Pop Culture Double Date

Let's face it: we all felt a little burnt by the way "Game of Thrones" ended, so when HBO announced that it had greenlit a prequel show about House Targaryen, we were mightily sceptical. But little by little, we were sucked in, to the point where we now can't avoid the conversation about "House of the Dragon" – the time jumps, the casting changes, the incest, and funnily enough, the merits or demerits of one Viserys I.

Here's the thing about Tom Cruise: not since Napoleon has a man this short come so close to world domination. And yet there's no denying that as the world emerges from a prolonged pandemic lockdown, Thomas Cruise Mapother IV is being hailed as the saviour of cinema, the man who has given us all a reason to to go back the movie theatre otherwise than to watch the latest Marvel extravaganza. So how does "Top Gun: Maverick" hold up? And does the world owe Tom Cruise for showing us once again that nothing compares to practical effects projected onto a big screen? We ponder this and more in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.

The Caped Crusader has returned in solo live-action feature for the first time in a decade, folks, and this time we're spending time with his dark side, which, by the looks of things, may be his only side. In this episode, we ponder whether "The Batman" has taken more than its fair share of thematic inspiration from the The Dark Knight Trilogy, whether it was possible to shave precious minutes off the film's gargantuan running time, whether this movie really needed Catwoman and whether Robert Pattinson is a worthy wearer of the cowl.

The year's most anticipated film has finally landed in Australia, and it's a big one – a film adaptation of a supposedly "unfilmable" novel, a novel so vast that the last time it was brought to the silver screen, no less formidable a director than David Lynch disavowed the final product. We ask ourselves whether this movie is too beautiful for its own good, whether the characters are swamped the landscape and soundscape that Denis Villeneuve conjures, whether Paul Atreides is a cipher and whether his journey towards his messianic fate is handled in a way that does no justice to his character in the novel.

After 15 years and 5 movies, Daniel Craig has finally hung up his Walther PPK in favour of doing his rather impressive Foghorn Leghorn impersonation as Benoit Blanc for years to come. But even as we say goodbye to the Craig incarnation of James Bond, we have to ask: Is this final outing any good? Where does it rank among the Craig films? Does it redeem the franchise after the dumpster fire that was "Spectre"? Does it hint at interesting new directions for this granddaddy of film franchises? And who could possibly step into the tux now that Craig has left the building?

As large parts of Australia came out of lockdown, we went back into the cinema, this time to watch the latest big screen offering from Marvel Studios about a month later than the rest of the world. The big questions this week include the following: Is Simu Liu completely overshadowed by Tony Leung? Despite the big spectacle on offer, does this movie say something about families, particularly Asian families, that we weren't expecting? And is the third act of the movie a problem?

We conclude our Harry Potter re-watch with the earth-shaking final entry in this series of films. For all the heroics of our intrepid titular character, is this really Severus Snape's movie? Is Narcissa Malfoy the secret MVP of the Harry Potter universe? Was it right that Neville Longbottom should be the final wielder of the sworn of Gryffindor? Did we really need the post-time jump epilogue at the end of the movie? And what does it say about the long arc of the story we've just watched that in the final shot of this movie, Harry and Hermione stand next to each other in the centre of the frame with their respective partners either out of shot or relegated to the background?

We're in the home stretch of our Harry Potter rewatch, folks, and we find ourselves asking whether this is the weirdest and weakest entry in the entire series. Does the movie suffer from a lack of any scenes at Hogwarts? Is the hint of a love triangle between Harry, Hermione and Ron at all believable? Does the ending land with the emotional punch that the makers hoped? And does this movie do anything beyond the setting the scene for the climax to come? Come for the recap, and stay for the deeper and more considered discussion than any of us had expected.

In the cinematic adaptation of the penultimate entry in the Harry Potter series of novels, Severus Snape, Draco Malfoy and Albus Dumbledore each get a moment to shine and to deliver an emotional wallop. But does this make up some of the weird disjointedness of this movie? Does the blossoming "romance" between Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley make any sense? Does jealous Hermione make any more sense? And how does this film set us up for the climax of the franchise?

"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" aka The One with Dolores Phoenix. Or at least that's how it seems, as this most memorably unpleasant of villains in the Harry Potter universe takes over Hogwarts, and with it, our screens, big and small. Is this the movie in the series with the least sense of mystery? Does Sirius Black display uncharacteristic levels of wisdom in his interactions with Harry? Does this movie do the battle between light and dark in a single person better than the Star Wars franchise? And is a political allegory for the Bush Administration and the War on Terror? These are the big topics we take on in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.

This week we continue our Harry Potter rewatch with the fourth instalment in the series, aka The One with Robert Pattinson. As the franchise takes a turn from time heist to sports movie, we ponder whether this Mike Newell joint holds up well after the heights to which Alfonso Cuaron took us; whether the rest of the movie compares to its earth-shaking finale; whether Cedric Diggery is anything more than a complete cipher; and why Moaning Myrtle is so damn horny .

This is a big one, folks. "Prisoner of Azkaban" was, and remains, one of the most acclaimed entries in the Harry Potter film franchise, and in this episode, we ponder whether it still holds up, the importance of the movie as it foreshadowed a darker turn in the rest of the series, the introduction of Michael Gambon as Dumbledore 2.0, whether the time travel in this movie worked and what Alfonso Cuaron brought to the visual story-telling in the Harry Potter universe.

The big questions are all pondered in this spoiler-heavy discussion about the second of the Harry Potter films. What did the film makers do to deepen and broaden the world-building that they had so successfully launched in "Philosopher's Stone"? Did this movie do the right amount of introducing us to the darker elements of the Harry Potter universe? Why Ginny Weasley? Was the Phoenix the true hero of this movie? And why is Moaning Myrtle so inappropriately flirty?

Sick of half-baked movies and Marvel TV shows that disappoint, we decided to go back to something that we knew we'd like – the Harry Potter franchise. So on the eve of its 20th anniversary, we ponder how well the first of Harry Potters films holds up. Does it charm and inspire wonder as it did when we first encountered the world of these movies? Could these kids act? And is Snape an even more iconic Alan Rickman character than Hans Gruber? The answers to these questions await in the latest instalment of Pop Culture Double Date.

"F9: The Fast Saga" was not a good movie. It was, in fact, a very bad movie – worse than "Fast and Furious", worse even than "2 Fast 2 Furious". And the big question is why. Why, with Justin Lin back, with Han brought back to life, and without Dwayne Johnson around to piss Vin Diesel off, did this movie suck so hard? Was it the fact that when every scene is a spectacular action set piece, nothing is spectacular? Was it Vin Diesel's ego? Was it the absence of Chris Morgan in the writers' room? Buckle up, folks. We go deep on this one.

We are gathered, in the shadow of a potentially Hollywood-shaking lawsuit by one Scarlett Johansson, to ponder the merits of the film that inspired said lawsuit, the first feature-length release by that small independent outfit, Marvel Studios. Listen as we discuss the tonal shifts, occasionally entertaining but also occasionally jarring, in this film; the possible continuation of Marvel's villain problem; whether this movie was too little too late, given what we know of the fate of its title character; and what this all portends for the quality control process at Marvel.

Did "Loki" suck? Was it the latest example of a Marvel show starting strong and then losing its way? Did the show live up to its promise of showing us new sides of the God of Mischief? Did it give us enough of the guarantee of laid-back awesomeness that is Owen Wilson? And was anyone actually sold on the romance between Loki and himself AKA Sylvie? These questions, and more, are chewed over in this latest instalment of Pop Culture Double Date.

We had the chance recently to watch the latest offering from Zack Snyder, an ambitious wannabe zombie heist film starring the surprisingly versatile Dave Bautista. What begins as a breezy chat about the many vices and few virtues of this movie turns into a meditation on Zack Snyder, his obsession with the aesthetics of gore, what he does and doesn't have in common with Michael Bay, and the terrifying possibility that he might one day direct a romantic comedy.

2021 has given us few films as moving, poetic and profoundly visionary as the latest entry in the Monsterverse franchise. Everything, from Rebecca Hall's committed performance as the stepmother to the Kong Whisperer to the mandatory Kyle Chandler cameo as a put-upon bureaucrat, scored a bull's eye in this masterpiece. Listen in as we don't show just how badly starved we have been for blockbuster filmmaking in the era of COVID-19.

After much begging and pleading by fans, the powers that be at Warner Bros have finally let loose upon the world Zack Snyder's cut of "Justice League", a film that weighs in at 40 minutes longer than "The Godfather Part II". But is it any good? Can this film be judged separately from what we now know about the on-set conduct and demeanour of Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder respectively? Did Marvel's portrayal of Thanos ruin Darkseid and Steppenwolf? And will Warner Bros let Snyder make the rest of his intended Justice League trilogy? We ponder these questions and more in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.

It's been three years since Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot (with an assist from Chris Pine) injected new life into the DC Extended Universe with "Wonder Woman". Now they're back with a neon- and pastel-coloured ode to the excesses of the 1980s, a decade of big shoulder pads, big hair and big dreams by restless conmen wanting to pass off their Ponzi schemes as oil empires. But with a distribution plan that's had to accommodate the realities of COVID-19 and an increasingly disapproving crowd of online critics, have Jenkins, Gadot & Co repeated the success of previous entry? We ponder this and more, in the latest episode of Pop Culture Double Date.

Living as we are in the era of COVID-19, there is both too much and too little new content to review. Gone in 2020 are the tentpole movies that dominated US summers in years past. Instead, we've had a bunch of streaming releases, some good, some not so good. In this setting, we've had the chance to check out "Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm", revisit Greta Gerwig's "Little Women", be beguiled by "Cobra Kai" and "The Haunting of Bly Manor" and find ourselves oddly riveted by "The Queen's Gambit".

In its latest cynical cash-grab masquerading as a nostalgia play, Disney has given us a live-action remake of "Mulan", minus Mushu, minus the songs, and quite possibly minus the fun, the soul and the heart of the animated original. We ponder the odd absence of any character arc for Mulan in this retelling of the 6th century story, ask whether this really is a tale of female empowerment and struggle to understand why critics loved this movie when audiences seemed to have responded with a collective "Meh".

"The Old Guard" is Netflix's latest foray into big-budget lockdown entertainment, featuring a big-name cast, a bold directorial hire and the highest of high concepts. But is it any good? The critics think so, and if so Rottentomatoes is to be believed, so do audiences. But is it possible that they've got it all wrong? Is it possible that with Hollywood in deep freeze because of COVID-19, our content-starved brains have caused our standards to be lowered without our recognising it? We discuss this and more in the latest episode of Pop Culture Double Date.

This week, we perform an autopsy on the finale of Westworld's third season and the season as a whole. We ask whether there was a point to having William the MIB in the show; whether Maeve is still the endearing and compelling character that she was in the first two seasons; whether stealing the final shot of "Fight Club" works when you forget also to steal the trick of having massive male organs flash on the screen; and where this season ranks in the pantheon of the worst seasons of television. We won't lie: it's been a rollercoaster, folks. Enjoy.

This week, we find ourselves again contemplating one of the most egregious declines in quality in the history of television and ask what the creative legacy and reputation of all involved will be. Does the occasional great action scene in "Westworld" redeem a show that no longer has anything interesting to say about either the human condition or the fancy ideas that so tickled its writers in previous seasons? Is Aaron Paul ill served by the role of Caleb Nichols? And just how did Stubbs become a superhacker?

Having been completely defeated by last week's "Genre", our intrepid double daters venture back into Westworld. Is it a case of "fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us"? Or was this week's episode the start of a resurgence in the show's batting average? Along the way, we ask why Maeve is back in Warworld; why William, aka the Man in Black, is still in the show; why Bernard and Stubbs turn up at the most unexpected times in the most unexpected places; and whether anyone should care.

There's only one real question to ponder this week, folks, and it's this: With the third season of "Westworld", are we witnessing the most egregious example of a big-budget HBO show lighting itself on fire since the final season of "Game of Thrones"? We were hoping to have something interesting to say about the show's themes, but unfortunately, the show didn't, so we didn't. But we did enjoy having a laugh at one of the worst, not to mention worst-made, episodes of television we've seen since – well, the final season of "Game of Thrones".

There's plenty happening on "Westworld" these days, but does it mean anything? Has the show that began with aspirations of saying something about the nature of consciousness and free will turned into a retreat of the second and third instalments of the Matrix trilogy? Do the showrunners, who obviously think of themselves as telling a story about surveillance capitalism, even know how a modern capitalist economy works? These are the big questions chewed over in this week's PCDD.

With the benefit of one week since the airing of "The Absence of Field", we look back and ask ourselves whether it's time to start worrying about Westworld. Does the show still pass muster as interesting, let alone good, television? Has the show so relentlessly cribbed from other classics of science-fiction that it is now stale? Do we actually care who is masquerading as Charlotte Hale? And is Westworld's depiction of corporate intrigue, with its unfunded leveraged buyouts and secret trillionaires, the dumbest in the history of popular culture?

This week's episode of "Westworld" sure seemed like it sucked. But was it because it was a bad episode? Or was it because the episode seemed like a step backwards after the soft reboot of the season premiere? Or maybe was it because of the blink-and-you-might-miss-it cameo by Benioff and Weiss, which reminded us all over again what a complete, utter travesty the final season of "Game of Thrones" was? These are the big questions chewed over in the latest instalment of PCDD.

So "Westworld" returned for its third season, with an episode that felt like something between a hard and a soft reboot for the show. After most of the hosts had been sent to robot heaven at the end of season 2, Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy decided to expand the universe of the show, bringing us to a lightly touched-up Singapore that's now meant to stand in for LA and introducing new characters. But has "Westworld" changed its mystery box ways? And is it taking a hard turn to a different set of thematic concerns? We ponder these and other questions this week.

In the dying days of 2019, Netflix dropped "The Witcher", its first foray into big-budget fantasy (although there's an argument to be made that Netflix has yet to produce anything as fantastical and divorced from reality as "House of Cards"). In amidst comparisons to "Game of Thrones" and "Xena: Warrior Princess", the actual merits of the show have been somewhat overlooked. The Pop Culture Double Daters are here to remedy that and to try to convince you that there might actually be a bit more depth to "The Witcher" than its video game history might suggest.

Almost two weeks after its release, controversy still rages over the latest instalment of the Skywalker Saga. Is this movie a giant middle finger to Rian Johnson? And if so, does Rian Johnson deserve it? Or does this most recent Star Wars epic finally confirm that JJ Abrams is no more than a not untalented hack? And what does this all mean for the health of the whole Star Wars brand? Listen in as Daz gets some feelings off his chest, with some assistance from his fellow double daters.

The premise was interesting: giving Elizabeth Banks and her pitch perfect (see what we did there?) eye for what's fun on screen a chance to helm a moribund franchise, while letting Kristen Stewart show us her well-hidden, never-before-seen talent for comedy. Did it work? Was the result a subversive action movie shot from a feminist point of view or a bland, low-energy misfire that wasted the talent of all involved? We ponder this very big question in the latest Pop Culture Double Date.

When "Joker" debuted in Venice, the word was that Todd Phillips had sneakily remade "Taxi Driver" as a comic book movie. Then just weeks later, the film was condemned as boring, nihilistic and provocative for its own sake. So who's right here? Does "Joker" transcend its comic book origins? Has Joaquin Phoenix delivered a performance to dethrone Heath Ledger's iconic turn as the Crown Prince of Crime? Is this movie dangerous? Does the transformation of Arthur Fleck into the Joker ring true? Join us as we chew over these and other big questions about one of the year's most strangely controversial films.

"Ad Astra". Is it "Apocalypse Now" in space or just a ponderous movie about the emotional journey of a man who's so dead inside that he's more robot than human being? Is the film ruined by the most heavy-handed voice-over since the theatrical cut of "Blade Runner" or is it saved by one of the most nuanced performances that Brad Pitt has ever given? These are just some of the big questions chewed over in this episode of Pop Culture Double Date.

Timed perfectly to distract the English from their recent struggles with Brexit, "Downton Abbey" may just be the most pleasant cash grab masquerading as fan service we've seen all year. Behold the Crawleys readying themselves for a visit by the King and Queen. Watch as Tom Branson tries to strike a balance between being an Irish republican and living a pretty sweet life as someone who married into English aristocracy. Gasp as Mary wonders whether being rich is all a bit too hard. All this, and more, in this week's episode of Pop Culture Double Date.

In a sign that we've reached peak universe-building in Hollywood, the most improbably successful action film franchise of them all has now got a spin-off. But it is any good? Does this movie work as an odd-couple comedy? We know that the Rock and Jason Statham have comedy chops, but does the script give them anything to work with? Does the undeniable charisma and presence of these two men make up for the absence of the main Fast and Furious crew? And will Deckard Shaw ever pay for the unforgivable murder of Han? All these questions, and more, in the latest pop culture double date.

Is Jon Favreau's photorealistic version of "The Lion King" a visionary re-imagining of a beloved tale or the latest in a series of increasingly cynical, nostalgia-soaked cash grabs by our entertainment overlords at Disney? What, if anything, does this latest retelling of the story of Simba and his slow acceptance of his destiny add to versions we've seen and loved before? Both these questions, and more, are grist for the mill in this week's pop culture double date.

Marvel Studios has decided to launch us into the post-"Endgame" world with a light-hearted teen comedy about a kid, the girl he has a crush on, his best friend and Jake Gyllenhaal. Listen in as we ponder what, if anything, this movie has to say about illusions, CGI and fake news; Zendaya's refreshing take on a familiar character; where Tom Holland stands in the ranking of actors who've played Peter Parker; and the shadow cast by a certain billionaire weapons manufacturer.

Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Ken Watanabe and Charles Dance (Tywin friggin' Lannister, y'all) take second billing to everyone's favourite giant radioactive lizard in this massive disaster movie (or is that massive disaster of a movie?). In this week's pod, we ponder ... well, we don't ponder so much as apologise, shake our heads in disappointment and, in at least one case, offer up shrugs of indifference. Enjoy.

The most vengefully terrifying dog lover in all of cinematic history is back, folks, and he's ready to kill indiscriminate hordes of villainous henchmen in ways so innovative that they deserve patents. Listen in as we ponder whether the John Wick franchise has elevated action to the level of high art, whether the violence in "John Wick Chapter : Parabellum" is sufficiently cartoonish to avoid being truly disturbing, the world building in the John Wick cinematic universe and what that final twist really meant.

After two controversial episodes, Benioff and Weiss decided to end "Game of Thrones" with - well, one of the biggest travesties in the history of television, a finale to rival "Lost" and "How I Met Your Mother" as a giant betrayal of the show's fans, the characters and the story that preceded it. So gather round, people, as the double daters react to this mess and ponder whether the show's legacy has been irreversibly tarnished by this ending or whether, despite it all, this has been an unforgettable, wildly entertaining and often deeply moving ride.

Well, folks, it happened. Daenerys Targaryen finished what her father began and reduced King's Landing to a pile of ash and rubble, wiping out Cersei Lannister and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process. But did her tragic descent into madness make any sense? In fact, did anything in this episode make any sense? Did Cleganebowl? Did the cross-cutting between Cleganebowl and Arya Stark being half-trampled to death? And did Cersei and Jaime go out in a satisfying way? Or did they die like a couple of punks? With one episode to go, where do Benioff and Weiss go from here? All these questions, and more, are pondered in this week's pop culture double date.

After the intensity and the whirling, occasionally incomprehensible action of "The Long Night", we thought that Benioff and Weiss might treat us to a quieter, more languid episode this week. Instead, what we got was one of the most eventful episodes of television ever, as Jon Snow continued being the stupidest character on the show, Daenerys became very much the Mad King's daughter, Jaime and Brienne flirted with happiness (by doing much more than flirting), Tyrion and Varys pondered the merits of the various claimants to the Iron Throne, and Missandei pronounced judgment on the population of King's Landing. Note: we recorded this before everyone noticed the Starbucks cup in the Great Hall of Winterfell, so please forgive us for omitting to mention it.

The Battle of Winterfell came upon us this week. But was it too poorly lit for anyone to see what was going on? More importantly, were Arya Stark's heroics the most perfect thing that "Game of Thrones" has ever done? Is Jon Snow dumb? Did enough people die? And was the Night King a satisfying villain or a complete waste of time? All these questions and more, in this week's pod.

This is a big one, folks. A year ago, Marvel Studios stunned audiences around the world with "Avengers: Infinity War" and its hauntingly downbeat ending. Fast forward 12 months and the core group of Avengers we all got to know in Phase One of the MCU are back to try to undo the damage inflicted by Thanos. Against the odds, our double daters managed to get seats to watch "Avengers: Endgame", even though every screening of the movie in Australia seemed to have been sold out days in advance. Buckle up for a spoilerific discussion of the culminating chapter in an astounding 22-film cycle, ranging from the major character arcs to the liberties taken with plot logic to the meaning of the fonts in the end credits.

We were treated to a more intimate episode of "Game of Thrones" this week, less reliant on spectacle and more devoted to quiet moments between characters we've come to know and love. It was in that spirit that we gathered in front of a metaphorical fire with glasses of metaphorical wine to discuss the trajectory of Jaime's and Brienne's relationship, the attempted rapprochement between Sansa and Daenerys, the completely lame explanation given in this episode for the Night King's motivations, the sop given by the showrunners to all those Arya-Gendry shippers out there, whether the most glamorous incestuous couple on television can hold it together, and our predictions for who survives the Battle of Winterfell.

After a hiatus of almost two years, during which we had to make do with the increasingly twisty riddles-for-riddles'-sake of "Westworld", "Game of Thrones" has finally returned to our screens, with a brand new title sequence no less. Sitting down to discuss the season premiere just moments after watching it, we debate the meaning of that title sequence; whether we'd prefer to see Sansa Stark take the reins of power over Daenerys Targaryen; whether Cersei Lannister is in fact pregnant; what now for Aegon of House Targaryen, sixth of his name, particularly in the incestuous love department; the likelihood of democracy coming to Westeros; and our predictions for the season ahead. Strap in, folks, this is a jumbo-sized discussion about a jumbo-sized pop culture phenomenon.

Critics are calling it "Big" meets "Superman", but at least for some, "Shazam!" is the most family-focused action movie outside the "Fast and Furious" franchise. This week we ponder what "Shazam!" has to say about family, why there are moments of genuine blood-curdling terror and extreme violence in what is ostensibly a kids' movie, and what next in the DC Extended Universe.