CarlosFerreira

Right, here's me looking for trouble: I watched this recently, and found it more than a little overrated. Maybe it's the fact that everyone and their dog have copied and plagiarised it, but it felt terribly predictable, not to mention dated. I don't think it has aged tremendously well, unlike some of Friedkin's older works. I shall now duck for cover.

I'd like to suggest Robbie Collin, film critic for The Telegraph (in the UK). Robbie is a very interesting critic, and would probably choose something weird and wonderful as its suggested film. Well worth putting up with a Skype call for.

I am so pleased the Canon is back! Boy, I have missed this. I think Ghostbusters is very uneven. On the good side, Sigourney Weaver is astonishingly good, giving a powerhouse performance as the only character in the movie with whom a human being could actually identify. Her and the EPA guy, of course. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Ghostbusters are not a team - it's Bill Murray, two half-characters and then poor old Ernie Hudson trying to hang on to the edges of the frame by the skin of his teeth. Every character apart from Bill Murray is so thinly written, they are almost see-through. I know nothing about those three other guys. Also, the film is fun, but it does not have the 'family friendliness' of something like Back to the Future. The ghostblow scene is worrying, the attack on Sigourney Weaver is downright alarming (I have seen enough hentai, etc...), and there's enough bad language there to assure I won't necessarily want to watch it with a child. Or my parents for that matter! Overall, I think Ghostbusters is an imperfect, uneven film. There are some good gags, some good acting, very good pace, but it suffers from poor writing, shoddily developed characters and some rather dubious moments in a PG-rated film. I think in the end this is a film whose merits depend almost exclusively on the status it has accrued over time. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that. But is it Canon-worthy? I voted no.

For what it's worth, a word for the person who pointed out Devin's alleged actions. It cannot be easy to come out and point a finger at a man who has accrued a good and powerful rep over the years since the alleged event. I am using the word 'alleged' very deliberately, as there doesn't seem to have been a definite investigation and/or admission of guilt; but I also cannot see why someone would come out and shame a well-known film critic. Also, a word for Amy and the rest of the people working with Devin; it must be really difficult for them to see what's been happening. This.

Is it official? Are we really dropping a film from the Canon?

Agreed. It's an interesting and ambitious film, and deserves much better than the constant dissing. I suspect if it wasn't a Star Trek film people would be referring to it as a hidden gem.

That's interesting. I have to confess I watched it recently, and it left me cold. The attempt at comedy doesn't work for me, and I didn't find it especially compelling. But I would be more than happy to be proved wrong - an episode discussing it would be very welcome.

Plus, I am not sure superhero movies dominate the culture that much. I know there are a bunch of them out every year and all, and the box office figures show their importance, but arguably nostalgia is the driving force in cinema these days; see the amount of 'long range sequels' we're getting. But yes, Spider-Man 2 vs TDK would be a great episode.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point is I don't know if The Deer Hunter won't appeal to the exact same people who have Scarface posters on their bedroom walls. De Niro at his peak, Christopher Walken, obvious paralels to First Blood (to me at least)... ...but then again, I am not sure those people could put up with a painfully realistic 45min wedding scene in a 3h movie. I honestly don't know.

Your mom rocks. My mom would probably pick any Tom Hanks movie, so allow me to nominate Big on her behalf. I am sure she'd also mention Ryan's Daughter and Dirty Dancing. I remember watching The Bridges of Madison County with her and we both cried our eyes out. Not sure she remembers it, but I'll always associate that film with her. I'll just leave that there.

Great idea, and great suggestions. Here are a few more: - The Seven Samurai vs Ran would break my heart. Maybe something more marginal, like an early Kurosaway? Say Stray Dog? - Last year's wonderful Brooklyn is a slam dunk. I know, there's the Canon's version of the five-seconds rule to obey... - Holy Motors is almost too good to ignore. - Chungking Express is a half-forgotten gem, well in need of recognition. - It's almost unbelievable that Glengarry Glen Ross has not been mentioned yet. - I don't know if in the end it isn't an example of what we are trying to avoid in this thread, but The Deer Hunter reeks of inevitability.

Hear, hear. It's exactly that sort of quality film criticism - from both Amy and Devin - that makes The Canon some of the best film criticism available in any format. You know that even if they tackled Citizen Kane they'd give it a hard time.

I couldn't have said it any better, but allow me to elaborate further. As a non-Trekkie, I felt that Wrath of Kahn was a good introduction to this Universe. I felt welcome, and will be coming back for sure. So, is it Canon? Well, as Amy rightly put it - it's fine. The whole thing ticks along nicely, I get the story arcs and character motivations for the Enterprise crew, and I am on board for the big discussions. The whole Kobayashi Maru parable is great, and makes a lot of sense to me. The fact that Kirk essentially did not understand it, but Spock did, is a wonderful aspect of the story. That's pretty cool. The big emotional consequence of Spock's actions registers, impacts and delivers. As for Kahn and his motivations, I am less convinced. His arc feels contrived - I was half-expecting some kind of flashback with him and his wife having a picnic in a green field, under a tree, with a kid running in the foreground. It was that cheesy. The key moment should be when his second in command suggests they've won, so should move on, but Kahn decides to press on and overreaches. But this comes and goes, and it all sort of gets jumbled. Kahn's subsequent defeat, and his role in the deaths of his crew, ends up being kind of damp. Again, something that Amy said. And then there's the subplot with David. What was that all about? I swear I watched the film 2 days before I listened to the podcast, and by then I had forgotten all about the David subplot. I get the argument that it's happening on the edges of the main thrust of the story, but isn't that poor storytelling? I'd have preferred it if that part of the story ended up on the editing room floor, to give Kahn some more space. Because of these issues, the end felt like baloney to me. Why would Kirk be feeling young? His best friend died to save him and the ship from Kirk's past errors; Kahn and his crew are goners as well; the detonation they were trying to avoid ended up happening anyway. Is Kirk that much of an adrenaline junkie that this series of disasters reinvigorated him? Has he not learned anything from the Kobayashi Maru story? Now, don't misunderstand me. As a coincidence I have watched two of Wrath of Kahn's contemporaries in the last few months: Flash Gordon and Krull. Both are terrible - horrible visuals, incomprehensive storytelling, insufferable characters made worse by wooden acting. The Wrath of Kahn may be cheap, a little muddled and poorly edited (in my opinion), but it's a masterpiece compared to what used to pass as SFF back in the early eighties. And this is not an attempt at damning with faint praise. So, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn. It's a good film. It's fine. But it's a soft from me.

Having never seen any of the films, I bought a DVD boxset yesterday. 10 movies, £15 - bargain. In my version Douglas Trumbull is credited in special effects, which probably accounts for the 2001-lite look. So I watched the first film yesterday and I was really surprised. Robert Wise and Gene Roddenberry somehow managed to make a 2-hour existentialist art house movie, discussing religion and evolution, out of a 70s soap opera. Who'd have thought? I quite liked it. Looking forward to KHAAAAANNN! tonight, which I hear is a completely different proposition.

Die Hard vs The Hunt for Red October would be a classic episode. In the end John McClane would probably wipe the floor with Red October, but I would love to hear the opposite argument.