sycasey 2.0

I'll square this circle and say that I think the movie is structured in a way that makes you remember the "high points" (the shower scene and the reveal of Norman as the mother) and kind of forget most of the stuff in between. But that doesn't mean any of it is unnecessary or could be removed. You need the long, meticulous setup to make the "big bang" moments hit harder. I was thinking that this movie was structured like a symphony, with two major "movements" that crescendo and then recede (so maybe it's more like a half-symphony). In that way it's appropriate that the film opens with a credit sequence that flashes the words at us while the Herrmann score goes through all of its major themes. It's the overture. After the last big reveal there's another "cool-down" scene with the psychiatrist explaining Norman's condition (this part maybe does run a little too long), before going out on a final unsettling note with the close-up of Norman's face. Hitchcock talked about how this movie just works on the purity of its cinema, and I think that's right. Even when you already know the story, the whole thing is just so masterfully orchestrated, in the marriage of sound and visuals, that the scenes all work anyway.

Paul is 100% a Hobbit.

I got a Dwarf, but I'm disappointed in Buzzfeed that this only seems to determine your race, not your character. Might need to find a better quiz.

Speaking of Buzzfeed, here's a helpful quiz! https://www.buzzfeed.com/ariannarebolini/which-middle-earth-character-are-you

I'll preface by saying that, yes, it's really one long movie that's hard to split up and that I don't see a huge quality difference between the three entries. But as to which one I like the best . . . After seeing them in theaters, The Two Towers was my favorite. I was amazed by the scale of the action (seriously that Helm's Deep sequence is on a Kurosawa level) and how much it expanded the world. But after having returned to the films over the years, Fellowship has become my favorite. I think I like it because it's the movie that takes the most time to stop and drink in the scenery, to give you a sense of how much the world's history informs everything (love those lingering images of ancient ruins). I also tend to love "introduction" movies because they still feel pregnant with possibility. Fellowship also pulled off the feat of playing an Enya song in the middle of a movie and not having it distract from the proceedings or stick out as a joke. It just fits right in there. Got to give some extra points for that.

Easily.

Cuaron is the best director assigned to one of these films, and it shows. This is the best-looking and best-flowing movie.

I pick Apocalypse Now, and it's not hard. Platoon is a really good story; Apocalypse Now is an experience. That's purely about the filmmaking, not how well it depicts the reality of Vietnam.

I don't consider that fact "proven" at all. Seems like the major complaint about this episode is that people wanted the hosts to get into more analysis of the film itself, under the assumption that there is a lot to discuss there. But that's going to be tough when the "film expert" in question (Amy) is someone who doesn't like the movie. If you don't like a movie you usually don't want to spend much time unpacking it.

There's probably some sexism involved. All else being equal, women usually get more shit online. But I also think that Paul tends to be more forgiving in his commentary, while Amy as a professional critic is more pointed when she goes negative. That probably accounts for some of it too. Both things can be true.

Yes, it is more expressionist than purely surrealist, because there is at least some basis in a concrete, literal plot. The comparison to Suspiria is interesting, because when that movie was covered by Amy on The Canon podcast, I remarked that though the overall plot doesn't hang together very well, the "little stories" in the individual scenes are pretty great. It's like a series of tightly-crafted short films, which are strung together to create an overall disorienting effect. Apocalypse Now seems the same way to me: a series of short stories strung along together, as sort of thematic companions to each other. A lot of the individual sequences are just really well done as visual storytelling unto themselves. I'm noticing that more than a few of the "greatest movies" on this list have a similar approach. Some of the more post-modernist directors (like Tarantino) will even label their segments on screen.

This also seems a little bit inconsistent to criticize Coppola's ego run amok while also praising James Cameron movies (as Paul mentioned) and also Aguirre, the Wrath of God! Klaus Kinski was an unhinged lunatic and the crazy stories from that film set at least rival those of Apocalypse Now.

I think the first thing I knew of that referenced Apocalypse Now (before I'd seen the movie) was an Animaniacs episode that was a full parody. The studio boss sends the Warners in to stop a film shoot that's gone way over budget. I don't know why they put all these references into a show for kids, but there you go. They did also have a whole recurring segment dedicated to parodying Goodfellas.

I legitimately love Apocalypse Now, and I think it's ranked about where it could be. I fully disagree with Amy and Paul's take here, that this is a movie only on the list because people think it "should" be. Yes, the backstory behind the making of it is fascinating but what I respond to is what's on screen. I don't think there's ever been a movie that so well captures a psychotic break, a descent into madness. That it's applied to the Vietnam War makes it extra-interesting, because it then becomes about comparing America's frequent military misadventures to the idea of going mad, pressing on and trying the same thing without getting any better result. Then when you consider the insane way Coppola went about making the movie, it becomes extra-extra-interesting to me because it's ALSO about how an artist can go down that same road and drive himself mad in trying to realize his vision. Was it worth it? We did get a classic movie, so maybe. But the movie itself is also saying that maybe it wasn't, that its central character(s) can never return from that journey. I think it's brilliant. Maybe accidental brilliance, but brilliant just the same. I will say that seeing this on the big screen helps a lot -- you want to be surrounded by the sound and visuals to get the full effect. When Redux came out (though I do think the original cut is better) I first got that chance and the movie clicked for me. I understood its power.

High Noon is a bit low on my personal AFI rankings (like Paul, I found it a good movie but it didn't emotionally grab me as much as others), but I would still say it "belongs" because of the historical importance. The story behind it is fascinating. I'm also not sure that the themes are less relevant today, even absent the Communist scare and HUAC. Liberal/left-wing politics are taking on a similar urgency right now, encouraging people to "step up" and take action because of Trump's election. I've never seen so many heavily-attended political marches in my life. The attitude seems to be exactly what Kane is exhorting people to do in this movie, based on the idea that the "bad guys" can't destroy all of us if we stand together. (And also that part of the reason Trump got elected was because a lot of people assumed he wouldn't and sat it out.) I think maybe the thing that is throwing people off when viewing it through a modern lens is the very "macho" attitude that is just assumed to be the default mode, as that's something that has been questioned a lot in the intervening years. A modern movie might do more to explain exactly why Kane wouldn't be helping the town by just leaving (say, the bad guys give clear indications that they're going to do some bad stuff even without Kane there). Still, I think you can put the pieces together by what is presented on screen.

Yes, this is my favorite (from what I've seen) of the Ford-Wayne collaborations. Great film.

This is what Jason and June assumed in the podcast. I'm just trying to play it out logically. Technically a bus could get you there . . . or pretty close at least.

Ah, that's true. I'm assuming they would label the bus "Machu Picchu," but really it just takes you to the closest town.

I'd just like to point out that while it might be horribly impractical, it would technically be possible to drive from New York to Machu Picchu. Peru is in South America, so you wouldn't have to cross any oceans. The only thing I questioned was crossing the Panama Canal, but it appears there have been two working road bridges across that since 2003. All clear for the bus to Machu Picchu!

Hard disagree. I think the movie draws power from the fact that it ends on the emotional climax. It wants to leave you in that place. As for the stuffed animals, my sister probably had that many at one point so I didn't question that. Elliott's class did seem a little young to be dissecting a frog, though.

This is a correct opinion. "Masterpice" is a tough standard, but the last Spielberg movie that I thought was "great" was Catch Me If You Can, and that's got daddy issues all over it.