sycasey 2.0

I have to agree with a lot of this, well said. It's beautifully shot, and well-directed. A pleasant aesthetic experience. But on the other hand, the character work does not hold up well. It's hard to see the justification for why these two characters are drawn to each other. It's worse from the woman's side, but really there isn't much to support it either way. The film spends almost no time trying to convince us that these people have chemistry, before their relationship turns toxic. They are thrown together in the same space and that's it. The historical importance of Last Tango feels like a "you had to be there" kind of thing. I'm in my 30s, far too young to have seen this film when it originally came out or experienced the cultural moment. That said, the film does give off the "feeling" of being something daring and groundbreaking. Even watching it for the first time last week, before reading about any of the history surrounding it (being banned for obscenity, etc.), I could tell that it was that kind of movie. But that also hurts the experience, viewing it through a modern lens: you are constantly making mental "corrections," allowing for the elements that have dated poorly, just to understand what the film is doing. It's probably never going to be possible for me to get caught up in the moment like Pauline Kael apparently was. American Beauty was mentioned as a good analogue for this, a movie that seemed daring and transgressive in its time but now feels a little silly (while still containing some outstanding elements). Another earlier title I'd bring up is Easy Rider, one of the prime examples for me of a film where I intellectually understand its cultural importance to people who were alive at the time, but I have never enjoyed watching it. I enjoyed Last Tango more than that film, but it's still a soft no.

Also on Netflix streaming, if you have that.

I'm pretty sure that later in the movie they show Jane also playing guitar, which represents a remarkable musical evolution for her: back-up dancer to lead singer to guitarist. And they say this movie isn't feminist!

Bloodsport KUMITE! KUMITE! KUMITE!

As I recall, this guy also doesn't take a very small taste as you usually see in movies, he goes back for more, like 3 or 4 times. This movie isn't fucking around.

Lots of speculation on how Jeff and Yashito are brothers, despite one apparently being Japanese and the other . . . clearly not. Perhaps they are not literal biological brothers, but that as part of this ninja cult they all call one another "brother" as a standard greeting? We don't get much verbal interaction between the other ninjas (and the heavy usage of ADR means that any dialogue could have been changed at any time), so it's hard to prove this for sure. But it seems like the most logical explanation.

They DID have Shaquille O'Neal for a while.

Not sure I'm buying the "realistic/objective" argument here, given the broad and cartoonish acting styles employed by many in the cast (Tucker and Witherspoon especially). Still, that's an idea maybe worth exploring, that the movie isn't supposed to be a strict comedy.

As I've noted before, in principle I'm not opposed to Devin bettering himself, making amends, and coming back to film writing/podcasting at some point in the future. I don't believe that past misdeeds have to make him a complete pariah for life. But THAT SAID, if you are going to bring him back, you do it with transparency and buy-in from interested parties (his victims/accusers, other employees at the company, etc.). Sneaking around and lying about stuff and hoping no one notices is not the way to do it. And moral issues aside, I can't believe how stupid and unprofessional this is. Does Alamo Drafthouse have no one working in their PR and HR departments?

Well, looks like Devin probably won't be coming back anytime soon. http://variety.com/2017/film/news/blogger-devin-faraci-steps-down-again-sexual-assault-allegations-1202558042/ Tim League/Alamo, what the hell were you thinking with this secretive bullshit?

I will take it even further than Amy: this is a bad movie, and that's why it shouldn't be in the Canon. Criticizing comedy is hard, so if Friday legitimately makes you bust a gut every time, then I can't deny that it's effective for you. Personally, I have never found it very funny. It gives me a few chuckles, but mostly I sit there stone-faced. This was true when I first saw it back in the 90s and it was true again when I re-watched the film last week. I don't think there are any actual jokes in this movie. I was surprised to hear the hosts agree that Friday has a "sharp" script, because I don't think it does. Scenes just aimlessly wander without any structure to them. Whatever is "funny" about these scenes is entirely about the visual presentation (Gray shoving the camera up someone's nostrils or putting in a "gong" sound effect because an Asian person showed up) or cartoonishly exaggerated performance. Would there be any actual comedy here if not for Chris Tucker screaming every one of his lines, John Witherspoon making funny faces, etc.? I'll grant that performance is part of comedy, so I don't want to discount what the actors bring, but my point here is that on a script level Friday doesn't have much going on. Does it have a story? I'll grant that plenty of indie comedies of the mid-90s got by with a certain level of plotlessness, but in the best of them there is some kind of central idea that is driven home at the end. Clerks is telling you to stop whining about your situation and take responsibility. Dazed and Confused is about the freedom and open possibilities of youth. Their final scenes drive those points home. Friday ends with Ice Cube deciding to fight the neighborhood bully and beating him up. How does this drive home any of the film's thematic concerns? Even Ben, the film's champion on this podcast, admits that this sequence is unearned and that the father's speeches about "get beat up like I did" or "fight with your fists" come from nowhere. Ben glosses over this as something minor, but it's not minor. It's the climax of the movie. And it's empty as hell. No, no, a thousand times no.

This movie's popularity has always mystified me, but I'll wait to hear what they say on the podcast.

Hackers, because I had a ridiculous hairstyle.

It's a reasonably enjoyable comedy, but like Amy I find that most of the best laughs are found in the first half, and it loses me somewhere along the way. So is it culturally relevant enough to vote for? It's certainly a very early example of a certain kind of humor and a certain form of filmmaking (the mockumentary), but is it one of the key milestones of that form? I doubt this is more influential than, say, This Is Spinal Tap. It might have been made first, but that doesn't necessarily make it a touchstone. I can see an argument that Albert Brooks should be represented in the Canon, but it seems to me that something from his mid-career work (Lost in America, Defending Your Life, etc.) would be a better example. Glad I saw this movie, but it's a no.

In the podcast, the hosts wondered aloud what teen comedy Bratz was most similar too, but it seems to me that the answer is "all of them" -- as in, every popular teen comedy released within the decade prior to the filming of Bratz. Let's count 'em up: 1. The opening credits are EXTREMELY similar to those of Legally Blonde, to say nothing of the character who carries a cute little dog in her purse while floating in a pool. 2. As was mentioned, Meredith seems like a low-rent version of Regina George from Mean Girls. Additionally, she enters a talent show with a choreographed dance number as a key plot point. 3. There is a cheerleading scene in which one character literally says, "Bring it on." 4. One of the Bratz plays soccer to the tune of the Faders' "No Sleep Tonight," exactly as in the Amanda Bynes vehicle She's the Man (no cross-dressing, though). 5. The the description of the lunch-table cliques in the courtyard are lifted directly from Clueless, in addition to the scene in which a teacher receives an abrupt makeover from one of her students. These aren't just generic devices used across many teen movies like the mean principal, slobs-vs.-snobs conflict, or annoying younger siblings (though of course Bratz hits on all of these too), these are obvious DIRECT ripoffs of other recent and popular films in the same genre. I'm not sure I can recall any other movie that has engaged in such broad plagiarism, from so many sources. Anything else I'm missing?

I wanted to hear some more discussion of Meredith's crazy Rube Goldbergian mechanism for starting a food fight and getting the Bratz in trouble with the Principal. Here it is in full: She sends her dog to bite one of the Bratz in the ankle (presumably as punishment for being hit on by Meredith's boyfriend), which then causes her to spill her pasta at the precise moment another Brat is crossing below the staircase, which causes that Brat to stumble backwards into a very conveniently placed trash can, which rolls backwards into the exact table where another Brat is sitting and gets hit with another plate of pasta. As this other Brat stands up to complain, she trips on a very conveniently placed skateboard, which goes careening right into the precise path of the fourth and final Brat, who falls face forward into her own food (which appears to be a cream pie this time -- does anyone get a cream pie for anything other than a slapstick scene?). This then kicks off a food fight between the Bratz, though how the last of them knows where that skateboard came from is beyond me. In the ensuing melee, the very poorly-secured bust of Principal Jon Voight falls to the ground and smashes into pieces. You might assume this was all just a very lucky coincidence, but as the food fight continues we very clearly see Meredith standing there and admiring her own handiwork, indicating that . . . she planned this? Very impressive work there by our resident mean girl. Of course, the whole effort is immediately undermined (like everything else in this movie) when the Bratz make up and become friends again in detention. But even so, I admire her commitment. Really I spent the whole movie rooting for Meredith, who seems to have more defined goals than anyone else.

The clear answer is that Principal Jon Voight is running his school like some banana-republic dictatorship and simply installed his daughter as President without holding any elections. This is some Donald and Ivanka shit going on here.

Oh man, yes. For context: Even though he gets the last line wrong (it's "be my wingman" not "ride my tail"), the reading holds up incredibly well. All of the early scenes between the pilots (and their supervisors) are loaded with thinly-veiled references to their penises. Much less veiled are the other constant references to each other's butts ("I want some butts!"). The topless volleyball scene is set to a song called "Playing With The Boys." The sexual chemistry between Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis is nowhere near what he has with Val Kilmer. It really makes you think the gay subtext was absolutely purposeful, but there's not much evidence from the director or screenwriters that this was ever their intention. It's still the most interesting way to read Top Gun.

This is interesting to a point, but if the filmmakers really wanted to make a movie about how overt masculinity is toxic, or merely a facade that doesn't accomplish anything, then they would carry that idea through to the end. I think Abe makes the point in the podcast that the movie really doesn't follow through on the complexity Cruise attempts to bring to the character -- Maverick is instantly forgiven for his recklessness and still saves the day at the end without demonstrating that he's learned anything about giving in to machismo. Hence the prevalent reading that the film is just a clumsy rah-rah advertisement for the military.

Ah, but that is not inexplicable. It's a rap concert! This is more like it:

Totally agreed. I have little doubt that Devin would have ripped this argument to shreds. I was also bugged by the criticism of Minority Report having a bunch of broadly-played, colorful characters that we only meet once or twice. Really? That's a problem? A lot of noir movies and detective stories do that! It's an effective way to make a procedural compelling on a character level, and help the audience distinguish between a large cast. Like the "dead child" thing, it seems like the only criticism here is for it being a cliche. That's a criticism I don't often find compelling, since certain storytelling devices get used a lot precisely because they work. I'm more concerned if a movie uses the device BADLY. I don't think Minority Report does this badly.

Magnolia, Collateral (though I guess Amy has a weird opinion in not liking this one), Rain Man, Born on the 4th of July, Eyes Wide Shut, and as you note A Few Good Men. Most of these would stand a decent chance of getting my vote.

First off, I think we've had too many of these "versus" episodes between two movies that are not particularly Canon-worthy. The original versus concept seemed more like a chance to pit two worthy films against each other in a difficult choice. A choice that forces people to vote without enthusiasm for a mediocre entry . . . just isn't as much fun. Anyway, I am also surprised to be swayed by the podcast arguments that Top Gun is more worthy of a Canon spot despite not being as good a movie or artistic statement as Minority Report. I wasn't convinced by Amy's poor arguments against the latter (the plot is just "bolted on"? WTF?), but Tom's argument that Top Gun is more memorable despite not being as well-made or well-written? That's 100% true. So if I have to choose a movie that future generations should watch in order to understand something important about cinema history, then it's clearly Top Gun. It's iconic and influential, much more so than Minority Report. Perhaps it's not influential in many good ways (you can draw a straight line between this and the Michael Bay Transformers travesties), but it's influential nonetheless. Minority Report is a good film with a good message, but not especially notable in the careers of Tom Cruise or Steven Spielberg (it's not even the best film Spielberg made that year); for both Cruise and Tony Scott, I'd say Top Gun definitely is. So I'll hold my nose and vote for Top Gun, unintentionally hilarious homoerotic Navy commercial though it may be. It's still a notable moment in film history. Minority Report is a pretty good effort by people who are capable of more.

Cool, so Minority Report it is. (Top Gun is a fun movie, but not actually a good movie.)