Muthsarah

That's what "The Best of 20XX" is all about. It's a kind of a gimmick pick, from a knowingly very limited sample set and with full knowledge that it's all speculation that the film will even age well. At least that's what was said during their first one, when they did Grand Budapest vs Guardians of the Galaxy. Which I still feel the voters made the right choice on, given that, for all the buzz Guardians got, I think Deadpool has already stolen its fire, and will end up being the more influential film. Unless the new Howard the Duck ends up topping even that.

I really need to see this again. Peter Falk - playing himself, Peter Falk, actor - a former angel, counseling a more recent angel, in love with a trapeze artist, in 1980s shot-in-black-and-white Berlin. If you're not into that, please, reconsider your film fandom. That should sound magnificent to ANYONE here. It's got Columbo, it's got Nick Cave, it's got Hitler!

A difficult thing about the 1940s films (at least my favorites) are that so many of them rely on their visuals to sell the mood as an integral, some might say foundational, element of the film. Also, The Third Man. How do you talk about that one? You need the music. You need the shadows. The story is...fairly simple, actually. Also, so many of these films are insanely well-written (the other foundation). How do you get that across, without just reading from the script? Just a couple of reservations, really. I DO want more 1940s films (not as much as I want 1930s films, but I'm realistic). But this was the heyday of noir, the last days of black and white's dominance. I love the Double Indemnity episode, but I wonder if there's a reason Devin and Amy haven't seemed too keen to return to the days before color? Still focusing on growing that fanbase? I keep hearing about those damn kids today, with their tweets and their skateboards, and how they didn't grow up with old movies, and thus can't get into them.

48 Hrs always felt like a film with one foot firmly planted in the gritty 70s. Beverly Hills Cop, on the other hand, is a classic star-making turn (#1 at the box office in 1984, it even beat out Ghostbusters), brimming with so much 1980s LA, right as that scene was about to take over the cultural zeitgeist. Lethal Weapon was a comparable star-making vehicle for Gibson (yes, yes, Mad Max, and Eddie had SNL, but neither made them legit American movie stars, the highest pinnacle in all the land). Sure, LW is a lot darker, but Shane Black keeps it fun, Danny Glover is still the iconic ready-to-retire cop, and Gibson... Remember when Gibson was cool? And uncomplicated? Also, that hair. That's like 1987 in a nutshell. Really, any of these three could be put up with each other (or maybe we could have a super-groovy threesome ) for the best 80s buddy cop film. Yes, Beverly Hills Cop is a buddy cop film. Axel represents one cop (if not every blue-collar burg) while the whole BHPD stands in for the other. The whole movie is a study in contrasts. Trading Places and Coming to America keep getting mentioned over and over and over and over. I really don't know what's taking Devin and Amy so long, unless they've both chatted it over and realized that both would go hard for Coming to America, as they should, and thus that the episode wouldn't be the best.

Camp? Kitsch? Khan?!! Along with VI, it's gotta be the most serious, conventional work in the whole Trek canon (prior to Season Three TNG). Season Three TOS already saw Shatner going WAY over the top on a regular basis. WoK dialed him back, I find him positively restrained here. When's the last time you watched Whom Gods Destroy? --Wait, wait.....maybe that wouldn't be...safe. Too much ham can kill you.

I think this is a good approach to take to this. Instead of looking back at which films were "mistakes" or "the least worthy", look back at which ones are just least essential given what has gone up and in since (of course, that would be leaning towards the earlier films, particularly from the first 50 episodes). Cannibal Holocaust AND Blair Witch? Slacker AND Clerks? EDIT: Also, even though they came out two episodes apart, what are Se7en and Usual Suspects BOTH doing in there? Then again, how do you debate the merits of Clerks vs Cannibal Holocaust? The other fun thing would be to pick two randomly, "live" on the air during Episode 99. Devin and/or Amy might have to argue against a film they actually like, simply because they like the other more. Just like The Fly vs The Thing, that was a great episode full of passion and pain. Anything but just bashing on Working Girl for the umpteeth time or dredging up Kevin Smith so soon after Yoga Hosers (which, we all know, Devin would bring up no less than fourteen times). If D&A get to choose their own movies, it would just feel like re-living those episodes again. Would Amy have anything new to say about Two Lane Blacktop if she sees it again? Doubtful. So what's the point? EDIT: Also, let us leave the indulgence picks out. They both got in, Devin and Amy can feel warm and fuzzy about that, they should be immune from prosecution.

That's.....really impossible to say. Could/would a film like Shrek have come into being without Toy Story? Maybe. Shrek was a reaction to Disney, especially to their 90s work, not a reaction to Pixar. Toy Story just proved that the medium of a feature-length CGI movie could exist as a real thing When I say that every non-Pixar studio copied off of Shrek, I meant that they tended to copy off of it the pop-culture referencing, genre-bending, borderline-tasteless irreverent, Fractured-Fairy-Tale of it all. I really do feel that, not only Dreamworks, but Illumination, Blue Sky, were all thinking Shrek when they were putting their films together. Personally, I feel Shrek (ONLY the first) and all the Toy Storys are wonderful films. I just don't see recent films as true Toy Story clones, y'know? Pixar went with old-school sentimentality combined with modern SFX-led scenes and basic boring-ful plot notes. Shrek went for broad genre satire, mostly shallow, easily recognizable. And, hence, it captured the market. Is the typicaly non-Pixar, non-Dreamworks film no more like Shrek?

(I had a longer post, a MUCH longer post, but the browser "Back"ed me, so I lost it all. So I'll summarize with the short, short version, a la Spaceballs) WALL-E and Up!: Good films, but both peak near the beginning and run out of steam the longer they go. Each has legitimately great scenes, but neither is a great film. Toy Story: Good at the time, sucks compared to the sequels. Not that influential. All non-Pixar films after 2001 patterned themselves after Shrek. Shrek is the most influential CGI animated film. Even if you don't like it, it's true. For Pixar and The Canon: Either Toy Story sequel (fans seem to love 3 most) or The Incredibles, which is my personal favorite, but which is probably too derivative to make the cut. Some Pixar, somewhere deserves inclusion. It's just not clear which one it should be. Toy Story 1/2/3, Nemo, Incredibles, those are the only movies I'd even consider. And I'd boot Nemo out in the first round if I could. It's good. Not great. Thus, the shortening ends. Mercifully. I still weep over the length of the previous post.

I checked. There's no easy (US) way to stream this, it appears to be disc-only. Such a hypnotically beautiful film, though. I so wish it were possible that Devin and Amy could make an episode around this film. Or around Chungking Express, that'd be cool too. But it appears to still be a pipe dream. Though to answer the initial question: No, it's not over-rated. It's an incredibly beautiful film, and a magnificent time machine. No, I wasn't in Hong Kong in the mid-60s. But the movie makes me want to at least be able to visit. To me, that's the greatest thing a movie can do, to make me want to disappear from my life and enter the movie's reality for an hour or two.

VERY excited for this one. Moreso than for anything since Kiki's. One of our greatest living filmmakers, but one of his "minor works". Very 70s feel. Haven't seen it in years. Can't say where I (or whichever host didn't pick it) will go on this one, though I feel all signs lean positive.

I feel like public perception against Bueller became the norm some years ago. Devin and Amy already swatted down Sixteen Candles. I hope, if they ever return to this well, they just cover The Breakfast Club or Planes, Trains and Automobiles, and let the man's work rest in peace. He was one of many creative talents who had (and defined) a decade. But his oeuvre's entirely OF that decade (not unlike his contemporary, John Landis). Not timeless, not an all-time great, but well worth a watch for anyone remotely curious about the era.

Don't forget to mention the film's magnificent score. It's not just a series of action scenes, it's a surprisingly deep character study of two former friends (or more???) divided by distant politics. About sacrifices family will make for family. It's an incredibly SUBTLE epic, despite all the grandness of production. Any thoughts of the film being "mid-century nostalgia", that really hurts. Lots of good classical movies get swept under the rug (if you're not a film student, it's trendy to think "Citizen Kane" is nothing but pretentious crap), but this is a highly-satisfying, wide-screen, full-color historical action epic. No CGI. No quick-cutting. No dubstep. And so it looks realer than any modern film, and sounds so much grander (and classier) to boot. I remember, at a tender age, hearing that "Titanic" matched its then-record Oscar haul, thinking "does this mean 'Titanic' is the new Ben Hur?" Almost twenty years later, I still wonder sometimes. I'm certain I know which movie has aged better. There was a Leo attached, but not the one you're thinking of. FWIW, Vudu, YouTube, Amazon, Google, and iTunes all have the film (in all its three-plus-hour majesty) available for $3. A good two-nighter. Even comes with an intermission. Treat yourself to a buck-fifty-a-night opera. You've heard enough about it, just take the plunge.

I'm so happy to be in agreement with so many people here. Yeah, the whole trilogy (or will there be a fourth...?) should go up, and in. Also, Sunset's the best of the three. Though none of them are less than wonderful, and I couldn't imagine only putting one up for consideration. Also^2: All three movies are currently available on Vudu, YouTube, iTunes, Amazon, and Google Play. Three bucks a gander. Nine dollars buys (/rents) you the whole shebang, an incredibly worthwhile three-nighter. I would link but, c'mon, that's fifteen links. I've gathered the impression that Devin and Amy (especially/only??? Devin) are big fans of Linklater's whole oeuvre, from Slacker to Everyone Wants Some!. Personally, this trilogy are the only works of his I've ever connected to, but I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE them. Because of that, I can 100% understand why people love Slacker, Dazed and Confused, Waking Life, or Boyhood, even if I really kinda don't really care that much. I don't have to like everything he's done, but he (and Hawke and Delpy, and that Kim lady who co-wrote at least the first one) made three films I love, so I feel I totally understand all the love for all his work. Which is rare, I don't normally think that way about films I don't particularly care for. Sure, Slacker was put up, and got in easily. But I really, really wouldn't mind another Linklater episode so soon (EDIT: If it's this one). This is an exceptional trilogy. No sequelitis, no cheap cash-ins, every one of these films means something very different, but as variations on a theme of love, romance (different things!), aging, and just how two people can connect and stay connected over years. As well as, on a more surface level, how times have changed, both from 20-somethings to 40-somethings, and from the 90s to today. I get giddy just thinking that, 24 years from now, I may be going to the theatres to watch the sixth "Before" film. Isn't that an incredible thought? These films should be taught in schools. Not just film schools, writing schools, or art schools. School schools. Yeah, there's Boyhood, yeah there's the Up series. They all have their merits. They all can inform the viewer so much about life, relationships and the passage of time. These should be required viewing for teenagers. But I'm partial to these three. I think they're the most beautiful of the bunch.

Hmm....what's MY favorite film of all time...? ... Oh right, the rest of what you said. Ummm...my interest in the film just...kinda died when Hopper showed up. I'm not a film school major. Never took classes. I watch movies to enjoy pretty things, have some laughs, escape to another time and place, be told stories, and be inspired to think of my own. Blue Velvet...just made me feel bad. I'm certain I saw the whole film (this was fifteen years ago, roughly, and I watched this almost right after Mulholland Drive), but I remember almost nothing after that. Wild at Heart was fun.

I'd reaaaaaaally enjoy such a vs episode. Let us, once and for all, crown Mulholland Drive as the One True Lynch. Blue Velvet....an...interesting....film. But who wants to watch it twice? Mullholland Drive just keeps giving more and more and more the more and more and more you watch it. Sure, they're both really depressing, but one feels more earned.

1. This movie was previously mentioned in passing in my Indulgences thread. And both Devin and Amy got their indulgence picks in. I figure I'm next. This is my favorite movie of the 2000s (2010s still pending, but, for the record, Grand Budapest has the inside track, and that's already in). 2. No Altman movies yet? Seriously? Sure, we still have Hitchcock, and Kurosawa, and a good Kubrick, and Tarkovsky....lots of others....And we could do Nashville, for a more of-the-time example of his greatest works, but I have my personal favorite. Pimps gotta pimp. How about a 2002 movie from one of the quintessential 1970s filmmakers? ...Which means he was around for a while, and straddled many eras. How about a movie that launched a very successful TV series? No, not Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Downton Abbey, just in case that isn't common knowledge. I can't assume anything. How about a movie original, a 21st-century take on 1930s fiction, starring some of the best British actors of the whole second half of the 20th century. It's almost a mini-lesson in film history. And it's one of the damn classiest movies ever, but one that has a LOT to say about its era - a deconstruction of murder mysteries, upstairs/downstairs politics, and basically all the period stuff that makes up half of the media Britain exports these days. With dialogue. Oodles and oodles of it. It's an incredibly THICK and DENSE movie, but clocks in at barely two hours. If you like any Agatha Christie, or Holmes (old or new), or just ensemble films in general, it's a must-see. And if you like Downton Abbey, but haven't seen this....Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Long shot, I'm sure, but here are the links: Amazon https://www.amazon.c...ds=gosford+park Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-poyFUXMQ iTunes, Vudu, and Google Play all have them as well. But they're too newfangled for me.

Just to update, Duck Soup links here: iTunes https://itunes.apple...oup/id293839271 Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000N6OLB0 YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjW4kjXiLgo Apparently Vudu and Google Play have it as well, but I don't know them, so I don't trust 'em It's an easy movie to find, because it's soooooo justly famous. It's about politics, it's about war, it's about how stupid the world is. It's mid-Depression, it came out the year of Hitler (he may have had multiple years, to be fair). It's about as 1930s as any movie's gonna get.

Seen 'em both, but my 30s comedy choice would be My Man Godfrey. I have no idea what the "in" would be, but it's pretty damn timeless: Life at the top vs life at the bottom, mocking the rich while wallowing in their luxury, the over-qualified servant, two strong romantic protagonists, well-paced and very snappy, and probably Carole Lombard's best role. There are enough similarities with Bringing Up Baby, you COULD do a good versus, it you wanted to be so cruel. We just need more 30s movies in general: - Only Angels Have Wings (one of the most perfect Golden Age Hollywood-type films) - Lost Horizon (a film missing about ten minutes of footage, but still great) - The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) (probably not gonna happen after Robin Hood and Gunga Din)

Oh, certainly not. Off the top of my head, Spielberg's been up three/four/five? times (Temple of Doom, E.T/Close Encounters, Jurassic Park twice), Ridley Scott twice (Alien, Blade Runner), and Billy Wilder (EDIT: thrice!) (Double Indemnity, Some Like it Hot, The Lost Weekend). EDIT: Also De Palma twice (Mission: Impossible and Blow Out) Coppola twice (Godfather Trilogy, Apocalypse Now), Tim Burton twice (Batman, Ed Wood), and John Carpenter twice (The Thing, They Live). Oh, and Scorsese twice (Goodfellas, Last Temptation of Christ).

Who's Chad?

I honestly feel I don't know how to do that. Not complaining, exactly, just penciling it in as a curiosity. Thing is, I recently took some time to think of movies I grew up loving as a kid, but which I later re-visted and realized weren't very good. I couldn't think of a single one. Sure, there are things I watched as a kid that I think now are kinda crap, but in every case, it was something I was maybe OK with growing up. All the stuff I loved then, I love now, and not just to think about, but to watch.

I'm not sure I understand. I'd like to see more variety in the type of films being put up for consideration, but whether or not they get voted in isn't that big of a deal for me. Sure, I have my favorites, and I'll push those, but I don't have a problem with films like Tiffany's or Working Girl being put up. I don't mean to dismiss them at all, I just didn't vote for them. I'd put Roman Holiday or Sabrina, or Dirty Dancing in in a heartbeat, even if I recognize they have a very similar appeal and distinction, because I just like them better. I don't typically vote for "importance". If a film seems popular and influential, but I don't really care about it, I usually won't vote at all. I recognize Labyrinth as a very flawed film, and one that I can easily imagine wouldn't go over so well to those who didn't see it as a kid. Normally, I'd say it's just not a good enough film to put in The Canon, because I tend to set my personal bar pretty high. Right up until I don't, and something silly and nostalgic, or just weird in a good way gets put up, and I just really, really wanna vote for it. Either a movie has to be unbelievably good, or it just has to get under my skin. I do recognize that there's a lot of...non-overlap between films I'd want to see in The Canon, and films I'd vote for.

Well, I already have a pretty solid assumption as to why there are so many 80s films: A) it's something both Devin and Amy are VERY familiar with and can talk about at length and B ) it's something they suspect a lot of their audience are familiar with, for similar reasons. I have wondered, many times, if Devin and Amy (and/or Earwolf) are in any way motivated by clicks or whatevers. So many other vid/podcast sites are. I get it. I know I'd be crazy to assume they'd spend as much time talking about Gary Cooper as Kurt Russell, or Douglas Sirk as Steven Spielberg. I suspect I know what floats their boats, and can suspect what pays their bills (metaphorically speaking, as I'm under the impression Devin and Amy do this for fun, and the ads just cover the basic Earwolf administrative costs). I don't mean to come off as challenging, or attacking, anyone. I just absolutely agree with recent sentiments raised during the Breakfast at Tiffany's (which I still don't like) or Labyrinth episodes. There needs to be a stronger focus, if not on female filmakers (I've recently been put in my place by other threads as to how little I know about the subject), at least on what films women grew up loving. Men's 80s/90s nostalgia is well-represented thus far, so why not try to make good on women's nostalgia to keep pace? Working Girl and Election aren't my thing (sorry), but I'm sure there must be others. And I would really love it if the podcast would shine a spotlight on them. I'm not trying to push "women's films". I've suggested Walk Hard and Rocky IV for The Canon. I enjoy silly films. I've also suggested Alfie, a film brutally depicting a very sexist double-standard-laden 60s. Or maybe I just have a thing against Steven King. I can't dismiss that. I understand lots of people grew up with his films, but I didn't, and, personally, I think Kubrick is the best thing that ever happened to his works. Yeah, I mean that.

I'm not saying it was, only that I find it odd you'd (collectively, if two counts as a collective) admit that there's a very era-specific gender bias, then you'd both jump right back into the thick of it in, possibly, the most extreme case. It was hard not to notice. At no point did I raise the issue of my favorites being denied me*. I accepted, years ago, that my faves are never gonna be acknowledged by the masses. It's internalized. It really needn't be even hinted at these days. * FWIW, my favorites are all slam-dunks, and I wouldn't hear otherwise....

Oh, I disagree. I think Groucho is on fire from beginning to end of Duck Soup. He's fantastic with Margaret Dumont, but his summation near the end is one of the most telling quotations of the era, being that it reflects WWI, and (ironically) what was to come, for some nations, in WWII: "You're a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are." 80+ years later, it still resonates, if you look at how the political class treats the commoner/common soldier. It's a sentiment that transcends national boundaries, even. It applies everywhere. EDIT: Out of curiosity (possibly long-standing), do you know who that is at 1:10 of the clip you posted? She looks not only familiar, but like someone I've been trying to ID for some time.