Galactiac

I watched Captain America: Civil War in a 4DX theater in Chicago. Pretty sure 4DX is practically the same thing, but they pump in scents and smoke and blow air on you too. It's neat, and it's worth trying once, but I think I was a little distracted by it. Civil War might not have been the best movie to try this with. I was actually trying to pay attention to what was going on in the plot, and suddenly my seat starts jerking me around, lights are flashing at me and giant fans are blowing air on me. I never could tell what the scents were supposed to smell like. Once when Spider-Man shot his webs a little tickler thing started flapping around between my ankles. I thought that was kind of cool, but did that really compliment what was happening on screen? I honestly didn't feel like I'd seen the movie properly until it came out on video recently. So maybe if it's programmed better. Maybe it works better with horror movies or movies you just want to veg out too. Knowing the Blair Witch guys were heavily involved in the DBOX programming does make me interested, but I haven't a clue where I could even find one of those. The ticket is expensive, like 20 bucks, and I found it to be the opposite of immersive, but I still think it's something everyone should try out in case they don't exist in a few years. It will shake your tits off.

I'm not going to vote for anything based on it's marketing campaign. As for the found footage genre there are some that I like more than TBWP, but I don't think I've ever seen one that got more than a lukewarm reaction out of me. But admittedly I'm only casually interested in horror. I think found footage is just a cheap way to make a movie, and for me it's usually a pretty cheap experience. So no vote from me based on cultural impact.

Always been curious about this movie. I'm pumped.

None of that really adds up to much for me. I haven't seen any of the supplemental stuff, and the mythology in the film is totally disjointed. The performances would be fine if the conceit was working for me, but by themselves they are a little "improvy" like Devin said. I could see that the actors were trying their best to work in the plot point they were given for that day. The whole thing is sloppy and loose because they're trying to create a sense of reality. I do understand that. But that reality doesn't come through for me, so all I'm left with is manufactured "sloppy and loose".

Yeah but that's what I'm saying. There are plenty of horror movies that don't scare me that I still enjoy. Maybe there's a story there, maybe there are some character arcs, maybe it's just fun. To me, if you watch Blair Witch and it's not scary, then it's just someone's crummy home movies cut together. I'm only being reductive because I don't think there's much content outside of a conceit that I just couldn't buy into. I'm not trying to be a snob here; I'm just being honest about my experience. A gimmick in a movie is fine, but if that's all it has to offer me then is it really a great canon-worthy film? I kind of don't think so.

It's really more of a gimmick than a film, because if the gimmick doesn't work on someone then there's really not much else to appreciate. Right? If I'm not scared, then I'm just watching three people bicker and walk in circles in the woods. I've never watched another film that fell apart so completely when a single element didn't work for me. I know this is going to get in, and I can live with that, but this is the one I feel the most strongly about since I've joined the board.

I remember the hype about this movie very clearly, but never bothered watching it until recently. Back in '99 I remember watching a Daily Show interview where the directors gave a detailed description of how this movie was made (really clever btw, and the actors did a fairly decent job). I'd also heard people talk about the end of this movie, and I think I'd even seen a clip of it, so I knew quite a lot before I ever sat down. With that said, I found the movie didn't work for me at all. I saw what felt like an 80 minute Live Leak video of three really stressed out, grating people lost in the woods. Someone was playing a prank on them by piling up rocks and making noises outside their tent. At the end one of them stands in a corner while the other drops the camera. In the age of YouTube hoaxes, and doofuses jumping at their own shadow on cable Bigfoot shows I don't think something like The Blair Witch Project feels like reality in the way that it's supposed to. Perhaps it did in '99, but I saw it in 2016. It absolutely had a cultural impact, and started a whole new genre of horror films, but the end result was so profoundly unscary and unremarkable to me that it's a very easy "no". Not to be an ass about this, but it really felt like an overlong episode of Ghost Hunters or something. Cool approach to making a movie, but nope.

I gotta say as a "soft yes" on this movie, quite a few of the "no" arguments are very persuasive to me. I'm still a "yes", but the ambivalence I'm feeling now really does make me wonder if nostalgia for being a 12 year old boy is throwing me off. I still feel like it's really good though, and any improvements that could be made would leave you with mostly the same experience. The "four boys go off on an adventure" premise has been borrowed a lot, so I can see how it feels like a cliche now.

Yeah I was 17 when this movie came out and I remember the big impact it had, and I recognize it created a big boom in insanely profitable found footage movies. I think the way it was made was really clever, and I get why it was a success and why it was influential, but I'm starting with the basics i.e. "Does the movie work for me right now?" I'm going to save the rest for the voting thread, but I might not have that much more to say about it. I would definitely encourage everyone to watch this again if they haven't seen it in years. I don't think you can go off of memory on this one.

So I watched this for the first time three days ago. I'll save most of my opinions until after the episode, but I will say that I wasn't even a little bit scared watching this. Not even close.

I feel like the silly puke story is a good example of how this movie awkwardly wobbles between being broad and serious. Keifer Sutherland's gang pretty much only exist to give the movie a climax. But I love all of the stuff with the four main characters. It definitely nails what it's like to be a boy at that age. Phoenix and Wheaton's relationship is pretty moving to me. So I'm a soft yes. I think this is a story told fairly well, but there are some imperfections that ding it a little.

When I think of non-Muppets Henson I think of either Dark Crystal or the early Ninja Turtles movies. When I think of 80s live-action fantasy I think The Neverending Story or Time Bandits. I think Labyrinth is more known for David Bowie in that wig than anything else. That's just a nitpick really. I'm an 80s kid and Labyrinth has always been the "David Bowie in a wig" movie to me. When it came to "Henson" or "fantasy" other stuff came up in my mind first.

Sure those are really good reasons to enjoy Labyrinth, and I like it for those reasons as well even if I'm not speaking from a perspective that identifies as closely with it as you do. Batman is certainly not unique in those ways; it's just a movie I thought was fucking awesome when I saw it in the theater at seven years old. For me, the fairest way to decide whether or not I want to vote for something is to judge it based on the quality of the storytelling. Sometimes cultural impact can sway me, but poor storytelling is something I try to be careful not to reward. A lot of of people would argue Pennies From Heaven is bad storytelling, but I feel like it painted this beautifully complex landscape of human emotion, and it sustained that for the entire picture. Not all of it was perfect, but I think they pulled it off. Labyrinth has SO much going for it but it drags in a way that wasn't necessary. Poor editing, an ever changing script, it almost doesn't matter what caused it because it has problems that are unfortunately very common. The reasons you love it are the same reasons I think it deserves to be a tighter film experience. It deserves to be a movie that anyone would want to watch again and again so that those strong feminist themes get as much exposure as possible. Right? As it is I just feel like it's wonky and a little disappointing. It's not something I would recommend to people that enjoy good movies no matter what they're about. I think it's sort of stuck in a niche when it didn't have to be. But I love that it means so much to you. That's a very positive thing. I think 5-10 years from now we could easily see someone make an amazing Labyrinth homage that will blow people's minds. There are absolutely some great ideas in there.

My biggest nostalgia movie is probably Batman (1989) and I'm perfectly fine with it not being in the canon. Some movies just don't hold up under close examination. That absolutely doesn't mean you can't enjoy them.

I love Bowie and the puppets, and there are a couple of scenes I really like, but like Devin said it's just so airless. No tension at all. I feel like this movie deserves a do-over because there was some great potential here. For a film that drags this much I have to say "no".

Yeah I have no problem identifying with Arthur and thinking he's a piece of shit at the same time. He's selfish and petty and often careless about other people's feelings, but absolutely not a sociopath. He has remorse and shame, just not at the right time. He tries to show accordion man kindness, but he's uncomfortable with the overwhelming gratitude so he spoils the moment and storms out of the diner (SUCH a common thing in the real world. Moments of true beauty get snuffed out because we can't be seen bawling our eyes out. This is the kind of stuff that makes me love this movie.)

I wasn't going to say anything, but I was right on the edge of thinking indulgence picks were a bad idea. On the other hand an indulgence pick got me to sign up for the board, and so far the most exciting votes and the best discussions have been indulgence picks. It's starting to look like a pretty successful idea.

This is just how most people express their opinions on the internet, mak, I wouldn't get too terribly upset about it. Nobody ever actually "wins" a discussion; it either goes on for an embarrassingly long time or somebody walks away. If you've expressed your point of view clearly then that's all you really have to worry about. People will misinterpret you, ignore you, say the same things over and over again etc. etc. At the end of the day people don't remember that stinger sentence someone threw in at the last minute, but they will remember how you handled yourself. You say you think a movie is good, they say a movie is bad, and you're all dead even at the end of the day. It doesn't matter if they expressed their opinion as fact or not. I do get where you're coming from though. I was involved in some epic flame wars in my early twenties. I'm just glad all that predated twitter and facebook.

I would take Nights of Cabiria over Breakfast at Tiffany's any day of the week. I really believe Breakfast at Tiffany's is just a weak film even if you pretend Mickey Rooney wasn't in it.

All the "I don't buy Steve Martin in this role" stuff is starting to remind me of the time he did that closed-circuit interview about art (which he happens to be an expert in) and the viewers got angry, prompting a massive refund. A couple of days after the incident became a news item Martin tweeted "Made love to my wife last night. She asked for a refund." I get it guys. It's hard to imagine the man that's done a thousand comedies of varying degrees of quality doing something as dour as Pennies From Heaven, but that was absolutely not an issue I had with this film in the slightest. The first time he opened his mouth and that old fuzzy recording came out my whole brain adjusted because I knew this was something very different. I definitely think there are some fair criticisms to be made about the screenplay, but I completely disagree about Martin or the conceit. I got this weird buzz from it.

So I came in expecting to hate this, but I was actually pretty floored by it once I watched it. I don't love how the plot unfolds, and the accordion man character took a massive left turn that felt a little too cynical to me, but some of the musical sequences are in such beautiful contrast to the action taking place in the real world that I have to vote "yes". That lip-syncing almost explicitly suggest this is more about the characters inner life and less about performance, and the lovely dream-like musical sequences make the entire movie for me. It's so trippy and sad and profound in a way that wouldn't even come close if we were watching just the musical numbers, or just the real-world plot. I love it. Beyond canon-worthy. Yes. And also a pleasant surprise. Thanks for suggesting this one; it's kind of a favorite now.

Easy yes. I don't know if you ever "could" make a race comedy like this. Doing it today would take the right vision from a VERY rare talent. That's what Mel Brooks is to this day, but he's decided to spend his time watching movies and eating off of tv trays with Carl Reiner. Much wiser use of his time I think.

Actually I don't see much of this at all. If we were talking about Help! it would be a big fat "no" from me because I genuinely don't think it's canon worthy. Just because people talk about their admiration for The Beatles in their response to a movie STARRING The Beatles that is ABOUT The Beatles does not mean they're voting "just because it's The Beatles". So give people a little more credit.

It would be an AHDN landslide.

So I love the Beatles. The Anthology series in the nineties had a big influence on me, and I've been fond of A Hard Day's Night for decades, but I did pause for a moment when I saw it was up for the canon. Is this a great film or is it a great piece of Beatles memorabilia? The fact that there truly is NO PLOT originally made me think this was too fluffy to be canonized, but I reconsidered when I thought about just how big the Beatles were and are to this day. It gets a big bump for that. Period. But I would never vote for this if the film weren't so damn clever. In terms of it being plotless: it's not a flaw, it's a feature. Beatlemania was such a fascinating moment in mass media and pop culture that all you really needed to do was capture that moment in time, and it does so hilariously. If a person is funny they can get away with murder, and it goes for film as well. The fact that John Lennon was such a naturally quirky comedian (the mocking, syncopated gyrations he makes in response to the studio dancers is such inexplicable pure comedy, and you couldn't synthesize it if you tried.) really speaks to the genius of Richard Lester. A Hard Day's Night knows that the only story that it really needs is in the personality of its stars. Context elevates this one dramatically. I'm not sure if someone a thousand years from now could watch AHDN knowing nothing about the Beatles and understand, but I do feel like it's a fun comedy with beautiful songs and a really fascinating look at the early days of mega pop culture hits. Good times. Hard yes.