Marsellus_H

Well, it's a stretch, but I'd say: -J.K. Simmons is pretty amazing in both of them -Both main characters are Teenagers -Both are kind of disguised comming-of-age stories -Both main characters deal with an extraordinary situation, that will presumably change their life -In both films deal with not-quite intact family structures. In Juno's case, it's that she needs to learn to respect her stepmother, in Whiplash, Andrew has to deal with his family that doesn't have a sense for what he's doing. The one close-up of his father in the final showdown tells us, that he "gets" it in the end. -And, finally, in both films the soundtrack plays a crucial role to tell the story.

I agree with you, that we shouldn't discuss his case here. Let me just add, that one can be economically conservative/open-market and be socially liberal. But I don't think that's what either Donald Trump nor the National Review really is about. And if Mr White disliked Moonlight, it might as well be, because it hit too close to home for him. To put it in some over-generalistic terms, as he would do: He wears his contrarianism as mask and as an armour so he doesn't have to confront his real self, just like Catlyn Jenner can't take a joke and Black wears his muscles. As of the films: I was surprised, but Signs O' The Times was aviable at my library. It's a fun experience, but, apart of the cinematic qualities, I never quite got into Prince's music. It never appealed to me as much as different artists of the times. I always felt his productions are bit too much stuck in the 80s, with a lot of echo and synthesizers. If I like some of his songs, it's most of the time despite of his production, not because of him. Also, Amy, if you say the best Prince single is whichever one is listening to right now, I dare you to listen to the Batdance more than 10 times in a row. To me it's an incoherent mess with some fanfiction dialogue mixed in it. That argument worked for the Beatles, but definitely not for Prince. Stop Making Sense made, in lack of better words, simply a bit more sense to me. The stripped-down version of Psychokiller is just one of the highlights, and yes, I really want to add a Jonathan Demme film to the canon. He's a thoughtful filmmaker and I'd say a bit underappreciated.

I'm not sure... both writers have had their share of backlash these days... Cody for inspiring sooooo many mediocre follow-ups, that kind of missed the smart and the heart of her own script, and Chazelle for letting Ryan Gosling explain Jazz to us for two hours. I remember liking both films quite a bit, and Whiplash is one of my favorite film experiences in the last couple of years. It's like a thriller, just without any kills.

Yup, I read them as well. I did that part of research in January to look up who actually was capable of disagreeing on "Get Out" with everybody else and giving it a "rotten". I disagree with him most of the times, but I mostly find it jarring that a guy can write, in quite a chameleonic way, for a right-wing-paper and incorporate in these reviews more or less a consistent conservative-partiotic angle on films, while at the same time write for OUT magazine, where he writes, quite flamboiantly, about queer cinema. And while there are certainly some gay conservatives, the overlap in terms of political goals and stuff they like is generally pretty small. Is this supposed to be some kind of practical joke? Case and point would be his negative review of last year's moonlight on National Review, and featuring the picture of the same film in an article praising how great 2016 was for queer cinema. http://www.nationalr...is-latest-movie http://www.out.com/a...ever-gay-movies (Granted, he sticks to his negative opinion about that film in this list. But still. It's a bit weird). Quite a lot of sites seem to settle on the side that Mr White is a bit of a troll: http://www.rogereber...of-armond-white http://ew.com/articl...-of-ny-critics/ http://www.avclub.co...ten-tomat-65156 Now, I don't know how biased these sources themselves are. I think that's up for somebody else to judge, since I'm in Europe and a bit detached from the media landscape on your side of the pond. About the episode: I did enjoy some of the points Mr. White made on the show, like the concert film being in the tradition of the musical, and the sexual undertones in both films. We do share a distain towards La La Land. But in the end, it came down simply to which film I found to be better made and more consistent, and I have to give that one to Stop Making Sense.

Thanks a lot! That's one of the Demme films I haven't watched yet... pretty excited about it.

Damn, this poll is close... that's why I missed that show!

Hey there, after listening to the episode again, I don't think they announced any film to watch untill next week during the episode...

Welcome back into my life, Canon! Ghostbusters is fine, but it's for me really not that much of an essential film. I really think Amy hit on something with her criticism. As pointed out in the homework section in the forum, there are some fine lines and deliveries in the film, but I think that film is surprisingly weak for such a beloved film, maybe just a bit like Sound of Music way back in the beginnings of the show. I get the cultural impact argument, but really, I don't think in 30 years somebody will still talk about this film in the same high regards as about different films from that era. I'm a soft no.

Yea, I agree with you. I couldn't have said it better. I watched it again and I found it surprisingly slow paced, and some plot points are super weak. Also, Sigourney Weaver's part doesn't do much for me... And I think it's way more influential on your side of the pond than in Europe. Edit: Also, that "original score" is at best mediocre. You know, as soon as the soundtrack has to point out jokes and plot points with mickey mousing them, you are basically in Beethoven part 4 territory, and nobody is supposed to ever go this patronizing route. In the 70s, they at least had the decency to try to level up a considered weak film by giving it a memorable score. Case and point would be stuff like Jaws, the Omen and similar fair. But this is just weak. The more I think of it, the more the whole film feels more and more like Reagan-era star wars programme nonsense, i.e. the equivalence of: "Let's throw a shitload of money at the wall, because something in this mess HAS to work"-approach. This is not a film. It's a one and a half hour commercial for a couple of stand-ups, toy figures, a tv show and the c.v. of a second unit crew, including crowd-pleasing jingle. I'm sorry for these harsh words, and I can still see why somebody would be sentimentally attached to this film. I really try not to be this negative, usually.

I think she meant Ghostbusters II. You know. The one in which the ghost in the logo makes the dreamworks face and the victory sign.

Damn, I'm super hyped for the relaunch of that podcast. Also, Amy, if you read this: Did A Face In The Crowd make it into the Canon? Or did it get bunked by the electoral college?

Heh. It's a fine film, probably only second with Dances With Wolves. Just kidding. Once Upon A Time In The West belongs definitely in the canon, although I really haven't seen too many Westerns to make a definitive statement, but I consider it amongst m favorite films and a masterpiece with quite a fun and compelling history: Because he was tired of making Westerns after the Dollar-trilogy, Leone concieved this film as kind of a parody of Western tropes first... I must say, my favorite Leone-film would be without a doubt Once Upon A Time In America - the director's cut, that is. I've seen it in the cinema, and once you get through the somewhat misogynistic first half, the ending hits you in the gutt (and also redeems the poorly treated women in the film).

Yup, I've seen High Rise as well. For some uncertain reasons, it came to Zurich and was on schedules for some cinemas for the longest time. Some nice visuals, but I'm not a fan. I consider it to be in the tradition of Metropolis (1927) and Blade Runner (1982), in the sense that the story might be secondary, and the main focus was on showing off cool-ass architecture and visuals. These film have surely their place in history of design, but on their own merits, as a film itself, don't quite work for me. Also, Nocturnal Animal is, I think, a mess in terms of story-telling, but with some nice shots, music and performances. It lacks the timeless elegance of A Single Man, and some directorial choices are a bit too on-the-nose for my taste. Boy, that film would have gained a lot by a more radical re-edit, because I felt no flow overall and the cutting between the 3 different story-lines was really cumbersome at points: Instead of adding up to a bigger picture richer in information, which is what montage should be about, the different parts felt repetitive and, really, weakened each other.

The films I consider to be the best last year would have been The Neon Demon, followed by The Witch, The Lobster and Arrival. I also really enjoyed 10, Cloverfield Laneand The Beatles: 8 Days A Week (which, granted, was basically catering towards my fanboydom). To some lesser extent, I also liked Hail, Caesar! (which I found to be overstuffed and too long), Money Monster (which was surprisingly good), and, for some reason, The Purge: Election Year really stuck with me, partially in an ironic way, but also, because it was just pure catharsis, when you get smashed every week for a year by some shitty election news in America, which will totally have an influence on us in Europe, but you yourself can't really influence at all. Also, please consider that in continental Europe, many films come out quite a bit laterthan in America. So, I simply haven't had a chance to catch up with La La Land, Moonlight (which I am most excited about watching), and Manchester By The Sea. Also, it was really difficult to get a good copy of the Witch. I gonna watch Nocturnal Animals this weekend. Yep. I agree with that one. I saw it with a couple of friends about a month ago, and it grew in a negative way on me. Boy, was I looking forward for it: I love road movies, nature, and travelling, so that film should have been right up my alley... but the way the film handles its non-existent story-line, its main characters, and its subject I found all together really counterproductive and condecending. That main character is so fucking unlikable, that it almost hurt physically, and the film goes on waaaaay too long.

Hey guys Finally I'm comming around to write in here as well. I had a rough couple of weeks, so... Anyway. The Canon was undeniably one of my favorite shows. The whole thing was really a pitty to loose. Nevertheless, I think you guys from Earwolf handeled the situation together with Amy and Devin in the best way possible. I tip my hat to that. I'm not in a position to make any judgements. In any case, I think it was pretty mature of him to take the blame and step back immediately from his public functions. And after reading all the stuff posted in here, I guess I'm not the only one looking forward to listen to new content, especially, since Amy's coming back. However, I feel a bit cheated by Earwolf, if they decide to all of the sudden have something like a premium system on howl, at least without notice. That's not really how you build a fanbase, or treat people that supported the show by listening to it and giving it good reviews and stuff. I mean, the commentary tracks were one thing, because that was an additional bonus and therefore something special. But just withdrawing content? To me, that sounds strangely lazy and greedy, to be honest. Maybe you guys have got a good explanation for this behavior, then I'd be happy to listen to it. Anyway, happy new year, and I'm looking forward to hear from you.

Since some people here are sharing it, here's my account as well: http://letterboxd.com/marsellusw/

I am not very familiar with Star Trek. I think I've watched some random episodes wth younger actors during the 90s when I was about 5 years old. That's all. So, I was pretty excited to finally watch one of these films... and I guess I was entertained. The visuals are nice, for sure, and the story flows along niecly. But is it canon? I don't see that happening. Well. You guys got now the possibility to convince me otherwise.

Inspired by the latest box-office bomb, let's consider the 1959 original - wait, that was a remake, too. Anyway. Its impact on society is immense: I guess everybody and their mother have seen parts of this film. it won a gazzilion awards, including an Oscar for everybody's favorite Bowling For Columbine contributor Charlton Heston, its seabattle sequence and the chariot race are considered masterpieces of action cinema, and last but not least, Monty Python used the tagline "Makes Ben-Hur look like an epic" for their own Life Of Brian. Buuuuut.... does it hold up that well? Is it just an overblown piece of mid-century nostalgia, that shouldn't have survived the end of the cold war? Since I'm from Europe, I really can't give you any reccomandations how to get that film on streaming services... Where I'm fronm, it comes every Christmas and Estern on TV, though. And, naturally, just ask your uncle, who probably has it on VHS.

Thank you for the response, Muthsarah. I think there's no question, that score is teriffic. As of Citizen Kane... we watched that one again a couple of months ago, and it's actually hard to think of a film more topical than Kane, especially in the wake of that awful Trump campaign. It really looks like he took Orson Welles' speeches in this film, took out all the grammar, and mixed them together.

I can see your point... I watched that film once about 6 years ago, and was confused and, honestly, a bit bored. Since then, I watched some of his other films, and I grew to like him quite a bit. I watched Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, and, in a theatre, The Elephant Man. I think all of these are discussion-worthy, and I'd consider all of them slam dunks (maybe, just maybe, with the exception of Elephant Man, which must be in may ways the un-Lynchiest Lynch film of the crowd). I think I should give it another shot. That said, I don't like putting films up against each other, just because they're from the same film-maker. After having added a gazzilion 90s-indie-comedies and 80s-horror-flicks, I think it's fair to give each film a single shot, and make vs.-episodes only with some good cultural reasoning behind. That being said, I'm still waiting for that Citizen Kane vs. Vertigo episode

Let's see. I'm from a backward mountain-layered country in central Europe (yes, that place still exists! Yay!), so international films come out pretty late or not at all. This is important, because I couldn't see The Witch, that everybody (except for Amy) seemed to like... it sounds like something right up my alley. The best film I've seen all year was The Neon Demon, closely followed by The Lobster. A german-speaking indie film I'd recommend whole-heartedly is Toni Erdmann. I wasn't impressed from watching High Rise, which contains some great designs and decent performances, but desperately would have needed an editor. To me, it's closer to the great-looking empty mess that is Blade Runner, rather than comparing it to a Kubrick film.

I think Unforgiven would be a clear slam dunk for the show. Since it hasn't come up yet: What do you think of Million Dollar Baby? For what it's worth, it's my mom's favorite film, apart from Hot Fuzz (I know.... a strange pairing. But oh well, moms be moms), I enjoyed it quite a lot, and Roger Ebert called it a masterpiece. I know, it's become a bit fashionable to dislike Million Dollar Baby, and I am not sure if it's worthy of inclusion to the Canon, but I think exactly these points could lead to a more interesting discussion.

It's a yes for me. Usually, I'm not the biggest Mel Brooks fan.... I think I smiled about once during Son Of Frankenstein, and I laughed harder at the musical verison of the Producers than the original film (although that Springtime for Hitler sequence is untouchable). I don't know what it is, but his kind of humor doesn't translate that well into my backwards, pedestrian, central Yuropeanh culturural background. However, I was pleasantly surprised from Blazing Saddles. It's one of the funnier films I've seen, and I can see how it must have been influential, if you look at later comedies. Also, its politics still hold up in a teriffic as well as terifying way. It was a great show and a real pleasure to listen to it, guys. Probably my favorite discussion so far.

Maybe we should compare different versions of Murder On The Orient Express for the rest of the show's season.

So..... you say.... you should've known it better?