The second film in the marathon has two screen icons and serious absence of heart!

Written By: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Directed By: Joseph L. Mankiewicz

The idea of Marlon Brando and Frank Sinatra sharing the screen in a musical is oddly appealing. Mr. Sinatra is a no brainer, with his voice he’s a natural fit for the musical. Mr. Brando is the odd one, the idea of a method actor like Mr. Brando taking part in a musical is appealing in the oddest of ways. Can Mr. Brando shed his tough guy image and pull off the lyrical aspects of a musical? Can Mr. Brando sing at all? Will Mr. Brando take over this film like so many others or will his lack of musical affinity allow him to yield the floor to Mr. Sinatra?

The answer to all those questions lay somewhere in the middle, but my pontification left the most pressing question unasked, where’s the heart? All the questions I had about Mr. Brando going into Guys And Dolls were quickly tossed to the side in my search for this films heart. Through all the song and dance numbers, the trip to Cuba and the jokes about the Mission the film failed to show an ounce of heart. Guys And Dolls came across like the a wonderfully constructed musical where the writer forgot to insert the parts that make us care about the characters and the world they live in. When Mr. Brando, as Sky, takes Jean Simmons, Sarah, to Cuba it should be the segment of the film where we finally learn that Sky is a man we can root for beyond his obviously being cool. That never happens, Sky remains cool as a cucumber and any chance of the film showcasing heart is but a faded memory.

Joseph L. Mankiewicz tries to imbue his film with heart on a few more occasions. But, when one of his key relationships is self-destructive, where Mr. Sinatra obviously cares nothing for his dame, and never truly will, there’s little chance of any heart being found there. The gangsters are a funny group, a colorful set of characters, but alas they are also bereft of heart. they are a collection of types as opposed to actual people who can fill the film with heart. Mr. Mankiewicz does attempt to give Guys And Dolls some heart but his attempts fail and the film is all the lesser for his failure.

That’s not to say that Guys And Dolls isn’t a handsome film or that it doesn’t feature a handful of catchy numbers. Those elements are obviously well done with the first glance at the screen accompanied by auditory participation in a musical number. Not every musical number is catchy, but even those that aren’t as catchy are still fetching to the ears. Mr. Mankiewicz takes full advantage of the wide screen format, in both his dance numbers and the films stiller moments. There is always something happening in one of Mr. Mankiewicz’s frames, and he uses color to great effect as well.

The lovely production design and the ear pleasing musical numbers can’t make up for a film that lacks a driving narrative or heart in its story. The well made nature of the film can make up for some odd ticks in the characters speech patterns that I found annoying. However, much like those odd speech patterns Guys And Dolls is a musical that is always a bit off because in a musical about relationships and love it’s missing the key ingredient of heart. Which leaves the questions about Mr. Brando, questions that honestly don’t matter much when the film fails to give his character the heart he so desperately needs.

Rating:

**1/2

Cheers,
Bill

A horror podcast that isn’t afraid to be long, like really, really long!

Dark Discussions

The Gist

Dark Discussions has been around since May of 2011. The hosts are Philip, Gordon, and Eric. In the episodes I listened to I wasn’t able to glean any kind of regular rotation for the hosts, but it appears that in any given episode some combination of two of those three men will be behind the mic. The show tries to release an episode a week, and the episodes can be anywhere from an hour and a half to over two and a half hours long. There isn’t a set format for the show, some episodes tackle a movie or a few different movies, while other episodes are about a specific topic. The show is not restricted to movies in any way, all things horror fall into their spectrum of view.

Episodes Listened To

#21: The State of Vampires Part 1
#22: The Omen
#23: The State of Vampires Part 2

My Thoughts

I was instantly impressed by the audio and technical qualities found in Dark Discussions. They use a variety of clips in every episode and they manage to weave said clips into the conversations taking place in an episode rather seamlessly. There are some minor microphone issues where one hosts sound level will dip every now and then. Those issues are minor and not a detriment to the podcast in any way. On a purely technical level Dark Discussions leaves me with nothing to complain about.

I would like to be able to say that the rest of the podcast leaves me with nothing to complain about, but that is not the case. Very soon into listening to Dark Discussions I was having trouble digesting the way that the hosts were discussing movies, particularly Philip. As Episode 21 moved along he continually made points that irked my movie sensibilities. First and foremost was his insistence on referring to movie after movie as not being like the book or a faithful adaptation of the book. I understand that this is his viewpoint, and that’s cool, but it’s not one that I care to hear. I’m so far on the other side of the spectrum, I view movies and books as completely separate mediums that should not be judged against one another, that it made listening to his adaptation and faithfulness complaints an uninteresting task.

Another aspect that all the hosts engaged in was a desire to label horror with restrictions. On too many occasions I heard the utterance, “this isn’t really horror,” or “this isn’t horror as it’s truly defined.” I found Dark Discussions definition of horror to be terribly restrictive, resting on the notion I am at odds with that scares are necessary for horror to be present. They dismissed a number of movies as being science fiction, or fantasy, or this, or that, as if horror has ever actually been defined in some concrete way as separate from one or more of those elements. Again, the hosts are entitled to their opinions, but when those opinions are so far removed from my sensibilities I lose interest in what the hosts are saying.

One area of contention I had with Dark Discussions was not based on opinion or point of view, but presentation. The episode about The Omen was over two and a half hours long, and two hours and ten minutes of that was spent describing the plot. I know what I am about to say is harsh, but that is a giant waste of my time. I listen to podcasts to hear the hosts explore film, describe what they liked, why it worked for them, or what they didn’t like and why that didn’t work for them. Plot descriptions are not something I have time for, if I want to know the plot I can go and watch the movie myself. I would have loved to hear more about what the hosts actually thought of The Omen, instead I was treated to a podcast that was nothing more than ninety five percent a description of the plot.

The plot aspect was the final straw for me. I could deal with our sensibilities not matching, those are just opinion based after all. Once I feel my time is being wasted then I don’t feel the need to stick around. The hosts sound like genuinely nice guys, and I have no problems with them, but their podcast was not for me. I wanted to explore the world of horror, Dark Discussions wanted to restrict horror, label horror, and describe in detail the plot of a movie. I’d like to tell my readers otherwise, but Dark Discussions is a well made podcast that you can easily unsubscribe from.

The Bottom Line

Unsubscribe

Cheers,
Bill

Further proof of just how much I love my daughter!

Screenplay By: David Schmidt
Directed By: Frederik Du Chau

There are two flies in Racing Stripes, two flies voiced by David Spade and Steve Harvey. They fly, ha ha ha, around making bad musical references and espousing flatulence humor. I don’t know that this appeals to kids, I honestly don’t think it does. Yet kids movie after kids movie features at least one instance of the fart joke, and rarely do I see any kids laughing at said fart humor. My daughter sat stone faced as the two flies fell in a pile of shit, farted in a guys coffee, and more. It’s not funny, that’s the most honest critique I can give to Racing Stripes attempts at humor. It’s not funny, some of it may be cute, but this is a film that’s trying really hard to be funny, but it just isn’t funny.

Beyond the potty humor there isn’t much to Racing Stripes. The story isn’t a bad one, at least not in its message. But, it’s message is one that’s been done before numerous times and to far better effect. As far as the actual story goes, Racing Stripes is a film that thinks its audience of kids are idiots. It’s a film that has some level of professional production behind it, but nothing else. The humor is of the lowest common denominator, the story is paint by numbers, and the film takes every short cut it can take because clearly its audience consists of morons who won’t care. I know, I know, I’m probably taking the film too seriously, but there isn’t a rule that movies for kids have to be stupid. My daughter happens to be a pretty smart lass. I know that she enjoys Racing Stripes because it’s cute, but I also know that the studios can give her a movie that is cute but at the same time doesn’t talk down to her like she’s an idiot. My daughter may not yet know what a combine is, and she may not get why it’s so stupid that a guy took down a path in his cornfield with a tractor in one minute. She does, however, know that every film doesn’t need a tacked on love story. She knows that movies need good characters for her to like and enjoy spending time with. She knows that she deserves more than Racing Stripes is giving her.

Babe is a perfect example of the type of kids movie that is well made and treats its audience of kids with respect. Racing Stripes is a cute movie, with a cute premise that squanders all of the good will it’s cute nature and premise engender with terrible execution. Racing Stripes aims for the lowest common denominator more often than not and it’s a movie not afraid to treat its audience like they are stupid. Don’t reach for the bottom of the kids movie barrel, aim for something better and avoid Racing Stripes.

Rating:

**

Cheers,
Bill

I’d like to think my dog is extremely loyal, but truth be told she’d stop coming by to wait for my return as soon as she realized food was not a part of the waiting process!

A decent number of movies this week just means more of my drivel for everyone to read,

Tangled Ever After (3D, 2012, Nathan Greno & Byron Howard) ***1/2

I greatly enjoyed Tangled, but at the same time Disney has never shown great acuity when it comes to going back to characters from its feature films. For that reason my hopes for Tangled Ever After were measured, but I need not have measured them at all. Tangled Ever After picks up right where Tangled left off, delivering tremendous screwball comedy that is reminiscent of the great screwball comedies of the 30s and 40s. Watching Pascal and Maximus in their zany adventure was a lot of fun. When the tremendous animation is taken into account Tangled Ever After becomes a great short film that was a heck of an experience.

Beauty And The Beast (3D, 1991, Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise) ***

The story remains the same and it is executed in the same fine fashion as in the films original release. With that being the case this version of Beauty And The Beast is all about how it handles the inclusion of 3D. I’m not a 3D hater, I firmly believe it does have its place in cinema as a tool in the bag of a filmmaker. That being said I don’t see the need for the retrofitting of 3D and this film was no exception. I still enjoyed myself because of the story and the animation, but the 3D, while well done, added nothing to the experience of watching the film and actually took away from said experience in a few spots.

Kindergarten Cop (1990, Ivan Reitman) ***

I’ve always wondered why some people chose to view Arnold Schwarzenegger as a stupid action star. He was in every way the predecessor to someone like Dwayne Johnson. Mr. Schwarzenegger is full of charisma and he has great comedic timing. He’s not afraid to be made the fool and in a movie like Kindergarten Cop it really shows. Kindergarten Cop is cheesy, it’s obvious, and it’s bad in spots. But, it’s also pretty funny and has Arnold Schwarzenegger giving a none too shabby comedic performance.

Dracula (1931, Tod Browning & Karl Freund) **

Dracula, as directed by Tod Browning and Karl Freund, has to be a case of misguided nostalgia. At least that’s what I told myself while watching Dracula and struggling mightily to find positives in the film. I’ve seen a few other Tod Browning films, and none of them were as stagnant and lifeless (I know, I know that’s some bad writing) as Dracula. Bela Lugosi is the focal point of the film, but he’s really not. It’s an odd mixture, this Dracula, with a story so slight that it’s near impossible to become invested. Characters so thin thin that they might as well be pieces of paper. And a total lack of atmosphere that was inexplicable, I couldn’t think of a reason for the lack of atmosphere at least. People will continue to laud the performance from Mr. Lugosi, but to be honest he isn’t doing much in a film that isn’t interested in being anything but stagnant.

Hachiko: A Dog’s Story (Hachi: A Dog’s Tale, 2009, Lasse Hallström) ***1/2

A movie like Hachiko: A Dog’s Story sneaks up on the viewer. I wasn’t expecting much from this movie other than a cute dog and a sappy ending. The cute dog was in the movie but instead of a sappy ending I got an ending full of earned sentimentality. The obvious comparison is a movie like Marley & Me. Sure, I was affected by the ending of Marley & Me, but I was still able to recognize the manufactured nature of the ending. From its first moments Hachiko: A Dog’s Story presents a story that is natural and earnest. I didn’t feel like I was watching a manufactured piece intended to draw tears, but rather a heartfelt tale that elicited tears because of the natural pull of its many parts and players. I may not have expected much, but there’s no denying I was given a great movie in Hachiko: A Dog’s Story.

Wrap-Up:

All in all a pretty good week for movies. Other than the disappointment that Dracula brought about I, for one reason or another, enjoyed all the movies I watched this week. Tangled Ever After had movie of the week honors in the bag, but then Richard Gere and a cute dog entered the fray. It was a simple tale and a simple film, but it was an effective tale and a effective film. That is why Hachiko: A Dog’s Story is taking home movie of the week honors. Until next week, watch more movies!

Cheers,
Bill

It took a while, but this is the first true horror exclusive podcast I’ve gotten to for this project!

Bloody Good Horror

The Gist

Around since 2007, Bloody Good Horror is a by product of the website of the same name. Each week a one hour, or thereabouts, episode is put out that delves deep into the world of horror. The basic format of the show is an opening banter segment, followed by an in-depth review of one film and the show is rounded off with listener feedback and questions. The hosts are Eric Newell, Joe Charnews, Jon Schnaars, Mark Newall, and Casey Criswell.

Episodes Listened To

#181: Dream House
#182: The Woman
#183: The Thing

My Thoughts

When I first started listening to Bloody Good Horror I found myself put off. I wasn’t connecting with the views of the hosts or the format. The frequent Skype drops and varying audio qualities from episode to episode weren’t helping either. I also found some elements of the show, the beer discussion and word of the day superfluous. Some of those audio issues still remain, and the beer and word segments still do nothing for me, but the more I listen to Bloody Good Horror the more I have come to like it as a podcast.

Obviously the content of Bloody Good Horror is right in my wheel house, but that doesn’t mean much. Let’s face facts, there are a lot of movie fans in general, and horror fans specifically, who can’t hold a one minute long conversation worth listening to. I love horror, it is a year round event for me, but at the same time it’s hard to have quality horror related discussions because of how many horror fans there are who are willing to accept shitty products simply because they are horror based. As much as I may have disagreed vehemently with the hosts of Bloody Good Horror on a few different topics, they do bring intelligent conversation to the world of horror.

The biggest draw to Bloody Good Horror is its mixture of content I like with intelligent conversation. They don’t just tell me that Dream House was a bad movie, they give me detailed reasons for why it fails as a movie in general and a horror movie in specific. Within the world of horror that type of talk is always refreshing and it’s always a joy to listen to. The hosts of Bloody Good Horror make the process fun as well. They have fun with one another and they have fun in the discussions they engage in. This rubs off on the listener, if I’m enjoying the content and the intelligent conversations and I know you’re having fun then I am sold on your podcast.

While I still have some issues with Bloody Good Horror, I can safely say it is a podcast that is a definite subscribe. The conversations are lively, informative, intelligent and fun. The hosts are all nice guys who bring varying viewpoints to the world of film. They may be completely wrong about Ti West being overrated or Let Me In being anywhere near better than Låt Den Rätte Komma In, but I still enjoy listening to them. Bloody Good Horror is a podcast that every horror fan should listen to, and while I understand its niche qualities I also think it is a podcast that casual horror fans would enjoy as well. Okay, okay, I’m done, Bloody Good Horror is worth listening to, that’s the best way to finish this review.

The Bottom Line

Subscribe

Cheers,
Bill

When I saw who was responsible for the screenplay of Stuart Little I was shocked and then some!

Screenplay By: Greg Brooker & M. Night Shyamalan
Directed By: Rob Minkoff

There’s a boat race in Stuart Little, specifically a yachting race. These aren’t life size boats, rather they are miniature yachts that are a combination of electric and wind powered. The yacht race is an important sequence in Stuart Little. The yacht race sequence fully lays out why Stuart Little is a movie that works.

The yacht race sequence looks amazing. The fake backgrounds in this sequence, and throughout the rest of the film, give the impression of a matte painting. Said backgrounds are also reminiscent of the technicolor trappings of the background in a film like Gone With The Wind. The backgrounds draw the attention of the viewers eye but at the same time they make all the colors in the foreground appear that much more vibrant. When Geena Davis wears a red dress it is as red as can be thanks to the way the background allows her dress to stand out.

At the same time the yacht race sequence is suspenseful. The film has taken a tiny mouse and put him in a tense situation and I felt that tension. The realization of this tension takes the movie beyond its simple fairy tale premise and into one of true human warmth and caring. There is an earnestness to the proceedings in Stuart Little. There isn’t much tongue in cheek about the film and it shows in how all of the actors and the production give it their all to bring this tale to life. I cared about what happened to the characters in Stuart Little and I honestly did not believe going into the film that I would find myself in that position.

The yacht race also highlights the fairy tale elements of the film. From early on the film asks us to believe some very impossible things and I ended up being more than willing to go along for the ride. The characters reference the fairy tale aspect on more than one occasion but their talk isn’t a mere dalliance with irony. Rob Minkoff, and the writers, don’t go for irony. They aim higher than irony or quirk, they present a world that envelops the viewer in such a way that the only option is to believe that a mouse can become a member of the Little family. This goes back to the idea of warmth and humanity, by making us care all those involved made the fairy tale one that I was willing to dive right into.

Stuart Little certainly isn’t a great film. It is slight and it is hokey at times. But, its flaws are surpassed by its charm and its smarts. I liked Stuart Little far more than I thought I would and that is a testament to how well made the movie is. The visuals found in Stuart Little are interesting and appealing to the eye. The story is a fairy tale that everyone can believe in. Stuart Little is a film that hits its marks and hits them well, with a hint of warmth and the always welcome presence of humanity.

Rating:

***

Cheers,
Bill

Even if the movie is bad Dwayne Johnson is always entertaining, always!

This was not a good week, I tried to get at least one more movie in before the week was over. However my body needed sleep more than it needed to see that movie, and thus only one movie this week.

Tooth Fairy (2010, Michael Lembeck) **

I’ll be honest right out of the gate, any good will I carry towards Tooth Fairy is due to Dwayne Johnson and Stephen Merchant. The two of them are trying so hard in this ridiculously bad film, and they try so hard that they actually make it bearable. There are a lot of dead stretches of nothingness in this film, no humor, no emotion, just nothing. Then the end hits, wherein the main character learns his life lesson and is then blasted with amnesia dust so that he loses said lesson, yet the film acts like that isn’t what happens. It’s stupid, and that was this movie, Tooth Fairy is stupid and it treats its audience like they are a bunch of drooling idiots. Dwayne Johnson and Stpehen Merchant are hella charming, but their best efforts can’t save this insipid film.

Wrap-Up:

Uh, not much to say here. Since it was the only movie I watched this week Tooth Fairy takes home movie of the week honors by default. I’m not happy about this, nope, not happy at all. Oh well, until next week, watch more movies (and I’ll try to do the same)!

Cheers,
Bill

Somewhere in his film career Darren Aronofsky was bound to hit a snag, and what a snag he hit!

Screenplay By: Darren Aronofsky & Hubert Selby Jr.
Directed By: Darren Aronofsky

I know I have a small reputation as a man who is contrary in his views of movies. Personally I don’t feel I deserve this reputation. I like the movies I like and dislike the movies I dislike. Popular opinion or a desire to be contrary has nothing to do with my views on a film. That’s why when I talk about the critical acclaim lauded upon Requiem For A Dream I do so as reference point. Lots of people loved the film, I was hoping to be one of those many people. I love Darren Aronofsky as a director, and that is why pulic perception is interesting to me when thinking about Requiem For A Dream. I find this to easily be Mr. Aronofsky’s weakest, yet flashiest, effort (in the interest of full disclosure I have yet to see The Fountain). I am, however, in the minority as in most parts Requiem For A Dream is viewed as Mr. Aronofsky’s masterpiece. I’d go so far as to label Requiem For A Dream as a film lacking any substance and a film where its director gets in the way of his picture at every turn. That is why the critical acclaim for this movie interest me so, and that’s why I might again find myself being pigeonholed as the contrarian.

All self thought aside, Requiem For A Dream simply put did not work for me. It may have worked for others, but I never found myself in stride with the film I was watching. I was the snail to Requiem For A Dream’s gazelle. The gazelle like nature of the film was the main reason why I could not get into the picture. There may have been the makings of a good movie when all the pieces were first put into place. Once Mr. Aronofsky starts flexing his directorial muscle I started to tune out. To say that his flourishes are distracting is an understatement, they take over the entire picture. I never felt at ease with those flourishes, they never felt earned to me. The flourishes felt instead like a director working with a modest budget for the first time trying to show how awesome of a director he could be. I think it is telling that in the rest of Mr. Aronofsky’s feature work he shows a more restrained hand. He still flexes his muscle, but it’s not distracting and showy for the sake of being showy. That’s why I would take Black Swan, The Wrestler, or Pi every day of the week over the much more acclaimed Requiem For A Dream.

The one facet of Requiem For A Dream that most cinephiles say cannot be argued with is that Ellen Burstyn gives a great performance. I’m not going to argue against her work, but I am of the mind that Miss Burtsyn’s performance is hindered by the direction of Mr. Aronofsky. Miss Burstyn’s shining moment is when her son comes to visit near the halfway point of the film. The camera is quiet in that moment, it allows for Miss Burstyn to express the anguish and need of her character. The rest of the film is full of Miss Burstyn attempting to plug a hole through the showy tricks of Mr. Aronofsky. Quite frankly her efforts are for naught as by the end of the film her performance has been completely drowned out by Mr. Aronofsky’s drive to show that he knows how to direct a film by golly, and you best pay attention.

It also saddens me to hear the brilliant eponymous song of Requiem For A Dream slowly rendered an annoyance. At first it’s cute the way Clint Mansell has appropriated the song and the way he mixes it into his score. As the film moves along and it becomes clear that Mr. Mansell has nothing to offer but the same strained notes over and over again I became rather annoyed. Mr. Mansell is a very talented composer, but he settles for annoying repetition in Requiem For A Dream and he helps to drag the picture down almost as much as Mr. Aronofsky does.

I would have liked to have watched Requiem For A Dream and have loved it. Darren Aronofsky is a favorite director of mine, hut he completely dropped the ball with Requiem For A Dream. In his haste to show how stylish he could be as a director he lost me as a viewer. In his desire to show off everything he learned in film school he created a hollow picture that has nothing to say. Ellen Burstyn’s one great moment can’t help a film that does everything in its power to not live up to the hype and to deliver an empty experience.

Rating:

**

Cheers,
Bill

Don’t let the title of this post fool you, there’s no Batman to be found in these here parts,

I love me some comic books, always have. I love me some movies, always have. I love me some movies based on comic books, always have. For a long time I’ve felt the urge to do a small marathon on the comic book films that aren’t as well known, either as films or as comic books. This marathon isn’t interested in Batman, Superman, Goku, Ranma, or Utena. Those are popular characters from popular comic books, and films, and thus they would not fit in this marathon. The six films we chose came from either a lesser known comic book or a movie that didn’t exactly set the world on fire when it was in theaters.

I pitched this idea to my good friend Edgar at Between The Seats and we mulled over when, where, and what films to cover in this marathon for some time. Finally we settled on the six films below, and I think we settled on a nice variety of films. The Comica Obscura Marathon will work in the same vein as all the other joint marathons Edgar and I have collaborated on. On Sunday January, 29th a review of The Rocketeer will go up at our respective sites. The following Sunday I will offer up a rebuttal to Edgar’s review and he will offer up a rebuttal of my review. This will continue until a review and a rebuttal have been written for all six movies.

This is a marathon I have been looking forward to for some time and I hope that all of you, my loyal and eternally faithful readers, get a kick out of mine and Edgar’s journey through the not as trod upon road of comic book movies.

These are the six films in the marathon,

#1: The Rocketeer (1991)
#2: Kozure Ôkami: Ko Wo Kashi Ude Kashi Tsukamatsuru (Lone Wolf And Cub: Sword Of Vengeance, 1972)
#3: Fritz The Cat (1972)
#4: Mo Gong (Battle Of The Warriors, 2006)
#5: Road To Perdition (2002)
#6: Shurayukihime (Lady Snowblood, 1972)

Cheers,
Bill

A sort of genre specific podcast that could use a jolt of energy!

High And Low (Brow)

The Gist

Around since 2009, High And Low (Brow) is a podcast out of the Minnesota area. The podcast sprang from their host website, Where The Long Tail Ends, and is dedicated to discussion of somewhat lesser known films. Every episode a theme is chosen and the hosts, Matt Gamble and James Gillham, discuss two movies that fit within that theme. They decide which movie is the better of the two, with that film being the high brow film and the lesser film being the low brow film.

Episodes Listened To

#3.1: Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold
#3.2: The Impalers
#3.3: Disasters!

My Thoughts

The content of High And Low (Brow) led to me listening to it for about a year. The randomness of the films they would watch coupled with the hosts willingness to watch anything interested me. I only wish the podcast itself could have been as interesting as the hosts intentions. I’m not trying to be harsh or rude, but I found myself bored most of the time waiting for something substantial to be said. It’s not that I found either of the hosts to be ill informed, but I did find that they were not well suited for the audio format of podcasting. Often times I could tell that Mr. Gamble or Mr. Gillham had something substantial to say but they didn’t know how to express themselves through the audio format of the podcast. This left me constantly looking for substance, and it just isn’t there to be found in High And Low (Brow).

The presentation of High And Low (Brow) is hard to get into. This goes back to the hosts not being cut out for the audio format. There are far too many gaps of silence where nothing is being said while one host is waiting for the other to speak. The hosts, Mr. Gillham moreso, both have a laid back style of drawling out their thoughts that I just could not get into. This doesn’t really say anything good or bad about the hosts, it does say that High And Low (Brow) was a podcast that I had a hard time getting connecting with.

There’s really not much more I can say about High And Low (Brow). I like the general idea behind the show, that idea is what kept me listening for as long as I did. That premise is left unfulfilled due to an abundance of unsubstantial film talk. I know an audience for High And Low (Brow) exists but I’m not sure what the audience is. I do know that I am not that audience, try as I might I couldn’t get into the film talk contained within High And Low (Brow). I suggest you unsubscribe from High And Low (Brow), it’s just not a podcast with film talk that is substantial enough to be worth a slot in your iTunes, or other media device, feed.

The Bottom Line

Unsubscribe

Cheers,
Bill