I do love it when Serrano gets going on an action flick he loves. I don’t like ‘Fast and the Furious’, for example, but I’ll listen to him talk about the series. That’s a pretty high compliment, I’d say.
Just What is Apex Mountain: Rewatchables discussion thread
- Thread starter Shelterdog
- Start date
I don't think there are any bad episodes of the Rewatchables. Even Country Strong was enjoyable, and I knew nothing about that movie going in.
But the Tango and Cash one is definitely great.
I still have 20 minutes left in the Tango and Cash pod, but I will nitpick one of Simmons' nitpicks of the movie--he goes on about ridiculous it is that hero cops Tango and Cash are immediately abandoned by everyone when they are framed for the crimes that place them in jail. "Wait, they're hero cops...now everybody suddenly believes they're corrupt?"
This from a man who has a category which asks if "Wayne Jenkins" would make a movie better. Which begs the question, clearly he watched We Own The City, but did he really pay attention to Wayne Jenkins' and his crew's arc in the series?
This from a man who has a category which asks if "Wayne Jenkins" would make a movie better. Which begs the question, clearly he watched We Own The City, but did he really pay attention to Wayne Jenkins' and his crew's arc in the series?
“The Princess Bride” ep is terrible but it’s the exception that proves the rule. Most are good to great.
Shawshank was also terrible due to Bill's dad not having a clue how to be entertaining on a podcast (not a judgment, I wouldn't either, it is just a shame they screwed up an iconic rewatchable that way). I also love Issa Rae and Insecure, but I couldn't get through Groundhog Day as she did not seem to understand the format at all. I haven't listened to all of them, but those are the two I thought were bad in a sea of pretty entertaining pods.
There are a bunch of non-Simmons pods from the first "season" when it first rolled out where it seemed like they put a bunch of Ringer people on movies they had never seen before prepping for the podcast. Clueless was one that jumped out.
Michael Clayton should get a do-over. That is one of my favorite movies and it was Chris Ryan who was good but the two others had maybe seen half the movie one time between the both of them.
You are spot on. Michael Clayton is perfect and that is easily one of the most boring episodes. I think the issue is Simmons doesn't like the movie (or never watched it - weird!) so it got the B squad.
How in the hell Simmons never watched that - or even worse, didn't like it - is beyond me.
I'm with you. It's an incredibly well done movie.
I don't think anybody actually knows if he has / has not watched it.
It was also still early enough in the Rewatchables where a bunch of other people were hosting them (he wasn't on the Rewatchable prior or after) to very mixed results.
It was also still early enough in the Rewatchables where a bunch of other people were hosting them (he wasn't on the Rewatchable prior or after) to very mixed results.
Yeah, I mean they're all enjoyable on some level. Even if it means me going "What?!" or "Come the fuck on!" sometimes. That's part of the show. I'm just less excited about episodes on movies that I'm not particularly wild about.
The only ones where I get bored and turn them off are when it turns into an uncritical love-fest, which is very rare, and to his credit Bill resists. Like the Spider-Man (2002) one with Van Lathan and Charles Holmes, where Holmes just wanted to talk about how great he thought the movie was because of his own personal memories of if. Van tried his best to rein him in but it made for really bad radio. And as others noted above, it's almost always the B-Teams that make for boring episodes.
This is very true. Even Heat, a movie beloved by Bill and CR, has interesting eps because Bill and Chris look at it through a critical lens. {art of the enjoyment of the movie is the weird Jon Voigt makeup, the Pacino acting/over-acting, the slowness of the Venora scenes, asking for bread to a random pickup basketball game, etc. Loving these movies in spite of their weaknesses is why they're so rewatchable. Simply lauding them is incredibly boring.
Pretty good although it suffers from a very very common misapprehension about the film which is that the solider who kills Melish isn't the same one they let go (and who Upham killed). (And of course Bill does a lot of Billing, like thinking Private Ryan should be more of a bad ass or not liking "earn it" as the last word from Tom Hanks to Damon, preferring IIRC "prove you're worth it"--which kind of stunned sean and cr).
The movie has a closeup of”Steamboat Willie”’s face after he stabs the guy to confirm it is the same German.
It's not. It's wild and they look a ton alike but steamboat willie is played by jerog stadler and the guy who killed melish is played by marc steinmeier. (There are other differences, the one who killed Melish is waffen SS, the other is not, steamboat willie had an injury around his eye, the waffen ss guy does not.) It's actually a real problem with the film IMO because it's very easy to confuse the two and certainly 99 percent people watching the film think it's the same guy.
Yeah that’s wild and I can’t see any story-telling advantage to the ambiguity unless there’s a cut scene where Upham realizes his mistake and decides it doesn’t matter or something.
It also makes the scene where the SS lets Upham live make 0 sense.
William Goldman missed that one in his takedown of the film!
I haven’t listened yet, but do they touch on ‘The Thin Red Line’? I think they’re interesting to discuss as alternative takes on a war film (both are WWII films that came out the same year featuring big budgets, lots of big actors and highly respected directors), though the Rewatchables format isn’t really geared toward comparative analysis unless it is Bill asking ‘is this the first time we’ve seen X’.
Last edited:
I need to rewatch The Thin Red Line. I recall the "dueling WWII movies" angle of that year, and while the immediate conclusion was that SPR was "better", I think time has flipped that perception as the shine has come off SPR a bit and we've had time to consider Malick's legacy.
I think SPR is a movie where Spielberg just gets in his own way. The opening/closing shots of the family and grave are awful (and worse, completely unnecessary) and the Upham character is almost beyond redemption. He's unrelatable. And, finally, the movie suffers from the problem that, as a viewer, I don't really give a shit about Ryan or his mom because I only get to know the guy for 90 seconds before the climax of the movie hits and all my favorite characters die. All in the name of Spielberg's forced attempt to show the importance and nobility of SACRIFICE, which is hardly a novel concept for a war movie. I do like some of the characters and dialogue (although the "Let me look up FUBAR in the army glossary..." stuff is dumb and is part of why Upham doesn't work for me).
The opening scene is obviously a masterpiece but much of what comes after that is pretty soft.
Everyone missed the "there are two different bald germans" detail because it makes no sense. Agree with Leather about the Upham character who is a nightmare; predictably Simmons (like most viewers) think he's a wimp and a coward which shouldn't be the point but the way the move is put together, particularly with the german look-alikes, is the takeaway: real men, even school teachers, fight in real wars and some folks are just weak.
Thin Red Line--which I like but watched in a theater where perhaps fifty percent of the audience walked out during the film--would be high on my list of rewatchables that really needs Bill's special sauce. "What aged the worst: nature shots or Caviezel's career " and "shouldn't travolta and clooney have had bigger parts" would be amazing questions for him to propose while Sean or Chris stumble over themselves being the first to describe it as elegiac and hauntingly beautiful.
I've heard it posited that Upham is supposed to be a stand-in for the United States; cowardly, equivocating, and watches the world burn (and Jews die) while offering help on the sidelines until they are finally dragged into the war by fate and have to stand up for what's right. I also personally suspect he's supposed to be a stand-in for the viewer; thrown into a world that doesn't make sense until you accept its nonsensical nature. But that insults me because how could an Army corporal, who's presumably been training in England for 6 months-year and seen the leadup and immediate aftermath of D-Day be *that* naive and babylike. Just horrible. Like, there's fucking bodies being put onto trucks and smoldering ruins all around him and he's basically like "Gee, we might have to shoot people?"
Regardless, that is one of the worst Spielberg characters of his entire career (maybe there are worse in "1942", I dunno, haven't seen it).
Add me to the list of "people who have seen SPR 10+ times but learned today from Shelterdog that there are two different bald Germans in the movie." Holy shit does that detail make zero sense. On the SPR vs. Thin Red Line debate, I think SPR was made the winner at the moment in large part because it bookends with two incredible sequences - the D-Day invasion is unbelievably well-done and the vast majority of the last battle scene in the town is also really good (exempting some of the ridiculous Upham stuff, which makes no sense and that character is awful, and I also thought Hanks shooting at the tank only to have a plane blow it up was hokey). The problem with SPR is that a lot of what happens outside of those two scenes is really not good. The first five times I watched the movie, I legitimately forgot that the first shot was not Hanks' eyes on D-Day - that grave stuff is horrendous. And a lot of what happens in between the two battle sequences is not great either - Leather classifying it as "soft" strikes me as exactly right. I the Thin Red Line works better than SPR on multiple rewatches because, as good as the D-Day sequence is, the cracks in SPR start to show as you watch it repeatedly. The first times watching SPR the D-Day sequence overpowers the next hour of the movie. Spielberg could have had Vin Diesel talk about wanting to return home to Cali and live life a quarter mile at a time for 45 minutes and it would work on the first few viewings.
The Thin Red Line is a contender for my favorite American movie of the last 40 years. Saving Private Ryan was a fun but treacly war movie the first time I saw it. It didn't improve on a second viewing. I think I've only seen it twice. I have seen The Thin Red Line probably 30 times since. It's all subjective, of course. How important is narrative drive to you? How much ambiguity are you comfortable with? The entire idea of which movie won is silly, but The Thin Red Line won because it's better. 
It's interesting that all of them seem to laud SPR as one of Speilberg's top 5 movies. I don't think it's even in the conversation for that. (Of course, I also have all kinds or problems with Schindler's List, so it could just be that I don't care for Speilberg's striving for gravity movies.)
It's interesting that all of them seem to laud SPR as one of Speilberg's top 5 movies. I don't think it's even in the conversation for that. (Of course, I also have all kinds or problems with Schindler's List, so it could just be that I don't care for Speilberg's striving for gravity movies.)
OMG can we be movie friends? Treacly but fun is IMO a brillant description of SPR but I think that's a minority view.The Thin Red Line is a contender for my favorite American movie of the last 40 years. Saving Private Ryan was a fun but treacly war movie the first time I saw it. It didn't improve on a second viewing. I think I've only seen it twice. I have seen The Thin Red Line probably 30 times since. It's all subjective, of course. How important is narrative drive to you? How much ambiguity are you comfortable with? The entire idea of which movie won is silly, but The Thin Red Line won because it's better.
It's interesting that all of them seem to laud SPR as one of Speilberg's top 5 movies. I don't think it's even in the conversation for that. (Of course, I also have all kinds or problems with Schindler's List, so it could just be that I don't care for Speilberg's striving for gravity movies.)
I mean...Spielberg (and Hanks) made "Band of Brothers" just a couple of years after SPR and it's about 100 times better than SPR on just about every level, and it has almost *none* of the preachy Greatest Generation subtext of SPR.The Thin Red Line is a contender for my favorite American movie of the last 40 years. Saving Private Ryan was a fun but treacly war movie the first time I saw it. It didn't improve on a second viewing. I think I've only seen it twice. I have seen The Thin Red Line probably 30 times since. It's all subjective, of course. How important is narrative drive to you? How much ambiguity are you comfortable with? The entire idea of which movie won is silly, but The Thin Red Line won because it's better.
It's interesting that all of them seem to laud SPR as one of Speilberg's top 5 movies. I don't think it's even in the conversation for that. (Of course, I also have all kinds or problems with Schindler's List, so it could just be that I don't care for Speilberg's striving for gravity movies.)
I view SPR as Spielberg's attempt to make a retro war movie and right what he felt was an overcompensation by his fellow movie-makers in the previous 20 years.
Post- WW II, Hollywood made movies (John Wayne stuff, Audie Murphy etc..). where men were men and people learned lessons from dying and became better men with their steely-eyed stare and good was good and bad was bad and that's that. All that went out the window in the 70s and 80s with the cinematic response to Vietnam (notably Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon), where the message was more "War is fucking insane and awful and anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool or a crook." And that outlook comes from journalists and veterans of that war, whose accounts were used as a basis for those screenplays. And these movies had something in common with older accounts of warfare like All Quiet on the Western Front and A Farewell to Arms (and Paths of Glory) that were pretty explicit that "good" vs "bad" doesn't mean much at all when you're on the front line, and that anyone trying to tell you that war is "honorable" is trying to sell you something or get you to do something they want you to do but probably wouldn't do themselves.
In Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg appears to be trying overly hard to rebuke that outlook by making each death *mean* something. Each death has a *lesson*. And I gather that yes, WWII is generally regarded as a "good war" between good and evil where good triumphed, and not like the ethical mess that was Vietnam or the strategic pointlessness of WWI. But those moments where Spielberg places that message above the action just ring phony to me and it brings the movie down as a result.
It really is the perfect description for that movie. I feel like Spielberg gets credit for being so adept at making his audience FEEL something. But not enough people take the time to think about HOW he gets his audience to feel the way they do.
It works for him in stuff like E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It DOESN'T work for him in stuff like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List.
Just because you've put your viewers through the wringer doesn't mean you've made a brilliant movie.
This is a great discussion. I think it’s the second time here someone pointed out the two different Germans and it’s blowing my mind once again. Such a weird and confusing choice to use lookalikes and also not to have it be the Betty Boop what a dish guy, which would’ve made a nice tie up.
I found much of SPR quite emotional, in particular, because of the relationship we develop with the squad during the middle of the movie. But I understand those who don’t like the plot and writing. I’m not sure there’s any middle part of that movie that will hold up well after the first 30 minutes though.
I agree the scenes with Old Man Ryan are weak. I would have gone the other way and spent an extra 5 minutes with him in the beginning. For me the emotional letdown of the movie is we don’t really care about Ryan other than feeling sympathy for the mom because of her devastating shot. Maybe if we have some attachment to Old Man Ryan and his family, we’d feel something more for Damon / Ryan.
I have no idea what Steven’s plan was for duo bald Germans. Even Wikipedia, in its limited plot description, has it as Steamboat Willie in both scenes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan
I agree the scenes with Old Man Ryan are weak. I would have gone the other way and spent an extra 5 minutes with him in the beginning. For me the emotional letdown of the movie is we don’t really care about Ryan other than feeling sympathy for the mom because of her devastating shot. Maybe if we have some attachment to Old Man Ryan and his family, we’d feel something more for Damon / Ryan.
I have no idea what Steven’s plan was for duo bald Germans. Even Wikipedia, in its limited plot description, has it as Steamboat Willie in both scenes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan
I mean... it's really insane. It makes the following sequence:
Steamboat Willie kills the Adam Goldberg character while Upham does nothing -> Steamboat Willie walks past Upham and pointedly chooses not to kill him and -> walks out of the building and pauses, turns his head around for no reason except (apparently) so the viewer can get a close look at him
now make zero sense. It's incredible.
Yeah - I had no idea about this either. I totally thought it was the same guy because it seemed like the exact type of crap Spielberg would pull.
I am glad to find people who feel the same way I do about SPR. I've gotten some surprised reactions when I've told friends or family I think most of the movie isn't that good (though it was worse when I said the same about Million Dollar Baby).
I am glad to find people who feel the same way I do about SPR. I've gotten some surprised reactions when I've told friends or family I think most of the movie isn't that good (though it was worse when I said the same about Million Dollar Baby).
I think it depends on how many times you’ve seen it. I’m not a big war movie connoisseur, but the opening war scene was the most incredible and graphic thing I’d seen at that point and the ending was pretty well done as well. Like someone said upthread, those bookends can do a lot of work, initially, but after a couple viewings you start to see the many cracks.
Thin Red Line is just a perfect movie. It’s meditative, it’s human, it’s hopefully and dark and violent and beautiful. Spielberg has always been like Henry James to me - really smart but technical and showy. Malick was, I dunno, Hemingway at his best.
Thin Red Line is just a perfect movie. It’s meditative, it’s human, it’s hopefully and dark and violent and beautiful. Spielberg has always been like Henry James to me - really smart but technical and showy. Malick was, I dunno, Hemingway at his best.
I agree, its pretty sloppy aside from a prime Belushi performance and an underrated Williams score.1941, not 1942.
(1941 is...not a good movie, but it has some goofy fun.)
Man, Bill really wanted Nirvana to be in Singles. He then says the reason for them saying no is part of the reason so many love them. They didn't want to be popular at all. But then, as Bill says, they went and sold out and did MTV Unplugged. Immediate pushback from Chris and Van, and rightly so. Has Bill ever heard Nirvana's unplugged? There was nearly as many cover songs as Nirvana originals which the studio was not happy about. And the originals they did play were lesser known songs. And they also refused to play an encore.
Overall a fun episode and makes me want to go back and watch Singles again as it's been awhile.
Overall a fun episode and makes me want to go back and watch Singles again as it's been awhile.
I always felt the knock on Singles (which I mostly agree with) is that it’s ostensibly about post-college malaise but many of the key characters look and act like they are in their early 30s. I watched it a couple of years ago and it just felt like an older person writing a cleaned up, clever, version of their younger self and friends. Maybe I should watch again.
I thought Chris randomly feeling the need to say “Well Boston was like [Seattle]too…” was a little strange, unless his point is that musicians sometimes work shitty jobs during the day in cities which is not really ground breaking.
As to your point, you’re better off ignoring most of what Simmons thinks about music.He doesn’t have bad taste but music has never been his “thing”.
Last edited:
Of course the bolded is preposterous. Dave Grohl wrote in his autobiography that Kurt Cobain desperately wanted the band to be popular. In fact he repeatedly told people that they'd be the biggest thing in the world. That Kurt realized after it happened that fame can be awful doesn't change the fact that he wanted it badly from the start.
I'm not a huge Nirvana fan, but I think the thing with Kurt wasn't that he hated the idea of being popular, or even that he hated popular musicians. I mean, yes, he loved the Melvins and Vaselines, but he also loved The Beatles, Neil Young, and Bowie for Christ's sake. What he hated was the amorphous idea of using being popular to push phony bullshit, which is why he openly feuded with Guns N Roses (mainly Axl), whom he thought were basically bloated jokes by the early 90s. And as Nirvana blew up, and the musical subgenre he was the figurehead for became more and more commercialized and diluted into something that approached phony bullshit, it gnawed at him. Frankly, doing an acoustic concert where he could play some of the songs that were at the foundation of what he was going for with Nirvana was probably, in his mind, the least "sell out" thing he could possibly do at the time. It was bringing his music away from the commercialized version of "Grunge" that had taken over America by 1993 and back to its fundamentals. "Here" he was almost saying, "stop listening to this music I wrote because it's popular, listen to what the song actually is without all that extraneous shit laid on top of it."
Anyway, so it doesn't surprise me that he wouldn't want to be in a Hollywood production about Seattle as a background to some rom-com story, which is probably how he viewed the proposition.
Last edited:
Wait, is he saying that Nirvana wasn't popular until Unplugged? Was he asleep for Smells Like Teen Spirit and the entire Nevermind album being perhaps the biggest cultural phenomenon of the 90s outside of maybe The Chronic? Unplugged was several years after Nevermind and the CD wasn't released until after he was dead.
The likely reason for no Nirvana in Singles is that Kurt Cobain had a crippling addiction to heroin, which makes shooting days a little tough to make.
The likely reason for no Nirvana in Singles is that Kurt Cobain had a crippling addiction to heroin, which makes shooting days a little tough to make.
I don't disagree with that. I haven't listened to the pod yet -- so perhaps I'm getting this wrong -- but my point was simply that if Bill suggested that Nirvana "didn't want to be popular" that's demonstrably false.
The man has some form of speech impediment, because he continuous butchers names and places on his podcasts. Couple of his most notable name mis-pronunciations include Wimbledon and Jean Claude Van Damme, even when guests on his shows correct him.
I think Bill said Martin Score-seeze, I was driving and didn’t go back to check and I might have been missing a joke. Fucking up vignette isn’t mildly surprising