Head Spin

Oh hell yeah! One of you got their indulgence pick.

It you follow his social media you'd know he's the greatest ideological criminal among the liberal Twitterati. /s I like that Devin speaks truth to power (which I guess is randos online). And a person who speaks his or her mind is destined to say some stupid shit every now and again, because we all do. But he's a well-reasoned man, and he luckily has just enough humility and self-awareness to stop short of being a blow-hard. Respect. And also, I'm of the opinion that it's better to err on the side of being a blow-hard about social and political issues then to keep quiet about them. So he's right up my alley.

I'm not sure I have any strong argument about there being a lack of something that Children of Men fills, although I'd love to see some more sci-fi flicks. Children of Men is just one of those breathtaking cinematic achievements. Alfonso Cuaron made a world that felt alive (albeit dying) while exercising the sci-fi tradition of interrogating our own culture and society through speculative fiction. The movie's more then cool long takes; it's just an insanely quality film from top to bottom. Plus there are elements, especially the stuff with refugees, where the film feels even more relevant ten years later.

For the record, my understanding is that he dropped off the face of the earth due to some illegal wiretapping he did on the set of the Rollerball remake, which got him tied up fighting the FBI in court for years and years. At the end, some light googling is telling me that he did have to serve a year in prison. That put the kibosh on his career. In any case it's an interesting idea, and I'd like to say that I will go to the fucking mat to defend Die Hard with a Vengeance.

Usually dubs are considered rotten, but the dubs for Miyazaki films are produced by Disney and are generally great. I've seen most of them recommended over the subs, and that includes Kiki's. The version I got was subbed, though, so I can't speak to it directly.

I absolutely agree that that's their best. And given their filmography, that's a bar so high you'd need a javelin to clear it.

I agree, and you're right that Gravity isn't as strong a bet as those. I think Gravity and Azkaban would make for some close voting, particularly with the latter being arguably the best of the Harry Potter films; whether that warrants consideration or dismissal would be fun. Y Tu Mama Tambien I would consider a lock, but there's so much to discuss, who cares? Plus I don't think there's been a Mexican film up for consideration yet. But holy shit, I drool like a basset hound thinking about Children of Men. Make mine, hosts!

As long as it's a great film that is in some way exceptional, it gets in. That's my criteria. If Devin and Amy chose pictures to talk about by random chance it'd be much different, but they get chosen usually because they're great/exceptional to one of them. It's not that a film needs to be "just good" for it to get in. It's that usually they choose films that are better than "just good." A lot enter that way, but I'd rather they discuss a lot of really interesting films that pass than to choose a lot more average films just for the flavor of voting them out. The fun's in the discussion, not just the voting. It took the striking down of the "neither" option for me to fully understand that.

The Host and [REC] are also stand out foreign horror movies of the aughts. Llewellyn's right, isn't he? American horror in the 2000s didn't make much of a mark. I do think the 2010s have ramped up the quality considerably, though. And I often think of Beyond the Black Rainbow, even though that movie sort of falls apart by the end.

Lot of good j-horror in the aughts like The Ring and Suicide Circle, among many others. Not a big Audition fan, but there it is. This decade has had more then a few classics. It Follows, The Witch, The Babadook, and Cabin in the Woods spring to mind. I think modern horror focuses less on visual effects and more about finding a new psychological vein, like many of the above. Also, and this may be BS, but I feel like there are more movies like Under the Skin that use horror elements without being full-on horror movies. I'm not sure if that's true but that's my gut reaction. Even a legit horror flick like Cabin in the Woods was having fun with genre. Or Krampus, of recent, which was a comedy/horror/Christmas movie. Lots of remixing.

Not to quote you twice in a day, but I just saw City of the Living Dead for the first time on 35mm at Chicago's Music Box Theatre last month and adored it. Best undead priest incineration in cinema. The Beyond is a great candidate, but Fulci's just fun to discuss in general. An embarrassment of great choices.

I think it's missing the point to focus on the message being "obvious" or Piper's one-liners coming off badly (and I do think that's a legit flaw). They Live is rough around the edges, but it succeeds as art. It's kind of like the Boyz n the Hood episode, except that this movie has a lot of amazing production and screenwriting detail to go with the cheese. The question is "does it work," and They Live knocks it out of the park. It's simple in design, but filled with quality detail that resonates. bri-witched pretty much nailed it in a sentence back on the first page. Carpenter's going for a general message but approached it with a surprising depth and exceptional presentation. It stuck with people.

Buckaroo Banzai for me. Indulge me at your own risk.

Holy fuck that scare... I once thought that all pop scares were cheap. And many are. But look no further then that one for proof that there are incredible pop scares. That one only gets creepier the more I think about it.

They Live is an all-time favorite of mine. It's fun, smart, social, well-balanced, affecting, and, sadly, often dismissed for its goofiness. And that's a shame - when people see its tone as a weakness they're misunderstanding its greatest strength. They Live endures as a (liberal) politcal cinematic success on two key merits: it's deceptive depth and its energy. When I say energy I ought to just say tone and emotion, but "energy" feels right for this film. It delivers a broad political message in a brilliant way. All of us have seen socially conscious movies, message movies, movies with political agendas or satire and so on. Pick any movie from your mind that shone a light on the bleakness of our political system or of the grim realities of the underclass. If you're like me you can, when recalling them, feel the emotion they all give off. Despair, or perhaps misery. And those movies deserve those emotions as do the realities they're based on. But the downside of misery is that it's a bad "energy" for a film that wants to make a lasting point. Misery and despair are the emotions that the human mind is best trained to bury. Many are the films that people finish and say "Holy shit our world is a sewer," only for it to roll off their backs later that night. And that often goes even for the ones that add the clause ", and something has to change!" to people's responses. Enter They Live. Its message is as bleak as they come, but Carpenter transmits that signal on different frequencies. For instance, let's take the sunglasses discovery sequence. The narrative confronts Nada with direct class warfare in the shantytown, and he is finally prepared to put on his glasses and see the world in a new way. When Nada takes in the true world through his lenses he doesn't speak a word; the movie depicts his stunned revelation entirely through Piper's face and the soundtrack. They Live sets itself up for the typical cinematic depiction of a protagonist losing his ignorance: the tension builds into a dramatic outburst, often a speech, where the viewer learns about the gravity of social reality through him. But what happens? Nada stumbles into a grocery store, the ghoul cutaways get more and more comical, the tense soundtrack drops out, and Nada just sort of gets used to it. This leads to the greatest line in the movie, and a teriffic anticlimax. Nada sees a ghoul politician giving a canned optimistic speech, laughs, and says "It figures it'd be something like this." I LOVE IT! That's our dramatic payoff for his big transformation into the political rebel. And that's why They Live resonates. Carpenter sells, quietly, the severity of the political content, but keeps it just on the right side of farce before it gets too grim. It's irreverent so as to keep it from being preachy or pretentious. And he keeps the irreverence from spiraling out by maintaining the simmering anger and resentful powerlessness of the low-class Frank and Nada consistent. The movie shows our heroes both as the wounded masculine figures of a disenfranchised underclass, but also gives them a testosterone-reclaiming victory where Piper flips off the helicopter as he dies. In fact, it lets the audience finish on a win without selling out the hopelessness of the struggle. This tonal alchemy is why the movie succeeds as a work of political art: it uses a bleak political critique for its energy, where, by all rights, depicting that message should be sad and enervating to the audience. When I watch it it leaves me uncomfortable with the world, but pumped. Its silliness is no drawback, its part of a delicate and unique energy with which Carpenter gives his movie true power. It's exceptional, and it's Canon-worthy. I spent too many words on that, so I'll just say very briefly that the other side to the films genius is in its detail. This movie is not subtle in message, but it is subtle in the depth of its message. They Live doesn't try to replace political texts on late-stage capitalism, but it try to squeeze in the breadth of socialist issues into a short runtime. The movie touches on race, class, TV, gender, cultural imperialism, advertisement, ideology, and more. In fact, the story it tells just as a metaphor for the difficulty of adopting a new political perspective and in trying to communicate it to to others is strong enough. Carpenter, again, keeps it from feeling too heady, and he does it by putting much of the dialogue in the mouths of random cutaway ghoul vignettes, or in the mouths of the shantytown residents and resistance members. Many of those shantytown residents initially look like throwaway extras, and then Carpenter brings them back during the shantytown demolition for specific emotional beats. The movie is just filled with great detail, all while staying a pretty simple and breezy film. Anyways, sorry again for the ramble. Stretching a lunch break to write this. But They Live is an incredible movie. That doesn't mean its meant to be read as some solemn, serious text, but it deserves respect for its legit depth and unreal execution.

I love Film Crit Hulk!!!! Hope we get that episode.

Devin put Guardians up for the Best of 2014 episode, but Amy put up Grand Budapest Hotel which won. They did talk about the MCU in that episode, and I think I recall them agreeing that Avengers would be the best choice as an MCU Canon candidate. I'd agree. It may be the very best, and it holds a tremendously important spot in our current cinema blockbuster landscape. Other then that, I think you could argue Winter Soldier on quality alone. Iron Man 3 is my favorite of the MCU, but I don't know if it deserves a slot. And with Guardians off the board I don't think there are any other real candidates. I like banging the drum for Ant Man, but that, too, I think doesn't deserve a slot. They're fun movies to discuss though.

I actually just saw Nightcrawler the other day, finally. I think it's probably too on-the-nose to be a significant satire, but it's definitely an amazing crime thriller. Lou Bloom is an all-time great character/performance of cinema, and the whole film just flows. The direction, editing, and writing are all near-perfect. I'd vote it in in a heartbeat.

Maybe too obvious. I actually rewatched that last month. Still incredible, although William Holden speechifies way too much about Faye Dunaway being a TV kid as the movie goes on. That's a little dated, but pretty much everything else is still A+ spectacular.

Well I don't think Only God Forgive will get enough "yes" support to be divisive. People loved Drive, and I think I'd vote yes, but I get the feeling from your post that you think it'd be a shutout. I imagine it would be much closer. There's definitely a "Drive is overrated" crowd.

X_X I missed last week's discussion. I liked reading it, though! There's no need for anyone to read this, but I wanted to say my piece anyways. I wish I felt the way Amy felt about Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I came out of the episode with a greater appreciation for Hawks' direction and Marilyn's performance, but Gentlemen, to me, is a tiring journey. I agree with Amy that this film's fun is in the details. The costumes, the choreography, the small Marilyn affectations, and the brilliant Jane Russell deadpan here and there. But this film was like a walk in the desert to me. It's a rough trek, and although I enjoyed many beautiful little oases along the way, it was painful to leave each one and return to the march. It just drags. A film like this doesn't need a tight plot; Some Like It Hot runs loose for the majority of its run. The latter, however, has (some) stakes, subplots and diversions, and - most of all - a fun and interesting supporting cast. So much of the film rests on the narrative thrusts around Piggy, Malone, and Esmond - and none of that really worked for me. Gentlemen has a few quality gags and musical numbers, but everything else that wasn't Russell and Monroe interacting was just a grind. With distance I can appreciate all the good moments on their own, but it didn't add up to an enjoyable watch for me. I found Some Like It Hot to be something of a "way homer" on this watch. It's fantastic: the weird plotting, the performances, the chemistry between the leads, the colorful supporting cast, the fun camerawork, and most of all the frenetic Wilder-comedy pacing. Everything was working for me except the comedy itself. I didn't find it all that funny. It was the one thing I had against it, but it was a major consideration for a comedy flick. And then, as if thawing, I started cracking up in the middle of my commute to that amazing reveal shot of Joe rising out of the bathtub in his full "Junior" suit. Two days later it had all hit me. It's great from concept to delivery. Stacked against Gentlemen, Some Like It Hot really shows off the sprinting quality of Wilder's comedies. Lots of comedies have a density of jokes, but Wilder has a density of comedic premises. It's as though he began with the concept and tries to stack together as many ides and incidences as he could, and then shove them all in. We don't just get Joe and Jerry chasing after Sugar – in fact there was so much comedic work to be done Jerry just stops trying pretty early on. We get Sugar trying to dupe Joe-as-Junior into dating her, with Sugar roping Jerry-as-Daphne into it while using lies that the duo used to dupe the girls (“I spent three years at the Sheboygan Conservatory of Music!”). And when that scene isn't firing off a new premise or joke, Wilder stuffs physical comedy into the cracks, such as when Joe hastily flips his upside down Wall Street Journal back around that he's been using as a prop. That's Wilder comedy. It's cinema modeled after a tidal wave. I hope Devin and Amy can eventually do One, Two, Three – a Wilder comedy tsunami so strong it washed James Cagney right into retirement. You just can't beat the momentous energy and quality Wilder crams into his comedies, and neither can Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

I was a moderate no coming into this episode. I remember it stirring me the first time I saw it, but I was kind of unmoved this time. I adore the 50s sci-fi homage direction, and I think it has a fun and well written supporting cast helmed by a great Depp performance. Ed Wood, this time, felt like a fine movie instead of a great one. I see that several commenters shared that opinion, and don't I disagree. Film discussion has, yet again, won me over. Listening to Jonah and Devin's personal reactions to the film clued me into the movie's power. I agreed with what they said, and by the end I had a weird little quandary on my hands: Is it valid to vote a movie that I didn't have much of a reaction to into the Canon if others did? Phrased that way, it's an easy "no." A person shouldn't reject one's own reaction to art just because it's different. However I really empathized with their reaction; in essence I was "convinced" that it worked at a Canon-worthy level separate from my own reaction. And since I don't work in an artistic field, I came away feeling like the movie - as Jonah suggested - "found its audience." It won the reaction it wanted from the people it was speaking to. So do I cast my vote based on my personal reaction and ignore my newfound respect of the film's artistic successes? Or do I vote on some kind of "objective" stab at a movie and downplay the validity of my reaction in its evaluation? Well, like a good Law & Order episode, I side-stepped the genuinely interesting question I presented by making up something at the end that reveals it to have been an open-and-shut murder case after all. It's two days later and I'm with the gang on Ed Wood. I understood their opinion when I listened, but now I feel like I share it. Kind of weird. I didn't have that strong emotional reaction to many of those beats, but after hearing about them from others I find I'm having them now. Sometimes I get anxious when someone changes my mind - especially on something subjective. Makes me worry that my own reaction wasn't valid if it just fell away to another's. However it isn't that my whole opinion has been replaced, its just that the discussion of the hosts and guest and commenters have helped me experience the film more fully. W/e, TL;DR: This is why film discussion is so much fun. A yes for me.

Great suggestion!! I think this might be the most vital-sounding suggestion on the board. I'd love to see it.

This one's always tough for me. I've loved it both times I've seen it, but it always kind of leaves my head afterwards. I feel the quality in the moment, but it doesn't pass the post-viewing smell test for me personally. I don't know why.

I think Drive and especially Pusher are more devisive and interesting Refn films for consideration. Refn for sure deserves some talk. I really like Valhalla Rising, but I think it'd be tough to discuss.