Muthsarah

Well, I've held off thus far. I...have nothing to say, mostly because this has nothing to do with me. Everyone who knows Devin has decided to pull back until they've figured out what to do, and I totally get them. The 100th episode is clearly on hiatus for now. The future of the show...I don't know. I don't want to hate Devin...so I won't. I'll just check in on Amy's Twitter once a day until I get an "all-clear", or some sort of meaningful information about all this. I'm still very bummed out by all this, but, again, it has nothing to do with me, so I'll try not to drag myself into it. Next week, next month, whatever. I'm used to podcasts coming to sudden ends. And to, eventually, many months later, check back in with them, and discover there are ten new episodes. It's a Great Big World out there. No need to focus our stress on this matter. Let us just wait for those closely-involved in this mess to figure out what to do for themselves. Then, in time, we can re-engage as Canon fans. Whatever that may mean at the time.

Firstoff: I realize I'm probably a glutton for rejection. Woody Allen got so many "NEITHER/NEVER!" votes in the Annie Hall vs. Manhattan episode (which was before my time here) that Devin and Amy felt they had to mention the outrage in the following episode, so I realize this will not be the most popular suggestion among many (with legitimate reasons for objecting, I will admit). That said.... "Radio Days" is a subtle, yet enthralling portrait of a certain place in a certain time. New York, late-30s/early-40s. Growing up with nascent pop culture, broadcast every day from a simple appliance that every semi-respectable home had. A window into the greater world. What the Internet (via smartphone) is today, the radio once was to people just seventy years prior, our (great-)grandfathers'/mothers' time. It's a very, very personal story from Allen, describing the world he was born into and grew up surrounded by, but also a "movable feast" take on pop culture and everyday life, told through the lives of dozens of characters Allen's narrator claims to know mostly through stories he grew up hearing, just before WWII removed the last vestiges of America's provincialism. It's a roman-a-clef, of sorts, but also a very charming and funny look at a time that never seems to let go of the popular consciousness. This is the time "The Greatest Generation" came of age in, and would fight/work to defend in the largest war in history. And that world still casts a legendary shadow on us, today. Maybe "kids today" don't care, but, growing up, I was still surrounded by it, and, instead of resenting it, I gradually learned to appreciate it. This was also the generation that lived through The Great Depression (far worse than the recent one), and which weathered far worse than today's unemployed Millenials or Gen X burnouts. I feel their example has a lot to teach modern audiences about living through hard times today, coping with poverty and disappointment. If they could make it (with nary a WiFi connection), why can't we? The Canon has, as many have pointed out recently (myself included), too strong a fixation on Gen X, 80s/early 90s nostalgia films. How about indulging in the nostalgia films of an earlier generation? My parents are both much older than I am. Born in 1938 and 1942, this film is probably the best representation of the world they were born into. It took them until their adulthoods (the film was made in 1987) to really appreciate it, but I know they both adore this film as, perhaps, the ultimate time-capsule of their childhood, much as someone of my age would look back on 80s-fare as being quaint and charming beyond all rationality. I think it's a criminally underrated/neglected film in Allen's filmography. It's 100% free from controversy. It both came out before the early-90s ugliness of his life, and also in no way reflects anything anyone could hold against him. I do believe art can and usually should be separated from its creator, and I will also admit that, his disturbing personal history aside, I remain a huge fan of his films. But I feel that "Radio Days" is not only his most nostalgic film, his most touching film, his most historically-relevant film, but also one of his most easily-enjoyed films. You don't need to know ANYTHING of this time, the movie will describe everything you need to know (that isn't timeless) and it will sell you on the joy of a "Boyhood" of circa-1940. It's not just a snapshot, it's an epic portrait of what it was like to have been born many decades ago, growing up in a world mostly recognizable, despite the distance of several decades. It's a really fun film, and also very informative. It's funny, but it doesn't rely on its gags to paint a picture of what it must have been like to be a child growing up at the time. It's one of my favorite movies, not just because it can't help but make me think on my parents' childhood, but also because it's just so effortlessly lovable and charming. It's Woody Allen at his lightest. If The Canon can bear to re-enter these troubling waters (assuming they don't want to go with the wonderful fluff that is "Midnight in Paris"), I would humbly recommend "Radio Days". Allen's most under-appreciated gem of a film. Can you feel nostalgic for a time you never personally experienced? This movie makes me feel like you can. And "Midnight in Paris" just drives that point home more explicitly. I love them both, so deeply. But "Radio Days" is my recommendation. It'll probably never happen, but I feel I have to try to sell it. I would so love a detailed discussion by Devin and Amy, followed by a discussion of the forum's fans, on this beautiful film. It's currently available only on Vudu, but I'm hoping it will soon become available on other services. It's well-worth checking out for any fan of 30s/40s films, if only to better understand the world the WWII generation came from, before they signed up and were dragged into the greater, more complicated world. It's a very easy film to understand, very funny, very fast-paced. And, FWIW, it made Empire magazine's list of Top 500 Films of All Time, at #304. Pretty good for one of Allen's "lesser efforts". That's all.

I wish my mom was as cool as your mom. Seriously.

This has been mentioned before (just putting this out there because it hasn't been picked up on before, and there may be a reason,so....), but I'd be totally down with it. I'd pick Jackie Brown, no question. For one thing, Ray has more to do in this one. But, mostly, there just a hell of a lot more going on in this film. Out of Sight was awright, it played it cute, it tried to be sexy (sorry, it failed with me, not that that was why I rented the movie, nosir, not at all, I had altogether more prurient prudish reasons to wanting to watch it, I swear, trust me), but it ended up a very B-level caper-ish comedy. Whereas Jackie Brown is a friggin' masterpiece on all levels, for two solid hours of awesome. Yeah, Jackie Brown might even be my favorite Tarantino. It's certainly the easiest to sit down and watch, if only because Kill Bill is two goddamn movies (not hatin', just acknowledging). But the best film from one of our best writer/directors of, at least, MY lifetime. Yeah, I'm bias. I'm already sold. Jackie Brown all the way. Though I'd still enjoy the episode. I feel that Devin would be on my page (co-incidentally, I'm sure). I'd just have to wonder if Amy would do that occasionally/regularly bizarre thing she does and just either pick the wrong film or decide to throw shade (that's a new kids' term, right?) on the clearly better film, because....Amy just does that sometimes. It's far, FAR less annoying than when Devin does it, but she's human too. Whatever that means. Anyway, Jackie Brown > Out of Sight all the way. Though I still want this episode, just because. Better than then have them spend an hour and ten on Flight of the Navigator or Wargames, or some other GenX 80s-full nostalgic film. Really, really tired of them. Better retro-90s than 80s. It'd be a small improvement.

I wonder if this counts as a cult film? I've heard it mentioned often by big fans of gritty 70s and 80s movies, but ONLY by big fans of gritty 70s and 80s film. I've never once heard the film brought up by anybody else, anywhere, and it never gets mentioned in more general "best films of the 80s", "best cop movies"-style lists. It's not a B-movie, but it seems to be so overlooked, except by a certain kind of film fan, that it might as well be. Production-values-wise, it's an A-picture, though probably not big-budget. More like on the level of Drive or Memento. I'll echo that any fan of Michael Mann ('s early work) HAS to see it, as well as any fan of Shane Black (it doesn't have the humor of his films, but it has everything else). It's very Friedkin, but Friedkin dragging his 70s style into a gaudier, louder decade for action films. And Wang Chung does the score, so, damn, is it ever of its time. I'd go on (there's so much in it to talk about), but I probably need to see it again. Anyway, I agree that it would be the PERFECT kind of film for The Canon, as it was indeed incredibly influential on the whole cop/crime genre going forward, and more people need to see it. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be available for easy online streaming.

Well, if you're open to it, I would recommend TNG's "The Defector" and "The Wounded" and DS9's "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Necessary Evil" as masterpieces of Trek writing. So many great lines, so many great monologues, all to the service of excellent stories with timeless messages/dilemmas. Netflix has them all.

32, and you saw it in 1991? You were a baby. What sense could you have made of this reflective, Cold-War inspired piece? I saw it in theatres too. My first Trek film. I was 11. I don't/didn't remember anything. I was lost, I had no context for anything barring that Star Trek is a thing, and it existed. I saw it again many, many years later, and was mostly impressed by it. In that it was so clearly better than either Generations (a film I liked at the time, but have gradually come to understand as terrible) or First Contact (a film I DESPISED at the time, and have refused to re-watch since). VI is a mostly-solid movie, but it disappears up its own ass when it tries to be "deep". All the Shakespeare stuff is absolutely worthless, since it adds nothing to the movie. The idea of two rival factions conspiring to keep their long-simmering war going, because neither of them is comfortable with a peace they've never known, is absolutely brilliant, a PERFECT story for a Trek movie of the time. So...it mostly works. If you don't focus on the incredibly clunkiness with which the story is put together. The sentiment, the basic message, and the historical context, are all there, and they work for me. Basically, the story is brilliant, but the screenplay is clunky and obvious. Overall, an enjoyable movie, but you have to extend some dramatic allowances. It's not great, but at least it aspired to greatness, and, once, had a basic idea of how to get there. As a TNG episode - even a two-parter - I feel it coulda worked, but as a feature film, where all the stakes have to be heightened to a ridiculous degree, where the future of the UNIVERSE is ALWAYS on the line, whether or not the story calls for it, it just fell apart. Good stuff aplenty, good parts, good scenes, good work from the leading three. But not a great Trek film, by any means. Just a good one. Mostly. I'll still take it over any Trek film that followed it, though. Its ambition, its desired moral, is super-clear and very meaningful. And, to me, the most important part of Trek is the message, at least that it have one, that it cares. Too bad it surrendered as much as it did to action-movie tropey formula. EDIT: As for movies about "old people being bigots", that's a fantastic (and probably timeless) idea. Just think of the modern American political landscape. There's a very, very, VERY good Trek parable to be told here. When Hollywood constantly focuses on the under-30 demographic, they are cheating their viewership of so much meaty dramatic potential. And I'm not just saying that because I'm well past 30. Even as a kid, I liked movies about adults. Nowadays, all movies are about kids. Maybe kids in adult bodies, but that's not the same. Action movies, sci-fi stories, romantic comedies, historical dramas, they're always about the young. And what do young characters know, that fully-mature characters wouldn't know so much more deeply? Trek is a perfect series for the middle-aged or above. It's about philosophy, values, experience, moral dilemmas, stuff you need some years under your belt to properly understand. All the recent films are still about running, yelling, sex, and 'splosions. 100% disposable crap, that's all I'm saying. WoK was built on ideas. You could NEVER, NEEEEVVVVVEEEEERRRR build a WoK on any recent iteration of Trek. There's just no depth, no meaningful ideas, on which to base it. And as soon as the actors grow old enough to plausibly play middle-aged characters, you'd have already rebooted the series, just because. I eagerly (sadistically/masochistically) await a TNG reboot. With Jean-Luc Picard rebooted as a shaved-headed, muscly bad-ass with tattoos and an anti-authoritarian chip on his shoulder. I'll ignore it SOOOOO hard.

Seriously -- - I was raised by 40/50-something parents who were big fans of basically all pre-Jaws cinema. Anything after than was universal crap, so I had to wait until my 20s to even discover them for the first time. - I become a bit of a film geek in my early 20s, but it didn't fully take, because....everything else, life, work, distractions. And (then-)current cinema. I liked non-popular cinema, but I couldn't manage to become the classic film snob I feel I wanted to be at the time. - I have been exposing myself to all sorts of semi-obscure (I'm not hardcore, but I do care) cinema for most of the last ten years of my life, trying to catch up. -- So why have I NEVER even heard of this film? Not once. Not even kinda-familar. Absolutely NOTHING. Like this movie never existed, and now, suddenly over a year into my Canon-listenership, it's just dropped outta friggin' nowhere. Am I, as a casual film geek, expected to have ever heard of this movie? Is this, uber-B-movie material? Baby Jane-style? Cult film status? College underground? Seriously, I have zero recognition of even the title. And that scares me more than anything. It would be the blindest watch I've ever had since I was dragged to an obscure Jackie Chan movie over a decade ago. Which didn't go over well with the room. And, even then, I knew what basically to expect, it just didn't deliver, so everyone felt bad. I think I've been gun-shy since then. I think it's just been so long since a totally blind watch (no reviews) that I'm getting a massive anxiety attack just thinking about it. Maybe I, like most American moviegoers, are so consumed with feeling certain they'll like what they're gonna see, that they won't even chance it, unless they feel they know EXACTLY the movie they're gonna see, ahead of time. Hence, why re-making/sequalized crap sells, and original ideas mostly die. What would I be walking into here? No plot-spoilers, please, but, is this a horror film? A cult/camp flick?

Casablanca wouldn't just win because of the politics. It's a well-paced film chock-full of great lines, that doesn't exhaust the viewer. Gone With the Wind is very, very impressive from a production standpoint. From a modern-day viewing standpoint, EEEEEEEEESH!!! Just end already! You're not Lawrence, y'know. Scarlet is not a very likeable character. It's really, really hard to feel for anybody, not the simpleton Melanie and Ashley, not the smarmy Rhett, not the self-absorbed Scarlet. Even Prissy is annoying as hell. Anytime I think of that film, I just watch Carol Burnett's . That does me.

It's kinda funny, though I have to wonder how much time went into editing this clip. It's not like Devin's the only person out there these days who seems compulsively drawn to umming and uhhing all the time. Not just talking podcasts, it's a national epidemic. Which is why I advocate an all-typing society. Snapchat style. Imagine being able to edit everything you say. Much better that way. Sometimes I go weeks without actually conversing with anyone vocally. I'm much happier that way. Ummm...yes there are. And there are several good Trek movies. If four counts as several. But as there are twice as many Bond films as Trek films, I think it's reasonable to wonder if there are eight such good Bond films. And, of course, there are. There are probably sixteen good Bond films. No one who's a fan of both series (of which I am eminently qualified) would doubt that Bond has had the better run. But Bond doesn't have 400+ TV episodes as counterweight. Yeah, Trek's better on TV. Cinematically, it had a good run, once upon a time, but it fell flat on its face when it tried to take a adult-leaning dramatic sci-fi series and turn it into something to compete with trope-y 90s action movies. And when they tried to turn that into post-Marvel action movies, they just dragged that face-planted series along, and scraped off every bit of head-y flesh down to the bone, revealing a grisly, long-dead, completely unrecognisable corpse. And with a face no less-punchable, given Chris Pine. Back to the point: WoK isn't Spock's film. TMP was Spock's film. WoK is an ensemble pic, with Kirk at the center, but with Spock, Khan, and guest actors filling out the lead roles. But Spock owns the finale, and that's enough. It's the most moving part of the film, and giving that to the most-fan-favorite character is a 10/10 moment. A film that finishes strong is always gonna get extra points with me. WoK starts well enough, and just gets better and better as it goes along. Only escalation, and with a tear-dripping final scene. Even Shatner does a great job of losing his/Kirk's composure during the eulogy. With the advantage of time (and I never believed Spock was dead, because I didn't get into Trek until 1992, so I even saw "Unification" YEARS before WoK), the end of this movie feels a lot like how I've heard the end of Sergeant Pepper's described, that final chord (or whatever, I don't know music) from "A Day in the Life". I first heard it described as indicating that "rock could go on forever". The end of WoK doesn't feel like an ending. It feels like a promise that this franchise will never die. With an ending like that, with such a dramatic, then heart-shattering, then moving, then touching, then poignant, all within ten minutes. It made Trek feel bigger than ever. Even for someone who had already seen all of TNG, DS9 and VOY (I came to the TOS movies very late). This one ending, of this one film, from 1982, just dwarfed everything I grew up with throughout the 90s. To me, it reads that Trek will always live, because it has this one moment of unmitigated greatness to live up to and cherish always. WoK is Trek eternal. Never was there so much greatness so greatly condensed. It was humanist, character-based, continuity-based, mystical, logical, and just plain great entertainment. There are episodes of TNG and DS9 that I feel are, minute-for-minute, more effective than WoK, but they don't feel half so grand. Yeah, WoK is a highpoint of the franchise. But that's not why I'm voting for it. It's also a highpoint of genre filmmaking in general. You like VI more than II? How do you reconcile General Chang's flagrantly, inappropriate, unprofessionally gratutious Shakespeare-quoting? It almost kills the movie for me. Though it's still my fourth-favorite of the series, if only because the film has other characters.

It gets in on quality alone. It's an intelligent, gripping, charming, heartbreaking drama. It's well-scored, has a very fun performance from Montalban, and is basically the definition of a "space opera". Doesn't matter if Trek works better on TV. Doesn't matter if it's iconic to the point that Paramount keeps trying to re-make it over and over and over again. Doesn't matter if there's a steep drop-off to even the #2 Trek film ("the one with the whales"), which itself would not be close to Canon-worthy. Wrath of Khan is a sensational adventure with many, many unforgettable scenes and an ending for the ages. Of course I'm voting it in.

How the hell did Generations make any sense to you as your gateway? What was Whoopi Goldberg doing there, and how did she get in Picard's dreams? What's the significance of Kirk's death? What's the white-skinned robot doing with this emotion chip thing? Why didn't Picard go back further in time than he did?* Who put the ship's counsellor in charge of the saucer section? Who are these Klingon chicks? What's with the guy with the eye thing? * - Some have nothing to do with continuity, they don't make sense to anybody.

The World's End doesn't get enough love. It's not a perfect movie, but it's easily my favorite of his, the one with the most going on under the surface. Yeah, Wright could teach a master class on comedic pacing. Hollywood's been a little too in love with the Apatow method, which can be fun for a scene or two, but really drags for a whole movie. Wright keeps it moving, and, better still, with all the time he saves, he just puts even more in. You still get 100 minutes, they just don't feel like it.

Oh, he's terribly fun. And the pecs are real, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Umm..... To keep it brief, I'm a Trek hardcore. No shame. I own my love. I'm trying to read your comment, but I don't honestly know how to best interpret it. For starters, which film was this that you watched? You've seen random episodes with "young" actors in the 90s? That could be TOS, DS9, or VOY (These are meaningful acronyms, even if you don't understand/accept them). And each serious is ENTIRELY different from each other. Strange, but true. All series are their own bag. As for Wrath of Khan, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, you don't need to know the franchise to understand it. If you have a bare-bones understanding of who/what James T. Kirk is (clutch captain, ultimate American/(Canadian) hero, Season Three lothario), and what Mr. Spock is (the logical to a fault audience super-surogate), and (optional) what a Khan Noonien Singh is (mutant superman)*, then you're fine. The more of the Original Series (the 1960s one) that you watch, the more you'll bring to the movie, but if you have even the barest-bone understanding of who Kirk and Spock are, you'll be fine. * - If you can't find Wrath of Khan on your Netflix or whatever, if you can find the original Star Trek series, seek out Space Seed (Season One episode) just to catch you up a bit. You don't NEED it, it doesn't totally line up physically, but it'll maybe set the mood for the later revenge tale. The more you understand the original series, the more you'll take from The Wrath of Khan. But, ultimately, you don't need to know that much. If all you know are the Original Series tropes, you'll be fine. It's a very tight, suspenseful, enjoyable movie. I'm sure you can find it for cheap streaming somewhere. It's well-worth a watch. Even if you want to skip Space Seed, it's easy enough to understand that a preview episode exists, and that you could TECHNICALLY skip it. Though you'd be better off seeing them both, in order. Any other episode doesn't matter. TOS was never about continuity. If you are fine with not understanding every detail, so long as you grok the greater picture, Wrath of Khan is still a fun, suspenseful watch.

Meryl Streep, Charles Dance, Ian McKellan, John Gielgud, Tracy Ullman, Sam Neill. And Sting. I'll see it for the cast and the setting. Never even heard of it. Not currently available online, though. Seems like the kind of thing that wouldn't be, at least until half of everything else is.

Really depends what you're into. 80s action films are still being remade, re-launched, sequelized, or just referenced ad nauseum thirty years later. A critical aggregate Top 50 or whatever list of the 1980s would probably feature more action or action-y films than any other decade (even considering recent comic book movies). It was a genre coming into its own, and it dominated the cinematic landscape. Also, as should be clear from other recent topics, it was a landmark decade for horror, a genre I know considerably less about. Therefore, I think you could also conclude that the decade was the golden age of practical effects AND the R-rating. If you want gritty, dark, envelope-pushing films, sure, you have the 70s, but if you want all that and some flash/gore/splosions, you can't beat the 80s. Sure, action films don't typically have the classy cache of mysteries, suspense, or historical epics (all genres I love), but they each had their own periods in the sun, when all their own genre tropes were sussed out and a canon assembled. If you're into any of these genres, or psychological dramas, or romances, or just independent film in general, sure, probably not the most memorable decade. And, yeah, sequels and blockbusters started to run amok, but back then, most sequels and blockbusters were GOOD, or at least more reliably good than they are now. It wasn't until about a decade ago that they developed their truly ugly reputation. Prior to that, the kinds of sequels that were derided were mostly horror sequels, which were never critical darlings to begin with, just B-movies with A-movie grosses. Overall, I don't think the 80s deserves a reputation as one of the worst decades for film. I'd still put it ahead of the 90s, 00s, and the 60s. Sticking with Hollywood, of course.

That's a center/gimme square in the Bingo card if anything is. Hee! I DO wanna hear this defended in depth.

How about you just take a shot whenever Devin belittles Amy or her opinions on films he claims to know/care about more than she does? It's general. But it'll getcha drunk. Also, every time Amy sighs in exasperation at something Devin just said to her. I honestly have no problem with this. I'm perfectly happy with D&A talking about their cinematic crushes. I'm a lil' surprised Amy didn't talk more about her Bowie fixation in the Labyrinth episode. Because I'm sure she had one. I'm certain. She had to have. All the same, I'll drink to every time D&A wanna go into this. It's always really entertaining for me to hear such stories.

This is known. Apparently, D&A have been focusing on building a fanbase for their podcast (I get it), and that unfortunately necessitates focusing on the kinds of films that likely podcast viewers (mostly the young) will prick up their ears to. Hence, a lot of 80s legends and 90s genre-setters. The kind of stuff that's old enough to feel like legacy picks, but recent enough to be somewhat relatable by today's standards. Hopefully, as time goes on, D&A will feel comfortable enough to drift away from the 80s/90s. But, they wanna stay relevant. And they know what (metaphorically) pays the bills. Also, they're children of the 80s (as am I, being very close to Amy in age), so they bring a lot of nostalgia with them. I would probably have leaned very heavily towards the 80s as well (not so much the 90s), though if I cared not for the clicks/ratings, I would surely have gone so much harder towards the 20s-60s.

Let's not kid ourselves, NOTHING would beat Die Hard in a versus. It's arguably the best film of the whole (80s Hollywood) action genre. It's why, for over 25 years, Hollywood has had the "Die Hard on a [bLANK]" meme. I think Red October would be well worth-it, though. Sure, it's widely viewed as a good film. But how many would say great? Has it aged well as a Cold War film, or would it, today, feel a little too rah-rah-Reagan-y (Sam Neill's character in particular has a couple lines I recall coming off incredibly cheesy)? This was an early franchise, but a weird one, given that the first movie was based around Alec Baldwin's Jack Ryan, but dominated by Sean Connery, and later films just replaced Baldwin with Harrison Ford who, while clearly the bigger icon, didn't star in a movie as big as October. But they made another Ryan film only a couple of years ago (and, of course, they put Chris Pine in it....), so it started something that could keep going and going. I really like the film, but I don't know if I could quite call it great. It's on the line, hence a perfect movie for The Canon. Also, it's currently available everywhere.

Formative? Aside from launching Crowe into the big leagues, I'd be curious to hear what kind of influence this film had. I remember thinking over a decade ago how much the film had receded from popular memory. Like one more Kevin Spacey movie. EDIT: Oh, did you mean in YOUR filmgoing experiences? I see (also, I don't know how to delete posts here). It was quite the bombshell for me too, possibly the first time I saw a film A) that was great, B ) that felt important and adult-y, and C) in theatres. Kicked Braveheart off the top of that list for me, and not a moment too soon. I pushed LA Confidential on as many people as I could for YEARS.

Archie's Gunga Din got in, but Paul's still waiting. Butch Cassidy, Cool Hand Luke, and The Sting are obvious first-ballotters. For an indulgence pick, I'd put up Harper, another one scripted by William Goldman. Fun look at the 60s, but from an older POV than you usually get. As a private eye flick, it feels like it still has one foot firmly in the 40s while the other is in a youthful California just about to go crazy. A fun watch if you're into movies like Bullitt. YouTube, Amazon, Vudu, and Google play all have it for $2.99. As for 40s film, I would indulge on Only Angels Have Wings (1939, but it's more 40s than 30s, available on Amazon, iTunes, and Vudu for $2.99), or maybe a Joan Crawford - the 30s was her biggest decade, but the 40s was undoubtedly her best - Mildred Pierce or Humoresque especially. YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, Vudu, and Google all have them for $2.99.

Best film of 1997. Going by the Academy's noms, at least. Same year as Jackie Brown and Boogie Nights, though, so....plenty of room for thought. Still way, way better than Titanic. Aside from the last ten minutes, it's basically a perfect film. I would highly approve of a Canon episode.

I didn't mean to say that Deadpool was the better movie. That's highly debateable. ...For the record, I enjoyed Deadpool more. Guardians wasn't even the best movie I saw that DAY. Liked Starlord, thought Rocket was OK, everything else sucked. But Deadpool is very, very likely to restore some much-lost and much-missed lustre of the R-rated mainstream flick. Produced on a very modest budget, it absolutely cleaned up, and stunned everybody. Also, it's the only recent non-Marvel/Disney superhero film to break financial expectations (Suicide Squad is close to its goal, but not at all close to Deadpool in profitability), and Deadpool was far, far more positively-received (EDIT: When compared with Suicide Squad). Guardians, OTOH, was just another sign that Marvel/Disney is basically invincible, and it ended up doing just as well, on a far, far bigger budget. If future comic book/superhero films come along, built on irreverence, I still think they're gonna look at Deadpool more. It just produced the bigger shock, with the harder rating, probably with audiences and executives/investors alike. As for the 21 Jump Street bit, I haven't seen those films. But I did hear one of the more popular jokes from it was a fourth-wall breaking bit of in-universe genre-savviness. So....Deadpool. And Guardians was still an origin story, of sorts. Of a team, not so much of how [creature/object] [verb]ed [hero] and started [him/her/probablyhim] down a tortured path of [self-discovery/angst/adventure/defiance/moreangst] before realizing that [his/her/probablyhis] true [calling/strength] lay in [him/her/probablyhimself/friendship] all along. Deadpool played so...differently with so much, I didn't mind the occasional lapse into formula (especially because, half the time, it fully called itself out on its formulaicness.) We'll see. But to piggyback on other recent comments in other recent threads, I suspect Deadpool will be the Shrek of comic book movies. A blueprint for easy satirical irreverence. They'll run it into the ground, same as anything else, but Guardians was, in comparison, only a half-step in that direction. A bunch of silly amateur superheroes, gliding by on brand loyalty and good vibes. Deadpool was a real shocker. Can you imagine X-Men: Apocalypse WITHOUT Deadpool? Where would Fox be? That's almost sickening. 9 chances for a horror film to go in, and it's gotten in all 9 times (EDIT: OK, three were gimmes because versus). So much for an "under-appreciated" "fringe" genre.