EricScott

No, you can't vote THE WRATH OF KHAN into The Canon just because its Trek. But you CAN vote it in because it is (as far as I can tell) a good movie that's beloved that is only THE SECOND OF IT'S KIND. What do I mean you might ask? Name another TV series before STAR TREK that got turned into a theatrical feature franchise. (Go on...I'll wait.) You can't and because THE WRATH OF KHAN remains the best of all the Trek movies (with the possible exception of the even more Moby Dick inspired FIRST CONTACT) and because now the movies mine television for the repurposing of intellectual property all the time, that's why I voted THE WRATH OF KHAN into The Canon. Nice arguing Amy, but I think you missed the point of this one a little bit.

YES. And despite Amy's incessant political discussion, this was a good discussion to listen to. The saddest thing about putting BLAZING SADDLES in The Canon is that a movie like that couldn't be released today. (Although one could argue that TV's animated satires like THE SIMPSONS, BOJACK HORSEMAN and some of the Adult Swim shows have picked up the slack.)

Pretty cruel guys, because obviously both are Canon-worthy, but BOOGIE NIGHTS is clearly the way to go. THERE WILL BE BLOOD is impressive filmmaking too, but it is completely dominated by Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and Johnny Greenwood's eerie score. Try and remember the particulars of any scene that Day-Lewis is NOT in...you won't be able to do it. BOOGIE NIGHTS' every frame is memorable in some way and (as Devin said) it is something that can be watched and enjoyed anew every year.

It looks like this is going to get in, which I don't have a real problem with, but THEY LIVE is a great B-movie that nonetheless suffers from subpar acting and less nuance than I would expect from a true canon-worthy movie. I wish there were more "action satires" in the theaters (especially now) but just because something is rare, that doesn't necessarily make it precious. That's why I voted no.

I enjoyed this live show very much -- MORE PLEASE. Like Amy, I am a "soft" yes because I feel like it is Canon-worthy although I don't actually love it or think it is a truly great movie. But unlike Amy...I can't nitpick this one! ;-)

YES to The Canon. And anyone who thinks the movie was all a "dream" or a "waste" has completely misunderstood the movie. (And no, we don't know for sure who Keyser Soze is. If we did, THAT might ruin the movie. I think Kobayashi works for Keyser Soze and "Verbal Kent" is Soze, but that relationship could be reversed and it would still work...which is part of the genius of this movie.)

I don't get Devin's hatred of this movie--it felt like he had an axe to grind with Amy about MARATHON MAN and SEVEN and that he had made up his mind that he was going to trash BOYZ N' THE HOOD because of it. That's not good film criticism dude... On the other hand, I have to admit that Amy's rationalizations about the thing she likes most in BOYZ N' THE HOOD bordered on being patronizing. (Would she have been so passionate about this movie if it wasn't a "message picture" and one of the most important films made by an African-American in film history?) But (though no one wants to admit it) the message and the origin of the messenger DOES sometimes matter when you're talking about any canon. I think BOYZ N' THE HOOD is a terrific movie, one that still moves me 25 years later. Is it stylish? Not particularly. Has Singleton done anything worthwhile since? I would argue for BABY BOY, but that's about it. But Devin totally underrated the acting in the movie (which is mostly great), the story choices feel right and truthful to me and BOYZ N' THE HOOD remains a benchmark movie that other similarly themed films are constantly compared to. That means something. Yes for The Canon! PS If you had done a "versus" edition pitting this against MENACE 2 SOCIETY, I would have voted for MENACE.

Canon? YES... Gah, this was one tough listen. Apparently because Amy was on her way to Cannes she thought she had to adopt French pretension? A few quick thoughts that came to me while listening to this podcast: 1. There is no such thing as "empty style" in a film. 2. Amy is right that the movie is a little overrated, but Devin is right in that popular reaction shouldn't play much if any role in evaluating the movie for The Canon. 3. Everything seems pretty well thought out in Se7en to me including the aspirin bottles in the apartment that both Devin and Amy prattled on and on about. Everything "John Doe" does is a calculated expression of his nihilism--score one for Devin! 4. Both Amy and Devin seemed to miss the fact that Se7en is a horror movie more than it is a thriller or a police drama and John Doe is the monster in the "forest" (the forest is The City). If you treat Se7en like a horror movie some of the "inconsistencies" in plotting and characterization actually make more sense in context.

Sometimes I don't get Amy's rationale AT ALL, but this is just a very good thriller, not a Canon movie. It looks better now because Hollywood has forgotten how to make adult-oriented thrillers (i.e., no superheroes, wizards or over-the-top CGI), but that doesn't mean that THE MARATHON MAN is even one of the 20 best thrillers of all time--because it's not.

Okay, I love the Earwolf site, but man it should have been clearer and cleaner to navigate to and figure out where stuff was. Now that I have that gripe out of the way, my vote was for THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and it seems like that will be the runaway winner. My minor quibble with Devin and Amy's discussion was that you can't say Scorsese's movie is really about the Passion Play or the biblical account at all--it is based on the Kazantzakis novel and needs to be evaluated strictly as an adaptation of that. Gibson's direction of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST isn't bad per se, but it is hard to evaluate that as an actual movie. For me it is Scorsese all the way with a movie that probably plays even better now than it did when it first came out.