Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Welcome to the Episode 004 show notes for Considering the Cinema, the official (albeit occasional) podcast of the Considering the Cinema blog. My name is Jason Pyles (aka “Jay of the Dead”), and this is where I consider the cinema and muse about movies.

The first three episodes of this podcast were released under the Movie Podcast Network. I have since amicably parted ways with the Network and my “full-time” podcasts. Now I maintain this blog and its occasional podcast episode releases as a mere hobby, purely for fun. So, if you want to listen to this podcast — I’d love that — but I have three fair warnings up front:

1. This podcast has no release schedule. Since it is just for fun and a genuine hobby, I’m only going to work on it when the mood strikes me. So, the two best ways to make sure you don’t miss any releases are to: subscribe to this FREE podcast feed or follow me on Twitter: @ConsiderCinema.

2. This show is a solocast, meaning, I’m the one and only host. Who knows? I may have a guest join me, once in a blue moon, but for the most part, you’re only going to hear from me. Having said that, I plan to keep the episodes short, and if they’re not short, I’ll try to find a way to spice up the solocast.

3. My third and favorite warning: Considering the Cinema is the epitome of freedom in movie podcasting, which means, there is no set theme or format for this show, so I can podcast about anything I want. The reason this is a warning is, it will probably get weird sometimes. There are some really bizarre episodes that I’d like to do, so you can’t say I didn’t warn you.

So, if you can live with a solocast that has no release schedule and no typical format, then welcome to Considering the Cinema — A Podcast About Movies and Film Criticism.

For Episode 004, I have what I call mini reviews — 10 of them — for movies from various years and genres. These are a sampling of what I’ve been watching lately.

Just to give you a heads-up, I’ve got a couple of 2019 films, a 2018 Best Picture nominee, a couple of Horror films, a couple of gangster films, and one of the very best films released in the aughts decade!

One of the beauties of not having a regularly scheduled podcast is the absence of “homework.” More than anything, I’m a mood watcher, which means I love to watch whatever I’m in the mood to watch, whenever I want to watch it.

I haven’t had that kind of freedom for a long time, so it’s nice to not have assignments and deadlines. This free state leads to me watching a lot of random films (and I’ll confess, revisiting the WWF / WWE wrestling events of the late ’80s and early ’90s). I consider pro wrestling a guilty pleasure of mine, and when you’re also one of those “dreaded, degenerate Horror fans” — like me — then the pro wrestling stigma doesn’t faze you.

So, here are 10 mini reviews of some random films I’ve been watching (or revisiting) lately. I’ll just share a few thoughts about each movie, so you can get a sense of which ones might interest you. I will also mini review these movies in the podcast recording that accompanies these show notes, if you would prefer to just listen.

Creep Van (2012) – Let’s start with a Horror film called “Creep Van,” from 2012. It was directed by Scott W. McKinlay. He directed another Horror flick from 2006 called “Gag,” and based on the strength of “Creep Van,” I might have to check it out.

Technically, “Creep Van” is a low-budget indie Horror Comedy. But notably, it’s also a Slasher film whose killer uses one of the most unusual killing implements since “The Orange Man” (2015) and “Christine” (1983). His killing tool is his “creep van”! I’m not just talking about him running over people; he has this van rigged all over the place with nefarious, killer contraptions.

Abducted in Plain Sight (2019) – Speaking of creeps, this year on Netflix, I saw that a documentary was titled “Abducted in Plain Sight,” and I knew it was something I had to see. But as a parent, you hate to even think about such things, so I was procrastinating it. This is a Crime Documentary, and if you don’t have Netflix streaming, you can rent it on Amazon for a dollar.

“Abducted in Plain Sight” was directed by Skye Borgman, a cinematographer turned documentary filmmaker. This film tells the terrible and true tale of an Idaho family whose neighbor takes an obsessive interest in their young daughter. That’s all I’ll write here, but you will be astonished by some of the developments that transpire over the course of this film.

Roma (2018) – This upcoming Sunday, Feb. 24, 2019, is the 91st Academy Awards ceremony. The great Alfonso Cuarón wrote and directed what must be his most personal film, a U.S. and Mexico co-production called “Roma.” This movie is currently streaming on Netflix (and it’s also in theaters). It is nominated for 10 Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Foreign Film.

I would accuse this film of being overindulgent if it weren’t so remarkable. And in fact, it is the very indulgent nature of “Roma” that makes it so noteworthy. Cuarón evidently wanted to make a very personal film about his own family, childhood and his real-life nanny. His childhood had bright spots, but judging from this film, it had a strong undercurrent of heartache and sorrow. I believe “Roma” will win either Best Picture or Best Foreign Film this Sunday. It is certainly deserving.

Cinderella Man (2005) – When I think of Alfonso Cuarón, I always think about his masterpiece — “Children of Men” (2006) — the very best film of the aughts decade. And when I think about the best films of the aughts, I always think of the Biopic Boxing Drama, “Cinderella Man,” from 2005.

Directed by Ron Howard, “Cinderella Man” stars Russell Crowe, Renée Zellweger and Paul Giamatti, who got an Oscar nod for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role. (He was beaten that year by George Clooney in “Syriana.”)

Crowe plays James Braddock, a boxer who seemed to be past his prime until he made a comeback during the 1930s. His “everyman overcoming the odds,” underdog quality made him a national inspiration during The Great Depression.

But I love this film because it depicts a man who just wants to be a good husband, father and provider for his family during extremely difficult circumstances. I remember when I came home from the theater after seeing this movie in 2005, I wanted to be a better man.

Once Upon a Time in Queens (2014) – Speaking of fathers, I watched a straight-to-DVD Paul Sorvino vehicle (yeah, that’s what I said) called “Once Upon a Time in Queens” from 2014. You’ll immediately recognize Paul Sorvino from many mobster movies, but to me he’ll always be “Paulie” Cicero from “Goodfellas” (1991), which I also recently revisited. (That film somehow gets better to me every time I watch it!)

Anyway, just to be up front with you, “Once Upon a Time in Queens” is a Drama, period. It’s not really a Crime or Gangster film. In fact, it tells the tale of Joe Scoleri, who is basically the exact same character as Paulie Cicero from “Goodfellas,” except, this movie picks up many years later after he’s done his prison time and he’s an old man getting released back out into the world. So, it’s about a guy who used to be a big deal, and now many years later, as an old man, he’s not anymore. And due to his health and obsessive parole officers, he basically has to come to terms with the fact that his gangster days are over. There is a decent little subplot about how the Sorvino character tries to reconcile with his daughter.

Destroyer (2019) – And speaking of films that aren’t quite what you were expecting (or hoping for), I caught Nicole Kidman’s 2019 film “Destroyer” in the theater recently. I was anticipating this film for many reasons. First of all, it’s directed by Karyn Kusama, who directed “The Invitation” (a 2015 Horror flick I loved) and “Girlfight” (2000). And yes, she also directed “AEon Flux” (2005), but nobody’s perfect.

Well, Kidman shows up for work for this performance. She plays a fried, drunken police detective whose demons of the past are eating her alive. So, the film’s big question is: What went wrong in her past that made her this way? This is a Crime film, but it’s a slow-burn Drama first, Crime film second, Mystery third.

“Destroyer” has an interesting narrative in which we see the present unfold while also getting flashes back to show us what happened in the past. For this reason, we get a very interesting phenomenon where the film’s actual climax occurred many years ago, and not in the present. The so-called “big reveal” is interesting, but not enough of a pay-off for me.

Colors (1988) and New Jack City (1991) – I love the Horror genre, but my all-time favorite genre is the Crime / Gangster / Cop film. “Colors” (1988) is one such film, and it also stars my all-time favorite actor, Robert Duvall, as a Los Angeles police officer. His new partner is played by a young Sean Penn. Most cinephiles remember “Colors” as one of the better gang / police films of the ‘80s and ‘90s era, but they don’t recall that it was directed by Dennis Hopper! They also may not remember a young Don Cheadle.

“Colors” is about how this veteran cop tries to show his hothead new partner the ropes in gang-ridden East L.A. It’s decent, and worth revisiting, but not quite as good as I remembered.

Sadly, “New Jack City” (1991) was far worse than I remembered upon revisiting it. Directed by Mario Van Peebles, “New Jack City” stars Wesley Snipes, Ice-T and a young Chris Rock. Wesley Snipes’s villain is pretty outrageous: He holds children up in front of him for bullet shields, etc. But Ice-T is the reason to revisit this film, if you must. Otherwise, this film feels very artificial, as Snipes’s crew tries to build a drug empire. “New Jack City” doesn’t hold up well at all, regrettably.

Rituals (1977) – Next we have a Survival Horror film, of sorts. That’s one of my favorite sub-genres of Horror. This is more like a Drama Survival Horror film. It’s called “Rituals” from 1977. It was directed by Peter Carter. He’s mostly done TV movies. This movie stars Hal Holbrook, who’s a great actor.

You could call “Rituals” “a poor man’s ‘Deliverance’” because it really seems derivative and inferior to “Deliverance.” But this is a little more toward the Horror side of things because the five doctors who are out in the wilderness on a camping expedition really have a victim mentality. Good Horror requires victims.

But once things start going south, and they start getting injured and killed by some mysterious assailant(s) in the woods, they can, at least, work on one another with their doctor skills. The other reason why this leans more toward Horror — despite much of it feeling like a Drama — is because once you see who has been preying upon them, that character is intended to be more of a Horror figure.

Rambo (2008) – And if “Rituals” doesn’t quite “do it” for the hardcore Horror fans, I’ve got a Horror-adjacent war film that is exceptionally disturbing and graphically gory. It is “Rambo” from 2008. This is the fourth “Rambo” film in the series. The first one is called “First Blood” (1982), and it’s exceptional. But this “Rambo” movie isn’t quite what you’re expecting. (It’s even better than you’re expecting!)

Even though it’s often hard to watch and upsetting, this “Rambo” film is very good. It was directed by Sylvester Stallone, and the story couldn’t be simpler: John Rambo is living peacefully in Thailand, I believe, when a group of Christian missionaries commission him to take them by boat to war-torn Burma. They plan to deliver medical supplies and humanitarian aid to the Karen people, who are suffering genocide at the hands of some radical, Burmese militants.

Against his better judgment, Rambo gives in after they harass him enough, and he drops them off. But of course, they are captured, so a rescue mission becomes necessary.

Warning to the faint of heart, genocide is depicted graphically and unflinchingly in this movie. But of course, Rambo’s killing of the bad guys is equally as graphic, so if you’re into gore and kill scenes, I think this film might impress you.

And finally, just a little postscript… I recently revisited “Kung Fu Panda” (2008) with my son, and I had never seen the post-credits stinger before. There’s a little post-credits scene that is beautiful, profound, and poignant, and is now my favorite part of the film. I bet most people have missed that scene. And by the way, you need to watch it in the context of the film because it is a setup and pay-off situation, so you can’t just pop in the DVD and watch the end. The next time you watch the movie all the way through, just remember to wait for the post-credits scene.

Thanks for listening to the Considering the Cinema Podcast. I hope you enjoyed Episode 004. You’re welcome to subscribe to iTunes / Apple Podcasts for free, so you don’t miss any episode releases. I am expecting to record an episode every month or two. You can also follow me on Twitter and Letterboxd at “ConsiderCinema.” You can leave a comment in the show notes for Episode 004 here, and you can email me at ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com. You’re also welcome to send me movie questions, if you’d like, and I could try to take a stab at them.

I’m Jason Pyles, and thank you for listening to Considering the Cinema.

Follow Jason here:
On Twitter: @ConsiderCinema
Website: ConsideringTheCinema.com
Email: ConsideringTheCinema@gmail.com
Letterboxd: Letterboxd.com/ConsiderCinema