ol' eddy wrecks

Did the clip of nuking the fridge that you found include the lead-in scene with some type of sign saying, Atomic Cafe?

Side note from the episode, Pauline Kael is, I guess, Amy's patron saint of critics; I really only know her by reputation (mostly of what movies I like that she hated, well, just 2001 and Last Year in Marienbad. Okay, my knowledge of her tastes isn't that great), but the part about Raiders having multiple endings. I can't comment on Raiders, but I remember pacing at the end being a real issue when Spielberg did A.I. By the count of my memory, he had what felt like 4 endings. Where, in my head, thinking about the scenes, it should have been an ending and a long epilogue - and I'm not talking about cutting the scenes. Just how they're played. Like he has a set of emotional beats he likes to hit for how endings are supposed to go, dramatically speaking, and it's not always... aptly applied.

I guess my response is just my general advice, "try not to seek validation of your opinions through these lists," or, "don't try to be too emotionally invested in other people's opinions on these things." Unless by "should be"* you simply meant, "if I were to write an ordered list of the top 100 American movies of all time," which is fair. Just the upper-case of "WAY" reads as overly-emotionally invested to me. Relatedly, how do you feel about Chariots of Fire winning BP that year for the Oscars? Since this list is the result of polling of a lot of different opinions, one shouldn't be surprised that the list will be smatterings of different preferences in movies*, so rather than take out the movies that you personally don't like, I guess a more interesting question would be if you were to swap around the existing positions of similar movies (and by like, let's just say, Spielberg movies and Star Wars, leaving out Lucas' American Graffiti). I have lots of movies I like that aren't on the list, and making room for them would be easy if I were to just take out the movies I don't care for, which is why I'm presenting this exercise/game. You've got 8. Schindler's List 13. Star Wars 24. E.T. 56. Jaws 66. Raiders 71. Saving Private Ryan Put in any Star Wars or Spielberg movies at those spots. And since Schindler's List is different enough in terms of subject matter, let's include the rule it has to be included in the list. My apologies for not engaging your breaking down of the scene from Raiders. I'm not the biggest Raiders person so I haven't rewatched it yet and not entirely sure when I will (given the talk about the sun/horizon shots from Lawrence of Arabia, I actually might wait for when the podcast gets to that, and do it as a double feature. I think I might actually enjoy it more that way). *: I guess other takes on not liking a placement on the list is, "this method is flawed and produces weird results. maybe they should consider a different method for compiling the list." Or, "their voting method produces mostly okay results, but sometimes they're way off, and this is one of them." Oh, and I think people can just say, they're invoking death of the author in terms of the 15 vs 18 age-of-Marion thing. I'm not well versed in critical theory (understatement) to know the nuances of tDotA, but I'm pretty sure that's what all of you are basically expressing. ETA: I do think the Star Wars/Empire discrepancy is interesting even if you aren't a fan of either (like me). I kind of wish the AFI would publish the voting totals in addition to the list (I wonder if google knows if they do) - I'd also be curious what the list results would have been if they did their list by the top 5 votes and used the top 100 as tie breakers as opposed to the other way around. My best guess is a lot of people don't love Star Wars or think of it as great. So the cultural influence part is what got its presence on the list. People say, "Jaws and Star Wars created the modern summer blockbuster," not "Jaws and Empire." Or relatedly, people like the characters/universe at a high level, so they like what introduced them, not necessarily the best written? IDK, it's a good question. I wonder if anyone checked off Empire but didn't check off Star Wars. I wonder if there's a correlation between people who voted for Empire and people who put either of them in their top 5 tie breaker list. Interestingly, looking at the ballot, Return of the Jedi wasn't part of the choices, it would have been a write-in. All of the LotR movies were on the ballot (for anyone who was interested). This has also left me wondering what's the popularity of Indiana Jones outside of a certain age range. I don't know what gets replayed on TV a lot these days. I don't know how much little kids watch movies on TV instead of the internet these days. Is it just another blockbuster to them and easily forgettable? Oh well.

A week late but I finally caught up with watching this completely. To me, the highlight of the film really is the exchange between Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins. I think Perkins performance contributes so much to what makes this movie works. However, I will call out in the shower scene, that shot of Janet Leigh's eye on the bathroom floor is wonderfully vacant, bleak, and fatalistic. Back to the discussion of the merit of the first half versus the second half. I will point out there is a parallel story going on, with the first half, Janet Leigh has committed a crime, how is she going to get away with it? The second half is, Anthony Perkins has committed a crime, how is he going to get away with it? Now, the obvious difference is, you get the internal monologue of Janet Leigh's character imagining how people are reacting to her crime (you can even see her smile a little bit at imagining the cowboy going, "she even flirted with me."), where-as with Perkins, you only get his interactions with other characters, the lighting, his actions. Basically, only what is knowable externally. This seems required by the narration for the first viewing to keep the surprise for the end. However, for the most part, it just works for me because Perkins just seems to do such a damn good job of going, from say, confident and casual when Arbagast (sp?) shows up, to starting to stammer and shake as his story falls apart in front of him while being questioned by Arbagast. Which is to say, at least up through Arbagast's death, this turns into a bit of a verbal cat and mouse game and is enjoyable through that lens. However, when we get to after Arbagast dies and it's only Vera Miles we're following around, we aren't really seeing that much with Anthony Perkins and I'm just not sure through what lens to view this segment to enjoy it. It could be viewed akin to a procedural I suppose. I think I would have preferred something where you could see more from Norman's perspective of the walls closing in as people just kept snooping around (e.g. maybe the local sheriff going to interview Norman could have been an interesting scene). I never got a sense of danger while Vera Miles was looking around motel room #1. However, when she was looking around the house, it became a taut thriller again. Just really well shot - except, for the cuts of John Gavin distracting Perkins. Those seemed really rough and such small snippets that they didn't feel very well fleshed out (and the sound seemed noticeably... different. Something I'd be fine with in a cinema verite type film, but stood out poorly compared to everything else in this movie). Side note: While the $40,000 still feels primarily like a red herring for the plot to me, another podcast I listened to, one of the people said it made them think of the money in Fargo. It seemed like such a big thing, it was the catalyst for a lot of this carnage (though technically not true, since Norman was killing people prior to this), but in the end, no one got it, and all of this, for only this lump sum of money. I found that an interesting (though maybe not entirely accurate) take on the money.

Googling images of Vertigo tells me I'm remembering the lack of shadows very incorrectly. ETA: speaking remakes and Vertigo, googling this has turned up the fact there's an unintentional, quasi-remake of Verigo from Guy Maddin. I totally missed that one. https://www.indiewire.com/2017/04/vertigo-remake-guy-madden-the-green-fog-interview-1201805968

This has got me wondering - my knowledge of color films from the 50s, early 60s isn't the greatest, but how many of them really use light and shadow really well? Like, compared to some of the great black & whites from the era (the movies I like from this era tend to be black & white). I'm really scratching my head here and hoping someone who was/is a film studies major can drop some knowledge and examples here.

My standard list comparison post AFI (2007 | 1997): 66th | 60th BFI Critic's poll, 2012 (ranking, US filtered ranking, votes): 447th (all), 173.436th* (US), 3 votes BFI Director's poll, 2012 (ranking, US filtered ranking, votes): 546th, (all) 229.32th** (US), 1 votes IMDB (rank, rating): 43rd, 8.5 rating Metascore: 85 TSFDT (ranking, US filtered ranking): 217th, TBD Oscar BP status: not nominated, winner Chariots of fire Box Office Ranking*** (rank, amount): 1st, $212,222,025 *: 97 of the top 250 are US films, I'm extrapolating to guess its US-filtered rank **: 42 of the top 100 are US films, I'm extrapolating to guess its US-filtered rank ***: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1981&p=.htm I don't really have a strong opinion on this one. On the AFI it's far enough down that it doesn't feel out of place compared to what's around. I guess I'm a little surprised it isn't a little higher on the IMDB list. As stated, I'm not a big Spielberg fan, but I would have guessed the crowd-pleasing nature of Indiana Jones would have caused it to be ranked higher. It seems like a film that would do well with the IMDB list.

Well, unlike Psycho, the Raiders remake was a fan remake. It showed up in film circuit/festivals and other type of things kind of as a curiosity (I know I saw it listed as part of the local film festival here a few years back. I think I heard it showed up at the... Harry Knowles 24 hour butt numb thing. I can't remember what it's called off the top of my head). The Psycho remake on the other hand was a major release (like the Night of the Living Dead remake, also from around that era). I'm still behind and need to catch up with Psycho fully (though I've been listening to the episodes). I'm debating whether I'm going to watch Raiders. For the most part I don't care for Spielberg and them mentioning how it was a, "it's what kids think is scary," kind of hits one of the things I think I dislike about Spielberg's movies (at least of what I remember of them). Though for my own personal curiosity, I did rewatch E.T. (I think it was a rewatch. Weirdly, I have definite memories of playing the Atari video game when it came out, but I struggled to remember if I had actually seen the movie), just because in my memory, I think I liked Jaws and Close Encounters, but then after that... it seems like there's something about his sensibilities that just kind of puts me off. I'll just leave it at that for now.

Side note, I'm pretty sure what they had does constitute a love affair, which at the time would have been salacious; sex before marriage/etc. Hence the whole running around to motel rooms. When it's with a married person, I believe the full term is extra-marital affair. I think context and common usage just causes us to drop the extra-marital part often.

I'll point out, reading the criteria on the AFI ballot, is really is just expressed as general guidelines. They just listed them as, (paraphrasing) "these are criteria we weighed and considered when compiling our options for you." The terms, "best" or "great", for art is pretty broad and has many facets. I say that only because I feel like people have interpreted the criteria as hard and fast rules. One of the criteria was just simply, if it's received a lot of praise in print or some type of established film discussion media. Basically, the only thing they didn't seem to want was obscure personal favorites. Speaking of which - and Anthony Perkins roles after Psycho, and Orson Welles, I'll give a shout out to Orson Welles' adaptation of The Trial, which Perkins plays the lead role of Joseph K (which felt like excellent casting). That's a personal favorite, even if I feel they botched the ending. I'd suggest it as a pairing with Gilliam's Brazil for a dark comedy double-feature. I'll also point out, that 15th ranking doesn't mean the AFI all got together and collectively decided, this is the 15th greatest film of all time, but one you could interpret as, "we were able to agree that a lot of people agreed this film should be somewhere on the top 100 list (unless it turned out the top 15 are all decided by the tie-breaker votes )." So, that's one thing to consider when interpreting placement on the list (and cultural familiarity probably helps a lot with that). We just like to say 15th on the list translates to the 15th greatest movie of all time. I should stop pointing. Many a cartoon in my childhood told me it's rude. ETA: Though that take on the importance of cultural impact doesn't explain the BFI ranking (which after you filter out the non-US films, it's still pretty similar in position); because the BFI is people only submitting their top 10. I don't think people would include Psycho if they only have 10 spots purely on cultural familiarity. My only two thoughts at the moment are - I guess the position doesn't stick out to me, because outside of this podcast/forum, I usually don't filter out the non-US films in my mind, so it doesn't feel as high up to me. Other thought, critics really seem to love Hitchcock (evidenced by Vertigo now being at the top spot for critics, and not nearly as high up for directors) - or at least, very loved by a lot of them; which I still haven't connected to on the reason why, so I need to figure out Vertigo at 1 before I figure out Psycho at 34.

They were bringing it up in the context of, should a movie that's number that high on the list be one whose second half is... serviceable but not noteworthy, which I think goes beyond just saying it's not ingrained in the common culture. I'm busy this week so while I've listened to the episode I haven't really watched the movie and probably won't until later this weekend. That said, though I haven't read the book, I know I've heard one big change is, the book starts with Norman and the book mainly focuses on his perspective, I think (or at least his story - okay, it's been a while, and I'm a little vague in my details). The whole shift to start with the Janet Leigh character was something Hitchcock came up with in the adaptation. I suspect for some, losing the protagonist halfway through (which most people describe as a bold choice - and it was) probably left them without characters with a fleshed out/developed character to identify with. Just some speculation there (I haven't rewatched it completely for the episode yet, but I had it on in the background as I was cleaning, so some of my memory got refreshed).

Just to throw in the list comparison posts AFI (2007 | 1997): 14th | 18th BFI Critic's poll, 2012 (ranking, US filtered ranking, votes): 34th (all), 12th (US), 35 votes BFI Director's poll, 2012 (ranking, US filtered ranking, votes): 48th, (all) 19th (US), 11 votes IMDB (rank, rating): 39th, 8.5 rating Metascore: 97 TSFDT (ranking, US filtered ranking): 26th, TBD Oscar BP status: not nominated, winner The Apartment Box Office Ranking* (rank, amount | highest grossing movie, HGM amount): 3rd, 29.4 million | Swiss Family Robinson, 37.1 million *: https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/1960-top-box-office-movies/ had to use this instead of BO mojo for this year for some reason. comment: I don't have the interest in doing the US filtered version of the IMDB list, so I don't know if its 39th place will translate to upteenth-ranked film, but overall, the rankings seem pretty similar between all the lists on this one.

Also, could someone double-check the ballot for me? I only skimmed it and thought I read the rankings of the top 5 ranking is only used for tiebreakers. The more I think about it, that seems really odd. So I don't want to misrepresent how the AFI actually tallies up their rankings. https://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/Movies_ballot_06.pdf

Your listing of what came afterwards is a reminder for me of why I don't remember them (I mean, I remember they existed... now. But I never saw them). I do have memories of the fantasy movies beforehand (I wouldn't have counted Dune for this though; because at that point, you should also be counting Star Wars). Outside of AGoT, LotR still seems fairly unique compared to other movies in the genre (well, Willow, again, vague memories at this point, might have been similar, but more children oriented. And I'd guess, if I were to revisit it, find out its plot line is feel vaguely similar to Star Wars. Because everything in the 80s was). But LotR wouldn't have crossed my mind as such (being fairly unique for fantasy). The example of Ran in this thread is making me think the movies that bleed over to LotR in my head are things like, say, Ran or Gladiator (the latter I don't think very highly of, tbh), or Troy (I have to guess on that one because I haven't seen it). So, throwing in the history of the sword and sandals genre, it starts to feel less unique. But still mostly unique for the fantasy genre (I mean, give it another 30 years, if nothing else comes up, then we'll all forget about The Hobbit and AGoT will seem like the one other example people will remember). I know we like to talk influential, but I also like to focus on what makes a film feel unique. Or somewhat unique. Though some would say I should use the phrase "rare" and that "somewhat unique" is an oxymoron. Btw, that question about which scenes stand out to you and what emotions do they cause in you, is open to anyone who loves the LotR movies, not just AlmostAGhost.

Well, I was thinking I'd be asking those same questions when we got to Vertigo, but decided to see how they went for the big blockbusters. I mentioned Once Upon a Time in the West in another post. It's one on the BFI's lists that really there for craft and genre-love, AFAICT. Trying to explain why the craft is good would be difficult for me to do objectively, since I'm not a film maker, so I wouldn't be able to articulate how the scenes are constructed off the cuff very easily, or at all (I mean, I wouldn't list it, but pointing myself at it and thinking about why it's there, I didn't really question it too much. I mean, it's relatively low on the critic's poll and the director's poll seems to weight what I'd think of more 'cinematic' movies to my sensibility higher (ignoring the fact that the top of the list is a director known for his minimalism)). However, I might point towards to particular scenes, like the tension and build up of the first scene in OaTitW. So, with that in mind, what particular scenes in Fellowship stick out to you, not as flawless filmmaking, but rather memorable and striking. And what type of emotions do you associate with them? So in terms of other epic fantasy movies, were there any big fantasy movies, besides Harry Potter (and I guess The Hobbit) movies afterwards? I'm not really remembering any, but I wasn't really paying attention (I guess, counting TV, A Game of Thrones). I guess I haven't really factored in, for the people who really like fantasy movies, there still really might not be that many options. Things kind of shifted over to YA adaptations (often dystopian futures) and super-hero movies in terms of blockbusters not too long afterwards. And beforehand... well, fantasy was a genre that benefited heavily from the introduction of CGI.

I'm thinking of the question in terms of Amy's hypothesis about why men like war movies. I would think it doesn't qualify, but I'm not entirely sure what abstract qualities of war movies her hypothesis is more dependent upon.

So... I've got people coming over next weekend and I need to spend time cleaning up the place. So I'll be pretty busy for the next week. But initial notes: BFI Critic's poll, by my count, 97 of the top 250 are American. BFI Director's poll, by my count, 42 of the top 100 are American. TSFDT poll: Still trying to tally it up since they only list one country per movie and a number of the UK movies on that list are on the AFI poll results, I need to go through the UK films listed and flag them as counting as Is US in terms of the AFI. WRT the director's poll, the listing of foreign films isn't directly why it ranks so low though; it got zero votes. No matter how many non-US films I take out of that list, it won't be on there. However, where foreign films hurts it more is just the ballots for the BFI and the AFI are structured differently. Also who's casting the votes. I mean, even comparing the BFI's critic's poll and director's poll, you see a lot of variation. e.g. comparing The Searchers to Once Upon a Time in the West (which, slipped my mind before - and also one of the few spaghetti westerns that get US listed as one of the funding countries). The latter, is AFAICT pure movie making and people's love for Spaghetti Westerns. In terms of content and meaning, it's pretty vacuous. I don't know how many films on the BFI list would fall into that category though). but, the example The Searchers: Critics - 7th, Directors - 48th OUaTitW: Critics - 78th, Directors - 44th So, who's voting matters. But the ballot - the BFI just asks its participants to submit their 10 best films, unranked. Whatever they want, apparently. The AFI, if I skimmed the ballot correctly, asks participants to basically list 100 films, all but 5 must come from their list of 400, and this is unranked. They have a ranking for the voter's top 5 on the ballot to break tie breakers. If LotR movies is in a lot of people's top 75 movies, but almost no one's top 10 movies, it'll do well on the AFI, but receive no votes on the BFI list. Obvious downside of the AFI list, it doesn't appear to be distinguishing between top 10 movies someone's 100th greatest movie in many ways (i.e. Movies on the BFI list are there because someone loves them or think they are at the very least, "truly great." At 100 slots, with the AFI, there's going to be votes of, "well, it's good, I guess."). TSFDT's list is an aggregate of other lists, and I don't really have thoughts on that. (In this sense though, that's where the listing of international movies would probably hurt LotR more than just having having international films on the list). But again, no list is going to be definitive, so mostly look at lists and see if they appear to produce results that appear interesting to you, and if so, then maybe use that as reference for further movies to check out. In college I knew people who used the box office as a reference point for movies they'd probably like. Me, that wouldn't be a good idea. And with that said, if the Oscar's almost always pick movies you feel are wrong for BP, then would making any pick really be embarrassing or just be par for the course? I list the winners of BP because people, in general, for some reason put stock in them (even though they never seem to agree with the results). And I guess it's yet one more way of putting together a list of "best movies ever made." Though if we're more generous and think the AFI and the Oscar voters have similar tastes, then maybe it's more of an example of the folly of trying to assess the best picture with the myopia of recency; which seems to be a problem for any organization trying to do this, regardless of their tastes/voting habits. Which might be a piece of evidence why people shouldn't complain as much about recent movies not being more prevalent on these all time lists. Though, the imdb list (which is yet another means of getting a listing - everyone who's on imdb votes for every movie they've ever seen and the site just averages (mean) out the ratings), often swings the other way and ranks recent movies very high. Or at least that's my recollection. It doesn't produce results that interest me, so I haven't really paid much attention to it. Just some thoughts.

I've got plans for today, so I probably won't write much for now, but with that said. What contributes to where things rank in these polls depends on a number of different things. Technically, everything I listed except the AFI list do not exclude international films (though some are much more heavily biased towards American films than others). That said, I'll see what I can do to also list their subranking compared to only American films, at least in terms of the BFI lists and the They Shoot Films list. I'll try to get to it tomorrow (no promises). For the BFI lists, I'm not going to be able to got through all 800-something listings before it. But I have the top 250 critics list results and the top 100 director's list results in a spreadsheet somewhere. I should be able to flag those and do a copy/filter of them. I think I can sort by country on They Shoot Films. I can copy that and paste into a spreadsheet. If it turns out to be a lot of work beyond that, IDK if I'll be able to spend the energy to do it. I don't really put much stock in the Oscar's, so in that sense, so I don't care what wins beyond if something small wins, it causes more people who normally wouldn't have watched it to watch it afterwards. But other people put stock in them (and the AFI did list them as a possible guide as to what to include). I'll write more on it tomorrow, but part of me does think about, if we went through and replaced each movie with the movie that won BP in that year, just how different the list would look. After the most recent episode, I also kind of want the data point: 1. Is War Movie 2. Do men get emotional with each other? Though I don't know exactly how to evaluate the latter based on Amy's criteria. And with LOTR, IDK about the former either.

I guess it makes sense to post these now, since there won't be another one in the series.

I watched the Harry Potter movies once, and that was right amount for me to enjoy them. If I were to go back and re-watch any of them, it'd probably be the third one (because of Cuaron. I also remember the tree signifying the change of seasons being a nice stylized thing. So presumably there are other things that I would also enjoy. Though in terms of Cuaron, I really need to revisit Y Tu Mama, Tambien. It's been over a decade and I don't know how well it's aged) and also HP 7 Part 1, probably because I remember that being the part of the book series I liked the most, though I can't remember how I felt about the movie.

A few questions, prompted heavily by the second paragraph, are you a fan of the fantasy genre in general (either in film or other mediums) and more specifically, are you a fan of the books? And if so on the latter, were you a fan before the movies came out? Or is appreciation of the difficult of adaptation you experienced after loving the films? This is just more for my context. I felt like I was rambling a lot in trying to describe Apocalypse Now. I never took a film class, so it's some times more difficult to articulate why some scenes strike me as "just beautiful" and it just lulls me, with the mood sometimes feeling like it's washing over me. After the AN thread, I really wished I had waited until after the episode and the thread started to watch it, so I would have thought to take down notes, organize my thoughts, and have specific examples. Though, admittedly that's a lot for an online discussion. But, there's something enjoyable about organizing your thoughts.

I'm debating if I find the opening clip of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive if it should go in here or the Raiders thread when they review that. Though I can't remember if what it's spoofing is Raiders or Temple of Doom.

In response to Amy talking about Apocalypse Now responses in the LOTR episode... (not sure if this should go here or in the LOTR thread). Now, I'm biased because I really like Apocalypse Now and I know it's not based on the backstory of how it was made that influences my opinion of the movie*, but I don't have the inside baseball knowledge of, does it seem members of the AFI would vote for it because they're people who know people who worked on the movie. And that argument might not be incongruent with it showing up on the BFI director's poll. But it doesn't really explain why it shows up so high on the BFI critic's poll (which I'll point out includes international critics) - where I'd point out, actually places it higher than the AFI list. *: If anything, the notion of exploiting the local population for making a movie about the horrors white people inflict upon others, would probably diminish it. A thought did cross my mind on her disliking the war genre and thinking it's overly popular because it's the one genre that men can express emotions in: I'm the same age as Amy and I think we're one of the first generations in a long time that didn't have people in our circle go off and die in a war (much was written about the 2nd Iraq war how one effect of eliminating the draft was a disproportionate amount of the military services are made up from low income communities). I suspect war movies are important because each generation has wars themselves were really important to the generations that lived through them. And the perception of the wars in movies often tracked with how the generation perceived the war (usually the one that had ended somewhat before the movies started to be made) - at least that's my impression. I just remember the idea that war movies tend to be patriotic in depictions up through WW2 (note how we still highly regard media that subverts that, e.g. novels: Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse V (yes I know there are movie adaptations of them). Movie-wise, All Quiet on the Western Front and Path of Glory; the latter being banned in France for the longest time) and that dramatically changes with Vietnam, at least in the 70s. I do wonder if the men showing emotions in movies claim is also suspect. You have relationship emoting, e.g. Wong Kar Wai (Chungking Express), Cameron Crow (Say Anything), which I think did okay with men. And dramas were big box office draws during the 80s/late 70s (again, I think). e.g. as posted above Kramer vs Kramer was the highest box office gross that year. I believe I've heard Rain Man was the highest box office gross that year. Did they achieve that without men going to them? I'm not asking that rhetorically, I really don't know if those box office standings can happen with men not liking them. Then throw in movies like Shawshank and Cool Hand Luke as well. That said, thinking of her formative years, she was weened in the 80s and the 90s. And there were a lot of manly, macho 80s action films (Arnie's heyday), that could definitely feed into that thesis (I can't remember the vibe of the 90s, I think it was people trying to imitate Tarantino) - and Amy's a really big fan of Tom Cruise, so I can't help but wonder if Top Gun also influences her perception on the matter. Which, again, I actually don't know if I agree or disagree with. My gut just thinks it might be suspect, granted, that's in reference to thinking of a male audience, and that's not necessarily monolithic. It might be that military movies are the only action movies where men can show emotions. Making it more complicated, times have changed, and memory is unreliable on these things. I was pretty young in the 80s. One thing I did want to put out there though, and I think this is an adjacent take on her argument. I'd put AN in a similar vein as Taxi Driver, which is the story of the dark side of man; or the internal emotional journey of fucked up people doing fucked up things, or the gritty side of life. But my take is, if you think important movies should reflect the human condition, that is a many-faceted thing. And that should include the dark emotional journeys/conflicts men can go through/experience. However, I would interpret her complaint (maybe not formulated as she intended, but reinterpreted through my prism) that the dark, manly emotional journeys are over-represented on the list compared to other types of emotionally-representative movies, and the ones underrepreseted are ones that aren't traditionally associated with masculinity. That gives me pause on pushing back, because I am someone who I think still enjoys the dark, gritty movies (not as indiscriminately as I used to). So I'm and fine and enjoy the movies on there, but I haven't looked at the list as a whole (and am unfamiliar with a decent number of the films), so I can't assess that position for my take of it's accuracy, but it is something to chew on - ie the higher regard for emotional expressions/emotional conflict that men traditionally cared more about.

I suspect this won't ever happen, but if you don't know already, if anyone ever asks you if you want to watch Cannibal Holocaust. Say, "no."