1
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:26,519
Speaker 1: We're Tom Lorenzo and this is the Bitter Kitten Movie Club.

2
00:00:26,559 --> 00:00:28,559
Hallo Kittens, Welcome back to another edition of the b

3
00:00:28,679 --> 00:00:31,519
k MC is supplemental edition of the PSO podcast where

4
00:00:31,519 --> 00:00:33,880
we take a look at one film and unpack it

5
00:00:34,039 --> 00:00:38,240
and I want to say terror to shreds, but although

6
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:41,759
we might actually tear this one dish, this week's film

7
00:00:42,039 --> 00:00:45,840
is Mac Is the Bride, directed by Maggie and written

8
00:00:45,840 --> 00:00:49,880
by Maggie chillenhol starring Jesse Buckley, Christian Bill, Annette Benning,

9
00:00:50,399 --> 00:00:56,079
Uh Peter Sars, Guard Cruz Jake, all of Maggie's friends.

10
00:00:56,000 --> 00:00:57,679
Speaker 2: Family, family she hired.

11
00:01:00,119 --> 00:01:05,159
Speaker 1: I was really looking forward to this entry because we

12
00:01:05,200 --> 00:01:07,719
hadn't seen it, and because it's modern, it's from the

13
00:01:08,239 --> 00:01:11,359
last year, and you know, a lot of the films

14
00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:14,480
we've been doing lately have been films we you know,

15
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:18,560
really really well, or films that are like thirty or

16
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,519
forty years old. So it's nice to return to the

17
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:25,000
modern era and also to unpack a film that, honestly,

18
00:01:26,120 --> 00:01:28,319
I didn't have a lot of information going into it.

19
00:01:28,400 --> 00:01:30,719
I wanted to see this film when the trailer first

20
00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:35,879
dropped like eighteen months ago, and it looked amazing to me.

21
00:01:36,159 --> 00:01:39,840
And I know I read a few reviews when it

22
00:01:39,879 --> 00:01:43,519
came out, but I genuinely did not know what the

23
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:46,280
film was. I knew it was a Bonnie and Clyde

24
00:01:46,319 --> 00:01:49,000
take on the Barida Frankens s liign, but I really

25
00:01:49,079 --> 00:01:50,280
went into this one cold.

26
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:53,359
Speaker 2: I was surprised that he kind of disappeared.

27
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:55,120
Speaker 1: I mean, it was there was a well it didn't

28
00:01:55,120 --> 00:02:00,159
get good reviews, right, you know, and well, I do

29
00:02:00,239 --> 00:02:08,039
want to say, let's start with this Magigillen. Hall's directorial

30
00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:11,000
debut was twenty twenty One's feature debut was twenty twenty

31
00:02:11,039 --> 00:02:13,919
ones The Lost Daughter, which we talked about on our

32
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:16,439
podcast at the time, which is a very good and

33
00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:22,400
it's a very good film. However, I came away from

34
00:02:22,479 --> 00:02:28,479
this film with the idea that, Okay, she's not fully

35
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:31,919
baked as a director yet. She really she's got skills,

36
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:35,520
she's got a perspective, she's got a great visual sense.

37
00:02:36,479 --> 00:02:40,039
But I don't feel that. I look at the Bride

38
00:02:40,039 --> 00:02:41,840
and I'm like, this is the this is the work

39
00:02:41,879 --> 00:02:44,080
of someone who's just not there yet. And I do

40
00:02:44,159 --> 00:02:48,479
want to say that part of this was colored by

41
00:02:49,919 --> 00:02:52,319
her appearance. A couple of weeks ago, Magagillen Hall she

42
00:02:52,360 --> 00:02:57,520
appeared on Turner Classic Movies to introduce some films in

43
00:02:57,599 --> 00:02:59,840
one of the one of their programs they bring on

44
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:00,960
yes and they and.

45
00:03:00,879 --> 00:03:03,599
Speaker 2: They usually a director or an actor, y, yeah.

46
00:03:03,439 --> 00:03:05,439
Speaker 1: And they and one of the and one of the

47
00:03:05,439 --> 00:03:08,120
films that she introduced was Bebbet's Feast, which we had

48
00:03:08,319 --> 00:03:12,800
just done a b KMC about. So we were watching

49
00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:16,879
it and I was alarmed. Actually, I was like, oh, okay,

50
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:19,000
she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Like

51
00:03:19,039 --> 00:03:22,039
Ben Mangawitz, the host actually had to push back again

52
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,639
she got a couple of things wrong, and you know,

53
00:03:25,719 --> 00:03:27,759
it's fine if you don't if you get a few

54
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:30,520
things factually wrong in the discussion of a film, but

55
00:03:30,599 --> 00:03:32,960
it was more like her perspective on that film was

56
00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:36,120
just not correct. It was you know, she at one

57
00:03:36,159 --> 00:03:39,199
point she said all of the elderly actors were not actors,

58
00:03:39,199 --> 00:03:42,000
and he was like, actually, no, they are like legend

59
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:45,719
legends in Danish filmmaking. And then at another point she

60
00:03:45,759 --> 00:03:49,360
said the director was only interested in Babet and he

61
00:03:49,439 --> 00:03:52,120
made everybody else look terrible, So that Babbitt and it

62
00:03:52,199 --> 00:03:54,879
was like, no, that's not what's going on in this story.

63
00:03:55,039 --> 00:03:59,240
So I did come away from that thinking she's interesting,

64
00:03:59,319 --> 00:04:01,759
but I don't think she's quite there yet as a director.

65
00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:05,280
She doesn't seem to get certain nuances. And I understand

66
00:04:06,400 --> 00:04:09,080
I'm laying all this groundwork because I know that people

67
00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:11,520
are going to think that sounds condescending or dismissive of

68
00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:15,360
a female director. I can't really help that. Like I said,

69
00:04:15,599 --> 00:04:19,439
her debut film I thought was amazing, amazing. I think

70
00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:23,600
she's very talented. But between that interview and this film,

71
00:04:23,879 --> 00:04:26,480
I came away thinking, Okay, she's just not there yet.

72
00:04:26,519 --> 00:04:28,240
I want to see more from her. It's sort of

73
00:04:28,279 --> 00:04:33,040
like Olivia Wilde when she did Don't Worry Darling. It

74
00:04:33,199 --> 00:04:36,360
just wasn't a fully baked film. And my understanding is

75
00:04:36,399 --> 00:04:39,480
that her new film, The Invite, is supposed to be amazing.

76
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:45,319
I'm not diminishing a female director. I'm pointing out that

77
00:04:45,399 --> 00:04:48,160
a lot of times when actors move into directing, they

78
00:04:48,199 --> 00:04:51,360
don't always get it right right, and some of them

79
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:54,439
need time to figure it out. And that was my

80
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:59,839
take on The Bride, was that great ideas, really great ideas,

81
00:05:00,079 --> 00:05:04,959
great visuals. She pulled out some amazing performances, although really Frankly,

82
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:07,839
the only truly amazing performance was Jesse Buckley, and I

83
00:05:07,879 --> 00:05:10,040
think probably you just need to point a camera at

84
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:14,639
Jesse Buckley, But I don't want to diminish her as

85
00:05:14,639 --> 00:05:17,839
a director and as a writer. It's an accomplishment this film,

86
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:21,519
and there's a lot about it that I actually really

87
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:24,439
really loved, and very little about it that I hate.

88
00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:26,480
In fact, I can't say that I hate any part

89
00:05:26,519 --> 00:05:29,759
of it. I just kept getting frustrated with it because

90
00:05:30,560 --> 00:05:32,800
it just didn't feel like she was following through on

91
00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:35,879
some of her concepts. That's my intro.

92
00:05:36,079 --> 00:05:38,279
Speaker 2: What do you want to say? True? Is that Windy

93
00:05:38,360 --> 00:05:41,040
announced The Bride the movie. I was very excited about it.

94
00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:43,319
I was like, that's interesting. It's a different take. We're

95
00:05:43,319 --> 00:05:45,720
going to focus on the bride and not on freakancy.

96
00:05:46,319 --> 00:05:48,759
And then when I read that she was going to

97
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:50,480
be directed in the movie, I was like, of course,

98
00:05:50,920 --> 00:05:54,480
she's a feminist. She's a wonderful person. She's actually very

99
00:05:55,040 --> 00:05:57,439
interesting as a person.

100
00:05:57,600 --> 00:05:58,360
Speaker 1: And as an artist.

101
00:05:58,439 --> 00:06:01,959
Speaker 2: As an artist, she has very interesting things to say

102
00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:05,439
about the industry, about women in general and all that.

103
00:06:05,519 --> 00:06:07,360
So I was like, she's perfect for that. So I

104
00:06:07,439 --> 00:06:10,600
was very looking forward to and then when it was

105
00:06:10,600 --> 00:06:13,319
also announced that Jesse Buckley was going to be the Brider,

106
00:06:13,360 --> 00:06:16,800
I was like, all right, perfect match. So I was

107
00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:19,199
curious about it. I watched the trailer and I was like,

108
00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:21,319
all right, great, let's see. And then I kind of

109
00:06:21,319 --> 00:06:24,720
forgot about it because people stopped talking about it and

110
00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:26,839
it didn't get very good reviews, as you said, and

111
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:28,920
then I just was like, well, i'll watch it later.

112
00:06:30,240 --> 00:06:32,959
So I watch it. We watched it separately, we didn't

113
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:36,480
watch it together. My first reaction, I'm.

114
00:06:36,319 --> 00:06:38,199
Speaker 1: Not because I was watching The Pillies game less.

115
00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:41,879
Speaker 2: Yes, while I was watching The Bride. Yeah, my first

116
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:44,879
reaction was like, what the hell am I watching here? Yeah?

117
00:06:44,879 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 1: You were annoyed.

118
00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:48,680
Speaker 2: I was like, what is going on here? It's just

119
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:50,839
felt like too much. Then I read a ton of

120
00:06:50,839 --> 00:06:59,879
interviews with her and the pretty much. She admits that

121
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:02,319
it was too much for her, that she was a

122
00:07:02,319 --> 00:07:05,839
little scared, and that she felt like overwhelmed most of

123
00:07:05,879 --> 00:07:08,360
the time. And then every interview.

124
00:07:07,959 --> 00:07:10,959
Speaker 1: She's sorry to say that comes across, and every interview.

125
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,920
Speaker 2: She gave, she talks about how today most of the

126
00:07:13,959 --> 00:07:19,120
movies are don't really are defined by a gender, I'm sorry,

127
00:07:19,120 --> 00:07:23,439
a genre and she feels like, and then she mentions

128
00:07:23,519 --> 00:07:26,399
like one bet or after another or whatever she talks

129
00:07:26,399 --> 00:07:28,720
about that, well, look at that movie, for example, you

130
00:07:28,759 --> 00:07:32,839
know what is that? So she every interview she kept

131
00:07:32,839 --> 00:07:37,000
repeating the same thing that movies today are not really

132
00:07:37,199 --> 00:07:40,160
defined by one genre, and she felt like she wanted

133
00:07:40,199 --> 00:07:43,120
to do something like that. And I feel that's why

134
00:07:43,199 --> 00:07:46,439
the movie feels a little all over the place. Sometimes.

135
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:48,720
You know, it's it's a musical, it's a horror movie,

136
00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:52,480
it's a love story, it's all that, which is fine,

137
00:07:52,959 --> 00:07:56,360
But at first I don't. I don't think. I think

138
00:07:56,839 --> 00:07:59,360
for a movie to succeed, that's just my opinion, you

139
00:07:59,439 --> 00:08:02,199
really have to have a core. You have to have

140
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:06,319
a basic understanding, right of what message you get?

141
00:08:06,319 --> 00:08:08,000
Speaker 1: What are you trying to say here? What is the

142
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:09,560
point of making this movie?

143
00:08:09,639 --> 00:08:12,040
Speaker 2: What is the message here? I agree, what is the

144
00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:16,160
takeaway here? Otherwise the audience is lost, you know, the

145
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:18,399
viewer is lost. That's how I feel about it. So

146
00:08:18,399 --> 00:08:21,120
in the beginning, I was like, what am I watching here?

147
00:08:21,600 --> 00:08:25,000
I had no idea, and so that was it. I

148
00:08:25,079 --> 00:08:29,600
appreciate many things about it. Anyway, we'll talk about all

149
00:08:29,639 --> 00:08:30,120
the details.

150
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:32,679
Speaker 1: But let me that was my first thing, so generally

151
00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:34,519
on the same page, and I don't think there's gonna

152
00:08:34,519 --> 00:08:38,279
be much disagreement about where we where this film fails

153
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:42,960
for us. So before we turned on the mics, I

154
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:45,039
brought this up and we both said, all right, let's

155
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:48,960
talk about that on the mic, which was I really

156
00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:52,440
didn't get the whole Mary Shelley thing. I just didn't

157
00:08:52,480 --> 00:08:55,879
get it. It felt very confused to me. It had

158
00:08:55,919 --> 00:08:59,279
me running off. I mean, I knew the broad particulars

159
00:08:59,279 --> 00:09:05,720
of Mary Shelley life and everything, but the idea to

160
00:09:05,799 --> 00:09:09,799
portray her as this sort of I mean, she came

161
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:16,039
off fairly crazy, right, she came off like unstable. She

162
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:19,000
came off I don't know. It's not for me to

163
00:09:19,120 --> 00:09:22,000
unpack who Mary Shelley was. If that's the version of

164
00:09:22,039 --> 00:09:24,039
her that you wanted for this film, that's fine. I

165
00:09:24,159 --> 00:09:28,519
just I what are you doing here? Like, what's the point?

166
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:32,039
You know, Mary Shelley is the author of the Frankenstein story,

167
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:35,600
but you actually placed her in this story and then

168
00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:41,039
you had your lead character possessed by her. What is

169
00:09:41,080 --> 00:09:44,840
the point? First off, it confuses the viewer because is

170
00:09:44,879 --> 00:09:48,000
this meta or not? Or are we I mean, at

171
00:09:48,039 --> 00:09:51,799
a certain point. I guess we were supposed to believe

172
00:09:51,799 --> 00:09:55,799
that Mary Shelley from the Grave is telling another version

173
00:09:55,840 --> 00:09:59,159
of this story, and but that's not how the film

174
00:09:59,159 --> 00:10:02,440
plays out, or the film gets very confused about how

175
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:05,360
that sort of thing plays out. Another example of this

176
00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:08,480
is and yeah, you can be you can interpret these

177
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:10,639
things anyway you like. But I feel like if you

178
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:13,639
don't as a director, if you don't have a point

179
00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:17,080
for showing me this, then you're just confusing me. At

180
00:10:17,080 --> 00:10:19,440
the very end of the film, when they're in the

181
00:10:19,519 --> 00:10:23,320
drive in theater and he's talking to her and then

182
00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:25,480
they both appear on the screen. Now they had that

183
00:10:25,559 --> 00:10:28,080
happen earlier in the film, and yeah, that's a subjective

184
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:31,240
thing there in the movies, and they see themselves up

185
00:10:31,279 --> 00:10:34,960
on screen. But the way that scene was shot, Penelope

186
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:38,440
Cruz also saw them up on screen. She kept reacting

187
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:42,120
to them on screen, And I'm like, you can do this,

188
00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:44,759
you can do this sort of fantasy based thing, the

189
00:10:44,879 --> 00:10:47,600
interpretive sort of thing, but you have to have a

190
00:10:47,639 --> 00:10:50,279
reason for it. And I don't understand what's the reason

191
00:10:50,320 --> 00:10:51,080
for that, right.

192
00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:55,360
Speaker 2: I think there's too many elements tried to be injected. Yeah,

193
00:10:55,759 --> 00:11:00,000
at the same time, My understanding is she gave interviews,

194
00:11:01,440 --> 00:11:05,039
She gave me interviews, and she talks about how well

195
00:11:05,279 --> 00:11:08,799
the writer Mary Shelley, Well, apparently I don't know much.

196
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:10,960
I don't know all the details. But apparently it was

197
00:11:11,039 --> 00:11:13,080
kind of a dare when she wrote the book, you know,

198
00:11:13,120 --> 00:11:15,519
because she was a woman and she wanted to prove

199
00:11:15,559 --> 00:11:18,600
that she could write a book as a woman to

200
00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:20,960
her friends and all that, and she told that story.

201
00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:26,639
So I think in the idea here was to what

202
00:11:26,679 --> 00:11:29,480
if she had a different story in her head, or

203
00:11:29,519 --> 00:11:32,639
if she framing does not support that, what if she

204
00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:35,399
had a different character, or what if she wanted to

205
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:39,360
develop the Bride more, you know, as a full on,

206
00:11:39,679 --> 00:11:44,320
you know character, because the apparently this movie is based

207
00:11:44,320 --> 00:11:48,120
on the nineteen thirty five version of Frankenstein correct the

208
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:51,480
Bride of Frankenstein. And apparently in the movie, the nineteen

209
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:54,279
thirty five version, the Bride only appears for like two

210
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:57,600
minutes or whatever, like she's not right. And so the

211
00:11:57,600 --> 00:12:02,120
whole idea was to write a movie and direct a

212
00:12:02,159 --> 00:12:06,080
movie about focusing on the bride. And so what if

213
00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,679
Mary Shelley had all these ideas that she never used

214
00:12:10,559 --> 00:12:15,039
for the Bride? But and I got that, all right.

215
00:12:15,200 --> 00:12:17,240
I'm looking at Mary Shelley here in the beginning of

216
00:12:17,240 --> 00:12:19,480
the movie, but why is Jesse Buckley playing her?

217
00:12:19,879 --> 00:12:22,200
Speaker 1: So that was very confused, Bob of me as much

218
00:12:22,240 --> 00:12:24,919
as what are you trying to everything that you were

219
00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:28,720
saying that's lovely? That does not come across in the film, right,

220
00:12:29,759 --> 00:12:37,440
But that's I think I I think it's very clear

221
00:12:37,879 --> 00:12:43,279
that she wanted to look at this from a feminist perspective, right,

222
00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:45,679
I mean in a way that's almost like, well, why

223
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:48,600
would you not? I mean, you're a female director making

224
00:12:48,600 --> 00:12:50,600
this movie in twenty twenty five, how could you not?

225
00:12:50,799 --> 00:12:52,360
Speaker 2: And focusing on the bride obviously.

226
00:12:53,639 --> 00:13:00,000
Speaker 1: So, so she cast a woman as the mad scientist,

227
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:02,799
and she cast a woman as sort of the lead

228
00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:05,639
constable who's trying to track down these monsters.

229
00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:05,879
Speaker 2: You know.

230
00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:11,639
Speaker 1: So all of the basic characters of Frankenstein were gender switched.

231
00:13:12,799 --> 00:13:17,960
But then she did nothing with that. There's a little

232
00:13:18,000 --> 00:13:21,320
bit of time where Annette Benning unpacks her own history

233
00:13:21,559 --> 00:13:24,840
as a mad scientist and her own history with these

234
00:13:24,919 --> 00:13:27,519
kinds of experiments, and apparently she had a husband that

235
00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:31,799
she res but she doesn't go anywhere with it, and

236
00:13:31,840 --> 00:13:33,679
a net Benning just drops out of the film for

237
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:38,879
like an hour. Similarly with Penelope Cruz, I get what

238
00:13:38,919 --> 00:13:44,120
you're trying to do. I do, but at the same token,

239
00:13:44,279 --> 00:13:47,279
if you're not doing it in a way that's strong

240
00:13:47,399 --> 00:13:50,440
and makes sense, that I am stuck asking a bunch

241
00:13:50,519 --> 00:13:53,120
of questions like why is a Spanish woman working as

242
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:56,919
a detective in Chicago in the nineteen thirties? Like of

243
00:13:57,000 --> 00:13:59,879
course I'm taken out by that, And yeah, I mean,

244
00:13:59,879 --> 00:14:04,639
I guess you could just throw you know, history and

245
00:14:04,679 --> 00:14:07,320
just let her be a female detective in the nineteen thirties,

246
00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:11,600
as if that was something that existed, Like sure, just

247
00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:13,879
you don't have to explain. But then they had a

248
00:14:13,919 --> 00:14:16,080
male cop, go who are you? And why am I

249
00:14:16,120 --> 00:14:19,080
taking orders from you? Like you can have it both ways.

250
00:14:19,159 --> 00:14:22,799
You can gender switch these stories in a way that

251
00:14:22,919 --> 00:14:25,320
is historically inaccurate, much in the same way you would

252
00:14:25,320 --> 00:14:28,960
have all these for instance, black aristocrats in Bridgeton. You're

253
00:14:29,039 --> 00:14:34,759
deliberately switching it up. But then you can't have characters

254
00:14:34,759 --> 00:14:39,080
act like you know, you can't have characters comment on it, essentially,

255
00:14:40,200 --> 00:14:42,320
because then it pulls you right out of the story

256
00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:46,720
and we'll get into the performances because I know you

257
00:14:46,759 --> 00:14:49,399
have things you want to say about Penelope Cruise's performance.

258
00:14:49,679 --> 00:14:52,840
We'll do that after the break, but right now I'm

259
00:14:52,879 --> 00:14:56,320
just focused on conceptually. This film did not work for me.

260
00:14:57,279 --> 00:14:59,679
You pointed out that it is a musical or horror film,

261
00:14:59,799 --> 00:15:01,799
a love story, or it tries to be all three

262
00:15:01,799 --> 00:15:05,600
of those things, And as soon as she said that,

263
00:15:05,679 --> 00:15:08,200
I was like, well, that actually sounds like an interesting movie,

264
00:15:08,279 --> 00:15:11,960
Like it's not impossible to do a musical horror love story.

265
00:15:13,039 --> 00:15:15,200
The thing is that I never got the sense that

266
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,480
that was what she was doing. In fact, it wasn't

267
00:15:18,559 --> 00:15:23,120
until the final shot of the two monsters grasping hands

268
00:15:23,159 --> 00:15:25,799
as they that was when I was like, oh, she's

269
00:15:25,840 --> 00:15:28,720
really doing this as a love story, because it was

270
00:15:28,759 --> 00:15:31,200
pretty confused up until that point. And this is what

271
00:15:31,279 --> 00:15:34,279
I keep coming back to. Fine, you want to do

272
00:15:34,360 --> 00:15:36,360
this as a love story, well you can't spend the

273
00:15:36,519 --> 00:15:40,320
entire film having Frankenstein lie to her about what he did,

274
00:15:40,399 --> 00:15:43,440
about what her name is, about who right, and then

275
00:15:43,519 --> 00:15:47,519
have her what just forgive that. They never get to

276
00:15:47,559 --> 00:15:52,720
that point. They never really explain why she makes that

277
00:15:52,799 --> 00:15:54,360
shift at the end of the film, like she was

278
00:15:54,399 --> 00:15:56,320
really angry when she found out that he had lied

279
00:15:56,360 --> 00:16:02,200
to him and then okay, no, it's a love story. Similarly, Listen,

280
00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:05,399
I did laugh when they started doing putting on the Ritz.

281
00:16:05,480 --> 00:16:07,080
I don't know if you got the reference, but it

282
00:16:07,120 --> 00:16:10,240
is a reference to young Frankenstein. It's an iconic reference

283
00:16:10,279 --> 00:16:14,559
to young Frankenstein. But again, there needs to be some

284
00:16:14,600 --> 00:16:17,799
consistency when you apply that sort of thing. Similarly, at

285
00:16:17,799 --> 00:16:19,759
the end of the film, when the credits were rolling,

286
00:16:19,799 --> 00:16:22,879
they played the monster match, and again it's like, if

287
00:16:22,919 --> 00:16:27,200
you wanted a campy take on the iconography of Frankenstein

288
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:30,000
and you wanted to make all these references, I would

289
00:16:30,080 --> 00:16:32,039
be on board with that, But you can't drop in

290
00:16:32,120 --> 00:16:36,879
one every hour and then not follow up. So yeah,

291
00:16:37,039 --> 00:16:40,559
I actually thought the musical number was fun. It was

292
00:16:40,720 --> 00:16:42,960
fun to watch. They were all screaming their heads off,

293
00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:47,080
and the choreography was really great. Didn't really wasn't really

294
00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:49,480
well explained about what was going on in that scene.

295
00:16:49,519 --> 00:16:52,919
But the thing is, you can't just have one musical

296
00:16:53,000 --> 00:16:54,759
number dropped in the middle of a movie. You got

297
00:16:54,840 --> 00:16:57,279
to follow up on that. There has to be an aesthetic,

298
00:16:57,360 --> 00:17:00,279
there has to be a consistency to that world. So

299
00:17:00,399 --> 00:17:03,200
quite frankly, there should have been more than one musical number, right.

300
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:06,759
Speaker 2: She explains a lot about the process of making the

301
00:17:06,799 --> 00:17:10,079
movie and why she did certain things. She talks about

302
00:17:10,119 --> 00:17:15,519
the you know, very much inspired by nineteen thirties musicals

303
00:17:15,559 --> 00:17:19,960
and how fake there were, the Hollywood fantasy of the

304
00:17:20,039 --> 00:17:21,279
nine thirties and that's why they.

305
00:17:21,279 --> 00:17:24,559
Speaker 1: Had which is not a very sophisticated take on that

306
00:17:24,680 --> 00:17:27,279
at all. It's just like, I'm sorry, it's not I.

307
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:30,519
Speaker 2: Feel that, like things are not very consistent, and they

308
00:17:31,160 --> 00:17:34,960
I don't know, they feel like separate elements in the movie.

309
00:17:35,279 --> 00:17:36,160
It doesn't feel like.

310
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:38,359
Speaker 1: One now, there's no cohesion to it.

311
00:17:38,480 --> 00:17:44,920
Speaker 2: Yes, there's not one big thing. But anyway, I, like

312
00:17:44,960 --> 00:17:46,440
I said, at first, I was like, I have no

313
00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:48,279
idea what I'm watching, but I'm gonna watch it and

314
00:17:48,640 --> 00:17:52,680
you know, go with it, and again everyone is great.

315
00:17:52,759 --> 00:17:55,920
I also, I actually thought that that Benny did a

316
00:17:56,000 --> 00:17:58,119
very good job with whatever she had. I mean, she

317
00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:02,119
came across as this intelligence and I liked that that approach,

318
00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:07,960
that she was an intelligent woman, didn't wasn't surprised by anything,

319
00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:11,359
like you know, she you know, just yeah, all.

320
00:18:11,319 --> 00:18:12,720
Speaker 1: Right, why don't we take a short break and then

321
00:18:12,759 --> 00:18:15,200
we'll get into some of the performances, and also some

322
00:18:15,279 --> 00:18:17,480
of the things like you just did that we actually

323
00:18:17,519 --> 00:18:20,480
like about this because I have to. I don't hate

324
00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:23,039
this movie. I just think it's a deeply flawed one. Okay,

325
00:18:23,079 --> 00:18:26,559
all right, we'll be right back. We're back chatting about

326
00:18:26,559 --> 00:18:30,039
The Bride. And I did want to get into some

327
00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:33,240
of the performances. I mean, the performances are fun across

328
00:18:33,279 --> 00:18:35,039
the board. I don't there's not a single one that

329
00:18:35,119 --> 00:18:39,160
I didn't like. Jesse Buckley fucking amazing, I mean seriously,

330
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:42,440
and especially when she had to do the rapid fire

331
00:18:42,519 --> 00:18:45,440
shifts between she was playing Ida, she was playing the Bride,

332
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:48,079
she was playing Mary Shelley, and she would sometimes have

333
00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:51,519
to do all three in the same sentence. Fun to watch,

334
00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:55,559
great to watch. And when she does that primal scream

335
00:18:55,720 --> 00:18:58,720
thing like just you just feel it coming up from her.

336
00:18:59,119 --> 00:18:59,799
Speaker 2: She's wild.

337
00:19:00,119 --> 00:19:01,799
Speaker 1: Yeah, she is completely wild.

338
00:19:02,079 --> 00:19:04,279
Speaker 2: I did not understand the split personel and in the

339
00:19:04,359 --> 00:19:07,000
beginning before she actually died, So I don't get that.

340
00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:09,319
Speaker 1: I don't get any of that stuff. The Mary Shelley's

341
00:19:09,400 --> 00:19:12,079
I don't get it when she's not well utilized, when.

342
00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:14,640
Speaker 2: She's at the restroom with everybody else or the club

343
00:19:14,759 --> 00:19:18,279
or whatever, and then she started like, well, speaking in

344
00:19:18,400 --> 00:19:20,640
tongues or whatever. It just made no sense to me.

345
00:19:20,680 --> 00:19:21,799
I was like, why is she doing that?

346
00:19:22,119 --> 00:19:24,720
Speaker 1: I said, we were going to talk about the performances

347
00:19:24,720 --> 00:19:27,319
and what we liked. But that is one of the

348
00:19:27,319 --> 00:19:29,720
main flaws of how the story is told is that

349
00:19:30,319 --> 00:19:33,000
we are never told who Ida is. And I mean

350
00:19:33,519 --> 00:19:37,400
there is a certain as you pointed out, in the

351
00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:40,279
original BRIDI Frankenstein Elsa Lanchester is only in it for

352
00:19:40,319 --> 00:19:42,559
like two minutes and all she does is scream. She

353
00:19:42,599 --> 00:19:46,400
gets no lines, she gets no name. So this film

354
00:19:46,440 --> 00:19:49,000
is a response to that. So it's it's we're going

355
00:19:49,039 --> 00:19:51,880
to have her speak her truth throughout the entire film

356
00:19:52,000 --> 00:19:54,359
over and over and over again, and we're going to

357
00:19:54,440 --> 00:19:58,480
have her seek out her name, right, you know. But

358
00:19:59,759 --> 00:20:03,119
that quest to find out her name, to find out

359
00:20:03,119 --> 00:20:05,799
her identity has no weight to it because we the

360
00:20:05,839 --> 00:20:08,319
audience don't know who that person was. And I get it,

361
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:10,359
there's like this twist at the end because she was

362
00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:14,519
working with the cops and blah blah blah. But I

363
00:20:14,559 --> 00:20:18,240
think the tragedy of Ida would have been a little

364
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:21,880
bit more, a little easier for the audience to grasp

365
00:20:21,920 --> 00:20:25,279
if we had actually seen Ida as a fully realized person, right,

366
00:20:25,839 --> 00:20:28,440
We never got to see that. She started acting crazy

367
00:20:28,440 --> 00:20:30,200
in her first scene and then she was dead two

368
00:20:30,279 --> 00:20:30,880
minutes later.

369
00:20:31,079 --> 00:20:32,920
Speaker 2: I think the scene's in the car when they actually

370
00:20:32,920 --> 00:20:37,039
having a conversation about when she questions him and then

371
00:20:37,079 --> 00:20:39,119
he finally tells the truth and she goes like, well,

372
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:41,039
who was I? I don't know who I am. I

373
00:20:41,039 --> 00:20:41,880
don't know who I was.

374
00:20:43,160 --> 00:20:46,960
Speaker 1: More of that, more of that exactly you had. She

375
00:20:47,039 --> 00:20:52,240
also had that idea about Ida or the bride inspiring

376
00:20:52,319 --> 00:20:55,880
women all over to go foul in, and it was

377
00:20:56,039 --> 00:20:58,799
just dropped in with no follow up. And I know

378
00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:02,200
that there was a post credit scene or whatever with those,

379
00:21:02,759 --> 00:21:05,559
but that was actually a good concept. You had an

380
00:21:05,599 --> 00:21:08,680
idea there, and you just didn't go with it because

381
00:21:08,680 --> 00:21:11,160
you kept throwing everything at the screen and.

382
00:21:11,079 --> 00:21:13,000
Speaker 2: The Bonnie and Clyde thing, and then they're in the

383
00:21:13,039 --> 00:21:16,119
paper and that's why every women in the country was

384
00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:18,240
trying to write it's just be her.

385
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:20,599
Speaker 1: It was trying to do too much, all right. More

386
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:24,359
about the performances, I thought Christian Bale gave a great profile.

387
00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:27,079
I thought he was also he actually found humor in

388
00:21:27,160 --> 00:21:32,680
that character. And you know it's you kind of inevitably

389
00:21:32,720 --> 00:21:36,119
are going to compare it to Jacob e Loordi. Both

390
00:21:36,160 --> 00:21:38,960
of these films came out in the same year Gamma

391
00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:43,079
Del Torros Frankenstein and this. And I had my issues

392
00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:49,920
with Del Torros Frankenstein, mostly because I don't think Frankenstein

393
00:21:50,000 --> 00:21:53,880
is a is a sexual slash romantic figure. I don't

394
00:21:53,880 --> 00:21:56,279
think he works that well. That's more of a vampire

395
00:21:56,359 --> 00:21:59,960
thing than a Frankenstein thing. So and then Jacob Elordi

396
00:22:00,160 --> 00:22:04,559
was this highly romanticized version of the character, borderline beautiful.

397
00:22:04,599 --> 00:22:06,440
I mean, they did make him look like but he

398
00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:10,279
was borderline beautiful. And I didn't agree with that, and

399
00:22:10,319 --> 00:22:13,160
I didn't like it. And Christian bale I was like

400
00:22:13,200 --> 00:22:16,240
that that's closer to what if you want to do

401
00:22:16,279 --> 00:22:19,160
a romantic frank and sign, that's what you do. You

402
00:22:19,240 --> 00:22:24,359
do this pathetic, somewhat grotesque figure, and they did. They

403
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:27,359
made the point of showing like he's not some beautiful

404
00:22:27,759 --> 00:22:33,440
His body was grotesque, right, And he's like an inceel,

405
00:22:33,599 --> 00:22:36,039
like he doesn't understand women at all, he doesn't understand

406
00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:39,480
roman at all. He wants it, and that wanting is

407
00:22:40,559 --> 00:22:42,960
you know, it's your heartbreaks for him, but at the

408
00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:45,759
same time, you're like, no, this person should never ever

409
00:22:45,839 --> 00:22:49,480
ever enter you know, no. And I think he managed

410
00:22:49,519 --> 00:22:52,079
to straddle that line where you feel the romantic side

411
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:54,559
of this character, but you also know there is no

412
00:22:54,640 --> 00:22:57,079
way that this character is literally a monster.

413
00:22:57,279 --> 00:23:01,000
Speaker 2: No. Again, he's conversation with the doctor the scientists. It

414
00:23:01,079 --> 00:23:03,319
was very interesting when he's talking about like, you know,

415
00:23:03,400 --> 00:23:05,599
I want to feel somebody, I want to you know,

416
00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:08,519
I want to feel love and all that have have apartments.

417
00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:10,119
Speaker 1: Really well done, and and.

418
00:23:10,119 --> 00:23:13,000
Speaker 2: You know the scientists like, yeah, well, yeah, all right.

419
00:23:13,119 --> 00:23:15,920
I had that it's not a big deal. But you know,

420
00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:19,279
she she doesn't understand that, you know it. He never

421
00:23:19,359 --> 00:23:23,599
experienced anything. So I just thought it was moments like that.

422
00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:26,359
I thought it were interesting and deep in a way,

423
00:23:27,039 --> 00:23:29,559
but then it sort of like evaporates and then then

424
00:23:29,559 --> 00:23:34,759
we're back to them dancing or running with a gun. Yeah.

425
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:38,839
I mean it's beautiful. It looked beautiful. The costumes were gorgeous.

426
00:23:38,960 --> 00:23:42,839
The everything about it looked beautiful. It looked expensive.

427
00:23:43,680 --> 00:23:49,160
Speaker 1: The production design is amazing, the costumes, especially obviously hers.

428
00:23:49,319 --> 00:23:51,039
Speaker 2: Yes again, uh.

429
00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:56,160
Speaker 1: Sandy Powell, the legendary costume designer, did the costumes for

430
00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:59,640
this and again I don't mean to sound condescending, but

431
00:24:00,079 --> 00:24:02,680
cogentle on Hale gave an interview and I was like, oh, girl,

432
00:24:02,799 --> 00:24:05,920
you you really don't have the instinct shit where she

433
00:24:06,039 --> 00:24:09,400
fought with Powell about the orange dress and she's like,

434
00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:11,960
it's too bright. I wanted a brown dress, and Sandy

435
00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:16,319
Powell apparently said to her, I don't do brown. And

436
00:24:17,240 --> 00:24:20,759
they fought over this, and you know she she admitted

437
00:24:20,799 --> 00:24:22,519
Maggie gentle on Hale, she said, when I saw it

438
00:24:22,599 --> 00:24:26,279
on set at night, I realized that Sandy Powell is

439
00:24:26,279 --> 00:24:28,640
a genius. And I was like, Weney, it took you

440
00:24:28,720 --> 00:24:31,359
too long to come to that realization. I mean, the

441
00:24:31,400 --> 00:24:34,119
best thing about the one of the best things about

442
00:24:34,119 --> 00:24:37,480
the films is the visualization of her is how not

443
00:24:37,599 --> 00:24:40,400
just the orange dress, but the hair, the hair, the

444
00:24:40,480 --> 00:24:44,079
stain on her face and everything. At one point she

445
00:24:44,319 --> 00:24:47,079
picks up a piece of black tool and puts it

446
00:24:47,119 --> 00:24:50,799
in her hair like a veil. Just clever shit like that.

447
00:24:51,039 --> 00:24:55,079
And then if you look the like her, her tights

448
00:24:55,119 --> 00:24:58,440
are like turquoise and her boots are red. And none

449
00:24:58,440 --> 00:25:01,119
of this, none of this is accurate to the nineteen thirties,

450
00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:03,039
Like those boots that she was wearing were straight out

451
00:25:03,079 --> 00:25:05,880
of the Victorian era. The whole thing had sort of

452
00:25:05,880 --> 00:25:09,279
a steampunk vibe to it. But it looked amazing to

453
00:25:09,319 --> 00:25:17,160
be a film, and Doctor Euphronis's laboratory also looked amazing on films,

454
00:25:17,319 --> 00:25:20,839
just had that universal pictures kind of nineteen thirties. One

455
00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:23,799
final thing about that all of these references. You have

456
00:25:23,839 --> 00:25:27,880
references to Young Frankenstein and the Monster mash and but

457
00:25:29,279 --> 00:25:32,000
you don't really have it. You set this film in

458
00:25:32,039 --> 00:25:35,359
the nineteen thirties, which is when the original Frankenstein films

459
00:25:35,359 --> 00:25:38,599
came out, and you even refer like I said that

460
00:25:38,759 --> 00:25:41,880
her laboratory had a certain Universal Pictures feel to it.

461
00:25:43,279 --> 00:25:44,920
I thought that would be more of an homage to

462
00:25:44,920 --> 00:25:47,920
Elsa Lanchester somewhere in that film, and I didn't see it.

463
00:25:50,079 --> 00:25:52,680
You're making all these other references, but you're not going

464
00:25:52,720 --> 00:25:55,920
to reference the original iconic bride of Frankenstein. That seems

465
00:25:55,960 --> 00:25:56,480
strange to me.

466
00:25:57,839 --> 00:26:01,720
Speaker 2: Yeah, I again, I think she had too many ideas.

467
00:26:02,440 --> 00:26:05,640
I think she wanted a modern take. Maybe that's why

468
00:26:05,680 --> 00:26:09,559
she avoided the original movie. And you know, there's a

469
00:26:09,599 --> 00:26:11,960
ton of elements and they're interesting, but when you put

470
00:26:11,960 --> 00:26:14,599
them all together, it feels like too much and there's

471
00:26:14,680 --> 00:26:16,960
not a I don't know.

472
00:26:17,680 --> 00:26:21,440
Speaker 1: It was a good idea for a movie, but yeah,

473
00:26:21,920 --> 00:26:24,079
she just didn't follow through on it. And I am

474
00:26:24,160 --> 00:26:26,279
looking forward to what she does next because I do

475
00:26:26,319 --> 00:26:30,839
think she's interesting and creative, but everything about this film

476
00:26:30,920 --> 00:26:32,880
felt underbaked and confused.

477
00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:37,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and I think everybody gate. I mean,

478
00:26:37,480 --> 00:26:40,920
for the most part, everyone gave a phenomenal performance. I

479
00:26:40,960 --> 00:26:45,160
do think Penelopecrusis is an amazing actress. Yeah, she is

480
00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:48,359
absolutely fantastic. If you haven't watched any any one of

481
00:26:48,359 --> 00:26:54,759
her Almodover movies, I mean, she's incredible, incredible.

482
00:26:54,200 --> 00:26:55,319
Speaker 1: But she struggled with this.

483
00:26:55,559 --> 00:26:58,200
Speaker 2: But she she's not good in English. That's the bottom

484
00:26:58,200 --> 00:26:58,559
line here.

485
00:26:58,599 --> 00:27:01,960
Speaker 1: She's not She's not good in English. She can be good, I.

486
00:27:01,960 --> 00:27:04,519
Speaker 2: Don't think she can. But anyway, I think it's it

487
00:27:05,119 --> 00:27:08,440
And because the character is not very well developed, you know,

488
00:27:08,519 --> 00:27:12,319
there's not much there as a character, you combine both

489
00:27:12,759 --> 00:27:14,480
and it was just like what are you doing there?

490
00:27:14,559 --> 00:27:16,559
I mean that's how I felt the whole time. I mean, like,

491
00:27:16,599 --> 00:27:18,960
what's the point of this character? And it's you know,

492
00:27:19,039 --> 00:27:20,319
she's not doing a very good job.

493
00:27:21,240 --> 00:27:24,640
Speaker 1: I think the film. I'm sorry, go ahead, Yeah, I

494
00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:27,519
think she had this concept, like I said, with the

495
00:27:27,559 --> 00:27:32,039
female constable, female and scientist, but then she muddled it

496
00:27:32,119 --> 00:27:34,039
up because she wanted her husband in there and she

497
00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:36,759
wanted her brother in there. So there were like storylines

498
00:27:36,759 --> 00:27:39,960
with these two male characters that are just muddying up

499
00:27:40,079 --> 00:27:44,640
this story. If you had focused on the female detective,

500
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:48,039
as odd as that character was, and the female scientist

501
00:27:48,119 --> 00:27:51,480
and the female monster, you could have had something there, right.

502
00:27:51,519 --> 00:27:54,240
Speaker 2: I mean, it took me a while to understand, what's

503
00:27:54,279 --> 00:27:58,839
your fascination with this? With this you know actor? Right,

504
00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:01,000
and even that was not well and then like and

505
00:28:01,039 --> 00:28:04,680
then and then she when she gave interviews, she talks

506
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,640
about like, well, he was he's fascinated with movies and

507
00:28:08,079 --> 00:28:11,039
musicals and blah blah blah, and then with with and

508
00:28:11,079 --> 00:28:14,319
then his attraction to the bride is because she's she's

509
00:28:14,359 --> 00:28:15,359
sort of like an actress.

510
00:28:15,599 --> 00:28:18,680
Speaker 1: It was it just so it was not well fought out.

511
00:28:18,759 --> 00:28:22,319
And that's basically, uh huh, the take on this film.

512
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:23,599
Do you have anything else you want to add?

513
00:28:23,680 --> 00:28:27,279
Speaker 2: No? I mean I I I have to say that

514
00:28:27,400 --> 00:28:29,000
when I watched it last night and then when I

515
00:28:29,039 --> 00:28:30,319
finished it, I went to bed and I was like,

516
00:28:30,359 --> 00:28:32,039
oh my god, what did I just watch? But then

517
00:28:32,039 --> 00:28:34,920
I woke up this morning and I thought more about it,

518
00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:38,559
and I things begin to make more sense.

519
00:28:39,240 --> 00:28:41,920
Speaker 1: It's definitely an interesting idea for a film.

520
00:28:41,680 --> 00:28:43,720
Speaker 2: Right, And I was like, all right, now I get

521
00:28:43,960 --> 00:28:46,119
certain things. And then I watched a couple of interviews.

522
00:28:46,200 --> 00:28:48,799
I was like, all right, but again, we talk about

523
00:28:48,839 --> 00:28:51,559
this all the time. You wouldn't have You shouldn't have

524
00:28:51,599 --> 00:28:54,960
to do all this homework now to appreciate some form

525
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:55,319
of art.

526
00:28:55,720 --> 00:29:01,279
Speaker 1: I agree. So an interesting take, but way too confused

527
00:29:01,279 --> 00:29:04,680
and muddled. That's it for us this week. I have

528
00:29:04,759 --> 00:29:09,240
to put together a list of films for July's BKMC,

529
00:29:09,400 --> 00:29:13,319
which I have not done yet, and I don't think

530
00:29:13,319 --> 00:29:15,680
it's going up until Monday, so I don't have a

531
00:29:15,759 --> 00:29:18,559
list for you just as of yet, and I don't

532
00:29:19,519 --> 00:29:21,720
I don't know how many. I think there are five

533
00:29:21,759 --> 00:29:26,680
Fridays July, in which case we might take next Friday

534
00:29:26,759 --> 00:29:29,079
off because it's July third, and who the hell's listening

535
00:29:29,119 --> 00:29:32,759
to a podcast on that weekend? So we'll be back soon.

536
00:29:33,039 --> 00:29:35,440
I just don't know when it'll either be next week.

537
00:29:35,519 --> 00:29:38,519
Or the week after with the next BKMC. Please check

538
00:29:38,559 --> 00:29:40,680
out Tom and Lorenzo dot com for the list of

539
00:29:40,839 --> 00:29:43,920
films to watch, and once again thank you for listening.

540
00:29:44,000 --> 00:29:44,440
I love you.

541
00:29:45,079 --> 00:29:46,000
Speaker 2: Bye bye bye