302 – The one about Blade II

Screenshot 2016-08-12 23.46.09

Welcome to episode 302. Today, we watch “302”!

Blade forms an uneasy alliance with the vampire council in order to combat the Reapers, who are feeding on vampires.

Join Scott, Randy, Dunaway, and Ibbott as they deal only in silver.

Direct MP3 Download
iTunes Link
RSS Feed

As usual, a HUGE thanks to Scott Fletcher, the official announcer of Film Sack Central. Hey! Why not leave us a nice review on iTunes if you like the show?

Up next? Follow us on twitter to find out!

32 thoughts on “302 – The one about Blade II

  1. Pingback: 302 โ€“ The one about Blade II - BRIAN DUNAWAY

  2. I’ve got Dunaway’s back on American Beauty. Watch the movie and think about the whole thing from the wife’s POV — she’s got this job that she hates and she sucks at, and then one day she comes home and her husband announces, “Oh, by the way, I was laid off,” and, okay, he managed to get a nice severance package … but he turns around and blows most of it on a giant red penismobile and then starts doing drugs with a teenage boy next door. Instead of finding a way to earn a living and support his family and ensure that his daughter can get into college without mortgaging her soul to FAFSA, he goes out and get a minimum wage job that just earns enough to support his drug habit without contributing to the family finances. So now the wife has no choice but to stick with her awful, soul-crushing job in order to keep a roof over their heads, and he has the nerve to turn around and criticize her for it. In that scene where he yells at her because she doesn’t want a wine stain on the couch — a couch they can’t afford to replace because they only have one real income now — I want her to march outside and key his nice new car and then say, “Hey, what’s the matter, Lester, it’s just stuff, right? It’s just a thing. It doesn’t matter. A little scratch on your car, it’s no different than a wine stain on the couch. Why’re you getting upset, Lester? Huh? Huh?”

    I think the ending is a real copout, because Lester gets to float away with a smug, condescending monologue without facing the consequences of his irresponsibility.

    • AND he’s constantly fantasizing about and perving on his daughter’s friend…

      Yeah, I haven’t seen the movie in quite a while, but what you’re saying rings true. It’s a very pretty movie, with a beautiful score, and great acting, and I think those things combined to charm the pants on people when it first came out. They’re probably still charming. But Lester Burnham is an asshole.

      I don’t think he’s intended to seem like a hero, though– just sympathetic. And I think Annette Bening did such a good job (“I will sell this house to-day! I will sell this house to-day!”) and was sympathetic herself….but it’s not her story. It’s his story. Between the two of them, we’re supposed to side with him. If you’re saying you’re reluctant to do that, I agree. ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. I enjoy your podcast very much. You guys have real chemistry. This is not about Blade 2, but more about what Randy said about Clint Eastwood. You are free to criticize anyone you like, but please get your facts straight first. Randy said Eastwood want to bring back “good old fashion racism”. I don’t know how you came to this conclusion since he was married to a Hispanic woman for more than a decade. He also made a movie about a Black Jazz Artist. Did you forget about the 2 WW2 movie from both Japan and US points of view. Lets also not forget Gran Torino about a grumpy white guy who befriends a Asian neighbor.
    I will continue to listen to the podcast, but now I will hear Randy a bit differently.

    • Hi Helen, have to agree with your last statement. I think it’s important to remember that leftists like Randy aren’t going for accuracy in these types of comments though. The real purpose of a comment like that is two fold, first to smear the person in question & second to continually, subtlety, reinforce what is considered thought crime by the left.

      Randy is obviously parroting left wing rags “analysis” of the Eastwood Esquire mag interview. I have doubts that he even read the actual interview as there is no way a rational person could come to his conclusions if they had read the source material.

      What disappoints me most is that this kind of thing is completely unprofessional and really damages the podcast itself. People don’t listen to Filmsack for blatant political bias,lies and whinging. They listen for lighthearted comment on films and related subjects. Personally I can’t re-listen to episodes where they pull this kind of crap: A good example is the Ravenous episode, where Scott goes off on a tedious, cringe worthy anti male (and female patronising) rant, due to some guy’s opinion given in an entirely different podcast!
      Take note of how Ibbott very very rarely gets into rant mode, even though he’s a self proclaimed lefty too. Again, take Jury’s political analysis on other podcasts. It’s thorough while not being openly biased. I guess that’s the difference between professionals and amateurs.

      Last, the real irony here is that far from Eastwood being “an evil person”, it’s actually people like Scott and Randy, who’ve unquestioningly swallowed the whole cultural marxist ideology that are “evil” (Evil? Really Randy, I mean come on!). How else would you describe people who seek to smear others with zero evidence, are anti free speech, and go so far as to assign tags like “evil” to others for their thoughts and opinions?

      • Hey, I like Eastwood and disagreed with the evil thing out loud. Don’t throw me under your weird bus.

          • Sigh….. Gretchen, way to prove Craig’s point completely valid while failing to provide any useful commentary.

          • Hi Gretchen. Nice try but no cigar for you.
            First I’m not even American, let alone a Trump supporter (He has some appalling and concerning environmental policies). I’m not even right wing. I am however strongly opposed to the left, their lies and their propaganda. I’ll call out Leftist bullshit any time I hear it.
            Second I’m not trying to tell the boys what can and can’t be talked about in the show. As I said in my original post Jury is a great example of someone who can discuss politics in a non biased way, where the discussion doesn’t descend into a wall of lefty rants.

            “Discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry in movies is fair game for a podcast making fun of movies.”
            Sure, however that doesn’t mean listeners can’t pick people up where they’re clearly talking unsubstantiated shit. Did you read the Esquire interview Gretch?
            What’s more if you’re going to get all political (under the guise of critical theory) you have to expect to hear from the opposing position. Actually while what you’ve said is totally fair enough, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that Filmsack has made any sort of habit of rooting out all those nasty horrible evil “bigots” in prior episodes. Having listened to them all multiple times over, I don’t think anything comes close to Scott’s misandry rant or Randy’s ridiculous Eastwood comment.

            Anyhow, peace out.

        • If you think Craig had a point, useful commentary is wasted on you. I provided some below anyway, but I encourage you not to read it. Seriously, don’t bother.

          • Craig actually made some good points. The fact that you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant.

        • Hi Scott. Thanks for the reply!
          You might want to re-read my post though because I don’t actually say anything about you re Eastwood.
          What I did do is specifically give an example addressing you: the Ravenous episode. You really should go back and listen to it then try and tell me your rant wasn’t super cringe worthy. BTW further to that you may want to look into the bigotry of low expectation. Women don’t need a man to patronisingly tell them they’re wonderful, and misandry is not a “cool” position to take even in these days of out of control political correctness.

          “Donโ€™t throw me under your weird bus.”
          Wow, that’s about the closest thing to snark I’ve ever heard from you : )
          I’m not sure what you find “weird” about what I’ve said. It’s not my problem if you are politically ignorant and don’t get certain political terms. Rest assured though I can back up everything I’ve said with examples if you need them and I can clarify anything you don’t understand.

          Bottom line? Obviously It’s your baby. I’m not trying to tell you what to do, but I think it’s common sense that if you’re going to take what is in essence a light entertainment show and drop in political views, you have to expect to be called out on that stuff, no?

          Cheers mate.

  4. Still listening to the episode so you may have mentioned it but…Tommy Lee Jones is the third in your Kristofferson-wrinkle trio.

  5. Randy, could you please quote the section of Eastwood’s Esquire mag interview that indicates to you that he is “evil”?
    Is anyone that dares question leftist dogma “evil” as well?

  6. How on earth did you miss Wildord Brimley as the third grizzled cowboy?!? So disappointed.

  7. As far as “Face-to-Heel turns where they die right after the turn” go, didn’t Talia pretty much do that in The Dark Knight Rises? Wadsworth the butler in one of the endings of Clue?

  8. On films in which you can take Nicholas Cage seriously…
    He is such a peculiar fellow. Sometimes he turns in a stellar performance (like The Weather Man, Leaving Las Vegas, one of my personal favourites Raising Arizona or Lord of War) and then his next movie is… well… Next or some crap like that. He is never not entertaining, though. You have to give him THAT.

    Brian Dunaway mentioned one of the best: Adaptation. But nobody else picked up on it. When he described the poster/DVD cover art “where his head is a flowerpot”, you probably thought he was having a stroke or something. It is a great film directed by Spike Jonze, written by Charlie Kaufman and it’s well worth seeing.

    I’m also partial to Alex Proyas’ “Knowing”. Cage is really good in it and it is a touching film about family and accepting your fate. You guys should sack it. It has some truly bonkers stuff.

    • I really enjoyed that movie. I hope it holds up.

      Got to agree with you on Cage. I like to watch all of his movies because he is entertaining. Heck, I even enjoy his Ghost Rider.

      • Are you talking about Adaptation or Knowing? The former is a weird movie and weird movies tend to be impervious to the passing of time. The latter… I think it’s still all right. I’m not one to get worked up about the quality of CGI in a film and I really don’t see anything else in it that might have aged badly since the film’s release.

  9. Should be noted that the New Order song referred to by Scott from Blade is just a remix of their song: “Confusion” by the band “The Pump Panel.”

  10. “I will continue to listen to the podcast, but now I will hear Randy a bit differently.”

    Sad that I agree with this statement.

  11. Movies are art. Art is expression. If your art doesn’t express anything, or expresses something other than what you intended, it’s bad art. A podcast making fun of movies should make fun of bad art.

    Discussion of the entirety of the effect of artistic expression, both intentional and unintentional, is fair game in art criticism. A podcast making fun of movies is art criticism.

    Actors, directors, producers, and other people involved in making movies are artists. What artists do and say outside of their art form has an impact on how they are perceived, and how their work is perceived. Discussion and criticism of the behavior of people involved in making movies is a legitimate part of art criticism, and a legitimate part of a podcast making fun of movies.

    Discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry in movies is fair game for a podcast making fun of movies.
    Discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry in actors, directors, producers, and other movie artists is fair game for a podcast making fun of movies.

    If people have a problem with a podcast where these things are discussed, the problem is not with the podcast. The problem is with the listener. Disagreeing with the views expressed is one thing– objecting that the discussion is being held at all is another.

    If you can’t handle art criticism on a podcast that is about art criticism, you might want to consider listening to something else.

    • If people have a problem with a podcast where these things are discussed, the problem is not with the podcast. The problem is with the listener. Disagreeing with the views expressed is one thingโ€“ objecting that the discussion is being held at all is another.

      I don’t think people have a problem with the discussion per se but rather Randy’s blanket statement that Eastwood is evil without anything to actually, you know, support the allegation. Hey these guys are liberals and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when one starts referring to people as ‘evil’ then I kind of want to know what they’ve done to join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot because those guys were evil. Last time I checked Eastwood hasn’t engaged in any genocidal activities lately.

      But you are correct in that discussions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry is fair game. I guess I forgot why Eastwood being evil had anything to do with a discussion of Blade II and I know tangents are part of the show but when the tangent seems to be for the purpose of grinding one’s political axe then sorry, that’s not the listener’s problem, its the podcast. And you’re correct, if that’s the type of podcast this is then finding another show is worth considering.

    • I don’t see how saying “Eastwood is a racist” has any relevance to the art of making “Blade II”.

Comments are closed.