Cam Bert

There are some directors that I really like like Wes Anderson and David Lynch that share I lot in common with David Byrne. There are lots of little odd choices in movement or wardrobe or set, that on the surface just read as weird or random. Yet everything, and I do believe everything, was painstakingly thought over by David Byrne. Some might have greater meaning and some may be just things that tickled him, but everything is deliberate. I think that's what separates him and those directors from a lot of other people that try to ape that style or a Tom Jane who decides he just needs to smoke a pipe.

I'm not saying that The Concierge and The Bookkeeper wanted their plane to be robbed, but I think that they knew it was being robbed and didn't really care. First, the excellent pilots. They make it a point to mention how smooth and seamless the take off was. Yet later in the flight the plane starts bobbing and weaving about and all they can say "I assure you we have excellent pilots." Don't you think somebody in charge might check with the pilot if there is a problem or if they hit turbulence or something. Nope. Just carry on business as usual and lots not think about this or look into it anymore. Later on when token female member of the team needs to sex up a guard, Edge puts on some rock music. This entire flight has gone music-less and then all of a sudden a rock song starts playing and as suddenly as it starts it also ends. Everybody aboard looked confused by this but did The Concierge or The Bookkeeper go to check out what the deal was? Nope. That was odd but carry on. Finally the moment Edge plays the Grumble ranting over the loud speaker The Concierge is immediately on the phone with ground people to take him out. The message wasn't even half way done by the time this call was made. I'm thinking that they knew from the start an attempt was going to be made on the plane. They just wanted to find out who was behind it to get their revenge. They let all this carry out and the moment The Concierge heard the voice he picked up the phone to a team that was already on standby. In reality this is a bumbling team of useless losers who were lucky enough to rob a casino plane that was more concerned with landing a bigger fish than stopping them.

As the man that suggested True Stories, I am 1000% in approval of this!

Say what you will about how poorly written this movie is with glaring plot holes and story elements that make no sense. The one thing they did nail though is that McGuillicuddy's passport he uses to get onto the Money Plane is in fact an Irish passport. Only in this one small area did they have an eye for details.

I think this question and answer point to the fundamental flaw of this movie. Is it about a casino plane or is it about rich people betting on anything? Those two things don't really go together. The notion of making people do things and betting on or watching the outcome is well worn thriller/horror movie fodder. I can give you five movies off the top of my head where this is the entire premise of the movie. What common thread do these movies have in common, they all take place either online or in a private residence. As pointed out in the episode the actual thing they are betting on is more illegal than the betting itself, so what's the point of being in international airspace if those things are happening on the ground. Streaming it online would not only get more bets and money, but is just as legal as the money plane itself. The only reason they would need to get into international airspace is if the things you are doing were illegal like Russian roulette. That begs the question, who would want to play a game like this? If they were super rich, why would they bother throwing their life and riches away to play this kind of game? If they were killers, criminals and rapists why would they want to play as well, wouldn't their enjoyment come from killing the other person or watching somebody suffer and not themselves? If I am the most successful arms dealer, why would I play a game in which I could die when killing somebody in a legal grey zone like "international airspace" is more my speed? Having them bet on people doing it makes sense but that's not a casino. Casino doesn't mean betting, it means gambling which bets can be a part of. In fact some casinos do let you bet on anything as long as they can make odds on it. Want to bet on the identity of the masked singer? Sure. Want to bet on which states will go what way in the upcoming election? You got it. Granted the things you are betting on are not illegal of course. Casinos also have no limit backroom games that you can bet a million dollars on poker if you want so why would the super rich need the money plane to bet like that? If you were super rich, why would you want to be sign or possibly have records of you hobnobbing it up with human traffickers and serial killers? All of this begs the question what does the money plane provide that most casinos or online things cannot? Simply it can't and has no reason to exist. What I would do to have it make sense is each rich person recruits or brings another person on board. That person is their "player" who is forced into playing games like Russian roulette, arm choppy offy, or other torturous things. They all bet on the outcomes and various sidebets and wagers that come out of this. The "player" that wins not only gets a jackpot for themselves but the rich person that brought them gets rewarded as well. Heck, I'll even go simpler and just stick to the casino. Regular gambling things like poker but the things they bet are illegal like wagering people, drugs, guns, ownership of companies, etc.

Too small and it becomes like where's waldo trying to find it and too high and it's gauche.

Some men just want to see the world burn... OMG! I just realized something. Right after they double cross The Rumble and redistribute the funds Edge claims that this is the first time they've ever done anything like this before. Does that mean he was inspired by reading Robin Hood to his daughter to finally do the right thing? His analogy is shitty because he never really thought about it before. Him and his crew were killing people, stealing things, working for mob bosses, but this was okay because they were covering their debts and the people they killed were bad. That was his understanding of things, so when he explained to his daughter it was from his weird POV of his life to that point. Then piloting that plane and thinking over the story he had just read his daughter he was like "Wait a minute, the merry men never take the money for themselves.... they give it to the poor... hmmm..." and this inspires them to finally do the right thing. I wonder what would have happened if he had been reading his daughter a different night time story.

I want to question how truly kindhearted this group of Robin Hood like thieves actually is. So they take the cryptocurrency and redistribute that to charities around the world. That's good. That's noble. However this leaves them with millions in cash laying around. Do they take that and personally donate it to some charities or children's hospitals? Nope instead they decide to "spread the wealth" by just letting it fall out of the airplane's open door. How is this helping anybody? They have no idea where this money could land. If they're flying over forest, mountains or sea that money will be ruined or chances are never found. Who's to say that the people that find this money will be good people either? Did none of them see A Simple Plan? It could cause chaos and violence. Also they chuck out a bound block of cash. That block will reach terminal velocity soon and come crashing down and could ruin a car, house or even take a life. You've just wasted lots of money that could have helped people, so how "good" of "good guy" thieves are you?

I mean that's where the artistry comes in. To shoot them in the head to splatter on the canvas and not ruin it with a bullet hole. That's what separates the Picassos from my three year old nephews.

Is nobody going to mention the fact that a crime boss blowing somebody's brains onto a canvas is a gag straight from the movie Macgruber?

As a bald/balding man who smokes a pipe on occasion and is severely disgusted by feet, this episode really spoke to me.

Was never really a big fan, no. Some of it is funny, but I think they just kinda went too long and ran lots of things into the ground. I will say though, I think Canadians by and large have lots of great comedians because they do kinda combine the sensibilities of American and British humor. I do take pride that one of our national exports is funny people.

Very true. There are very few Canadians that reach a high level of fame and decide to stay.

I see. Thanks for explaining it. Between seeing this and Hamilton it has peaked my interest because on one hand it seems like these men were all colleagues and friends to a degree but on the other were all rivals to a certain degree. These men who all bonded together to form a new nation and once that was down were wheeling and dealing and going around each other's back. Last question about Adams, like in the movie I assume he was a man very well aware of obnoxious and disliked reputation?

It's hard to say. I mean there is a common joke that Canadian nationalism didn't really start until the mid 90s and it was spawn by a beer ad. There is a humorous named Will Ferguson who has written a handful of books and a few on Canada and Canadian identity and the real lack therefore off it. In a nutshell a lot of Canadian identity came from describing how were different from Americans or British and not so much about who we are ourselves. Saying "Oh we're just like American's but without the guns" or "with healthcare" means we are identifying ourselves as American but just a little different so it doesn't speak to what it really means to be Canadian as we are calling ourselves American. So when it comes to media things that tend to "pop" that nationalism in Canadian's are things about how we are different or rejecting American stereotypes of Canadian and embracing our own stereotypes of ourselves. I mean look no further than SCTV's McKenzie brothers. SCTV was told they needed three minutes of Canadian content. Them being 90% Canadian, writing and acting in all the sketches which were filmed in Canada didn't understand what wasn't Canadian about the content they were already making. So in a mocking way Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas would go out and improvise for three minutes while being the most stereotypical white trash Canadians and the Canadian public ate that shit up. There aren't really many films that touch upon this. Our independence was founded in negotiation and not battle which makes for a boring movie. The movies that cover the time before that are things that tend to be like "Yea we treated the native population shitty, hey look a French missionary!" (Looking at you Black Robe) I think another problem is a lot of Canadians don't see or know what is Canadian cinema. There are the odd big ones like Bon Cop Bad Cop that are wholly Canadian and do well. However, it doesn't really make me feel Canadian pride. I hate to say it but movies like FUBAR that fall into that McKenzie brothers territory do oddly make me feel very Canadian. I think the things that Canadians rally around that give us Canadian pride tend to be mostly be TV comedies. Things like Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes (aka The Canadian Daily Show but years before The Daily Show) and Kids in Hall and Corner Gas are all very well respected and regarded and make people feel Canadian pride.

And I do like Captain America as well. At the end of the day these aren't big asks they are very human things than we all want and hopefully want all people to have as well. To live free to love who you want to love, worship whomever you want worship, and everybody treated with equal rights. Did he right the Massachusetts state constitution before or after the declaration of independence? I'm going to assume his want to keep the anti-slavery bits in was based off real historic fact and not just for drama. I'm curious his his failure to get it in led to him putting it in or not. If anything this movie did make me more interested in finding out about him as a person and what he did. I guess starting with the HBO mini-series on him would be a good place to start.

I'm non-American! I was going to actually ask a bit about this. So this is from my perspective of my schooling growing up in Canada. We do study a bit about America and it's founding but not that much. We cover the basics like the thirteen colonies and taxation without representation which led to the revolutionary war. However in terms of covering the people involved and their roles it's not really touched upon. I'll come back to this later. Then next time we learn about America is the war of 1812 and then the civil war is briefly mentioned. We start looking at US politics and history more come 20th century particularly from the stock market crash and depression and lead up to war. When I was in school though, grades 9 and 10 history/social studies classes just covered Canada and Canadian topics with brief mentions of America where it considered us. Then in 11 and 12 we go to more global and world and really focus on 20th century issues which brings more of a focus on modern America. All this said I have two things going for me. One, American media. You learn a lot about these figures based on references in shows and movies. Before watching Hamilton my knowledge of the man was he was shot by Aaron Burr (thanks to a milk commercial) and he was on the $10 bill and something to do with the treasury (from Lazy Sunday). I know Button Gwinnett is a person who signed and was looking for him in the movie. The second thing in my favor is I love history. So I can name you most all American presidents from my own readings and that, but my main interest in from late 19th on. I love Teddy Roosevelt, my personal favourite, because his story I found really interesting and read about him and just what a larger than life man he was. Sadly I know not that much about the civil war or founding of America. I know most of the players in general overviews and that's about it. This I guess is a long winded way of saying I'm interested in the subject but not well versed so I spent a lot of time wondering about how accurate it all was. Like I know they aped the painting and I know that they are all the real people that signed and what not, but as far as characterization and events I am curious. As far as the jingoism goes I think I wrote about this on the Unspooled episode of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I have no problem watching American movies that pat themselves on the back as long as it for the right reasons. Mr. Smith is a good example. About a man fighting for what the country was founded on and should be about. America is a land of opportunities and founded on principles and ideals of people being free to be themselves. These are good things that anyone can get behind. When it starts to get eye rolling is when it is unwarranted or when America is just celebrated for being great end of story. Michael Bay slow motion flag waving montages come to mind as eye rolling and groan inducing. However, that can also go full circle to being funny like in Rocky IV. If you want to tell me America is great because America is great fuck yeah and you're not being ironic then it is, for me at least, hard to bear. Also, I hate interjecting modern ideals and values on past works. That's where I did have many questions. I would like to know if Adams hard line stance on slavery is accurate to the man and something he did fight for. I know he is one of the few of the first twenty presidents or so that had no slaves but not sure if that was his beliefs or just lack of land, money, etc.. Long answer longer, where does 1776 fit in with all this? I wasn't put off by it. Some things were a bit cutesy, like The Egg, but none of it really struck me as all that jingoist. While I did like the songs I enjoyed their debates and the politicking side of things more. I think what helps is that Adams is so well defined and driven. If he was more of a wishy washy guy that wasn't sure what he wanted I think I could have lost interest or felt it was too "pro-American" if you get what I mean. The fact that Adam was so adamant about his belief in independence and it was for the right reasons and he was unwavering in his beliefs helped it come off as a character piece and historical fiction without seeing overly patriotic. Two of my favourite bits were at the end was he little talk with Hancock about knowing where he stands and when he is debating if he is right to give up the fight against slavery and Dr. Hall comes in and talks to him. If at any point a character started talking about the potential the nation would have to be the greatest nation in the world where every man would be equal and free, I would have groaned. It never did. These were people being oppressed by a tyrant king and wanted their freedoms and rights. Who can't get behind that?

That's true I hadn't really thought of that. You have some younger people like Jefferson who you could have easily been a non-baritone. That might be why the songs that do offer something different standout a bit more.

The version I watched was 2:47 not sure which one that is and I think there was a black and white scene with Adams and his wife but I could be wrong. Also odd compared to last weeks movie which was also three hours, I felt that Fiddler moved a bit more. This one had some slow patches, particularly at the start, that made it feel it's length.

What I found odd, but charming, about the film is how most of the songs are these light funny little songs yet the drama is very real and very heavy at times. Not to mention the dead solider song which comes out of nowhere. My only real problem, weird tonal things aside, is that it felt very stagey. Like I could see the stage set up right away, and even though I have never seen it on stage I know exactly what the stage would look like and how things would play out. They do try to do the odd thing like Lee on the horse and the five men on the stairs to add a bit more movement and variety to things but that said how interesting can you make a bunch of men sitting in a room and arguing more interesting? Maybe a more variety of shots. Not just following the action. I'm not sure but I think to me it was less of a movie and more of a stage show.

I was thinking about all the undesirable aspects of the Kaz character and I was curious how this young guy ended up homeless. The more I thought about this all the little throwaway lines of the movie just added up and painted this truly sad and tragic backstory for Kaz that does make him more sympathetic. As the best as I can make it based on what we know (homelessness, demon origin, stolen doctor's stuff, etc.) this is what I imagine Kaz's backstory is. Kaz met Bibi when he was in his early to mid teens. Due to the follies of youth and not seeing the red flag that is this girl wanting to make out with him for his friends to watch, he fell into her trap which got him cursed by Bibi's Romanian grandmother. Being in his early to mid teens and at the height of puberty and his body changing and hormones rushing he began to turn into the pozatski and odd times and was unaware of what was happening to him. He would wake up in strange locations and have fits at school and home. This odd behaviour caught the attention the teaching staff. When he spoke to the school counselor he told him of foggy memories of being a demon. Not knowing about the curse, they saw this combined with his new erratic behaviour as a sign of mental illness and after talking with his family sought to have Kaz committed to a mental institution. Kaz being of sound albeit cursed mind didn't really fit in at the mental institution. He was counselled by doctors, attended group meetings and was misdiagnosed with a mental illness which they started treating with drugs. This would get him hooked on this drugs which he thought he needed but was just an opioid addiction. Eventually due to the behaviour of his fellow patients and the drugs, kinda like McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (shout out to Unspooled) he became a changed man and actually went a little mad. Around this time is when Ronald Reagan repelled most of the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 which caused mass numbers of institutionalized mental patients, like Kaz, to be released only to end up homeless and on the streets. So now he has a pill addiction, is homeless and believes himself to be crazy. He spends his days unable to get proper treatment for his psychosomatic mental illness, which he now believes his demon state is part of, but to feed his addiction breaks into and robs the homes and offices of doctors so he can get at those sweet prescription pads. It is at this low point, victim of the system and a family and school that didn't know about pozatski's that we meet Kaz.

This is why I didn't by the ruse that Kaz was the killer. Why would he just start killing now despite being a lust demon for a good ten years or so. Seems weird for the character to finally snap this late. As to why Charles snapped, we don't know how long he'd been a pozatski. He could have met Bibi later in life and she was the one person that understood him and his weird hobbies. Seeing as her grandmother wouldn't let her get close to any boys she got as sexually frustrated as Charles and also developed weird hobbies. He meets her at the bar one night, and surprise she actually is interested. Not only is she interested but they have so much in common. It's a perfect match. Charles is over the moon and sees this as his chance to lose his V card. They go back to her place and start making out but turns out she still lives with her grandma. Charles is cursed and instead of fighting his demon he embraces it and that's why he's go more control over it and why the murders only just started happening.

Shit... I forgot that was a straight up thief as well. Seriously, between the criminal ways, the lust demon, the homelessness and the constant sexualization of women, why are we suppose to like this guy?

So what we're saying is that in the hot summer months we're all trying to repress our lust demons?