Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Philly Cheesesteak

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    141

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Philly Cheesesteak

  2. Posted

     

    It is

     

    Without a doubt.

     

    My favorite silent movie.

     

    Of all time.

     

    Just to put that out there. I've suggested/pimped the movie here before, but, thus far, neither Devin nor Amy have bit.

     

    Also... if I sounded like I was snappy with you there, my bad, I didn't mean to sound confrontational there. Ain't no shame in loving what you love and championing for it.

  3. Posted

     

    They're probably gonna do the Terminators sooner or later, since it just came up again.

     

    At least I think it did. How did Terminator come up in an episode about The General?

     

    1982 - Conan the Barbarian

    1984 - The Terminator

    1985 - Commando

    1987 - Predator

    1990 - Total Recall

    1991 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

     

    It just boggles my mind every time I think of this period. Arnie made all of these great movies in the space of a decade.

     

    (Also Twins and The Running Man were decent)

     

    Don't forget Kindergarten Cop. Man, a lot of people are fond of that movie.

     

    I almost want to argue most of those movies you listed deserve a Canon nomination, but I get the feeling Devin and Amy would only select one or two at best.

  4. Posted

    After listening to The General episode (again), something had occurred to me. You know what Chinese actor who exploded into popularity during the 80's and 90's, whose entire schtick is partly inspired by the physical comedy of silent film masters like Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplain, should make at least one appearance in our beloved Canon?

     

    Jackie Chan.

     

    Anyone remember Jackie Chan mania back in the 90's? Spawned a popular celebrity cartoon, gimmicky ads, TV show cameos and a deluge of middling Hollywood flicks? Damn, that was something, wasn't it? I remember being ten and walking out of my local video store carrying armfuls of Jackie Chan movies (some from the 80's, some during his Hollywood era) for endless nightly marathons.

     

    I was a huge fan.

     

    So, bearing that in mind, here's what I'd like to ask everyone here: should there be a Jackie Chan movie in the Canon? If so, then what?

     

    Personally, I'd like to nominate either The Legend of the Drunken Master or Police Story. How about you guys?

  5. Posted

    Also, I had initially wanted to propose this as a vs. episode between Schwarzenegger's two most defining early films... until I realised just about everyone and their mother would have voted for The Terminator, no questions asked. Didn't seem fair. So I thought I could promote Conan just on its own.

  6. Posted

     

    I broadly agree with what you're saying - I would not endorse the film if I thought the race issue was foregrounded. And it was great fun watching James Earl Jones ruling over the two blonde ubermensch henchmen who looked like they belonged in a hair-rock band. It was more the fact that the only black person on screen is the one who transmutates into a snake. With so many characters and extras, couldn't there have been a few more black faces on screen? It didn't feel like you typical racist writing, lore like lazy casting around the edges.

     

    The Asian characters, on the other hand, have that whiff of exoticism which Asian characters tend to suffer from in these films. Especially the witch Conan finds in the yurt at the beginning.

     

    Like I said, it did not ruin the film for me, but it was noticeable. The Asian characters, in particular, made me roll my eyes - and that broke the suspension of disbelief a couple of times.

     

    It's a fair point.

     

    I almost want to pull a Devin and use the old "well, you see, it's based on early 20th century pulp fiction material where exoticism was just one of the tools of the trade," (see: arguments laid down in Gunga Din and Temple of Doom) but that line of reasoning is sort of a magnet for trouble.

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    Jim Jarmusch is an overrated NYC hipster who can't write and can hardly direct. His great skill is in networking and convincing otherwise interesting actors, musicians, and sycophants to appear in his films. Anything good in his films is accidental, and the parts of them are uniformly greater than the sum. His soundtracks are almost always better than the films themselves (case in point: Broken Flowers) and I'll admit that he has fantastic taste in music. Having great taste and cool friends does not make you a good director though.

     

    I suppose Dead Man should be canon for its Neil Young soundtrack, but even RZA's music can't save the joke that is Ghost Dog. Parts of Night on Earth are fun, even less parts of Coffee and Cigarettes are worth watching.

     

    The fact that he has a career today just shows how far a cool hairdo will get you.

     

    Damn. It almost sounds like you have a personal grudge against the guy... and maybe against the city of New York.

  8. Posted

    Anything from the late 60s or early 70s is ripe for discussion as far as I'm concerned. I think we're done with the 90s for a good, very long time, and even the 80s are looking a bit tired now. As for this film...it's a kind of a blind spot. Since I still have remarkably failed to see it. Failed horribly.

     

    But I'll totally take the encouragement, if it's put up. Or literally any other well-received film from the time. The Canon hasn't even touched The Graduate, or The French Connection, or Klute. Or MASH. To be all America-centric and stuff.

     

    Mind you, I wouldn't mind a few other indie classics from the 90's. A Jim Jarmusch movie would be great, and some of his best include Dead Man and Ghost Dog.

  11. Posted

     

    I mostly just respect it and can enjoy it as a dated bit of cinema (as this is coming from a big fan of Bond and Trek, so dated is an integral part of my fandom), but I just don't see it as a classic.

     

     

    Not for nothing, but I don't think you're the one who gets to decide what is or isn't a classic. History is the judge of that. This movie has impacted Western iconography of Middle East folklore in such a way that can be quantifiably measured, standing the test of time, influencing three generations of artists and creative media.

     

    And I disagree about the film's pacing and energy, but we each have different standards for that sort of thing. I know a guy who can't stand Sergio Leone Westerns (or even Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) but will watch through Shanghai Noon on repeat, so to each their own in regards to individual of patience and pacing. I certainly disagree that the film's technical crafts and accomplishments fail it somehow or that the framework doesn't support them. I will also argue your stance is more than a little unfair, maybe even dismissive. You argue the 1940 film is simply dated cinema with an overt reliance on its tech and visual craft to skirt by, yet you champion a film that does just that: silent films, even the best ones, are all about form in a way even most modern cinema aren't.

     

    I get it's a favourite of your's, but a favourite by itself or even intense love and passion do not necessarily lay all the groundwork for an inclusion to the Canon. Historical significance, craftsmanship, pop cultural influence and tangible impact matter, and the 1940 version easily has more sway in each of these categories than the Fairbanks silent film.

     

    But more importantly, above all else...

     

    I'm not disparaging your love for the movie, but I am arguing that it's kind of tangential to the main topic of this hypothetical episode: you cannot have Aladdin without the 1940's film. That's the main point to discuss here.

     

    Mind you, I'll argue any day of the week Aladdin is a stronger movie than 40's version. But it still owes it a massive debt. That, in of itself, is worth considering, discussing.

  12. Posted

     

    However... I do have a couple of problems with the film. In particular, it seems to have a cavalier approach to race relations (I am almost sure that James Earl Snake is the only black person on screen throughout the entire movie, and the few Asian characters which appear are... challenging).

     

    I don't think it's that bad. At least, not on a "Breakfast at Tiffany's" level. James Earl Jones is not necessarily codified as "evil" for his skin colour. In fact, I'd be willing to argue the writing behind his character is rather race-blind, any (incredibly imposing and intimidating) man could have pulled it off. Besides, I think you can tell he's really enjoying the opportunity to ham it up on camera, and Vader doesn't count: that's just a voice acting role. Here's Jones in the flesh showing off his onscreen villain chops. I dig it.

     

    As for the Asian characters, in all fairness, without Conan the Barbarian we wouldn't have had Mako playing Iroh in Avatar: The Last Airbender.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

     

    There really should be a King Arthur pic in the canon, but really the only choices are Excalibur and Disney's Sword in the Stone.

     

    Please don't come at me with "what about Camelot" because yeah, I'm aware of it.

     

    In the "But I just haven't seen it so no comment" sort of way or the "I'm rather dismissive towards it" sort of way?

  14. Posted

     

    I think there are several interesting points here.

     

    - First is the idea of whether we'd be voting a whole series in. Speaking solely for myself, I'd really hate the idea that I'm being made to look at 8 movies that are all over 2.5 hours long as a single entry into the Canon. I think all of the HP movies are utter garbage, but even within a series I love (like the Godfather episode with Karina Longworth), each film's admittance should be judged on its own merits. There's precedent for this with the Star Wars vs. Empire discussions, and doing Temple of Doom as its own entry as opposed to doing a general "Indiana Jones series" episode.

     

    - I think the phenomenon you're describing is solely because of the power of the books and not the film. From the very beginning, the films felt like cash grabs because of this phenomenon. The freakout over the Hunger Games books was like a tiny blip on the radar compared to the massive excitement from both kids and adults about Harry Potter.

    My biggest issue with these movies is that they feel like someone describing a summary of each of the books without the weight or emotions that made them so fun to read. Things happen in the movies only because "that's what happened in the books," not because of any cinematically established character traits or themes. These were made because "hey, people like to see magic" rather than they needed to tell this wonderful story in this massive way.

     

    In my opinion (I realize I'm speaking harshly, not trying to be rude to anyone who truly loves these movies), this series' biggest contribution to Hollywood was the idea of splitting the last book of a beloved series into two payday...excuse me, I mean, movies. For that alone I would deny its entry because while it's technically a good business model for the film studios, it really bums me out as a movie fan to just so blatantly feel like I'm being shaken down for my money while entering a theater & deciding whether or not to devote my time to a film series.

     

     

    Nah, I don't think you're being rude. S'all good, your points are valid.

  15. Posted

    Oooohh, I wish I could join you in this. But I'm so much of a bigger fan of the Fairbanks silent. I just don't think the 1940 version holds up, except as a sign-of-the-times curiosity. Probably for the best Aladdin stole so much from it, so as to preserve some of the film's better visual elements (the villain, the sultan, flight, the gardens, the town, the arguments with the genie). So much of its appeal rests in the visual effects which, of course, do not hold up, and the extremely broad, stilted acting do not help at all. I can buy it as a visual extravaganza for the times, but certainly not today. The silent actually looks better by today's standards, I feel, as well as being better-paced and with more impressive stuntwork.

     

    Aladdin might actually be a good movie to put up on its own, actually. It got some heat for its stereotypical depictions, but that's only gotten worse since. Now, while Breakfast at Tiffany's survived Mr. Yunioshi, he was an extraneous (if still unforgettable) character, but Aladdin sprinkles these depictions throughout the film. And while they've done similar things with many other ethnicities, this movie is, for obvious reasons, the one that probably struck at the most sensitive.

     

    Also, while the Genie was a huge hit at the time, I've sensed some real weariness over the last decade or so at the over-the-top pop-culture-referencing celebrity cameo comic relief (star?). Dreamworks really drove that into the ground, but even Disney and Pixar have gotten resistance over characters like 'Mater and Mushu. And it all ties directly back to the Genie.

     

    Does the film really hold up as a true Disney Renaissance, a classic Disney comedy with a once-in-a-lifetime comedic character, or was it only a good film at the time? Personally, I think it's one of the very, very best Disney's ever done - my very favorite, actually - but 20+ years is a long time, and I know Little Mermaid has its critics as well. There'd be plenty to talk about. Also, there would be no need for this to be a token film discussion. With Beauty and the Beast already in and The Lion King having kept it close, there's no reason to feel that Aladdin would have to represent the entire Disney Renaissance. It can stand on its own. That'll keep it simple.

     

    P.S. The first Disney film to use computer-generated animation is actually The Great Mouse Detective, my first great Disney love. In the clock tower sequence.

     

    Whoops, I misread that. That said, Carpet is still the first 3D animated character in a major motion picture. I still get to maintain my "they're both pioneers" thematic connections argument, woo!

     

    But, anywho, as for the rest of the above... I haven't seen the original Fairbanks, I'll cop to it. But, speaking personally as a fan of this period of Hollywood, I'm kind of fond of the broad and over the top vaudeville-inspired acting of this generation. Keep in mind this was made for kids at the time, and I find it helps maintain this children's adventure storybook vibe from point a to point b with consistent aplomb.

     

    Not to mention you have to give props for Abu's actor, who did all of his own stunts and more or less stole the whole film under the actual (white) star of the picture.

     

    And as for the effects? Man, when you consider the effort that had to be done with the barest essentials we take for granted nowadays, I find it's a little unfair to make that argument. It's dismissive of the real work that went into the making of the movie. I'd like to bring up Devin's argument that, sometimes, a movie can just "be" a visual feast or thrill ride extravaganza and ride on those coattails to victory. For me, Thief of Baghdad is one of those movies. It was a smash hit in its time for a reason. Aladdin ripped it off for a reason. It left a greater impact on the popular culture, shaping all of our Western visual iconography of Arabian Nights and all inspired stories since. The Fairbanks original didn't make that cut.

     

    Hence, I'm sticking to my guns for this particular pitch for a Vs. episode.

  16. Posted

    The only other SNL proper film that would be in the conversation for the Canon is Wayne's World, but I would be remiss to say that one of my favorites actually belongs in the canon of the all time greats to live forever. Although, Wayne's World would give us an opportunity to debate the merits of the 90s SNL film phenomenon and how a future two-term Senator from Minnesota actually once was the star of a 30% Rotten Tomatoes film that was pulled from theaters after one week grossing less than $1mm...

     

    As far as SNL-based films, The Blues Brothers is the canonical favorite. However, that's not to say that related works such as Ghostbusters, Billy Madison, Tommy Boy, or the Will Ferrell frat pack juggernaut of the last 20 years shouldn't also be considered. Yes, I honestly think that some of those after "Ghostbusters" could have an episode for themselves. Zoolander? Anchorman? Ricky Bobby? Regardless of your opinions on them, these are some of the most important comedies of the past 20 years.

     

    Now, I don't know about Billy Madison or Tommy Boy, but Ghostbusters and Anchorman aren't based on SNL skits. I'm talking specifically about the wave of SNL skit adaptations from small stage TV improv to big theatrics (i.e. Wayne's World). Sure, they have SNL alumni, but I did specifically cite that quality for a reason.

     

    And I absolutely believe there's enough room in the Canon for those movies, especially Ghosbusters. But I wanted to give Blues Brothers my personal thumbs up first.

  18. Posted

    I guess the sunglasses and hat getup is sort of iconic, but the best parts of the film by far are the performances. Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, and the show stopping number by Cab Calloway are terrific and much more memorable than any of the jokes in this. Aykroyd and Belushi are pretty one-note.

     

    Also, THIS happened and probably erased a lot of goodwill towards the original film:

     

    large_87FRtfvpH6nGhGRIDymcNGn6duK.jpg

     

    Aw, man... I've been trying for years to suppress any acknowledgement of that movie...

     

    But all kidding aside, I feel it's safe to ignore that movie in favour of the original. It's the original we love, with the kick ass musical numbers and car chase sequences. It's a wild ride from start to finish, with incredible comic performances to make it so damn smooth.

  19. Posted

    In one corner, the 1940 fantasy classic The Thief of Baghdad. It won three Academy awards (Cinematography, Art Direction and Special Effects), it's the first documented film to include bluescreening as a practice and Roger Ebert enthusiastically proclaimed it rivalled The Wizard of Oz in imagination, bright and vivid popping colours, good cheer and spirited storytelling.

     

    In the other corner, Disney's Aladdin, which not only paid homage (or outright knocked off) several scenes from the aforementioned Hollywood classic but acquired a reputation as the first real "boy's Disney movie" of the Disney Renaissance Age. An iconic performance by Robin Williams, the first 2D animated film to feature a prominently 3D character (the Carpet) and catchy and memorable songs have long made it a favourite for Disney fans for years.

     

    Both of these movies take liberal interpretations of their source material in 1001 Arabian Nights. Both influenced and were influenced by the popular culture of their time. Both were pioneers of new filmmaking techniques. On a darker note, both have uncomfortable elements we today would call "problematic," we have dozens of dudes in the former wearing brownface while the latter distinguishes its protagonists and antagonists by lighter skin tone.

     

    A lot to unpack there.

     

    Of the two, which of the two is Canon worthy? Who deserves the spot and who should get the boot, why and why not?

     

    ... And thinking this over, maybe a better Canon episode should have been Thief of Baghdad vs. The 7th Voyage of Sinbad...

  20. Posted

     

    One of the most enjoyable toe-tapping comedies of all time, the best SNL skit to transition to the big screen, or a slightly overrated 80's John Belushi vehicle? Is it just a string of barely strung together celebrity cameos or is it a fun and anarchic wild ride? Do its memorable lines, musical numbers and thrilling car chase sequences make it a Canon contender or do we already have too many 80's hits in the Canon to begin with?

     

    Is there enough room in the Canon for another John Belushi movie?

     

    Now, me personally, I love The Blues Brothers, but that might be the nostalgia talking. I grew up with this movie, it introduced me to blues, R&B and jazz and I'll always find it funny-

     

    But I'm not sure how it translates to others.

     

    What do you guys think? Is The Blues Brothers Canon worthy?

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

     

    I haven't seen Hero (the politics indeed have put me off, but I'm also not a fan of OTT modern "epic" action movies), but I will add my recommendation for Raise the Red Lantern. If you want a more nuanced view on 20th-century China - from CPC-approved films, but ones that aren't pure propaganda - it goes great with Shanghai Triad (also by Zhang Yimou) and Farewell My Concubine. Probably best to watch them in that order as well, as they follow the end of pre-modern China through the brief Republican/war years, and conclude in the period of Communist repression of "counter-revolutionary" art. And they're all just more interesting than the too-sterile, too-safe The Last Emperor, IMHO.

     

    All good points, but speaking as someone who enjoys operatic and "OTT" epics, I dig Hero's big scale dramatic heart.

  22. Posted

    I was never interested in Harry Potter; even if Azkaban is a good movie, I still need several other books or films worth of background to get it. I don't like massive franchises for this reason, the investment they ask of the viewer. Fortunately, this YA fiction trilogy->obligatory film quadrilogy thing seems to have busted post-Hunger Games.

     

    God, I hope so.

  23. Posted

    Harry Potter should be represented in the Canon. It's a major media franchise that has completely influenced every YA series after it, from Twilight to Hunger Games to Maze Runner to Divergent. Those series are popular, some are even well-regarded with major crossover appeal. Of course, The Canon is a movie podcast, so I don't think it's fair to exclude HP just because the movies are just one part of the fandom. If there were a books version of Canon or an amusement park version, I'd also include HP.

     

    I read the books and loved the movies (I subscribe to the idea that books and film are inherently different media so no movie can be a direct translation; of course the movies make some missteps but overall I love them and rewatch them frequently).

     

    In the movie series, POA is probably the most visual and ambitious film. My favorite is HBP but I know a lot of people don't like that one.

     

    It might be interesting to pit HP agaisnt the other great YA franchise Hunger Games. POA vs. Catching Fire?

     

    Now there's an idea...

  24. Posted

    Taxi Driver doesn't feel like it's about NY in the way The Warriors does, where the city is practically a character of its own. In Taxi Driver, it's just where the movie takes place.

     

    I really have to disagree there. New York City, as envisioned by Scorsese, perfectly encapsulates Travis Bickle's diseased state of mind. It evokes his sense of imprisonment, his alienation, his isolation and feeds into his mistrust, paranoia and misanthropy. It's a reflection of his broken soul.

     

    The Warriors' vision of New York is that of antiquity transplanted to the modern day, with all the street gangs serving as microcosms to ancient warrior nations. It's also a land fraught with adventure, infused with youthful rebellious energy.

     

    Taxi Driver's New York is a place that suffocates, imprisons and drives people to despair and discontentment. It's a New York for bitter adults who have failed in their lives, like Travis.

     

    They're both valid characterizations of the city, but Travis Bickle's New York--as it was in the 70's--is a little more true to form by comparison. The Warriors' New York, as mentioned, is based on a novel that was written decades prior that was in itself based on the Anabasis. That New York is the Bronze Age hiding in the cloak of youthful modernity. It's more fanciful than Bickle's seedier, noir-inspired, economically poisoned well of a town.

  25. Posted

    From one of my all time favourite directors, the classic (and controversial) wuxia... Hero.

     

    We haven't had a Chinese selection for the Canon yet. In which case, I nominate Zhang Yimou's Hero. Gorgeous cinematography, impeccable choreography, beautiful colour schemes that serve as fun little narrative devices for visual storytelling, a hauntingly powerful score by Tan Dun... and a weighty plot about what it means to build and maintain a nation.

     

    Granted, this isn't exactly Hamilton where, though it analyses all its faults, democracy is otherwise lauded as a noble endeavour...

     

    Some have argued Hero's political messages are rather, well, hard right. If not heavily pro-authoritarian.

     

    It might very well be the prettiest argument for authoritarianism ever put to film. Or, at the very least, if you want to interpret the film in a better light, you can argue this would be the best argument for (in nerdy-as-fuck D&D terms) Lawful Good.

     

    Still, regardless where it falls on the spectrum, you have to concede-

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGq6FXcpxtY

     

    This movie oozes grace out of every pore.

     

    Should this film make it into the Canon as an example of excellent modern Chinese cinema or does its personal politics mitigate its candidacy?

     

    And before anyone asks, sure, I could have nominated Raise the Red Lantern and I would have... but I haven't seen it yet.

×