(upbeat music) - Hey there and welcome folks to a daily rating special. Yes, today we're gonna enter in a new kind of special here and we're calling it directors first. So with that, of course, we're gonna be taking a look at some of the biggest directors in the industry and review their first ever feature film. So we're gonna be sitting down with Mr. Vincent Dailey to get his thoughts, his reviews, and of course, his ratings on 1984's Blood Simple directed by Joel and Ethan Cohen, 1992's Reservoir Dogs by Quentin Tarantino, 1996's Bottle Rocket by Wes Anderson, 1998's Pie, directed by Darren Aronofsky, and finally, also in 1998, Following, directed by the great Christopher Nolan. So it's gonna be a great special, folks, diving into the very beginning of these famous directors. So let's hear what Vince has to say about it, stay tuned and enjoy the show. (upbeat music) All righty, let's bring in the man of the hour, Mr. Vincent Dailey. - How was your week of special movies, bro? - Oh, this week was great, a huge week of movies. - I was in a good mood. - Yeah. - I didn't wanna watch these in the beginning of the week, and I was like, "It's special, I gotta watch these." And then sure enough, I was just knocking them down. I was watching, watching. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, well, thank God for short movies. - Oh, 70 minutes, after 70 minutes. - Yeah, please, yeah. Especially following, I mean, it was like watching an episode of a TV show now, it's great. And I gotta tell you, I finished the films. - Okay. - And then I went through, and then I watched Pulp Fiction, and then I watched Memento. - Whoa! - This second film was out there, it's seen no in Nolan. - That's great, that's great. - I was all into it. - You have been on a tear. You have been putting me to shape in my own rule of the five. - When you sleep like shit Finn, it's like you can get anything done, I'll tell ya. (laughing) - That's great. Love the new intro, too. It makes me sad when not doing like a Michael Mann, first study, you know, it felt very, very, he's Miami there. - So, it's funny going through, 'cause obviously this is gonna be, you know, director's first kind of part one, 'cause it's something we wanna continue. And it's like, you know, the outlier of this show, I would say is the Coen Brothers, 'cause all these other guys first film was in the 90s. Coen Brothers was in '84, and I would say the next one that would've been good for this would've been Paul Thomas Anderson, but we did it already. - Oh, yeah, yeah, very true. - And the PTA episode, which is hard eight. - It would've been perfect. Hard eight definitely fits into that same realm of like, it really is trying to be a peer of the movies that it's looking up to at the time. We talked about that planning on our Paul Thomas Anderson episode with Hard Eight being kind of in the wake of Goodfellow Copycats and whatnot. But yeah, I honestly, I really did love this week of movies. I felt like this was some real heavy hitters across the board for really one reason or another. And folks, what I hope to get out of this special and a series of specials is really just to approach this like a normal review. All but one of these I haven't seen before, but still do what we love to do on the podcast. Can we spot the DNA? Can we spot the the makings of what are gonna be the style of our directors? - Yeah, only one you haven't seen before. - No, only one I've seen before. - Oh, yeah, and that was the only one that was rated too. So which is exciting to approach these guys. And in fact, I think we covered everybody before on the podcast with the exception of Quentin Tarantino, actually. - Yeah, yeah, absolutely. - Do we do no one? And surprisingly not in a full episode. - We did open him. - That's what I mean though. We covered at least some, we mentioned their name on the podcast as far as their films. - Absolutely. But yeah, a lot of these we've done full kind of director study episodes. - Cohen Brothers, Aronofsky, Wes Anderson. - No, maybe we didn't, actually. - No, Wes is just Cohen Brothers in our landscape. - Yeah, and Anderson, we covered his film last year, which I can't remember, actually. - Uh, I wish I could. - After it's in, that's it, right? (laughing) - But I totally agree, approach it like a normal episode, but it's great that we're doing this. And there's so many others, directors, that we can have fun with in the future too. - Oh, yeah. - Especially going all the way back. - Absolutely, absolutely. I think two side notes, originally one of the slots here was going to be for Edgar Wright's first student film project. - Ah, right. People of Fingers from 1995, definitely originally fit in that '90s slot. I love Edgar Wright to death. He's probably in my top 10 directors of all time, but it was a bit too scrappy when I watched it. You know, regardless of being his first feature or not. It's free on YouTube though. If you do wanna check it out, once again, fist full of Fingers, it's a comedy Western. - So I was really hoping it was gonna be, you know, something we could talk about. - Actually, he should remake that. - Yeah, yeah. - Look, what he did was zombie in humor. - Yeah, absolutely. - For Shaun of the Dead. - Absolutely. I know he's been on record talking about like a Blu-ray release because it really is like, I don't know how it is on YouTube for free, but it's clearly probably in licensed limbo. - Well, how? And was it a true, did it feel like a feature film or was it like? - It felt very scrappy. - Like student, student film. - Yeah, yeah. I mean, it is his technical first feature, but I feel like also in Wright's story, he goes on to work on TV shows like Space and whatnot before he gets back into movies. - Right, right. - And there's a big gap. I mean, he's a 2000s head, you know, he's not really like a 90s. - 94% early for him. - Yeah, yeah. - Almost a young 20s. - Exactly, so. But yeah, if you wanna check it out, it is free. We did cut it, sorry. - So what replaced that, by the way, was it? - I think that was a reservoir dog. - Oh, that's right. - I almost looked over Tarantino and say, yeah, we'll get to a better, we'll probably do a 10 spot when he does his 10 film. - That's true. - And it was covered already. - Yes. - But now I'm glad. I'm glad we threw it in there. - Absolutely. And honestly, that was one that I was really walking away with a refreshed appreciation 'cause-- - Me too. - Me too. - You know, boy, I don't even know when. We originally talked about reservoir dogs, like even like pre-podcast, so. - It's so true, it's so true. - These are all wonderfully short movies. I was in Bliss being able to knock three in one sitting. I mean, really like fantastic. But for that reason, some of these reviews might be a little bit slimmer on details, avoiding spoilers, especially. The good news is I feel like all of these do meet a level of worth your time. And hopefully I can kind of make a case for all of these. - Sure. - Despite them being early. But yeah, especially with following, I was really like struggling like, I don't know what else to talk about. You know, it's only 70 minutes. - And I think that 'cause they're so slim. Like, I mean, that's, and I think that's okay. - Yeah, yeah. - And I just love, I don't know. The more and more that we were talking about this special idea, I just like it because it's sure we like to go through and maybe do a complete Tarantino special or this or that, the other thing. But I like this. These are such small movies, like truly small films. - Yeah, yeah. - And these are such massive directors. I think they're gonna, they're almost gonna be, not a must watch, but like a go ahead and watch it in either way if you have any appreciation for any of these directors. - Absolutely. - 'Cause you can see where they came from. - Yeah. - It's good, just dive into it. - Yeah. - Okay, so before we start any other opening notes. - No, no, that's about it. - So beforehand, Vin, happy 150th episode. - Oh, that's right, that's right. - This is how much we don't plan really to do things. Last week we decided, you know what, let's do a special, this guy not gonna be much out. I haven't done it in a while. We just wanted to do this idea. And 20 minutes later, I'm just like, oh my God, it's our 150th episode. (laughing) It's a good thing we're doing something special. - Yeah, good thing, there wasn't a second baseball week. (laughing) - So no, 150 episodes of me. - Yeah, that was pretty cool. And also just doesn't feel real at all. (laughing) - I know, it's weird how long we've been doing it and how it doesn't feel long, it's just. - I think we're at the point that my memory is going a little bit on some of those earlier episodes. I mean, even recently on the podcast. - It'd be the best. (laughing) - Even recently it's been like what movie is that again? I mean, even this episode went by Sanderson soon. So yeah, I think it's been a great ride so far. - It's been getting better and better. - I think we've been just getting better and better and it's been reaching more people. Just last month, the month of August. I gotta tell you, it was like the array of people that were listening on their different apps and different states, it's getting more popular like around the country. I mean, we have multiple listeners around the world too. - Yeah, YouTube's taken off too. Folks, if you listen on YouTube, I guess we'll have to start saying like and subscribe. (laughing) - It got to the dance. - Oh, but yeah, really, really great to see that it's growing and hopefully this will be a nice jumping in point for so many new listings of the podcast, especially when we do reference like so much of previously what we've done 'cause it feels like yesterday, you know? - Exactly, exactly. All right then, with that, yeah, let's jump into it. Basically how we're gonna do it, folks. I mean, we're gonna do normal review, basically. You know, Vince got extra director notes and I just kind of have, I just did some research on the making of the film. How do you even get to the point of making your first film individually for each of these guys? 1984, it's our earliest film. Basically, we have Joel at age 29, Ethan at age 26, and when this came out, they had a budget of one and a half million dollars, which to me was kind of surprising. - Sure. - And like, I don't even know what that calculates to today's money, but it's-- - Yeah, what's 84 standards, you know? - But it's a decent amount for a first one, I think. So they wrote this screenplay. They shot a dummy trailer and it actually starred Bruce Campbell in the trailer. - Really? - And they used it to shop around, the idea, 'cause they wanted to make it to a full length picture, but you know, they shot a trailer that didn't belong to a larger film. - Wow. - It was just acting as a trailer. - That's pretty cool. - So they shot it in Austin and Hudo, Texas in 1982. They shot it for eight weeks. You know, other notes is this is Francis McDormand's debut. - Yes, and she's 27 in this, so. - I know, Carter Burdwell, who's a famous composer, was 29 when he composed the film and this helped propel his career. And these guys worked together all the time, going forward in the future. But that's really it. I mean, there's no other basic notes. The big thing was basically they had the idea and they grew up filming little commercials and little scales when they were little kids. And then finally they made this, I don't even know what Bruce Campbell was doing in 1984. - Well, that makes sense because the Coens, I don't know exactly, but they were in kind of the same space as Sam Raimi. In fact, the second film is with Sam Raimi. Apparently it's like really, really bad, but that makes sense that they were all like together. I know, Francis McDormand. - People of debt is around this time, yeah. - Yeah, absolutely. So I love that background because it does say, it does kind of sell the idea of when you're a filmmaker, you kind of just need to get the edge where you can. They're making a fake trailer for this to get the funding for it. That's awesome, that's renegade. I love that. - And I think with a lot of these guys, is they're just innovative with how they need to get the job done. - Yeah. - So it's very cool. But anyway, all right, so with that, Vin, I say let's get into it. I'm excited for this week to really see, you know, all these directors have styles, individual ways of going about things. You can almost watch the film and know it's their film. And that's what was exciting for me. As soon as watching the film, am I gonna see these directors in the first film? - Yeah, yeah. - So blood simple, why don't you just tell us what it's about and we'll get into it. - Well, the Coen brothers are director duo. We touched on quite a bit this year already. We did a good old five spot for our driveway dolls episode, as well as being center focus for the no country for old men special. So there's been plenty of talk on this channel about what DNA adds up to their movies. But I think one review I wanna call back to is when we covered the must watch Fargo much earlier in the podcast. While blood simple isn't chock full of weirdo characters and barely has their comedic style to it, it does still have that quality of small time crime that I love in their storytelling. And if anything, it makes perfect sense because it feels like a dark gritty first swing at pairing mundane lives with very real crime. On that note is where I was surprised most about this film. It's much darker in tone than I ever expected. There are plenty of Coen brother movies that are just as dark and just as violent, but without some of the charm or comedic breaks mixed in there, the story stays in a tense paranoia that lasts the entire runtime. Honestly, in this way, it felt closer to a diploma style thriller in a lot of ways and made me look at this coming out in 1984 and wonder about other kind of contemporary thrillers. Was this just early '80s? This is how a thriller was made. This was the vibe that it was going for. - That's interesting 'cause it did have some diploma notes. - I will say from the get-go, like in the first opening scene in this, and then basically five minutes in, maybe 10 minutes in, I thought this was bleeding Coen brothers because of the characters. - Yeah, true. - Because we have such established silly characters off the bat, especially the one guy. It's like, well, this is a Coen brothers character all the way. - Oh, yeah. I feel like he is condensed. He's all, usually would be like 14 silly character characters. Just like, no, it's the guy. - It's the guy, yeah. - But other than that, I will agree that maybe it takes it darker. I mean, they went on to make no country, but it does have a, when you say darker, like-- - I guess I was expecting a comedy to break it up in some way or like a Fargo that the small time crime is kind of endearing in a way, even though there's real death. - Well, raising air. - Raising Arizona. - Absolutely, yeah. You know, there's guns, there's violence, you know. There's all this stuff, but I feel like in the, the trifecta of what a Coen brothers story is to me, that charm that almost comedy break is part of the formula. And here, it just, I mean, there was maybe dark comedy occasionally, but I didn't really have that. So that's where I felt like it was just much grittier than I expected. - Yeah, much more serious, no, just all the way through. - Absolutely, absolutely. Folks, the name Blood Simple is one of probably the slickest titles you can give the film. As our characters are tangled in a love triangle, that is anything but simple. This is a drama thriller of crossed wires and has so many shots of ceiling fans in this. And they were forced to make a story about shit hitting one of them eventually. John Getz and Francis McDormand create a messy cheating scandal that breaks apart relationships as one act fractures the whole picture, you know, what each character knows. And as we see, the story will kind of play on that fractured understanding. That's really like the whole point of this story, is that who knows what, and more specifically, who doesn't know all the pieces in play. Her husband is played by Dan Hadaya, who not only owns the shady roadhouse the film centers on, but employs Getz, adding insult to injury. Outraged by this, he hires the same sleazy private investigator that finds out about the cheating to do some dirty work and take them both out. But like I said, this is anything but simple. Tom, I mean, everyone's just playing games in this. Everyone, why is everyone in the messiest relationship possible? It is so much of like, I get a little frustrated with it because it's like, just say, just, just, I don't know, just talk, it's such a game of, you know, people know this much, but they don't know other things. And it's just how messy the interconnected relationship, the love triangle in it is. You know, I feel like my experience watching this can be just summed up as stress the fuck out. Really? Yeah, I was just stressed out. Wow, I was having a better time with this than watching it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it was just like in this misinformation or them not knowing, you know, all the whole picture of what's going down. And on one hand, I think this is a super tight script that shows both of the co-ins are writers first. This is like really like a meaty story played out in the details of it. This is the type of thriller that plays heavily with what different characters know and don't know and uses that to crank up the tension constantly. It's also where Carter Burwell really shines, a regular face doing music for them. But I couldn't help but feel a tiny bit frustrated when so much could be cleared up by just talking, just communicating, just this full sentences. Just don't let your understanding of the situation be facial emotions alone. I know a specific scene that you're talking about. Yeah, and it's just like, we are in this mess because no one is talking. But it really is tight for that reason. I understand the whole plot is around this communication and maybe that even plays into the theme itself around kind of this love triangle relationships that communication doesn't happen, it can fall apart. But still, it was something that was slightly, slightly on my nerves while watching, just because I just get frustrated with those elements of just clear it up with one word. Francis McDormand is just 27 in this and regardless of her age, per usual is easily the best acting performance here. She kills it. I mean, she is the best living actress, potentially. Yeah, absolutely. I think I was on RMDB. I don't think there's anything slated for her. Oh, really? In the future. Yeah. And it's just like, come on, you're crushing it right now. I mean, because you had three billboards, you had no madlands. Yeah. You know what I mean? Like, keep it going. Absolutely. But even going that back this far with her debut, it's just like, she's just great. Yeah, you're really great, really great. There's just something so real that she brings out, especially in the moments of like fear or confusion in what's unfolding in front of her. Yeah, yeah. It's just like, man, it was just so, so just in the same way that I like spotting DNA, that was, you know, maybe an actors for a special series could be something, just seeing. It would be kind of cool. What is the first actors role? I mean, you might get some really rough choices and raw pics, but at least for her, it's all good marks because she was really phenomenal. And I feel like even when I wasn't crazy about John Getz as our other lead. So I kind of liked him. Why didn't, was he too goofy of a guy? Maybe goofy looking. He was, it was a little bit of a goofy. Yeah, yeah. I think it was just more so, he centered the moments of where I was frustrated. Right, okay, that makes sense, yeah. I'm just like, dude, just talk. But yeah, I really do think that she's just, she just knocks it out of the park here. Our usual handful of cone weirdos is distilled down into one character, and that definitely goes to Emmett Walsh playing the slimy PI. Walsh gives a really great villain performance here, especially for how much sweat and flies. They have buzzing around this man. It was like a Looney Tunes depiction of this character. I loved it. Walsh also did sadly die earlier this year. And well, the character certainly isn't meant to be flattering. This is still a great performance in the line of so many cone weirdos to come. I really do think that this was, you know, isn't at the villainy of like an Anton Shagor and in no country, no, but he is in that same category of like chaotic and you're not really sure how far he's willing to go. Do you think you would push it to like a, a John Goodman and no brother were out there? Yeah, actually that's a great, that's a great, and also equally sweaty. Yeah, equally sweaty. We weren't hot on that film, but we liked it. Like John Goodman's character was like, okay, it's something here. Absolutely. And a true coin character. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely, absolutely. Between really liking the acting, but not loving the driving conflict, I think the tipping point for me was the filmmaking itself. There are more than a handful of great shots here that made me take notes immediately. And I feel like, you know, I just said, you know, the coins are writers first. I feel like there's a lot of inspired shots as far as the cinematography and what they're trying to actually have as the visual storytelling on screen. There's a shot with a gun being pointed and as the person reached for it, they're just clicking through the chambers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just really like gorgeous and tells the story in itself. I love the shot of the random weirdo that drives by flashing his headlights and he shoots him like a, "I got you, buddy." That felt like probably the closest thing of their comedy coming through in this. There's a shot with McDormand storming out of the house after a newspaper slams against the door and that just whole sequence was just edited like so good. So brilliantly. But I think like where I really, it really was the tipping point for me was just that final climax is something else. I think there's a slight shift in genre at the very end in a good way. I don't want to talk about it because I feel like that is a spoiler in itself. But I don't know, what were your thoughts about the ending? 'Cause I did feel like it was a little bit of a, I don't know, not a 90 degree turn but it was a little bit of a turn. Um, I don't know if I feel exactly the same way. I felt kind of like it was leading up to this. Oh, okay, okay. I wasn't outwardly shocked by, to be honest about it because the film is so simple. I just was kind of seeing it going in a certain direction and I was into it. I mean, I was most engaged then. And if you could say that it totally went for a different genre at the end, then yeah, it would be, yeah. Yeah, you could. (laughs) Yeah, I think I was just more so shocked of just like, okay, this is how we're paying this all. This is how we're paying this romance drama? Okay. But I did really enjoy it. And in those, in that final climax, probably a handful of its own really great looking shots. They kind of have an obsession with light passing through like a bullet entry. And if I believe a few parts of the film, but definitely in that final climax and just really great looking. Just, that's where when you said with the budget, that surprises me because I feel like a lot of testing would have to go into really portraying this, how they wanted to on screen. And I think, and that's what's great about going through all these guys is just how good they were with such, was so little. And it was actually kind of inspirational to anyone out there who's like, well, not this guy can ever do this. I can't be funny. I can't do this, yada yada. It's like, no, no, no, you would be surprised with what you can do with what you've got. And I think these guys were, I think a lot of just how good it looks and the command that they had over the camera and visuals and everything just had to do with them growing up with like a super eight camera. And just having fun. Like they knew, they knew stuff already. Yeah. And I like your comment of writers first. And I almost think you could say that for all these guys. One thing I found, it's because you're working with such little everything else. You only have so much film. You only have so much money. Everything is on a budget. Everything needs to be tight that nothing can be grand on screen because you can't afford it. Oh, sure. So it all comes down to the dialogue. We're now, especially with blockbusters, it's all flash and bang and just like visual porn, basically. Yeah, yeah. And writing sucks. I mean, how much do we complain about writing oftentimes? Absolutely. With these guys, all they have to go lean back on is the writing. Absolutely. And it's probably the only area that they can put as much time as they want to into it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. When you have your budget and when they're actually getting down into production, that's even probably thinner to work with. So I feel like that's where a lot of the elevator pitches, the hooks to all of these films, there's something electric there that clearly was the idea first before the visuals first in all instances. But overall, while I was a bit annoyed with a miscommunication plot just because simple things could be cleared up in a simple few seconds, I think what is gained is all intention of the story and never stops cranking tighter and tighter as more of these characters' understanding of their lives, their own lives gets fractured by one event. And that laser focus in storytelling is why these two brothers became a powerhouse writing and directing duo. I think on the writing side, it's what we see later on in their career that they're just kind of writing for a little bit without going back to the directing chair. And directing wise is why I personally, and I can say Tom loves them as well. We're gonna go ahead and give Blood Simple 1984 a 74. It's 74%. I would say just a notch above raising Arizona. I actually really, all these movies, I didn't really wrestle with like the big placement of the scores, but I could also make an argument for one point, one or two points either direction on all of these. - Yeah, I think 74 is a good score. I can't say, I enjoyed these films. I was not loving all of these films. - Really? - I had, and I don't know, it's something about that it's their first film. I think there's leniency there. Like if this was the Cohen's third film, I would have issues with it. - Oh, okay, interesting. - Because of just how simple it is to how not much we got going on. - Right, right. - You know what I mean? But 74, I mean that's a pretty damn good score. - Yeah, I think where it lands, not that it's a comparison game, but specifically raising Arizona, I feel like where the perfect trifecta of their style was made. Here that was lacking, but at the same time it was just like a really hyper tight script, like this was something that was worked out and so about the details too. - No doubt, okay, so 74% with blood simple, and I just keep that going with tight script, great writing, it takes us right into 1992. This is Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino's debut with Reservoir Dogs. So this was the story, how this came to be, was he was working at Video Archives in California, which was the video rental store, and the name of his podcast with the guy that he does it with, I think his video archives. - Oh really? - 'Cause that's why it's like they'll watch an old VHS that they have in the talk about the film they watch. - Oh, that's great. - Yeah, and that's getting pretty popular. But anyway, he planned to shoot the, like he wrote this script and planned to shoot it with his friends in 16 millimeter black and white film, and he was gonna do it with a budget of 30,000. But then, I don't know, somehow he knew a producer whose name was Lawrence Bender, and he knew him from the 90s, from 1990 working at this video archive store in California. He gave the script to Lawrence Bender, 'cause Bender was like gonna be a part of it and everything like that. Then, Bender gave the script to his acting coach. His acting coach's wife then passed it on to Harvey Keitel. - Wow. - Harvey Keitel really liked it and said he'd sign on to co-produce it, because if they saw his name, you could get better funding. - Yeah. - They ended up being able to, I think they garnered, what was, oh, it was 1.5 million. - Wow. - So it was a million and a half that they got for it. Harvey Keitel also paid for casting sessions in New York City. It's where they found Steve Bushemi, Michael Madsen and Tim Roth. Fun facts. George Clooney and Vigo Mortensen read for roles. - No way. - Don't know which roles, by the way. - Oh yeah, I would love to know which roles. - But Vigo would have been interesting. And then as far as Tim Roth, who's like really is, Quentin loves Tim Roth. - Yeah. - I mean, it always uses him and he's said that, he has made comments and interviews saying that Tim Roth is probably one of the best actors ever. Like, a big time praise. - Yeah, yeah. - And that's basically how that came to be. And they filmed it for a million five, which again, I think is pretty good. A tight script all about the script because it's just, okay, what room are we sitting in? Dialogue, what room is this gonna be in? Dialogue, it's so much dialogue, Harvey. - Absolutely. - That's how this film came to be though. It is Reservoir Dogs in 1992, then. Why don't you take it away? We'll take it back and forth then. - Well, folks, in a whopping 150 episodes of the podcast, we have not once covered a movie, quote unquote, written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Part of this is because of the man's self-imposed 10 movie rule, making the release of his final film, the only possibility of covering something new on the podcast, as far as the new slot. And with the last updates of his project being shelved, who knows what will come next? Actually, Tom, have you heard anything going on? - So that's why, yeah, I brought it up, I think last week, 'cause he was on Steve Barr, Bill Maher's podcast. And I wanted to listen to that specifically because he hasn't really done a major interview since that news came out. Any news came out about the film. I knew he was gonna get poked and prodded. Basically, he shelved it for a bit. He was annoyed with all the news. That wasn't even real news. All the stuff with Tom Cruise and this, that, and Quentin's losing his mind. And he's just like, "It's all just bullshit." Now, he definitely did shelve it. And since then, he didn't say anything about an upcoming film or something different he's gonna go with. He said he has been writing plays and stuff for plays, which he made comments in the past saying, "After I'm done with my 10 films, I would like to get into stage and maybe even more books." - Interesting. - Okay. - So I wasn't surprised to hear that. So, I don't know. Something tells me his mind was going crazy. We need to put that down, probably get into some plays. And who knows if 10 will be the number. I have a feeling he'll be more of an 11 or 12 film director. - Yeah. - But that's all I got out of that one. - I've always thought the 10 rule. I mean, certainly a noble pursuit. You know, when you're an artist, you are only at your peak for so long. - Yeah. - I do believe that, but yeah, it's just, you know. - Is that his 10 rule or do you generally agree with him that directors best films are within their first 10? - That's definitely his 10 rule. I just, I think there is something to be said about when you're a true, true artist, there's only so much time that you capture, you know, everything that your art is about. The only thing that dilutes that is age and time. So I feel like he's definitely hitting on an aspect there that even other movies have covered. The Wind Rises is a great example from Studio Ghibli. - Interesting. - Covers a similar kind of topic that you're only in the spotlight for so long. - The thing with Tarantino is, I think he's young enough and his mind is so creative enough where he's one of the few that can do more than 10 and have them all be really good. - Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. - I know people forget about Jackie Brown, but you know. - Yeah, exactly. Yeah, do you count the planned terror, you know, both of those, the grind house? But yeah, I'm just ecstatic that he's not making a movie called The Critic that I would have to eventually review, which he's probably going to be passionate about it. He's going to be bashing a critic's head in with a baseball bat or something. (laughing) I was ecstatic about that. - Flashing back to the start of his career, the King of Dialogue makes a huge mark on cinema with his first film. And I think next to excessive blood use used in this, it's without a doubt his trademark that I want a spotlight here, that dialogue. This being the only film this week that I've seen before, no less countless times. I was curious to see if I would walk away with something different, especially with how the podcast has challenged me to watch movies as of late. But nope, it's still 100% the dialogue. (laughing) It's like it's so, so lasered in and so fun and so witty and so sharp and so cool. You have anything I fell in love with this even more when the '90s are looked back on as an excellent decade for movies, I think a big piece has to do with how crime stories evolved. And I strongly believe that Reservoir Dogs has an important role to play in that evolution. And it's all in how these criminals interact. I think across multiple characters, what this movie achieves is basically what Scorsese does two years earlier in Goodfellas and that these criminals talk like criminals, you know what I mean? Or at least if that's, I don't know, if it's still a movie in some way, there's a immersion that it sells you on. You get immersed into this being a world and them living naturally as these characters. I like the idea of them being professionals of the profession. That's what you get in these guys. That's what you get in Goodfellas even in heat. The way that those criminals just deal with what they have to do and stuff. Absolutely. You're dealing with competent characters, you're not dealing with full blown, unbelievable characters, even like Al Pacino in Scarface? Scarface, right, 'cause he's such a character. These guys are more so just professional working men in the criminal world and Quinton does a good job at that. Absolutely. Just to kind of bolster your point. Yeah, yeah, and it's just even just how they talk. Obviously they plays into even how characters have to operate within, you know, as the plot unfolds in this. There is a type of talk that you have to make to sell the persona of a criminal or a professional criminal and it just nails it home, really nails it. Reservoir Dogs is an intertwined crime drama that puzzles together a heist gone wrong. A group of criminals in slick black suits, sporting fake names attempt to pull off a jewelry heist that goes horribly wrong, like really, like horrifically wrong. But with so much careful planning, the survivors can't help but grow suspicious of each other. And the question is, who is the rat? Who could possibly slip in with all this detailed planning no less surrounded by professional criminals? Well, quickly we see how fast that professionalism goes out the door, staring down the end of a barrel. You know, among the many sharp scripts that define Tarantino's early career, such as "Natural Born Killers" from "Dustle Dawn" and of course, "Pulp Fiction." This story is intentionally scrambled to play on our expectations of how things will unfold. Not only do we jump around from pre and post-shit hitting the fam, but the chapters give us clarity on who in the crew is really our main characters. I think this could have easily been bloated in runtime, but also in story content by doing all eight chapters, all characters getting their own perspective on things. I say that because I feel like if I was making Reservoir Darks, I might fall into that same part of them. Sure, sure. It would just be so easy to be like, all right, I have all these defined characters, their defined roles, let's just bounce around to each one of them. Tarantino actually has some restraint in not doing that. And by holding back on fleshing out every answer to the mystery, you create a much tighter experience and a much more chaotic crime story with questions being left unanswered. You know what I mean? I absolutely do. And it, well, I want to keep the story tight for sure. And it keeps it focused on what's actually important because what I love about him not doing that, focusing on all seven or eight characters. Yep, yep. It's, it really lets us know what the actual story is and actually tells us the characters that we ought to care about. And then even in, for instance, as far as the heist gone wrong, or the, you know, we actually don't see the heist gone wrong. Really, we don't need it. There's not even a planning stage, like all the oceans 11, where we're going through it. Yeah, yeah. And, and that was even noted with Quentin because he said, one, because of budgetary restrictions, we couldn't film it. Right. And then he goes, I also wanted people to understand what was important for the actual film. And for that, you know, we have Harvey Keitel and just a few other characters. I think it's a smart budget decision as well, not showing the heist itself, because you probably need a lot of extras and a lot of film. Yeah, he was like, you know, the budget for it either. Yeah, yeah. So I think that's, that's really great. And I don't know. I look at the, that restraint that he has here, not to tell every ounce of the story. And that actually adding to the story? Yeah, I look at like Django and it's just like, oh man, where was the restraint there? You know, that goes on like probably an hour more than it needs to. You know. So when the film ended, you didn't see yourself saying, well, I couldn't really could have seen more of those two characters. Ah, no. Which is really two characters that we almost seen nothing off. It's Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue. That just are completely like, where are they? And one is Tarantino. Right. I think I was more so happy that Tarantino didn't have to act more than he did. Absolutely. Yeah. I was like, thank God it was him. But Mr. Blue, I was kind of interested in. Absolutely. I almost wanted more of a story with him. Yeah. Especially because you like, you see him in the crowd and he's like, what is this old-timer doing? Right. He's older than the boss. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, how it hones in really in three to four characters only. It's great. Yeah. I think it's a subtle, subtle master stroke to why this comes out so good. And a great platform for Harvey Keitel, who I absolutely love. Yeah, yeah. I mean, even going back to your production research by 92, Keitel was in everything. You know what I mean? He's a star star. Yeah, he definitely was. So this definitely added to that in a great way. I'm glad that he didn't let any kind of ego get in the way of being a part of a project like this. Because he really does. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, I think I maybe be all right with Clooney replacing Keitel as Mr. White. No. Are you sure? You joke it. No, no, no. You're bullshitting. I guess I am now. I'm fine with it. What if Clooney was going for Michael Manson? Like how young he was. This is like E.R. Clooney. True. True. Definitely a cool character he would want. Yeah. Two. Only half gray hair. Yeah. And then Vigo Morenson, who the hell knows? I don't know. I don't know. I'll take him in anything. That's great. That's great. Tom, I'm curious which movie you thought had the best acting performances of the week because I feel like this does get my vote. Now I am biased because I just have seen it so many times. No, no. It just failed. It just failed. Yeah. Yeah. I feel like there are so many moments, man. It just like Tantino comes out swinging here. And each casting choice shows where all this dialogue really shines. Yeah. So from the very first time I saw this, the star of the show for me is absolutely Michael Madsen playing Mr. Blonde. Oh, okay. All right. That's my personal favorite. I don't think it's the best performance, but I've just loved how he's written as cool calm and collected while also being the biggest psycho in the room. And we have to kind of discover that. It's not really something that's clear right away. Man, do I, I just love his performance here. Also, Madsen is great in Kill Bill volume two for similar reasons. So maybe Tantino just knows who he's writing for, you know, but I would say best performance is Tim Roth. I think Tim Roth is incredible in this. No? No, no, no. He is really good in it. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Tim Roth is great. You forget that he actually is English. Yeah. He is great. I just, I love Harvick. I tell so much. That's true. But you go, why don't you go off on Tim? I think just just looking back, it's, it's probably, I was looking at his, his filmography and I was like, I think, I, I always thought he was in more, you know what I mean? I thought he was in like so much more even to the point of like, wait, isn't he in district nine? And it's just like, no, no, he's, no, that's, that's another guy. That's another guy that looks very close like him. I just think looking back at that filmography, I think this might be his best performance. And despite it being so early in his career, it could be. I just think his chapter is both the best performance of, you know, performance wise for the film and just so creative how flashbacks are used. I really just love that how much evolution happens in this section of the film. And if you were to break away from like the, you know, the Mr. White, Mr. Blonde type of chapter setup, I feel like that's the real, he has the real payoff for the film in so many places. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. He has a joy to see. There's sometimes where I feel like, I don't want to say it's heavy, it's heavy handed or heavy-fisted. Sometimes I feel like if I watch shows or movies, it's like, oh, that's the scene that's going to like almost like a award grab. Exactly. Okay. Okay. And it's like, okay, that's that. I see it might be more TV. Yeah. You notice it. Yep. But with Tim Roth, you know, what he's given with, which is a lot, I don't want to undermine how good he is. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. Ken, it was a conclusion I came to just because I was looking at his career, it's just like, I don't know if there's anything better than this right now, even in Pulp Fiction, you know. And it's way smaller role in Pulp Fiction, too. Yeah. He did a show called TinStar, which is three seasons, and I thought it was like good and people liked it. It doesn't have the best ratings, unfortunately. But I always felt like, and for the funny thing, it's Tim Roth and Michael Madsen, where we don't really see a whole lot of ever. And I'm wondering because people, are they that good, and Quentin just does a good job at writing for them? Writing for them, yeah. Is it that Quentin picked them out of obscurity in the very beginning? So he doesn't want to like, he wants to make sure that like, these are his guys. Sure, sure. Yeah. Something just like, no, I pick good guys, and then he writes, I don't know. Yeah. Because they're really not around much. Yeah. Both of these guys. I think there's something is there happening between the writing stage and actually, you know, in the director's chair, and I, you know, it's probably a rabbit hole, but Quentin's filming philosophy, you know, whether it be, you know, they have to do a shot after so much, so much real footage is done or the type of culture he has on set. You know, honestly, for better or worse, I feel like there's something there that it brings out in these, in these characters. Oh, big time. Yeah, yeah. I think actually, Madsen's a great example because after Kill Bill volume two, I can't really, not really in that much. No, he's not in much. Yeah. He's not in much between Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill. Exactly. Exactly. It sounds like it. I guess my last note is who doesn't love Harvey Kitell and Steve Buscemi arguing about leaving a tip at a diner. I mean, one of dozens of iconic scenes in this, and again, in a very short run time, but I feel like that's where they both really shine. And also Buscemi so early in his career is just like, where is this guy? It is the perfect role for him. Pre-9/11, too. If you don't know, Steve Buscemi was a firefighter in 9/11, a volunteer firefighter. You didn't know this? You didn't know this? Tommy, you shot me a look like... You're talking about a film? What are you talking about? Yeah, so I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, I mean, just total side tangents, but Buscemi was a firefighter volunteer basis growing up and was New York based and clocked in as a volunteer firefighter. On 9/11. Wow. Real stand up, dude. The bush. Wow, yeah, absolutely. Okay. Sleepy eyes and all. That was a true curveball. The look you shot me was just like, "We need to verify this." All right, well, folks, this was one of the early watches that made me feel so passionate about how soundtrack was incorporated into a film. Alongside more than a handful of movies giving me counter examples of what I clearly hated. Yeah, having the soundtrack tie into the radio station and the program of K-billies, Super Sounds of the '70s is both clever as a style choice, but also it gives an in-world reason for music and I feel like that's what sets the bar for me. Countless directors love to put their own personalities in through music choices, especially Post Goodfellas '90s, but Tarantino is able to do so much more than just style. Look no further than the perfect torture scene made only more perfect by way of a Steelers wheel song. Like, who would've thought, you know, like a throwaway classic rock song. But the way that it fades in and out of the room, there's magic there. There's something that happens in how the music fades out as Mr. Blonde is leaving and comes back in. Oh, yeah. That is, I mean, really just makes for perfection on screen. Absolutely. Yeah. Wasn't it a Beatles song? No, no. It's a stung in the middle. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I always thought there was a Beatles song in the middle. Well, well, Steelers wheel. I'm learning a lot in the past five minutes. Steve Buscemi was a five foot and 9/11 and the Beatles didn't sing that song. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think with a million point five, you can afford a Beatles song even in '92. But I have to say, you're right in that scene, probably the most classic scene that everyone, if you know a scene from this film, it's that scene. Bingo. Yeah. And apparently, Quentin also took inspiration from 1966's original Django. Really? Which we covered. Interesting. For that scene specifically. There's a bit of a messed up scene, a bit of a torture scene in that section in that film. But that is what I love with low budget and what you can do. There is. And that's what I'm saying. Some of this stuff is inspirational for those people out there who want to actually think they can't do it. Sure. Because there's nothing to it. It doesn't really cost a lot of money. You're shooting a normal scene, but it's those tiny little adjustments to make it your own. And it's just, it's all vision. As long as you can make your vision come true, it's like, it's just simple stuff sometimes make for the best art. Absolutely. I mean, clearly Tarantino is a product of right time, right place, you know, as far as who he gets to know and whatnot, you know, that's the dice roll of it. But you're absolutely right, you know, I feel like that attention to detail shows how much passion Tarantino had here and something that he spoke in countless times about in that same passion being the only true path to getting your movie made. I thought a long, long time about where this movie ranks among his other films for me and in itself could definitely lead to covering some of those and to update some scores because I feel like Tarantino probably has some of the oldest scores as far as, you know, those original when we sat down. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because I've really always been a fan. But it's just back when I would just name films. Yeah. And a lot of those numbers stick. Yeah. Because I do put some consideration into it, but some of these definitely need to be updated. But honestly, on this rewatch and really even like kind of a half rewatch while I was just kind of putting my notes together, the Reservoir Dogs is not only his first film, but it really is one of his best. We're going to go ahead and give Reservoir Dogs 1992 and 84. Wow. Wow. Wow, then I wasn't expecting that. I really wasn't expecting it. It was rated before, correct? It was. What was it? Okay. It was 72. It was. I felt 72 was unacceptable. But again, an area where I saw this could be, this could be 80, this could be. You're hotter on this. 82. This could be. I in some ways I see this is most watching the sense of like this helped me for my opinions on how a soundtrack should be used, you know, like foundational shit. Wow. I think I might be closer to your, I might be closer to your original 72. Really? 84. I know I really like this film. Sure. Now I did jump from this right away into Pulp Fiction that I, which I haven't seen in forever. Yeah. Yeah. It's one of those things where it's just like, well I know it's, you know, I know it's good. Right. Right. Right. But sitting down again, I was just like, holy shit. This guy, I mean, this was probably my favorite film of the week and it's because first film, and I want to just say as far as the first films go, I put this in like an elite class. This is elite. Yes. First film. Right. This is on another level. The inter competition of this week, Tarantino does come out, you know, the winner. He does. 84 is a great score. Yeah. And I do want to back you up on those old films. It's, well, first of all, I don't even know if we talked, but we always, we don't even know when we started the daily ratings. When we started sitting down on the couches talking and me just throwing movies at you. The list started with an original 50 movies that I just came up with the list and just shout them out. And then you just, you just gave films and gave scores. And famously, what I say is just like, your criteria is still the same because I always go back to Rathicon, one of the first films you ever gave a score for. And then we reviewed it for the podcast and you didn't, and it got the exact same score and you didn't know. I did not know. I had control of the list. I wouldn't let you see it because I was interested to see how you started to do scores once when the podcast went live. Yeah. So these tweaks, I think need to happen, especially when we watch a film like this and it's such a difference in it and it's, when we go back that far in the podcast, which I think was 2015. Well, that's a thing we even found documents that were earlier, the one word doc that you found recently, that feels too early, but maybe. I think it was January 2013. You know what's so funny and what jogged my memory about this is when we were talking about Prometheus because we were definitely in like kind of movie debriefing mode because you knew I was like super upset about Prometheus on launch and that was 2012. So let me go back and find the documents again because we should, we should know that. I mean, we should know it. The fact that like even on the podcast, we have never actually said how long we've been doing this because we don't know how long we've been doing this. But anyway, it has been, do you think you have watched Pulp Fiction since we started all this? No, definitely not. And it's been 10 years. I think that leads to a revise. I think that's currently standing at like a 76. Little brutal. Oh, I'm sorry. I said Pulp Fiction. I'm in Reservoir Dogs. Oh, no, no. Same for Reservoir Dogs. Yeah, did not watch. 10 years-ish. Yeah. Yeah. I think a lot of Tarantino projects, really the ones that stand out to me that I've revisited are like Inglorious Bastards, Django, yeah, yeah, yeah, stuff like Heyful Aid, obviously, so. 84% for Reservoir Dogs. Wow, that is going in the honorable mentions on the site. Absolutely. And just to take away from kind of what we call must, must watch for the audience. Wow. Excellent, excellent scorb and I just want to one more comment on Quentin Tarantino because I think he does it the best in watching Reservoir Dogs as a first film comparing it first these guys and then going to Pulp Fiction right away too. It's unbelievable his dialogue and how a lot of it is just basic dialogue, simple dialogue or it doesn't matter. It's everyday dialogue that you wouldn't think works on film. Sure. But the way it's written, the way it flows and the way the characters, the actors deliver it. Yep. And it feels so right and it's so captivating even though you could be Sam Jackson talking about a cheeseburger. Yeah. It's so captivating to the point where you're just like, oh anyone could do this, anyone could do this. And yet no one did. Yeah. It took until the 90s forward to and that's, you realize how special it actually is. Absolutely. Because when you think about, he makes it look so easy and that anyone could have done it. And so much so that we get copycats for now and to infinity, and it couldn't be further from the truth. And that's what's so impressive about this guy. Absolutely. It makes it look easy. It's not. Yeah. Yeah. 84% for Reservoir Dogs. Okay. All right. We'll keep on moving then. Okay. So we're jumping to 1996 now and we're going to be with our friend Wes Anderson and the film was called Bottle Rocket. So do you do any research on this? On this at all. Light. Just in the sense that there's a short. Yeah. That was made two years. Yeah. In 1992, he came out with a 13 minute short film called Bottle Rocket like a full four years before this film. Yep. And then that was screened two years later at 1994 Sundance and it starred the Owen brothers. Yeah. It starred Owen Wilson and Luke and Luke and also Musgraves who plays kind of the third Musketeer in the film. Okay. So this caught the eye of James L. Brooks who was also a producer. He co-created Mary Tyler Moore's show. He co-created The Simpsons. Wow. So he saw it the Skydance premiere or the Sundance premiere and he wanted to finance a feature film. Wow. It had a feature film. It had a budget of five million and it only made 560,000. So it was a bit of a dud when it actually ended the app shortly. Sure. And in fact, it failed so bad enough where Owen Wilson, like it made him really depressed and Owen Wilson was about to go into the army. Wow. Yeah. He thought his acting was kind of done after this. Wow. That feels very appropriate for the character he plays in this as well. Like it's jaded and it's like I'm going my own way. But once again, how was born? He made a 13 minute short, happening two years later, finally got into Sundance, caught the eye of a major guy and he financed for five million dollars and that was how bottle rocket 1996 came to be. And just one real quick note, it was on Martin Scorsese's top 10 list of the 1990s was bottle rocket. It's interesting. And I'm always interested in that list because it's the whole 90s. Wow. Interesting. Okay. So let's get into it. Bottle rocket. Break it down for us. Beginning of this week, bottle rocket was easily the one I was most curious about to test if we could spot the DNA among the huge style in our handful of directors. Wes Anderson just might have the loudest to him. So much so that a critique of his recent career is that he can't really escape his own aesthetic. He's kind of trapped by his own stylings, largely his visual style, specifically that visual style will take time and money to emerge and a type of one-upsmanship he has between his own projects. He's always trying to kind of almost outdo what he did previously. And we kind of see that reaching critical mass post, hotel Budapest. But here, I think his hand is found in how these characters are always written as soft losers, but nevertheless, their stories are respected. Their depression may be nonsensical, but their stories are respected. They may not be great characters, but they're portrayed in a way that you find them lovable and once again respected. Don't get me wrong, there's still sprinkles of his visual style here and there. For instance, we do get only one type of presentation close-up shot, the planning notebook scene with Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson, rather than, I don't know, the usual 27 you'd get now of that same type of planning presentation shot. Maybe most of all, snappy editing cuts that do the heavy lifting for intentionally awkward comedy, intentionally awkward comedy with no less than three total Wilson brothers. Wow. Three total. I knew about the two. The third one. It was a surprise. Yeah, that was a jumpscare. Bottle Rocket is half rom-com, half-crime film around a gang of losers in their transformative years. These wealthy deadbeats in suburbia try to play in a robbery living out their cops and robber dreams. Luke Wilson plays the rich son who, through a mental breakdown, gets roped into helping his friend more out of pity than anything. No one Wilson plays that idiot friend who, after getting fired from his landscaping job, starts to childishly plan a revenge robbery and that's where, like, him not liking his acting and maybe going into the military feels very on par for this character. They hit the road on the run and next thing you know, Luke turns the plot 90 degrees by falling madly in love with a Spanish cleaning lady. Folks, that's what I mean by half and half here. I personally felt like this had a tight crime story to tell, but was just kind of stuffed in the middle with a meaty romance that I felt a little disjointed from things. It's also where I was curious about the short film version of this that came out three years earlier, but I wasn't able to track that down. I don't know. Were you able to track it? I didn't even look for it. Yeah. The fact that it was shown on Sundance makes me think that it has been saved in some sort of way. Yeah. Or archived in some sort of way. Yeah. Maybe Criterion picked it up or something like that. Right, right. But as it is, the middle of the film is bookended with the much better parts of this movie. I don't know. How do you feel about that? Yeah. I kind of took it because that middle section and how we are kind of stuck at this hotel for so long. It made me kind of rethink of what I thought this movie was going to be after the first 20 minutes. Sure. And I was like, okay, this is just a day in the life Napoleon Dynamite-ish actually type of film. Yeah. And my personal like love and appreciation and enjoyment of a film like that can only go so far. Sure. So to your point, I mean, I guess I would agree with you in that where where the crime element is happening and when it was at its best. Yeah. And even at that though, you know, with this long draw that middle and the way the crime was how it's like petty crime and you're kind of dealing with like weirdos a little bit and so definitely socially awkward guys. It definitely had a whole vibe and style to it. That was a little bit when I said Napoleon Dynamite, like this, I guess it's intentionally awkward comedy. Yeah. Like loser-ish aspects. Absolutely. It's hard for me to be like get all excited and get like engaged with it. You're just kind of a longer the ride because part of it's almost depressing, you know what I mean? Yeah. Absolutely. And quiet and just kind of morose a little bit. Yeah. Washed up. So that's kind of how I felt with it and then this long drawn out middle part. That's where I'm just like, oh, so it's not this like buddy, petty theft crime type thing. Yeah. Where I had good energy leading into that. I was like, I was almost excited, especially seeing, you know, his shot of the notebook that was very Wes Anderson, you know, to a tee. But then it's just like, we take a big detour for the middle of it and then finally snap back to what I think the movie- When James Comme comes off, yeah. You know, that's five million. I don't know how much was it James Conne to get him a, you know, this is before the 2000s when he was in some comedy's like, yeah, yeah, which would be a big budget. Right. Right. Prominent roles. You know, good for him for getting them, but it's a rat tail. Yes. He has a rat tail. Amazing. The best part of the film. Absolutely. Yeah. If anything, it was just very primal in the sense of just like, well, this movie's working a lot better once this character is introduced. So just making it about that, you know? Very true. Very true. Yeah. This has a lot of, like I said, washed up, postcoming of age, sheltered attitude that maybe could place it again next to something like Garden State or earlier 2000s type movies. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I think Napoleon Diamonds- Right in there. Perfect comparison. Yeah. I think it's almost a mix of you mix Garden State with Napoleon Diamond. Yeah. Yeah. I think you get this. Absolutely. Yeah. Because you got to add some money to it. They definitely are wealthy, you know, wealthy, you know- Losers. Yeah. You know, that's not exactly a, you know, flattering comparison, because I usually despise those movies. But I think some magic is found here in both of the Willson's acting with each other. I think that's a spot here. And again, holy shit, there are three Willson's in this. This has to be the most siblings in the movie ever. Is there a movie with all the Baldwin's? It's a lot. I'm not. Definitely not. That's what Alec needs as a redemption. Yeah. Or angle them all together. I really need to know. I need to know what is the most recorded siblings in a single film. It's such interesting siblings. Yeah. Yeah. They're all, they all sound like each other, but like don't at the same time, it's unreal. But seriously folks, right? And if you really know what is the most siblings. That's a great, that's a great question. Yeah. I like that a lot. I'm very curious. Both Luke and Owen, I think are solid in this considering it's their first film. It's kind of a, well something that hangs over all our conversation today. Yeah. It's just like, this is really good and especially great because it's the first. And I think Owen specifically is able to kind of show his mix of vulnerable comedy. And that was also impressive to see like, wow, he was doing this, his schtick from the beginning. Yeah. And getting involved in stories where he's always a little like kind of head down, but still comedic, you know? I like Owen better than. Luke. Yeah. And everything. Yeah. I'm there with you. I'm not really a Luke fan. Should Luke Wilson be a bigger actor? I don't know. But all I know, he was, I mean he had this and then he did have old school in like 2003 or 2002. I think he was in some screens maybe. Yeah. And, you know, and then he's in Horizon American Saga part one or chapter one and I'm just not, it's why get out of the screen please because you're not selling the character. Yeah. For real. I still remember when he showed up and it was like one of those like, it was like the Martian. They're introducing characters in the last like 20 minutes of the film. And I remember I'd be like, oh, you were just not amused. You were just like so not, you were not amused for multiple reasons of that movie. People love Luke Wilson in the movie by the way. People love that there's a certain scene with Luke Wilson and two thugs as I kind of confront him. I swear to God, a grown man and a film critic said he was on the edge of his seats watching it. And it's just like, are you, are you really? Are you kidding me? Yeah. Oh my God. As I said, great movie. If you're an 11 year old. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. But I think where the two brothers work together and maybe even the third of what is it? Andrew Wilson. I don't know. Yeah. Thanks to sell this lovable loser angle quick with banter is vital to telling a story about losers because I feel like that's what's keeping you from like just outright hating them. Oh, absolutely. There's a charm there. Yeah. They also all usually fall into the same type of story arc, an idiot roping in a reluctant idiot with being aware of this. I feel like I don't know if West was working with contemporaries around him or maybe he's even the predecessor to a lot of these 2000 trends. But I feel like it's able to be a smart script even though it wasn't like an amazing movie. Somewhere between like super bad and sideways as far as comedy goes, like the actual how the banter is, you know, because it's still, it's dumber than sideways. It's not about like, you know, wine aficionados. For sure. But has that same quality of just like- Well, Thomas Hayden Church's character maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's true. But like one's always roping in another. Yeah. He's supposed to play the more straight, lined guy, the one who's a little bit more common sense on his shoulders. Yeah. But it's still, it's one of those films that feels so small, but it is a tight script that you can like, it has you walking away from the film just like, I love those idiots. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. James Kahn is the last actor I have notes on and he's just, he's just not introduced early enough at all. I love James Kahn. I'm so- He was so, he was like the best part about this. Like, just like change your movie, damn it. Without a doubt, by the way, James Kahn most enjoyable. Yeah. So good. You know, I feel like this could have been, frankly, an amazing movie if you just take out that middle chunk and tie him more, tie him in more earlier. It blows my mind. Oh, they got him. It really blows my mind. I had to do a double take. I was like, no. Yeah. No. For real. And even it's, it's a jump scare because you look at it like the NBB and it's like, where is he on like the top build cast? He's like three quarters away down the, down the cast listing. It's unreal. That is great. I don't know what was going on there. Yeah. He is such a big, I'm a big James Kahn guy. Yeah. I'm going all the way back. We've got to watch that John Wayne film. Oh. El Dorado, which is a great John Wayne film and a very young James Kahn is there. Interesting. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Things really pick up again in that third act. And I really think it's all thanks to Kahn, you know, both comedically but also like a shot in the arm as far as like, oh yeah, we're about to be a crime movie again. Mm hmm. You know, when he's put in the mix, I feel like it almost feels like the chaotic energy of like Danny DeVito and always sunny like the dad, the dad's here and he's more crazy than the kids. See it. That's the vibe. We talked about the rat tail. We talked about the kung fu artist. He just completely takes over the one friend's house and starts playing piano. God. I love it. I love it. It was so great. Really needed more. I agree. I agree. More James Kahn. And maybe more James Kahn in other West Anderson films. Well, yeah. Well, we kind of do because that's when West starts using. Bill Murray. No, no. No. The replay. Gene Hackman. Oh, true. True. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Folks, I think it's interesting that over the next 10 years after this, we see West Anderson pretty much try to tell the same story with the same theme again and again. You know, call it what you want, but a type of longing his characters have to overcome something that on the surface may not appear wrong, but nonetheless, it is real to them. Frankly, I think he at least has one character like that in all of his films, even till today, whether the story is around them or not. And I feel like on that note, it was still worth watching to spot those trends, especially because there are two ways to know our writer and directors. And specifically, I feel like this was something that gleamed on that writing side. We're going to go ahead and give bottle rocket 1996 a 63 a 63 percent. Still good. Not great. Right. You know what? I think that totally makes sense. Yeah. In the inter competition of the week, also probably the least illustrative of the director, you know, would you say a thousand percent? Yeah. Yeah. We'll get into that a little bit later then. Yeah. So okay. All right. So 63 percent for bottle rocket. And again, I mean, if there's an audience there for somewhere, if you're for someone, if you're into that small time film, quiet film, kind of in the country, not a lot going on, like in the polling dynamite, or even just a garden state where, sure, this is better than a garden state. Yeah. Yeah. I guess watch it. But also then if you're just a Wes Anderson person, it's good to start here. It's good to don't forget about this, you know, first feature film of his. Absolutely. And I feel like what are not Wes Anderson, I feel like Owen Wilson is still playing the character he portrays. And a lot of roles. And a lot of roles. Yeah. Yeah. It's maybe the lacking some self-awareness loser, you know, I mean, but still hard of gold and again, a story that is taken seriously in some regard. Okay. All right. So with that, before we get into our next film, we just want to remind people that we are going off the value for value model when we were totally producer supported. So because it's a special producer segment or anything like that, or if you did produce this week, you'll be mentioned on next week shows, like if you donated in, but value for value model and being producer supported, what that means is Vin and I aren't going to deal with any advertising. So we're not going off advertising money because we're not just going to shovel that into your face or on the site. And we're also not going to have pay walls or tear structures because it's not pay to play. It's not pay to gain access to us. It's everyone's on their own finances. Everyone's got their own thing going on. So the idea is if you find what we're doing here valuable, so are you enjoying the podcast and a special like this? Are you using the website and going on when you want to watch a movie or trying to figure out what to watch? We look at it as that's value in your pocket. So we ask you, can you give us value back in our pockets, value for value. So basically you go to the daily ratings.com and go to the donations tab and through your monetary support when you donate in, you become an actual legitimate producer of the daily ratings because just like in Hollywood, when you financially support a project, you're a producer of that project. So when you donate, you can donate whatever amount that you want. We do have some set donations. I buy Vin and movie ticket, become a godfather, join the jump club. But there's a big value for value button there and it's really, it could be as little as $4, it could be as high as whatever you want. If you want to give a $500 donation, that's incredible. If you want to give a $5 donation, that's incredible. Again, the reason why we're doing it is because everyone's got their own thing going on. Everybody's week or month is different from the last, so we never want to peg a number to it like a Patreon where you need to give us this much money and then you get extra content. No, it's all there for you. But remember, this is time consuming, you know, Vin and I have normal jobs and we really enjoy doing this, but 150 episodes, it is thousands of hours to put into this. Again, it's fun for us, but just remember that if you are enjoying it, if you're finding it valuable, if you could send some value back. And when you do that, when you become a producer, you can write in a producer note. So if you email us at tom.vin at the daily ratings.com, you can email us there when you donate to the show and write in a note and that could be questions, comments, critiques, it could be suggestions, it does, it could be movie related, it can be anything related, almost like an ask us anything type of deal. The point is when you donate and become a producer, you know, we not only want to say thanks, but we also want to, you know, give you a little bit more, we want to open up a dialogue with you. Sure. It's a through line to you and it means the world. So again, it's the daily ratings.com and head to the donations tab and all different ways. If you want to do debit or credit, if you want to go straight through PayPal, if you want to do Venmo, we just accept Satoshi's. If you're into, you know, Albie and Aaron, the podcasting 2.0, it's all there no matter how you want to donate, it's all there for you. So we appreciate it so much. If you want to be a producer of episode 151, just head to the daily ratings.com. All right, then with that, live, we have two more films here, both the 98 showdown. Yeah, both of these came out in 1998. Both black and white. And yes. And I think by the way, I didn't look up which was technically first, so I'm cool with whatever one you want to start with. I will say the following. Oh, following first. We'll do following first. Yeah, it's my shortest. Okay. It is the shortest. We'll do. We'll do it first. And I think it's funny because, yeah, our next two are in black and white, Quentin Tarantino wasn't into shooting black and white for, yeah, because he was going to do it for 30 grand. Wow. Then 16 millimeter black and white. And I think even, what's Anderson might have even been thought about doing black and white and then Dinnin or something like that? I think the short was maybe in black and white. Ah, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Also, another reason I really am still kind of curious about that. It would be, it would be kind of be fun. Yeah, yeah. But okay. Anyway, so this is the following in 1998. And this is Christopher Nolan. Basically, this was written, produced, directed, photographed, and edited by Nolan. What was the... And boy does it feel like it. The budget. Oh my, the budget on this. Okay. 1998. Yep. How much do you think the film was made for? I'm going to say under a million. Okay. $6,000. Oh. $6,000 was the budget for this film. No way. Nolan's direct torial debut, 70 minute film. Wow. Wow. That's awesome. That's grand for everything production. I don't know if that counts for when he sent the film off to be- Mmm, sure. To take a bath and for it to be rendered. Yeah. Because that was like most of, that was most of Aaron Offsky's cost. It was like all the post stuff and getting the film together. Oh, interesting. And I would have been marketing probably on that same note. If you could say marketing was even if many of these films. Yeah, true. But how he did it for a budget of six grand. So scenes were extremely rehearsed. Yeah. Two takes needed to be shot, the key cost down. Okay. Everything was rehearsed multiple times live. And then that way when they're rolling, boom, they can get the shot and then turn the camera off essentially. It was shot in 16 millimeter black and white, which is what Tarantino wanted to shoot for originally with reservoir dogs. He couldn't afford lighting. So most of the lighting is natural, meaning actual sunlight or inside just the light that was in the house of the department. You definitely feel that, especially in some of the apartments. Right. The apartments in those houses, he just used friends and family. He didn't have to like, you know, go for other locations, you have to pay for three hour spots or anything like that. The cast and crew also had full time employment at different jobs during the week and same with Nolan. So production took a full gear basically for the film. Filming took place on Saturdays for basically three months straight. And yeah, so they would just get together on Saturdays, rehearse the shit out of something. And basically they only shot 15 minutes of footage a day. Wow. So they would shoot for hours, but really would be mostly rehearsing. Very smart. Yeah. This reminds me too, reading this, it just takes me right back to the stories on set for the Revenant because they wanted to use natural lighting. So everything was rehearsed perfect because if they didn't get it in one to two shots, the lighting would be ruined. We're burning daylight. Right. Nice. And that's also another reason why people were pissed with who's a director on Revenant. Oh, Inarito. Inarito. Yeah. Yep. It was a difficult set to be on. Sure. Because it demands. But anyway, super smart. So when you're on a budget like that, that's how you get it done. Yeah. I mean, that's beyond shoestring. That's 6,000. It's crazy. It's crazy. I know. And it's Nolan, man. And he makes a full film. This is not student film. Yeah. This is a movie. Yeah, absolutely. Why don't we get into the fall or the fall? No, just following. Just following. I know. Yeah. That then tripped me up too because I always thought this movie was the following. But apparently that's another movie that came out. Yeah, it sounds like a, sounds like a cop show or something. No. Oh, wait. I think it was Kevin. Was it a Kevin Bacon show that I watched for a year? I think it was Kevin Bacon show. I think it was Kevin Bacon. Watch the first season. Classic. That's classic tea. Okay. Anyway. All right. So we've got Christopher Nolan here. What 1998 following, Vin? Gonna do it. Christopher Nolan. Every film bro's favorite director, but maybe I shouldn't be so snarky about it because I really do love nearly all of his movies as well. One movie after this and we'll see Nolan make his big mark on cinema with Memento in 2000. And see what I think is his trademark coming into view playing around with time and how information is presented to the audience. Inside his brother, Nolan has a hand in writing all of his movies in the story structure to nearly all of the films playing some sort of game with how scenes are presented to us in the audience. And folks, I was thrilled to see that was 100% the case here. Right out of the gate, Nolan is using so many little tips to show where we are in the story line without giving a hard time stamp or chapter mark from progressing characters appearances to jumping around a burst of action. And most of all, what reminded me of inception, using objects in the plot to leave clues for the audience. And it just felt like, wow, this was like so much Christopher Nolan, like it was exciting to watch. It was like, wow, he really is like, this is his DNA 100% from the get go and the opening credit. It's so loud. The music playing is so loud. And that's when I'm sitting there going, yep, that's the guy. So true. But yeah, I think coming out of the gate, as far as like what this special is after, I feel like the following or following was a just say such a such a great example of what we're trying to get after here of like spotting trends and this is the director's DNA through and through right here from the opening shots, I mean, yeah, from the get go. Everything is a black and white crime thriller that can be summed up as curiosity killed the cat. The story centers on a young writer with far too much time on his hands. In boredom, he starts following random strangers in a completely random way. There is no intention behind it, just seeing where people go. But when it stops being random, that's when it all starts to go wrong. Folks, that description is me paraphrasing the opening dialogue to this film and goes to show that Nolan is a powerhouse when it comes to great elevator pitches. I feel like this one on top of being only a very breezy 70 minutes really lives and dies on that initial hook. You're either in it or you're not. For me, I was in it. I think the simple and effective hook here is that it plays on the very human curiosity to people watching, to imagine who an individual is with an crowd. People watching plays into how our characters operate as well, reading intentions and predicting more than just movement and as it turns out, that just so happens to be an excellent skill set for burglar on the rise. I gotta say, this is the first one I watched this week and boy was I in love because it is a breezy 70 minutes, I will not stop praising this. I feel like we need to see a different direction of where movies go and movies have gone very bloated as of late in the short, you know, folks, you pick this up of listening to like the new reviews we cover in the week. But it's just a great example of a story not overstaying it's welcome. I feel like almost a minute more it might overstay it. I feel like if he needed to feel like he needed to hit the 90 minute hour and a half just to be like a movie, I feel like you mean a real movie, it would have been way too long. Absolutely. And there would be too much drawn thin on questions unanswered or maybe even the style of chopping up the time of how it would have been too much because it's the first film when his first going at this, it is still a simplified plot big time and because he's messing around with time, he's just there's only so much he got can do. Yeah. And does it beautifully? Yeah, absolutely. It really is just kind of breaking down three segments ultimately. And you see this through primarily haircuts, bruises on faces, a little bit of clothing, but again, objects in the world that we pick up as much more than just like, I don't know, something cynical like a McGuffin was just like, oh, this is just something that we need to get to move along the plot. Objects are used differently, especially in this. And like I said, I mean, probably the whole point of inception as well, that it's much more than just a device. It's something for our memory as well, it's something to participate while you're watching. I also don't have a huge amount to say here, both for story spoilers, but also because the mystery unravels very quickly, we go from a wandering atmosphere to almost immediately having all the pieces of the puzzle just given to us out of order. So it's a bit difficult to summarize no less being so short. So I would say that's going to be about story spoilers, but that's ultimately where I'm saying like all these movies were worth watching one way or another, this one definitely falls into it for the purpose of this special, for watching for Nolan and his trends. I think a small piece of what I love about Nolan's style here is that he knows how to crank tension, and that's something we've joked about with his choice of blaring music and there's no difference here. His career is filled with wonderful examples of this, the opening bank heist of the Dark Knight, the dream antics of inception, hell, pretty much the best thing about Tenant is that opening and might be the only good thing about it. No, there's more than the opening. That's one that I have to revisit. I turned on last night, I fell asleep, but I'm telling you, the first hour of that film is freaking amazing. That opera heist, man, that is so good. I mean, and when Robert Patton comes in, it's just, give me this, this is the best Bond film. Sure, right. And then we get, then, Nolan, welcome, welcome to a new decade, Chris for Nolan. Yeah, he did. He found out how to run the real backwards. So many scenes here will twist the knife on already tense or kind of uncomfortable moments. So solid early examples, the first time he's in a stranger's apartment and that door unlocks, it really is like, holy shit, what's going to happen? It was already like, no, you shouldn't be here and how that twists and cranks up tension is just excellent. This is side by side with using soundtrack to punch up these moments, you know, far before he had Hans Zimmer in his pocket. David Julian stays with Nolan for early projects like The Prestige and Insomnia. And so much like our next film for Aronofsky, I just really enjoyed this late 90s feel to it. I really did enjoy. Yeah, I did feel late 90s. You know, in '98, whether it be kind of like electronic beats or kind of like paranoid type of atmosphere with music, I thought it was a really great match for that. I don't really have notes on our actors, mostly because they kind of go on to do nothing, which is surprising. I was going to ask you how we felt about them. I like their main guy. Here's what I think about the main guy. His voice was doing a lot of work for him because he had a very deep voice and a very strong voice, a good voice, I think for the role. And as far as acting goes again, it's a lot of people talking. So they just need to be the character and deliver the lines in a realistic way where we're buying the characters. And I did for both of them. The main guy, Jeremy Theobald and then Alex Hall played another guy. I liked him, maybe seemed a little young, but I liked him. And then the main guy, Jeremy Theobald, again, I thought his voice was doing a lot of work. I thought he was good. Nolan keeps him as like bit parts and he's continuing a role. Very small. I almost feel like does he feel slighted? He's like, "Hey, I'm the guy who helped you out here in the beginning." But I think nothing notable, nothing lasting where we have a James Con or we have a Harvey Kitell killer. Sure, sure. Absolutely. There was something there that I was almost surprised that none of them do anything afterwards because it's like I kind of see promise not in that they're amazing performances in themselves. But I do see promise in the film of just like, "Yeah, these people can go on to do something." And this is a really kind of interesting kind of psychological script that honestly I could see them being gobbled up by other type of thrillers. Yeah, I agree. Or in the 2000s. But yeah, just not too much going on there. And like I said, it's a real short movie. So that's kind of about it is what it's have to say. I think once again, like I spoke about with Wes Anderson, the next 10 years of films after this all revolve around in what drives his characters forward and how that pushes them in the way of conflict rather than maybe having the conflict itself. And it comes from his character's own strong desires, prestige, insomnia, even Batman begins. These are all kind of in a similar sphere of like very strong central character almost pushing themselves into danger and pushing themselves into the conflict, not really sourcing the conflict themselves. Unlike a few of the slots in this week, however, I felt the visuals of his storytelling were on point for what we'll see for his entire career. This was like a shot in the arm. This is an adrenaline dose of what we know knowing to become. And you know, this was the first one I tackled this week and no joke might be the best example to spot like the qualities this special is chasing after. We're going to go ahead and give the following 1998 a 71. 71%? Okay. I like this. Yeah. I like this. And I like the film watching it. I have to say again, it feels like a small film and it feels like a first film above a student film. But, you know, once when Nolan's $6,000, you know what I mean? It's not, you know, definitely student film of the range. So and it might feel a little amateurish, but it has all, we've been saying it has all the beats, it has all the Nolan isms in it. Yes. Where it really was, I know I was really enjoying this watching it. Even if it had extreme simplicity to it, it doesn't matter because everything else was hitting on it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A tight story didn't have fat to trim on it. Instead of watching an episode, you know, instead of watching an hour episode of something or, you know, a 70 minute, 90 minute episode, it's an easy watch to just go ahead and flip it on. Absolutely. I'm going to real, real side example, but I would love like a Blumhouse to explore 70 minute films. Yeah. You know, I mean, don't waste my fucking time. And so important. I mean, it's just, you know, we watch movies every week. So it's like, Oh, it's short. It's great for us, but also for the viewer, I also, it's, and we mentioned in the beginning, this is served best because it's 70 minutes. Yes. If he tried to stretch it out to make it, oh, this is a movie movie, it really would have depleted this. Yeah. I bet this would have dropped down and rating big time. Yeah. Because everything that's hitting is like, it's totally rounded, totally watered down. Sure, sure. Or even like the time antics and how it's presented could be exhausting. I feel that a little bit of memento. Oh, sure, sure. I felt like a little bit. That's a movie I haven't seen forever. And you know, Nolan heads all out there, you know, everyone's just like, don't forget about memento. Oh, yeah. Memento. Oh, you know, everybody forgets about that. Went back, rewatched it. And I found it to be a little tedious. I thought it was a little much. It didn't need to be this much of the Nolan time jumping. Sure, sure. And I feel like it hurt the overall story. I felt a little underwhelmed or I felt like I was missing things. What was one of the film ended? Sure. Sure, sure. Because he went so much into it. This just gives you a taste. It's the aperteef to know. Aperteef. I love that. I love that. All right. We got one more here again in 1990. I'm going to grab my notes here again in 1998 as well. And I'll say right away, as far as awards right away for all the all these films. One I guess the biggest word you could say was Darren Aronofsky won for original screenplay at the Spirit Awards back all the way back then to this film here, which is pie, just like the number pie, which I don't love. I don't love this. And I don't love the following. It's just too difficult. It gets even searching for it. It can be difficult. Sure. I mean, you were right there. You said the following. Right. They're shooting themselves in the foot a little bit. But anyway, Aronofsky was 28 years old here when he made this film in 1998. It was filmed on high contrast black and white reversal film, which is a certain type of film for every reason. Interesting. And also all of this is to keep costs low. It was financed by Aronofsky and producer Eric Watson. Okay. They begged every friend, every relative, and every acquaintance each for $100. And that's how they kind of put funds together. They made 60 grand, which is pretty good. A lot of friends. They used clothing from thrift stores. They shot in the subway and outdoor scenes illegally to save costs, so they just did it and hoped that one get fined and didn't again didn't have to be say, hey, we get this for the afternoon and pay that fee. The crew was paid $200 a day. The actors, $75 a day. And then the post production budget cost $68,000. So overall the entire, it was 68 grand. And that was a lot of the excess costs or the production costs of developing the film. Interesting. You have to kind of ship it out. Yeah. You have an in-house guy. And then they take care of it and then they ship it back. Yeah. You're expensive. Clint's Manzel did the music who again became very famous and continuing to work today. Being a composer. I had a lot of love for Manzel in this year with Love Lies Bleeding. He's still working as a composer and like pumping out great stuff. Yeah. Well, just like the Coenborough guy, Carter Burwell. Yeah. Huge name. So anyway, that's pretty much all I have on the early stuff when they are in off-ski. It made a little bit of money, you know, some things were small films. But low budget once again, big time, that's how they funded it. Let's jump into pie. Then we'll take it back and forth. Yeah, absolutely. Aaron Aronofsky, the boy from Brooklyn coming back to the podcast after a real long time. And boy was this one hell of a New York film. I mean, if you've seen this movie, you know, this is New York. Our episode on Aronofsky is going back to probably the farthest out of our directors this week. That when we covered the whale in 2022 and pretty comprehensive as far as covering the main movies of his career, I really do love that episode, mainly because the sheer luck of being in California to catch like one of the few showings of the whale. Would you even know? Yeah. I'd tell you that. I was very happy to tell you that. Yeah. And a dodge bullet. Imagine like in the planning of that. Well, it's certainly not a trend in all of his work. Aaronofsky is at his best when there is some sort of twist or more directly the mind-fuck that his movies are known for. Solid examples of this are Requiem for a Dream, Black Swan, sadly for the worst mother. Mother exclamation point. Yeah. Exactly. Which intentionally we didn't cover in that episode and I hope to never cover that movie again. So frankly, I didn't know what to expect walking into this movie. But with unflinching confidence, I can tell you that this movie is a trip. This is something else. Before I get into what the story is about, I want to clear some things up with some genre tags associated with the film. Depending on where you look online, this movie is called everything from a thriller, drama, sci-fi, horror, and for sure added to my own confusion about what I was stepping into. I think anytime I experience something like that, that I can actually like provide some guidance to movie watching, I know I want to make note of it in the podcast. Because I was confused about what I was stepping into with this. So let me wash away all the tags and just directly call this an art house nightmare film. Actually, that's really good. Yeah, it's a nightmare. I think I put sci-fi I saw and I was like, no freaking way. Yeah. Put this on the site. I think I put it as, I want to say drama thriller. Yeah, yeah. Because it's- Art house nightmare I love. Art house nightmare. Yeah, I don't want to bloat the site with tags or custom tags. This is much more of a horror than I initially expected. And straight up feels like, this is really what all my thought around this movie was consumed with. It feels like a racer head meets Mr. Robot, like those two had a baby. I love that. Yeah. I love that Ben. Yeah. I think it's right on the money too. The racer heads black and white. Yeah. The David Lynch side of that comparison is pointing to, again, that use of black and white with more than handful of surreal moments. I think we could probably make a small compilation on the site called What the F*** is in the sink. This movie and a racer added maybe a few others could be in there, maybe some Cronenberg movies. But equally the heavy neurotic narration, obsessive time stamping, kind of a cross-section of intellect and conspiracy, the self-prescribed cocktail of drugs, all of it felt like the foundation of Mr. Robot, or at least what I know about the show. I watch the first season. I swear to God, I never watched it before. No, we don't. Really enjoy it. Really liked it. Right, right. I did. Great for a season. Can't wait to watch more. Oh, man. Now, folks, I think you can already guess. This was way up my alley. But Tom, I think the biggest question I was most curious about this week was your watching experience of pie. If I was a, if I could be a fly on the wall, you don't like horror, I don't know if you like Darren Aronofsky. Okay. Yeah. Please. So, Aaronofsky is who I was least familiar with with all these guys. Okay. So, I don't know the whole DNA, oh, I can totally say Aronofsky in this. I'm so unfamiliar with him. One, I don't consider this horror. Okay. And that's why I also didn't put it on his right. You weren't scared by it. No. Okay. I wasn't scared by it. I think it was psychological thriller, I would say. Stressful. It's like a logical drama. Yeah. You weren't. I didn't expect you to be like... I didn't know when driving either hating the film or just like nagging me. I didn't hate this film. Okay, okay. I didn't love this film in any way. And again, a very simple film, very basic, even more less traveling than following with Chris Nolan. And traveling, I mean, as far as, you know, we're really... We're really... What? I'm street walkin'. That? You know what? In following? Both? Oh, I think in this, we're pretty much... We have three main sets. Oh, true. And we're hangin' out in 'em, basically. Yeah. I guess I'm thinkin' like the scrambling, like, street footage. Right. Right. And so, I appreciated watching this director's first work. I have no need to return to this again. Oh, really? And then, press with all of these films, because it's low budget and their first ones. It's your first time really dealing with the camera and directing actors and all of that. And that's why in the very beginning of this, I kind of was said, yeah, I give leniency to these guys. Sure. And even if I'm not purposely giving it to 'em, it just naturally, it's like, okay, yeah. Yeah. Again, if this was Aaron Offsky's fourth or fifth film, and this is one everyone's talking about, now I'm angry, now I'm upset because there's not enough air for me. Sure, sure. But I didn't consider it horror. I wasn't really scared. I just saw it very simple, well done for what he wanted to tell and for the story. I just didn't care that much. Oh, okay, all right, interesting. That's kind of where I'm at. A little apathy. Okay. Well, maybe that'd be the waste of the wish to be in "Fly on the Wall" event. That's just the first one I watched. Really? Yeah. You're in the deep end. Deep end. So, yeah. You know, Pi is, again, art house nightmare that incorporates a huge amount of styling to match its equally vast subject matter, its conspiratorial, it's a decent bit cyberpunk, and it's extremely surreal. We follow a mathematician obsessed with finding patterns in life by understanding the concept of repeating numbers. Pi may be the most famous sequence, but he soon finds a trail of clues that leads to bizarre connections. He uses his mathematical prowess mainly to, in the pursuit of predicting the stock market, but quickly numbers start to appear in everything from simple games to even religious concepts. For this 90 minutes of runtime, we see him dive deeper and deeper into madness as he claws ever closer to the ultimate answers he seeks. But as the old adage goes, knowledge has a cost. I would say the story has a heady, heady cross section. This also felt like a first, not student film, but a first film in the sense that like when you're writing like a, you know, a script like this or a project like this, you really want to just like put everything in it. Yeah. And this felt like pulling from just like everything, you know, as far as inspirations and heady concepts and conspiracies and religion, you know, it's just a lot going on. I'll say this for how I was feeling towards it. I think part of the reason why I was, it was palatable for me was because it had an intellect where I didn't feel like he was quite pulling it out of his ass. I did like that because it's so number based, I thought that some of the dialect was somewhat interesting. Yeah. So for instance, like I really can't stand Darren Aronofsky's Noah. Mmm. I just don't like it. Another one we didn't cover. Right. It was just like, it was pulling teeth. I don't even know if I ever finished the film. Yeah. It's heady and it gets, you know, maybe you could think it's his first time he wants to put it all in the paper. Like I said, just kind of vomit his thoughts out on this and make it happen. There was some type of intellect there that made it interesting and with the numbers and all this and getting into the religion aspect of it, you know, it was, yeah, I could be, I wasn't, I wasn't mad and I was just, yeah, I was, I was watching it for folks that want maybe some dialogue from Tom on horror films. This is what it would be. I wasn't mad. Or an outright hatred. I do like the cross-reference or the section, cross-section of mathematics and Judaism. Thought it was a very interesting angle. But I think it does a good job at dumbing down these concepts, but making them digestible for the audience. A hundred percent. It didn't feel like a TED talk or, you know, or whatever would be the 98 equivalent. No. And I think if you tried, it would have failed. Yeah, exactly. The film itself plays out as a spiraling psychological thriller and gives a surprising hook to what otherwise could have been an overly intellectual story. I think this could have very easily got lost in its own aspiration for what the story covers. And if anything, that type of failed balancing act is what 2017's mother tries to juggle and fails at completely. There you go. I feel like these two films really almost side-by-side in not in story matter, but in just how vast of a subject they're trying to tackle in a movie, you know, a movie of all things. So I think for both of our black and white films this week, I was ready to pigeonhole them for choosing this feeling very first time student film, you know, using black and white. I feel like it's a cliche, definitely in modern day. But honestly, I thought the visuals in this were great. I think I like the visuals the most in the movie. I absolutely loved his obsession with spirals and how math topics like the Fibonacci sequence were able to be like style and substance, you know, something brought up in just like the normal, you know, these mathematicians talking, but then actually plays into a little bit of what's being found with like spirals and stuff like that. Also like I mentioned, the nightmarish tech in his room specifically, I think flirts with some cyberpunk vibes. I think that's where some people online are calling this slightly sci-fi in which that it only makes sense for not only 1998, but also Erinowski has a long tendency of ripping off animes for a few scenes here and there. That's interesting. Mainly this reminded me of an anime called Serial Experiments Lane, which came out the same year to my surprise. Interesting. And deals with like a, I mean, to summarize serial experiments, that would be a lot. But it deals with like a, almost an out of control computer that is growing in almost nightmarish in concept. And similarly, the computer he uses for his calculations, I mean, it's no computer in 1998. Right, right. You know, it clearly has like fictional chips and mega chips and whatnot. So interesting and it's, and it's how it's presented in style. On top of that, once you add in the breakbeat electronic soundtrack by Clint Mansell, this distinctly comes off as the year 1998. And that was to my delight. That's why I loved how late 90s this felt. This felt like, you know, do a double header with Matrix One and Pi, you know, that's, that's the vibe I want. I had another movie in mind. What was the blutter? The aviator. Why? Because of the neurootic kind of the way that your own, your own insanity brings you down in the end. That's what I picture with this guy, but that was out of sync. All right. Look in the mirror and go and weigh the future, weigh the future, washing his hands. Yeah. Yeah. What's in the sink? You double headers are better than mine. Mine's more of a joke. I like, no, I think you haven't done the story, that's that's good character to what. I would say the, the, the slight downfall for this, because I was, I was really digging this movie. A slight downfall is the script kind of came off as funny to me, which I think is totally not what it's trying to juggle. It's not trying to be funny at all. Because it's too silly. Yeah. It's, it's so edgy how it came off, um, like he turns down a job offer for like the biggest financial firm with the most edgelord Reddit response. I could ever imagine. He's just like, I'm working on things that will change the world and storms off. Like the shot, the shots help it in a comedic way as well. When you have like the Wall Street, like Condoleezza Rice going up to her in his face. That's right on the money. Wow. Thank you. But the way that shot even, and some of the his hysterical things, there is a goofiness to it because it's so kind of crazy in the way that it's full. And he's so edgy, you know, it's so like melodramatic almost. It's interesting. And for sure, I like how this character is losing his mind and at the same time is rooted in principle. Yeah. Yeah. Because even when he is at the tip of, I mean, he's losing his mind. Yeah. And when he goes and breaks down completely, he for some reason snaps out of it a little bit. And then he's going through his mantra with that. He's annoyed with the other people. Yeah. And all of a sudden he has, he can still keep some type of reason about reasonableness to him. Yeah. And think for himself and still be super stubborn about what he's got going on. I kind of like that. Yeah. And to the aspect of this goofiness of what we're dealing, it does, first of all, yes, there is just, there's just, there's just some goofiness to the film. Yeah. And I think it is part of the script. Some of the way the shots look as well. But I think about training that feeling of, I don't know, I don't know. So you were like it. It's like, it's like, it's like a schizophrenic break. So do you like these shots where it almost is good for you? No, no, I think that's, that was taking me out of it. And again, that ties into a little bit of performances. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Overall, I, I liked how the film was pitting things against this one guy. I like that we're dealing with Supreme corporatists Wall Street and then just old school religion. Yeah. I was fighting for this guy and it's just that I liked the play on that. Yeah. It was interesting. Yeah, absolutely. But I think in this edginess, we'll call it, you know, whether it's meant to be comedic or not, that's where it hit me. If Aronofsky is trying to be anything, he's trying to be edgy, you know, you look at a lot of the camera work in this and you can clearly see the foundation of what Requiem of a Dream will be using two years later, but unlike a lot of his films, I think leaning so much into the surreal elements, the psychological elements gave him youthful guardrails to focus on what needed to be focused on. I feel like, again, this is just so close, so on the knife's edge, to slipping into anything from preachy, overly edgy to intellectual, just a movie that doesn't make sense, you know, so much could have been stepped over the line. And whether it came from low expectations or going in kind of blind, I thought this was legitimately one of his better movies, period, you know, and well worth checking out regardless of it being first or not. We're going to go ahead and give pie a 77. Oh, wow. Yeah. Yeah. I know. You couldn't disagree with that. That's fine. And you know what? You noticed that I'm not giving two shoes on these. I don't feel I was close to Reservoir Dogs and then after seeing Pulp Fiction, it almost was like less than Reservoir Dogs so much too much. But basically, but that also means I didn't hate it either, and this was the one to hate for me. Right. 77. I'm almost, this is higher. This is the big shock to me almost. Sure, sure. Not that you didn't defend it or anything like that. What were you grooving on the most? Would you say? What were you, what was you were riding on the high the most? Definitely this, this eraser head meets Mr. Robot, had a baby. Okay. So not only looks, but this guy. Especially on the surreal element. How much was this guy's performance that was selling it then? See, that's where I think the edginess hurts it because I feel like again, there's just moments you just like, oh, this guy's a loser, this guy's a nerd, you know. So the style of the film. Yeah, it's all in the style. It's all in, what I think are the horror moments of it. I agree with you in that it's not all the way horror, but when that surreal turns into horrific, the what's in the sink element, I was like, wow. I mean, this is in ways, I thought it was better than a racer head, you know, as far as like similar like crazy rides that we go on. And definitely a lot more palatable than a David Lynch movie, you know, for better words. So main guy, by the way, Sean Gillette, yeah, or Juliet, just want to give us, I don't think we said his name. Yeah, no, no, I didn't say so. The main guy did a fine job with the one I think with what he had to do. I think honestly, the the bit supporting characters, like you said, Wall Street kind of leaves a rice, wow, spot on top. I like them just because they didn't overstay their welcome. We do have a big actor. We do have a James Condis actor, which is Mark Magolas. Yes. And he's the most recognizable. You will definitely might not know his name, but when you see him, you're like, Oh, well, that guy's in this first time movie. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, then. All right, 77%. This is a good week for you. I thought there's a great week. I mean, on top of just like, this is why I watch movies, you know, scratching this itch. I thought this was an excellent week. Overall, I am surprised by these scores, I have to say. Like I said, I think almost every one of these I was debating one to two points higher and lower. Right. But that was your range. Yeah. See, I thought you were going to be mostly fit. I have to be honest, 50s and 60s. Really? With a lot of these. Wow. Wow. Because of the simplicity and the way it was made. I don't know. It's again, you defended them well. I guess. I think I was definitely watching in the context of what plays into the greater work of these directors. But I really do, you know, I think Pi's actually a great example of that. It was just like, if this was not connected to Aronofsky and maybe it was just kind of a lower budget, like horror or art house type of movie I came across, I'd be like all about it. If anything, Aronofsky was holding it back. I mean, that's awesome to hear. That's awesome to hear. Okay. So, so on the site, I'm going to put horror down for it. I think. You said horror a lot. So we'll make it a tag. It just, it just. I do kind of care. I'm still aware I was curious about your reaction to it because I feel like there are some moments that my jaw was a little dropped because it, and I immediately thought I was like, what's Tom's reaction going to listen to this kind of weirdness? It's not horror for me. Yeah. Okay. You know, I mean, look at me. I mean, I love daily and Romulus the other time. That's true. Cause I kind of found that as. You're the horror guy now. You're doing all the horror reviews for 2025. I found that as a chasing thriller. Not a horror. Chasing thriller with a spooky man in a suit. Okay. All right. So I just have a few questions for you. Yeah. Nothing crazy here. I want to know that if you could pick, no, first off, first off, which film could have been directed by another one of these directors, meaning so for me, I feel like one of these movies pegged to its director is not like these others. I feel like there was an easy odd man out. It's got to be bottle rocket. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Like I can, I can actually picture the Cohen brothers directing bottle rocket. Oh, sure. Sure. Yeah. And toss it a couple of years forward, any like 2000s director could bottle rocket like a John Appetow, even or something like that. Okay. All right. So we kind of agree on that then because I even think with bottle rocket, just the weirdness of the characters and simplicity of the, um, simplicity of the characters, even just the low rate crime because I was getting raising Arizona vibes for sure. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. To me, I was like, this could be Cohen brothers. Yeah. Yeah. And it distinctly was not Wes Anderson in my eyes. And what I know, Wes, because I've watched so much of his later career, which everything is together. Yeah. Exactly. Had none of the toy sets, you know, the type of aesthetic. Yeah. You take Budapest and past between, you have Budapest and then you have French dispatch, what we covered last year, and then his four shorts, his four shorts on, um, YouTube then Netflix. Oh, yeah. Right. Right. Right. He does the rolled dolls all within his aesthetic. But yeah. So bottle rocket, I thought was the one that was totally not like his others kind of where everybody else there was that DNA there you could attach it to. So if you could pick any one of these directors to direct any of the stories, what would be the most fun? Who would you actually look not necessarily the best fit, but would be awesome in its own right? I think I would swap the black and whites. I would love to see Arnowski take on the paranoid thriller following. Definitely, I would love to see Nolan, you know, maybe try a little bit more style in the genre of the surreal elements. If Nolan did pie the time element with the game with the numbers, he would be interested in like the scientific, you know, intellectual side of it. He would make it more sci-fi. I don't see this film as sci-fi at all. Yeah, I don't even. Like not even in the slightest. I think it, the only way it comes from is just that like, again, like the micro trip that they, that they, he gets from the Wall Street people, like that's clearly like a fictional microchip. I think it's, it's in the tech, but I'm, I'm with you. Yeah. It's like not a genre. Um, okay. I mean, that's pretty much all I have. Oh, would you have this as swap? I, well, you, I guess you already kind of said with, with Coen Brothers on, on bottle rock. No, but that's who I just think. That's who I feel like bottle rocket feels more like the Coen Brothers than it does West Anderson, who I would want to direct somebody else's film. Um, Tarantino might do a damn good job of blood simple. Yeah. Yeah. That's basically a hateful eight. I don't feel like there's enough characters in blood simple. Tarantino's dealing with many characters is what's so phenomenal to see. Sure. The way he weaves in and out. The way he can. Yeah. He just gets you in and out of his characters. It's phenomenal. I don't know who, I do like switching out the black and whites, but then also a put Tarantino on anything. Yeah, Anderson on pie. What happens then? Because it almost turns into like a low beat kind of comedy then. I would, I would love Owen Wilson losing his mind, losing his mind as a mathematician. Um, the banding that maybe sounds like a new West Anderson. Oh, you know what actually Chris Nolan doing blood simple. Oh, yeah. Because how would he layer the timeline of that of a death and killing or whatever. Yeah. Snooping and snitching. That would almost feel like more momentum. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. And just like the tango of it, you could play around a lot with how the events are ordered for the story. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Vin. Uh, any other notes you wanted to settle on or any other thoughts walking away with this new thoughts you have of these directors or anything like that? Nothing new thoughts that wouldn't be included in the reviews, but folks at home, um, this is, this is what the podcast is all about. Our listeners already, you know, this is my bag as far as, uh, wanting to see someone like the stepping stones and films, uh, and for any new listeners, uh, I really encourage you to go take a look back at some of our director episodes that we've tackled five films from some of these directors. They are an off ski episode, for instance. Yeah. What did we do? Exactly. We did. We did. And cone brothers this year, but also that's something we do. We did too of, uh, our boy, our Keystone, our Keystone brother, Keystone brother, uh, uh, I'm not sure how long. Yeah. Yeah. But we, you know, uh, we, we've done a lot of those type of episodes where we're tracking a director's, you know, uh, movements in between, you know, actual just movie reviews of the, of the movies themselves. Right. So. Right. And we covered, uh, like we said, almost the director that's missing from this list is Paul Thomas Anderson. Mm. Yep. But we did a special on hand basically. Yeah. Absolutely. Where we covered hard aid, his first film. Yeah. And like the cone brothers, uh, you know, there'll be blood will probably get its own, you know, uh, on its own. So. Well, well, because yeah, we want to do those specials now. Yeah. Absolutely. So, uh, but no, this was a delight. This is a fun week. This really wasn't a good week. Uh, there are, there are weeks that really reinvigorate me. This is one of the weeks. I had fun. Yeah. I had fun. I really did. I was excited to hear you kind of what you were bringing to it as well. Yeah. Yeah. So excellent. Thank you so much for watching these V. Thanks for stopping by here tonight, folks. We'll be back next week with our, with our regular schedule, I guess, we'll be having a normal episode next week with the new movie that's coming out, which I believe is going to be evil juice. 10 Burton. 10 Burton five. Okay. We're doing Burton next week, folks. Thanks a lot, man. And we'll just going to run these scores down at one more time. We have blood simple with the 74% reservoir dogs with an 84 bottle rocket with the 63. The following with the 71 and pie with a 77% All right, folks, thank you so much for listening. First week on the daily ratings podcast and hey, just remember, folks, that if you enjoyed the podcast, if you would give us a good rating or at least get the word out and tell a friend about it. Just a reminder, the daily ratings is completely producer supported. We want to stay away from advertising and we don't want to have any pay walls, tier structures or subscriptions, it's all just value for value. So if you're finding value in any of the things that we're doing here at the daily ratings that become a producer and donate whatever amount of value that is, just go to the donations tab on the daily ratings.com and while you're there, be sure to check out the massive amount of films that Vince has rated. So thanks so much, everybody. We'll see you next week on the daily ratings podcast. [music] [music] [music] (upbeat music) [MUSIC PLAYING]
