GregoryJamesAnderson

Everyone else voting NO has hit the nail on the head. A well-made film but not Canon worthy. Although I had the exact same thought as Devin in that it would have been amazing to see Wilder go all-out horror. I wonder what his version of The Shining would have been like.

YES on Slacker and everything Linklater. I loved trying to figure out who the movie was gonna follow next, and there was no boring vignette throughout the whole thing. You spend enough time with the person to really get a sense of them then you move on. It's gentle, it's thoughtful, and mostly upbeat. I actually can't wait to watch it again very soon. I like the guy coming from the funeral the most I think, just enough hints dropped about his life to love/hate him then it moves on. Fantastic. About the argument in the beginning, I agree that Devin can be condescending, but both hosts absolutely refuse to listen to the other's point. Although yes, there are a million movies making statements on young, white masculinity, I don't think that diminishes in any way the quality or importance that EWS!! may or may not have.

Damn, reading through this thread a few days after voting and I'm still wrestling with this decision. There's so much good shit in both movies and they're both so damn influential that I wish both could be in the Canon. I agree with a previous user that said that Batman needs to get in when we give losers a second chance. I think most of us would agree with Amy and Devin about BvS:DoJ, but at the very least it led to us re-watching these two great movies and led me to read a bunch of comics I am really enjoying.

Really tough choice. I thought I was going to pick Batman for sure when this was announced, as I am absolutely enamored with Jack Nicholson as The Joker and Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne (important distinction). But watching Superman, I was absolutely moved by the first two acts of that movie, and more so than a "damn that's cool" way as Batman moves me. There's so much to love about both movies, and I think Batman is more watchable as the quality is really consistent throughout and Superman does have a huge drop in quality whenever Otis and Luther are up to their antics. But, the deciding factor for me comes down to the fact that Christopher Reeve as Superman is the ideal portrayal of that character. Unless you're adapting something like Injustice or Red Son, this is how Superman should be portrayed. They nailed him and Lois so well. There's all sorts of adaptations of Batman that are really interesting, but none of them definitive. I still love the hell out of Batman, but Superman far outpaces its faults with how much it gets right. It's what a superhero movie needs to be, and it still does have its influences on modern comic book films. The airplane rescue in Iron Man 3 feels like something out of Superman, and that's a damn good thing. Superheroes should save people.

Great picks. I've seen Burton's Batman plenty of times (as all of us have, for sure), so I opted to watch it in a different way this time and turned the color off on my TV. You get some awesome visuals watching it in black and white, like whenever Batman is seen in wider shots or establishing shots of Gotham. The one scene in particular that really stood out is when Bruce is talking to Vicky in the Batcave as Batman. Real treat.

You could maybe argue for Passion on a cultural level, because fucking EVERYONE was talking about it, but man, was it just a chore to sit through. 90% of that movie is ugly, brutish Romans and Hebrews laughing like idiots while Jesus flails around and bleeds out. The violence just ceased being gruesome and got real boring. Last Temptation was phenomenal. Just aesthetically the movie is fantastic, and presented much more human Jesus than I've ever seen. I especially love the scene where he says he is proud of resisting women, and the Sermon on the Mount where he kind of fucks up his speech. He really came off as a man who had no clue what to do, but had a calling from the highest power to do it. I also love the depiction of Judas as striving for revolution who sees Jesus as the greatest chance for that.

Going to be a NO for me, although I did enjoy the film. There are a ton of interpretations that I found of this film that are interesting, but I have to agree with Amy that they are not particularly deep. I didn't find any of the interesting concepts explored in a way that really made me think about them, like the brokenness of nature or the inherent evil in women as well as men. They were brought up, but not really delved into in the way I hoped they would be. Good movie though, and it was a pretty refreshing horror movie. EDIT: I also found the fox to be fairly goofy...I think I get the point of it but it was just so weird that I just laughed at it.

NO to Lolita in the Canon, but I agree with jacobinwunderland that this is not the fault of Kubrick in the long run. It is totally true that he often didn't give a flying fuck about the source material, but this movie reeks of interference on the behalf of the production code. It's interesting that this is his last film right before Dr. Strangelove, where he starts the string of films that really cemented his status as a legendary filmmaker. I think Amy nailed part of it when she said he hadn't really found his voice yet. All of his films pre-Strangelove feel very of their time while Strangelove and onward all feel timeless. I do disagree on your guys' reading of the film. Lolita and her mother are entirely fucked up by the horrible men in their lives. Shelley Winters's character seems to have terrible abandonment issues, probably stemming from the early death of her husband and the callousness of men like Quilty that she has dated since. Lolita's sexual politics have been entirely fucked up due to Quilty molesting her at a young age. In the film, he's the one who has robbed her of her childhood, not Humbert (although this is clearly a flaw in the film, as it does take some blame off Humbert). I don't see Lolita's life at the end of the film as a punishment for anything she's done, more so a demonstration to Humbert of how terribly people like he and Quilty have ruined the life of a young woman. Seeing her sitting there, drinking a beer with some moron, he finally sees her for as young as she is, even though she's at her most adult. This is nowhere near Kubrick's best and is a betrayal to the novel, but so are many adaptations and that's fine. The filmmaker shouldn't have to adhere completely to the author's vision, and while that can be extremely frustrating it in no way lessens or enhances the quality of the film. It's just simply an alright movie, adaptation or not.

Tiny can say anything at al and it will be hilarious just because it's the Mash Potato Johnson voice.

The "lazy hunchback" line was probably the greatest Scottism I've ever heard.

If you want happiness, just look up at the sky and smile; God will know what you mean.

This is perfect. I just finished listening to all of the appearances Wild Horses on Improv4Humans. Such a fantastic group of people.

We need Oliver Subpodcasts to make a film right away.

Cut this part out, but this podcast was spectacular. Cut this out please.

The title of this episode alone makes me swoon.