Film Junk Podcast Episode #354: Haywire

Posted by on January 24th, 2012   Filed under: Featured, Film Junk Podcast

0:00 – Intro
6:30 – Headlines: 2012 Golden Globe Winners, The Expendables 2 Will Be PG-13
28:15 – Review: Haywire
1:22:15 – Trailer Trash: Resident Evil: Retribution
1:28:45 – Other Stuff We Watched: Alcatraz, Jim Gaffigan Live, AHL Winter Classic, And Everything is Going Fine, The Prestige, Summer of Sam, We Bought a Zoo, The Island of Lost Souls, Hanna, Con Air, Hands on a Hard Body, Routine Pleasures
2:05:40 – Junk Mail: Breakout Roles for Athletes, Displaying Box Sets with Cardboard Sleeves, Favourite Breast Shots, Crispin Glover and Nic Cage, Theatre vs. DVD and Blu-ray, Digital Copies, Critiquing a Movie Based on What You Thought It Should Be
2:28:50 – This Week’s DVD Releases
2:31:00 – Outro

Film Junk Podcast Episode #354: Haywire by Filmjunk on Mixcloud

» Download the MP3 (70 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Rate us on iTunes!

Subscribe to the podcast feed:
RSS iTunes My Yahoo!

Donate via Paypal:




 Recurring Donation $2/Month:


← 
Newer Comments  →

  • Regarding Tintin not being animated. While I agree with Frank that a big chunk is just capturing performances from real actors, but didn’t they animated all the places they went to, vehicles, landscapes, weather, etc? Seems like there is a lot of actual animation in the movie.

  • RC

    I started to agree with Frank about Tintin but then Jay completely obliterated his arguments by bringing up several good examples.

    Advantage, Jay.

  • Austin in Japan

    Are you guys high?! The Star Rating system is out of 4. Keep it at 4!!! Don’t make me turn this car around!!!

  • swarez

    @Greg.
    “Facial shots.”
    Nuff said.

  • Cassius Clay

    5 makes more sense, basically the entire internet already has this system : Rotten tomatoes, iTunes, Amazon, etc.

  • Liney

    On the subject of ratings, I have to say that I think Empire Magazine has it just about right. Ratings between 1 and 5, with no ‘point fives’, and no zeros (I don’t think – maybe in exceptional circumstances). You said yourselves, the rating system is just there to sum up your verdict at a glance…for more detailed analysis, people should listen to the review themselves. So, using this system:

    1 = total piece of sh*t. Avoid.

    2 = bad movie. Not worth seeing unless you have a particular reason to.

    3 = average. A pass. Something you can throw on, or not turn off if it shows up on tv or on a flight. Maybe worth seeking out if you have a particular interest in the subject or cast. Something you can pay to see at the cinema on a Friday night and enjoy without feeling you’ve been robbed.

    4 = good movie. If you’re into movies generally, this is one you should catch (unless the subject/genre is a particular turn off to you).

    5 = awesome. A must see in the reviewer’s opinion, and a contender for a top ten list at the end of the year. Generally Empire give out one or two of these a month, but of course there could be more in an exceptional month.

    One thing that I would add is that I think that grading out of an odd number is useful, because then you have a clear average mark: 3. When grading out of 4, I’m never sure if 2 or 2.5 is average (and judging by your debate, you guys aren’t either). Similarly with marking out of ten. So out of five with no ‘point fives’ and no zeros works well I reckon. 3 is right bang in the middle.

  • 5 stars makes more sense. I vote you switch to it.

  • Falsk

    Please keep all discussion of arbitrary points-based ratings system to Jay’s Facebook wall where they belong.

    VIVA LE FIVE-POINTS!

  • fatbologna

    Hey Frank!

    Why so anal, bud?

  • Filmjunk has always had a 4 point system. Changing it now would be like Roseanne winning the lottery in season 9. Don’t jump the shark!

  • Glendon

    In the interest of SHEER & UTTER NERDINESS, I present my tried and true letter-based rating system.

    The A range represents films I love/best of the year, B represents films I enjoy, C is the middle ground with conflicting emotions, D means I didn’t like it, and F is the equivalent of a complete failure.

    A+: Personal favourite. The film represents everything I love about movies. I love every scene.

    A: The highest a normal film can attain. It is a work of creativity and power that succeeds both artistically and thematically.

    A-: A well made film that had me involved in the story and made me care about the characters. Or, a stand out in the genre.

    B+: A technically brilliant film that I appreciate more than enjoy. Most likely did everything right except succeed in making me care about the characters.

    B: “A good movie.”

    *A movie with a rating of B or higher means I recommend the movie*

    B-: A good movie with problems, such as pacing issues or a particular scene/story development I thought didn’t work. Or, the film has nothing wrong with it, other than the fact that it is ordinary.

    C+: A film with problems, but I liked it more than I hated it.

    C: A film with problems, and the bad cancels out the good. Or, a film I did not really understand, but appreciated, and whose rating will likely change dramtically on a rewatch.

    C-: A movie I did not like more than I enjoyed.

    D+: A bad movie with one redeeming scene/character/element. Or, a failure that I can appreciate for trying to do something new.

    D: “A bad movie.”

    D-: A bad movie that angered me, especially if it was intentional.

    F: Fails all standards of what a movie should be. Or, a movie I feel should not exist.

  • Tomoo

    Honestly when it comes to the actual star ratings on FJ I rarely remember what the score given to a movie is but I always can remember the main points of the discussion about the film. I would be down for a no score system because the meat is always in the discussion.

  • fatbologna

    5 stars!!! Do it!!

  • Micah

    Could you tell us the name of the tune played over the outro?

  • SBTRKT – Atomic Peace

  • Jonny Ashley

    4 stars all the way. Munch-meter is also acceptable, but keep it out of 4!

  • fatbologna

    GREG,

    YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT STONE COLD!!! WATCH IT AGAIN!! THERE’S A PET IGUANA, BIKINI BRIEFS, WILLIAM FORSYTHE GIVIN’ IT HIS ALL!!! LOVE IT!!

    Ps
    Not only was Sloth an NFL player but he also appeared in Playgirl.

  • Drunk films: Back to the Future Part II, Clue, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. Boobs: Airplane!, and Return o the Living Dead.

  • fatbologna

    Best boob movie: Lucio Fulci’s New York Ripper.

  • patrik
  • Anthony

    Sean, Kate Beckinsale left because it was a prequel.

  • Zac

    Burt Reynolds was a college football player.

  • True, but did she not return because it was a prequel, or did they just decide to make a prequel because she didn’t want to return? I would think the latter, because why would the studio choose to get rid of the main draw to these films? I guess maybe to make it cheaper, but clearly the one without her is the least successful of the four.

  • Kasper

    As far as I remember they made it a prequel because both she and her husband left the franchise… until they returned to it one movie later.

  • csidle

    5 star rating system is the way forward. No .5’s. As explained before me, this is by far the most logical, given that it has a concrete score for ‘average’ while also maintaining a clear split between bad films and good ones.

  • The ratings on the show are not really important, they’re a fun addition and a kind of “official” FJ stamp. Many film podcasts make do without them. But I think they’re kind of part of the FJ podcast DNA at this point. As Jay said, they’re a nice “shorthand”, I guess mainly for archival purposes if anything.

    If you’re keeping them, I’m strongly in favor of the 5 star system.
    Sean, Ebert de-facto uses a 5 star system. He occasionally uses “zero stars”. That’s the 5th star. Just think of 1/5 as Ebert’s 0/4. Nothing much to add to Jay’s nice argument. 5 stars is more flexible and precise and allows for a much more successful rating vs. opinion ratio. Most of the movies will fall between 2 and 4 stars. Most movies are not either bombs or masterpieces. Someone here suggested you should stick to 5 stars but lose the 0.5’s. Using a 5 star system without 0.5 is basically like using a 4 star system with them. Same thing.

    I don’t know how many people here vote on IMDB, but over there they have a 10 point rating which is basically the equivalent of 5 stars. A 5 star movie should really be something special, and should earn that rare honor from Film Junk. (1 star is also an achievement, obviously…)

    Go for it.

  • We do use 0 stars with our current system (I gave Sucker Punch 0 stars). So I guess this means we’d be moving to a 6-star system?

    I’m open to the “new” 5-star system, but since it would require a reworking of the website in a number of areas, I’m looking for a really good reason to do it. From what Jay, Greg and Frank are saying, they simply feel that they don’t have enough precision for some of those in between movies. I don’t disagree, but I’m just saying that it’s not that important.

    If anything, I’d prefer to just sit down and hammer out a guideline as to what each of the ratings on the 4-star scale mean so that we’re all on the same page. But if I’m the only one clinging some weird idea then I guess I’ll let everyone else have their way.

  • dirrrtyfrank

    While I agree with Jay that 5 points would be better, and disagree that 10 would be best …I stand with Sean … the 4 star legacy of Film Junk should be maintained.

    Tie ball game Dwy 2-2

  • Palladio81

    Jay – there’s no question that, as a listener, I appreciate the star ratings. Like you said, it’s a visual shorthand, one that often represents an emotional response to a film. A purely human response that’s totally in the realm of acceptability to improve or regress with re-watches or further thought. Anyone who claims it to be some complexly derived system to irrevocably assign worth to a film, or as a levelling means for comparison across genres, is just a fuckin’ robot. I’m sure you would agree that’s why a film like Tree of Life and Jackass 3D can and should be able to co-exist in the same 4 out of 4 rated film realm and still be appreciated differently.

    That said, one of the main uses I have for Film Junk’s star ratings, is as a record of personal taste. So, if I align more with your taste in films rather than say, Sean (which is true), then I can skim down the list of your 4-star ratings and make sure I damn well see them if I need to be selective in what I watch. For example: Wanted (Jay: 2/4 Sean: 3.5/4), Benjamin Button (Jay:2.5/4 Sean: 4/4), Pineapple Express (Jay:4/4 Sean: 2.5/4), or Speed Racer (Jay:3/4 Sean: 1.5). In each of these divisive examples, the star ratings helped me to solidify that, compared to my own opinion, Sean’s gut-level emotional evaluations are pretty out-of-whack and yours are on the money. 3.5/4 for Wanted? C’mon – that film is garbage. And how could we forget tears shed for Real Steel?

    Furthermore, and not to pick on Sean, the Real Steel review is a perfect example why a listener shouldn’t rely merely on discussion of the film alone without the commitment of a star rating. Sean sung Top-10 quality praises for Steel the whole review and, in Reed-like fashion, seemingly copped out with a 3/4. But who cares? Now I know, I’m going to be skeptical of anything Sean gives a high or low rating. Another clear example is Film Junk’s review of Inception in which you all gave 4/4s but spent the entire review nitpicking the shit out of it (out of love) – and to the casual listener – could have been interpreted as a dislike of the film.

    Lastly, I couldn’t agree with you more on a 5/5 rating system. Too many films get muddled togther in a 4/4 system when they could easily be given clarity given the finer degree of calibration that 5 stars allows without being absurd. Plus, I would argue that the ability to elevate a film from very good (4) to awesome (5) means just as much as a whether a film is a pass or fail – if they are down around the 2 or 2.5 mark anyway, who has they time when there’s so much great stuff to look at?

  • I like the 4 star system (and use for my blog) the Leonard Maltin version instead of the Roger Ebert version. This is a 1-4 star scale instead of a 0-4 star scale, in half-star increments. This makes it a seven point scale which is perfectly symmetrical and doesn’t have too many points.

    1 – total shit.
    1.5 – bad, possibly some entertainment value but not much at all.
    2 – below average. Watchable but not worth much.
    2.5 – average. Generally good, not generally bad. Movies that would be great but are wholly uneven sometimes end up here.
    3 – Good. Entertaining, rewatchable, etc.
    3.5 – really good/great. Maybe a major flaw away from perfect
    4 – perfect or close e-f***ing-nuff to it.

    I just like it because it takes those extra 0 & 0.5 ratings away. And I feel like having a 1-5 scale, with no halves, isn’t ENOUGH and doesn’t have a specific middle point. 0-5 may have a middle but still, to my taste, doesn’t have enough points.

    Man this s*** is complicated. I have a headache.

  • Sean, you’re right about Sucker Punch, I forgot about it. But I really can’t recall any other instance where you or anyone else on the team gave 0 stars to anything else (maybe Mr. Nobody, I remember you hated that one).
    If it’s part of the scale, then by all means, use it more as a point of reference. If zero is the lowest rating for the worst films, then all ratings should drop towards the lower end as a result, I think. Because to me at least it always feels like you guys are working with 4 points, not theoretical five, so there’s a relatively large percentage of 4 star-rating being awarded on the show, which kind of dilutes it. (not the show, the rating).

    Anyway, this is starting to sound like a conversation with your accountant.

    I do agree that staying with 4 stars for back-compliance with other FJ reviews and to maintain “website continuity” is a very valid argument.

  • Kasper

    #31 One of the most hated films in Film Junk history is Mr. Brooks from 2007 with Kevin Costner and Dane Cook. I’m not 100 % sure, but I think it received 0 stars from both Jay and Sean, with Jay going in details about his hatred towards Dane Cook.

  • Palladio81 brings up a good point, which is that without the ratings our reviews on the show could sometimes be misleading. Although I guess maybe we just need to be more conscious of the direction that certain discussions take. Maybe this is another argument for laying out our scores at the very beginning of the review.

    I will say that I’m not convinced that moving to a 5-star system would reduce the number of perfect scores we give out. I think for all of us, when we really like a movie, we don’t hold back. I don’t think any of us want to get to the point where we’re only giving out 1 perfect score every 5 years.

  • Falsk

    What changes would need to be made to the site? If switching your rating system means more work for you, Sean, then fuck it.

  • Greg

    I’ve given this too much thought that I feel comfortable with at the end of the day…however…

    I have given out a ton of zero ratings, so I already consider the 4 star system a 5 star system and it works for me. I thought 4 was weird from the beginning, but I’ve adapted.

    I think it’s best if we stick with 4.

  • I think as long as there’s a rating system it should mean something. I get it, you’re not Film Critics, you’re just a bunch of guys who love movies, so the ratings thing shouldn’t be so anal, but I really support the idea of having a scale (a-la Empire Magazine) that shows what each rating mean, because it’s different if a 4 means “a movie we loved and enjoyed tremendously” or if a 4 means “a stunning achievement in the art of motion pictures”.

    I’m a tougher critic than you guys, I guess… I would rate movies I love in the upper scale but will rarely award full score to new movies, unless they’re The Social Network of District 9, groundbreaking and excellent at the same time. Classics and old movies have more chances to receive perfect scores because from the advantage of time you can see their influence more clearly. (I could not believe that Frank won’t put Taxi Driver in Scorsese top 5…)

  • Something no one brought up yet, I like Sean’s idea of giving the star rating FIRST. Then move on to the discussion so everyone knows where you’re coming from – then repeat the rating at the end.

    On to my opinion: Five stars. I’m not getting into the details of why. It’s just better and easier and makes more sense.

    Star rating DO matter. Clearly. People say they don’t and who cares, it’s just a guideline and blah blah. Then they give a movie a “light 3.5″ – what the fuck does that mean? Clearly you care about the star rating.

  • The other option is let everyone do whatever they want to. Frank can keep giving his “heavy” 2.5 out of 4 ratings, Sean can stick with 4, Jay can move to 5 and Greg can do Pastrami sandwiches.

    Let everyone do what they’re most comfortable with and what will give the listeners the best idea of what to expect.

    Also Sean, why do you have to go back and retro-fit the whole site? Why can’t it just be a precedent you start now?

  • Aaron

    For what it’s worth, I’d prefer you guys stick to a 4 star system. I don’t think that moving to a 5 star system would really solve anything. People would criticize any rating system if they feel like the score isn’t representative of the discussion during the review.

  • It’s not a huge amount of work but the complication is that the review ratings are just stored as a number right now. So there will need to be a way to tell if a “4” means 4 out of 4 stars or 4 out of 5 stars. I could probably do it by a cutoff date, but again, it could be confusing a few months from now if new visitors are looking back at old reviews.

  • I gave what some might consider to be a sarcastic comment to this 4 star/5 star issue on the forums. To be a little more genuine, I believe that sticking with 4 stars is something you definitely should do. If you’re going to do 5, then why not 10? Or 100?

    Are there better rating systems? It’s a matter of opinion really. I, for one, prefer a good 100 point system for a really high degree of granularity. However, something like that is not really the point of the show, is it?

    I get that being able to separate the ‘gut/visceral 4 star popcorn movie’ from the ‘genuinely great movie’ might be appealing, but in the end, that’s what the discussion is for. The rating system as is does a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff, the rest should be left to the individual. Only then can you bake a really good loaf of bread…

    Mmmm. Bread.

    ..wait, what was I talking about again?

  • Just joined Letterboxd, a social media site dedicated to movie watching. It’s awesome, and is yet another site that uses the 5 star rating method, along with Mubi, Flixter, Rotten Tomatoes, Netflix, etc.

    I guess it’s just a matter of always keeping a special “out of 4″ rating for Film Junk in order to maintain the legacy. After all, if there’s ever a reason not to change/upgrade/adapt, it’s “but this is how it’s always been!”

    “Adapt or die.” — Bradley Pitt as Billiard Beans in the Oscar nominated film, Bunny Mall.

  • kyri

    I agree with milath. don’t do it sean. it ain’t worth it. numbers are just a vain attempt to define the abstract. even 1 star can be subdivided in a way to express the same analogy. I personally prefer to use 5star rating in my personal sex-tape life, but you guys have your thing sorted with four stars. it ain’t worth the effort to change it. it is too much fuss over nothing. Jay should just load his facebook page on his macbook and urinate on it.

  • “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” — Ancient Chinese Proverb

  • Jay, the thing is, why are you ‘adapting/change/upgrading’? Do you guys really want to be yet another movie rating site that conforms to everything other sites do? Or do you want your voices heard above the crowd?

    Is Film Junk a ‘serious movie rating site’ where ratings are the most important part? Or is it something that grew out of friends discussing the movies they like, with 4 stars as simply a shorthand for the opinion arising from the discussion?

    You could say ‘this is how it’s always been’ with the subtext of ‘oh so boring’, but I think in this case ‘if it’s not broken, don’t fix it’ is a more apt phrase to use.

    No rating system is ever going to satisfy everyone. The most important part is always going to be the discussion/defense/opinion.

    4 stars does the job. It’s not broken. Good/fun movies sometimes get 4 stars. Really good movies get 4 stars and lots of praise in the discussion.

    It’s like having a girlfriend or wife. Sure there are prettier women out there. But in the end, your girlfriend/wife loves you.

    The 4 star rating *loves* you Jay. WHY DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT FOR THAT 5 STAR WHORE?!

  • “It is broke.” — The Truth.

  • I would hope it’s our personalities and the content of the podcast that makes us stand out, not our innovative use of a four star rating.

    In my opinion, if we’re going to give things ratings, why not use a system that’s been widely accepted. It will create synergy with whatever other sites we might use, and it will allow us to be more accurate with our ratings in order to attempt to properly reflect our discussions.

    In the end, I don’t care. I will use 5/5 from now on outside of Film Junk. It’s not a big deal either way (which is all the more reason to just conform and be done with it).

  • “It’s not a big deal either way”

    Exactly. This is really my point.

    But it’s *fun* to pretend it is a big deal. Which is why I’m taking the 4-star side and defending it like a raging internet nerd. :P

    I don’t think anyone is going to stop listening if you guys change systems or keep it the same. I would imagine most people, like me, could care less what the ‘rating’ is. What you SAY about the films you guys watch is the important part.

    …but then again, if it’s not a big deal, why do you care enough to change it? :)

  • It isn’t Broke, it’s perfect. Keep it the same.

  • Kasper

    Some people are asking for the score to be mentioned before the discussion – please don’t do that, it ruins surprise moments that sometimes provide great comedy.

    Like say Greg loving a movie, then Sean asks Jay, who’s been silent the whole time Greg has been talking, what he thinks about it, and then Jay starts off with a “I fucking… HATED this movie” or something like that. If he started off with a “I give this a 0.5″ and then starts talking about the movie, the moment is ruined.

    The star rating, whether it is 4 or 5 stars, is just there to cap things off and put your feelings into order, it shouldn’t be the main focus.

←  
Newer Comments  →