grudlian.

I might argue nothing on earth is sexier than Sam Elliott except maybe just his voice.

I'm not going to discuss it in any detail but I'll say I was semi-dragged to a strip club exactly one time in my life for a close friend's bachelor party when I was in my late 20s. It's a super gross and depressing environment. You are right to never want to go to one.

I don't have much to say about this. I loved the opening few scenes and the ending for all the reasons Paul and Amy said. I was only okay with most of the rest of the movie. I recently watched Gold Diggers of 1933 for the first time. It is great and Ginger Rogers singing in Pig Latin was probably my favorite but it of a whole bunch of great bits.

I think House Of Cards as well. Didn't the first season cover the entire British trilogy? Anyway, I'm most the way through Glow and I think it's a much stronger season. There are a couple episodes in the middle that had me on the verge of tears. Overall, I think it's a funnier season as well.

I might have watched season 1 and 2 back to back then watched 3 later. I think you're right about season 2 being better but season 3 I didn't like as much (but it was still okay)

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. So many comedies these days are very heavily improvised. Isnt it pretty widely acknowledged that pretty much every major comic actor has history in improv in a way they didn't before the original Upright Citizens Brigade crew changed things in the early 2000s? I wouldn't say Judd Apatow movies represent all of comedy, but his reach is long if you include all the movies he produces and they all have a lot of improv within them. I'm trying to think of the last outright comedy I saw that didn't have at least one run where it's clear they let the stars riff a bit. Even something like The House or Sisters which are two of the most structured plotted comedies in recent years have Amy Poehler doing her thing off script. Muppet Movie, Ghostbusters and Wayne's World are all very structured and, to my knowledge, have no improv at all. Even Bill Murray has said (source forgotten) that people credit him with the best jokes in Ghostbusters but he credits his lines all to Aykroyd. EDIT: Now that I think about it a little, Muppet Movie, Blues Brothers, etc are structured to feel loose without much plot. I'm sort of arguing something different because modern comedies are more plot based (typically) but improv within defined plot points. So, I don't know.

Its weird how we've practically cut a television season in half and that's too long now.

I should correct that not every second season is bad. I find that, other than Kimmy Schmidt, I haven't liked a second season I've watched as much. I didn't watch the second seasons of Jessica Jones or Luke Cage. I'm just over Marvel shows for now.

It's absolutely essential watching. Whatever you're planning on watching, it's not as worth your time as Nanette. Has anyone watched season 2 of Glow yet? Since pretty much every second season of a Netflix series is a step down, I'm hesitant to start this.

This is something I wonder but I'm not sure. I'm familiar with 70s SNL but certainly not an expert. I saw this as a kid and I think I liked it about the same as I do now. Maybe a bit less then because I didn't get any of the cameos (my parents had to explain Ray Charles was blind). I see why people like this. I disconnect where I see this listed as one of the best comedies of all time or so many people love it. If this were a cult comedy or just respected not adored by millions, I would get it more.

This is my feeling as well. I don't remember laughing much just a quiet appreciation. The movie also feels long to me. I don't know what specifically you'd cut but this really doesn't need to be over two hours. Sorry, Cakebug. I just think the movie is pretty good not perfect.

I would assume it's based, in part, on how women are treated in the movie. Demi Moore plays a cop (? I don't remember for sure) who loses her kids and decides to become a stripper to get them back. It's a plot that is not only outlandish and completely divorced from reality but would never ever be the plot for a movie following a man winning back his kids. If it isn't that, I'd prefer to wait until the episode to hear what she talks about

I wish this were playing near me but there's not a single functioning 70mm projector in my state to my knowledge. I could have gone to the Chicago shows I suppose but never did. I'm very envious of you.

Pretty much all of this. I was way too young to watch this the first time I did. I was 8-9 and I don't even know how I heard of it. My parents certainly wouldn't have made me watch it. I made my parents record it off tv for me and I was very confused at every aspect. I remember asking my mom why it had black bars on the screen because I'd never seen a letterbox movie before (this was 80s). I didn't know why there were apes in this space movie. I really didn't get the ending. And my mom couldn't answer any of my questions either. But it stuck with me for some reason probably in the "this is a great movie????" kind of way though. I eventually saw it again after reading about interpretations of it once the internet existed. I understood it but I didn't "get" it. Then it came out on DVD in my mid 20s and we had a big screen television and I got it. It wasn't a movie. It was an experience that I still can't put into words. I didn't just appreciate it. I felt it and no movie since (or maybe even before) made me feel that way. Just completely sucked into it. I've seen it since and it hasn't worked on me like that but it deserves a place for that one viewing alone. I agree with you so much about people putting Kubrick on some mythical level of perfectionist. He was a technical master and understood filming a movie so well from his history as a photographer. I've seen completely insane analysis of his work though where every single thing was placed into frame to have a meaning behind it. Kubrick is great but he's still just a guy. I'd recommend Room 237 which is a documentary about some more out there theories on The Shining which really puts some perspective on how far analysis of Kubrick's film can go.

Did the teacher explain anything about 2001? I don't thinkI would have gotten the movie at all then. I first saw it when I was 8 or 9 and it made no sense at all. I'm pretty sure I didn't even begin to get it until I read an analysis online in high school. I agree with you on seeing the mobility as a catalyst of sorts. I haven't read the Stackhouse letter yet (I will whenI get off work) but the catalyst to a kind of evolution makes the most sense to me.

Is this date good for people? Is there anyone who wants to host?

I'll have to see if I still have the picture on my computer when I get home. I took a screenshot of the reviews on opening day broken down by gender. The results are not surprising.

Bob Dylan wrote a song about the Titanic called Tempest in 2012. He mentioned Leo by name. If Bob Dylan is name checking you and your movie, that's definitely some serious cultural weight.

What if the movie is just Baby running over Kevin Spacey for two hours?

I would not pay more than the rental price for Blues Brothers 2000. You won't be watching it a second time.

Interesting that the scores made it to Wikipedia. I read an article just throwing out voter manipulation but hadn't really looked into it because I don't care about Gotti. But it seems pretty obvious if you look at number of reviews that someone is doing it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone (or a group of someones) maintain accounts just to sell to studios for reviews. If every single positive review is fake (unlikely), Thats only mid 200s for fake accounts which probably isn't noticeable but enough to seeing a movie from rotten to fresh. It's only noticeable because Gotti made so little money.

It's not by Norman Jewison, but this is a religious musical. They're on a mission from God.

I agree. I'm just speaking generally not about the AFI list specifically. Just a "If X doesn't work, what did X better?" Although I have speculated the AFI did include movies so that all the bases are covered in a way.

I'm not quite making the within 6 months rule, but I'm definitely going to take a back seat for some movies I haven't seen in a while that I don't like. If I've got a clear enough picture in my mind on why a movie like Forest Gump sucks (I do and it does), I'll throw my opinion out there but I might not resist much if I'm outnumbered. I'll not going to make myself suffer through it again if I've seen a movie multiple times.

This is my basic stance on things as well. 1. If yore gong to say you love a movie, that's all you need to sat in my mind. I might ask for a defense but, if you're being positive, you can just be positive without much explanation. 2. If you're negative, you need to explain why. A movie can suck but you can't leave it like that. What are its failures? How could it improve? This unfortunately leads to negative comments being lengthy and seemingly more common and oppressive than positive stuff. But defend your negative opinion or don't waste everyone's time putting it out there. At the very least, give me a different movie that accomplishes what this movie fails to accomplish. That's why I wanted to hear replacements for French Connection. It shouldn't be on the list? What similar movie belongs here? Titanic sucks? What's a period epic or love story set in real events or historical fiction that does?