kubrickshines

I haven't seen a ton of documentary nominations, so I'm throwing this one out. I think its become a bit forgotten, despite the intense praise it got at release. I wouldn't thumb my nose at an Errol Morris versus though.

I'm also Team Blanca, though I think the vote would be more split than you guys do. Casablanca's a real boys' club, for instance, and I wonder if women might identify more with GWTW's perspective. Or people who prefer historical epics to snappy comebacks.

But what would your mom put in, Muth?

I was just trying to poke fun. I wouldn't listen to the podcast if I really thought Devin was a fat blowhard; I just wanted to say "Zing". So if Devin read that and got sad, I'm sorry dude. You're my favorite horror film reviewer and yadda yadda yadda fan worship.

I can recall seeing this around 12 and really loving it, but now I worry it'll fall into the 'generally pleasant, not great' category of Forrest Gumps and Shawshank Redemptions. On a less personal note, it's the rare film that: 1) was adored by general audiences and film critics alike, 2) maintains a significant level of cultural relevancy long after its release and 3) offers a bunch of parabolic interpretations to stimulate discourse. i.e. its popularity ensures more subscribers and our cohosts get to dump on millennials some more. Win-Win.

They rank highly among the superhero films produced thus far, though of the two, only Dark Knight will be remembered 50 years from now, bolstered by Heath Ledger's powerful penultimate film performance (try saying that ten times fast). The question of "what is the most important film of the century (so far)" is pretty interesting though. Like, how do we ascribe "import"? Maybe it breaks down into: 1) what film historians tell us is culturally significant, and 2) what festers and remains in the societal consciousness long after its release. Historically, 'Iron Man' might end up being the most important superhero film since, like Toy Story or Mission Impossible, its the origin of what has become a cinematic powerhouse (Marvel Studios).

I haven't seen the film, so I won't be voting this round. But I did want to chime in and say this was the most uncomfortable I've ever been listening to a Canon episode. Dave Schilling's presence (unintentionally, I'm sure) somehow disrupted the balancing act the show typically is. I don't think Devin has ever been so brusque or dismissive in an episode, perhaps emboldened by Dave's tittering. Also, the Canon's surfeit of indulgence picks has transformed it into a fat blowhard, in the likeness of one of its creators. Zing.

I texted my mom asking what her favorite films were and she said: - The Lady Eve - Sullivan's Travels - The Palm Beach Story ...she's kind of into Preston Sturges.

So nice I had to post it twice.

I think it's pretty influential. 'TKoC' might be the first widely distributed example of "anti-comedy" or "cringe comedy" in cinema, and would go on to influence David Letterman's and Larry Sanders' meta-critiques of show business. At the very least, it had a lasting impact on Tim and Eric - http://www.avclub.com/article/24-hours-of-discomfort-comedy-and-discomfort-comed-88516 And this flavorwire article offers some more food for thought, as well as Scorsese's thoughts on the film: “I cannot give myself to it. It has no emotional point of entry. All of the characters are closed doors.” (http://flavorwire.com/581553/how-scorseses-king-of-comedy-influenced-a-generation-of-film-television-and-stand-up) One last note- This (unfortunately) wasn't mentioned on the podcast, but De Niro had originally brought the script to Scorsese all the way back in 1974, almost a decade before it was released. Just imagine that alternate timeline

"Silkwood" is probably already on the Canon list, albeit far, far down. As for "Plenty"- a forgotten curio of polarizing opinion - I wouldn't hold my breath, dude.

Ross, admitting you're a psychopath with delusions of grandeur is the first step. Welcome to the club! And this may be the caffeine talking, but Edgar Wright might be the greatest comedy director of all time. Doesn't get nearly enough credit due to his genre of choice. All his works are insta-Canon for me, though I'd argue Shaun of the Dead is his weakest directorially.

Including all films that have been discussed (but excluding the Best of episodes): 1920s: 2 1930s: 4 1940s: 3 1950s: 8 1960s: 6 1970s: 17 1980s: 29 1990s: 22 2000s: 12 2010s: 3 Combining all the films pre-70s, its still only 23 films compared to 1980s whopping 29. Dunno if anyone else cares, I just thought it was interesting.

I often go back and forth between which trilogy is the millennial 'Star Wars' - the Matrix or Lord of the Rings. In the end, LotR is probably the better whole, but The Matrix is the best standalone film of all six involved. This also might be the best evidence for Davin's as-of-yet unsubstantiated claim that "1999 was the best year for movies".

Sorry, I didn't mean this to become a critique of the Canon's film choices, I just like statistics. I meant it more to inspire discussion or thoughts about what films we choose to discuss and the biases we (as a community or as a people) face. And maybe the 80s really are the most canon-worthy decade? It was the decade where low and high culture met in the mainstream marketplace: Coppola started making more family friendly fare (The Outsiders, Peggy Sue Got Married), Scorsese got into comedies, Woody Allen was making family dramas into box-office boffo, all before collaborating on the uneven "New York Stories". We've got the brat pack, Spielberg perfecting the blockbuster, a horror revolution, Coen Brothers, Tarantino, Soderbergh, and Jarmusch all getting their starts. Hell, someone even gave David Lynch $40 million to make boring Star Wars. The diversity is staggering!

Drink anytime Amy addresses being blonde or blonde empowerment

I think part of the difficulty in covering '40s films (especially the ones most people remember) is they're tough to debate. No one is seriously going to argue against Casablanca, Third Man, or Citizen Kane getting into the Canon, though it might be fun to look back at which elements still work and which don't. That said, I think Preston Sturges deserves an episode (non-versus, please), as does The Best Years of Our Lives. (side note - has there been a Cary Grant film inducted into the Canon yet? Or a Paul Newman?)

I just did a quick tabulation based on people's comments and here are the leaders so far (after eliminating anything with only one or two mentions): Working Girl - 7 Re-Animator - 6 Pennies From Heaven - 5 Cannibal Holocaust - 4 Chi-raq - 3 (or 4, depending on how you interpret comments) Two-Lane Blacktop - 3 Hope that helps!

Assume the Canon only gets one (and ONLY one) Pixar film. Which gets your vote?

Claim. Lot of people going to bat for 'WALL-E', but has anyone watched it recently? Saw it last week and it does not hold up. It's cute, but has some troubling (not to mention insulting) politics and the script isn't as tight as Pixar films usually are. Also, Dark Knight held more sway over the Best Picture rule change than 'WALL-E' does (not that the change mattered, as expanding the nominee pool hasn't affected voting practices or race outcomes). I'm shocked no one has brought up 'Finding Nemo' or 'Monsters, Inc.', the one-two punch that established Pixar as household names and made clear that 3D animation was not just a passing fad.

I agree that those two are the only ones worthy of true Canon consideration...BUT how great would it be to have a four film battle royale? If only to hear Devin rip into 2007's 'The Invasion'. Also - looking back now, isn't it odd how Nicole Kidman went from the 'Stepford Wives' remake, to 'Bewitched', to 'Invasion'?

I'm with you. I see how influential the film is on cringe comedy in retrospect, but I find it really hard to sit through when I'm watching it. Definitely prefer 'After Hours' to this myself.

I've yet to see a really compelling argument as to why this film deserves to be in the Canon (beyond nostalgia and tears), so I'm going to try and offer one: this is the film for and about preteen boys. The characters depicted are aged 12-13 and look it; the bond they share, dialogue they use, etc. are all intended to realize this very specific age in boys' lives. Now try and think of another film that conjures up that same age group as vividly. The Outsiders? Too old. The Goonies? Too goofy. Explorers? Flight of the Navigator? NeverEnding Story? The Lost Boys? The Sandlot? Mean Creek? Boyhood? None of these capture the bonds of young male friendship as well. So, as a film, Stand By Me is good, not great, but as a cinematic document of particular era of boyhood, Stand By Me is truly unique. The question then becomes: does uniqueness, on its own, merit inclusion into the Canon?

Green Room is the film of the year. No contest. It's a Carpenter-esque parable about tribes, warfare, and prejudice featuring the TMNT vs. the Gestapo. In red laces, no less. But, yeah, that talking animal movie was good too.

Sarah Polley's work might be a bit too new for consideration, but "Away From Her" and "Stories We Tell" are both Canon-contenders. I kinda hate that she is always overlooked (especially in favor of Sofia Coppola).