'Twin Peaks: The Return' stands as reminder of David Lynch's genius

I've been waiting for the right moment to wade into the cinematic experience of David Lynch's 18-part return to the world of Twin Peaks, and this week's past episode was so perfect, it seemed like this would be as good a time as ever.

Yes, there are still two parts to go which could completely redefine the message and my perception of Lynch's new masterwork, but I've seen enough of it to feel I can make some assessments.

First off, I know this is a movie blog and that Twin Peaks: The Return is technically a TV show, but one of Lynch's many revolutionary acts over the course of his career was to bring movie-level quality to the world of television -- from casting to cinematography and special effects -- so in my mind his world as a film director and TV showrunner are permanently intertwined.

There is also the basic truth that the last thing fans of the original series saw of any of these iconic characters was in Lynch's much maligned (and more recently reappraised) 1992 film, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Part of the mystery of The Return -- which has been years and many false starts in the making -- was what it would be.

Now that diehard devotees like me have experienced much of it, one thing is certain, it's far more an extension of the dark, sinister style of the 1992 feature film, than the quirky, charming nature of the weekly series that briefly aired on ABC.

Since this iteration airs on Showtime, which allows for copious amounts of violence, profanity and explicit sexuality, that tonal shift actually makes a lot of sense. But more importantly, like the film, and unlike the TV show (which had many directors and writers over its two year run), The Return is singularly the vision of Lynch (along with his writing partner and co-producer Mark Frost).

Many critics have said this new series is a prime example of Lynch being Lynch. And it certainly has included all the tropes that his fans have come to know and love: jarring violence juxtaposed with wacky humor, an affection for 1950s and 60s Americana, a maddeningly slow pace at times, mysticism, over-the-top acting, deeply earnest emotion and lots and lots of moody music.

As with everything Lynch related, it's not for everyone's tastes, but for fans of his work this series has been like a gift that keeps on giving and its feels like something akin to a mission statement or culmination of all his previous work.

Lynch has made very few feature films since his career began forty years ago. He has never had anything close to a commercial hit. Even his films that crossed over somewhat -- Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive -- were oddball curios which only appealed to the indie film connoisseur. In fact, Twin Peaks has been the only true success from a commercial perspective of his career.

The show had and continues to have enough of a following that Showtime was willing to plunge a substantial amount of money into letting Lynch go hog wild for 18 hours. When he briefly departed the show over creative differences the uproar was so loud from fans that he was brought back almost immediately with promises that the show would reflect his vision only and not the network's.

With that great power, Lynch has milked every minute, perhaps keenly aware that he may never get the opportunity to do this kind of filmmaking ever again. He hasn't made a feature in 11 years, and while that may be by choice, it may also be a reflection on how hard it might be for someone like him to secure financing.

As much as The Return is a tribute the fan of Twin Peaks, its characters and actors -- some of whom have passed away sadly in the intervening years -- it is also a paean to a certain kind of iconoclastic filmmaking, which has fallen out of fashion in this area of competently made but somewhat soulless action spectacles which dominate the box office and than just as rapidly evaporate from our memory banks.

I will never forget the impact that Twin Peaks has had on me past and present. It's just not my favorite TV show of all time -- its also indicative of what I think great art should be -- involving, challenging and full of endless possibility.

'Logan Lucky' is a little too lightweight, even for Steven Soderbergh

There is nothing inherently wrong with Logan Lucky, it's got a great cast. it looks great, it has many fun, laugh-out-loud moments. But it's hard to shake the feeling that you're watching something that's already been done several times before, and better. Which is why it makes for an odd return to filmmaking for director Steven Soderbergh.

This is first film after a self-imposed exile from movie-making that felt as permanent as Jay-Z's 'retirement.' I was never 100% clear on why Soderbergh was hanging it up early anyway. I thought it had something to do with the comic book movie direction of the industry, and how smart, adult driven films like his were falling out of favor (although Magic Mike and Contagion both proved to be later career commercial hits for him).

But what does he do with his return to the fold? He makes a fairly mainstream, audience-pleasing heist film which is referred to (in a knowingly meta way as Ocean's 7-11). It's not trying to make a major cinematic statement, instead it just feels almost like a practice run for something more ambitious.

The set-up is intriguing enough -- two bumbling West Virginia brothers (Adam Driver and Channing Tatum) plot an elaborate break-in to the vault of a local speedway racing facility, aided by explosives expert Joe Bang (a hilarious Daniel Craig), his two dumb brothers and their beauty parlor stylist sister (Riley Keough).

Some of the actors revel with the broad material while others struggle to find a character within it. A bleached blonde Craig gives the most fully rounded, memorable performance, Driver has a real field day leaning into his over the top drawl with incredible deadpan timing, and country singer Dwight Yoakam is uproarious as an arrogant, ineffective prison warden.

But Tatum on the other hand never makes a strong lead character choice (is he a hapless loser or a shrewd tactician?) and although he sports a nifty British accent, I found Seth MacFarlane's presence in this this movie as an obnoxious NASCAR owner distracting.

The women characters fare even worse: Katie Holmes isn't believable as Tatum's long suffering ex-wife, I never felt like Keough's motivation for participating in the caper is established -- she is mostly passive throughout the movie, Katherine Waterson is wasted in a small part that felt tacked on unnecessarily, and I have no idea what Hillary Swank is going for in her monotone performance as a clenched-jawed FBI agent later in the film, but it really didn't work for me.

The heist itself is fun and clever enough, but I couldn't shake the impression that the set pieces in Soderbergh's previous Ocean's films were infinitely superior, and perhaps that's the point, that this is a low tech version of what George Clooney and company pulled off in that blockbuster trilogy, but while those movies were also light and breezy, they still felt like they had more at stake and had a signature style that was unmistakably Soderbergh.

Besides the funky soundtrack, this feels like a movie a lot of directors could have made. It's unclear to me what is was about this particular story that spoke to Soderbergh or compelled him to want to make it after three years away from the film business.

I did largely enjoy it though, although it does condescend to the culture it's lampooning to its detriment, and it feels a little underwhelming as the film that marks Soderbergh's triumphant return.

I am still excited to see what he does next, and I just hope he takes on a project that isn't so steeped in his own comfort zone.

'Never Seen It' - Episode 20 - Is 'Striptease' so bad it's good?

This is by far our deepest dive yet (so apologies in advance for the length of this episode). Who knew that the 1996 Razzie winner Striptease would provoke the most discussion of any of my "Never Seen It" podcasts with my wife and co-host Elizabeth Rosado.

This movie is infamous for essentially marking the beginning of the end of Demi Moore's career as a major box office star, and it also feels like the last gasp of a certain kind of salacious, politically incorrect '90s movie.

It's definitely a movie that's hard not to have an opinion about, and probably the first movie Liz and I have watched fresh that we both knew was supposed to be terrible. Is it terrible? Is it so bad it's good? Or could it have ever been a great film?

It boasts a solid cast and was based on an acclaimed, best selling book -- but something went wrong. That something, besides me accidentaly calling the movie Showgirls repeatedly, will be revealed if you listen to the podcast.

Check out the episode below where we unload all our thoughts about it (or as much as we can):


PREVIOUS 'NEVER SEEN IT' EPISODES:

Episode 1: Some King of Wonderful
Episode 2: XXX
Episode 3: Varsity Blues
Episode 4: Xanadu
Episode 5: An Affair to Remember
Episode 6: Blue Steel
Episode 7: Spy Kids
Episode 8: The Frisco Kid
Episode 9: Rising Sun
Episode 10: The Conjuring 2
Episode 11: Zootopia
Episode 12: Fear
Episode 13: The Cell
Episode 14: Nocturnal Animals
Episode 15: Kindergarten Cop
Episode 16: Clash of the Titans
Episode 17: Silence
Episode 18: King Kong (1976)
Episode 19: The NeverEnding Story

Stay tuned for more!

Devastating 'Detroit' is about race in 2017, not just 1967

Every once and while there's a period film that is as much about the modern time in which its being released as the era it seeks to re-create.

Fifty years ago, Bonnie & Clyde (starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway) spoke to the burgeoning rebellious youth movement and the rise of the more radical politics of the 1960s.

And just a few years ago Ava DuVernay's Selma underlined the value of the recently gutted Voting Rights Act with her stirring recreation of the 1965 Martin Luther King Jr.-led effort to get it passed in the first place.

Now we have Kathryn Bigelow's new masterpiece -- Detroit -- perhaps the most emotionally fulfilling piece of filmmaking she has ever done, and a film that has unfortunately been overlooked amid the busy summer movie season, by audiences if not by critics.

There has been some quibbling about a white woman telling a reality-based story about the 1967 race riots, but this is not a story just about African-Americans, it is very much a complicated tale of white and black, police and the community they are sworn to protect and serve, as well as the sexual and violent tensions that are almost always beneath the surface to this day.

There may be a more legitimate complaint about the fact that black women do not factor prominently in this narrative, but there is no denying this movie's emotional power. It is, simply put, one of the best movies I've seen this year.

The film unfolds at first with almost documentary-like precision, showing how the riots broke out and escalated and how there were sins and blame to go around on various sides of the conflict. Eventually though, the story starts to focus on one particularly harrowing situation at a hotel, where local cops terrorize a group of young black men (and two white, female would-be romantic partners) because they believe a sniper is in their midsts. On the periphery is John Boyega as an earnest security guard just hoping to keep the piece.

His character is nuanced, but so are many others. The white policemen are undoubtedly racist, but not in an over-the-top mustache twirling way -- their bigotry has degrees, sometimes soft, other times hard. Their self-pity is always several steps ahead of their ability to empathize with people of color, and their insecurities are reminiscent of the rhetoric of modern white supremacists and alt-righters, who should be forced to watch this movie if only to see how empty their intellectualism is.

This is a tough slog of a film. Unlike feel-good racial fantasies like The Help, this film doesn't shy away from the brutality and the climate of horror that living in a police state was and is. But Bigelow's camera is unflinching. There are moments of levity and pathos, but this is not a sentimental film, it's a tough necessary one.

I've seen three masterworks this year, Get Out, Dunkirk, and now this. Each one demonstrated a sure directorial vision and hand at play, with a real story to tell that's bigger than what is on screen. The tragedy is that unlike those two films, Detroit has struggled to connect with viewers, and I feel it will continue to, even if the headlines (and the president's own racist rhetoric) would suggest that its as timely and relevant of movie as any released this year so far.

I know it's hard, especially this far outside of awards season, to persuade moviegoers to see a gut-wrenching and disturbing film that brings up still raw feelings about biased policing and economic marginalization of minorities. But this is vital, must-see filmmaking of the first order.

I don't even care if there an inevitable backlash to the creative license the film takes with the facts of the real life story on which it is based; the value of Detroit outweighs the detractions. It's the movie of the moment, even if it takes place in 1967.

Sofia Coppola's bold 'Beguiled' breathes new life into her career

Ever since her mainstream breakthrough with the classic Bill Murray vehicle Lost In Translation, director Sofia Coppola has seemed to be stuck in neutral.

She's made some well-crafted films -- I particularly thought The Bling Ring was underrated -- but she hasn't made much of a creative leap and at worst she sometimes was guilty of more navel gazing than novel filmmaking.

This is why her critically acclaimed new film The Beguiled, her first attempt at anything resembling a pure genre movie, is such a breath of fresh air.

The Civil War period film is a pastiche of dark comedy, horror and romance. It is also a remake of an unconventional Clint Eastwood film (itself also based on a novel of the same name). The Eastwood movie, which came out back in 1971, the same year he first starred as the iconic Dirty Harry, is a curious entry into his filmography.

In the Eastwood film he plays an injured soldier who is taken in by a house full of what turns out to be horny, repressed woman. He systematically tries to seduce as many of them as possible but his gambit ends up backfiring in horrifying ways. What's most interesting about that version is seeing Eastwood plays such a morally repugnant character, since he almost always plays characters defined by their heroic rectitude. But the movie itself is a little overheated and exploitative.

The new version, well, is much more of a Sofia Coppola film, which will likely disappoint some viewers who are looking for more shocks and scares. But for those looking for a more simmering take on this material, The Beguiled is a blast.

First off, its buoyed by a great cast. Colin Farrell is perfectly cast in the Eastwood role. He's both believable as a sex object and as a slippery manipulator.

Then there's the trio of women in the house vying for his attention (there are also some great standout performances from a younger group of actresses staying in the Virginia home he's convalescing in). Nicole Kidman builds on the good will she got from her great work in HBO's Big Little Lies, with a well-calibrated take on the repressed den mother of the house. Kirsten Dunst brings a lot of feeling and pathos to a lonely and longing character.

And my favorite may be Elle Fanning, who with this, The Neon Demon, and 20th Century Women, has rapidly become one of my favorite young actresses. She is quietly hilarious as the closet nympho is the group.

The film though is more Coppola's than any one character. She has some gorgeous, sumptuous cinematography here, and the film's tension and mounting dread is established from the very beginning with some Kubrick-esque establishing shots, and a minimalist score that at times just sounds like the pounding of a heart.

It's all handled in a tidy, roughly 90 minutes -- although it unfolds with Coppola's trademark languid pace. Because it's not bogged down by distracting effects or unnecessary subplots, it feels like a real movie for adults, with a lot of content to chew on and debate.

Is this movie a satire of toxic masculinity? Is it a study of the ill effect of sexual repression? It may be both. But it definitely is a bold new turn in Coppola's career and an enticing view of what she is capable of when the material is right.

How to make sure that 'Creed II' doesn't squander the original

There have been heightened rumors -- especially thanks to a flurry of social media activity on Sylvester Stallone's part -- that not only is a sequel to the hit extension of the Rocky franchise Creed in the works, but that it will likely feature some sort of return of the Ivan Drago character -- originally played by Dolph Lundgren in 1985's Rocky IV.

This actually makes a lot of sense if you're a devotee of the original Rocky movies like I am.

Much of the dramatic motivation behind Adonis Creed's (played by Michael B. Jordan) embrace of boxing was inspired by the tragic death of his prizefighter father in the ring at the hands of Drago.

And while Drago was never mentioned by name in that 2015 film, he certainly survived the events of the 1985 film and there's no reason to think he's not alive and kicking somewhere in Eastern Europe, perhaps in hiding after his stunning defeat at the hands of Rocky Balboa, during which he was a human stand-in for all of Soviet Russia.

I have long felt that the inevitable, natural progression of the Creed narrative should/would take him to Russia to face the man who killed his father. Besides providing a dramatic and unpredictable new setting to see Jordan's character, it would also provide plenty of material for Stallone to chew on as well, since his bout with Drago took a real physical toll on him (if you accept the narrative of the dreary Rocky V) and because presumably his character still feels a requisite amount of guilt for failing to "throw the damn towel" to save Apollo Creed's life back in '85.

So far there has been not a single peep out of Jordan or Creed director Ryan Coogler about this concept (although in the past, they both have suggested they'd be down to do a sequel).

But, right now, all we have to go on is the posts Stallone has shared hinting at a Drago-themed plotline.

Here are a couple things that worry me. Although I thought Rocky Balboa was great, taking the keys to this franchise away from Stallone was one of the shrewdest decisions that could have been made to both protect the characters and also to revive its legacy.

Stallone is far from the subtlest director, and I fear that if he takes over the reigns the series will go for bombast and lose some of the style and versatility that Coogler brought to the table. I'm also troubled that in one TMZ interview Stallone implied that the new film might feature him fighting, which I simply don't want to see. Stallone is 71 now, and while I'm sure he's in great shape, we don't need to see him step into the ring yet again.

One of the things that made his Oscar-nominated performance in Creed so refreshing and moving was that for the first time ever Stallone actually played his age on screen and appeared vulnerable. Turning him back into some sort of macho Expendable would totally squander the good will his last major performance engendered.

I am also super excited about the prospect of Adonis Creed fighting some sort of proxy for Drago -- like his son. I might get past this depending on how the story is told or that part is cast, but to me a far more powerful confrontation would be between Creed and the man who literally killed his father, played by Lundgren.

Sure, Lundgren is 59 now and certainly not the specimen he was in 1985, but he also hasn't totally let himself go. I am sure he could train with Stallone to get a little more ripped just in time for a 2018 release date.

Of course, there's a case to be made that we don't need another Rocky-themed franchise, and with Coogler moving on to Marvel's Black Panther, there may not be. But if it has to happen, and commerce may dictate that it does, it should be a movie motivated by character not action, and the character of Adonis Creed still has unfinished business when it comes to the death of his father.

And that business may just be in Russia.

'Ingrid Goes West' is a loving takedown of its own likely audience

The new black comedy Ingrid Goes West is already being taken to task by some critics for not breaking any new ground with its indictment of vapid selfie culture, but I don't think this movie ever intended to be a game-changer. Sure, it's not news that there is a whole culture of 'doing it for the gram' that perpetuates false images and narratives about people.

This film touches on that -- but it's not about it. Instead, it is a wholly fun and breezy vehicle for the talents of Aubrey Plaza, who once again proves she has the presence to be a major movie star, if only she continues to take on more challenging roles like this one.

She plays the Ingrid of the title, a painfully lonely, social-media obsessed eccentric with no discernible skills or aspirations besides a desire for an extremely close female friendship. I actually like that the film does not do much to justify or judge Ingrid's shallow drive, instead it just lets her story unfold and the chips fall where they may.

This is where Plaza's skill as a comedian and actress really work wonders. She has to be at turns both likable and pathetic, sympathetic and creepy. Her character makes many choices in the film, almost all of them bad, and as a viewer you still can't help but root for Plaza's character because she never condescends to her or plays her at a remove. It's affecting work and picks up where she left off in the great Safety Not Guaranteed.

She's surrounded by a terrific supporting cast too. Elizabeth Olsen is note perfect as a sort of aspiring wannabe Gwenyth Paltrow type (she is a professional hawker of high priced goods on Instagram). And O'Shea Jackson Jr., (a standout in Straight Outta Compton) nearly steals the movie as Ingrid's Batman-loving love interest.

And the film itself is unpredictable and funny enough to hold our interest, even if the stakes really aren't all that high. Occasionally the film nearly veers into truly dark territory (almost calling into mind thrillers like Single White Female, which is knowingly name-checked), but then it pulls back on track as lighter entertainment.

In fact, this movie has such a soft touch it'll likely be enjoyed by the very kind of people it is so deftly satirizing. After all, this is a quirky indie comedy aimed squarely at hipster coastal millennials. And while Ingrid's character clearly takes her social media preoccupations to absurd extremes, she is essentially a heightened version of a lot of people who many of us know and love.

That won't likely detract from your enjoyment of this movie, which is disarmingly funny even if quite a few of the film's best bits are spoiled by the trailer. And Plaza's performance is worth the price of admission, she shows more range here than ever before and deserves to be a bigger deal.

How I learned to stop worrying and like (but not love) 'Labyrinth'

There is a pretty devoted fanbase for the Jim Henson film Labyrinth. There are some who are drawn to the movie because of its feature role for the late rock and fashion icon David Bowie. Others fell in love with the movie as a child and never stopped clinging to it as a masterpiece.

I saw the movie once years ago --mostly intrigued because of Bowie -- and took an almost instant dislike to it. This was in part because I have always had a pretty strong aversion to fantasy films, and for me, the film just didn't live up to all the hype.

But I've always meant to revisit it -- and after I saw a terrific Henson exhibit at the Museum of the Moving Image I decided it was time to rewatch this tale of goblins and babes.

After a second viewing, I can safely say I don't love the movie but I definitely have grown to like it. And, it's easy to see why it appeals to kids of the 80s (of which I barely was one).

Kids films back then were seemingly interested in walking a fine line between enlightening and frightening children. And Henson's film veers wildly in tone from musical to horror show to fairy tale without much nuance.

It's message -- about accepting that life is unfair -- is a good one, but its buried in a narrative that feels both incredibly thin (Jennifer Connolly -- in a very extra performance -- plays a girl who wishes her baby brother would disappear and comes to regret it) and needlessly cluttered.

Some of Henson's visual set pieces are wonderful, and, as always, his puppets are enchanting and fully realized. But there is not much grounding the movie emotionally. That said, Bowie does make a striking and charismatic screen presence as Jareth the so-called Goblin King-- and the movie is occasionally aided comedically by the work of Monty Python alum Terry Jones on the screenplay.

Jones' influence pops up now and again with funny bits of business involving some of the side characters that Connolly encounters during her frequently tedious journey to retrieve her stolen brother. But apparently his impact on the movie's screenplay was diminished by multiple re-writes.

So the finished product, for better of worse, is more a reflection of Henson's unique gifts and perhaps his limitations as a filmmaker. While the visual palette of the film is fun and engaging, and clearly Henson put in a lot of attention to detail, the human element of the movie is lacking and under-developed from the get-go.

And yet, it has ample charm, some genuine laughs and value as a piece of nostalgia.

The film's financial failure and relative critical drubbing is said to have deeply wounded Henson and he never directed another original film before his death in 1990. He'd be pleased to know that this film has become a bonafide cult classic in the last thirty years and is legacy has only continued to grow.

Could Michael Jackson ever have been a legit movie star?

When he was alive Michael Jackson made no secret of that fact that he aspired to have a career as a movie star alongside his wildly successful career in music. But unfortunately for him, his larger-than-life persona (not to mention his rapidly evolving physical appearance) made him virtually impossible to cast in any traditional film roles.

I remember reading, back during one of Jackson's particularly dark mid-90s periods (when he was struggling to overcome the stigma of allegations of child abuse and re-establish himself as a pop star), a particularly snickering interview from Hollywood insiders, who scoffed at the idea of his radically altered face being able to play on the big screen.

Ironically, he got the last laugh with his hit posthumously released concert documentary This Is It, which not only scored great reviews but revealed that Jackson was still a very potent performer and compelling screen presence even if he was physically deteriorating before our eyes.

Several decades earlier, the idea of Jackson having potential was anything but absurd. And as I've written before, his debut (and ultimately swan song) as a film actor in the cult classic musical The Wiz, demonstrated that with the right character, he could bring incredible enthusiasm and panache to a part. The film's director -- the legendary Sidney Lumet -- once said Jackson learned every person's lines including his own, and the King of Pop himself often sighted the experience as a career highlight.

Jackson on set with John Landis

The reason I bring all this up is that Jackson's seminal music video -- Thriller -- a roughly 15-minute extravaganza which still represents the peak of music video style and craftsmanship -- is being re-released and given the 3-D treatment (with the blessing of its director, the unduly unsung John Landis, who also directed Jackson in the big budget, controversial "Black or White" music video which came years later).

It will debut in August at the Venice Film Festival alongside the very revealing and entertaining Making of documentary which often aired with the video in tandem for years.

There are no official plans to release the rebooted music video widely -- and perhaps the entire endeavor is just a craven money grab to wrangle a few more bucks out of a well-trod product -- but it will at least give people a chance to look closer at Jackson's performance.

He is really a terrific as actor in the video.  He is charismatic, genuinely credible as a love interest opposite former Playboy bunny Ola Ray, and he even shows a knack for a little light comedy in his early scenes before he transforms into a particularly vicious looking werewolf.

Perhaps his incredible pop superstardom would have made it impossible for him to play anyone other than himself, and he was already becoming one of the most recognizable stars on the planet. But the Thriller music video does give a glimpse of how he could have been used before his own ego and eccentricities got the best of him.

Still, for my money, the most interesting performance he ever gave as an actor is in Martin Scorsese's often over-looked super-sized version of the "Bad" music video.

Recently resurrected and given its due in Spike Lee's Bad 25 documentary, this black and white street narrative is dated to be sure but surprisingly effective, especially during the tense moments between Jackson and a young Wesley Snipes who play former peers who have gone in different directions with their lives.

Jackson plays Daryl, a kid from the neighborhood who gets ridiculed for eschewing the criminal life for a pursuit of higher education (with the subtext of race ever present, he even wears a hoodie). Snipes is the ringleader of his former cronies, who nudge him towards mugging people. In one particularly effective moment Snipes goads Jackson, who is so vulnerable he appears to be on the verge of tears. He finally snaps and in his trademark sneer he says "You ain't bad, you ain't nothing!"

It's a stirring little moment, that feels entirely real. Some far smarter film critics than me have often pointed out that untrained, unprofessional actors are uniquely suited to deliver moments like this because they are often not acting at all and the reality of the filming seeps onto the screen.

Jackson was reportedly skittish about filming in bad neighborhoods and genuinely intimidated by some of his brooding, burly co-stars. All of this atmosphere -- coupled with Scorsese's fluid camerawork -- create a perfect fusion of cinema and music and another shining example of what could have been with the King of Pop.

'Never Seen It' - Episode 19 - 'The NeverEnding Story' scares us

Fantasy movies have always rubbed me the wrong way. I think I can say with a fair amount of confidence that it may be my least favorite genre of movies, so I definitely went into watching the 1984 cult classic The NeverEnding Story with a significant degree of apprehension.

Having watched it for the first time -- well, let's just see what I think ... my wife and intrepid co-host Liz Rosado may have approached this with a more open mind, but we still think this may be the most polarizing episode of this podcast yet.

Check out the YouTube link below to listen to our first thoughts on this movie.

Hopefully, you and your childhood won't be offended.   


PREVIOUS 'NEVER SEEN IT' EPISODES:

Episode 1: Some King of Wonderful
Episode 2: XXX
Episode 3: Varsity Blues
Episode 4: Xanadu
Episode 5: An Affair to Remember
Episode 6: Blue Steel
Episode 7: Spy Kids
Episode 8: The Frisco Kid
Episode 9: Rising Sun
Episode 10: The Conjuring 2
Episode 11: Zootopia
Episode 12: Fear
Episode 13: The Cell
Episode 14: Nocturnal Animals
Episode 15: Kindergarten Cop
Episode 16: Clash of the Titans
Episode 17: Silence
Episode 18: King Kong (1976)

Stay tuned for more!