JeffreyMcDonald

Haha, I kind-of wish I had kept maintained my "soft no" (but don't regret voting "yes"). Still there is way to much of what I worried about, people voting yes simply because it's The Beatles. "...but...it's Disney"

As I mentioned in the homework thread, growing up in the San Francisco area where many of my friend's parents were insufferable Berkeley baby boomer hippies kind of soured me on The Beatles because they were such asses about the band. Endlessly telling Gen X kids,"You know, none of the music you like would exist without The Beatles." (hey, as long as there was Chuck Berry, Link Ray, and Gene Vincent; The Cramps would have still existed regardless!) As I got older I eventually came around and learned to enjoy their later material, but admitted I still have a little knee-jerk bias against The Beatles more than most other bands of that period. This was a bit of my experience. Before the episode I was on-the-fence/"soft no". Now I think I might be a "soft yes". I think a lot of the arguments could be reduced to "...but, it's The Beatles!" which wasn't going to sway me, but in between they did make good points about the film being influenced by the French New Wave, as well as the influence this film had on what came after, and the context of what this was really documenting at the time was interesting to hear. Swayed me enough to vote it in. "Not for me" doesn't necessarily mean "not for Canon", so yeah...a "soft yes". Favorite song: "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" <-possibly the very first Doom Metal song. \m/ \m/

Yeah, along with others here, I've never really been a Beatles fan. Especially of the early stuff. I understand that, but I'm still open minded. Growing up near San Francisco a lot of my classmates had hippie boomer parents who insisted non-stop that The Beatles were the beginning and end of rock music. I have to admit that it turned me off to them for a long time. Reminds me of that old Johnny Rotten interview, "I was told in school that ,"You HAVE to like it. It's Shakespeare!" No I don't!" My reaction was, stop telling me I HAVE to like this and that all my music is shit, baby boomer. But I do like their later stuff, Revolver and after. And I wanted to be open minded for The Canon. Right now, I'm leaning soft "no". I mean, I really found myself not interested for long stretches of the film. But as a soft no, I'm curious to listen to the episode. I could very easily be swayed if maybe given historical context or reasons why this film is important other than simply because "Beatles are great". I wish I could remember which stand-up comic said this, but his bit something like, "A lot of people say they would love to travel back in time to see Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin back in the day. The one band I would not want to travel back and see would be The Beatles. It would be terrible. [looks around annoyed] WOULD ALL YOU GIRLS PLEASE STOP SCREAMING!"

A soft yes. "Soft" because, honestly, my exposure to silent films, especially the comedic ones (I've seen and love "Noferatu" and "Caligari"), is very limited. Devin alluded that this may not be the best Keaton film, nor movie of this kind, for the Canon but still voted for it; and I'm a "big Canon" person, so I'm fine with it being in there. And I did enjoy how impressed I was by how they pulled off the stunts, especially back in the day. Not much for discussion. One thing, maybe that's been ticking around my head. It is interesting how time has made some icons have more baggage rather than less. The confederacy as the "underdog", it seems so weird to me to separate it from slavery and racism. Not helped by of a lot of modern attempts at revisionist history that do things like try say that the Civil War was primarily about "states rights and personal freedom". (True irony/hypocrisy, arguing that a war over slavery was about maintaining personal freedom.) Honestly, I think one of the things that helps symbols like the confederate flag maintain a degree of heaviness has been the many attempts to redress or be in denial about what those symbols represent. In threads regarding Kevin Smith being a nazi sausage in his new film (quality of said film another subject), I've seen many posts where people are "extremely offended" by his use of nazi symbolism and say it is in "terrible taste" and I've even seen people calling him "antisemitic". Really? I mean, it's Kevin Smith? Talk about him all you want as a questionable film-maker (please), but the guy isn't a nazi. Barely 20 years after WWII Kirk and Spock beam down to the Nazi planet and Hogan's Heroes is a popular Emmy winning TV show. The war was still very fresh in the memory back then, yet something tells me people (honestly, close friends of mine) would probably be up in arms and "offended" if either were to appear on the television today. Possibly more than anyone was back then. I'm rambling a bit, and don't quite have a point. Just random Monday thoughts. [i tried to word this carefully, but, well, also at my job, so apologies in advance if I have to clarify something later that is taken the wrong way or I didn't state something clearly enough. I'm a super lefty and don't support confederacy or nazi, obviously. Removed from that, I'm more attempting to talk about the reaction to symbols when we see them in modern times, so far removed from their original context.]

[and for all the people who voted against Re-Animator because "we have that slot filled": It looks like BaT is going to get into the Canon, so now we have the "New York romantic comedy about a quirky woman and brooding/uptight man" slot filled by this film and "Annie Hall". So I expect you won't be voting for "Pillow Talk" or "Barefoot in the Park" or anything else of that ilk. I mean, if having too many films of a certain kind are so damned important to you.]

I watched the film for the first time in years last night and am quite shocked that I am voting "yes". I think something they touched upon in the podcast was how this was a mature movie. I know that 20 or 30 year old me would probably have voted "no" on this, but the part of me that can view this film with age and experience is giving it a resounding "yes". Devin described Holly as the proto-MPDG. I almost consider her the anti-MPDG. One of the hallmarks of the MPDG is that she "saves" the brooding and miserable artist. Something I love about Holly is she really doesn't give a damn about saving or influencing the wet blanket (aside from buying him the type ribbon). She isn't quirky, she's a mess and somewhat of a conscious mess. I think one of the only two things that I find disappointing about the film is the "Hollywood ending". Honestly, and this isn't out of meanness but more because of experience I've had with people like Holly, I wish there had been a bit more of a, not tragic, but realistic ending. As Devin said, two weeks after the film ends she's probably already moved on from Paul. He wants to save her, he needs to save her, and the realistic story is that she doesn't want to be saved by him. He loves her and she literally thinks of him as her brother. In modern times he'd pretty much be a #NiceGuy™. (and, as I type this, this film is making me think of why I love the ending of the sorely underappreciated "Scott Pilgrim" so much.) The other disappointing thing: Of course the Micky Rooney bits are utterly cringe-worthy. I commented earlier in this thread before I re-watched the film on how that may keep me from voting for this; but after watching it, his scenes are really more of an unfortunate distraction than anything. I think of people who want to re-write Shakespeare or (in the ultimate show of misunderstanding the point) Mark Twain with the sexist and racist language removed. To remove it and to (literally) white-wash and pretend history didn't happen is a principal way to stall progress and move beyond the unfortunate past. Ignoring the past is too easy, and addressing racism shouldn't be easy. As I write this I'm listening to "Comedy Film Nerds" and they're talking about how every film fanatic should watch "Birth of a Nation". Again, I cringed at the thought of this earlier in this thread. After reading the comments and the current discussion I'm not thinking, "O.k., Canon..bring it on". Anyway, solid "YES" for me.

I was just thinking exactly this, about "Triumph of the Will" or "Birth of a Nation". Both cited as very historically important films over and over again, and neither would I want in the canon. Historical importance should be "a factor" but not "the factor". But cultural importance is also a factor. I have several Asian friends who would be quite upset by the addition of this movie, and I have several female and gay friends who would be upset by its exclusion. As a white hetero/cis male, I almost want to exclude myself from voting this week (that's a joke. Just as I can't stand people calling gore movies "boy films"; because something is romantic or has a female lead, I don't like those characterized -usually dismissively- as "chick flicks".). I can't wait to hear the episode, but I'm waiting until I re-watch the film tonight. Given what I've read posted here so far, I'm looking forward to hearing the discussion.

This is a really tough one. Honestly (and to possibly commit cineaste blasphemy) I've always considered PTA films a bit of "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" of films. It's like my friend says about Sonic Youth: "People don't like them. They're just told "it's smart" and so they pretend or convince themselves that they like them." That's always been my attitude towards PTA. But, well, I love Sonic Youth and think my friend is totally wrong. So I was willing to visit these films partially in an attempt to challenge my own preconceived notions about PTA. I had seen TWBB when it came out and it left me cold, and had never seen Boogie Nights. First off, I was wrong. I'm glad this podcast gave me the opportunity to revisit these films without the pretentious baggage that originally biased me against them. I'm really on the fence here, and loved Amy's analogy for TWBB where, it's a statue that I want to look at, but I don't want it in my home. Both films are strong entries with incredible performances. I think one thing that puts TWBB a step above is, on the commentary track for Boogie Nights PTA (who does, indeed, come across as a bit of a bro-y douche) admits that he was learning to be a film maker on that movie and copied and "stole" almost every shot. And there's nothing wrong with that, that is how an artist learns. But TWBB, 10 years later, really does feel like his own movie and like the film of someone who has found their voice. The work of an artist who has moved past their influences. I may not want the statue in my home, but I think it does belong in The Canon.

...and, well, given my handle and avatar: LOTR: The Two Towers Of the three it might be my favorite, but really any of them. Maybe RotK, just because I love Éowyn's arc so much. But the battle of Minas Tirith always feels a little flat compared to Helms Deep. But, as much as people complain about the multiple endings (the books have even more), I still get choked up at the end...the final "real" end, I mean. A triple VS. episode would be most difficult.

Repo Man If allowed multiple indulgences then also: Wild at Heart Brazil (the VHS and current regular Blu Ray theatrical...ish cut. I actually don't like the Criterion "director's" edit.) Better Off Dead/Three O'clock High (vs. episode) Lone Wolf and Cub: Baby Cart at the River Styx (i.e. the second one) Val Lewton's Cat People Out of the Past The Big Sleep (the last three aren't really indulgences. I'd think they'd be sure "ins".)

Hahaha, fair enough points all. I still think Re-Animator is a damn fine taco; a cut above the rest. This is definitely a nail-biter. Pretty much 50/50 down the line. I'm curious to see how it will turn out over the rest of the week.

Haha, this reminded me of when I used to say (sadly, on a dating profile) "I can enjoy dinner from a fine restaurant or from a Tijuana street taco stand with equal joyous fervor, and understand why each is brilliant in its own way." There's room enough in the canon for foie gras and street tacos. (Hell, up to me I would put Fast & Furious 5, 6, and 7 on the shelf right next to Kubrick or Felini any day.) There is a character, a quality, that does single out Re-Animator above other (generically putting it) '80s horror; and horror in general. I'm not sure why it's been difficult for some of us (myself included) to articulate. Maybe it takes a subtle appreciation to notice it. Like, a person observing from the outside would say "all Ramones albums sound the same", but someone who actually listens to them can hear the distinct difference between the Tommy period, the "reaching for pop-status" albums, the hardcore/metal-influenced period, and the later loose post-Dee Dee material. I have spent most of my life defending the Ramones, but have never been put in that spot with Re-Animator before. It's mostly been accepted among my group of friends as one of the greats. Needless to say, as a fan of horror in general, Re-Animator does stand so far above much of the schlock that fills the genre. And part of the reason might be because simply because sometimes something as simple as "fun", especially not idiotic fun (thought, arguably, there is a place for that as well) has value in itself. I mean, have you watched Anthony Bourdain? The greatest bliss he achieves on episodes is never from fine dining establishments, but always when he gets food from rickety stands and run down shacks. I'm getting hungry now.

I missed the voting on this one because I was out of town, but I'm glad to see the film made it in. It's not my favorite Miyazaki, (that's be Nausicaä), but there aren't any that I dislike. Though, I've never seen "The Wind Rises", primarily because of Devin's review when the film came out. Weirdly, the low-stakes lack of conflict is what I find appealing about the movie. Not so much for myself, but really thinking of this as a movie for children. I think it's nice to have one film that kids can watch that doesn't involve bickering or arguing and is just a simple day-to-day pleasant story. It's kind of refreshing that way (especially if a kid has a chaotic home life). That's why I also like "Whispers of the Heart", and anime that's basically about a girl trying to translate a John Denver song into Japanese. That's pretty much it. On the anime designation, it is a global term, which is why I find it so bothersome when people say they "don't like anime". It's as though someone didn't like science fiction or horror but said, "I don't like movies". In the '80s and '90s hentai was a lot of what we got in America (what does that say about America?) so for a lot of people that might be the association that they make, but there was always so much more to anime than that. And I agree there's a stigma when 40 year old men watch cartoon shows made for 13 year old girls (that's not only an American thing) that's really creepy. But again, the entire style/art form should not be dismissed because of the associations people make with a certain sub-section of the whole. Some of the other weird stuff is cultural. The panties thing, I actually tie that to Disney. Go back and watch some of those old Disney cartoons. I swear there's at least two butt jokes and several random butt shots in almost every one. In most cases I'd put it to the Japanese fan service (from the county that brigs us panties from a vending machines), but Miyazaki really isn't that kind of filmmaker. I really do think it's more of an association with innocence and transitional youth; but perhaps I am giving him more credit than is due. I do know this: I have been to Japan for extended periods several times. That is just enough times for me to realize that I, as a Westerner/American, will truly never understand many aspects of the Japanese culture. Another anime that may prove difficult to say "no" to might be something by Satoshi Kon. Honestly, I don't think much anime would make it into The Canon because the better stories for me have always come from the series, in long form (Paranoia Agent, Evangelion, Rumiko Takahashi series, FLCL, etc.).

I'm a little bothered by some people dismissing horror/genre cult/gore as a "boy thing". Aside from that being more than a little condescending, it's just not true. It was my girlfriend freshman year of college who first turned me on to "Re-Animator". Years later, one thing a best female friend and I loved doing most was getting take-out on a Sunday night and watching some '70s or '80s horror. I mean, she got a tattoo of the tar zombie for "Return of the Living Dead" on her calf! We revisited Re-Animator frequently. Women like horror and gore as well, and can also be just as excited about these films as a teenage boy (or an adult man). ...and what I mean by that is, the false sense that this is "another movie that appeals to teenage boy genre fans and man-children" is not a very good reason to dismiss this film. Because it's simply not true. Or, at least, not most of the women that I know . Like John Waters said, "I want to know the girls who give the middle finger under that tables while the family is saying grace, not some boring debutante."[paraphrased] (Of course, the woman I'm currently seeing can't stand horror/gore/sci fi, but, well, life is funny and throws us a curve ball like that sometimes.)

There have been a lot of comparison to "Evil Dead" in this thread and in the episode. That's partially why I'm a hard "yes". What I mean is, just as Bruce Campbell offers as unique and fantastic performance in those films; I absolutely love the criminally underused Jeffrey Combs. Between Dr. Herbert West as well as his performance in "The Frighteners" (and as The Question in the JL: Animated series), I had always wished he had pushed a little beyond the C- or B-level. (fortunately, looking at his imdb, seems like he's always working.) But that aside, I don't think the comparison applies. The Evil Dead had a different kind of humor to it. The way Raimi and Gordon shoot give their films entirely different vibes appropriate to each movie. EDII is, possibly the pinnacle, "Cabin in the Woods/Haunted House" film while R-A deals with humanity, obsession, and sanity and (as Devin points out) is a "mad scientist" movie. For Re-Animator I adore the soundtrack (more "classic", compared to the "creepy" of Evil Dead), the practical effects, and the general Lovecraft-ian vibe. By that I mean, the subtle insanity lurking a little bit behind the eyes of the characters. It hits all the right notes for me. I guess my argument that this should be in "The Canon" rather than "my canon" is that I can't think of another film quite like it. There is something still so unique to me about this film that it makes me think it should be worthy. As a Lovecraft reader, I think it works. The Bride of Re-Animator would be a sure "in" for me as well. And "Phantasm" I and II. There are different kinds of great, and I don't think that should be limited to prestige pictures. Most all of the great directors were heavily influenced by "genre" pictures, so in my opinion there can't be too much of it in The Canon. Full disclosure: I was so excited for this nominee that I wrote this post before listening to the episode, so made minor edits since.

I am really on the fence with this one. I am such a Carpenter fan that I fear I may my bias may come into play. Honestly, this is one of his films I go back to the least, and may not even make my Top 5 Carpenter films. But perhaps time has made me forget about it, so I'm curious to re-watch it tonight and see where I fall. I've had the unopened Blu-Ray for months, so I'll finally crack the seal. I haven't seen this movie since the 20th century. I watched "Dark Star" a couple of weeks ago followed by "Escape for New York", so at least this gives me an excuse to to keep my JC summer theme going. It may make my personal (small "c") canon but I'm not sure if it will make The Canon. I really could fall "soft no" or "soft yes". Either way, it was a great episode again and that has me amped-up for the viewing.

I just want to bump this up. I like the "bad movie" HDTGM episodes, but this would be in the rarer (and arguably more enjoyable) "batshit crazy" category of HDTGM (e.g.: Crank 1&2, F&F series, Face Off, etc.). It is a great film to watch knowing ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. I hope June, Paul, and Jason eventually watch this film. They might love it.

Not just your opinion. Pee-Wee in his prime, young and inspired Elfman (long before his "drooooooooone [piano plink] [piano plonk]" period), Burton unleash, and Phil Hartman working on the script; just all the perfect elements at once. That said, "Ed Wood" is still a strong yes for myself.

I had never seen "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" before last weekend and it had been years since I had seen "Some Like It Hot", so thank you so much for having us revisit both. "Gentlemen" definitely felt like a stage musical on film with the BIG characters and behavior which was fun. Yet I found myself taken with the charming little moments from "Some Like it Hot" (Sugar's second introduction with the garter flask, Jack Lemon post proposal, etc.). Of course I saw the punchline of the film from a mile away, and yet the anticipation of it made it even more exciting and I truly laughed with joy at the delivery of "nobody's perfect" which is what pushes that choice over the top for me. "Some Like it Hot" for my vote. Possible future versus: Hawks' "Scarface" vs. DePalma's "Scarface" [personally, I'd go with the Hawks version, but my college roommate, with Oakland Raiders posters on his wall, would 100% go for DePalma's]

I watched this movie for the first time on Sunday. For all the accolades it had received over the years, I was shocked at how incompetent I thought it was. I thought, "Am I missing something?" and was relieved when just 4 minutes into this episode that Devin expressed his distaste for the film. I honestly felt like I was watching something shot as an after-school special rather than as an engaging drama (haha, glad to hear that Eazy-E had the same reaction). [note: the only thing Netflix had available to rent was pan&scan version, so I can’t fault the filmmaker for that aspect of the experience.] On top of that, I have never appreciated Cuba Gooding Jr. as an actor. In every performance he always seems like he’s two words away from breaking down in tears. He always seems like he’s (cue Jon Lovitz) “act-ing” rather than acting. Once again, his performance took me out of a picture; the only mild plus being that his character is supposed to be a little removed from the other characters, so at least his performance added a little bit to that feeling of separation. Ugh, this is a tough one. While I did not enjoy the film at all, I do think that historical importance is a factor to be considered for what goes into The Canon. Ouff, if this one is a “yes”, it will be only by a hair. Amy did make some good points, but similar to Devin, I had so much trouble getting past the poor film-making. G'ah...no...yes...no...yes. I'm going "no", mostly because I have left other important films off the Canon because of what I thought was poor film making. That, in itself, won't always be a barrier to The Canon for me, but if the film making is bad; then the story, plot, script, acting, etc., really have to make up for the other shortcomings. In this case, it just didn't work for me. (but the podcast has now made me really curious to see "Menace II Society") [but I disagree with Devin on "Dope". I thought it was a fun film; but that might be because I watched it on an airplane. On the Comedy Film Nerds podcast they argue there should be a "movie rating" and a "movie seen on an airplane rating".]

You see, I really want to get past this. I think in general*, what people refer to as "Fight Club fans" (or, say, "Tool fans" or "Radiohead fans") barely exist in reality. I've been a fan of all three of those things and have never once met one of "those fans". I have been to 6 Tool concerts and 10 Radiohead shows, and the only possible stereotype I've encountered has been slightly-dweeby music nerds. I've never actually met anyone who's encountered the knuckle-dragging Fight Club/Tool fan** that they have strong opinions about, nor the overbearing Radiohead hipster**. And if "those fans" do exist, they are in a vast, vast minority. [*o.k., there is The Insane Clown Posse, but I think that's something entirely different.] [**aside from, possibly, in comment sections on youtube videos or something, but that's not reality anyway. Those people don't go to shows. And I'm not going to judge a community of fans based on the foul scribbling of a bored 12 year old in Budapest...and, of course, never read the comments.] Regardless, like what you like. Just because someone you find unfortunate may or may not like the same thing should not diminish a work of art. (hell, I also like opera, and most opera fans are utter bastards)

Oh, and the "days until retirement" was definitely a trope. The Simpsons used it several times: http://www.simpsoncr...ists/retirement Saturdays of Thunder In the video store, Homer watches a McBain movie in which Scoie, his sidekick, is retiring in a two days. However, someone tries to kill McBain, and Scoie takes the bullets and dies. Homer and Apu When Homer tries to "bite back" against Apu for selling him spoiled meat, he wears an oversize novelty hat with a camera hidden inside to get some incriminating footage of the Kwik-E-Mart. But Homer ends up smashing the hat, believing there is a bee inside. Kent Brockman tells him that the hat had one day left 'til retirement. Natural Born Kissers After Homer and Marge escape from the windmill on the miniature golf course, Wiggum brings in the police dog to try to find them. It takes one sniff of Homer's underwear and scarpers... Wiggum adds that he had one day left 'til retirement. Homer to the Max When all the trees fall down at the protest rally, one crushes Wiggum's police car... again, it had one day left 'til retirement.

In the box! I've been with Amy a lot in recent weeks. They've been "soft" no's, where films didn't quite get to a level for The Canon in my opinion (as opposed to maybe Devin's personal canon). This week, a very solid case was made by Devin. Re-watching this film also brought me back to the first time I saw it; but in a good way. I was simply not convinced by Amy's arguments, and was happy that I still found this film utterly compelling on multiple levels. And I don't necessarily agree that a film can "pretend to be smart". It's too similar to when i hear that people don't like a piece of art because they find it "pretentious". When people make those arguments, it always seem to me like the one criticizing the work is bringing their own baggage that they can't look past. I mean, there is pretentious art and also art that tries to maybe punch above it's weight class on an intellectual level, but I just don't think that in itself is a reason to discount something. I like some pretentious work and I dislike some pretentious work, but the pretentiousness itself is hardly ever the turn-off for myself.

I've been with Amy quite a lot lately. Very soft "no". A pillowy marshmallow "no" because while I enjoyed bits and aspects of the film, it simply did not come together as a whole for me. I guess the "three really good scenes" rule did not quite convince me. For next week: So in the car ride to the desert, I can't keep my eyes off Somerset, who barely says anything. After all the nihilistic voice overs and his conversations with Mills, how is he reacting to what John Doe is saying? Is he slightly in agreement? Disagreement? Conflicted? Really interesting acting from Freeman going on there there. It seems almost like he doesn't really snap out of his disconnectedness until after his realization of "what's in the box". I haven't watched the movie in at least 10 years though, so I'm interested to see it again. It's just that bit always stuck with me. I'm wondering if I'm remembering it properly.

I'm trying something new. I just watched the film and this is my first time voting before listening to the podcast, so as not to be swayed or biased. Without hearing the arguments or knowing historical context, just on a pure reaction to the film, I'm voting "no". I think it was entertaining and enjoyable, and I'm there were probably not many films of this kind at the time it was made, but through modern eyes, this portrayal of alcoholism seemed a bit closer to "refer madness" cartoon alcoholism to me as opposed to a "Leaving Las Vegas" or "Clean and Sober" or even "The World's End". This might be a case where it was a fine film for its time, but maybe not Canon-worthy. I'm really curious to hear the arguments in the episode now and see if I am swayed one way or the other.