'Never Seen It' - Episode 3 - 'Varsity Blues' has one of us seeing red

Ali Larter

And we're back! Liz Rosado and I are at it again with another installment of our earnest attempt at podcasting -- "Never Seen It."

For our first time listeners, Liz and I pick a relatively well-known movie which neither of us have seen before, watch it and then share our impressions with each other for the first time on tape.

First we did the John Hughes classic Some Kind of Wonderful, then we watched Vin Diesel's XXX. For this episode, we revisited the 1999 football drama Varsity Blues.

This is our most epic episode yet, listen to the audio below and find out what we thought out this Clinton-era 'classic.'

Neither of us sound southern.

'The Lobster' defies definition, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing

Every once and a while I see a film I can't quite figure out that defies explanation. The Lobster is one of those films.

It's an uneasy mix of some truly unsettling scenes, mixed with some uncomfortably funny ones.

 A lot of critics are lavishing it with praise and while I do applaud its originality, I'm not sure I'm totally on board with it.

It reminds me to some degree of Charlie Kaufman's Synecdoche, New York, another low key black comedy with some brilliant ideas that went off the rails for me.

I think I could enjoy this movie more after repeat viewings -- I can't imagine it will find much of a mainstream audience but I do think it could become a midnight movie staple.

The first half is fantastic. Taking place in some kind of alternative universe, an against-type Colin Farrell plays a socially awkward schlub who checks into (or is forced to enter? it's never clear) a creepy hotel where you have to meet and marry someone or risk turning into an animal (albeit of your choice) after just 45 days.

Comparisons to Kubrick are apt -- from the cold, but beautifully-composed shots to the intially detached narrator who appears to be ironically commenting on the action. Characters almost all speak in a robotic, deadpan way -- which may grow grating for some viewers -- but it at least reflects a consistency of vision.

Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz in The Lobster

At about the midway point though the movie starts to feel a little rudderless (and overlong). It never becomes boring but I feel like I lost the thread of what this film was trying to say. If its goal was to keep viewers off-kilter, it achieved that but its jarring bursts of violence and at times horror-like score felt, on occasion, like weirdness for the sake of weirdness.

Farrell deserves some credit for stretching, and he has some very impressive comedic scenes -- but I also couldn't help but feel like he was an odd choice. The supporting cast fares much better for me on first viewing, especially John C. Reilly -- who is much more adept at the timing this kind of film requires -- and Olivia Colman, who will be familiar to fans of the great British sitcom Peep Show, gives a scene-stealing performance in what I would describe as the "Tilda Swinton role."

It's such a hard thing for me to gauge, that line between ambition and self-indulgence. I am always more receptive to a movie that swings for the fences and misses than a movie that relies on tired tropes and panders to its audience. And The Lobster definitely doesn't do anything like the latter.

I was expecting a movie on the same wavelength as Her, and this movie manages to be far less accessible and charming than that movie was. The tone is both monotonous and caustic. There are times when it felt like I was watching an inside joke that I wasn't in on. And yet I couldn't help but discuss the film after it ended (speaking of which, perhaps the one thing that is predictable about the movie is that it ends in a Sopranos-like offbeat note).

This film creates a whole world of its own that probably raises more questions than answers -- it would make for an intriguing TV series or a novel. As a film, I feel like it can't be easily dismissed, but it also isn't easily digested.

'Money Monster' is not a total misfire, just a missed opportunity

The times seem to be ripe for a politically-charged thriller with anti-Wall Street overtones, but the new film Money Monster really isn't that kind of movie.

It's a perfectly watchable, competent movie with George Clooney delivering yet another one his charismatic star turns, the kind he can probably do in his sleep at this point. It's not a bad movie, but it could have been a great one, which is why it's maddening on some levels.

The premise is strong. A shallow, egotistical Jim Cramer-style host of a financial advice show (played by Clooney) gets held hostage by a viewer he unintentionally led astray.

Now, if only the antagonist had been truly formidable or actress Jodie Foster's direction been a little more imaginative, and this film could have been a classic.

Foster as an actress has a distinct rhythm and power, but her directorial work here has no voice or style. So the heavy lifting mostly falls on Clooney, who is as game as ever in the lead role (Julia Roberts is fine in a mostly thankless second lead). After walking out of this movie I came to believe that the film's biggest flaw/mistake is the casting of the relatively unknown Jack O'Connell as his would-be kidnapper.

It's not that O'Connell gives a terrible performance. He does a decent job with a pretty underwritten role. But this part really cried out for another star of Clooney's caliber. It would have been very cool to see him match wits with Denzel Washington or maybe even a whacked-out Jake Gyllenhaal.

O'Connell and Clooney

This even could have been a case where casting someone to type would have made a lot more sense cinematically.

Put someone like Michael Shannon in the role of the enraged, aggrieved interloper and I've already got goosebumps. It's a part that could have used a little over-the-top intensity.

O'Connell is too innocent and cherubic to ever really create a sense of danger. I never really saw him as a physical threat to Clooney, and so scenes that are meant to be crackling with tension never really generate too much excitement. Things start to kick into higher gear by the film's third act, but it feels almost like too little too late.

Clooney has been going through a bit of slump lately. Both The Monuments Men and Tomorrowland earned mixed reviews and were considered somewhat disappointing at the box office, and although Hail, Caesar was a critical hit, audiences avoided it in droves.

Money Monster will hardly go down as one of his most memorable movies, but I hope he doesn't stop making this kind of adult, non-special-effects-driven film any time soon. He remains one of our few remaining classic movie stars, who almost always delivers smart entertainment.

And for my money, that's always worth the price of a ticket.

'Captain America: Civil War' has me surrendering to Marvel

Just when I ready to start dismissing Marvel movie as tired and predictable, along comes Captain America: Civil War like a breath of fresh air, and lo and behold, my faith in these genre movies has been restored.

I am not ready to declare it the best Marvel movie ever; it's hard to compare with the fizzy fun and excitement that 2008's Iron Man provided when it kickstarted this cycle of films, or 2012's The Avengers, which brought everything full circle.

Still, it is easily one of the best offerings of this universe to date, and it succeeds by making the common sense decision to focus on concocting a strong, coherent story first and then worrying about fan service later.

I am not familiar with the Civil War plotline from the comic books, and I couldn't care less about that. What I did want was a strong action movie that was both entertaining and interesting, and boy did this film deliver.

Building off of the ominous tone and existential dread of the last Captain America film (The Winter Soldier), this new film presents a totally plausible but not heavy handed issue -- should superheroes be kept in check? Especially when their battling unintentionally costs innocent lives.

Black Panther

This debate effectively splits the Avengers in two, with each side having sympathetic motivations behind their actions. With Captain America, he's clinging to the last real shred of his former life (his corrupted best friend Bucky). On the other side, there's Iron Man (a flawless Robert Downey Jr., who seems reinvigorated here) who is sick and tired of his good deeds leading to disaster.

Instead of just pitting the characters against each other in mindless punch-fests, the filmmakers (Joe and Anthony Russo) adeptly manipulate loyalties, supply backstory and motivation, without becoming too tedious.

Then, when the action set pieces kick in, they are not just riveting visually but they have real heart, too. The action is also shot and framed beautifully, so that while a scene may seem chaotic -- it's never hard to follow or to appreciate within the logical confines of this kind of movie.

The film even finds a way to make Spider-Man seem like a fresh and new character, despite two previous iterations in just the last fourteen years. And although I did miss the banter of Thor and The Hulk, this movie does wonders with its new characters (unlike Age of Ultron, which felt a little overstuffed).

Besides Tom Holland as the new, truly teenage Spider-Man, Chadwick Boseman nearly steals the movie as the badass Black Panther and Paul Rudd makes perhaps the most audience friendly re-appearance as Ant-Man, one of the most charming of the entire Marvel gallery.

I saw this movie with an audience of kids and adults -- and everyone had a wonderful time. And that includes my fiancee, who was pretty skeptical about the movie from the start. This is what you want out of a summer movie -- kinetic action, big laughs, engaging stories with clever dialogue.

Sure, these films lack of a certain directorial vision, which I miss. I'm worried that a remarkable talent like Ryan Coogler will be neutered when he takes the reigns of a solo Black Panther film because he -- like all directors of Marvel films -- is beholden to an ongoing arc.

But in the short term, this film by any measure is a success, and the new standard by which all modern superhero films should be held to.

Why 'Over the Top' is a bad movie masterpiece

Sylvester Stallone's 1987 debacle Over the Top has nearly every hallmark of an ideal bad movie. It has great production values serving an unbelievably absurd premise, it's played very earnestly, and has so many jaw dropping shifts in mood and plot that it's hard to believe the filmmakers released it in theaters as a finished product.

In many ways the movie -- which is about a truck driver/professional arm wrestler trying to bond with (and win the custody of) his estranged son -- is the culmination of the Cannon film brand, an infamous company which churned out mostly junk in the 1980s and early-90s.

This shady company's legacy is covered extensively in the terrific documentary Electric Boogaloo. For the company, landing Stallone, who at this point was at his peak as a box office powerhouse, was a boon.

Stallone himself has admitted to signing onto the movie just to collect what was then (and now) an astronomical payday of $12 million. I imagine producers thought they cold bilk audiences into believing this would be essentially a Rocky film with arm wrestling instead of boxing, but needless to say audiences weren't buying it. Over the Top tapped out with just $16 million at the box office,

Today, on Instant Netflix, we can enjoy the film for what it is. And incredibly non-nonsensical and unintentionally hilarious folly. The movie has already inspired a classic episode of the podcast How Did This Get Made? and an amazing, funny fan-made trailer which emphasizes the arguably creepy nature of Stallone's scenes with his fictional son:



After watching this turkey a few times, I believe it deserves a place in the pantheon of bad movies alongside The Room and Showgirls. Almost everything about this movie has a misguided charm -- from Stallone's character's name (Lincoln Hawk (frequently mispronounced as Hawkes)), to the direct-to-camera, documentary-style interviews, which include this gem of a monologue:

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

There's Stallone's ex-wife, who is dying of some mystery ailment that is never explained and who seems to enjoy a very good relationship with her ex-husband despite the fact she purposely kept their son out of his life, again for reasons that are never explained.

There's Robert Loggia, gleefully chewing scenery as the villain, who is driven by a seemingly irrational hatred of the Stallone character and essentially holds his grandson captive to prove a point.

There's the young boy -- who starts out so pretentious and precocious you want to punch his lights out, and then metastasizes into a whining, weeping softy, whose lights you also want to punch out.

There's Stallone's character who explains little and understands almost nothing. Besides the monologue above, my favorite moment with him in this movie is when he forces his kid to take on a money wager over an arm wrestling match. When his son winds up winning, he calmly inserts "pay up now" amid the celebration, this is GIF-worthy to say the least.

And then there's the last act arm wrestling competition, which has some of the most colorful looking and acting nutjobs you'll ever see in a movie. Again, this all merges into "so terrible its good" territory and unlike a lot of plain old bad movies, it's never boring -- just incredibly ludicrous.

Anyone who enjoys excess and gaping plot holes should do themselves a favor and stream this souffle of ineptitude. It's a reminder of a quaint bygone era, but also a film with more laughs than your average, modern mainstream comedy.

'Green Room': The best movie of 2016 so far, it deserves to be a hit

Every once and a while a movie comes out with little fanfare, well before "awards season" and just knocks your socks off.

For me, last year it was the new horror classic It Follows, and now it's the wild and grisly Green Room, a remarkable new thriller with real resonance.

We are living in an age where white supremacists groups are on the rise and appear to have infiltrated the campaign of the presumptive Republican nominee for president, so this shocking film -- which portrays a punk rock band being held captive by a shadowy group of white nationalists -- is oddly timely.

Not since Misery can I recall a film with horror elements that feel so credible. The characters in this film don't make dopey, unrealistic choices. They don't needlessly put themselves in danger. In this film, the terror just finds them; and like the protagonists, the audience is on the edge of their seat watching the mayhem unfold.

The director of this film, Jeremy Saulnier, was also behind 2013's Blue Ruin, another unpredictable (and blood-soaked) thriller, that not only showed unflinching violence, but also the consequences of that violence.

As terrific as that film was, Green Room manages to top it with heaps of white knuckle tension, a fast pace, and likable, surprisingly funny performances from a mostly unknown or up-and-coming cast.

Patrick Stewart in Green Room

The most recognizable face in the cast belongs to veteran actor Patrick Stewart, who is transformed here in a chilling, Oscar-worthy performance as the arch villain.

Not unlike John Goodman in this year's 10 Cloverfield Lane, this is a beloved character actor going for broke with breathtaking results.

But the real triumph here is Saulnier's. He manages to create and sustain an atmosphere of dread and plunge audiences into a largely unexplored but very real world that exists in many of our backyards.

And make no mistake about it, this is not a political film. Sure, the film is not in the least bit romantic about neo-Nazis and their culture, but it is first and foremost concerned with delivering knockout action and scares, and that it achieves in great supply.

It's no surprise that director Quentin Tarantino has taken to it so enthusiastically. The action in this movie has the kind of gut-punch quality he championed over 20 years ago with Pulp Fiction. Just like that film, Green Room deserves to be a word-of-mouth success; but unfortunately, in this age of nothing but blockbuster weekends, I fear that this movie will slip through the cracks and become a forgotten cult favorite.

It should be so much more. It's definitely not for the faint of heart -- there are several disturbing scenes of brutality in this movie. But the film is not torture porn, it's not sensationalist without substance. This is a truly Hitchcockian film, infused with punk rock and gore.

And with any luck, it will gain the audience it should. I know that it will likely be on my top list come December of this year.

Why I'm thrilled with the casting of Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo

Alden Ehrenreich

We finally have our official young Han Solo, and it's up-and-coming character actor Alden Ehrenreich.

Producers were looking at a whole slew up young heartthrobs for this role, some of which were all wrong (Miles Teller) and others seemed like they could work (Taron Egerton).

Although I haven't seen a ton of Ehrenreich's work (he is starring in Warren Beatty's long delayed, upcoming Howard Hughes biopic), I am thrilled with this casting choice.

Like most filmgoers, I saw Ehrenreich for the first time in the vastly underrated Coen Brothers movie Hail Caesar.

Although that movie boasted charismatic star turns from A-listers like George Clooney, Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum, it was Ehrenreich who stole the show for me as a dim but sweet star of western movies who gets thrust into a classy prestige drama at the last minute and can't find his footing.

Ehrenreich showed a knack for playing comedy, but he was also very likable and instantly memorable, kind of like Harrison Ford when he first sauntered onto the screen in the first Star Wars film almost 40 years ago.

I can't say that I immediately thought -- 'he'd make a great Han Solo' -- but when I heard he was being considered for the role, I certainly didn't balk either.

He's also 26 years old which is just about right for what this role calls for. Even though he looked far younger, Harrison Ford was actually 35 the first time he played Han Solo. So if this sidebar Star Wars film about Solo's exploits as a youth is going to cover how he obtained the Millennium Falcon, the legendary Kessel Run and more, Ehrenreich seems to be the appropriate age for it.

Also, because he is still relatively unknown, he doesn't bring any kind of baggage to the role that other actors might have brought. There was a period where Chris Pratt was being rumored for this part. I get it, he channeled Ford in Guardians of the Galaxy in particular, and I am a fan. But he would have been all wrong for this (and Indiana Jones, too, I might add). He is too old and too well-known to seamlessly fill the Solo vest.

That's what she said ...

I am seriously impressed with how well the new caretakers of the Star Wars franchise have navigated their new series of films. After George Lucas spent nearly a decade tarnishing the empire that he built, it's refreshing to see that real thought is being put into the casting and crafting of these new films.

And it makes perfect sense. Star Wars is an American institution at this point. The movies will make tons of money whether they are good or bad (again, look at the prequels -- or better, don't). So why not put as much effort as possible into making them actually good.

It'll still be weird for me to see anyone but Harrison Ford in this role. There will always be something about it that just doesn't feel right. I certainly hope that Ehrenreich will make some effort to emulate his mannerisms as the character if not outright imitate his iconic gravelly voice.

But father time, mortality and Ford's own reluctance to ever reprise the character again made this, I guess, a necessary evil. And any die hard Star Wars fan like me has to be at least intrigued by the prospects of having many mysteries about the character resolved and illuminated.

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until 2018 to see the finished product, but this casting news definitely has me on board.

'Never Seen It' - Episode 2 - Vin Diesel's 'XXX' is so early 2000s

Vin Diesel in XXX

And we're back! My fiancee Liz Rosado and I recorded a second episode of our experimental podcast "Never Seen It."

For the uninitiated, the premise of this show is that we both watch a film that's pretty widely known but for one reason or another the two of us have never seen before. This list is actually a lot longer than you'd think.

This go 'round, against our better judgment, we chose Vin Diesel's hit 2002 action film XXX after scrolling through Instant Netflix.

Besides its unfortunate title -- needless to say, Liz and I didn't think this movie has held up very well.

But after several incredibly successful Fast & Furious movies, Diesel is bigger than ever, literally and figuratively, and apparently he'll be returning to the XXX role with a sequel due out next year.

Click on the YouTube link below to hear our thoughts on this action-packed, and very loud, flick.

Revised opinions: Take two on 'The Winter Solider', 'Hateful Eight'

I have definitely gotten it wrong upon first viewing of any number of movies. For instance, I wasn't totally in love with Raging Bull the first time I saw it, but after two or three viewings I came to see it as the masterpiece that it is. I could bore you with a whole host of other titles that either rubbed me the wrong way the first time I saw them, or just didn't resonate with me quite like I hoped they would.

Two recent movies which fit that criteria were Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight. I re-watched both recently for the second time and have come to the conclusion that they are both terrific, in their own unique ways.

I revisited the first Captain America sequel as a primer for the new film, which is sort of an unofficial Avengers movie, which opens this weekend. I don't know if I'll be among the legions to buy a ticket to that film this weekend, but if the early reviews are to be believed, this movie is quite possibly Marvel's best yet.

I have had something of a love-hate relationship with the Marvel movies. I've really enjoyed almost all of the ones I've seen, but their assembly line nature and perpetual hyping of future films really has gotten under my skin. And although I enjoyed the most recent Avengers film, I have been wary of too many characters, and too many subplots destroying what was initially fun about this universe of movies.

When I first learned of this new film, I thought 'oh no, more of the same' -- this time they are going to somewhat mindlessly pit a bunch of heroes against each other. But apparently the results are more compelling than I assumed.

The original Captain America movie was fun, as in the case with a lot of these movies, the villain was unremarkable and unmemorable, but I loved the retro 1940s vibe of the film and it was one of the few that made its link to the rest of the Marvel films feel excited and authentic.

When the second film came out it was greeted with strong reviews, and I too appreciated its nods to paranoid thrillers of the 1970s (complete with the against-type casting of Robert Redford). But I was so put off by its last act brick laying for future installments that it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Watching it again that aspect of the film still bothered me, but a lot less than it did the first time around. This time I was more struck by how well-constructed the action set pieces were, how Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson were better utilized than they have been in past installments, and how adeptly the filmed played the Captain America character's goody-goody persona against itself.

While other superhero films are content to be snarky and larger than life, I appreciated a taut, character driven action movie, where something really is at stake.

Samuel L. Jackson and Walter Goggins in The Hateful Eight

The Hateful Eight is a very different breed altogether. A case could be made for its substance too, but it's on its surface much more of an exercise and style, and certainly not for everyone's tastes.

I wasn't sure if it was for mine either -- even though I am big Tarantino fan and defender. It's easily his most overwrought and indulgent film. You can practically feel him giggling with glee at his own dialogue and reveling in how much gore he can work his way onto the screen.

The film is something of a back to basics exercise for him -- it could almost have been a play, and it shares the most kinship with his breakthrough first film Reservoir Dogs. After the massive critical and commercial success of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained, Tarantino could probably have made any movie he wanted and that's exactly what he did.

If you approach the film with that mindset and an awareness that the film's racial and gender politics are undeniably problematic, you'll probably get a kick out of the film's luscious look and atmospheric appeal. I can't forgive some of his missteps (the distracting casting of Zoe Bell for instance) but this films has enough old-fashioned bravado that it has begun to seriously grow on me.

All of Tarantino's cinematic preoccupations are on display here -- race, revenge and an almost obsessive reverence for the past. Towards the film's final minutes, his penchant for aping the visual aesthetic of his inspirations reaches a new level -- it's positively De Palma-esque, and as an unapologetic fan of that director, who is also known for his over-the-top excess, I appreciated it.

Tarantino is also aided tremendously by a nearly flawless cast, a riveting score by the legendary Ennio Morricone, and amazing cinematography shot on real film instead of digital.

This film, pretentiously billed the "8th film by Quentin Tarantino" is not probably ever going to rank high on my list of the director's films, but it's definitely worth revisiting, now that initial hype (and controversy) has died down.

'Keanu' isn't purrfect -- but it's a hilarious throwback action comedy

Key and Peele's first feature film -- the action comedy Keanu -- doesn't really reinvent the genre, and it sadly has underperformed at the box office, but it's still a hilariously funny film and deserving of the cult following I imagine it will someday get.

The sketch comedy duo have successfully channelled their whacked-out sense of humor to a full-length feature, and even though the film stretches out very silly jokes for a long time, I was never unamused or not entertained by this movie.

It works as a stoner comedy -- even though the main characters are stone sober for most of the film.

If they're high on anything they're flying on the adrenaline of posing as professional badasses. The two comics play square hipsters who couldn't be further removed from stereotypical hip-hop culture. When their kitten is kidnapped in a convoluted drug deal gone awry, they embark on an adventure that requires them both to pose as legendary assassins.

The film marks similar terrain to 1986's classic Three Amigos, where three prima donna action movie stars get to play at being the real thing. Both Key and Peele are a riot as they navigate a terrifying terrain and try to affect deadly personas.

The entire film feels like a throwback to the best 1980s action comedies, films that had gaping plot holes and questionable logic, but skated by on their sheer charm and hubris.

Why would these two relatively sane men go on a wild goose chase for an, admittedly, adorable kitten? The movie never really comes up with an adequate reason. But with laughs this consistently silly and infectious -- who cares.

The movie has a running gag involving George Michael that is sort of apt when describing the film itself. Like George Michael, the movie is kind of lightweight but with an attractive, sort of undeniable appeal that sticks in your head, long after the credits roll.

I'll concede that before I even saw a frame of this film I was predisposed to like it. I am such a huge fan of Key & Peele's Comedy Central series -- which always had the high production values of a major motion picture. I wanted this film to do well even if it wasn't any good, because we need more comedy voices like theirs in the movies -- especially when it comes to people of color.

No offense to the Barbershops and the Tyler Perry fans, but this is my kind of black humor.

I'm happy that I can recommend Keanu after all, and I hope that even if it isn't a big hit, it won't be Key & Peele's last chance.