Spencer is joined by Nick Ahlers (The MacGuffin, The Grapes of Rad).

Segments include: CinemaCon recap, SIFF and Crypticon previews, and take a look at some crowd funded projects with local ties.

Crowd Funded Projects:
The Glamour & The Squalor
A Method
Digital Cinema at Northwest Film Forum
MANOS – The Hands of Felt DVD

Links:
http://www.CinemaCon.com
http://www.SIFF.net
http://www.CrypticonSeattle.com
http://twitter.com/AhlersAtYourBoy
http://www.GrapesOfRad.com
http://twitter.com/ThatSpencer

This episode can be played online via the player below or it can be downloaded from here. It is also available on iTunes and Stitcher.

Who has a more intimidating face than Michael Shannon? This is an actor who just breathes intensity. He twitches and sneers with scary effect, often appearing as though he can barely hold his rage in. Heck, this guy just recently proved he could recite a simple email with awesome effect. Clearly, he knows what his strengths are, and capitalizes on them. He is almost always the most interesting actor in a scene, because he has such an unpredictable delivery that we wonder what he’s going to do next. His talents are on full display in Ariel Vromen’s crime film The Iceman (2012). Here, we get to see Shannon at his best: constantly on edge, nearing the breaking point, chewing scenery as if it’s bubblegum. In a vacuum, this is some of Shannon’s finest work. It’s unfortunate the film isn’t as good as he is.

Shannon seems to be born to play this kind of character. He is Richard Kuklinski, a mob hitman who operated in the New Jersey area from the sixties to the mid-eighties. Kuklinski has a beautiful wife (Winona Ryder) and two wonderful girls. Like any parent, he wants to be able to provide them with everything they need: a nice house, food on the table, a nice school for his kids to attend, etc. In an effort to raise some quick cash, he hooks up with local mafia head Roy Demeo (Ray Liotta) and becomes a contract killer. Kuklinski soon becomes adept at his new job, perhaps even too good. We learn early on that Kuklinski was a real person, and the film was based on real life events. A stunning statistic says that he committed over one hundred murders during his twenty-some-odd years in the business.

One hundred murders? How could a person possibly live all that down, and still appear to be a well-adjusted husband and father? This is one of the major questions that goes unanswered. Yes, Kuklinski became a cold-blooded killer, but that’s really all we see from him. There are hints at an abused past, and a strained relationship with his brother Joey (Stephen Dorff), but not enough to give this character real dimension. Criminals are vastly interesting to watch because we can examine their twisted moral codes, but here we see a man who fits the definition, but doesn’t have an identity. He’s just another in a long line of movie thugs, with nothing to distinguish him from the rest. In fact, all the characters play types: Ray Liotta is in risk of being typecast as “The Wiseguy” for the rest of his career, and Winona Ryder is much too talented to simply play the devoted housewife who’s completely clueless about her husband’s business affairs.

More curiosities. The rest of the supporting cast is a collage of odd choices. We have Chris Evans playing Mr. Freezy, another hitman who develops a partnership with Kuklinski, David Schwimmer as one of Roy Demeo’s cronies, and James Franco making an appearance as a drugged-out character that may or may not have some important information. When you think of a real-life crime drama, do any of these names come to mind as possible casting choices? I guess it didn’t matter who was placed, because the makeup conceals everybody’s faces. Just about every character has long hair, big aviator glasses, and facial hair of epic proportions. I chuckled at how over the top the makeup effects were; the size of the mustaches would even put Tom Selleck to shame. It was as though everybody was in disguise, not just from other characters on screen, but from the audience as well!

The plot is as generic as it comes: criminals act out in criminal-like behavior, alliances are made and quickly broken, somebody owes somebody else a lot of money, stupid decisions are made, people are killed—and all the while, the police are just around the corner, ready to put an end to everything at any given moment. These storylines have been visited over and over again, and they have become much too predictable. It’s not that the execution is bad; in fact, Vromen does a fair job of handling the material, spanning twenty years in about one hundred minutes of movie time. But there really isn’t much that separates The Iceman from any other crime/gangster movie that came before it.

Except for Michael Shannon. Man, is this guy good. As the walls begin to close in on Kuklinski, Shannon’s acting becomes more and more desperate. He’s like a screw being turned too tight, ready to pop at any second. You can literally see the paranoia reflecting off of Shannon’s face, to the point where he can barely hide it from his friends and family. He’s so frantic to survive that he would pull a gun on anyone before thinking what the ramifications of that murder would be. This movie is all about its central performance; everything else falls to the wayside.

Final Grade: B-

Ron Morales’s Graceland (2012) is a mostly effective thriller hailing from the Philippines. Being Filipino myself, I’m glad to see films from there making their way to the States, because at this point (at least in the mainstream) they are still few and far between. Even better is how Morales gives us a story that doesn’t simply paint the country in any manipulative way. I’ve seen too many works from other countries that solely try to show their culture in the most positive fashion imaginable. Here, these are real characters in tense situations. No one is perfect, everyone has their secrets, and the moral line between right and wrong is clearly blurred. This makes the film—imperfect as it is—much more thoughtful than your random, run-of-the-mill crime story. If anything, this is a good stepping stone, showcasing what the country has to offer to world cinema.

Our main character is Marlon Villar (Arnold Reyes), a father and husband struggling to make ends meet. His wife is incapacitated due to a serious illness, leaving him to earn an income while raising their young daughter, Elvie (Ella Guevara). Marlon’s main occupation is as a chauffeur to Manuel Changho (Menggie Cobarrubias), a corrupt local politician. While Marlon has worked for Changho for a long time and has remained dedicated to driving his family wherever they need to go, he unfortunately falls victim to Changho’s corrupt practices. You see, Changho has an affinity for teenage girls, and when the scandal breaks to the news (risking Changho’s position in office), Marlon gets the blame and ultimately loses his job.

But that’s not the main crisis. While driving Elvie and Chango’s daughter Sophia (Patricia Gayod) home from school, Marlon gets ambushed by an unknown assailant. The assailant kidnaps one of the children, but not the one they were aiming for. Instead of taking Sophia as a means for ransom from Changho, Elvie gets kidnapped instead. And this is where we are introduced to a unique problem. We’ve seen kidnapping/ransom movies before (most recently in the Taken films), but not like this. Clearly, Marlon wants to get his daughter back, but the fact that he already has a strained relationship with Changho, combined with the wrong girl being kidnapped, puts him in a very difficult moral position. Should he confess to Changho that it was Elvie that was kidnapped, or should he pretend that it was Sophia as a means to get Changho to help him save Elvie?

This idea—at its base level—is ingenious. Marlon is a character that is forced to make a difficult decision: whether to do something morally wrong in an effort to save his daughter. Morales (who also wrote the script) engages us with not just a suspenseful set-up, but by asking philosophical questions about the meaning of right and wrong. Do the ends justify the means for Marlon? What would we do in the same position? While I applaud the filmmakers for their creativity, this is also the very thing that the film stumbles on. As the plot progresses, there are a number of reveals that, while surprising at first, become curious when viewed afterward. I won’t delve into spoilers, but I will say that, because of what we learn at the end, what happens in the first and second acts requires a pretty high disregard for believability. Certain actions and character choices work out a bit too perfectly here, and the ways some characters are brought to justice (or go unscathed) require a “master plan” that felt shoehorned into the screenplay.

But while some plot points can be viewed as being contrived, the whole package is better than the singular pieces in it. Morales keeps the pace constantly moving forward, and at just under ninety minutes, there isn’t a scene that feels unnecessary—the film gives us the exact amount of information needed and nothing more. The performances, for the most part, are good. Arnold Reyes’s delivery is both stone-faced and expressive. He doesn’t give us a lot, but we can see that the gears are always moving in his head, trying to figure some way out of his predicament. Ella Guevara is also effective as Elvie, having to go through the emotional ups and downs of her character. The final choice Elvie makes near the end shows that Guevara has the potential to go to some dark places.

Graceland is worth recommending as an examination of a character whose moral compass has been realigned. Poverty, illness, and desperation feed his actions, and while the decisions he makes are questionable, they are understandable. I wasn’t completely sold on how everything lined up overall, but the issues the film raises are worth the viewing. I hope this ends up leading toward more Filipino work making a presence globally. Because as this film proves, it is a country with interesting stories to tell.

Final Grade: B

Connecting to one another through writing, stirring passions with words, blurring the lines between fact and fiction, uncovering sad personal truths buried in a typical family dynamic…that is a lot of the subtext running throughout the compelling new French film In The House. Directed by the renowned François Ozon with a simmering noir-ish intensity, he portrays a connection between a disillusioned literature teacher and his gifted student.

Germain, played by Fabrice Luchini, is a bored high school teacher who thinks his students are lazy and unimaginative. One day while sharing writing samples he’s correcting with his wife (played by the always compelling Kristin Scott Thomas), he comes across an oddly descriptive paper written by one of his more withdrawn students. The 16-year-old Claude (Ernst Unhauer) describes a creepy intimate encounter he had worming his way into the household of a struggling math student he has been tutoring. He inappropriately describes his co-student’s mother, played by the always luminous Emmanuelle Seigner. This kid conveys his own fascination and lust, but also innocence and curiosity, through his writing. Germain is attracted by the writing and quickly decides to take Claude under his wing. During after school sessions, the student and teacher end up poring over every detail of Claude’s sessions tutoring. What portion of the writing is real? What part is fiction? How the teacher is able to make various excuses for his pupil’s behavior and even get drawn into events is the underlying tension of In The House.

Luchini is funny and engaging as Germain. His voyeuristic interest in this writing is far more exciting than anything going on in his own life. And he finds he will assist in manipulating other teachers, manipulate students, and cross ethical boundaries just to keep the story going. Meanwhile, he ignores what’s happening with his wife, who is stressing about her struggling art gallery career. He’s more attentive to his imagined literary world than to the real one he’s living in. It’s actually interesting how the older couple becomes more engaged in the world that Claude describes than in their own home. Increasingly they can’t relate to each other, so their critique of the boy’s writing becomes laden with commentary on themselves.

In The House evokes some of the same feelings as other Single White Female or One Hour Photo stalker-type films. But while that genre generally works to become increasingly nefarious and deadly, this movie is more nuanced. A lot of the typical entries in the genre devolve into a serial killer slasher film. Not so here. The retelling of events in the titular household is surreal. Some scenes have Claude and Germain pausing the action to discuss style. Often they will try various versions of the same scene. The story is what’s important to both of them.

While a fixture in French cinema, here in the States Ozon is probably best know for Swimming Pool from a few years ago. Clearly the director knows how to deal in intrigue and mood. In The House is sly fun.

Final Grade: A-

It seemed unlikely, but J.J. Abrams did it when he captured my interest with Star Trek in 2009. For most of my life, I really hadn’t given the franchise much attention. But his combination of a fantastic cast, solid plot, and great action proved to be the perfect combination to win over naysayers and even the most difficult critics. Now, with the release of the sequel Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams tackles perhaps his biggest challenge as a director—repeating that success.

Even with all his accolades, there have been a couple large holes in Abrams’s career. #1) Despite being one of the most creative forces working in Hollywood, his career as a director has been almost entirely in franchise movies (the exception being Super 8). Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future this looks to remain unresolved. #2) Despite all of his massive success, he hadn’t previously directed a sequel to one of his own movies and had to deal with the massive expectations that come along with that. Obviously this second question has now been addressed, but ask Christopher Nolan if there is any pressure in repeating success with an audience full of high expectations. Ready or not, here come the lens flares.

Star Trek Into Darkness begins with Starfleet Academy being attacked by John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), an enemy from within. With the motives unclear, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) must lead his crew into a warzone in search of this new force of terror. The film plays very heavily on Abrams’s notion of “the mystery box”; the less you know about it, the more you will enjoy it. This is almost impossible, I know, as the twists of the movie are already out on the internet (and have been for weeks), but much like with M. Night Shyamalan movies, you go to Abrams movies for twists, so I don’t know why you would want to ruin it for yourself.

The two main mysteries in the movie revolve around the new additions, Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch. Abrams once again continues to both try to refresh the series and simultaneously pay homage to its beginnings, with Star Trek Into Darkness being much more heavily influenced by previous Star Trek film history than his first film. This is a difficult tight rope to walk, and this film takes much greater risks than the previous one. Perhaps it is because I’m not a die-hard Trekkie, but I suspect that for most audiences, Abrams has once again given them what they want while also entertaining them in ways they didn’t know they wanted to be. The “twist” that comes from Cumberbatch’s presence and its impact on this universe in contrast to previous canon will largely dictate whether you find this movie incredibly satisfying or incredibly frustrating.

Besides the new additions of Alice Eve and Benedict Cumberbatch, the rest of the phenomenal cast from the original film all return. This time they have the benefit of not needing to set up all the characters, so there is way more character development (heck, Simon Pegg didn’t even enter the last movie until halfway through, if that gives you any sort of sense of perspective). Pine’s Kirk in particular benefits from this, as he is forced to figure out what it truly means to be a leader.

The film definitely has implications towards our world, as it is not about a foreign enemy like the Romulans, Klingon, Borg, etc.—but rather a fight against an individual. Much like now, war is no longer just a geographic battle; it is a philosophical one, and your enemies are not as easily identifiable. The real gem in this is Cumberbatch. While gaining a lot of fanfare for his work in TV’s Sherlock, his film career has been mostly modest supporting roles. This is his first significant chance to shine, as they have made no mystery of the fact that he is the villain, one of the few things the production let out to the media. It isn’t often you seen actors transitioning between playing heroes and villains, and transitioning in such a manner that their characters are simply heroic or villainous; all of them tend to exist in shades of gray.

The scale of the movie is impressive, as it spans many different worlds. Following very much in the same vein as the original Star Wars trilogy, the opening film serves as an introduction to the universe, and the subsequent sequels expand the scale and the action. Despite the scale growing, the film still is very efficiently packaged, with a run time a tad over two hours (just five minutes longer than the original film). One of Abrams’s strongest attributes as a director has been pacing, as he has kept all of his movies consistently moving through their plots (simultaneously earning himself a place in my heart for it). Besides the basic challenges of creating another engaging story, though, Abrams also had a lot more technology issues in this film than in its predecessor. In exchange for letting Abrams film in IMAX, the studio required a 3D post-conversion to be done. While the 3D is fairly well executed, it pales in comparison to the scale of the movie, and I can’t wait for an opportunity to see it in a true IMAX setting.

The one question that will not need to be addressed for the movie is whether it will be a success. That is a foregone conclusion. People can quibble over its place in the history of Star Trek or its reimagining of Star Trek canon, but Abrams once again has created an immensely entertaining film. I fear him getting trapped in the world of big franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, whatever), but it is hard to argue with success. The movie is good…good enough that I will see it in theaters multiple times, and nowadays that is really saying something.

Final Grade: A

In honor of the release of Star Trek Into Darkness, Spencer and Greg discuss Simon Pegg.

This episode is available on iTunes, Blip.TV, YouTube and Miro. Additionally, you can find our podcast RSS feeds on our subscribe page and use whatever system you want.

You can follow all of the happenings on our website through our blog’s RSS feed.

“When people tell me ‘you are famous for being famous,’ I say ‘no, we are famous for having three TV shows.’” – Kim Kardashian

Unease immediately sets in when this quote is presented in the opening moments of Adam Rifkin’s abysmal faux documentary Reality Show, a “message movie” so manipulative and obvious in approach it took everything within me not to walk away from the very task of writing this review. An ever-growing number of Americans are driven by the public misfortune and mockery of others. You know it. I know it. Director and star Adam Rifkin CERTAINLY knows it…and exploits the concept to an embarrassing degree.

Rifkin stars as Mickey Wagner, an unfortunately ponytailed producer type who lays out a plan to foist an unwitting participant in front of cameras for the purposes of TV’s first “real” reality show—unscripted and sure to capture the exquisite drama known as suburban life. He pitches this well-tread concept with unwarranted glee. The board room squeals with excitement at the idea, clearly forgetting how this all ended for Christof. (Or that The Truman Show exists at all, apparently.) The subject won’t be aware he or she is on a show, allowing us to tap in on the day-to-day goings-on of a real American family. To avoid legal issues, they’ll qualify it as a documentary, because why not? There wouldn’t be a movie here without a throwaway solution to the plot’s most glaring problem. Ah, but we’ve only scraped the surface.

Wagner and his crew quite literally choose their culprit at random, and family man Dennis Warwick (Scott Anderson) is selected. He shares a home with his seemingly happy wife (Kelley Menighan Hensley) and teenage daughter (Monika Tilling). Wagner unconvincingly convinces Dennis he’s won a contest he never entered and sends the family off on an all-expenses-paid vacation, hiding cameras throughout the house while they’re at the resort. Because, documentary.

After two weeks of snooping in on the family and no drama to be found, Wagner and his slimy assistant decide that in order to present something watchable to the money-hungry execs, they’d better take matters into their own hands, thus going against everything laid out in the clumsily delivered exposition that consumes the movie’s opening scene. You might argue this in itself is commenting on the mentality of our country, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say you’re giving Rifkin too much credit.

The actions taken to ensure this promised drama start innocently enough (if you consider dognapping innocent), but quickly escalate to such outlandish and unbelievable degrees it began to dawn on me that Rifkin has no idea what the difference between satire and shock value truly is. Settle on one or the other, but don’t sit there smugly trying to convince me you’re commenting on society when you’re nothing more than a Bret Easton Ellis fanboy.

None of the bleakness on display here is even remotely worthy of your investment or time. The family members whose lives are slowly being destroyed are all so laughably one-note it’s impossible to even keep track of their motivations, much less root for them. The film ends on such an unearned dour moment I yelled at the screen in anger. If you’re looking for a smart and scathing take on America’s obsession with violence and misery, take a look at Rémy Belvaux’s brilliantly effective Man Bites Dog, and leave Reality Show to fester infinitely in the bargain bins of hell.

Final Grade: F

As a fan of independent film, I’m excited when I’m introduced to the work of noteworthy filmmakers. For several years now, I’ve been hearing about the prolific career of Joe Swanberg and have been curious to check out his movies. Finally at SXSW this year, forces aligned and I was able to check out his latest project, Drinking Buddies, and saw how hype met reality.

The story follows friends Luke (Jake Johnson) and Kate (Olivia Wilde), who spend all day hanging out together at the brewery where they work and then hang out after at bars. As they enter into romantic relationships, entanglements ensue and they are forced to question whether they will be able to remain friends.

Before seeing this movie, I mostly knew of Joe Swanberg by reputation. He is a prolific filmmaker, having directed almost a dozen films in the last five years. As if that isn’t enough, he’s done a significant amount of acting as well. While successful and proficient, Swanberg hasn’t gained the notoriety of a lot of his contemporaries (Mark Duplass, Greta Gerwig, Lynn Shelton), but he has been equally influential in the evolution of mumblecore. Much like the genre itself, he seems to get a bit of a ding because a lot of his work may be perceived as “cheap” due to the low budgets and focus on improvisation. Fair or not, his level of productivity is obscene, regardless of the genre. Swanberg definitely seems to be on an upswing, having worked on last year’s V/H/S and now tackling his most “Hollywood” project yet, with a star-studded cast. Even with a bigger project, Swanberg still maintains his focus on character-driven movies, and it will be interesting to see how he continues to fuse that into his work as he continues to grow in prestige. The progression in Drinking Buddies feels completely effortless, as it reinforces his skill as a director in doing mumblecore movies not for cheapness of them, but for filling a niche of storytelling that he saw the market was lacking.

It is a treat to get to see Jake Johnson in a lead role; he deserves to pop theatrically. Sure, he has been doing well on New Girl, but that is mostly known for Zooey Deschanel’s quirky humor. In film he has been doing tremendous work in large or small supporting roles (Safety Not Guaranteed, 21 Jump Street) due in large part to being so versatile in transitioning between drama and comedy. His chemistry with Wilde feels totally natural; you don’t just understand why they would be friends, but you want to be friends with them, too. Likewise, Wilde is great; though she is frequently seen in dramatic parts (House, Tron: Legacy, The Words), it is impressive to see how funny she can really be. Add in supporting roles for Anna Kendrick, Ron Livingston, and Ti West, and you’ve got a pretty well rounded and deep cast.

For an indie comedy, the film is impeccably well shot. This is in large part due to the fine cinematography from Ben Richardson, who is coming off of his Independent Spirit Award-winning work in Beasts of the Southern Wild. The film takes advantage of his skill by using a wide selection of environments and color palettes (from the outdoors to the brewery interior, there are bright and vibrant to muted colors, daylight and nighttime). Richardson is certainly going to be a name that becomes very well known in the near future; he provides impressive bang for the buck. Odds are his indie work should be enjoyed while it can be, because he is certainly going to be swallowed up by the studio system in the near future.

The success of the film is going to live or die with how people respond to the plot line, which it is fair to say is on the lighter side. The film probably wouldn’t be described as being mumblecore due to its solid production values, but it is still mumblecore in spirit. This is truly a character-driven movie, because if you don’t engage with Johnson or Wilde, it is hard to want to care. This is the kind of movie you keep expecting to have a twist, but it never really materializes. It is probably more honest and realistic that way, but that also means it is not the most dramatic or theatrical. My general rule of thumb, which I’ve come to call ‘The Very Bad Things Rule,” is that for character-driven movies, if none of the characters are likeable, it is hard to like the movie. Thankfully, Drinking Buddies has a surplus of riches, as everyone is engaging (yet they all have flaws), and that makes it easy to watch the movie with or without an elaborate narrative.

Drinking Buddies isn’t going to make waves—it just isn’t that kind of movie. It is great for a viewing or two, but it certainly doesn’t have a timeless quality to it. That isn’t to say it isn’t good and worth your time. This is a movie of potential, this is a launchpad, this is a movie that several years from now you will look back and say, “wow, they were all in that movie together?” It’s a glimpse at a magic 8 ball, and a fun ride at the same time.

Final Grade: B+

Before I write about The Man Who Shook the Hand of Vicente Fernandez, I’d like to take a few minutes to discuss Ernest Borgnine. (In all actuality, it’s not going to be a discussion, but more of a monologue. I’m writing in bed by myself right now.) I adore Ernest Borgnine with a love that is pure and true. I’ve been known to yell at people for talking smack about him, and fervently believe that people who hate Cabbie in Escape From New York are going to burn in hell. I wept when Cabbie died. (Oh yeah, spoiler alert. But you should have already seen that movie at least five times by now.) He was incredibly nasty as Fatso in From Here to Eternity, and unbelievably tender in Marty, a performance for which he won an Academy award. He was always professional, appreciated his fans, and knew he was one lucky SOB. I think my grandpa was more awesome, but Borgnine was a close number 2 in my older-gentlemen-hall-of-fame. When offered the chance to review his last movie, I took it; in fact, I was honored.

Directed by Elia Petridis, The Man Who Shook the Hand of Vicente Fernandez is the story Rex Page, a.k.a. Ricochet Rex, the Lone Rider of Sound, a former radio DJ who is less of a has-been and more of a never-ran. He’s been shooting for acting fame his whole life, but never even got cast. He’s spending his old age watching the same Western over and over again, lamenting the fact that he auditioned for, but did not get, the lead role. His wife Irma (June Squibb), daughter, and granddaughter humor his recitations of the film’s monologue, but wish that he would engage more with them instead of constantly scheming to achieve his dreams. After a somewhat embarrassing injury, Rex is taken to a nursing home with an all-Latino staff. Not only doesn’t he want to be there, but he views the staff as banditos and is pretty grumpy about the whole thing. However, when nurses Solena (Carla Ortiz) and Alejandro (Arturo del Puerto) discover that Rex once shook the hand of famed singer Vicente Fernandez, he becomes a celebrity amongst the hospital staff, and their starstruck treatment of him soothes his tender ego. An evil doctor (Tony Plana) and nursing home bully (Barry Corbin) conspire to keep the residents and staff under their thumb, and Rex must decide if he has what it takes to be a real hero.

For the most part I found this movie to be sweet and amiable, and I enjoyed watching it, but it’s pretty clichéd and goes exactly where you think it will. The final third is sappy as hell, and the whole thing had a made-for-TV vibe; it’s by no means what anyone would call cinematic. It’s a slight film, and I’m sure there are a lot of people who are going to wish that Borgnine had gone out on something more meaty, but I’m not one of them. I recognize the faults of the film, but you know what? Borgnine brought his all to every part he played, and he brings it here. This movie is super schmaltzy, but it’s a good-hearted schmaltz, and there is plenty of room in the film world for good intentions and competent delivery.

There are a lot of decent performances here. I’ve always liked June Squibb, and it’s good to see her in something more than a bit role. Also, I just like Barry Corbin, and he is perfect as the nasty, card-cheating bully. This is, however, Borgnine’s movie, and he is a perfect grumpy grandpa filled with regret over being a nothing. I am biased; I had my own disgruntled grandpa and maybe what I liked so much about this movie was how it made me think of him. We all come to movies with our own baggage, and I didn’t even try to come to this one with empty hands.

Listen, this movie is not great art, but I spent an enjoyable 99 minutes watching Borgnine be Borgnine, and I’m going to stop qualifying the pleasure this movie gave me. Who else is going to like it? Older people who want to watch something about other older people that isn’t stupid or pandering, Borgnine fans who want to see his last film, families that don’t mind the occasional dirty word used for comedic purposes, and people who are looking for a feel-good movie with decent performances and a gentle spirit. I’m glad Ernest Borgnine got to go out as the star of a film and not in a smaller role. This film is not as good as he was, but really, not many things are.

Final Grade: B-

Spencer and Greg give their DVD rundown for May 14th, 2013. In this episode they discuss Cloud Atlas, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Beware of Mr. Baker and Dexter.

This episode is available on iTunes, Blip.TV, YouTube and Miro. Additionally, you can find our podcast RSS feeds on our subscribe page and use whatever system you want.

You can follow all of the happenings on our website through our blog’s RSS feed.