list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Field of Dreams on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Field_of_Dreams/11438/default.aspx Title: Field of Dreams
Year: 1989
Director: Phil Alden Robinson
Plot: "If you build it, he will come." That's the ethereal message that inspires Iowa farmer Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) to construct a baseball diamond in the middle of his cornfield. At first, "he" seems to be the ghost of disgraced ballplayer Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta), who materializes on the ballfield and plays a few games with the awestruck Ray. But as the weeks go by, Ray receives several other messages from a disembodied voice, one of which is "Ease his pain." He realizes that his ballfield has been divinely ordained to give a second chance to people who have sacrificed certain valuable aspects of their lives. One of these folks is Salingeresque writer Terence Mann (James Earl Jones), whom Ray kidnaps and takes to a ball game and then to his farm. Another is Doc Graham (Burt Lancaster), a beloved general practitioner who gave up a burgeoning baseball career in favor of medicine. The final "second-chancer" turns out to be much closer to Ray. That "magical" field in Dyersville, Iowa still draws thousands of baseball-happy tourists each year. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 54
Number of Lists: 45
Number of blog posts: 7
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 10 May 2009 21:10:28 GMTField of Dreams1989Phil Alden Robinson"If you build it, he will come." That's the ethereal message that inspires Iowa farmer Ray Kinsella (<a href="/players/P____15189/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Costner</a>) to construct a baseball diamond in the middle of his cornfield. At first, "he" seems to be the ghost of disgraced ballplayer Shoeless Joe Jackson (<a href="/players/P____42611/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ray Liotta</a>), who materializes on the ballfield and plays a few games with the awestruck Ray. But as the weeks go by, Ray receives several other messages from a disembodied voice, one of which is "Ease his pain." He realizes that his ballfield has been divinely ordained to give a second chance to people who have sacrificed certain valuable aspects of their lives. One of these folks is <I>Salingeresque</I> writer Terence Mann (<a href="/players/P____36131/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Earl Jones</a>), whom Ray kidnaps and takes to a ball game and then to his farm. Another is Doc Graham (<a href="/players/P____98588/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Burt Lancaster</a>), a beloved general practitioner who gave up a burgeoning baseball career in favor of medicine. The final "second-chancer" turns out to be much closer to Ray. That "magical" field in Dyersville, Iowa still draws thousands of baseball-happy tourists each year. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide54Tag Target (>10)45783http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88891qfb32.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Field_of_Dreams/11438/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/1/41957.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/1/2009 5:31:00 PM
Body: "Ray" (Kevin Costner) is an Iowan corn farmer who has regrets -- the biggest of which is fixing his relationship with his estranged father (Dwier Brown). One day, "Ray" is in his cornfield, with his wife (Amy Madigan) and daughter (Gaby Hoffmann, in her motion picture debut) sitting on the deck of their home, he hears a voice come from out of nowhere say to him "if you build it, he will come." After some thought on what the voice meant, he begins to believe that he has to tear down part of his cornfield and build a regulation baseball field. This causes what can only be described as the ghost of disgraced baseball legend "'Shoeless' Joe Jackson" (Ray Liotta), as well as other deceased players to come play on that field. He then goes on a journey that takes him across the country, where he meets with a once popular 1960's author (James Earl Jones), and two versions of the same man who played only one -half of an inning in his major league career without ever getting up to bat (younger version -- Frank Whaley/older version -- the legendary Burt Lancaster). These people help "Ray" in his journey to find peace with the mistakes of his past that have been eating him up inside for his adult life. There is a lot of symbolism in this film. Most notably, the ballfield, which represents Heaven. Each of the characters which "Ray" encounters in his soul search also symbolise various things. There are many fine performances in this film -- Costner, Jones and, of course, Lancaster are possibly the best. Madigan does a fine performance as well, and seems to have pretty good chemistry with Costner. Nothing really stands out in the visuals. At the beginning, when "Ray" is visualizing the baseball field, it is very obvious that the field was added in during post-production, and looks quite fake. There is a really good visual at the very end of the movie which Jones' character refers to in a very well delivered monologue. The only real problem with this movie is that it's very, very slow. Many of the scenes seem to lag considerably and just feel like the go on much longer than they should. There are no action scenes in this film, so don't expect any fast-paced scenes. Another problem with the film is character development. This is best seen with the character named "Mark," who is only there to try to get "Ray" to sell the farm. He seems that he is only interested in business more than family for 99.99% of the film in the very few scenes he's in. There are also other characters who just fill in the background of scenes or interact with the main character and not help advance the plot of the movie. For a sports-themed movie, this is certainly a "chick flick." But men and women will feel the emotion of the film.
]]>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:31:00 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/1/2009 5:31:00 PM"Ray" (Kevin Costner) is an Iowan corn farmer who has regrets -- the biggest of which is fixing his relationship with his estranged father (Dwier Brown). One day, "Ray" is in his cornfield, with his wife (Amy Madigan) and daughter (Gaby Hoffmann, in her motion picture debut) sitting on the deck of their home, he hears a voice come from out of nowhere say to him "if you build it, he will come." After some thought on what the voice meant, he begins to believe that he has to tear down part of his cornfield and build a regulation baseball field. This causes what can only be described as the ghost of disgraced baseball legend "'Shoeless' Joe Jackson" (Ray Liotta), as well as other deceased players to come play on that field. He then goes on a journey that takes him across the country, where he meets with a once popular 1960's author (James Earl Jones), and two versions of the same man who played only one -half of an inning in his major league career without ever getting up to bat (younger version -- Frank Whaley/older version -- the legendary Burt Lancaster). These people help "Ray" in his journey to find peace with the mistakes of his past that have been eating him up inside for his adult life. There is a lot of symbolism in this film. Most notably, the ballfield, which represents Heaven. Each of the characters which "Ray" encounters in his soul search also symbolise various things. There are many fine performances in this film -- Costner, Jones and, of course, Lancaster are possibly the best. Madigan does a fine performance as well, and seems to have pretty good chemistry with Costner. Nothing really stands out in the visuals. At the beginning, when "Ray" is visualizing the baseball field, it is very obvious that the field was added in during post-production, and looks quite fake. There is a really good visual at the very end of the movie which Jones' character refers to in a very well delivered monologue. The only real problem with this movie is that it's very, very slow. Many of the scenes seem to lag considerably and just feel like the go on much longer than they should. There are no action scenes in this film, so don't expect any fast-paced scenes. Another problem with the film is character development. This is best seen with the character named "Mark," who is only there to try to get "Ray" to sell the farm. He seems that he is only interested in business more than family for 99.99% of the film in the very few scenes he's in. There are also other characters who just fill in the background of scenes or interact with the main character and not help advance the plot of the movie. For a sports-themed movie, this is certainly a "chick flick." But men and women will feel the emotion of the film. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_15_This_Sporting_Li/625/35184/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Tizzy
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 9/15/2008 9:51:16 PM
Body: Add Rudy to that list as well (which also goes on my list of movies I resisted, resisted, resisted, then watched against my will and actually liked).
]]>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:51:16 GMTTizzyWeekly Theme9/15/2008 9:51:16 PMAdd Rudy to that list as well (which also goes on my list of movies I resisted, resisted, resisted, then watched against my will and actually liked). http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_15_This_Sporting_Li/625/35176/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 9/15/2008 6:03:09 PM
Body: The Bad News Bears was classic. I also liked the remake. I really liked Field of Dreams. But I thought Hoosiers was a bit better for a dramatic sports movie. Adam Sandler's done a few sports movie, Happy Gilmore, and The Waterboy. As far as I'm concerned, football and baseball are just filler sports to get me through until basketball season starts. Hoop Dreams and Through the Fire are a couple of good roundball documentaries.
]]>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:03:09 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme9/15/2008 6:03:09 PMThe Bad News Bears was classic. I also liked the remake. I really liked Field of Dreams. But I thought Hoosiers was a bit better for a dramatic sports movie. Adam Sandler's done a few sports movie, Happy Gilmore, and The Waterboy. As far as I'm concerned, football and baseball are just filler sports to get me through until basketball season starts. Hoop Dreams and Through the Fire are a couple of good roundball documentaries. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_September_15_This_Sporting_Life/625/35173/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 9/15/2008 5:06:51 PM
Body: Seeing as how my local pub that normally remains relatively dormant throughout the week is suddenly aswarm with throngs of beer-bellied gargantuans painted a la Mel Gibson in Braveheart, the start of football season has begun and thus this week shall be dedicated to all things sport. Growing up I succumbed to the multitude of G-rated sports flicks like The Mighty Ducks, Little Big League, Ladybugs and The Sandlot. Some of which I even find myself watching again these days when nothing else seems to be on television. I unapologetically admit to liking those sappy romantic comedies disguised as a sport movies like The Cutting Edge, Bend It Like Beckham, Aspen Extreme and Goal! However with Caddyshack a close second, A League of Their Own and Field of Dreams definitely tie for the number one sport films in my opinion. So lace up your cleats and get to discussing your favorite sports themed films!
]]>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:06:51 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme9/15/2008 5:06:51 PMSeeing as how my local pub that normally remains relatively dormant throughout the week is suddenly aswarm with throngs of beer-bellied gargantuans painted a la Mel Gibson in Braveheart, the start of football season has begun and thus this week shall be dedicated to all things sport. Growing up I succumbed to the multitude of G-rated sports flicks like The Mighty Ducks, Little Big League, Ladybugs and The Sandlot. Some of which I even find myself watching again these days when nothing else seems to be on television. I unapologetically admit to liking those sappy romantic comedies disguised as a sport movies like The Cutting Edge, Bend It Like Beckham, Aspen Extreme and Goal! However with Caddyshack a close second, A League of Their Own and Field of Dreams definitely tie for the number one sport films in my opinion. So lace up your cleats and get to discussing your favorite sports themed films! http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/26/31754.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/26/2008 7:00:44 PM
Body: As with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of “fantasy”, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as “fables”, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are “inhabit” and “experience”. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve “live-action characters” in “imagined settings” or “situations that transcend the rules of the natural world” (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not “actually” happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a “fantasy” does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic “reality” or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the “mystery” category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about “fables” as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about “fantasy,” and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:44 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/26/2008 7:00:44 PMAs with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo;, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as &ldquo;fables&rdquo;, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are &ldquo;inhabit&rdquo; and &ldquo;experience&rdquo;. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve &ldquo;live-action characters&rdquo; in &ldquo;imagined settings&rdquo; or &ldquo;situations that transcend the rules of the natural world&rdquo; (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not &ldquo;actually&rdquo; happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo; does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic &ldquo;reality&rdquo; or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the &ldquo;mystery&rdquo; category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about &ldquo;fables&rdquo; as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about &ldquo;fantasy,&rdquo; and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/19/31401.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/19/2008 1:01:19 AM
Body: The sports Top 10 is a difficult list to assess. How many truly good sports movies are there, and I ask this as a sports fan? Raging Bull (1980) is arguably the greatest film of the 1980s, and Rocky (1976) was a little labor of love, far from the semi-joke blockbuster that it is often remembered as in light of its sequels. They likely deserve their places at the top of the list, especially Raging Bull. As to the rest of the films, I have a lot of affection for Breaking Away (1979) and really, it's a lovely little film that I'd put higher on the list. I also like Hoosiers (1986) and Bull Durham (1988), but they both have obvious flaws (as Anne-Marie noted, the basketball film falls short in its depiction of the on-the-court action; the final is especially poorly paced and shot and edited in an oblique way. I've always thought that Bull Durham's final act stretched on a little too long, needlessly deferring Annie and Crash's final settling in together). For the remainder, well, I don't have much good or much bad to say about any of them; I can see why each ended up on the list, with the possible exception of Jerry Maguire (1996), which seems a stretch as a sports film even by the AFI's definition (“a genre of films with protagonists who play athletics or other games of competition” - I don't see how either of the leads meet this standard). However, I would struggle to find a replacement. Tin Cup (1996)? Cross-apply Field of Dreams (1989) from the fantasy list? How about Downhill Racer (1969) or Slap Shot (1977)? (And I'll just admit right now that I have nothing to say about football films as I don't care or know much about the game). I dunno. I think that this genre is doubly cursed for being both a genre and about sports, two aspects of American life that are seen as culturally “lesser” in many circles. So, as a result, you get films that are either goofy comedies or fairly predictable dramas. The best films on the AFI Top 10 do better than that, but only Raging Bull, I think, can be considered great cinema. Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:01:19 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/19/2008 1:01:19 AMThe sports Top 10 is a difficult list to assess. How many truly good sports movies are there, and I ask this as a sports fan? Raging Bull (1980) is arguably the greatest film of the 1980s, and Rocky (1976) was a little labor of love, far from the semi-joke blockbuster that it is often remembered as in light of its sequels. They likely deserve their places at the top of the list, especially Raging Bull. As to the rest of the films, I have a lot of affection for Breaking Away (1979) and really, it's a lovely little film that I'd put higher on the list. I also like Hoosiers (1986) and Bull Durham (1988), but they both have obvious flaws (as Anne-Marie noted, the basketball film falls short in its depiction of the on-the-court action; the final is especially poorly paced and shot and edited in an oblique way. I've always thought that Bull Durham's final act stretched on a little too long, needlessly deferring Annie and Crash's final settling in together). For the remainder, well, I don't have much good or much bad to say about any of them; I can see why each ended up on the list, with the possible exception of Jerry Maguire (1996), which seems a stretch as a sports film even by the AFI's definition (“a genre of films with protagonists who play athletics or other games of competition” - I don't see how either of the leads meet this standard). However, I would struggle to find a replacement. Tin Cup (1996)? Cross-apply Field of Dreams (1989) from the fantasy list? How about Downhill Racer (1969) or Slap Shot (1977)? (And I'll just admit right now that I have nothing to say about football films as I don't care or know much about the game). I dunno. I think that this genre is doubly cursed for being both a genre and about sports, two aspects of American life that are seen as culturally “lesser” in many circles. So, as a result, you get films that are either goofy comedies or fairly predictable dramas. The best films on the AFI Top 10 do better than that, but only Raging Bull, I think, can be considered great cinema. Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/unclefestering/archive/2008/5/13/28947.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: unclefestering Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 3:43:21 PM
Body: Eight Men Out is probably my favorite baseball movie. It isn't a simple movie. It doesn't turn the players into shining heroes who were framed by the man. (If you want that movie watch The Natural (1984) with its cleaned up, bloodless ending.) These guys are barely making ends meet while the White Sox owner is raking it in. When a group of gamblers offers them big money to throw the series, they see their chance not only to get their cut, but revenge on the guy they see as cheating them. That's when their victory turns to ashes in their mouths. The movie doesn't shy away from the fact that they are in the wrong or the price they pay for their decisions. There is no Field of Dreams (1989) for these guys. There isn' even the redemption that Crash Davis gets in Bull Durham (1988). But this movie is spellbinding in its heartbreak.
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 19:43:21 GMTunclefesteringunclefestering Blog5/13/2008 3:43:21 PMEight Men Out is probably my favorite baseball movie. It isn't a simple movie. It doesn't turn the players into shining heroes who were framed by the man. (If you want that movie watch The Natural (1984) with its cleaned up, bloodless ending.) These guys are barely making ends meet while the White Sox owner is raking it in. When a group of gamblers offers them big money to throw the series, they see their chance not only to get their cut, but revenge on the guy they see as cheating them. That's when their victory turns to ashes in their mouths. The movie doesn't shy away from the fact that they are in the wrong or the price they pay for their decisions. There is no Field of Dreams (1989) for these guys. There isn' even the redemption that Crash Davis gets in Bull Durham (1988). But this movie is spellbinding in its heartbreak. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/1/10/23734.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 1/10/2008 2:36:20 PM
Body: This blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown”. To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry.Sweet Smell of SuccessThis movie took a lot of warming up to. I didn't know what was going on or how people were related to each other for probably at least the first third of the movie. I guess I put it all together well enough by the end for it to be satisfying. Or at least the characters were strong enough by that point that it didn't really matter. Still, I'm kind of surprised this movie has as high of ratings as I've read. It has an 8.2 on IMDB. It's a good movie, but I wouldn't have guessed it was such a stand-out.I'm pretty sure this is the first movie I've seen with Burt Lancaster in it too. (Wait hold that. After a check I found out he was in Field of Dreams, but I can't remember that movie too well nor did I like it much.) Anyways he certainly wasn't the charming swashbuckler I seemed to have as a typical image of him as a character, but he was imposing.Rating: 8/10
]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:36:20 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog1/10/2008 2:36:20 PMThis blog entry is part of my &ldquo;movie year countdown&rdquo;. To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry.Sweet Smell of SuccessThis movie took a lot of warming up to. I didn&#39;t know what was going on or how people were related to each other for probably at least the first third of the movie. I guess I put it all together well enough by the end for it to be satisfying. Or at least the characters were strong enough by that point that it didn&#39;t really matter. Still, I&#39;m kind of surprised this movie has as high of ratings as I&#39;ve read. It has an 8.2 on IMDB. It&#39;s a good movie, but I wouldn&#39;t have guessed it was such a stand-out.I&#39;m pretty sure this is the first movie I&#39;ve seen with Burt Lancaster in it too. (Wait hold that. After a check I found out he was in Field of Dreams, but I can&#39;t remember that movie too well nor did I like it much.) Anyways he certainly wasn&#39;t the charming swashbuckler I seemed to have as a typical image of him as a character, but he was imposing.Rating: 8/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/eagle795/archive/2007/8/29/19078.aspx Post By: eagle795
Post To: eagle795 Blog
Post Date: 8/29/2007 12:43:31 AM
Body: Without a doubt Kevin Costner’s best work. Watch this movie with your Dad. You’ll understand after the amazing last scene, which reveals the whole point of the movie (and always makes me misty & choked up).
]]>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:43:31 GMTeagle795eagle795 Blog8/29/2007 12:43:31 AMWithout a doubt Kevin Costner&rsquo;s best work. Watch this movie with your Dad. You&rsquo;ll understand after the amazing last scene, which reveals the whole point of the movie (and always makes me misty &amp; choked up). http://www.spout.com/blogs/demndiary/archive/2007/8/11/17836.aspx Post By: Demndiary
Post To: Demndiary Blog
Post Date: 8/11/2007 10:55:00 AM
Body: Paul Morrison's Wondrous Oblivion wants to be many things. It wants to be a period piece about Post WWII England. It wants to be an underdog sports story like a children's Field of Dreams. It wants to be a story about classism and racism. It wants to be a growing up piece like Stand by Me. It wants to be an adult drama about an interracial affair. It wants to be many things, but it is very few. The story is told from the point of view of David Wiseman, an optimistic, naive boy who loves cricket and little else. David is played by Sam Smith who is too bright-eyed and bushytailed throughout the movie. He also has too clean an English accent to reflect his German roots. David is an underdog who really doesn't come alive until the Samuels move in next door. David's relationship with Judy Samuels (Leonie Elliot) is kind, but is shoved down the viewer's throat. David's relationship with Dennis Samuels (Delroy Lindo) is much easier to believe. Ruth Wiseman (Emily Woof) also delivers a great performance, but it is never given the chance to develop into a full story. Ruth gets into an intimate relationship with Dennis. Although it is given many scenes, it never is given a resolution. It disappears to make an idealistic ending to the film. Wondrous Oblivion is also riddled with many technical flaws. The first is everyone either whispers or speaks with a thick accent. The accents are pushed too strong that it makes it difficult to understand what is being said, even by the English characters. Second, it takes too long to explain Cricket to the audience. The film assumes the viewer is a fan, knows the rules, and knows the players. For an American audience those are too many assumptions. The audience understands David's love of the game, but is not given a chance to understand the basics of the game itself. It's like watching Field of Dreams when you grew up knowing archery as the only sport. A ball, bat and field are foreign. Last, it fills the story with too much classism, racism and religious intolerance. One second the viewer is being hit with older schoolboys bullying a black ticket taker, the next David is reading the Torah. A narrower field would have lightened the load for the viewer and saved more of the story and the acting. Wondrous Oblivion is colorful, cute and wants to be dark and dreadful. It is a children's film that desires to be a morbid, somber adult film. It fails at being both.
]]>Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:55:00 GMTDemndiaryDemndiary Blog8/11/2007 10:55:00 AMPaul Morrison&#39;s Wondrous Oblivion wants to be many things. It wants to be a period piece about Post WWII England. It wants to be an underdog sports story like a children&#39;s Field of Dreams. It wants to be a story about classism and racism. It wants to be a growing up piece like Stand by Me. It wants to be an adult drama about an interracial affair. It wants to be many things, but it is very few. The story is told from the point of view of David Wiseman, an optimistic, naive boy who loves cricket and little else. David is played by Sam Smith who is too bright-eyed and bushytailed throughout the movie. He also has too clean an English accent to reflect his German roots. David is an underdog who really doesn&#39;t come alive until the Samuels move in next door. David&#39;s relationship with Judy Samuels (Leonie Elliot) is kind, but is shoved down the viewer&#39;s throat. David&#39;s relationship with Dennis Samuels (Delroy Lindo) is much easier to believe. Ruth Wiseman (Emily Woof) also delivers a great performance, but it is never given the chance to develop into a full story. Ruth gets into an intimate relationship with Dennis. Although it is given many scenes, it never is given a resolution. It disappears to make an idealistic ending to the film. Wondrous Oblivion is also riddled with many technical flaws. The first is everyone either whispers or speaks with a thick accent. The accents are pushed too strong that it makes it difficult to understand what is being said, even by the English characters. Second, it takes too long to explain Cricket to the audience. The film assumes the viewer is a fan, knows the rules, and knows the players. For an American audience those are too many assumptions. The audience understands David&#39;s love of the game, but is not given a chance to understand the basics of the game itself. It&#39;s like watching Field of Dreams when you grew up knowing archery as the only sport. A ball, bat and field are foreign. Last, it fills the story with too much classism, racism and religious intolerance. One second the viewer is being hit with older schoolboys bullying a black ticket taker, the next David is reading the Torah. A narrower field would have lightened the load for the viewer and saved more of the story and the acting. Wondrous Oblivion is colorful, cute and wants to be dark and dreadful. It is a children&#39;s film that desires to be a morbid, somber adult film. It fails at being both. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7161

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1003

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT71611691003Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghost/MemberTagFilms.aspxghost
Number of films tagged: 1219

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:06 GMT121958137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dreams/MemberTagFilms.aspxdreams
Number of films tagged: 279

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:25:32 GMT2795096Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/baseball/MemberTagFilms.aspxbaseball
Number of films tagged: 914

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 84

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:28:02 GMT9144284Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghosts/MemberTagFilms.aspxghosts
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:29:59 GMT584279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writer/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriter
Number of films tagged: 869

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 89

]]>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:37:08 GMT8694189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/son/MemberTagFilms.aspxson
Number of films tagged: 2321

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:06 GMT232140111Tag