Leaderboard

It's also based on a novel like Crazy Rich Asians. I'm expecting big things!

These are both two movies my mom watched recently and was completely flummoxed enough to talk about them over the phone with me...

Well, by modern, if we mean, "in the US, starting in the late 60s, and and 70s," from when this script was written. Then, maybe. But then again, it's not like the protagonist of Double Indemnity was the good guy either (or John Wayne in The Searchers). I'm sure Shakespeare had a few plays where the protagonist. e.g. There was an adaptation of Richard III in 1955. But I asked the question because I took the movie trying (and trying very hard) to do subversion through mimicry. Basically, play out like a genre entry that you're familiar with, but drop in details (large ones in this case), that make you reinterpret how you perceive the white hat, to realize they're actually the black hat, which then acts as historical revisionism to remind you a lot of the heroes in the movies you love, in reality, were probably black hats. Some of those details, Little Bill literally calling them "the villains", calling them "assassins" (not inaccurate), and making the point, very, very hard, for whatever guilt the holder had in being complicit (though seems to be brush over, being actively complicit) in a horrible crime, he felt really, really sorry. I'm being a bit facetious there, since the film tried to drive in the point so hard of what a nice guy he was when he was bringing in the horses*. While I felt that scene was a bit much, it was to drive home the point that while he deserved more punishment than what he received, he didn't deserve to be killed, let alone through means outside of the law. *: Whether the subsequent flinging of horse dung was the movie repudiating that self-nice guy mentality or if it was playing around with the idea that offenses and their justice or lack-there-of sometimes are taken out of the hands of the victims, without authorial clarification (of which there are two, both the screen writer and the director), might be up more to interpretation. Just to clarify, there is a shot of Delilah in that horse scene, being touched by the gift of horses, and it was stated earlier she didn't mind anymore for more justice. The whole act of wanting justice was Alice's. Whether the exaggeration of the wounds inflicted on Delilah started with Alice or grew along the way is unclear. Though it also plays into another thing the movie is playing around with, which is the mythologizing of normal-ish events into larger than life stories; making the bad guys worse and more sadistic than they actually were. However, if the exaggeration started with Alice, then that would be yet another shade of grey being aspersed onto one of the main components and characters in the conflict for justice. Back to the topic of subversion through mimicry, and some things I started to allude to in The Searchers thread. I'm still not sure how I feel about the ending. At least in the execution. I know it's supposed to want you to question the violence you've enjoyed in past spaghetti westerns, but somehow it plays like it's reveling in it in a way that still glorifies it. Which leaves me wondering if it's a shortcoming of "the movie thinks it in its head, but doesn't feel it in its heart," type of issue, or if it's a, "We really want to make the audience feel uncomfortable, and we're going to play it like the older movies play it, so the audience is rooting for the protagonist to win. But he's the villain. So we're being really subversive by making the audience root for the guy we've explicitly set up as the villain in the movie." The latter just isn't working for me here. That type of subversion has worked for me in other movies (e.g. Let the Right One In, Straw Dogs), which has lead me to wonder, if the viewer not really big on the genre before seeing that type of subversion, if it just falls flat for the viewer. Also, I think I just don't like Clint Eastwood as an actor. I've only seen this, and then went back and saw the four classic Sergio Leone westerns Once Upon a Time in the West, A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (listed in the order I watched them). And I'm not saying the reason why I liked the one without Clint Eastwood the most wasn't because he wasn't in there, but not having him in there didn't hurt. But yeah, my take away the first time watching this movie about 5 years ago was, "hmmm... I see how people like this movie, because there is a great movie somewhere in there, but to me, became only a good movie somewhere in the execution." This time around, I decided to pay attention to see how much of the problem might be in the script vs acting/directing. And my main take away is, I don't know. Some of the lines feel too on the nose, but some of the lines that seemed like real clunkers, I couldn't help but wonder if a better actors could have sold them. e.g. the line Eastwood gives about not wanting to engage in prostitution... oh boy. That was a clunker. But maybe if someone who wasn't so wooden could have made the line sound right. Like, it's not like anything Morgan Freeman said sounded weird or trying too hard. Gene Hackman, for the most part yes as well, but there were a few lines where I was going, "hmmm..." I don't know. I could see myself rewatching this movie again because someone else wants to see it, or maybe it pops up for discussion for something like this podcast, but it's not one I'd be actively seeking out to rewatch on my own. Though I'm not that big on the stereotypical western genre, though there have been entries in the past couple of decades that have appealed to me (The Proposition, Django Unchained, and Bone Tomahawk). Though I still prefer the non-stereotypical westerns, such as the western dramas, e.g. McCabe & Mrs. Miller or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward, Robert Ford, to the weird and comical indies, e.g. Dead Man, El Topo, to all the different things that Buster Scruggs was. ETA: One point of comparison in terms of subversion of a genre with a genre entry (related to the topic of subversion though mimicry). I have not seen Black Panther, but a lot of people talked about how amazing and subversive it was to bring in the topics of race into a large blockbuster, super-hero movie. I have not seen it, but if you drop that part of, "into a large blockbuster, super-hero movie," how subversive was it? I mean, compared to say, Fruitvale Station, Sorry to Bother You, or BlacKKKlansman. (Like I said, I haven't seen Black Panther, and of the three listed, I've only seen Sorry to Bother You, but I'm going to guess Black Panther isn't substantially more engaged on the topic of race than those, and there's good chance that it's less) We could be getting a whole, subversive heightened-response because of the genre (and by genre, I mean stars of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood) of The Searchers and Unforgiven. Which gets back to the similar point of, I wonder how much one cares if they aren't that big on the genre versus someone who is a really big fan of the genre.

I think The Iliad works here for sure. I couldn't say though if it was intentional, or basically such a standard classic that it is everywhere, but I like your connections.

Listening to the podcast and reading the forums here, I really expected to hear some mention of the (I thought) undeniable parallels this film shares with The Iliad of Homer (the story of Helen of Troy). While I suppose it's possible the similarities are just a coincidence (especially given that the screenwriter himself didn't mention it), I still find it hard to believe that Homer's epic was not the inspiration for the main structure of the story. After seeing Unforgiven years ago, I wrote an essay on this topic for my university Greek Literature class. Googling it today, I see that many others have drawn the same parallels. I'll briefly describe the similarities below, but if you want a more eloquent summing up of things, search for it yourself. Specifically, check out "Western Values, or the People's Homer: Unforgiven as a Reading of the Iliad." The most instantly recognizable similarity is that it is a woman (specifically a woman's face) that is the impetus for the plot of the entire film. In the Iliad, the Trojan war begins when the legendary beauty, Helen, is abducted by Paris and taken to Troy, where she is then pursued by the Greek king, Menelaus, to whom she was meant to be married. Of course, in Unforgiven, it is assassins who descend on the town with the aim of avenging violence done to Deliliah's beauty. The other most compelling similarity is the resemblance William Munny's story has to that of Achilles. Both are legendary men of violence who have turned away from their past for whatever reason. In the Iliad, Achilles refuses to take part in the battle because he has been slighted by the king. He only returns to the fight after his friend/lover Patroclus is killed in battle by Hector while impersonating Achilles (wearing his armor). In Unforgiven, it is the murder of Ned (Who used William's rifle in the assassination attempt) by Little Bill that finally turns William back to his old, vicious ways. Then, he kills Little Bill to avenge Ned's death, just as Achilles kills Hector. I also think Saul Rubinek's Beauchamp is meant to stand in for Homer himself. Clearly the movie isn't a note-for-note retelling of the Iliad, but what do you guys think? Am I insane? Is it just a coincidence?

But is he good guy? He's well known as a cold blooded murderer of women and children. His story is he's going to assassinate a man. He brings his friend out of assassin retirement who otherwise would not have known about the mission. He kills six people in the bar when he probably could have just rode away from town. By his own admission, he killed people who didn't deserve it and is going to hell. We sympathize with him because he needs money for his kids and he lets a guy he shot get some water and he won't sleep with a prostitute because he loves his deceased wife. But he's not a good guy. The closest thing we have to a good person is maybe Delilah or one of the nameless posse that notifies Gene Hackman whenever a bad guy shows up in town.

I agree to an extent that it isn't super revisionist but I'm also not an expert on westerns. I think one thing that is revisionist is making the characters a bit more grey morally. Most classic westerns are very good guys versus very bad guys. Characters are either white hat or black hat. Even the shady characters are definitely one or the other. But here, everyone is somewhere in the middle. Clint is our hero (I guess?) but he's an assassin who really can't do anything else since he's failing at raising his family. The sheriff is normally a flawless, perfect character but here he's unmarried with no potential suitor, bad at carpentry, and brutality beats English Bob. Normally, if a character puts up a bounty, they have the money instead lying about it to get someone killed. And so on with every character. But further, death is a real problem. In most westerns, there's no real after effects. The sheriff may not want to kill but he's justified because he only kills bad guys. But here death has consequences beyond stopping evil. Schofield kid is transformed by killing. That kid who gets gut shot has a long, drawn out death and he is not a main character. Clint is going to hell (metaphorically but he acknowledges it) for what he's done. I don't know that these are huge changes to westerns but filling in the gaps is unusual. But I also think there are westerns that kind of addressed this stuff (The Good The Bad and The Ugly doesn't have any true heroes, High Plains Drifter has a...not great protagonist, for example, and Blazing Saddles is of course a commentary on westerns but in a different way). But it's a lot of little things like a conversation that absolutely wouldn't happen in a normal western. Unforgiven isn't to westerns what Scream is to slashers (which is also a slasher despite subverting slashers)but there's some subversion going on.

I have a good guess for this Also R&H did the Cinderella we watched a few turns ago! But actually that makes me more stoked for this...

Oscar wins do seem to give films a leg up in making it onto the list. The AFI's guidelines even specifically mention that awards recognition should be a major criterion for voters, so I suspect that's a big part of it. So Unforgiven probably makes it because it's a way to get Clint Eastwood on there and it's his most-awarded work. Also, welcome back to the forums, Pomatto!

I'm way late to the game on this, but I was not excited by Searchers. I had no idea what it was about and had never heard of it before this podcast, so on my first watch I didn't really get that it was trying to subvert the genre. I just thought, hoo boy is this racist! I had no context for when it was released, or how this fit in with the Wayne/Ford collaborations. This might be my first full John Wayne Western though I've seen bits before. I watched it a second time after listening to the episode, and it improved just a little, but I still just find it racist and not enjoyable. I'd strike this one off the list with The Sixth Sense. I really just don't get the hype when there are way better westerns out there. I'm in the middle of Unforgiven, on the second watch, and it's maybe better than the first? I still feel like there's just too much Acting going on. And I find Clint Eastwood's later work to be overwrought. Too much of "look what I can do! Did you see what I did just there? Aren't I clever?" But maybe I'm an old maid. That said, I do enjoy Westerns more than I used to. My family wasn't that into them so I wasn't really introduced to them and have no long-standing relationship with them. But The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is maybe the perfect Western. I'm really enjoying the modern reboots of things like Westworld and the Cohen Brother's take on the genre in The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. Searchers is just not a good movie to me. If you need that much context and background to get it's point, it feels like a miss.

I very much disagree with Amy's take that the movie is aggrandizing Will as a character. To me the tone of the scenes she referenced (the conversation with the prostitute and the final shootout) is far darker than that. It seems to me that the whole arc of his character is that he was never really devoted to being a non-violent family man. That's why he can't properly ride a horse or handle a gun when he's playing that role. He can't enjoy sex, so he refuses the offer (meanwhile his buddy Ned has no problem enjoying himself). It's only when Will fully commits to being the killer that he's able to take down Little Bill's whole posse (and it's no coincidence that this only happens after Ned has been killed). To me that's not aggrandizement, that's an examination of the dark heart of the classic Western. The camera putting you in Will's POV in that final scene is a challenge, not a ploy for sympathy.

I can respect that. The tightrope Paul, Jason and June have to walk with this podcast now is really getting up there, though. I miss the unencumbered and fearless days of this podcast, but I also understand the politics involved.

He straight up said in a mini ep (not long ago, but I don't remember which one) that they're working actors and there are too many people involved in the movie that they don't want to piss off. He said if you want to hear someone talk about it, you could try a different bad movie podcast, but they wouldn't be doing it on HDTGM. He was really cool about it. It sucks, but I respect their decision and his forthrightness.

OMG, yes, please, guys, do this movie. It is, for lack of a better word, BONKERS. I remember seeing it as a kid thinking it was going to be like Roger Rabbit and walked away emotionally scarred and with a confusing feeling in my no-nos about both Holli Wood and Gabriel Byrne, which pretty much destroyed any hope I had of having a normal sex life as an adult. This is definitely up there in the "WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?" category.

Theodore Rex! Whoopi Goldberg is a detective who partners up with a dinosaur . That's all you need to know.

2004's She Hate Me, a film about a fired corporate whistleblower who starts a lucrative business impregnating wealthy lesbians the "old fashioned way". It truly is the perfect film for HDTGM. Bonkers premise, lots of big stars in embarrassing roles. It features: -Bai Ling!!!! -Isaiah Whitlock doing his patented "Sheeeeeeeeeeet" line later made famous in The Wire -The most batshit crazy CGI sperm/egg conception sequences you will ever see -Kerry Washington, Monica Belucci, and the aforementioned Bai Ling are among the many lesbians -Woody Harrelson, John Turtorro, and Pro Football Hall of Famer Jim Brown in supporting roles -An extended flashback to the Watergate break-in for no clear reason (featuring Chiwetel Ejiofor!) -Did I mention the title was derived from the "He Hate Me" name that was famously on the back of one of the players in the short-lived XFL football league? Here's the trailer. Please, watch this movie!

I'm making my case for this one again: Big names (Gabrielle Byrne, Brad Pitt, Kim Bassinger) in a horrible movie. A cartoon HAS SEX with a human and then COMES TO LIFE. The film made back only half its budget. Kim Bassinger won the Razzie for Worst Actress. From Wikipedia: "The concept of the film involved a cartoon and human having sex and conceiving a hybrid child who visits the real world to murder the father who abandoned her. Bakshi (the producer) states that Paramount Pictures 'bought the idea in ten seconds.'" Also from Wikipedia: "Basinger had attempted to rewrite the film halfway into its production because she 'thought it would be great [...] if she would be able to show this picture in hospitals to sick children'"[!!!!!!!!!] Via Wikipedia: "The film's animators were never given a screenplay." I'm not sure about Netflix, etc., but this movie IS available via Amazon streaming; it's free to watch if you have a Prime membership. Paul, I think this one would give you guys a LOT of material.

1. Altered States 2. Robot Jox 3. Altered States 4. Robot Jox 5. Altered States

1. Ghost Cat end of list It's a fake tanned Ellen Paige with a cat that's a ghost... that's the whole plot.

I have to put in my recommendation for a hdtgm review. 2005's Death Tunnel. As my evidence I present the imdb review that prompted me to watch it. "Jesus Christ. I want my 90 minutes back. It seems like people involved in making the movie must be writing all of the incredibly glowing reviews on here, so after having watched this gutted, burning shell of what could be called a movie I decided to write a little something as a stern and honest warning to people who don't like wasting their time and money. Death Tunnel, Death Tunnel, oh god end my pain, Death Tunnel.. How could you be so terrible? You have so much going for you on paper: 1) Creepy setting 2) ... OK, so you really don't have so much going for you, so why did I expect so much out of you? I think it was because I read an interview with your director and he name-dropped a few movies that I really enjoyed as some of his favorite movies of all time. I guess that's makes us all individuals; we can all share seemingly endless qualities with one another as a people, but not all of us have the ability to convince people to pay them to defecate. Were I able to find someone to financially back my excrement, I would first want to know what they, my financiers, wanted to do with said excrement. Were they going to wear it as a hat? Possibly use it to plug up a leaky faucet? Try and make other people pay more money than they invested in it to sit down and watch this turd for 90 minutes? OK, hold the phone, you're telling me that people would pay money to look at my feces if you had your say about it, Daddy Warbucks? It's a deal, but, would you mind if I polished it up a bit? After all, it is MY feces. Oh Death Tunnel, if only the people responsible for your excretion wanted you to be anything more than a pile of droppings... If only they could see that, as you are, you are so much dead weight around the shoulders of humankind, the yoke of Rushed Out Crap to DVD that is synonymous with other movies that fail as miserably as you do. If only people wouldn't stand for your brand of completely banal tripe with horrible, ADD editing glazed on in post to try and stupefy the audience since there's no other form of emotional connection to them that you are capable of presenting. If you love your life, if you cherish your time spent being alive, please, resist any and every urge that you may have to watch this travesty of cinema. Cut off your own feet if it would stop you from walking to the store where you might accidentally buy it because you think the box art looks interesting. Gouge out your own eyes if it somehow finds itself in your DVD player. You might even want to go so far as to remove your own tongue if it would keep you from mentioning the movie to someone else. This movie is Death Tunnel, after all, and yes, it really is that bad." Please take the time to read this. And to watch the beautiful piece of cinema that is Death Tunnel.

Yeah, you know you're in for something when a film posits that it's easier to teach drillers to be astronauts than teach astronauts to drill, mostly based on the principal of, "Fuck you -- No it isn't!" But it's one of the most fun-stupid movies out there.

No way, dude. This movie is AWESOME. It had the longest, most multi-faceted one-on-one fight scene in any action movie at its release (Kill Bill probably shattered its record), which was used shot-for-shot for the climactic fight scene in the South Park episode "Cripple Fight." It has multiple classic quotes, most notably: "I came here to chew bubble gum and kick ass -- and I'm all out of bubblegum." It made cheap sunglasses into fun toys again, renewing a resource that was dying once Max Headroom went out of vogue. Jonatham freakin' Lethem wrote a BOOK about it: http://www.amazon.com/They-Live-Focus-Jonathan-Lethem/dp/159376278X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323871992&sr=8-1 I've watched this movie a hundred times, and I'm willing to bet that if they did this movie, it would be in loving tribute, because the answer to the show's question is "low budget and an unflappable auteur's contract."