It’s rare that I record two podcasts in one day. It’s rarer still that I record two episodes of my own show in one day. Just make matters stranger, it’s the second of the two that is posting first. So if you find yourself asking “where’s episode ninety?”…it’s coming up next week.

Just go with it.

After watching a blu-ray last night, Lindsay looked at me and said “I couldn’t wait for that to be over!” To say I was caught unawares would be putting it mildly. If you’ve followed this show for a while, you might know that sometimes when we disagree on a film, the disagreement is recorded for posteriety.

This time around, we argue over one of this year’s most acclaimed films…

Runtime
29 minutes

Up for Discussion
The full episode has Lindsay and I having a spoiler-laden discussion about Park Chan-Wook’s STOKER.

You can subscribe to the Matineecast via iTunes or RSS

Comments and feedback are welcome, and thank-you very much for listening.

Enjoy!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Android | RSS

9 Replies to “Episode 91”

  1. Aww Stoker is my favourite feature film of the year so far. Like you, Ryan, I was kind of lost in the craft of it all. Also am I the only one who thought it was a really sexy film? Is that disturbing? :/

    And I really didn’t expect the masturbating scene. That caught me off-guard completely.

    Absolutely loved Goode. I would have been one of those silly school girls, I just know it. Kidman too was great. That last speech of hers- she’s like spewing poison and I love it. Wasikowska was the weakest of the three for me, but I still liked her a lot.

    And gosh, the music! I’m still listening to it. I can’t get over it.

    In a year that has so far been quite disappointing and forgettable, Stoker is one film I still can’t seem to shake off.

    1. I was wondering the same thing about the sexiness of the film…just like you I wondered if that was disturbing.

      The funny thing about this whole discussion between Lindsay and I is that I realize she’s the first person I’ve come across who didn’t like it…and those divided conversations are the ones I find most interesting. In a way, it validates the film a little bit more for me…instead of it being universally hailed.

      Thanks for listening!

  2. It is very much possible to be 18 in high school (for a few months at least) if you have a spring birthday (like myself). I actually graduated at 19 (because of OAC).

  4. Stoker is by far my favourite movie of the year to date (you misquoted me on the last episode). Given her reasoning I can see why Lindsey didn’t like it; if you are too aware of the editing, the construction and the acting it does become self aware. This acts as an alienation device for the audience. I on the other hand didn’t watch it and think this is beautiful, or this is well put together, I was just drawn into it and I thought those things afterwards. The anachronisms in the plot she mentioned appear in some form in most films, the secret is you only think about them if you aren’t engaging with the film.

    Although less visceral than Park Chan-wook’s vengeance trilogy it is just as disturbing in a psychological way. The only thing that I can compare it to is Don’t Look Now; I saw it as a kid and was more disturbed by it than any horror film. One of the best things about the film is the cast, I thought all three leading actors were fantastic and make their somewhat strange characters perfectly believable within the context of the movie. A measure I always consider of how good a performance is, I ask if I can think of anyone who could have done a better job, I can’t!

    As for the use of the colour yellow you discuss. I asked a co worker who did a degree in psychology (or some other similar ology) and is always talking about people dreams. She suggested that yellow can represent deceit and betrayal, but is also represents intelligence and wisdom

Comments are closed.