Download this episode here. (90.1 MB)
Listen to F This Movie! on Stitcher.
Also discussed this episode: Big Eyes (2014), American Sniper (2014), Da Sweet Blood of Jesus (2015), The Wedding Ringer (2015), Jarhead (2005), Automata (2014), Class of Nuke 'Em High (1986), Cube (1997), The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
I've never seen Natural Born Killers. I was too young to see it when it first hit theaters, and I've been having an internal battle with myself over whether it would be worth my time or not to catch up to it, as I love QT and usually enjoy Woody Harrelson and, yes, RDJ. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to dislike it. I'm also kind of indifferent to down on Oliver Stone. I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll see the movie or not, but I sure did enjoy your discussion of it.ReplyDelete
I think it's worth your time.Delete
Thanks. If nothing else, I'll add it to my Netflix list to add context to this discussion.Delete
It isn't worth anyones time. Its the worst. If anything, just read the script& play make believe that Tarantino directed it. The whole psychedelic- jerky camera- bright lights flashing thing will make you violently physically ill.Delete
Hmm, sounds like I'll just have to watch it and make up my own mind.Delete
I watched it again last night. Its been a while. I still really enjoyed it. It could do with being more tightly edited but its a trip. I actually wish I was you John and I could watch it again for the first time. Its dark strange unsettling scary funny unique and beautiful all at the same time. Please come back to comment once youve seen it.Delete
Cheers Guys. Looking forward to this. I like to read other films mentioned first and wondering how the hell did you get from The wedding ringer to Class of Nuke um high?ReplyDelete
As for the film. I like it. Wether you like it or not John I would say it is a must see. There are things to like in it and it has some things to say about the media that are interesting
As a long time detractor of badassdigest, I've gotta give them credit for having the balls to unapologetically bash a movie every once in a while. The faux positivity of this site is almost insufferable. I don't know how many times I've heard Bromley shit on something and then backpedal into a half-handed compliment. While I get that everyone is entitled to an opinion and film is subjective, I don't believe that pandering to peoples feelings is good critisism. If you fucking hate something, then admit it. Instead you end up with a blog that's full of backpatting, and "Well I think its terrible, but I'm glad that you like it.". Its boring. Its suburban. If everyone is entitled to their opinion, then everyone should be able to rail on something without some kind of disclaimer at the end of it. So fuck this site, really, I mean its cool if you like it tho.ReplyDelete
That's just called being respectful of other's opinions, but it's cool if you feel this way.Delete
Wait, don't go.Delete
Only my friends call me suburban.Delete
Im very sorry for being polite...Delete
See what happened Patrick and Adam. You mentioned in this podcast that trolls rarely come onto this site and look what happened.Delete
I thought this was a great podcast. It brought back a lot of great memories of seeing this in theaters and then on LD (yes, I remember the chapter stops too, Patrick).
Believe it or not, the trailer for NBK premiered with Forrest Gump.
Oh I get it. Saying you only like two dimensional statements about movies rather than three dimensional discussion, so you choose a cartoon characters name as your handle. Clever.Delete
I love the self moderation being sprung into action. In all honesty if you don't think these people have thought out and intelligent discussions that are much more dynamic than I hate it, end of talk, well that's just your opinion. But no need to be rude about it.Delete
Hens love Roosters, Geese love Ganders,ReplyDelete
Everyone else loves Ned Flanders...
'94 also gave us the film Forrest Gump; which I think is hugely underrated and better than a lot of movies mentioned in the podcast from that year.ReplyDelete
Im only part way through the episode, so I apologise if this comes up later.ReplyDelete
I take the "I Love Mallory" segment to be more meta and commenting/satirising the audience (us) rather than commenting on the characters. When social ills are put on screen and viewed through the prism of a sitcom the audience not only accepts it as inoffensive but we tend to embrace it, i.e. alcoholism with cheers, sexism and sexualisation of minors in Married with Children, racism and bigotry in All in the Family. Sometimes the intention of the shows it to illustrate the social ill as wrong, other times not, but even when it is show to be wrong the audience can often miss the point and champion the wrong doer. I Love Mallory takes it to the extreme by showing child sexual abuse and intrafamily homicide as a sitcom. The point here (or at least how I see it) is whether we the audience laugh with the laugh track or not.
This meta message is then mirrored in the body of the movie in the second half when the media becomes involved and turns the serial killers into pop stars. When horrors are viewed on television they are seen as watered down entertainment and not reality (kind of the opposite of Bloom from Nightcrawler).
Of course the right answer is that its both or which ever one you take away. That's art. Right Ned?
I have a lot to say but will try to make it short. To start I have very mixed feelings about Stone. I hate him but think he is/was a very talented film maker. His predisposition to just make crap up about historical events to push his agenda (and I am very much a left winger so not opposed to much of his viewpoint) is offensive. Perhaps this is why I liked Nixon because he stuck (for the most part) to the actual events. Coming off the historical atrocity of JFK I was bitter but loved Tarantino early on and was ready to like this film. I was also the perfect age for it (freshman in college). I hated this. This self indulgent masturbatory approach repelled me. Most importantly though, I felt it wound up doing the exact thing it claimed to be criticizing- the glorification of the killers. Most of my friends loved it and it drove me nuts. Very happy to hear you guys mention this issue despite being a fan at the time at least.ReplyDelete
I actually thought the actors were very good, I laid it all on Stone himself and still do.
As for your take of how people reacted to JFK I think you are way of on most folks. This 'theory' Stone came up with (or the nutcase Garrison did) became very popular and even very educated and intelligent people bought into the utter BS in that film. It was absolutely infuriating.
Have more to say (both about the movie and some comments about current society) but for now will leave it be. Good show guys, as always (except for the Godzilla and Evil Dead episodes but hey, no one is perfect).
Now its been a while since I've seen this movie, but visually I remember it being a little distracting. I can absolutely appreciate it for being this crazy technical experiment, but I can't say that it was terribly enjoyable for me to watch. I'm also too young to really understand all the social context around it, as I was 1 year old when the movie came out, but the context you guys gave it as far as what it is trying to say and all was really a fun discussion to listen to. Personally, I don't think I expressly dislike this movie, because there are a lot of things to like, but any movie that I find hard to look at simply because of its technique, deliberate or not and with reason or not, I will probably tend to dislike.ReplyDelete
Did I hear right Adam? are you a soul man?ReplyDelete
Adam, I've seen Three Extremes....and boy, am I with you on Dumplings. Jesus, it's a well made short, but it's so harsh.ReplyDelete
It might be something to save for SMM Patrick. I really liked it, in a weird way, as it was very unsettling.Delete
Great episode! Really enjoyed the various viewpoints of Patrick and Adam. Like Adam, I was way too young to see the movie, but my older brothers were obsessed with this movie (and yes, I agree, 1994 was THE year movies changed). I've throughly enjoyed anytime you guys do a movie I remember so vividly (NBK) and that had an impact on the way I see film (L.A. Confidential). Keep up the good work! I'd love another movie from the 90's for the next podcast!ReplyDelete
Always enjoyed f this movie. Listen to the podcasts all the time through itunes. Keep up the great work Mr Bromley and co.ReplyDelete
I really loved this discussion it was so interesting when you got right into what the movie is advertising what it is about versus what it might be unintentionally be about. Really fantastic job guys.ReplyDelete
Great job gentlemen, I appreciate the discussion, you both definitely gave it a lot of thought and this episode has been added to the rotation of shows I will re-listen to. I should add every episode with Special Guest Adam Riske but one has made it onto that list.ReplyDelete
The reason I thought of that movie was because I was making a mental list (while pretending to work) of movies that I like, but every time I try to cross over into something greater than "liking it" I can't quite do it. I certainly agree with the two of you that part of the problem is Oliver Stone certainly seems to be saying two things with the film, specifically what he says in interviews as opposed to the feeling you have walking away from the film. And in regards to the Shaman scene being problematic, I read the original script years ago and that scene was added once it left Tarantino's hand, although a lot more than I would have thought of his original remained, it's worth a look if you ever have a moment. A fascination with Native Americans seems to crop up in a few other Stone movies, I remember some similar scenes in The Doors.
I couldn't agree more about the prison portion of the movie, I feel like I need to lay down after that's all over. Something about it just frays my nerves. I feel like I'm just agreeing with you both, but you raised so many points that summed up my feeling on the film. And it might just be me, but do you feel like Lars von Trier is kind of filling that Oliver Stone void?
Thank you both for an excellent episode.
Glad you were happy with the show. It was a very good suggestion! I think Oliver Stone is more of an optimist than Lars Von Trier. Then again, anyone is more of an optimist than LVT.Delete
I used to love this movie in high school, but less and less over the years' repeated viewings. Too much edge, too little substance I guess, but still a fun enough movie.ReplyDelete
Loved the way you brought the Selma / American Sniper nonsense back into the discussion when you talk about the modern relevance of the film and how everyone is mad about something. I respect the podcast for trying to stay out of politics but you definitely struck a cord with me there.ReplyDelete
Just finished this podcast. Worst. Podcast. Ever. Ripping on Alexander? Inexcusable.ReplyDelete
....now for the back peddling....
Just kidding....Alexander sucked.
Late to the discussion but I just rewatched NBK last night and was also amazed at how much I remembered...I must have watched this tons back in the 90's and now I think I'm good. Shelved. But I did have one take-away I'll share: Matthew Mcconaughey in the entire True Detective season seems to channel Woody Harrelson in the prison interview scene!ReplyDelete