sycasey 2.0

I actually like all of the Best Picture nominees to some degree (meaning if I were a guest on Siskel & Ebert I would give them all a thumbs-up), which is pretty unusual. In just about every other year there's at least one I would give a thumbs-down. The Trial of the Chicago 7 would be my least favorite, but it's not bad.

Listener's choice is Hoop Dreams.

Amy & Paul hit a grand slam for 1992’s Penny Marshall baseball comedy A League Of Their Own! They make the case this is a film about female friendship as much as a sports movie, dig into the camaraderie between Madonna and Rosie O’Donnell, and ask what was really going through Dottie’s head in the final game. Plus: Amy met a Rockford Peach! This is the fifth episode of our Underdogs series; next week tune in for our preview of the 2020 Oscars! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

This one is in a weird space for me, in that it's a movie I enjoy very much but I don't feel the all-out love that someone like Amy clearly does. It's also pretty clear this movie means a lot to young women who grew up with it, so I don't want to harsh that buzz. There are a lot of much worse movies to have imprinted on in your youth. Things I like: -The whole cast is great, and they have great chemistry. Hate to single out the one male lead, but . . . Tom Hanks is completely brilliant in this. Almost everything out of his mouth is pure comedy gold. -The baseball action looks great too. There's some great color footage of the real league over here, and I'd have to say the movie nailed the look of it. -In general the comedy and the gags have kept working even after multiple rewatches, which is no small thing. It's a very entertaining movie. -One thing that makes me think about voting for it is that it does deviate from the same old "underdog" narrative that runs through Rocky and Hoosiers and Cool Runnings, being more focused on the interpersonal relationships and the story climax being more about that than about the result of the final match. It is doing more of its own thing than most other sports films. Criticisms: -The framing device with Old Dottie is bad. It's the Saving Private Ryan problem all over again: the story is over, but then we've got to have these extra scenes at the end that put a hat on a hat and reiterate the same message and theme we'd already gotten. The story is over when the World Series ends and Dottie reconciles with Kit after the game. The epilogue that introduces everyone at an older age simply goes on too long and adds little more than sentimentality. -I get that some of those original reviews had a misogynist bent, but the criticism about Penny Marshall not fully committing to the feminism of the story is fair. I also find the feminism of this movie a bit muddled. Take the treatment of Marla. The scene when the scout won't take her but Dottie and Kit stand their ground is good, and the way she meets her husband is sweet, but I also get the sense that the MOVIE is making fun of Marla's looks quite a bit. There are a lot of jokes at the expense of her appearance, and I'm not sure the tone always reads as satirical/critical of the person making the joke. It's just kind of thrown out there and in some ways validates what the Lovitz character thought. Then the movie also just goes with the assumption that when each of these players has a man who is ready to marry them, they'll do that and stop playing ball. I know, it's the 40s, but again here I'm not sure the presentation is telling the audience to view this with a critical eye. Like the Ugly Marla jokes, it's just kind of put out there. The only character who ever criticizes one of these decisions is Jimmy, a man who is hardly presented as a sage full of wisdom. Again, I think it MOSTLY works, but there are these nagging issues that keep me from considering it a great film. It's a marginal no vote.

Paul & Amy run through 1981’s Olympic track drama Chariots of Fire! They learn why this is Joe Biden’s favorite film, ask if this thoroughly British story was at all jazzed up for American audiences, and compare the arcs of individual sports like running to the team sports they’ve covered so far. Plus: How composer Vangelis fought to get his iconic theme in the film. This is the fourth episode of our Underdogs series; next week’s film is A League Of Their Own! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

I think it's fine, I'm not mad at it, but I don't think it would be all that memorable if not for the Vangelis score, which is doing a lot of work to help set it apart from all the other stiff-upper-lip British historical dramas. Otherwise it's well-done, hits its marks and all that, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. It does seem weird to me that American audiences flipped for this back in the day. I fully understand it if British audiences did, but outside of that . . . it seems to me the movie is really leaning heavily on assumed British patriotism to make any of the emotional stuff land. This as opposed to a real classic like Lawrence of Arabia, which really goes out and shows you why this story is important. Chariots of Fire seems to just kind of assume you already know.

Voting for the annual Spoolies awards is open! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSekrnnKzdKZq1K7pI9uybIVbqo4MGsf2J2ghq3IuuIBZYUzNQ/viewform

Yeah, the thing is that I think you could make a pretty interesting movie while still keeping pretty close to the real events. They didn't need to make it seem like the Jamaicans were about to win; them even qualifying was a pretty big accomplishment.

Paul & Amy slide through 1993’s Jamaican bobsledding comedy Cool Runnings! They learn which parts of the script were true and which were exaggerated for the film, praise John Candy’s generous straight man performance, and ask whether formula is always a bad thing in filmmaking. Plus: Doug E. Doug (Sanka Coffie) recalls talking the production team out of some bad ideas. This is the third episode of our Underdogs series; next week’s film is Chariots Of Fire! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

Is there really an argument for this as an all-timer? It's a fun movie but also very formulaic and isn't really adding much to the Rocky template other than a new sport and characters from a different country. I think John Candy's performance is quite good in a movie where it doesn't have to be. I like when bigger names like him refuse to condescend to the material and always give their best effort no matter what.

Paul & Amy tackle 1971’s football integration melodrama Brian’s Song! They learn why Burt Reynolds ultimately wasn’t cast in the James Caan role, praise the film’s use of real game footage, and discuss why it all works despite often feeling like an after school special. Plus: what makes Brian’s Song a famous ‘guy-cry?’ This is the second episode of our Underdogs series; next week’s film is Cool Runnings! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

It's a 70s TV movie. It really feels like a 70s TV movie, just with better-than-usual actors in it. And I guess the use of real game footage was pretty cool. But no, not voting for it. I tend not to cry at movies that are really obviously trying to make me cry, so this one didn't work on me, though I thought it was well-performed.

Amy & Paul double team 1986’s Gene Hackman basketball drama Hoosiers! They praise the film for capturing the realism of small town life, dissect what makes films based on true stories successful, and ask whether Hackman is actually a good coach. Plus: How does Jerry Goldsmith’s Oscar nominated score hold up? This is the first episode of our Underdogs series; next week’s film is Brian’s Song! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

I also think Amy's criticisms of Shooter's arc are a bit unfair to people who are going through addiction recovery. He was starting to improve through his work with the team, but then he had a bad relapse. That happens all the time; recovery is not a straight line, and I like that the movie is honest about that. He also checks himself into rehab after and Norman visits him, so the film shows that no one is giving up on his recovery.

I also vote to keep this off the rocket ship, but I did get a bit exasperated at some of Amy's criticisms in this one. I think one of the strengths of the film is that it doesn't try to hold your hand and walk you through everything, like a lot of inspirational sports movies do. Many of the questions raised in this episode can be answered via context clues: 1. When Hackman brings Hopper on to the coaching staff he says he can't get drunk while on the job. The scene where he's dunking his head and getting him to dry out is taking place after the game, off the court. So he hasn't technically broken the rule, but Hackman is upset that he's coming so close to doing it. When Hopper does show up drunk on the court that is his last appearance with the team. 2. It's not too hard to put 2 and 2 together that Jimmy wanted to play for Norman because Norman is the only person in the town who wants him to play but doesn't pressure him to play (just look at how the other dads crowd their way into practice all the time). It's not true that Norman has no conversations with Jimmy before Jimmy changes his mind; the scene of him shooting buckets on the dirt court happens before that. It's pretty clear that Norman's no-nonsense style appealed to him. 3. Norman's history as a coach with violent tendencies is dealt with quietly throughout the film: he starts out as a guy who wants to maintain dictatorial control over the team and gradually begins to trust his players, which makes his coaching better. The key turning point in the movie is when he sends the injured player back into a playoff game, then the camera lingers on the back of his head as he changes his mind and calls time out to take that player out. Eventually this means Ollie is forced to play, which means he was risking losing the game in making that decision, but he put the player's welfare first. The racial criticisms are fair, though I don't find this aspect "horrible" so much as a sin of omission common to a 25 year old movie. The romantic subplot with Barbara Hershey doesn't work at all and is totally unnecessary. The basic character is fine: a teacher who thinks basketball is frivolous and challenges Dale about it, while also trying to keep one of his players from joining up. But at no point do I buy that they're in love. Ultimately the reason I vote against Hoosiers is that I don't think it's bringing much more to the table as a corny "underdog sports movie" that Rocky doesn't already do, and Rocky is also clearly the more influential and iconic movie (it's pretty much a franchise at this point). I do still enjoy the movie though.

Amy & Paul fight for 1987’s Rob Reiner meta-fairytale The Princess Bride! They discuss what makes Reiner’s films stand out, listen to Cary Elwes’ Marlon Brando impression, and ask if this is a perfect example of an ‘everything’ film. Plus: some Andre The Giant stories you won’t believe. This is the final episode of the Couple Goals series; next week we kick off Underdogs, our series on true-life sports films, with Hoosiers! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

So I love this movie, have seen it many times, can practically recite it from memory, but . . . I voted no. Why? I'm not sure it's actually essential viewing in order to understand anything about the medium of film or the broader culture. It's not one that influenced filmmaking in any major way (for Reiner movies, I think This Is Spinal Tap and When Harry Met Sally both had more influence over future films). As an artistic statement, it's more of a backwards meta-commentary on the genre itself than a movie that really says much about humanity at large. It's really good at that! But I'm not sure it needs to be on the rocket ship. I'm also not sure how much importance it holds for generations beyond the one that seems to dominate the audience for this podcast: people in their early 40s or late 30s who are on the GenX-Millennial cusp. For us it seems like a hugely important childhood or young-adult touchstone. I'm not sure it's more than just a really entertaining movie to anyone else. I could be wrong about that, but given how much we criticized the AFI list for being so Boomer-centric I have to ask some of the same questions about my generation's favorites.

True. One could argue Chungking Express isn't either.

Paul & Amy can’t quit 2005’s groundbreaking gay romance Brokeback Mountain! They analyze how the beginning and ending shots of the film mirror each other, ask why so much early coverage of the film felt tone deaf, and praise all four central performances as the emergence of a new generation of great actors. Plus: What makes Ang Lee one of our greatest living directors. This is the seventh episode in our Couple Goals series; next week’s film, and the winner of the Couple Goals fan vote, is the Princess Bride! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

Amy & Paul alley-oop 2000’s Gina Prince-Bythewood athletic romance Love And Basketball! They discover the impact this film made on WNBA players like Candace Parker, learn why Sanaa Lathan had to prove she was up for the lead role, and ask if a childhood argument foreshadows the central couple’s turbulent relationship. Plus: Why did the love scene almost get cut by the MPAA? This is the sixth episode in our Couple Goals series; next week’s film is Brokeback Mountain! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

I didn't vote for it to go on the rocket ship, but I had never seen this movie before the podcast covered it and enjoyed it quite a bit. Sanaa Lathan is terrific (maybe she deserved a Best Actress nomination?), and I liked how a lot of the basketball scenes were done, particularly hers. There are several basketball movies that I like very much as movies (Hoosiers, White Men Can't Jump) in which the actual basketball action is a little bit wonky. In this one the only issue I can detect is that sometimes it's a little obvious that Omar Epps is too short to be a real NBA player, but otherwise it's very good. I hadn't been into the other Prince-Bythewood movies I'd seen, but with this one I see why people like her stuff. She has a good sense for character detail and the musical choices are really good. Why not vote for it? I think the visual style is a little bit bland, and the ending feels a little bit wonky. I like the scene at the WNBA game at the very end, but they also just kind of slide past the fact that Q was supposed to marry someone else and changed his mind at the last minute. I'm not sure the movie really deals with that in a meaningful way.

Paul & Amy can’t forget 2004’s mind-melting romance Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind! They learn why director Michel Gondry asked Jim Carrey not to improvise, watch a deleted scene featuring a character cut from the film, and ask if this couple is really meant to be together. Plus: learn which rap superstar was heavily inspired by the movie! This is the fifth episode in our Couple Goals series; next week’s film is Love And Basketball! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

Except they have the tapes, so there is some way of learning from their mistakes. The relationship would have fundamentally started in a different way.

Amy & Paul are infatuated with 1951’s tragic love triangle A Place In The Sun! They hear Elizabeth Taylor explain how watching Montgomery Clift helped make her a real actress, ask what makes George Stevens a great director, and discuss how the film expertly toys with the viewer’s sympathy. Plus: an infamous Tonight Show moment with Shelley Winters. This is the fourth episode in our Couple Goals series; next week’s film is Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind! Learn more about the show at unspooledpod.com, follow us on Twitter @unspooled and Instagram @unspooledpod, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Spotify. You can also listen to our Stitcher Premium game show Screen Test right now at https://www.stitcher.com/show/unspooled-screen-test, and apply to be a contestant at unspooledpod@gmail.com! Photo credit: Kim Troxall

I liked the movie, but I'm feeling like it falls short of Top 100 status. I especially think this when I consider that A Streetcar Named Desire came out the same year, with Marlon Brando making an even bigger splash in introducing method acting to Hollywood. I think Streetcar is the 1951 melodrama with complex morals that has aged better over time.