jnoodlervoss

The crew touched on this briefly in the podcast, but I wondered how this group got together? They all are musicians, Tae Kwon Do experts, and orphans, so how did the find each other? Were they: A: a group of orphans that decide to live together, learn martial arts, and take up music; B: a band that just happens to all be orphans that learned marital arts separately; or C. a bunch of guys at the same dojo that found out they all were orphans and also play different instrument and/or sing? I am just imagining all these options on those "tear-off the phone number" flyers on a community billboard (trope?). "Wanted: Bass Player who is an Orphan or Bastard. Must be a proficient in Tae Kwon Do and willing to live with several shirtless guys."

Charlie looked too much like the basketball leg guy when he was first revealed in the car. I saw Charlie driving the car, thought it was the basketball kid (even though we saw him dead) and thought "OK, the Basketball Kid saw how much stronger, faster the legs made him and started collecting the other parts to make himself entirely better." The movie suddenly got better with this plot twist. Then, realizing that this was a character we were supposed to recognize after Fahey lets us know it's Charlie, I was disappointed. I think they missed an opportunity. That's all, I would have been more invested if the basketball kid was the final antagonist because we would have been introduced to.

Oh the basketball scene... Why count by 2's? Cuervo already changed the shot clock to 10 seconds, removed all other basketball related rules, and said "No 3 point bullshit," so why even count by twos? Just say five baskets. Also, like Jason brought up, why dribble? Cuervo never said he had to. Its already difficult enough for Snake to successfully make a shot (he has ONE FUCKING EYE), so why insist on dribbling, a skill that wastes time and is ridiculously hard without the aid of depth perception. Maybe that's why Kurt Russell had to practice so much, he actually had figure out how to play basketball without a left eye. And lastly, did Cuervo really build a regulation size basketball court, wood and all, in the center of the Coliseum? Seems like a waste of space and time as a basketball court is roughly 1/12 the size of a football field not including sidelines and, although I'm not from LA, isn't there a ton of other places, like the Staples Center or Pauley Pavilion, that would be more conducive to this event?

One quick question, When Frenchy meets Michael for the first time during the back to school song, she says "When your cousin Sandy said you were coming to America I said, "Any cousin of yours is a cousin of mine." Does this means the Sandy from Grease 1 is Michael's cousin? If I remember correctly, Sandy is from Australia, so did they just think that the Australian and British accents were close enough to make the characters related? I guess what I am asking is whether making them cousins, not closer relatives, was a conscious decision because the accents didn't quite match. Or is this just a lazy way to introduce a Michael and tie this story it back to Grease 1, so Sandy's and Michael's accents didn't matter at all. The family connection obviously didn't matter as this was the only mention of (I think), so why even include it? This was just something I heard right at the beginning and I kept waiting for this detail to become more relevant.

For those who have not stolen their friend’s/family/neighbor’s HBO GO account to watch this, it is now coming to Netflix October 1. Watch it, it is a wonderful great/bad movie.

RED DRAWF! I knew I sort of recognized that Android thing

Just trying to keep this one going. This movie is bat shit crazy. I watched Millennium other day and was bored stiff. That is until the 35 minute mark when the whole thing goes bonkers and it turns into an entirely different movie. Holy cats, this was a weird one. It's on HBO on demand, WATCH IT TODAY! It is a real rough start, but get through all the sludge and do yourself a favor, pause it at the 33 minute mark, take a deep breath, and get ready. It is a jarring shift into some of the worst costuming and effects of 1998. Then, make it worse, the whole boring part is replayed from another character's view. Also, its fun to make someone else watch it and see their reaction at this point. Please keep this going and watch the movie. It is worth it and I think it would make a great episode.

I see my mistake. But, if one becomes a Phantom at age 3, how even less effective are they if their average life span is 14 years? And what are the moral implications of a 16-17 year old having to have a child and raise it enough to take over. Its a exponentially negative curve as the new Phantom now starts at 1 year old and only lives to 15. One scenario is there was an outlier that raises the average at the very beginning, lets say to 40, and each generation lowers that average until we get to a 14 year average. But gain, we are talking about effectiveness of the Phantom, so in this scenario, one guy was great for 40 years and there was some that probably only lasted 2 years. I just don't think an effective hero can have a "hero life expectancy" of 14 years. However, can we assume that Phantoms have more than one child? if so, my whole theory blows up. The first one may have had 7 sons, and passed it on and on. I don't think they said that, but the movie definitely leads us to believe that each passes it down to the next son, the one and only son. And if this is true, as brought in the podcast, what does happen if they have daughters?

When the movie started and they said Billy Zane is the 21st in the line of Phantoms and it all started with pirates. Having quite a bit of knowledge on the subject, my mind could not make these inconsistencies fit. So, plot holes aside, LETS. DO. MATH!!! Since the Golden Age of pirates was between 1650 and 1730 (sourced from Pirates: Golden Age of Piracy, Henry Freeman) and the current date is 1938, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say those pirates are from 1650. this means that: 1938-1650=288 years between Pirates and Current Date 288/21=13.7 So the average age of the Phantom is 14! SO, instead,, lets talk about realistic numbers. Training your son to take over, I believe the kid should be 20 (assumption) so the father could be 40 (conservative estimate). So if the average age, minus Billy Zane, is 40: 1938-25 (Billy Zane's rough age)= 1913 20 (number of Phantoms)*40 (average age)=800 1913-800=1113 So, if the conservative estimates are roughly accurate, the phantom lineage couldn't have started with pirates, instead, it started during the Crusades, 500 years prior. Sorry, just doesn't fit.

The panel briefly touched on it, but I think we need to discuss just how ineffective the Phantom and the Phantom lineage actually is. In the stand-off scene, Quill tells the pirates "I once killed the Phantom" showing the belt he took from the current Phantom's father and Kabai Sengh replies "Join the club, many of us have killed him over the years, he keeps coming back." The movie show just how bad they all are at fighting and effectively using weapons, yet they have killed 20 (Kit is the 21st in the line) Phantoms. Also, is Kabai Sengh is immortal? The opening scene says he killed the first Phantom's father, starting the whole story, 20 Phantom’s ago.

Talking Horse Bobcat Goldthwait Bucktoothed Dabney Coleman Gilbert Gottfried Total Shit Storm.

I do understand that some of you do like this movie, however, I ask these four questions to those defending this film: 1. How does a hypnotherapist gain access to and know how to run a CAT Scan. There is no nurse, doctor, or technician in the room. Rosario Dawson seemingly has a CAT Scan Machine in her office and is proficient at using it. Again, she is a Hypnotherapist. This scene only cements the already established fact that he is obsessed with her. Not necessary. 2. Why do we need to see Rosario Dawson fully nude? Was it to show that she would have done anything for him, including (gasp) shaving her pubic hair? If that was what this plot point was meant establish, why do we need to hear the razor and see her strutting out of the bathroom later? He is already obsessed with her and they are two seconds from sex, why run and do something more for the man you want to kill. Not that she wasn't stunning, but it seemed like it the scene was forced just to add some nudity. 3. She sets up this whole convoluted plan that took over a year (?) from start to finish for a painting. I can take that. This painting that she risked her life for was worth millions, so one would assume, in a good movie, she wanted to make sure she never had to work again. But, nope, she hangs it on wall and explains she couldn't sell it, it reminded her too much of the two main male characters; you know, the one that beat and tried to kill her and the other one whom she has known for about two weeks. 4. Hypnotherapists are alternative medicine "doctors." This movie supposes that they not only are ridiculously successful, as evident by her incredible office and home, but have a neurosurgeon's education level. Honorable mentions: Selective amnesia, selling the stolen art, how did he get from the car accident to hospital without anyone seen the dead woman's body, and no one smelled the dead woman in the car that was impounded. I tried to watch it again found even more problems that I did not add, but the premise that hypnotherapist are wealthy doctors that have access to their own CAT scan machines interlaced with the distracting nude scene and finishing with a plot twist that contradicts the plot of the entire movie confounds me. I tried it again but I cannot give this film any credit.

Trance (2013)- James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson, Vincent Cassel Watched this the other night and I cannot believe that it has a 65+ rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Shoehorned plot devices, stupid use of amnesia and hypnosis, too confusing to follow, and just distractingly unbelievable. People have told me that I just don't understand it, but I challenge anyone to watch this whole thing without screaming "Fuck You" at all the convenient plot items. And the ending, holy cats! Are we to believe that the main character got away with murder and hid the body with the help from his ex-girlfriend (who wants to kill him because he abused her), all the while suffering from amnesia inducing head trauma that sends him to the hospital for MONTHS afterward? If she wanted to get rid of him, basically the entire driving point of the rest of the movie, why didn't just turn him in? Oh thats right, she needed him to STEAL A PAINTING, so all the sexual and domestic abuse is unimportant. Christ, it is dumb. This is perfect for the trio of “How Did This Get Made.” There are tons of “oh boy, oh boy” moments for Paul and it is hard to follow with plenty of room for speculation, which lends itself well to Ms. Diane. And, as an added bonus for Jason, Rosario Dawson in totally unnecessary full frontal nudity. Just because movies are confusing doesn’t make them automatically high art. Please watch this crapfest and tell me that I am not wrong.