Film Junk Podcast Episode #308: Mr. Nobody
0:00 – Intro
5:10 – Headlines: Roseanne Reality Show and New Beavis and Butthead Show, Robocop Statue in Detroit, Shane Black Confirmed for Iron Man 3, Disney Announces Cars Spin-Off Called Planes, 2011 Breaks Record for Most Sequels in a Year
29:00 – Review: Mr. Nobody
1:12:45 – Trailer Trash: Apollo 18, Dead Island
1:28:00 – Other Stuff We Watched: Dogtooth, Pleasantville, Beverly Hills Cop, Beverly Hills Cop II, Uncle Buck, Dial M for Murder, I Confess, Lifeboat, Foreign Correspondent, The Wrong Man, Suspicion, Megamind, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Superman, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, I Knew It Was You, Runaway Train
2:16:55 – Junk Mail: Film Junk Artwork Contest, Takashi Miike, Gates of Heaven, Arsenic and Old Lace, Directors We Wish Were Making Different Kinds of Movies, Machine Girl and Man v. Food, Name That Movie and Visually Amazing Films That Are Just Okay, Shutter Island Shutout at the Oscars and Sequel Titles
2:59:15 – This Week’s DVD Releases
3:02:55 – Outro
» Download the MP3 (85 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Rate us on iTunes!
Subscribe to the podcast feed:
| Donate via Paypal: | Recurring Donation $2/Month: |
Sponsors:
This week’s episode is sponsored by Audible, the largest online provider of digital audiobooks. Head over to audiblepodcast.com/filmjunk and sign up for a risk-free 14-day trial, and get an audiobook of your choice absolutely free!
Comments (103)
I’ve never even heard of this Mr. Nobody flick. What exactly made you want to review that?
Posted by Kent on February 21st, 2011Awaits the Cinecast crew backlash.
For a big budget, English, science fiction film, I baffle by the minimal coverage it has received so far. If it wasn’t for Rowthree, I probably would have never heard about it.
Posted by antho42 on February 21st, 2011Was this film even release theatrically in America? I heard that it got a minimal release in Canada. No wonder why film is a box office bomb. For a $58 million film, it’s worldwide gross was barely over $ 3 million.
Posted by antho42 on February 21st, 2011I’m glad Jay was able to help clarify certain aspects of Dogtooth. I posted a response in last week’s comment thread, but pretty belatedly, so, for what it’s worth, I’ll post it again here.
“Dogtooth happens to be one of my favourite films of the year, but that said, I’ll agree with Greg in that the film is not for everyone.
I’m not going to argue with respect to a matter of taste. However, I’d like to offer my thoughts on what I feel are some of the more objective elements of the film, that if misinterpreted, might harm one’s appreciation of the film. I don’t mean any condescension. These are simply my attempts to elaborate on some notions that film address in a very subtle manner.
THE VOCABULARY
Frank in particular seemed to think there was an arbitrary nature to the misnomers provided by the parents. As I see it, the misnomers were actually calculated to help ensure that the children remain ignorant of specific things the parents didn’t wish them to be exposed to. So, at the beginning of the film we get “Sea”, “Motorway” and “Excursion” – all words that would suggest travelling beyond the confines of the home, something forbidden by the parents. The rationale here is the same one that underlies the parents’ wanting to establish the fiction that distant airplanes are actually models which, at any time, might fall into the garden. The parents don’t want the children to know that aircraft are a means of transportation, and that normal people not only occasionally venture beyond their gardens, but also actually visit distant countries and cultures.
The fourth word they learn is “carbine” (“shotgun” in some translations). Presumably this word is forbidden because it represents violence, one of the “bad” influences the parents hope their children can avoid. (The irony, of course, is that stifling the children’s development, fostering sibling rivalry, and effectively imprisoning them causes the children to lash out violently at one another.)
Later in the film we learn that “telephone” has been substituted for salt. Obviously the parents don’t want the children to know that a telephone is actually a device used to communicate with the outside world. This is why they keep the household’s only phone in a locked cabinet, why the children think their mother is talking to herself when she’s using the phone, and why the elder sister doesn’t know how to operate the phone when she tries.
“Pussy/cunt” is a sexual word, again representing the “bad” influences. Seemingly the parents’ warped world view dictates that their daughters should remain ignorant of sexuality, but that it is healthy for their son to have a sexual outlet, hence them hiring Christina to attend to him sexually.
The “zombie” moment again represents a “bad” influence – traditionally associated with violence/horror – that their children would never have been exposed to. Rather than even begin to attempt to explain the notion that a zombie is a re-animated corpse, and the cascade of further questions that that would bring, the mother, off the cuff, answers instead that they are flowers, something safe and familiar.
“FLY ME TO THE MOON” LYRICS
Frank also took issue with the father’s mistranslation of “Fly Me to the Moon”, I don’t feel this moment is as logically suspect as he believes. Notably, the father actually does repeat certain phrases when Sinatra repeats them in the song. When Sinatra initially repeats “In other words” the father translates this as “the spring is flooding” in both instances. Sinatra sings “In other words, hold my hand / In other words, darling kiss me” and the father translates this as “The spring is flooding my house, the spring is flooding my little heart.” Granted the father does not substitute the same Greek word for the same English word precisely throughout the song. However, the experience of watching Dogtooth can tell you that it’s difficult to pin down a consistent translation for unfamiliar foreign words. There were several times where the films subtitles (from a UK Blu-ray edition) translated what was audibly the same Greek word in slightly different ways. Add, on top of this, the fact that these children have been condition from birth to have the utmost and absolute respect for their parent’s teachings, and that they have never been formally educated, and I you can very credibly believe that they wouldn’t pick out what holes do exist in their father’s translation.
THE DANCE ROUTINE
As a commenter pointed out, the elder sister is re-enacting choreography from Flashdance. It isn’t meant to an empty attempt at humour – rather it’s meant to manifest one way in which the elder sister’s exposure to outside cultural influences had an irrepressible, and ultimately violent impact on her understanding of the constructs of the reality in which she’s been raised. That’s not to say it isn’t also funny – especially if you recognize it as Flashdance. If there is confusion here, it’s entirely understandable, as we see Christina give her two tapes, and the films on those tapes are elsewhere clearly meant to be Rocky and Jaws. This may be an oversight by the film makers, though my girlfriend suggested that one of the cassettes may have featured a trailer for Flashdance, which might account for how she picked up the routine.
GREG’S QUESTIONS – IN BRIEF
“Why is the family like this?”
The children are robotic and infantilised, because, like dogs, they have been conditioned to achieve a very specific, very narrow world view. They have not only been denied a conventional upbringing, they have also been denied knowledge of the outside world. They have not experienced socialization in the manner of an ordinary human being. The parents have treated them like children for their entire lives, hence their childlike behaviour. In that regard, I, personally, thought the actors playing the children were very good.
As to why the parents are like that – who can say? But, despite their skewed world views, they feel what they’re doing is right and clearly love their children, however misguidedly that might manifest itself.
“What’s on the other side of the fence?”
Generally – the outside world, representative of all the dangers and bad influences the parents hope their children can avoid. More specifically, the parents have also concocted an imaginary brother to use as a cautionary instructional tool. Presumably they have told their children that they once had another son, but that he misbehaved or was disobedient, and so was banished to the other side of the fence where he lives a life of hardship, isolation and deprivation.
“Why don’t they like that cat? / Why did they bark like dogs?”
The father tells his children that cats are dangerous, child-eating predators in order to further frighten the children into captivity and dependence. The more they continue to believe the outside world is filled with danger, the less they are inclined to want to leave the household. He specifically tells him that as long as they remain in their garden and household they will be safe. But, like every lie the parents tell they must reinforce it with an elaborately constructed fiction. It’s not enough to say “Cats are dangerous, stay in the garden”, he does the “logical”, “fatherly” thing, and teaches his children how to ward off the threat of the cat by barking like dogs.
“Who was the security officer?”
Christina was employed as a guard at the father’s factory. The father made an arrangement with her out of a bizarre (but not unfamiliar) understanding that a young boy needs an outlet for his sexual urges in order to remain healthy. He seemed to think that she was a suitable candidate, and that, as an employee, she was someone he could control. Evidently he miscalculated and was careless with the respect to the influences she would have on his children.
“Why was the mom crying?”
I took this as an indication of two things: 1) It demonstrated how passionately the parents believe in what they are doing. She genuinely wants to be a good mother to her children, even if though her notion of what makes a good mother appears twisted from a ordinary point of view. When the father criticizes her she feels guilty and is genuinely upset. 2) I think it also subtly demonstrates the stress involved in trying to maintain a fictional existence for three adult children. She’s constantly having to dictate their reality as they are experiencing it, and, over time, I imagine that sort of endeavour would be mentally fatiguing.
“Why did the girl get in the trunk?”
The girl got in the trunk because she desperately wanted to escape her situation, but her understanding of the world is that the only safe way to leave the confines of the garden is an automobile. This is one of her fundamental life notions. The father explains that the children can learn to drive – that is, leave the confines of their household – “only once they have lost their dog teeth” – something that the audience knows will never happen. The seriousness with which this father maintains the charade is demonstrated when he drives the car five feet beyond the front gate to collect the toy airplane. It also explains why his wife and children bark like dogs when he’s searching for the elder sister in front of the house – so that he isn’t attacked by the lurking dangers – like cats – that exist in the outside world.
WHY IS THIS MOVIE BEING HAILED AS A MASTERPIECE?
That’s clearly a subjective question, and again, I won’t fault anyone who doesn’t share this view, but Sean in particular seemed genuinely curious as to what all the fuss was about. Briefly, to me, Dogtooth is brilliant because I feel it succeeds in building a remarkably credible, yet disturbingly skewed world that is fascinating both as a perverse curiosity and as a densely layered work of allegory. You can interpret it literally, as being about parenting, but I think it’s also concerned with larger themes – the degree to which socialization fundamentally shapes our world views, the degree to which biology interacts with socialization in determining who we are as human beings, the dangers of xenophobia and cultural isolation, and its (metaphorically) incestuous, intellectually deleterious effects, the hypocrisy that is often latent within dictatorial regimes, etc.
Also, the parents and the world they have created for their children are, to me, some of the most original cinematic inventions I have experienced, bar none. The parents aren’t evil people – they mean well, but they are also powerfully misguided – at times very humorously so. Also, I went into this film absolutely cold, and the time I spent piecing together exactly what the hell was going on in this world, was, to me, legitimately fascinating. Sure there isn’t a great deal of plot to the film, but I was doing mental gymnastics just trying to establish the rules of the wider world in which this film exists, the rules of the household, and exactly what effects those rules were having on the people within that household. I found the later “shock” moments in the film – the incest, the violent tooth extraction – entirely justified. Also, ambiguous though the ending might be, I found entirely fulfilling. 4/4 for me.”
Posted by Julian on February 21st, 2011Im 5min into the review.. I really hope that Greg loved the movie.. So we get a classic fight.. Please..
Posted by Burgus on February 21st, 2011There´s an error in the headline btw
Posted by patrik on February 21st, 2011What a comeback by Jay.. Great Oscars rant..
Posted by Burgus on February 21st, 2011@Julian: Great post, dude. Sadly, it doesn’t change how I feel about the movie. Thanks for answering the questions and thanks for listening!
Posted by Greg on February 21st, 2011Thank god you guys hated Mr. Nobody, too… I downloaded it in anticipation of the show, and I shut it down after 20 minutes.
This is why music/commercial directors should not be allowed to write/direct films.
Posted by Colin on February 21st, 2011Addendum: I hated it just as much as [if not worst than] What The *Bleep* Do we Know?, which was the worst movie I saw that year.
Posted by Colin on February 21st, 2011Film Junk has almost turned into a “we completely disagree with Row Three Cinecast” show with these past two episodes.
Posted by Mr. Whhhhaaaat? on February 21st, 2011I’m usually fairly tolerable of movies that could be considered mind-bending science fiction. I can certainly see the influence of Philip K. Dick in MR. NOBODY, but other than the cinematography, I didn’t find much else to like about it. It was almost too cryptic and puzzling to the point of alienating its audience. I guess one can consider that “challenging” but I found MR. NOBODY to be frustrating. It really went nowhere and I couldn’t latch on to it – whether in the sense of the narrative or emotionally.
It’s a film that tried too hard and seemed to lack the slapdash goofiness of something like SOUTHLAND TALES. I understand its overall themes regarding mortality, but it seemed to try WAY too hard to be profound & complex. Or maybe I just didn’t get it. Either way, I definitely think it’s one of the worst films I’ve seen in a long time as well. I’m pretty sure one of the Cinecast guys put it at #1 on their top ten of 2009, I believe? Baffling.
Posted by Jim The Movie Freak on February 21st, 2011@Jim, at least Southland Tales is *fun*… I’ve seen it a few times now, and it works as a satire if you’re open to view it that way (which is also how I believe it’s MEANT to be viewed). On the other hand, Mr. Nobody is 100% serious pretentiousness.
Posted by Colin on February 21st, 2011@Colin: Agreed. Pretentious is definitely the best word to describe MR. NOBODY.
For those who want a completely different take, here’s a review from Row Three:
http://www.rowthree.com/2011/01/10/dvd-review-mr-nobody/
Posted by Jim The Movie Freak on February 21st, 2011@Jim and Colin,
You’re both right. Fuck Jared Leto in his stupid face.
Posted by Fatbologna on February 21st, 2011Damn you can tell we are the doldrums of winter. Can’t even find movies to review that most people will actually watch.
Posted by Maopheus on February 21st, 2011Holy snap. Great episode guys. The Mr. Nobody review is the one of the most entertaining and spot-on reviews you guys have ever done. I actually went and tried to watch Mr. Nobody after listening to Kurt & Andrew talk about it on their podcast a while back, but I couldn’t get past the first 20minutes of the film. I’ll need to watch the rest just so I know everything you guys were talking about.
Also liked the extended thoughts on Dogtooth. I’m pretty much on par with Jay on it and would give it a 3 out of 4.
Posted by Primal on February 21st, 2011In reference to Man v. Food, everyone should check out Epic Meal Time. These guys know how to eat.
http://epicmealtime.com/
Posted by Film Ape on February 21st, 2011One of the most entertaining podcast in awhile.
Posted by chris on February 21st, 2011Yeah we could have forced ourselves to see stuff like The Eagle, Sanctum and Unknown this month, but we opted for some choices that hopefully made for more interesting reviews. Plus it doesn’t seem like many people have been going to the theatre this month anyway.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011I love the idea of 2001 Re-Oscars, but i was under the impression (until the small discussion at the every end) that the idea was to look at films from that year, not just the films that were nominated that year. Like in 2001 there was Amelie, The Royal Tenenbaums, Blow, Donnie Darko, Monsters Inc., Black Hawk Down, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Training Day, just to name a few film that were not nominated for best picture.
would taking those into account as well make it more interesting?
Posted by aperfectsix on February 21st, 2011@aperfectsix
Yeah … I was thinking the same thing after the show last night.
Let’s do it!!!!
Posted by dirrrtyfrank on February 21st, 2011Sounds like we need to do a DOGTOOTH/Mr. NOBODY episode of The Movie Club.
I don’t like Donnie Darko or Southland Tales. And Mr. Nobody is probably my favorite film of 2009. I don’t think the movie thinks it is that profound. It is much more of a nice looking drama piece that inserts interesting scientific and philosophic elements.
live reactions:
The time lapse photography stuff complaint: c’mon, really? That’s in about a hundred movies – not just Requiem for a Dream. And it’s been in about 100 since. It’s not a rip-off, it’s a technique used to show time progression that hundreds of films, tv, music videos, etc. have used for a long time.
something falling from the sky:
again, happens in 100s of movies/videos (Pearl Harbor?) It’s just a technique – I don’t think it thinks it’s trying to be profound or doing something new. It’s simply a used technique.
PS – it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011That “Love” movie, produced/scored by the guys from Angels and Airwaves also seem to be along the same line as Mr. Nobody.
Btw, it’s funny how Jay hates movies that have “Mr.” in the title haha.
Posted by Napalm on February 21st, 2011I would say the comments on those particular visuals are the LEAST of this films problems, but let me just say that it’s not simply the fact that Mr. Nobody uses a cinematic technique that’s been used before…it’s the fact that it uses TONS of them. For a film that seems to depend upon — and be praised for — its visuals, it certainly does nothing inventive, original or inspiring with them.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011I love Mr. Mom.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011To elaborate on the time lapse aspect. It was the context that bothered me the most. Time slowing down for the two lovers when they saw one another.
Posted by dirrrtyfrank on February 21st, 2011The perception of time, both spatial and temporal, I think were pretty interesting aspects of the movie.
Back to camera techniques, I don’t remember a lot of specifics, but I don remember some pretty neat trickery to segue from one lifetime to another.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011Donner Cut of Superman II is sooooooo much better than the theatrical cut.
Posted by Bryan (Drunken Zombie) on February 21st, 2011I disagree Bryan. There are things I like about the Donner cut (especially how Lois Lane figures out he’s Superman). But there are a lot of things I like better about the studio cut. I wish I could make the Andrew cut. It would be perfect.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011“The guy is the last guy on the planet, but that’s it, it’s not explored at all.”
Huh? Try not pushing FFWD on your DVD player.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011“art film”
I don’t really think it’s an art film. I think this has the potential to be a main stream film for people who are willing to imagine and think about things a little bit. Again, it’s dressed up with some “arty” elements but is much more of a sweeping drama that spans space and time.
“Sarah Polley’s character”
You ever met a person who has bi-polar? That Polley character and performance is pretty damn spot on and amazing.
So I can see not liking this movie, but the way you guys are bashing it like it’s the worst movie ever is simply wrong. Go watch “The Company Men” for a piece of shit.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011I think the problem is not Sarah Polley’s performance, it’s that the movie jumps between snapshots of different lives and timelines so we don’t get attached to any of these characters at all. We just get a very surface level glimpse at them, and when it’s hitting you over the head with these heavy emotional moments it feels very overwrought and cliched.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011Hitchcock explains how he got the plane shot in Foreign Correspondent here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSaRe2w0uYA– at about the 3:25 mark.
Posted by Nat Almirall on February 21st, 2011Hahaha, great review guys, of course I could not disagree more as I re-watched Mr. Nobody last weekend and I loved it as much as I did in the theatr and it flys by for me.
Your criticisms of the cliched use of various elements are valid, but as I watch the film it does not bother me at all as I am wrapped up in what is going on. Maybe I don’t watch with a critical eye or something, but it never felt like a mess to me, it all stitched together perfectly for me.
For the love story aspect, most of the criticisms were with respect to the relationship between the teenagers. When I was a lovestruck teenager back in the day, we absolutely spouted ridiculous lines of poetry and sappy lines to each other because all we knew about love and relationships came from books and movies. It felt real to me.
As for bi-polar Sarah Polley, she did a perfect representation. As a guy who was previously married to a bi-polar woman, I can speak from experience.
Anyway, I kind of expected Jay, Frank, and Greg to hate it, but thought Sean may like it a bit. Surprised to hear the vitriol from all of you. Oh well.
’til next week!
Posted by KeithTalent on February 21st, 2011Superman III is awesome sauce! and IV is balls.
Posted by Hero Supreme on February 21st, 2011We should have an end of the year Movie Club Podcast episode with only highly divisive films:
Dogtooth
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011Mr. Nobody
Enter the Void
That would be a pretty massive/awesome episode. I would almost say we should record it sooner than later though, while all of this stuff is fresh in our minds.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011Eliminate Dogtooh (The Whole Cinecast crew and Sean and Jay like it). Add I Saw the Devil.
Posted by Antho42 on February 21st, 2011Eliminate Dogtooth and I Saw the Devil and add Superman III.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011You guys should go to the cinema/drive-in together. You might just catch a good movie again.
Posted by FoxMulder on February 21st, 2011“mind numbingly poor filmmaking”
All I can say is I disagree. I can think of several films over the past few years that are examples of poor filmmaking. I just don’t see it here. I can appreciate your distaste for things that are cliche in here (and they’re actually valid), but the fact that’s it’s not original doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, like KeithTalent said above, I liked picking out the different influences and seeing how well (yes, well) that they mesh with one another.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011could you post the artwork that was sent in?
Posted by rjdelight on February 21st, 2011It’s on the Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=191753&id=123197420708
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011At least Jay knows what he was talking about with Dogtooth. I still don’t understand how anyone could be confused by that movie. It seems so straight forward to me – there really isn’t anything confusing about it at all. I can see why someone wouldn’t like it, but to be confused about pretty much anything about it is confusing.
Posted by Andrew James on February 21st, 2011I think Dogtooth distracts you with its weirdness and some of the shock value inherent to the film. The whole movie feels very off-kilter, partially because of the cinematography and the robotic nature of the kids. And again, there are things in the movie that are left ambiguous, maybe for good reason, but that kind of stuff generally creates confusion in movies.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011Jay and I agree on most things filmic and many entertainment aspects (it delighted me to find out we are very much on the same page in terms of MAGIC and the performances of sleight-of-hand), but funny that we have 2 films that we massively disagree on (Enter The Void and Mr. Nobody). It’s been said to me before that my ‘blind spot’ (not that I’m agreeing with this) is that I like messy convoluted films that are all over the place and possibly a bit trashy. It explains my like/defense of Southland Tales, Dr. Parnassus, Ultraviolet, Domino, The Fall, etc. etc. Anytime filmmakers can get these sorts of crazy big-budget cinematic clusterfucks off the ground, I’m pretty happy.
I’m down for a years-end podcast talking about some of the films but it is funny that Dogtooth, Enter The Void, and Mr. Nobody were all 2009 films, at least many people caught them in Canada and the US at festivals in that year, not in 2010 (or in terms of podcasting, 2011!)
Curious to hear Jay’s take on Sylvain Chomets THE ILLUSIONIST.
And in terms of fluffy/crazy over-convoluted wackiness, we do have Flash Gordon and ZardoZ coming up on The MOvie Club.. These films have had a bit more time and distance to acquire a cult audience, I expect the same for Mr. Nobody (and Dogtooth, Enter The Void, Southland Tales, etc.) down the road.
Posted by Kurt on February 21st, 2011Dogtooth
Mr. Nobody
Enter the Void
That’d be the best Movie Club Podcast episode ever. Or at the least maybe Southland Tales / Mr. Nobody. I also saw elements of Synecdoche New York & The Fountain as well in Mr. Nobody; the ideas were there, but the execution was poor in terms of narrative especially. The time-jumping works in a Vonnegut novel, but here it doesn’t allow for the audience to connect to any of the storylines in any way.
I’m going to elaborate more on my podcast but I realized that I should’ve waited to listen to this episode until AFTER because I’ll be reiterating a lot of the same points. I just got done listening to this episode, and completely agree on Mr. Nobody. Funny how last week, I completely disagreed with everyone on Dogtooth. These last 3 episodes have been divisive & fun nonetheless.
Posted by Jim The Movie Freak on February 21st, 2011Yes, magic is awesome. THE SHOWMANSHIP. If there’s one thing Mr. Nobody succeeds at it’s the ability to divert everyone’s attention from how horrible a film it is by flashing some theoretical physics on the screen every thirty minutes to fool you into thinking it’s smart. Classic slight of hand diversion!
On a positive note Kurt, I’ve just got my hands on Don’t Look Now and plan to check it out in the near future. I’m sure I won’t be disappointed.
P.S. I liked The Illusionist but would like to revisit it as I’d seen it during a long festival day and wasn’t as present as I would’ve liked to have been. I love Jacques Tati and it was fun to see him animated.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011I do hope you guys do that Movie Club podcast, I too love Mr. Nobody and Enter The Void and would like to hear a debate from both sides of the fence. Synecdoche, New York was amazing; sounds like I need to see Southland Tales…
With respect to Miike, I have only seen 4 of his films and the only one I really liked was Audition, which is pretty freaking awesome. I watched Visitor Q when it showed up on the agenda for the Movie Club podcast, but I think I just didn’t get it. Sukiyaki was a complete piece of shit; I actually turned it off after about 30 minutes and I try never to do that.
Posted by KeithTalent on February 21st, 2011I’d much prefer to do a Southland Tales / Synecdoche, NY episode of The Movie Club Podcast over Mr. Nobody / Enter the Void.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011And incidentally I’ve also been meaning to watch Don’t Look Now since it’s on Netflix and it’s expiring in a week or so.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011Footarded. Add that one to the vocabulary. I don’t know how I’ll use it, but I’ll try.
Posted by Dave on February 21st, 2011On board for “Foot Retarded” becoming an official word.
As for the Movie Club end-of-the-year podcast, I think instead Jay and Kurt should keep debating it in the comments here and then commission Rip Torn and a drunken Brian Cox to read them, followed by a cage-match fight to death between the two to decide who’s right. I’d gladly donate $20 for that shit.
Posted by Nat Almirall on February 21st, 2011I love the idea of retrospectively judging the Oscars and hope you guys do something interesting with it. Perhaps go through the last 10 years. For the films without 10 nominees you could select five other pictures when The Christopher Nolan Rule was not in effect. It will be a great part of next weeks show.
This also fits in well with Jay’s delightful rant about films that should not be nominated or win, without any justification for what the replacement should be. It is so very true. Even looking at the 2001 Oscars this is true. People can easily say A Beautiful Mind was not worthy, but considering the other nominees that year, no massive oversight seems to have occurred.
By actually having a look at this retrospectively it will provide a lot of perspective to that argument.
Posted by Juan Costrada on February 21st, 2011Actually Pacino played a “Gay” guy in Serpico that was before DogDay Afternoon.
(also a Pacino classic)
Posted by kyri on February 21st, 2011It’s been a while since I’ve seen it but I’m fairly certain Serpico is not a gay character.
Posted by Jay C. on February 21st, 2011The irony of “Footarded” is that in My Left Foot, he actually a genius of the foot.
Posted by dirrrtyfrank on February 21st, 2011Retrospectively looking back at the Oscars sounds like a lot of fun. I’d also suggest compiling top ten lists from whatever year(s) you end up choosing.
In regards to Hitchcock films, Foreign Correspondent is back on Netflix Instant Watch in the US, as well as Dial M for Murder, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, the first season of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, among other things.
If anyone is so inclined, you can go back and read my Flix Picks review of Foreign Correspondent at http://www.filmjunk.com/2010/10/28/flix-picks-foreign-correspondent/
Posted by Aaron on February 21st, 2011Also, to give credit, I first heard the retro-active Oscar idea on the Bill Simmons Podcast.
Posted by dirrrtyfrank on February 21st, 2011No, Serpico wasn’t gay, he was just mocked by his fellow officers for living in Greenwich Village, a well-know “homo-hostspot” of the 70s.
Posted by Fatbologna on February 21st, 2011Actually I think Bill Simmons stole it from Matt Damon because he was talking about it last year in interviews about the Oscars.
Posted by Sean on February 21st, 2011Nah, Sports Guy talked about it a few years ago I’m pretty sure.
I like the idea though; would be interesting to hear your takes on it.
Posted by KeithTalent on February 21st, 2011I’d rather you guys review movies that spark debate, rather than forcing yourself to review whatever the the big release is that weekend.
Great listen. keep up it up
Posted by Gord on February 21st, 2011Sean, DON’T LOOK NOW is a masterpiece. Do check it out ASAP, i can bring my DVD along when next we cross pathes if you miss the Netflix Window.
And for those wondering, here is my review after the 2nd theatrical visit (once during TIFF, once during its 6 day release in Toronto) — http://twitchfilm.com/reviews/2010/07/review-sort-of-mr-nobody.php
Posted by Kurt on February 21st, 2011I think It is vague on purpose and the film strongly implies that he was Gay but I don’t remember clearly either, maybe I was misled because Pacino’s performance was really toned down..
Posted by kyri on February 21st, 2011Great Film either way.
And great Soundtrack as well.
@Kyri,
Yo, I read the book. He ain’t gay! Maybe you’re thinking Cruising. He wasn’t gay in that either but it did get a little, how you say, touch-and-go towards the end there.
Sean,
Posted by Fatbologna on February 21st, 2011DON’T LOOK NOW is indeed amazing. Watch it quick!
It’s so sad to revisit this movies I just checked Pacino’s upcoming films in Wikipedia, man what a Disaster.
Posted by kyri on February 21st, 2011I think I am going to cast him as a pimp, I am quite positive I can afford him.. :p
While I liked Mr. Nobody the first time I watched it (I did not know anything about string-theory… so I guess that might be part of the charm) I am finding Film Junk’s complete trashing of the film very entertaining to listen to. There is no defense against that type of righteous anger.
Posted by alechs on February 21st, 2011Hilarious episode.
I listened to the Movie Club Podcast episode of Vistor Q/Irreversible just after sending in the question about Takashi Miike, and wish I had included it in the discussion.
Jay: I have hated every Takashi Miike movie I’ve seen except for Gozu. Gozu is what Vistor Q would have been if the entire movie was about lactating breast milk. It’s awesome.
Posted by Jonny Ashley on February 21st, 2011Best episode in months. Good job guys!
Posted by Kasper on February 21st, 2011Audition is Miike’s masterpiece(haven’t seen 13 Assassins).
In terms of the Movie Club Podcast, the best match would probably be Mr.Nobody/Southland Tales. The core members of the Movie Club Podcast all like Dogtooth, and Enter the Void is too shallow for a good conversation. Southland Tales is Kurt’s Lady in the Water.
Posted by Antho42 on February 21st, 2011The thing about Southland Tales is that, after you watch it a few times, you realize it actually makes sense and is fairly clever.
I doubt this will happen with Mr. Nobody… not that I’ll ever be compelled to watch it again.
Also, I’m of the mindset that Lady in the Water is a watchable movie… but I also thought that The Happening was watchable, so what the fuck do I know?
Posted by Colin on February 21st, 2011The Happening is an interesting film. Heck, I wouldn’t mine if more blockbusters had the same weird vibe.
Posted by Antho42 on February 21st, 2011A lot better than the safe, glossy tripe that is sold these days.
Posted by Antho42 on February 21st, 2011Willing to rewatch Audition, but could you give me a starting point on what you like about it? Maybe I came into it from the wrong perspective, but Miike’s films all tend to make me feel that way.
Posted by Jonny Ashley on February 22nd, 2011I had the impression that I was supposed to be surprised that the girl was a psycho killer. I got the impression that it was supposed to be a big Shyamalyan-type twist. But the girl was so boring leading up to the last 20 minutes that I was thinking the whole time, Geez, there better be something fucking interesting about this girl after 95 minutes of nothing happening.
Fantastic Episode, and a classic review of Mr. Nobody.
I’d second that suggestion of a Synecdoche, NY episode for the Movie Club. I loved the film and I think I remember that after the lukewarm review you gave the film initially Jay seemed to have liked it more after revisiting it.
By the way, someone brought this up already, but why not stick to this routine of reviewing movies that just hit DVD in weeks that nothing interesting comes to the theatre (I Love You Phillip Morris, Get Low, Leaves Of Grass, Please Give)? These last few episodes were great.
Posted by Sven on February 22nd, 2011I recently rewatched some old Bevis and Butthead on the Netflix. I remember laughing my preteen ass off to that shit. Time has not been good to the show. King of the Hill is way better.
Posted by Jason Martynowski on February 22nd, 2011somebody should count how many analogies were made during the review. I think it may be some kind of record.
Posted by Goon on February 22nd, 2011You guys should review Drive Angry next
Posted by mike on February 22nd, 2011Mr. Nobody was released in Paris, France last year. Went to see on a whim. By the end i was alone with another sad fellow. The film started with about 40 people in seats. Thinking back, not sure why i stayed
Posted by Jay Hayabusa on February 22nd, 2011Wow. Never seen any of the Superman movies? I’m jealous. II and III are pretty awesome movies. But just stop there; you’ll be glad you did.
Posted by Andrew James on February 22nd, 2011Epic disagree on great directors “dipping their toes” into comic book films. I AM willing to write off Aronofsky’s version of Wolverine. Just like I’m not bothering with Gondry’s Green Hornet. I don’t think the director has a whole lot of say in these things. It’s going to have to stick to conventions for the most part.
Some might argue back with the Nolan Batman films, but really go back and watch TDK. Take out Ledger’s performance and the movie really isn’t all that good or interesting.
How about Sam Raimi? He wasted at least 7 years on the Spiderman movies which are boring pieces of shit and then he comes out and makes something awesome like Drag Me to Hell.
I don’t think these lame comic book super hero movies “taint” the directors’ other works, but it just seems like a waste of time when they could be doing something much more interesting. Aronofsky goes from The Fountain, Wrestler, Black Swan to do a Woverine movie? Really? I’ll still love those earlier movies, but unless he really breaks the mold, goes against the grain of what the studio surely wants him to do and pisses off all of the hard core fans, I seriously doubt Wolverine will be worth the time of day.
Posted by Andrew James on February 22nd, 2011Another fantastic episode. Also @Andrew James, I’d argue that Aaron Eckhart was a large factor in the quality of TDK, not as big as Ledger obviously, but he pulled his weight for sure. The plot overall was solid, and saying without Ledger it isn’t good isn’t fair because he’s such an integral part of the plot, there is no TDK without him.
Anyway, my friends and I recently started a film podcast, and if anyone wants to check it out, feel free. Any feedback and interaction would be greatly appreciated:
http://www.we-rate-stuff.com/2011/02/wrs-presents-projection-room-e04.html
Posted by brad on February 22nd, 2011“…and pisses off all of the hard core fans”
This is necessary to make a good Wolverine because…. why exactly? There’s scores of quality Wolverine source material that the two are far from mutually exclusive.
Posted by Goon on February 22nd, 2011Jay & Frank bashing Mr. Nobody at the beginning of the review was like them fingercuffing an ugly chick, donkey-punching her and giving daps at the same time. Sweet!
Posted by Heaven's Smile on February 22nd, 2011@Fatbologna
I agree with you. Fuck Jared Leto in his stupid eyes. With a sword.
Posted by patrik on February 22nd, 2011@Andrew James I agree on TDK, it is a bit overrated.. It´s very good but nowhere near the level that most people seem to hold it to. Disagree on Raimi though Spiderman 1 & 2 are awesome and I don´t think Aronofsky would do it unless he gets a lot of control.
Posted by patrik on February 22nd, 2011The more you dislike the movie the longer you talk about it. Great review. Phantastic chemistry.
Posted by nullnullschmidt on February 22nd, 2011“How about Sam Raimi? He wasted at least 7 years on the Spiderman movies which are boring pieces of shit and then he comes out and makes something awesome like Drag Me to Hell.”
@Andrew James: Woah, woah, woah. Andrew, you’re not applying this to Spiderman 2 are you? The first and third are nothing spectacular, albeit I still like them for what they are. Spiderman 2, however, is a masterpiece! The Hospital scene alone is Raimi at his best, but the whole fucking movie is extraordinarily well-done and never boring. It’s probably my favorite comic book movie. It’s a toss-up between Spiderman 2 and Superman 2 for me. In fact, I definitely would watch Spiderman 2, over Drag Me To Hell any day (although I love both of them). Don’t be hating on Raimi’s foray into comic-books. He did an excellent job despite faltering with the 3rd one.
Posted by Jim The Movie Freak on February 22nd, 2011I wish the person who emailed asking for visually stunning films akin to The Fall didn’t include the derailing question about Dogtooth’s Oscar prospects, because I really want the Film Junk guys to give us their lists!
Posted by Mike on February 22nd, 2011Hey Jim,
Yeah I find all three Spiderman movies to be pretty boring. Now to be fair (or not fair I guess) I’ve only seen the movies one time each; in the theater. I almost dozed off in part one and part three was just schlocky. I do agree that two is the best one but I think it was really only because of Alfred Molina. To be honest though, they’re all so spectacularly unmemorable that I might be willing to give at least part two another look – but only under the right circumstances (like if I’m at someone’s house and they happen to turn to it).
Not sure why everyone holds those movies in such high regard. To me they follow the same formula as every other super hero film. The main character farts around for an hour and a half contemplating his existence and the reason for his angst while neat-o special effects prove that it looks cool (for a while) when a blue and red blur swings through the city. Then the evil villain (or in the case of part three, all six villains) finally rears his ugly head after plotting the entire film, by dangling the damsel in distress from a tall building. Spiderman kicks some ass, fin.
Snooze.
Posted by Andrew James on February 22nd, 2011And again, if people like these movies, good for you. My point is I hate it when these really interesting directors do something ultimately formulaic when they could be doing something fresh and interesting.
I mean I admit I’m curious to see what Fincher does with Dragon Tattoo. But not at the expense of him not doing another Fight Club or Social Network. Where would the world be if P.T. Anderson passed on the Boogie Nights project to direct a film about Silver Surfer or some such nonsense? Up shit creek that’s where.
Posted by Andrew James on February 22nd, 2011Taking bait…
“The main character farts around for an hour and a half contemplating his existence”
This is not inherently uninteresting Andrew. Just because you don’t relate to Spider-Man (fuck knows what you relate to, other than american heroes who kill themselves to preserve democracy and freedom), doesn’t mean his struggle to cope with his life is objectively less interesting.
Posted by Henrik on February 22nd, 2011I had a chance to see Dial M for Murder in 3D at a London 3D classic horror movie festival and it was excellent. There were no 3D gimmicks and was done very subtlety. The fact that it only really takes place in the apartment makes you feel like you are really there.
Posted by Xidor on February 23rd, 2011Yeah that’s weird. I had no idea “Dial M for Murder” was in 3D. The movie itself is fantastic and I can’t see how it could possibly benefit from the “three dimesnsions” – still, I guess I’d be curious to see how Hitchcock handled it.
Was “The Birds” in 3D as well?
PS – I thought “Lifeboat” was kind of mediocre.
Posted by Andrew James on February 23rd, 2011Two further litmus test movies I’d be curious that the FJ crew liked or disliked based on Mr. Nobody (not Forest Gump, The Fall or Southland Tales all interesting comparisons)
Jeux D’enfants (Love me if you Dare) – Yann Samuel 2004
Big Fish – Tim Burton 2003
‘Overstuffed’ trying to have its cake and eat it too style films with a fair bit of ‘melodrama’
Posted by Kurt on February 23rd, 2011I remember liking Big Fish, but it’s been a while since I’ve seen it. It did seem a bit sappy, but the whole fairy tale thing worked for me.
Posted by Sean on February 23rd, 2011Mr. Nobody is a fairy tale of sorts. I treated it as a large ‘what if’ Not a ‘realistic movie about character depth and whatnot (for the record, I think Forest Gump and Benjamin Button are aiming more for ’serious characters’ and ‘realistic’ whereas Mr. Nobody ain’t)
Posted by Kurt on February 23rd, 2011@Andrew: Give Spiderman 2 another look. I feel like it was the best amagalm of superhero movie and Sam Raimi’s stylistic confidence behind the camera. I’m a Raimi apologist. Even a movie like Quick and The Dead is spectacular for some of the over-the-top cinematography. Guys like Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi have a control over the camera unlike many filmmakers I know – guys who have fun keeping things moving. I can’t say I defend a lot of Tony Scott’s choices but I will stand by most of Raimi’s work simply because of his wacked-out POV shots, fast zooms, and camera tilts. If you watch that hospital scene in Spiderman 2, and aren’t AMAZED by how it’s put together, then you need to make sure your brain hasn’t even been eaten by a deadite. Spiderman 2 and Drag Me To Hell, have moments that recall the glory days of Evil Dead-era Raimi. The latter, more obviously so.
Spiderman 2 may have similar archetypes that you find lifeless, and plot elements of the superhero genre which may have been played out, but Raimi turns them into gold mainly due to his energy and flourish as a director (JK Simmons helps in the same way as well). I don’t know what went wrong with Part 3, but Spiderman 2 should be held in high regard as one of the very best comic books movies… even better than The Dark Knight.
Posted by Jim The Movie Freak on February 23rd, 2011Well, as the wise and worldly John Campea once said (and continues to say every chance he can get)…the beauty of film is that it’s subjective!! (DUH).
All I can say is that if someone had told me that Mr. Nobody was actually produced by the Onion as a parody of precious, whimsical, ‘indie’ flavoured cinema, I probably would’ve appreciated it a hell of a lot more.
Posted by Jay C. on February 23rd, 2011Well, perhaps you could appreciate Mr. Nobody as Camp. The best kind of Camp is when the directors are deadly serious about the film, not doing a tongue-in-cheek knowing parody.
I don’t feel this way about the film, but your mileage may vary.
Posted by Kurt on February 23rd, 2011Just talking to someone last night about Dial M in 3D. I totally forgot it played here last summer during a local theater’s “vintage 3D movies” showcase. IT played along with Towering Inferno and some others. Wish I had gotten out to a couple of those.
As for SM2, I’ll give it another look at some point. I know the actual discs are really cheap these days. Too bad they’re not on Netflix Instant
Posted by Andrew James on February 24th, 2011Leave a Reply