Film Junk Podcast Episode #151: There Will Be Blood
0:00-05:25 – Intro
05:25-15:35 – Stuff We Watched This Week
15:35-18:20 – Greg’s HMV Story
18:20-34:23 – Junk Mail
34:23-50:30 – Review: There Will Be Blood
50:30-1:38:35 – Versus: P.T. Anderson vs Wes Anderson
57:00-1:04:25 – Top 5 Game Shows That Should Be Movies (And The Directors Who Should Direct Them)
1:04:25-1:05:35 – This Week’s DVD Releases
1:05:35-1:07:03 – Outro
» Download the MP3 (28 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Vote for us on Digg!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
Comments (57)
Top 5 Game Shows that should be movies
Posted by Primal on January 14th, 20085.Double Dare – Sam Raimi
4.Supermarket Sweep – Alfred Hitchcock
3.Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? – Paul Greengrass
2.Newlywed Game – Farrelly Bros.
1.Name That Tune – Quentin Tarantino
Sean, I’m with you in that I’ve probably enjoyed Wes Anderson’s movies more but at the same time I admire PTA’s willingness to break new ground.
I also like that PTA’s visual style seems to be constantly evolving I’d probably have to give the edge to PTA but its close.
Although I’d be hard pressed to pick a winner when it comes to comparing who’s made the best movie. I’m gonna declare it a draw between Boogie Nights and Royal Tenenbaums.
I’m also with you on your view of ‘There Will Be Blood’. Like ‘Raging Bull’ I admire the craft behind it but at the same time I found its darkness made it hard to watch at times.
Posted by Croft on January 14th, 2008I prefer the limited release reviews rather than the crappy mainstream ones on a slow week. A lot of times I get to hear about a movie I wouldn’t have known about. I really liked the review on the doc with that little girl making the art paintings. I may not have wanted to see it before, but now I have some interest in it. I’m sure you guys enjoy it more, too?
Posted by joe on January 14th, 2008Yeah, you guys review whatever you want to review. Nothing would be worse than hearing reviews for movies that nobody wanted to watch and that was shit. It would be like Jay on Harry Potter 5, except you would all be like that. That would be an awful review.
Posted by Henrik on January 14th, 2008you’ve gotta get around to Lives of Others. my copy also sat on the shelf a while before i got around to it, but now that I have – gotta say, it’ll be one of those movies thats going to be remembered for a long time.
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008Yeah, I’ve been meaning to watch it as well. I noticed Berardinelli picked it as his #1 movie of 2007 too so that bumped it up a couple of spots in my To Watch pile.
Posted by Sean on January 15th, 2008The Lives of Others is bad. It plays more like Schindler’s List than Downfall, and seems more concerned with nurturing an audience than telling an actual story.
Posted by Henrik on January 15th, 2008Okay, it just got knocked back down a couple spots again.
Posted by Sean on January 15th, 2008I just don’t want you to get your hopes up like I did. I was extremely disappointed with it.
Posted by Henrik on January 15th, 2008well, you can listen to Henrik and drop it down some spots, or you can listen to the voters who put it #53 on the IMDB and the 94% RT rating and keep your hopes up.
My hopes were very high for it since it beat Pans Labyrinth, which was my no. 1 film of 06, and I still really enjoyed it, and felt the win was justified even though it woudlnt have been my vote.
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008“more concerned with nurturing an audience than telling an actual story.”
you want to say why instead of just saying its so. Theres a full story and character arc for all the main players and even some of the minor ones.
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008The characters act irrationally for the sake of a plot, rather than staying true to their nature, as set up by the film. Especially the main character is fueled more by the need of the script than actual events and convincing situations. This is one movie that puts its message above its characters in a blatant way. Like I said, it reminded me of a Steven Spielberg fairytale movie, more so than a realistic portrayal of the timeperiod and the people who lived under these circumstances.
I’m not going to get more specific because I don’t want to put spoilers here.
Posted by Henrik on January 15th, 2008“Especially the main character is fueled more by the need of the script than actual events and convincing situations.”
well if you’re not gonna make the case I’m gonna leave it be. The main character to me clearly becomes attached to the subject he is listening to and upset by the bullying at the office/nature of his job. He hears the case of the people he’s listening to, he hears how upset they are of the Jorska situation.. his involvement in their lives grows more and more gradual, as does his interest in them. Sometimes its blatant, sometimes its subtle.
Most importantly, by listening into their lives he sees how in love the couple are, and how wrong it is of the government to interfere in their relationship and abuse their power. The restraint he shows in the elevator scene, I mean man…
It’s all there on screen and in the story. The main character learns to do the right thing in the process of doing the wrong thing. The character has immense depth despite saying very few words, and its unfortunate you can’t see it.
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008“The characters act irrationally for the sake of a plot, rather than staying true to their nature, as set up by the film.”
This is the worst argument you could make anyways, considering the major theme of the film is how art music and the written word change people. You’re arguing that they act they have to act throughout the film based on how they are introduced. Do you look at every film about art in such shallow terms?
acting irrationally… I mean jeez, so much of these characters “irrational” actions are emphatic of their own passions and changes in their lives, going out on a limb to get their message out across the wall, protecting their loved ones… its kind of the point. Do you dislike Hamlet because the characters act irrationally?
“If I had listened to Beethoven’s Appassionata Sonata more, I might not have finished the Revolution.”
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008I just don’t buy that a grown man can change his entire worldview that rapidly. I know it’s a transition that is comforting to believe would occur, but the reality is that it didn’t. I expected a movie that would portray the reality of what went on, not the romantic view of life that was portrayed in the film.
I have never seen or read Hamlet.
Posted by Henrik on January 15th, 2008***SPOILERS*** Also in the posts before this, but nobody’s perfect.
I mean not only does his entire ideology change, he actually risks everything as well… It’s preposterous.
And there we go, spoiling another film.
Posted by Henrik on January 15th, 2008Just started listening, but watch ONCE and LIVES OF OTHERS now. They’re both amazing. For all intents and purposes, Once was my #1 film of the year (technically tied for first with Assassination of Jesse James and the Grindhouse experience).
Posted by Andrew James on January 15th, 2008Definitely skip the Dragonlance dvd. I watched it and it was an overly simplified version of an already simple story that has really poor CGI meshed with traditional animation. It was quite painful to watch and I’m not even a big fan of the books. If I was a fan it would have actually hurt me.
Posted by John on January 15th, 20082 things:
1) review what YOU guys want. If people like it, they’ll listen. If it’s obvious you don’t like what you’re talking about, people will start to tune out I think.
2) It seems like not many of your listeners use the comment section (other than the same three or four of us each episode). You get a lot of Junk mail, so I know they’re out there. It would be nice if they were encouraged to use the comments section and get discussions going.
Ok, back to the show…
Posted by Andrew James on January 15th, 2008To me Plainfield remind me of Mr Smith from the Matrix movies. His voice is damn near identical.
Posted by Andrew James on January 15th, 2008“I just don’t buy that a grown man can change his entire worldview that rapidly.”
The film takes place over the course of months during the height of the East German Cold War, where he’s listening in on people actively writing a text uncovering secret truths about the GDR. You can’t buy this? About 99% of all other movies where a character changes happen under much less believable circumstances.
“I mean not only does his entire ideology change, he actually risks everything as well… It’s preposterous.”
My response covers both. If you don’t think a person can be pushed to risk everything, well you’re a much more cynical person than I am, and I’m pretty damned cynical.
Posted by Goon on January 15th, 2008How is that cynical? Since this never happened in real life, I would say my position is on safe ground, whereas the movie relies on taking a huge leap of faith. Even if this sort of thing did happen once during the time period, having a movie focus on that is ridiculous, because it paints a completely false picture of what actually went on.
It’s the same as having Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot be the one man who doesn’t have slaves. But that movie is just a blockbuster epic, whereas Lives of Others tries to be realistic.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“…whereas the movie relies on taking a huge leap of faith.”
do you like movies?
I’ll let the director talk a bit here:
“I do think that it is believable that people would change even like that. I have seen people change. Even just the very thing that made me have the idea to write The Lives Of Others can almost serve as proof that [change] could happen like that. That is, this quote from Lenin to his friend Maxim Gorky. I actually recently found the quote in the Russian original on Wikiquotes. Do you know that page? They have the quote there in the Russian original. I only had the German book version of it but I spent two years in Russia so I always felt I should at some point find it in Russian. I always looked for it and I could never find that exact book and then suddenly I found it on Wikiquotes. Lenin said to his friend Maxim Gorky, “Beethoven’s Appassionata is my favorite piece of music but I’m not going to listen to it anymore because, if I do, it makes me want to stroke people’s heads and tell them nice, stupid things, and I have to smash in those heads, smash them in without mercy, to bring my revolution to an end. So I’m just not going to listen to it anymore.” I thought that was a really amazing testament and tribute to the power of art. And art is only one of the things that makes my character change in The Lives Of Others. It’s not just because of Brecht and Beethoven (or in Lives Of Others Gabriel Yared) that he changes. It’s also because he realizes his sacred mission is being used to satisfy a high politician’s sex urges; the arbitrary use of power. He sees that his true belief in this whole system actually makes him a bit of an alien among these people who are using it pragmatically and cynically. And that his friend, Lt. Grubitz (Ulrich Tukur), who was always a little bit less intelligent and a little less loyal than he was, is also having a bigger and better career.”
…all of this makes perfect sense and it specifically explored in the film – its not a matter of imagination. It’s all there in front of anyones face and I’d bet good money after Sean sees the movie he’s going to agree.
In the end Henrik, I think you fail to even look at TLOO as a simple cautionary tale. Both this and Ratatouille, two very different films with a strong focus on the power of art to change a person, and you can look at them only as a farfetched drama and a cartoon. It’s really kind of sad. But I’m not the one missing out.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008I mean Henrik, jesus christ, I’ve been in fucking RETAIL JOBS where seeing corruption within a company made me want to stand up and scream and risk ‘everything’, and in some cases I even did. You compare that to someone who loves his country and sees all he works for corrupted by people who just want sex and dont care if they ruin relationships and good art. Thats something worth risking, something worth standing up for, and should be completely believable to any rational person.
So I guess what I’m saying is it seems your version of “acting rationally” disqualifies actual human passion that makes them stand up for anything? I guess you could never see yourself risking anything like Weisler did? Soldiers die for dolled up ideas that don’t amount to much of anything every day, and you can’t buy that Weisler can realize the difference between his belief and those of the corrupt government, and risks everything for something worth fighting for?
Did you even watch this movie?
more from the director:
“It’s like a mid-life crisis. We’ve probably all come close to experiencing something like that where everything seems to be pushing us into a direction of values different than the ones we’ve been embracing all our lives. A mid-life crisis is something that can actually happen. It’s the kind of thing that can make a Catholic priest who’s spent all his life obeying those rules suddenly go haywire. It’s also something that can make a mafia boss go soft and seek a therapist. Or which can suddenly make a father want to leave his family. But it’s never one single thing. It is always an accumulation of things. That’s why I wanted the change in the film to actually start with the film. I wanted it to begin pretty much from the beginning and for there to never be an actual turning point because that is something that all the books on screenwriting say: if there’s any change in character, there has to be a clearly-identified turning point. Even the old Greeks would go on about that. But I think it’s wrong because, unless there’s divine intervention, I don’t think that things happen like Saul who turns into St. Paul from one day to the next. This day I’m killing Christians and the next day I am one. It doesn’t happen like that. I mean, sometimes it does happen like that. I know that from this whole born-again Christian thing. Suddenly they’ll tout some former Nazi or abortionist or something like that and say, “Now look! This person is now the greatest advocate of our cause and believes in Jesus Christ and embraced us.” Normally, about a year afterwards, they’re not talking about him anymore at all because he went back to his old life. When these things happen, it’s like a dislocated joint; it’ll pop back in eventually.
If there’s something which you know has been pushing your doors out from all sides all the time, it would be very hard to change back. A thing which actually happened to Mikhail Gorbachev. This is someone whom, during my studies, I actually got to spend some time with. While I was studying at Oxford, he came there in 1993 to teach andâ€â€since I was one of the few students who spoke good Russianâ€â€I was in charge of leading him around town. He is someone who cried bitter tears at Stalin’s death, thinking this was the end of the world. And he ended up becoming the fiercest anti-Stalinist in history. That guy did undergo that kind of change. He was a real ideologue. But it didn’t happen from one day to the next. It did not. If Yuri Andropov hadn’t died so soon, I actually think he was on a similar path. These things do happen.”
I’ll repeat this part again:
“We’ve probably all come close to experiencing something like that where everything seems to be pushing us into a direction of values different than the ones we’ve been embracing all our lives.”
Maybe you haven’t. Maybe that you find the story ridiculous exposes that you haven’t really experienced something important and life-changing.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008Yes I watched this movie, you patronizing bastard.
Weisler is a heroic character and is a person we would all like to be, and would like to believe would exist. But he didn’t. No matter how much the director thinks the statement is powerful, the statement is a romantic fantasy, and ultimately the film feels irrelevant, since it just uses the historical time period as a backdrop for telling a story about love and compassion. I mean it’s like a toned-down version of Titanic.
Why would you not try and portray reality in a movie like this? Are you afraid audiences won’t be able to handle it? Do you think reality is too rough to make a movie about? Well, make Die Hard then.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“Yes I watched this movie, you patronizing bastard.”
hahahahaha
If thats mean and patronizing, so be it. I’m pretty much back on not giving you the benefit of the doubt anymore, Henrik. You’ve been too mean to too many strangers to keep putting up with your shallow analysis. Ultimately your point just disqualifies any dramatic content with something to say that doesn’t meet your subjective idea of what you think could happen, regardless of how many times its happened before in reality.
Just for fun, lets replace a couple words here:
“Indiana Jones is a heroic character and is a person we would all like to be, and would like to believe would exist. But he didn’t. No matter how much the director thinks the adventure is fun, the adventure is a romantic fantasy, and ultimately the film feels irrelevant, since it just uses the historical time period as a backdrop for telling a story about trinkets.”
You are absolutely Henrikdiculous. By the logic of your complaints I guess all we should have are base level comedies, action films and biopics.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008I really wish you wouldn’t constantly edit your comments, it makes responding tough.
“Maybe that you find the story ridiculous exposes that you haven’t really experienced something important and life-changing.”
I thought the whole point of his film was showing that one experience does not change a person?
Anyway, I am not going to defend myself from such a blatantly inflaming and reaching attack. Maybe you can grade some experiences so I know what is considered life-changing. I mean nothing I have ever experienced can compare to the life-changing stuff that goes on when you’re working in a retailstore.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008If we can agree that Lives of Others and Indiana Jones are in the same genre, there is no reason for a debate. I would agree with that.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008To quote somebody that you probably think is the most horrible antagonist ever put on film: “I don’t like movies. I love them.”
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“I thought the whole point of his film was showing that one experience does not change a person?”
I guess I was right, apparently you didn’t see the movie.
“Anyway, I am not going to defend myself from such a blatantly inflaming and reaching attack.”
It is true that sometimes inflammation can occur around the asshole.
“I mean nothing I have ever experienced can compare to the life-changing stuff that goes on when you’re working in a retailstore.”
Ask Jay and I what retail did to our opinion of children and the possibility of us ever spawning.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008“But it’s never one single thing. It is always an accumulation of things. That’s why I wanted the change in the film to actually start with the film. I wanted it to begin pretty much from the beginning and for there to never be an actual turning point because that is something that all the books on screenwriting say: if there’s any change in character, there has to be a clearly-identified turning point. Even the old Greeks would go on about that. But I think it’s wrong because, unless there’s divine intervention, I don’t think that things happen like Saul who turns into St. Paul from one day to the next.”
This quote is why I thought the whole point of his film was showing that one experience does not change a person. Do you read the stuff you copy/paste ?
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008For the record, there are many fine films out there that tell the story of people that never change (cough Clockwork Orange cough). I dont’ like TLOO because I simply agree with the point and want to go out telling everyone that they can change and la di da. Its not a romantic fantasy, its just a story that I buy into because in the way it is presented it intelligently absolutely rings true for that character. Not liking the movie for whatever reason is one thing, but saying that the character arc is prepostrous strikes me as one of your top 5 most ignorant statements.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008Can I see this top 5? Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than this ad hominem stuff you keep throwing at me. It makes me feel validated.
But I think we can agree on this – the character of Wiesler is as realistic as the character of Indiana Jones. Deal?
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“This quote is why I thought the whole point of his film was showing that one experience does not change a person.”
The point he’s making there is that most stories just have a character have a sudden realization that everything they’ve done is wrong, and that to him thats not the way things are – so he wrote TLOO with the character having a gradual realization rather than turning on a dime. “There is no turning point” doesnt mean that he doesnt change, it means that its not an identifiable point, its gradual. Maybe if YOU read the rest of what I cut and pasted that would have been more apparent. Apparently you misread words too.
(And there’s no subjective spin on that one, Henrik. Sorry, you fucked up large on that point)
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008“Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than this ad hominem stuff you keep throwing at me.”
Not as great as the smug satisfaction I get writing it.
“But I think we can agree on this – the character of Wiesler is as realistic as the character of Indiana Jones. Deal?”
No deal, you missed my point there too. But I’ll give you a day to think about that one, and maybe in that time you’ll actually properly read the notes from the director.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008You put Indiana Jones in my statement to point out the ridiculousness of my demands on the character, no? And it is ridiculous to demand what I did from Indiana Jones, but I did demand it for the character in TLOO, and it didn’t hold up. Neither would Indiana Jones. Nor would most characters put to film. The whole thing comes down to context. If Wiesler had been in Die Hard, I would not have a problem with the character. But as the focal point of a movie that is supposed to be a drama and tell us something about the human condition, it’s not realistic enough.
I KNOW his point is that there is no turning point. So why do you say that unless I have experienced something life-changing I won’t be able to understand the film? The whole point is that a gradual exposure to alot of things might cause a change, not that a single experience will make you change. But you told me that unless I had an experience that was life-changing I could not appreciate the film. I am really fucking spelling it out for you now.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008Note to readers: If some of the debate seems strange, it’s because Goon is editing his comments after the fact, while I can’t. So I have answered questions that are edited out, and not answered questions that are put in after I wrote my response.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“And it is ridiculous to demand what I did from Indiana Jones, but I did demand it for the character in TLOO, and it didn’t hold up. Neither would Indiana Jones. Nor would most characters put to film.”
yes.
“The whole thing comes down to context. If Wiesler had been in Die Hard, I would not have a problem with the character.”
This is where we diverge. Is TLOO the most realistic movie ever made? No, but its very much so in the world the director creates, which itself is more realistic than most dramas.
“But as the focal point of a movie that is supposed to be a drama and tell us something about the human condition, it’s not realistic enough.”
…and now we’re back to square one. you say that his change is prepostrous, I say you’re full of shit. Next.
“I KNOW his point is that there is no turning point.”
So why are you debating something I’ve been saying all along?
“So why do you say that unless I have experienced something life-changing I won’t be able to understand the film?”
1) on the inflammatory, because most of the time on here and RT you’re a jerk and its fun to send back what you give out. sometimes its the only way to put up with you at all.
2) because the film runs deeper than a loosey goosey story about gradual change, and the fact that you find his change unrealistic to me underlies ongoing problems you have in other films. theres subtleties i think you fail to grasp. You say things like cartoons can only be for children. Its inane. (that would be in the top 5, for one)
“I am really fucking spelling it out for you now”
I am really fucking spelling it out for you now.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008Err… When did I ever say cartoons can only be for children? I have said Pixars movies are childrens films, but The Lion King and Prince of Egypt offer content and filmmaking that is enjoyable for adults.
I’m not a jerk though. Just because I don’t enjoy the same films that you do, that makes me a jerk? I never suggest things like “you haven’t got the necessary experience to enjoy this film”.
And still, this film is set in the real world. Not in a fantasy world. It incorporates elements of the real world, and portrays something that people suffered under for decades, but spits in their face by serving a sappy romance-fantasy to please audiences everywhere. The whole debate on wether or not it’s realistic is pointless since historically IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“The whole debate on wether or not it’s realistic is pointless since historically IT DID NOT HAPPEN.”
re·al·is·tic /ËŒriəˈlɪstɪk/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-uh-lis-tik] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. interested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical: a realistic estimate of costs; a realistic planner.
2. pertaining to, characterized by, or given to the representation in literature or art of things as they really are: a realistic novel.
As for everything else, i just throw my hands in the air. Clearly you see yourself differently than well… here we go again.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008Indeed the film does NOT represent things as they really were.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“Err… When did I ever say cartoons can only be for children? I have said Pixars movies are childrens films, but The Lion King and Prince of Egypt offer content and filmmaking that is enjoyable for adults.”
Henrik, it’s that statement that could make people think you are a jerk. Essentially you’re belittling everyone else’s opinion/intelligence by saying that they’re children if they like the animated movies you don’t.
Posted by Jay C. on January 16th, 2008Jay,
Michel Gondry should direct “Win, Lose or Draw”
Posted by Andrew James on January 16th, 2008indeed.
and then theres this thread:
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008http://www.rowthree.com/2008/01/15/oscar-foreign-language-short-list-announced/
Good call Andrew!
Posted by Jay C. on January 16th, 2008I guess that’s true. This thread did get alittle nasty. When I originally stated that Pixar’s movies are childrens films I did back it up with an opinion post though, explaining why. Goon said it wasn’t valid because he thought the opinions expressed were shallow, but failed to disprove any of the conclusions I made about the movies Pixar have released and I have seen.
Goon: I don’t see how that thread makes me a jerk either. I was expressing an opinion, but I wasn’t being an ass about it, blaming anybody personally nor saying that everybody would see my point of view ‘if only they had the right experiences’.
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008“but I wasn’t being an ass about it”
again, in your opinion. on RowThree you’ve literally become an adjective for how to be unfair.
“Goon said it wasn’t valid because he thought the opinions expressed were shallow, but failed to disprove any of the conclusions I made about the movies Pixar have released and I have seen.”
I remember you writing something long that would have required a novel reply, and simply being so sick of you at that time to walk away for the time being. Since then I’ve lost the link. if you actually give a shit I could look at it – at some point – but again, lately especially since (and this will be foreign to anyone else) your bullshit regarding that stranger about Juno, I don’t have much time to spend on you. There failure to disprove, and then theres failure to care. You can claim ‘victory’ all you want by my walking away, but realize in doing so you only justify people like good ol’ JT who also claimed victory when we stopped replying to his retardation.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008“your bullshit regarding that stranger about Juno”
What?
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008Oh and the guy who made me into an adjective on rowthree.com, is also the guy who posted this on my blog:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3515423633244010953&postID=8683283786958676548&pli=1
So this guy obviously hates me for far more than being unfair (which I am not).
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008I’m pretty damned sure Rusty is just trolling you.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008I guess being a troll is more admirable to you than being an idiot?
Posted by Henrik on January 16th, 2008A more accurate description is that he’s “kidding on the square”
being blatantly ironic, but being serious about enough things that it can be taken at face value. So to answer your question, it depends. From his example it was done clearly more for his own and others’ amusement than your own.
Posted by Goon on January 16th, 2008can you guys put up the 1st episode?
Posted by Drew on January 16th, 2008Just for like a day or something, i’m dying to hear the 1st Episode of Film Junk
Posted by Drew on January 17th, 2008Well, I guess that depends. Do you want the first episode of Film Junk, or the first episode of Space Junk? Either way, they’re both pretty embarrassingly bad… although it does prove that the show has come a long way.
I think I even have some old episodes of the university radio show Jay and I used to do. It wasn’t all movie talk, but we did review movies and talk about weird news sometimes. I’ll see what I can do.
Posted by Sean on January 17th, 2008I’d love to check out whatever you’ve got as well. Sure it would be fun.
Posted by Henrik on January 17th, 2008anything would be awesome!
Posted by Drew on January 17th, 2008Leave a Reply