Special Edition Podcast

10.17.2010 – Red

Show Notes

Running Time: 00:20:00
 
10.17.2010 – Ron Richards, Conor Kilpatrick and special guest John Suintres from Word Balloon gather together one last time… No, that's not right. I mean, they get together for one final mission… No, that's not right, either. They gathered together to talk about Red, the big screen adaptation of the three issue mini-series from Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner. With a cast of big names like Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Mary Louise Parker, Karl Urban, and Richard Dreyfuss – how can it lose? 
 
Music:
Same Old Drag
Apples in Stereo

 



Dame Helen Mirren with a giant sniper rifle.

I don't care that she's 65, that's freakin' hot.

The big screen adaptation of the 2003 DC Comics mini-series from Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner about retired spies who are targeted for death by the CIA has finally hit the big screen!

To me the most impressive thing about this film is that Bruce Willis' agent keeps finding ways to put a gun in his hand and have him shoot people in a believable story. He's not even nearly the oldest person in the cast! Kudos to you, Richard Lovett!

I'll be completely honest with you fine people and say that while I remember really enjoying Red when it came out, I have very little recollection of the comic itself. I remember a lot of shooting. The fact that I can't remember much about the series is not really relevant, I don't think, and in fact it's probably a benefit in this instance. Let's face it, the real draw for this movie is watching a bunch of older actors that we like shooting big guns and acting really tough. Who doesn't love that?

The iFanboy staff will be going to see this one as soon as possible so we can bring you a Special Edition Podcast this Sunday.

Are you going to see it? Of course you are! So let's talk about it!

If you haven't seen the movie yet be forewarned – there be SPOILERS ahoy! So don't scroll down any further if you are sensitive to that kind of thing.

 

Download

http://traffic.libsyn.com/ifanboy/iFanbo...
(Right-click and choose "Save As..." and save locally)

Subscribe

Get Involved

Doing the podcast is fun and all, but let's be honest, listening to the 3 of us talk to each other can get repetitive, so we look to you, the iFanboy listeners to participate in the podcast! "How can I get in on the fun?" you may ask yourself, well here's how:

  • E-Mail us at contact@ifanboy.com with any questions, comments or anything that may be on your mind.
  • Call us at 1-888-FANBOYS (326-2697) and leave a voicemail

Please don't forget to leave your name and where you're writing/calling from and each week, we'll pick the best e-mails and voicemails to include on the podcast!

Comments

  1. ActualButt ActualButt says:

    Yeah, I’ve had kind of a thing for Helen Mirren for awhile now. What can I say, I dig the older ladies.

  2. stuclach stuclach says:

    This looks like a lot of fun.  I’m looking forward to it.

  3. WeaklyRoll WeaklyRoll says:

    it’s tracking pretty well at Rotten Tomatoes, and seems like a good adaptation of the comic. Wonder how it will fit comic book adaptation all time list.  

  4. Dan Dan says:

    While I probably won’t see it in theaters, I am kind of intrigued by this one. The trailers and junket interviews I’ve seen really make this look like a fun movie.

    I also remember enjoying the comic, but don’t remember much about it. Probably go box diving this weekend to pull it out and give it a quick read.

    And after this week’s Weeds, I’m more in love with Mary Louise Parker than ever.  You can take your Helen Mirren, I’ll track with Nancy Botwin (or Newman or whatever they’re calling themselves this week).

  5. I re-read the comic a couple of weeks ago and it was quite good. Took a while to get used to Hamner’s style; but it definitely grew on me. I’d love to see him do a Luthor comic (or Action Comics) if he wanted too. Also, the story is so completely different than the film’s it’s not even worth trying to compare it.

    I’m excited for the movie as well. The first trailer onward has really made me giddy to see it. Although I am a bit torn whether I want to watch this or Jackass 3D in theaters first. Doesn’t help the friend I watch the comic films with wants to see Jackass 3D too. 

  6. lukehopkins lukehopkins says:

    just saw it. i vote meh.

  7. Andrew Andrew says:

    Fact: a post with "meh" is a wasted post.

    Fact: Bruce Willis is awesome. 

  8. filipsablik filipsablik says:

    I’m planning on checking it out tomorrow night. Looks like it’ll be entertaining and I’m a big fan of supporting comic moves opening weekend.

  9. SpiderTitan SpiderTitan says:

    Jackass 3-D > Red

  10. lukehopkins lukehopkins says:

    Meh as an emotion is not a wasted post. That’s what this felt like, i was mehed by this movie. Is saying you were wowed by a movie a wasted post?  It’s the same idea, just inverse.

     

    Bruce Willis has been really awesome, and then he’s been on cruse control sometimes, guess what he is here?

  11. ActualButt ActualButt says:

    @lukehopkins – Bruce Willis’ cruise controls settings are thus: Awesome, Really Awesome, and Awesome with a touch of Hilarious. So cruise control is fine with me. And I think @Andrew meant that if you hadn’t posted anything at all, everyone would assume you thought it was "meh". Until you add something a little more insightful like "Bruce Willis is on cruise control" (wether or not I agree with you) does it become a non-wasted post.

    However, in the grand scheme of things a post is a blip of memory in a square inch of screen space on one of thousands of threads on one of millions of websites. It’s not a huge waste.

  12. froggulper says:

    @ActualButt, you seem awfully touchy. If someone just wants to write their brief opinion ("meh" or "wow"), then what’s wrong with that? If they write nothing, it doesn’t suggest "meh"; it suggests they have no opinion. Sure, something something more than "meh" might be more worthwhile, but if the opinion is just "meh", then there’s some value in just saying "meh", which kind of speaks for itself in that the topic apparently wasn’t interesting enough to warrant further discussion (at least for that person). Also, please don’t use the "@" symbol in front of everyone’s name all the time even when you’re not addressing someone. We’re not on twitter. We’re talking about what Andrew meant, not what "@Andrew" meant. On twitter that’s done because the @ creates a link to that peron’s feed. But here the "@" isn’t a part of Andrew’s name and you’re not addressing him. Otherwise we may as well start writing things like "I like @Bruce Willis" or "@Helen Mirren is hot".

  13. Conor Kilpatrick conor (@cskilpatrick) says:

    @froggulper: There’s no value in just saying "meh." It’s the bane of the internet.

  14. MisterJ says:

    @froggulper-I respectfully disagree.  The problem with ‘meh’ is that it means two different things that are not always co-extensive.  It can mean ‘average’ or it can express a feeling of not caring.  You gave a good description of when ‘meh’ means average.  But you will also notice that on many of the announcement posts about a new book or creative team, the term ‘meh’ means that the poster does not care.  Sometimes the term is not context sensitive so that readers can discern which meaning is which.  This then takes the reader to two different interpretations, decreasing clarity.  It’s the difference between ‘this was a movie’ and ‘this movie gets two stars from me.’  This is why ‘meh’ sucks.

  15. Ilash Ilash says:

    Hey, cool! Nice to hear John Siuntres in a podcast with you guys.

  16. John Siuntres wordballoon says:

    like i said 3 stars out of 5.

    decent performances from an all star cast, but everyone is capable of doing better, had they been given a meatier script.

    the simple uninspired plot keeps me from saying it was a great movie, but the cast was charming enough to boost it from a 2 star review. 

  17. On Warren Ellis’ reaction to the adaptation–he’s hyped it up plenty on his blog, as well explained his thoughts on the changes: http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=8099

    Like you said, he understood that they were basically taking what’s equivalent to a short story and making it into a film, and that when a film studio buys the rights to adapt something, they also have the right to change what they will. He also said that despite that, the added characters making up the team still work in his original theme, which he describes in the traditional Ellis-ian fashion as "the Unexploded Bombs of the 20th Century." 

  18. skydogmo says:

    Haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but say the movie last night and really enjoyed it.  B movie elevated to a Gentleman’s B+ by great acting.  Almost an A- based upon the outerwear alone.  Do they make a faux-fur Russian hat like the one sported by BW whilst drinking vodka in the secret Alpine cabin?  If not, can I buy it used like a vegetarian wearing leather? 

  19. Cooper Cooper says:

    For a moment I missed who you said played the villain – I just heard the "Dreyfuss" part – and for a moment I thought Julia Louis-Dreyfus played the villain in this movie. Which would have been bizarre, but fantastic.

    Red isn’t high on my priorities, or at least wasn’t until I listened to this. Now I think I’ll rent it when the time comes.

Leave a Comment