Brave New "Utopia"

The similarities between the six-episode British thriller "Utopia" and the graphic novel "Watchmen" are numerous. Both involve massive conspiracies with powerful people behind the scenes trying to manipulate global events. Both involve a lot of graphic violence, so even though comic book imagery and several child characters are involved, they are absolutely not meant for the kids. And then there are the visuals, full of bright primary colors, with a special emphasis on bright yellow. "Watchmen," of course, had an expensive theatrical adaptation that pushed the boundaries regarding violence and sexuality in superhero films. "Utopia" does not have superheroes, but it accomplishes similar goals. And it's a hell of a lot better.

"Utopia" revolves around a graphic novel of the same name, which is the subject of all kinds of wild theories about it possibly predicting the future or being based on real, covered-up events. The manuscript for an unpublished second volume falls into the hands of a fan named Bejan (Mark Stobbart), who intends to share it with fellow regulars from a "Utopia" website, post-grad student Becky (Alexandra Roach), directionless IT worker Ian (Nathan Stewart-Jarrett), survivalist hacker Wilson Wilson (Adeel Akhtar), and Grant (Oliver Woollford), who has been passing himself off as a stock trader, but is actually an eleven year-old boy. However, a pair of remorseless killers, Arby (Neil Maskell) and Lee (Paul Ready), from a secret organization called The Network, are also looking for the manuscript. In the opening scene of the first episode, we watch them murder everyone in a comic book shop for information on its whereabouts. Finally, there's Michael Dugdale (Paul Higgins), a hapless civil servant that The Network is blackmailing to do some very, very bad things.

What immediately catches your attention about "Utopia" is how good it looks. The cinematography is gorgeous, and creates this wonderful feeling of artificiality and unease. Nearly every frame conveys the sense that there is something not quite right about this version of the UK, which is beautiful and brightly colored, but seems to be nearing the tipping point of something terrible. And at this point, I should warn again that this is a very violent program. People are killed cruelly and graphically, in significant numbers, and there's a squirm-inducing torture scene in the first episode. Horrible things are regularly threatened with an ease and nonchalance that is genuinely shocking. However, there's a certain honesty to the portrayal of violence here. It's all real-world horrors, not played up for the audience's visceral pleasure, always portrayed negatively, and always, always with terrible consequences. No slow-mo and no silly CGI blood spatter. Take that, Zack Snyder!

Okay, I'm being unfair, but I couldn't help thinking that a more stripped down style and a limited television series format like this would have suited Watchman" so much better. "Utopia" has the length to acquaint us with its large cast and set up a big, epic story. However, it still moves fast enough to resolve everything within six hours, and nearly every mystery or new development that is introduced in one episode is dealt with or at least expanded on in the next episode. So there's a mystery woman named Jessica Hyde (Fiona O'Shaughnessy) that the two killers are looking for? We meet her by the end of the first episode, learn her backstory in the second and third, and by the sixth her whole story arc pays off with a bang. And the big conspiracy that most television shows would drag out for multiple seasons? We get the big reveal in episode five, and it's a doozy. For those of you who love puzzle and mystery shows, "Utopia" is one of the most satisfying I've ever seen.

With the recent leaps that television has been making in quality and willingness to push boundaries, in many ways it's surpassing film as the best medium for comic book adaptations. "Utopia" wasn't based off of a real comic property, but it certainly understands their conventions, and tells a story similar to what we might expect from Grant Morrison or Alan Moore. Though "Utopia" has science-fiction elements, it's the social commentary that stands out. The show has subtle and not-so subtle messages about media manipulation, racial tensions, environmental crises, sources of global unrest, and the cost of doing the right thing. Of course, the story is fantastic and impossible, but it's built on an awful lot of real-world issues that people don't like to talk about. And that's what helps it to strike such a nerve.

Yet again, it's British television that is the source of one of the most exciting pieces of genre work I've seen in a long time. However, in this case I'm not surprised that "Utopia" hasn't reached the States yet, and probably won't for a long time. It's highly provocative stuff that really pushes a lot of buttons, and has the kind of content that many people can't handle. But if you think you can, I highly recommend seeking it out. There's been nothing else quite like it – at least, outside of the comics.
---

Read More

My Favorite Carl Theodor Dreyer Film

I'm always a little torn when a film novice mentions that they've watched and enjoyed "The Passion of Joan of Arc," Carl Theodor Dreyer's silent film based on the trial of the title character. On the one hand, it's wonderful that someone has taken the plunge and managed to connect with a silent. However, it's difficult to recommend other films to move on to from there, because "Joan" is so unlike any other silent film of that era. There are the stunning long close-ups, particularly of actress Renée Jeanne Falconetti, who appears without the thick makeup commonly worn by other silent actresses. There is the naturalism of the performances, eschewing the kind of exaggerated, pantomime-based acting that had been widely adopted. Elaborate sets were built, but Dreyer all but ignored them in favor of his actors' faces, shot with an almost shocking degree of realism. There was nothing else like "The Passion of Joan of Arc" made during the silent era, and precious little since then either.

Dreyer is as much an anomaly in film history as his film. He was a Danish director, not really part of any of the wider movements or schools of the time, though influenced by spending many years working in France's film industry. After the financial failure of "Joan" and "Vampyr," he wouldn't direct another film for over a decade, during which films transitioned to sound and WWII had started. Dreyer's style changed completely for his sound films, predominantly favoring long, static wide shots. Close-ups were rarer, and a greater sense of distance form the audience was maintained. However, the subject matter remained the same. Dreyer was a deeply religious artist, and all of his work is focused on spiritual and existential crises. Many of his later films can be characterized as morality plays, examining the nature of faith and doubt. Dreyer never achieved much commercial success because his films were so heavy and austere, but he was beloved and remembered by critics, and influenced many other directors, notably fellow Scandinavians Ingmar Bergman and Lars Von Trier.

"The Passion of Joan of Arc" remains the most accessible of Dreyer's films, because it was driven by stunning visuals instead of dialogue, and based on a well-remembered historical event. Transcripts of the actual trial and interrogations of Joan served as the basis of the script. The film is also notable for containing the sole cinematic lead performance of Renée Jeanne Falconetti (sometimes credited as Maria Falconetti). She was a respected French stage actress, and the story goes that Dreyer was so demanding of her, and made the filming experience so unpleasant, that Falconetti suffered a mental breakdown at the end of production, and declined ever appearing in a film again. As a result, Dreyer unfairly acquired a reputation for being a tyrant and a sadist. However, his film seemed to back up these claims, because there was never a more heartrending portrait of human suffering as Falconetti's Joan, subjected to countless inquisitions and torments before finally being executed in the final scenes. Often, her face is the only thing in the frame, and it is impossible to escape her haunting gaze.

At the time of release the film was hailed as a masterpiece, but controversy was already swirling around "Joan" for its subject matter and its positioning of religious authorities as villains. The British banned it for its unflattering portrayal of English solders. The French government and the Catholic Church both made significant censorship cuts, without Dreyer's input. The original negative and a reconstructed second version with alternate footage were both lost in fires in subsequent years. Though widely recognized as a classic, it became very difficult to find the film, adding to its mystique. It was only in 1981, long after Dreyer's death, that a print of the original unedited version was found in the janitor's closet of a Norwegian mental hospital, and a full restoration was done. It's difficult to resist drawing parallels to the story of Joan herself.

Everything about "The Passion of Joan of Arc" is unlikely, from its director to its star to its miraculous recovery from obscurity. Perhaps that's why it remains such a unique experience that is so different from its contemporaries. After 85 years "Joan" still has so much emotional power, losing no impact with age. Perhaps this is because it came from a director who engaged with spirituality so wholeheartedly, and because it came from a era when the church was a far stronger force in the world, and the story resonated more deeply. Dreyer's film was released only eight years after Joan of Arc was declared a saint, and provides a good reminder of why she was elevated. And it's also a reminder of the power of film, silent or otherwise, to move and to transcend and to endure.
---

Read More

How High Will "Veronica" Go?

Kickstarter has been a boon to the creators of short films, web series, documentaries, and other smaller scale film projects. The list of famous names successfully raising money via Kickstarter crowdsourcing keeps growing, and now includes Charlie Kaufman, David Fincher, Dan Harmon, Amanda Palmer, John Kricfalusi, Masaaki Yuasa, Bill Plympton, Phil Tippett and the guys behind "Cyanide and Happiness." However, funding a full-length commercial feature film hadn't been tried before, since the amounts of money involved were exponentially larger than what Kickstarter campaigns usually handled. The most high profile film projects, including the story reel for Fincher's "Goon" movie, only asked for a few hundred thousand dollars. A decent quality feature would require millions to produce. A few Kickstarter campaigns had raised millions, but only for technology and video game projects.

Enter "Veronica Mars." The high school mystery series ran for three seasons from 2004 to 2007, but was gone from television too soon, leaving unfinished business and a sizable fanbase hoping for some kind of follow-up project. As with fellow cult favorite "Arrested Development," rumors of a movie sequel circulated for years, but looked increasingly unlikely as the years went by. A small cult audience, no matter how fervent and devoted, is almost never enough for a studio to finance the resurrection of a beloved TV or movie property. But what if they weren't risking the studio's money? Yesterday, show creator Rob Thomas, with the full blessing of Warner Brothers, who owns the rights, started a Kickstarter campaign for the "Veronica Mars" movie. He asked for $2 million, the highest Kickstarter goal ever for a film project, to be raised in 30 days. The full amount was raised in less than twelve hours, and now the question is, how high will that total climb before the end of the 30 day campaign? At the time of writing, it's at a little over $3 million and climbing. And the buzz and the excitement around the campaign are so infections, I'm a little sorry I'm not more familiar with the show.

The unprecedented success of the "Veronica Mars" movie is leading to all kinds of speculation about other possible projects that Kickstarter could make happen. How about a second "Firefly" movie? How about another season of "Deadwood"? However, there are a lot of reasons to be cautious here. Keep in mind that "Veronica Mars" is in a very unusual position, where most of the creative talent involved is still available to do a follow-up project like this, the budget requirements are fairly low, and Warner Brothers is willing to play ball. A Kickstarter funded production is still very much uncharted territory, and a major studio being involved brings up some sticky legal and financial issues. Remember also that the biggest Kickstarter film projects to date, like Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" and "Goon" haven't been delivered yet. Kickstarter has grown so fast in such a short amount of time based largely on potential as opposed to actual product. Kickstarter projects, like any other entrepreneurial ventures, go awry all the time. CNN recently found that 84% of the biggest funded projects didn't meet their delivery deadlines, with around 30% by more than six months. Then there have been the growing number of failed Kickstarter projects that where the entrepreneurs couldn't deliver at all, leaving backers feeling cheated and wary of making future contributions

The "Veronica Mars" movie is high profile enough and has so many established, experienced professionals in charge that I don't think it'll be one of the failures. There's a solid timeline in place for production, Warner Brothers has already promised to distribute the film, many of the key actors have already signed on, and the media coverage that's been generated by the campaign will help to ensure things run fairly smoothly. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't still a lot of risks. Production issues aside, the biggest one that most people aren't thinking about is, what if the "Veronica Mars" movie turns out to be bad movie? What if the fans don't like it or are disappointed with it? Fans may scoff, but remember what happened with that second "X-files" movie? Or "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me"? Or "TRON: Legacy"? I'm sure the people working on those films had the best of intentions, but they ended up falling short of their fans' expectations, and those fandoms took some pretty hard blows.

However, there's no denying that crowdfunding movies and television shows has a lot of potential. Along with the recent investments by Netflix, Amazon, and others into web content, this marks the emergence of new sources of financing that weren't on anyone's radar a few years ago. Now thanks to them, "Arrested Development" is back. And "Veronica Mars" is back. And artists like Phil Tippett get to make their dream projects that no studio would have paid for in a million years, and do them on their own terms. Who knows who's going to be next in line?
---

Read More

New Disney Movies Based on the Old Disney Movies

Yesterday Disney announced that they are pursuing development of a live action "Beauty and the Beast," to go along with "Alice in Wonderland," "Mirror, Mirror," and the upcoming "Maleficent" and "Cinderella." The fairy tale trend may be on its last legs in the rest of Hollywood, but Disney being Disney, they've found some success with it. The huge opening for "Oz the Great and Powerful" shows that the classics can still be lucrative if handled properly. So it shouldn't be a surprise that Disney has been going through its back catalog of animated properties looking for more children's stories to reinvent, and not just to keep feeding the storylines on "Once Upon a Time."

So what's next in the pipeline? There are some interesting possibilities. Disney already went through a similar phase in the 90s that netted us live action "The Jungle Book" and "101 Dalmatians" movies. I think "Tangled" and "The Princess and the Frog" are probably too recent, and most of the ones with animal stars like "The Rescuers," "Dumbo," and "Lady and the Tramp" would be too difficult to translate. I've made a list of some possible remaining candidates below.

"Pinocchio" - Remember that cheery "Geppetto" TV movie musical that Disney made back in 2000 with Drew Carey and Julia Louis-Dreyfus? How about the Italian version with Roberto Benigni? No? We're seriously overdue for a new version of "Pinocchio," one that takes the character back to his darker roots. Guillermo Del Toro and the Jim Henson company were working on a stop-motion version which seems to be in limbo at the moment. If that one doesn't pan out, Disney might want to consider going the live action route and seeing if they can find a good angle on reinterpreting what is arguably the best animated film they ever made.

"The Little Mermaid" - There are a lot of technical challenges that would come with this one, which is why "The Little Mermaid" hasn't been adapted as often as most of the other stories on this list. Movies involving water tend to get very expensive in a hurry. However, considering how far CGI has advanced, I think a new live action adaptation is very possible and has lots of potential. Think about how gorgeous those ocean scenes were in "Life of Pi." Also, keep in mind that Disney already produced a perfectly charming mermaid movie back in the 80s with only old fashioned special effects - Ron Howard's "Splash."

"Aladdin" - The biggest problem with doing a live action "Aladdin" is Disney's own discouraging failure at adapting the similarly themed "Prince of Persia" franchise a few years ago. Add likely issues with cultural appropriation, Orientalism, and stereotyping on top of that, and "Aladdin" starts to look like a potential minefield. However, the "Arabian Nights" stories have remained very popular, and everyone knows the "Aladdin" story. If Disney can get a big headliner to play the Genie of the Lamp, and make some genuine attempts at cultural sensitivity, I think the magic carpets and caves of wonder should do the rest.

"The Sword in the Stone" - There have been quite a few attempts at tackling the King Arthur legends recently, but I'm surprised that nobody has thought to take another shot at adapting "The Sword in the Stone," the first volume of T.H. White's "The Once and Future King." Disney made a fun, if significantly edited animated version in 1963, with young Arthur being tutored by a scatterbrained Merlin. With its lighter comedic tone, lots of transformations, talking animals, and the iconic magicians' duel, the original may not have been meant for children, but it's got all the earmarks of good material for a family flick.

"Peter Pan" - Disney has been getting a lot of mileage out of its "Tinkerbell" series, and there are plans for a live action version in the works. If that goes well, it could lead into a new adaptation of "Peter Pan." It's been a decade since the last major adaptation, P.J. Hogan's sorely underseen 2003 version, so I think we're due for another one. There are several "Peter Pan" related projects in various stages of development around Hollywood right now, including a darker revisionist one and an origin story for Peter and the Lost Boys. I can't think of any reason why Disney shouldn't look into revisiting Neverland too.

"The Black Cauldron" - By far the most obscure feature on this list, but I figure that now that Disney's managed to revitalize the Oz franchise, maybe they'll think about trying the Prydain Chronicles again too. Lloyd Alexander's five-book fantasy series was the source material for the disastrous 1985 animated feature. It was too dark and scary for that era, much like the "Return to Oz" movie that came out the same year. However, the darker sword and sorcery storyline and the zombies might work better now, especially in a live-action film that won't be mistaken as being a typical Disney cartoon, and just for kids.
---

Read More

Well, I Wanted an "Oz" Franchise

"Oz, The Great and Powerful" is the first big hit of 2013, grossing over $80 million at the American box office over the weekend. Disney has indicated that they're working on sequel plans already, so it looks like we have a real Oz film franchise on our hands at last. On the other hand, as a fan of the Oz books and the earlier Oz films, this isn't quite what I had in mind. Up front, I want to be clear that I haven't seen the new movie yet, but I've been reading copious spoilers and taking notes. This is one of those cases where I don't think knowing how it ends is going to impact the viewing experience much, and I've got a lot of concerns to address. Minor spoilers ahead.

L. Frank Baum's Oz books were fantasy stories written for children, and their main characters were children, usually girls like Dorothy and Ozma, but not exclusively. What Disney has done is to make an action-adventure film centered on a grown-up male protagonist, the Wonderful Wizard, played by James Franco. "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is positioned as a prequel to "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," detailing how the Wizard first came to Oz and became its ruler. Assuming Disney plans to continue in the same vein in future movies, this changes the dynamics of Oz stories considerably. An adult hero means an adult POV, different goals and a different approach to the fantasy world. You lose the child's-eye view, and a lot of the sense of danger and wonder that go with it. Many of the fantasy elements and characters originally created to appeal to children have to be adjusted for the sensibilities of adults. For instance, the Wizard gets a winged monkey sidekick in the new movie who is not scary at all. He can talk, and is voiced by Zach Braff. Meanwhile, Glinda and the other witches are set up as potential love interests for the Wizard as well as antagonists.

Looking ahead, even with the Wizard as the lead character, Disney wouldn't have to depart too far from the books for future installments. The plots are simple enough that you could substitute the Wizard without much trouble. As we all know, the Wizard was eventually revealed as a humbug and departed from Oz, ceding leadership to the Scarecrow. However, in the books he found his way back to the Emerald City eventually and decided to stay, becoming a recurring character for the rest of the series who often came along on various adventures. You could transplant many of these stories to the period of time when the Wizard ruled Oz.. Also, while there was no mention of Glinda and the Wizard being romantically involved, they were good friends, and it's not out of the question that a deeper relationship could have grown out of that.

However, the most famous Oz material would be off limits if Disney wanted to stick with prequels. Anything involving Dorothy or Ozma or the characters closely connected to them would require the ousting of the Wizard from power. That's a route I'm not sure Disney is too eager about taking, considering the intellectual property issues with MGM. Then again, since the Wizard's power is based on a lie, according to the usual rules of Disney movie morality he has to come clean eventually. Remaking "The Wizard of Oz" would almost certainly go badly, but I wonder if you couldn't do a sort of "Rosencranz and Guildenstern" version of it, showing what the Wizard was doing behind the scenes during Dorothy's famous adventure. The biggest danger with this approach is that the Wizard might end up usurping Dorothy's place as heroine of her story.

That brings us to the gender problem that "Oz, the Great and Powerful" has created. There's a good article over at Jezebel about why positioning the Wizard as the hero and co-opting what was originally a very female-centric series is highly problematic. There's also been significant criticism about the characterization of the witches, which according to many reviews leaves a lot to be desired. In a prequel situation I think there's some wiggle room, but the Wizard muscling in on Dorothy's turf is definitely not acceptable. At the same time, keep in mind that Disney won't want to decrease the role of James Franco in any way, since he's the big headliner of the new franchise, and the company has a strong interest in brands that would be accessible to teenage boys. The last thing they want is to position the new Oz movies as girls' entertainment. That reduces the chances of getting major female characters with real agency front and center.

However, you could probably sneak in a young heroine or two by just keeping Franco's face on the posters, the same way Disney did with Johnny Depp and "Alice and Wonderland." Going back to a potential "Wizard of Oz" related project, you can't have the Wizard secretly saving the day without marginalizing one of the iconic girl heroes of American literature. But an entirely separate Wizard-centric story that supplements what Dorothy is doing? That could work. Then the following sequel could do an adaptation of "Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz," book four of the Oz series, where the Wizard and Dorothy appear as co-leads trying to get back to Oz, and you could delve into the rest of the series from there.

I've been waiting a long time for new Oz films, and I'm not too picky about what we end up with. But Disney has a chance to do something very special here, depending on where they decide to take the series. The Oz universe is a vast one, and I've only touched on a few possible options.

Hoping for the best.
---

Read More

A View on "The View"

"The View" is one of those shows that the internet loves to get snippy about. Oh, they're just a bunch of bickering old biddies who don't know anything. And someone will inevitably bring up Sherri Shepherd's anti-evolution stance, or Elizabeth Hasselbeck's right-wing leanings and lack of credentials, or Whoopi Goldberg's unfortunate defense of Roman Polanski, or anything involving Rosie O'Donnell. "The View" inevitably gets lumped in with the worst of daytime talk shows, and if you do find someone who admits to enjoying the program, it's usually with the caveat that "The View" was so much better when Meredith Viera was the moderator, or they wish Barbara Walters would be more involved. And now that a major source of that drama, Joy Behar is leaving "The View," and provocative Elizabeth Hasselbeck may be out the door next, the the major sentiment seems to be, good riddance. I don't think either of them or the show deserves that.

I haven't been a regular viewer of "The View" for several years now, but I always liked it, or at least appreciated its aims. Yes, Hasselbeck would get on my nerves because she and I have diametrically opposed views on social issues, and some of the discussion topics weren't addressed nearly as well as they could have been if more informed and more thoughtful panelists had been participating. However, "The View" is only occasionally a serious forum for serious issues. Mostly it's a typical chat show, meant to cater to a particular female demographic. However, it does successfully reflect how a broad range of political and social stances manage to coexist with each other in this country. And several headline-grabbing blow-ups over the years would attest to them often not coexisting very well. On the subject of gay marriage, for instance, the regular panelists are split right down the middle, with Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar on one side, and Sherri Shepherd and Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the other. Like it or not, this is fairly close to how the American public is actually split on the issue.

With the way the cable networks have declared sides ideologically, the American culture has polarized, and it's easy to draw lines and automatically discount the other side. That's something that you can't do on "The View." The current lineup has been in place since 2007, when Rosie O'Donnell had her spectacular flameout, and Whoopi Goldberg was recruited to fill her seat. This resulted in a terrific ongoing tension between the panelists on the left and the ones on the right ever since, who bring all their biases to the table and often struggle with reconciling their different worldviews. I'm sure that many audience members watch the show for this very reason, because it is one of the few places on television where you do get everybody on equal footing, and with five very outspoken women, nobody consistently dominates the conversation. More than that, "The View" provides a forum for women to discuss subjects that you don't normally get to hear anywhere else. I like that they talk about politics in particular, a subject that Oprah Winfrey and Ellen Degeneres have always been careful to avoid.

I think the show works because whatever you want to say about the panelists' more controversial opinions, it's clear that they're genuine. The discussions can become very personal and emotions can run high. And why shouldn't they? When tackling hot-button issues, personal experience often does play heavily into the controversy, and sometimes erudite conversation just isn't enough. It's easy to make fun of "The View" when the blow-ups happen, but once in a while it can really hit a nerve in a way that even the most serious news programs can't, because the hosts come across as such ordinary women, despite being famous, and their own experiences bring an invaluable context to their discussions. I like all of the current panelists, even Hasselbeck, because even if the whole room's against her she doesn't back down very easily, and there is a good chunk of America that thinks exactly the way she does. The show's been better for having her, and if she departs with Behar it will be a real loss.

Now where is "The View" going to go in the future? That's going to depend entirely on who they manage to recruit next. I can see the show devolving into the kind of fluff and triviality that they already depend on pretty heavily, like the reality show segments and the celebrity gossip. On the other hand, the pendulum could just as easily swing in the other direction. I think another comedienne should replace Behar. Or maybe they should aim a little younger and nab a twenty-something to start courting the "Girls" generation. "The View" has been on the air for over fifteen years now, and it's amassed so much cultural clout that no matter what the naysayers think, I don't see it going anywhere.
---

Read More

More Podcast Recs

I've been listening to a lot of podcasts lately, so I thought I'd pass along links to some of the movie-related and television-related ones that I've been enjoying. All of these are free through iTunes or the links below. Enjoy.

The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith - The host is a giant fanboy and it took me a while to get used to his style, but he conducts great Q&As with working screenwriters. Most of the interviews are conducted in conjunction with screenings of the writers' new movies, so after Goldsmith’s done with his questions, there's often a little audience participation too, nicely edited so that there are none of the breaks or the awkward pauses that usually come with live Q&A sessions. I recommend waiting until after you've seen the specific movies being discussed prior to listening to the podcasts, because they focus on the writing process, and how scripts are developed, and what got cut and what got changed on the way to the big screen. This is the side of filmmaking I love I hearing about, and as far as I'm concerned the writers never get as much of the spotlight as they should. Some recent highlights include Joss Whedon on "The Avenger," David O. Russell on "Silver Linings Playbook," and Phil Johnston and Jennifer Lee discussing "Wreck-it-Ralph."

SModcast - This pick requires a little filtering. "SModcast" is both the name of a podcast and also a collection of podcasts associated with writer and director Kevin Smith. He's got a bunch of different ones related to the entertainment world, including "Hollywood Babble-On," which is a pretty free-form weekly discussion about current movies and television, "Smoviemakers," where he interviews filmmakers, "Film School Fridays," where he throws down with film students, and the main "SModcast" occasionally has guests like "Looper" director Rian Johnson. Some of the smaller shows aren't updated all that often, or were just kind of abandoned by the wayside after a few installments. However, my favorite at the moment is still going strong, and that's "Fatman on Batman" which is exactly what it sounds like. Kevin Smith geeks out about the Batman universe every week, and the 1992 "Batman: The Animated Series" in particular. He's had one several key members of the cast and crew, including a fantastic two-parter with Mark Hamill. Smith certainly doesn't neglect the comics though. I'm saving the recent Grant Morrison appearance for a rainy day.

Firewall and Iceberg – I've recommended this one before, but it was sort of tacked on to another post, and I really think these guys deserve all the kudos I can give them. Alan Sepinwall and Dan Fienberg are two prominent television critics who host the best television podcast, bar none. These are the guys who know the industry inside out, who understand the inexplicable network decisionmaking, and who can juggle talking about multiple shows, old and new. They'll review each individual episode of the ones they consider the most important, like "Breaking Bad" and "Mad Man," episode by episode, every week. Others only need to be checked in on from time to time. The lousy stuff gets a quick review, and only ever comes up again if there's been a major development. It's amazing the amount of ground these two can cover in a single show, and they don't even run that long. I tend to get more out of one of their ten or fifteen minute episode reviews than the podcasts that spend a whole hour on the same subject. And thanks to them, I know about pilot season, and about press tour, and exactly how “Community” is doing, because they’re just as obsessed about it as I am.

Kermode and Mayo's Film Review – Film critics Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo review films for BBC radio. They do more or less what every other movie review show does, offering their critiques on the new releases, related interviews, and some lively discussion about the recent entertainment news. This one stands out for the personalities and the professionalism. Mark Kermode's quite the character, and I suspect his personality may come across as grating to some, but I find him very informative and entertaining. And because it's the BBC, the show has the clout to get some big names to come by to promote their movies, though at the same time that means you get more actors and fewer directors and writers. It's also nice to hear the perspective of a couple of Brits who are working off of a difference release schedule and aren't as Hollywood oriented as most of the other shows I listen to. I've gotten some great recommendations for smaller films like "Perfect Sense" and “Chico and Rita,” that were higher profile in the UK than in the US, that I might have otherwise missed.
---

Read More