Alex Murphy

So my girlfriend and I may be halfway through Red Riding Hood... Ho. Lee. Shit. This is a GEM of all-around bad movie-dom.

Great to have the show back! Looking forward to the upcoming episodes. In this case, I'm going to have to go with Amy. I enjoy Ghostbusters, acknowledge its spot in the pop culture landscape, and do think it's the high-water mark for this group of comic talents in this era. All that said, I don't think it's canon. It's shaggy, directorially undistinguished, and comes in a year that's rife with other, Canon worthy entries (Stranger than Paradise, Repo Man, Stop Making Sense, The Terminator, Blood Simple, Amadeus). Hell, it's not even the most Canon-worthy comedy of this year. Spinal Tap is.

Loved the latest podcast on I Know Who Killed Me - truly an epic work of what-the-fuckery. That said, I must humbly submit a request for my favorite bad Lindsay Lohan vehicle - the 2006 comedy Just My Luck. To sum up the plot: Lohan stars as Ashley, a New York City fashion assistant who has had incredible luck her whole life. Chris Pine is Jake, a struggling band manager who just can't seem to do anything right. After kissing at a masquerade ball, they're fates unexpectedly switch. Now, Ashley must scour the city to regain her luck. The script itself feels like it was written for Kim Cattrall and Rob Lowe in 1985, and was only recently dug up out of a dusty filing cabinet and re-purposed as a Lindsay Lohan vehicle. But the description alone doesn't do justice to the myriad of WTF moments this film has in store. One of my favorite sub-plots involves Chris Pine playing manager for the British band McFly. In the course of several weeks, this mediocre pop-rock band goes from unknowns who can't even sell out a bowling alley to being the Beatles circa-Hard Day's Night. This film at least has the unintentional entertainment value of watching bad things happen to Lindsay Lohan for a majority of the running time. In a way, the film acts as a metaphor for real life events: Lindsay Lohan was a upcoming starlet with several big hits under her belt, while Chris Pine was still a struggling actor doing TV guest spots. Then, after crossing paths in this movie, Lohan's career and personal life came to screeching halt, while Pine become the next big thing.

A soft no, but a no nonetheless. I have a tremendous amount of love for Henson, I really admire the design and craft of the movie itself, and it's still fun to put on at parties or unwind to with friends. But I'm with Amy in being wary of letting in too many perennial nostalgia favorites. It's a great entry in a genre that I have a lot of affection for, but I can't say that it transcends the genre in any meaningful way.

Paul - in particular for the range of his solo work. I wish everyone who complains about Wonderful Christmastime or Silly Love Songs could take a listen to Monkberry Moon Delight or Temporary Secretary.

Hard Day's YES. Seen it many times and still find it as energetic and joyous as ever. Besides being an iconic look at The Beatles as they entered their peak, it's just an incredibly vibrant and sharp piece of filmmaking. For Anglophiles like myself, its also a great portrait of English culture in the early 60s. Great hearing you two get along on this one. Contentious episodes may have more drama, but harmonious ones provide wellspring of interesting details and trivia on the works in question.

This may have been the toughest pick to date - possibly tougher than The Thing vs. The Fly. Boogie Nights is my FAVORITE movie, period. Love every character, every beat, every cut, every music cue. I watch it when I'm sick, I watch it when I can't sleep, I relish watching it with friends wh haven't seen it. In the end, I had to go with There Will Be Blood. My reason: Boogie Nights established PTA as a great director. Blood established him as one of The Greatest.

Soft no. I love this movie, would put it in my own perineal library: it's a great entry in its genre but... I'm with Amy. Maybe if it didn't come so close after They Live, or if o wasn't still kinda sore about Cannibal Holocaust, but the line that this isn't "Canon for movies Devin watched on VHS when he was ten" definitely landed with me.

One of the great war epics of all time, and a signature film by one of cinema's most notable directors. It's just been added to Netfliz this week, and it would be the perfect opportunity to discuss it and encourage people to check it out. I only saw it for the first time recently, and was frankly surprised at just how involving and surprising it was. For those who may want something more debatable, perhaps Doctor Zhivago - one of the biggest movies of all time, but may not have the same critical praise as Lean's previous work.

When I first saw it in 2005, I liked it plenty, but probably wouldn't have said it was Canon-worthy. Cut to January 2008, watching it just after Heath Ledger's death, and the tragic irony of that final scene hitting me like a ton of bricks. Yes on Canon.

Favorite: The 400 Blows Least-Favorote: Cannibal Holocaust Favorite not to make it: The Road Warrior, The Hurt Locker

It occurs to me that you haven't done a Uwe Boll film yet. House of the Dead, perhaps?

MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE!

Here's how bad this movie is: at the end of the second act, they actually recount the plot of the movie three times. First Domino explains it in voice-over, then she explains it to the characters in the movie, THEN IN VOICEOVER AGAIN! They recount the plot 3x within 5 minutes of screentime, and I was still consfused. Not to mention: the goldfish subplot, the Lucy Liu material that goes absolutely nowhere, the entire scene with Monique on Jerry Springer, Tom Waits as a psychic wandering the desert... Godawful movie. A must for the podcast.

Here's how bad this movie is: at the end of the second act, they actually recount the plot of the movie three times. First Domino explains it in voice-over, then she explains it to the characters in the movie, THEN IN VOICEOVER AGAIN! They recount the plot 3x within 5 minutes of screentime, and I was still consfused. Not to mention: the goldfish subplot, the Lucy Liu material that goes absolutely nowhere, the entire scene with Monique on Jerry Springer, Tom Waits as a psychic wandering the desert... Godawful movie. A must for the podcast.

Seconded. To be fair, the original doesn't hold up well at all. The dialogue is terrible and Douglas' character may be the dumbest male lead in movie history - he's like the male Nomi Malone. At least Verhoeven brought some style to it, and it's still fun in a sleazy way. The sequel, however, doubles down on the stupidity. That opening? The cheapo production? David Morrisey's lack of charisma? David Thewlis trying to save face? The DUMBEST resolution in movie history? This HAS to go on the podcast.

God, that clip video is more fun than the movie itself. I watched it prepared to enjoy it as an unintended comedy... but the movie as a whole is fucking unbearable. (pun not intended)

Thirded. It's hard to actually express how bug-nuts this movie is without going into detail. So here goes: (spoilers, but who cares) From wikipedia: Aubrey and Dakota are indeed twins, born to Virginia Sue Moss, a crack addict. Moss gave birth to them the same time the Flemings had their own child, who died in the incubator. Daniel Fleming quietly raises one as his own daughter, paying Virginia over the years by mail. Dakota finds the envelopes and attempts to find her sister, when she suffers sympathetic resonance from her twin's wounds, and is found by the highway. It turns out the two are stigmatic twins, with a psychic connection that lets them share pain, communicate, and even share experiences, which explains some of Aubrey's stories. Stigmatic twins? Born to a crack addict and separated at birth? WTF?