Podcasts We Likes

[Markgway]

http://film.thedigitalfix.com/podcastrss

http://podcastonfire.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode

http://projection-booth.blogspot.co.uk/

http://moviematterspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/

[Markgway]

Re. Digitalfix:

I was going to start at the beginning... but scrolling down I couldn't see past the Bond episode.
I must've picked one of the few Shingster wasn't on.
It's just as well I wasn't in on the podcast, as I would've had to dominate it with corrections.
The most egregious (or funniest) error?
Barry Norman composed for the 007 series.
It was kind of painful at times listening to so much wrongness... and those guys are completely off about the mediocre Skyfall. Time will prove me right!

[Shingster]

I would add Movie Matters as well as a general film one: http://moviematterspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/

It's just as well I wasn't in on the podcast, as I would've had to dominate it with corrections.
The most egregious (or funniest) error?
Barry Norman composed for the 007 series.
It was kind of painful at times listening to so much wrongness... and those guys are completely off about the mediocre Skyfall. Time will prove me right!

Nope didn't take part as I've never been a die-hard fan so most of my knowledge comes from hazy memories of old TV showings growing up. TBH IIRC the Bond one was just a bit of fun they knocked together at the last minute so yeah there might be more factual errors in there than usual & I assume "Barry Norman" was a slip of the tongue meant to mean John Barry? Been a while since I sat in on that pod! There's probably errors in every episode though at some point or the other, but hopefully not so bad as in the Bond episode maybe - we did get a thumbs up for our Dario Argento special from known Argentophile Michael Mackenzie who said there was just one error he recalled (think it was me offhandly saying Argento did the opening narration to Inferno)! Usually I remove any erroneous statements I spot when I edit the episode, but obviously with Bond my knowledge is lacking!

Weird that you can't see any before the Bond episode. Do you still have the problem scrolling down? I wouldn't recommend starting from the beginning because the early 2-3eps are pretty awful tbh! If you want to try an early one on a topic you might be interested in Mark then try our Guillermo del Toro special or one of the episodes of our Horrorthon (maybe the Gialli/Slashers episode, which is pretty short). The audio quality of the pods get better with the post horrorthon pods as well as we started to buy better mics and figured out the best way to record a group chat online without any loss in quality.

[Markgway]

I would add Movie Matters as well as a general film one: http://moviematterspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/

Added.

I assume "Barry Norman" was a slip of the tongue meant to mean John Barry?

I think it's safe to assume that.

Weird that you can't see any before the Bond episode. Do you still have the problem scrolling down?

When I said 'I couldn't see past' I didn't mean that literally. I meant as a Bond fan I just had to check that episode out first.

If you want to try an early one on a topic you might be interested in Mark then try our Guillermo del Toro special or one of the episodes of our Horrorthon (maybe the Gialli/Slashers episode, which is pretty short).

Not really that interested in Del Toro (I've seen a couple of his movies and even the good ones weren't really my cup of tea) but I will listen to the giallo/slasher episode.

[Shingster]

Ah, I see what you mean now! Sounded like you had a problem navigating the page! The horrorthon episodes are the shortest pods we've recorded to date at about 25m-40m depending on the ep, but our better pods are probably our more recent ones. I think all our pods between Remakes to Swasbucklers are only about an hour long as well, the rest are usually around 90-120mins.

[Markgway]

Re. Giallo/Slasher episode:

To me the difference between a slasher and a giallo - surprised to see these lumped together in a short episode, BTW - is that giallos are primarily mysteries and slashers are pure body count movies. The graphic murder violence being a common denominator. To me, Bay of Blood (which I thought was rubbish) was less giallo, more proto slasher movie (I remember we discussed the possible influence on Friday the 13th). I haven't seen anywhere near enough giallos to be authoritative on the genre, though. Psycho is closer to giallo than slasher because there's only two on-screen murders and the key ingredient is WHO did it - or who is mother? As opposed to Halloween, which is the most influential slasher. No mystery, several (nubile teen) deaths. My favourite giallo is probably Tenebrae (unless you wish to extend the genre outside Italy to include Brian DePalma). Jason Lives is the best of the Friday series, and the Elm St series is the best slasher series.

[Shingster]

Yeah I seem to recall we got a few comments that certain episodes weren't really long enough & yeah they all were way too short to do justice to each topic, but we wanted to put out pods that were short enough to entice people who wouldn't ordinarily go out of their way to download a pod. Plus we weren't sure even podcast fans would wade through 10eps at an hour a piece, not to mention the logistics of recording and editing over 10hrs of podcast material!

How did you find the pod in terms of inaccuracies? Better? I don't think we spoke about Bay of Blood as a giallo (I hope!) but it is a difficult film to place in any kind of sub-genre as it is ultimately a proto-slasher that happens to comment on the conventions of the giallo & subvert them. Tenebrae's a great giallo, we talk about that more in the Argento pod naturally but Mike Sutton couldn't make that recording and he was going to wax lyrical specifically about Tenebrae so it's a shame that didn't happen.

Can't say I have a favourite slasher franchise myself, think Halloween/Friday/Nightmare are more or less on par overall: one or two good films, one or two atrocious ones, but mostly mediocre entries! I think the Friday series probably inspires the most nostalgia from me though, something about the way they were all marketed with the themed posters and VHS covers, plus there were so many of them by the 90s that you could have some proper film marathons with them!

[Markgway]

Yeah I seem to recall we got a few comments that certain episodes weren't really long enough & yeah they all were way too short to do justice to each topic, but we wanted to put out pods that were short enough to entice people who wouldn't ordinarily go out of their way to download a pod. Plus we weren't sure even podcast fans would wade through 10eps at an hour a piece, not to mention the logistics of recording and editing over 10hrs of podcast material!

I think if it had been one film from each genre 30m would've been OK, but it's really hard to sum up one genre let alone two in 30m. An hour each would've been a safer bet. But I get that these were earlier experimental examples. Maybe sometime it would be worthwhile revisiting them.

How did you find the pod in terms of inaccuracies? Better?

Yes, the one mistake made I noticed was quickly corrected. I'm not an expert on the giallo, mind, so you could've talked rubbish and gotten away with it!

I don't think we spoke about Bay of Blood as a giallo (I hope!) but it is a difficult film to place in any kind of sub-genre as it is ultimately a proto-slasher that happens to comment on the conventions of the giallo & subvert them.

The talk was back-and-forth between genres so I don't recall the specific context of the remarks - but I wouldn't worry about it. As you say the movie probably has a place in the topic of anti-giallo or giallo-subversion. The killer remains a mystery (ala giallo) but nobody gives a shit (ala slasher) and the bloody 'kills' are the draw (ala slasher again).

Tenebrae's a great giallo, we talk about that more in the Argento pod naturally but Mike Sutton couldn't make that recording and he was going to wax lyrical specifically about Tenebrae so it's a shame that didn't happen.

I bought the Arrow Steelbook and was more than happy... but I guess you can't please some fans who are now slagging it off and clamouring for the eventually-to-be-announced US release. Argento is an interesting (and very uneven) filmmaker... but I'll save that for when I listen to the apt podcast.

Can't say I have a favourite slasher franchise myself, think Halloween/Friday/Nightmare are more or less on par overall: one or two good films, one or two atrocious ones, but mostly mediocre entries! I think the Friday series probably inspires the most nostalgia from me though, something about the way they were all marketed with the themed posters and VHS covers, plus there were so many of them by the 90s that you could have some proper film marathons with them!

I hold great nostalgia for all the slasher franchises. Hours spent as a kid in video rental stores (remember those?) pouring over the forbidden VHS covers. It took a lot of parental battering before my parents caved in and rented them for me.

Elm St.
1 = ***
2 = **½
3 = ***
4 = **½
5 = **
6 = *½
7 = ***

The Friday ratings are in that thread I did a while back... I remember I gave Jason Lives and Jason X *** each and those two were the series highlights for me.

Halloween is arguably the weakest series for me, with the original being the best, but only worth a **½ rating. Part 4 was the best of the sequels.

[Shingster]

Yeah the Arrow steelbook has a lovely transfer, only black mark against it is the amount of Edge Enhancement during the first half of the film (weirdly it's not so bad after about an hour). TBH I'm not sure whether Synapse will bother to do a fresh 2K/4K scan when the exisiting French masters are clearly good enough for the job (and the EE is most likely there in that master), guess we'll have to wait and see!

I think your ratings for the Nightmare films are pretty close to my own, Halloween I enjoy the first three films despite the flaws of parts II & III, but I must admt it's been well over a decade since I've seen most of the latter sequels. Guess I'll have to catch up this Halloween!

[Markgway]

Halloween I enjoy the first three films despite the flaws of parts II & III, but I must admt it's been well over a decade since I've seen most of the latter sequels. Guess I'll have to catch up this Halloween!

Halloween podcast then?

I revisited H2 on the Shout BD and was rather disappointed with it. It's actually pretty boring despite the director having done a good job maintaining style and continuity (especially in the seamless opening sequences). Some splatter, but I didn't care about the characters. At least in the original you could worry about Jamie Lee and the two kids (and even the teen fodder had some personality). H3 I don't consider part of the series - it's a Body Snatches clone with a sick twist. Haven't seen it in ages. H4 works better than most of the sequels because Danielle Harris is a sympathetic child protagonist and there's a high level of competency on display. H5 I never much liked even though it was made concurrent to H4 with the same cast. H6 is poor despite some stylishness (and an early Paul Rudd performance). H7 is Halloween for the Scream generation. It's O-K-I-guess. H8 was drubbed, but actually more tolerable than I expected, with some on-the-nose media satire... but then my expectations were very low by this point.

[Shingster]

Yeah I would never claim Halloween 2/3 are good films, but I find something to enjoy in them: just about! Not sure what we'll do for Halloween this year TBH but we do want to do something a bit different. Last year we completely ignored Sci-fi Horror and Japanese monster movies (not to mention category III) so we might do something there, but John recently suggested we could do a special on Horror Heroes but not the obvious choices. A special on the big three slasher franchises isn't a bad idea though, just a question of whether my fellow contributors would want to put themselves through it! (I know John hates the Friday films for instance).

[Markgway]

I know John hates the Friday films for instance.

I love and hate them at the same time.

[Markgway]

And surprisingly a bunch of Markgway comments I agree with!

Surprisingly? But I'm always right!!

Part 4 is my favorite Halloween. Very intense. How does this one stack up with the original Halloween for you?

To be honest... pretty close. I doubt anyone expected H4 to be any good but Dwight Little is clearly a competent director (see also Marked for Death and Rapid Fire).

Also nice shout on Jason X Shingster! None of my friends like it, but I don't know what they were expecting. Maybe they expected a serious movie or something. But it's Jason in space. Lower the expectations and enjoy awesome death scenes!

That was a surprise for me, too. But I guess the Scream influence had to reach the series at some point. Ironic and post-modern humour works well for a scenario (inhuman slasher in space) that never takes itself seriously (how could it?). It's fun to watch Jason face some stiff competition for a change (cyborgs with guns, etc.). It's sad the series ended back at square one with the terrible 2009 remake.

[Markgway]

Wow I didn't know he did Rapid Fire. That's a good one. I don't remember Marked For Death. I'll be watching that when I get a chance.

Murder at 1600 (thriller starring Wesley Snipes) is another good one he did.

Since then he's directed mostly in television.

[Shingster]

Also nice shout on Jason X Shingster! None of my friends like it, but I don't know what they were expecting. Maybe they expected a serious movie or something. But it's Jason in space. Lower the expectations and enjoy awesome death scenes!

Yeah it has an ultra low budget and ludicrous setting taking Jason into the realms of space, but it's a lot of fun and sends up the previous entries well imo.

[Markgway]

Re: Overrated Movies:

Agree on District 9 and Dracula.

Disagree on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which to me has always seemed UNDERrated, so a very odd choice for this episode).

Haven't seen The Deer Hunter. Watched a bit when I was younger and got bored. Never tried it again.

The problem with Brief Encounter is that it's largely of its time. I remember it being a good film and very touching - but perhaps no longer relevant? Not sure how I'd react to it now. I think the characters' repression is class related and their very middle classness is what makes them unhappy. The common folk are wise because they do what makes them happy and don't care about keeping up appearances.

[Shingster]

I think it's one of those films where you either sympathise with the middle class or you don't, and John doesn't! IIRC Temple of Doom was my suggestion and it's generally considered to be very good amongst the people I know and the forums I frequent, whereas I find it a bit mediocre really. Again I think it's a film that has a lot of supporters and detractors depending on who you know I guess. This was the pod where it was just me and John wasn't it? Our original podcast line up was John/myself and a young chap named Elliot Foster who I think was the one who voted for The Deer Hunter, but he left the site before we were due to record!

[Markgway]

Yeah, it was just the two of you.

I'm not middle class either, but people are people at the end of the day, and if I only watched films with working class types in them, it would be a very, very boring cinematic existence. I think your comrade gave himself away when he praised Ken Loach.

I grew up hearing from critics how disappointing Temple of Doom was, and even now it's divisive, so that's why I was surprised to see it on an underrated podcast. I respect - though disagree with - your criticisms, just felt it was wrong time, wrong place. So many Oscar winners you could've chosen from!!

I might give The Deer Hunter another try sometime.
Is there any REAL deer hunting in it?

[Shingster]

Yeah this was in the early days of our podcasting and we'd just come up with the topic and films for the next one in 5mins at the end of recording. My problem is that I don't usually have vry wild reactions to films either way, hence I flubbed it and chose Temple of Doom, which I don't even dislike. I even came up with two better titles at the start of the overrated pod (District 9/Dracula)!

There is Deer Hunting in The Deer Hunter, in the opening act of the film the group of friends all go and a deer ends up being shot (not in real life though obviously).

[Masterofoneinchpunch]

RE: The Deer Hunter: And, of course, the importance of the deer hunting scene at the end. I do think the film can be considered overrated. Michael Cimino's style for me is too often addled with the most obvious symbolism (if you don't get it he will tell you what it means: for example the wedding scene in the film and of course the ending.) The film is also nowhere near as realistic with Vietnam as Platoon for example (just a statement, Apocalypse Now is not particular realistic and it is a film I like.)

I do not see how Temple of Doom is overrated. It is not on that many critics lists nor is it that high on aggregate sites like its IMDB's rating, especially for a film that was very influential (heck it helped usher in the PG-13 rating here in the States or the Colonies to some of you.)

I am not a fan of Brief Encounter (and it is highly rated among critics and is on lots of critical canons.) I've liked many melodramas of the forties from many countries, but this one just irked me in several scenes especially Celia Johnson's acting. And I normally like Trevor Howard's acting as well. The writing I had on this film years ago is gone (from one of the previous Criterion sites that are now extinct), but I remember one argument I had where I stated that Dr. Alec Harvey might not have possibly be who he said he was (I don't think you have any proof that he is a doctor in the film.) I know this is an unrequited love story that would somewhat familiar to Wong Kar-wai fans. But still there were some elements in this that just irritated me.

[Markgway]

I recall 1984's Falling in Love (with De Niro and Streep) as telling a similar tale of unfulfilled love. Been a long time since I saw that one on TV though.

[Shingster]

I do not see how Temple of Doom is underrated. It is not on that many critics lists nor is it that high on aggregate sites like its IMDB's rating, especially for a film that was very influential (heck it helped usher in the PG-13 rating here in the States or the Colonies to some of you.)

Do you mean that you do not see how it is overrated? Bit confused by the statement!

The writing I had on this film years ago is gone (from one of the previous Criterion sites that are now extinct), but I remember one argument I had where I stated that Dr. Alec Harvey might not have possibly be who he said he was (I don't think you have any proof that he is a doctor in the film.) I know this is an unrequited love story that would somewhat familiar to Wong Kar-wai fans. But still there were some elements in this that just irritated me.

Interesting idea! Would certainly give a rather fluffy film a slightly sinister undertone, but I suspect we never see Harvey at work more due to its theatrical origins rather than any attempt at ambiguity in the script.

[Markgway]

It's possible that we're just supposed to take it for granted that Howard is a doc and that we don't see him at work because it's not relevant to the story. If he was lying I'm sure that would have come back to haunt him.

[Masterofoneinchpunch]

I do not see how Temple of Doom is underrated. It is not on that many critics lists nor is it that high on aggregate sites like its IMDB's rating, especially for a film that was very influential (heck it helped usher in the PG-13 rating here in the States or the Colonies to some of you.)

Do you mean that you do not see how it is overrated? Bit confused by the statement!

Yes I wrote the wrong statement in my haste (I even had to reread that a few times then oh, I made a boo bgoo). I meant to use the term overrated. I will go fix it.

The writing I had on this film years ago is gone (from one of the previous Criterion sites that are now extinct), but I remember one argument I had where I stated that Dr. Alec Harvey might not have possibly be who he said he was (I don't think you have any proof that he is a doctor in the film.) I know this is an unrequited love story that would somewhat familiar to Wong Kar-wai fans. But still there were some elements in this that just irritated me.

Interesting idea! Would certainly give a rather fluffy film a slightly sinister undertone, but I suspect we never see Harvey at work more due to its theatrical origins rather than any attempt at ambiguity in the script.

I agree, but sometimes I like having fun with "reading" (bastardized reading) a film especially if you are not given all the information. Sure we are supposed to take things for granted, but sometimes that leads for certain information to be completely missing (so we cannot even use deduction.)

[Markgway]

I is simples. I likes to take films as read.