The Christophers & I Love Boosters

Monday, August 31, 2026

Intro

[upbeat music plays]

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Hello, and welcome to At the Movies with Mike and Marie, a show where two film professors talk about movies. I'm Marie Westhaver.

MIKE GIULIANO:

And I'm Mike Giuliano.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

And today we're going to talk about the movies The Christophers and I Love Boosters, starting off with The Christophers. Mike, can I say from the get-go, I just love the title? And it takes a while till you find out what it means in the film. But I, for some reason, found that title really compelling.

[The Christophers]

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, one reason why it's compelling is because it doesn't immediately announce itself, does it? It's like, huh. Who or what does that refer to? And it's very clear in the film, but it takes a little while to get grounded that way. Unlike some movies where, blam! The title hits you and that's the whole movie right there. And then another two hours of it.

But to start us off talking about The Christophers, I'll start with a personal anecdote. Years ago, I had interviewed Ian McKellen. I went to see him at the only theater where he was doing a one-man show called Acting Shakespeare. And it really was terrific. It was just Ian McKellen on stage doing Shakespeare monologues, and just mesmerizing. So I had the opportunity to do a Public Radio interview with him.

So as he and I were sitting in the studio, it was equally mesmerizing because I was able to not just talk with him extensively, but have him recite some of the passages. And what struck me-- which I know it's obvious, but it was like a kind of visceral reinforcement-- is the extent to which he was a classically trained stage actor. He had that impeccable British diction. He had a total command of language and inflection and all that. And I was just there thinking, wow, as I watched him in action.

And so what occurs to me is that even though that is very much his background, his training and his early career, he has had a career also as a film actor. Now, most moviegoers will know him, of course, for Lord of the Rings and for The Hobbit and commercial things like that. And he always delivers. I mean, you always get a good performance, but he's done a variety of other film roles.

The one I would point to from 1998 would be Gods and Monsters. He received an Academy Award nomination as Best Actor for his portrayal of the Hollywood director James Whale, a gay director in Hollywood back in the day when one didn't speak that openly. And likewise, with McKellen, when I interviewed him, he had not officially come out yet. But when he made that big announcement, I'll just put it this way, it was not exactly a surprise to hear it.

And so he was really empathetic in particular in that role. Now, to segue from that to The Christophers, this is really one of his career highlights. This is really a terrific performance. And in the film he plays a-- he's very good at playing a curmudgeon, I'll put it that way. Whether it's acting or his personality, he's great at being a curmudgeon. So he's an elderly British artist who is famous, but retired or semi-retired, not really producing new work, but still a public personality in various ways.

And so a lot of it really functions just as a character study, this really crotchety artist. And then the personal assistant's played by Michaela Coel, who comes to work for him. And it's a study in contrast, in a lot of ways. In terms of age, he's old, she's young. In terms of race, he's white, she's Black. Various ways in which they're very different people, but they're also both involved in the art world. He in the way I've already stated.

She, though, has a background in art, and she's trained as an art restorer and so on. And without spoiling anything-- and it would be possible to spoil quite a bit in this film-- it does involve chicanery, a forgery, and so on, all kinds of underhanded practices in the contemporary art world. And the film does a good job handling that in terms of plausibility.

But where it really works best is it's not quite a two-hander, but the best scenes are essentially what in theater we'd call a two-hander, where it's those two actors playing off each other. And it's at that most mundane level of, he's barking orders from the bedroom and she's being passive and polite and this and that. But we all have a breaking point. And then also in terms of motivation, what's in it for him? What's in it for her?

So that kind of sets the stage for it. The only other thing I'll say beforehand is the film is directed by a very capable director, Steven Soderbergh. And again, this is a career that's really quite interesting because when he began in 1989 with Sex, Lies and Videotape, it was an indie film that got a larger response. It won the Palme d'Or at Cannes. It put him on the map.

He's very prolific. He's made a number of films since then. Some of them are just larks, just having fun. Ocean's 11 type, or Magic Mike type films. Some others, though, are quite serious. Che Guevara is a film subject, things like that. He's unpredictable that way. What is predictable is he likes to delve into various genres, various subjects.

A lot of his films, even though they have different plots, if you will, one thing that tends to tie the various genres together is he's really fascinated with what I'll call criminal enterprise in most of his films. There's some degree of that. And then certainly in The Christophers, it is a motivating plot factor as to what's going to happen here by way of the Christophers themselves. So since you mentioned The Christophers that way, I'll turn it over to you at this point.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

All right. I'm going to back up everything you said about Ian McKellen. One of the reasons I wanted to see this film is because I think he's an amazing actor. And he does do curmudgeons like he was born to play it. I would add, though, that if you're looking for Ian McKellen doing Shakespeare, 1995's Richard III is very, very good. And of course, he plays Richard III, and he is, of course, amazing in it.

But in this role, he is just so on top of his game. I'm thinking, especially because of his age, this is definitely a nomination for Best Actor at the Academy Awards. This movie, even though I don't think a lot of people saw it or will see it because it didn't really get a big run-- what I mean by that is I know it was at the Charles, but it was not at the AMC.

So I don't think a lot of people are going to know about it. But, I mean, with Steven Soderbergh, that's a big name. And I was smiling when you were talking about how he likes himself a heist movie. He also likes playing with those ideas about art and creativity and fame and different ways people will deal with that.

I also wanted to give a shout out to James Corden playing against type as one of the obnoxious children who want to have the assistant finish some paintings that they can then sell as originals once their father has died. How did you like that interplay, Mike?

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, this is where I had some reservations about the film. I think that interplay between the two principal characters, the elderly artist and the young assistant, that's really the dynamic that holds it together. There are other characters and, of course, the plot that we're dancing around as much as talking about because you don't want to give everything away.

But this is where I had some reservations and a bit of disappointment. I agree with you that it's interesting to have James Corden play the son, and then Jessica Gunning plays the daughter. And potentially, that's quite interesting because this really SOB-type artist, I mean, he's really so uncongenial at times. And he does not love his children. And those are very funny scenes, actually. It's like, well, who's that at the door? Oh, they're the kids.

He's an old man who's not happy to have his middle-aged children visiting. And those are very funny scenes. But the disappointment for me is that those characters, the son and the daughter, they are truly one-dimensional. I don't need to have them be sympathetic. They don't have to be empathetic that way because they clearly are out to make money off of their old man while he's still living, and certainly once he's dead with the estate.

And that's going to set up the forgery. Let's have the paintings completed and they can be sold, and then they're worth a lot of money if people accept them as being by the artist. Which, in effect, they're really not. But no, what's disappointing there is that they're almost like live action cartoons. When the son and daughter show up, you know what I mean? It has that quality to it.

You almost expect like, bouncy music on the soundtrack. Oh, here they are. And there's nothing more to them. Now, I don't want depth psychology necessarily, but the contrast between the artist and his assistant and how complex they are in a lot of ways, and just the simplicity and essentially stupidity of how the children are presented, to me, that seemed a failing in the Ed Solomon script. That you should have had something a little bit extra for the kids.

You could talk about their families or just their motivation a little bit more. Instead, they function essentially as a running joke, don't they? Every time they pop up. And I think the film needs a little more gravitas than that. I think you need to have a keener sense of well, this is a father who-- it is almost Shakespearean this way-- a father who's not getting along with his children. I mean, there's some depth that is not plumbed there.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yes, I agree perfectly. As soon as you said that, I was thinking, it's Boris and Natasha show up from time to time. It feels lighthearted in a way that doesn't fit the story. In fact, I think this movie would work as a play because you could really limit the amount of different rooms. And then it could be very talky between the two main characters, and people would accept that more. I think it would work.

Anyway, it does fine as a movie, but I can't help but think what a great play it would make. I love the fact that he was on a reality show called Art Fight. And as soon as I saw that, I thought, oh, my God. That's hilarious. I'm surprised nobody's thought of that. But then he's supposed to be this famous artist. And I know art is a very subjective thing. But, Mike, did you think he was any good?

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, I have serious reservations about the film. I mean, I was praising it in terms of the central performances. Those two actors are so good together, the interplay is just so effective. But again, the disappointment with how the children are handled, and also in terms of the art itself. In terms of the art world, it does and it doesn't capture various things.

What I did like is what you just mentioned, that he's semi-retired, essentially retired as an artist, but he's still coasting. He's making money off of his fame. So what do you do at this point? In our modern media age, you have a show like that you're on. Right? I mean, you get to get on and badmouth other people and the ratings go up and so on. And it is selling out that way and cheapening his reputation in a lot of ways.

But he still is an A-list artist. But the reservation isn't there because I think that's maybe what an artist like that might do at that point in his career. The reservation is the fact that we see very little of his artwork. This is the kind of movie where sometimes you'll see the back of the canvas, and you'd really like to see the front of the canvas. If somebody's painting away, they're looking at it. Well, let's look at what they're looking at.

And the movie's coy about that. And frankly, when you do see what's meant to be his own work, it ain't nothing special. I mean, I know what you're getting at. I looked at it and thought, not that I could do that, but if I were a Sunday painter, maybe I could approach doing that. It didn't immediately announce itself as the work of an A-list artist. It seemed like-- not that it was bad. It just seemed like what I call B-list or second-tier artwork, capable and so on.

And I'm just thinking like, well, I don't know if I'd pay $1 million for that. It can be hyper-inflated, but to me, it just seemed like the movie wasn't totally convincing at that level. So thank you for mentioning that. Because it nagged at me all the way through. I just kept thinking, if you're going to have a world-famous artist, he better produce, or have produced at some point.

And we hear about some work that was celebrated. But what we see of some of the more recent work or stuff that was stashed away in the storeroom ain't nothing special.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yeah. And like I said, I mean, everybody has a different feeling about what makes something art. But for this kind of movie, you're trying to figure out if he's a great artist or just a well-maintained myth.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, that's a good point. But the film presents it at face value as he is a world famous artist. Whether he deserves to be or not is a worthwhile discussion, but the film never really questions that. In other words, the fact that he would have this TV show and this public celebrity and so on. They don't produce some art critic figure who would say he's overrated, or this or that, anything like that.

The shenanigans are all along the lines of he is famous, his paintings are worth a fortune, and therefore, the kids will connive to essentially have forgeries made so that they can profit off of his reputation. That would actually enrich in the film, I think, if the actual-- when I say actual worth here, I'm not just talking monetary, I'm talking aesthetic. If somehow within the film that came up, that would turn it into a more serious film about the art market, about the art world. Here it's, again, very entertaining, but superficial at that level.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

And I think they could have done something a little riskier instead of trying to show you paintings that you and I looked at and were like, well, I mean, it's OK. Don't see why he's enormously famous. They could have gone the other route and made it so incomprehensible that you just figure, you know what? I just don't understand enough. Because that's how art works sometimes. Something outrageous will succeed that's not necessarily technically perfect.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, if I may extend a compliment, you're a better artist.

[laughter]

I've seen your paintings. I mean, I wouldn't even attempt to try to forge one because I couldn't reach that level of accomplishment.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Well, thank you for that. Although I don't think anybody's going to be beating down the door to finish my paintings to make money off them after I die. So I did want to ask you, in terms of the assistant character, who is also an artist in her own right-- but not famous-- she occupies kind of a moral gray area. How did you like that plot device?

MIKE GIULIANO:

I found that really interesting because on the face of it, we would think of the artist as this sacred monster. We're going to see that he's really not a nice guy and this and that. But he's a formidable presence. And when she comes along, she's got a solid training in art school and art restoration and all that. But things haven't fully worked out for her professionally.

And so she's doing what I call job jobs. She's getting by. She's surviving, not thriving. So she's sympathetic in that respect. She's smart, she's sincere, seemingly. She seems to have a lot going for her at that personal level. So yes, with Michaela Coel's performance, too, she's really very effective there. But you're right, she occupies a kind of gray zone.

Because if somebody is going to do the forgery, she's ideally equipped in terms of skill set. She knows not only artistic style, but what's important with forgery is not just style, but materials. You need to have-- whether it's the age of the canvas or the type of paint you're using, whatever. And she knows all that. As an art restorer, she knows all those things.

And then she also has access. When she goes to work for him, she has access to the storerooms. So this is where it gets into a gray area by way of morality, what she's going to do and why she would do it and so on. And I'm not sure the film is fully resolved on that point, but that's one reason I liked it in that respect. Because every time I saw her in a scene, I had to ask the questions that you're asking right now.

And so I can't somehow dogmatically pass judgment on her because I think he put it very well that she's in a kind of gray zone. Some characters, like the kids, you can easily say are all bad. And their father, he's bad but amusing. He's entertaining. He's entertainingly bad. But Michaela Coel's character, she's a bit of a puzzle that way. And what I find intriguing is she may actually be a bit of a puzzle to herself.

There's some scenes where there's a quizzical look on her face, and you can almost see the wheels turning internally, like she's trying to decide what to do and how she'd feel about this and so on. And I love that because not everybody comes in like, either as an angel or as a devil, right? There are people who are somewhere in between. And push come to shove, I like her as a character, but I can't exactly endorse some of the things she'll do.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

But it is funny that there's a overlap with the two characters earlier on that show, Art Fight. So given that this was a heist movie, I want to move over to the next heist movie, which, by the way, both movies today are being distributed by Neon. So maybe it's the season of heist movies. But the next movie is called I Love Boosters, and it is directed by a guy named Boots Riley. And everything this man does is so off the chain. So, Mike, where do we start with this crazy movie?

I Love Boosters

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, I want to start off by saying that you're right. He's made these two films-- the first one, Sorry to Bother You, and the one we're talking about, I Love Boosters. But the first film, Sorry to Bother You, is a better film. It's more on the chain, if you will. It's a scathing satire. It deals with progressive labor politics. Even though it does bounce around the place, it has a kind of thematic spine to it.

This film, I Love Boosters, I loved it less as it went along. I loved the initial scenes, and then it struck me as being a scattershot satire that increasingly lost focus as it went along. And I found-- and it really did become, a live action cartoon in places, which could make you laugh, but sometimes the laughter gets a little thin. I kept being reminded, as much as I love Spike Lee, I kept being reminded of one of the films by him I don't love quite as much, Bamboozled, which just has-- it has so many targets.

And it's a matter of the old cliche, if you throw it at the wall and see what sticks? It's that kind of a thing. And in this film, what initially makes it work well is a sort of Devil Wears Prada-type quality to it that involves three young women who are interested in fashion and also interested in stealing fashion. They are boosters. And the gist of it thematically would be that, well, they know they are stylish, and they know style, and they know how to steal. And that when they steal these things, they can then steal expensive designer wear and sell it on the side and make money.

Now, ostensibly, to make them seem like heroes and not just thieves, one of them in particular has a philosophy of what she calls Fashion Forward Filanthropy. Philanthropy being spelled with an F. And she's funny. She says, I know how spell it! She says, I know how to spell it, but she spells it with an F, right?

But the whole idea was to share the wealth, to redistribute luxury goods. It's Oakland, California, working class to poor neighborhoods. Steal the stuff from a designer store and sell it to regular folks at a reasonable price. Everybody makes out at that level. Now, that would seem to be a good quasi-Marxist sort of line of inquiry here, but here's where it starts to go off the rails.

It's still really funny when they steal, in particular, from what are known as metro designer stores. This is a chain run by a character who could be right out of Devil Wears Prada. And she's played by Demi Moore. And exquisitely played. I mean, this diva temperament, we'll talk more about that as we go along. But very amusing because she's so egotistical and so unreasonable and just so ridiculous.

So when they steal from her, you do sympathize with them. Like, who are you going to side with here? I mean, look at her. She's a terrible person. Steal her clothes. So I liked all that, actually. But as it goes along, it just spins off in so many directions. And here's where it really goes off the rails or off the metaphysical rails, if you will, or laws of physics, among other things.

The plot eventually gets you into what could be more serious subject matter like, well, this fashion designer, played by Demi Moore, where are her clothes being made? Well, they're made in a sweatshop in China. And so it gets into that kind of labor politics and all, which is all-- it's treated comically, but of course, there's a serious underpinning for it. But then when it gets to that second act portion of the film, the film introduces something that honestly doesn't need to be there.

But it becomes the plot-motivating device, namely a teleporter, where they can jump around in time and space and so on. And that's where the film totally lost me. First of all, that it wasn't particularly well done at a technical level. But it wasn't that so much as that thematically, it's unnecessary. Why do you have to have this sort of sci-fi storyline introduced like that? And not that I needed to have explained to me, how does a portal work?

I mean, but it just seemed like a ridiculous plot twist. And whatever serious or quasi-serious subject matter would have been there in terms of class relations, race relations, you name it, fashion relations, all that just sort of gets squandered. And it's just it's what I call silly, but silly and not particularly funny, what I call silly-stupid. And some of those later scenes to me just seem frenetic. They weren't particularly funny and it was spinning wheels at that point. So that's what I meant by scattershot earlier. It just goes all over the place.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yeah, I agree with all of your points. One thing I did like was the chick flickiness of it, when I compare it to Sorry to Bother You, which I agree is a better movie. This was fun just because it was mostly female cast eating up all of the scenery. And the colors in this movie were so much fun. I really enjoyed just looking at the vivid color palette that they used.

And because it's supposed to be about fashion, and the conceit was that the store refreshed its inventory by-- everything's the same color. So you go into one store, everything's yellow, and you go into another store and everything's orange. I thought that visually that was very fun to look at. Cartoony, yes. Especially the tilted building that Demi Moore lives and works in. And there's even a scene where the main character is trying to walk up the steep part, and her legs literally do the cartoon thing where they rotate on a wheel.

MIKE GIULIANO:

That's one of the best scenes in the film.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

[laughs]

MIKE GIULIANO:

No, I mean no. When I said live action cartoon, it was not meant as a criticism entirely, namely that it is very colorful and it's just really lively and clever at times. And it's just fun to watch. So those early scenes in particular are just pure joy in terms of, as you say, the palette of it. And then in terms of the high rise apartment that the Demi Moore character occupies, I don't know how anyone could occupy it, where she lives.

I mean, it's almost like Charlie Chaplin in The Gold Rush or something, in terms of the inclined floor. It has that kind of slapstick quality to it. And you know what, though? There's a quasi-realistic basis for that, believe it or not. There is a skyscraper in San Francisco where there was an engineering error and the floors are slightly tilted. So because this movie takes place in Oakland and in San Francisco, Boots Riley knew that. I mean, they were having fun with that. What if you lived in such a place?

But it's such a steep angle here that you do have people struggling to climb up the floor like that, to crawl up the floor. And again, this is where even though my ultimate response to the film was disappointment and just not liking it, particularly, the opening scenes are hilarious. And the set design, production design, and yes, the costuming, that carried me all the way through it.

So it's that kind of mixed response for me. Even though those later scenes-- and certainly with the teleporter-- didn't work at all for me, it's never boring. And that's a real compliment in terms of some of the movies I see. It always holds your attention. And even scenes that don't quite work will have clever bits in them. There are things there that are just-- you think, jeez, if only he had an internal editor.

By that, I mean look at all the funny stuff that you come up with. But then you need to add, OK, this should stay in and no, that's just too far out or that just doesn't further the plot. I don't think it has that sense of control. I think it's just like let's say you sat down with some friends. And you talked out a story idea and say, hey, what if we do this? What if we do that? And in this case, let's do all of it!

You know what I mean? Doesn't it seem like everything just gets tossed in there? And that's where you need somebody to be tough or tough on yourself. And that's why Sorry to Bother You is a more disciplined film, even though relative to other films, it might seem undisciplined. It has a tighter leash on it. This one, I think it just lets loose with too many things and not enough-- by the end of the film, you're really not thinking that much about--

Look, let me actually phrase it in a sort of political way. Three young Black women are up against this white woman who's so domineering and just so unreasonable, and she's controlling the fashion industry in a sense. Yeah, there are going to be issues of race and class that come up there. And you would think that would be a motivating driver here for the film. It is and it isn't.

Because one of the things that's not really worked out within the dynamics of the film is you would think these three women would be up against the Demi Moore character, wanting to topple her, redistribute the wealth and so on. But are their goals, is their thinking all that different from hers? That's something the film doesn't really get into. I mean, her fashions are really outlandish in various ways, but so are theirs.

And she's rich and famous. But wouldn't they like to be rich and famous, too? You know what I'm getting at? And this is where I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate. It seems to me that if they're the protagonist up against her, well, in some ways, are they looking to topple her or to copy her? She's copied them. Some of her designs are stolen from them. But aren't they, in effect, looking to take her place inside that sort of angled high-rise apartment?

What do you think about that? Because I think that's something that's not really explored in the film. It would give it more complexity than it has.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Well, I think the high-rise apartment is still an upgrade from living in the old Chicken Shack.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well at least the Chicken Shack has a flat floor. I can walk across that.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

I think there's one line in the film that I think made the difference between the women who were stealing and the Demi Moore character. And that's Demi Moore's assistant, who says, people want to be the artist, not the art. And I think that's the difference. I think our boosters here are people who want everybody to have access to the fashion, so that they can decide how to put it all together, not be walking billboards for some entity that's making all the money and keeping everybody down.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Yeah, but to push the devil's advocate argument, if they did succeed in toppling her and taking over, wouldn't they in effect, then, be occupying that apartment? Whether with a flat floor or an angled one. I mean, see, that's a sort of ethical consideration. Because, after all, they are stealing things. They are. They are. I mean, it has to be pointed out.

I sound like the law enforcement here. They are stealing things. But aren't they looking in effect to replace her? Yes, they want to redistribute, but it's sort of a Robin Hood scenario of, if you're going to steal from the rich and give to the poor, how much are you going to keep for yourself? You know what I'm getting at?

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yes.

MIKE GIULIANO:

And I think the film's a little squishy there. I'm not quite sure it's resolved on that.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Now, one thing that I thought was a misstep, and I know that because he used him before in Sorry to Bother You, Lakeith Stanfield is just wasted here. That entire character could have been cut out and it wouldn't have affected the film at all.

MIKE GIULIANO:

You know what? To add to that, Don Cheadle plays a motivational speaker called Doctor Jack. It's not funny to begin with, but it's totally unnecessary within the storyline. And those scenes, it seems like bad sitcom material in those.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yes.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Doesn't it?

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

It does.

MIKE GIULIANO:

And actually, everything you liked about the film in terms of color and liveliness, live action cartoon, you don't really get it in those scenes. It just seems like a failed sitcom scenario and it doesn't really fit into the plot. So you're right, those two actors are both wasted, actually. Totally wasted.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Totally wasted. I will say, though, that in the theater where I was watching it, a lot of the lines really got big laughs. When it lands, it's hilarious. In particular, there was a joke about Candace Owens that brought the house down. What was your theater experience like?

MIKE GIULIANO:

Well, similar. I mean, it is a very funny film. It's entertaining. So even though I've chronicled like 101 things that don't work for me here, even as I do that, it's very entertaining. There's a lot of funny material, even when it's not always like convincing at different levels or necessary. Again, that's the scattershot quality. Some things hit and some things miss.

My favorite thing, actually, in terms of character names, that Keke Palmer is really our principal thief, if you will. But her character's name is Corvette. I mean, it's kind of a name that John Waters would give to a film character, to call the girl Corvette. And people do talk about it in the film itself. So some of the joking starts even with the names themselves.

And, of course, she's in charge of what they call the Velvet Gang, and they become notorious boosters. A lot of that's really funny. I mean, it really-- it's goofy and I'm laughing, too. So, yes, to your point, there was a lot of laughter. And if somebody said, you're on the spot, would you recommend the film? I would say, well, yes, but. It's that kind of an answer.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yeah, and the Corvette name, too, gets-- she realizes, oh, wait, I don't really want to tell this person my name. And then it becomes, Courvoisieri--

MIKE GIULIANO:

Yeah.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Turns it into something else.

MIKE GIULIANO:

Courvoisier something, right? I love all the various-- like, if you have a name you're not particularly proud of, or it's embarrassing, or you have to explain it, you start riffing on it. And the film is often funny when it's riffing that way. Now, some of the riffs are funnier than others.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Yeah. Well, I guess at the end of the day, I would say this film and the first one, the Sorry to Bother You, makes me really want to see what Boots Riley does next.

MIKE GIULIANO:

He's a real individual, isn't he? I mean, there's a distinctive personality there. And when you think of it, this is a youngish film director. The filmography is still forming. So I'm absolutely in your category of support there. I would want to see whatever he makes next, so long as it doesn't have a teleporter in it.

MARIE WESTHAVER:  

Oh, maybe he'll learn to edit. All right, that does bring us to the end of our episode, but don't forget to check out our other ones at atmhcc.podbean.com. And we'll see you next time at the movies.

MIKE GIULIANO:

See you then!

[music playing]

CREW:

Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed what you just heard, we have a whole universe of podcasts waiting for you. Simply search Dragon Podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also explore our full lineup and discover new shows at Podbean.com/DragonPodcasts. That's Podbean.com/DragonPodcasts.

[music fades out]

Outro

[music fades down]

Podcast Producer:

Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed what you just heard, we have a whole universe of podcasts waiting for you. Simply search Dragon Podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also explore our full lineup and discover new shows at podbean.com/dragonpodcasts. That's podbean.com/dragonpodcasts.

[music ends]

 

 

The Christophers & I Love Boosters