Rotmonian

I love this movie just like every other 80's kid, but in the Canon? No way. It's fun junk, and I love everyone involved. But it's a mess of a film and I don't personally believe in cultural impact arguments (just my opinion). Still, I loved the episode and I'm happy the Canon is back!

Jeez, not a lot of love here for Blair Witch. In the world of horror cinema, this is considered one of the all-time greats. I go back to this film every five years or so, to give myself enough time to forget significant portions of it. Sure, it might be slightly diminished outside the context of 1999; its technique may also prove annoying to some extent. But for some to say it doesn't work, or they weren't affected--I just don't believe it. That's hipster nonsense. You may as well tell me what year you got into Arcade Fire or how many times you've had sex, because I'm more likely to believe that. That aside, it's one of the most important indie films ever made; it revolutionized film marketing, it was a cultural touchstone, and it's a genre staple. Canon-worthy shouldn't even be a question.

I feel like the Cannibal Holocaust episode was most entertaining.

This movie definitely brings up warm memories of watching with my wacky, hermit, late aunt as a kid. Gotta compartmentalize your nostalgia on this one, because it's just really not that good.

It absolutely blows my mind that Troll 2 hasn't been done. When I first heard of this podcast and the concept, this is the first movie that came to my mind. Its ineptitude makes The Room look like pinnacle Truffaut. This movie is so bad it has an entire documentary made about it being so bad.

I agree with you (as the guy who started the Fulci thread). But after that Re-Animator episode and the very unfair things levied against it in the episode and in the forum, putting some of my favorite movies up for discussion makes me nervous. Though at the end of the day, I'd just be happy they were discussed.

I like that your profile pic is from Suspiria.

It will take a strong argument to get me off Boogie Nights, but I'm willing to be swayed. Let the fun begin.

The arguments for and against are all compelling. I really want to write a ten-page essay here about the value of certain genre films, as that is my main area of expertise as a cinephile, but I’m not narcissistic enough to assume anyone cares. This really boils down to one simple thought: Are we allowing genre films into the Canon (the answer is obviously yes), so why wouldn’t we include one of the best genre films out there? I get it. We already have Cannibal Holocaust, Evil Dead 2, The Thing, and now, possibly Re-Animator. The rub is, while all of those are indeed horror genre films, they’re all VERY DIFFERENT films. There was a conversation in the episode about whether or not we should let in more westerns, and the consensus seemed to be yes, we should—because you can make many different, many great kinds of westerns. How impossibly illogical is it to conclude the same cannot be said for horror and gore films? I truly wish not to sound condescending, but anyone who thinks Evil Dead 2 and Re-Animator are the same movie is bringing an insanely flawed perspective to the table. They’re both horror and gore films from the 1980s, but that’s about where the similarities end. That’s why it’s frustrating arguing with people about genre films who are new to it (what Devin was talking about with “ignorance”). No knowledgeable person of the genre would ever conflate the two. Now, if you’re going to be biased against including these types of films into the canon, fine. I totally get that. But if you’re on the fence and have no qualms with genre inclusion, make sure you recognize Re-Animator as one of the best of the bunch and vote accordingly.

Suspiria shouldn't even be considered an indulgence pick. It should get by on its own merit.

The Room vs Troll 2

That's true. Carpenter and RRP discussed that in the DVD Commentary.

This seems to be a debate about what the canon is and isn't and not so much on the film itself. I think we can all agree that Carpenter deserves to be in the canon. Through a 2016 retrospective lens, They Live is one of his most important films, alongside the The Thing and Halloween. It would be hard to argue those two films don't belong in the canon on influence alone, which in context, means They Live deserves the same consideration (regardless of quality). I don't think it's a film that exists between an art film and a bad film: it's an art film disguised as a bad film; the art has a lot to say about the process and presentation of the film. The crappy and goofy things people refer to are iterations of the very themes the film is trying to convey. Constrained by budget? Sure. But it used the budget to its benefit. I understand the argument against it. I just have a hard time believing one of the most important films of the 1980s wouldn't be in the canon.

The Toxic Avenger

I'm one of those idiots who thinks House by the Cemetery is his most realized horror film in terms of storytelling and "characters." But The Beyond I think is his most canon-worthy: it's a masterpiece of tone and creativity, and its influence cannot be denied.