sycasey 2.0

Amy mentioned that Scorsese seemed to make a lot of movies in the "same" mold, but IMO that's only true if you look at his movies that have become the most famous. Those are usually violent movies, often involving gangsters (or at least loud Italian Americans). But if you go into the "deep cuts," his career is more varied than he gets credit for: Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore The Last Waltz New York, New York The King of Comedy After Hours The Last Temptation of Christ The Age of Innocence Kundun The Aviator Hugo Silence Seems like a lot of different stuff tackled there: small character studies, a concert film, movies about religion, a musical, a television satire, period costume dramas, a tribute to classic silent cinema. He's not always doing the same thing.

At my high school there was one vending machine that had RC Cola. I used to buy it because I kind of felt bad for the brand.

Lots of deserved praise for how good the performances and musical score are (boy are they). I'd also like to highlight the brilliance of the editing, by the great Marcia Lucas. This will also come up with Star Wars, as she was George Lucas' wife at the time and basically saved that movie in the editing room, but I also took note of what she did on Taxi Driver. The editing is pretty astonishing. The movie keeps "bleeding" scenes into each other, playing dialogue from the previous scene while the new one starts visually, layering images on top of each other, to really put you in Travis' headspace at all times. This approach also makes it feel propulsive, like it's always hurtling forward to the inevitable climax, even when it seems like nothing is really "happening." It's pretty brilliant. I'm sure a lot of this is Scorsese too (his other movies also feature interesting editing choices), but given what you can find about Marcia I bet she had a lot of influence here too. Seems like she had a huge influence on that whole New Hollywood generation: Lucas, Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola. http://fd.noneinc.com/secrethistoryofstarwarscom/secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

This so much. I don't know what to do with bros who so aggressively misinterpret these movies. Some people have the impulse to blame the filmmakers for making a movie that so many people didn't "get," but on the other hand I have little doubt that if they made a movie that aggressively celebrates the positive experiences of women or non-white people, those same bros wouldn't see the value in that either. Some people only see what they want to see -- just like Travis Bickle.

Yeah, that's why I centered my arguments around there being better and more influential examples of horror and/or supernatural thrillers out there. But . . . I'm sure there are people who consider The Sixth Sense a five-star movie just on artistic merit, so it's hard to argue that.

I'm pretty stingy about five star ratings, though on a list like this there will probably be a disproportionate percentage. There are also some where I did not rate them five stars, but I understand their place. Like, Bonnie and Clyde is not completely my cup of tea, but I recognize it was an important inflection point in American cinema so I do think it "belongs" even if it's not a five-star movie for me personally.

Even for "dolphin rape" -- it's always dicey to judge all animal behavior by human standards. And if we are talking about human standards, then IIRC dolphins attack humans far less often than sharks, so I think the latter have earned their poor standing there.

There's also the "Sea World" effect. People like animals that can do funny tricks.

All of this explains SO much. The biggest laugh I got in the movie was when Toshi and company are getting rescued and someone says, "Looks like a giant shark!" And then Statham gravely intones, "It's a megalodon." HOW does he know this?! All we've seen is that a submarine he was performing a rescue on was attacked by "something" he never actually saw and then the ship blows up. Based on that and someone else seeing a big shark, your mind immediately jumps to: "Must be a prehistoric creature no human has ever seen alive! Of course!" What? Usually in a movie like this there's a few scenes of people not knowing what's going on and having to take their evidence to some scientist or something, trying to determine what the monster is. Not here. Statham just knows. No one questions him.

Yes, exactly. I specified that it could be some fantastical (not necessarily supernatural) element that creates the horror. A shark as large and bloodthirsty as the one in Jaws qualifies, to my mind. Maybe human killers are an exception, though again horror movies tend to involve some kind of heightened, extreme version of one. When you remove the fantasy elements it tends to become more of a thriller or police procedural (like Zodiac).

On this movie. I think it's very good and well-made. At the time I thought Shyamalan was a filmmaker with a lot of promise and I was excited to see what he'd do next. He spent a good amount of time squandering that promise, but that doesn't necessarily speak ill of this effort. I don't think it's a Top 100 movie of all time. I can think of many better movies in the "horror" or "supernatural" genre (The Exorcist definitely deserves a spot if this does). Once you know the twist, I think the movie is still good but it loses something -- the thematic content (IMO) isn't quite robust enough to elevate it to the level of greatness. I don't see where it's saying something profound about art or movies or the human condition. It's just a neat story, well-filmed. Worth praising, but a pretty common thing in the long history of cinema.

Yeah, that's an interesting point. Sometimes a horror movie inverts it and makes the protagonist the monster. Sixth Sense doesn't really do that either, but you've mentioned some good examples here.

I think that might be what kind of disqualifies it as a horror movie in my mind. In a horror movie, it's the supernatural/fantastical elements that actively cause harm to the protagonists. The ghosts in The Sixth Sense aren't trying to do that, similar to the one in Crimson Peak or the monster in Shape of Water. In something like Get Out, the fantastical element is the hypnosis/body transfer, and that is a deliberate harm to the protagonist. Maybe the one exception in this movie is when HJO gets locked in that small closet and comes out with bruises, but even there I think the suggestion is that the ghost is trying to communicate, and the harm is inadvertent.

It has some scary scenes of hauntings, but yeah probably not strictly a "horror" movie. This reminds me of Guillermo Del Toro's description of Crimson Peak, which is that it wasn't a horror movie, it was a gothic romance with a ghost in it. I feel similarly about The Sixth Sense: it's a mystery and character drama with ghosts in it.

This movie was a super-pleasant surprise when I saw it in theaters. I couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it. Amy Adams gives the kind of brilliant performance (perfectly calibrated to the material) that should win Oscars, but doesn't. I liked that they threw in cameos for other Disney princesses. The voices of Ariel, Belle, and Pocahontas (singing voice) all appear in the movie.

I'd disagree with that charge (I think Chazelle absolutely wants you to recognize his references), but yeah maybe I could see an argument around that.

Though if that's the argument (and it's totally fine for someone to prefer Mamma Mia), then I'd expect the criticism of La La Land to be "it's pretentious" or "it's no fun," not "it's unoriginal." It's more the thrust of the argument that confuses me, not the idea that someone might not like the movie.

Nice, never seen High Noon.

Singin' in the Rain definitely sticks very clearly to the central theme of being a movie about the transition from silent to talking pictures. All of the primary conflicts in the movie are centered around that. It's not the most complex thing in the world, but it introduces a major conflict between major characters near the beginning (Don vs. Lena) that is resolved at the end. Swing Time is all over the place, by comparison. They introduce a major plot element (leading man needs to get married), and at the end the whole thing is hand-waved away in baffling fashion. There's no real resolution; it just ends. On dance sequences alone, it can certainly compete with Singin', but for plot and characters it's no contest.

Not to mention naming Pennies From Heaven as your favorite musical, even though that is also a jukebox musical in which the actors literally lip-sync, and one that also wears its influences on its sleeve as much or more than La La Land does. As a long-time Canon listener, I'll just say here that sometimes Amy will get something stuck in her craw about a popular movie and make some bizarre arguments to support a negative take on it. It hasn't happened much on Unspooled, given that we're dealing with some widely-appreciated classics, but just wait until we get to Goodfellas.

It's arbitrary and subjective, but yes I've always found Singin' in the Rain a more consistently entertaining and enjoyable watch than either of those (not that those other movies suck or anything).

Fuck Gene Kelly, because that is one attractive man. Marry Debbie Reynolds, because I like a spunky brunette (in fact I've already married one). Kill Donald O'Connor, because he's the only one left here. No hard feelings?

Maybe he's just trying to launder some money.