Drew Mancini

I don’t want to be too long winded so I’ll try to be as brief as possible. I am third generation Italian-American. I related hard to Paul’s story of being put in a headlock at a graduation party because of his alleged “funniness.” And Amy’s response about being WASPy, and being confused by it is precisely why I don’t think she likes this movie. I agree with Paul that casting people on the edges of 20-40 makes sense for such a long timeline. You age ‘em down a little in the beginning, then age ‘em up later on. On Joe Pesci being too old for the role, it never once in my entire life occurred to me, probably because I have cousins who at 19 looked like they were as old as Joe Pesci. Seriously, 1/3rd of my family are balding, stout Italians at 19. Amy’s argument about Henry Hill “suddenly” caring about his brother. I would say “yeah, he’s gotta go pick up his brother.” Amy reminded me of the people who were mad we didn’t see Rey’s training in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, calling her a Mary Sue. I don’t understand how it’s hard to imagine Henry needing to pick up his wheelchair bound brother for some needlessly extravagant dinner he’s planned while coked up. We don’t need two additional scenes of him having a heart to heart with his brother about how he’ll always pick him up from the airport. I think Goodfellas is an amazingly crafted and entertaining movie that stands the test of time. I think that Amy simply doesn’t like it because she doesn’t relate, which is fine, it’s okay to not like a movie, but I think she’s wrong. I could go on for longer, but those were my three biggest issues with Amy’s assessment of the movie.

On the topic of the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy. I agree with most of your points, especially Dark Knight Rises (that movie is so horrible on so many levels), but the Joker stuff, I've come to accept them as the Joker is just winging it. I've rewatched it recently, and if you can imagine that if he always keeps a bomb or a kidnapping in his back pocket, then he doesn't really care how things play out, and the narrative just appears to be Machiavellian. The Joker's "job" is to eliminate the Batman. Is Dent Batman? Probably not, but he's going to kill Dent because that's his job, and if he isn't, then Batman's going to show up. The Joker also knows that Rachel is important to Batman from an earlier scene. So the entire scene plays out, and the Joker gets caught and taken to jail. Let's pretend there's a missing scene, and all the Joker has at this point is a bad cop on his payroll, so he tells the bad cop while in custody, "hey, get on the wire, kidnap Rachel, she'll already be with Dent, and tie them up with bombs. If they both blow up, whatever... Also, get that fat guy with a bomb stuffed in him over here." And maybe Batman saves them both, maybe they both die, maybe just Rachel gets killed and Dent gets half of his face burned off. He doesn't care. The Joker got caught and he needs a distraction and a bomb or three. That's it. Even if Batman doesn't show up, the Joker still kills Rachel and Dent. He even tells Dent immediately after that he's not the kind of guy to have plans. He is, however, smart enough to have some back pocket tricks to get him out of a situation. People keep saying his plan the whole time was to get captured, I don't think he once even implies it. Later, when things play out the way they do, he realizes Dent has survived and his face is burned off, so he decides to see if he can convince Dent to go on a killing spree. He basically plays russian roulette with Dent. He is a harbinger of chaos, just like he is set up to be. All he needed for that is to plant a bomb in the hospital and cause a panic. That's it. Maybe he kills Dent, maybe Dent goes on a killing spree, maybe Dent shoots him dead from his hospital bed, maybe Dent cries in his hospital bed and he gets blown up with the hospital. Then he's like "okay, now I got this great idea to plant bombs on boats. Gasoline and bullets are cheap. And after that plays out, he's like "hey Batman, you're a lot of fun, guess what's going on. I think Dent has gone on a killing spree." It's just a lot of manic, reckless, insane energy. He starts off that he wants to kill Batman, but then when he realizes the theatrics of the Batman up close and he doesn't want it to end. Also, Batman is immune to the Scarecrow's neurotoxin after Lucious Fox synthesizes the cure. They just can't manufacture enough for the whole city before the plan plays out. That's a big reason why Rachel and Batman are running around the city unaffected while the chaos is breaking out. Does anybody else feel the same way about The Dark Knight? Did I miss anything?

Guys. I registered just to get you this message. I've listened to every episode at least two times since discovering the show, and I have to say that something changed with my listening experience with Matt Jones coming in as your guest host. He carried a presence different from all the other guests you've had, and I think he deserves a more permanent position. His points were funny, but poignant. His commentary was intellectual, but not disruptive or boring. To me, listening to the Rhinstone episode was like rediscovering the Ninja Turtles, with Paul as Leonardo (the dutiful leader), June as Raphael (the passionate romantic), Jason as Michelangelo (the wild, party dude), and Matt as Donatello (the intelligent and pragmatic one, and possibly "does machines"). Another comparison, if you're a Sex in the City fan, is that Paul would be Charlotte York (who believes in duty before self), June is Miranda (a firey, passionate redhead, even though June is not a redhead), Jason is Samantha (the impulsive whore/jokester), and Matt is clearly Carrie Bradshaw (the well read intellectual). YOU CAN'T HAVE SEX IN THE CITY WITHOUT CARRIE BRADSHAW! Please have Matt back soon and often. Seriously good. Please keep up the good work.