The Empire Strikes Back's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:The Empire Strikes Back

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:41:33 GMT

Title: The Empire Strikes Back
Year: 1980
Director: Irvin Kershner
Plot: The second entry in George Lucas' Star Wars trilogy finds Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the green-as-grass hero from the first film, now a seasoned space warrior. Luke's Star Wars cohorts Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) are likewise more experienced in the ways and means of battling the insidious Empire, as represented by the brooding Darth Vader (body of David Prowse, voice of James Earl Jones). And, of course, "The Force," personified by the ghost of Luke's mentor Ben Kenobi (Alec Guinness), is with them all. Retreating from Vader's minions, Luke ends up, at first, on the Ice Planet Hoth, and then the tropical Dagobah. Here he makes the acquaintance of the gnomish Yoda (voice of Frank Oz), whose all-encompassing wisdom comes in handy during the serial-like perils of the rest of the film. Before the film's open-ended climax, we are introduced to the apparently duplicitous Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) and are let in on a secret that profoundly affects both Luke and his arch-enemy, Vader. Many viewers consider this award-winning film the best of the Star Wars movies, and its special-effects bonanza was pure gold at the box office. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 108
Number of Lists: 168
Number of blog posts: 17
Number of discussion threads: 20
SpoutRating: 4

Spout Post: A really strong follow-up to "Star Wars"

Thu, 07 May 2009 22:54:17 GMT

Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 6:54:17 PM
Body: Time has past since the "Death Star" had been destroyed, and the "Imperial Empire" is determined to enact revenge on those responsible. And those who are responsible are now hidden on the snow and ice covered planet in the "Hoth" system. As "Luke Skywalker" (Mark Hamill) and "Han Solo" (Harrison Ford) are surveying the area around the hidden "Rebel" base, "Skywalker" sees what he thinks is an asteroid impact the planet surface near him and goes to investigate as "Solo" returns to the base. As "Skywalker" is about to go to the impact spot, he is attacked by a large "Hoth" creature and is dragged away to the creature's shelter where the remains of previous meals are strewn around the cave floor -- including "Skywalker's" "tauntaun". "Solo" then goes back out as night falls, as does the temperature, to find "Skywalker", who has killed the creature and is visited by the spirit of "Ben 'Obi-Wan' Kenobi" (Alec Guiness) who tells him that he must go to the "Dagobah" system to find "Jedi Master Yoda" (voiced and puppeteered by Frank Oz) to complete his training. After a search party finds "Solo" and "Skywalker" the next morning, and "Skywalker" is nursed back to health in the base's medical section, the "Empire" forces attack. They are able to take over the base as the "Rebel" forces who survived the attack evacuate. "Skywalker," along with "Artoo-Detoo (R2-D2)" (Kenny Baker), head to "Dagobah" as the rest of the fleet go to the rendezvous, while the "Millenium Falcon," piloted by "Solo" and "Chewbacca" (David Mayhew), evaccuate "See-Threepio (C3-PO)" and "Princess Leia Organa" (Carrie Fisher). Then, sometime after beginning his training with "Yoda", "Skywalker" gets a vision that his friends are in danger at a "city in the clouds" and leaves to help them against "Yoda's" demands, as well as those of "Kenobi". But, what "Skywalker" doesn't know is that "Lord Darth Vader" (David Prowse, voiced by James Earl Jones) and the "Empire" forces has taken over "Cloud City", which was under the leadership of "Solo's" old friend "Lando Calrissian" (Billy Dee Williams), and captured his friends. Now "Skywalker" may be their only hope. This is a strong follow-up to the first film. It has action, suspense, and really good special effects. It also has strong performances from the cast. The special effects are well done, and are quite believable, mostly thanks to the fact that the spaceships are models and not the fake looking CGI. The sound effects work quite nicely, as do the laser effects seen during the major battle at the start of this film. You can tell that the cast from the original movie have melded very nicely. In my opinion, this really helps in their performances and makes the relationships of the characters more believable. Williams, who debuts in this film, made "Calrissian" a loveable rogue to rival the "scoundrel", "Solo". However, being that this is his first appearance in the original trilogy, he seems to be the odd man out and has to work and bonding with the rest of the cast on-screen. The wardrobes are much better in this film, most notably the ones worn by "Skywalker" and "Princess Leia," who had the cheapest looking outfits in the first film. The "Imperial" outfits haven't changed since the first film, but we get to see the new "Snowtroopers" uniforms during the battle on "Hoth". There is a few scenes with some bad editing within them. They were just badly done and looked out of place when they showed up. On the other hand, the pacing of the film is really nice. There is some good suspense in this film. Especially during the battle on "Hoth" and the "lightsaber" battle between "Lord Vader" and "Skywalker," where we find that the two have a connection that shocked fans back when the movie was in theaters. Despite many dated special effects and bad edits, this movie is a must see for sci-fi fans.

Spout Post: 10 Films That Saved Their Franchise

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: 5 Most Offensive Uses of Special Effects

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Ryan's Sci-Fi Meme

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:09:43 GMT

Post By: rjsprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/19/2008 1:09:43 PM
Body: I've never made my own meme before so this might suck. Basically I'm going to create a list of stuff and apply my own choices which are sci-fi related. :) I'll try to be inventive. If you were going to be the villain in a sci-fi movie, which movie would it be? Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back because he makes Luke look like a pansy, and he beats the crap out of the good guys. How about sci-fi hero? Corbin Dallas from 5th Element because he knows how to kick ass, and he's got a soft spot for Milla. Weapon of choice? A lightsaber, obviously! Woman/Man of choice? (To hook up with etc.): Milla Jovovich in the 5th Element. Setting of choice: Steampunk! :) Special Power of Choice (if you had to have one): Negation of other people's special powers. Like the Haitian in Heroes (probably the only character on that show who isn't completely useless and annoying). Mode of Transportation: Some sort of hover-device like the silver surfer's board, or the Goblin's hoverboard, which would be a smaller part of a one-man spaceship (two would be cozy though =D). How would you die? (If you had to die.): In the arms of Milla! I suppose I'd prefer something quick and painless like decapitation, but perhaps that left my body in one piece, or maybe obliterated. It would need to be the result of fighting against my arch-nemesis though. Okay that's all I can think of for now. Now hit reply, delete my answers and fill in your own! DO IT!

Spout Post: 10 Box Office Champs That Are Also the Best Films of Their Year

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Re:First film you remember seeing in the theatre?

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:17:05 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 9/17/2008 8:17:05 AM
Body: I was born the year Star Wars came out. There I said it My parents were weekly connoisseurs (sp?) of the drive-in. The first film that I can remember seeing in its entirety was E.T. (1982). Though I have flashes of Porky's (1981) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980). If we are talking about the actual movie theater, I think my first actual movie theater movie was Return of the Jedi (1983) on my 6th birthday (noticing a pattern, anyone...now you know why I'm constantly talking about these movies. As if there were no other films besides the original trilogy...). If I saw any others in an actual "cineplex" or "movie house" before that one, I can't remember them. And I can remember seeing a whole bunch after that...I guess my memory only starts at about 6. Ah well.

Spout Post: Movie Journal: Star Wars - Original Trilogy

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:01:10 GMT

Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 9/3/2008 8:01:10 PM
Body: When I was watching the Prequel Trilogy I noted the film-to-film decline of wasted space in the movies, with Revenge of the Sith being pretty tight compared to all the unnecessary moments and camera shots in The Phantom Menace. Watching the Original Trilogy you’ll see an almost complete lack of those sorts of gratuitous moments. There’s little to no fat on these movies (a little in Return of the Jedi, but A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back are as lean as they come) and they move along at an incredibly brisk pace. They very much show Lucas’ edict of “faster and more intense” whereas the Menace is full of bloat and laziness. I hadn’t watched these three in quite a while and so they wound up seeming pretty fresh to me, which is nice to have happen with movies that I’ve seen regularly in theaters, on VHS and then DVD over the last 30 years. I felt excited as the space battles progressed and was caught up in the adventure, just like I should have been. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk

Spout Post: Re:Tough Chicks of Sci-Fi

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:53:15 GMT

Post By: unclefestering
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 8/7/2008 11:53:15 PM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] I don't know their names but there are a couple of pretty hot tough-chicks (one is an android, I think) in Jason X . And, yeah, I do think that is sci-fi as well as horror. And Denise Richards in Starship Troopers was kind of awesome... [/quote] I've gotta go old school here. Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. She's handy with a blaster, always ready to take charge of any rescue operation and looks good in a golden bikini even when choking the life out of a giant slug.

Spout Post: Working on the 'Knight' moves

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:50:40 GMT

Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 7/21/2008 8:50:40 PM
Body: I am really struggling here. I really don't feel like cracking open the thesaurus to out-hyperbolize what's already been said about “The Dark Knight” a dozen times over. Simply put: A) It lives up to the hype, and B) Yes, Heath Ledger as The Joker is that good. The only way to tackle this review and add anything new to what's already been said is by addressing your concerns as a moviegoer. That's right, you. Why do I do this? Well, I'm just a giver, I suppose. So herein are ten reasons why you should either jump aboard the “Dark Knight” Love Train with the rest of us, or whether you should draw the blinds when you see that Bat Signal appear in the sky. See it: If you enjoy crime drama: The film begins with a crackerjack heist by Joker and his crew that not only ticks along like a timed explosive, it sets the stage for just how morally bankrupt the film's chief villain truly is. He is a character whose sole purpose is not singularly driven, but rather one who likes to conduct social experiments, regardless of their outcome. For Batman, who is considered a champion of justice, the Joker represents his ultimate foe. If you balk at seeing a “superhero” movie: Too often dismissed by stuffier film-goers as guys running around in silly spandex pajamas, “Knight” sets its story in a very real world environment that echoes many fears and concerns where chaos reigns. Sure, there are acts of superhuman strength, but there are equal parts of superhuman suffering, as leads are forced to make choices in which one life's value possibly outweighs another. If you eschew CGI for more tangible effects: Digital trickery has become a staple to the genre, especially those released in the heady days of summer blockbusters, but there are no wholly rendered CGI beasties on Batman's fight card here, and when it is used, like the charred, rotting side of the face on Batman's other nemesis Two-Face, it's both subtle and disturbing. If you are a fan of iconic screen villainy: Confession time: When it comes to listing the top actors of this generation, Heath Ledger would probably not even make my long list. His turn in “Brokeback Mountain” was undoubtedly poignant, but the whole film's over-rated melodrama possibly kept it from making any impact on me. I found him decent, but rather nondescript. Until now. His role as a psychotic harbinger of destruction is seminal, plain and simple. And for those of you who showered Javier Bardem and Daniel Day Lewis with praise last year in “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” respecticely, you owe it to yourself to witness this performance. If you enjoy epic films: While staying primarily focused in Gotham City (after taking a brief detour to Hong Kong to round up some baddies), the story feels oceanic in its sprawl. “Dark Knight” analyzes a society ruled by fear and governed by disorder. It demonstrates not only how officials and denizens react in times of crisis, but takes the time to detail these reactions, as well as their repercussions, giving them motivation and purpose. It's a sizeable task in any film, but it builds to a crescendo that feels purposefully messy and frustrating. You know, kind of like life. If you'd rather get drawn into a story than manipulated by a rousing score: Too often, we find ourselves moved because some guys in the string section of an orchestra tell us to. Not here. Never obtrusive, always lurking in the shadows (like its lead), the score (by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer) is as subtle as Danny Elfman's (between the Prince ditties) was bombastic in the 1989 version. Instead. “Knight” is propelled by such intrinsic theoretical absolutes as “good” and “evil” (Sometimes by the same character, sometimes by our hero), providing each member of its stellar cast – Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Morgan Freeman as inventor Lucious Fox, Michael Caine as heroic manservant Alfred, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, Aaron Eckhart as politician Harvey Dent – an opportunity to decide where his or her moral line in the sand is drawn. Which leads us to... If you prefer your characters with moral ambiguity: There is not a second of flab in the film's 2.5-hours, and in that time each of its characters are tested. Similar to that memorable coin toss by Bardem's Anton Chigurh in “No Country” (and Harvey Dent here), the results are sometimes left to chance and the consequences are not pretty. If you enjoy horror films: The discomforting truisms of human nature are the root of all classic horror films -- our primal urges, our basic instincts, those gravitational draws to the dark side that have yet to evolve from that primordial muck – are the foundation of scary stories, and have a home in “Dark Knight.” These are not perhaps the “gotcha!” scares that one closely associates with modern horror, but they are the nightmares that can keep one up at night when alone. If you appreciate ensemble acting: I have already mentioned a number of the actors involved, but have yet to speak about Christian Bale, who plays Batman and his alter ego billionaire Bruce Wayne (sorry for the spoiler). It is perhaps because he is a cog in this machine. It is by no means a slight to his ability, for he once again demonstrates just why he is one of the finest actors working today. But he is only one “Knight” in this chess game. If you enjoy sequels with more narrative meat on their bones: As opposed to taking the “Bigger! Stronger! Faster!” approach to sequels, writer/director Christopher Nolan's “Dark Knight” is much more interested in inhabiting and studying the world in which our heroes dwell. It could have been easily called “Gotham” and have been completely accurate. The last bit of praise that I can pile onto this film is by giving it the cinematic equivalent to “The Empire Strikes Back,” (considered by many, myself included, to be the best of the “Star Wars” franchise), in which storylines weave without a knot at its end. It can be disconcerting, but in the end, it feels more organic than any other film released so far this year. And yes, it is based on a “comic book.”

Spout Post: Re:A new pack of RESERVOIR DOGS (1992)

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:44:33 GMT

Post By: theunemployedshortstop
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 7/18/2008 9:44:33 PM
Body: The Epic Tale of "The Wolves of Gomorrah Gorge." The Conceit: Due to a trans-dimensional rift caused by the AWESOMENESS of the Inglorious Bastards screenplay Quentin Tarantino is able to jump into a dimension where the world is perpetually in the early fifties. The impish auteur (also great collaborator) is eager to see what some of his favorite directors and writers would do with his material. He gives a vague outline of Reservoir Dogs to Carl Foreman. Bitter over the HUAC hearings of 1947, Forman takes the idea of the mole cop and turns it into a commentary on witch hunting (like the Crucible set in the American West… with action and no weeping, whining, or three hour yawn-fest… just kidding). Production: The studio loved the concept and saw Anthony Mann as the director. His surprising presentation of the morally grey double agents in T – Men and his success as a visual director of both noir and westerns would yield a fantastic visual motif. Foreman set the film in an abandoned camp… rumored to have once been a lush valley, the area is now a barren gorge of salt (Hence Gomorrah Gorge though the studio would want to back off of this title… hence the title of Guthrie's song). Mann shot the film in the Colombia River Gorge and the surrounding desert like region of Eastern Washington. It was more visually arresting than the Rocky Mountain back drop of The Naked Spur. Rewrites: Leigh Brackett (script doctor supreme: The Big Sleep, Rio Bravo, The Empire Strikes Back) is hired to tone down the political commentary and add some sex appeal. Miss Brackett split the role of Nice Guy Eddy (now Cow Puncher Bob) into two roles: Two siblings competing for their father's approval (much like Duel in the Sun) Cow Puncher Bob, a slick but incompetent rustler, and Grifter Gurdy, modeled after Lauren Bacall's con women / gambler characters from To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep. The love triangle between Cub, Timber Wolf, and Grifter Gurdy pleased the studio (however they were angered when they saw Anthony Mann's finished product because of the homosexual overtones that Clift brought out in the mentor relationship between Cub and Timber Wolf). Casting: Gary Cooper as Mr. White/ Timber Wolf: Cooper's leadership and bravery in taking a role that John Wayne thought was un-American is stellar, comparable only to his work on High Noon. Cooper's earnest desire to save the dying "Cub" is palpable. And his seeming asexuality highlights Clift's subversive performance. Montgomery Clift as Mr. Orange / Cub: Mann chose Clift because of the actor's work in Red River. His youth and energy light up as the conflicted double agent. And the women love him in those chaps (this is why the studio eventually shelved the film, which was never to see the light of day) Jack Palance as Mr. Blonde / Coyote: Actor Alan Ladd happened to see the dailies of The Wolves of Gomorrah Gorge before the studio locked them away. The star was so impressed by Palance's cool contained rage that he forced Shane director George Stevens to put Palance on the short list for the role of Jack Wilson. The rest, as they say, is history Denis O'Keefe / Loren Bacall as Nice Guy Eddy / Cow Puncher Bob / Grifter Gurdy: O'Keefe's star had fallen a bit after poor reviews of Mann's Raw Deal. Mann liked to see the suave actor portray slick con men (part of his role in T – Men) so he snuck him into the film despite argument from the studio. Bacall was obvious due to Brackett's revisions, however Jennifer Jones was considered until Mann saw and disliked her in King Vidor's Duel in the Sun. Dean Martin as Mr. Pink / Skunk: Martin was originally offered the role of Coyote. Mann thought his cool domineer would create great contrast between the perception of the character and his violent actions. Dean Martin's record label was afraid that their star was being derogatively stereotyped… an Italian in the role of an evil thief, gangster and ear removing murderer (though Frank thought it would be o.k.). Dino opted to go with the drunken comic relief instead. The scene during the second act brake where he belts out "The Ballad of the Scavengers of Dry Gorge" to the nervous thieves pined down in the gorge by the Cavalry (eerily similar to a scene in Rio Bravo) is something I wish all could see. In the time line of the story this is where Coyote removes the young deputy's ear… off camera and covered in vague dialog. Jimmy Stewart as Joe Cabot. As always the elder statesmen Stewart gave his all in a both commanding and haunting performance as the ring leader of the train robbery gang (this would be the beginning of the psychologically conflicted, obsessive characters Stewart would be remembered for: Vertigo and The Naked Spur). Only Jimmy Stewart could corral these wild wolves. Though on the set for just a few days this cameo would prove to form a lasting friendship and yield much collaboration between Mann and Stewart. Ralph Meeker as Mr. Brown / Hyena: Ah crazy Ralph Meeker. I think if you watch Kiss Me Deadly or The Naked Spur you can see why he would be fantastic spouting off long, near incoherent, hyper macho dialog trying to get approval from the other thieves. He's a forgotten American treasure (And from MPLS!!! Walter Brennen as Mr. Blue / Grey Wolf: It's hard to imagine a western with out Walter Brennen playing the old coot that tells the hero they are full of it. In this film he is taunting poor Dean Martin for his alcohol problems: Joe Cabot (Jimmy Stewart): And you're Skunk. Skunk (Dean Martin): AH… now that ain't even a Wolf, Joe?! Grey Wolf (Walter Brennen): Ye don't gits ta be no Wolf cas' ya stink ta' high heaven boy. (High pitch HEYUCK sound… repeat). Meebe if ya lay of that HOOCH ya could be a wolf. Right now yas just a smelly varmint (continues laughing). Skunk (Dean Martin): Ah cram it old timer! (Skunk shoots at Grey Wolf and misses). Joe Cabot (Jimmy Stewart): Knock it off you two! Now (stutter) Now where was I… oh yeah the train. Alfred Ryder as Young Cop who gets his ear cut off (Deputy who gets his ear cut off… off camera [revealed in illusive dialog]): Alfred Ryder played the other undercover agent in Anthony Mann's T – Men. His character is found out and killed by the gangsters he is trying to infiltrate. His ability to show both competence as an agent for the government and fear as a mortal in trouble is HAUNTING. Ward Bond as Holdaway (Mr. Orange's Undercover training officer) (Sheriff Holdaway): Much like Walter Brennen, it's not a great western unless you've got Ward Bond (high school football team mate of John Wayne, famous for his roles in many of Wayne's films such as the Calvary Captain/ Reverend Samuel Johnston Clayton in The Searchers). Carl Foreman envisioned this part as a Fortinbras like character that the thieves would talk about but would only appear on screen a few times to create suspense. Sheriff Holdaway leads the posse that traps the bandits in Gomorrah Gorge, which forces Cub, Timber Wolf, and Grifter Gurdy to play their final hands. Hank Worden as Bumbling Train Operator: Foreman didn't go for the flash back structure of Tarantino's outline. His story is much more linear, leaving Cub's allegiance a mystery. He replaces the drawn out training sequence in Reservoir Dogs with the train heist that Tarantino was too cleaver to bother with. It was played for both laughs and action. Most of the laughs came from Hank Worden who some of you will remember as Mose Harper in The Searchers ("thank you… thaaank you kindly"), but more of you will remember as senior drool cup (ancient room service guy) in Twin Peaks ("thank you… thaaank you kindly"). That's it. Thanks for reading all of this non-sense.

Spout Tag:love

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT

love
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

Spout Tag:funny

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT

funny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

Spout Tag:Classic

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

Spout Tag:comedy

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT

comedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

Spout Tag:family

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT

family
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

Spout Tag:Loved-It

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT

Loved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

Spout Tag:war

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT

war
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

Spout Tag:beautiful

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT

beautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

Spout Tag:brilliant

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT

brilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

Spout Tag:fantasy

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT

fantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

Spout Tag:action

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT

action
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

Spout Tag:sci-fi

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT

sci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

Spout Tag:masterpiece

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT

masterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

Spout Tag:personal-classic

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT

personal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

Spout Tag:space

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT

space
Number of films tagged: 495

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 140