sycasey 2.0

He definitely does. I'm not disagreeing with your point here, just also expanding upon my own.

Yeah, the hipster movie fan opinion for some time has been, "Brian Cox's subtle intellectual Lecter was so much better than Hopkins' over-the-top performance." I think both interpretations are valid and work for the movie they're in. IMO, a lot of people incorrectly interpret "subtle" acting as automatically "better" acting. Not so.

Well, within the context of the movie they say he's not untalented, he's just too difficult to work with. So he starts getting work because he's in disguise, not specifically because he's a woman. Anyway, I'm not commenting on the later plot developments once he's disguised as a woman, more the setup that he has trouble getting work and yet is supposed to be a talented actor. I think that is actually decently explained in the movie.

In fairness, being in a place with a lot of acting work like NYC also means there's a lot of competition.

I agree with the general consensus here: it's a good movie, competently made and well-acted (Teri Garr really is terrific), but I'm not seeing where it's good enough or important enough to remain on the Top 100. Some Like It Hot is absolutely the better cross-dressing rom-com and it's already on the list. Dustin Hoffman is already represented. I don't think Sydney Pollack is an important enough director to require inclusion, but if he were I'd rather have They Shoot Horses, Don't They? I'm with @Cameron H. in thinking that the ending is a problem. It doesn't really tie up the storyline very well, and to me more importantly it feels like a cop-out. Whether or not the Jessica Lange character is romantically interested in our leading man or they are just friends, I think it happens way too fast that she forgives him for his lying. It feels to me like the filmmakers think that because the movie must be classified as a "Comedy," they have to manufacture a happy ending. How about grappling with the larger implications of your premise first? This is also where the movie really feels like a "feminist" film entirely coming from the perspective of straight men. The "resolution" is just about how one straight dude learned to be a bit less selfish, even after putting a whole lot of people's careers at risk with a self-interested stunt. I would cut it some slack for this, but as was mentioned, 9 to 5 was already out and clearly has a more female-centered slant to it. I don't even think that's necessarily a better movie (the direction is pretty weak IMO), but as a historical artifact it's more interesting. Anyway, that all sounds like I'm really negative on the movie, but I'm not. It was an enjoyable watch, just not Top 100 material.

Hah, I was gonna say. Spike Lee is the only black director on the list, I believe.

The Third Man does have some voice-over, though it's just at the beginning and not from the protagonist.

That's also my feeling on it. I mean, it already feels safer for me to make that criticism of the movement now than it did a year ago, so things have softened a bit.

Just as a piece of art, I find this movie clearly worthy of inclusion. It's beautifully made on just about every level. The thing I didn't remember all that well until this week's rewatch was just how classical the style was. I remembered a more heated, emotional movie, but the filmmaking is laid-back and subtle all the way through. It's the story itself that elicits the heat and emotion, particularly the gut-punch ending. On Polanski and art-vs.-artist questions (and I'll preface this by saying that I can only speak to how I personally think about these things, not trying to impose my morality on anyone else): I generally have no issue with consuming already-produced art that has long been in the public domain, particularly if the artist in question is already dead (I have no ethical qualms about buying more Michael Jackson music, for example). I can see the argument for not wanting to continue supporting an artist who is likely to continue his bad behavior (R Kelly, for example). When we dig back into history and decided to "cancel" long-dead artists for being assholes, I start to think it's not so much about helping people and more about just making yourself feel better. Another thing I struggle with is whether or not there is any room for a person to grow and change and leave behind what they used to be. Polanski drugged and raped a teenage girl in the 1970s, I have no doubt of that. It's very possible (even likely) that he did it more than once. Would my support of his art contribute to more such behavior now, or was he a really fucked-up dude back then and has since changed? The rape victim herself seems to take the view that he has. I dunno, people can make their own call on that, but I'd just want to throw that out there as something else to consider. One of the things that sometimes bugs me about #MeToo and other examples of online activism is that there doesn't seem to be any room for atonement or forgiveness: you're either a "Good" person or a "Garbage" person and that's it. Humans are more complicated than that. There are "good liberals" who will argue for convicted felons to be granted all kinds of additional rights (something I generally agree with), but then will also proclaim someone a "garbage human" based on a single rape accusation from decades ago. That seems inconsistent to me. (And I also want to be clear: I think #MeToo is a net positive as a movement, but that also doesn't mean it's perfect.) Anyway, on Polanski: he's still alive, but I'm not sure that watching a movie he made 40 years ago on Amazon or whatever really puts any significant money into his pocket. For a new, current release, yes, I can see the logic in boycotting. Studios do care about how your new stuff performs, not so much the old stuff. I'm fine with watching his classic films and analyzing them as art produced (in part) by a troubled person. I'm also fine with one of them being on a list like the AFI 100. The recognition is for the film, not the person.

I feel like there have been times where they have read off quotes from people who disagree, though I'd have to go back through to come up with a specific example. But yeah, there was such a significant disagreement in both the Facebook and Earwolf Board polls that it was a little weird to not read off any of that.

I don't know, I think there's another way to read this. He doesn't take all of the money then because the guy is still alive and people are watching, but when he's alone in the jungle he feels freer to just murder his companion and take all the gold. If anything, this scene serves as a misdirect to make us think Dobbs might be kind of a good guy at heart, but really he's just barely maintaining a civilized face while still surrounded by society. His darker instincts come to the fore when he's removed from that. I find the filmmaking in this kind of surface-simple (the dialogue and the filmmaking style are very straightforward and obvious), but the more you think about the story and where the characters go the more complex it seems. Did Dobbs go mad because of his nature or because of the influence of having all that gold at hand? Little of both? How much? Did the others maintain their moral stances because of their natures, or because they are reacting to Dobbs? I'm not sure the film actually gives you an easy answer on that.

When something gets massively popular, it also becomes a popular target. Same reason people are so heavily critical of Star Wars (often in dumb ways). There is also probably some sexism involved (also true for Star Wars these days). We can also deal with the substance of the criticism and whether or not it's valid. I think most of the criticism of Twilight as a story actually sticks. I see a lot of ways that it fails in ways that Meyer's obvious inspirations (Jane Austen, etc.) don't.

I see intentionality in those other movies to criticize society and the main character. It's very much crystal clear to me that's what the filmmakers are doing. I don't see it in Twilight. Maybe a little bit in the silliness of the first movie (vampire baseball!), but by the sequels it feels like everyone is taking this completely 100% seriously. The filmmaking seems straight-ahead and unironic to me. Maybe the books are different, I can't speak to that. The filmmaking choices don't suggest active criticism.

I've only watched the movies, but that's also how I take it. If the lead characters were better-developed then I might enjoy it more, but I don't think they are. I find Bella such a passive, dull protagonist.

I find that Zodiac really holds up great to multiple viewings. I doubt that it would make the list (since it wasn't a big hit and it didn't win any Oscars), but it MIGHT be the better film.

I thought the early scenes used humor really well to flesh out the family and their relationships to each other.

I 100% think that would make this a worse movie.

The movie didn't quite grab me emotionally upon this most recent rewatch, but it's clearly well-made, and I was impressed by a lot of stuff in it. I certainly was not bored; one of the most impressive things is how the movie is so emotionally flat and heavily detailed but still feels dramatically propulsive. I think a lot of the subtle choices in the acting and filmmaking help give us that sense. I also have to vote yes because it's so clearly influential, and as a plus it seems to have influenced actual GOOD movies rather than a lot of copycat bad ones. Just off the top of my head, I'd cite Zodiac, Spotlight, and The Post as obvious tributes to All the President's Men. There's something in here that has inspired great filmmakers. Got to give some credit for that. I also have a sense that this movie probably gets better the more you watch it, as you notice more details that add to the whole.