Cameron H.

I’m sorry about your cat, but glad to hear he’s doing better

For me, I think I’m on the same page with Amy in the sense that I think the jokes landed better for me in A Night At The Opera than they they did in Duck Soup. Still, I think, of the two, Duck Soup has more cultural relevance so I’d pick that one to stay. On a personal note, one of my favorite bits in the movie was this one between Groucho and Chico: -Groucho: Here are the contracts. You just put his name at the top and you sign at the bottom. There's no need of you reading that because these are duplicates. - Chico: Yes, duplicates. Duplicates, eh? - Groucho: I say, they're duplicates. - Chico: Oh, sure, it's a duplicate. Certainly. - Groucho: Don't you know what duplicates are? - Chico: Sure. Those five kids up in Canada I loved this joke because it reminds me of my father - who just passed away in December. While we were arranging his funeral, people would share personal stories about my father, many of which I had never heard. One of which had to do with the Dionne quintuplets. Born near Callander, Canada in 1934, the Dionne children were the first known quintuplets to all survive infancy. It was a huge deal at the time. So much so that it managed to get a reference in A Night At The Opera. (Chico is mistaking “duplicate” with “quintuplet.”) How this relates to my father is my that father was born in the town of North Bay, Ontario which is just south of Callander. When he was a kid, apparently the idea of quintuplets was still a major oddity and their existence attracted a bunch of tourists who would drive up there hoping to catch a glimpse of where they lived. Evidently, these tourists would often stop my father and his pals and ask them for directions to the quintuplets. As polite as can be, my father would give them careful and detailed directions - in the completely opposite direction! When I heard this story, I asked if it was to protect the quintuplets from gawkers, and I was told, “No, your father and his friends just liked messing with them.” Lol I really love this story about my father as a kid, and I like the idea that my father shared a bit of the same anarchic spirit of the Marx Brothers. It was nice to be reminded of that story as I was watching the film. I also want to say he eventually met Groucho, but I might be misremembering. He worked in advertising for most of his life and I know he had contact with Jerry Lewis (annoying), William “Bill” Shatner (class act), and Gilbert Godfried (...). However, I have a distinct memory of him telling me about Groucho and saying that he liked him.

The ship has become a non-stop party ever since Arnold staged a mutiny against Tucker and took over as captain. Tucker tries to make friends with his fellow crew members to get back in their good graces. Stew is discovering from his clones that he might not be that pleasant to be around. Meanwhile, Elsa realizes she made a mistake supporting Arnold as captain, and Mac continues to grow at an alarming rate.

As our intrepid explorers search for Earth, Tucker struggles to earn the respect of his new crew, particularly the lackadaisical Arnold (Cole Stratton). Elsa discovers a new friend in cold storage, and Sorry helps Stew get some time away from the rest of his shipmates for some peace and quiet.

Did everyone else keep expecting the dudes in the bar fight to come back? Even as far along as when Dottie’s truck pulls over to pick them up, I fully expected it to be them. I mean, maybe that’s on me. Maybe I’ve seen too many road trip movies, but it felt weird to me that they never came back. Again, it’s one of those moments where you expect some kind of consequence or payoff but nothing happens. And maybe that’s the point? Maybe the filmmakers were trying to subvert our expectations by saying, “In real life, there aren’t always repercussions.” And that’s fine. But I also think it’s difficult to take those kinds of narrative risks and still have a story that feels “complete.”

The Twilight movies are still on Hulu for people who have it (or want to get a free preview )

Oh no!!!

Right, which makes it more of moment to show Nat's growth. Maybe the issue is, like Cam said, we don't know that much about Nat. Apparently he's the central character, but the movie tries to play it like a two-hander. If the movie is primarily about Nat and how this tornado of a character upends his life and forces him to change (which I'm not arguing it isn't) then it's really unfortunate that they found so little to do with his character. Up until the very end, all the big moments - emotional or otherwise - are all focused on Richard. Like when Zouks is his having his crazy confrontation with Casey Wilson, Nat is just sitting in this teenage girls' room kind of doing nothing. It's like the movie literally just didn't know what to do with him. And if the movie doesn't seem to really care about its central character, then how am I supposed to? To focus it back on Nat, and allow Jason a chance to shine, I might have omitted the whole scene with Casey Wilson and kept it focused on Nat with the daughter. Then, as they are talking, have Richard yell out (kind of like what happens) and then have Jason tell us what happened as they make their escape in the car. I know you should try to show not tell, but I think in this case, Zouks could have improv'd something hilarious and kept the focus on the dynamic character’s decisions and growth. Having that scene focus on Zouks, and to not really have it payoff in the end, muddies things up for me. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie - a lot. I just think it could have been tightened up a bit. I think the filmmakers were, understandably, enamored by Jason and kind of let the film get away from them by shifting the focus from Nat to Richard without necessarily shifting the themes. The passive character grows while the active character doesn’t? It just doesn’t gel for me.

I guess I just don't see the point of the scene then. If he doesn't walk away from it changed or having learned something, then what's the point? We learn he has feelings for this woman, they go and see her, it goes sideways, and he moves on - but doesn't really change. Maybe if the confrontation had been later in the movie it would have been better? Like, if he was talking about this woman from the moment he stepped into Nat's car, and drops her name in all their conversations, and then finally meets with her at the end? As it is, the problem is introduced and resolved (but not really) relatively quickly and doesn't seem to impact the character or the plot much at all. Don't get me wrong, the scene is good, but it doesn't really do anything. I feel like it might be a case of not "killing your darlings."

I just meant that's how I explained it "in universe."

YES! This is one of things that made the movie (ultimately) feel unsatisfying to me. It's set up to be something, but in the end, Richard is just kind of like, "Whatever." It's kind of how he moves on so fast from the Casey WIlson disaster. I guess it shows how mercurial he is, but again, there isn't really any kind of payoff. We only know Richard from this movie so it's not like we've had any time to develop a kind of affection for him where we might be like, "Oh, that's just Richard." It just comes off as anticlimactic. It's like if you saw a gun in the First Act and in the Third Act it turns out to be a water pistol. Again, going back to Richard's static character arc, that's another reason the movie felt a little off to me. I feel like Richard had more of the emotional character beats, so for him to walk away at the end virtually unchanged seemed a little bit like a letdown. Not having Richard learn a lesson, but Nat has, kind of suggests that Richard is the person we should be striving to be more like - and that's insane. I guess I would have liked it if they had allowed Zouks to flex his dramatic side more. He was really, really good in it, but I feel like they limited him a bit.

I did! Honestly, I just chalked it up to Richard's scatterbrained nature. Like, he loves The Fast and Furious movies, but has no idea that they made more after the third one.

I guess by “ambiguity” I just mean I don’t know where Nat’s journey goes from there. Like, did he establish his art philosophy or not? What is it? He doesn’t look happy. Is he going to drop out of school? As far as Richard, yeah, I think you’re right, but I found that unsatisfying. I guess I wanted Richard’s journey to be a bit more dynamic. The movie ends with him (apparently) changing very little. Nat has changed, but I don’t know to what degree. That’s where I’d want closure. Something to show me how he’s changed and not just “he’s not the same as he used to be.”

I was with Richard 100% in that scene. Nat was showing terrible drive-thru etiquette.

I didn’t really feel it was coming out of nowhere. He had been getting more and more aggravated as the movie went on, and I think after losing his car, and then his camera and possessions because he trusted Richard (again), he was just done. I think I was a bit let down by the end, though. I’m not really sure where the characters are at the end - metaphorically speaking. I get the ambiguity was kind of the point, but I felt unsatisfied. I guess I wanted a little more closure.

I think Richard’s proposal in the diner may just be the cringiest moment since Favreau’s repeated phone messages in Swingers.

The movie Churchill was released that year, as well - two years after the fiftieth anniversary of Winston Churchill’s death. So both he and Dunkirk were probably very much on people’s minds at the time.

The hosts seemed surprised that three of Best Picture nominees for 1999 were World War II fims (Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, and The Thin Red Line), but honestly, I don’t think it’s all that strange. The fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II was in 1995, and I’m sure that it was very much on people’s minds that year. When you consider just how long it takes to make a movie, from idea stage to finished product, the timeline makes sense, and I think that explains WWII’s higher than normal representation that year. These kind of rhyming movies happen every so often when an event occurs that inspires different people to tell similar stories. According to an episode of the Cracked Podcast from a few years ago, that’s the reason 1998 saw the release of both Deep Impact and Armageddon. Both were inspired by the same story of a near-miss the Earth had with an asteroid that had occurred a few years earlier.

The Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And then we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now, too Have God on their side

I just finished the episode, and I have to say, I strongly disagree with Amy’s take that Spielberg was trying to suggest that “God was on the side of the Americans.” I get that you have a lot of people praying and surviving. I also get you have Barry Pepper reciting scripture and making almost every shot. But it’s worth pointing out, in the end, Barry Pepper, our MOST religious character, still dies. If God was “on his side,” shouldn’t he be miraculously spared? I think what Spielberg was showing was how people brought their faith with them to war, but regardless of that, if there is a God, he didn’t appear to be intervening for either side. It goes into the age old question of, “If there is a benevolent God, why do bad things happen?” As religion applies to the military, the belief that there is a divine purpose not only provides an ethical security blanket (“I’m not a cold-blooded killer; I’m an instrument of God’s will.”), but also helps people to make sense of the insanity and carnage of war. If you take that away, if God actually isn’t on our side, or even worse, doesn’t exist, it forces a person to confront some uncomfortable truths. So, in those final moments, as that tank takes aim at Barry Pepper, all that existential weight comes crashing down on him. You can see it in his face. He’s probably thinking, “But God, Why? I was a good Christian. Why have you abandoned me? Do you not exist at all? Was it really all just dumb luck?” For me, that’s the bigger twist than the Old Man Ryan reveal. Spielberg does set it up like God is on the Allies’ side, but in the end, he pulls the rug out from under us and suggests that maybe that’s just what we want to think because it makes us feel better.

And, because I don’t say it enough, I just want to say how much I appreciate Taylor Anne. You’re my oldest friend on the boards and I probably take your presence here far more than I should. In fact, old friends and new friends alike, thank you for being here! I talk about you all (in good ways) far more than you would probably guess.

We love you, Snakes! You’ve been a wonderful addition to our nerdy, little family here

It's that time again! I just wanted to throw this out there since I know it can sometimes be awkward when the first day of the month is also the first Friday. Also, I'm giving us a choice of movie because, well, personally, I feel like The Room has been done to death. Personally, I would much rather watch The Disaster Artist than The Room. However, I know a lot of people love it. Personally, I think Supes 3 sounds like much more fun But whatever the group decides is totally cool.

Damn, you missed out...

Tom is hosting tonight. She needs a few minutes and then will send the link.