sycasey 2.0

I wasn't a big fan of this movie when it was first released, but I knew that there was a polarized reaction to it. Some people absolutely loved it. Others were left cold. Come to think of it, that sounds like the reaction to every Paul Thomas Anderson movie! This rewatch helped me like the film more. Some of my greater appreciation came from having seen Phantom Thread, because I think these two films approach a similar idea from different angles. Both are about damaged people in possibly toxic relationships . . . but this toxicity kind of works for them, maybe? Phantom Thread approaches this theme more from the outside, as though we are observing both characters from more of a "God's eye" view. Punch-Drunk Love seems to be entirely from the perspective of the Sandler character. I would even argue that the movie is basically taking place inside his head, and the various characters we see are really internal projections, people created by Barry's own mind as a way of working through his personal issues. I don't think PTA literally made his movie about a guy trapped in his own mind (almost nothing he does is ever that literal), but it does make a lot more sense when you look at the events of the film that way. All of the impressionistic framing and music certainly feeds this idea of an intensely personal examination of one man's psyche, not necessarily a realistic presentation of how his world truly exists. There certainly was something in the air around that time, as we got a lot of memorable films centered around this idea: a man at war with his own mind. Think about Fight Club, Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, I Heart Huckabees, etc. That's probably not something you'd see as much these days, as this kind of navel-gazing (particularly white male navel-gazing) seems to have gone out of style. But comparing this to the most recent PTA is a good way to note this change of focus and how you can still make films about the same subjects by just tweaking the POV a little. I'm sure we all have our preferences with him, but the guy is a master filmmaker. I'm still a "no" vote on this, as for me Punch-Drunk Love is still near the bottom of the PTA list (only Inherent Vice lands lower), and I do still think that Sandler's performance feels more like a stunt than something deeply-felt. I intellectually understand the structural reasons why the Emily Watson character doesn't get the same level of development, but that's part of why the relationship doesn't engage me emotionally (contrast to Phantom Thread, where I think we do get both sides of the relationship fully fleshed-out, despite my initial expectation that they wouldn't be). I fully understand that this will probably get voted in (most PTA films probably would, on an up-or-down vote), and I get that there are people who personally identify with Barry Egan and for them this would be an easy yes vote. That's cool, it's just not my experience with the movie. It's good, not quite Canon level for me.

Smash Mouth played at the first concert I paid for with my own money. They opened for Third Eye Blind. This was right around the heyday of "Semi-Charmed Life" and "Walking on the Sun." I knew very little about these bands and was just going because my friends wanted to go. It wasn't a bad show, actually. This was in San Francisco, so both bands were local and the crowd was enthusiastic.

Shrek definitely extended Smash Mouth's career for another few years. I still stan for "Walking on the Sun," which hods up as a surprisingly, shockingly thoughtful song (while being just as catchy and ear-wormy as their other hits) and also the only time that band ever wrote anything like that.

Yes, Smash Mouth only had songs in the first Shrek movie, though I believe the ad campaigns for Shrek 2 did use their songs as well. By the way, Smash Mouth are NOT happy to have their career success attributed to Shrek. https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/do-not-tweet-at-smash-mouth-about-the-shrek-songs-they-do-not-like-it/ http://gawker.com/smash-mouths-desperate-endless-twitter-battle-1781910819 It's true, though. "All Star" was already an ubiquitous hit song before any Shrek movies came out.

Nostalgia is a helluva drug. Thankfully, sanity seems to have prevailed. It was touch-and-go for a while there.

I would also like to nominate Jessica St. Clair as permanent co-host, because she has been a hoot in these episodes. Or maybe she can just come in for movies that take place in the future.

Let's get some Johnny Mnemonic action in here.

One of the audience members mentioned that the brain has no pain receptors, therefore Johnny should not feel anything when they upload info. That is true, but there is still a scalp with skin on it that can cause pain to be felt if you puncture it, plus a skull made of bone where pain can be felt, etc. So maybe it's coming more from the stuff around the brain than from within the brain. https://www.brainlin...tself-feel-pain It's also more that the brain interprets pain than feels pain itself, so it's also very conceivable that Johnny and other couriers could be feeling a kind of mental/emotional disorientation from having so much data uploaded that is simply interpreted as pain. So clearly this movie is airtight and has no plot holes whatsoever.

God damn it, this bad movie is gonna get voted in, isn't it? I would have taken any of the other rejected 80s nostalgia pieces -- Neverending Story, Labyrinth, Goonies -- over this. Okay, maybe not Goonies.

My favorite thing about the concert scene is that the marquee just says "LIVE." I presume this is not the name of the band, just a way to remind the audience that this is, in fact, live music. https://youtu.be/wmbt1RjPn4M?t=1m4s EDIT: Also, these guys were still a few years away:

Oh good, I've been meaning to revisit this one. It's one of the PTA movies that didn't connect with me upon first viewing, but I'm wondering if it will now, having seen more of his work since then.

I don't want to get too mean about this, but . . . is there actually an argument for The Lost Boys that doesn't heavily rely on 80s kid nostalgia? I never saw this movie as a kid (not because I was avoiding it or my parents wouldn't let me, it just never crossed my path), and having only seen it as an adult, I don't think it's good. It's weird and silly, but not actually good. To me this is absolutely another Goonies, something that meant a lot to young people who caught it at the right time but is bewildering to everyone else. I agreed with everything said in the reviews Amy quoted from newspapers at the time. The Lost Boys is a tonal mess. The stuff with the Coreys is kiddie, Goonies level humor. The teen-vampire stuff is like a campier Rebel Without a Cause, played ludicrously straight-faced. The stuff with the parents seems to come from yet another movie and is barely touched upon before it suddenly matters for the finale. The vampire lore is haphazard and formless. The movie never tells us what the actual "rules" are for becoming a vampire or killing a vampire, stuff just happens because the movie wants it to happen. It is not a compliment when I say that Twilight actually does a better job of world-building than this movie. I cringed at all of Dallas Sonnier's comments about how "brilliant" Schumacher's direction was, because to me it feels hacky. The production design is interesting, and I do like the opening montage of "California weirdness," but given the tonal whiplash, the wildly contrasting performance styles, and the lack of coherence from scene-to-scene, it doesn't feel to me like a movie by someone with a consistent vision and something to say about the world. It feels more like someone throwing stuff at the wall and turning the amp up to "11" whenever possible. Needless to say, these are things that would continue to plague Schumacher's career going forward, most obviously in his poorly-received Batman movies. I say the same problems were present from the beginning. Is the movie influential? I guess you can say the "teen vampire" subgenre does stem from this film, so I could see an argument built around that. But I just don't think this movie is good enough. It's a nostalgia piece and a curio, not Canon. No to The Lost Boys. No to Twilight. Yes to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the TV show).

It's promising that in the minisode Paul is already mispronouncing "mnemonic."

Oh God, Johnny Mnemonic.I saw this when I was 14 and eagerly devouring anything with lots of action and special effects. Damn thing put me to sleep. Unbelievably boring. So of course, perfect material for HDTGM.

I also came down as a soft no. Well-made, interesting movie. Is it ESSENTIAL? I wouldn't say so. I've commented before (mostly during the month of horror movies) that I have a light objection to the idea that just because a movie made you FEEL something, that makes it good. Fat Girl clearly intends to shock and/or disgust the audience with its ending. On the other hand, I'm not sure this ending is actually necessary or the most effective way for the film to make its point about societal misogyny and its effect on the development of young women (to my mind, the quieter scenes during the bulk of the movie do a better job of that). I see where the filmmaker is coming from with this ending, but on some level it feels a bit like shock value for shock value's sake. Again, that doesn't mean the movie is bad. I do like it. But it falls a bit short of Canon status for me. EDIT: I'm also aware of the "bad look" of having only (I think) male viewers commenting on this film so far, so I'd love to hear some women's voices.

No respect!

I cannot find Rodney Dangerfield's rendition of Great Balls of Fire anywhere and I am very disappointed.

More of a Golden Child fan?

Eddie Murphy had a lot of hits (there's also 48 Hours, Nutty Professor, Trading Places, and Bowfinger), so he might be a bad example. I do think it's fair to say that most comic actors have a "prime" where they make good, funny movies and once the "prime" has passed it's rare to get it back.

Honestly, I think most of this is that when people are talking casually about a movie, they'll refer to a character by the actor's name. Rodney Dangerfield is a super-recognizable actor with a very familiar persona, so when you say "Rodney" everyone knows what you mean. I'm doubtful anyone on the podcast seriously thinks they are describing the real Rodney. It's how the character of Chester is written/performed they are objecting to.

So I heard a lot of arguments for why this is an interesting movie with an interesting philosophy (and I agree). Not sure I heard many arguments for why it's Canon. Anybody on the forums got anything more?

If you're from Santa Cruz, CA, then this movie is definitely Canon. For everyone else I'm not sure.

It's funny how people's perceptions about what "rap music" is seem solidly locked in the 1990s. We're talking about 20 years having passed between then and now, roughly the same time that elapsed between the end of the Beatles and the start of Nirvana. I'm not a big rap or hip-hop guy, but even I can tell that the genre has evolved a lot in that time.

On a screenwriting level, that's the most offensive thing here: that they couldn't even adequately execute the tired, predictable (but functional) Mighty Ducks formula.