ScottMorris

Now we're getting into the nitty gritty of what it means to be Canon-worthy. Which has probably already been hashed out 70 times before on these here forums. I think there are a few different things that could qualify a film for The Canon, and if I had to pick one I'd stake it on Blair Witch being essential viewing to understand a lot of 21st century horror, and to help inform an understanding of culture in general. I mean, it's more correlative than causative, surely, but it still encapsulates and predicts a lot of the way people interact with media nowadays, in film, news, social media, etc. Everybody's got a doohicky to point, and everybody's an artist. Very debatable as to whether that's a *good* thing, but it's certainly a thing, and a big one at that. More pertinently, in terms of film, the influence of the found footage phenomenon goes without saying. But I think it goes beyond that. It seems like, as audiences have gotten more cynical and savvy, most horror films have to have a "hook", some gotcha to pull you in, and I think Blair Witch has a lot to do with that. I feel like this is becoming a back-and-forth about abstracts of historical import vs the stressing of subjective considerations of quality, so I think that's about my final word. Incidentally, I caught the new Blair Witch and it wasn't exactly a packed theater. Wonder if it'll take a shit at the box office, and if that'll signal the final decline of found footage as a mainstream subgenre.

I feel like Blade is more the Paranormal Activity of superhero movies. Maybe even the Cloverfield. But I get your point. See, I just...seems people either love, hate, or are completely indifferent to BWP. I'm obviously in the love category. But if you ask most anyone what the seminal horror films of the 90s are, Blair Witch will almost always get thrown out in the top five or so, along with the likes of Scream and Ringu and whatnot. I think a large contingent of film and especially genre buffs are going to gawk at any self-professed cinema enthusiast who doesn't have a familiarity with Blair Witch. I mean, here's the thing: if you're a film neophyte, if you've read up a bit on film history, I think you're gonna absorb Blair Witch as a must-see before too long. It isn't even a second-tier genre deeper-cut like Re-Animator, that you have to get told to watch by a fan. The Blair Witch Project finds you, its import is too self-evident to ignore. I'd put it up there with Halloween as a signpost, a moment, a game-changer. You can argue about stuff like Black Christmas or The Last Broadcast, in terms of pure seniority, but the ones that made an undeniable impact have already been etched in history.

No foolin'? I'd say yeah. One of my artistic maxims is that anything can be great. It just takes the right execution. I never say "oh that was good for a ___ movie". Quality is quality, far as I'm concerned. I'll take a well-executed B-movie over a failure of an art film, certainly. Granted, I do not have an intimate or even casual knowledge of either of those subgenres, though through osmosis i'd say the former is noteworthy enough from cultural impact for an entry to be worth a look, and the latter...I'll just put that maxim on the line and presume that somebody along the line produced a must-watch in that category.

I just think that a Canon would be incomplete without some representation of every aesthetic/movement, and found footage is undeniably one to have struck a big chord for the last decade or so (and I do not think Cannibal Holocaust counts). Though I do think it'd be interesting, if this were a "one-and-done" conversation, to pit Blair Witch against Paranormal Activity, which is the only plausible competition I can think of, in terms of a FF movie enough people would consider good or important enough to grant it entry. I would argue that Blair Witch has enough merit on its own, but that's subjective, and I suppose the premise of that portion of my comment was to look at Blair Witch as an objectively Canon-worthy film, apart from its artistic worth. This is one of those things where I feel that a line has to be drawn--like, I think it was correct for The Interview to be declined, as you don't need to watch the movie to understand its import as a global "moment", at all. But I do think, if this is viewed from the "objective" stance, that you'd still need to watch Blair Witch (or any submitted rival for the throne) to at least have a working grasp of the found footage phenomenon, even if you see said phenomemenon as artistically minor, so something, certainly, needs to get in.

I do think the Lovecraft parallels go beyond the method of delivery, which is why I'm led to believe that maybe there was a direct influence from him as opposed to the epistolary phenomenon as a whole. Though--has there been an 'epistolary film', so to speak? One that doesn't really have any one POV to lean on, but is composed entirely of snatches of footage from news, stock footage, photo diaries, coming from different people/perspectives etc? That sounds sort of insufferable, honestly, but it'd be interesting. Incidentally, you can actually buy a reproduction of the box from "The Call of Cthulhu", the one the authorities would have found the story and all the papers/items it's cobbled together from in:http://www.cthulhulives.org/store/storeDetailPages/angellbox.html

This is one of those movies where I genuinely can't even fathom an argument against its canonocity. Even if you find it unbearable, the influence of its marketing campaign and cultural impacts are undeniable. But I think the movie holds up extremely well, too, better than almost any found footage holds up even five minutes after watching it. I may be slightly biased because my favorite horror setting is in the woods, but man, this thing gets under the skin. I think it's unfair to say the characters are grating, they're acting how anyone would in this situation, and that's what makes the film work, its verisimilitude. You can picture any three people you knew in college in this exact same position, the stark, discomfiting reality of it makes it deeply unsettling. And it's a special movie that always makes you stare into the darkness of the frames looking for horrors even if you know they're never going to show. I think it builds tension excellently, and thus the breakdown of each character is terrifyingly convincing. And I have to give kudos to the actors, they really seem exactly like people lost in the woods. There's no hint of artificiality. The Blair Witch Project really gets to the heart, the core of horror, like very few films even attempt. I agree with Devin about the almost Lovecraftian vibe of it, I've always looked at it sort of a Lovecraftian thing, where unknowable terrors lurk and impinge on the normality of a hiking expedition, after all, one of HPL's central tenets was that horror can only work on a primal level if weirdness or outsideness is contrasted with the prosaic and familiar. (incidentally, isn't Lovecraft sort of a precursor to the found footage aesthetic? "Found among the papers of the late Francis Wayland Thurston", and all that). So yeah, no-brainer here, a total classic that's never quite gotten its due recognition, it being easy for the film to be smothered in the hype.

Hard yes. Excellent, electric filmmaking. One of the all-time films about boyhood (much better than, say...Boyhood). Emotionally resonant, well-written, paced like a freight train, absolutely wonderful. Deals with masculinity, romanticism, childhood, with no easy answers on any front. Life is difficult and you enjoy the magic when you can find it, and Rob Reiner certainly succeeded in capturing that bittersweet magic, here. Still gonna need that This is Spinal Tap episode before too long, though.

Labyrinth is a movie I find frustrating and heartbreaking. There are scenes in here that really hint toward a version of it that could have become one of the greatest fantasy films ever made, but the whole is so deeply compromised that it's just a damn shame. The effects are stunning, the sets and cinematography often simultaneously lush and nasty, the set pieces astounding. But they're strung together by a haphazard, unfocused narrative that can't manage to make any character's motivations or relationships convincing, that leaves the protagonist's arc stumbling and unfulfilled, and that jams in several scenes that would work better as standalone sketches. I mean, do the "You remind me of the babe" and wild gang scenes really have any purpose? They're just jarring and out of place. But the real central problem is Sarah. Aside from Jennifer Connelly's unconvincing, wide-eyed performance, the movie can't commit to this character having any real arc or through-line. Sometimes it seems the point is that she has to grow up, sometimes it seems like the point is that she has to learn to navigate the realities of life, sometimes it seems like she has to learn to make friends, but none of these are really meaningfully resolved, and all are rather poorly explored, and the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too ending feels like it undoes any point the film was occasionally trying to have. Where she ends up doesn't feel earned, just dictated. The last half hour or so is the standout, but even the amazing elements are diluted by context--the junkyard scene, while incredible, is undone by the failure of the rest of the movie to really explore Sarah's life and goals and maturity. As well, Jareth's seductive elements, and that wonderful masquerade ball, are undermined by them just sort of appearing out of nowhere, and Jareth's place in the movie until that point is this bland noncommittal taunting sneer. Indeed, the movie doesn't have any urgency, period, til the end nears, Sarah sauntering along with ostensible but unconvincing purpose, from one meaningless if impressive setpiece to the next, and Jareth being a bad guy because that's what the script has him doing. Hell, he seems to like her brother more than she does, and there's never a palpable sense that she's actually learned anything or grown. And the whole subplot about Hoggle's alignment is totally extraneous. Sarah and Hoggle don't hang out enough, and they certainly don't have much charm or chemistry together, so the question of whether he'll end up a good guy is entirely uninteresting. The whole thing's a bummer. When the film's on, it's really on, but there's no depth of character, no thematic coherence, and effects/wonder can only carry a film so far if there's no emotional or narrative momentum. Honestly, the whole thing feels like it should have been a TV show. With more time for the characters and the world to settle, and with a more appropriate medium for the choppy thematics, it could have approached real, earned poignancy. As it is, it feels like a mere glimpse at real greatness, an ambitious failure, and as much as I'd like to laud the very feminine themes, I think their exploration is largely superficial and without heft. There's better Henson, there's better 80s fantasy, there's better female-focused genre stuff, there are better effects showcases (better wholes, anyway, the effects specifically are some of the most impressive ever filmed, though I think it's more a matter of degree-of-what-already-existed than influential innovation). I just can't endorse Labyrinth as Canon-worthy. Er, not that my endorsement means much. But it's a vote.

Also, I understand where Amy is coming from, but it's not like you guys are considering Prince of Darkness or House of Wax or even later Gordon like Dagon, all to one degree or another solid, well-made, sometimes great movies, but not on the same level as Re-Animator. It has more meat, more nuance, more good. It's a top-shelf splatter film and a fine, classic horror entry. I don't think the standards have slipped. There are many metrics by which we grade a great film. Gojira may not be The Godfather but I certainly hope it makes it in when it comes up, because it's doing exactly what it wants to do exceedingly well, and better than most of its kind. Maybe that's the real test: is it better than most films trying to do similar thiings?

Yes, yes, totally yes. Important as a major, well-done example of levity being added to horror after the oftentimes grim, disturbing, and baroque 70s. Amazing effects, tight plot, great characters, great ending. Definitive Jeffrey Combs. Definitive Stuart Gordon. A fine exploration of the multiple dark sides of men, and devilish fun. All this Evil Dead instead talk is claptrap (I refer to some comments I've seen, not whatever Amy said, just starting the podcast). This ain't Highlander, there needn't be only one.

I kinda hate this movie. Thin characters and a needlessly-labyrinthine plot result in a hollow experience. I find the twist a bit nonsensical, or at least pointless, as well. Just a waste. Skillfully done, technically, I guess, but ultimately a smug and showy movie about nothing. Supremely overrated.

It's always interesting to see what others find boring. I find Batman much more boring because the only really exceptional thing about it is the Joker and it sinks like a stone whenever he isn't prancing about onscreen. Though after listening to the Podcast I feel like lackadaisical cinematography in Batman may have also contributed. It has a lot of beautiful imagery, but it isn't particularly well-composed or engaging. Superman lags a tiny bit but for the most part I think it moves at a nice clip. One big difference between the two is that Superman has several riveting action scenes revolving around Superman doing Superman stuff, while Batman...doesn't. The movie is never able to get action any better than stilted, which, yknow, a movie doesn't necessarily need action, but if there isn't much else of interest it helps. 'Boring' is an incredibly subjective criticism, I think it's always worth looking at what about the movie *makes* it boring. I saw Gods of Egypt and it certainly isn't slow or really wanting for action, but it's so poorly written and heavy on nonsensical plot that it becomes a horrible slog.

I have to go Superman, it's not even close. Upon revisiting, Batman just...isn't all that good. It's a very poorly-plotted movie that lives and dies on Jack Nicholson's performance as The Joker. The Vicki Vale subplot is dumb and pointless, and the reveal of Joker's identity as the assailant in the alley is stupid, and kind of weirdly handled considering the moment itself has no weight since we hadn't seen murder in flashback before Joker's "dance with the devil" reveal. While I do enjoy Keaton's more laid-back, confident Bruce Wayne, Batman isn't really involved in the action of his own movie at all, just sitting around reacting to the Joker. And, to be fair, this is a truly great portrayal of the Joker. The movie's plotlessness makes it start to drag pretty badly by the end, but every time Jack Napier is onscreen it becomes much more watchable. I'm more partial to Batman Returns, overall, as Burton makes the concept more his own, at least, as he makes it clearer that he doesn't much care about the source material. Now, conversely, Superman is simply excellent. Nothing less than an attempt to capture a snapshot of the standard Superman situation, what the movie lacks in plot it more than makes up for in sheer iconicism. I love that Superman is a confused kid, and the movie bypasses what could have been his Man of Steel stage by essentially sending him to space college with his dad for a decade. I love the sweeping shots of grain in America's heartland. I love the quietly tragic beat of Pa Kent dying because he couldn't keep with Clark, a fine lesson for Clark in understanding how he must approach improving humanity. Every moment of 'Superman stuff' is invested with a degree of wonder and magic that's downright awe-inspiring, and Christopher Reeves embodies the character startlingly well, becoming undoubtedly *the* iconic vision of the character. Margot Kidder's Lois Lane is excellent, Perry White and Jimmy Olsen are both given fine nods, Superman's status as a protector of humanity is clear, it's a film that *gets* Superman in a way that comic book movies wouldn't really do for their subjects again until Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. And truth be told, I even love Lex Luthor. I think the dissonance between the lighthearted tone of his segments and the profound evil of his plans is a nicely-done touch, and the character's portrayal as a bloviating Silver Age style villain taken just a shade more seriously than he would have been back in the day is a thing to behold, I think. It's simply charming to see so many outre elements from comicdom's weird days played relatively straight in a distinctly-70s fantasy film. I do, however, have a problem with the ending, much as Devin does. Aside from simply being too-ridiculous a notion even for this movie's wide-eyed earnestness to pull off, it's really kind of a copout. Silly as it sounds, I think it may have just worked better in the moment to have Superman revive her with a kiss or something. Thankfully, this film is very much trying to be a sketch in live action of the classic Superman status quo, rather than actually building to that ending in any real way, so I think it's an easy thing to ignore. So yeah, I think Superman is a winner hands-down here. Both films are important, but Superman is much better, much more accomplished, much more classic.

I had different reactions to these movies, but if I'm being honest, I don't think either of them really work. I loathe Passion, and while I do think Last Temptation is interesting, I also find it unwieldy and unfocused and difficult to sit through. Passion of the Christ is just a repugnant film, and an almost inhumanly boring one. I was so bored by Gibson's depth-averse, pain-centric version of what Christianity is about, all I could think about were the various contradictions and reservations about Christian dogma that the very film brings up. Without going into any questions of faith or sacrifice or purpose, Jesus' sacrifice just comes across fatalistic, and cruel on God's part. I wasn't really any more convinced of the validity of Christianity by Last Temptation, but that movie wasn't trying to convince you of that, which Passion very much is. As for Last Temptation...as I said, lot of interesting stuff throughout, but this damned thing is almost three hours long. It has so much to say about the nature of faith and sacrifice and revolution, and says it all in such a muddled, haphazard way, that I'd much rather read a book examining Christ. I don't find Jesus very convincing as a character, ever, it's very hard to get a read on what his intentions are, why he's doing anything, whether he's even in control of his actions, if he's entirely sane, etc etc etc. I think this movie would have been much more effective through the lens of his followers; seeing it through his eyes, the messages come out a little mixed. And if it does have to be through his eyes, I think focusing on one aspect of his would have made for a better movie. Jesus the Revolutionary, or Jesus the Messiah, or Jesus the tortured soul, or Jesus the lunatic. The film juggles way too much and can't handle it all smoothly. And boy does it drag, a lot could have been cut. All this said, however, I do think it may just be worthy of The Canon. As a controversial film, as a decidedly unorthodox take on Christ in the decade Fundamentalism came roaring back to the center stage of American politics and culture, as a film that, whether it works or not, gives you a hell of a lot to chew on, it's pretty damn noteworthy, and unquestionably head and shoulders above Passion.