Cameron H.

I just wanted to say, I thought it was hilarious that the first "2nd Opinions" reviewer had to specify that he "accidentally" shit his pants. It's as if he was thinking, "Okay, I have to include the fact that I had just shit my pants because it's important to my review, but I want just to make sure that it's crystal clear that I didn't do it intentionally. I wouldn't want people to think I'm some kind of weird-o or something."

I think I have an answer to "Why sledgehammers?" When Raven is speaking with the police (who apparently don't think to arrest him right then and there for kidnapping...), he tells them, "I want Tom Cody. I wanna nail that son-of-a-bitch's head to the sidewalk under that marquee that says 'Ellen Aim' on it." I suspect that was the purpose of the sledgehammer fight. Say what you want about Raven, he's a man of his word. However, this led me down a rabbit hole of analysis that may require me to slightly amend on of my previous posts. Technically, if Cody represents the "Body" of Rock & Roll, then Raven should have nailed his head to the sidewalk--the death of the "Body" allowing for the ascension of the "Spirit." Instead, it's Raven that's defeated. However, I noticed that as Raven is being driven away his body is being held by one of his thugs in the position of Michelangelo's Pieta--one of the most overused images in the World. I'm not sure if this was a decision made by the director or DeFoe, but I think it is too obvious to just be an accident. And, yes, for those who followed the discussion on the mini-sode thread, this is indeed the second time I've compared this film to a piece of Fine Art. So a quick revision of my previous post... I stand by all my earlier assertions, Ellen still represents the "Spirit" and Fish is still the "Brain/Corporate" side of Rock & Roll, but now I'm thinking Cody may actually be the "Heart" of Rock & Roll and Raven, with his shallowness and proclivity for debauchery, may be the "Body." In which case, he would absolutely need to be defeated for the "Spirit' to transcend.

The one line in this movie that gave me pause was when Ellen Aim said to Cody, "I hate you for taking money [for rescuing me]." Based on my previously posted theory, I guess it makes sense in terms of "selling out," but in terms of the literal plot of the movie, why shouldn't he take money for rescuing her? Their split was acrimonious, she's with another man, and he seems to have moved on. Under those circumstances, if he's going to put his life on the line to rescue her, why shouldn't he be compensated for that? At least he's cares enough to do something. He could have just said, "Not my problem" and peaced the Hell out.

How have I been doing? My irrational, seething rage for you is the food from which I nourish myself...

I 100% want to see a shot for shot remake of this, with the only difference being McCartney is Pare's lost love. Please, someone make a poster of Pare tenderly embracing Sir Paul! I saw him more as OT Han Solo by way of John Wayne and Humphrey Bogart. I haven't seen Pare in anything else, but I can only assume he was making an acting choice. It's Heavy Metal, bro! How else could that fight have gone down?

I hope everyone does...especially Rick Moranis.

Great episode, but I have to say, I'm leaning more toward Jason's interpretation of the movie. Here's what I thought the movie was doing. First of all, right from the jump, the movie labels itself, and straight up tells the audience, that this is a "Rock & Roll Fable," and what is a fable besides a story told to convey some greater meaning beyond its literal telling? When you start to look at it from that perspective, a lot of the pieces start to fall into place. Let's start with the characters: Tom Cody (Michael Pare)--He represents the "Body" and the purest form of Rock & Roll. He's a drifter, a rebel, and embodies the freedom of Rock & Roll. While he can be dangerous, he is not irresponsible with his power and uses his abilities for the greater good. However, to the world at large, he is nearly indistinguishable from people like the Raven. Raven (Willem Dafoe)--He represents the "Poser" aspect of R&R. For him it is about control. He wants to keep R&R for himself and his gang. Like Cody, he is also a rebel, but he is misappropriating R&R for his own ends. He doesn't "get it." He just thinks that by wearing the clothes and listening to the music, it makes him a "Rock & Roller." Billy Fish (Rick Moranis)--He represents the corporate side of Rock & Roll. He loves it just as much as Cody, but from a more commercial stand point. This is why he can seem cold and dickish for the majority of the movie, but when push comes to shove, he's willing to defend it as much as anyone. Ellen Aim (Diane Laine)--She is the "Spirit" of Rock and Roll. In a real sense, she is more of an object or idea than a woman or fully fleshed character. This is why she can be "stolen" rather than "kidnapped." She is the goal that Rock music "aims" for or strives to be. So given these interpretations, you have to look at the movie from a different perspective. The Raven has stolen the Spirit of Rock and Roll and has hidden it away in his fortress. Since Rock Music is for everyone, if the Raven is successful in stealing it's "soul," R&R will disappear forever. The music needs to get back to it's roots, so Cody "rescues" the music from those that don't understand what it "means" and would therefore corrupt it. In other words, Cody, as the physical embodiment of Rock, needs to "go back" to where he's from (his hometown/the Fifties) and retrieve his Spirit--which he has lost because of "the War" (...I'm guessing Vietnam) I also don't think it was a coincidence that the music played at The Bombers club, is old school, rockabilly. They have already "captured" that voice, and it has been left to fester and stagnate in their clutches. Later on, Cody defeats, but doesn't kill, Raven--the canker that threatens to ruin Rock for everyone, saving it...for the time being. In the end, Cody and Fish have a conversation (again, try to think of Ellen as more of a concept than a person) where Fish says, "She loves you" and Cody replies, "Yes, but she needs you." Basically this is saying, the Spirit loves the Body, but ultimately, if he were to tie the ethereal to the corporeal, he would be no better than the Raven, and would be selfishly keeping her for himself. The Spirit needs to be married to the Corporate, even if it is somewhat loveless and contentious, because that allows the Spirit to reach the most people, thereby allowing it's messages of love and freedom to be spread across the world, and that's what is most important. As far as the other questions regarding the film, I feel that it does occupy a space out of time, however, I think this choice was deliberate. By the time this movie hit theaters, the people who grew up with the first wave of R&R during the Fifties would now be in their forties and probably had teenagers of their own that were listening to music that they no longer understood. By keeping time and space amorphous, it is telling the adult audience, "Remember when your parents didn't get your music or how you dressed? Well, now you're the parents and you don't get the music of your kids. However, the only thing that has changed are the notes, the Spirit is still the same." By the same token, the kids watching this movie might glean an understanding of where their parents are coming from. To New Waver teens in the eighties, seeing someone riding a motorcycle and wearing a leather jacket, would not seem very rebellious at all. To them it would seem antiquated, "That's Happy Days," "It's a cartoon." However, if you tweak the look a bit and put them in "murder aprons" instead of leather jackets, they might get an idea of how "alien" that look would have been for people at the time, just how their Flock of Seagulls hair-dos might look "alien" to the adults in their era. Well, shit...that was a whole lot of blathering on for a film that I don't even much care for...let's hope it made sense! tl;dr Everything in the movie was intentional, and in my opinion, executed competently.

Just saw that today was Diane Lane's birthday... Happy Birthday, Ellen Aim! (Does it seem like a lot of the recent episodes have been landing on or around the birthdates of the stars who are in them?)

Yeah, I don't really see Channing Tatum, or for that matter, Liam Hemsworth. I feel like they fall into this category of, "They're sexy because Hollywood said so." Also, I think Jeremy Renner would be sexier if he would just shut his stupid mouth. Also, what about this guy (known as "Blumpy" in my house)? Am I just not getting it? Because Hollywood seems to think I should be very impressed... On the positive side, I don't think Zachary Levi or Lee Pace get their due. I've also been sitting on Catherine O'Hara, but only because I can't explain what it is about her I really like. Another person that I think often gets sorely overlooked is Rachel Weisz. Funny story (I guess..?): A couple of months ago I was having a conversation, and I was asked which celebrities do I think are attractive. I was adament that I don't usually find celebrities all that attractive, but the person I was speaking with insisted that there had to be someone. So finally, I admitted my fondness for Rachel Weisz. But this wasn't good enough, and I was asked to name some others. So then I said, "Okay, Hayley Atwell, Gemma Arterton, and Michelle Dockery." It was in that moment that I first realized I had a "type," which is apparently: brunette, smart, bookish, independent, and preferably, British. Honestly, it kind of blew my mind as I never really considered myself to be a person that would have a type, but there you go. Must have been from all that Mary Poppins from when I was younger...

Good one! I really dug her as Janine, but I loved her in Pretty In Pink.

I have to say, I just finished watching Streets of Fire, and I'm very curious as to what their going to say about it. I mean, I defer to the gangs' brilliance and expertise, but for me, this is the first time since Staying Alive that I don't think I really have anything to say about a HDTGM movie--and that includes Sharknado 3, which I didn't even watch. While I'm not going to go so far as to say that I loved it or anything, but it was decent, and I think it did what it set out to do pretty competently. I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I feel like anything you can say to make fun of in it would be missing the point of what it was trying to accomplish--and that puts the fault on the viewer, not the filmmakers. To be wildly hyperbolic and make an incredibly incommensurate comparison, it would be like if you were looking at Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2" and then say, as you spit your chaw into a red solo cup, "That don't look like no naked person I ever saw! It's done just a mess o' scribbly lines. My stink hound can shit out better art than that. Where them titties at?"

Jolie was going to be my answer to that question as well--along with Brad Pitt. I don't know, I just think he looks like he smells...

Well, since 've already put forward Rick Moranis as my dude, I might as well complete the set with Joan Cusack. I wish there were a million more actresses just like her. As for movie, I'm going to have to say Hook. I know it can't be good, but I have a real soft spot for it. My runner up would probably be Just One of the Guys.

Oh, it's pretty much the best. It's so damn quotable. Although, that may just be because I grew up with it. I'm not sure if it would hold up for someone watching it for the first time as an adult... NEW GAME!!! Name a movie that you loved as a kid, that still (unironically) holds up for you, but you're pretty sure if you showed it to another adult, they just wouldn't "get it." BONUS GAME!!! In honor of the Rick Moranis, The Sexiest Man Alive: Name some celebrities that you think don't get enough credit for being sexy. And, without getting too mean, graphic, and/or shallow, feel free to name some celebrities that seem to universally be considered "sexy," but in your opinion, just aren't. I'll post mine later, I've got some thinking to do...

I know he's no Tom Selleck, but I sincerely hope that our viewings of Streets of Fire will finally elevate Rick Moranis to the sex symbol status he so richly deserves and has long been denied. (Not kidding. Watch My Blue Heaven.)

I just wanted to add this... I love how his pose in this image is supposed to convey "That's right, drink it in..." but his actual stance is more "Excuse me? You want me to do what? Unbutton my--? Alright, if you say so..." This is why I could never make it as a model. I'd feel like such a tool.

I almost wrote this exact same thing. Now, could you please get out of my head? I may need some alone time. And....let the record be shown, that today marks the day that I finally "get it." That just blew my goddamn mind. I feel like such an idiot. Well, at least I'm handsome...

Despite how it may appear, I don't think anyone here is "booing" anyone. I know this may seem like normal Internet boohooing, but it's really just something to talk about. We could just as easily be talking about feminism in Marvel movies or be engaged in a Tom Selleck gif battle. We all know we can just not read them. We're just bullshitting. No one is saying Harris' articles are crap and obviously Paul thinks highly of them. To further your band analogy, it's like in the sixties when Jimi Hendrix opened for the Monkees. They're both good in their own way, they just don't seem to fit together--for me. Or, as Fister said, "they feel like they fall outside of the discussion." Or, as Plan B and I were saying, if there's a clear reason or hook to them, that's great, but otherwise, they feel sort of pointless. Here's another analogy: I ask the person I'm with, "Why did the chicken cross the road?" I say the punchline. We. Laugh. Uproariously. Once our chuckles have subsided, the person I'm with says, "You know that chicken you were talking about? It was exhibiting extremely abnormal behavior for a normal farmyard fowl, let me tell you why...Also, the reason he crossed the road where he did was because there was a hole in the fence just north of there, so he actually had to move south a bit to get passed the construction that would have been obstructing his crossing. Furthermore, the chicken probably crossed the road because it's brain is the size of pea, and it's just a stupid chicken. Next week, why don't you tell a joke about 'Three men walking into a bar?' I've been doing some fascinating research on the history of microbreweries that I'd love to share with you." Also,

As a regular forum poster, I really like this idea and would be 100% for it; however, I don't think it takes into account the greater audience who don't come here to post their thoughts. I think the idea for the articles is, "You just enjoyed the episode, now go and read the rest of the story..." If the article doesn't come out until the mini-episode, interest will have waned and may distract from the upcoming episode. So, for me personally, your idea is perfect; for everyone else, I'm not so sure....

I have to agree with you. I'm not saying don't do Cannon Films (which I just realized I've been misspelling), after all one of the movies I've been championing is Rockula--which I just found out was Cannon. I'm just saying maybe limit them to maybe one or two a year. With The Apple coming up, that will be three! Cannon films since October. Not to mention stuff like Death Spa, which might as well be Cannon.

I totally agree with you, particularly about the Red Letter Media thing. Can't we just let the prequels go, guys? They're bad movies. We get it. There's no challenge in making fun of them anymore. To your other point, about maybe missing out on something by not reading the articles, I can see that too. I know I used TFA as an example on how to make a good movie while working within the system, but one of my biggest issues with it was how after the movie I would read all these articles about how such and such isn't a plot hole because it's explained in the novelization. Fuuuuuuuuck you, movie! Don't get me wrong, I love to read, but I shouldn't have to read a book based on a movie just to have these gaps filled in. Never mind, I haven't read a movie novelization since I was, like, eleven years old. As for Fister's point, yeah, I could pretty much take or leave Blake's articles. I don't want anyone to think, just because I brought the subject up, that their continued existence is in someway negatively impacting my life. Trust me, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I suppose they have their place just as much as anything. I just like the idea of the question "How Did This Get Made?" remaining rhetorical. Getting a firm answer of "Well, this crazy thing happened because this was going on" kind of sucks the air out of everything. In other words, I don't read them and say, "Hey, that made the episode even better!" It's more, "Oh...okay then," or at the very worst, "Well, now that I know the real story, the gang looks pretty damn insensitive." I mean, if there's a legitimately crazy thing that happened, go for it. But do I need two articles about Shaq's movie career? How is one article about Canon films going to be that much different from another one? It kind of reminds me of what Paul said about Uwe Boll movies during the Dungeon Siege episode. It was something to the effect of, "We did Uwe Boll. I don't think we need to do another one." But most of all, and I know I'm being redundant, I just really don't want it to become a case of the tail wagging the dog. There are so many solid picks left for this show to talk about--we're talking pages and pages of great recommendations--and I don't want the movies to be chosen simply because someone returned Blake's phone call or email. I'd prefer it if they just continue to do their thing, and if Blake can't get something together by the deadline, so be it. Better luck on the next movie.

Hey guys, there's been something that's been bugging me for the last couple of weeks and I wanted to put it out there as a conversation starter. This may be a bit controversial, but just know I'm not trying to be negative just to be an asshole--I am writing this with the best of intentions. Ready? Okay...here it goes...Do we really need the Blake Harris articles? Now, before I get into my issues with them (and yes, I get that I don't have to read them) let me say this: I think they are incredibly well-written, fascinating, and often offer surprising insights into the movie industry. In and of themselves, I think they are great, but I don't know how I feel about them as a companion to HDTGM. I get why it's a good move for both Blake and (to a lesser degree) HDTGM, but I do have some questions. First of all, I don't know how I feel about putting a "human face" on the people who make these movies. For example, reading that the director of Kazaam had lost his daughter and wife to AIDS shortly before this movie was made, and how he gained some measure of catharsis through the making of it, almost makes making fun of it (even in the good spirit of the show) seem kind of cruel. I find some of his articles to be kind of like that friend who always sees the rain coming on an otherwise cloudless day. I'm not saying it's not going to rain later or that it's never rained in the past, but for the moment, can we not just bask in the sunlight? My second issue is: how long until Blake's articles start to dictate the content of the show? In other words, I would rather there be no Blake Harris article than have to sit through episode after episode of Death Spa-esque/Canon level movies just because it's maybe easier for him to get interviews with the people involved with making those films. I'm sure it's no easy feat for him to get the interviews together as it is, but imagine if Paul said they wanted to do an episode on The Last Witch Hunter or the latest Fantastic Four movie. When Blake can't get anyone to talk to him (at least in a way that's meaningful or interesting) because they want to keep getting work, do they just scrap the episode altogether? Maybe it's just me, but the first half of 2015 was filled with what I consider to be perfect movies for HDTGM (e.g. Deep Blue Sea, Con Air, Jupiter Ascending) and the second half (after the articles started to be published) to be filled with older, lower budget affairs (e.g. Theodore Rex, Perfect, Lifeforce, Death Spa). I'm not saying that the episodes have been less good, but the movies themselves have been next level terrible. If they are choosing these films over, say, Soul Man, because they've been dying to to do them, that's fine. But if they are only doing them for Blake's sake, then I'm going to have to call shenanigans. I love the show, and God knows I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, I just wanted to get other people's opinions on it. However, let's keep it positive and let's keep it respectful. P.S. Two points in regard to the quote about script writing and combining disparate ingredients. Here were the ingredients for Kazaam: 1) Lonely child who spends a lot of time on the streets 2) absentee father 2) musical 3) silly genie These were the exact same ingredients used to make Aladdin. All writers have to make concessions. Do you really think J.J. made the Force Awakens without tons of notes from Disney? And in the case of TFA, many of the notes probably had a lot to do with merchandising. Don't blame the system just because you don't have the talent to work within the framework. Secondly... "Chicken Breasts with Brandied Cherry-Chocolate Sauce" All you need to do is garnish it with a couple marshmallows. Voila!

Hey, Jarrycanada, thanks for creating a thread specifically for this! I'm still going through the back catalog, and I'm sure I've missed a lot, but I do have a couple more to add. Beastly Predators Soul man My real reason for creating this list is that they have mentioned or shown interest in doing a lot of films they haven't gone over and I really wish they would. I would 100% prefer they do any of these before dipping into Death Spa or The Apple territory. I feel like if Paul mentions a movie in an interview or something that he'd like to do, that should be fair game too.

So far, I'm only about an hour into Streets of Fire, and I have to say, I don't not like it. It's not exactly good, but I'm not finding it to be all that crazy--at least by HDTGM standards. I also found it funny that Paul alluded to writer Lin-Manuel Miranda during the episode since my impression of Streets of Fire is not too different from what he did with Hamilton--albeit, much more deftly and successfully. And, by the way, if any of you haven't had the pleasure of listening to the Hamilton soundtrack, I highly recommend it! I've been listening to it on repeat for the last week, and it is simply incredible! It's all on YouTube, please take some time to listen. I will talk your ear off about it until forever. I'm attaching one of my favorite parts, but you really need to listen to it from the beginning to get the full effect. Also, I can watch Rick Moranis in just about anything. I don't think he gets the credit he deserves, and he's great in this movie.