Muthsarah

Despite the themes being nearly-identical, they're just so very, very different in style and tone. You're either in the mood for one, or for the other. But never, ever both. Versus episodes that fit the same mood are probably the fairest to put up, otherwise you're basically choosing between two genres as much as between two films, and your vote could be based on what kind of day you're having. I'd love to see Red Shoes put up, though. Black Swan vs. Requiem for a Dream would be pretty good too.

Oh, this movie's in like...like, a lot. Like, really. I don't even know what to say about it. If you don't get it, check your meds, see your doctor, go for a walk, clear your head, and try to have some fun. Just like all those people back during The Great Depression knew how to do. First ballot. In. In. In. In. IN!!!!!!! OUT!!

I normally argue for everything to be made into a versus. Not here. PTA films...there are no logical bases for versus...es. I'd be perfectly happy with an in-depth exploration of "Boogie Nights". Or "Magnolia". Or even (to a lesser extent) "The Master". The first two I am very, very, very, very, VERY on-the-fence about. So they'd be my first pick for a good 50-60 minute Amy/Devin debate. But "The Master" would be cool too. "There Will Be Blood"....eh, it felt kinda shallow. As in easy-to-understand-upon-first-viewing. A good film, certainly. But how much can you really say about such a film? So yeah, if it's up to me, "Boogie Nights" or "Magnolia". I'm not saying they're his two best films (they are, really, really, really, thematically grotesque and off-putting to me, I don't know if I could even bring myself to watch either of them again, even if they were to feature in a near-future Canon episode), but there's a LOT to talk about, I must say. It'd be very fun to listen to Amy & Devin go off on either or both of these films.

If you are going to do Grail v. Brian (and you should, it's perhaps greater than Blazin' Saddles v Young Frankenstein as far as 1970s cult comedic rivalries are concerned), I beg of you that you bring a British-born-and-raised guest who thinks Brian is the superior film*. As long as I've know of these two, I've heard that Americans prefer Grail, for the greater focus on random, but shallow, humor, whereas Brian was more popular with the Brits, who maybe got the counter-cultural and/or religious jokes on a more visceral level, since 5/6 of the Pythons were British-born. Let's make such an episode a trans-Atlantic experience. My vote's for Grail, but as I live thousands upon thousands of miles away from Mercia, that's only to be expected. * - Unless both of you would argue for Brian, in which case get a typical American/Hollywood nerd to argue for Grail. Make it fair and balanced (in the real sense), but give both movies their due. It's, possibly, the ultimate old-school nerd-off. That doesn't involve Star Trek, at least.

Devincf, if you are who you claim to be -- ...and is the dog in your avatar holding a dildo...seriously.... -- "Velvet Goldmine" is EXACTLY the type of bordline/obscure movie I would so dearly love to see more of in The Canon. (Assuming you are who you imply you are), You haaaaave the poooooweeerrrrrrr!!!! To make it so. Put up. Or....stop teasing. I saw "Velvet Goldmine" so long ago, so VERY long ago. So long ago, I couldn't take it. It was...too...itself. Which is to say, wildly foreign, given my provincial narrowminded, borderline-cultish understanding of the wider world WAY back then. I just didn't know, like, anything, such as to have a hope of appreciating such a....very different time...with different values....and, really, different levels (suPERIOR levels) of tolerance, as the movie itself was depicting. If you put this up for The Canon, I will SO watch this. And watch with the commentaries. I will learn. I've read a fair (tiny) bit up on glam rock since....that....event of three months ago. I never paid it much mind before. Now....it just seems fascinating. How could such a time, as glam rock, exist 40 years ago, when I can't even imagine it existing in pop culture today? But I'll happily watch it again. Older. Wiser. Post..........*sniff*......post-Bowie. I'll suck it up. And watch it for him. I will. I'm a post-mortem Bowie fan. Feel free to disregard me. But I can't claim to be more than I am. Passive, distant respect, up until his death, and, now, so-guilty love and adoration. I wish it weren't so, but it were so. So it were. Please....help The Canon....to take the plunge. Imposter Devin. Or, possibly, maybe, REAL???? Devin? And make the episode 90 minutes or so. Make it a history lesson. Teach the kids all the stuff you kinda glossed over in the Rocky Horror episode. Get technical. Learn us all something, Mr. Beard Man.

I always listen first. And so should you. Full stop. I don't think you MUST re-watch the movie(s) before casting your vote if you remember it quite clearly, but at least hear our dear hosts' cases before adding a vote to their show's list. For me, it's easy to download the episode on my phone as I'm getting up on Monday morning, but, as I won't bother actually typing anything more than a quick text message unless I have a proper desktop and ergonomic keyboard, commenting ahead-of-time is out of the question. I'll save that for after I get home. When I can get all wordy, in a comfy and efficient manner. That said, it never makes a difference when I vote, really - though, if I comment, I do attempt to make reference to something Devin or Amy said in the episode. I don't think I've ever been swayed by either of their arguments, which is to say, they've never changed my mind (I do enjoy listening to them, of course). If I saw and liked a film beforehand, I don't need their convincing*. If I didn't remember it well, I'll watch it again, but, thus far, I've never come around and switched a "no" to a "yes". Or vice versa. If I haven't seen the film before the episode airs, and it still doesn't make me want to watch it, I still don't watch it, or vote. The Canon is their job (or a sideline, really), not mine. Looking back, I MIGHT have been swayed by their "Casino Royale" episode, as that film occupies a very...conflicted position in my heart as a Bond fan. I probably would have gone "no" to start with, but they (mostly Matt Gourley) might have swayed me to a "yes", especially once they stated it would be the only Bond film that would be considered. In any event, it's a moot point, as that episode aired before my time. Especially lately, though, so many of the movies they've covered have either been slam dunk "yesses"/"nos" I had made up my mind about years ago (Lolita, Broadcast News), movies I simply wasn't interested in viewing for any reason (Passion of the Christ, Antichrist), or episodes I did (re-)watch, but disagreed with both Devin and Amy about (Fail Safe, Election, Gunga Din). * - The only film I woulda voted "yes" on with both of them against would have been "Blade Runner". I get the Ridley Scott criticism, I do, but this one film (or the better cuts of) is one for the ages. But also before my time here. Very happy it's...maybe the one and only time (??) that the listeners over-ruled both of them??.....?

If it was Raimi's mistakes, maybe (but, realistically, still very much not). But how do you make a Canon episode out of a movie beset by executive meddling and corporate cynicism? It failed because it was mandated such that it HAD to fail. Canon? Hell no.

Batman didn't even get 50% of the votes Superman got..... My childhood....shriveling....dying.... Ummm.....You mean the Sam Raimi Spider-Man duology? I don't think you'd have too many takers on the third one. Just sayin'.

Do you mean, every now and then, Devin and Amy would choose a year, and Devin would pick his favorite film of the year, and Amy would pick her favorite film of the year, and they would kung-fu fight? Or would they choose from some pre-selected Top Ten of the Year? Or would they even go - GASP! - by the year's box office? Judge the year's worth by the fans? That...could potentially be really challenging. And I don't just mean Predator vs. Robocop. Though I would LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to listen to just such an episode.

The Adventures of Robin Hood. Pure Old Hollywood spectacle. Not even one of my favorite films of the 1930s, but a must-see for anyone worthy of our oxygen. (Pre-EDIT) Given this thread, my off-topic suggestion could be very....ummm....gauche? I lost train of that sentence.... If you haven't seen The Adventures of Robin Hood, DO. I've seen it recently. It holds up. (Post???-EDIT) That said, if you're in the mood for a(nother) 1930s adventure swashbuckler: The Prisoner of Zenda (1937) with Ronald Colman. Yeah, a whole year before "The Adventures of Robin Hood". Just putting that out there. For context. Yeah....context! Also, there's a barely 0% chance it would be graced with a Canon episode, since it seems like an almost-forgotten movie (even if "Futurama" arguably referenced it a few years ago). The 1930s were a good decade for old-school swashbuckling. Robin Hood is certainly the bigger of the two films. It cast the longer shadow. It's in color. It starred the more over-the-top actor, with the far more notorious off-screen life. But, still: The Prisoner of Zenda (1937). My highest recommendation. Make a night of them. Or a weekend of them. Spend some time in the 30s. An almost mythical day, if you really think about it. Back in the days of old-school romantic swordplay, and noble love at first sight. Or at least of these phenomena being accepted at face-value by audiences. Because....Why not? ...I gotta pimp out my faves. If I get the chance. Love compels me.

Unlike The Godfather (which was a complete story at the end of....really, any of the three episodes), the Befores only work as a trilogy. Sure, circa 1996, you coulda just put up the first. Circa 2005, the first two. But this series has truly grown, such that you cannot ignore the later entries and only focus on the earlier. Technically, you could discard Godfather Part II and only consider I as a standalone masterpiece. Of course, the second is just so good that you'd be plain ol' evil for doing so. But II only becomes organic because II is so good. For the Befores, once you've seen each of the follow-ups, it's IMPOSSIBLE to look at only the earlier works. Technically, yeah, I guess, if you're a ****, you could ignore Midnight. Sunrise and Sunset do work specTACularly well. But Midnight adds a lot of nuance, and for as much of a struggle as it is to watch if you're invested in Jesse and Celine, it still ends in a satisfying way. Unlike Godfather III, which could only possibly work because of the shadow cast by the previous two (sorry, Karina, I love you, and I love your podast, but I don't love the film you put up). As a trilogy, it's perfect. Which...I guess I could have said after Sunset. So....if Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke wanna do another one in...eight? seven? years....I'll go for it. Yeah, I'll roll the dice again. Worst case scenario (I hope), I can just disregard the fourth. But it gets deeper and deeper and more and more meaningful the further it goes. It's all or nothing. You can't just ignore any of these. They are three parts of the same story. While you COULD only focus on the first, or on the first and second, you'd be unnecessarily short-changing the entire series. While Sunset is still my favorite of the three (I DO need to revisit, however), I would never consider cutting off MIdnight. It's still really, really good, and still feels incredibly integral to these characters. Even if only - if ONLY - for the scene with them dining with those three other people. Yeah, not the most dramatic scene of all, but that's still the scene that sticks with me most. It's the scene where they feel most alive as characters and as a couple (if I remember correctly....). it's the most pleasantly voyeuristic scene, at the very least. And that's an unavoidable part of this series. Uncomfortable naturalism. You're watching a romance, in fits and starts, over almost 20 years. And it's more interesting than anything in Boyhood, to boot.

Well, since they haven't OFFICIALLY covered it yet, it's not like they couldn't rectify their (Devin's) error by putting it up again. Really, I'm beating my drum here, but I'd like to see more borderline/controversial/unknown picks put up to the vote. Of COURSE The Third Man, or Psycho, or Casablanca, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Seven Samurai, or 8 1/2 are going to be voted into The Canon, if only they were selected. I am SO much more interested, and invested, in those episodes where the movies up for discussion aren't quite so clear. Head for the border(line) picks, and you'll get the best debates, I think. Ideally, I think the show should be about a constant effort to discern where the border even is, not just celebrating those flicks that are obviously Canon-worthy. If you really want to, throw an addendum to each episode. "So, let's vote on whether or not....'The Avengers' gets in...but, at the same time, let's acknowledge how '2001: A Space Odyssey' is such an obvious choice, we're not even going to put it up for a vote". Or something. If we all know it's going in, just put in it. LIke with Godfather I and II.

I hope you do give it another chance, and, moreso, that you find more to enjoy the second time. I'm one of the many who feels that THIS was the movie where Wes Anderson finally came together to produce something more than just cute and twee, but actually meaningful and timeless. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Anderson's other films? As far as stageyness goes, what about Fantastic Mr. Fox in particular? I find it hard to wrap my mind around how anyone could like that film (which I consider one of his weakest) but not ADORE Grand Budapest. Sure, the latter is a very setpiece-based film, enormously stagey, a love letter to a time the filmmaker could never have known himself, based on the work of someone long dead who actually did understand his past, even as he struggled to understand his present. But....it's of a time long ago. How could any of us (fairly) young people hope to understand such a time, without indulging in some amount of either shallow fancy, or passive acceptance? Zweig's a fascinating author (do read "The World of Yesterday" if you have any interest in what must have been running through Anderson's mind when he came up with this movie), but "Grand Budapest" must exist as half-second-hand-memoir and half high-fantasy romance, in every sense of that word. It's a story all about a time that has almost completely faded away. Almost every impression is going to be second-hand now. As a compulsive devourer of the culture of bygone days, I couldn't have resisted this movie if I tried. It was MADE for me. There's my bias. However, I must take exception to something you said in this post. Borderline racist depiction of Eastern Europeans? I don't want to get into a broad/vague/pointless discussion of what races are or what it means to have negative perceptions of anyone different from you, but....you had clear heroes, clear villains. Very old-fashioned, that. But everyone (with the possible exception of Agatha, I'm not sure I remember what her story was) was Central/Eastern European in some way. In a fictional way, of course. Where was the Lobby Boy from? Turkey? Probably. Played by a guy with an Italian name. The others? Hungarian? Russian? White or Red Russian? Polish? Austrian? Does it matter? I prefer to think it didn't, at least to the author (the author-within-the-movie) especially since the clear sentiment of the film was based on a (as the film pointed out) bygone sentiment that such notions as nationality didn't need to matter. Not that they didn't, to some. But that, at least to the heroes, they didn't. The historical backdrop to the movie was the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Which, sadly, was not a multicultural utopia where everyone lived in harmony regardless of their religion or the culture they accepted as their first. But, also sadly, was a more multicultural and tolerant state than the various nation-states that succeeded it, where anyone - Hungarian, Austrian/German, Romanian, Czech/Slovak, Serbian, Croat, Italian, Jewish, others - who found themselves living in a successor state where they weren't of the majority...ethnicity?...were certainly worse off in their new "modern" nation-state than they were in the old one. It's not a co-incidence that most ended up going full-on fascist during this period. Long story short (too late), Grand Budapest is an elegy to an age that, while it certainly wasn't the acme of civility and tolerance, being very socially rigid and tradition-bound, it nonetheless "officially" held such civility in high esteem (as Fiennes' character represented)., and was, once, wistfully looked back upon by many in Europe who lived during the most savage and tragic time of the 1930s and 1940s. Things were inconsolably bleak at the time (Zweig committed suicide in distant Brazil before World War II even ended), and, in that light, the old days couldn't help but seem like an Elysium, whatever faults it had paling in comparison to the manifest sins of their present. It's a movie about nostalgia. Partly rose-colored, but partly not. About missing more innocent days, if only because modernity can sometimes be worse. And, most of all, missing the idealism and innocence of a time that wouldn't know how to tell the difference between the two, because it hasn't even conceived of how much worse things could be, but which we, the readers/viewers know better from hindsight. I don't think you have to be necessarily wistful of the past to feel an emotional pull from "Grand Budapest". I think, maybe, it's enough to appreciate innocence, to think that there maybe were SOME advantages to living in an earlier time, when things weren't necessarily worse than they are now, even if that innocence was based in a necessary ignorance of the future. Or at least, to be able to empathize with those who were necessarily tinged with this innocence and ignorance, given the time they lived in. You're absolutely right that the film is based on ignorance. At least the flashbacks are, the way Future Zero tells most of the story, it's clearly framed to put the viewer in the 1930s, and not the 1960s looking back on the 1930s. Had these characters (in their younger days) known what was to come of their communities in the years following the main part of this movie, they probably would have acted very differently in their time, if they could even have believed it (and it's quite likely they couldn't have, I think, given the example of actual witnesses of the time, who couldn't believe what they were witnessing). But that's nonetheless what the film's about. It doesn't advocate the idea that the past was necessarily better. Just that the future isn't necessary better for being closer to our present, and that intolerance of any kind, in any time, is always with us, and, one hopes, always worth fighting against, even if it doesn't work out in the short term. Just the example of standing up for one's sense of standards, of decency, it can leave a mark on the future. It can inspire. And, one day, perhaps that bygone sense of civilization can flourish again, once they are rediscovered.

It was available on Netflix. At the time of that episode. I know 'cuz I watched it the same day I heard that episode. Yeah. They (EDIT: Devin) goofed. They were both pretty good movies, but, given the production restrictions, Tangerine was the more impressive movie. And...also the more enjoyably watchable.

Seriously? Yeah, Brazil. Make sure to get a good copy. Director's Cut, Criterion. Dunno how hard or easy it would be to actually come across the theatrical cut. But DON'T watch the theatrical cut. The studio took it away from him and slapped a whole other ending onto it. Doesn't fit AT ALL. If you go back and check out Time Bandits again, and if you like it, roll the dice on The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. It's a bit of a mess, plot-wise, but it's a kids' film, through and through, and it's crazy imaginative. With Gilliam, it's always ten pounds of ambition in a five pound bag. You're gonna end up with something sloppy and mis-shapen by the end (except for one film - yeah, Brazil). But if you want imagination, the kind you felt as a kid, before you had to think about movies as a business, his earlier works are a ton of fun. If nothing else, it should help put Fear and Loathing into perspective. It's pure Gilliam. And so is everything else he's done. EDIT: And if you like more modern, restrained character-based drama, The Fisher King is quite good. And 12 Monkeys is a nice, dark sci-fi thriller. All of his films are a lil' crazy, though these two are probably the most "mainstream" he ever got. Which...isn't saying too much. EDIT AGAIN: And while we're just talking all things Gilliam: Anyone here seen The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus? How does it fare?

If only the last two-thirds of this movie were as good as the first third, I think it'd be a slam dunk. It starts out crazy surreal and hilarious, but quickly forgets where it's going (or chooses NOT to go anywhere), becomes meaningless and just burns out, long before the end. At least the last lines of the movie so elegantly point that out. Perhaps without meaning to. As a movie, it's a hell of an experience, for a while. But, at two hours, it spends too much time covering the same ground. Another victim of Gilliam's tragic lack of discipline and focus. There's a fantastic 90 minute movie here.

Most happy not to get in: Lolita. Imagine if there was only one Spielberg film in The Canon, and it was "The Terminal". ...OK, it's not THAT bad. Imagine if it was "Hook".

Yes. Yes!!! YeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!! It's one of my favorite films since childhood. Of COURSE it belongs in The Canon. It's one of the most quoted films of its generation. Prolly after Spaceballs (which deserves an episode, but Princess Bride deserves it more). It's a fantastic blend of straight-forward fairy tale with layers of satire. Also, it's one of the most solid examples of 1980s (low) fantasy. It's got great characters, a ton of humor. It's even based on a pretty good book, a fine genre send-up of its own. And it's timeless. That's qualification enough for The Canon.

Favorite: Star Wars (though Grand Budapest was RIGHT THERE, so close!) Least Favorite; Either There's Something About Mary or Election. When comedies don't work, it's painful. Didn't make it: Empire Strikes Back. I've bitched so much about its exclusion. It never helps. The pain...festers.....And I really do think less of Devin and Amy as carbon-based lifeforms that both of them seem to to think it's utter crap. Which I don't wanna do, because I love them both. But still. They hate this movie. And so a part of me hates them.

We should just have an episode on Crouching Tiger. That was a huge thing back in the day, but seems to have fallen off the Earth since (or, more likely, a year after it came out stateside). And what with the sequel coming out soon....

I really want to vote "Neither". Both films are just way too flawed to be timeless, and neither are at the top of their...class?...of comic books movies. I could go into nitpicks and stuff, but why? Actually, they're not even nitpicks, it's actually pointing out all the ways the plots (especially to Superman) make no sense and are just incredibly pointless and stupid. But....why? Short answer: Batman Returns improves on Batman in every way. The first two (recent Marvel) Captain Americas improve on Superman in every way (EDIT: OK, most ways, and overall). I cannot support either film's entrance into The Canon on their own merits. But, as I've voted AGAINST films I felt deserved it because they were up against something I'd like a little more, I voted for Batman. It's more satisfying. It's more cohesive. It doesn't completely fall apart. The high points of Superman are quite good, but they are buried in a 2 1/2 hour movie that's empty but pretty in the first half and baffling and meaningless in the second. Batman, for all its tonal dissonance and borderline broken characterizations, feels more like a single movie. Superman...well...anyone else seen the Ralph Bakshi first-half-of-the-Lord-of-the-Rings? Kinda like that. It felt like two movies smooshed together that were themselves only two parts of a greater story. That didn't end (well). Batman > Superman

And De Palma. Although one of his didn't get in. Spielberg has THREE episodes with at least one of his movies up. - Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park v King Kong, and E.T. v Close Encounters. And Jurassic Park got a second try, and got in. In a manner most foul.

Are you SURE you haven't seen Election? Your last sentence especially suggests that A) you have, but you've forgotten that you have, or B ) you are in for a treat, real early.

I wish there was some way to get Batman Returns into the discussion. A clearly superior film to the first, that both embraces the wackiness of the 60s Batman, while also doubling down on both the gothic look and the hard PG-13 innuendo. It's both darker and campier. Every recent DC/WB superhero flick could learn a thing or two from this movie. You wanna be the anti-Marvel? Fine, let Superman and Batman punch each other and stuff. Be dark and whatever. But still make it FUN, and make some of the characters actually colorful and interesting. Unfortunately, Superman II, while plenty camp, was also incredibly dumb.

1. Rocky I goes in The Canon. You put Godfathers I and II in without a vote. Obviously, Rocky goes in as well. 2. Amy, I 100% agree with something you said in this episode (Antichrist). At least I THINK you said it. Maybe I was crazy. I just rented Rocky III and Rocky IV from my local video store. Yeah, video store. I have one of those. Jealous????? Prolly not. You're all Hollywood and fancified and....... Anyway, I rented them just so as to catchup on my 80s cheese, having never seen 'em before. And, yeah, you (I think....) suggested maybe putting Rocky IV into The Canon. Facetiously? To that, legitimately, I say YEAH!!!!. The movie's beyond cheesy. It was prolly cheesy in 1986 or whenever. Now it's pure camp. But it's super-80s camp. Take a step back from your serious arthouse movie conversations. Go pop. Go shallow. Go of-the-time. Pick movies that were the most (retrospectively) obviously of-their-time. Pick the most off-beat rebellious 70s flicks. Harold and Maude. Smokey and the Bandit. The most shallowly Reagan-esque 80s flicks. Rocky IV. Umm...Red Dawn??? The most cynical 90s-esque films. Ummm....I won't say Reality Bites, but...we're prolly bumping up against my own biases here. The most conservative, safe-ish but colorful (in a white way) 50s films. White Christmas (more 40s than 50s, but....), or a Tracy and Hepburn. Whatever. Give the shallow their due. A movie doesn't have to have three layers to be good, or whatever that professor said. It just has to be relevant. The Canon should be not only entertaining, but also instructional, in a historical way. You wanna understand cinema, you gotta learn the past especially, so you can properly appreciate the present. Back to Rocky IV. It's ridiculous. But how can one appreciate pop cinema of the 80s without appreciating something like this movie? It's delightfully dumb. But it still has depth. And nothing more. Nothing more than it needs to have. In its context/setting at least. A highly-simplified, populist take on the Cold War, as viewed through a newly-iconic 1970s folk hero blockbuster action hero type. Highest grossing film of the series, just sayin'. And Sly's most iconic role, clearly. You've had your arthouse now aplenty, lets go mainstream and silly. Soon, at least. Cinematic fluff doesn't usually get its due, but it's nonetheless the stuff so many grow up with. And it counts. Please find a place for it sometime soon.