sycasey 2.0

I'm not a Texan, but people who are tell me that Richard Linklater is good about getting Texas right, particularly in Bernie.

I think that was the idea, but as you say the movie never says so.

I could not tell if this was supposed to be a statement (by the movie) for or against gun control. On the one hand, he says this. On the other hand, this character is presented as an idiot.

It's about both IMO. It shows how man develops tools . . . but the first tool they invented was a weapon.

I haven't read this one, but having read other Hiaasen books I suspected as much. His writing doesn't take on the same moralistic tone the movie does. Heck, just reading the plot summary from Wikipedia, it says that in the book Erin doesn't lose custody just because she lost her job, rather she was in the middle of a custody battle and lost because the judge found out about her stripping and looked down upon it. First of all, that immediately makes more sense than what we got in the movie. Secondly, it probably better functions as a satire/criticism of the moralizing judge, not the strippers themselves. This was a weird thing in the 90s, where you had movies and TV that wanted to leer at the seedier aspects of culture but also had to have some old-fashioned moral lession couched within them. Like how Jerry Springer would do some disingenuous speech at the end of his show talking about how bad what we just watched was. Please, Jerry, you know we were there to watch the freaks and weirdos fight! Similarly, this movie just can't wait to get to the stripping. It rolls over the plot setup like a speedbump, just so we can get to the naked ladies. And then it tries to get all emotional on us about Erin and her daughter. Pfft. That said, I did appreciate how committed Burt Reynolds was to playing his weirdo Congressman character. That shot of him with a signed photo of Newt Gingrich in the frame, seemingly as some kind of meta-commentary on Congressmen's terrible hairstyles . . . loved it.

I notice Cameron's video was taken down, so let's just repost here for posterity. Plus one more that wasn't in there:

We'll see it when we get to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid too.

Just saw this! Though it's worth noting that this basically lines up with Arthur C. Clarke's story, so not a big surprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw_7IWn9hM8

My understanding is that Kubrick originally planned to have the classical tracks (Blue Danube, Also Sprach Zarathustra) replaced with original score and just used them for timing to edit the scenes, but found that it worked so well he left them in. Good call.

Yeah, but it also used to be that you could jump into a TV series at any time, because you weren't required to understand past plots. Plus there were only like four channels actually making new shows. Everything else was reruns.

I'm just finding them too much of a time commitment. 13 hour-long episodes with a lot of wheel-spinning? And how many shows are there? Argh.

If you're an idiot like me who still pays for cable, Striptease is available on Cinemax (because of course it is).

This is the reason I vote yes. This movie seems like the origins of modern Reality TV, especially disturbing shows like Hoarders or My 600 Pound Life. To me, the difference is that Grey Gardens makes no pretense of trying to "help" the subjects at hand; it simply presents them as they are. I find Little Edie's situation sad, but some people saw in her a kind of inspirational counter-culture figure (I don't get it, but I guess those were the times). I wouldn't want to watch it again, but it seems like everyone should see this once, if only to understand where this kind of reality filmmaking came from. Worthy of a Canon spot.

From reading the Facebook group, I know this movie is certainly not universally loved. But even the "haters" seem to generally acknowledge that it's deserving of a spot on the list, even if they don't personally enjoy it.

Nah, that's a great take! Human fear is definitely a thread that plays out throughout the movie. Some people take that ending as hopeful and some take it as yet another thing to be afraid of.

I forget where I heard it, but it was Peter Hyams being interviewed about meeting with Kubrick before agreeing to direct the 2001 sequel, 2010. The whole anecdote was about being invited into Kubrick's office, ostensibly to get his blessing to make a sequel to the original film, and almost the entire time was spent with Kubrick asking Hyams about how he had done certain things in other films he had made. The time is almost up and Hyams realizes he hasn't actually asked for Kubrick's blessing, so when he does Kubrick just casually replies something like: "Oh yeah, that's fine! Just make it your own thing." Hyams was all worried like he was going to have to prostrate before a God and Kubrick just wanted to learn from him.

This is probably my favorite film of all time, so I would obviously have it on my list, at #1 in fact. But even taking my personal feelings aside, I think it's certainly earned a spot in the Top 15 because of (1) its massive influence, not just on sci-fi cinema but on science and culture in general and (2) how much it pushed the technology of filmmaking forward. The resonance of 2001 continues to be felt. Like many, the first time I saw it as a teenager I didn't know what it was about. Where's the plot? The action? Sure, some of the scenes were good and suspenseful (the apes and HAL) but there's so much other weird stuff. Then one night after I'd started college it was shown on the local PBS station (pretty late at night) in widescreen format, and I just happened to start watching it . . . and the whole thing clicked. It became a religious experience. That's what I love about it: 2001 is a heavily-detailed "hard sci-fi" movie that also feels like it touches your soul. Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of science fiction grapples with religious questions ( ), but this is the one that most seems to give off the feeling of having a religious awakening. It's about the evolution of the human race, in both the inspirational and frightening connotations of that word. It doesn't have many characters because humanity is the character. I don't really agree with Amy's take that Kubrick is like more of a "splatter painter" -- I think every one of his films sticks to a theme and develops it, so he's not just doing stuff at random -- but I do love the stories about Gary Lockwood and Keir Dullea coming up with new ideas on set that made it into the finished film. I agree with most that Kubrick was one of the best film directors, but there's a certain cult surrounding him that (IMO) gets the wrong idea of what made him great. He's gotten this mythical reputation as the perfect, exacting artist who planned out every detail well in advance and knew exactly what everything meant. The more you learn about him, you'll find that he wasn't like that exactly. He certainly was meticulous and detailed, but he was also above all else a curious person, which means he wanted to listen to people and learn from them. He wasn't above changing his original plan if someone else's suggestion worked better. Every movie he made was based on some prior source material (or in the case of 2001, developed at the same time with the input of a sci-fi author), not something Kubrick came up with alone. Some other directors who try to act like mini-tyrants on set might do well to remember that.

It was pretty obvious that Reed was . . . not a singer. I did like Ann-Margret though.

Oh, it is, but it's also a slam-dunk. A Clockwork Orange is a more interesting discussion in this context.

What if it were Christopher Plummer?

I can never forget the completely random Titanic reference in the middle of this Britney Spears video (at 2:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CduA0TULnow Some dude brings Rose's necklace to Mars for some reason. Britney is not super impressed.

I think we need to discuss a Kubrick that actually has a prayer of getting in (Lolita not so much), but maybe one that will spark some controversy. A Clockwork Orange