Muthsarah

I have a serious bias-on towards the older version. I grew up exposed to, and loving Jerry Lewis. And while I do enjoy the more over-the-top elements of the remake (The Clumps, what inspired the sequel), I just feel it leans too hard on the mean-spiritedness. While Jerry Lewis' early-60s nerd stereotype is certainly harrassed and wedgied and humiliated within an inch of his life, he always bounced back, and, to get in the position he was in - as a professor of [some] science at some university - I've always felt like he was strong enough to take it. And while his attachment to Elkie Sommar's college student was kinda creepy in theory, I always felt like he was such a harmless guy, there would be no danger of him being too aggressive or whatever, given his much-ridiculed passivity (so don't wanna go there, with the whole professor/student relationship in general). While the remake did a good job of dodging that last, admittedly rather big matter, I still prefer the chemistry betweeen Lewis and Sommar. And Lewis is just so damn funny, especially in all the lighter moments, whereas Murphy went very, very, VERY broad, both with the Klump family scenes (his fault) and the 90s CGI scenes (not his fault). In general, the more farts your movie contains, the more points I count against it. Low comedy is fine...for low comedy. But all the best films have found a way to win over the low-comedy-guzzling audience, while still not insulting either their more discriminating audience. It isn't often that a 60-comedy is made "sophisticated" in retrospect (or whatever), but the remake just took too many shortcuts. Fart humor. Fat humor. Also fat humor. And humor based on how fat Sherman Klump is. Fat fat fattie fat fat. Just leaves a real bad taste in the mouth. The Lewis version treaded pretty hard on the old-fashioned "nder" stereotype, but it still allowed its lead SOME respect, not entirely devoted to his Norbitt-sized gut.

I voted George, and that's despite knowing of his philandering, and the effect it had on his marriage with Pattie Boyd. Ain't none of these Beatles saints. I wish I could conclusively point to any one of them as being supremely decent people (Paul? Ringo?), but I just don't know. George seemed, by far, both the most interesting, and probably the most comfortable to try to get to know. The most "live and let live". Kudos to Paul and Ringo for sticking with their own relationships as long as they did. I love them for being - I hope - good husbands. All the same, given my particular position of fandom/ignorance, I still feel that George is the most interesting as a musician. John had the rye sarcasm, the above-it-all attidtude. Paul mostly seemed to play along, but mostly did it well, while occasionally going to crazy-town and dragging the whole band with him (and bless him for that) and Ringo..... Well, he had fun. He (co-wrote) a song about an octopus. Great guy, this Ringo. But not exactly on par with his party of legendary musicians. They're all troublesome. I love Paul for his (apparent) fidelity. I love John for his early-onset attitude. But George still seems like the kind of guy I'd rather spend time with. Whether he's cool, or whether he's trying to snog every bird in the vicinity, well, I guess I'd give him the most leeway. Because he's "The Quiet One", "The Spiritual One". Or just because he was the dark horse songwriter of the last several albums. Sure, they were always John and/or Paul. But, the further you went on, the more George it all got. And I love "Abbey Road", George's finest album. Maybe that's enough. Album-wise, I'm still torn between "Revolver" and "Abbey Road'. But George is still my favorite. I don't entirely know why, but I kinda do. I just like him more than I do the others.

Yes, but the reason Renton tried to kick his addition was because he and his friends were ruining their lives, and quickly. One of their friends died, they killed a baby through neglect, they got involved in crime, were driven to robbery, fights, and drug dealing. Not to mention all the more mundane yet disgusting things their sickness and addiction drove them to do. If all four of them were able to survive twenty years (or however long it's been in this movie), it makes their lives and the risks they took in the previous movie look much less dangerous and borderline-suicidal. There was urgency to Renton's plight. The first movie implied that he very nearly overdosed and his friends weren't really any better. But I guess it was no big deal. Apparently, they woulda been just fine.

I like this movie a lot, but....ANOTHER 90s movie? And another dark one? So soon? It's not Hollywood, at least. I guess it couldn't hurt.

Yeah, just go with Legend of Drunken Master, and have that represent his whole (pre-Hollywood) career. Tangents on other films will be highly welcome. Jackie's goofball masochistic stunt reel of a career deserves more love.

*yawn* Call me when they do Cloud Atlas. Now THAT would make for a great discussion.

Oh, come on....

They're probably gonna do the Terminators sooner or later, since it just came up again. At least I think it did. How did Terminator come up in an episode about The General? 1982 - Conan the Barbarian 1984 - The Terminator 1985 - Commando 1987 - Predator 1990 - Total Recall 1991 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day It just boggles my mind every time I think of this period. Arnie made all of these great movies in the space of a decade. (Also Twins and The Running Man were decent)

Anything from the late 60s or early 70s is ripe for discussion as far as I'm concerned. I think we're done with the 90s for a good, very long time, and even the 80s are looking a bit tired now. As for this film...it's a kind of a blind spot. Since I still have remarkably failed to see it. Failed horribly. But I'll totally take the encouragement, if it's put up. Or literally any other well-received film from the time. The Canon hasn't even touched The Graduate, or The French Connection, or Klute. Or MASH. To be all America-centric and stuff.

Well, I know where I'd go on that one. A few months ago, I suggested Citizen Kane v Vertigo, which Devin replied to, suggesting some perverse interest (which was really my point in suggesting it). Because of the recent AFI #1 re-shuffling, not because I felt one didn't deserve inclusion. But two of the best Hitchcocks against each other, for no good reason? No. I'd be reachy-peachy-keen if To Catch a Thief missed out, or Saboteur, or Dial M for Murder, or even (barely) Strangers on a Train. But Vertigo? North By Northwest (my personal favorite of his)? Psycho? Rear Window? Denied entry? Sure, I'm still holding my bloody grudge against Frodo for Empire Strikes Back, but we must all be civilized. Pitting the best against the best, just because.....we must not abuse our power.

I've only seen The Wind Rises in the last month, after I read Devin's and Hulk's reviews. So I knew what I was getting into. All i I can say, whatever it's worth, is that if you've ever loved ANY Miyazaki film, The Wind Rises is still worth a watch. But respect both sides of the argument, because they both have merit. It's not a simple film, and I really do feel both men have fully-legitimate cases for feeling as they do about it. But that's what makes films an adventure! If nothing else, you are guaranteed a good-looking film with a good bit of early-20th visual nostalgia. Which I personally like. What you make of it in the end, is entirely up to you. The film doesn't force a message, it very much leaves it up to the viewer. I say that as someone who has actually seen every Miyazaki. But The Wind Rises was the very last I got around to. It's still visually beautiful. It's still full of that so-Japanese emotional restraint. It does (I agree with Devin) completely dodge the issue of Jiro's responsibility in the creation of the Zero fighter (which - seriously, DIDN'T bomb Pearl Harbor, it was a fighter plane, the Imperial Japanese Navy had other planes to do the bombing, and, given the surprise of the attack, they didn't need top-of-the-line fighters to do what they did). Enough parentheses. If you like Miyazaki, don't be dissuaded by the political critiques of the film. While I feel they are all valid, none of them should disqualify the film as worthy of being seen. If you like Nausicaa, Porco Rosso, Castle in the Sky, or Howl's Moving Castle, you should like this film. If you come down critically a la Devin, fine. But it's worth a watch. I couldn't agree more. While I personally had a hard time with Whispers of the Heart (I have such a history with "Country Roads" that it was always distracting), I would nonetheless recommend it to any anime fan. Also, including/especially to YOU, I would recommend a little-known Ghibli film called Ocean Waves. It's a very current-styled anime film, about young people, family issues, and growing up. It's probably not the type of film you're thinking of based on my very-brief description, but if you love ANY Miyazaki, it's absolutely worth a watch. It's nothing heavy, but it's heartfelt, and the more blind you come into it, the more I feel it can affect you. Just...if you're open to a little-known gem, tangentially associated with a great filmmaker, I ask that you give it a try. He didn't actually make the film, but his studio did, and it's a quality film. It just was never promoted in the West, at all. Take the plunge, please. And, if you hate it, give me hell. But I doubt you will.

I'm already most of the way through the Connery Bonds on this podcast. Thanks for the recommendation, I can't get enough of legitimate fan-based discussion of the franchise. Huge weakness on my part. These are bookmarked and on my radar.

Jebus.... How do you judge a movie that is trying so hard to be something you just don't care about? Now, I like The Beatles. As musicians. Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, all fantastic albums (and the first three all released within 18 months, ye gods!!*) But this film is pure fluff. It exists to celebrate and exacerbate The Beatles' celebrity, and maybe poke an odd finger in the eye of The Establishment. Which, sure, is a 60s thing. And I'm probably part of The Establishment by finding it so bereft of meaning. It doesn't help that this film only includes songs from their earlier Merseybeat period, which - per above - is not the era I personally like. As a "youth movie"....maybe. But does it age? What would the youth of today make of it? Should only the very young be participating in this poll? As a moving snapshot of a time and a place (which I'm normally a total sucker for)...it still feels meaningless. Breathless. Rebel Without a Cause. Crazed Fruit. All movies that seem to address 50s/60s youth anxiety and rebellion. This movie doesn't advocate anything other than itself. Celebrate The Beatles. Run around With The Beatles. Be stupid, because The Beatles. I'm old. But when I first/last saw this film (like, ten/twelve years ago), I was less old. I found it an enjoyable watch then, but I still thought it was pretty damn stupid. Just because it's a movie that's attached to a first-ballot Canon-worthy band, does that really mean the movie should itself be included in all of the band's glory? I wouldn't put Beatles For Sale or Magical Mystery Tour in The Canon. Of anything. Nor even a single Elvis movie. Sure, this film probably went over gangbusters with the youth of 1964/5. But is it timeless, or just a slice of the times? I'd really like to think there's a difference. There are better ways to Canonize The Beatles. Maybe not in THIS here Canon, but in general. I wonder if I'd even go with Yellow Submarine over this movie. Tough call, actually. Shoulda maybe been a versus.... * - Points if you get the reference.

If you like broad acting, you'll LOVE the Fairbanks version. Try acting using only your arms and your teeth. Fairbanks knew how to do it. Sabu? Make no mistake, HE was the star of the film, even at the time, hence why he got to do all the action scenes, while the other guy just spent time pining and being vaguely romantic. Sabu was big stuff back then. I don't even remember the name of the other guy. It's not just the effects themselves, it's how they are integrated into the film. This film was obviously made as a showcase for these effects. The plot just stops dead when Rex Ingram's Genie shows up, and then it just becomes about the (then) impressive effects of how they made a scene with a giant Genie and little Sabu, with no memorable dialogue exchanged. Similarly, the scene where Jaffar shows the blue Indian-ish idol toy to the sultan, that scene is slow, its ending heavily telegraphed, clearly existing just to show off the effects, same as the incredibly fake-looking spider, and the very slow and clumsy fight scene with Sabu vs. the spider. The many shots of the flying horse galloping through the sky, very slow, very repetitive. The effects don't hold up, so how well do these effects-heavy scenes? It's a movie that is poorly-paced by today's standards. Sure, back in 1940, it must've looked amazing, so who would mind it? But while we can forgive a film's dated visuals (and enjoy them in an escapist way), it's much harder to forgive how the film has so little else to fall back on BESIDES the visuals. The dialogue is simplistic, there's almost nothing to the characters, the performances are stilted, most scenes extend past their sell-by date. It's not a BAD film, just a badly dated film. As most films that are highly dependent on being state-of-the-art are. Imagine how Avatar will look in 50 years. You could, on the one hand, compare that with the Fairbanks version, which has even MORE dated visuals, but which has better pacing, to see the difference. Or, because it's (currently) this week, we can look at The General. Of course those effects are dated. But do they drag the film down at all because they don't look like photo-realistic CGI? Certainly not, the movie races right along. It uses the effects to add comedy and stunts to a story that technically doesn't need them to function, because we have so much else invested in the character, and the film otherwise doesn't drag. The Thief of Bagdad (1940) NEEDS its effects to work, since it doesn't really have anything else going for it these days. Of course, if you like it, that's awesome. I really, really wish I liked it more than I did. I mostly just respect it and can enjoy it as a dated bit of cinema (as this is coming from a big fan of Bond and Trek, so dated is an integral part of my fandom), but I just don't see it as a classic. BTW, Youtube currently has the Fairbanks version free to watch, with a clean transfer (for YouTube) and the score I'm most familiar with. Just search Thief of Bagdad 1924. It's 2 1/2 hours, and I maintain that it's STILL better-paced, with so much more energy and dynamic direction, and overall more enjoyable than the 1940 version. It's worth a watch to anyone curious about a silent, especially if they like other imaginative, physical showcases like The General. The big difference is that it downplays the comedy in favor of being an epic adventure. It is Without a doubt. My favorite silent movie. Of all time. Just to put that out there. I've suggested/pimped the movie here before, but, thus far, neither Devin nor Amy have bit.

Oooohh, I wish I could join you in this. But I'm so much of a bigger fan of the Fairbanks silent. I just don't think the 1940 version holds up, except as a sign-of-the-times curiosity. Probably for the best Aladdin stole so much from it, so as to preserve some of the film's better visual elements (the villain, the sultan, flight, the gardens, the town, the arguments with the genie). So much of its appeal rests in the visual effects which, of course, do not hold up, and the extremely broad, stilted acting do not help at all. I can buy it as a visual extravaganza for the times, but certainly not today. The silent actually looks better by today's standards, I feel, as well as being better-paced and with more impressive stuntwork. Aladdin might actually be a good movie to put up on its own, actually. It got some heat for its stereotypical depictions, but that's only gotten worse since. Now, while Breakfast at Tiffany's survived Mr. Yunioshi, he was an extraneous (if still unforgettable) character, but Aladdin sprinkles these depictions throughout the film. And while they've done similar things with many other ethnicities, this movie is, for obvious reasons, the one that probably struck at the most sensitive. Also, while the Genie was a huge hit at the time, I've sensed some real weariness over the last decade or so at the over-the-top pop-culture-referencing celebrity cameo comic relief (star?). Dreamworks really drove that into the ground, but even Disney and Pixar have gotten resistance over characters like 'Mater and Mushu. And it all ties directly back to the Genie. Does the film really hold up as a true Disney Renaissance, a classic Disney comedy with a once-in-a-lifetime comedic character, or was it only a good film at the time? Personally, I think it's one of the very, very best Disney's ever done - my very favorite, actually - but 20+ years is a long time, and I know Little Mermaid has its critics as well. There'd be plenty to talk about. Also, there would be no need for this to be a token film discussion. With Beauty and the Beast already in and The Lion King having kept it close, there's no reason to feel that Aladdin would have to represent the entire Disney Renaissance. It can stand on its own. That'll keep it simple. P.S. The first Disney film to use computer-generated animation is actually The Great Mouse Detective, my first great Disney love. In the clock tower sequence.

While I adore WFRR - being one of the most up-holding movies of my childhood - if I were to toss in a vote for a Bob Hoskins episode, I would so go with The Long Good Friday vs. Mona Lisa. Hoskins is one of my favorite actors. Tough, charming, and very intense, but in a very blue-collar way that tends to fly absolutely contrary to the American stereotype of a British actor. In both of these films, he plays an English gangster, one on the low end of the hierarchy, one near the top. In one, he stars opposite Michael Caine, in the other, Helen Mirren, and both of them have him dealing with some seriously messed-up stuff that threatens to overwhelm and destroy him. Both are complex and gritty movies, and Hoskins is just on fire from the beginning to end of them both. I wouldn't call either of these movies a slam-dunk, but one at least deserves inclusion. WFRR is a great film, but it's not about Hoskins by any means. THESE are his two big movies, to me, and no fan of his should go a month longer without seeing them both. Also, I really like Mermaids, but, well, yeah.

I haven't seen Hero (the politics indeed have put me off, but I'm also not a fan of OTT modern "epic" action movies), but I will add my recommendation for Raise the Red Lantern. If you want a more nuanced view on 20th-century China - from CPC-approved films, but ones that aren't pure propaganda - it goes great with Shanghai Triad (also by Zhang Yimou) and Farewell My Concubine. Probably best to watch them in that order as well, as they follow the end of pre-modern China through the brief Republican/war years, and conclude in the period of Communist repression of "counter-revolutionary" art. And they're all just more interesting than the too-sterile, too-safe The Last Emperor, IMHO.

WoK is so ridiculously in already, there'd be almost nothing to dispute. They tried to remake it THREE TIMES (twice unarguably, once only partially, and even the latest movie steals the "vengeful villain with a longstanding grief with the Federation/magical MacGuffin bomb" plot), and never once came close. Every Trek fan loves it, it's got by far the greatest pop culture penetration, it ties in directly with the original series (so it both references the past and it repeatedly referenced in the future, making it the main junction of greater Trek continuity, both in and out-of-universe) and you'd be hard-pressed to find a fan of the films who doesn't put it at least in their top two, and usually at the very top. IV's pretty popular with the layman (compared to anything of the other pre-'09 films), but it's still part three of a trilogy. First Contact has fans, but I maintain that it's nothing more than a mediocre action film, and a poor representation of what made TNG so popular. It's only notable because it's the ONE well-received TNG film. '09 is popular, but it's ridiculous to even consider it for The Canon. Whether it's good or not is, of course, a matter of taste (and largely based on what you're looking for from a movie with "Star Trek" written on it), but it's not remotely representative of what has made any Trek from any era popular. It's a modern action movie wearing the skin of the 60s series, and the most famous thing about it - even today - are those damn lens flares. So either we give WoK an easy victory lap, or...maybe (and this is a big maybe)...you expand the topic to talk about II, III, and IV together, much as with the Godfather discussion. Then again, that episode had a guest really pushing it, while neither Devin nor Amy pushed at all for Return of the Jedi. So I'm assuming that's DoA.

I think To Catch a Thief would go better with either Notorious or North by Northwest than the two would together. NxNW is very much a 1950s action movie, breezy and funny, the primary precursor to the Bond films, and feels very different from Notorious, a more character-based and classic studio romantic thriller. Although TCaT and NxNW both also work as colorful, splashy, comic travelogues. So maybe: To Catch a Thief v North by Northwest or Rebecca v Notorious ?

Nah. PS, CoS, and GoF just aren't very good. They feel too much like script readings, episodic and horribly paced (and PS and CoS have just dreadful child acting). And DH is (by design) unbalanced and incomplete, yet still each part is overlong. OotP is...decent, but not a standout. I do like HBP quite a bit, but that makes only two out of (arg, EIGHT) movies that are in any way noteworthy, with PoA being the most significant one as it's the first one whose tone and pacing feels right (and it just looks and sounds a hell of a lot cooler too), so it's the one that provided the template for all the ones that followed. Overall, the Harry Potter film series isn't worthy of being in The Canon because most of them are clunky adaptations of above-average children's books with good production values and a lot of really good actors slumming it up for their children and grandchildren, playing bit players who are all far more engaging than the protagonists. I don't mean to hate on the books or anything else in the universe, and if you like the Potter films, cool, I have my pet franchises too. But MOST OF the movies aren't especially good as movies go. They don't do for the books what really good adaptations typically do, namely develop and re-tell for another medium, as if they were written to be movies first; they're mostly just quoting and doing some light editing while still leaving so much in that they always feel rushed. And while that's typically awesome if you like the original stories and just want those, I'd rather a Canon FILM be one that can stand on its own and not just feel like a visualization of a novel.

The fact that Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't stand-alone, and didn't have to be stand-alone, with two films' worth of character setup and world-building already behind it - is a big reason why it works so well. It feels a lot leaner than either PS or CoS (or GoF or OotP, for that matter) because it can play off contrasts with the earlier films to take shortcuts for character and plot developments, thus keeping it from bogging down in exposition dumps and allowing it more time to indulge in visual storytelling. It wouldn't work so well as a stand-alone, and it was never meant to be a stand-alone. For that reason, I would have to say it wouldn't qualify as a Canon film. It's a good film, and a huge improvement over the first two, but it wouldn't work as a Canon film if you're just viewing/recommending that film and not the whole series. And when/if Devin and Amy discuss the film, how much time do they spend on talking about the events of the previous two? Or will they just have to assume the audience has already seen and still remembers them? In contrast, The Dark Knight probably could work as a stand-alone. I don't know for sure, since I grew up knowing the basics of Batman and having seen many earlier versions of the story, but I saw that film before Batman Begins, and I didn't need anything explained to be (well, I didn't know who Lucius Fox was, but that was no big deal). But I don't think Star Trek IV could, since that movie put so much focus on building on previous characterizations and concluding the arc of two earlier movies and then some. EDIT: Also, it wasn't PoA that put the Potter films on the map and started the recent YA boom. Both PS and CoS had already done that, as would the (arg, FIVE) films afterwards. PoA was the first really good one, the first one that still holds up, but the series had already left its impact.

Could be we just have different ideas of what makes something camp. To me, Top Gun is too slick and, in the end, pretty conventional. So while it has some indulgent moments - "You've Lost That Loving Feeling", and, of course, the volleyball match - it doesn't really stand out as especially campy for the time (compare the volleyball match to the training montage in Rocky III, for instance). The mid 80s were the heyday of the mandatory musical montage, and so many scenes in Top Gun work like early, professionally-stylized music videos, another sign of the times. It often flirts with going over-the-top, but it keeps grounding itself back in the plot before it goes too far. It's structured very effectively to thrill the audience, then pull at the heartstrings, then thrill them again, and I don't think it misses a beat anywhere, and I don't think it's really that much sillier than anything we've gotten since. The movie is 80s as all hell, but I don't think that alone makes something camp.

OK, so it didn't impact your life. But did you not feel that Sellers was sublime from beginning to end (in the first Pink Panther), and the climactic party and car chase one of the biggest and best running joke scenes of the era? I sure did. I love the hell out of The Pink Panther. It's possibly the coolest comedy ever made. Breakfast at Tiffany's isn't Audrey Hepburn's best movie. It's not Blake Edwards' best movie. It's not even Mickey Rooney's best movie. It's iconic, sure. I'll even accept that it's good (because America is a democracy....also, it's not a bad movie). But I just don't think Iconicness is reason enough to put a decent film in The Canon. There's good, there's great, and there's plenty of room between them.

As far as screwballs go, I'd rather see My Man Godfrey. But I must acknowledge His Girl Friday as the ultimate fast-talking screwball comedy, so I'd be cool with it. Bringing Up Baby would be crushed, and there's more than enough to His Girl Friday for a solo ep. Maybe Bringing Up Baby vs. The Philadelphia Story? I'd still vote against Baby there, but I see it being closer.

While I find it strange to defend Top Gun (it has a very wide and diverse fanbase), I am getting a little creeped out in my aging bones to read that millennials out there may not know this film. It's by no means the best film FROM the 80s, but it's one of the best films OF the 80s. It's super-Reaganist, sure, but it's also stylish, romantic, and incredibly cool. It's a music video in cinematic form, beautifully shot, with compelling (if archetypal) characters, telling a classic underdog/rebel/hero's journey type story in the 80sist way possible without remotely descending into camp. It's a great "fluff" piece, but so of-its-time I can't NOT recommend it. You want an iconic and entertaining 80s movie, kids? Look no further.