sycasey 2.0

This is one of those movies (like The Avengers) that I think is "good, not great," but is also such a pop-culture icon that it can't really be denied. So I'll just say up front that I vote yes. I also think that even with some of the "problematic" aspects, there is still something about this film that is compulsively watchable. That's an accomplishment for a movie that takes place entirely in one static location and has no real plot to speak of. When you make that choice (and I have to believe John Hughes was setting a challenge for himself), then the writing has to be strong -- not just containing depth of character, but also in terms of dramatic construction, constantly revealing new things to the audience. It might take away some of the character's depth to have Ally Sheedy's "basket case" girl hardly say anything until about an hour into the movie, but it also means that when she does speak up, you're riveted. She's more memorable for that choice. The shot selection and editing are also very strong, in subtle ways. I've always loved the ways Hughes (and Howard Deutch) cut their films to fit the music. Hughes was a good director. Not a flashy one, but a good one. Even if you say the actresses elevate the weaknesses in his writing, he also cast them and rehearsed them. The performances of all the actors feel organic and natural, not forced. Getting good performances is part of directing. I liked that Amy and Christy talked about having "mixed" feelings on Hughes, because I feel the same. His best movies certainly "work," from the standpoint of dramatic construction: they are entertaining, funny, moving, have memorable characters, etc., but there's also a kind of contradictory message to most of them. He's empathetic to his characters, but also has a conservative streak and is reluctant to let his movies fully break from social norms. You can see it here in how the final romantic pairings seem forced, and how for some reason the female weirdo (Ally Sheedy) wants a makeover but the male one (Bender) doesn't. You can see it in how the leads in Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink ultimately have to wind up with conventionally attractive and desirable partners, never fully accepting their differences from the norm. You can see it in how Ferris Bueller idolizes the most privileged, self-centered character in the film's universe and never has him reflect on how many advantages he has. Maybe the only Hughes teen comedy to actually stick to its guns on class conflict was Some Kind of Wonderful, but of course that's the least remembered among them. And all of that said, I enjoy all of these movies. They're very watchable! Finally, if you want to talk about Hughes' meanness coming through on screen, maybe we should examine Steve Martin's character in Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, which is the other 80s Hughes film I'd consider for Canon placement.

I think this movie is "not good," but generally on the high end for HDTGM entries. There is maybe a decent teen romance story in here that's swallowed up by all the vague, nonsensical fantasy gobbledygook. I also wondered about this. She made Ethan forget, but did the spell also make everyone else (besides Viola Davis) forget? Because if not, he's going to figure out pretty quickly that something fishy is going on.

That actually makes some sense. It may be there was no way to stay true to the book's setup while still making it cinematically effective. Or perhaps there was, but it would have required a heavy re-thinking of the script.

The movie pulls a weird POV switch somewhere along the way, though. By the end we're seeing a lot of events that only Lena would be privy to (especially the brainwashing part); it's clearly not Ethan's story anymore. So why was he the narrator, again? I think Harry Potter is pretty consistent about sticking to Harry's POV.

I'm going to say that while Jeremy Irons has certainly given some legitimately great performances in his time, he gave up the right to never be called a "poor man's" anything as soon as he appeared in Dungeons & Dragons.

Really, isn't this movie just Teen Witch without the fun musical numbers and with much more Civil War recreation?

This seems especially true for movies that are ONLY watched for their glorious badness, so there is a self-selected audience more likely to enjoy it for being a bad movie. Miami Connection seems like the most obvious example here.

Incorrect! "Would that it TWERE so simple."

OMG, my two favorite movie podcasts are getting married! https://news.avclub.com/paul-scheer-to-talk-about-movies-that-are-actually-good-1825537404

OMG, my two favorite movie podcasts are getting married! https://news.avclub.com/paul-scheer-to-talk-about-movies-that-are-actually-good-1825537404

I regret that I have only one "like" to give for this comment.

I can see an argument for liking The Exorcist III more as a personal favorite, for having certain individual sequences that are the more effective scares, or for just seeming more surprising in its creepiness because everything in The Exorcist is so familiar and oft-parodied now. I can't really see an argument that the threequel is more canonical than the original film. The fact that every scene from The Exorcist now feels familiar is a strong argument in its favor. How can you be a fan of cinema and never watch The Exorcist? You can't. It's the obvious choice. I liked many of the individual scenes in Exorcist III, but as someone who wouldn't classify himself as specifically a "horror movie fan" (I'm not really drawn in by the promise of gore and scares, more the promise of good storytelling/filmmaking), I don't think it holds together all that well as a story. It's actually damaged by having to serve as a sequel to The Exorcist, because I'm often left wondering why George C. Scott's character is so resistant to the idea that there could be a supernatural element to these crimes. If you remember the incident with Father Karras, why would you be so skeptical? Meanwhile, the original film unspools so smoothly and subtly, making sure that you understand the decisions of characters on all sides: the mother's desperation that would look like hysteria to outsiders, Karras' crisis of faith, how Regan's condition could deteriorate so badly before they finally brought in a real exorcist. The final scenes contain so much more power because of this careful setup. It's deservedly the more well-remembered film. Exorcist III is reduced to having the villain monologue everything near the end, so that the audience understands what has been happening. Yes, Brad Dourif is great and makes this work better than it might have otherwise, but it's still a clunkier way to do it. (Also, did I see that George C. Scott got a Razzie nomination for his performance? What the hell are the Razzies even doing?)

Superman is in the Canon, so this wouldn't be the first superhero movie to be inducted.

This vote and comment thread has kind of confirmed what I have long suspected: the anti-Marvel backlash tends to be very vocal on social media (check the Twitter responses to Amy's announcement of this episode), but it is the minority. Most people really like these movies.

This seems like . . . not a very competitive versus episode.

Agreed with a lot of what you wrote, but especially this. People accuse Whedon of being an "uncinematic" director, but I'm not sure they're actually looking closely at what he does, because it's more complicated than that. His action scenes tend to be VERY cinematic, in the sense that he commits to telling a story visually (not with dialogue). The New York battle scene in The Avengers is a terrific example of how to stage a big action scene with great cause-and-effect flow, making sure each beat tells us something about the characters (how they fight, what their intentions are, etc.), and maintaining a consistent geography. I'd say he's been consistently good about directing action. The space battles in Serenity are also very good, and certain select Buffy episodes that Whedon directed are also great examples of visual storytelling (Hush and The Body, for example). What he's generally not is flashy. There's not much quick cutting, dramatic lighting, or bravura, attention-grabbing shots (the long single take in the Avengers New York battle is probably the closest thing). He's trying to make it something you don't actively notice, so of course people get an idea in their heads that Whedon isn't doing anything "cinematic." That said, there's another side of the coin. When Whedon knows he has to tell a visual action sequence he's great at it, but he doesn't always carry his "visual storytelling" strengths into scenes where there's a lot of dialogue and people have to stand around and talk to each other. In those scenes he tends to just go with flat setups that put everyone in the shot, or mid-range close-ups and editing that just cuts to whoever is talking. You're not going to see any or . So IMO it's really more that Whedon is very bifurcated as a filmmaker, like he sees some scenes as "visual" and some as "aural," and has a different focus on each.

It's completely bonkers . . . but not all that entertaining, unfortunately.

All true. Though I'd argue that while people knew who Captain America was, the popular opinion was that he was too square and too uncomfortably linked to war propaganda to work as a popular modern character. Then the movies came out.

Anyway, on the "nostalgia" criticism, I think this is better applied to the DC movies, which are trying very hard to lean on the pre-existing popularity of Superman and Batman to fuel a successful movie series. You can say similar things about the Spider-Man and X-Men series, perhaps to a lesser degree. But with the Marvel Studios movies they took characters who were (frankly) not all that popular before they became movies. Iron Man and Captain America were not exactly household names before the movies came out. So that tells me that for THIS franchise there is a fresher kind of myth-making going on, one that is good for both kids and adults like Star Wars before it. (And yes, I know they have Spider-Man in there now, but I'm talking about the first two phases here.)

I totally understand people not liking Marvel movies or superhero movies, but I don't get this criticism at all. Sure, I read comics growing up . . . but I never read much about Iron Man, Captain America, or Thor, and certainly not Ant-Man or the Guardians of the Galaxy. Yet I never had any trouble at all following the stories in those movies (some are better than others, but I'm never confused about what's happening). I don't think you need to have read the comics to understand these movies, and honestly if that were truly the case then I don't think they would be nearly so popular. If your criticism is that we've now reached the point where you need to have seen the other movies to understand the new one, then that's valid.

Yeah, when that line happened I remarked out loud, "Oh, that's a subtle setup."

Is there ever a reason to not have a rocket launcher?

Fair point, though I'd say Logan was praised in part for being a change-of-pace and not part of the dominant mode. And to be clear, I'm not "criticizing" the individual films here. I think The Dark Knight is also very good. But if I'm trying to identify the precursor to the current dominant superhero template, then I think that one is a little bit of a dead-end in the evolution of the form (at least until there is some major shift in the zeitgeist). EDIT: Oh man, now you got me thinking about Logan. It certainly projects a "dark and gritty" tone, but look at where the narrative goes. (SPOILERS) The "lone wolf" hero dies at the end, sacrificing himself to protect a younger mutant with similar powers. Where does that girl wind up? You guessed it: with a new super-team of young mutants. It actually embraces something akin to the Avengers model, just by a different route.

Yeah, The Dark Knight at this point seems more like an artifact from the previous age of darker action movies, applied to one popular superhero. If you want to pit Avengers against an earlier superhero franchise that is more of a precursor, then I'd tab the Raimi Spider-Man movies. Those movies proved that a light, sunny tone and a focus on old-fashioned heroism could be accepted by mass audiences, perhaps even desired in the aftermath of 9/11.

I think Iron Man would win that matchup in a walk. The more interesting match would be Iron Man vs. Captain America: The First Avenger, as I think the reputation of the latter has grown a lot in the intervening years. After rewatching all the Phase 1 Marvel movies last week (in preparation for this podcast and the upcoming Infinity War) I thought those two were clearly the best character introductions, with Thor fitfully charming but yet to find the right treatment for the character (Ragnarok nailed it). I guess I understand the argument for Thor engaging in female gaze a lot, but I'd say the Captain America movies do that just as much. After rewatching the first Cap movie, I was struck by how often they let you see Steve Rogers through Peggy Carter's eyes; I don't think it's an accident that she's the only MCU character to get her own spinoff series. Of course, I also think Guardians of the Galaxy is easily the best standalone film in the series, so Amy's tastes and mine clearly diverge on these films. As for Marvel villains, I'll take Hugo Weaving's hammy Red Skull performance as a memorable pre-Loki bad guy. The character is basically just an unrepentant monster with no deeper motivation, but nobody chews the scenery like Hugo Weaving.