ol' eddy wrecks

So, honestly I'm not that big on what would probably be considered... spectacle films. Okay, basically what we'd call blockbusters, because you could argue 2001, AN, and Singin' in the Rain are also all spectacle films (or at least films who have a spectacle component). So, I'm curious. The people who love Fellowship and would place it on the list (which sounds like most of you), what in it do you really respond to and from what angle/evaluation makes you think it should be there? I've already stated my, "lists are kind of what they are," so if you asked me if it belonged on the list, I'd say, "well, considering other movies on the list, it doesn't seem out of place. But if I was submitting a ballot, I probably wouldn't include it. I guess it'd depend what the other 399 movies on the ballot to choose from are." Relatedly, interesting thought question that occurred to me. I think we interpret, "The 100 American Movies of All Time," as the greatest movies ever made that came from America. But, and I know "American" isn't a genre, but if we thought about, say, a list of the greatest horror movies of all time. There would be good/great movies on there that might have horror elements, or be horror adjacent, that would probably place somewhere on the list (let's say Eraserhead compared to Suspiria, the latter would probably rank higher). But they'd be comparatively lower than if you did a list of best of movies of all time (where you might suspect Eraserhead would rank higher than Suspiria). What if we interpreted American movies as partially representing what we think of as "American films." In which case the presence of Classic Hollywood, westerns, and yes, particularly big budget blockbusters should be on there because that's what people think of as distinctively American type of films - even for people like me who aren't necessarily big on those type of films. And comparatively, it feels like those are represented more on the AFI list than on the international/BFI list (at least I got that sense from looking over the AFI & BFI lists). Now that also might just be a reflection of who's voting. But just something my mind chewed on a bit.

Because I like posting the comparisons in terms of other rankings: Fellowship of the Ring AFI (2007) - 50th AFI (1997) - N/A, not yet released BFI, Critics (2012) - 894th (1 vote) BFI, Director (2012) - unplaced (no votes) IMDB* - 11th place (IMDB rating of 8.8) Metascore - 92 They Shoot Films - (2018: 656, 2017: 770) Oscar, Best Picture (2002) - nominated. winner: A Beautiful Mind Box Office Gross** - 2nd place: $313,364,114 | 1st place: $317,575,550, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone *: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?groups=top_250&sort=user_rating **: According to Box Office Mojo, https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2001&p=.htm

I think they didn't mean representative of the others necessarily in terms of similarity in that sense, but rather, of you take the trilogy as a whole and wanted it on the list, but could only choose one whose presence served partially as a stand-in for saying you liked the trilogy, this is the one that was chosen (because the conventional wisdom is that it's the best one).

Given the number of horror/horror-adjacent movies on the list, I suspect you'll mostly be in the clear. Since it's October, I was thinking of signing up again, and when checking what they had, Hitchcock stuff was listed close to the top.

According to Shudder's website, they Psycho, in addition to a number of other Hitchcock movies. Filmstruck does not (it has 15 different Hitchcock movies)

As an aside, how do you feel about them killing the water bison at the end? I mean, they didn't kill it for the film, so it's not like it's the turtle scene from Cannibal Holocaust.

So, in my big rambling initial post I did make the point of feeling the best movie comparison so far to Apocalypse Now, thematically, still feels like Aguirre, so I strongly agree with Snakes' post (actually addressing the topic a lot better than I feel like I could at this point; partially because it's been too long since I've read Heart of Darkness). I will point out, my one vague recollection of HoD not yet discussed was, the conflict was an inner conflict and the point being such conflicts can be just as dramatic as external conflict. As such, the story is supposed to be fairly absent of physical action (but it has been so long ago, I really can't remember most if it, so I don't know if what I'm recalling is entirely true*). So, when people talk about Platoon showing what it was like to be "deep in the shit", I can't help but think, that kind of distracts from the original theme. Though, it's not like AN didn't have a battle scenes and external conflict, so that's something didn't necessarily kept; though the focus of the theme was still there. Granted, I wasn't here for the Platoon discussion, and while I didn't watch it for this podcast, I did see it for the first time in the past year or so, and while there were things I appreciated about it**, I felt the moral conflict at the center of it felt very ham-fisted to me. Maybe it suffered compared to every other Vietnam movie I've seen in that I saw everything else when I was much younger. But I also suspect it's a style issue and Stone's clearly stated moral dichotomy usually just doesn't work for me. *: It sounds like there are people here who have read it much more recently than me, so correct me here if I'm wrong. Like, this is an old enough memory, it could be totally wrong. **: Interesting how it's AN being compared to Platoon, since Full Metal Jacket failed at the box office and it's believed it's primarily due to Platoon coming out the previous year and people didn't like how FMJ was shot on a back lot as opposed to in the jungle like Platoon. ETA: To explicitly answer the original question if I could only keep one... Well, unless there's some gem on this list that I haven't seen that blows me away (actually, it's been forever since I've seen The Godfather movies or Raging Bull, so they have a chance to raise from where they are in my memory), AN would end up 3rd on my list behind 2001 and Kane as well, and the other I described as feeling ham-fisted in its moral dilemma, soooo, I guess it's obvious I'd keep AN.

I'm sorry it came across that way. I was trying to give earnest advice. Granted, if I misread your tone, then apologies, (but it still reads like you were mad). It was partially motivated by the unstated detail that while I don't post on the FB group, I do sometimes look over it, and it might just be selection bias of posts I've seen, but it feels like a fair number of people get a little too inflamed or passionate from my perspective, and your post seemed similar to that. And the phenomenon isn't limited to online discussions. And not just about this podcast. And the tone often hinders the discussion rather than advance it. But, I did originally want to include the phrase, "the solution might simply be, if you're looking for a certain type of film discussion and you're not finding it in the podcast, and the discussion in the podcast is different enough that it's making you angry, then maybe the best solution is to find another podcast that does fulfill that enjoyment of film discussion." I didn't because I'm new here and I'm not sure how cool earwolf would be with me effectively showing up on their forums and going, "yeah, the podcast they made isn't for you. You should stop listening to it," right out of the gate.

I've also been wondering about the audience and how they came to this podcast. I already have other film podcasts I'm listening to that I prefer for serious discussion and listen to HDTGM partially for the comedy. So I'm coming to this one from hearing Paul review bad movies for the past couple of years. And when I first started, I had some trepidation if this would be my thing (it's a bit mix), but it is serving for a chance to force myself to reserve some time to either rewatch some movies I haven't watched in a while or finally watch some that I never got around to. And I guess I find myself more interested in Paul's reaction to it for its own sake rather than as a reference point of, "do I want to watch this movie," or primarily for the film analysis aspect (though you can't get the former without them expressing the latter). I suspect there's a good chance that altered my expectations and needs from the podcast accordingly. Granted, I think the discussions on the forums and FB group (the latter, I skim periodically, but don't post there) sometimes more interesting than the episode. That said, I do wonder what it's like for people coming to the podcast because they're familiar with Amy, or if there are people who are just stumbling onto the podcast, because they're looking for a film podcast and are seeing one that's covering the AFI top 100 American films. ETA: I never stated it, but fwiw, I felt this episode was more of a miss to me because both hosts went the presumption that people love the movie because of the boondoggle backstory of the making-of and that ended up consuming too much of the discussion. That theory seemed bizarre to me and felt like it just came out of left field and took away from what would have been more interesting to me. But the discussion in this thread went in more of an interesting direction/challenge.

You seem angry. I could just simply say, you probably shouldn't seek validation of your opinions in the opinions of podcast critics either, but that might come across as dismissive. So I will say, I feel you're going to always be coming across people who don't agree with your opinions on things, and sometimes you'll think their arguments are terrible. If you set yourself up to be angry at every time someone disagrees with your opinion about movies, are presents arguments that you think are terrible (or for argument's sake, let's even say, they are objectively terrible), you're probably going to be setting yourself up for a frequently, angry life. Which, there are things that I can kind of understand people making bad arguments about that one should feel impassioned about. But, even if you love movies, unless it's something that directly affects or related to your career (or, I'll take if you were a film studies major), it just seems to me there are bigger, more important disagreements in the world. Things that I can understand how they warrant the need for other people to agree with you; justifying such passion over the disagreement. So, with that in mind, I'm inclined to ask, what about this podcast, when it veers into argument or opinion territory that doesn't jive with your sensibilities, that makes you to become frustrated or angry enough you need to let that anger or frustration... I don't want to say, consume you. But it feels like it consumes your thoughts. Then again, if I'm reading you wrong, my apologies. I was a lot like that until my mid-20s. Edit: To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong with being passionate you love, or that you can't strongly disagree, but to let something that in the grand scheme of things that isn't life and death consume your thoughts with negative emotions; that doesn't seem like a desirable way to live.

Then again, I think the dark comedy of the Killgore character pulls me into the village attack scene. The action itself, outside of all of the colors in the smoke and flames, really doesn't do much for me.

Well, compared to Suspiria, AN does have a thematic through line and plot (of venturing into the darkness of the human heart), where-as Suspiria is mostly just, there's something on the other side of the door/out the window that wants to kill me (I think I'm borrowing that phrasing for Suspiria from the critic, Tasha Robinson, and I think it works). The part I'm wrestling with, other movies that I love and think are great, I can probably talk a great deal about them or say how they do something on a theme in a nuances, flushed out, or unique way. And I'm not sure at the moment if I can with AN. And as Amy pointed out there's other movies that also explore similar themes. Granted, maybe it's a case where the style is a large part of the substance (e.g. Wong Kar Wai often did that. Fallen Angels was full of it). I mean, you're traveling into darkness of man, and seeing the Do Long bridge scene, you just feel the darkness of what you're entering. It's washing over you (the viewer, I mean). You can just feel something seeping in and it is dark and it is hopeless and it is without defined shape. As opposed to the earlier scene of the attack on the village where you feel the intoxicating, horrible fun of your own ability to terrible violence to other people with abandon (I'll compare it to what people sometimes complain about FPS games, at least back in my day. Maybe that's a concern that's passed). And it's terrible, but you're having fun, but you really shouldn't. I'm just spitballing here.

Sorry, one most post! Since I do really like Kubrick, and I think I've read at least some other people here do as well, so I feel his take on AN is worth putting out there: https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/polls-surveys/stanley-kubrick-cinephile

In terms of clips, I wanted to post the intro to Fishing with John episode 5 (with Dennis Hopper), because I rewatched it randomly the other night and thought, "this might be an oblique reference humor to Apocalypse Now with Martin Sheen." (I mean... very oblique), but can only find the entire episode on youtube. And I feel okay posting clips, somehow linking to an entire episode does feel copyright infringy.

Speaking in terms of experience, how did you watch it? I'm asking because I imagine a large screen with surround sound might really make a difference. In terms of how I feel about it, I think it's fairly similar to robtucker63. If you were to ask me during my late teens (i.e. the 90s for me)/early 20s what my favorite 10 films were and then to ask me again in my early 30s, the four movies that overlapped were Citizen Kane, 2001, 8 1/2, and Apocalypse Now (which makes it odd I still have never watched the Redux version nor Hearts of Darkness). As I get older the other three hold and get stronger thematically. Apocalypse Now, thematically feels more problematic (knowledge of John Milius contributes to this. Who I shall just refer to as Viking Man because of that's how he was almost ever referred to in Steve Erickson's Zeroville. I will say, the final lines of, "everyone wanted him dead, he just wanted to go out like a solider," feels worse as I get older. Maybe someone can talk me down from this, but it does feel like the machismo flowing over. Add in the sense I get from the film that Kurtz is someone who knows how to fight the war effectively and while it is savage, the army's protocol is standing in the way. By the 80s, my understanding/vague recollection was, there was a sense, at least amongst some, that in retrospect, Vietnam was winnable, we just lost it at home... which for personal political reasons, I have issues with. This parenthetical is much longer than originally intended, and was edited in after writing this sentence and just started go on and on long a sentence towards the end of a certain Joseph Conrad novella), but god, even rewatching it for this podcast, does the cinematic effect of the film just pull you in. To weigh in on the Herzog/Kinski boat stories - I showed friends a double feature of Apocalypse Now and Aguirre (which I prefer to Fitzcarraldo) some odd years back, and one of my friends made the joke, too bad it wasn't Apocalypse Now and Fitzcarraldo, then you could have done a Hearts of Darkness/Burden of Dreams double feature next year. That said, I think Amy was right in bringing up Aguirre. In many ways it's the most comparable film thematically in many ways. I guess one could argue about the theme in Full Metal Jacket that war's effect on soldiers, causing them to dehumanize their adversary, enabling them to do savage things. But, IDK, Aguirre feels more appropriate. Maybe it's the knowledge that, even without watching the Redux version, I've heard, I think Coppola say you were supposed to get a sense of traveling back in time the further up they go (someone can correct that if it's wrong. Vague memories of someone else describing something isn't the most reliable thing), and with Aguirre, you can see them slowly discarding elements of their society (gunpowder, horse, established king), which struck me as a bit of a regression and one that felt chronological. To add to the ickiness of the backstory of Aguirre though, well Kinski, you guys do know that his daughter has said he raped her while she was a minor. Maybe it would have been best if Herzog had firebombed his home. People keep saying surrealism, and I guess, if nothing else, that bridge sequence could be very dreamlike (in a nightmarish way); I was thinking the visuals of the film might be more expressionism. Speaking of the visuals (oh god, the colors of this movie), I should put in the disclaimer, I do really like Suspiria (Argento version to be clear) as a horror film, and that's a movie with not a very good plot, but great atmosphere, and amazing colors. So I think there is a certain bold style that my lizard brain might have some weaknesses for. That said, should it be on the list? IDK. I guess. I have a bit of a tautological sense on these lists. Lists are a reflection of who's voting for them, how they vote is being tallied, and stated sense of what should be on the list. And in that sense, what deserves to be on a list, I guess is what gets voted to be on the list (though seeing The Sixth Sense there was a real headscratcher. I didn't know people loved this movie and were voting for it. Granted, I thought the AFI went by BFI ballot style and had people submit their top 10. The Sixth Sense being in people's top 100 from a list of 400 movies seems more understandable). Given that, does it seem out of place on the AFI list? I guess not. This list does like the 70s. If for some reason the AFI polled me for my top 100 American movies, would I include it on my ballot? Yes, I would. That said, I would impart the sentiment not to look to these lists for validation of opinion, you'll be at more peace in the long run. But, I guess for comparison BFI Critic's poll (2012): 14th BFI Director's poll (2012): 6th imdb: 40th They Shoot Films (aggregate list): 11th Oscar for Best Picture: Apocalypse Now was nominated but lost to Kramer vs Kramer Box Office Gross for 1979: 4th at $83,471,511. The highest grossing movie that year was Kramer vs Kramer ($106,260,000) So, comparatively it does much worse with the AFI than it does with the BFI. ETA: Apologies, I really went off on tangents there and stretched the English grammar in ways that it wasn't meant to be mixed. EATA: Decided to add Oscar for Best Picture and Box Office Gross just to present alternate metrics (and also because it'll probably be interesting to see just how few movies on this list won Best Picture).

For other people looking for it, gowatchit says it's also available for rent/purchase from Vudu, Youtube, and Google Play. I'd guess that's relevant for people with Chromecasts, but not Apple TVs. For determining which version you're getting, you can look at the runtime. Original theatrical is 147 minutes (2h 27 m), Redux is 196 minutes (3h 16m) according to my blu-rays. And let's be honest, the Redux version isn't the one that's on the list. ETA: Both versions are on iTunes. Including the bundle of Apocalypse Now, Apocalypse Now Redux, and Hearts of Darkness. Listing the versions. The Apocalypse Now Triple Feature: (if you want the original theatrical and Redux versions. And the Hearts of Darkness making-of documentary). Apocalypse Now: original theatrical that you probably want Apocalypse Now Redux: I don't know if I'd call it a director's cut, but FF Coppola went back and added a lot of scenes back to AN... and other stuff? (I believe there was new sound mixing as well, IDK tbh). Despite owning it all these years, I've never actually watched this version, since the most positive thing I've heard about it is, "well, it's a very different movie," but maybe I should.

And to answer the question, for me, I'd expand the time horizon to 2001 to include Mulholland Drive. Otherwise, for me, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood come to mind as obvious contenders. However, googling, I thought the top 100 was compiled from members choosing 10 movies. It looks like it's people listing their top 5 in order, and then listing 95 others, unordered. That... would really lower the bar for what I'd consider putting on my list.

The BFI has been doing their Sight & Sound Critics' poll every 10 years since 1952. I suspect they're using that as their reference point.

I need to rewatch McCabe & Mrs. Miller, it's been at least a decade, but my recollection is the final shoot out (if you can call it a shoot out), goes somewhat similarly in terms of strategy; scrambling around the town, trying to take people off one by one. Not in control, mostly just desperate. But I was getting shades of that while watching the ending of High Noon. And I don't think anyone would say McCabe at the end of that was a heroic gunslinger (or in control of the situation). He mostly got by on luck and his wife breaking her religious vow not to kill people. I think it might be the execution of the final fight didn't convey to you the sense of luck he needed to win. I suspect it would have worked better for you then (based on your list of possible outcomes).

To give my thoughts on Paul bringing up the issue of how much should the backstory of the movie affects how we regard the movie. Given that the movie served as a metaphor for the real life events going, then I feel it should be treated akin to how we process movies that are based on a true story. Well, ones that we perceive as being historically accurate. I would guess that for most people, the weight of certain actions and events are greater when they are a reflection of something that happened. And a lot more weight when it's something that the film maker is actually experiencing. High Noon itself, I won't lie, I'm not big on Westerns. So I did enjoy the background context from the podcast. It gave me context for the events of the film and how it subverted the genre. I will say, watching it before the podcast, not having the backstory, not knowing that it was subverting the genre at that point, the general theme of, "man stands alone for principle of society and rule of law, even when everyone else deserts him, but becomes disgusted with everyone for doing so," felt broad enough that I wasn't sure what political slant it was taking (i.e. metaphorically, what were the values that were supposed to be upheld and who in real life was running away from that responsibility). But maybe that was just me and my ignorance. Though writing that broad theme out, I guess we might be revisiting it as a whole when we get to Apocalypse Now.