What kind of a show you guys.
Putting on here today?
You're not interested in art?
Now?
No, Look, we're going to do this thing.
We're going to have a.
Conversation from Chicago. This is Film Spotting celebrating our twentieth year. I'm Adam Kempenar.
And I'm Josh Larson. In the material I'm probably not someone you want to date, because the next person I date I'm going to marry. Are you hitting on me? That's Dakota Johnson maybe hitting on Pedro Pascal in Materialists. The ram not so Calm from director Selene Song. It's her follow up to twenty twenty three's Past Lives.
Our Review, plus the Stephen King adaptation The Life of Chuck starring Tom Hiddleston. That and more. Who's Chuck Ahead on Film Spotting, Welcome to Film Spotting. The audience award winner at last year's Toronto International Film Festival, The Life of Chuck is now in theaters. Seems like it might be having a hard time fighting an audience. It was buried in my Multiplex, in the very end of the aisle, in the smallest theater.
Josh, Yeah, I saw it with maybe three or four other people, but it was a mid day, weekday showing, so I don't know, it wasn't aware that it was struggling, and maybe that's too bad. I guess we'll discuss.
We will a review of that later in the show, and we'll get your thoughts on Pixar's Elo, which is new in theaters this weekend. Plus we will have a little massacre theater, but first materialists. Selene Song's Past Lives was one of the stand up films of twenty twenty
three and an incredibly promising debut. Her latest, which is now in wide release, is a love and money triangle with Dakota Johnson as a Manhattan matchmaker who's caught between rich guy Pedro Pascal and her broke former bow Chris Evans. Here's Johnson and Pascal.
You look about six feet tall. How much money do you make?
Just straight up like that? I make eighty grand a year before Texas?
Do you make more or less than that?
More?
I know?
Finance right, private equity?
Do you want to drink?
Sure?
What do you want?
Cochin beer?
About a week ago on its Instagram, A twenty four posted Selene Song's email list of films that were references for Materialists. On it you will find multiple movies by James Ivory, James L. Brooks, Mike Lee, Mike Nichols, Jane Campion, Robert Altman, Joe Wright, Yeah, Both Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, a Pta, A Yang, and a few others. Under the heading movie about similar job as matchmakers were Jerry Maguire, Hale, Caesar and Money, A section that may require its own
show at some point. Curiously not on the list, well curious to me anyway, any mention of Woody Allen, I know, I might as well be summoning Voldemort. And while I know there are Alan films you appreciate, Josh, my hunch is that over the course of your sinophile life you may not have been as big a fan of his
work as I am. This prompt may then be quite dissatisfying. Nevertheless, the initial level on which Materialists satisfied me was the same as many Woody Allen movies, watching smart talkie characters saying smart things do each other against the beautiful backdrop
of New York City. With deference to David Wayne, it is almost another character, after all, and from the late seventies through the eighties, Allen's films, like Materialists, were mostly introspective, women centered movies about navigating love and desire and disappointment. Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, September, Another Woman, Purple Rosa, Cairo Broadway, Danny Rose, Alice. I might even be skipping
one or two. I would not say everyone in Allen's films are bad people, just as I wouldn't say everyone in Songs film are bad people. But there's enough solipsism to go around, and sometimes both filmmakers are even in on the joke, taking shots at their fellow New Yorkers, such as the couple montages we get in Materialists, where Dakota Johnson's Lucy the matchmaker, her clients, with no hint of self awareness whatsoever, tell her exactly what type of
man or woman they want and deserve. Now, Josh, I'm not expecting you to go all in on the song Alan model I've attempted to establish here, though, of course you're free to accept or reject it. Mostly, I want you to tell me the level on which you appreciated Materialists, and how you felt about the movie. Overall.
The Allen comparison is interesting. You are probably right. I'm not the person to ask about the validity of that have seen you know, some of his more important movies. He was a filmmaker when I first encountered him many many years ago before a lot of a lot of a lot of hell and stuff I just didn't immediately
click with. And so by the time I, you know, felt like I need to give some films second chances or explore other ones, he kind of fell back to the bottom of the list of of you know, priorities. That said, I have seen Manhattan and immediately recognized it as brilliant, And I think that maybe one of the key comparison techs if you were going to do that exercise, I'll let you tell me Hannah and her Sisters I've also seen, but seems a little less a little less
of a fruitful comparison point. What I think you know you're probably onto is one of the things, for sure, you said, the smart dialogue Materialists is so sharply written, maybe too sharply written for some of its cast, which will get to but I definitely think that's one of the strengths, and that's surely a strength of Allen's movies.
I think the view of New York is cynically romantic, and you describe those montages well, of the New Yorkers exposing themselves and their vapidity in a way that Alan frequently would expose his own faults as a narcissistic pseudo
intellectual in many ways. So they have that in common as well, the one key divergence, and maybe this can bring us more towards materialists that from the few Allen films New York sete Allen films I've seen is that I do think over two films now Song has established herself as a romantic and I think that impulse is there in the Allen rom coms, if you want to say that I've seen, But ultimately his characters are incapable of sustaining romance. They want it, they desire it, and
they may find it fleetingly. Again, I'm mostly thinking of Manhattan here, but I don't know that we ever believe they'll find it. And I think that past lives, while acknowledging the messiness and complexities in the same way Alan does of relationships, while acknowledging those things, still deeply believes in a romantic endpoint Materialists, I think brings us there in a way that I didn't find quite as convincing as Past Lives did. I think it's a good movie.
I think it's worth seeing, and there are some limitations to it. Why for me it's not on the level of Past Lives for that matter, not in the level of Manhattan either.
No, that's interesting. That take on Allan is interesting too, because Manhattan for me has maybe as conventionally a romantic ending as you could possibly have. And I might believe that ending actually more than I believe the ending here with material.
That's key, right, do you believe in it? It's less about plotting and what we're left with? And Okay, do we believe this couple has a chance, do they deserve a chance? Can they possibly make it well?
And beyond that, do I care? Really? Do I care? Is the key question? And this is one of those cases I will say, And this is the fun part of talking this out. Unlike you, who ninety five percent plus of the time you have written out your review before you come to the conversation, so you already have rated the movie. I have never done that. I have a rating in mind, and I usually stick to it, but I haven't had that occasion or that reason to
do so. I usually know how I feel about the movie before the conversation, and like I said, I stick to that kind of gut reaction that I left the theater with. Here's the case, Josh, where overall I feel like I'm mildly positive about the movie, and that's how I felt coming out of the theater. But all of my notes, everything that I have to articulate about the film, it's all thoughts about why I'm not more positive about
the film. And I've got a few negative comments here and there, not from critics, but just a few commenters on social media who mostly seem upset that they got sold or expected. Who knows what the marketing was. I didn't see the trailer for the film, but they expected a rom com and they didn't get one. I have no issue with that. Again, I didn't see the marketing. I guess I do have a little issue though, with not having much rom I don't know. This goes back
to what we were talking about. I don't know that at any point I ever cared whether Lucy ended up with either one of these guys. And part of that is because we're going to talk about other parts of it. But The first one I'll go with is part of that is that I never got the sense that Lucy herself felt much anguish about that. She never seemed to have much anguish about who she ended up with or whether she needed to end up with any one at all. It really felt more like the plot needed her to
end up with someone. That's clearly the course the movie charted for her. This is partly I think to go to Johnson's performance too. But there's a coolness to her, There's a detachment to her that that does make her kind of mysterious and interesting, one of those kind of
cool New Yorkers who I don't mind listening to. When she's having a conversation with someone, you are drawn to her, and it somewhat does heighten the emotional breakdown she has later over something that has no connection to her relationships, but that whole math thing that she always talks about. It makes her very clinical as a character and not so romantic, and I found that character in general. I think I like Johnson's performance. I found the character a
bit hard to get a read on. And some of this I will acknowledge it could be me wanting to simplify a character that actually on the page and on the screen is more complex, but she comes off as thisticated, very smart New Yorker who's been on the job so long, and she's all knowing and she's got that cynicism down.
And then when she's in Pedro Pascal's apartment, that penthouse for the first time, this multimillion dollar penhouse, she acts like she's Cinderella who can't get over the chandeliers when she steps into Prince Charming's castle. You know, I didn't. I couldn't quite.
Reconcile that this is fascinating because it's something I've been wrestling over thinking about materialists in comparison to past lives. Because the lead there, Greta Lee, I appreciated that performance quite a bit, but it was much more removed and in some ways clinical, than the performance of one of
the male leads, Tail You, who played Heysong. I fell head and over heels for Heysong, but he was more of the pining, romantic figure, right, And Greta Lee playing the main character, Nora, she was a little more hesitant about their potential relationships, a little more mercy. I think I described her even as mercenary and so in a way we're describing two different types of people who have
anchored past lives now and materialists. You know, so both of these films by Celine Song have women at their center who have some similarities. At least as you're describing it, I'm recognizing it, and it's starting to help me work through. I think that was part of my remove as well, with the character of Lucy in Materialists. But then you pair that and here's where I think we do differ. As I said, I thought Greta Lee gave a very
good performance. I have long struggled with Dakota Johnson, and to my mind, I think why it doesn't work for me here in Materialists is because I don't think she has the ability to take a character that's a little more clin, little maybe more mercenary, a little more removed, and hint at the full human underneath, which Greta Lee
was able to do. And I know some people love Johnson, and to me here I just found that the thinness that has always existed in her screen presence for me was especially stark when she was given such great dialogue and you could just hear how it should. In my mind, there are some lines she has here, including one I won't give away, but it's really the key line in the movie where I could hear in my head how it should be affecting me, but just Johnson's delivery, it
was not landing. Now. I know people have defended her as, you know, a master of underplane, and I usually appreciate that type of acting style, you know, more than the in your face obviousness. But for me, she's somewhere in between those two, and there's just there's just not Here's the way I kind of thought about It's not so much about thinking about what she might be doing wrong here,
but what a few other actors and materialists are doing right. Yes, Pascal and Evans, I mean they almost carry her through this thing, they're so charming. But how about two smaller parts of women. These are both Lucy's clients. They only get brief scenes in Zoe Winters as a skiddish No, it's Louisa Jacobson, I should say, plays a skittish bride, and then Zoe Winters plays a client who gets a few more scenes than one because it's more complicated subplot.
But really she's only on the screen. I think in maybe three scenes. Both of them. They pop on the screen immediately, and their characters you can imagine their entire lives with what they're giving you in those scenes. They are interesting, they're complicated, they're compelling, they're messy. You want to know more about their stories. To your point, I don't know that I ever was equally invested in Lucy's story, even though Materialist is ostensibly her story.
Yeah, I don't. I see what you're saying. But I also don't think that's completely fair because I think that comparison. When you have a part that really gives you one or two key scenes to dig into, and you know that that's all you have on screen, you're going to bring everything you have to that scene, and especially in the case of one of those scenes, it's it's the
most emotional scene in the film. Dakota Johnson obviously can't bring that to every scene, but could she bring It's almost in could bring it to the key So that that might be the part where we disagree a little bit. But but I think overall, we're we're seeing we're seeing a failing in the film. I'm just attributing it a little more, maybe to a Thinness I see overall in
the film, and you're seeing it in Johnson. And the reason why I'm attributing it less to Johnson is just because overall as a performer, I have seen her in other parts, and I've given her credit in other parts for having such an easily accessible well of emotion. I think she is such an intelligent performer usually, and also her comedic chops she is such here again, She's such a smart performer. I think she can just so easily tap in. She has such good instincts usually that I've
seen on screen. So I'm hesitant. I'm hesitant to put that blame for the thinness on her. And this is why, because other I have other aspects of that lack of romance and the lack of my investment that I think go back to maybe just something in the screenplay and the direction. And I think we may even get at the line. I don't know what line you're referring to, but I have an idea that well, we'll get to here in a second. So you mentioned Evans and Pascal
here again. Is it a question, josh of is that the performers, Is that the script itself? When I said that I had no investment in this romance and this love try in these relationships. Neither of these men on their own are interesting beyond what they represent.
Right.
Pascal is a really good actor, and I think he probably does everything he can with this character. But after his big scene in the restaurant where he gets to push back on Lucy and he gets to make his pitch to her to see her more seriously, does he have does he actually have another Well, except for the scene at the end, there are other big scenes. Does he have another scene of substance in the rest of
the film. I don't think he does. He mostly is the guy who picks up the beer tab or picks up another tab, or is the guy watching Chris Evan's play that he doesn't get, or he's just laying in bed the entire rest of the film. He doesn't do anything else of substance. The rest of the film. He's the guy doing all those things I said, or the
guy offering to take her to ice. He is a stereotypical finance bro, and the only thing that makes him interesting, as the film puts him forward, is that he doesn't seem interested for being a finance bro. He doesn't seem interested in dating supermodels, even though, of course Dakota Johnson is kind of a supermodel. He is rich guy. He is a rich guy, and that's it. And Evans, of course is poor guy who happens to be an actor.
And I suppose that inherently makes him a little bit more interesting, right to me and probably to you than finance dude. But that's just my bias. We don't really know much about him other than that he's poor and he's an actor, and that he loves Lucy and the other thing we know about him. And I think this is where Song stacks the deck a little bit and also really removes any potential for suspense, if there was any. Is that when Lucy gets into some trouble, she doesn't
go to Harry, she doesn't say anything to him. She calls John. And is that really because John is so much of a better listener. Would Harry not listen? What Harry not offered advice if she was seeking it? Don't know. Maybe she's just more comfortable with John, so that's who she turns to, right But the fact that she turns to him tells us everything we need to know about where this is going.
Yeah, I had a little hiccup over that decision, but I do think I think because immediately preceding it, she has a conversation with John that is about the same topic and he's not on the same wavelength as.
Ants, and that he's not perfect.
Yes, yes, And so I did hesitate over that, but I do think it makes sense. This is part of her processing of what she feels about Harry, and so even if it doesn't make necessarily logical emotional sense, it makes like the deeper level of emotional sense to her to reach out to him. So it was a little bit of a hiccup scene. And it's interesting because, you know, just to go back real brief that I don't have a ton to say about this, but this whole question of it's not a rom com, what are they doing
to us? You know? I think one of the strengths of Materialists is the way it bends any romantic comedy expectations, not just not just by becoming this serious drama, but by bending our expectations towards something more serious. And this little moment we're discussing right now as an example of that, because that's how we usually watch rom coms, right they're very judgy movies. We as the audience are very judgy. We're always asking, you know, why should she choose him?
She should choose him? Wait, why is she doing making this decision? Why is she making that decision? And I believe that song is after something more subtle and complicated, and so she's bending those expectations in little choices like that. Okay, I've got to defend these two though, I do want to. I know we've referenced their names, but now I do want to look on their IMDb page and see if they're credited as just rich guy. They could be.
Harry and John are pretty boring names too. Sorry, tell the Harry and John's out there.
You're not wrong. I think they are types for sure, but it's those types are bent in the same way the genre is being bent. And here I will credit again the writing. I think some of the dialogue is pretty exquisite, that each men are given in certain scenes and the performances here is where maybe I didn't believe in Harry as like a real human in the real world or John necessarily, but I wanted to spend more time with them. I wanted to see how they did
respond to Lucy and which relationship would go where? And I think, you know, I think you're under selling the two key scenes that Pascal has his introduction, which is fantastic, That whole the whole meat. It's not even cute, it's just meat. Charming at the wedding, I think works and establishes him as something more than just rich guy. Okay, he does have these other interests, why does he passop these opportunities that he has that you're mentioning. There's curiosity
there at least for me. And then the later scene, which does give away a lot, so we don't want to get too much into it, but I think that's where Harry just opens up into You're right, this guy who we thought we had pegged is so much more. And in between, is it a lot of you know, Richard gear and pretty woman montage? Yes, that's the thing. It's a little too late, but you know what, I was having fun in that montage. I wanted to see what restaurant he was going to take us to next.
Now Evans. For Evans, I think his character is maybe even more thinly written. But there's something about the way Evans looks at Dakota Johnson, that makes you believe I agree with that something there, and b we want to know what's going to happen to the two of them. So that's just charisma of a sort that this movie is is demanding, and I think he delivers. Yeah.
I guess for me, there was there was hope with Pascal, especially after that fun introduction, the meet cute, whatever you want to call it. As you said that, I really hoped that the first thing he'd say to her after he finally does convince her and after they do take their relationship to the next level, that the first thing he would say to her isn't let me take you
to Iceland. That basically he wouldn't just continue to buy her, which is really what he's doing, you know, And it just me suggested to me, Yeah, money, the movie's called Materialists, I get it. I know what the central conflict is. I wish that that character had a chance to show that there was something more to him than that. You said you wanted to spend more time with him. I did too, but mainly because I wanted to see I wanted the movie to prove to me that there was something more to them.
But that scene between I'm near.
And not saying the one at the end, and I'm saying I'm saying yes at that point, just two little so you said subtlety. So that's the other. That's the other thing that I want to talk about a little bit. And up to this point I haven't really made the
comparison to Pass Lives, though. Both of the key things I've brought up could be comparisons to Pass Lives, right, not feeling that there was enough of a romantic connection between the three main characters, not feeling that there was enough of a conflict over who she would end up with or who she should end up with, not feeling that the characters had enough depth on their own. Those
were not issues with Past Lives for me, certainly. The other non issue with Past Lives that I struggled with here a little bit is that was a movie, maybe because of everything else that I just mentioned, that was a movie that mined the spaces in between, the physical spaces in between characters, the space between what said and unsaid. We got to do a lot of observing and a lot of filling in of blanks. And maybe that's even
why I didn't mind the detachment so much. Of Greta Lee's character in her performance, because that, for me, was where I was able to do some of the.
Fillings the record. I thought, I think Greta's great in past last yeah.
Yeah, So so many of those blanks felt to me like they were filled in here and characters told us what the takeaways are or what the takeaways were supposed
to be. There is a key scene early on with Lucy and one of her matches, a bride who is getting married, and she has to go in and save the day and convince her to get married, and she performs what I think, I think the movie believes is both a bit of a parlor trick that she's pulling and the truth in that I think Lucy believes what she's selling anyway, and as viewers, we don't know it then, but we do come fairly quickly to realize that this is going to be a recurring theme in the movie.
This is actually kind of the theme of the movie, and I like the idea behind it, which is this idea of value. What do we value in relationships? Goes back to the title of the movie. Obviously, how much value do we place on material things, things that have a practical or market value versus things that don't that you can't actually put a price tag on. What does
it say about about how we then value ourselves? And this all ties together what Lucy keeps saying, which is that it's all math, right, And I'm gonna come back to this maybe here a little bit later too, But this this idea that what she does is really just all math. You know that there there isn't there isn't some alchemy, really, that it's all just about checking boxes. She keeps saying over and over again that you know, you checked several boxes, so of course they ended up together.
It's all a really interesting idea, I think, to explore in a movie. But Josh, how many times in this movie does a character keep bringing up the idea of what they're worth and even keep using the same phrases over and over again. There's actually there's actually a part in the movie where Evans near the end says, do you think I'm that disposable? And I loved it. I was about ready to stand up and cheer. I loved the phrase. It was such a perfect evocation of this idea.
And then he says, is that all I'm worth to you, and I thought, just just put the pen down. You know, it's such a it was such a great line on its own. There was a bit for me, there was there was overwriting with this film following a movie with Past Lives that I felt was just you know, it just had so much, so much great use of space.
Yeah, I think in comparison to Past Lives that is true, though as you just pointed out, there are some great lines here as well. Yes, so it might just be a point of emphasis, especially for you. I mean I found that scene that's that's one of the ones I cited with one of the supporting actors who I thought was so good, Louisa Jacobson as that bride and the line you know, she's asked what makes you most happy about your husband? And she says something about that her
sister's jealous that I have. Yes, that is why she would marry him. And I think the phrase she says is like that makes me feel like I've won. And this gets back to like your Woody Allen thing about the complications and the messiness and the cynicism. This is where there is some of Allan's cimicism in Materialists, and I think that is to its credit. I do want to say that one thing I appreciated that song brings over from Past Lives is and this has something to
do with the spaces you're describing for contemplation. Yes, there's not nearly as much of that here as there is in Past Lives, but she does find some moments to give us that, and the camera work is part of it. Here she's working with Schabier Kirchner again from Past Lives, and there's a very there's a softness to the cinematography and also an unhurried camera I think to many of the scenes that I found to be contemplative compared to
what here's another rom com expectation. Rom Coms move very fast, right very fast, and here even the montages of Harry as Richard gear in Pretty Woman, those aren't hurried. Those aren't fast. It's we're able to sit with them quietly in these gorgeous soft and yes, maybe it's all a play on the same idea that he's spoiling her, but I think there's a lot of back and forth between them in those scenes too, exactly what are we doing here?
What do you want? What are you looking for? Both of them are realists and cynics, to the point that at the end of the day they both understand I think his wealth is not going to seal the deal, so what else is going on here? And I think in moments like that, even the camera work allows us to sit and think about those questions in a way that is more complicated and more patient then you'd get in a traditional rom com and more in tune with something that we get in past lives.
Yeah, I think that's fair and I noticed it as well, especially in that conversation scene between them where she kind of lays out her philosophy and he counters that. And the camera is a single shot, a long shot, right. We see their whole bodies, We see the table, we see the chef's cooking in the kitchen. It's very elegant, it is very soft, it's beautiful to look at. It matters that we see that entire space and we see
them existing in that space. And I felt all of that and everything you said watching it, And then there was also a part of me, Josh, I have to admit there was a part of me, a small part of me, that also felt a little bit like it was giving Pascal's character short shrift because songs withholding from him in a way, right as a viewer, the close up, the fact that we don't ever get to see him fully, you know, use everything in his toolbox on her felt
like something that we missed out on. Now she uses she only uses a close up, as I recall, with one of those men later in the film. It's a scene with Chris Evans and her in one of the big scenes near the end of the movie, and it's actually a very it's a very clunky cut, and it's completely ineffective, and the movie functions so much better when she allows those characters to just be both in the frame together. That's my sense anyway.
Yeah, I'm trying to remember if if Pascal gets any close ups in that opening wedding meeting scene. There may be one or two there, But yeah, and the other moment we haven't touched on. But I do think as key as as far as the John relationship goes, we do get an instructive flashback moment. Now maybe too Lucy and John's previous relationship. Now, maybe you could say that's short cutting because it's not a motif where we get more of these later, right, I think it's my a
standalone flashback. I believe this I'm misremembering, but I did think it was quite effective in deepening his character and chipping away at the type, you know, the poor guy romantic type that he's playing.
Yeah, I did want to bring this up. I said, I was gonna maybe come back to this idea. Of course, this wasn't in my mind at all as I was watching the movie, or even as I left the theater, because I hadn't yet seen the Life of Chuck. We're going to talk about that movie a little bit later. And sometimes this happens, right we see two movies. It sort of randomly happens that two movies open at the same time, and there's a connection between them. And it only occurred to me as I was preparing for our
conversation today. All this talk in materialists about math. She brings it up over and over again. The math, the math, math, it's all math. Love is just checking the boxes if the math works out. The Life of Chuck being an accountant, the grandfather character will tell talk about it near the end of the film. A great deal of attention is paid to this idea of math, and I'm not spoiling anything, Nor am I sort of jumping ahead of our conversation.
I'm just making this connection here. A character in that film says, math is truth. It won't lie to you, it doesn't factor in your preferences. It's pure that way math can be art. So obviously that direct parallel to materialists. But what strikes me, and I'm just curious whether or not you see what I'm saying here or am I just overcomplicating something. She keeps saying that matchmaking and love is just math math math? And my question then is, so why is she good at her job? Why do
you even need a matchmaker? Then why doesn't the movie acknowledge, actually, like the Life of Chuck does, that math is math, but math can also actually be art. If math is just math and love is just math, then why not just have an algorithm do it? Why not have the computer literally just check the boxes and connect people. I saw Hollywood Reporter headline for this movie where a matchmaker was praising the movie for how it portrays the profession,
and I was kind of confused. Josh, Actually, I mean I get it, but also I was confused because I think the movie is a very confused portrayal at minimum, because the movie says, or it seems to suggest that you need a human being, that she's really great at her job, and people like this who care. But then the character the human being who's the matchmaker says, basically, a machine can do it. It's all just math. Why does the movie allow for the art of it.
I didn't see that gap between her respect for her job and the idea of math. I did understand that she felt to be able to articulate it to it.
She never articulates that to anyone else, though. When she talks about her job and what she does mean, she only frames it in terms of I read that six foot tall, two hundred thousands.
I know that has heard, you know, down plane her contributions, because those were like humble brags to me. She's being celebrated at the start of the film for what nine weddings she's responsible for. She's presented as the star of this industry, and that suggests that there is some art to it. That you can't just hire someone, plug them in, give them the profiles, and they'll add up to get
the right equation. I always just assumed that it's accepted she's the artist of this of this realm, and when she was denying that, I felt it was like, you know, kind of like it's accepted. You know, I'm good. I know I'm good. Just let's not let's not talk about it. And and that is where to me, the romanticism is still there in the movie, because ultimately it pushes back on the math idea, even if she's the one, even if she's the one who's constantly touting.
But that's like the movie ultimately rejects the idea that it's all, so she has to hold that idea for the movie to reject it.
Yeah, and I think I think she she has to come to that realization if there's you know, and I've already I don't think there's much of an interior journey for this character. But if there is one, I think it's that it's it's the realizing that, you know, there is more to the math, which is something she kind of already knows, doesn't want to admit, and has to at the end if she wants to pursue what she thinks will make her happy. Yeah.
For me, it's it's just emblematic of a character who for me overall is a little bit Confused from the beginning. Materialists is currently playing in wide release. If you see it and agree or disagree with our takes, you can email us feedback at film spotting dot net.
Listening is the number one thing you can do to support an independently produced show like ours. A couple more things you can do. Take a minute to give us a rating or a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Doesn't matter if you're a first time listener or you've been listening for twenty years. Every new review helps us reach new listeners. We want to say thanks to Nahal VK for his recent review on Apple Podcasts. Here's Nihal. I was a film student years back, but life took
me on a different track. Listening to the show has brought me back on track, as the show is a guiding light on what interesting films are out and worth the time investment. So thanks to both of you, I have lit up my movie passion once again and I'm always looking for the next film to enjoy after listening to your fabulous lists.
Thank you very much, Nahal. This is also the spot where we typically feature a member of the film Spotting family, but Josh, as we have been over the past few weeks, we're highlighting some of those twentieth anniversary messages that have
come in from Film Spotting listeners. We're going to share a few more over the next several weeks, and we offered a few different prompts like my favorite show memory is, or the thing I value about film Spotting, or maybe if you wanted to get really high falutint film Spotting kind of changed my life when or of course, listeners could just start it however they wanted to and take
it wherever they wanted to go. We've got a couple here from longtime listeners and friends of the show, Devin and Amy.
Hi, I am Sam and Josh. This is Devin and Long Island City, Queens, New York. Just wanted to say congratulations on twenty years of podcasting. You've been my go to podcasts since twenty eleven and I just want to thank you for bringing me insightful analysis, some very good friends here in New York, and of course constant creative inspiration. Here's to twenty more years, guys, Hey.
Film Spotting. Ames Sullivan here, I've been listening to the podcast since Adam first started talking about brick On. Just about every episode from the first podcast, I've been struck by how the hosts seemed to be including me in their conversation. It didn't matter that I didn't know much about movies. They just wanted to welcome me into what eventually they called the film spawning family and film Spotting
really is an extension of my family. When I encouraged Kat to applied for the PA job, I felt like I was sending her to ask a favor of two Chicago uncles she didn't know she had. She was worried she didn't know enough about movies, but quickly learned that at film Spotting it's all about that shared enthusiasm and great conversations. For me, trivia Spotting is where I feel
that sense of family the most. From those quiet, introverted newbies to the trivias evants to those of us with randomly niche knowledge, everyone gets greeted with that warm welcome, like we've known each other forever. I guess my favorite thing is that when you listen to film Spotting, your family happy twentieth anniversary Film Spotting from the movie Mom.
Both family members and Devin is someone who I recently saw part of that new York Mafia, who I was able to catch up with on my recent trip into New York City and have a drink with. Also, just a big thanks to Devin. We haven't shared these yet because we've just been too busy behind the scenes, but at some point, not only have we been sharing a lot of the audio over the past several months from Film Spotting Fest, Devin was part of the video crew
and he was really volunteer. He just loves the show and he's got the production skills and background. He offered to help and he brought his camera. We have the Koganata conversation, the Ryan Johnson conversation. Actually I think there was Devon's camera at least for maybe all the Q and as. So I don't know exactly yet what we're going to show, but at least Ryan and Koganata we're going to put at some point on the Film Spotting YouTube, and Devin's a big reason why that's going to happen.
So thank you, Devin. And then the movie Mom josh Amy Sullivan as we call her, who was such a treat to have on Trivia Spotting all that time. I'm and also the movie Mom because she's Cats Mom, and Kat's a long time pa. So such kind words from Amy, and it's.
Always thank you for sharing that.
In addition to keeping us doing what we're doing, your support comes with perks. If you remember the film Spotting Family, you get to listen early in ad free, you get our weekly newsletter, and you get exclusive opportunities, including checking out the film Spotting Family discord, and you get to hear monthly bonus shows. Right after we get done taping this episode, we are going to record our June Bonus,
which is our performances of the year so far. Now, we did agree we were going to be fairly loose about this, maybe not structured lists per se. But you want to give me a hint. How did you come at it?
Josh, Yeah, it's just, you know, going back to this ongoing list. I keep I start January one every year, and if there's a performance that jumps out at me, I just make a little note, put that person's name down in the categories, and we'll be sharing. At least I'll be sharing a couple of those. I think some people will not be surprised by because we've gushed over these performances and shared reviews. But I have a couple smaller choices as well.
My ritual annually is every year in January, I say I'm going to start that list, and then I actually start that list. I put all the categories on it on a little notepad, and then I start seeing movies and I never write any down, and then it's time to do the end of year thing and I'm starting from scratch. Every time.
It's awesome. It's so much good. It feels good to create the document. But it requires a little more than that. That's right.
Film spotting Family dot Com is where you can learn more.
This is Elliot Planet Earth.
All I ever wanted was to find a place to fit in. So is there any aliens listening?
Please come get me here. That's from the trailer for Pixar's l e O, which is new in theaters. Eleo is a space obsess loaner whose extraterrestrial transmission is received, sending him on an intergalactic adventure. Josh Ello is co directed by Domi She who made Pixar's very good Turning Red. Is Elo any good? And please tell me for town makes a cameo?
Oh wow? I mean that would be amazing, except that this movie probably has too much going on already. I did like it. It has a lot of those Pixar qualities you look for. There's a nice patience for storytelling, especially as this movie begins. It settles into itself quietly and calmly, compared to some of the other animated and nantich kids films we get these days. Of course, it
has the astonishingly tactile digital animation. I enjoyed the score too, by Rob Simonson, so there's some good stuff going on here. I did like it, but it is man, it's just so packed and works its way, and this might be better for you than me. Into like a junior sized Guardians of the Galaxy movie. There's just a ton going on in terms of interstellar conflict and negotiations. And I found that the more characters we got, the more narrative, the more the narrative expanded, it was harder to find
that emotional center that we also look for. And a Pixar film, it goes for it, and it might land for others more than me. But it didn't quite as much as I might have hoped. It's interesting, you know, to mention Domichi as one of the directors here. You know, I Turning Red is incredible, I think, and that was largely you know, she was the only director on that project, and here here we have her as well as Madeline
Sharrafian and Adrian Molina. Molina was a co director of Coco, and I know Pixar, you know, films have had multiple directors here and there, and it's not to say that it doesn't ever work out, but this one you sort of feel that maybe just again in terms of the scope and what it's trying to do and slightly different sensibilities in a given scene. My favorite thing about it though, and maybe I'll save this for I will I'll save this for our bonus episode for film spotting family members.
We're doing, as we've mentioned, our performances of the year so far, and there is a vocal performance in l EO that's just incredible. At this early point, I'll probably you know, put it on my list as an honorable mention to just remember towards the end of the year, and I'll share more on that bonus episode, but it is. It is one of the reasons why I would give a recommendation to Alio. Okay.
El EO is out wide. If you see it, and have a differing take than Josh, or you agree with Josh.
That's fine too.
We'd love to hear from you feedback at Filmspotting dot Net. Next week on the show, we'll have a review of Danny Boyle's twenty eight Years Later, which also opens this weekend. We will share a top five along with that that we did back in twenty seventeen with Danny Boyle. I mean, he is, after all responsible for the namesake of our show.
We shared our top five Danny Boyle characters. And you know, if it's been long enough for me to forget my picks, never mind Danny Boyle's picks, then it's probably worth replying.
Sure makes sense.
I looked at the list this morning actually just to remind myself, and yeah, I probably remembered one of those choices, Josh. So we look forward to resharing that. Where are you at, Josh? As far as rewatching twenty eight days later, we all recently revisited, or maybe you didn't because you had revisited twenty eight weeks later for your book. I revisited that for recent film Spotting Family bonus content along with producer Sam because we did a we were wrong once bonus show.
But I haven't seen Twenty eight Days Later, the movie that started at all since it came out or shortly after. I didn't see it in the theater. I saw it on DBD or maybe even VHS if Blockbuster, you know, VHS was still a thing then. So it's been probably twenty years wow since I've seen that film, and maybe it's worth revisiting before I watched the sequel. Here the latest scene.
It's great, it's pretty Both are pretty fresh for me because I wanted to rewatch them both for the book For fear Not, I have a zombies chapter there, and yes I consider these zombie movies. We won't get into that. So yeah, I think twenty twenty two maybe is when I lassed last watched twenty eight days Later, and then weeks would have been around the same time at least. So very excited for the new one.
If you would like to see what we have on tap for future episodes, go to filmspotting dot Net and click on episodes. We do have that twenty eight years Later show coming up, and then our best of the year so far. We have a top five Jack Nicholson scenes coming up. We're going to revisit One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for its anniversary? What anniversary is that seventy five? So that makes it seventy, It makes it fifty.
Yeah, that's what it is.
It makes it fifty nineteen seventy five. Yeah, that should be pretty easy for me to do, considering I was born in nineteen seventy five and I had to carry the one there live on air for everyone to hear. How how not bright I am? Let's let's just end it here. Filmspoting dot net slash episodes.
So what's the story twenty five words or less? Okay? Movie exec calls rider, Writer's girlfriend says, is that the movies. Exec goes to the movies, meets Rider, drinks with writer, Writer gets comped and dies in four inches of dirty water. Movie exec is in deep shit? What do you think that's born? In twenty five words? And it's bullshit.
That's Tim Robbins and Fred Ward in nineteen ninety Two's the Player? So The Player is going to be part of the Robert Altman Centennial that's ongoing this summer over at the Gene Cisco Film Center here in Chicago, and as part of that. Coinciding with that, The Player is also going to be our title for Cinema interrupt Us,
which I'm doing again at the Cisco Film Center. Really thrilled after doing Phantom Thread in the winter at the ciscle to be teaming up with them again for this, and we were talking about titles Adam that might work. Looking at their summer schedule, we kind of pinpointed August as the time to do this, and I saw they had this Altman centennial and thought, what if we just
kind of piggyback on that. People will be thinking about Altman watching a bunch of his movies over the summer, and maybe towards the end we will spend four days as interrupt Us is watching a day one, digging into it scene by seeing anyone can interrupt ask a question at any time over the next three days. Let's do that with the Player. And I have since watched it. It's totally gonna work. It's going to be so much fun, not just the cameos and the movie references, but that
opening single take. I forget how many minutes it is now, but a lot of filmmaking stuff to dig into. Is the Player one you've seen since it came out at him, or do you think it's for me? It was. This was the first time I'd watched it since ninety two.
Well, you again, were a better cinephile than me, or you started earlier in me, because I, in ninety two was not seeing movies like The Player in the theater. They were not playing in my hometown in nineteen ninety two, and I wasn't ready for movies like that in nineteen ninety two. I still needed maybe about two years before
I was digging into the films of Robert Altman. So I was watching The Player on VHS, you know, I was driving tojoin and having to go to like the Art House Video store to rent movies like The Player and watching them on my TV at home. And so it was ninety four ninety five before I saw The Player, and of course loved it. And when I was watching a movie like that, I understood. I kind of just got instinctively that they were up to something with a
movie reference talking about Wells with that opening take. But but I didn't I hadn't seen Touch of You. I wouldn't have known the reference right, and that that of course sends you down the rack you watch such Yeah.
Yeah, for me, it was probably like my introduction to Altman, like had obviously heard of the name, this would have been because it was such it put him back on the map essentially, right. It was like, this is a major filmmaker who's made you know, after you know, being somewhat gone for a while, still working, but not in the level of you know, attention. Now he's back, and so I certainly glombed onto that and started to think
about Altman a little more seriously. And we're definitely going to do that at interrupt us really excited for this. The dates I can give you tickets aren't available yet, but the dates we know. It's going to be Monday, August eleven for that full screening of the Player, and then August twelveth through fourteen will go back and start working our way through it. You can follow me on social and I'll put the word out there when tickets
do become available, hopefully in a couple of weeks. So yeah, just follow me at Larsen on Film.
This week over on our sister podcast, The Next Picture Show, Looking at Cinemas Present via It's Passed. It's part two of their musical nautobiography pairing Pavements, which I recommended strongly last week. They are pairing that with Todd Haynes. I'm not. Their new episodes of the Next Picture Show drop every Tuesday wherever you get your podcasts.
Time now for Massacre Theater, where we perform a scene and you get a chance to win a film spotting prize. Last time we massacred this scene.
I realized that when I met you at the Turkey curry buffet that I was unforgivably rude and wearing a reindeer jumper that my mother had given me the day before. But the thing is, what I'm trying to say, very inarticulately, is in fact, despite appearances, I like you very much.
Apart from the smoking and the drinking and the volcal mother and the verbal diary, I like you very much just as you are.
That was Colin Firth and Renee Zellwegger in two thousand and one's Bridget Jones Diary, written by Richard Curtis and Andrew Davies, based on the novel by Helen Fielding and directed by Sharon Maguire. So, Adam, that was a masker I missed out on I hate it when I miss a show and you guys do massacre theater. But you know what, Yeah, it was so much fun getting to hear guest host Ayisha Harris who joined you.
A little gender switch there, no.
I know, and that some accent work even, I mean you didn't let her off easy. You guys know, No, you guys for that show. It was the thirtieth anniversary review of Clueless. You also did the top five movie quotes in our lexicon, And so why did you do that scene from Bridge Jones's Diary.
Well, here's Ross in Wokingham or Wokingham. I always screw that up, UK. I'm sure the latest acting masterclass is Bridget jones Diary. The combination of a turkey curry buffet and poor taste Christmas jumper is so immersed in British psyche I'm immediately transported to the film's toe curling portrayal of forced Christmas festivities. However, I'm struggling for the connection.
Clueless was released in nineteen ninety five, when I would have been reading the Helen Fielding Weekly newspaper column that preceded the book in film, But that's a tad Niche yes, that's not where we're going. We'll hear from some other listeners who nailed it though.
Josh, here's Peter Dockrel from Lura, Australia. You had me at turkey curry buffet. As soon as I heard those words, I knew this week's Massacre theater scene was from Bridget jones Diary. The connection with the episode is, of course, Jane Austen. Bridget Jones was loosely inspired by Austin's Pride and Prejudice, while Clueless was a somewhat more faithful update of Emma. A slightly more obscure connection is the fact that Bridget jones Diary has my family favorite movie quote.
Whenever we want someone to do something, we yell go go, go, go go, just like the hapless production assistant trying to get Bridget Jones to slide down a pole during a remote broadcast from a fire station.
There you go movie quotes in our lexicon. And of course now I'm hearing Aisha's rendition of Colin Firth in my head, and it's turkey curry buffet. You can't say buffet like we say it. Yes, that's true. Yes, Chris George in Chicago says, I'm pretty sure that's Bridget Jones's Diary, another mid nineties female centric movie with voiceover.
That's true. Jenny Mackie from Seattle weigh in with this, just like Clueless was a modern retelling of a Jane Austin classic. Bridget jones Diary is a modern retelling of pride and prejudice. Colin Firth even replays mister Darcy from the nineteen ninety six BBC mini.
Series Little Little Added Connection there. Finally, Jessica Klein in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan says, it's rare that I know the Masacre Theater within the first few words. Yes for me, Turkey Curry Buffe was indeed a dead giveaway. Bridge jones Diary is one of my formative movies and was a part of my Story VHS collection. In fact, I used to watch it every time I had relationship troubles and needed a
little pick me up. Now that I'm going on ten years married to the one who loves me just the way I am, I haven't had the occasion to watch it recently, but hold a soft spot in my heart for silly little Bridget in her romantic misadventures. Keep up the great work. This podcast is one of my absolute favorites and I look forward to it every week. I think Jessica is saying she loves us just the way we are.
I'll check you, Jessica.
Indeed, thank you to everyone who entered a much more brimming hat than the week before, the two weeks before for Strangers on a Train Josh, which was nice to see reach into the hat and pick out this week's winner.
That would be Evelyn So from New York, New York.
Evelyn, who has been a listener since at least two thousand and six, first time winning Mascer Theater. Congratulations, Evelyn, email us you know the address and claim your prize. You get the tote bag, you get the t shirt, or I'd say you get a trial membership for the film Spotting Family, but Evelyn's already a member. Congrats. That was the greatest acting I have ever seen. I just don't know how you do it.
Gary.
How do you make yourself so somber and emotional to make everybody cry like that?
It's not that hard, really, I just think about the saddest moment in my life.
We move on to this expedition of Massacre Theater, and yeah, this is some real acting here by two.
Really good for punishment for criticizing Da Cody Johnson not being able to pull off the romantic delivery that Materialists required. Now I've been given that job movie.
That's right.
I'm gonna be not nearly as good as she is.
I know we are doing this over video. Thankfully. We never show this part to listeners, and I'll let them in on a little secret. We never actually do the non verbal stuff because of course we're terrible actors. My part requires an amazing bit of nonverbal acting here near the end that I definitely cannot deliver, So I'm not going to try.
That's we're already in our heads trying to keep track of the words. Let's not think about mutians.
And I'm definitely going to ruin the scene even more by taking out the names. To change it up a little bit, I have inserted pretend names that are gonna mess with the flow even more so. It is what it is. That's my excuse. I'm messing with the flow.
Josh. Well, that's why I won't be any good either.
Okay, are you ready? I'm gonna start it off. You're gonna give me the action and action. Hey Einstein, I think you're the devil.
No, I'm not, how because I think we have the kind of friendship where if I were the devil, you'd be the only one I would tell.
Well, you were awfully quick to run after Ned's help when you wanted help.
Oh right, fine, yes, and if things have gone well for you tonight that I probably wouldn't be saying any of this. I grant you everything, but give me this. He personifies everything that you've been fighting against. And I'm in love with you. How do you like that I bury the lead and scene? Well, I went to three different registers in that last bet. I don't thought they were the correct ones.
I mean, your your guy, though he really brings it down, Josh, I think I think you almost got too high. Hi, Yeah, you almost didn't get down into the almost whisper.
Now, wow, this too bad? But I still a few second takes I felt something.
Yeah, we don't If you know what film we just massacred. Email the movie's title and your name and location to feedback at filmspotting dot net. The deadline is Monday, June thirtieth. We'll select the winner randomly from all the correct entries and announce it in a couple of weeks.
When you look up at the night sky, it can tell your stuff about your future. It won't lie to you.
It's pure.
That way, you might see a lot more than you wanted.
That's from the trailer for the Life of Chuck, which is currently playing in Whiteish release. The tagline for Mike Flanagan's adaptation of the Stephen King novella is an extraordinary story about an ordinary man. Tom Hiddleston is that ordinary man, Chuck Krantz. As we mentioned at the top, the film won the Audience Award at last year's Toronto International Film Festival. That's often a bellweather for maybe not box office success,
but usually awards success. Now, just about every Audience Award winner for the last twenty years has been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and several half one A Midsummer release from neon On about a thousand screens doesn't seem to be playing into those Oscar expectations. What do you think, Adam, is this one we need to we need to reclaim for people to tell them to rush out and see.
I don't know if they need to rush out to see it. I guess I do hope more people see it. But I already made one connection to our earlier review of Materialists, this notion of math and math as art. I'm going to make another connection, which is my conflicted reaction to it and the fact that I walked out of the theater feeling mostly positive. And the more I process my reaction, the more I found myself just writing down a bunch of negativity. And I don't know why
that is. It's a pretty easy movie, or I thought it was a pretty easy movie, Josh to recommend to people, But after working on my notes, my thumb isn't just teetering, it's kind of fallen. So I'm gonna see if you can nudge it either farther down or you're gonna help boost it back up. In terms of what I liked, Hittleston's spontaneous dance sequence is as alive and exhilarating as the movie needs it to be. It works, but I like it more than that. But once The Pocket Queen's
rhythm fades, the film never quite regains its momentum. The Pocket Queen is a reference to the drummer that's her real name, what she goes by the performer in that scene, and I'll get into that a little bit more later. I think that's the high point of the film. That's how much I liked it. I really love seeing MIAs Sarah as the grandmother. She's done Sloan, She's done a fair amount of TV work. I haven't seen any of it, but not much film work since playing Sloan Peterson in
Ferris Fieler's Day Off. And she just has such a regal performance, just such a regal presence, and she gives such a regals here she is, and going back to that Hittleston number, watching it, I was so keenly aware of how they shoot it appropriately, like a really good musical number. And then it only makes sense when her character in the next act starts busting out the classical musical films to show Chuck as a younger boy as she's teaching him how to dance. So I really loved
her presence. I loved her performance, and just seeing me as Sarah again. Here's the other thing I liked. What a coincidence that last week we were talking about the Phoenician scheme and the extent to which it was or wasn't Wes Anderson and the most he has dealt with or he's dealing with our present circumstances. Well, Mike Flanagan said,
hold my flaming bottle of milort. Many many of us have said many times over the past ten years, but especially the past five and really heightened over the past year or so, that we feel like the world is completely unraveled, that if we're not already in the midst of catastrophe, it feels like it's right around the corner. Karen Gillian, her character's name is Felicia. I think she's quoting I know she's quoting from Yates The Second Coming. The Center cannot hold Stephen King in the Life of
Chuck Here. Obviously, Flannagan, adapting plays out that thought experiment in the opening act, starting with part of California just falling off and then the Internet going away. And it was handled harrowingly but delicately enough, because when I say harrowingly, it's not like it's not like we see it occurring right. The people on screen aren't experiencing any of this pain directly where they are. It's the East Coast. They are relatively isolated so far, their homes aren't the ones that
are falling into the ocean. They aren't the ones who are dying of starvation. We hear about some people at one point whose cars have fallen into a sinkhole on Main Street, and they're probably not coming back from that, but we don't see that. We don't see any of our main characters directly suffer in that way, but we
do see their lives completely upended. We see their exhaustion, we see the fear that they're living with, the dread, the sense of inevitability, and that's really what this film was about, the sense of inevitability and fear, and the fear of death, the waiting for it, and for most of us, fortunately that's what it is. Right These very clear dangers may feel imminent but not be present, or they're present but for other people around the world and
haven't come for us yet. And Josh, watching that opening act of the film, I felt like I felt like I was watching an instructional video for the Apocalypse and it sucks, but I needed to process it along with these care characters, and I wanted to see how King and Flanagan were going to play this all out. I wanted to see how they were going to resolve this fantastic but not so fantastic, way too realistic seeming scenario.
I wanted to see how they were going to resolve it, how they did ultimately resolve it is part of my disappointment with the film, But that is my initial at least in my main list of things that I did really like about this movie. And so I'm going to stop there. I want to know what you also appreciated about the film.
Yeah, I think that opening section is I would almost call it a red herring. I mean, it does there is a reason for it that's deeply related to the film's central concerns. But coming into this knowing nothing about it, haven't read the Stephen King novella, didn't even know the plot, and am sorely for a horror fan, sorely ignorant of the work of my Flannagan both need too, his television
work and the features he's made. So really came into this not knowing what I was getting, and I thought, Wow, is this going to be like a you know, no bomb box, White Noise or so, you know, something like that that's really interested in commenting on these times filtered through King's work, and it's not that at all. It is. I can't say what it is because I don't want to spoil that, but I do think it's important to point out that that's not what this movie. That plot
is not what this movie is interested in. It am I compelled by what it is interested in. I would say We've had similar experiences with both of these movies this week. Appreciated them while I was watching them, came out of them thinking, you know about some of the things that just nagged me a little bit. But I'm still coming away saying, give it a shot, because there's enough goodness here. I think you referenced, you know, a
couple of those things already. The performances for me are our key there is we meet Chuck eventually as a boy, a young boy of maybe I don't know, fourth grade, fifth grade, something like that, played at this point by Benjamin Pajack. That kid just steals your heart. I mean in this extended sequence where we get to see where some of Chuck's passions but also neuroses are formed, and
I think that is very movingly handled. This is a movie that some people are going to find deeply philosophical and thought provoking and others are probably going to find sappy and sentimental. I would say that I'm a little in the middle, but more forgiving of it. Overall. For me, the movie had this. It has a generosity and earnestness to it that gives it enough good will that I wanted to like it, if that makes any sense. Yeah, and you know I'm not the easiest guy to get
to shed a tear in a movie. And I will say that happened here. It's related not so much to the dance sequence, but to something you were talking about when we learn exactly why that dance was so crucial to Chuck as an adult. The reveal of that I thought was so beautifully handled, performed, and presented that I found it genuinely Touching back to the performances, real quick, I think Mark Hamill as Chuck's grandfather, though he gives a very long, long, long, long speech about math, which
you referenced. Yes, and what I've read, I have edited some pieces on Flanagan's television work, and from that I've learned apparently monologues are a Flanagan thing for me.
And I've heard too, Josh, real quick, it's a king thing. A lot of Oky monologues here. They come straight out of the novella.
Which is maybe why he's so enamored with King exactly why you know that could be something that maybe doesn't work for you. Hammill's performance overall worked for me. And yeah, I think I'll just go back to this idea of the goodwill the movie generates made it to me scene. I'm glad I did see it.
Yeah, that's where I am too, though I missed if it's there, and I assume it is. I assume in fact that Hamil is given the like with so and so and Mark Hamill credit or whatever, but I missed it in the credits, and I spent the entire time Mark Hamill is on here, he was looking at him going, I know, I know who it is, and it is killing me. You know, you can even tell the voice, even though he's putting on a voice, you can tell. And it was just driving me crazy the entire film.
But I want to go back to something you said a little bit for a movie that you know won this audience award, and that every time it's brought up in any context, and I haven't heard a lot about it, but anytime it's brought up, you hear the words life affirming, you hear sentimental or schmaltzy associated with it. It's sadder and sometimes darker, and actually even weirder than I thought it would be. And I don't I don't mean weird
like David Lynn weird or weird like. It leaves you with a lot of ambiguities that you have to parse, but structurally taking what I understand to be the novella's structure, and it goes in reverse chronological orders. So act it starts with act three, it says, and goes to Act two, and then to act one, and so just to avoid confusion from here on out, it's reverse chronology starting with act three. I'm going to refer to them in the order we experience them, so I'll say, like the first act,
second act, third act. Right, there's that part of it. The structure is nonlinear. It's a little weird, right. The movie is also, and maybe my cism meter is calibrated differently than others, but it's not as blatantly heartwarming.
It's dark, lifting or yeah or.
Insert synonym for chaltzy here, cloying, as I guess I imagined it would be. And I am basing that off the little bit of buzz that I heard the Tiff Award the poster though as well, and the tagline, the tagline every life is a universe all its own, that kind of sounds and I'm not saying it's a bad tagline. I'm not taking any issue whatsoever with the marketers of this film. Marketing of the film is not something I spent any time thinking about. I am just saying, based
on that tagline, it sounds like a terrible movie. It sounds like a schmaltzy movie. So based on that, I had this sense of it and that's not really the movie. I felt like, I got I understand if people have that criticism, but I didn't feel that watching it.
Okay, it's I would say, it's a somewhat sentimental confrontation of mortality, and you need both sides of that. It's not trying to paper over anything horrifying about the fact that everyone will die, but it's finding a way towards that realization that is maybe somewhat comforting.
Yes, And in going for that sense of comfort it is to use some of the words you use, there is a sincerity, there's an earnestness and those things sometimes in film can can be a little uh discomforting. We're not used to seeing them on screen, sometimes with the level of sincerity we see them with. Right here, there is a moment, the dance sequence that is there on
the poster that we're referring to. A character does something that if we saw a character do in our everyday life, almost every one of us would walk by and actually actively try to walk as fast as we could to get away from. Okay, I think that's how most of us think, and this movie asks us to take time out and pause and take it in as a truly
magical type of moment. So so I bring up that weirdness in the structure, but also in how it doesn't go for the syrup the way I thought it might, because I think I think it relates to something that I respect it for that. And then also there's something about it where I wasn't able to connect with it quite as much as I wish I could have. Typically, a narrative is going to I don't want to get
into lame screenwriting one oh one stuff here. I like when movies take chances, right, But a narrative is typically gonna build to its its emotional moment, the CLIMACX and you might say we get it here. We have a
really wonderful moment. The scene that I think effectively serves that function here is really lovely, but it is part of an act that for me, follows the middle act with Hiddleston, that is such an expression of pure joy that I think it's a tough sorry for the phrase, a tough act to follow, and the movie knows it because the voiceover, the voiceover that concludes and Nick Offerman does the voice over here, the line that concludes that
middle act with Hiddleston, it sums it up. It says what that it's.
The heart of the Fray line.
It's the key line of the movie. And so when that's sandwich right in the middle of the film, it's hard for movie, I think, to really build from that. It's tough when the when the most entertaining and i'd argue most emotional part of the film happens at the
halfway point. What makes it even tougher, though, Josh, is when you've got that entertaining, emotional second act right in the middle, and the one as we were talking about earlier, for me, the one on the front end with Karen Gillan, and she would tell Edgy four is probably the most inherently fascinating and the one on the back end. Although it has its moments, it really does some really tender,
lovely moments. I think I know which one you're referring to, the one that maybe got you teared up a little bit, And I agree with you with with Mia, Sarah and Mark Hamill. Overall though, I felt like that was the weakest and so the trajectory isn't isn't really the one you like to follow with the movie where it's progressively
getting to its weaker and weaker stuff. And then the last thing I'll say, Josh is that although that first act that we take in is the most fascinating, going back to the very beginning of this conversation, it doesn't it doesn't deliver on its potential at all.
I mean, it depends on how satisfied you are with what that apocalyptic or cataclysmic opening section represents for the movie that the movie becomes. And I appreciated that. I did think that was an interesting way to think about. To go back to the movie's tagline, you know, the you know one person's life is universe unto itself. And you know, this is a very literary minded movie that the Walt Whitman is all over this about you know,
I contain multitudes. It's referenced multiple times, and that's very much that notion is something the movie is invested in. I think I did. I totally understand what you're saying about the structure. Clearly, Hidleston is being sold as the star. That's the showcase sequence, the dance scene, so I understand that is sort of meant to be the high point. I think I was just way more invested in that
third section than you with the younger Chuck. I think partly because of the performance, is partly becase because that's where the emotion hit me, and and so the structure was not quite as much of a hurdle for me.
Well, I think another struggle I had with the third act is that obviously we won't spoil it, but it seems to culminate with a reveal. But I can't imagine that it's any kind of surprise to anyone watching it.
So it's a reveal for the character though I suppose.
I suppose, but the way the movie, it's one of these conflicted things again or moments for me watching it as a viewer, where it's kind of a non reveal reveal, I want to argue that Flannigan isn't trying to surprise us, But then the movie gives that moment enough enough weight. I understand that it's about the character, but it's also
the movie. The movie still seems to invest in enough time that it's it's kind of like the character is learning something fundamentally about that space that I think we've caught on too. Ask you so early on.
In ask you this, did you have a clear idea of what he was going to see in there? But I thought, so see and that's where I was. I had not figured that out. So it was a reveal for me exactly what he was going to see, even though it was not a reveal in the larger trajectory of the narrative, like it, it totally makes sense. So I think I was a little more than invested in how momentous that was for the character in the moment.
Yeah, I didn't feel that momentousness. And the thing for me that here we're talking around, unfortunately because we don't want to spoil anything, is what you said you felt like the payoff of the connection between what we see in that first act and the way it connects to the things we see after it, the connection the movie makes, really that is I think we can say it comes back to its tagline that that was something you found compelling enough, and for me, I wanted I'm asking maybe
for too much, Josh, but I was really hoping I was going to get something that movies have given me, movies have given me before. Certainly I was going to get an epiphany. I was going to get something that hit me on, hit me like like a stomach punch, but also gave me that intellectual type response where it made me, It made me think about something in a way I had never thought about it before. Yeah, and it felt it didn't give me Again. The movie carries disappointment.
It carries itself as if it will, so I can see if it doesn't deliver on that front, it might be disappointing.
But it is a sweet movie and it sounds like we are both ultimately recommending the Life of Chuck. Currently playing in wide release. If you see it, email us. We'd love to hear your thoughts. Feedback at filmspotting dot net. Josh, that's our show.
You can find Adam and the show on Instagram, Facebook, and letterboxed at film spotting. I'm at those places as well. You can find me Larson on film. We are prependently produced and listener supported. You can support the show by joining the film Spotting Family over at film spotting family dot com. You can listen early and ad free. You'll also get a weekly newsletter, monthly bonus episodes, and access
to the entire show archive. For show t shirts and other merch go to film spotting dot net slash shop.
In those archives. Maybe a little bit less Stephen King adaptation talk than I expected, But then again, Josh, you know, there's been a fair amount of not very good Stephen King adaptation work the Mist, going way back to episode one eight eight, The Shining and Room two three seven, along with our top five Terrifying characters, and of course there was some Stephen King originated characters on that top five list. Episode four nineteen six forty eight. We did
it in our Top five Stephen King scares. That was a fun on screen, That was a fun one and a scary one seven forty three. It Chapter two and then recently a Sacred Cow review our discussion of the Shawshank Redemption at thirty. Of course, that started as a Stephen King novella, just like the Life of Chuck That was episode nine eighty three. In limited release, you can
see a Photographic Memory. This is a film from filmmaker Rachel Elizabeth Seed, who constructs a narrative of her celebrated photographer mother's life with the archive she left behind when she died suddenly at forty one, when Seed was just a toddler. This sounds right up, my Ali. It's playing at the Cisco Theater in Chicago. Our friend Robert Daniels calls it a haunting portrait, nimble and execution and startling in its poignancy that introduces her mother to a new generation.
In wide release, you can see Bride Hard. Rebel Wilson is an undercover agent who has to take out a group of mercenaries who crash a destination wedding con air. Director Simon West helms Bride Hard. Pixar's l e O, which Josh does recommend, is out wide as well as twenty eight years later. Yes, the boys are back. The zombies are back too. Danny Boyle, writer Alex Garland, and
what's left of Zombie Killee and Murphy. We will talk about that next week on the show and share our top five Danny Boyle characters that we did with Danny Boyle back in twenty seventeen.
Film Spotting is produced by Golden Joe Desso and Sam van Holgren. Without Sam and Golden Joe, this show wouldn't go. Our production assistant is Sophie Kempinar. Special thanks to everyone at wb e Z Chicago. More information is available at wbeazy dot org for film Spotting, I'm Josh Larson.
And I'm Adam Kempinar. Thanks for listening.
This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.
The burn.
Film Spotting is listeners supported. Join the film Spotting Family at film spottingfamily dot com and get access to add free episodes, monthly bonus shows, our weekly newsletter, and, for the first time, all in one place, the entire film Spotting archive going back to two thousand and five. That's a Film Spotting Family dot com panibly