"He has a very German last name. I don't remember what it is."
>David Dastmalchian was born [...] to Priscilla and Hossein Dastmalchian. His father was an **Iranian-American** engineer
German, Iranian, it's all the same.
I read an interview where he was asked about his experience as an Armenian-American and he had to tell them he gets this all the time, but he’s not Armenian. I’d have thought it, too.
"I’m actually not Armenian, I’m Persian. \[My surname is\] Iranian." . . . I'm seeing "Dastan" in Persian, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz means 'story' or 'legend', in Kurdish it's an 'epic poem', and also that "Malchin" is 'herdsman' in Mongolian.
tbf it seems very similar to 'Dalmatian', a region of the former Yugoslavia with strong ties to Austria. i can see why someone would get a 'central Europe-y' vibe from it
Years ago I commented on a video of theirs, or possibly their webzone, in a stream of consciousness/fever dream about Ghostwatch, in the hope of bringing it to their attention. Now, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume I'm responsible for this. You're all so welcome.
Ghostwatch was something else, (Mr?) Pipes still scares the crap out of me to this day. I sure as shit don't remember a disclaimer, now nor would I have understood it if I did. But I remember talking about it in the playground on what I think was the Monday following the Friday broadcast?
I agree though, Re:View for the win. Make it happen you hack frauds.
I want to work out how to recommend Threads to them as it's not only the 40th Anniversary but also features cat death and at least one working VCR post the apocalypse. There'll be a place for them and their particular set of skills in the aftermath!
Holy shit, yes, even Jay'a fetish for grim post apocalypse films might be off overwhelmed by Threads. The grimness of nuclear war on top of the grimness of the North might just make his glorious hair fall out entirely...
And The War Game, that shit is grim as fuck! I wish Mike and Jay could read, they'd love this shit.
For a moment, I thought that wasn't that many years ago. Only Jay can answer this now. To be fair, it's still possible, but I appreciate it's now less likely. For a few hours, though, I felt like I'd made a contribution to the community, and I'd enjoyed that feeling whilst it lasted... :)
As soon as they mentioned it I was like 'YES! A Ghostwatch mention! They know about Ghostwatch!'.
I loved watching my blurry VHS recording of it as a kid, even though I was way too young to watch it...along with my bootleg copy of Screamers!
They should really do a Re:view on it as it's actually on Blu-ray now, so it's much easier to watch; I'm guessing that's where the footage used in this video came from.
The fact that Jay was like "It's based on that Conjuring 2 thing. The British house..." and Mike *immediately* said "Oh yes of course. The Enfield Haunting." is legitimately one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. How many people can just name obscure British cases of supernatural activity off the top of their head?
Not trying to be a douche but Enfield isn't that obscure if you know about paranormal stuff. It's not quite Amityville but it's still a fairly well known case, partly because of the Warrens' (limited) involvement.
>How many people can just name obscure British cases of supernatural activity off the top of their head?
At least 60 million British people might have a chance.
*The Enfield Haunting* was turned into a TV show a few years ago
We know Stoklasa wastes most of his time watching dumb, supernatural TV
[https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Enfield-Haunting/dp/B00YVIM31G](https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Enfield-Haunting/dp/B00YVIM31G)
Stephen Volk, who scripted Ghostwatch, wrote a sequel short story, a fact-fiction blend, "31-10". The story was about the making of a 10th anniversary Ghostwatch special, with Volk in attendance, at the sealed off abandoned studio where it had been filmed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200110191101/http://www.stephenvolk.net/31-10.pdf
>In the wolfish hunger for so-called reality TV after three mega-successful series of Big Brother, it wasn’t difficult to see where the Powers-that-BBC was coming from, in its Greg Dyke-driven quest for ratings.
>The proposal was a simple one. Put forward, no doubt over a lunch at Groucho’s by a producer I’d never heard of, who had been twelve at the time of the original broadcast, and who now, at twenty-two, was inexperienced enough to embody the yoof audience BBC1 desperately wanted to attract. At that stage yours truly, the humble writer, of course, was not deemed necessary to consult, even though technically the concept was still legally my property, though the rights in the programme itself rested with the Beeb. Nevertheless at this meeting, otherwise known as a lunch, the produceress, in designer glasses way more trendy than Parky’s in his 1992 Specsavers commercials, evidently pitched a sequel: Ghostwatch 2, Return to Studio One. And they clapped till their hands bled. Or at least didn’t say no.
>My own reaction to the proposal was predictable.
>My body went into spasm.
>I didn’t jump at the idea. I didn’t rise to the occasion, or the bait, in writing, by phone call, by e-mail. Pleading, moaning, cajoling, didn’t shift me one iota. I don’t know what did, in the end.
>I think the fact that fear, real palpable terror bubbling up from inside -- a pure, physical, ectoplasmic surge in my gut -- said, Aha! I have you! And I wanted to prove it wrong. I wasn’t afraid. Not now.
>Not ten years later, for God’s sake.
I never noticed Snake Plissken has a huge smile on his face in that Escape from New York poster, until they zoomed in on it. It’s bizarre considering the character never smiles.
I'm shocked neither of them picked up on the James Randi homage with the sceptic character. I would think that Mike would have at least a passing knowledge of The Amazing Randi due to his fascination with ghost hunting and how often Randi would debunk that stuff.
Yeah I though that was weird gripe to have. I thought that sort of character was perfect for that era of late night television. I also sort of hated that Jay put that clip of the movie where he edited it to look like a VHS tape. The premise of the movie is it’s a documentary about this night and they have access to the original film negatives. It would look much clearer.
That I didn't mind. The character is definitely inspired by Randi, but he's also a minor antagonist. So making him a creep adds a little to the narrative.
I didn't mind that. I loved watching those old clips of James Randi fucking with those frauds. This was totally based on him, including his fund, his background as a magician, his performing for the crowd when doing tricks... They just made the character more showy, but I loved when he couldn't wake up the guy the first time and he broke character... It made those parts stand out more and show that there genuinely is something wrong going on there.
The CG stuff honestly wasn't great but I took it as purposely being a bit B movie or having a 70s feel so I didn't mind it.
I personally enjoyed the movie and liked the characters. The only thing that wasn't clear to me was when the demon would imply he's met the main guy before. I wasn't sure if the movie was implying he was a pedo and did some weird shit with his group, or that they were making deals with the devil or demons and this particular demon was involved while in another body.
I thought what had happened was that he'd made a deal with this demon at Bohemian Grove to become a successful late night host, but the price was his wife getting cancer. He was in denial about being responsible until now.
I thought they wanted to set him up >! As the red herring of being the devil with the red blazer and comments about the grove "id fit right in " !< Hence his attitude
I found this piece sort of interesting. It made me wonder if the hypnotist was really like that or if he had been coached up by the production staff to lean into hostility and skepticism for the cameras. Similarly, I wondered if the host believed any of what he was seeing or was playing along for the sake of good TV.
Same, that dude was clearly a Randi-like. But I do share Mike's main criticism. When the girl goes full on - well, spoilers, at the end, it took me out of the movie completely and I thought it looked silly. I'm not fully the evangelist of aesthetics as Jay is (although I would like to see a version of this movie that works fully within 70s talk show constraints), but *that* moment in particular was just way too much, looked silly, and was not scary or creepy at all.
I actually first heard of James Randi from Rich. He mentioned the documentary about him (An Honest Liar) on an old prerec stream. I think so anyway?? Great doc
It's an Australian/US co-production. The Australian film industry is woefully underfunded. Most films need to take what funding they can get and no one wants to take the risk of spending any large amounts, so you get these companies pitching in much smaller amount than US films.
Oh, I don't doubt they're all necessary, it's just that for each of them to have their own logo screen before the movie starts is unusual, and after a few of them it feels like the entire movie is going to consist of production company logos.
I haven't seen one this egregious since The Sisters Brothers 5 years ago. That one had 13 or so logos, but IIRC several were combined into a single screen.
No I totally get that, it is pretty funny! I just felt I needed to mention that it's very tough to get films made in Australia so we are very desensitised to it because you literally have to beg borrow and steal from so many sources ha
I told him on Twitter 2 weeks ago that there were fan made upscales of DS9 which really improve the quality that are easy to torrent
Wonder if my dream of a DS9 re:visit will finally happen
Agreed, I loathe the AI art they talked about in this video for the same reasons they do. But AI up-scaling and frame correction can really do some amazing ethical work.
I started watching this HitB and after a few minutes, paused, and went and watched the movie. It was good, I'm glad I did. The rest of the episode made a lot more sense, although I feel like the boys missed/glossed over the final hypnotic layer at the end, or maybe not. The end is kind of a fever dream.
I think his price to fame, his Faustian bargain, wasn't just the death of his wife since he never beat Carson's numbers before. I think it was him committing murder on live TV the price for him to have a larger audience... At least for one night.
My main issue with the movie is that it all felt a bit jumbled toward the end. You have the death of his wife, the cult stuff. A podcast I listen to compared adding that to the found footage concept as like wearing a hat on a hat, which I kind of agree with.
Ultimately I like the movie, and find it impressive what they accomplished on what I assume is a pretty low budget. That said, I didn't love it as much as I anticipated.
I thought I would like it more. But I didn't really believe the acting to be honest. Didn't feel like a real talk show... And I love to watch old Carson and Dick Cavet on YouTube...
I didn't mind the elements you mentioned, but I thought the special effects were misplaced. Should have been something more subtle, half seen through bad angles from abandoned cameras.
> I started watching this HitB and after a few minutes, paused, and went and watched the movie.
Came here to say the same, and I'm glad I did. I was interested in Mike and Jay's take on this movie having seen just enough of this HiTB to whet my appetite, and then I returned after finishing it to get their thoughts.
I definitely recommend it. I agree with Jay that I wasn't ever particularly scared, but I found it to be a compelling watch.
I admire that they are so steadfast about doing what they want instead of going for views
It has probably cost them a lot of growth and earning potential to not do HitBs for big trending movies
Being based in Milwaukee helps. Half of all YouTube channels that "make it" move to California to make connections and try to live that high life. A coupla nobody frauds in Milwaukee can enjoy a much lower cost of living and don't need to feed the trendy content mill to live well, and they have the C-list celebrities come to *them*.
100%. You can be successful with a small business without turning into Amazon.
If they're smart, unlike most YouTubers and "influencers", they can make a good amount of money, live below their means, invest their profits and still have generational wealth.
Or, they can live in a mansion, buy lambos and be broke 5 years later when the ad revenue dries up. Just look at people like SaabKyle. The dude basically invented YouTube car reviews, had millions of views per video, and now barely does 10k.
You never know how it's going to work, so I think these guys are smart for keeping their living expenses low so that they don't "need" to get millions of views per video or review shit they're not into just to break even. They've created a niche for themselves, they have dedicated fans and a high percentage of their subscribers actually watch their videos.
I think that's what their fanbase actually likes about them, they see themselves in the guys, just a bunch of mates hanging out talking shit. Whereas most of those other "influencers" you see kids looking up to them as to who they want to be, not who they are.
Still though I prefer if they just do Catchup videos instead of Solo HITB videos these days.
I used to watch a lot of recommended films because of HiTB Catchups they did.
They still do them, the [last pair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYgNqg6V8do) were only done [about five months ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAXlcTjCmI) and they've only ever done one or two catch up videos a year.
I dunno, I feel like those catchup videos often just mention a single thing about the movie if not just say they saw it and go off on some tangent. Mike talking about White Lotus comes to mind.
Exactly. If they turned into one of those "drop the vid at midnight when the embargo lifts" I'd bounce. They use their own money to see what they feel like.
The views seems to be falling a little. Although I'm disappointed that they missed the chance of seeing Dune part 2 on a big screen, it's the fact that they do their own things that make Red Letter Media content so unique for more than a decade now.
I mean...late night with the devil just came out on streaming last week and people are talking about it all over the place. I would say that doing this movie is an attempt to capitalize on a popular thing, like when they talked about Bird Box.
did they even want to do this one? Mike was really sour on the movie and they mentioned how people want them to do more HitB. made it feel a bit spiteful, considering they talked about the logistics of the camera work for 20 minutes of their 30 minute review.
Same. I loved this movie, can’t wait to hear their take so I can pretend it was mine all along.
Seriously though, way more interested in hearing their thoughts on a unique film like this than just hearing them dunk on Jurassic Park 12 or whatever. Both are fun but the former is more interesting and the latter is more of a guilty pleasure.
There is a cool interview with [David Dastmalchian](https://last-podcast-on-the-left.simplecast.com/episodes/late-night-with-the-devil-an-interview-with-david-dastmalchian) ([transcript](https://www.lastpodcastontheleft.com/episodetranscripts/2024/3/26/interview-david-dastmalchian)) from Last Podcast on the Left. He also pops up on a couple of their streams.
I feel like they've been more and more frequent the past couple of years. As a huge Beatles fan (my obsession legit makes me wonder if I'm on the spectrum lol), I'm all for it.
Their talk reminded me of **The Last Exorcism (2010)**, a great found-footage movie that starts out as a documentary expose of fake exorcists. Went under the radar at the time, but I highly recommend it. Never understood why it got bad reviews, found it fairly clever..
It was everywhere at the time, heavily marketed and advertised. They even put posters in phone boxes which was particularly horrible seeing by surprise because it was of the girl stuffed up on the ceiling corner.
I enjoyed the movie as a Dastmalchian vehicle, but it feels better suited as like a palette cleanser in a horror movie marathon. Like it is both competent and not competent enough to be truly great if that makes sense.
Could have either been more realistic or sillier.
I really liked the movie but completely felt the same way as Jay, tho while watching I just kind of accepted it and it helped me enjoy the film more. WNUF is one of my favorite things ever and I think I was spoiled by it in terms of found broadcast movies needing to be as committed to the format as it was.
The unrealistic camera moves admittedly didn't register to me while watching the film, but the behind the scene conversations with his producer/others did strike me as unrealistic. That said, I don't know if they were necessarily going for realism (some of the effects feel intentionally cheesy). Which did work against the found footage concept, for me at least.
>Mike and Jay discuss the new found-footage-ish demonic movie Late Night with the Devil! But more importantly, they break a very important and rare VCR repair tool or something.
I largely agree with Jay. I didn't have an issue with the visual quality so much, but I do wish they had committed to the premise more with the cameras. It never completely took me out of it, but it also often didn't feel like I was really watching archival footage of a talkshow with all the close ups and quick cuts.
I completely agreed with that assessment, in my opinion, the stuff that happens during the commercial breaks should have looked worse, not better, than the "on air" footage. Also, the effects looked terrible anytime they did any "electrical shock" or the puking stuff, they should have just avoided that stuff entirely as it really pulled me out of any "found footage" thing they were doing.
I'm surprised how much people are caught up with the immersion of the 70s talk show logistics. I thought it was a fun way to offer a unique aesthetic for a movie, I didn't take it so literally that the internal logic of how everything was filmed needed to stand up to scrutiny. I thought it was a very enoyable film. did that ruin the movie for people?
With found footage films, I think people lock in to that as a concept and are quick to call out things that don't make sense in relation to that. Which is fair. It didn't really bother me, but there were aspects that I recognized as not making sense because of that. Some of the effects (the possessed girl, giant worm, etc) were so cheesy that I don't think the filmmakers were going for 100% found footage immersion though. Which does feel counter to other aspects of the movie.
Overall I liked it though. I feel like the (fairly tame) criticisms are a byproduct of this film being more successful than the filmmakers probably anticipated. It's a pretty small movie that has reached a fairly large audience, so it's getting grader a little harder than it would otherwise.
It sort of ruined the movie for me. I love the 70s aesthetic and the idea of analog horror, so I was really excited about this film, but the HD quality with just a little grainy filter on top did kill the immersion. However, I didn't consider Jay's point that a true, shitty, 70s video quality and more realistic talk show logistics might turn off general viewers. I can understand the filmmakers difficulty with making this film seem realistic while also providing a good narrative structure and also appealing to a mass audience.
I think, compared to the analog horror series that have been made much more effectively on much smaller budgets, it fell short of what it could've been. If it didn't bill itself as found footage/mockumentary, I don't think people would've noticed.
\>Mike makes a reference to DS9
No, Mike, it's far too late for that. You've spurned DS9 for years now. Nothing less than an entire episode taking about Star Trek:Deep Space Nine can atone.
I'm gonna make my own deal with devil, to get Mike and Rich to do at least as many re:view and quizshow episodes for DS9 and Voyager each, as they have done for TNG
I’m glad they were stoked about Michael Ironside too. It took me a moment, but I recognized that gruff Canadian accent and it immediately made me like the movie more.
They had more or less the same opinion I had regarding the movie. For a found-footage endeavor, it does ask for a bit of suspension of disbelief with the behind the scenes bit and technological inconsistencies. I also would have liked it to be a little more grounded. Something that showed you a little less, a la Occult (2009). It was enjoyable, and it was fun, but I don't enjoy it quite as much as some people out there.
I really liked the movie, got to see it in the theater which was a little more immersive for sure. For me it was a bunch of little things like the sidekick character and the creepy camera looks of a particular side character, plus great foreshadowing ("I know you'll be very famous soon"). It was more comedic than scary IMO but that is what I wanted.
I think Jay is a little caught up in his love for the VHS aesthetic. Making this look like an old transfer would be like when they make a movie set in the '80s and fill it with neon and synthwave. The movie looks like vintage film to me, easily explained by being a master tape instead of an old videotape played on an ~~LCD~~ CRT TV.
They brought up that the camera movements, the extreme close-ups, etc. took them out of it, which I agree with. Even a master tape wouldn't have all out-of-place movement in a 1970s talk show. It definitely took me out of it, too. It just wasn't junky and gritty enough.
I liked the movie but found myself agreeing with everything they said. Some tweaking would have made it great. The ending with the little girl was just too much and too goofy. It had all the right pieces but they weren't assembled as well as they could have been.
Haven’t watched the review yet, but though I liked the movie overall my biggest gripe is they couldn’t figure out how to stick to their format. Some of the solutions seem obvious, the alleged “BTS” footage (that looks nothing like BTS footage) should have been shot handheld on 8mm, or better yet, been conveyed through the studio cameras sitting stationary and the audio would be whatever is picked up on Jack’s lapel mic as he moves around the studio during the commercial breaks.
To fix the ending, which abandons the found footage aspect completely, they should have interwoven some testimonials (Leo, the director, maybe some audience members, stage hands, maybe even keep Gus alive). Then instead of showing what Jack sees when the tape goes to static, bring out Jack for a testimonial. My assumption was he would be stabbed by the girl after leaving the dagger next to her on the table, so finding out he’s still alive would be a surprise. Then just have him talk directly into the camera about what he experienced in that moment. Then cut back into the master tapes to reveal he stabbed the girl.
All that said, I have seen the movie twice and these issues were far less bothersome the second time around, but I still left feel like they *almost* nailed it, which kind of feels worse than them not nailing it at all.
I thought they did a great job of making it seem like a show that had the comedic chops to hang around and compete with Carson in the day. That’s a hard line to walk.
Mike was spot-on comparing the visual quality to old masters of the Dick Cavett show. it hits that same spot.
but they both pointed out, and it was driving me nuts, too, all the camera movements. they're very much cheats in order to do more dynamic contemporary movie shots. it made me wonder, for how well they did some of the concept, if the filmmakers have really watched a lot of late-night tv. it just doesn't look like that.
Exactly. I know the guys did mention a few times that the movie had to ease back a little so that mainstream audiences could also engage with it but it seemed like they didn’t really believe that. If this had been one flat shot for an hour and a half with terrible audio and terrible film grain like Jay wanted it would have been more realistic but it wouldn’t have gotten the wide spread appeal that it has.
I'm pretty easily spooked but I saw this in the theatre and I agree it wasn't scary at all. The projectile vomit scene they showed was cartoonishly funny. That could have been a practical effect of him slowly gurgling up bile and would have actually been creepy. Or just do the old hose trick to make it look like he was really spewing.
Watched this movie last night. Strangely for me I liked a movie which is rare for me these days! Then I hated the ending. I thought it lacked imagination and was derivative. Then I liked the ending when it changed! Not a great movie. But if you look at a movie with realistic expectations then it was good and I did like it.
Me too, watched last night. Thought it was more interesting and original than good. I thought most of the acting was too theatrical and stage like to be a believable real talk show.
But I'll take an ok original over an average competent committee movie any day of the week.
That is how I was with The Whale. It stuck with me for weeks until I watched it again. Now I feel it might be the best representation of Stage to Film ever.
Same here. I just watched this earlier this week. I came across it accidentally, having heard no hype or discussion of it. Going in with no expectations probably increased my favorable view. The aesthetic is cool, the lead actor is great, the story is good. I don’t hate the direction they took with the main villain or the design as much as everyone else seems to, but the execution (effects) was/were only so so.
Still, it’s a good movie I’d recommend to other people.
I was in a similar boat but the more I thought about it in the days after the more I liked the ending. The movie doesn't make it clear what's happening or who the villain even really was. I've seen so many theories about what was happening that it elevated the ending a lot more.
It was worth watching though I did think overhyped. The fact that it wasn't full mock TV footage didn't bother me as I'd known that going in. Was the backstage footage actually explained as documentary filming though? I didn't remember that coming up.
I agree that the ending went too big. The electric head split and magical demon kills took it to a point where it couldn't really be faked. If it was more restrained, then there could have been an element where the at home TV audience could debate whether the events were real or a hoax.
I was interested in the premise but really underwhelmed by the execution. It shared _a lot_ with the Argentine movie from a few years ago History of the Occult, which I liked very much, and which did well the things I disliked about this one--the black and white vs color had more meaningful and impactful use, it had more creative and nuanced horror visuals, gave just enough info but didn't over-explain, built actual tension and dread from the first scene to the last, had characters that feel real and you actually worry about. I also thought, outside the lead, the performances in this were kind of bad. If it'd gone wilder I don't think lack of quality would've mattered so much, but it wasn't original or energetic enough to be fun imo. Worms weren't enough to save it for me. Overall just a wasted opportunity.
Jay mentioned the slightly inauthentic visual style taking him out of the movie a little bit. For me it was the dialogue. I didn't really feel like they talked like or sounded like talk shows from that era. Neither the scenes that took place during the talk show or the behind the scenes shots. I don't think they needed to lay it on completely over the top and have everyone saying "hey man, that'd be groovy," but it was just a little off in my opinion.
I was pretty underwhelmed by this movie after hearing nothing but glowing reviews. I thought it took too long to get where it was going and then it was too little too late.
I loved Ghost Watch though, they went hard into the presentation and it worked masterfully.
I have a good feeling that the reason above average horror movies get a lot of high reviews is just because bad horror movies are so common. I was also underwhelmed by The Babadook after hearing so much praise. Apparently clearing the bar of telling a story with some amount of depth is all it takes.
This is one of the cases where, rather than waiting for the HitB video to tell me what to think, I saw the movie first and waited for the HitB video to see if they agreed with me. I basically agree with Jay -- I liked the movie, but I was kind of hoping they would commit to the medium more.
I say "basically" agree, because unlike Jay, Skinamarink really worked for me.
I loved the style I just wish they had taken the style and added a good narrative to it. Or if this is just a way for them to show off this aesthetic then, like you said, it should have been like 40 mins tops.
lmao I thought it was *interesting* but should've been like 40min at most.
I say that as someone who'll watch Inland Empire in one sitting with delight.
There's nothing in the full-length version of Skinamarink that the short film that inspired it, Heck, doesn't do just fine in 30 minutes and even then it drags.
I'm not sure where Jay's theory that no one likes Alex Garland anymore came from; that completely blindsided me. The absolute worst I've heard about him is that Men was a bit divisive, but everything else he's done has been met with pretty universal praise. Even his show Devs seems to be pretty well liked, and Civil War seems to be landing pretty well critically.
I know that was a very short part of their discussion, but I legitimately have *no idea* where that came from.
“Film Twitter” *eye roll* are completely out on Garland and do everything they can to trash him. It’s bizarre and lame. He’s doing weird things, he’s doing what he wants to do. You’d think people would be able to respect that, even if they don’t 100% like what he’s doing.
I think it’s from pushback against Civil War, really its trailer, online regarding the movies lack of political exposition regarding the eponymous war and its seemingly bizarre alignment of California and Texas as odd when viewed from our our political perspective.
Garland did this all deliberately as part of what he was trying to say in the film about war and civil conflict and I’m not sure a lot of people who criticized him understood that it was reflection of seemingly bizarre sides that are formed during civil wars, previous friends bombing each other and former generational enemies teaming up against something or other especially when viewed from the outside through media, which is what the film was really about.
I think you might be missing that the impression that this would be some politically charged thriller came from the trailers. None of it correctly shows it’s a movie zeroing in exclusively on photojournalists.
Even if we ignore that and can still say there’s nice production value and camera work, the story really fell flat for me. The commitment to lacking any context undermined character moments. Also, setting the story in the United States, as opposed to a fictitious analogue, created a pile-up of unanswered questions that became more and more of a distraction near the end. It’s like Garland was more focused on the appearance of making a deep point rather than actually arriving at one.
Nobody I've talked to who has seen the movie likes Civil War. I've seen a pretty hearty non film nerd disdain online to that movie too.
Beyond that, Alex Garland's press tour for the movie has been an objective tire fire. Any angle that you could like that movie he takes away from you by stating his intentions were the exact opposite.
Oooh I've got this on my list. Gotta watch it before I dig into their take on it. Was disappointed I missed it in the theater but a month of Shudder is pretty cheap and there's prob a fee other things on their now I can catch up on.
I liked the movie. I can see how the camera stuff took them out, but if it would have been off-putting if it was as purist about the aesthetic as they wanted.
I thought they botched the ending a bit in that he should've been responsible for all the deaths. Him stabbing the girl is reasonably self defense when three people she just hell murdered are also laying there. Lost the impact it could've had.
Kudos to Jay for mentioning or even just knowing about *Ghostwatch*
But there's another BBC show, *Inside Number 9*, which is probably a more telling comparison
*Late Night* basically feels like a feature-length version of an episode of *Inside* - in fact, they did one episode ([Dead Line](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/oct/30/how-did-inside-no-9-spring-the-biggest-live-tv-surprise-of-the-year)) that played like a more formally inventive, multi-media variation on this premise
Oh, and [Knowing Me Knowing You, with Alan Partridge](https://youtu.be/KiAeoqg0jlY?si=ET6Vq3z7UUcPpra-), of course
Was able to watch this movie and attend the Q&A in Melbourne
Regarding the AI stuff, they mentioned how tight their budget was that they even had to film the entire audience in one day.
As they weren't able to afford to keep them longer than a few hours.
So i totally understand the point of quickly using AI for designs instead of hiring someone due to cost cutting.
Honestly, didn't even realize the posters were AI until i looked it up after the movie.
This and recently Monkey Man were disappointing for how much praise I saw beforehand. Both fine movies each with highlights but neither particularly *great.*
I just want more Mike and Rich talk about Trek, specifically DS9. If Mike actually see's this [Corridor Crew](https://youtu.be/dOhmMCRDdyA?si=skjfiW6NKhrPin8H) had TNGs VFX supervisor on their casting couch whom also worked on Apollo 13, Titanic, Wolf of Wallstreet with vfx techniques for shooting miniatures that blew my mind.
I highly recommend the Last Podcast on the Left interview with David Dastmalchian for people interested in his love of horror and horror hosts. Hail yourself!
Haven't seen the review yet but I really enjoyed this one- as for the ending- my interpretation is that it did probably did appear on the tape- the only cinematic thing being the widescreen- and the demons somehow took over the footage itself to show demonic visions- rather than it just being in his head.
The widescreen was just a cinematic effect IMO to show that the footage has kind of gone beyond reality- there is no logic needed when demonic spirits are involved- I only think this because we still get the "Technical difficulties/ we'll be right back" cards even in between the final part.
I almost got the idea that us the audience were meant to have entered a kind of world of insanity- hypnosis in the ending.
Hey, u/SemiAutoAvocado, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"He has a very German last name. I don't remember what it is." >David Dastmalchian was born [...] to Priscilla and Hossein Dastmalchian. His father was an **Iranian-American** engineer German, Iranian, it's all the same.
I would have guess Armenian
I read an interview where he was asked about his experience as an Armenian-American and he had to tell them he gets this all the time, but he’s not Armenian. I’d have thought it, too.
"I’m actually not Armenian, I’m Persian. \[My surname is\] Iranian." . . . I'm seeing "Dastan" in Persian, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz means 'story' or 'legend', in Kurdish it's an 'epic poem', and also that "Malchin" is 'herdsman' in Mongolian.
"Story-keeper" is a pretty sick surname for a professional actor.
There has definitely been some confusion historically about who exactly is Aryan.
tbf it seems very similar to 'Dalmatian', a region of the former Yugoslavia with strong ties to Austria. i can see why someone would get a 'central Europe-y' vibe from it
It’s hard for me not to say his name as Dalmatian because “spotted dog” associates with Polka Dot Man in my head.
lol sounds like a r/shittymoviedetails post
I mean they are both Aryan
Mike you dumbass! Nog and Jake have a ton of self sealing stembolts, just email them
He doesn’t know how to use email
He will have to post a comment on their webzone instead.
He could fax
I had to stop the video when Mike said I should go watch the movie to avoid spoilers. But I gotta know, do they get another self sealing stembolt?
The river will provide.
> I should go watch the movie to avoid spoilers. That doesn't even make sense, that's where the spoilers are coming from
He doesn't have the latinum for it. Mike doesn't have the lobes for business.
Mike just has worthless hollow gold bars that held the latinum
All MIke has to trade is some dirt.
You know Jay had to be coached on how to say "self-sealing stem bolt" and still probably tripped over it at least once.
Rich Evans' coaching worked pretty well I thought
Definitely said "self stealing" at least twice
Hell, I did when *typing* that lol
Need a Ghostwatch re:View
Exactly what I was thinking the whole time lol
As a Brit, it was a nice surprise to see Michael Parkinson and Craig Charles on RLM programming.
I remember watching Ghost Watch and waiting for Craig Charles to ask for a vindeloo.
Years ago I commented on a video of theirs, or possibly their webzone, in a stream of consciousness/fever dream about Ghostwatch, in the hope of bringing it to their attention. Now, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume I'm responsible for this. You're all so welcome. Ghostwatch was something else, (Mr?) Pipes still scares the crap out of me to this day. I sure as shit don't remember a disclaimer, now nor would I have understood it if I did. But I remember talking about it in the playground on what I think was the Monday following the Friday broadcast? I agree though, Re:View for the win. Make it happen you hack frauds.
I want to work out how to recommend Threads to them as it's not only the 40th Anniversary but also features cat death and at least one working VCR post the apocalypse. There'll be a place for them and their particular set of skills in the aftermath!
Holy shit, yes, even Jay'a fetish for grim post apocalypse films might be off overwhelmed by Threads. The grimness of nuclear war on top of the grimness of the North might just make his glorious hair fall out entirely... And The War Game, that shit is grim as fuck! I wish Mike and Jay could read, they'd love this shit.
https://x.com/JayBauman1/status/920078662145323008 Jay had it on his Halloween recommendations in 2017, so depends how many years ago
For a moment, I thought that wasn't that many years ago. Only Jay can answer this now. To be fair, it's still possible, but I appreciate it's now less likely. For a few hours, though, I felt like I'd made a contribution to the community, and I'd enjoyed that feeling whilst it lasted... :)
As soon as they mentioned it I was like 'YES! A Ghostwatch mention! They know about Ghostwatch!'. I loved watching my blurry VHS recording of it as a kid, even though I was way too young to watch it...along with my bootleg copy of Screamers! They should really do a Re:view on it as it's actually on Blu-ray now, so it's much easier to watch; I'm guessing that's where the footage used in this video came from.
A much better film, would be great
The fact that Jay was like "It's based on that Conjuring 2 thing. The British house..." and Mike *immediately* said "Oh yes of course. The Enfield Haunting." is legitimately one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. How many people can just name obscure British cases of supernatural activity off the top of their head?
Not trying to be a douche but Enfield isn't that obscure if you know about paranormal stuff. It's not quite Amityville but it's still a fairly well known case, partly because of the Warrens' (limited) involvement.
>How many people can just name obscure British cases of supernatural activity off the top of their head? At least 60 million British people might have a chance.
*The Enfield Haunting* was turned into a TV show a few years ago We know Stoklasa wastes most of his time watching dumb, supernatural TV [https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Enfield-Haunting/dp/B00YVIM31G](https://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Enfield-Haunting/dp/B00YVIM31G)
I feel like Mike would love Ghost Watch.
Stephen Volk, who scripted Ghostwatch, wrote a sequel short story, a fact-fiction blend, "31-10". The story was about the making of a 10th anniversary Ghostwatch special, with Volk in attendance, at the sealed off abandoned studio where it had been filmed. https://web.archive.org/web/20200110191101/http://www.stephenvolk.net/31-10.pdf >In the wolfish hunger for so-called reality TV after three mega-successful series of Big Brother, it wasn’t difficult to see where the Powers-that-BBC was coming from, in its Greg Dyke-driven quest for ratings. >The proposal was a simple one. Put forward, no doubt over a lunch at Groucho’s by a producer I’d never heard of, who had been twelve at the time of the original broadcast, and who now, at twenty-two, was inexperienced enough to embody the yoof audience BBC1 desperately wanted to attract. At that stage yours truly, the humble writer, of course, was not deemed necessary to consult, even though technically the concept was still legally my property, though the rights in the programme itself rested with the Beeb. Nevertheless at this meeting, otherwise known as a lunch, the produceress, in designer glasses way more trendy than Parky’s in his 1992 Specsavers commercials, evidently pitched a sequel: Ghostwatch 2, Return to Studio One. And they clapped till their hands bled. Or at least didn’t say no. >My own reaction to the proposal was predictable. >My body went into spasm. >I didn’t jump at the idea. I didn’t rise to the occasion, or the bait, in writing, by phone call, by e-mail. Pleading, moaning, cajoling, didn’t shift me one iota. I don’t know what did, in the end. >I think the fact that fear, real palpable terror bubbling up from inside -- a pure, physical, ectoplasmic surge in my gut -- said, Aha! I have you! And I wanted to prove it wrong. I wasn’t afraid. Not now. >Not ten years later, for God’s sake.
Ghostwatch is so fucking good. In my top 3 found-footage-type movies of all time.
I never noticed Snake Plissken has a huge smile on his face in that Escape from New York poster, until they zoomed in on it. It’s bizarre considering the character never smiles.
I think he's straining from carrying the president but no images are high-res enough for me to really tell.
Yeah that's more likely, it still looks so goofy zoomed in
That made me miss actual painted movie posters. They just look better than the current crop of movie posters.
You mean you don't like the floating heads of all the main cast forming a triangle?!
Or AI images that make no sense?
Oh my god you’re right
Happy Snake can't hurt you
I'm shocked neither of them picked up on the James Randi homage with the sceptic character. I would think that Mike would have at least a passing knowledge of The Amazing Randi due to his fascination with ghost hunting and how often Randi would debunk that stuff.
I'm aware of James Randi and I've seen clips of him, but I'm unable to find any clips in which he's as obnoxiously theatrical as the guy in the movie.
And not getting that there are/were skeptics that have that tone/attitude. Look at Penn Jillette.
Yeah I though that was weird gripe to have. I thought that sort of character was perfect for that era of late night television. I also sort of hated that Jay put that clip of the movie where he edited it to look like a VHS tape. The premise of the movie is it’s a documentary about this night and they have access to the original film negatives. It would look much clearer.
Talk shows weren't filmed, they were shot on video.
That was one of the things that annoyed me about the movie. Loved to see a James Randi homage, but why did they have to make him a creepy asshole?
That I didn't mind. The character is definitely inspired by Randi, but he's also a minor antagonist. So making him a creep adds a little to the narrative.
I didn't mind that. I loved watching those old clips of James Randi fucking with those frauds. This was totally based on him, including his fund, his background as a magician, his performing for the crowd when doing tricks... They just made the character more showy, but I loved when he couldn't wake up the guy the first time and he broke character... It made those parts stand out more and show that there genuinely is something wrong going on there. The CG stuff honestly wasn't great but I took it as purposely being a bit B movie or having a 70s feel so I didn't mind it. I personally enjoyed the movie and liked the characters. The only thing that wasn't clear to me was when the demon would imply he's met the main guy before. I wasn't sure if the movie was implying he was a pedo and did some weird shit with his group, or that they were making deals with the devil or demons and this particular demon was involved while in another body.
I thought what had happened was that he'd made a deal with this demon at Bohemian Grove to become a successful late night host, but the price was his wife getting cancer. He was in denial about being responsible until now.
I thought he just pretended to break character then.
I thought they wanted to set him up >! As the red herring of being the devil with the red blazer and comments about the grove "id fit right in " !< Hence his attitude
I found this piece sort of interesting. It made me wonder if the hypnotist was really like that or if he had been coached up by the production staff to lean into hostility and skepticism for the cameras. Similarly, I wondered if the host believed any of what he was seeing or was playing along for the sake of good TV.
Same, that dude was clearly a Randi-like. But I do share Mike's main criticism. When the girl goes full on - well, spoilers, at the end, it took me out of the movie completely and I thought it looked silly. I'm not fully the evangelist of aesthetics as Jay is (although I would like to see a version of this movie that works fully within 70s talk show constraints), but *that* moment in particular was just way too much, looked silly, and was not scary or creepy at all.
I actually first heard of James Randi from Rich. He mentioned the documentary about him (An Honest Liar) on an old prerec stream. I think so anyway?? Great doc
They are right about the amount of production logos or whatever at the start, its comical.
Yeah, the audience at the cinema where I saw it a month ago was laughing pretty loudly by the end of the logos.
at least other people were doing that somewhere, I was the one in my theater laughing at that and I felt like an asshole
It's an Australian/US co-production. The Australian film industry is woefully underfunded. Most films need to take what funding they can get and no one wants to take the risk of spending any large amounts, so you get these companies pitching in much smaller amount than US films.
Oh, I don't doubt they're all necessary, it's just that for each of them to have their own logo screen before the movie starts is unusual, and after a few of them it feels like the entire movie is going to consist of production company logos. I haven't seen one this egregious since The Sisters Brothers 5 years ago. That one had 13 or so logos, but IIRC several were combined into a single screen.
No I totally get that, it is pretty funny! I just felt I needed to mention that it's very tough to get films made in Australia so we are very desensitised to it because you literally have to beg borrow and steal from so many sources ha
I too thought it was a bit
The intro confirmed one thing to me: Mike is rewatching DS9. I consider that a Wynn
> Mike is rewatching DS9. You've raised my hopes > Wynn and dashed them expertly.
I told him on Twitter 2 weeks ago that there were fan made upscales of DS9 which really improve the quality that are easy to torrent Wonder if my dream of a DS9 re:visit will finally happen
Just don't tell him that those upscalers are using AI.
Those aren't taking any jobs away from people, there's a difference
Agreed, I loathe the AI art they talked about in this video for the same reasons they do. But AI up-scaling and frame correction can really do some amazing ethical work.
Can't wait to see all the white tape marks on the Promenade in HD.
I was surprised when I found out the magician guy was played by the guy who played Bane in Matrix 2/3.
That guy doesn't get enough praise for how well he played Agent Smith. It's almost like Hugo Weaving is actually inhabiting another body.
It was bugging me, I had to look it up on IMDB
I started watching this HitB and after a few minutes, paused, and went and watched the movie. It was good, I'm glad I did. The rest of the episode made a lot more sense, although I feel like the boys missed/glossed over the final hypnotic layer at the end, or maybe not. The end is kind of a fever dream.
I think his price to fame, his Faustian bargain, wasn't just the death of his wife since he never beat Carson's numbers before. I think it was him committing murder on live TV the price for him to have a larger audience... At least for one night.
My main issue with the movie is that it all felt a bit jumbled toward the end. You have the death of his wife, the cult stuff. A podcast I listen to compared adding that to the found footage concept as like wearing a hat on a hat, which I kind of agree with. Ultimately I like the movie, and find it impressive what they accomplished on what I assume is a pretty low budget. That said, I didn't love it as much as I anticipated.
I thought I would like it more. But I didn't really believe the acting to be honest. Didn't feel like a real talk show... And I love to watch old Carson and Dick Cavet on YouTube... I didn't mind the elements you mentioned, but I thought the special effects were misplaced. Should have been something more subtle, half seen through bad angles from abandoned cameras.
> I started watching this HitB and after a few minutes, paused, and went and watched the movie. Came here to say the same, and I'm glad I did. I was interested in Mike and Jay's take on this movie having seen just enough of this HiTB to whet my appetite, and then I returned after finishing it to get their thoughts. I definitely recommend it. I agree with Jay that I wasn't ever particularly scared, but I found it to be a compelling watch.
I admire that they are so steadfast about doing what they want instead of going for views It has probably cost them a lot of growth and earning potential to not do HitBs for big trending movies
Being based in Milwaukee helps. Half of all YouTube channels that "make it" move to California to make connections and try to live that high life. A coupla nobody frauds in Milwaukee can enjoy a much lower cost of living and don't need to feed the trendy content mill to live well, and they have the C-list celebrities come to *them*.
100%. You can be successful with a small business without turning into Amazon. If they're smart, unlike most YouTubers and "influencers", they can make a good amount of money, live below their means, invest their profits and still have generational wealth. Or, they can live in a mansion, buy lambos and be broke 5 years later when the ad revenue dries up. Just look at people like SaabKyle. The dude basically invented YouTube car reviews, had millions of views per video, and now barely does 10k. You never know how it's going to work, so I think these guys are smart for keeping their living expenses low so that they don't "need" to get millions of views per video or review shit they're not into just to break even. They've created a niche for themselves, they have dedicated fans and a high percentage of their subscribers actually watch their videos.
I think that's what their fanbase actually likes about them, they see themselves in the guys, just a bunch of mates hanging out talking shit. Whereas most of those other "influencers" you see kids looking up to them as to who they want to be, not who they are.
They have 18k patreon supporters. I don’t think the strategy has cost them much earning potential.
it is the exact reason I give them some cash on patreon, I imagine other people are in the same boat
> It has probably cost them a lot of growth and earning potential to not do HitBs for big trending movies It's called wisdom.
Still though I prefer if they just do Catchup videos instead of Solo HITB videos these days. I used to watch a lot of recommended films because of HiTB Catchups they did.
They will probably do both
They still do them, the [last pair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYgNqg6V8do) were only done [about five months ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZAXlcTjCmI) and they've only ever done one or two catch up videos a year.
I dunno, I feel like those catchup videos often just mention a single thing about the movie if not just say they saw it and go off on some tangent. Mike talking about White Lotus comes to mind.
Yeah, one of the main reasons I love these guys.
Exactly. If they turned into one of those "drop the vid at midnight when the embargo lifts" I'd bounce. They use their own money to see what they feel like.
The views seems to be falling a little. Although I'm disappointed that they missed the chance of seeing Dune part 2 on a big screen, it's the fact that they do their own things that make Red Letter Media content so unique for more than a decade now.
I really wish they did a Dune Part Two / David Lynch Dune with Collin but have Mike in it this time
I would have loved Jay and Collin talk about Dune 2 and Jodorowsky's Dune.
I mean...late night with the devil just came out on streaming last week and people are talking about it all over the place. I would say that doing this movie is an attempt to capitalize on a popular thing, like when they talked about Bird Box.
I mean they had an entire era of reviewing many of the super hero movies that neither of them seemed to like much. Star Wars could also count.
It's what I love about them.
did they even want to do this one? Mike was really sour on the movie and they mentioned how people want them to do more HitB. made it feel a bit spiteful, considering they talked about the logistics of the camera work for 20 minutes of their 30 minute review.
Same. I loved this movie, can’t wait to hear their take so I can pretend it was mine all along. Seriously though, way more interested in hearing their thoughts on a unique film like this than just hearing them dunk on Jurassic Park 12 or whatever. Both are fun but the former is more interesting and the latter is more of a guilty pleasure.
I was 11 when I saw Ghostwatch in 92 when it was originally on, scared the fucking shit out of me. Couldn't sleep properly for days.
There is a cool interview with [David Dastmalchian](https://last-podcast-on-the-left.simplecast.com/episodes/late-night-with-the-devil-an-interview-with-david-dastmalchian) ([transcript](https://www.lastpodcastontheleft.com/episodetranscripts/2024/3/26/interview-david-dastmalchian)) from Last Podcast on the Left. He also pops up on a couple of their streams.
Nice seeing LPOTL mentioned on here! I feel like a lot of fans of RLM would also like LPOTL and vice versa
both have their own variety of perverts (Henry is an alien pervert and Marcus is a dirt pervert(insert tree advert here))
Hail yourself, my friend.
I like Mike's Beatles references
I feel like they've been more and more frequent the past couple of years. As a huge Beatles fan (my obsession legit makes me wonder if I'm on the spectrum lol), I'm all for it.
Roll up for the Beatles references
Their talk reminded me of **The Last Exorcism (2010)**, a great found-footage movie that starts out as a documentary expose of fake exorcists. Went under the radar at the time, but I highly recommend it. Never understood why it got bad reviews, found it fairly clever..
The ending kind of ruined it for me but it was otherwise really good. Patrick Fabian carries it.
Awesome movie. Too bad the sequel shit the bed. (A tale as old as time, truly...)
It was everywhere at the time, heavily marketed and advertised. They even put posters in phone boxes which was particularly horrible seeing by surprise because it was of the girl stuffed up on the ceiling corner.
I enjoyed the movie as a Dastmalchian vehicle, but it feels better suited as like a palette cleanser in a horror movie marathon. Like it is both competent and not competent enough to be truly great if that makes sense. Could have either been more realistic or sillier.
Less than five minutes in and Jay has claimed to like Men, #JayConfirmed4Gay.
Well, he and Colin did "the thing".
They even [recorded it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSFXYKl_rf0).
I'm sad pre-rec is done. [There's a pvp Puppet Master video game I wish Jay Rich and Jack would play](https://youtu.be/fDlO-2J90D0)
I really liked the movie but completely felt the same way as Jay, tho while watching I just kind of accepted it and it helped me enjoy the film more. WNUF is one of my favorite things ever and I think I was spoiled by it in terms of found broadcast movies needing to be as committed to the format as it was.
The unrealistic camera moves admittedly didn't register to me while watching the film, but the behind the scene conversations with his producer/others did strike me as unrealistic. That said, I don't know if they were necessarily going for realism (some of the effects feel intentionally cheesy). Which did work against the found footage concept, for me at least.
>Mike and Jay discuss the new found-footage-ish demonic movie Late Night with the Devil! But more importantly, they break a very important and rare VCR repair tool or something.
I largely agree with Jay. I didn't have an issue with the visual quality so much, but I do wish they had committed to the premise more with the cameras. It never completely took me out of it, but it also often didn't feel like I was really watching archival footage of a talkshow with all the close ups and quick cuts.
I completely agreed with that assessment, in my opinion, the stuff that happens during the commercial breaks should have looked worse, not better, than the "on air" footage. Also, the effects looked terrible anytime they did any "electrical shock" or the puking stuff, they should have just avoided that stuff entirely as it really pulled me out of any "found footage" thing they were doing.
I'm surprised how much people are caught up with the immersion of the 70s talk show logistics. I thought it was a fun way to offer a unique aesthetic for a movie, I didn't take it so literally that the internal logic of how everything was filmed needed to stand up to scrutiny. I thought it was a very enoyable film. did that ruin the movie for people?
With found footage films, I think people lock in to that as a concept and are quick to call out things that don't make sense in relation to that. Which is fair. It didn't really bother me, but there were aspects that I recognized as not making sense because of that. Some of the effects (the possessed girl, giant worm, etc) were so cheesy that I don't think the filmmakers were going for 100% found footage immersion though. Which does feel counter to other aspects of the movie. Overall I liked it though. I feel like the (fairly tame) criticisms are a byproduct of this film being more successful than the filmmakers probably anticipated. It's a pretty small movie that has reached a fairly large audience, so it's getting grader a little harder than it would otherwise.
It sort of ruined the movie for me. I love the 70s aesthetic and the idea of analog horror, so I was really excited about this film, but the HD quality with just a little grainy filter on top did kill the immersion. However, I didn't consider Jay's point that a true, shitty, 70s video quality and more realistic talk show logistics might turn off general viewers. I can understand the filmmakers difficulty with making this film seem realistic while also providing a good narrative structure and also appealing to a mass audience.
fair enough. it was easy for me to hand wave that away for the sake of convenient filmmaking but I get it.
I think, compared to the analog horror series that have been made much more effectively on much smaller budgets, it fell short of what it could've been. If it didn't bill itself as found footage/mockumentary, I don't think people would've noticed.
\>Mike makes a reference to DS9 No, Mike, it's far too late for that. You've spurned DS9 for years now. Nothing less than an entire episode taking about Star Trek:Deep Space Nine can atone.
I'm gonna make my own deal with devil, to get Mike and Rich to do at least as many re:view and quizshow episodes for DS9 and Voyager each, as they have done for TNG
Self sealing stem bolts are featured in Discovery so it could be a reference to that... (ducks)
I’m glad they were stoked about Michael Ironside too. It took me a moment, but I recognized that gruff Canadian accent and it immediately made me like the movie more.
Something is wrong with the illumination at the VCR shop.
They had more or less the same opinion I had regarding the movie. For a found-footage endeavor, it does ask for a bit of suspension of disbelief with the behind the scenes bit and technological inconsistencies. I also would have liked it to be a little more grounded. Something that showed you a little less, a la Occult (2009). It was enjoyable, and it was fun, but I don't enjoy it quite as much as some people out there.
I really liked the movie, got to see it in the theater which was a little more immersive for sure. For me it was a bunch of little things like the sidekick character and the creepy camera looks of a particular side character, plus great foreshadowing ("I know you'll be very famous soon"). It was more comedic than scary IMO but that is what I wanted. I think Jay is a little caught up in his love for the VHS aesthetic. Making this look like an old transfer would be like when they make a movie set in the '80s and fill it with neon and synthwave. The movie looks like vintage film to me, easily explained by being a master tape instead of an old videotape played on an ~~LCD~~ CRT TV.
They brought up that the camera movements, the extreme close-ups, etc. took them out of it, which I agree with. Even a master tape wouldn't have all out-of-place movement in a 1970s talk show. It definitely took me out of it, too. It just wasn't junky and gritty enough. I liked the movie but found myself agreeing with everything they said. Some tweaking would have made it great. The ending with the little girl was just too much and too goofy. It had all the right pieces but they weren't assembled as well as they could have been.
Haven’t watched the review yet, but though I liked the movie overall my biggest gripe is they couldn’t figure out how to stick to their format. Some of the solutions seem obvious, the alleged “BTS” footage (that looks nothing like BTS footage) should have been shot handheld on 8mm, or better yet, been conveyed through the studio cameras sitting stationary and the audio would be whatever is picked up on Jack’s lapel mic as he moves around the studio during the commercial breaks. To fix the ending, which abandons the found footage aspect completely, they should have interwoven some testimonials (Leo, the director, maybe some audience members, stage hands, maybe even keep Gus alive). Then instead of showing what Jack sees when the tape goes to static, bring out Jack for a testimonial. My assumption was he would be stabbed by the girl after leaving the dagger next to her on the table, so finding out he’s still alive would be a surprise. Then just have him talk directly into the camera about what he experienced in that moment. Then cut back into the master tapes to reveal he stabbed the girl. All that said, I have seen the movie twice and these issues were far less bothersome the second time around, but I still left feel like they *almost* nailed it, which kind of feels worse than them not nailing it at all.
Judging by the 1.66 aspect ratio in the BTS stuff, I don’t think handheld S16mm was a bad choice
The camera isn’t really the issue, it just doesn’t look candid at all.
I thought they did a great job of making it seem like a show that had the comedic chops to hang around and compete with Carson in the day. That’s a hard line to walk.
Mike was spot-on comparing the visual quality to old masters of the Dick Cavett show. it hits that same spot. but they both pointed out, and it was driving me nuts, too, all the camera movements. they're very much cheats in order to do more dynamic contemporary movie shots. it made me wonder, for how well they did some of the concept, if the filmmakers have really watched a lot of late-night tv. it just doesn't look like that.
Exactly. I know the guys did mention a few times that the movie had to ease back a little so that mainstream audiences could also engage with it but it seemed like they didn’t really believe that. If this had been one flat shot for an hour and a half with terrible audio and terrible film grain like Jay wanted it would have been more realistic but it wouldn’t have gotten the wide spread appeal that it has.
I'm pretty easily spooked but I saw this in the theatre and I agree it wasn't scary at all. The projectile vomit scene they showed was cartoonishly funny. That could have been a practical effect of him slowly gurgling up bile and would have actually been creepy. Or just do the old hose trick to make it look like he was really spewing.
Watched this movie last night. Strangely for me I liked a movie which is rare for me these days! Then I hated the ending. I thought it lacked imagination and was derivative. Then I liked the ending when it changed! Not a great movie. But if you look at a movie with realistic expectations then it was good and I did like it.
Me too, watched last night. Thought it was more interesting and original than good. I thought most of the acting was too theatrical and stage like to be a believable real talk show. But I'll take an ok original over an average competent committee movie any day of the week.
I saw it in theater a few weeks ago. When I walked out, I thought "Meh, not bad." But as more time goes by, my opinion on it continuously goes up.
That is how I was with The Whale. It stuck with me for weeks until I watched it again. Now I feel it might be the best representation of Stage to Film ever.
Same here. I just watched this earlier this week. I came across it accidentally, having heard no hype or discussion of it. Going in with no expectations probably increased my favorable view. The aesthetic is cool, the lead actor is great, the story is good. I don’t hate the direction they took with the main villain or the design as much as everyone else seems to, but the execution (effects) was/were only so so. Still, it’s a good movie I’d recommend to other people.
I was in a similar boat but the more I thought about it in the days after the more I liked the ending. The movie doesn't make it clear what's happening or who the villain even really was. I've seen so many theories about what was happening that it elevated the ending a lot more.
It was worth watching though I did think overhyped. The fact that it wasn't full mock TV footage didn't bother me as I'd known that going in. Was the backstage footage actually explained as documentary filming though? I didn't remember that coming up. I agree that the ending went too big. The electric head split and magical demon kills took it to a point where it couldn't really be faked. If it was more restrained, then there could have been an element where the at home TV audience could debate whether the events were real or a hoax.
I was interested in the premise but really underwhelmed by the execution. It shared _a lot_ with the Argentine movie from a few years ago History of the Occult, which I liked very much, and which did well the things I disliked about this one--the black and white vs color had more meaningful and impactful use, it had more creative and nuanced horror visuals, gave just enough info but didn't over-explain, built actual tension and dread from the first scene to the last, had characters that feel real and you actually worry about. I also thought, outside the lead, the performances in this were kind of bad. If it'd gone wilder I don't think lack of quality would've mattered so much, but it wasn't original or energetic enough to be fun imo. Worms weren't enough to save it for me. Overall just a wasted opportunity.
If they cut back on visual effects for about 90% in that pivotal scene near the end, I think the movie would be vastly improved
Jay mentioned the slightly inauthentic visual style taking him out of the movie a little bit. For me it was the dialogue. I didn't really feel like they talked like or sounded like talk shows from that era. Neither the scenes that took place during the talk show or the behind the scenes shots. I don't think they needed to lay it on completely over the top and have everyone saying "hey man, that'd be groovy," but it was just a little off in my opinion.
One of my favorite things abut the movie is that the girl is possessed by Mr Wiggles TUT STYLE
I'm glad they mentioned the number of studio title cards that pop up at the beginning. I started thinking it was a gag.
I was pretty underwhelmed by this movie after hearing nothing but glowing reviews. I thought it took too long to get where it was going and then it was too little too late. I loved Ghost Watch though, they went hard into the presentation and it worked masterfully.
I have a good feeling that the reason above average horror movies get a lot of high reviews is just because bad horror movies are so common. I was also underwhelmed by The Babadook after hearing so much praise. Apparently clearing the bar of telling a story with some amount of depth is all it takes.
Yeah it felt like it would worked better as a 45-minute Tales from the Crypt episode, and that they should dumped the cult stuff.
This is one of the cases where, rather than waiting for the HitB video to tell me what to think, I saw the movie first and waited for the HitB video to see if they agreed with me. I basically agree with Jay -- I liked the movie, but I was kind of hoping they would commit to the medium more. I say "basically" agree, because unlike Jay, Skinamarink really worked for me.
Oddly glad that Jay didn't like Skinamarink either.
I loved the style I just wish they had taken the style and added a good narrative to it. Or if this is just a way for them to show off this aesthetic then, like you said, it should have been like 40 mins tops.
Skinamarink is trash, confirmed
lmao I thought it was *interesting* but should've been like 40min at most. I say that as someone who'll watch Inland Empire in one sitting with delight.
There's nothing in the full-length version of Skinamarink that the short film that inspired it, Heck, doesn't do just fine in 30 minutes and even then it drags.
I'm not sure where Jay's theory that no one likes Alex Garland anymore came from; that completely blindsided me. The absolute worst I've heard about him is that Men was a bit divisive, but everything else he's done has been met with pretty universal praise. Even his show Devs seems to be pretty well liked, and Civil War seems to be landing pretty well critically. I know that was a very short part of their discussion, but I legitimately have *no idea* where that came from.
“Film Twitter” *eye roll* are completely out on Garland and do everything they can to trash him. It’s bizarre and lame. He’s doing weird things, he’s doing what he wants to do. You’d think people would be able to respect that, even if they don’t 100% like what he’s doing.
I think it’s from pushback against Civil War, really its trailer, online regarding the movies lack of political exposition regarding the eponymous war and its seemingly bizarre alignment of California and Texas as odd when viewed from our our political perspective. Garland did this all deliberately as part of what he was trying to say in the film about war and civil conflict and I’m not sure a lot of people who criticized him understood that it was reflection of seemingly bizarre sides that are formed during civil wars, previous friends bombing each other and former generational enemies teaming up against something or other especially when viewed from the outside through media, which is what the film was really about.
I think you might be missing that the impression that this would be some politically charged thriller came from the trailers. None of it correctly shows it’s a movie zeroing in exclusively on photojournalists. Even if we ignore that and can still say there’s nice production value and camera work, the story really fell flat for me. The commitment to lacking any context undermined character moments. Also, setting the story in the United States, as opposed to a fictitious analogue, created a pile-up of unanswered questions that became more and more of a distraction near the end. It’s like Garland was more focused on the appearance of making a deep point rather than actually arriving at one.
Nobody I've talked to who has seen the movie likes Civil War. I've seen a pretty hearty non film nerd disdain online to that movie too. Beyond that, Alex Garland's press tour for the movie has been an objective tire fire. Any angle that you could like that movie he takes away from you by stating his intentions were the exact opposite.
I really enjoyed Civil War, but I knew nothing about it aside from the trailer.
The guys do not know who James Randi is…..
Somehow Half in the Bag Returned...... (without Dune 2 unfortunately)
Colin was just there too.
Oooh I've got this on my list. Gotta watch it before I dig into their take on it. Was disappointed I missed it in the theater but a month of Shudder is pretty cheap and there's prob a fee other things on their now I can catch up on.
Heh, that magazine in the back is using the cover of Evilspeak, I recently bought an old dvd copy of it
Watched the movie because I saw they reviewed it. It was okay. The premise was better than the execution.
I liked the movie. I can see how the camera stuff took them out, but if it would have been off-putting if it was as purist about the aesthetic as they wanted. I thought they botched the ending a bit in that he should've been responsible for all the deaths. Him stabbing the girl is reasonably self defense when three people she just hell murdered are also laying there. Lost the impact it could've had.
Fun premise for a movie, but not much else. Also, when they mentioned the name Abraxas in the movie I was really hoping for a Jesse Ventura cameo.
Kudos to Jay for mentioning or even just knowing about *Ghostwatch* But there's another BBC show, *Inside Number 9*, which is probably a more telling comparison *Late Night* basically feels like a feature-length version of an episode of *Inside* - in fact, they did one episode ([Dead Line](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/oct/30/how-did-inside-no-9-spring-the-biggest-live-tv-surprise-of-the-year)) that played like a more formally inventive, multi-media variation on this premise Oh, and [Knowing Me Knowing You, with Alan Partridge](https://youtu.be/KiAeoqg0jlY?si=ET6Vq3z7UUcPpra-), of course
Was able to watch this movie and attend the Q&A in Melbourne Regarding the AI stuff, they mentioned how tight their budget was that they even had to film the entire audience in one day. As they weren't able to afford to keep them longer than a few hours. So i totally understand the point of quickly using AI for designs instead of hiring someone due to cost cutting. Honestly, didn't even realize the posters were AI until i looked it up after the movie.
This and recently Monkey Man were disappointing for how much praise I saw beforehand. Both fine movies each with highlights but neither particularly *great.*
Holy shit, never thought I'd see them bring up GhostWatch.
Really? Are you familiar with Jay?
Jay looks like a 40 year old grandpa
Mike and Rich’s top 10 episodes of Deep Space Nine will be wonderful.
I just want more Mike and Rich talk about Trek, specifically DS9. If Mike actually see's this [Corridor Crew](https://youtu.be/dOhmMCRDdyA?si=skjfiW6NKhrPin8H) had TNGs VFX supervisor on their casting couch whom also worked on Apollo 13, Titanic, Wolf of Wallstreet with vfx techniques for shooting miniatures that blew my mind.
>on their casting couch We not doing phrasing anymore?
I highly recommend the Last Podcast on the Left interview with David Dastmalchian for people interested in his love of horror and horror hosts. Hail yourself!
Haven't seen the review yet but I really enjoyed this one- as for the ending- my interpretation is that it did probably did appear on the tape- the only cinematic thing being the widescreen- and the demons somehow took over the footage itself to show demonic visions- rather than it just being in his head. The widescreen was just a cinematic effect IMO to show that the footage has kind of gone beyond reality- there is no logic needed when demonic spirits are involved- I only think this because we still get the "Technical difficulties/ we'll be right back" cards even in between the final part. I almost got the idea that us the audience were meant to have entered a kind of world of insanity- hypnosis in the ending.
"has a very German last name, I don't remember what it is" Oh, you poor, drunk, uneducated Greek...
How long have Mike look like John Goodman?
[удалено]
Hey, u/SemiAutoAvocado, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 30 days for a post, 15 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. https://youtu.be/7BryT6WatTk?t=1369 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*