Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome to our brand new episode of
Speaker 1: Second Take Cinema, coming at you from the Glorious Impala
Speaker 1: Film's headquarters.
Speaker 2: In sunny South End on Sea. I'm your host Jamie Evans,
Speaker 2: joined as always by Rory Jocelyn, and I am to
Speaker 2: the Power of three and today we continue Listener Request Month.
Speaker 2: This request coming from listener Tierra, who requested the nineteen
Speaker 2: ninety seven independent sci fi movie Cube. Tierra Va kindly
Speaker 2: sent us a audio clip explaining why she wants us
Speaker 2: to look at this movie, so I'm going to edit
Speaker 2: that in right here.
Speaker 3: Hello, Jamie and Rory, this is Tira Tank coming at
Speaker 3: you from the frozen tundra of central Wisconsin, and this
Speaker 3: is my submission for Second Take Cinema. I decided on
Speaker 3: the film Cube, directed by Vincenzo Natali, one of my
Speaker 3: favorite directors of all time, if not my favorite director
Speaker 3: of all time. I saw this for the first time
Speaker 3: when I was living in Japan, and at the time
Speaker 3: we were watching through Stargate Atlantis and Star Trek Deep
Speaker 3: Space nine. So I was really into David Hewlett and
Speaker 3: Nicole de Boor as actors, and I was really thrilled
Speaker 3: that they were part of the Cube cast. I can't
Speaker 3: say enough about this film. It I loved it back
Speaker 3: then and there was so much more to absorb as
Speaker 3: an adult. Yeah, I'm just gonna let you guys sit
Speaker 3: back and enjoy this one. It was made for a
Speaker 3: measly budget of seven hundred dollars seven hundred thousand dollars Canadian.
Speaker 3: They built one Cube set and a half to shoot
Speaker 3: this entire film in using very clever camera and lighting tricks,
Speaker 3: and I just love the writing and acting in the
Speaker 3: psychological downfall that these characters go through. So yeah, enjoy.
Speaker 1: Well, Tierra, you asked, and we are happy to comply.
Speaker 1: It's time for a second take on Cube. Cube is
Speaker 1: a nineteen ninety seven Canadian science fiction horror movie directed
Speaker 1: and co written by Vincenzo Natali. It was made for
Speaker 1: a budget of seven hundred thousand dollars Canadian, as Tierra
Speaker 1: can'tly told us, and it made nine million dollars at
Speaker 1: the box office in its home country of Canada. The
Speaker 1: film was actually a commercial failure, only staying in Canadian
Speaker 1: theaters for a handful of days. However, it did better
Speaker 1: in other markets, including France. The rest of America and Japan.
Speaker 1: Over on Rotten Tomatoes, it has a sixty three percent
Speaker 1: approval rating, with the website's critical consensus reading Cube sometimes
Speaker 1: struggles with where to take its intriguing premise, but gripping
Speaker 1: pace and an impressive intelligence make it hard to turn away.
Speaker 1: Bob Graham of the San Francisco Chronicle was highly critical.
Speaker 1: If writer director Vincenzo Natalie, storyboard artist for Keanu Reeves
Speaker 1: Johnny Namonic, were as comfortable with dialogue and dramatizing characters
Speaker 1: as he is with imagers, this first feature of his
Speaker 1: might have worked better. Nick Schaeger from Slant Magazine rated
Speaker 1: the film three out of five stars, noting that its
Speaker 1: intriguing premise and initially chilling mood were undone by threadbare
Speaker 1: characterizations and lack of a satisfying explanation for the Cube's existence.
Speaker 1: He concluded the film winds up going nowhere fast. Anita
Speaker 1: Gates of The New York Times was more positive, saying
Speaker 1: the story proofs surprisingly gripping in the best Twilight Zone tradition.
Speaker 1: The ensemble cast does an outstanding job on the cinematic
Speaker 1: equivalent of a bare stage. Everyone has his or her
Speaker 1: own theory about who is behind this peculiar imprisonment. The
Speaker 1: weakness in Cube is the dialogue, which sometimes turns remarkably trite.
Speaker 1: The strength is in the film's understated but real tension.
Speaker 1: Vincenzo Natari, the film's fledgling director and co writer, has
Speaker 1: delivered in an allegory two about futility, about the necessity
Speaker 1: and certain betrayal of trust, about human beings who do not,
Speaker 1: for a second have the luxury of doing nothing. Bloody
Speaker 1: Disgusting gave a positive review, saying shoddy acting in a
Speaker 1: semi week script can't hold this movie back. It's simply
Speaker 1: too good a premise and too well directed to let
Speaker 1: minor hindrancers derail its creepy premise. And Lastly, Kim Newman
Speaker 1: from Empire Online gave the film four out of five stars,
Speaker 1: writing too many low budget sci fi films try for
Speaker 1: epic scope and fail. This one concentrates on making the
Speaker 1: best of what it's got and does it well. So Rory,
Speaker 1: how do you ever seen Cube before today?
Speaker 4: No? But uh, I've always been interested in it.
Speaker 2: I actually have a copy of Cube two and have
Speaker 2: never watched it because I've never been able to get
Speaker 2: a copy of Cube, so I don't want to watch
Speaker 2: a second one and maybe spoil the first one for myself.
Speaker 2: I don't know, didn't know if they'd connect or anything
Speaker 2: like that. So yeah, I'll be able to watch that
Speaker 2: now thanks to this. What I will say is about
Speaker 2: what the last reviewer said from Empire, where they said
Speaker 2: a lot of sci fi features try and go too
Speaker 2: big in scope when they've got very little budget. I
Speaker 2: hate to constantly bring this back, but on our sister
Speaker 2: show VGMP, we did Doom Annihilation and we had that
Speaker 2: that was the one that kind of did the opposite
Speaker 2: of this. So whereas this had little budget so it
Speaker 2: confined itself to a small space, Doom Annihilation tried to
Speaker 2: do way too much with the budget it had, which
Speaker 2: was bigger than budget than this, but still not enough
Speaker 2: for the scope it tried to do. So it's interesting
Speaker 2: to get the two polar opposites where I kind of
Speaker 2: had a very similar vibe from this. I respect it
Speaker 2: because it goes hard for what it tries to do
Speaker 2: on the minimal budget it's got. So it's just interesting
Speaker 2: to see that a reviewer picked up on that. Where
Speaker 2: you have the two opposit's, you have the indie movie
Speaker 2: that tries to go too hard on tiny budget, and
Speaker 2: you got the indie movie that understands its budget's too small,
Speaker 2: so it really reduces down and in this case, it
Speaker 2: basically pairs it down to just a cube, which is
Speaker 2: very interesting. I had seen this once before.
Speaker 1: I wanted to see it for a very long time,
Speaker 1: and it was just one of those films that I
Speaker 1: never got around to. And then a couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: me and my partner we did a Halloween night thing
Speaker 1: and one of the films that she showed me was
Speaker 1: this one, which I was very grateful to finally get
Speaker 1: a chance to see.
Speaker 2: A really good way.
Speaker 1: To see it was getting to experience it with her.
Speaker 1: And it's a little different to what I had pictured
Speaker 1: in my head because I hadn't realized how low.
Speaker 2: Budget it was when I heard about it.
Speaker 1: The film has, if I may start the conversation, the
Speaker 1: film has a very indie feel. And what I mean
Speaker 1: by that is when you see enough low budget in films,
Speaker 1: and I've seen quite a few just from going to
Speaker 1: film festivals and knowing indie filmmakers, and I enjoy watching
Speaker 1: indie projects. There's a certain feel that they all have
Speaker 1: in common. It's a lack of polish that separates them
Speaker 1: from Hollywood movies.
Speaker 4: It's lacking gloss.
Speaker 1: That can sometimes work in the film's favor and sometimes
Speaker 1: can work against it.
Speaker 4: It's why horrors generally do better when they're not big.
Speaker 2: Budget, because the lack of gloss is what makes the
Speaker 2: horror work better.
Speaker 1: Yeah, horror films that look too nice and clean don't
Speaker 1: work cube, I don't deny.
Speaker 2: The reviewer pointed.
Speaker 1: Out that the acting is quite shoddy in some places,
Speaker 1: the writing is very ham fisted in some places, and
Speaker 1: yet the film is enjoyable. This is the second time
Speaker 1: I've seen it. I wasn't bored, I was gripped. I
Speaker 1: wasn't checking my watch, which you know yourself, Rory. I
Speaker 1: have been known to do that sometimes, is sit watching
Speaker 1: a film being like, oh, come on, how far through
Speaker 1: this are we now?
Speaker 2: But what did you think? Like first impressions of the film. So,
Speaker 2: my overall first impressions of the film, having never seen
Speaker 2: it before, is that it is actually very good. I
Speaker 2: hate the fact that we have to say this because
Speaker 2: you shouldn't have to, but it is an indie film
Speaker 2: realistically in terms of its budget level, So you have
Speaker 2: to accommodate for that. When you watch it, and a
Speaker 2: lot of audiences don't. They'll sit there and go, well,
Speaker 2: this doesn't look like it's got as much budget as
Speaker 2: Man Versus was it Man of Steel? And it was like, no,
Speaker 2: because it doesn't. But this is better, not even in
Speaker 2: the same ball park of quality. This is way better.
Speaker 2: The sets look good. They don't look great. There is
Speaker 2: you could tell a little bit that some of the
Speaker 2: metal quote unquote is would certainly in the door mechanisms.
Speaker 2: But you know what, for the budget you got, it
Speaker 2: still looked great, and you can only really tell on
Speaker 2: certain extreme close ups.
Speaker 4: The metal parts that are metal look really good.
Speaker 2: I never quite understood how those plastic buttons were sharp
Speaker 2: enough to scratch into the metal constantly, especially after they've
Speaker 2: been sucking them.
Speaker 4: All the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was a bit odd.
Speaker 4: It's like, these are the sharpest fucking buttons I've ever seen.
Speaker 2: But overall, it is difficult because they have they've done
Speaker 2: what you I don't know if you've done this game.
Speaker 2: You probably have, but I've done it. In trying to
Speaker 2: write certain films, you limit your scope because you know
Speaker 2: you can't afford the scope. They've clearly done that. The
Speaker 2: difficulty with that is when you have to limit the scope.
Speaker 2: They've done it in a very brilliant way in terms
Speaker 2: of its setting, in terms of you know where best
Speaker 2: to spend the money. The difficulty, ads the reviews have said,
Speaker 2: is you tend to write yourself into a corner for
Speaker 2: lack of a I'm not trying to be a pub there.
Speaker 2: It's a cube, but you kind of write yourself into
Speaker 2: a corner with the character development, because now all you
Speaker 2: have is the characters, which is why you ended up
Speaker 2: with some of those reviewers who probably expected a little
Speaker 2: bit more of a gorefest getting disappointed when you saw
Speaker 2: two really cool deaths. The deaths by the Cube are amazing,
Speaker 2: and then the rest of it is they're kind of
Speaker 2: killed by each other in I guess, sort of a
Speaker 2: commentary about how humanity will devour itself if left in
Speaker 2: a cube. The question is, I don't know what I
Speaker 2: could have done differently with this to improve that. I
Speaker 2: think people saying the acting is terrible are overblowing it.
Speaker 2: It's not high quality in terms of you can tell
Speaker 2: their TV actors not film actors. But again, you're looking
Speaker 2: at this budget, you're not gonna get some of the
Speaker 2: best actors of all time come into something that has less,
Speaker 2: doesn't even have a million dollar budget. Even if you
Speaker 2: double the budget, you wouldn't get to a million dollars
Speaker 2: because it was three hundred and fifty thousand doubled to
Speaker 2: seven hundred thousand, seven hundred thousand when you count in
Speaker 2: all of the deferred payments there, right, So even with that,
Speaker 2: or even if they had spent the whole lot in
Speaker 2: one chunk, you still wouldn't have hit a million dollars.
Speaker 2: You're not getting top celebs for that. So I can
Speaker 2: understand people being disappointed if they're coming in expecting celebrities,
Speaker 2: if they're expecting a continuous gore fest. But I will
Speaker 2: give you this, the plot can be quite smart. The
Speaker 2: stuff with the mathematics really really intrigued me.
Speaker 1: The film front loads its two best death sequences right
Speaker 1: near the beginning of the movie, which is the smart
Speaker 1: thing to do when you don't have a lot of
Speaker 1: budget and you need to hook people in straight away.
Speaker 1: The opening is fantastic. It would obviously be repeated years
Speaker 1: later by the film ghost Ship that does the exact
Speaker 1: same thing, where it has.
Speaker 2: A cold open of people. This time. The only difference
Speaker 2: is it's multiple people and.
Speaker 1: It's just a single cheese wire that goes across if
Speaker 1: I remember right, but same thing.
Speaker 2: It bisects everybody.
Speaker 1: They've clearly, they clearly spent a good chunk of change
Speaker 1: on that sequence, knowing that it's very important to hook
Speaker 1: the audience in early.
Speaker 4: You're selling it, you're shop this is the story.
Speaker 1: Once you've got those two death sequences in, and this
Speaker 1: is why it becomes a double edged sword. You've done
Speaker 1: the right thing because you've hooked the horror fans, but
Speaker 1: you've also.
Speaker 2: Kind of done the wrong thing because you then don't
Speaker 2: pay that off later. Yeah, you're basically going, Okay, you've
Speaker 2: had that.
Speaker 1: Now, now deal with a completely different film, and hopefully
Speaker 1: that worked for people, which obviously it did for some people.
Speaker 1: There is the acting is when I looked at the
Speaker 1: production of this movie, and basically because the budget was solo,
Speaker 1: the actors basically had very very little prep time. So
Speaker 1: that probably explains why there's a handful of line readings
Speaker 1: in this that are bad, Like they're just bad, they're
Speaker 1: over the top and ham fisted.
Speaker 2: But script as well though, because there's certain points where
Speaker 2: a situation will just suddenly escalate. Yes, and I've been
Speaker 2: added in and it's like, okay, you pay that off later,
Speaker 2: but the escalation felt too sharp.
Speaker 1: Yes, That's what I was also going to say, was
Speaker 1: that when I said earlier about there's a certain indie feel,
Speaker 1: the script is where that indie feel comes in the
Speaker 1: most because and again I'm not saying it's a bad script,
Speaker 1: but I've noticed from a lot of indie films I watch,
Speaker 1: I know I've made the I know I've made this
Speaker 1: mistake myself. We're making indie films, there is a focus
Speaker 1: on well, I need my film to be saying something,
Speaker 1: sometimes to the detriment of pacing an escalation and things
Speaker 1: like that. So the film kind of has this ham
Speaker 1: fisted commentary on nialism. And so, for example, there's a
Speaker 1: line I wrote when they all start arguing and it's
Speaker 1: Worth and Quentin are having this argument, and Quentin's down
Speaker 1: on Worth because Worth's kind of just not doing anything
Speaker 1: and he's every time it gave up immediately, didn't Hey, Yeah,
Speaker 1: And Quentin says to him, not all of us have
Speaker 1: the luxury of nehialism. Worth responds, not all of us
Speaker 1: are conceited enough to play hero. You then get another
Speaker 1: bit later on where they're talking about the banality of
Speaker 1: evil and how this no system. It's just a self
Speaker 1: perpetuating Sorry, there's no one in charge.
Speaker 2: Of the system. It's a self perpetuating system.
Speaker 4: Well it was.
Speaker 2: There's the suggestion that it's kind of the system has
Speaker 2: been made almost by accident, by someone had some idea
Speaker 2: somewhere and they've probably left the project god knows how
Speaker 2: long ago, but it's just been perpetuated by red tape,
Speaker 2: with little people getting little bits of a project, and
Speaker 2: it just ended up building itself because.
Speaker 1: We can't we can't ever point out that the system
Speaker 1: doesn't work, because when you point out the system doesn't work,
Speaker 1: the whole system collapses. That's all good stuff to have
Speaker 1: in the film, but it's done in a heavyhanded way
Speaker 1: that I recognize from indie style writing.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's bits where character ramp so I know you
Speaker 2: were going to probably mention this later, but there's a
Speaker 2: bit where Quentin is challenged by Holloway, and she's Holloway
Speaker 2: is basically a conspiracy theory nut job in a weird way,
Speaker 2: as and Quentin is the man of the law. You know,
Speaker 2: our police officer, I have to do the things so
Speaker 2: that all you guys are basically safe. And during this exchange,
Speaker 2: she's arguing that he's part of the system. She brings
Speaker 2: up a sore point where his wife left him with
Speaker 2: his three kids, and then just randomly just throws in
Speaker 2: there because you like to fuck little girls, and You're like,
Speaker 2: there's no build up to miss step.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the way it's thrown out there.
Speaker 2: Quentin's then basically takes that to Hartley's just like, oh
Speaker 2: my god, Like it's almost like he's been rumbled that
Speaker 2: he likes young women. And you're like, but there is
Speaker 2: no precursor.
Speaker 1: Now later on there is later on he gets quite rapet, yes,
Speaker 1: towards the colder ball.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but there was no build to it, unless I misstep.
Speaker 2: I think that line was thrown in there to make
Speaker 2: the ending make sense, but it didn't make sense where
Speaker 2: they put the explanation.
Speaker 4: But also, I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Be can I just you didn't need it, because quite honestly,
Speaker 2: if they hadn't, if they cut the line and they
Speaker 2: hadn't done it, and it got to the end and
Speaker 2: he started being rape you and the colder ball I
Speaker 2: still would have understood. It felt a bit like they
Speaker 2: didn't quite trust the audience to know why this guy
Speaker 2: suddenly was getting primal, But you could see it in
Speaker 2: him here.
Speaker 4: It was performance was giving that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was already getting the conflict with her calling
Speaker 1: him a Nazi because he's obviously, as you say, he's
Speaker 1: representing the authority, the system as it currently exists. Worth
Speaker 1: obviously represents nialism, and Holloway obviously is this conspiracy that
Speaker 1: recognizes that the people in authority are manipulating everybody else.
Speaker 2: But then you have an interesting.
Speaker 1: Dynamic between her and Quentin where she takes good care
Speaker 1: of Kazan, so Kazan turns up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's clearly got learning disabilities of some kind, and
Speaker 2: she's very much the one who's looking after him, helps
Speaker 2: him get through the room where they have to be quiet.
Speaker 2: She knows how to soothe him because he when he
Speaker 2: gets overloaded, he's got these physical tics and audible ticks,
Speaker 2: and when he's in a panic and they just get extreme,
Speaker 2: she's the kind of the one that's able to calm
Speaker 2: it down.
Speaker 1: And you get this bit, and I'll tell you something,
Speaker 1: it was it's weird watching this movie now in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six because of the current political state of the world,
Speaker 1: and I've spent a lot of time on social media
Speaker 1: in the last couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: I know, yeah, I don't usually.
Speaker 1: Spend that much time on social media. And then for
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks, I've been in a position
Speaker 1: to spend a bit of time on social media and
Speaker 1: it's not been a good experience, let me tell you that.
Speaker 1: But this film feels even though it's you know, twenty
Speaker 1: thirty years old, nearly ninety seven, Jesus nearly thirty years old,
Speaker 1: it feels bang on because you've got Quentin, Like you said,
Speaker 1: he's a cop. He's very sort of take charge, very
Speaker 1: you know, at first, you're looking at as he's the
Speaker 1: hero of the film.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he would be. Yeah, sorry, in your traditional narrative,
Speaker 2: he would be your hero character.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's very much like, we've got to do this,
Speaker 1: We've got to do that, We've got to do this.
Speaker 1: And then what you start to see is whenever his
Speaker 1: authorities questioned, he doesn't like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's practical, but he's also quiet self absorbed. You
Speaker 2: then have Holloway.
Speaker 1: Holloway's looking after this neurodivergent gentleman. And you get this
Speaker 1: bit where Quentin turns.
Speaker 2: Around and basically says, people like you are ruining but basically,
Speaker 2: looking after this man is ruining our chances of survival,
Speaker 2: it's ruining the group, and you only.
Speaker 1: Care about him because you have nothing else going on
Speaker 1: in your life.
Speaker 2: And he says a bunch of sexist bollocks, which, to
Speaker 2: be fair, I've just I think he says at one point, I've.
Speaker 1: Just realized it's her line about him liking young girls
Speaker 1: after that, because that might be the thing that tips
Speaker 1: her off and dried up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Oh that's it.
Speaker 1: And she's not that old either, No, she's she's really not.
Speaker 1: And he says a bunch of sexist stuff. And that
Speaker 1: is something I have seen on social media in the
Speaker 1: last couple of weeks that has really brought me down.
Speaker 1: Is there are literally people arguing at the moment on
Speaker 1: social media that empathy is weakness and that the thing
Speaker 1: destroying society is that we're looking after the less capable.
Speaker 2: And that's disgusting. Yeah, And I think the other thing
Speaker 2: as well that connects with Quentin in that sense is
Speaker 2: that usually that mentality comes from people that call themselves
Speaker 2: as scientifically disproven theorem that they are alpha males, And
Speaker 2: he definitely has that alpha male thing where it's like,
Speaker 2: I'm practical, you know, of course I like the younger ladies.
Speaker 2: Of course there's this empathy is a problem, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: But when he's actually it doesn't take very much Like
Speaker 2: as much as he thinks he's the most solid guy
Speaker 2: in the group, it doesn't actually take very much challenge
Speaker 2: for him to immediately break no. And Holloway calls him
Speaker 2: on that because she says, no, wonder your wife left
Speaker 2: you with all that bottled upanga and it is. It's
Speaker 2: this fury that's just been bottled up from all these
Speaker 2: imagined slights over the years.
Speaker 4: He can't seem to get over himself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's really interesting and it's a sensitive topic. Quentin's
Speaker 1: the only black member.
Speaker 2: Of the cast. Yes, and I'm thinking this is accidental,
Speaker 2: But I think I know what you're gonna say.
Speaker 1: No, No, I think it is accidental as well. I think
Speaker 1: they've I literally think they've cast well. I read about it.
Speaker 1: They just cast him because he was the best guy
Speaker 1: in the audition and he does well. But it's interesting
Speaker 1: because I feel like nowadays, you wouldn't have that be
Speaker 1: the black character. You would definitely have that be a
Speaker 1: white guy because of the A, the racism problem in
Speaker 1: the police. But b it just reinforces the narrative of
Speaker 1: all these angry white men who've got all the predominantly
Speaker 1: white I'm not saying it's all white, but all these
Speaker 1: imagined slights on them, where they're like, oh, well, women
Speaker 1: have got the right to vote now, and that's affected
Speaker 1: my rights, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: It hasn't.
Speaker 1: They're obviously being sad and pathetic. But do you see
Speaker 1: what I mean, it's an unusual choice.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's a bad choice.
Speaker 4: The archetype has changed.
Speaker 2: So back then it would the archetype was just if
Speaker 2: you're part of the system and the cop. But nowadays
Speaker 2: you wouldn't do right. So you're the archetype. You're there,
Speaker 2: you're the authority guy and the cop, and you're black.
Speaker 2: They go, oh, hang on, let's not let's not put
Speaker 2: the black guy in that role because that gives the
Speaker 2: wrong political message.
Speaker 1: Well, I just meant I think it would reinforce the
Speaker 1: message you're going for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, So what I meant was because the the
Speaker 2: archetype now would be that it's a white guy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you'd go with It'd be like making Homelander black. It would,
Speaker 2: it would tart. The character could still work, But there's
Speaker 2: something about it's the difference with archetypes and stereotypes, but
Speaker 2: there's a thinly veiled line between the two. Archetypes are
Speaker 2: changeable over time, but those archetypes are essentially shorthand visual shorthand.
Speaker 2: So by making him a white guy instead of a
Speaker 2: black guy, you create visual shorthand for this is a
Speaker 2: guy who's always been in a position of power, whereas
Speaker 2: by making him a black guy you kind of eliminate
Speaker 2: that slightly. And I'm not saying it's right or wrong
Speaker 2: whichever way you go about it. It is just interesting
Speaker 2: how society has changed within that thirty year period.
Speaker 4: Two.
Speaker 2: I don't think you would cast in this manner now.
Speaker 1: But like I said, I do think it's amazing and
Speaker 1: scary how this film that is thirty years old feels
Speaker 1: like it is playing problems that we're having now. It
Speaker 1: feels almost prescient.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot older films than this that still
Speaker 2: feel pressient.
Speaker 1: I watched probably tells you that society never really changes.
Speaker 2: Well, isn't that a depressing fact? So? Yes and no,
Speaker 2: the details change, but the overall concepts tend not to.
Speaker 2: I think so generally, if you push towards sort of
Speaker 2: a more fascistic way of working, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 2: the fascism is, doesn't matter who's doing the fascism, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't really look traditionally we're looking at, you know, why,
Speaker 2: your own centric nations that were the fascists, you know,
Speaker 2: the Hitler, the Nazis, et cetera, et cetera. But if
Speaker 2: you did a completely different group within a completely different
Speaker 2: time and they had a completely different group of people
Speaker 2: that they were fascistic against, even people within their society,
Speaker 2: that's details that all changes. The mindset that gets you
Speaker 2: there is the same. The mindset is the other ring.
Speaker 2: It's the us versus them. It's the this person is
Speaker 2: less of a human than me, and that even the
Speaker 2: details might change as to the reasons why they're less
Speaker 2: than you, but the mindset is still they are less
Speaker 2: and black legion is it must be getting near one
Speaker 2: hundred years old. Does the same story still works. There's
Speaker 2: you know a lot of films of that era that
Speaker 2: were on the rise of Hitler, were making movie statements
Speaker 2: about how negative this was that still worked today, and
Speaker 2: they just we just kind of cycle through them. There
Speaker 2: are changes, you know obvious one hundred years well, women
Speaker 2: only got the vote in the UK in nineteen eighteen,
Speaker 2: so you know, if you were to go one hundred
Speaker 2: years back from there, there would be a huge difference
Speaker 2: saying women's rights in that hundred years. But the idea
Speaker 2: of there being a group of people that think women
Speaker 2: don't deserve it would not change, and their reasons for
Speaker 2: it would not change. There would still be an us
Speaker 2: versus them. That person is an underclass for whatever the
Speaker 2: reasons may be. So I think that's it's insane that
Speaker 2: that's still a thing now though, Oh I know you,
Speaker 2: I couldn't believe it when I was reading these posts
Speaker 2: on social media. I think what it is is I'm
Speaker 2: not sure if it's getting worse or if it's still
Speaker 2: just the same small minority of assholes. It's more of
Speaker 2: a platform, but they get more of a platform because
Speaker 2: of the way algorithms work. You know, well, you hate this,
Speaker 2: you replied to it, Therefore it works for you to
Speaker 2: have some more here's some more people saying it nothing.
Speaker 2: Nothing gets attention on the internet.
Speaker 4: Like rage yeah, rage bait.
Speaker 1: So going back to the film, then, I think one
Speaker 1: of the things the film does really well is the
Speaker 1: way it's paced, Like I said, it's never boring, the
Speaker 1: way it drip feeds you the information really works because
Speaker 1: obviously you start, like a lot of these types of films, start,
Speaker 1: a bunch of characters dumped in a room. How did
Speaker 1: we get here? How do we get out? They're the
Speaker 1: two primary questions. Then you figure out the rules, which
Speaker 1: is certain rooms are booby trapped and we're going to die.
Speaker 2: They established the clock on it right away.
Speaker 1: You have Holloway points out how long they can survive
Speaker 1: with that food and water, So you know there's a
Speaker 1: clock on it straight away, which is they've got to
Speaker 1: get out within three days or else their minds will
Speaker 1: become too cloudy to actually orient themselves and their bodies
Speaker 1: will end up being two weak to actually carry themselves.
Speaker 1: You then do a really good thing, which not enough
Speaker 1: films do this anymore, which is you establish a set
Speaker 1: of rules, but they're established on a false assumption that
Speaker 1: later gets the term yeah. And it's a perfect example
Speaker 1: of they see correlation does an equal causation. They notice
Speaker 1: a correlation with the prime numbers and the booby trapped rooms,
Speaker 1: so they just apply that to the whole cube, only
Speaker 1: to later discover, oh no, this doesn't work. They also
Speaker 1: set up all the way through the film you periodically
Speaker 1: get this rumbling that they call thunder. But actually what
Speaker 1: you end up learning around the start of act three
Speaker 1: is that actually the cue, which obviously is made up
Speaker 1: of multiple other cubes I think seventeen thousand and something like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they do work out this specifically, they're moving, Yeah, they're rearranging.
Speaker 2: So you end up with a really good bit where
Speaker 2: they end up back in the room they started in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, no, back in the room where Wren died.
Speaker 2: Yes, and they're just like.
Speaker 1: What the fuck, We've gone in a circle. The way
Speaker 1: it drip feeds in these new rules of how the
Speaker 1: cube works is very evenly spaced in a way that
Speaker 1: means the film constantly feels like it's moving in a
Speaker 1: way that it would be very easy in a film
Speaker 1: like this to fuck that up and just end up
Speaker 1: with a film that feels static and boring.
Speaker 2: Also, it never, unlike some of the emotional parts that
Speaker 2: we've spoken about when they learn that new thing that
Speaker 2: actually helps them with the narrative of getting out, that
Speaker 2: never feels like it's come out of nowhere, it always
Speaker 2: feels earned. So that side of the narrative always works
Speaker 2: fine for me Quentin's heel as well. I think it
Speaker 2: is seeded.
Speaker 1: It probably ramps up a little too fast in terms
Speaker 1: of the moment where he snaps it.
Speaker 4: He literally turns huge villain, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: It literally goes from a guy who just keeps losing
Speaker 1: his temper to outright murderer slash rapist, but like with
Speaker 1: a clicking.
Speaker 2: Because he's at the moment he does it, he's literally
Speaker 2: saving someone, doing the right thing. And then it's just
Speaker 2: like but the moment, the moment then a villain, but
Speaker 2: all the way.
Speaker 1: But that moment itself is good where he's holding Holloway,
Speaker 1: they look at each other, You're like, oh good.
Speaker 2: He's a little more than that before that moment, Yeah,
Speaker 2: because they've only had the one fight.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Although I mean, I suppose she does say some pretty
Speaker 1: I say pretty horrible stuff obviously is true. So there
Speaker 1: is nothing that there's nothing that a narcissist hates more
Speaker 1: than being actually seen.
Speaker 2: For what they are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, obviously not to be seen obviously, but they like
Speaker 1: the image they project to be what people see.
Speaker 4: They die that can see through it.
Speaker 2: I am an officer of the law. I'm here to
Speaker 2: save people. I do the right thing.
Speaker 1: And it's actually no, No, You're an angry little man
Speaker 1: whose wife left him and who likes young women, and
Speaker 1: because Holloway can see him, he has to eliminate her.
Speaker 2: Do you think maybe, because it's very clear straight off
Speaker 2: that Quentin likes nicolea Boor's character Leven, but it's before
Speaker 2: the point where you get the whole you like the
Speaker 2: little girl's thing. It's very it seems it felt to
Speaker 2: me that he liked her in the sense of this
Speaker 2: is someone who is useful, so it kind of fit
Speaker 2: into his and this would have been a good way
Speaker 2: to hide it. It fit into his hole where you're practical,
Speaker 2: which is why he didn't like the guy with the
Speaker 2: neurodivergence because he was potentially a threat to their survival,
Speaker 2: but he likes her because she's the key to his survival.
Speaker 1: Didn't he literally have a line where he said he
Speaker 1: can't be controlled or something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you've got that, but I think there needed
Speaker 2: to be a little bit more between him and Leven
Speaker 2: before he does the heel turn up. Well, they're still
Speaker 2: kind of getting through it that they kind of don't
Speaker 2: get close, and not in a romantic way, but like
Speaker 2: their friendliness, they become almost a little bit more friendly.
Speaker 2: So as they solve himselves so oh great, and they
Speaker 2: have like a quick hug or something, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we've got it. So you get this companionship sort of
Speaker 2: thing even as just friends. So that then it becomes
Speaker 2: obviously he's not doing that with anyone else who's useful,
Speaker 2: and then that's where that would be a better way
Speaker 2: to introduce the whole Well, you just like little girls,
Speaker 2: because you've not done that with me, You've not done
Speaker 2: that with the two guys. You've only been that kind
Speaker 2: of touchy feely with her.
Speaker 1: And the interesting thing obviously about Quentin as a character
Speaker 1: is he is the only person in.
Speaker 2: The cube who is useless.
Speaker 1: He makes all the shouting and the song and the dance,
Speaker 1: and well he's the he That's why he takes on
Speaker 1: the leader role is because he has nothing. All he
Speaker 1: has is his strength and his bluster. But in actual fact,
Speaker 1: they can't get anywhere without Leven. No, they can't get
Speaker 1: anywhere without Kazan. Kazan and Leven can't do any of
Speaker 1: their calculations without Worth's information.
Speaker 2: And Kazan needs Holloway to look after him. So caregivers
Speaker 2: are important. She's a doctor, she's a caregiver.
Speaker 1: Mathematicians are important, Architects are important.
Speaker 2: Police officers aren't important, not necessarily police officers.
Speaker 1: Authoritarian just authoritariate leaders are very and how often do
Speaker 1: you see it leaders who actually contribute nothing to an
Speaker 1: actual project themselves.
Speaker 2: Can I create a slight counterpoint on the I agree
Speaker 2: with you that that's that's the statement the film is making.
Speaker 2: The only problem with that statement from this film in
Speaker 2: particular is that during the arguments that Holloway has with
Speaker 2: Worth about the development of the cube system is there's
Speaker 2: the argument of there is no oversight and that's devastating.
Speaker 2: But if you don't have the leader role, you have
Speaker 2: no oversight.
Speaker 1: But I would argue that is that's making the point
Speaker 1: is there are leaders, because we know in society there are,
Speaker 1: but none of them are actually looking at what they're
Speaker 1: signing off, or maybe they're just signing off on it
Speaker 1: and going, yeah, let's keep another.
Speaker 2: Without Quentin at the start. If you removed Quentin from
Speaker 2: the film, would these guys have actually worked together to
Speaker 2: get anywhere? Good point? So was his role actually useful
Speaker 2: and then he just basically expired out of his usefulness
Speaker 2: when they felt close enough to work together. That would
Speaker 2: that might have been I don't think this film has
Speaker 2: anything to say about that necessarily, but it would that
Speaker 2: might have been an maybe Cube two does. I don't know,
Speaker 2: but that might have been an interesting track to look at.
Speaker 1: I don't know for definite, but I have a sneaking
Speaker 1: suspicion Cube two will be to Cube.
Speaker 2: One, what Saw two is to Saw one? Right? Which
Speaker 2: is it just different? Which is it just go Hey,
Speaker 2: it's all about the.
Speaker 1: Traps now right, Okay, we've got money we can afford Gore,
Speaker 1: let's forget let's forget building the actual good story and
Speaker 1: the twists and shit, and let's just see what gross
Speaker 1: ways we can call up with to kill people. I
Speaker 1: could be wrong, though I haven't seen Cube two. Hypercube no,
Speaker 1: neither of the fact it's called hypercube makes me feel
Speaker 1: I can.
Speaker 2: Right though, something I would have liked to have seen
Speaker 2: so There's there's a character right at the start. It's
Speaker 2: our cold opening. A guy wakes up, sees what's going on.
Speaker 2: His name is Alderson played by Julian Richings, gets leaves
Speaker 2: one cube, goes into another, and gets murdered immediately. That's
Speaker 2: the cold open. Actually, say, if the idea is that
Speaker 2: each of these had a point of being there for
Speaker 2: a reason, you could still argue Quentin had a purpose
Speaker 2: in getting the gang together. Then the only thing I
Speaker 2: can think of for him is audience related, because they
Speaker 2: should have at some point come across something that they
Speaker 2: could have gone well, there is obviously a way to
Speaker 2: get through this, but none of us have the skills
Speaker 2: to do it, so they have to backtrack the other way,
Speaker 2: because he would have had the skills for that.
Speaker 1: Possibly, Yeah, I didn't interpret it that way, but yeah,
Speaker 1: could have been.
Speaker 2: I think, I'll be honest, I think they put him
Speaker 2: in there just as a cold open. He was I
Speaker 2: assumed he was from a previous group.
Speaker 1: I assume there's a time jump between him dying and
Speaker 1: the rest of them waking.
Speaker 4: Up, potentially because they never find his chunks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are a couple of bits in the film
Speaker 2: that can't be helped.
Speaker 1: It's to do with the low budget. There's a couple
Speaker 1: of bits of yanky filmmaking. There's a few edits that
Speaker 1: are not very good.
Speaker 4: It has some very TV like editing at points.
Speaker 2: I'd be like where a commercial break will be, it'll
Speaker 2: just fade a black and then it'll appear in another scene.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and these are a handful of moments where characters
Speaker 1: teleport around a room. Yeah, it's only little bits where
Speaker 1: they've obviously cut things for time reasons. Yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: bits where like one minute of characters on the opposite
Speaker 1: side of the cube and then suddenly they're at the door.
Speaker 2: The most agregious bit is actually right at the.
Speaker 1: End where Kazan has made it out, Quentin turns up
Speaker 1: to go get him, and Worth grabs Quentin and Quentin's
Speaker 1: kind of stuck between the doorways. The actual edit of
Speaker 1: him getting grabbed. If you look these chunks of the
Speaker 1: action missing that you really needed, that makes that bit
Speaker 1: feel disconnected and it feels like they're missing because they
Speaker 1: didn't have the time to get the choreography down.
Speaker 2: I think that there's a just a smidge earlier than
Speaker 2: that is where that starts, because Kazan is at the door,
Speaker 2: but he is hanging on the inside, sees Quentin come
Speaker 2: in merk Nicole de bare and then he's got to
Speaker 2: get out the doorway. Now that's going to take a
Speaker 2: bit of time. Worth isn't up yet to grab Quentin.
Speaker 2: So Quentin's got the easier route. And yet by the
Speaker 2: time he reaches the door, Kauzan is on the outside
Speaker 2: of the cube. And I think there was maybe something
Speaker 2: that happened in there that has been edited out. Can
Speaker 2: I say one thing that did annoy me?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 1: Right at the end, they've made it to the last room,
Speaker 1: they've made it to the bridge to the outside world.
Speaker 1: They open it and they know they only have a
Speaker 1: limited time because.
Speaker 2: These cubes move.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, I would say as well one thing, but
Speaker 1: I'm happy to suspend a disbelief on this.
Speaker 2: We're mentally get to see how fast these cubes actually
Speaker 2: drop and move.
Speaker 1: There's no way they don't feel it when they're in
Speaker 1: one of the cubes that happens to be moving.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they'd feel the gravity or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but anyway, I'm happy to accept that and said
Speaker 2: that maybe they don't because they might be in space.
Speaker 4: You don't actually like all we see if the outside
Speaker 4: world is there's nothing else.
Speaker 1: I it annoyed me massively that they get the final
Speaker 1: door open and instead of just fucking going through it,
Speaker 1: they just worth just sits down and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: I've got nothing to live for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he kind of explains that, but it's really you'd
Speaker 2: be like, right, no, dude, get the fuck out first.
Speaker 4: We'll have this conversation out there.
Speaker 2: If they just went, Yeah, the cardboard doesn't die worth well,
Speaker 2: everyone dies except Kazan, don't they Yeah, all three of
Speaker 2: them get out if they just go, and they've been
Speaker 2: gone by the time Quentin gets there, so he wouldn't
Speaker 2: find them. No though he might still make it out, yeah,
Speaker 2: but he'd be at least on the outside and you've
Speaker 2: got a bit of chance to get away. Yeah, that
Speaker 2: one bit really annoyed me.
Speaker 1: That's one of them screenwriting things that is only there
Speaker 1: to delay the time it takes.
Speaker 4: I do find that annoying.
Speaker 2: There was a Star Trek Discovery episode where there's like
Speaker 2: a time limit. We've only got twenty minutes to get
Speaker 2: this person out from this ship that's stuck in. I
Speaker 2: won't go into it, but like it's stuck in some
Speaker 2: sort of space anomaly where it's going to fall through
Speaker 2: and be gone forever, so.
Speaker 4: They have to run through the ship.
Speaker 2: This guy finds his boyfriend, which is the guy he's
Speaker 2: trying to save. He gets there and he's like, oh,
Speaker 2: you're here, like let's go, and the boyfriend sits down and.
Speaker 4: It's just like why am I here? Why am I life?
Speaker 2: So he sits You got to understand that covers out
Speaker 2: like timer, timer back to the fucking guys. You just
Speaker 2: you end up sitting there getting angrier with the characters
Speaker 2: because you're like, you guys are supposed to be smart.
Speaker 4: You know there's a timer.
Speaker 2: You're literally being moronic, like, get off your ass.
Speaker 1: But basically Quentin ends up getting smushed because they trap
Speaker 1: him between the cubes as they move.
Speaker 2: Yes, that was cool. Yeah, like the way that you
Speaker 2: got his blood smear as the cube moves away and
Speaker 2: save that budget.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but it's a good way of doing it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, But no, you didn't see the upper half
Speaker 2: of him through the window that was left because it
Speaker 2: would be realistically, But you know what, that's fine. Maybe
Speaker 2: that would have satisfied some of the people coming in
Speaker 2: for a bit more gore is because technically he gets
Speaker 2: he is killed by the Cube, even though people don't
Speaker 2: count as a Cube kill because he's being held by worth.
Speaker 2: But yeah, just maybe leaving the top half of his
Speaker 2: body or leaving the bottom half of his body and
Speaker 2: having the gore there. But again, I can understand you
Speaker 2: saving the budget.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, but no, Like I said, this is the second
Speaker 1: time I've watched this.
Speaker 2: I enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought it was a nice tight ninety minutes.
Speaker 1: It passed by really quickly.
Speaker 2: I definitely want to get myself a copy of it.
Speaker 2: And yeah, yepefully Cube two will be.
Speaker 4: Just as good.
Speaker 2: It's definitely worth watching, I would say, Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: Got anything else that you want to add? Not particularly
Speaker 1: Thank you everyone for tuning in. I hope you liked
Speaker 1: hearing us talk about Cube. Have you seen Cube? What
Speaker 1: did you think about it? It sounds like we're gonna
Speaker 1: watch Cube two Hypercube at some point to see what
Speaker 1: that's like. Thank you everybody for tuning in, and we
Speaker 1: will see you next week for more.
Speaker 2: Second Take Cinema