Marsellus_H

I am not sure exactly why that is, neither. I guess it must have something to do with the fact that it was the last G-rated film to win best picture, and therefore must have been considered sort of a childern's film. I am not sure how this rating came to be, because the ending and some of the psychological abuse depicted in the film is pretty dark, if you ask me. Also, Ron Moody's performance is really, really one for the ages.

I'm back from my sabbatical here at the canon. What did I miss? So, My Fair Lady vs Marry Poppins, uh. Oh boy. Observations I had during watching these films: Both films go on for way too long. That said, I think Rex Harrison gets a bit of an unfair wrap. I think Rex Harrisson is really, really good in My Fair Lady. I think he brings surprisingly a lot of nuances and humanity to a character that would have been pretty flat in a lesser actor's hand. Julie Andrews, of course, is phantastic. I enjoyed the songs of My Fair Lady a bit more than the ones of Mary Poppins. I have not much passion for any of these films, they go on for too long and provide too little. Long story short, I guess I'll give my vote to My Fair Lady. But honestly, if I wanna watch a decent academy award winning film musical from the 60s, I prefer Oliver! by a mile. That film will surprise you with how well it holds up, and is much tighter edited. Oliver! vs. a space odyssey, that would have been a bonkers episode

I voted Top Gun. I found both films somewhat mediocre. Both have a couple of memorable scenes, one has got the better structure and better directing, the other the more memorable soundtrack, but generally, both kind of meh. but believe it or not: If I can choose between a medicore film with Meg Ryan and one without Meg Ryan, I will get the one with her every day.

I do think the canon needs some more b shlock form earlier than the 80s. This isn't the most entertaining the bunch, nor the most influental, but it was a fun watch anyway. I really, really have got a soft spot for this take-no-prisoners-style of filmmaking. I find it much less ciynical than the after-oil-crisis 70s and 80s stuff tends to be. The influence it might have is more on a personal note: In my eyes, imperfect stuff tends to inspire me much more than great perfect masterpieces. I'm a super soft yes at the moment, It's sort of an art pour l'art argument to me: Although I can understand anybody voting no on this one, I want it to be included for the sheer pleasure of it. Can you dig it?

First: Thanks for the shout-out, Amy! However, that doesn't change my views on either Working Girl nor Broadcast News It was a great show, and I finally have a couple of minutes to put my answer in here: I was really on the line with this one. I agree with much of the criticism of the film in this forum; this film didn't do much for me during the first viewing, escept for the show numbers. I revisited it after I listened to the episode, because I felt I missed quite a lot the first time around. The stuff that is clunky still feels clunky, but I was surprised to find it much, much more comedic than the first time around. I suspect, Footlight Parade might be one of those films that grow on you with time. I think, if it goes in the canon, it's going in mainly as a document of a different time, and its cultural impact, as a combination of a pre-code film, a james cagney film and a couple of busby berkeley numbers. it's with an asterisk like Cannibal Holocaust (Yup, anyone remember that one?). So I ever so slightly voted yes, but it wasn't the most passionate vote.

It's funny how films work on people: I've had the exactly inverse reaction to Marie Antoinette's anachronistic soundtrack and shopping montage sequence. I think it is precisely these elements that comment on French 18th century society and make it more understandable: It makes me think that self-indulgent consumerism as a form of reaction to a trapped situation always has existed.

I guess so. There were a couple of fun scenes here and there, mainly involving James Cagney... but I wasn't really blown away or anything by this film. So, I'm excited to listen to the arguments why this entire film should get in the canon, not only that one sequence.

You shouldn't drunktext forum posts, dude.

Hey folks I saw both films for the first time last week, in preparation for the episode. And eventhough Lost In Translation is a great film, I'm going to vote for Marie-Antoinette. Now, before you start throwing rocks at me and burn down that european castle I am clearly living in (as far as you know), hear me out: Lost In Translation is a nice film. It's technically impeccable, and I enjoyed the hell out of it. However, when it comes hard-on-hard, think about that the Canon is about the movies we want to preserve as a society to tell our ancestors about our films, our culture, our history and our lives. And Marie Antoinette cleary wins in my books. There are dozens of films about the lonelyness of travelling in a foreign land, of being stranded in a culture you don't quite get to understand. That's a theme that has been chewed before. However, to me, Marie Antoinette was truely a revelation: Not only is it an entertaining enough farce and well-crafted, it's a revision of history that tells the story of a woman that was blamed for much stuff a man in the same position would have never been blamed for. It opened my eyes about a difficult subject, and in the end made me re-think and question much of the history lessons we had in school. It is, in the end, a powerful lesson of faked news and rumors defining a historic narrative, and, considering that after that revolution came a couple of years known as the reign of terrors, how fragile and important knowledge about the situation outside of your comfort zone truely is. Even if you disagree with the film's goals, terms and conditions, you must admit that this film and the things it portrays are slightly more important for the big picture of our world, than two Americans with an age difference in Tokyo. It might not be the film you like more, but it's definitely a film that we need in our times.

Just watched both of them. Any early calls, Ladies and Gentlemen?

Man... this might have been the most surprising personal discovery since I started listening to the canon. It's simply a damn smart film, all the things are in place in the script and in the way it's shot. I loved it. And as of cultural relevance... somebody pleace make a list with all the analogies to be found in certain contemporary administrations in Turkey, Belarus, Russia, and most recently the U.S. Easy yes vote from me. Also, as of that pedophile/gay character: I really think that depiction is a bit stuck in the 60s. I'm usually fine with bad guys being gay, just as I'm fine with good guys being gay. And the character itself didn't came across to me as particularly portraiyng homosexuality in a bad light. I mean that guy is a cynic and a scumbag, pretty much regardless of who he fucks at night. I think, on the other hand, the truly repugnant stuff was the reaction of the state officials who seem to be pretty fine with the rape of boys, as long as the rapist supports the government. But I really wished for some kind of a counter-balance on the pacifist side of the story. How would they react if one of their important supporters did something similar? If you make sexual crimes a subject of your big, epic metaphorical film, you should go through with it, or leave it out all-together. This way it came accross like, "yea, we like peace and justice, but that doesn't make us weak and gay." And that's stupid.

This, my friends, is the first truly great episode since Devin's departure. I loved every minute of it. As for the choice, it's a tough one for me. I personally really, really enjoy the visceral style and storytelling of City Of God a bit more, although the substantiallity of Black Orpheus can't be denied. After listening to you guys I nearly felt I should get my vote for Black Orpheus, but in the end I think Trianth hit the nail on the head with his text in here. Good work, everyone

I am a strong no on this. After re-watching this film, I found the first two-thirds of that film the hosts lauded so much, frankly, boring. They seemed to be devoid of any tension or humor. I didn't detect any psychological depth in any of the two main characters, and don't think the actors are as good as you made it sound like. Could you tell anything, absolutely anything about the Micheal Douglas caracter, apart from his job or disliking walking with his dog? He's not an every-man, he's just boring. Glenn Close is a bit more exciting to watch, but I think that has mostly to do with her surreal looks and facial features. Also, she's got the only line I found half-way interesting, when she's sitting on the bed and phoning with Michael Douglas: "I love animals, I'm a great cook." That's so brutally on-the-nose I could not think it's not funny. Otherwise, it's a big, boring, bleh. I think they should've cut out all that stuff from the beginning and started just before the scene with her cutting her wrists. Just imagine what fun it would've been to find out that Douglas had a family to go back to all along. If you guys wanna make a case for difficult female roles with some sex in it, then there's so much better, more intriguing cinema around (Belle de Jour, Last Tango in Paris, Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby).

Funny story: When we had a new DVD player, about 10 years ago, my mum bought this one together with 7 years in tibet. She didn't know anything about that film, but saw the title, and the names of Glenn Close and Michael Douglas. Therefore, she thought it might be a romantic drama with comedic touches (She knew Michael Douglas only as a producer from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest, one of her favorite films). So, the whole family sat together to watch it... and boy, it was an awkward watch. When it came to the first couple of scenes already. After the blow-job scene, my mum decided to take it out of the dvd player, and vowed to not select dvds again that fast. I haven't watched it since back then, but I am ready to re-discover that film with the canon.

First of all: Yay to a canon-episode on City Of Gods. I agree with seemingly everyone in here, it's pretty much simply a masterpiece, if I've ever seen one. Can you elaborate? Honestly, I don't see much connections besides being epic in length and the subject matter of crime as a society-shaping force.

Man, I might have liked this episode the most of the second coming of the canon. I thought, this was more in style of the in-depth film discussions I liked back with devin, creating a profound, idiosyncratic perspective on an already known propperty. As for the voting: I say Blue Velvet, but ever so slightly. I think I see where Michael Nordine is comming from with his take on Eraserhead, but let's be honest: Eraserhead is an experimental student's film, albeit it an ambitious one. That's nothing bad per se, but I can see a lot of limitations in all ends and edges of that productions. It's fun to watch it, but I'd say even back then, its appreciation by the midnight screening audience was more ironic than sensere. If it was a single episode on Eraserhead I think I would probably vote it in, because I do like a lot of the ideas touched on in the film, and also because of its influence. But in my books it doesn't hold a candle being compared to Blue Velvet. This is just simply the better put together movie.

Damn, this is a hard one. I just rewatched blue velvet, convinced it would be a lesser piece of art compared to eraserhead, but nope. That film is phantastic, and Isabella Rossellini moved me to tears.

I'm on a soft yes. I'd rather listened to a discussion over Laura, which is in many ways the swifter, better-orchestrated film with just as much an arresting sense for cinematography and direction. But do I want to see future generations this small gem, eventhough it might not be the greatest film noir ever? I think so, yes. If we can have about 4 80s horror flicks, we might as well have a variety of Film Noirs in here. Anyway, I think it's just a worthy enough entry on its own to justify an inclusion into the canon.

I agree that the exclusion of The Two Towers really made me listen up twice. That's really a random exclusion. Seems like we should think about a Tangerine-write-in campaign all over again

I am a soft no on this one. I won't argue with anyone defending the smart script, or its merits compared with Saving Private Ryan, which, I agree, has got some pretty big issues after the beach sequence. What didn't work for me is the overall direction, some of the pacing and the music. Great discussion, by the way.

I laughed my ass off over this introduction. Great job! I rewatched Shakespeare In Love last evening. I haven't watched it in ages, and tried to watch it with an open mind. And boy, it was a pretty underwhelming experience. I did like some of the dialogue and performances, but in my opinion the score sounds like 90s romantic comedy stock score 101, it was about 30 minutes too long, the pacing sometimes felt too slow, and the camerawork and directing felt a bit uninspired to be canon-worthy. Your thoughts?

To me, The Maltese Falcon always felt a bit too messy with its story lines and its pretty convoluted plot. I think the chemistry between Bacall and Bogey and the racey one-liners in the Big Sleep would walk away with that one.

This one came up in the latest poll forum, discussing the merits of making-offs. The idea was originally Threshold's. We are talking about one of the most important film trilogies vs. a trilogy of documentaries that was meant to be a fun making-of of the film trilogy to end all film trilogies, but turned out to be damn entertaining and reveiling about the making of the Peter Jackson epic and of fims in general, sort of a pocket-film-school, and also setted "visiting New Zealand (not that knock-off, that is middle earth) before I die" on top of every bucket list of everybody that was around 2003 in between 10 and 30 years old. So many things have been written about both trilogies, that it's kind of hard to get a grasp on the phenomenon that the Lord Of The Rings as film and as meta-film was and continues to be. Have fun discussing the merits of these trilogies in the comment section below. P.S: trilogy.

Man, that's actually not a bad idea... follow me on the suggestion thread, please.

Maybe we should then nominate the making-of documentary of the Lord Of The Rings right away, instead of the film itself. I remember that one being pretty influential amongst wannabe-filmmakers and in my books quite a bit superior to the film itself.