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

  1. Posted

    I'm fairly convinced all we remember Top Gun for is Kenny Loggins, a few quotes laced with slight macho homoerotic undertones and some decent fighter jet combat. But that's really about it.

  2. Posted

    • The Red Shoes vs. Black Swan
    • Bela Lugosi's Dracula vs. Boris Karloff's Frankenstein
    • Halloween vs. Friday the 13th. Or maybe A Nightmare on Elm Street vs. Friday the 13th. Either or.
    • The Texas Chainsaw Massacre vs. Halloween
    • Scream vs. The Silence of the Lambs
    • The Exorcist vs. The Omen
    • An American Werewolf in London vs. Shaun of the Dead

  3. Posted

     

    Nah. PS, CoS, and GoF just aren't very good. They feel too much like script readings, episodic and horribly paced (and PS and CoS have just dreadful child acting). And DH is (by design) unbalanced and incomplete, yet still each part is overlong. OotP is...decent, but not a standout. I do like HBP quite a bit, but that makes only two out of (arg, EIGHT) movies that are in any way noteworthy, with PoA being the most significant one as it's the first one whose tone and pacing feels right (and it just looks and sounds a hell of a lot cooler too), so it's the one that provided the template for all the ones that followed. Overall, the Harry Potter film series isn't worthy of being in The Canon because most of them are clunky adaptations of above-average children's books with good production values and a lot of really good actors slumming it up for their children and grandchildren, playing bit players who are all far more engaging than the protagonists.

     

    I don't mean to hate on the books or anything else in the universe, and if you like the Potter films, cool, I have my pet franchises too. But MOST OF the movies aren't especially good as movies go. They don't do for the books what really good adaptations typically do, namely develop and re-tell for another medium, as if they were written to be movies first; they're mostly just quoting and doing some light editing while still leaving so much in that they always feel rushed. And while that's typically awesome if you like the original stories and just want those, I'd rather a Canon FILM be one that can stand on its own and not just feel like a visualization of a novel.

     

    A valid argument, but maybe a tad dismissive of the sheer gravitational pull this series had back in the day.

  5. Posted

    My Indulgence Picks? Oooph... well...

    • The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
    • Sunset Blvd
    • Princess Mononoke
    • Brazil
    • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
    • Seven Samurai
    • Ran
    • Quadrophenia
    • Tommy
    • Jon Waters'/Pink Floyd's The Wall
    • Fantasia
    • Frozen
    • Melancholia
    • Phantom of the Paradise
    • The Crow
    • Harold & Maude
    • The Blues Brothers
    • Le Samourai
    • Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai
    • Dead Man
    • Hardboiled
    • The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
    • The Big Lebowski
    • The Great Escape
    • The African Queen
    • Treasure of Sierra Madre

    Gah, too many... but these are the ones that pop into my mind as indulgence picks.

  6. Posted

    The fact that Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't stand-alone, and didn't have to be stand-alone, with two films' worth of character setup and world-building already behind it - is a big reason why it works so well. It feels a lot leaner than either PS or CoS (or GoF or OotP, for that matter) because it can play off contrasts with the earlier films to take shortcuts for character and plot developments, thus keeping it from bogging down in exposition dumps and allowing it more time to indulge in visual storytelling. It wouldn't work so well as a stand-alone, and it was never meant to be a stand-alone. For that reason, I would have to say it wouldn't qualify as a Canon film. It's a good film, and a huge improvement over the first two, but it wouldn't work as a Canon film if you're just viewing/recommending that film and not the whole series. And when/if Devin and Amy discuss the film, how much time do they spend on talking about the events of the previous two? Or will they just have to assume the audience has already seen and still remembers them?

     

    In contrast, The Dark Knight probably could work as a stand-alone. I don't know for sure, since I grew up knowing the basics of Batman and having seen many earlier versions of the story, but I saw that film before Batman Begins, and I didn't need anything explained to be (well, I didn't know who Lucius Fox was, but that was no big deal). But I don't think Star Trek IV could, since that movie put so much focus on building on previous characterizations and concluding the arc of two earlier movies and then some.

     

    EDIT: Also, it wasn't PoA that put the Potter films on the map and started the recent YA boom. Both PS and CoS had already done that, as would the (arg, FIVE) films afterwards. PoA was the first really good one, the first one that still holds up, but the series had already left its impact.

     

    I meant the Harry Potter films as a whole, with PoA serving as a kind of representative, but, yeah, I otherwise agree 100%.

     

    But that said, I do believe Pottermania is such an integral part of contemporary popular culture that it needs a position in the Canon in some form or other.

  7. Posted

    Both films pioneered filmmaking techniques we take for granted today. They both have their place in history, I would think, both merit a conversation. Yes, one's uncomfortably racist, but then remember when Devin went to great lengths to justify the over the top racism of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom? Maybe he'd be on form to argue in defence of Birth of a Nation's inclusion into the Canon purely on the grounds of historical importance and contributions to the art of cinema.

     

    That something makes us uncomfortable to our modern sensibilities now should not necessarily be an argument against something's inclusion. Lovecraft was the crowned king of xenophobes back in the day and his views fuelled the very thing we would come to call "Lovecraftian horror," yes, but would you disqualify the works and contributions of Guillermo del Toro, Stephen King and Junji Ito for their being influenced by the man and his body of work?

  8. Posted

    If you follow Devin's work long enough, you'll eventually know he's kind of a Harry Potter fan. He's a huge supporter of the books and Rowling herself, and he's championed the films for much of the same reason he champions the MCU as a stellar example of long-form storytelling.

     

    If the Canon is meant to be a sort of Noah's Ark for cinema, for films to be preserved that we would one day show to visiting alien dignitaries curious about our culture, should Harry Potter (as a staple of the 90's to the late 00's) be given fair credit for its contributions?

     

    For instance, without the success of the Harry Potter, would we have the long-form serialized storytelling of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Would The Hunger Games have made that transition from YA novels to the big screen without Harry Potter having paved the way? For good or ill, Harry Potter (alongside Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings) is partly responsible for the current dominance of geek cinema on current popular culture.

     

    But then, that falls into that trap our two hosts have mulled over throughout the show: is cultural impact enough of a qualifier to make it into the Canon? When you strip away that impact, what else qualifies any of the movies into the Canon alongside some of the greats? I hope it's not controversial to mention that, individually, the movies could be a little hit or miss. Everyone and their mum agrees Prisoner of Azkaban was the best of the lot, so hypothetically if it were a candidate for the Canon should it be as a representative for the entire franchise (like A New Hope was for Star Wars) or is that unfair to the long-form story the series is truly meant to be?

     

    At least A New Hope was self-contained. None of the Harry Potter movies... aren't, really.

     

    And even if Prisoner of Azkaban were selected as the ideal candidate for the series, outside the pop cultural signifiers does it even have any other Canon-worthy qualities? Is it a good enough movie or does "good enough" just not cut it?

     

    Well, obviously, no, it doesn't. As Amy has argued to the heavens on high to Devin many, many, maaaany times, the Canon should also require some semblance of higher standards for filmmaking. "Good enough" shouldn't be a qualifier for Canon candidacy.

     

    What do you guys think? Would you want to hear Devin and Amy discuss the merits of the Harry Potter franchise? I know I would, personally. Besides, and if we all know Devin, it'd be a perfect excuse to hear him rant about The Cursed Child, the HP fandom and the current controversies surrounding Rowling and her use of Native American lore, religion and culture.

     

    Now that, I think, would be a worthy enough endeavour to make it an episode in its own right.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    Here's a crazy pitch...

     

    What if they did a three-way versus episode?

     

    To decide which should be representative of the Universal Horror Lineup: Dracula vs. Frankenstein vs. The Wolfman. That could be fun, I think.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    I love There Will Be Blood. It's every bit as transcendent, intelligent and ingenious as Devin argues.

     

    But I find myself in a peculiar position. Just now, five seconds ago, I voted against it. Why?

     

    Well, I find the majority vote is falling into that trap that comedy, as a genre, is somehow inferior, less truthful or less meaningful than a stone cold drama. It's like the IMDB "Best 250" chart; barely any comedies on the list, but more self-serious dramas than you can shake a stick at.

     

    Can't help it. I am compelled to root for the underdog.

  11. Posted

    Oh man. As a film nerd, I love the structural audacity and the performanes and the imagination in M., but as an architect, I can't help but admire Metropolis. You know, when I was studying, one of our profs used to say that we only had to watch 2 films for our profession: Metropolis and Blade Runner. The set design and the action pieces belong to the greatest ever, but I think the acting and the characters are really, really weak. And that film has so many flaws in its pacing and narration, which M. simply doesn't have. I'm not sure if it would make the canon, even on its own terms.

     

    To be fair, they included Forest Gump and Blade Runner despite either host's personal contentious opinions on either. It might be a similar situation. Does the film's groundbreaking visual language influencing all modern science fiction cinema (heck, even video games and broader popular culture) alone warrant it a position in the Canon?

     

    Although, granted, gun to my head I would certainly argue M. is the superior film. It's subtler, better structured, better acted, and while I can remember every striking visual from Metropolis I can't remember every scene and entailing emotional thread in as much minute detail as I can make out with M (if that makes any sense).

     

    Also-

     

    You know, when I was studying, one of our profs used to say that we only had to watch 2 films for our profession: Metropolis and Blade Runner.

     

    Throwing it out there, but damn, you have a cool professor.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    Hi! Longtime fan of the show and its two hosts, first time commenter! Call me Phil.

     

    Something I want to throw out there, but lately I've been glad to see a couple non-American choices make their way into the Canon over the last little while. We've had at least two Japanese films (Kiki's Delivery Service, Battle Royale), one Bengali classic (Pather Panchali), an Israeli animated documentary (Waltz with Bashir), a Danish arthouse movie (Antichrist), one Korean neo-noir (Oldboy), an Italian pseudo-documentary exploitation film (Cannibal Holocaust), a Swedish vampire romance (Let the Right One In), an Australian silent film that was once lost (Sunrise) and finally... one Spanish fairy tale (Pan's Labyrinth).

     

    All fantastic works, I'm happy as hell they were voted in.

     

    So, all that in mind, I'd like to suggest some more additions to the Canon's growing repertoire of world cinema. I figured not only are these highly influential and historically important, and exemplary of the German Expressionist movement of the 20's and 30's, but they're both genre goodness that Devin's bound to enthusiastically defend or argue against (always fun). More than that, these are the greatest and most well-known works of the great German filmmaker Fritz Lang.

     

    How's this for a vs. episode?

     

    Metropolis vs. M.

     

    In one corner, we have the grandfather of science fiction cinema. Without Metropolis, we wouldn't have the iconography of its massive pop culture grandchildren Blade Runner and Star Wars. Everything we owe in modern science fiction, in visual language, can be traced back to Metropolis.

     

    In the other corner, Fritz Lang's film noir magnum opus and Peter Lorre's most famous role. This is the story, without a soundtrack and no music save for ominous whistling, about a serial killer who targets only children, prompting even the German mafia to organize a manhunt for the killer. This was made just as the Nazis were taking over and it has been suggested more than once that the mob were a satirical takedown of Nazi Fascism.

     

    And ironically, M was one of Hitler's favourite movies. Go figure.

     

    Both movies have fascinating histories behind them. Both are cornerstones for science fiction and crime, with some even citing M as the prototypical police procedural. The stories behind and onscreen is compelling stuff, and I'd love to hear Devin and Amy discuss that.

     

    What do you think, guys? Should either of these two be the first German addition to the Canon?

×