Full Transcript for Featuring: Filmspotting Podcast | Fall Movie Preview and The Social Reckoning | #1085

really wanted to get, have among my picks. Would it be my first pick if I didn't have to worry about that? Maybe not. I'm excited about it. It's Behemoth. Okay. Behemoth with an exclamation point, I should specify. You have to say it that way, Josh. We always want to honor title punctuation here on Film Spotting. So Behemoth, I will be seeing soon as part of the Chicago International Film Festival. excited to get that chance. And here is a bit from the festival description. A gifted cellist played by Pedro Pascal returns home to Los Angeles after 20 years on the road. As he works on a series of film projects, the cues trigger flashbacks that tell us why he stayed away so long and why he's really come back. Utilizing an unprecedented nine composers, Behemoth is a love letter to movie scoring and the dizzying power music holds on our memories and imagination. So I love that little formal intrigue going on with the score, a movie about scores, um, even more enticing maybe than all that description. The writer director here is Tony Gilroy, who of course made the excellent Michael Clayton. Also the quite excellent, I will say Star Wars series and, or though I can only vouch for season one. I think Before season two came out, we were moving, so canceled Disney +, haven't gotten back on board, have not been able to see and or season two, have only heard good things and I believe them. So yeah, Tony Gilroy, someone always to watch. And Pascal, of course, we are big fans of. The cast also includes Olivia Wilde, Ava Victor, and Will Arnett. Love that mix. And if you can't see it at the Chicago Fest, it's playing October 25. This will be in theaters on December 4. That's Behemoth. 00:08:20 Speaker 5: Very much a movie I am eager to see. You know that you're in my lane there. You're on my corner with that subject matter. So I understand why you might think to grab that one, but it wasn't near the top of my list. And that's because of the director, actually, Tony Gilroy. And it's not because I'm not a fan necessarily, but I don't have the Andor background, so that's not bringing any extra credentials to the table with Gilroy. I did recently though, and this happens, I'm sure it happens to anyone out there who regularly is doom scrolling and they're on Instagram reels or TikTok. Just last week, Josh, that scene from the end of Michael Clayton, that scene with And who knows why it was popping back up in our feeds. But that scene with Tilda Swinton and Clooney, it showed up in my feed. And when it does, and it's been a long time since I saw it last, but that was the last context in which I saw it was doom scrolling. Every time it's on, you have to watch the entire thing, no matter what you're doing. 00:09:29 Speaker 4: It is that riveting. 00:09:31 Speaker 5: And I've said this before about Michael Clayton, a movie that I only saw that time back in 2007 when it came out. I did not at that time think it was one of the best films of 2007, one of our best movie years ever. I know many other critics did think it was. I am now inclined to believe that I probably got that movie wrong. But I'm saying this all really just to get to the point that watching that scene and reflecting on Michael Clayton, I do wonder, Josh, if it's one of those films, if not now, Five, ten years from now, we may really look back and say, man, that movie nailed it. How prescient was that film? 00:10:17 Speaker 1: Oh, for sure. 00:10:17 Speaker 4: I think it has a reputation for sure. 00:10:19 Speaker 5: It may, in terms of diagnosing our current condition, it, it nailed it. So Gilroy is, is a filmmaker I probably should give more respect to. And I like your choice of Behemoth. 00:10:33 Speaker 4: I'm glad you're going to get Behemoth. Behemoth. 00:10:36 Speaker 5: Is that ecstatic enough? I love that you're going to get a chance to see that. at the Chicago Film Festival, which I will also be in attendance for this weekend. I get to come back with some of my film criticism students from the University of Iowa. So we may have a Josh Larson sighting there. 00:10:53 Speaker 1: It will be... Let's do it. 00:10:54 Speaker 4: It will be exciting. Okay. My first pick, the second pick overall. Huh. 00:11:03 Speaker 5: I may not need to choose this first because... I don't think you're going to pick it. 00:11:14 Speaker 2: Hmm. 00:11:14 Speaker 5: This is so hard. See, now I'm talking myself out of it. I'm really talking myself out of it and not sure what to do. 00:11:22 Speaker 1: I don't think you have to overthink things from this point on. 00:11:25 Speaker 4: I might though. I might. Cause you, you could go. 00:11:30 Speaker 5: If I don't get my second choice, I'm going to be very upset, but I'll, I'll stick with it. I am going to go with a film that I've already mentioned in passing that a few different times over the course of the past several weeks here on film spotting. And it is a film that is coming out December 11th. I'm going to keep with your meta theme here, Josh, your performance theme. I'm going to go with Jesse Eisenberg's, the debut December 11th. 00:12:00 Speaker 4: It comes out. 00:12:01 Speaker 5: This is his follow-up to a real pain. It stars Julianne Moore, who yes, is an Oscar winner. She plays a housewife who decides to try out for a community play. She wants to at least attempt to be an actress. Paul Giamatti plays the hard-nosed director that is going to bring this incredible performance out of her. 00:12:32 Speaker 6: I knocked you off the goddamn wall and you are lying in pieces all over the ground. But we are going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And Mona, when we do that, you are going to be dynamite, baby. 00:12:49 Speaker 5: We try to avoid trailers, but with these previews, I like to get some sense if a trailer is out. With these films, that's not always true. This movie does have a trailer out. I'll sometimes watch at least a little bit to get a sense of the film. And it's really a case where he

seems to be an aggressive director, but one who wants what's best for the play. And it seems what's best for her and her performance. And if that does mean pushing her to a little bit of a breaking point, then that's entirely fine. But here is where the trailer, it had me, Josh, where I knew that this movie I already wanted to see very badly. I knew I had to see it. There's a point where I think as she's considering trying out, someone says about Giamatti's character, he's basically the biggest name in New Jersey community theater. So he's kind of a real life, with no parody aspect, he's kind of a real life Corky St. 00:13:52 Speaker 4: Clay, right? From Waiting for Guffman. 00:13:55 Speaker 5: And there's also a line in the trailer where Giamatti, and we have Giamatti and Moore, just two of our greatest living actors in this movie. There's a point where he gets to say, to Moore's character, Mona, during rehearsals, every single thing you are doing is not working. And I have to imagine for Giamatti, that allowed him to exercise a few demons, right, of past plays and past filmmakers that he has worked with, or past theater directors that he has worked with, maybe both. I referenced the applause, the response, the vociferous response that this movie got when it played Toronto, but I'll actually quote what that response was. I'll give you a true sense of it here. This is from torontolife.com. The headline is, should we just give Julianne Moore the Oscar now? 00:14:49 Speaker 4: So it's, it's tough. 00:14:50 Speaker 5: I'm already coming in with these types of expectations, right? I think most people are. And the sub head is hold your applause, hold your applause, question mark. 00:14:58 Speaker 4: Oh, hell no. 00:14:59 Speaker 5: And this is the first graph. At a critic screening earlier this week, Moore's performance opposite Paul Giamatti in one particularly hilarious scene was so good that the room spontaneously broke into applause. Longtime film critic Richard Krauss tweeted that he'd never witnessed that kind of response in all his years reviewing movies. So one thing I'm not totally clear on is I think I said it's an audition scene. And I referenced that in relation to Mulholland Drive and the great audition scene there that we... We have from Naomi Watts. I don't know that it's an audition scene. It might actually be a rehearsal scene or a performance scene. 00:15:35 Speaker 1: I'm not sure. 00:15:36 Speaker 5: Either way, it's a performance within a performance, which that Naomi Watts scene, of course, also is. And I'm dying to. 00:15:44 Speaker 1: See the debut. Yeah, excited about this one. Just to clarify for the listeners, so I haven't seen the debut. That's why your strategy here makes sense. Your next pick is the one I've seen, I'm assuming. But yeah, that one was a high contender for me as well. My number two, I think I'm pretty safe from here on out now that these aren't movies. Not that these are movies you're not interested in. I just think you probably have other priorities. And this one I grabbed, I think, at the very end of our preview for the year. I was that high on it, that excited about it. I didn't know this existed until we started doing that research. Because I had forgotten, not forgotten, but maybe had thought Brad Bird was done making animated movies. He did make 2018's The Incredibles 2. I realized that. But previous to that, he'd been doing live action. He made Tomorrowland. He made Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol. Well, we are getting a new animated film from Brad Bird in 2026. It's called Ray Gunn, G-U-N-N. And yeah, I'll take it here too. Off chance. 00:16:50 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:16:50 Speaker 1: You know, you might want to throw this in the mix of yours. 00:16:53 Speaker 4: I definitely considered it. Considered it, Josh. 00:16:55 Speaker 1: There you go. 00:16:55 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:16:56 Speaker 1: I mean, you've got the guy who made The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille back in this format. It follows the last human private detective in a futuristic world with aliens. So count me in for that storyline. And yeah, this has been originated by Bird. He wrote the screenplay with Matthew Robbins. Voice cast here, Sam Rockwell, Scarlett Johansson, Tom Waits. You know, photos are like this business. 00:17:24 Speaker 4: It's all about the light and the dark and. 00:17:29 Speaker 1: All the lovely shades of gray in between. Great actors, but also great voices. It's nice to have both when you're doing an animated film, so I like that cast as well. This is a Netflix film. Thankfully, thankfully, it will be in theaters before it hits Netflix, so Catch it December 4 in theaters. I'm not sure how long they will have it there. Then it'll hit streaming and be on Netflix December 18. So that's Ray Gunn, G-U-N-N. 00:18:01 Speaker 5: As I said, one I considered because I am curious about whatever Brad Bird is going to do next. And you had already put it on our radar, as you noted as well, picking it earlier in the year. My next pick is one that is in our poll question where we asked listeners to weigh in with their ranking of the fall movies that they're most looking forward to. We'll have to see how it fared. And it's possible you would pick it. We'll see how deep we have to go in this draft. But as I said, when we were going through the list of options for the poll, I know that I'm way more excited about this film than you are. And although you certainly respect this director in plenty of his films. I'm more of a David Fincher head, I think, than you are. And I think I'm probably more enamored with this character and the movie where we were introduced to him than you are as well. The character being Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth from Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Yes, I am going with the further misadventures of Cliff Booth, It is in IMAX theaters November 25th. I wish that meant something to me. I wish I could get close to an IMAX theater, a

true IMAX theater anyway. But then it is streaming on Netflix a month later. You have to wait until December 23rd to see it streaming. It was the fifth overall pick back in January when we did our 2026 preview. So I'm sticking with it here at fourth overall. 00:19:42 Speaker 4: And I think. 00:19:43 Speaker 5: For those of us, even if you didn't love Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and I think generally it was a well-regarded film, but even if you didn't love it, there was a lot of affection for Brad Pitt's performance and for that character, Cliff Booth. 00:20:01 Speaker 4: And one of the great. 00:20:04 Speaker 5: Scenes in that movie was watching, just watching Pitt drive through Hollywood. And guess what you see in the trailer for The Further Misadventures of Cliff Booth? A lot of Brad Pitt driving through Hollywood. 00:20:19 Speaker 4: You know what? I'll take that. 00:20:22 Speaker 2: I lost count of how many jokers I killed on TV. 00:20:24 Speaker 4: But you, you actually killed people. 00:20:26 Speaker 6: That's just saying what it's like to kill someone with a knife. 00:20:30 Speaker 2: Charlie finally tells you what he wants from you and all of a sudden he needs a briefcase full of cash? 00:20:35 Speaker 4: Whatever it is you're thinking, it's not what. 00:20:39 Speaker 3: You think. 00:20:40 Speaker 5: What you would expect from Fincher 2, it looks amazing, Josh. 00:20:45 Speaker 1: Sure. 00:20:45 Speaker 5: It just looks, of course, as meticulously shot and intentionally shot as you would expect from Fincher. Whether any of us thought, oh, there will obviously be a prequel, a sequel or a prequel to this, you knew, you knew, well, the movie alludes to it too, very famously or infamously, you knew there was an entire story there. The backstory on Cliff Booth that was fascinating. And so we're going to get that. The cast too here. I'm looking at some of the names. Not only do you get Scott Conn, but you get James Conn. So casting some of these Hollywood legends James Caan, Peter Weller is in the film. I love a character actor, a great that guy like Holt McElhaney. Timothy Oliphant is one of those guys I love seeing turn up in anything. Carla Gugino. And then Yaya Abdul-Mateen II as well is a face that I've enjoyed in a few recent things. So you put all of those faces together with Elizabeth Debicki as well. And Brad Pitt is Booth. I did watch the trailer, the full trailer today, and I was in. I knew that this was the extension, though a prequel, it was the extension of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood that I was completely ready for. 00:22:17 Speaker 1: It's going to be interesting how Fincher manages, or if he even chooses to manage, to capture some sense of that tone that is distinctly Tarantino, distinctly to that film, the vision of Hollywood that that movie wanted to capture, because it's not sunny, obviously, given what happens, but it's sunnier than I associate with Fincher. Yes. So, yeah, that's, again, that's not to say he can't do

it, or maybe he's choosing to go in a completely different direction. 00:22:50 Speaker 4: It doesn't look sunny from the trailer. 00:22:53 Speaker 5: Okay. I will tell you that. Neither in how it's shot or in overall tone and demeanor. 00:22:59 Speaker 1: Which would match Fincher more, and so maybe that makes sense. Yeah, for me, this is sort of in the curiosity category. I definitely want to see how this comes about because just the origin story is so intriguing. And actually, I'm happy to be the Tarantino skeptic, but once upon a time in Hollywood, I have it ranked as My third favorite of his. I thought that was a later effort that worked almost entirely for me, which is not always the case with him. So yeah, a lot of intriguing elements when it comes to this one. But yeah, that's okay if it's on your list for me. My third pick then is Godzilla minus Zero. And if I make it through the next minute or two, with these titles correct and not saying minus another number for this one and the previous one. And I should get some sort of award, but Godzilla minus zero is the new film. It is a sequel to Godzilla minus one. That was 2023. Really wonderful. Total surprise to me. That was not on my radar. And I remember we got to the end of that year. And it came out and everyone was raving about it. I am quite partial to Godzilla. So I had to check it out and didn't make my top 10, but it made my top 15. So I quite enjoyed Godzilla minus one. And now lots of reasons to be excited about this sequel. It has the dragon-like monster King Ghidorah supposed to appear in this. Filmed for IMAX. Makes sense to have a Godzilla movie in IMAX. Mostly, though, looking into it a little bit, I'm happy the main character from the first film, Koichi, this kamikaze pilot who abandons his mission at the very beginning of it, he's back. That character is back. And I'm happy about that because Godzilla Minus One was a Godzilla movie in all the best ways, but also rooted in Koichi's story. It was very human as well. It was very much about guilt and and Moss, and Mourning. So, you know, not unlike the Godzilla of Godzilla movies, the 1954 original. It had measures of that same pathos, which is maybe what I liked about it best. So I'm hoping that Godzilla Minus Zero, set in post-war Japan, is going to pick up on some of those threads as well. This one will be out on November 6th. 00:25:31 Speaker 5: I am looking forward to Godzilla Minus Zero as well. A fan of Godzilla, Minus one for all the reasons that you mentioned. So we're in great territory so far. Five picks, five movies that I am eager to see. 00:25:47 Speaker 1: Adam, every movie deserves to be seen on the big screen, right? We both agree on that. But there are some movies and some movie characters, it would just be rude to encounter them on a small screen. 00:25:59 Speaker 4: I know where you're going. 00:26:01 Speaker 1: I think like Godzilla falls into this category. So a movie coming up in November, Godzilla minus zero that we're both anticipating. Come on. Deserves a big screen. Even whale fall out now, you're going to have a movie about a sperm whale. You're not watching that at home. You've got to get to the theater for something like whale fall, whether you want to see whale fall or Godzilla minus zero or both of them. You could go to one of those movies and see it for free with Regal Unlimited. Regal Unlimited is the all-you-can-watch movie subscription pass that pays for itself in just two visits. And right now, Regal is offering film spotting listeners endless movies for less. If you sign up for Regal Unlimited, be sure to use code FILMSPOT26, and then you're going to get 15% off. Regal Unlimited is the only truly limitless movie subscription pass that You can see any standard 2D movie anytime. There are no blackout dates or restrictions. Also with Regal Unlimited, you won't just save money on tickets. You're going to save on snacks. You get 10% off all non-alcoholic concessions. Sign up now in the Regal app or at the link in our description and use that code FILMSPOT26 to receive your discount. 00:27:18 Speaker 5: Before we get to the back half of our draft though, Josh, why don't we pause? Let's take a moment. to thank our biggest supporters, members of the FilmSpotting family. 00:27:30 Speaker 1: And it's true. They are our biggest supporters. They are our largest source of support for the show. Allow us to keep doing what we've been doing for 20 years. So we want to thank Family Plus members, Robert, and I have two choices here, Adam. Tell me which way I should go for Robert here from Kelowna, Illinois. Rubinate or Rubinate? 00:27:50 Speaker 4: Yeah, well... Please do. 00:27:52 Speaker 5: Please do write in and tell us so we can get it right for the future. But I'm going to say Robert Rubinati. 00:28:00 Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Robert. Again, he's in Kelowna, Illinois. And we also want to thank Family Plus member as well, Ken Link, who's in Flagstaff, Arizona. Now, Robert writes that he's been listening for years. Massacre Theater is his favorite segment. How about that, Adam? You love to hear it. 00:28:17 Speaker 4: I do love to hear it. 00:28:22 Speaker 1: All those in the film Spotting Pantheon. And he has Friedkin's Sorcerer, which just came up. It was just covered on The Next Picture Show. They paired Sorcerer with The Wait. Robert's favorite book about movies or movie making, a little more Tarantino talk here, Tarantino's Cinema Speculation. 00:28:40 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:28:42 Speaker 5: I may come to regret this, Josh, but I'm throwing out there now to producer Sam that when he chooses these, he may decide... to send to you and only you the locations of these listeners, because Robert is a name that's new to me. If he has ever written into film spotting before, I don't recall that. 00:29:06 Speaker 4: But Ken Link. 00:29:07 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:29:08 Speaker 1: Flagstaff comes up right away in your head, right? 00:29:10 Speaker 4: I know

immediately. 00:29:11 Speaker 5: If you had just said Ken Link, I would have said Flagstaff, Arizona. And there are hundreds of those that somehow my brain has managed to retain over 20 years of doing the show. And it could be a fun little game to see if I can place where some of these listeners are from. Again, I may come to regret it because I can barely remember anything these days, but some of these locations do stick. 00:29:34 Speaker 1: You either have to start doing it now before things fade, or these are the things you'll retain to your last hours. 00:29:41 Speaker 4: And you'll just, you'll shout out Ken Link, Flagstaff, Arizona. 00:29:43 Speaker 3: That's it. 00:29:44 Speaker 5: And your family will be looking around like, what's this guy doing? It's dad just losing his mind again. 00:29:52 Speaker 1: The brain of the brain will snap to it like that. 00:29:55 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:29:55 Speaker 5: Well, here is Ken Link from Flagstaff. I looked up movie podcasts 18 years ago. 00:29:59 Speaker 4: There you go. 00:30:00 Speaker 5: When I got my first digital music player. Can't believe I got the best one on my first try. 00:30:05 Speaker 4: Thanks, Ken. 00:30:05 Speaker 5: Favorite film spotting review. Your analysis of The Archers, A Matter of Life and Death, opened me up to filmmakers of whom I'd never previously heard. It was not the last time you would do so. A movie Ken credits for becoming a cinephile. He says the third man. And if you have never seen The Third Man or if you haven't seen it in a long time, which is the case for me, I encourage you to do some homework because coming the first Monday in November, it's Noirvember. And to celebrate Noirvember, our movie deathmatch with Chris Klemek is an Orson Welles noir throwdown. An Orson Welles baddie noir throwdown. It's the third man. 00:30:49 Speaker 1: I know where you're going. 00:30:50 Speaker 4: Versus Touch of Evil. 00:30:52 Speaker 3: Ooh. 00:30:53 Speaker 1: Yeah. That's tough. 00:30:54 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:30:54 Speaker 5: And to defend Touch of Evil is IndieWire's Ann Thompson, who put Touch of Evil on her top 10 sight and sound ballot. 00:31:05 Speaker 1: Okay. 00:31:06 Speaker 5: Her official ballot, Josh. She has a real ballot, unlike us. 00:31:09 Speaker 1: Yeah, I assume. 00:31:10 Speaker 4: Who pretend. 00:31:11 Speaker 5: And defending the third man, just Matt Gorley. from many podcasts, and that includes Conan O'Brien's podcast. So you'll want to tune in for that, especially you, Ken, since you're such a fan of The Third Man. Ken's favorite book about movies or moviemaking, Bruce Campbell's If Chins Could Kill. I love higherbrow stuff too, but sometimes I just have the energy to have a blue-collar character tell me how great Ernest Borgnine was. 00:31:38 Speaker 1: Thank you, Ken. Thank you, Robert, for joining the family and for all those years of listening. Ken doesn't mention a Letterboxd account, but Robert is on there. You can find him at FilmFan80. 00:31:49 Speaker 5: You can learn everything you need to know about joining the FilmSpotting family at FilmSpottingFamily.com. Benefits include early and ad-free listening. You get pre-sales on events and discounts. You get access to the complete FilmSpotting archive. You also get access to the FilmSpotting family-only Discord and bonus shows. I think we can officially tease it now because we have secured it. Recording is coming up next week, I believe, or a week after next. Before the end of the month, our Film Spotting family members will get their October bonus show. And it is a draft. Yes, it's a draft, which is what we do in October. Two drafts a year with family members. This one is with the champion of our Film Spotting family. family exclusive twenties and thirties madness bracket winner Maria in, I believe Kent UK. 00:32:47 Speaker 1: That sounds right. Yes. 00:32:48 Speaker 5: And Maria picked, this is great. The best films of the 2020s. So movies from 2020 to 2025, we're not including 2026 yet, but they, they have to be movies. It's a limited, it's a closed universe here. Movies that have a 90 plus. 00:33:07 Speaker 4: Rating are, on Metacritic. 00:33:10 Speaker 1: Yes. 00:33:11 Speaker 4: So the good stuff, the good stuff. 00:33:13 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:33:13 Speaker 5: It it's, it's a pretty great list includes several of our favorite films of the year or top two films of the year. So it's, it's going to be a battle. There will be a lot of strategizing. 00:33:25 Speaker 4: Oh yeah. 00:33:25 Speaker 5: List. 00:33:26 Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, you always have the wild cards and throw a wrench in things. Uh, so yeah, that'll be a fun one coming soon. 00:33:34 Speaker 6: Yeah. 00:33:34 Speaker 5: Learn more at filmspottingfamily.com, especially if you don't want to miss that draft. Let's get back into our current draft. Josh, we are five picks in. That means it is my third choice, sixth overall. I am continuing a theme. I'm such a one, I was going to say one trick pony. I suppose the actual phrase would be, I just have a one track mind when it comes to the things I love in cinema. And this fall, I don't know if it's unique or not, but it's, it's going to scratch. It's clearly going to scratch that itch. And I've got two films so far in the debut, very much so, but even the further misadventures of cliff booth about Hollywood, about actors, about performance, we're going to get back to the theater with my third choice. I'm going with Elsinore. This is coming out November 20th, based on a true story. Honestly, I could just say Andrew Scott and probably just stop talking. And there you go, right? Just make it more concise. I don't know that I need to sell it anymore, but he plays the star, one of the stars of Chariots of Fire, Ian Charlson, who did perform in what came to be a legendary production of Hamlet in the West End. Part of the reason it is legendary is because it was during the last few months of his life. He was diagnosed with AIDS. He did

later die. Ian McKellen said of this production that it was incredibly affecting. He won an award and said he declared as he won that award that the true best actor of the year was Ian charlson who died a few weeks later at that point from the notes i'm looking at josh he was the first celebrity in the uk where aids was cited as the cause of his death you watch this trailer or honestly you really just think about it and the subject matter i i don't know is there any actor for me this is a rhetorical question is there any actor who makes you want to break out in tears more than andrew scott When it comes to some of these performances, he's just so affecting. You have Olivia Colman, one of our best, who plays his doctor. At least that's what I gather from the trailer. I hate to take a little bit of a shot at Hamlet, which you did like a little bit more than me, but I'm looking forward to seeing Hamlet. 00:36:24 Speaker 4: Redeemed on stage. 00:36:26 Speaker 5: There were, there were moments of the production in Hamnet that I appreciated. There were some moments I, I didn't so much appreciate this. This is going to really give us that, that true backstage flavor, that, that sense of awe of being on stage and putting together a mammoth production like this and having the reverence, not, not that Hamnet didn't, but but having the reverence. 00:36:51 Speaker 1: That the distance... Unnecessary Hamnet shots going on here. I know. 00:36:55 Speaker 5: Having the reverence that only the type of distance that this play, this movie, the play within the movie can bring, I should say. There is a part in the trailer, Josh, where you hear a line that Olivia Colman says and the response that Scott's character has, where clearly it's verbalizing the entire theme of the movie. It might be considered a little bit too on the nose, but I think it's it's forgivable because whether either of these characters ever said something literally like this, it, it certainly had to be felt intrinsically and overwhelmingly. And, and I'm watching the trailer and before Scott can even say the line and I'm, I have to be not alone here. Any sentient being watching the trailer has to be thinking the next has to be thinking the same thing. which is you're chuckling thinking, no more talk of death when you're about to play Hamlet. 00:37:55 Speaker 4: That's rich, right? 00:37:57 Speaker 5: And of course, sure enough, that is basically what his retort to her is. 00:38:02 Speaker 4: If you're going to play this part, there's to be no more talk of death. 00:38:06 Speaker 1: That might be tricky. It's one of the central themes of the play. 00:38:10 Speaker 5: But that is heavy, right? And I want to see that wrestled with on screen. To be or not to be, at minimum, carries, carries a lot more weight for an actor when not being, when you're on the verge of not being as, as he was. And you, you add all that up. My fascination with theater, with performance, with Andrew Scott, I, the, the trailer

for this one, I was hooked already, but, but the trailer also did make me, this is a case where the, the trailer, rather than me feeling like I kind of wish I hadn't seen that it, it actually made me more excited to, see the film. It comes out, if I didn't say this already, I think I did, but just in case, November 20th. 00:38:56 Speaker 1: Well, and I know at festivals, it got a great reception. So looking forward to that one as well. And I would tease you about having three movies now that, yeah, are pretty much art about art, but I guess my number one pick was that as well. So I'm a little guilty of that. I'm going to go in a different direction though for my next pick. Let's see. I guess, yeah, I think I'm pretty safe here. No, I'm not going to go in too different of a direction. I had a monster in my last pick, and I'm going with a monster here. This is where I'm picking werewolf. And I'm going to say this now for me, for you, for Sam, writing our scripts. Check, spell check, check autocorrect on this. We're going with W-E-R-W-U-L-F. I don't know why. That's the choice. Maybe there's a very well-researched reason knowing Robert Eggers. 00:39:50 Speaker 4: Any punctuation. Semicolon? 00:39:52 Speaker 1: Anything? As far as I can tell, no punctuation. 00:39:55 Speaker 3: Okay, great. 00:39:56 Speaker 1: So just strangely spelled werewolf. Okay. And yeah, this is Robert Eggers. He tackled Dracula, which I think he did in a unique way with Nosferatu. So why not do... the werewolf legend as well, I guess. This is a myth more so than Dracula, I will say, that I'm kind of obsessed with. In October, I get one book plug for Fear Not, right, Adam, from one show? I can do one in October in spooky season. 00:40:23 Speaker 4: I suppose, Josh. 00:40:24 Speaker 1: Okay. Just one. So I did hook the chapter on monster movies on 1941's The Wolfman. 00:40:30 Speaker 3: I just.... 00:40:33 Speaker 1: Continually fascinated. It's very clear in that telling of this myth, but it's at the root of the myth, really, how it is this parable for our fears of our own capacity to sin. So yeah, that's Fear Not, Christian Appreciation of Horror Movies. Check it out if you want a theological guide to the Halloween season, as most people do, Adam. They're just begging for this. I love the werewolf tale. What will Eggers do with it, especially to this question? I think is interesting because I had a theory with Nosferatu. He basically set that in a world without God. That's one of the compelling things about it, I thought. So maybe this isn't something he'll really explore. I don't know. I'm very curious to find out, in addition to just the aesthetic style that he brings to all of his movies, where while they echo some of these well-known figures and horror icons in they still capture them in a new and unique way. He is reuniting here with much of the Nosferatu cast. You have Aaron Taylor Johnson, Lily Rose Depp, and Willem Dafoe. And like Nosferatu, this is his Christmas gift, December 25 release for Werewolf. 00:41:47 Speaker 3: The raving wolf spoiled the sin. I am sent of the king. Be joined with us to hunt this beast. 00:42:02 Speaker 5: You know how to spend that family day, right? 00:42:04 Speaker 4: Hey, it worked. 00:42:06 Speaker 1: It was a huge hit. 00:42:08 Speaker 4: Counter-programming, right? 00:42:09 Speaker 1: See what happens here. 00:42:10 Speaker 4: So we're approaching the end of the draft. 00:42:14 Speaker 5: I have two more picks left. I already have one pick earmarked. It is a movie you've seen, and it would have been the film I picked first. So I have to save a spot for that. What to do with then my final choice, which I'm probably going to pick here. So many great options still on the table. There's a Pavel Pavlikovsky movie that looks fascinating with Sandra Huller that's playing the Chicago Film Festival. There's a new Mike Lee movie that sounds amazing. There's a new James Gray movie that sounds great. The Martin McDonough movie everybody's raving about. 00:42:47 Speaker 4: I can't believe I haven't picked that yet. 00:42:50 Speaker 5: If I wanted to continue my theme, which I do badly, and if I was being really honest with myself and our listeners, Josh, if I really had the strength, I would probably admit that the next choice is I Play Rocky. I saw the trailer for I Play Rocky before the last movie I saw. 00:43:12 Speaker 1: Just do it. Just do it. 00:43:14 Speaker 4: I'm not going to lie. 00:43:14 Speaker 5: I genuinely want to see I Play Rocky, and I genuinely am looking forward to it. 00:43:19 Speaker 1: I think we all believe you. Yeah. 00:43:21 Speaker 4: I can't wait. 00:43:24 Speaker 5: That said, I'm going, I'm, I'm eschewing all of those titles and a few others that are on my list that I didn't mention that sound good. I'm going with this film in the fourth slot. My fourth pick comes out December 11th in theaters. Can't see it streaming on Netflix until after the new year, January 8th, Danny Boyle, Danny Boyle's got a new film out ink. It played at the, uh, Venice film festival. And it is a bio drama. So based on a true story about Rupert Murdoch, when he acquired the sun, one of the things that's interesting about this is that it is actually Boyle. I got this from IndieWire. It's Boyle's first non-franchise film since yesterday. We all saw how that turned out, but I'm still, I'm still into it. His first non-franchise film, Josh, since. 00:44:24 Speaker 1: 2019, because. 00:44:26 Speaker 4: He's made. 00:44:28 Speaker 5: The 28 years franchise films since then, and maybe a few other things sprinkled in. I didn't look at the IMDb, but that's what IndieWire is telling me. This stars Jack O'Connell as the editor. Guy Pearce plays Rupert Murdoch. You also have Claire Foy in it, and you watch the trailer, and of course, you know without seeing the name Danny Boyle anywhere, you know immediately it's a Danny Boyle film. 00:45:03 Speaker 1: What gets you going? What floats your

boat? 00:45:07 Speaker 4: What does any bloke enjoy? 00:45:08 Speaker 2: Smoking, drinking. 00:45:09 Speaker 3: Television. Mindless. Violent. 00:45:12 Speaker 1: Let's keep it optimistic. 00:45:13 Speaker 4: Do you ever feel like something's gonna happen? Instant propulsion. 00:45:18 Speaker 5: It is off to the races with that fast-paced editing style. all sorts of visual tricks up his sleeve. And I'm not going to lie, I'm compelled by it. I'm drawn to that. I am also interested in it as someone who is interested in journalism, of course. Whether this is good journalism or not, that probably makes me even more curious to see how this all played out. But there's a great line in there too, Josh, where the O'Connell character says, once you know why something's happened, the story's over, it's dead. And it really is such a good line from the screenwriter who wrote Dear England, James Graham. It, it, it so neatly and succinctly encapsulates what makes these tabloids so successful and, and how they're the anti-journalism because any good journalist would say, but why is where the story begins. 00:46:23 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:46:23 Speaker 3: Right. 00:46:24 Speaker 5: But, Of course, it's completely antithetical to the approach that these tabloids are taking. So just thinking about it and understanding it through that lens, it makes so much sense. I'd use the cliche like a moth to a flame. I suppose I should say like a tabloid reader to a salacious headline. That really is it. But part of it, Josh, too, is that even as I see it and I recognize the cliches in it, it you can already tell that it's, it's going to be a fairly conventional, I want to say rise and fall tail, even though where's the fall, right? The, they won, but the fall is in some of these questionable choices and there's, there's going to be real conflict. And obviously the main character even is going to be challenged and have to question some of their decisions. There's going to be a major conflict at some point in the film. Otherwise, what's the, what's the story? And there's going to be real questions about morality here. But as we discussed with Trainspotting, who better, or someone's perspective might be who worse, but who better to tackle those big moral questions than Danny Boyle? Someone who is, as a director, I think really effective at addressing those questions in a way that is so neutral and allows the audience to to make up their own minds. He's not interested in moralizing as a filmmaker, or at least to this point, has shown that instinct. 00:48:02 Speaker 1: Yeah, I, more often than not, am a big fan of Boyle's work and so intrigued by this. My only bit of caution is, you know, looking at that filmography, the previous non-franchise effort he did, and I guess we would consider T2 Trainspotting a franchise effort. So right before that was Steve Jobs. 00:48:21 Speaker 5: Yeah. 00:48:22 Speaker 1: Which I found pretty disappointing. And I know this isn't a biopic. It's more of

a period pick, perhaps, or an industry pick type thing. So it's not exactly the same, but I do... I just hope that it's a little better than Steve Jobs turned out to be. That cast is absolutely promising. Agreed. That is for sure. 00:48:41 Speaker 4: Yeah. 00:48:42 Speaker 1: All right, my last pick... I mean, I, I was, I was a little cautious about having two animated films in my roster of five, but since you've like, you know, backed yourself into this corner of art about art, I feel like I have room to go with two animated films. So this one. 00:49:03 Speaker 5: Quite intentionally backed myself into it. 00:49:05 Speaker 4: Yes. 00:49:05 Speaker 1: Exactly. 00:49:05 Speaker 4: I pulled in leisurely. 00:49:07 Speaker 5: Yep. 00:49:08 Speaker 1: So here I am with a second animated film. I just, I just think there's some really promising ones ahead and this is Wildwood, which comes from one of the most exciting animation studios going right now, Laika. They made Coraline, Kubo and the Two Strings, The Box Trolls. Really it's contemporary stop motion at its best. And stop motion has been, will always be dear to my heart. There's just something about sitting in front of a stop motion effort that makes me smile. All those details, washing over you and just trying to wrap your mind around how they were achieved. This one, Wildwood, directed by Travis Knight, who made Kubo. The source material is part of the intrigue here, though. This is based on the 2011 children's novel by Decembrist frontman Colin Malloy. There are three in this series now. And, you know, Debbie being a children's librarian, of course, we have these at home. So I've been making my way through the first one. These are not short, Adam. These are like thick children's novels. And basically the story is about a girl living in Portland who takes her baby brother for a walk. She's pushing him, you know, in a stroller and he's kidnapped by a murder of crows who take him to this fantastical land of the title. It is pretty dark, actually, and that's probably not a surprise to anyone who has listened to the Decembrists. And those are often, those songs are often like dark little fables of their own. So I can't wait to see what the Laika artists do with this. The visual potential is endless. Malloy's imagination and, you know, it's rooted in a lot of children's fantasy that we know, but goes in its own pretty fantastical directions and inventive directions that are really rich fodder for animation and stop motion animation in particular. So great voice cast for this as well. Carrie Mulligan, Mahershala Ali, Awkwafina, Angela Bassett, Richard E. Grant, and it's, hey, Tom Waits again. So of course you need Tom Waits as an animated voice. 00:51:15 Speaker 4: Any, any fall preview. 00:51:17 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:51:17 Speaker 4: Needs Tom Waits. 00:51:19 Speaker 1: That too. That too. Wildwood is right around the corner actually, October 23. So I, I had better, I had better get reading and I don't

have much time left. 00:51:31 Speaker 5: That's what these previews should be about. Yours speaks to your idiosyncratic tastes, Josh. And even though I'm also very curious about Wildwood, my list certainly speaks to mine. And that brings me to my final choice. And I get to put a bow on my theme of performance. I don't think you can deny that that theme exists and is in fact, one of the most interesting aspects, or it has to be. 00:51:59 Speaker 4: I can only speculate. 00:52:02 Speaker 5: You can tell me when it comes to the movie that opens this weekend that I am absolutely dying to see. Actually, more than any movie coming out this fall, despite it being my final choice, it is You Can See Everything, the documentary from Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. Yes, it does open on October 16th. So everybody by now, has probably seen the trailer, or if you haven't, you have seen the memes. If you're on social media, you've seen the memes. You've seen Nathan Fielder's head butting in way too extremely loud and incredibly close, or at least incredibly close to Theranos, of course, Theranos founder, Elizabeth Holmes, her face, right? And the conceit of this film is that she... invited these cameras in to document her before she goes off to jail? 00:53:03 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like maybe a month or two at most. 00:53:06 Speaker 5: Okay, but this is like a three-year span, apparently, or overall, it's three years. 00:53:13 Speaker 1: The documentary covers, yeah, multiple years. 00:53:16 Speaker 5: And of course, you know I can't wait to see this, and I'm saying this as someone who does not actually know a whole lot other than the, the broad strokes of the news and listening to a few podcasts about Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. And I'm, I'm a newbie when it comes to Nathan Fielder. And I like that actually, I don't, I don't really want to, to do more digging. I just want to see, you can see everything, but also as someone who loves documentaries, who as much as anything else, when it and whether it can be captured, whether there is such a thing as objective. 00:54:01 Speaker 4: Of course there's not. 00:54:02 Speaker 5: What is that line between subjectivity and objectivity and how do we navigate it? How does a filmmaker navigate it? The line in the trailer, Josh, it's explicit, right? Where the director just openly or one of the participants who's a co-director Fielder just openly says to her, right, at one point, what if I see something that makes you look bad? This is the implicit question that every documentarian is asking when they're covering a subject. Whether they really are conscious of it or not, and I think they probably always are, they are at some point going to have to wrestle with that question because they're developing a relationship with that subject. And depending on how much distance they have, depending on what relationship they have coming in, and what bond they do or don't form with that subject over the course of filming, at some

point in the process, maybe in the editing, they're going to have to make choices about what they decide to show and not show. And so here, this movie is just, it's on front street that you have a filmmaker openly questioning that. And I love that at least we don't know what her response, her full response is, But of course, from the trailer, it suggests that she's being what she always seems to be, which is a little artfully dodgy, right? 00:55:29 Speaker 4: You can't get a read on her. 00:55:31 Speaker 5: And then there's great moments too, Josh, like when she has, is it a fiance that we see in the film that's living with her? 00:55:38 Speaker 1: Yeah, different times. But yeah, I think at that point, it's unclear whether they are married at that point. 00:55:45 Speaker 4: But yeah, her partner, her partner. They have two kids together, so yeah. 00:56:17 Speaker 5: Her motivations for being with you. He says, well, what did she have to gain from me? And so I, as a viewer here in that moment, I'm thinking, oh, this will be really interesting. You know, this must be a real kind of gotcha almost for Fielder. If he's saying that, what could the response possibly be? And Fielder says, well, isn't your family rich? 00:56:37 Speaker 1: I fell in love in that first conversation. 00:56:39 Speaker 2: Before or after that she revealed she was the founder of Theranos? 00:56:44 Speaker 1: Probably before. I mean, weren't you worried she was sort of scamming you? 00:56:48 Speaker 3: 100%. 00:56:49 Speaker 4: But what did she have to gain from me? 00:56:51 Speaker 2: Well, isn't your family rich? 00:56:54 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that there's like a lot of different levels of wealth. 00:57:00 Speaker 5: How did he not anticipate that? How has it never occurred to him that he might be being used for his money? Is he actually being fully honest in that moment? There's just– there's so many layers to it. And Josh, that close-up, I think that close-up that is so captivated everyone from the trailer, it has done so because it speaks to this fundamental inquisitive desire we have to try to get at this slipperiness, to try to decipher some truth that we know is just– outside of our grasp. And I don't think we probably will ever be able to grasp with Holmes or maybe with just about any subject in this postmodern world. And he is leaning in as if by doing so and looking at her like he's looking through a microscope will somehow reveal the truth to him. And we kind of know that that's, at least I can speculate, that that's not going to be the case. And the last thing I'll say is you then also have to question, Josh, what's being packaged in the trailer. The trailer is just a two-minute or two-and-a-half-minute distillation of all this and being packaged and sold for a reason, too. And it's its own kind of truth. And that moment that's so great at the end when Holmes says, it took me a long time to be okay with letting someone see me cry, and the camera just holds on her, while it's almost like she's waiting as the best actress in the world. Like this is a Meryl Streep level moment to build up the tier. And then the single tier falls and the trailer, I don't know about the movie itself in the trailer. They don't just let that moment play. They have this like synth cue that hits right as the tier falls, clearly suggesting or seeming to suggest that, that it is an act that wait for it. Here's the tear. Holmes is performing for us, right? But is that what she's doing? This is why I cannot wait to see it. 00:59:19 Speaker 1: So based on the fact that this is a three-hour documentary and you just went long on the trailer, I'm going to predict that this review will be the longest in show history. Oh, great. It's definitely diving into all those questions you asked. I'm not going to say anything else. It's killing me not to respond to some of your observations and what they suggest and what the movie delivers. But I will say this. And it speaks to the close-up you mentioned, which there are many of Fielder. It's a technique that Oppenheim, the co-director, employs throughout for all of them. And I, like you, Adam, had a vague idea about the Elizabeth Holmes story. I never really dug deep into it. So my first real extensive exposure of even her image is... And the camera in the first section where he's kind of embedded with them is on her face and just her eyes so often and so intensely in the way you describe. 01:00:21 Speaker 5: Yeah. 01:00:21 Speaker 1: I had literal nightmares the night of seeing it, of her unblinking eyes. 01:00:28 Speaker 4: Yeah, those big eyes. 01:00:29 Speaker 1: Staring at me. And part of it, again, this should save this for the review, is because... as close as we are, you can't figure out what's going on behind them. And so I think my sleeping brain was trying to revisit and try to answer that question. And instead it just, yeah, yeah, it gave me nightmares. So we'll pick it up from there when we finally get a chance to review it. 01:00:59 Speaker 5: We will indeed. Those are our most anticipated fall movies. I think I managed to squeeze in somehow little Little trick. I've been at this a while, Josh. I managed to get in just about every movie I really cared about this fall. Of course, there are other movies I want to see, but those are the ones I'm most dying to see. 01:01:20 Speaker 4: What about you? Any titles that you weren't able to get in? 01:01:24 Speaker 1: I mean, the big ones that have been mentioned on the show before, Dune Part 3, I'm a Dune appreciator and I'm looking forward to it, just not as much as some of these others. Bitter Christmas, I've mentioned the new Almodovar. Um, you know, it's gotten, I don't know if I'd say mixed, but not like hugely enthusiastic responses at festivals. So maybe my excitement's tempered a little bit, but still definitely want to see it too. I just want to put on people's radars that are very small. Koganada has a new movie coming out. Yeah.

01:01:53 Speaker 4: That wasn't on any previews. 01:01:55 Speaker 5: It played at Sundance and I didn't see its release information. 01:02:00 Speaker 1: Okay. 01:02:00 Speaker 4: Does it? 01:02:01 Speaker 1: At least according to IMDB at November 6th, limited release. It's also being described as a low-budget experimental drama. The setting here, Hong Kong, and one place mentioned it's about a young woman haunted by visions of her future self who meets a stranger who changes the course of her night and possibly her life. I think that description comes from Sundance, where it premiered as part of the next section. So yeah, New Koganata, always exciting. Want to put that on people's radar. 01:02:30 Speaker 5: Z-I-N-G. 01:02:33 Speaker 1: And another one, a filmmaker who has not made a movie since 2008, but it was called Ballast, and it made my top 10 list that year, Lance Hammer. New feature called Queen at Sea. This one won the U.S. Dramatic Directing Award at Sundance and stars Juliette Binoche. So here Lance Hammer comes back and just has Juliette Binoche playing a woman who moves back to London with her teen daughter to care for her aging mother. So that's Queen at Sea, which also has a release date, October 30. So maybe put that on your to-watch-for list as well. 01:03:09 Speaker 5: We would be remiss if we didn't mention this, Josh, because you did say it, at least with your first pick, Behemoth. But a couple other choices, as you were saying them and as I mentioned them, it jogged something with the titles, and I looked them up as we were going along through the draft. 01:03:28 Speaker 4: If you can't wait. 01:03:30 Speaker 5: To see some of these films that we were hyping up and you happen to be in Chicago or in the area and you want to see them ahead of their release dates. And some of these movies, again, we mentioned our December releases or late November releases. Maybe you won't see until January in some cases. If you want to see them earlier, it turns out that five, half of our picks are playing now. 01:03:57 Speaker 4: As you're hearing this, potentially. 01:03:59 Speaker 1: That's right. 01:04:00 Speaker 5: Certainly, as we release this, the Chicago Film Festival has begun, and five of these titles are playing at the fest. 01:04:07 Speaker 1: And another one I'm going to see there, you mentioned, not the title, but you mentioned Pavel Pavlikovsky as a new film with Sandra Hulard. 01:04:13 Speaker 4: The title is Fatherland. Yes. 01:04:15 Speaker 1: And I'm going to be seeing that at the fest, too. So that's one of them. 01:04:18 Speaker 5: Maybe we'll see each other at that screening. That's one that I'm taking my students to. So I'll see Fatherland. Anticipating that, but the five titles from our list that are playing are Behemoth, The Debut, Ray Gunn, Elsinore, and Ink are all on the Chicago International Film Fest docket. We will link to the full list of festival films in our show notes, and we do hope that you get a chance to see some of those movies now or possibly later. Later, we will link to our full list of draft choices over at filmspotting.net. Just click on lists. 01:04:58 Speaker 4: This is the journal's new Facebook detective. He's not looking for trouble. He's hunting for it. 01:05:04 Speaker 2: You can't use my name and this is all off the record. 01:05:06 Speaker 1: What would you like to talk about? 01:05:07 Speaker 2: I ran classifiers on political groups where 30% of content hits multiple risk factors. 01:05:11 Speaker 3: Hang on, I don't understand what you're saying. 01:05:13 Speaker 5: Aren't you a tech reporter? Ish. 01:05:14 Speaker 3: Ish? 01:05:15 Speaker 1: Ish? 01:05:16 Speaker 5: Aaron Sorkin won a screenwriting Oscar for his social network script 15 years ago. He's back writing and directing this time with The Social Reckoning. It's based on a real case of corporate whistleblowing by a former Facebook employee. That employee is Francis Haugen. Mikey Madison plays Francis. Jeremy Allen White is Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz, who contributed to the paper's reporting on the internal documents that Haugen shared. Jeremy Strong is Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. 01:05:47 Speaker 4: This time. 01:05:48 Speaker 5: Since you suggested you may have an answer, Josh, why don't we go ahead and go back to producer Sam's prompt? Maybe he read your review. I have not at this point. Is this a case where the social network felt like it was getting ahead of something and now the social reckoning is reckoning a little bit too late? 01:06:09 Speaker 1: I think my response to this movie is related to that. Not exactly the same. I would say this is a whistleblower movie above all else and interesting in that way. I think it moves briskly. You get carried along with it. I would mildly recommend the movie as a whistleblower movie. But I think what holds me back from really being more enthusiastic about it is that the reality is the whistle was blown. quite a while ago now, and the movie documents that, no one seems to have cared or heard, or they heard and they don't care, right? And which is fine. That doesn't mean you can't make a movie about this still, but I found the social reckoning didn't quite know what to do with that reality. There was a basic tension here between wanting to bitterly, ironically acknowledge that and still be a variation of All the President's Men. And I kept thinking about All the President's Men because that came out, which does end in, you know, we see the bad guys were nailed, right? And it came out in the wake of Nixon's resignation. So this is a, it's very difficult to make, this is kind of like making All the President's Men while Nixon was still firmly in office. 01:07:35 Speaker 3: Right. 01:07:36 Speaker 1: And that's a challenge for a movie that, I think the social reckoning is aware of, but doesn't quite meet. Is that fair? 01:07:44 Speaker 4: Yeah, I get it. 01:07:46 Speaker 1: It's like cheering moments for this

investigation, but then it acknowledges that it really didn't lead to anything and it can't reconcile that to my mind. 01:07:56 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think there's some logic to that because that perhaps explains then why, especially at the end, Sorkin feels the need to push so hard. Because there hasn't been a reckoning. Nobody has cared. So he's going to make sure we walk out of this movie caring. Feeling like something important either did transpire or we need to be motivated to make something happen. And he's going to make us motivated. 01:08:30 Speaker 1: And did you feel we were being motivated more towards one of those or– because you can't have both. 01:08:37 Speaker 5: No, you really can't have both. And that's, that's why I think like, it sounds like similar to you. I didn't really walk out feeling either. And, and that's why I'm, I'm, I'm just like you. Unfortunately, I was, I was effectively carried along by this film as a whistleblower movie, as a journalism movie, more or less. And, and I'm really torn, you know, you, you said it right. Like mild recommendation, but not carried away with it. And this is, This is usually not a line I find myself having to navigate much, but this is a movie. Here's my version of that line of what you said. This is a movie I did mostly– I found myself mostly enjoying watching. 01:09:21 Speaker 4: In the moment. 01:09:23 Speaker 5: But even as I walked out of the theater, I thought, I'm not sure it's a particularly good movie. 01:09:28 Speaker 1: Yeah. 01:09:28 Speaker 3: Right? 01:09:29 Speaker 5: Like, yes, it's interesting, this film that's about the intersection of journalism and technology and social media. 01:09:36 Speaker 2: Yeah. 01:09:38 Speaker 5: And the havoc that this has undoubtedly caused, the problems that now seem insurmountable and what wasn't done about it and what we can or can't do about it, whether or not we can put the horse back in the barn, the intersection with politics, the appreciation I have for, and I always have, for some of the Sorkin style of writing, which does come through here in parts. All of that makes it more or less enjoyable. The other thing that does make it work, mostly, or some of the time, is watching, for me, Jeremy Strong play Zuckerberg. 01:10:18 Speaker 4: And here's what I mean by that. 01:10:19 Speaker 1: Oh, okay. 01:10:19 Speaker 4: Here's why. Because I do think. 01:10:22 Speaker 5: He's got a very tough task. He does have to, he has to make Mark Zuckerberg seem human. He has to bring depth to this character. To a character, I'll say, who it is very easy to portray like a character, to portray not human, to portray like a machine. And I looked this up because I wanted to make sure I handled this the right way. Apparently, it hasn't been officially diagnosed, but he has said publicly that he has a mild form of autism that's associated with Asperger's. I don't think anyone is surprised to hear that. If you look up the traits that are associated with Asperger's, intense focus on specific interests, difficulty with social cues and small talk. 01:11:13 Speaker 4: This is just a few I found on a website. 01:11:15 Speaker 5: Preference for routine and predictability, high intelligence and problem-solving skills, literal thinking and difficulty understanding sarcasm. We see almost all of those come through in this portrayal of this character. And we saw it in Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal as well. And all of those traits make him, distancing from other people and make him cold and make him detached and make him very hard to like. And Zuckerberg is not, he's not very likable. He's not very likable in real life, especially if you add on the way you feel about his actions or his inactions as they're portrayed here. in this film that makes it even easier to dislike him or possibly even hate him. And I think, I think strong plays him as he has to, or at least I'll say this, Josh, it, it drew me in enough to the movie to watch how he was playing Zuckerberg as someone conflicted, someone under fire, someone overwhelmed by the moment. There are times where you can, you can almost see his computer brain short circuit, but rather than that, seeming like a joke at his expense, you can, you can empathize with him or at least, at least understand, you can understand the struggle that, that he, he is going through at that, at that moment. So I, I did think that that is that, like I said, it did at least compel me through those scenes. 01:12:50 Speaker 1: It's certainly not a performance that is a joke at his expense. I think Strong is going for those layers you talked about in the humanity. Of course, what actor would not attempt that? That being said, I think this is like two degrees away from an SNL Mark Zuckerberg impersonation. 01:13:09 Speaker 5: I liked it because it pushed beyond that. 01:13:11 Speaker 1: I didn't get those moments. For me, the best moments were when he exhibited the skill... the level of intelligence, the processing speed and focus that would be part of that personality of Zuckerberg's personality. And it's when he is rehearsing his testimony and he's switching back and forth between topics. 01:13:37 Speaker 4: Yeah. 01:13:38 Speaker 1: And I thought here, I'm getting a glimpse of how this person's mind might work and starting to understand, you know, how he would be in this position in this, in this field right now. that did involve quote unquote humanity. So to me, I found the performance quite robotic, quite stiff. And, um, sometimes even again, not purposefully, but when he's like turning in his desk, like as if, as if he has no joints, I just don't, even if it's accurate, even if strong found video of Zuckerberg and that's really how he turns in his chair, you know, is what he did in the film to do that is like, Sometimes accuracy doesn't help for a dramatic film because it will come off as comical. But I did– so we're a little split on Strong. I did really like– and part of the

reason I had a similar experience with you about being carried along in this narrative are the performances from Jeremy Allen White and Mikey Madison. 01:14:41 Speaker 4: I think, you know, and there's where we split again. 01:14:44 Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not, they're not going to make my year end list, but I think, you know, having watched him in the bear where intensity is his thing. 01:14:52 Speaker 3: Right. 01:14:52 Speaker 1: And yes, that's a good match for this character. What I liked here, I liked it here because maybe it's just being, you know, having spent so much time with his character in the bear, it, we didn't, and, and tiring to be quite honest, a bit of his character in the bear that there's not a lot of inner turmoil that, He's also bringing to this, which I think is okay. I don't need, you know, the whole backstory and learn about Jeff, how he came to be a journalist. 01:15:21 Speaker 4: Not necessarily backstory. 01:15:23 Speaker 1: He's like a, you know, he's part of this machine that's going to get this story exposed, right? And I think White's intensity is good there. And Mikey Madison was just a surprise. I only know her from Enora. Such a different human being she's playing here. And equally as... vivid, a different, you know, and Nora just leads in Nora. She leads in your face with that energy and she's as alive here, but in a way for a person who is really quiet and wants to be alone and doesn't is, doesn't want to be in your, your face, but has these convictions. that pushes her in places where she's uncomfortable, but knows that she has to be. I'm not going to risk my job, my future, or my freedom anymore to help a reporter who, let's face it, is biased against tech because we're taking journalism jobs. 01:16:23 Speaker 5: Who does this? 01:16:25 Speaker 4: I appreciate all the help you have given me. 01:16:29 Speaker 1: And the risks that you've taken to do it. 01:16:32 Speaker 6: You're absolved. 01:16:35 Speaker 1: For the record, My bias isn't because tech is taking journalism jobs. 01:16:42 Speaker 6: It's because you are doing them so badly. 01:16:46 Speaker 1: I enjoyed their scenes together. You know, the Sorkin dialogue, it's better in some of those scenes with them than others. 01:16:54 Speaker 3: Yes. 01:16:54 Speaker 1: Some of them, it's like, you guys are clearly just, it doesn't lift off the page. 01:16:59 Speaker 4: No, it doesn't. 01:17:00 Speaker 1: They're trying their best. 01:17:01 Speaker 3: Yes. 01:17:02 Speaker 1: And I think hit it. They make it work most of the time for me. 01:17:06 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:17:06 Speaker 5: And I don't, let's be clear, I don't really have any issues at all with the Mikey Madison performance before I get into more. One thing I did want to say, lastly, about Strong is that there is a moment that I do give Strong and I give Sorkin as a screenwriter, and I suppose as a director too, credit for, which is they... make him what he is. He makes himself, maybe I should say, the villain of this film. But they do at least give him that moment where he gets to explain himself in an argument with Bill Burr's character. And when he does, when he does, the thing is, you have to at least consider his perspective. 01:17:54 Speaker 4: You can hate him all you want. 01:17:55 Speaker 5: You can disagree with him the way Bill Burr's character, Charlie Gerrigan, who is a fictional character, apparently, is an amalgam He's a character they made up for this film to be this provocateur. And I like Burr's performance in the film, quite honestly. And yes, I'm bringing in an external factor here, Josh. And you don't need to because that's naturally Burr's cantankerous persona. But you wonder if some of the things you're hearing in pop culture about Burr's anti-method acting stance and some of the tension that there may have been or may have not been on set between the two– lent itself to this performance because it, it comes through. It came through for me in, in some of these scenes, or it certainly, it didn't hurt the, the aggressiveness and the confrontation that, that confrontational aspect of those scenes. I like Burr, but I, I at least appreciate, I appreciated Josh that in, in that scene where he gets to push back on Charlie after just taking hit after hit after hit, you have, you do have to at least You have to reckon with the thought of being in his shoes and questioning how you would approach some of these situations. how you would handle free speech if you were running a social media platform. And it being very easy to lob grenades sitting in the stands like Burr's character is versus being the person who has to actually make these decisions. I thought that was a smart play from a screenwriting standpoint. 01:19:27 Speaker 4: The reason why you hear it from the left and the right on content moderation, they work in the refs. 01:19:31 Speaker 2: Facebook isn't the ref. That's the point. That's the point, Charlie. We're not the ref. We're the public square. I'm a free speech absolutist, so accept where there's imminent harm. 01:19:43 Speaker 4: You can't say absolutist and accept in the same. 01:19:45 Speaker 1: With the new optimizations, with the MSI, the fire hose of bad information you are injecting into the air supply is becoming jet-powered. It's hydraulic. 01:19:53 Speaker 4: Harm, I promise you, is imminent. 01:19:56 Speaker 1: Yeah, those exchanges were just, you know... they felt like such Sorkin speeches. 01:20:02 Speaker 4: Being lobbed back and forth, right? 01:20:04 Speaker 5: So it was hard to get a sense of character from those. I'm talking about that one scene in particular where they're just talking together, directly to each other, away from the lights and everybody else. With White, he's an actor I like so much in The Bear, even though I haven't completely finished it. 01:20:25 Speaker 4: And I liked him in The Iron Claw. 01:20:27 Speaker 1: Too. 01:20:27 Speaker 5: And maybe I, I misremember that

performance a little bit. I need to go back and look at, but of course, yes, we, maybe it's because of the bear only Josh, but I think we all, you ask anybody in the first, the first word, if we were filling in the mad lib, all of us would say intense or brooding or whatever. And, and then he plays Bruce Springsteen too. And, and it seems like, well, that was the perfect role for him as well. Who's who's more intense and brooding the Bruce Springsteen. 01:20:54 Speaker 4: But the thing is he's. 01:20:55 Speaker 5: Springsteen is not really, he, he, he seems to, he, he evokes that, but when he, he only lets out the intensity really when he's performing. Otherwise the brooding comes out from, he seems to internalize everything. And that's what, that's what made him, I think in the biopic kind of difficult to portray and for white to make really interesting as a character is like, how do you, how do you bring to life all that internal conflict that he's working through artistically? And here, I'll just say, this character is just kind of bland as a character. And I didn't see any intensity at all from him. And what struck me, no, I didn't. And what struck me is that in the trailer, which I did see because it played before a movie I saw, they play up an aspect that isn't played up in the movie at all. And trailers do this, I understand, right? But It's telling to me, actually, that the trailer felt the need to intensify this, to gin this up a little bit, which is the angle that, oh, this is going to, if he exposes her, if he makes the choice to expose her as a whistleblower and publish this story, it's going to ruin her life. This kind of standard whistleblower journalist stuff that we get. And that suggests that you're going to get that, that you're going to have a character who's really going to be wrestling with his complicity. 01:22:30 Speaker 4: And what does he do? 01:22:31 Speaker 5: Does he, does he publish the story, even though he's developed a relationship with her, you know, as a subject and, and, but it's the truth and this story needs to get out. That's not a part of this movie. It's, it's, it's mentioned basically once, otherwise it's not part of the story at all. And, and so I just, I think that speaks to though, how, how there isn't as much drama here. with this character and between these two characters as, as maybe they're actually needed to be. 01:22:59 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:22:59 Speaker 1: I feel like for me, the intensity, again, what I liked about it is that it was a modulated intensity from what I expected. If you had just told me, you know, when I heard he was in this movie, I would have expected a lot of that brooding and, you know, throwing pads of paper against the wall and, you know, going and crouching in a corner when, when she, but, but what I liked about it is he still, I sense this doggedness and, underneath to get the story. Like that's where the intensity was. Like he was a locked in on this story, but the, but then

he pulls back because it's part of the journalistic process for him. Like you have to, in any time you're working with a source, it's like a very delicate dance. 01:23:40 Speaker 3: Right. 01:23:41 Speaker 1: And so to lead with that intensity would have just pushed her away. And so for me, there was enough modulation there where he was, I could feel his, his, his wanting the story. And then it was interesting to watch him as an actor dial that down to give her the space to come to him when she was ready. But I always knew he was waiting to pounce on the information she was going to bring. 01:24:04 Speaker 5: I hear what you're saying, but this would have to be a subject for another time because I don't have the answer. Besides the fact that this aforementioned movie is simply a far better film because it's an American masterpiece. But what I would push back on is saying, why is it? I won't even mention Hoffman is Carl Bernstein because that is clearly a more intense performance on its face. 01:24:30 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. 01:24:30 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:24:31 Speaker 5: But I actually think, I actually think Redford as Bob Woodward is a corollary, a good corollary. 01:24:37 Speaker 1: Absolutely. 01:24:38 Speaker 3: Right. 01:24:38 Speaker 1: Absolutely. 01:24:39 Speaker 4: To, uh, Alan, Jeffrey Allen, Jeremy Allen White. I will concede before you get there. Jeremy Allen White is not Robert Redford. So why is it though? What, what is it though? 01:24:49 Speaker 5: Um, Ignoring the fact that Redford has had the career he had, and that was fairly early in his career, what is it about the performance and the modulation that Redford gives as Woodward as the more subdued but persistent journalist that makes it so much more intense than what he's doing here as Horwitz? 01:25:09 Speaker 4: And maybe it is the material. I think that's where the. 01:25:11 Speaker 1: Material is falling a little short. Even while I enjoyed a lot of the exchanges here, this felt to me It's like Sorkin, you always thought about snappy writer. And this is, I would say, snappy-ish. You know, it's just, it's. 01:25:30 Speaker 4: Like, yeah, for the most part. 01:25:34 Speaker 5: I'd say it's both ineffectively fractured. We haven't talked about the structure yet. 01:25:39 Speaker 3: The narrative. 01:25:40 Speaker 1: I would agree with that as well. 01:25:41 Speaker 5: Ineffectively fractured and frustratingly redundant at times. The script is missing Sorkin's signature snap. I felt that throughout. And what I mean by the structure too, Josh, is a thing where we all know that the social network had that great sort of ingenious structure. Here, I wouldn't say something I was hyper aware of as I was watching it is, oh man, it's really darting around in time a lot. It's using the timeline to keep us in line as viewers so we know where we are on screen, all that stuff. I was aware, I was putting myself I was trying to put myself in Sorkin shoes or the editor's shoes. And I was thinking, is this going to be an easy criticism of this film that it's unnecessarily confusing or clunky? I don't think it is, but that's why I said it's just ineffective. I think, I think if you're going to employ a structure like that, it, it has to be additive. And I don't know that it ever, it ever is. I don't think that anything interesting ever came out of those connective threads or the editing, the connections that they were making with, With that editing, again, not confusing, just not anything that heightened anything the script was trying to do either for me. 01:26:53 Speaker 1: There's a montage that cuts back and forth between the two timelines that I think is as special. I don't want to get into detail. 01:27:00 Speaker 5: No. 01:27:00 Speaker 1: Because, you know, it sort of gives some things away. But it's, I think that's the, for me, that's the peak example of what you're talking about. 01:27:07 Speaker 5: The redundancy part. And this is, redundancy... If Aaron Sorkin was here, this is where he might strenuously object. Some people will know what I was doing there. Many listeners may. This is just one example. Madison's character keeps repeating. I mean, I think we hear it. Honestly, I was counting. I think six times how much she likes her job. 01:27:35 Speaker 4: It's true. 01:27:36 Speaker 5: I think it's meant to be some sort of psychological tell-tale. That's really revealing how, just how conflicted she is about this. Or it could be, I was kind of waiting for this too, Josh, that maybe it's a, uh, she doth protest too much scenario where she's going to be called on it at some point that, well, if you love your job so much, you love this place so much. Why are you, why are you doing this? Why are you so focused on the negatives? But honestly, nothing really comes of it in, in really in either way. It is just, it's just constantly repeated. 01:28:10 Speaker 1: It takes us back to the performances because I was asking myself, you know, how does an actor, when they're given that line for the fourth or fifth time, and obviously perhaps there are conversations with the director and they meant to do one of those things you're talking about and it just didn't come across for us. But the way it came across to me is I was thinking about her and like just getting it and be like, oh, again? 01:28:34 Speaker 4: Again. Yeah. 01:28:36 Speaker 1: What do I do this time? Because the movie doesn't, do much to your point. 01:28:41 Speaker 6: No. 01:28:41 Speaker 5: And here's the other one that's actually... Have we talked. 01:28:43 Speaker 1: Ourselves into a negative review yet? 01:28:45 Speaker 5: I mean, my star rating is already up. I was leaning just left of three stars. So I think that's where I'm going to go. But I think that the other more egregious redundancy is, and this is where I'll truly invoke all the president's men, is, Josh, they come back at least three times. And it's not just a line in the script. It's a line and it's

teetering or tilting the narrative. 01:29:15 Speaker 4: And where we go in time. 01:29:17 Speaker 5: They keep coming back to this smoking gun question of why zuckerberg would have changed the algorithm i'm not going to spoil anything but why he would why he would have changed the algorithm that that seems to have caused all this awfulness when it seems on its face to to be bad for facebook this is this big question what was the evil genius behind this and if they could just answer that they've got the heart of this story, right? Like this is the most interesting question at the core of the story. And the thing is, it is, it's a really fascinating question. It's, it's this movie's version of follow the money, right. And see where it leads. But in all the president's men, how Holbrook doesn't say follow the money 17 times. Like he doesn't, he doesn't have to keep reminding Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money. Like maybe he reminds them once if I'm remembering correctly, but like they just follow the money. And And eventually the story reveals itself. Here, I just kept asking myself, why do we keep asking this question versus the movie just eventually revealing it to us? 01:30:30 Speaker 1: I mean, it's clearly trying to build that suspense and keep us... It's almost like an episodic series to keep us hooked. So yes, clearly, if you've never seen All the President's Men, watch that before you go to the social reckoning. But because... you know, I'm still recommending this movie. I want to at least end for myself on one positive thing. And it was very encouraging to me because a knock on Sorkin, maybe too unfairly, is that he's a writer. He's not a director, right? What's he going to bring to something visually? I don't know if that's entirely fair. And I was quite encouraged by the prologue we get here, which is, I mean, the opening shot of this movie is very effectively cinematic. Just on the right side of showy, That's also capturing a thematic point, which I would just say is it depicts someone who has become so invested in their social media life that they are willingly putting themselves in dire danger in that moment. And I think he finds a very effective visual way of presenting that and the way that whole prologue is teased out. is very dramatic and suspenseful. And I was like, here we go. 01:31:45 Speaker 4: Like, this is a movie movie. 01:31:46 Speaker 1: And I don't know if we get, you know, that many moments as good as that one cinematically, but I do want to call that out because, you know, I think that's a knock on Sorkin. And here, at least in that prologue, he shows this, you know, it's something he can do. Like he can make a movie. That's a movie. 01:32:02 Speaker 5: I should let you end there because that moment is great. 01:32:05 Speaker 4: You're right. The prologue is really good. Unfortunately, it's bookended. 01:32:08 Speaker 5: It's bookended by what I already referenced earlier, which is a moment near the end where if

I'm remembering my feelings about the end of the trial of the Chicago 7, it feels very similar. It feels very similar to that where Sorkin is– I can't believe I'm going to use the Simpson phrase, but he's very insistent. He's just very insistent on wanting you to feel a certain way when you walk out of the movie. And that heavy handedness is something that that prologue doesn't suffer from, but the ending of the film does. 01:32:46 Speaker 1: No, there's a subtlety. And yeah, again, he's making his point visually there, which doesn't really sink in until later in the film. And you realize, oh, that's what was going on there. That's probably, you know, even as a writer, when he's at his best. 01:33:02 Speaker 5: The Social Reckoning is out in wide release. We would definitely love to hear your thoughts about the film. If you've seen it, let us know. Feedback at filmspotting.net. 01:33:15 Speaker 1: Always great when we dive into what's good or bad about performances, Adam, and then we have to perform. 01:33:20 Speaker 5: We have such credibility as performers. 01:33:24 Speaker 1: No idea what we're talking about. Nonetheless, it is time for Massacre Theater. We're going to perform a scene. Listeners have a chance to win a film spotting prize. Last time we massacred a scene from Christopher Nolan's Inception. 01:33:36 Speaker 4: Let me ask you a question. 01:33:37 Speaker 5: You never really remember the beginning of a dream, do you? 01:33:41 Speaker 4: You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on. 01:33:44 Speaker 1: I guess, yeah. 01:33:46 Speaker 4: So how did we end up here? 01:33:47 Speaker 2: Well, we just came from the. 01:33:50 Speaker 6: Think about it, Ariadne. 01:33:51 Speaker 4: How did you get here? 01:33:54 Speaker 6: Where are you right now? 01:33:55 Speaker 1: That was Elliot Page and Leonardo DiCaprio, Inception, written and directed by Christopher Nolan. That massacre was part of our Mulholland Drive show a couple of weeks back. Why would we have picked that scene from Inception? 01:34:08 Speaker 5: We have an explanation from Matthew Afflito in Brooklyn, New York. The scene you massacred is obviously from Inception, which, like Mulholland Drive, are explorations of the blurry line between reality and the surreal nature of dreams. Both also involve actors inhabiting other roles within the movie, especially if we are to believe the theory that Inception is really about filmmaking, which probably like 30% of movies are really about, if not more. Just a made-up percentage, but Cobb planted that deep in my subconscious, maybe. I must admit that I have not actually seen Mulholland Drive, and that is on my list of shame. That's a good name for it, Josh, if you do feel shame. This scene is moving it up to a movie I am going to watch this weekend so I can go back and listen to your review. By the time you read this out on your next show, you're right. 01:34:56 Speaker 4: You pegged us. 01:34:57 Speaker 5: I will have watched

this film. I just saw Wild at Heart for the first time and thought it was great, so I'm looking forward to seeing another Lynch blind spot. 01:35:05 Speaker 4: I hope that you enjoyed it, Matthew. 01:35:07 Speaker 1: Yeah. Lucky Matthew, getting to experience Mulholland Drive for the first time. Not bad. 01:35:12 Speaker 5: We had a fairly brimming... film spotting hat, at least compared to the one before it, Josh. So why don't you reach in and pick out this week's winner? 01:35:22 Speaker 1: Our winner is Kristen Batchelor. And Kristen didn't mention a town or a state, but. 01:35:28 Speaker 4: Mysterious. 01:35:29 Speaker 1: Familiar to you, though. Yes. 01:35:30 Speaker 5: Adam from Trivia Spotting. Was on my Trivia Spotting team. As you know, Josh, we did not win. I think we tied with you last time. 01:35:38 Speaker 1: Yeah, that sounds right. 01:35:39 Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. Somehow that stuck in my mind. 01:35:42 Speaker 5: I didn't mean that disparagingly. It just means neither of us won that time. But Kristen performed admirably. We had a good time. And I know Kristen then is a family member, so not interested in the trial membership to the Film Spotting family, but perhaps needs a Film Spotting t-shirt or tote bag. Kristen, email us feedback at filmspotting.net to claim your prize. 01:36:04 Speaker 1: Joan is screaming and furious at you because tear sticks... are doping for actors. Do you want to be the Lance Armstrong of theater? 01:36:16 Speaker 3: No. 01:36:18 Speaker 5: We move on now to this week's edition of Massacre Theater. I think we're maybe trying to set a record for entries, a recent record for entries anyway. We're just handing it to them. I like to say this. We're giving it to them on a platter. 01:36:32 Speaker 4: We're not going to... Well, I won't say it. No, don't say. 01:36:35 Speaker 1: Why you feel that way. 01:36:36 Speaker 4: No, I won't. 01:36:37 Speaker 1: Because... I think it'll be fine. It'll be fine. 01:36:40 Speaker 4: It'll be fine. There are some clues. Do you hear that exasperated tone in Josh's voice? I love it. I love it when he gets fatherly with me. Okay. 01:36:49 Speaker 1: Well, I have a question for you related to that, I suppose. Who's going to play who? 01:36:55 Speaker 2: Yeah. 01:36:56 Speaker 1: I think it depends on how cocky you're feeling today. Because. 01:37:01 Speaker 4: Not as cocky as this guy. 01:37:03 Speaker 1: Well, I mean... Never human being, no human being on earth has ever been. No. But have you been having a good day? Have you been getting some comp? Did, did a student leave you an apple, you know, and just put a little pup in your step and you're, you're feeling good about yourself or, or not a lot of engagement in class. Maybe somebody fell asleep even. 01:37:23 Speaker 5: Yeah. 01:37:25 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:37:25 Speaker 4: You know what? I, I, I'm feeling pretty good. 01:37:29 Speaker 1: Actually. 01:37:29 Speaker 4: I'm feeling pretty good, Josh. I'm, I'll take a stab at it. 01:37:34 Speaker 1: Let's do it. 01:37:35 Speaker 4: I'll take a stab at it. 01:37:37 Speaker 5: And yes, that means I know what part I am playing. 01:37:41 Speaker 4: I am not going first. You are. So I will give you the action. Are you ready? 01:37:47 Speaker 1: Yep. Okay. 01:37:48 Speaker 4: And action. 01:37:51 Speaker 1: Excuse me. I wanted to talk to you about Corporal Dawson and Private Downey. Say again? Dawson and Downey. 01:37:59 Speaker 5: Those names sound like they should mean something to me. 01:38:02 Speaker 1: Dawson. Downey. Your clients? 01:38:05 Speaker 5: The Cuba thing, yes. Dawson and Downey, right. I've done something wrong again, haven't I? 01:38:12 Speaker 1: I was just wondering why two guys have been locked up since this morning while their lawyer's outside hitting a ball. 01:38:17 Speaker 4: We need to practice? 01:38:20 Speaker 1: That wasn't funny. 01:38:21 Speaker 4: It was a little funny. And scene. No charisma. 01:38:28 Speaker 1: I mean, the smugness. You needed to turn the smugness up. Maybe it's not a bad thing that you can't get better. 01:38:35 Speaker 4: Yeah, that was tough. I don't know why that was so hard for me, Josh. Okay. 01:38:39 Speaker 5: If you know what film, and we really think that you do know what film we just massacred, email the movie's title. We think, in fact, you might have been able to guess it before we spoke. You can email the movie. title, your name and location to feedback at filmspotting.net. Deadline, Monday, October 26th. We will select the winner randomly from all the correct entries and announce it in a couple of weeks. 01:39:01 Speaker 4: Josh, that's our show. 01:39:03 Speaker 1: If you'd like to connect with us on social media, you can find Adam and the show on Instagram at Facebook, Letterboxd, YouTube, and Blue Sky at Film Spotting. You'll find me at Larson on Film. We are independently produced and listeners supported. You can support the show by joining the Film Spotting family over at filmspottingfamily.com. That way you can listen early and add free. You'll also get monthly bonus episodes, a weekly newsletter, and access to the show archive. For show t-shirts and other merch, go to filmspotting.net slash shop. 01:39:37 Speaker 5: Out streaming this weekend, Josh, Sacrifice, directed by Roman Gavras, who made 2022's Athena, or Athena if you're nasty. This is clearly, based on its plot summary, a movie that should have made my draft list. A movie star in the midst of an existential crisis, they're always in such a crisis, is taken hostage. Okay, this isn't normal. Taken hostage by a radical warrior. and her devoted followers. 01:40:05 Speaker 4: That's a new spin. Well, that took a swerve. 01:40:06 Speaker 6: Yeah. 01:40:07 Speaker 5: Chris Evans, Anya Taylor-Joy, Vincent Cassell, John Malkovich, and Salma Hayek. 01:40:11 Speaker 4: That's a cast. 01:40:13 Speaker 1: Oh, my. 01:40:13 Speaker 5: Okay. 01:40:13 Speaker 4: It's on Netflix. 01:40:15 Speaker 1: Okay. 01:40:16

Speaker 4: Also, Tenzing. 01:40:17 Speaker 5: This is a biopic about Nepalese mountaineer Tenzing Norgay, who accompanied Edmund Hillary to the summit of Mount Everest. Tom Hiddleston plays Hillary. 01:40:30 Speaker 4: That's on Apple TV. 01:40:32 Speaker 5: In limited release... the Can Palm Door winner from Christian Munju Fjord. I forgot that this starred not only Sebastian Stan, but Renata Reinsva. I was already very interested in this film just because it's a Munju film. Then you add on Palm Door winner. Now you add in the reminder that it's Reinsva. It's playing at the Music Box. Josh, I know you've seen this film already. 01:40:58 Speaker 4: Yeah, this one I want to give. 01:40:59 Speaker 1: An enthusiastic recommendation to. It put me through the ringer. I mean, there are, Manju likes to just kind of like tease at the seams of society where things aren't stitched as well as we hope they would be. And man, this is, you know, a little different setting being in Norway, but following an immigrant family and how that butts up against the progressive values, the family is devoutly religious and the way they're raising the kids is brought into question. Just you're, you're kind of is one we should maybe talk about at some point, because you really are trying to process where you fall narratively. And then beneath that, we could dig into how Munju got you to ask those questions. It's a good one. Check out Fjord. 01:41:48 Speaker 5: Finally, in limited release, someone's going to have to write a think piece. Apparently, Misty Green, here we go, years after her Hollywood breakthrough, Does anyone care about all these actor-actress movies besides me? 01:42:02 Speaker 1: Some of us have a limited, limited tolerance for it. Like, give me one every once in a while. Maybe not every week, but this is interesting. 01:42:09 Speaker 5: A talented actress whose career has stalled fights for her second act. Does she fight against a warlord? Is she taken hostage? 01:42:18 Speaker 4: Maybe I don't care. 01:42:19 Speaker 1: You know? Who knows? 01:42:21 Speaker 5: It's directed by Chris Rock, and it stars a UK actress, Rosalind Eleazar. Adam drivers in it, Daniel Kaluuya, Anna Kendrick here again, I'm going to say that's a cast. 01:42:31 Speaker 1: And you know, Adam Rosalind Eliezer, her character's name is escaping me, but since you started watching slow horses, she's in. Yeah. Is she Sid? No, she's not Sid. She, Oh man, it's been a while now since I watched season one, but she ends up partnering with the agent who is on, who bikes. 01:42:51 Speaker 4: I knew exactly who I knew exactly. 01:42:53 Speaker 5: She, she hooks up with, uh, The guy who's kind of ineffectual. 01:43:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, she's one of my favorite characters in that series. So this is promising for Misty Green. 01:43:07 Speaker 5: Yes, and You Can See Everything is also out. Well, we'll talk about that in a second. Outwide, the new adaptation of Austin's Sense and Sensibility with Daisy Edgar Jones. Street Fighter, a new adaptation of the ubiquitous 90s arcade game. We should review that and... The high concept setup writes itself. We get to explain which character we were and which character you were. 01:43:36 Speaker 1: So I think Mortal Kombat was my game. I don't know if I played Street Fighter. I must have played it in somebody's dorm room at some point. Mortal Kombat was the one that I have vivid memories of. 01:43:51 Speaker 5: Mortal Kombat was, we played tons of Mortal Kombat in college. 01:43:54 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:43:54 Speaker 5: On the Sega street fighter was more the arcade game for me. 01:43:58 Speaker 1: Okay. I might not have then might've missed that. 01:44:02 Speaker 4: We have whale fall. 01:44:03 Speaker 5: This is about a young man searching for his father's remains off the coast of California, only to be swallowed by a sperm whale. He's got one hour of oxygen left. It stars Austin Abrams. And I can, I can picture him in my head being very vexed by this situation. 01:44:20 Speaker 1: I would imagine he is. And yeah, now that I declared after Resident Evil that I want him to be in everything, I don't know if I meant whale fall, but we'll find out. I'm going to check it out tonight. Okay. 01:44:32 Speaker 4: Good luck. 01:44:33 Speaker 5: Next week in the Film Spotting Feed, a new movie racket with Michael Phillips. Tuesday, Film Spotting SVU is going to do the dirty work. These investigators, they go into the alleyways, you know, the crevices. They'll If they don't leave any stone unturned, matchbox the movie with John Cena. They're going to tell you whether or not it's worth your time. 01:44:56 Speaker 3: Wow. 01:44:57 Speaker 1: Hats off, gentlemen. 01:44:58 Speaker 6: Good luck. 01:44:59 Speaker 4: Thursday, the next picture show. They had to do it. 01:45:02 Speaker 5: Part one, the social network and the social reckoning. Fridays, film spotting. Well, we're still discussing what that's going to be. It kind of depends on what's available for me to see because at this point, I think I can see Sense and Sensibility. I may be able to see You Can See Everything, though I have to travel a little ways to see it. But also, I'm spending the entire weekend at the Chicago Film Festival with students. So we're going to play it by ear a little bit, but trust that we'll have something interesting to talk about next Friday. 01:45:37 Speaker 1: We will be here at the very least. 01:45:39 Speaker 5: Yes. 01:45:40 Speaker 1: Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe DeSoto and Sam Van Halgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go. Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Ariana Martinez is our marketing and social media assistant. Special thanks to everyone at WBEZ Chicago. More information is available at WBEZ.org. For Film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson. 01:46:00 Speaker 4: And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening. 01:46:02 Speaker 6: This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. 01:46:05 Speaker 5: Goodbye.