juan responded to that comment by pouring a big, sloshing bucket of “meh” on Jeff Bridges’ performance in “Starman.” So maybe it’s Juan who Karl is actually preparing to figuratively drag out behind the woodshed.

   For myself, I’ve seen “Starman” several times (it was a big favorite of my preteen years, and I’d imagine that it probably still holds up pretty well), but haven’t seen it recently. My memory, however, is that Bridges’ performance pretty much is the movie. (Although Karen Allen and the dude from “Never Cry Wolf” and “American Graffiti” are both pretty good, too.) It’s a marvelous performance, but very low-key. I’d say it’s the kind of acting that tends to be underappreciated because it’s not showy, except that the MPAA did actually give Bridges a Best Actor nomination that year (1985). For me, what’s most impressive is that Jeff Bridges is deeply convincing, pretty much start to finish, as an alien inhabiting a human body. As I remember it, even scenes that don’t involve any dialogue are persuasive on that level, which is pretty impressive when you consider that there’s nothing beyond the character’s voice to suggest that he’s not normal.

   Reply ↓

   • Ugh. Actually the MPAA gave “Starman” (and not Jeff Bridges) a PG. It was the AMPAS that gave Jeff a Best Actor nomination. Sigh. Brain fart.

     Reply ↓

   • “Raging Bull” is also on my (embarrassingly huge) list of movies I should have seen but haven’t.

     And as for “Starman” that’s one of those movies that I remember watching with my dad on a Saturday afternoon when I was pretty small but finding it kind of boring. I also often find myself getting it confused with “The Man Who Fell to Earth” probably because in my mind the title “Starman” is so associated with David Bowie.

     I’m sure that it’s the sort of film that I’d likely appreciate far more if I revisited it today.

     Reply ↓

     • LOL guys, so no one actually watched “raging bull”. well, me neither.

       Reply ↓

       • Again, yes, I’ve watched “Raging Bull,” and it’s excellent. Highly recommended. And I’m certain Andy has seen it, too, since it’s on AFI’s Top 100 list.
         Jason

         Reply ↓

   • And I would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling kids and Cody’s fine memory and his willingness to throw a fellow listener under the bus! By the way Karl, I didn’t pour a big sloshing bucket of meh on Jeff Bridge’s performance. If I remember correctly, my somewhat exact words were: it was a touching and heartwarming performance. I appreciated it, I liked it, but I didn’t think it was amazing. Now, if you want to see an amazing alien performance let me suggest The Day the Earth Stood Still with Keanu Reeves. If he weren’t a real alien, I would’ve nominated him for an Oscar.

     And that solves the case of the missing ring!

     Reply ↓

     • Karl’s verbal beatdowns are the movie podcast equivalent of Ed Norton taking apart Jared Leto in “Fight Club.” I’m not going to get kicked in the teeth like that just so you can get a free pass on your Jeff Bridges lambasting, Juan.

       Get him, Karl. Don’t let him play you. His exact words were, “I feel even more ‘meh’ about Jeff Bridges in ‘Starman’ than I do about Emma Stone in everything.”

       Reply ↓

       • You read the Bible Cody? There’s a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17…

         Reply ↓

     • It’s like a great actor once said in the movie “True Grit”: “You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don’t have time to think about how many’s with him. He thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that’s about to set down on him.”

       Reply ↓

5. A few further thoughts: I enjoyed the discussion of trailers from this episode, especially Karl’s behind-the-scenes revelation of how they are sometimes produced. I know that some directors like to be involved in that process, but it sounds like they’re often not even consulted. I actually love watching trailers just in general, but I definitely don’t enjoy everything about how they’re made. Some of my own biggest annoyances on that front:

   1) I’m always bugged when trailers cut together certain bits of dialogue to make it seem like Line A is in response to Line B, and then you see the movie and those two lines aren’t even in the same scene. I’ve actually gotten pretty good at spotting this particular style of fudging.

   2) I’m of the school of thought that trailers shouldn’t contain scenes from late in the movie. Basically, if you’re showing me stuff that happens after the first 40-ish minutes, then you’re disrupting my viewing experience. I sometimes even find myself watching for something from the trailer (“When are they going to get to X?”) nearly as much as paying attention to the film.

   3) Along those same lines, I’m always bugged by trailers that mix in shots from a film’s climax. I can almost always spot those shots, and it’s annoying to have the filmmakers spoil in advance some of the pleasure of getting to what should be the film’s most affecting moments.

   4) Especially with action/adventure/thriller films, modern trailers are often so spastic that they’re hard to watch. I don’t want to see a 15-second setup followed by a 90-second reel featuring 1.5 seconds of every moment in the movie that involves a punch/gunshot/sword blow/whatever. I’m much more in favor of trailers that rely on one or two strong action beats mixed with a solid general overview of story and characters.

   A NOTE ABOUT EPISODE 18: As I continue my journey through the MPW back catalog, I have to pause and offer some solidarity to Jason about “Easy A.” Emma Stone gives a tremendously likeable performance and demonstrates very solid comedy chops. The movie itself is decent. It’s fine. I happened to review it, back in the day:

   http://www.heraldextra.com/entertainment/movies/emma-stone-makes-the-grade-in-flawed-but-funny-easy/article_d364789b-1d94-54b6-bd1c-0336ad237cc2.html

   I’m totally with Jason about the overall quality, though. It’s fun. It’s diverting. It’s worth a rental. But come on, fellas (Karl and Andy). Settle down. For me, at least, it’s not even one of the great teen romantic comedies/dramas, let alone one of the greatest movies ever made. I mean, don’t we kind of reserve 10/10 for movies that at least have the potential to be remembered that way?

   Reply ↓

   • Cody…
     Regarding your thoughts on trailers: Well said and I couldn’t agree more.

     Reply ↓

6. Regarding “Raging Bull”…
   Guys, I’m happy to report that I’ve seen “Raging Bull,” and it is tremendous. I would highly recommend it to all my friends here who haven’t seen it. Perhaps we need to have a “Raging Bull” party. … Wait, that didn’t sound right.

   But I still haven’t seen “Lawrence of Arabia.”

   Jason

   Reply ↓

   • With terms like “plug his wife”, “Hard on” and “Raging Bull Party” being thrown around I’m surprised Josh isn’t currently making a documentary about folks illegally distributing a censored version of this comments section.

     Reply ↓

   • I haven’t seen Crocodile Dundee 🙁

     Reply ↓

     • !!!!!!!!!!

       Reply ↓

     • Dont. At this point there is no reason to see Crocodile Dundee. For some reason I had fond memories of this movie, but watched it again when it became available on streaming. It is not funny and does not hold up well. I’m not sure why I even stuck with it and finished watching it.

       Reply ↓

     • Juan,
       All due respect to Chad, don’t listen to him on this one… Yes, “Crocodile Dundee” is an ’80s oddity (like much of that decade’s cinema), but it’s a pleasant and pleasing fish-out-of-water comedy. Definitely watch “Crocodile Dundee” someday soon. I own it. 6.5 out of 10 ( Rental )
       @Chad: “That’s not a knife … THAT’S a knife!” Come on, Chad!
       Jason

       Reply ↓

       • Jay, I can guarantee you that I’ll watch it and I’m fairly sure I’ll like it. My cousin was a big influence on my taste in movies and he loves his Crocodile Dundee. I’ll report as soon as I see it.

         Reply ↓

         • “Crocodile Dundee” is currently streaming on Netflix (in the U.S.).
           Jason

           Reply ↓

       • Personally I don’t think “Crocodile Dundee” is an amazing movie but it is one that I have an undeniable nostalgic affection towards. It’s up there with stuff like “Ghost”, “Short Circuit”, “Vibes”, “Romancing The Stone”, “Home Alone”, “Batteries not Included” etc when it comes to fun movies I recall from my childhood that I can still watch any time with the certainty that they’ll cheer me up and make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Trying my best to be objective I think I’d come in with Jay at a 6.5/10.

         Reply ↓