sycasey 2.0

Disagree 100%, but there's no accounting for taste.

No it's not.

Cherry pie. Damn good.

In this one they don't even pretend there's a kid with a stepmother and a prominent role in the movie.

It's the kind of trollish move that we would have expected Devin to keep going for weeks on end. Even more amusing that it's Amy doing it.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it's just a running gag at this point. Like South Park killing Kenny in every episode.

Amy said he had an open invitation to return, so hopefully it does happen some day.

This would be nice, but I think Amy's schedule probably requires her to pre-record a bunch of episodes ahead of time (hence why the announcements of Canon votes feel canned).

There was one attempt, the Ralph Bakshi animated version. I haven't seen it, but it certainly didn't seem to capture the public's imagination the same way Jackson's trilogy did.

Not only that, but to sign up for this forum and make it your first post.

At some point I think they show Hannigan eating breakfast and it is just sugar upon sugar upon sugar. Type 2 diabetes on the way.

Radio Days is really good, and one I'd recommend unless you are one of those folks who just can't watch anything by Woody Allen because of all the issues in his personal life. And even for those folks, I'll note that this is one Woody Allen movie in which he does not appear on screen (only does the narration).

People seem flummoxed a bit by the revelation that "Jericho" originally intended this movie to be a drama about child abuse, but the signs are there if you look closely enough. For example, Dan Aykroyd leaves Jon Lovitz's adult sex party with Kim Basinger, heading directly to his office. This was the same adult sex party where children were working as waiters, including his own daughter! So if Akyroyd jetted directly out of this party to his workplace, how did Alyson Hannigan get home? She's not old enough to drive, and at this time of night public transit probably isn't a great option. Maybe she had to call a cab and pay out of her own earnings as a cocktail waitress? It would be more plausible that she'd just stay at Lovitz's place, given that he's her uncle and all, but nope, once Aykroyd and Basinger come home she is asleep in her own bed. There's no explanation for this occurrence. Aykroyd leaves the party without making any arrangements for his daughter and then is unsurprised when she made it home without him. She watches him go without batting an eye (indeed, even seems pleased that he's going out with a beautiful woman). All of this suggests that this kind of thing has happened before. Willow has probably had to make her own arrangements to take care of herself many times now, even long before anyone had to "put er in a brar." What other problems might her father have going on that cause him to be so absent-minded about raising his only child? Perhaps only Jericho can answer that.

I am naturally inclined to enjoy the introduction to a series more so than the conclusion, and The Lord of the Rings is no exception, though I do agree with those who say it is really one long film (all done as part of one production) and are not inclined to split them up as achievements. So I do generally prefer watching Fellowship over Return, though on an absolute scale there isn't a lot of difference between them. On an emotional level, it's hard for the later entries to overcome the exhilaration and sense of discovery I got from seeing the first movie in the theater (Two Towers does give me something with an escalation of the action, after which ROTK feels a bit like more of the same). I was never a big Tolkien nerd (I'd read The Hobbit and could never finish the LOTR books), but Fellowship demonstrated in the clearest way possible why this was such a fascinating mythology. So it was up to David to potentially convince me to vote for the latter. His argument was fairly weak, leaning heavily on the Oscar wins (which even he admits were probably aimed at the whole trilogy and not just the final entry) and citing "cool moments" in the battles. So my vote goes to Fellowship. I'm also super glad that Amy cited the passage that has held the most resonance for me in our current political moment, and yes, this is something that pushes the first film over the top IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjAAC13al9s

I say stick with it now. It'll be the "Oh my God, they killed Kenny" running joke of this podcast.

I would argue that Chicago is a comedy. But of course it is a very different tone from the frothier Shakespeare in Love.

Watched it last night . . . still in this line. Good movie, not Canon.

I AM CERTAIN SOMEONE WOULD. PROBABLY SOMEONE NAMED AMY.

Sadness for Mel Gibson and Ethan Hawke.

I couldn't finish reading the books, but loved the movies. The first one especially was a revelation as to how compelling the mythology could be.

We could vote on all the Hamlets!

I lean towards Fellowship, but I also tend to have a bias in favor of the first entry in a series (that sense of discovery that you can't get back). Will be interesting to hear the arguments.

I'm leaning this way too, but might give the movie another watch this week to see how it plays (it's on Netflix!). The movie doesn't deserve the slagging it gets, but I'm not sure it's great or important enough to be Canon.

SPR has the advantage of Spielberg, meaning that as many issues as the script may have, they are covered up by bravura filmmaking left and right.

That's interesting. Fantastic Mr. Fox tends to be one of the Wes Anderson movies that even Wes Anderson haters find tolerable, in my experience.