Latest / The Kulturecast / Backrooms (2026) & Scary Movie (2026) — "I like it in here. For the first time in a long time, I feel like I'm..."

Transcript

Backrooms (2026) & Scary Movie (2026) — "I like it in here. For the first time in a long time, I feel like I'm..." · The Kulturecast

0:00
Speaker 1: Yeah, weird way about a place. It's like the store.
0:47
Speaker 1: I just continue my hair footsteps. Back rooms weeded are
1:00
Speaker 1: should be had. I'm a republishing now, so I'm supposed
1:03
Speaker 1: to be racist.
1:04
Speaker 2: I think, Oh why people are racist anyway? Oh you
1:08
Speaker 2: have an age to day? You beg's like a million days.
1:10
Speaker 1: That's just many fun.
1:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, your fingers smelt like Jennifer.
1:17
Speaker 1: I agree.
1:17
Speaker 2: I want you three you move goo.
1:23
Speaker 1: It's sam My pronouns. Are they them?
1:26
Speaker 2: He's stab them?
1:27
Speaker 1: Scary movie Asian faif.
1:29
Speaker 2: Hello everyone, and welcome to the Culture Cast. I am
1:32
Speaker 2: your host, Chris Tasher, the only host of this episode.
1:35
Speaker 2: And on this episode, if you clicked on it per
1:37
Speaker 2: the title, you know we're gonna be talking about, well,
1:39
Speaker 2: a horror movie and then a scary movie. Uh, in
1:43
Speaker 2: that order. And yes, I guess technically they're both scary movies,
1:47
Speaker 2: but only one bills itself as such in the title.
1:50
Speaker 2: So let's talk a little bit first about back Rooms
1:53
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. So, as some of you who know
1:56
Speaker 2: me know, and those of you who just listened to
1:58
Speaker 2: the show, no, I am not exactly in the demographic
2:02
Speaker 2: for this movie. I had no prior knowledge of the
2:05
Speaker 2: back Rooms franchise Meta Creepy pasta ahead of time. I
2:10
Speaker 2: had heard about it with the Liminal Spaces photos on
2:12
Speaker 2: the Internet, but it was not something that I had
2:14
Speaker 2: kept up with. On my previous show, Scary Stories We Tell,
2:18
Speaker 2: we talked about Hi, I'm Mary, Mary and the Walton
2:21
Speaker 2: Files and some similar kind of analog horror things, but
2:25
Speaker 2: broadly we and I people my age. I don't think
2:29
Speaker 2: Liminal Spaces is a horror concept that is made for
2:33
Speaker 2: people my age. I want to say it's more for
2:35
Speaker 2: gen zers or younger than that, which is perfectly fine,
2:38
Speaker 2: nothing wrong with that obviously at all. I am very
2:41
Speaker 2: amenable to going and watching a movie made for another
2:44
Speaker 2: group of people and kind of enjoying it through my
2:46
Speaker 2: own lens. And I think for someone like Cane Parsons
2:49
Speaker 2: to take an idea that effectively started as a well
2:53
Speaker 2: done CGI YouTube series and turn it into a full
2:57
Speaker 2: fledged film not only directed by him, but written by
3:01
Speaker 2: Will Sudek and produced by Oh James wand Sean Levy
3:06
Speaker 2: Osgood Perkins. I mean those names alone are pretty big.
3:10
Speaker 2: It's also an A you know, it's an A twenty
3:12
Speaker 2: four film. So when you layer all of that on
3:15
Speaker 2: top of it, it just becomes a lot more of
3:16
Speaker 2: a thing than it, you know, not to say it
3:19
Speaker 2: wasn't a thing on YouTube again, it's just it kind
3:22
Speaker 2: of it's been able to escape the gravity of planet
3:25
Speaker 2: YouTube and kind of wiggle its way into planet mainstream,
3:29
Speaker 2: which is not a given. It's not even easy in
3:32
Speaker 2: a lot of cases. I mean, there have been plenty
3:34
Speaker 2: of things that have come out recently that have not
3:36
Speaker 2: had any sticking power the way something like a back
3:38
Speaker 2: Rooms has. I would equate back Rooms in a lot
3:41
Speaker 2: of ways to a Five Nights at Freddy's, where it's
3:44
Speaker 2: it's very well known and very well loved by the
3:47
Speaker 2: people who love it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
3:50
Speaker 2: hyper mainstream. I mean, I think, obviously similarly to five
3:53
Speaker 2: Nights at Freddy's. Backrooms has become almost unavoidable at this
3:56
Speaker 2: point due to the yellow imagery with the wallpaper that
4:00
Speaker 2: they keep using in the liminal spaces. But all that
4:02
Speaker 2: to say film was not made for someone my age.
4:05
Speaker 2: I would say for most people my age, this would
4:07
Speaker 2: have been a I probably heard about it on YouTube,
4:09
Speaker 2: but again, I don't know how many people my age
4:11
Speaker 2: were searching out this kind of creepy pasta meta horror
4:15
Speaker 2: that was being cooked up in I would say the
4:18
Speaker 2: mid the mid teens, And you know, that's you know,
4:21
Speaker 2: when YouTube kind of started coming into its own as
4:24
Speaker 2: a place to present a narrative story as opposed to
4:28
Speaker 2: just you know, like oh, funny reaction videos or you know,
4:31
Speaker 2: kind of non narrative content, something like a back room
4:35
Speaker 2: similar to Walton Files, similar to Hi, I'm Mary Mary,
4:39
Speaker 2: similar to again Five Nights of Freddy's tells the lore
4:42
Speaker 2: without telling the lore. It shows the lore and expects
4:45
Speaker 2: that the audience is just going to follow along. That's
4:47
Speaker 2: why the audience is there. And for someone like myself,
4:50
Speaker 2: I appreciate that level of storytelling, but I can completely
4:53
Speaker 2: understand how someone else would be turned off by that
4:57
Speaker 2: in a way that is just completely antithetical to the
5:01
Speaker 2: enjoyment of something. There's a lot of people and I
5:03
Speaker 2: understand the sentiment that if I have to go read
5:05
Speaker 2: about something outside of it, or do any sort of
5:08
Speaker 2: ground work to enjoy something, you lose a lot of people.
5:11
Speaker 2: And I think that's unfortunate because there are a lot
5:14
Speaker 2: of really good things out there that are not necessarily
5:16
Speaker 2: super straightforward and don't just exist on the page you
5:21
Speaker 2: have to go, or on the screen you have to
5:22
Speaker 2: go and do a little bit more legwork. Midsummer the Witch, Hereditary,
5:27
Speaker 2: a lot of Kubrick's films. I'm not going to say
5:30
Speaker 2: Chris Nolan's film because I think Chris Nolan makes high
5:33
Speaker 2: brow films for morons. I'm again, I don't want to
5:36
Speaker 2: I don't want to be that guy, but I will
5:38
Speaker 2: be that guy because Tarantino and Nolan are two other
5:40
Speaker 2: people that I just can't stand and so I don't
5:44
Speaker 2: look at their films as ones that engage with me
5:46
Speaker 2: outside of the theater, or outside of the book, or
5:49
Speaker 2: outside of the initial experience, because they want to just
5:52
Speaker 2: do all the legwork for you. And it's like, well,
5:54
Speaker 2: I don't really agree with or care with your interpretations
5:58
Speaker 2: of the Odyssey. I just don't. It doesn't excite me,
6:01
Speaker 2: doesn't interest me. I don't care if anyone has to
6:03
Speaker 2: sit in our lines to buy tickets for a movie.
6:07
Speaker 2: It looks like it's trying too hard. It looks like
6:10
Speaker 2: the kind of movie that makes me. When I saw
6:12
Speaker 2: the preview for it, when I was seeing scary movie,
6:14
Speaker 2: it looks cringe. It makes me cringe. And I love
6:17
Speaker 2: every single actor in the movie, especially Robert Pattinson, and
6:21
Speaker 2: I just couldn't care less. I don't even care. And
6:24
Speaker 2: it's unfortunate because it's the kind of thing that should
6:26
Speaker 2: get people to engage with the source material outside of
6:29
Speaker 2: the film, and it won't because they think that everything
6:31
Speaker 2: there has been presented in the most optimized format because
6:35
Speaker 2: Chris Nolan knows what he's doing. I would go as
6:37
Speaker 2: far as to say, you don't need to know anything
6:40
Speaker 2: about Backrooms to appreciate the film directed by Kane Parsons,
6:44
Speaker 2: because I think Kane Parsons and will Suitik do a
6:46
Speaker 2: good enough job, if not a great job, at taking
6:49
Speaker 2: what is the backstory and lore of the back Rooms
6:53
Speaker 2: kind of meta horror universe, distilling it down into something
6:56
Speaker 2: that's eminently approachable for people that have no experience with it,
6:59
Speaker 2: while while also creating something that I think lives in
7:02
Speaker 2: and of itself within the back Rooms meta universe. It's
7:05
Speaker 2: not creating its own new world of the back Rooms.
7:08
Speaker 2: It's more or less just existing within the previously established lore,
7:12
Speaker 2: which I think is really smart because it makes your
7:15
Speaker 2: film almost undeniable in terms of the effect that it
7:19
Speaker 2: will have on the law in the long term. They're
7:22
Speaker 2: not saying, well, this is its own new backrooms thing.
7:24
Speaker 2: This is just part of the pre existing backrooms universe,
7:26
Speaker 2: which is very smart. You make your film undeniable within
7:30
Speaker 2: the framework of the law and the fandom because now
7:33
Speaker 2: this is part of it. This isn't redefining it. I
7:35
Speaker 2: think that was kind of my issue with Five Nights
7:37
Speaker 2: at Freddy's is the Five Nights of Freddy's film. I
7:39
Speaker 2: can't get a sense of how is that tied into
7:41
Speaker 2: the original law and mythology unless it's trying to do
7:44
Speaker 2: its own thing, which is kind of a bummer because
7:46
Speaker 2: the lore for Five Nights of Freddy's is already so
7:49
Speaker 2: rich and deep and kind of enthralling and engaging in
7:52
Speaker 2: Scott Coffin has done a good job at crafting that narrative,
7:55
Speaker 2: and I really was a little disappointed when I learned
7:59
Speaker 2: that the film was not going to just be an
8:01
Speaker 2: extension of the narrative. It was going to be a
8:02
Speaker 2: kind of a retelling of the narrative. And I just
8:05
Speaker 2: don't like that as much as just having this be
8:07
Speaker 2: part and parcel to something that already exists, that people
8:10
Speaker 2: already enjoy don't try to stand between the fans and
8:14
Speaker 2: the thing that they like. Stand across from the fans
8:16
Speaker 2: where they already want to be going to, and they're
8:19
Speaker 2: coming to you. And that's what the back rooms film
8:21
Speaker 2: feels like, at least on the war kind of front
8:24
Speaker 2: of I will say I'm a huge fan of Chueto Lgafour.
8:26
Speaker 2: I think Touweto Lgafour is one of one of the
8:29
Speaker 2: best actors who was in an MCU movie and was
8:32
Speaker 2: not given anything to do. I mean, he's a good,
8:34
Speaker 2: amazing actor, but I mean, just to speak to the
8:36
Speaker 2: kind of mainstream appeal of him, it's unfortunate that he
8:40
Speaker 2: didn't get more time as a character that has seemingly
8:43
Speaker 2: been forgotten in the MCU Mordo, which I guess was
8:48
Speaker 2: killed off in Doctor Strange Too question Mark. It's unfortunate
8:51
Speaker 2: because Tweto Lgafour is great. I mean, I'm a huge
8:54
Speaker 2: fan of anything that I've seen him in. Obviously, for
8:57
Speaker 2: most people it's going to go back to something like
9:01
Speaker 2: a Children of Men or you know, I guess for
9:04
Speaker 2: a lot of people it's Children of Men. I mean,
9:06
Speaker 2: I don't really know a lot of his British work
9:10
Speaker 2: because I haven't seen a lot of his British work,
9:12
Speaker 2: but I've seen again what you know, he was in
9:15
Speaker 2: Serenity as the villain. In Serenity, I think that's where
9:17
Speaker 2: a lot of other people would have seen him. But
9:19
Speaker 2: Children of Men, I think is the first time a
9:21
Speaker 2: lot of people saw him in anything, and at least
9:23
Speaker 2: on this side of the pond. And I enjoyed him
9:26
Speaker 2: in that film. I enjoyed him in Serenity, and a
9:29
Speaker 2: film I'm not even particularly a fan of. I just
9:31
Speaker 2: recently was talking about that with Mike White of the
9:33
Speaker 2: Projection Booth. How not a fan of that movie, I
9:37
Speaker 2: personally am, and maybe I should go and revisit it,
9:40
Speaker 2: because it's probably a film that, at least as there's
9:43
Speaker 2: some revisiting. I've never been of the mindset that they
9:46
Speaker 2: need to revisit Serenity or Firefly or any of that,
9:49
Speaker 2: but I know that there's still a huge amount of
9:52
Speaker 2: people out there still kind of yearning for that return
9:55
Speaker 2: to the Firefly universe. So me personally, I have no interest,
9:59
Speaker 2: but I I know plenty of people that are very
10:01
Speaker 2: engaged with Firefly and Serenity. But back to the back
10:05
Speaker 2: rooms of it all, So the film. If you haven't
10:08
Speaker 2: gone and seen it by now, or if you haven't
10:10
Speaker 2: seen it, is a kind of isolated retelling of the
10:16
Speaker 2: story of the back Rooms in how it's discovered by
10:21
Speaker 2: Clark played by tuwetl lg. For a man who's going
10:24
Speaker 2: through a divorce from his wife, and he owns a
10:27
Speaker 2: discount furniture warehouse, which I'm assuming is meant to be
10:30
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin, because that's where the back Rooms initially took place,
10:34
Speaker 2: was in a hobby town. That's where the original pictures
10:37
Speaker 2: were taken, was in the back room of a HobbyTown
10:39
Speaker 2: in I say somewhere in Wisconsin, may have even been
10:42
Speaker 2: recien Wisconsin. And so Clark owns this furniture store. He's
10:47
Speaker 2: a failed architect, and one day when he's in the
10:49
Speaker 2: basement of his store checking on a breaker box that
10:52
Speaker 2: doesn't seem to have any any at least three breakers
10:55
Speaker 2: on the box have no outlet to anywhere, They're not
10:57
Speaker 2: going to anything and coming from anything. Clark discovers that
11:01
Speaker 2: there may be something on the other side of the
11:03
Speaker 2: wall from him in his store which he would have
11:05
Speaker 2: never seen. He sees the line of light on the
11:09
Speaker 2: wall and that's the dead giveaway if you don't know
11:11
Speaker 2: what the backrooms are, like I did going into it,
11:14
Speaker 2: the initial mystery of the film is very engaging. The
11:17
Speaker 2: initial mystery of the film is very kind of enthralling.
11:20
Speaker 2: It's definitely something that draws you in. It doesn't give
11:23
Speaker 2: you a whole lot. The film opens with a kind
11:26
Speaker 2: of Again, I'm assuming it's taking place maybe at the
11:29
Speaker 2: same time or close to the same time as the film,
11:32
Speaker 2: so in the nineties. The film opens with a shaky
11:35
Speaker 2: cam in the back rooms that takes place in the nineties,
11:37
Speaker 2: So I'm assuming the film is also set in the nineties,
11:40
Speaker 2: and it does a good job of capturing that era
11:42
Speaker 2: of that feel. There's a little bit of, at least
11:45
Speaker 2: in my case, a bit of nostalgia for it. It's
11:47
Speaker 2: very funny that people younger than me have nostalgia for
11:50
Speaker 2: a time that I grew up in that I'm not
11:52
Speaker 2: even sure I have nostalgia for. It's a weird kind
11:55
Speaker 2: of shared pop culture touchstone that we all have this
11:58
Speaker 2: kind of weird liminal space. But it has to take
12:01
Speaker 2: place in the nineties because it doesn't really work otherwise.
12:03
Speaker 2: And I appreciate that because the film feels like it
12:06
Speaker 2: was set in the nineties. They really lean into the
12:08
Speaker 2: nineties of it all. They make it feel very set
12:11
Speaker 2: in a time and of a place. I appreciate that.
12:14
Speaker 2: I really like that we have chuwetl Lgafour opposite the
12:17
Speaker 2: therapist played by Rene ritzen Vi. She's his therapist, but
12:22
Speaker 2: also ends up being essentially the main character of the movie,
12:25
Speaker 2: because about halfway through the film, he disappears into the
12:28
Speaker 2: back rooms and she has to go look for him.
12:30
Speaker 2: And it's funny because the trailer kind of gives away
12:34
Speaker 2: that the film might pivot halfway through to another character,
12:37
Speaker 2: and I had heard that the film was going to
12:39
Speaker 2: be about him disappearing, but obviously, when you have chuwetl
12:43
Speaker 2: Lgafour in your film, you kind of want him to
12:45
Speaker 2: be the main character. And I like that we get
12:49
Speaker 2: his story and Mary's story kind of intertwined. We get
12:52
Speaker 2: to see his trauma, her trauma, how her trauma and
12:56
Speaker 2: his trauma commingle an intermix. I will say, for as
12:59
Speaker 2: much as I enjoyed this movie, I think my first
13:02
Speaker 2: kind of knock and maybe only knock against the film
13:06
Speaker 2: really as I think it falls into the trend of
13:08
Speaker 2: horror as x equals y. So in The Witch it
13:12
Speaker 2: was you know, you know, uhich witch witch and being
13:17
Speaker 2: a witch and paganism effectively is standing in for feminism,
13:22
Speaker 2: and in it follows it's I guess STDs is what
13:26
Speaker 2: you know, STI STD whatever you want to call him
13:29
Speaker 2: as a monster in the Babaduk, it's like, you know,
13:32
Speaker 2: being a parent or being a parent of a child,
13:35
Speaker 2: a special needs child is the monster, Like familial issues
13:39
Speaker 2: are the monster. Like this has been a thing now
13:41
Speaker 2: like over and over again, Midsummer hereditary there, I mean,
13:44
Speaker 2: and you know what, like there's nothing wrong with that.
13:46
Speaker 2: It's just it's I mean, you know, the wolf man,
13:50
Speaker 2: uh you know, the toxic masculinity is the monster, and
13:54
Speaker 2: it's there's nothing wrong with it per se. It's just
13:56
Speaker 2: I wish they were a little less overt with how
14:00
Speaker 2: they're working out their issues on the screen while still
14:03
Speaker 2: being entertaining, because you can do both, it's very hard
14:07
Speaker 2: and rarely does it work super well. I mean, even
14:10
Speaker 2: with something like Midsummer, one of my favorite films, there
14:13
Speaker 2: is still a huge contingent of people who watch that
14:15
Speaker 2: film that think that that film is like a woo
14:17
Speaker 2: girl film because she gets her revenge on a cheating
14:20
Speaker 2: boyfriend at the end. Actually, by the end of the movie,
14:22
Speaker 2: she's extremely isolated and has been taken in by a
14:25
Speaker 2: cult that's going to force her off of a cliff
14:27
Speaker 2: at the end of the movie effectively, or at the
14:29
Speaker 2: end of her movie in the beginning of someone else's movie.
14:31
Speaker 2: And that's the part that's again, it's sometimes subtlety is needed,
14:36
Speaker 2: and I think someone like ari Astor or Robert Eggers
14:39
Speaker 2: are up to the task of being subtle. I don't
14:41
Speaker 2: think every director can do that. I will say Cain
14:44
Speaker 2: Parsons is probably leaning more towards Eggers an Aster than
14:49
Speaker 2: he is an Eli Roth type or someone who's just,
14:53
Speaker 2: you know, no subtlety whatsoever. You know about his subtle
14:56
Speaker 2: as being bashed over the head with a ballpeen hammer,
14:59
Speaker 2: and by ball, I mean a mallet like Gallagher would use.
15:02
Speaker 2: Like there's no subtlety. With Elira, Ariaster and others, they
15:07
Speaker 2: utilize subtlety. They utilize a lot of visual imagery and
15:10
Speaker 2: visual and visual cues that they don't sit and focus on.
15:14
Speaker 2: The camera doesn't focus on him, it doesn't linger on him.
15:17
Speaker 2: It just kind of they exist within the space. And
15:19
Speaker 2: that's you know that's it. I appreciate that more than
15:23
Speaker 2: you know beating me over the head with don't you
15:25
Speaker 2: get it? Childhood trauma is the monster, and it's like, Okay,
15:28
Speaker 2: I get it, Steve, and Jesus Christ penny Wise is
15:30
Speaker 2: everything and nothing at the same time, like, all right,
15:33
Speaker 2: we get it, Steve. Fine. So on all accounts, in
15:36
Speaker 2: terms of how they utilize the back rooms and the
15:40
Speaker 2: creatures within and what does the back room mean, I
15:43
Speaker 2: think they leave enough on the table to go interesting
15:46
Speaker 2: places with it. I think based on the amount of
15:48
Speaker 2: money that the movie has made, it made twenty times
15:52
Speaker 2: the initial investment. It was a ten million dollar film.
15:55
Speaker 2: It made two hundred million dollars. I think based on
15:58
Speaker 2: the initial investment, they will probably making some more of
16:02
Speaker 2: these movies. And I'm assuming the more that they make,
16:04
Speaker 2: the more that they will explain of the back rooms,
16:07
Speaker 2: and the less ambiguity there will be with the world
16:10
Speaker 2: and lore that they've created. I think you run into
16:12
Speaker 2: some real bad problems doing that ultimately, because for most people,
16:17
Speaker 2: myself included, ambiguity is actually a good thing. Ambiguity is
16:22
Speaker 2: actually healthy in a narrative because ambiguity brings you back
16:26
Speaker 2: for more ambiguity allows you to have some room for
16:29
Speaker 2: interpretation within the narrative. I'm not saying it needs to be,
16:33
Speaker 2: you know, spontaneous in terms of like, well, you know,
16:36
Speaker 2: I'm really going far afield my extraneous interpretation of Bill
16:41
Speaker 2: and Ted's excellent adventures that it's actually about Negro league baseball.
16:44
Speaker 2: I'm not saying something to that kind of ridiculous extent.
16:47
Speaker 2: Like directors and writers don't lead that much whiggle room,
16:50
Speaker 2: but a good director and screenwriter will leave enough ambiguity
16:53
Speaker 2: within the story so that you, as the viewer, can
16:57
Speaker 2: enjoy it through your own lens and not so strictly
17:01
Speaker 2: within their narrowly defined viewfinder. I mean, Jadie Salinger famously
17:05
Speaker 2: did not want Ketcher in the Rye adapted into screen,
17:10
Speaker 2: either TV or film, because ultimately, the moment that it's
17:13
Speaker 2: adapted into something by someone else, that kind of sets
17:16
Speaker 2: the tone for how it has to be interpreted by
17:19
Speaker 2: everybody else moving forward. You know, you cast a character,
17:22
Speaker 2: and you have that character, and then any time anyone
17:24
Speaker 2: reads the book, they're gonna imagine the character as played
17:28
Speaker 2: by the actor in the film, as opposed to the
17:30
Speaker 2: way that the author had it written. And you know,
17:32
Speaker 2: kill the author is a very important conversation in twenty
17:35
Speaker 2: twenty six. I mean, it's really hard in a day
17:38
Speaker 2: and age where some of the biggest franchises are no
17:40
Speaker 2: longer helmed by the people who made them, and in
17:43
Speaker 2: some cases the people who made them are long gone.
17:45
Speaker 2: I mean Star Wars, which was famously a George Lucas
17:49
Speaker 2: endeavor that he was directly involved with at every level,
17:53
Speaker 2: is no longer involved involving him at all, and he
17:57
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with it anymore. He just enjoyed
18:00
Speaker 2: the bounty of money that he got from selling it
18:03
Speaker 2: to people that have taken it further. So there are
18:05
Speaker 2: arguments to be made for the source material, you know,
18:08
Speaker 2: source material, be damned, do what you want with it.
18:11
Speaker 2: But also allowing the people that have enjoyed it before
18:14
Speaker 2: to enjoy it now in another format I think is important.
18:18
Speaker 2: And I think that with something like backrooms, it really
18:21
Speaker 2: treads a very fine line between being something new that
18:25
Speaker 2: people that have seen the original source material and have
18:28
Speaker 2: inundated themselves with backrooms lore and backrooms, video games and
18:33
Speaker 2: backrooms this and backrooms that are now able to go.
18:36
Speaker 2: I'm going to go to the theater and watch a
18:38
Speaker 2: backrooms movie on the big screen, which must seem pretty
18:41
Speaker 2: crazy to anyone who watched Kane Parsons videos back in
18:46
Speaker 2: you know, the mid teens, when they were coming out,
18:49
Speaker 2: when that was becoming a popular thing. I mean, you know,
18:51
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two is when the original kind of backrooms
18:55
Speaker 2: videos came out. But I mean, these kinds of creepy
18:58
Speaker 2: pasta things have been around for a while. Slender Man
19:02
Speaker 2: was the thing. I mean, the slender Man murders was
19:04
Speaker 2: a thing that people ended up making a big deal
19:06
Speaker 2: out of because again, like you know, you have a
19:09
Speaker 2: internet thing driving people to do bad behavior. I mean, ultimately,
19:13
Speaker 2: it's really just you know, once again, mental health parading
19:16
Speaker 2: as something else is the real horror story of it all.
19:19
Speaker 2: Like no, it wasn't the guns, it was the mental
19:21
Speaker 2: health all along, Like yeah, no shit. And that, for me,
19:25
Speaker 2: I think is probably the issue with something like back
19:28
Speaker 2: Rooms is when you when you take something and you're
19:30
Speaker 2: adapting something that's so beloved by a large group of
19:34
Speaker 2: people that don't really have a lot of representation right
19:37
Speaker 2: now because of their age. It's it's really weird to
19:41
Speaker 2: see things that they love on the big screen. As
19:44
Speaker 2: someone who has no prior jumping endpoint, because I for
19:48
Speaker 2: the first time feel like, oh am, I missing something,
19:50
Speaker 2: which is weird because for a lot of people like myself,
19:53
Speaker 2: you know, someone who watches a lot of film, or
19:55
Speaker 2: the other people I work with, like Mike White or
19:58
Speaker 2: Father Malone who watch a lot of film, normal, it's
20:00
Speaker 2: we're not the ones feeling out of sorts with And
20:03
Speaker 2: this is one of these times where I'm like, Okay,
20:05
Speaker 2: I am stepping into the world of the gen Z
20:08
Speaker 2: a little bit, and the gen Z horror world, which
20:11
Speaker 2: I'm not super inundated with the way I am with
20:15
Speaker 2: kind of the elevated horror and the other things like
20:17
Speaker 2: there's a whole subworld of horror on YouTube that exists
20:20
Speaker 2: kind of outside of the mainstream. And you know, David F. Sandberg,
20:24
Speaker 2: the guy who directed Shazam one and two, that's where
20:27
Speaker 2: he got his start with directing short form horror on YouTube.
20:31
Speaker 2: And I applaud that Hollywood and the mainstream quote unquote
20:37
Speaker 2: are taking it upon themselves to really search out new
20:42
Speaker 2: places to find horror creators or just film creators in general. Obviously,
20:46
Speaker 2: horror is a very profitable thing in terms of low cost,
20:50
Speaker 2: high margin people love to go watch a horror movie
20:53
Speaker 2: on a Friday night with their date. It's just one
20:55
Speaker 2: of those things. People like to laugh, people like to
20:57
Speaker 2: be scared, people like to see people get shot, people
20:59
Speaker 2: like to like that's Those are the emotions that filmmakers
21:03
Speaker 2: will mine if they're good at what they do, and
21:05
Speaker 2: horror is a very easy one. And this movie leans
21:08
Speaker 2: into horror, both the gen z of it all, but
21:12
Speaker 2: also it wears its kind of influences on its sleeve. Well,
21:15
Speaker 2: I don't think it's unobvious to those who have never
21:18
Speaker 2: seen the movie. I think anyone who's a horror fan
21:20
Speaker 2: is at least seeing pictures of the dinner scene from
21:23
Speaker 2: Texas Chainsaw Massacre or any of the subsequent redos of
21:27
Speaker 2: that scene in remakes and other material. We once again
21:31
Speaker 2: get a dinner scene from Hell as it Were, with
21:34
Speaker 2: chuetl Lgaafour cutting up a person or a kind of
21:38
Speaker 2: representation of a person and beating him to himself. It's
21:42
Speaker 2: it's insane, it's unsettling and creepy. It's as unsettling and
21:47
Speaker 2: creepy as Texas Chainsaw is. Dinner scene is as off
21:51
Speaker 2: putting and gross, And I think It's very funny that
21:54
Speaker 2: gen Z horror it's not about being scary so much
21:58
Speaker 2: as being unsettling and creepy, an off putting and kind
22:01
Speaker 2: of causing the hairs on the back of your neck
22:03
Speaker 2: to raise up. Maybe not because what you're looking at
22:06
Speaker 2: is just terrifying, but maybe it's just because you can't
22:08
Speaker 2: tell what it is you're looking at. What you're looking
22:10
Speaker 2: at is amorphous or undis you know, you can't discern
22:14
Speaker 2: what it is because it's just, you know, there's a
22:16
Speaker 2: face kind of peeking out from around a corner at
22:18
Speaker 2: the end of a hallway. It's that for me, gen
22:21
Speaker 2: Z Horror is really understated in a really fun way,
22:25
Speaker 2: for as brazen and brash and overstated as David Gordon
22:29
Speaker 2: Green's Halloween Trilogy remake. Is these kinds of gen Z
22:34
Speaker 2: horror movies I resonate with way more because they're they're metered,
22:38
Speaker 2: they're slow, they take their time. It's very much psychological
22:42
Speaker 2: leans into the psychological horror, doesn't beat you over the
22:46
Speaker 2: head with the psychological horror, and I really appreciate that
22:49
Speaker 2: about this movie particularly. I haven't gone and seen Obsession yet,
22:53
Speaker 2: but I think the thing for me that I would
22:56
Speaker 2: say is kind of a good primer for something like
22:59
Speaker 2: back would be. And again, this is a controversial take,
23:02
Speaker 2: and I know that there are people out there that
23:03
Speaker 2: are going to scream at me the moment I say this,
23:06
Speaker 2: but they're wrong. Is Skinnamrink. It's a film that I
23:09
Speaker 2: think uses liminal space, uses creepy imagery, utilizes analog horror
23:15
Speaker 2: the way this film does. I mean it commits to
23:18
Speaker 2: the gimmick in a way that this film never could
23:20
Speaker 2: commit to the gimmick on a big screen, at least
23:23
Speaker 2: not with a actor of Chueto Lga for standing, or
23:26
Speaker 2: any of the actors in this film really, including Mark Duplas,
23:29
Speaker 2: who's in here for two scenes. I enjoyed Skinnamrink so
23:33
Speaker 2: much versus all the other films I've seen probably in
23:37
Speaker 2: the last twenty years in terms of horror, because it
23:40
Speaker 2: taps into something that is harder to do than making
23:45
Speaker 2: a successful horror movie. It created a world and a
23:48
Speaker 2: vibe and a place in a way that is hard
23:51
Speaker 2: to do. Organic. You have back lit tcrttvs, you have
23:56
Speaker 2: stairwells and staircases to know where, you have noises off
23:59
Speaker 2: in the distance that are very muffled. You have a eye,
24:03
Speaker 2: an eyesight and line of sight that's one or two
24:06
Speaker 2: feet off the ground, which helps again lean into the
24:09
Speaker 2: unsettling of it all because in that when you're a
24:11
Speaker 2: child and so you're kind of already unsettled in the
24:14
Speaker 2: analog space, but then it's you're also defenseless in back rooms.
24:18
Speaker 2: They lean into that there's the defenseless unknown getting lost
24:21
Speaker 2: in the back rooms and there's no handsling retyl breadcrumb
24:24
Speaker 2: to get back out. That's how they kind of lean
24:27
Speaker 2: lean into the helpless horror of backrooms is getting lost
24:31
Speaker 2: in the back rooms. But I would say that that's
24:32
Speaker 2: maybe the one thing about it that they kind of
24:34
Speaker 2: don't make as scary by the end of the film
24:37
Speaker 2: is having to see a Mark duplaus character and the
24:42
Speaker 2: Asink Research Institute, which is part of the lore of
24:46
Speaker 2: back rooms. Showing all of that takes away some of
24:49
Speaker 2: the horror that, oh, well, there's another door that people
24:52
Speaker 2: are going in and out of at will. Like, yes,
24:54
Speaker 2: I understand it's part of the lore. I appreciate it,
24:57
Speaker 2: but that doesn't feel like something you'd need to reveal movie. Frankly,
25:01
Speaker 2: the cutaway to Mark duplash at and seeing you know,
25:05
Speaker 2: Clark's Ottoman Empire, which is a very funny name, Clark's
25:09
Speaker 2: discount Automan Empire on the TV, and realizing that he's
25:13
Speaker 2: seen that monster in the back rooms as well. It's
25:16
Speaker 2: a it's a it feels like it's from another film.
25:18
Speaker 2: And then his inclusion at the end of the film
25:20
Speaker 2: feels kind of unnecessary. I feel like there were better
25:23
Speaker 2: ways to do it, or other ways to get to
25:26
Speaker 2: that same point where Clark is gone, where she the
25:29
Speaker 2: therapist Mary could also die. Possibly it's not made clear.
25:34
Speaker 2: It's left open to interpretation, which I think is very fun.
25:37
Speaker 2: I think there were ways to get to that point
25:39
Speaker 2: without having an outside character from a low organization step
25:43
Speaker 2: in and kind of go, well, here I am with
25:45
Speaker 2: the lore hat and I will I will. I will
25:49
Speaker 2: honestly kind of rail against this on any recent horror
25:53
Speaker 2: film that I've seen, because another one that did it
25:55
Speaker 2: that really was kind of off putting was heretic. Also,
26:00
Speaker 2: so Long Legs did it where it's like the movie pauses,
26:03
Speaker 2: the entire momentum of the film is arrested and we
26:07
Speaker 2: just go into exposition them, and this movie kind of
26:10
Speaker 2: does it right at the end, it's like, well, here's
26:12
Speaker 2: what this is and here's what we are. And it's like,
26:14
Speaker 2: you know, you're sending people out the door on kind
26:16
Speaker 2: of a crappy note. You're sending them out on a
26:18
Speaker 2: low note, and you can send them out on a
26:20
Speaker 2: low note any day of the week. It's just this
26:22
Speaker 2: is not the kind of low note you should send
26:24
Speaker 2: the audience out on, which is not to say a
26:26
Speaker 2: low note as much as just a like the wagon
26:29
Speaker 2: has pulled into the station like it should be with
26:31
Speaker 2: a film like this, like it comes out of nowhere
26:33
Speaker 2: and that's the end. In this, it's like the kind
26:35
Speaker 2: of telegraph that it's the end of the movie. And
26:38
Speaker 2: I didn't need that as a viewer. I was enjoying
26:41
Speaker 2: Mystery of the back Room so much. And then they
26:43
Speaker 2: kind of rob the movie of the mystery right at
26:45
Speaker 2: the end. And it's not a twist, Like there's no
26:48
Speaker 2: twist to the ending, and I don't need a twist
26:50
Speaker 2: to the ending. The twist is the back rooms are
26:53
Speaker 2: the a physical representation of people's memories, but they're being
26:57
Speaker 2: degraded over time, and so the back rooms are aren't perfect.
27:00
Speaker 2: They're kind of a degraded memory in living form. And
27:04
Speaker 2: so that's why when Clark is in the back rooms,
27:07
Speaker 2: he sees a giant, pirate version of himself because someone
27:11
Speaker 2: in his past or even him, remembered or misremembered a
27:15
Speaker 2: giant version of himself based on the billboard or the
27:19
Speaker 2: kind of lights on the front of his business, and
27:21
Speaker 2: so there's a giant version of him stalking the back
27:24
Speaker 2: eating and killing people for who knows what reason. Who
27:27
Speaker 2: knows why the things in the back rooms are violent.
27:29
Speaker 2: That's more interesting to me of a concept to mine,
27:32
Speaker 2: which is why are the things in there sentient and violent?
27:36
Speaker 2: I don't really care what the backrooms are. It's kind
27:38
Speaker 2: of hinted at that it's a space within the space,
27:40
Speaker 2: and it's an MRI company that discovered it. So you know, again,
27:44
Speaker 2: maybe they'll lean more into that in the next movie.
27:46
Speaker 2: I just personally, it's not something that interested me at
27:49
Speaker 2: any point in the movie. I was not like, well,
27:51
Speaker 2: I want to know what the back rooms are. Once
27:53
Speaker 2: they start answering those questions, there are more questions that
27:56
Speaker 2: have to be answered, There are more things that have
27:57
Speaker 2: to be accounted for, there are more things that they
27:59
Speaker 2: have to go out of their way to explain, and
28:02
Speaker 2: for me, I don't think explaining everything all the time
28:06
Speaker 2: makes things better. I think frankly it ended ends up
28:09
Speaker 2: robbing things of their mystery and ends up making something
28:12
Speaker 2: less interesting, opposite of what their intention is. I would
28:17
Speaker 2: think that when you explain something so that you can
28:19
Speaker 2: close some doors and open others. But when, for the
28:23
Speaker 2: most part a filmmaker explains things, it just leaves doors
28:26
Speaker 2: open that should never have been opened to begin with,
28:28
Speaker 2: often because they don't think things through completely in reverse,
28:32
Speaker 2: and some things just don't make sense. And I worry
28:36
Speaker 2: with something like back Rooms that the more that they reveal,
28:39
Speaker 2: the further into a corner they'll paint themselves, and they'll
28:42
Speaker 2: be kind of unable to give it a satisfying landing, conclusion, explanation,
28:47
Speaker 2: what have you. Because we're getting more of these movies
28:50
Speaker 2: gen Z Horror with Obsession and back Rooms both coming
28:53
Speaker 2: out back to back weekends making more money than the
28:56
Speaker 2: Mandalorian and Grogu did with one tenth of the budget
29:00
Speaker 2: or one sixteenth of the budget, and made more money.
29:03
Speaker 2: I think we're gonna see a lot more of this.
29:05
Speaker 2: I think we're about to get a glut of gen
29:07
Speaker 2: Z horror, and I don't think it's all going to
29:09
Speaker 2: be very good. I think it's all going to be
29:11
Speaker 2: kind of varying degrees of success. I'm sure we'll get
29:13
Speaker 2: some successes in there, because like anything else, broken clocks
29:17
Speaker 2: are right twice a day, and people shot gunning at
29:20
Speaker 2: a wall are bound to hit the target from time
29:22
Speaker 2: to time. But I don't think anyone is gonna nail
29:24
Speaker 2: it as much as back Rooms did or hit the
29:26
Speaker 2: high notes, because there are some high notes in the
29:28
Speaker 2: movie that I really enjoy. I really enjoy the initial,
29:33
Speaker 2: you know, finding of the back rooms to what lgfour
29:35
Speaker 2: going in there and walking around. I like those these
29:39
Speaker 2: VHS analog horror moments where we're seeing through the video camera.
29:43
Speaker 2: I think that's fun. I don't think it's overused. I
29:45
Speaker 2: think it's used just the right amount. I think it's
29:47
Speaker 2: scary enough, and I appreciate those moments where we are
29:52
Speaker 2: just seeing through the viewfile, and I think it really works.
29:55
Speaker 2: It's maybe the best part of the movie in a way.
29:58
Speaker 2: I think that if those other outside if you finder
30:01
Speaker 2: ideas could live up to the ones that they're utilizing
30:04
Speaker 2: inside of it, I think I think you have something
30:06
Speaker 2: really special. Clearly, with back rooms as a concept, you
30:11
Speaker 2: don't have to have the same characters. You can just
30:13
Speaker 2: have people going into the back rooms. I mean, Kane
30:15
Speaker 2: Parsons himself technically those videos were created as he is
30:20
Speaker 2: the one going into the back rooms, at least the
30:22
Speaker 2: character that he's pretending to be through utilizing the viewfinder
30:26
Speaker 2: similarly to the footage we see in the film. So
30:28
Speaker 2: the footage in the film has kind of a real
30:31
Speaker 2: world inspiration, which is those initial back rooms videos kind
30:35
Speaker 2: of being shot from found footage POV which I mean, again,
30:38
Speaker 2: I think it's smart that we have an intermingling of
30:40
Speaker 2: that because I think if this was just a found
30:42
Speaker 2: footage movie, I don't know, maybe it would have worked better.
30:45
Speaker 2: Maybe you wouldn't feel the need to, like Hue so
30:48
Speaker 2: close to the narrative storytelling like exposition dumping beats, because
30:52
Speaker 2: you know, blair Witch, the film really could have been
30:55
Speaker 2: like And I think that this is maybe kind of
30:57
Speaker 2: the point to pivot to scary movie is this could
31:00
Speaker 2: have been like a blair Witch, where it is just
31:03
Speaker 2: a complete found footage movie, but it has that same feel,
31:06
Speaker 2: that same level of dread, that same level of you
31:09
Speaker 2: go through a wall in your house and you disappear.
31:11
Speaker 2: Oh god, what next? You know, that episode of The
31:14
Speaker 2: Treehouse of Horror where where Homer goes behind the bookcase
31:17
Speaker 2: into the three D world was also at the top
31:20
Speaker 2: of my mind. It's one of my favorite tree House
31:21
Speaker 2: of Horror segments. But also I remember it's very scary
31:25
Speaker 2: to just go behind a bookshelf in your house and disappear.
31:27
Speaker 2: That concept is terrifying. To go into an area where
31:31
Speaker 2: you can see the other people but they can't see you,
31:33
Speaker 2: or you go into a wall and then you lose
31:36
Speaker 2: how to get back, which is I mean legitimately terrifying,
31:39
Speaker 2: And I think they kind of maybe in over explaining
31:42
Speaker 2: they kind of miss what makes it so scary. I mean,
31:45
Speaker 2: the initial video of back Rooms is Kane Parsons falling
31:49
Speaker 2: through the floor in a random spot in the concrete
31:52
Speaker 2: that they can't see. Like that is that concept is
31:55
Speaker 2: pretty terrify. The back rooms and where they are, you know,
31:58
Speaker 2: whatever that is. You can kind of go and any
32:00
Speaker 2: number of directions to mine that. But the idea of
32:03
Speaker 2: wandering into an area by accident that you may not
32:05
Speaker 2: ever be able to come back from of no fault
32:08
Speaker 2: of your own is terrifying, and I think that leaning
32:11
Speaker 2: into that and really mining that for me, I think
32:14
Speaker 2: is the smartest thing that they can continue to do.
32:16
Speaker 2: And I mean the exposition in the movie needed or not,
32:19
Speaker 2: I think they really could have created something found footage heavier,
32:24
Speaker 2: and I think it's still really would have really worked
32:27
Speaker 2: more so than the film already did. I enjoyed it
32:30
Speaker 2: a fair amount. I would definitely suggest I wouldn't have
32:33
Speaker 2: seeing it in the big screen is necessary. I don't
32:35
Speaker 2: think I gained anything from watching it in the theater
32:38
Speaker 2: other than no longer having a free ticket at Marcus
32:41
Speaker 2: Theaters that I had been given like over a decade ago.
32:45
Speaker 2: They never expired those diamond passes, so thankfully I didn't
32:49
Speaker 2: have to pay to go see the movie. But I
32:50
Speaker 2: don't know if you should either, because it was good.
32:53
Speaker 2: But I don't think seeing it on the big screen
32:54
Speaker 2: added anything other than saying I saw it on a
32:56
Speaker 2: big screen, which for those of you that are going
32:58
Speaker 2: to see The Odyssey, okay, I mean again, I think
33:02
Speaker 2: the democratization of being able to see content anywhere is
33:05
Speaker 2: much more important than having to see a movie on
33:08
Speaker 2: the big screen, Because I don't gatekeep there's nothing to gatekeep.
33:11
Speaker 2: So if you say to me it has to be
33:13
Speaker 2: watched on x Y or Z platform because the creator
33:16
Speaker 2: said it, I'm going to watch it in the other
33:18
Speaker 2: thing intentionally because I really detest that that sentiment. It's like,
33:23
Speaker 2: you know, I don't care how somebody watches it, as
33:25
Speaker 2: long as they're enjoying it, or at least as long
33:26
Speaker 2: as they're resonating with it in some capacity, good or bad. So,
33:30
Speaker 2: speaking of resonating with something good or bad, Scary Movie
33:33
Speaker 2: Wow twenty twenty six. Huh, it's been a long time
33:38
Speaker 2: since I saw one of these kinds of movies in theaters.
33:42
Speaker 2: So the original film came out in July of two thousand,
33:45
Speaker 2: when I was ten years old, and they have come
33:48
Speaker 2: out subsequent when I was eleven, thirteen, sixteen, twenty three,
33:52
Speaker 2: and now thirty six. I did not see Scary Movie five.
33:57
Speaker 2: I couldn't tell you a single thing about it. I
34:00
Speaker 2: know that Charlie Sheen was on the poster, and that's
34:02
Speaker 2: about it. I've stayed away from these films since Scary
34:06
Speaker 2: Movie three because Scary Movie three was the last funny one,
34:09
Speaker 2: and I know some people will fight me on that.
34:11
Speaker 2: I think even the people who made this movie would
34:13
Speaker 2: agree that Scary Movie Three is probably the last funny
34:16
Speaker 2: one if they were to be asked which one is
34:18
Speaker 2: funny outside of the ones that they made, because that's
34:21
Speaker 2: kind of one of the things about this movie that
34:24
Speaker 2: they really lean into is the Wayans uninvolvement after the
34:29
Speaker 2: second movie, which you know, again the producers of the
34:32
Speaker 2: original films and them didn't get along. The Wayans thought
34:36
Speaker 2: that they were the important part of the franchise. I'm
34:40
Speaker 2: not necessarily sure that they are, because for me, Anna
34:44
Speaker 2: Faris has always been the Anna Faris and Regina Hall's
34:48
Speaker 2: chemistry together has always been very funny. The two of
34:51
Speaker 2: them have always been very funny together. Scary Movie three,
34:55
Speaker 2: I think is very funny because the two of them
34:57
Speaker 2: with Charlie Sheen and Simon Rex is very funn The
35:00
Speaker 2: Wayans brothers in the first movie are fine, but Shorty
35:06
Speaker 2: is just a one joke character, and honestly, same with
35:10
Speaker 2: Sean Wayns' character. Ray and Shorty are literally one note character.
35:15
Speaker 2: And I mean, sure, if you want to involve these
35:18
Speaker 2: fifty year old men in this franchise cool, I get
35:21
Speaker 2: what you're getting at with the scream five of it. All,
35:24
Speaker 2: and I do appreciate where this film goes by the
35:28
Speaker 2: end when there is the kind of twist ending reveal,
35:31
Speaker 2: and I'll talk about it kind of towards the end
35:33
Speaker 2: of this, But a bad comedy is for me one
35:36
Speaker 2: of the worst things to have to sit there, because
35:39
Speaker 2: a bad comedy is a film that does not succeed
35:41
Speaker 2: at being funny. And I don't know what I'm supposed
35:44
Speaker 2: to do when something is not funny other than sit
35:47
Speaker 2: there and feel uncomfortable that I'm not giving you what
35:50
Speaker 2: you want and I'm not going because you're not earning
35:53
Speaker 2: want at all, and you're trying really hard, and the
35:57
Speaker 2: harder you try, the more you flail. And the flailing
36:00
Speaker 2: is what makes it worse. And there's moments in this
36:03
Speaker 2: film that are genuinely unfunny in a way that a
36:07
Speaker 2: big budget, thirty million dollars studio film. And by the way,
36:12
Speaker 2: what universe is putting Miramax at the beginning of a
36:15
Speaker 2: movie ever going to do anything other than give me
36:18
Speaker 2: a level of ick that I have to kind of
36:20
Speaker 2: wash out of my system for the first five to
36:22
Speaker 2: ten minutes of the movie. I just that name should
36:25
Speaker 2: cover carry no cachet anymore. There should be no benefit
36:29
Speaker 2: to putting Miramax on the front of anything, genuinely, like
36:33
Speaker 2: put Happy Madison up there for God's sakes, Like put
36:36
Speaker 2: anything up there, but don't put Miramax. Just Jesus fucking
36:40
Speaker 2: Christ on a cross, like it's to me, we've we've
36:43
Speaker 2: not really learned a goddamn thing in ten, ten and eleven, twelve,
36:48
Speaker 2: thirteen years since the Me Too movement, like at all.
36:51
Speaker 2: Like I can't believe anyone like Miramax should hold no credibility,
36:54
Speaker 2: for anyone should hold no water. It should be a
36:57
Speaker 2: name that we cast to the dust spin of history
37:00
Speaker 2: and forget about. I don't give a shit if the
37:01
Speaker 2: Weinstein brothers parents were named Mirah and Max. I don't
37:05
Speaker 2: give a shit. Harvey Weinstein's name has forever tainted all
37:08
Speaker 2: of it, and throw it all out in the dust.
37:09
Speaker 2: Bit fuck them, fuck them, and fuck Miramax. I just
37:12
Speaker 2: I can't believe that we're trading in Miramax still in
37:15
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six. So that was just beyond for me
37:18
Speaker 2: having to sit through that at the beginning of the film,
37:20
Speaker 2: outside of having to watch the Mirror Max the updated
37:23
Speaker 2: Mirramax title credit scary movie six is a completely unneeded
37:27
Speaker 2: movie in twenty twenty six. I don't think anybody is
37:29
Speaker 2: going to sit here and say, well, the world was
37:31
Speaker 2: really clamoring for a return to parody horror. I wish
37:36
Speaker 2: I could say the movie was funnier than it is.
37:38
Speaker 2: There are some funny moments. I did laugh several times
37:41
Speaker 2: at some of the jokes, but overall, I think the
37:45
Speaker 2: movie validates its its unexistence. Nothing about the movie when
37:49
Speaker 2: I was watching it caused me to say, well, man,
37:52
Speaker 2: these movies being back is going to really push horror
37:54
Speaker 2: to take a look at itself and not be so goofy,
37:57
Speaker 2: or this is going to cause elevated horror. Like no, No,
38:00
Speaker 2: it didn't do any of that. Like it honestly had
38:03
Speaker 2: an opportunity to really lean into the parody of it all,
38:07
Speaker 2: the meta parody. And I think the best parts of
38:09
Speaker 2: this movie are the leaning into the meta parody. And
38:12
Speaker 2: again I think the ending is is part and parcel
38:15
Speaker 2: with that. But the parts of this movie where it's
38:18
Speaker 2: just a return to the stupid, unneeded family guy esque
38:23
Speaker 2: cutaway jokes like a GERMANE Jackson parody trailer, like that's
38:28
Speaker 2: not gonna age. Well, the original Scary Movie I think
38:32
Speaker 2: as stood the test of time for the most part
38:34
Speaker 2: because the movies that it's paroting are still part of
38:37
Speaker 2: the zeitgeist. I mean, it's you know, it's kind of funny.
38:40
Speaker 2: Scream seven's released the same year as Scary Movie six.
38:43
Speaker 2: Like Jesus Christ, these franchises are still going twenty plus
38:47
Speaker 2: years later, and they both have a sequel only one
38:50
Speaker 2: number off from one another coming out the same year.
38:53
Speaker 2: That's parody alone. That's ripe for parody. That concept of
38:57
Speaker 2: like times haven't changed that much now have They don't
39:00
Speaker 2: even really lean into that as much as they should,
39:03
Speaker 2: as much as they could, as much as anyone who's
39:06
Speaker 2: looking to really make a horror movie that's adapting these
39:10
Speaker 2: kind of horror movies in this day and age would
39:12
Speaker 2: because again they even say it themselves, elevated horror. The
39:16
Speaker 2: audience who's watching elevated horror wants something that's more than
39:20
Speaker 2: just surface level. And guess what, people that are watching
39:23
Speaker 2: comedies now not maybe elevated, but these kinds of movies
39:27
Speaker 2: fell by the wayside for reason because the formula became tired.
39:31
Speaker 2: Epic move not another what the hell there's like to
39:36
Speaker 2: fast and furious. There's a fast and furious one. Meet
39:38
Speaker 2: the Spartans. I'm sorry that I slept with your forty
39:43
Speaker 2: year old virgin daughter. I mean, all these like wild absurd.
39:46
Speaker 2: Trevor Gumbelo would love me bringing up the Friedberg and
39:49
Speaker 2: Seltzer of it all, Like those guys and their movies
39:52
Speaker 2: are diminishing returns. After the first one, it was just
39:56
Speaker 2: essentially back to zero. There was not even like, oh,
39:58
Speaker 2: it's like the seventy five. Say no, it's a fifty
40:01
Speaker 2: and twenty five, Like no, no, we're just at zero.
40:03
Speaker 2: We went from one hundred to zero. I love Naked Gun.
40:07
Speaker 2: I did an entire series with Mike White and Mark
40:10
Speaker 2: Begley all about Naked Gun. Then became a Chevy Chase podcast.
40:13
Speaker 2: You can go listen to it on the weirding Way
40:15
Speaker 2: Media podcast network. Those movies, after the first Naked Gun,
40:19
Speaker 2: it barely The second and third Naked Gun are fine.
40:21
Speaker 2: I enjoy the second one for some of the long
40:24
Speaker 2: kind of the long burn jokes in the movie that
40:27
Speaker 2: they kind of really slow burn to get to. But
40:30
Speaker 2: the first one is a classic. Beyond that, the second
40:32
Speaker 2: and third one take it or leave it. The new
40:34
Speaker 2: one pretty funny. However, again, it's it's doing its own
40:39
Speaker 2: new thing, and so if it had just tried to
40:41
Speaker 2: be Naked Gun all over again, I don't think it
40:43
Speaker 2: would have been as successful. And I think that's what
40:46
Speaker 2: made that movie so funny last year and so successful,
40:49
Speaker 2: is that it actually understood that the times have indeed changed,
40:53
Speaker 2: and the movies that have come out since, like john Wick,
40:56
Speaker 2: like all these things that it was taking upon itself
40:58
Speaker 2: to parody have actually pushed people who watch those movies
41:02
Speaker 2: to expect a little bit smarter of a take, a
41:05
Speaker 2: little bit more nuanced or refined or interesting of a
41:08
Speaker 2: take when it comes to parodying those movie and Scary
41:12
Speaker 2: Movie just it hits those notes from time to time.
41:16
Speaker 2: It's a remake of Scary Movie. It's a parody of
41:19
Speaker 2: Scary Movie. Five direct. We have the ghost Face coming
41:23
Speaker 2: back to kill the legacy characters, and there are new
41:27
Speaker 2: characters involved. That's very smart. We have them hanging a
41:30
Speaker 2: lantern on the fact that most of the characters in
41:32
Speaker 2: this movie died in the first movie, and then they're
41:35
Speaker 2: just like, ah, well, who cares. I love that, Like
41:38
Speaker 2: I love the irreverence that they show towards their own franchise.
41:42
Speaker 2: I appreciate that. I find that very funny. However, there's
41:45
Speaker 2: no payoff. I mean, they're kind of is with the
41:47
Speaker 2: twist ending, but they don't really do as much with
41:51
Speaker 2: it as you would hope that they would. I don't
41:53
Speaker 2: know why they don't do that, because Scream Scream five
41:57
Speaker 2: did what they're doing better than they're doing it, and
41:59
Speaker 2: they have the opportunity to one up Scream five, and
42:02
Speaker 2: instead of one upping Scream five, they kind of just
42:05
Speaker 2: fart and piss and in their own and kind of
42:08
Speaker 2: play in their own mess like it's it's not as
42:10
Speaker 2: funny as Scream five. Like Scream five is actually funny
42:13
Speaker 2: in those moments where they're kind of poking fun at
42:15
Speaker 2: the franchise. This doesn't get it. This hits every other note,
42:20
Speaker 2: but it's not hitting the notes consistently in a way
42:22
Speaker 2: that you would really expect from a movie at this point.
42:26
Speaker 2: This kind of like this just it feels almost like
42:28
Speaker 2: Morbius in a lot of ways. Like Morbius felt like
42:31
Speaker 2: a superhero movie that was made with two thousand and
42:34
Speaker 2: one Spider Man as made by Sam Raimi sensibility, This
42:38
Speaker 2: feels like a comedy made in the mid two thousands
42:41
Speaker 2: with scary movie three sensibilities. But sometimes because they're making
42:45
Speaker 2: fun of stuff that elevated horror, it forces them to
42:48
Speaker 2: be a little bit more creative with their parody. Like
42:51
Speaker 2: there's a parody of weapons in the movie that's kind
42:54
Speaker 2: of funny. There's a parody of the stuff that's kind
42:57
Speaker 2: of funny, there's a parody of and again, the whole
43:01
Speaker 2: movie is a parody of Scream. So anytime they do
43:04
Speaker 2: kind of the scream stuff, it doesn't really work anymore
43:07
Speaker 2: because they're doing all these other things. The scream stuff
43:09
Speaker 2: just kind of the ghost face of it all feels
43:12
Speaker 2: really forced. And I wish that they had just kind
43:14
Speaker 2: of leaned more into the Scream five if they were
43:16
Speaker 2: gonna do it, like, don't try to incorporate other stuff.
43:19
Speaker 2: Just make it like really meta and silly and goofy,
43:23
Speaker 2: and have the characters really winking at the audience, like
43:27
Speaker 2: we know that you can do that now. Deadpool did
43:29
Speaker 2: it over and over and over again, like audiences are
43:32
Speaker 2: not stupid, and this movie acts like audiences, And you know,
43:37
Speaker 2: I do find it very funny that Regina Hall plays
43:40
Speaker 2: Ma from the movie Ma essentially, like that's her whole thing,
43:43
Speaker 2: and that's very understated. They don't beat you over the
43:46
Speaker 2: head with that one. That one's very funny if you've
43:49
Speaker 2: seen that movie, which I you know, I guess some
43:52
Speaker 2: of the movies that they parody. I'm kind of surprised
43:54
Speaker 2: day parody because I'm surprised that that's a movie that
43:57
Speaker 2: people are like resonating with that. I'm surprised that they
44:00
Speaker 2: don't talk about a Haunted House at all at any
44:03
Speaker 2: point unless I missed it, which ends up being the
44:05
Speaker 2: reason we have Michael Tittis as the director of this
44:08
Speaker 2: film because he worked with the Wayans Brother Entertainment Organization
44:13
Speaker 2: in twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen, and probably twenty sixteen as
44:17
Speaker 2: well with Fifty Shades of Black, Like those are parody
44:20
Speaker 2: movies that are I would even go as far as
44:22
Speaker 2: to say A Haunted House is cheaper than this movie
44:25
Speaker 2: and has made more money in terms of budget than
44:28
Speaker 2: this movie. Like this movie's a thirty million dollar movie.
44:31
Speaker 2: Why for what? For whom do you need thirty million
44:35
Speaker 2: dollars to make scary movie? When A Haunted House came
44:38
Speaker 2: out on a three and a half million dollar budget,
44:40
Speaker 2: that's it's It's not on the screen. I don't know
44:43
Speaker 2: unless they're just paying you know, Carmen Electra and Tianna
44:46
Speaker 2: Taylor cameo, you know, SAG minimum million dollars a day. Like,
44:49
Speaker 2: I don't know why you'd be spending this much money
44:53
Speaker 2: on this kind of and if you were gonna do,
44:56
Speaker 2: you're gonna do something that was really affects necessary. Sure,
44:58
Speaker 2: but it's just this movie. These budgets three times the
45:01
Speaker 2: budget of back Why. That's kind of the thing that
45:05
Speaker 2: really bugs me about Scary Movie is I saw Scary
45:08
Speaker 2: Movie the weekend after I saw Backrooms, and I know
45:10
Speaker 2: they're going to try and parody Backrooms. If they make
45:13
Speaker 2: another scary movie, They're gonna parody Obsessions, and they're gonna
45:16
Speaker 2: parody Backrooms. I wouldn't be surprised if Backrooms, and mark
45:19
Speaker 2: my words here, I wouldn't be surprised if Backrooms ends
45:22
Speaker 2: up being the framework of the parody for the next
45:26
Speaker 2: scary movie. For Scary Movie seven, maybe I don't know
45:29
Speaker 2: if they're gonna call it Scary Movie seven or Scary
45:31
Speaker 2: Movie two, because who knows, they might just do that
45:33
Speaker 2: given that this is just scary movie. I mean, I
45:35
Speaker 2: get it is scream you know because of screen so
45:37
Speaker 2: it'll probably be Scary Movie seven. But I wouldn't be
45:40
Speaker 2: surprised if the framework for Scary Movie seven is backrooms,
45:43
Speaker 2: the way the framework for this movie was Scream five,
45:45
Speaker 2: the way the framework for Scary Movie three was signs like.
45:49
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be surprised because the backrooms can be used
45:52
Speaker 2: for a lot of things. You can have people walking
45:54
Speaker 2: out of the back rooms into other films, other kinds
45:57
Speaker 2: of wild, weird came of things if you wanted to
46:00
Speaker 2: get fun with it and interesting. But more than likely
46:03
Speaker 2: it's just gonna be lazy. And what I don't understand
46:05
Speaker 2: is the Wayans know how to be funny. The Wayans
46:09
Speaker 2: are not unfunny broadly, the Wayans are funny. I've seen
46:12
Speaker 2: interviews and podcast episodes with some of the Wayan brothers,
46:16
Speaker 2: and they all seem very smart, and they seem all
46:18
Speaker 2: very like in tune with like filmmaking and their place
46:22
Speaker 2: in the world of filmmaking and what they can do
46:24
Speaker 2: to be successful and how they've been successful. I just
46:27
Speaker 2: don't understand why that didn't translate here. It doesn't. The
46:30
Speaker 2: movie doesn't feel like it has teeth. It feels very
46:33
Speaker 2: much like it's unable to bite and have any sort
46:36
Speaker 2: of commentary or sharp edge, and it feels very toothless,
46:40
Speaker 2: and I don't up until the ending, which I think
46:43
Speaker 2: is probably the funniest part of the entire movie. I
46:45
Speaker 2: just don't understand why the movie is so unoffensive. And
46:48
Speaker 2: I'm not saying like the movie needs to offend me,
46:51
Speaker 2: but the movie needs to kind of push the line
46:54
Speaker 2: and be a little bit subversive. They showed a preview
46:57
Speaker 2: for the final Jackass movie before this film, and that
47:00
Speaker 2: looks more subversive than this movie. And that's a movie
47:02
Speaker 2: about a guy where they're gonna reshow the footage of
47:05
Speaker 2: a guy going up and down in a porta potty
47:07
Speaker 2: and having shit thrown all over. And that's from the
47:09
Speaker 2: nineties as well. There's a lot of stuff in Scary
47:12
Speaker 2: Movie One even that's subversive compared to where this film
47:17
Speaker 2: kind of gets to. And you know, this film does
47:20
Speaker 2: a sort of Trump joke, and it does a sort
47:22
Speaker 2: of chat GPT joke, more specifically the chat GPT joke
47:26
Speaker 2: that it makes I think will age very poorly, which
47:29
Speaker 2: is another thing that this movie does over and over,
47:32
Speaker 2: which is make it so that it exists in a
47:34
Speaker 2: time of a place, which, as we all know, is
47:37
Speaker 2: a great way to make sure your film feels super
47:39
Speaker 2: outdated more or less the day after it comes out.
47:43
Speaker 2: Oh it sounds like it was written by Chad Gpt.
47:45
Speaker 2: Oh my god, guys of the times of the times.
47:48
Speaker 2: As I sit and rolled my eyes in the theater,
47:50
Speaker 2: like I thought about it for a second, I thought, oh,
47:53
Speaker 2: this is funny, but it's not funny. It's just it's
47:55
Speaker 2: about as low hanging as as the fruit can get.
47:58
Speaker 2: And I this point want my comedies to do a
48:01
Speaker 2: little bit more than that, because even comedy action movies
48:04
Speaker 2: like a Deadpool did more than that. They didn't just
48:07
Speaker 2: go for the easy joke. And going for the easy
48:09
Speaker 2: joke it's just for me, it's just not engaging. It's
48:12
Speaker 2: not interesting anymore. And the easy joke is like where
48:15
Speaker 2: they go to over and over again with this movie,
48:18
Speaker 2: and it's it's smacks of scary movie. You know, four
48:21
Speaker 2: and five, which I mean I've seen, I don't like,
48:24
Speaker 2: but i've seen I didn't, you know, I guess, maybe
48:27
Speaker 2: I guess I haven't. I've seen four, maybe i've seen five,
48:30
Speaker 2: but I know i've seen four, and it just it's
48:33
Speaker 2: smacks of those kinds of movies, like it's just it's lazy,
48:36
Speaker 2: it's uninteresting, it's just trying to be topical. I remember
48:40
Speaker 2: when Craig Bierco at the end of that Scary Movie four,
48:43
Speaker 2: he's jumping on the couch recreating the scene with Oprah
48:46
Speaker 2: and Tom Cruise like that that, oh, how topical. Like
48:50
Speaker 2: if you watch Scary Movie four now you won't get
48:52
Speaker 2: the reference, and that that's not great. When we talked
48:56
Speaker 2: about Airplane Is many years ago, like one of the
48:58
Speaker 2: jokes in the movie that doesn't land anymore is the
49:02
Speaker 2: joke about coffee. It's like, oh, that's not how he
49:04
Speaker 2: takes his coffee. It's like, who is this reference for? Oh,
49:07
Speaker 2: this was a reference for someone living at the time,
49:09
Speaker 2: based on a ad that was on the TV about
49:13
Speaker 2: the way you know, someone is taking his coffee. The
49:16
Speaker 2: joke has you know, for the one or two people
49:18
Speaker 2: you know, percentage wise, one or two percentage of people
49:21
Speaker 2: watching that movie, now, that get that joke. Cool, But
49:23
Speaker 2: for most people who watch Airplane. Now, if anyone's watching
49:26
Speaker 2: Airplane now, that joke's gonna go completely over their head
49:29
Speaker 2: and it's it's like one in the movie, it's still
49:31
Speaker 2: a classic because it doesn't go to that like topicality
49:34
Speaker 2: well over and over again, including a fake parody trailer
49:39
Speaker 2: of the Michael Jackson movie in your movie is not topical.
49:43
Speaker 2: All it does is like and that Michael Jackson movie
49:45
Speaker 2: I don't even think is like zeitgeisty enough to matter.
49:48
Speaker 2: It's kind of already out of the conversation by the
49:51
Speaker 2: time this movie's come out, and they came out the
49:53
Speaker 2: same year, They come out within a month and a
49:55
Speaker 2: half of each other, and nobody's talking about the Michael
49:57
Speaker 2: Jackson movie anymore. So I think if someone watches this
50:00
Speaker 2: movie a year from now, they're gonna be like, oh, yeah,
50:01
Speaker 2: I remember how Michael Jackson movie came out. That the
50:04
Speaker 2: topicality is going to torpedo this movie's longevity as anything
50:09
Speaker 2: other than, you know, another scary movie. And that's about it. Like,
50:12
Speaker 2: there will be people that like it. There will probably
50:14
Speaker 2: be people that you know, grew up with Barbarian and
50:17
Speaker 2: weapons and these other elevated horror movies that watch this
50:20
Speaker 2: movie and go, oh, well, this is you know, this
50:22
Speaker 2: is really funny because it's you know, making fun of weapons,
50:24
Speaker 2: or it's making fun of the witch, or I guess
50:27
Speaker 2: not even really making fun of the like it follows
50:29
Speaker 2: or you know, scream Scream five, the first scream I
50:32
Speaker 2: ever saw. I was like a twelve year old, like,
50:33
Speaker 2: I can appreciate that. And again it's the back rooms
50:36
Speaker 2: of it. This is somewhat being made as a reboot,
50:39
Speaker 2: rebookal I believe is what the movie calls as a
50:43
Speaker 2: rebookual for scary movie as a franchise. I don't think
50:47
Speaker 2: we needed more scary move type move This is like
50:50
Speaker 2: really low hanging lazy humor and comedies. Now, if it's
50:56
Speaker 2: gonna do something like this, you gotta be smart about it,
50:59
Speaker 2: and you gotta be a little bit more intentional with
51:02
Speaker 2: what you're doing. You got to really make sure that
51:05
Speaker 2: what you're doing has a unified purpose an idea, And
51:09
Speaker 2: they hit on it here. And so the end of
51:11
Speaker 2: the film, the reveal is, oh, well, the killer who
51:16
Speaker 2: is the obvious killer of the whole movie, her boyfriend,
51:18
Speaker 2: the Jack Quaid stand in who is even named Jack
51:21
Speaker 2: in the movie, who's been essentially revealing himself to be
51:24
Speaker 2: the killer over and over again. Him and the Micah
51:26
Speaker 2: Munroe character from Scream five, they are the killers. And
51:30
Speaker 2: then it turns out, No, they're not the killers. There are,
51:33
Speaker 2: so there's four killers Shaq, Anthony Anderson, Sean Wayans, and
51:37
Speaker 2: Marlon Wains. And that twist at the end of the
51:39
Speaker 2: movie is they kill the you know, the characters that
51:43
Speaker 2: they're handing the torch over to. They kill them and say,
51:46
Speaker 2: no one's ever taken over our franchise, and they leave
51:48
Speaker 2: them in a burning building at the end of the movie,
51:50
Speaker 2: like at the end of Scream when the or I
51:52
Speaker 2: guess Scream seven beginning of Scream seven, when the house
51:55
Speaker 2: burns down, they leave the new characters in that house
51:59
Speaker 2: to die, which includes Regina Hall's kids and Anna Faris'
52:04
Speaker 2: kids and technically Marlon Wands's niece and nephew to die
52:07
Speaker 2: because they're like, you know what, they're never taking over
52:08
Speaker 2: our franchise. That's funny comment that's funny meta commentary that
52:14
Speaker 2: the old actors can't give it up and let it
52:17
Speaker 2: go on to the new like the new franchise characters.
52:21
Speaker 2: That's funny, that's smart humor. Lean more into that. Having
52:24
Speaker 2: Anthony Anderson come back was funny. Having Shaquille O'Neal in
52:28
Speaker 2: place of Kevin Hart because Kevin Hart didn't come back
52:31
Speaker 2: was funny. That's a callback to other scary movies. They
52:33
Speaker 2: did a callback to Scary Movie too, with Chris Elliott
52:36
Speaker 2: as Shorthand, which is meant to be a play on
52:39
Speaker 2: long legs, Like that's funny. Those are funny because it's
52:43
Speaker 2: it's leaning into the mythology and Lord that this franchise
52:46
Speaker 2: is already created and kind of is adhering to while
52:49
Speaker 2: also doing something different and kind of being clever. And
52:52
Speaker 2: I'm just I feel like if they had not been
52:56
Speaker 2: so concerned with parroting the movies of the day and
52:59
Speaker 2: just trying to make a funny horror movie, that's probably
53:02
Speaker 2: the way to do these now. Stop trying to parody
53:05
Speaker 2: things directly and instead create a parody horror movie that
53:09
Speaker 2: parodies things less directly, like Their's State. They didn't touch Midsummer,
53:14
Speaker 2: they didn't touch Hereditary, they didn't touch a lot of
53:16
Speaker 2: they didn't touch the Witch. They didn't touch a lot
53:18
Speaker 2: of things that are ripe for parody. And you know,
53:23
Speaker 2: maybe the world doesn't need Scary Movie seven. I guarantee
53:25
Speaker 2: you we're gonna get it, because that's the way of
53:28
Speaker 2: the world and that's the way things are. But for me,
53:31
Speaker 2: this movie doesn't justify its existence. The twist at the
53:34
Speaker 2: end is funny and fun, but it doesn't It doesn't
53:38
Speaker 2: get the movie over the hump. Frankly, I found the
53:41
Speaker 2: twist of Scary Movie six that the franchise characters come
53:44
Speaker 2: back to reclaim the franchise to not give it over
53:47
Speaker 2: to the new Blood. I find that to be a
53:49
Speaker 2: funnier and more interesting twist and a more meta twist
53:52
Speaker 2: than what Scream seven was trying to do with its
53:55
Speaker 2: metacommentary question mark my god, Scream seven, Just Scream seven
54:01
Speaker 2: was actually fun until the reveal at the end and
54:04
Speaker 2: then it completely derails as a film. This Scream seven
54:07
Speaker 2: could actually learn from this movie as to how to
54:09
Speaker 2: do a double twist, and not really because like, there's
54:11
Speaker 2: no twist with who the killers are in this movie.
54:13
Speaker 2: It's very obvious if it's parrotying Scream five, it's gonna
54:16
Speaker 2: be them. But then to have a double twist on
54:18
Speaker 2: top of it with Anthony Anderson, Shaq and the WANs
54:21
Speaker 2: brothers coming in and being the murderers and technically Anna
54:24
Speaker 2: Faris and Regina Hall are murderers as well, is very smart,
54:28
Speaker 2: very funny, and I think it's a very well earned
54:30
Speaker 2: twist and a meta twist that speaks to the nature
54:34
Speaker 2: of horror franchises and franchises in general, and this idea
54:37
Speaker 2: of passing the torch like there's room for both. No
54:40
Speaker 2: one has to pass the torch to anybody, you know
54:43
Speaker 2: how we know because within a year we're gonna have
54:45
Speaker 2: seen Iron Man Tony Stark and Captain America Chris Evans
54:49
Speaker 2: come back, and they've passed the torch already, but they're
54:52
Speaker 2: coming back. So passing the torch is a fallacy, like
54:55
Speaker 2: passing the torch is not something that needs to happen
54:57
Speaker 2: in film or otherwise. You and the other people either
55:02
Speaker 2: age or what have you that are not like you
55:04
Speaker 2: can coexist and commingle and there doesn't have to be
55:07
Speaker 2: a you know, the old veteran and the young rookie
55:10
Speaker 2: like they can exist simultaneously. They're not mutually exclusive, and
55:14
Speaker 2: this movie I think kind of says no, the expectation
55:18
Speaker 2: is they have to and I think that's funny to
55:20
Speaker 2: disassemble that expectation and do something. That's where this movie
55:23
Speaker 2: shines is disassembling the expectation and putting it back together
55:26
Speaker 2: in the shape of the Middle Finger. As opposed to
55:28
Speaker 2: in the shape of you know a square and I
55:31
Speaker 2: would love to see a more nuanced take on scary
55:35
Speaker 2: movie moving forward. I know that's not the expectation with
55:38
Speaker 2: the movie like this, but ears to hoping a girl
55:40
Speaker 2: can hope. So I would suggest back rooms. Yes, scary movie,
55:44
Speaker 2: you know, wait for it on vod or Amazon Prime
55:48
Speaker 2: Video or whenever it comes to streaming, more or less
55:50
Speaker 2: in the next month, because in this day and age,
55:52
Speaker 2: you can get everything more or less right after it
55:55
Speaker 2: comes out in theaters, at least within a couple of weeks.
55:57
Speaker 2: So as for me, if you want to hear more
55:59
Speaker 2: of my without just me, head on over to Weirdingwaymedia
56:02
Speaker 2: dot com where you can find this show and all
56:04
Speaker 2: the other shows I work on in eighties TV Ladies,
56:06
Speaker 2: which I've been on a couple of times, the Projection Booth,
56:08
Speaker 2: which I've been on a couple of times, Midnight Viewing,
56:10
Speaker 2: which I used to co host with Father Malone and
56:13
Speaker 2: Mike White. There's a lot of stuff, so you can
56:15
Speaker 2: find all those things and more Overwirdingwaymedia dot Com. Like
56:19
Speaker 2: rate and review this show on iTunes or Spotify. That's
56:21
Speaker 2: where it helps me out the most helps the show out,
56:24
Speaker 2: helps the networkout. And yeah, Patreon is also a place
56:27
Speaker 2: you can go if you want to for bonus episodes,
56:30
Speaker 2: a bonus content, and the end of the James Bond Show,
56:33
Speaker 2: which is coming to a very quick conclusion here in
56:36
Speaker 2: the next two months, so go there. Help us out.
56:39
Speaker 2: If you don't want to help us out financially, just
56:40
Speaker 2: like rate and review the show wherever you get it,
56:42
Speaker 2: and make sure to come back for the next episode
56:44
Speaker 2: of the Culture Cast. Steps from the books, from the boats,
57:04
Speaker 2: from the books, from BS, from the books, from St