Top 5 Crooked Cops

085 Main Photo

Find out who’s in it for themselves this week as Anderson and Bryan run down the TOP 5 CROOKED COPS.  Full of the sleaziest and greediest police officers in film, their lists will make you question the law.

[audio http://traffic.libsyn.com/tfvpodcast/TFV_20130426_Top_5_Crooked_Cops.mp3]

Download – Duration: 1:40:54


Featured Artist: Bluesheart

Click here for a list of films discussed in this episode.



48 thoughts on “Top 5 Crooked Cops

  1. What about Internal Affairs the 1990 movie starring. Richard.Gere? He was a very bad cop who was also screwing all his exwives.


    Posted by Kevin Wilkerson | May 5, 2013, 3:46 PM
  2. upstream color insecure filmmaking!? anderson i very honestly don’t think you even knew what that movie was about.


    Posted by Andrew | May 5, 2013, 12:52 AM
  3. Just saw Oblivion. Thanks for mentioning Moon and ruining that reveal for me.

    Anderson, are you really going to ask Brian about his opinion on Burzynski, run over him whenever he tries to talk about it for five minutes, and then when he starts to answer your question cut him off and say “WE’VE been talking about it too long”? Do you care so little about his opinion that you wont even let him answer your own questions or discuss movies that you recommend him? Lame.


    Posted by moviejunkie | May 2, 2013, 2:13 AM
  4. Though you’re entitled to your opinion on Upstream, I thought I should make a few points about Carruth himself.

    He’s not rich – in fact, he doesn’t have a permanent address or health insurance. Every penny he makes from Upstream is going into the next project, the same with Primer – which he still had to get friends and family to help finance Upstream.

    He spent the 9 years in between trying to finance a film called A Topiary, which really WAS a genius follow up (the script is floating around online.) It’s one of the most original scripts I’ve ever read – however, no studio would fund it, because it’s completely out there. Beyond 2001 levels of out there. He spent alot of that time building his own special effects program/setup in an attempt to negotiate costs and get a look that worked, going to meetings, etc. Eventually his heart kind of got broke on it, having to go to meetings and have everyone tell him they loved it but nothing happen.

    So then he got into the idea of Upstream and just did that himself.

    I feel like Anderson would have alot of respect for him as a person, judging by how he feels about other filmmakers/filmmaking in general.


    Posted by Mossier | April 30, 2013, 9:08 AM
    • Thank you for leaving that comment. The last thing to accuse Shane Carruth of is “insecure filmmaking” Upstream Color blew my mind up. On par with Primer, just different.


      Posted by Andrew | May 5, 2013, 12:56 AM
  5. It is prEYEmer, not primmer! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMH-nZ06G2o – have a look here at the first sentence of this interview with shane carruth where he says “I’m shane carruth, the movie is called PrImer.” Should close the book on this mispronunciation forever if you read these boards. hi logan.


    Posted by Andrew | April 29, 2013, 1:35 AM
  6. Can you guys please stop with the confusion over the pronunciation of Primer. It’s primer, like timer. Spelling it ‘primmer’ with two m’s would make it sound like dimmer.



    Posted by SteveP | April 28, 2013, 7:47 PM
  7. Whelp, for some reason I can’t leave a reply to Anderson’s Iron Man 3 review on his website. So, I’ll leave it here. I think he gave it a pretty fair review (“Should Watch”). Considering he’s not really a fan of the series, not generally a fan of big time blockbusters and/or comic book movies, I’d say that was a pretty fair thing to give it. In a movie thats going to have tons of CGI and is bound to have a couple lines that fall flat, Anderson only shaking his head 7 times during a two hour plus movie seems pretty good. And he said he genuinely laughed 5 times.

    Gives me hope I’ll like it a lot since I’m a fan of the whole Marvel series and love RDJ as Tony.


    Posted by Pat Lane (@Planeis) | April 28, 2013, 7:14 PM
  8. Bryan, wake up lazy-Anderson. Tell him that he needs to write the Iron Man 3 review that he promised that he would post on his website by now.


    Posted by Michael P. Gowdy | April 28, 2013, 1:00 PM


    Posted by Pat Lane (@Planeis) | April 28, 2013, 11:49 AM
  10. Zed was a security guard in Pulp Fiction, not a cop. Google search Zed and you can see that the patch on his uniform reads “Security”. What cop has a uniform that says that?


    Posted by MaxxFisher | April 27, 2013, 11:34 PM
    • Cops who work in Security, Colorado? Maybe Officer Zed of the Security-Widefield Police Department just enjoys riding his chopper out to California some weekends for a little recreational sexual assault. Or, at least, he used to.


      Posted by Chester | April 27, 2013, 11:46 PM
    • Had the same thought when I was listening to the podcast. Bryan better acknowledge his mistake.


      Posted by Justin | May 1, 2013, 5:25 AM
  11. To speak to Anderson’s curiosity about a young person’s take on Natural Born Killers, I am 16 (was 14 or 15 when I saw the movie) and have to say that I hated it. I really wanted to like it because I have always loved Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis and Robert Downey Jr., and I had high expectations for what I thought was going to be a very smart, funny, and dark satire. What I got instead was an overly pretentious example of Oliver Stone’s inflated ego believing that whatever he touched was cinematic gold. I understand what he was going for in his satire, but in my opinion, he failed on all levels. I was incredibly dismayed when I got on the internet afterwards and read the lots of favorable reviews of viewers and critics who I believe “fell for it”. I fear this may be an example of some people being afraid to say they don’t like it because they think that they should or maybe think they don’t understand it. Now it is possible that I am missing something really profound that could change my opinion of the film altogether, but I doubt it. Oliver Stone threw any tiny speck of subtlety out the window and made what I’m sure he thought was pure genius but in my opinion was an overly arty (sorry to repeat myself but pretentious) movie that had great potential but failed to deliver. I get that I am in the minority here but I really think that a lot, not all, but a lot of people have been tricked into liking this by its style and by critics. I’m not sure if I was the age Anderson had in mind as I may be a little too young and didn’t really grow up with MTV. Sorry for the long review but I can’t stress how much I hate this movie enough. Thanks for readin’!



    Posted by Sam | April 27, 2013, 8:19 PM
    • You’re too smart to be 16. I saw Natural Born Killers for the first time when I was in my late teens. Hated it.
      When I watched it again ten years later I enjoyed it somewhat.
      Beyond the satire, editing, music, etc., I remember that the thing that I hated when I watched it both times was Rodney Dangerfield’s depraved, sadistic character. I hated to watch Dangerfield as an evil, incestuous lunatic because I revered him. It was even worse with the laugh-track sound effects that they played whenever his character was a bastard.


      Posted by Michael P. Gowdy | April 28, 2013, 12:39 AM
      • I saw it in the theater when it came out, it’s good, but not fantastic. Stone is an excellent filmmaker, but this film was incredibly pretentious. It’s total satire, but it’s way way over the top, to the point of aggravation at times.


        Posted by Brian | April 28, 2013, 9:29 AM
    • I loved this movie in high school. I also really loved LSD in high school too, so that probably explains why I liked it so much.


      Posted by Nate W. | April 28, 2013, 10:29 PM
  12. Re: Oblivion

    The point about the technology is very good, especially as you explained it further on “this here” (as Anderson would say) board.
    Also, yes, it’s a complete “Moon” ripoff. I said exactly what Anderson said when I watched it: “Bowie’s son is probably tempted to sue these people”– THAT’S the extent to which it resembles “Moon.”
    Unfortunately, as Anderson probably also knows based on his film school education, a director who aspires to direct huge-budget movies (and many other writers/producers who are also ripped off by large studios) is usually too intimidated by the potential damage to his reputation to sue the big guys.

    MY OTHER huge problem with this movie was the moronic plot device that I’m seeing more and more frequently. When Morgan Freeman’s group captures Tom Cruise’s character it’s basically, “We good. You bad. DO THIS NOW. We don’t have time to explain why we good, you bad– DO IT OR DIE!”
    Cruise/ protagonist in any number of recent movies: “ME NO DO THING!”
    Freeman’s group/ villain in any number of movies: “OH, YOU DO THING OR YOU DIE!”
    Cruise: “ME NO DO!”
    Freeman’s group: “DO! DO! DO!”
    #1) When in the history of mankind have threats and orders just worked on someone in ten minutes- especially when it’s an order to destroy his whole world?
    #2) As in any number of recent films, it’s a moronic red herring. As the audience we are supposed to feel ambiguous about Freeman’s crew (are they good/evil?), but we’ve seen this red herring so many times that I automatically assume that they are in the right.


    Posted by Michael P. Gowdy | April 27, 2013, 8:26 AM
    • I agree, except they did kinda tell him why they can’t explain it, because he’d never believe it. Its kinda like the Matrix thing. If they had really told Neo what the Matrix was… he never would have believed it.

      I think the point of them asking him to take the nuke up was that they wanted him to see how serious they were, and then let him figure it out on his own. If they truly wanted him to do it without explaining, they would have held onto him longer. Instead they let him go.

      But you’re right. While I was watching the movie and they were talking to him I was like “uh… why should he do this?”


      Posted by Pat Lane (@Planeis) | April 28, 2013, 11:44 AM
  13. Anderson’s Egregious Error of the week – Alfonso Harris.


    Posted by Mike D | April 27, 2013, 8:05 AM
  14. they could continue talking about kubrick/whatever thing anderson doesn’t want to talk about and cut out the list of shit people bought on amazon. i’ve bought a handful of things on amazon clicking through, but i couldn’t care less if they read it (and they usually don’t). i know this sounds harsh, but i love the show!

    also, i was talking with my brother, the fellow that i saw oblivion with, and we came to the consensus that oblivion is elements of moon, the matrix and independence day. and only those things. every part of oblivion could be related to those three movies. what do you guys think?


    Posted by scott | April 26, 2013, 10:27 PM
    • I’m with you 100 percent on cutting the fat on the amazon purchases. I ALWAYS skip through it. Every time. If I land in the movie section of it i’ll listen through, but I don’t care about the other stuff. If you’re gonna do it, I’d be cool with one or two or three examples, but twenty five gets really boring.

      Love the rest of the show though. I love movies and I cannot stand the other film podcasts, you guys have a good balance of good/fun movie taste and I enjoy the rapport between the hosts.

      Other small criticisms:
      Bryan Pet Peeve!
      I love Bryan, and he seems smart, so why does he underline, italicize, and reiterate 35 times anytime he uses a word like “to wit” or “diagetic.” It’s not that impressive, in fact, I think it does the opposite of what he’s hoping for.

      Also Chet, keep up the good work brother, anytime i read “welcome to obamas america” i crack up.


      Posted by ChetFan43 | April 27, 2013, 12:42 AM
    • Why do you hate this so much? I think its funny and it just adds a little character to the show. I tune in to listen to Anderson and Bryan talk. Plus… amazon is a sponser. So, them doing this is continuing their relationship with the sponser.

      If they had a commercial or a podcast like “live read” would you complain about that? They don’t do live reads, but they do the amazon lists. So what’s the difference? You’re basically complaining about a commerical.


      Posted by Pat Lane (@Planeis) | April 28, 2013, 11:46 AM
  15. If you guys like Chris O’Dowd AND time-travel, you should check out “Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel”. Not a bad little movie and has some pretty interesting ideas in it.



    Posted by Cory D. (@Voss451) | April 26, 2013, 4:45 PM
    Whoever made that is a genius.


    Posted by Sam | April 26, 2013, 3:57 PM
  17. Solid Episode. Solid Artwork. Anderson, you’re gonna love Blueshammer. They’re so great.


    Posted by Hashmeer | April 26, 2013, 1:42 PM
  18. OK, here’s my problem with the technology in “Oblivion”…


    I made the point that a lot of it was “wildly advanced” and distracted me from the movie (a little, not a lot).

    Several listeners pointed out (correctly) that Tom Cruise was (unknowingly) using advanced alien technology, which is why it seemed so futuristic.

    Correct. BUT… what about the flashback scene to 2017 that explained what happened to Tom Cruise’s character? In that scene – just four years from now – an entire spaceship’s crew is hibernating in sleep pods that can orbit the Earth and keep them alive and healthy for 60 years.

    THAT is the part that bumped me. Not a huge deal, but you can see why I didn’t want to bring it up on the show.

    Thanks for reading (and for listening). And now… back to the show!


    Posted by Bryan | April 26, 2013, 9:09 AM
    • Welcome to Obama’s America.


      Posted by Chet | April 26, 2013, 4:35 PM
    • That is a good point, but the technology is a weird thing to be bothered by. Would it have made a difference if the filmmakers set the movie 160 years into the future rather than just 60? Does it change the story that much? If you can get past alien invasion, can’t you get past the other stuff?

      Also referencing Moon is kind of a big spoiler. Though to be fair, I saw a preview for Oblivion that gives away a lot on its own.


      Posted by Chris Jones | April 27, 2013, 7:31 AM
    • I happened to see a trailer for it on tv before i went and saw the movie, and sweet marmalade, i wish i wouldnt have watched the trailer!!!! While watching the movie I was just thinking ‘wow did the trailer unapologetically give away the plot twists to the movie?’ and left me pretty much knowing what was going to happen in the end… that being said I liked the movie for what it was… it wasnt amazing but it was good… and your gripe seems a bit absurd… it’s a scifi movie… not a documentary filmed in real time


      Posted by Knot Wreally | April 27, 2013, 2:25 PM
    • I… sorta, kinda agree. But this happens in movies all the time where huge leaps in technology happen over only a decade or so. It should have been set further in the future.

      But I really liked this movie. From the previews we all knew that something was supposed to be amiss. But I didn’t expect what happened. I was genuinely surprised by the movie.

      Also, I’m totally in favor of you guys having a special “spoiler” edition at the end of the show where you talk more openly about relatively new movies.


      Posted by Pat Lane (@Planeis) | April 28, 2013, 11:48 AM
    • I’m with you here Bryan. Heck, many parts of this movie confused the fuck out of me. Still thought it was a B- type of movie though. I didn’t feel like I wasted my $10 on it, but it could have been better.


      Posted by Nate W. | April 28, 2013, 10:26 PM
  19. I feel bad that Anderson still has that ‘radio’ mind set of moving things along or feeling like he’s talking about “Room 237” too much. We’re all here to hear both your opinions on the movies you love. I’d listen to a full 90 plus minute episode of Anderson & Bryan (maybe Logan too) talk about Kubrick.


    Posted by LFC | April 26, 2013, 4:58 AM


  1. Pingback: Weekly Double Plus Good Find (3-23-14) - KTNR Radio - March 18, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s