Download Film Junk Podcast for May 28th, 2007
Save my bones for Davey Jones! This week on the Film Junk podcast, we prove that we’re just a bunch of land lubbers with our somewhat critical review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, and we also revive the Versus segment as a regular addition to the weekly audio show, where we pit Steven Spielberg’s 80’s films against his work in the 90’s… tough call! In addition, we discuss The Sims feature film, Shrek The Third stealing jokes from Monty Python, and new trailers for The Golden Compass, Sicko and Star Wars: The Clone Wars CGI series. Quite a jam packed show, so make sure you download it below right now… savvy?
» Download the MP3 (29 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Vote for us on Digg!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
Comments (12)
About the TMNT comment… You complain about PotC being bloated and overstaying its welcome. Fair enough, I share your opinion in regards to the first two movies. But TMNT comes along, a movie that I think sits in the same genre as PotC, and is short, to-the-point, some might even say it is “All filler no killer”. But not only do you not give it props for it – which is fine, if you didn’t think it was a good thing about the movie – but you bash it, saying it makes the movie seem ‘budget’? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007What does the movie seeming ‘budget’ have to do with the running time?
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2007You tell me!
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007“All filler no killer”? What a horrible typo. I meant to say “All killer no filler”.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007You’re the one making the comment! I have no idea what the two have to do with eachother.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2007You said it on the podcast though. I was just pointing out the inconsistency.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007I said what? That TMNT looked budget? Yes, I did. What does that have to do with the running time or POTC3?
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2007You said that it felt like it had been cut short, and that added to the argument that it was a very budget movie. Instead of saying it was short and that’s good because it doesn’t need to be long.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007But it doesn’t matter that it was short if I didn’t think the movie itself was all that great. I don’t like something simply because it’s short or hate something simply because it’s long.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2007But you specifically pointed out the fact that it was short as one of the reasons that you didn’t like it. You adressed it and said it weakened the movie by making it feel budget.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2007No, I said that the animation, backgrounds, and overall look made it feel budget.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2007Henrik, I don’t remember anymore but it may have been me that said the running time supported Jay’s theory that it felt “budget”. If I did say that, it would only be because animated movies in particular have a constant overhead associated with how long they are, and the ending definitely felt rushed.
Posted by Sean on May 30th, 2007Leave a Reply