TFT 135 – THE LAST AIRBENDER / THE KILLER INSIDE ME
posted by
Jett Loe
TFT 135 – THE LAST AIRBENDER / THE KILLER INSIDE ME
- – -
TFT 135 running time: 48 minutes 41 seconds – 23.5mb mp3
THE LAST AIRBENDER starts at 2 minutes 55 seconds
ASK THE FILM TALK starts at 26:18
THE KILLER INSIDE ME starts at 32:58
- – -
HELP JETT FIND WORK IN LA– CLICK HERE FOR THE LINKED IN PROFILE
This entry was posted on Friday, July 9th, 2010 at 3:30 pm. It is filed under Action, Adaptations, Blockbusters, Blog, Crime, Drama, Gareth Higgins, Gareth Higgins Reviews, Jett Loe, Jett Loe Reviews, Podcast, Reviews and tagged with film review podcast, movie review podcast.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
[...] The Film Talk » TFT 135 – THE LAST AIRBENDER / THE KILLER INSIDE ME [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jett Loe. Jett Loe said: Our 5-Point defense of the flawed yet thrilling THE LAST AIRBENDER, (plus review of THE KILLER INSIDE ME), now online http://is.gd/dm2v2 [...]
[...] The Film Talk » TFT 135 – THE LAST AIRBENDER / THE KILLER INSIDE ME [...]
Very much looking forward to the Air Bender movie! I only caught the cartoon series here and there and thought it told a good story, but I've never had time to sit down and watched it consistently. I keep hearing people around me saying it's awful and stilted and just…awful, but one thing to bear in mind (even tho, yet again – haven't seen it! YET) is that the cartoon is an American-made anime styled show. If you watch anime (as i did A LOT in my youth, not so much now), you quickly learn that anime is very stilted, “choppy” and even possibly “wooden.” Maybe M.Night (an admitted fan of the cartoon series) is homag-ing? I would not be surprised.
Also, very fecked off at Cameron for using money, power and influence in taking the name 'Avatar,' from the film!! Cuz, it's not like anybody called him on ABSOLUTELY ripping off Halo for Avatar. (yeah, i know, i know, anti-fanboys, that halo rips off Ringworld, Alien, Aliens, etc etc, not my point). I mean, Banshees?! Seriously? You mean the big purpley, bluey, greeny things you fly in Avatar or the big purley bluey greeny things you fly in Halo? Don't even get me started on Grinder vs Warthog, Avatar Scorpion Vs. Hornet, or even the fact that he ripped off the name Scorpion! RAGE – wait, whoops, how did this turn into a Halo fan girl rant?! sorry! Yes, Air Bender, can't wait to see it! ;)
Great, and as always thoughtful show, fellas. Having heard/read all of the backlash that The Last Airbender has received, I still have an interest in seeing it. I actually have seen a couple episodes of the cartoon series and thought that the clips and trailers for the movie have kept me interested. And, whether it's made-for or not, I don't really care for 3-D, so my intention was to never see it that way. (Though I have to admit that I didn't have the issue with Clash of the Titans 3-D conversion that lots of others did. It was just on a fairly mediocre film.)
My main question/wish is to hear more about Jett's talk about shooting violence. I understand the example that he gave regarding A Clockwork Orange, as opposed to The Killer Inside Me. Camera angles, lighting, etc. I'm interested to hear the views of the Maestro.
This is also coming from the fact that I soon hope to be filming a film of my own – which does indeed include violence, which I hope to show the horror of and cover the oft-overlooked after=effects of being repeatedly punched in the face, or being stabbed. And how it's not, “action as usual.”
Despite the bit of panning that you both gave The Killer Inside ME, I'm also still interested in seeing that as well.
[...] The Film Talk » TFT 135 – THE LAST AIRBENDER / THE KILLER INSIDE ME [...]
Yikes! Sex and the City 2 and now this? As much as a love your discussions guys, I'm afraid I can't base my cinema outings on this show any more (especially with today's prices). I went to see both these films based on your sole recommendations (they were eviserated by every other podcast) and was brutally disppointed. The acting and dialogue were just cringe-inducing.
The Last Airbender was particularly painful, since I'm a huge fan of the animated series. The whole film was just dull, soul-less exposition. Comparing it to Star Wars is laughable! I'm sorry guys. I love the show otherwise. Maybe I'll learn to appreciate these films when I'm older, but as far as entertainment value, they were two of the most wretched theatre experiences I've had in a long time.
well to be fair to us we're really not a 'thumbs up / thumbs down' kinda show! ;)
but sorry your experience was unhappy – when you say “huge fan of the animated series” = that may have something to do with it – i'd never seen it, hence the ideas in the film were fresh and intriguing.
…and i guess i'd better not recommend INCEPTION to ya – those IMAX prices will kill ya!
Oh man, now I feel bad. The original series is just soooo incredible and it's just frusterating to see it butchered for mass consumption. Please don't let the Nickelodeon tag put you off, cause it's really great. I think it's available on Netflix watch instantly.
yeah i saw the first episode – i don't have time now to watch, (huge backlog of screeners to see), but may revisit when i get the chance :)
I hear what your saying about treating it as it's own property, but you made a similar contrast with Edge of Darkness. Just sayin' ;)
yes you're right of course – but i had seen the original EDGE OF DARKNESS and so my field of vision was clouded with sadness, a terrible terrible sadness at the missed potential – that being said even if you judged the remake of EDGE OF DARKNESS by itself it was still pretty crappy.
“a terrible sadness at the missed potential” -That pretty much sums up my views on Airbender.
One thing I find odd about this particular podcast is the varying contrast between the ‘film is the film and nothing more’ aspects detailing the irrelevance of the original animated series and the ‘film is not a sport’ aspects detailing the irrelevance of viewing statistics against the ‘what’s up with the backlash?’ aspect detailing the varied opinions of people on nefarious attention-getting hyperbole referred to here as ‘backlash against Shyamalan’ (as noted in the cast). It is funny to note that these people, ironically, tend to be the type of person to treat film as sport and care so much about the opinions of others that they harp on the ‘backlash’ that films receive due to perfectly sensible and natural phenomena. Thus, you are caring about the opinions of people who care about things that you don’t think people should care about…?
There are two problems with your approach that I find: First, in exploring what to you was a surprisingly negative reaction to the film you decided to scan reviews looking for negative reactions – and you find a lot of ridiculously harsh ones. Why? Well, for the very reason you noted – those that are hyperbolic get attention, those that get attention keep posting, and those that keep posting are read. Thus, you are reading only the outliers, not a true gauge of the average person. These outliers are the people who are ‘backlashing’, I assume, not the AO Scotts of the world. And if AO Scott disliked the film I doubt you would level these sorts of attacks on him, you would simply take him at his word. As such, I think in diagnosing a problem with culture you’re more likely to be diagnosing a phenomena of media. To put that in context, your fifth point in this exploration of the opinions of hyperbolic spinsters was entitled: Hitler. I’m guessing this was done with a knowing wink, but I think you should have knowingly winked off the entire subject of these others’ supposed backlash if all that is important to the film is the film itself. As for the point about sport, I find your measuring of the critical reaction to the film eerily reminiscent of the measuring of the box office performance of a film. Now, granted, if you are attempting to encourage people to take an honest and open look at the film then certain aspects of pure rhetorical mudslinging are to be explicitly discouraged, but I think the problem lies less in this negative response, which may be inevitable, but in the open and honest approach, which is what I find you two to encourage. I find it best covered when you limit such discussions to the film and the art, myself.
Just a couple thoughts – and these thoughts were no doubt provoked by the inane discussions I have had to endure using that same word – backlash. It sends ominous tingles down my spine. Quick introduction: A film comes out, these ‘fanboys’ you speak of rush out to see it because it is exactly their sort of film (let’s say: Inception). Later, when it comes out on DVD, people who are less interested in that sort of film go out and see it and are less enthusiastic, some of them outright displeased. These people who were really excited initially sense a great shift in the response to the film. Instead of attributing it to qualities of people now watching it for the first time, those who had less interest in the film, they falsely attribute it a contrarian position against the previous near unanimous praise. The second wave of people are talking about the film, the fanboys infer that they are not, shenanigans ensue. As such, any inference about the ‘backlash’ of others I always take with a grain of salt. There may be some, but how can you know? And who cares?
As for your Hitler rule, I can’t say I agree with it at all. This is to say that what classifies as the correct foundation depends not on what is the most proper way of learning the current practices but on archaic methods of the past which took many years to overcome and progress beyond. It is like learning alchemy before chemistry. It all reminds me of The Draughtsman’s Contract, really. That Hitler was disproved and bewildered is not sufficient justification of an aesthetic regimine, to me.
In essence, what I’m saying is – Hell is other people. Especially Hitler.
hi andrezj i’ll try to respond in the limited time i have –
speaking for myself – not for gareth – my contribution to TFT is an unscripted improv flow of reaction to cinema –
with that in mind i don’t have an ‘approach’ – am not coming from an academic background; my responses are coming from an instinctual or muscle memory of the thousands of films i’ve seen and my work directing – i say this because you might be responding to the show as if it’s a ‘conscious’ work – and on my part it’s not – it’s all improvised – more like improv comedy or dance i would argue – hence it is as inconsistent as life itself – make sense?
(and one of the consequences of this improv nature of the show is that it is often difficult for me to respond directly to specific points in old episodes as i don’t retain the information – it’s like performance and then i move on – so usually am not familiar with what people are talking about re: “in episode 53 you said x”, etc.; at least that’s my excuse – perhaps i have some sort of memory problem, (and this is a reason to close comments after a certain period of time of course – but am always interested in the opinions of people who listen to the show as they are often more informed and just frankly more intelligent than i am).
I understand what you’re saying, definitely. It was just my own reaction to what you were saying, maybe someone else will find it an interesting counterpoint in the future. I was just going through older shows, saw something I felt could be a point of discussion, but sometimes the past should stay buried. I still stick with the closing assertion, borrowed from Sartre – Hell is other people. It even comes up in the most recent podcast (as of this writing) about Enter the Void – hyperbole heaped on The Social Network and silence accompanying Enter the Void (at least from these ‘other people’). It’s a cold, desolate wasteland out there amongst the ‘other people’.