pomattovich

I have a complicated relationship with THE BREAKFAST CLUB. I first saw it when I was far too young, (maybe 7, I think), and my undeveloped mind was somewhat traumatized by the idea that teenagers had such serious problems. I wasn't used to watching movies in which any characters were reduced to tears, and suddenly I was watching people who were only slightly older than myself, falling apart and talking about disappointing their parents and suicide. I wouldn't see the film again for another 8 years, but I would think about it often. When I finally did see it again, I was one of those teenagers, (somewhere in between Nelson and Hall), and I discovered that I still didn't much care for the film, but for entirely different reasons. Now the characters and their problems seemed so unbelievable to me. Or if not unbelievable, then clichéd, contrived, and underdeveloped. Obviously it's part of Hughes' point that these characters are stereotypes representative so singular problems that can be explored simply in 95 minutes, but a part of me just didn't buy what I saw. I'm still not the film's biggest fan. I like a couple of Hughes' films, but even the ones I enjoy don't hold up to much scrutiny. This one feels a bit too condensed and rushed. For a film that takes place over the course of a whole day, all the biggest revelations and important moments seem to come at the very end, and they all change everything for our characters. When Nelson makes Ringwald cry and utter "I hate you," we're only about 12 minutes away from them kissing in the parking lot. Sheedy's makeover, which makes her instantly appealing to Estevez seems like a tremendous misfire, giving our other pair of would be lovers an unacceptably false happy ending. Do these events really follow each other so closely? So what are we not seeing throughout this day that bonds our characters to each other so well? Here's where things are about to get embarrassing. In high school, I was in an ill advised and undoubtedly illegal stage production of THE BREAKFAST CLUB. Our visionary director must have hunted down the original shooting script to adapt, because I have memories of deleted scenes from the film being in our production. The only one I have any real memory of is that of the janitor predicting the futures of each student. That's actually a pretty good scene that maybe should have stayed in. But to refresh my memory further, I just finished watching the 50 minutes of deleted scenes on Criterion's blu-ray release. And what have I discovered is layered into the film? Not a whole lot. A few more casual exchanges. More dancing and running through hallways. Surprisingly more depth for Vernon and the Janitor. But I just don't see our teenage heroes as deep, rich characters that pop culture has crowned them as. They serve their purpose as types in a movie about types, but aside from a few brief but memorable moments, I just don't feel a lot for any of them. So I guess I don't like this movie so I'm gonna vote No, right? Of course I'm voting this into The Canon! It's THE (friggin) BREAKFAST CLUB! Circumstances and oddly timed screenings may have left me somewhat unaffected by the film, but it's beloved by so many others. There's a real sweet spot age that someone could see this movie at and probably feel like it's speaking just to them. I think I missed that window, but I've certainly heard enough passionate testimonials to see the appeal. This isn't my favorite John Hughes film, but it's easily his most important and career defining. Heck, I would even vote the poster alone into The Canon. I wish I loved this movie as much as Christy does, but if you've been paying attention, you may note that I bought the Criterion blu-ray of a movie I don't love all that much. Why? Because it feels important. It feels like part of film history, even coming in arguably one of the weakest decades for the medium. And I'm really glad I watched it again, and in a few years, I'll probably give it another chance. There's something to this movie. Perhaps someday I'll see what it is.

I do love that there are people like Thomas Lennon who champion the underrated gem that is THE EXORCIST III. I love films that place horror against the backdrop of an unlikely genre and wish we'd get more like them. Lennon is not alone in being terrified by many moments in the horror sequel. The nurse's station sequence still terrifies me to this day, even though I've now seen it many times and always know it's coming. I think the film is full of fascinating intrigue and unexpected scenes, though I don't think it entirely escapes the rough edges of having been cobbled together from some post production drama. Not long ago, I checked out both surviving cuts of the film, including the original director's cut that Scream Factory transferred from a VHS copy for their new Blu-Ray release. Both versions have a lot to offer, though I don't know if either is definitive. Likewise, THE EXORCIST also famously has a few cuts, with Friedkin releasing the spider-walk enhanced scenes, which were creepily unnecessary. One need not stray from the original cut of the film, which I consider the most frightening film I've ever seen. And that's odd, isn't it? It's a highly unconventional horror film, especially by today's standards. So little is explained or contextualized. Though I don't entirely buy in to the supposedly "true" nature of the legends, the film is full of such little details that it almost feels like it could be happening in reality. It's certainly more grounded than many of the imitators the film spawned, such as the comparatively silly AUDREY ROSE or THE OMEN. And though we get hints of the evil forces of Captain Howdy, the real monster of the film, possessed or not, is a child who is mostly strapped to the bed and contained. We should feel safe. But the evil within her is bigger than just her reach. It's an idea. I would say that the very presence of the devil didn't even need a physical form to feel threatening in the film. I've heard that THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC plays more along these lines though I too have never subjected myself to more than a few minutes of it, heeding the warnings of one of my favorite Ebert pans. I do like both of these films a whole lot, and I feel like THE EXORCIST III would have been taken much more seriously if it weren't a sequel, or at least was the first sequel in the franchise. It stands well on its own and doesn't need the forced connections to the first film. But it's hard to eclipse Friedkin's original masterpiece. I didn't rewatch it to prepare for this episode only because I'm seeing it theatrically this weekend in New York and I want it to feel fresh for my first big screen experience with it. So do watch both of these films but I have to be boring and throw my support behind THE EXORCIST.

I had some initial excitement about so many Marvel films given the silver screen treatment. And I have good memories of that opening night screening of THE AVENGERS. But Marvel fatigue has hit me hard. Even when they're good, and some of them are better than good, I find them exhausting, have difficulty retaining information and memories of scenes after seeing them, and have no urge to revisit them after a single viewing. What Marvel has done with its cinematic universe is truly impressive, and they deserve to be recognized for that. Maybe letting THE AVENGERS into The Canon is the easiest way to do that. We all might have different favorite characters and films, and at least this first assembling probably features one of those characters we respond to. But if we all have different favorite Marvel films, should we just lazily crown the one that links them as the winner? My favorite films in the universe are probably CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER or the original IRON MAN, but even those aren't held in such high esteem that I would insist that they be canonized. I also believe that The Canon is meant for films that deserve to be revisited often and passed down. But as much as I enjoyed THE AVENGERS when I first saw it, I found myself actually nodding off while watching it last night. I don't hate it. I like it more than some of the other sequels, but subsequent viewings have weakened its impact and now it just blends together with all the other films in the series. I can't even muster up the enthusiasm to discuss the structure and content of the film itself, because what's the use? We've all seen it. We all know what we like about it and what we don't. Any argument I can make for or against this film has been spread across the internet since its release. I can't in good conscience vote yes on a film that I feel like I got out of my system, or one that will be or has been replaced with a superior entry down the line. So while I'll admit that the phenomenon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has undeniably made film history, for better or worse, I will have to vote NO on THE AVENGERS.

When BOOMERANG was first announced for the podcast, I thought perhaps it was a mistake. I only saw it once before, at around age 11, and I remembered being pretty disappointed by it as I checked off every Eddie Murphy movie off my list. I don't think it belongs in The Canon, but this episode that deeply considered it ended up being one of my favorite discussions in quite some time. It's sometimes hard to remember just what a massive star Eddie Murphy was at this point of his career. Movies like BEVERLY HILLS COP, THE GOLDEN CHILD, and BOOMERANG were enormous hits, and the public did not seem to discriminate. These movies, particularly BOOMERANG, were not marketed or treated as "black movies," the way that Tyler Perry movies or the breakout hit GIRLS TRIP are sometimes are today. Even a huge star like Kevin Hart seems to get a much different reaction and budget when he makes a movie with Ice Cube than for ones he makes with Dwayne Johnson. Eddie Murphy movies were for everyone and the studios treated them as such. He didn't need to make a film like BOOMERANG that made such a statement of having an entirely black cast trying to claim a whole genre of romantic comedy as their own, but I'm incredibly impressed that he did. I certainly didn't view BOOMERANG through that lens when I saw it as a kid. I only wish that I liked this particular movie more, because in spite of its financial success, if it had been better received by critics at the time and had more crossover appeal, he might have continued to make more films like this and really nailed one eventually. For me, and seemingly many others, COMING TO AMERICA had already done this better, with Eddie giving a much more balanced and complete performance in it. Yes, he's hysterical in it, taking on many roles which gave him the freedom to play, but still being a sincere and romantic lead, playing it straight as Akeem. That movie would probably get an easy Canon Yes vote from me and it's the primary reason that Jackie Wilson's "To Be Loved" was the first song my wife and I danced to at our wedding. Don't tell her that though. BOOMERANG though doesn't quite feel like it sticks the landing of what it's trying to be. I appreciate that Eddie is rather sincere and straight throughout the film, leaving the scene-stealing comedic moments to the supporting (primarily female) players, but in turn he botches his own arc. I was surprised to hear a film like IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT evoked, because this movie feels a lot more like Eddie Murphy's ALFIE to me, only without the commitment to allowing its hero to not get succeed in the end. I found I remembered very little from the plot of this movie. In my head, I even initially remembered that Robin Givens and Lela Rochon were the same character, with her reinventing herself to get revenge on Eddie for how she was treated, only to be discovered later by reveal of the same hammer toes. I must have dreamed that. And I never could have predicted that this ended with Eddie and Halle Berry walking hand in hand, with him casually claiming that he wasn't still eyeballing other women as she laughed in the fade out. I mean shouldn't this movie end with Eddie at the wedding of Halle Berry and David Alan Grier who managed to win her over with his kind sincerity after Eddie pushed her away with his infidelity? I'm not saying that necessarily would have been a better movie, but it might have made a lot more sense. What we get instead is a film that I constantly can't tell what moral it is trying to tell us. It doesn't seem like Eddie is really humbled by encountering a woman who treats him the way he has treated other women, but the film is trying to force this scenario that Eddie doesn't entirely want to play. Perhaps his reluctance to fully go there is because he was intimidated by Robin Givens who is dominating the film and stealing most of the laughs out from under him. Givens, and so much of the supporting cast are so great in this movie, that I feel that my disappointment in the overall film can only be placed on Eddie. It's odd that he's so reserved in the film when surrounding himself by such gloriously over the top performers like Grace Jones, Geoffrey Holder, Lela Rochon, John Witherspoon, Eartha Kitt, Martin Lawrence, and Chris Rock. It only accentuates what feels a bit like a lazy performance. I get that he was trying to be in leading man mode, but he shows restraint to a fault. This movie came at a point of Murphy's career when he was trying to do really big and different things that typically wouldn't pay off. He tried for a high concept comedy with THE GOLDEN CHILD, but the laughs and the fantasy never quite work. He tried for a period gangster flick with HARLEM NIGHTS, but the cast of comedic legends is at sea with weak material. There was political satire with THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMEN, and soon a horror movie, VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN, where Murphy again plays things a little too straight to the point that the movie is neither funny nor scary. These were all big swings that many stars today wouldn't attempt for fear of going off brand. I mean, could you imagine Dwayne Johnson make a movie that DIDN'T take place in a jungle or burning skyline? Murphy should have been better rewarded for going outside his comfort zone, even if it didn't yield better results. It's still odd that this was considered the slump of his career, with only three flops between BOOMERANG and THE NUTTY PROFESSOR when he became an instant mega star again. Still, for all its efforts to do some very interesting things, I don't think that BOOMERANG ultimately succeeds. I was very happy to watch it again, and certainly we got more films like it today, though perhaps soon we will. A respectful NO vote, but I do now hold this film in somewhat higher esteem.

Full disclosure, I've been on vacation this week so I wasn't able to rewatch POINT BREAK in order to have it fresh in my mind, but I think that's ok because I've given it so many chances before. People tell me I should love this movie. That it's a perfect, campy action movie for the period. But I've just never fallen in love with it. I'm even a Keanu apologist, and listening to this episode made me remember just how much I miss seeing Lori Petty in every other movie in the 90's. But when it comes to the film itself, I just don't find it as much fun as I feel like I should. And so many of the plot developments are so very very dumb. Really? There's not one but TWO surfer criminal gangs on the same beach? And while I agree that most of the camp is intentional, I also think it's sincere to the point that it's just trying to match and imitate the other bad movie tropes that were experiencing success in that era. I know. This forum isn't about nitpicking every little thing. And I honestly really enjoyed this episode and loved hearing Andrew's passionate arguments and theories. It actually made me want to give it another watch. But I've seen the film enough that I'm confident that even with a new viewing it still won't win me over to the degree of getting my full support. If you love this movie, I'm happy for you. I envy you even. And The Canon doesn't necessarily have a movie of this specific genre represented. But when these kinds of movies usually come with the caveat of being lovably dumb, I don't know how often you'll get a group of people to agree that one particular film is good enough to be called one of the best. So I'm going to have to give this a NO vote, but applaud the entertaining discussion all the same.

Rather conflicted on this one. It should be an easy YES, if for no other reason than to give a little "fuck you" to LA LA LAND, but somehow I don't know if that's enough. I discovered THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG when I was about 12 years old and yet to fall in love myself. Not only was I fascinated by Demy's unique style and approach to the musical genre, but I was swept up in what I found at the time to be an incredibly mature love story. I was so used to the "happily ever after" endings in the films I had seen up to that point. While not as extreme and ending as Romeo and Juliet, I decided that this must be a great love story if it ends in such a sad way without our two young lovers living out a lifetime of bliss. Obviously Guy and Genevieve are not meant to be together forever, and might not have had the happiest of lives, but they don't know or think about that when so young and in love. If often find myself somewhat nostalgic over the feelings I felt in my very early, teenage relationships. Not because I carry any sort of torch for those particular exes, (I'm incredibly relieved I didn't marry a college girlfriend whose parents were pushing me towards that direction), but it is powerful to remember the intense feelings of infatuation and lust that one felt when they weren't necessarily thinking about the complications that a future together might bring them. Guy and Genevieve may both be better off in their separate lives than they would have been together, but that doesn't make their memories and youthful ignorance any less romantic. And I appreciate that we flash forward to the future to see them content, if perhaps a little wistful. It's a refreshing change from the films that end with such romantic optimism. Even a fine example of that genre, SAY ANYTHING, leaves me doubtful at the end that John Cusack and Ione Sky will stay together forever. I would also call attention to Michel Legrand's music, which though often bouncy, bubbly, and seemingly repetitive, offers a lot of complexity and subtle changes in style throughout the film. I took a class in college about music in film and I examined and noted every time the rhythm and style changed in the music and what happened in the narrative or dialogue to change it. Regrettably I've misplaced my notes from 16 years ago, but I remember at the time of really enjoying charting the musical changes, and I still love how it compliments Demy's often very matter of fact dialogue. I love how banal and ordinary the topics of conversation are sometimes, but set to the music they seem poetic. I always thought the film might have more punch if in addition to the bright colors mostly vanishing at the end, if the characters also suddenly spoke their lines instead of singing them. This is, after all, a memory story, and so the colors and dialogue are heightened by the abstract fantasy lens of two characters in love. And lets talk about the color palette in the film. Even on mute, this film is gorgeous to look at. A young Catherine Deneuve is always going to make that possible, but it's still quite a feat for any musical to accomplish. The use of color and design is pretty glorious in this film. It's also harder to imitate than one might think. Even when Francois Ozon would try to replicate the look of Demy's work in films like POTICHE and 8 WOMEN, (also with Deneuve), it doesn't seem to quite carry the same punch, perhaps due to lack of consistence and the attention to detail that Demy's films seem to have. So I clearly do really enjoy this film, and have barely said a word in detraction. I suppose I'm a YES for this, although I don't know if we need both this and PENNIES FROM HEAVEN in The Canon, though I do enjoy them both. I suppose I would vote this in for the sake of Demy representation. This is probably my favorite film of his, though LOLA, THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT and THE PIED PIPER are also worth seeing. Clearly not everyone responds to the romanticism of this film, and to cynically roll one's eyes at the importance applied to this first love is not entirely inappropriate. But I do think this film is worth seeing, especially at a young age, just to see if this works its magic on you or not.

Having been obsessed with the earlier works of Paul Thomas Anderson, (MAGNOLIA, BOOGIE NIGHTS, and at least the first half of HARD EIGHT) in the late 90's, I was primed and ready for the release of PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE in 2002. I saw it on opening night... twice. I was obsessed. I think I saw it no fewer than 5 times during its initial release. It was more than just the novelty of Adam Sandler being in an artistic and somewhat prestigious film. I was also enamored with Anderson's style, music, and voice. I loved this movie... and then I didn't watch it again for several years. With the success of PHANTOM THREAD (which I absolutely love, and quite more than THERE WILL BE BLOOD), Metrograph in New York did a retrospective of Paul Thomas Anderson and played all of his films. Having not seen most of them on the big screen since their initial release, I attended every single one. My wife had never seen either MAGNOLIA or PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE so I dragged her to both. After watching MAGNOLIA, which I unequivocally love, in spite of its troubles (I wrote my senior english thesis in high school on the film to the tune of 56 pages), and yet I still tried to contextualize the film to my wife after I subjected her to it. "There's so much beauty in it. Sure, it's kind of a mess and has perhaps a bit too much going on, but even if you could make a perfect film out of it by trimming an hour or so, to me, it's still a near masterpiece." She patiently accepted my assessment. A few nights later I brought her back for PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, which perhaps I had oversold a bit. As the credits began to roll, she turned to me and said, "Wait a minute. You think that it's MAGNOLIA that's 'kind of a mess?????'" PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE had not worked its magic on her, and sadly, having watched it for the first time again in over a decade, it no longer worked much magic on me. I had real trouble remembering what it was about the film that had so enchanted me upon its first release. The phrase "style over substance" might have been invented specifically for this movie. I love the technical wonder that Anderson layers into this movie. It's beautiful to watch and often even more beautiful to listen to. But whatever I connected to initially, (I too was a romantic at heart who struggled with occasional depression), really wasn't there for me anymore. I even had trouble following the overly simplistic plot of this film that I had seen many, many times before. I kept waiting for things to happen that I remembered in my head that didn't actually exist in the movie. As I tried to defend this film to my wife on the long walk home, I found myself faltering and failing. But perhaps this is ok. Despite some high peaks and low valleys, I still regard Paul Thomas Anderson as one of my favorite filmmakers. I think his technical prowess is nearly unmatched in today's digital age. And perhaps a director like him needs the occasional PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, INHERENT VICE, and second half of HARD EIGHT to keep himself challenged, interesting, and humbled. I might be bored with him by now if I regarded every film he made as a near masterpiece. But he has these interesting workshops in between his greater works. If MAGNOLIA has too much plot going on, maybe he made PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE to see if he could tell a story with very little actual story, relying primarily on mood and tone. I don't know if it totally works, but I love him for trying. And how can I not love (at least a little) a film that can bring out so many different reactions and emotions. I've seen this film many times now, and I will probably see it a few more. It's not my favorite work of Anderson's, but I'm glad that he made it. It's a piece of the puzzle contextualizing his larger career. I would have insisted this be canonized back in 2002, but I can no longer be so enthusiastic. The only way I could allow PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE to be entered into The Canon was if we let in every Paul Thomas Anderson film into The Canon. There's an argument to be made for that, but for now, I'm going to have to offer a respectable NO. There are things and moments within this film that I still genuinely love, but I also think that I have somewhat outgrown the film, and I believe Anderson has as well. Sometimes a failure from a great director can be a more important film than one of their successes, but with regards to PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, I just don't think that's the case. Now bring on a versus episode between BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA so we can secure one of them the slot that they deserve! I may be biased, but I think I can back them up.

First off, I'd like to applaud and share Dallas' enthusiasm for the glory days of the video store. I was a bit too young to miss its theatrical release, but I watched THE LOST BOYS in heavy rotation once it hit VHS. I probably hadn't seen it in about 15 years so revisiting it this week was a treat. However, as much as I enjoy it, I don't think I can endorse it for The Canon. I don't want this to devolve into a GOONIES/NEVERENDING STORY debate, in which we argue a film's merits based on our nostalgia alone. I feel like too many times I may have voted against a film just because it wasn't "my movie." THE LOST BOYS kinda was "my movie." I even grew up in Monterey, just across the bay from Santa Cruz, so all of this "California Weirdness" was very close to me and relatable. This was probably my go-to vampire movie, about neck and neck (sorry) with FRIGHT NIGHT, before I graduated to more mature horror once I was ready for the intensity of SUSPIRA and such. This hit all the beats that my young nerdy, angsty, funny, rebellious, wannabe smoldering teenage self desired. But I do think that there's so much packed into this movie that all of its themes and ideas never fully shine through. There's great hints at things, like the puberty angle, which I agree Jason Patrick is much too old to be going through. I really love Diane Wiest and (the too often undervalued) Edward Herrmann in this film, and I wish it made more of a push to be a "parents just don't understand" movie, because I think the idea of the head vampire just being a dorky dad is a great one. The cherry on top of Bernard Hughes spending the movie omitting key information from his own grown daughter would give his last line even more of a punch. But the movie never quite has time to make a subplot like this into a domineering idea because there's too much else going on, what with sexy vampires in trees and under tracks, all while comic book nerds are attempting to defeat them. All of this is great fun, but at the end of the day I think that's all it is, fun. So I'm voting a respectable NO, not because THE LOST BOYS doesn't work its nostalgia magic on me, but because I just don't think it goes quite far enough. I still enjoyed revisiting this far more than I did FAT GIRL, and after watching it late last night, I'm even eager to sit my wife down and watch it again with her. Everyone should watch THE LOST BOYS, but we don't need The Canon to force that upon them.

I'm tempted to vote YES just because of the impact this film made on me when I first saw it. I had heard rumblings from Cannes that year about how incredibly shocking and disturbing it was, which made me question whether or not I wanted to subject myself to it. I was later vaguely told that the shocking moment that so many people referred to was a rape, which I thought I could handle seeing. While watching the scenes of borderline consensual seduction of the older sister in her bedroom, I believed that this was the incredibly upsetting thing that people had been talking about. After all, I don't think I had yet seen a film to depict the crude and desperate guilt laid on a young girl in order to persuade her to go ever further sexually, in quite such a realistic manner and certainly not from the girl's point of view. I do generally prefer WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE as a film, but I feel like that film and FAT GIRL share some tonal connections, but really just between Dawn and Anaïs, who are both young, awkward, and unsure how or if sex will enter their lives, even while being eager to discover anything one can about it to satisfy new and changing emotions. What DOLLHOUSE never gets around to covering is what it's like to suddenly be a desirable sexual being when you still might not be ready. And the scenes with Elena and Fernando in FAT GIRL are in many ways more difficult to watch than more violent and violating rape scenes I've seen depicted in film, only because these are so familiar as moments of pressure for something that one might desire and fear at the same time. Having the audience and Anaïs be given the same vantage point of these moments feels so constricting, as one of us can't really do anything, while the other might be making a conscious choice to not say anything to disrupt it. But of course, these scenes weren't what people were alluding to when they mentioned there was a shocking rape in the film. The build up to the finale is masterfully done. The shots from the looming trucks, surrounding and towering over the family's car are such ominous and frightening images to go alongside these three women who have been feeling small and dwarfed by overbearing men in the film. Even without anticipating what is to come, it's hard not to be filled with dread. When I first saw the moment when the man breaks the windshield with an ax, and everything that followed, I wondered and still somewhat wonder if it's a literal moment that was really happening. After all, in many horrible ways, this is Anaïs' fantasy. Her sister is instantly discarded and completely ignored, something that has probably never happened in her life. Her mother too merely attacked and dismissed. This man wants Anaïs, and she has spent so much of the film longing to be desired. Now there's no way that this is the way she was hoping those desires would be fulfilled, but perhaps as a plain and overweight girl, she feels that somehow she deserves this and that it's is the only way anyone would ever settle for her. Even without a violent rape, I know it's a very common feeling among those who feel shame and self loathing that they will never find romance in an idealized way and so they begin to dial back their fantasies to find something more realistic and tangible. Is this realistic and realism? I don't know. But it packs a helluva punch. I've enjoyed some of Catherine Breillat's other films, such as SEX IS COMEDY, BLUEBEARD, and THE SLEEPING BEAUTY, but I don't know if she could top FAT GIRL as one of the most intense and upsetting films I've ever seen. Revisiting it again this week after so many years wasn't any easier. This isn't what I'd call a favorite film of mine, one that I'd like to revisit many times, or even one that I feel I could confidently recommend that people see as an essential film, but I'm going to vote YES because I think it's a pretty powerful and serious example of teenage girls' experience on film, and that if one can stomach it, they should absolutely see it for themselves.

Initially, I was even less enthusiastic about this showdown than I was last week for "Daisy vs. Dreams." I was not a fan of GLADIATOR upon its released, and was mystified how a summer action movie with a sniff of drama hidden inside it could win numerous Oscars, (this felt much more unique back in 2000). CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON on the other hand, I was very taken with upon its initial release. So many of us had never seen anything like it. It was a martial arts movie that even our parents would go see. Films like that typically didn't get released widely to audiences across the country, and its success opened the doors for more asian cinema to find an audience in America, and perhaps that was why I cooled on the film in the years that followed. CROUCHING TIGER was a gateway film, and I feel like I saw similar films that I liked even more in the wake of its success. So imagine my surprise when upon revisiting the films this week, I liked them both far more than I remembered. I've never been a huge "sword and sandal" fan in general, aside from a few classics I grew up on, like SPARTACUS and BEN HUR. But by the time GLADIATOR had come out, I thought that we had moved on from that culture and that revisiting them was a step backwards. I remember being turned off by the CGI landscapes and crowds, thought Crowe (who I was a big fan of at the time) was lazily slumming it, that Joaquin Phoenix was being weird for the sake of weird, and wasn't at all moved by the drama. Perhaps it's been the nearly two decades of prestige action epics that we've been subjected to since GLADIATOR's release, but watching it again, I was rather entertained by it. This is somewhat upsetting, that this film I was once bored by now seems great when compared to its modern counterparts; another chilling reminder of the decline of quality for the genre. But I was relieved that at least I didn't hate it. I still am a tad embarrassed that it won Best Picture, though I prefer it to the similarly plotted BRAVEHEART. Pretty sure I was all in for Soderbergh's TRAFFIC that year (and remember the best performance of that year's Academy Awards being Michael Douglas feigning enthusiasm when he announced the Best Picture winner), but perhaps I should have backed what was then one of my favorite films of that year, CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON. Before rewatching it, I couldn't remember the story of CROUCHING TIGER at all. I remembered a lot of fights in tree tops, some flying around, and that it had a couple strong female roles, but couldn't remember who they were. I honestly thought I would refresh myself with the scenes that I remember and fast forward through the plot of this, but I really got caught up in it and forgot just how taken I was with Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, and especially Ziyi Zhang, who I would go on to become an even greater fan of in films like HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS and HERO. Even if subsequent films in the genre would go on to impress me more, I can't dismiss the initial awe I felt when watching this film for the first time. I'm really thankful that the podcast prompted me to revisit it because I don't think I would have done so otherwise. So while I was entertained by both films just as mere viewing experiences, I'm going to give my vote to CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON.

I don't think I had seen either of these films since their original theatrical release. It was a very interesting experience revisiting them. I have a lot more history with DRIVING MISS DAISY, as years ago I worked tech on a theatrical production of it. Perhaps the reason I never felt the need to revisit the film was because I was sick of hearing the dialogue after 50+ performances. In addition to being a great lover of film, I also am a big advocate for live theater, but I will say that I might disagree with Amy's thought that a live production of DRIVING MISS DAISY might be superior to the film experience. Having worked on the production once, and again seeing a Broadway revival of it a few years back, I find the experience of this particular play to be even more lacking in subtlety than the film. Tandy, Freeman, and Aykroyd are able to play to the camera, while a recent production with the incredibly talented Angela Lansbury and James Earl Jones, reduced the actors to broad, loud, cartoons, an unfortunate necessity in order for the elderly patrons in the last row of the highest balcony to be able to hear what they were saying. Seeing that production made me long for some quiet close ups, and while the technical merits of this film aren't all that noteworthy, it somehow gets the job done. Alfred Uhry's story is an intentional simple one, and I think Amy and Russ might have thought more about the deeper meanings of it than Uhry ever did, but somehow it gets the job does. It's a pleasant and sweet stroll through civil rights that plays it safe so that its target audience can keep smiling through it. I don't think that the material is all that stellar, but I do think that the film is a pretty solid adaptation of the play. I think a large part of that is thanks to the cast, particularly Tandy, who I too was big fan of at such a young age. (Someday, Amy, perhaps I can present to you my theory about BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED being an allegory for the AIDS crisis in New York) I do think she's rather wonderful in the film, and I appreciate that a studio film was anchored by an actress nearly 80 years old, something you almost never see now. Maybe the Canon could use some octogenarian representation. This movie was especially personal to me at a young age because I was dealing with a grandparent with dementia, and the final scenes of the film hit me HARD. I remember coming home from the theater, running to my room, and sobbing into my pillow. I think there are better films that deal with this subject matter, but this one struck a personal chord with me. FIELD OF DREAMS, on the other hand, did not make me cry. I was looking forward to revisiting it because I had memories of enjoying the matter of fact magic elements of the film, and my love of BULL DURHAM just somehow convinces me that Kevin Costner baseball movies are all great, though I don't think he ever topped his first outing in the field. It was helpful to hear some of the plot's context in how it relates to the novel, because the James Earl Jones subplot never made a lick of sense to me without the J.D. Salinger connection. The film seems to really struggle to even provide a reason why this reclusive author would want anything to do with baseball, up until the moment when Jones reveals that he lied about not mentioning baseball in an interview he did, once. I like the premise of this film a lot, and the early scenes at home with the family watching the field come to life are very pleasant, but the film seems to take the long way to get to its inevitable conclusion. I don't know if leaving the farm was ever necessary. I don't know if we need a bizarrely villainous Timothy Busfield providing conflict in a movie that should just feel like a leisurely game of catch. I do really like seeing Burt Lancaster on screen, older but still with a gleam in his eye. His decision to leave his fantasy and appreciate his life as a doctor carries the most emotional weight in this film for me. There's a few Lancaster films I'd love to see brought to The Canon, (THE SWIMMER, ELMER GANTRY, THE TRAIN, ATLANTIC CITY), but let's face it, this is the one that's going to get in. Before rewatching either of these films, I suspected I was going to vote FIELD OF DREAMS just because of how beloved it is to so many people and how it seems to have a longer lasting legacy than DRIVING MISS DAISY. I would never argue against someone's love for the film, but I just don't feel what everyone else feels. I played catch with my dad. It was fine. I'm sure the votes will favor FIELD OF DREAMS, but I'm going to pick DRIVING MISS DAISY, because even with its sights set low, I think it delivers a more complete film. Neither film should have won Best Picture that year. Obviously that honor should have gone to DO THE RIGHT THING, or, if we must limit ourselves to the nominees, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY. Perhaps neither film should have been up for Canon consideration, but this was an interesting examination of what the Academy was moved by at the end of the 1980's, before the boom of 90's independent cinema changed everything.

I think I had somehow only ever seen MIDNIGHT COWBOY once or twice, and that was several years ago. I had a detailed memory of several key scenes, and remembered the film just about scene for scene, but I had completely forgotten what a surreal, dreamlike tone the film had. I remembered the events of Joe's past and the fantasies Joe and Rico have being much more literal, like Amy claims the book is. I was so surprised to be reminded of how strange and wonderful this film was, even if sometimes its bizarre nature goes a bit too far. I had always compared MIDNIGHT COWBOY to other films about luckless lowlifes, such as SCARECROW or STRAIGHT TIME, but watching it again, I think the film it reminds me of the most is BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, only featuring a nightmarish move to New York instead of Los Angeles. Jon Voight is just outstanding in this film. Easily my favorite performance of his. Where did that guy go? Hoffman, who I often will regard as the greatest actor of his generation, has some truly heartbreaking and vulnerable moments, but every once in a while will drift into a zone that comes across a bit cartoony. Perhaps he still had some growing to do as an actor. Get those rocks out of your shoes, dude! I see why this film won Best Picture in 1970. It was the beginning of a new decade. More films were starting to look like this and they were bold and different. Perhaps it should have won for its pure innovation and unique voice. But is it the superior film? We don't have nearly enough westerns in The Canon. A too often maligned genre, it has so much to offer us. So many of the westerns that we celebrate are ones like BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, which stands outside of the genre with a kind of self awareness that becomes somewhat more about commentary on the time it was made than the time in which it takes place. This particular film, about a world with a fast encroaching future and two legends in the making resisting its changes, is an undeniable classic that has lasted for generations and appeals to even people who think that they hate westerns. I was surpised to hear that both Amy and Russ thought that the freeze-frame ending was a cop out. I always thought it was an intentional denial of giving Butch and Sundance the hail of bullets they both desperately craved in order to become mythic legends. They would earn that title regardless, but by ending the film just before it happens, it almost punishes the heroes by leaving their story unfinished. I adore this movie and can watch it over and over. I'll concede that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is the more explosive of the two films, but just because BCATSK remains a crowd pleaser, I don't think its impact is at all diminished. It would certainly seem downright revolutionary if you put it aside the other western of the year, TRUE GRIT, a film I also have much affection for. Frankly, I really would love to see more "honest westerns" be submitted for The Canon. Films like STAGECOACH, MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, FORT APACHE, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE OX-BOW INCIDENT, RED RIVER, RIO BRAVO, or HIGH NOON. They have just as much to teach us as the films that try to subvert the genre in some ways, such as this one, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, UNFORGIVEN, MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER, LITTLE BIG MAN, and JOHNNY GUITAR. Have I shown my hand as an unabashed fan of the genre? Yes, I think I'm going to have to cast a somewhat biased vote for BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, but not without remarking what a fantastic year 1970 was for film and that this was a much more difficult decision than I had expected it to be. I just think we need a few more westerns in The Canon, so this would fit well beside THE WILD BUNCH, THE SEARCHERS, and BLAZING SADDLES. Also, won't it be fun to see just how many Paul Newman movies we can admit into The Canon in one year? This will already be two. Let's go for a hat trick! Coming this March... a versus battle between THE VERDICT and SLAP SHOT. Tough call.

I grew up on both of these films and have a lot of nostalgia for each of them. I feel bad for crushing Amy's NEVERENDING STORY dreams last week, only to now get to vote in one of my childhood favorites. One of the ways I'm considering these films is how they fare as adaptations. I think one of the reasons MY FAIR LADY won the Academy Award that year was because the stage musical was already a proven and beloved success. It had the leg up having already been considered a classic, which is also why I think Rex Harison won Best Actor, and why Julie Andrews would have won Best Actress if she had been cast in MY FAIR LADY instead of MARY POPPINS that year. And as a stage to screen adaptation, MY FAIR LADY is very good, if perhaps a little too faithful and comprehensive. Cukor does not leave a lot out of the film, and it suffers a bit with repeated viewings due to its length. Cukor does manage to provide the film with brief moments of cinematic flare, but for the most part each scene is presented more or less how it was seen on stage, only with more elaborate, (and apparently very expensive) sets. While I know that most of our greatest and most classic musicals are adapted from other sources, I do sometimes take away points for lack of originality. Aside from a few noteworthy changes, MY FAIR LADY is not drastically different from Shaw's PYGMALION. If the film got a leg up on awards because it was adapted from an already successful stage musical, then I must acknowledge that even that stage musical was greatly helped by the source of an already famous and classic play. And as an adaptation it is mostly quite excellent, but I also believe that you can see the chain of assists from each incarnation of the piece. I know this is a silly nitpick, but it's one that continues to haunt the theatrical world. My wife works in musical theater in New York and we are constantly confronted with news of future musical adaptations from beloved films, which is basically an easier way to sell a familiar story to theater-going tourists. In the near future we can look forward to musicals based on TOOTSIE, THE SECRET OF MY SUCCESS, and PRETTY WOMAN, itself a loose adaptation in the first place which will be playing a few blocks away from a new revival of MY FAIR LADY. I do really enjoy the film though. Hepburn, with beautiful albeit non matching vocals from Marnie Nixon, is wonderful, and I've always found Rex Harrison hilarious as Higgins and his signature style of "singing" has proven to be incredibly difficult to immitate by others. Though definitely a toxic male character wielding power over women and other street urchins, I appreciate that he's revealed to ultimately be a nerdy outcast who even his own mother can't stand. The ending is a bit too pat, but Harrison makes it work as well as one can. It's possible that the film won Best Picture because Hollywood was despreately clinging to the lavish musical as an art form as it was losing its relevence, but much worse musical films would go on to be nominated and even win Academy Awards in the years following the film's success. While parts of MY FAIR LADY haven't aged as well as other classic musicals, it's still much better than the likes of OLIVER, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, and DOCTOR DOOLITTLE. Rex couldn't save that one. MARY POPPINS is also an adaptation of P.L. Travers' series of books, but I'm far more enamoured with Disney's very unique and original take on the material, transforming Travers' crude and ugly witch of a character into a whimsical, sweet-voiced, practically perfect dream nanny. You can learn all about this in the wonderful film SAVING MR. BANKS. (just kidding, Amy) MARY POPPINS is one of the first movies I ever remember seeing, thus naturally it left a lasting impression on me. I appreciated Amy and Russ discussing Bert's early breaking of the 4th wall, which seems a tad unnecessary watching the film now, but as a child I was raptured by the notion that I was being addressed and that the story was being told right to me. Dick Van Dyke's accent is attrocious, but it's also incredibly charming. By contrast, when I saw the stage musical adaptation of the story, Bert was played by an actual British actor and he wasn't nearly as engaging of a character with a proper British accent. Andrews' performance is so enchanting, and sets itself apart from there mere categorization of a mere "musical" or "children's movie." But it's the arc of the children's relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Banks that still impacts me so much to this day. As a young child, I didn't even fully understand or recognize these two characters as Jane and Michael's parents, because (having a rather ideal childhood) I didn't recognize their actions of distraction and neglect as the behavior of parents, and so I was simultaneously confused and even a little frightened by them. It's unpleasant to see parents depicted as domineering authority figures at such a young age, but it makes Mr. Banks' redemption and giddiness at the end of the film all the more satisfying. I had never considered that Mrs. Banks tying her sash to the kite as an abandoment of her values. I always thought it was more a desire to advertise her suffragette slogan high in the sky for everyone around to see. As great as Andrews & Dyke are in the film, I love David Tomlinson and Glynis Johns. Tomlinson is doing an agrier and more repressed take on the upper class snob that Rex Harrison does in My Fair Lady. Perhaps they should have been competing that year. Incidentally, if you want to see Tomlinson and Johns have some sexy, pre-code, mermaid love-making, you should check out the fantasy film MIRANDA. I could rattle on about MARY POPPINS for pages. It's such a delightful film. I don't think there's a single bad song in it, and the "Step in Time" dance sequence is one of my favorites from any movie musical. There are many live action Disney films that are borderline classics, (I'm very partial to TREASURE ISLAND, 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, and SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON), but even at their best there is a shadow of the Disney brand cast over them, especially with so many familiar contract cast members showing up in the companies of the films. But MARY POPPINS stands apart for me and is worthy of being called a bonnefied classic film, even without the qualifying label of being under the Disney tree. I do think that MARY POPPINS should have won Best Picture in 1965 and it deserves to be let into The Canon now.

Uh oh. I've been afraid that this day would come. I've never really cared for THE NEVERENDING STORY, though I did watch it again this week to try to give it a fair shake. I found this episode to be very enlightening, and learning a bit about the German production helped give some of my issues context and an explanation. I really wish that we still lived in a time when movies geared towards children had some dark complexities and challenges that required some thought and coping with. Even movies that aren't necessarily great films (RETURN TO OZ, LABYRINTH, and THE NEVERENDING STORY) still have so much more depth and substance than the majority of what kids are subjected to today, with a few refreshing exceptions. And I don't blame you, Amy, for latching on to this film. I think we all have our beloved childhood favorites that have a deeper meaning to us because of our upbringing and memories. I certainly have a few myself, and some of those I would probably fight pretty hard to get Canon status for, but others I will allow to rest in my warm nostalgic brain without trying to sell them too hard on others. To me, THE NEVERENDING STORY never quite whisks me away with its fantasy and themes. It could be that the budget, (perhaps was impressive for a German production at the time), seems to limit Fantasia from ever completely feeling like a real place and setting. There are some great characters in there (i too consider The Rock Biter to be my favorite), but too me, a Henson devotee, so many of the creatures and locations seem to be lacking a soul. It's appropriate that the villain of the story is "The Nothing" because so much of this film looks like Nothing to me. LABYRINTH undeniably has its problems and I did not vote for it to be allowed into The Canon, but one thing that it always succeeded at with me was creating a world that I felt would have existed even if the movie wasn't there to tell its story. The concept of creating a world through a descriptive book and having a boy fall into the fantasy that way is an excellent one, but we all know a film that achieves this idea significantly better. And while I would never let this fact alone keep me from casting a Yes vote, I did read THE NEVERENDING STORY at a young age and was incredibly fond of that book. It being undeniably superior is more praise for the book than a knock on the film, but I am cursed with having that to compare it to. It's not that I miss specifically what's missing from the book in the film, but it doesn't give me the same emotional catharsis that I got while reading it. I do appreciate this film a bit more now, and was fully preparing to come down hard on it before I watched it and listened to the episode, but instead I'm gonna have to give a soft but definitive NO on allowing THE NEVERENDING STORY into The Canon. Now I think I might have to go rewatch Will Vinton's THE ADVENTURES OF MARK TWAIN, because Dave name dropping it in the episode has made me think of little else since hearing it. I wouldn't vote that into The Canon either, but I sure do enjoy it. And that's... ok.

The problem with being counter culture is that once the culture begins to evolve, what once seemed radical and daring can become quaint or uninspired when looked back at. Hal Ashby certainly shook things up in his day, and I don't think many people had seen films like the whimsically dark HAROLD AND MAUDE prior to its release. But not only have we seen decades of films influenced by it, but even the original shows a lot more cracks than it might have in 1971. I don't think this alone should ever disqualify a film if time has not been entirely kind to it. It can exist as a time capsule or even a cautionary tale of how not to churn out imitators without addressing changing times and tones. That said, I used to adore HAROLD AND MAUDE when I was younger. The last few times I watched it, I saw a lot less of what initially attracted me to it. It still has the cultural standout moments of the use of Cat Stevens, though that shouldn't gain it access to The Canon alone. There's nothing wrong with the themes that it represents, but it also loses its grip on its own philosophy and meaning. For instance, I don't even know if Ashby and the movie was aware that Harold was betraying Maude by brining her to the hospital after her suicide attempt. I feel like it's playing by a noble gesture of sadness and love. Many things like that might not have occurred to me the first times I watched it. Does that mean that HAROLD AND MAUDE becomes a more interesting or less interesting film with subsequent viewings over time? My feelings on BEING THERE have changed over the years as well. I saw it at too young an age, because I was a big Peter Sellers fan and I had heard tell that this was his greatest role in a comedy masterpiece. I'll say that's incorrect on both fronts. As a child I really did not appreciate most aspects of the film. The politics went over my head and what little comedic pathos Sellers was going for didn't quite register with me. In recent years I've appreciated things about it a bit more. I do really love Sellers in this film as he silently watches television, absorbing but not necessarily understanding what he sees. I just spent a few weeks with my 2 year old nephew over the holidays and would see the same look on his face when the television glowed with Sesame Street or a Pixar movie. Though just because this is perhaps Sellers most dramatic performance, I don't consider it to be his best. It's a good rule of thumb to not overpraise comedians just when they do something halfway dramatic or speak just above a whisper. He's good in this, but it's no more important than his work in DR. STRANGELOVE, the best of the PINK PANTHER entries, THE PARTY, or a personal favorite of mine, THE WORLD OF HENRY ORIENT. I do really love Melvin Douglas in this film and always wish there were a bit more of him. I love MacLaine in early scenes, until he embarrassing fawning over Chance turns her into a clown. And the movie's satire just never quite hits home for me. At the very least, it's one note, with the garden metaphors repeating to the point that one expects more people to catch on to his actual demeanor. I'm a big Jack Warden fan but I can't believe that the biggest influence The President ends up having in this supposed political satire is a running gag about being so confounded that his dick stops working. And last night, watching the movie again for the first time in several years, I was aghast to be reminded that after the hauntingly poignant ending we are treated to outtakes over the end credits as if this were a CANNONBALL RUN movie. I don't know if there's truth to the idea that the gag cost Sellers the Academy Award, but it might cost him entry into The Canon. I think I enjoyed rewatching BEING THERE this week more than I did in revisiting HAROLD AND MAUDE, but it still never quite forms into the movie that I want it to be. I feel like this is the case with most of Hal Ashby's movies. He was an undeniable subversive and necessary presence in Hollywood, but perhaps we had to be there at the time to fully feel the ripples of his waves. I watched SHAMPOO again a few months back and felt similar frustrations, and I've always considered THE LAST DETAIL to be my favorite of his works, but in light of this week I'm a little nervous to revisit it. I can't recall. Did we successfully vote THE CANDIDATE into The Canon? I thought it made it in, and if so, I really feel like we don't have a need for the similarly themed though tonally different BEING THERE. I'm tempted to still vote for HAROLD AND MAUDE, just because of what it once meant to me. I may have grown out of those emotions that I felt at an earlier age, but maybe The Canon needs a film that we acknowledge is seminal in the forming of a young (likely male) mind, but that at some point must be cast aside as said mind begins to grow up. So mine is a tepid vote for HAROLD AND MAUDE. It doesn't mean as much to me as it once did, but at the height of my passion for it, the film meant more to me than BEING THERE does now or ever. Ashby does deserve a place of some kind in The Canon. It's a shame that it has to arrive with a troubling footnote.

There isn't much that I can add that hasn't already been said. The reason this film seems like it's full of familiar tropes from an average inspirational sports movie, is because this is where so many of those clichés originated. This movie gets better every time I watch it, which has happened many times, especially anytime I need to cleanse my palate after an unfortunate attempt with THE COLOR OF MONEY. It seems unlikely, but with all his fame and adoration, Paul Newman still somehow is an underrated actor. I consider myself a great fan, and yet I'm still constantly stumbling on films from his career that seem to fall by the wayside of the tributes that typically celebrate his filmography. Have you ever seen HARPER? THE RACK? SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME? The guy has got layers and there's still much to discover for the casual Newman fan. But of course THE HUSTLER is not an obscure gem. It's one of his most iconic roles, and rightfully so. As great as Paul Newman is in this though, I'd like to talk a bit about Piper Laurie. She's sensational in this, and playing a kind of role that I don't think had been seen much prior to this 1961 film. There has never been a shortage of alcoholics (or drunks) portrayed in films. More often than not they were comical. When attempted seriously they often would come across as broad and melodramatic even when played successfully (THE LONG WEEKEND, DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES). But Laurie in THE HUSTLER gives one of the first performances in film that I can think of that truly channels the defeated, sad, desperation of an alcoholic. The kind of traits that one might still recognize in people they know today. One feels so much empathy for her tragic plight in this film. The one line I can never forget is when she tells Eddie that she loves him. He responds with "You need the words?" She looks doe eyed at him and says "Yes. I need them very much. If you ever say them I'll never let you take them back." To me, that's one of the most heartbreaking portrayals of love I've ever seen. The notion that she truly won't believe that he loves her unless she hears the words, and even if he's insincere she will cling to those words as comfort enough to keep her going a little bit longer. There's so much more to this film that a story of a pool shark. I could go on for pages. But why bother? Amy and David covered it beautifully and anyone who watches the film will find their own favorite moments. That alone makes THE HUSTLER an easy YES into The Canon.

I'm relieved to say that I like all of these movies, but my favorite of the bunch was THE FLORIDA PROJECT. I've been such a fan of Sean Baker's since seeing STARLET and TANGERINE, and this film continues his trend of writing characters that I've never seen portrayed on screen before. I see them in life, but not in the movies, and I wish others would follow his example and open up our character roster a bit more. I first saw THE FLORIDA PROJECT at this year's New York Film Festival and I loved every second of it... right up until the end. Yes, the moment that virtually every critic has hailed as the most revelatory moment of the film, struck me as a bit of a misfire on first viewing. It was so jarring to suddenly hear the music and see the handheld camera work. And what I was taking as a moment of fantasy escapism in this otherwise very real film, felt a little false at the time. These girls are not going to get an easy escape from their circumstances, so why should the audience get the satisfaction of pretending that they could. I had to see the film again to be sure of how I felt about it. Watching with my wife a few weeks later, I was eager to study her own reaction to the film. As that final scene approached, even before it began, I started to openly weep along with young Brooklyn's tears. Seeing the escape to Disney World scene again, I suddenly was swept up with the kind of emotion that I expected to be the first time around. I'm not sure what kept me from giving myself over to it the first time, but it has me now, and I think it might be my favorite film of the year. As for the rest, I'm not the world's biggest Star Wars fan. I think they're fun films, but it was never my religion. But I really enjoyed THE LAST JEDI, though would never place it too high on my list. THE WRESTLER, Darren's stylistically atypical film not withstanding, I think MOTHER! is the most successful film Aronofsky has made. He made a truly successful head trip that works both for me as allegorical and a literal thriller. This was the kind of insane film I had wanted BLACK SWAN to be, but that ultimately left me cold. I completely agree with Amy that while I really enjoyed GET OUT and am very very excited to see many more films from Jordan Peele, I think the ideas of this film were stronger than the finished product on the whole. I feel like the last act, even with some brilliant metaphors and ideas, is often in danger of losing its grasp and control of what it's attempting. I guess the explanation is never quite as satisfying as what one's mind might be building up when the mystery is first presented. I still like the movie a lot, just not my favorite. I was born in Sacramento, so LADYBIRD meant a lot to me. Everything about that film works. It fills me with so much joy and humor, but when it goes for the dramatic beats, it never feels false or cheap. Frankly, it's a very close runner up to THE FLORIDA PROJECT for me. I'm sorry I wasn't able to call in to the show to give my vote audibly. It was a busy afternoon that day and I couldn't get away. But I can't wait for another year of The Canon. Thanks for all you do, Amy.

Perhaps we should continue this theme and have next week's film up for debate in the Canon be SOPHIE'S CHOICE. How can one choose between LIFE OF BRIAN and THE HOLY GRAIL? LIFE OF BRIAN is without question the better film. One with a voice and ambition that I'm still in awe of. Saw it recently on the big screen, (my first time watching it start to finish in many years) and even knowing some stretches by heart, I still can't believe what the Pythons got away with, and very nearly didn't. The fact that the film encountered so much controversy and became part of the political and religious discussion for years after its release is likely enough to declare its importance. I wonder if Martin Scorsese, (no stranger to controversy himself), would have been able and allowed to make THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST if LIFE OF BRIAN hadn't already struck such a blow within the world of religion. I do think that THE LIFE OF BRIAN is the funnier of these two movies... but it's not the silliest. Although I prefer THE LIFE OF BRIAN, it is not the first Python film that I would show to someone who had never encountered them. THE HOLY GRAIL was my original entry point into their world, and the anarchic and bizarre tone changed my comedic sensibilities forever. Though I think most of the comedic bits in LIFE OF BRIAN are sharper and have more to say, THE HOLY GRAIL scenes are probably more iconic and recognizable. I think getting that silly, irreverent perspective first makes THE LIFE OF BRIAN so much more enjoyable and impressive. I could flip a coin on this, or at least be happy with either victor, but I'm going to vote my heart and go with MONTY PYTHON AND THE LIFE OF BRIAN.

I don't hate romantic comedies. I'm not even immune to the charms of some of Richard Curtis' past work. (i remember being quite taken with FOUR WEDDINGS & A FUNERAL and NOTTING HILL) But I really really hate LOVE ACTUALLY. The idea of it is phenomenal. I love the juggling of a grand ensemble that carefully balances a dozen or so stories into thematically linked vignettes. And it certainly helps that there may not be a single weak link in this entire cast. But the stories themselves? I detest almost all of them. I remember going to see this movie, not even on opening day, but on a special preview night weeks before its release. That's how excited I was to see a new movie featuring Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Bill Nighy, and the like. I was desperate to be swept away and filled with Christmas cheer, but I found the film to be so ugly. Much of what I could rant about has already been covered. Particularly how numerous storylines are centered around sexual harassment or infatuation by male employers. Worse than that, the Laura Linney story about a woman that the movie claims doesn't deserve to be happy because she has a mentally ill brother to take care of. This is really the view of Linney's character herself, but the film seems to endorse it. And don't get me started on this Andrew Lincoln creepy gesture that we're supposed to find romantic. There's ugliness at every turn in this movie. I remember the audience laughing and even applauding when the president was revealed to be... Billy Bob Thornton? And for what? So he can be devoid of comic charm and merely harass an innocent girl? What a waste. I'll concede that I find the Martin Freeman storyline amusing (though the nudity in this otherwise obvious PG-13 toned film is oddly off-putting). At least it's a one joke premise with a decent joke and is resolved neatly at the end. The other storyline I like is one of the stupidest. It's the story of Kris Marshall who is determined to go to America because he knows that a sure fire way to get good and laid is to be the sole British accent in a sea of American stupidity... and it works! That's a funny idea, but it's also a perfect metaphor for this movie. Would American audiences still be so charmed by this movie if it were packed with a cast akin to NEW YEAR'S EVE or VALENTINE'S DAY? Probably not. But fill your cast with Hugh Grant, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, Alan Rickman, and such, and people will swoon for it, falling for the thin charm of a talented accent reciting garbage. Look. I understand the cultural relevance and love surrounding this movie. But part of the deal I made with myself when I voted for THE ROOM earlier this month was that I was going to draw a line and stop voting for bad movies that have made some kind of sole cultural splash, for better or worse. I have argued with friends and family countless times against this movie and I'm going to do it one final time here. I vote NO on LOVE ACTUALLY. Whether it be for Holiday Movie or Romantic Comedy, we can do so much better.

I've remained a pretty devoted fan of AMERICAN PSYCHO since its initial release, and I think its success can be attributed almost entirely to Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner. Though I certainly would have been curious to see Cronenberg's take on the novel, I think that this story was in desperate need of the female gaze, and while it doesn't rewrite the themes of Bret Easton Ellis' novel, it does add many new layers to it. It's kind of the perfect film to follow the debate of CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, being another portrait of a new generation of men on their quest to rule the world. It's the thing that makes this period piece seem so relevant still. Harron turned this satire into more of a warning, not just of the ominous presence of our future president, but of the greedy financial hunger that would devour the economy (I'll take this film over both WALL STREET or THE WOLF OF WALL STREET any day), and how the almost quaint predatory behavior in CARNAL KNOWLEDGE would continue to evolve. I don't see another director empathizing with Cara Seymour's prostitute or Chloë Sevigny's secretary. Even as the men of this film get away with every misdeed, there's a constant sense that the women in their lives (a few of them at least) are watching them and seeing them for what they are. Not enough to stop them, but enough to be on to them. I love Mary Harron's films (I SHOT ANDY WARHOL remains the definitive portrait of the artist and his surroundings) and I wish she would return to feature films amidst her successful work in television. I feel that at times she understands Ellis' work even better than he does and she and Turner do as great an adaptation as possible. (by contrast, the recent Broadway musical was a pageant of iconic moments and one liners, desperately in search of context and meaning) I also think this film deserves credit for making Bale a star, for better or worse. He was a fine child and teen actor, but this was the first time I saw a completely different animal in him. Ten years ago I might have softened on this film a bit, but I think it's coming back around to be a pretty essential portrait of a place in time. I think Amy said it perfectly when saying "I used to think this was a period film, now I think it's about the present." AMERICAN PSYCHO gets a YES vote from me.

The last time I saw CARNAL KNOWLEDGE was more than 20 years ago. I was enough past puberty to marvel at Ann Margaret's wardrobe, but besides that hadn't much carnal knowledge of my own. I remember being somewhat uncomfortable with all the sexually frank dialogue. I don't think I even had yet made friends who had experienced any sexual acts, so literal locker-room talk and anticipation of desired conquests were familiar to me. While I had seen plenty of sex scenes in movies by that point in my life, I hadn't seen many that were so uncomfortable and sad as these. I also misinterpreted some of them at my young age. When Art Garfunkel is with Candice Bergen against the tree, I remember thinking that although she initially was uncomfortable with his hand on her breast, he showed a real and honest sensitivity that made her see him in a new light, and that was all it took for her to fall a little more in love with him so that she suddenly wanted his hands on her. (I'm proud to say that I never practiced this tactic to the degree Art does in the film.) Other scenes made me feel incredible shame, such as Art pathetically pleading with Bergen for sex, while the early scenes with Nicholson and Margaret I found quite erotic. I looked forward to the days when I might not have to shower alone. Watching the film again last night, I can't say that I saw the film itself in an entirely new way, but it was fascinating to compare my own reactions and reflective experiences now that I've become what some would consider to be an adult. I don't think we need the current social and political climate to add a new layer to the film. I think we would recognize this portrait of bad behavior in most eras. For a film comprised of vignettes, I think it's very effective. Part of me thought that Nicholson's climactic slideshow diminishes the weight of the relationships we saw, because there's little evidence to suggest that they were any more impactful as the other girls in the carousel, a repetitive and depressing cycle. But it doesn't make the highlights that we see any less relevant really. I do agree that this holds up far better than I expected it to, having appreciated but not enjoying it all that much on seeing it young in life. It's quite a different experience today, and I got a lot out of the process. I think there are better Nichols and Nicholson films, but I think that this has more to say as a cinematic fable than some of those superior films. I'm a much bigger Edward Albee fan than I am of Jules Feiffer, but I think I would sooner put this into The Canon than I would "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" And I think I will. I'll give a soft YES to CARNAL KNOWLEDGE. I don't know how quickly I would want to experience it again, but I appreciated the opportunity to revisit it this time, enough to believe that others out there should see it at least once.

I really adore both of these films, and I wouldn't really categorize either as a love story. For a Grant/Hepburn romance, I would recommend BRINGING UP BABY or HOLIDAY. That's not to say that he's not without his charm in either of these films. While HIS GIRL FRIDAY isn't exactly about love between Grant and Russell, it is about professional respect. As a fan of THE FRONT PAGE, I think HIS GIRL FRIDAY is truly noteworthy for perhaps our first example of a gender-switching comedy. Surprisingly little changes between the two lead characters in the adaptation, with Russell's main asset being her skill as a reporter, a skill that may even outweigh Grant's own. Yes, there's some icky nods to ownership in this version, Grant mostly wants to keep Russell because he's worse off without her, and going through the whole ordeal ignites, if not love, definite lust. No, I don't believe their newly rekindled marriage is going to take, but they are going to have a fantastic weekend in a motel before they start bickering again. I love HIS GIRL FRIDAY because I do think that the characters, more than most romantic pairings of the day, are on an equal playing field. The dialogue is also just glorious, with some of the quickest exchanges in movie history. I marvel at it every time I see it. I also love the early meta nod to Grant telling Ralph Bellamy that he looks a little like that actor... Ralph Bellamy. I always love to see early examples of Hollywood flirting with inside jokes and playing with the format. On the same wonderful level as Groucho telling the audience they might want to head out into the lobby in HORSEFEATHERS. I really do love THE PHILADELPHIA STORY too, but I think there's less complexity to it, and without the terrific ensemble cast, it's not as strong a piece. I recently rewatched the musical adaptation HIGH SOCIETY for the first time since I was a kid and I was so unbelievably bored by it. It's virtually an identical script with a few songs thrown in. And while Sinatra, Crosby, and Kelly are certainly charismatic in their own way, none of them are doing their best work. Cukor's THE PHILADELPHIA STORY is a fine film, but gets a major assist from the likes of Hepburn, Grant, Stewart, and Weidler. It's also a supposed love story but it's full of Tracy Lord strikes me as a character who really doesn't care to be in love, and is only marrying because it's something to do. The closest she comes to having a real spark is drunkenly with Stewart, but she comes to her senses by morning, realizing how silly it would be to marry a common reporter. When she ends up with Dexter, it's only because it's a convenient return to the status quo. I don't want to pick these films apart too much, because I do love them both. Either could be admitted into The Canon and I'd be content. But I'm going to cast my vote for HIS GIRL FRIDAY. I think it's the stronger and funnier film of the two, even if it's by a narrow margin.

How fortuitous that THE ROOM was up for debate this week. I've just now come from a sold out screening of it. It was my first time seeing it and it truly left me flabbergasted. I put it off for this long because I typically don't enjoy watching bad movies for bad movie's sake. SHARKNADO does far too much winking to ever be actually funny, BIRDEMIC just bored me to tears, and while I enjoy MIAMI CONNECTION in fits and starts, it still feels a bit long at 80 minutes. The only reason I attended THE ROOM tonight was because I thought that I had to do some homework before I saw THE DISASTER ARTIST, which I was already eager to see, and thought seeing the source would provide me with the proper context. While I never bothered to watch it at home all these years, I had heard that a live experience was really the way to go and would help milk the laughs out of it. But considering I saw this at an Alamo Drafthouse, the crowd was surprisingly quiet and respectful, aside from a few key lines. So while I did laugh a lot, the evening provided me with a chance to focus more closely on it than I intended, and I was rather fascinated by it. What separates this film from all the other "best worst movies" out there, is its sincerity. That comes across instantly. I had heard tell of Tommy Wiseau's intensity and determination, but I was genuinely shocked by how that affected his entire film. I agree with Amy that these actors are not (all) as bad as their reputations might suggest. Not a single one of them seems to be in on the joke, and to deliver some of these lines in with a serious demeanor is no easy task. The amateurish production values and absurd plot developments provide some fine laughs throughout the film, but what kept me glued to the screen was the dialogue and delivery. I couldn't wait to hear the next exchange. It's true that this would be hard to recreate without knowingly making fun of it. As soon as someone becomes aware that people are amused by it, you start playing for laughs. But somehow this entire movie plays out without ever breaking or becoming a farce. This is something that even the most ludicrous soft core pornography can't accomplishment. (I used to have to watch a lot of it when my job required me to cut ads for Skinemax when I worked at HBO. Honest.) Wiseau clearly had a vision, and I rather admire him for committing to it. But, should this be entered into The Canon? I'm not entirely sure. My initial thought was NO. Paul Scheer compared the cult fervor of this to THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. While I agree that this has gained an impressive following in a relatively short amount of time, ROCKY HORROR still had a 30 year head start. If the rabid fan base was still in awe of THE ROOM in a couple of decades (Franco's film will likely ensure that it will be) then I would say my vote would be an easy YES. Another thing holding me back is that this is a lot of people's favorite "bad movie." I agree that if it were the best of the worst then it would be worth having in The Canon as a baseline, but if that were to happen, I don't think we could ever include another schlocky movie into The Canon again. Films like THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, EVIL DEAD 2, and (sigh) RE-ANIMATOR have their own artistic merits, but at least part of the reason we love films like that is that they were made on a micro budget, with sometimes shoddy effects, and less than stellar performances. In that respect, THE ROOM isn't all that different from other films that already have Canon representation. Do we really need another one? Maybe... But what about the people who prefer MIAMI CONNECTION? Is this really a matter of taste? Should we vote in the most popular "bad movie?" The one that might be the most "of the moment" due to a coinciding companion film? And does THE ROOM say enough on its own that the context of THE DISASTER ARTIST won't help complete the picture? We have ED WOOD in The Canon but didn't even consider GLEN OR GLENDA or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. But perhaps the reason that THE ROOM should be let into The Canon is because maybe, just maybe, it's not actually a bad movie at all. Bravo to Paul Scheer, who made a greater case for THE ROOM than he did for GHOSTBUSTERS. I had heard him talk about THE ROOM on his own podcast, How Did This Get Made, but that was strictly devoted to what a bizarre mess it was. Hearing him and Amy talk about it now for over an hour with such intrigue and reverence actually made me respect the film a lot more, and I had already been surprisingly quite taken with it. I do think that the cult worship and comedic value aside, THE ROOM actually tells us a lot about independent filmmaking. Mistakes were clearly made along the way of the production, but one doesn't expect a film that goes through so many trials to ever see the light of day, let alone become beloved in some circles. I complimented the film for its sincerity, and I do believe that there are actually a lot more terrible films made than we know that have a similar devoted cast and crew who believe they're spinning gold, even if their final product can only evoke laughter. The difference is that most of those films are never seen, outside of an occasional showcasing at a film school. So THE ROOM's success story may be enough to tip it through into The Canon. I'm so conflicted! TOMMY, YOU'RE TEARING ME APART! Before I started writing my comment, I made an initial vote on the page and I selected... NO. I still feel that my own personal relationship with this film is still too new and fresh to call it a definitive and essential example of bad cinema. However, spending this time letting my thoughts out and thinking it over, I think I might change my vote to a YES. I don't know it this is still MY bad movie, but it belongs to a greater legacy now. I would have a better idea of my thoughts once I saw it again, and the fact that I do want to see it again, (sooner rather than later), is incredibly surprising to me. Earlier tonight, I barely wanted to see it a first time, but I'm very glad I did. I do believe that THE ROOM has things to teach us, especially if Tommy Wiseau never makes another breakout classic ever again. This film might very well be... The One. And so, (and I can't believe that I'm doing this), I'm changing my vote from a respectful NO... to a somewhat enthusiastic YES. Tommy Wiseau may never win the Oscar he so desperately wants, but getting THE ROOM into The Canon is an honor in and of itself.

FAST, CHEAP, AND OUT OF CONTROL was the first Errol Morris film I ever saw and is probably my second favorite film of his, just narrowly beat by GATES OF HEAVEN. I remember becoming aware of it after a Siskel & Ebert episode in which they hailed it as a masterpiece. Even after watching clips on the show featuring lion taming and naked mole rats, I couldn't quite wrap my head around what this strange film actually was and was determined to see it. Upon viewing it, I realized it wasn't such a bizarre head trip after all, but found deep humanity in these odd individual loners with unique passions that few other filmmakers would be curious enough to explore. I love the films of Errol Morris without exception. While I love his mission-based epics like THE THIN BLUE LINE or THE FOG OF WAR, I'm so glad that Brett Morgen picked one of Morris' more quiet, personal films, the kind of which that you wonder how he ever might have found such people or devised to tell their stories. FAST, CHEAP... doesn't take any shocking turns in it the way MR. DEATH or TABLOID do. It merely presents us these men and their professions and allows us to listen. So many documentaries seem to beg an audience to judge their subjects, for better or worse, but the subjects in this film never come off as defending their lifestyles, unconventional though they may be, and challenges us to reach some kind of understanding with them. I would probably throw my support behind any Morris film, and though the one I personally tend to show others the most often is GATES OF HEAVEN, I fully support FAST, CHEAP, AND OUT OF CONTROL with a YES vote into The Canon.

I believe that Paul Verhoeven definitely deserves a place in The Canon. STARSHIP TROOPERS would be as good an addition as any, even if it's not my personal favorite, but is a good representation of his tone and style. But I still feel rather conflicted here. Not because of the potential of ROBOCOP's exclusion. I could live with one over the other. But like Amy, I feel like The Canon is getting a little crowded with movies like STARSHIP TROOPERS. The kind of cult favorite that is a fairly standard genre flick on its surface, but has enough unique subtext to set it apart and make it seem like a better movie than a "Woo Hoo" trailer would suggest. TROOPERS definitely qualifies there. I remember the surprise I felt when I first saw it, that this killer alien bug movie was actually more of a military dystopia film. And that certainly adds a fascinating layer to this film, but one that I don't think completely eclipses the action adventure to make it an essential entry into The Canon. Jordan made a very strong case for it though, and he made me appreciate the film even more than I already do. And yes, while I may prefer ROBOCOP, ELLE, or even (somewhat guiltily) TOTAL RECALL, I would accept a Yes Vote granting access to STARSHIP TROOPERS. However there's one more thing that is holding me back. Just like how Amy is annoyed that these culty sci-fi and horror flicks keep finding their way in, I'm annoyed how the kinds of films that gave birth to the modern throw-back cult genre have been too often ignored. That's right, I'm still bitter that THE TINGLER, a kind of matinee B movie that a film like STARSHIP TROOPERS is emulating, didn't get in. In my opinion, these films have more in common than they appear to on the surface, and so I think I'm going to vote a respectful NO to STARSHIP TROOPERS. I like it, but The Canon isn't just for films I like.