Meet Joe Black's Recent Activity

list Meet Joe Black's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Meet Joe Black on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg Meet Joe Black's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 Film:Meet Joe Black http://www.spout.com/films/Meet_Joe_Black/114714/default.aspx

Title: Meet Joe Black
Year: 1998
Director: Martin Brest
Plot: The cycle of life on Earth hangs in the balance when Death becomes emotionally involved in this romantic fantasy. William Parrish (Anthony Hopkins) is a tremendously wealthy and powerful man who oversees a worldwide multi-media empire. Despite the loss of his wife, whom he dearly loved, William is content with his life, and he's very close to his two daughters, Allison (Marcia Gay Harden) and Susan (Claire Forlaini). One night, as William is fighting a hostile takeover of his company and Allison is planning an elaborate party to celebrate her dad's 65th birthday, William begins displaying the symptoms of a severe heart attack, and he is visited by a mysterious stranger, Joe Black (Brad Pitt). Joe is actually the angel of death, who has taken the form of a man who recently passed on to pay William a call. It seems that William is due to move on to the next world, but (no great surprise) he doesn't want to go. Joe, on the other hand, is curious to know what life is like for mere mortals, so the two men strike a deal -- William will have some time to get his affairs in order, and Joe will wait and see what it's like to be a human being. Joe decides that he likes it very much when he falls in love with Susan, but negotiating the slippery slopes of romance is no easier for Joe than for any ordinary man. Meet Joe Black is an updated version of Alberto Casella's play Death Takes a Holiday, which was adapted for the screen in 1934. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 21
Number of Lists: 28
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:47:46 GMTMeet Joe Black1998Martin BrestThe cycle of life on Earth hangs in the balance when Death becomes emotionally involved in this romantic fantasy. William Parrish (<a href="/players/P____94812/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Hopkins</a>) is a tremendously wealthy and powerful man who oversees a worldwide multi-media empire. Despite the loss of his wife, whom he dearly loved, William is content with his life, and he's very close to his two daughters, Allison (<a href="/players/P____30312/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marcia Gay Harden</a>) and Susan (Claire Forlaini). One night, as William is fighting a hostile takeover of his company and Allison is planning an elaborate party to celebrate her dad's 65th birthday, William begins displaying the symptoms of a severe heart attack, and he is visited by a mysterious stranger, Joe Black (<a href="/players/P____56988/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brad Pitt</a>). Joe is actually the angel of death, who has taken the form of a man who recently passed on to pay William a call. It seems that William is due to move on to the next world, but (no great surprise) he doesn't want to go. Joe, on the other hand, is curious to know what life is like for mere mortals, so the two men strike a deal -- William will have some time to get his affairs in order, and Joe will wait and see what it's like to be a human being. Joe decides that he likes it very much when he falls in love with Susan, but negotiating the slippery slopes of romance is no easier for Joe than for any ordinary man. Meet Joe Black is an updated version of <a href="/players/P___316502/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alberto Casella</a>'s play Death Takes a Holiday, which was adapted for the screen in 1934. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide21Tag Target (>10)28233http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u34950utdmf.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Meet_Joe_Black/114714/default.aspxFilm Spout Post: 'Reading' is fun and mental http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/9/14/35134.aspx

Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 9/14/2008 10:36:27 PM
Body: I can envision moviegoers exiting “Burn After Reading” with the same befuddlement some have stated upon witnessing Joel and Ethan Coen's Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men.” In fact, the directors are gracious enough to have one of the characters (a hilariously deadpan J.K. Simmons) say it for them: “So just what have we learned from all this?” His fellow C.I.A. officer squirms and kind of shrugs. I could sense the audience grumbling in agreement. But I could not join my fellow patrons in their dissatisfaction, for “Reading” was as unexpected, meandering, and precision-crafted as any of the brothers' comedic outputs. And it was a hell of a lot of fun. In fact, if I may commit an act of heresy amidst my fellow film-loving friends, I had more enjoyable time here than on my initial viewing of “The Big Lebowski.” While it may fall in the middle of the Coens comedic library (wedged above “The Hudsucker Proxy” and slightly below “Fargo” -- with “Raising Arizona” being the pinnacle, and “The Ladykillers the nadir), it's worth it if only for the inspired insanity they allow from their cast, better known for its dramatic endeavors. Those who seek sleek narrative construction in a Coen Brothers film are more likely to find an Oscar on the shelf of Larry The Cable Guy. For they have spent the latter part of their careers rearranging the blocks of structure, repeatedly flipping the bird to cinematic expectations. They make it clear that in “Reading” we are not entering the world in which you and I dwell. It is far distanced from the harsh realism that soaked “No Country.” Sure, they look like humans we may recognize, but they are more akin to live-action cartoons. John Malkovich plays an uptight C.I.A. Desk monkey named Osbourne Cox who is unceremoniously dumped from his rather slight job within the agency. In a profanity-filled tantrum, he stomps out, threatening to burn things to its foundation with a scathing tell-all. Unfortunately, Cox is but a mere Dilbert-esque drone whose words ring rather hollow to an indifferent employer. Things are no better at home, either. His zamboni of a wife (Tilda Swinton) icily plows over his every statement, paving over it with her own dilemmas, like, did he pick up the right cheese for the evening's dinner party. She wants things picture-perfect, for one of the guests in Harry Pfarrer (played by George Clooney), a married, philandering Treasury employee proud of the fact that he's never fired his gun in 20 years of service and an apparent connoisseur of hardwood floors. As their affair deepens, Cox's wife secretly begins amassing information from her husband's various accounts to hand over to her divorce lawyer. The information is compiled on a compact disc that gets left on the floor of Hardbodies Gym, which had the misfortune of having Chad Feldheimer (played by Brad Pitt) and Linda Lidzke (played by Frances McDormand) as employees. Chad, with hair piled high like an encroaching tidal wave, gets it into his whiffle-ball-like head that this disc's owner must be really important because there are lots of numbers and codes and stuff located within (to Chad, a disc of Sudoku puzzles would be equally confusing). Linda, who longs for a series of expensive plastic surgeries to battle time is more than happy to be his accomplice in trying to extort cash for the found information. The series of events that unfold are, at turns, hysterical, violent (sometimes simultaneously), irreverent and irrelevant. It's the enthusiasm in which each actors attacks his or her role that stokes “Reading's” flames. McDormand is so caught up in her attempts at vanity, she's blind to a fellow employee who not-so-subtly longs for her; Clooney successfully hides his striking features under a number of obnoxious tics and crippling paranoia; Malkovich is at his arrogant best, referring to his self-indulgent musings of life at the agency as his phonetically correct “mem-wah.” But from the moment he bops onto the screen about 20 minutes into the picture, there is no mistaking that this is Pitt's picture. When confined to such dramatic mush as “Seven Years in Tibet,” “Meet Joe Black” and “Legends of the Fall,” the actor can come off as a stilted mannequin, hired more for marquee value. But throughout his career, in smaller roles such as “True Romance,” and “12 Monkeys” when he's able to let his freak flag fly, Pitt's a comedic tsunami. Nowhere is it more evident than in “Reading.” Chad is a man so blissfully unaware of just how over his head he is when he hatches his plot, it's surprising that he even remembers to wear pants in public. What you may not find in “Reading” is something that neatly wraps up it's tale in a traditional fashion. For some, this will be unforgivable, but for those who happily vibe along with the cast until, quite literally, the book is closed on this tale, they will find the eccentric comedy is just the right shade of black.
]]>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:36:27 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog9/14/2008 10:36:27 PMI can envision moviegoers exiting “Burn After Reading” with the same befuddlement some have stated upon witnessing Joel and Ethan Coen's Oscar-winning “No Country for Old Men.” In fact, the directors are gracious enough to have one of the characters (a hilariously deadpan J.K. Simmons) say it for them: “So just what have we learned from all this?” His fellow C.I.A. officer squirms and kind of shrugs. I could sense the audience grumbling in agreement. But I could not join my fellow patrons in their dissatisfaction, for “Reading” was as unexpected, meandering, and precision-crafted as any of the brothers' comedic outputs. And it was a hell of a lot of fun. In fact, if I may commit an act of heresy amidst my fellow film-loving friends, I had more enjoyable time here than on my initial viewing of “The Big Lebowski.” While it may fall in the middle of the Coens comedic library (wedged above “The Hudsucker Proxy” and slightly below “Fargo” -- with “Raising Arizona” being the pinnacle, and “The Ladykillers the nadir), it's worth it if only for the inspired insanity they allow from their cast, better known for its dramatic endeavors. Those who seek sleek narrative construction in a Coen Brothers film are more likely to find an Oscar on the shelf of Larry The Cable Guy. For they have spent the latter part of their careers rearranging the blocks of structure, repeatedly flipping the bird to cinematic expectations. They make it clear that in “Reading” we are not entering the world in which you and I dwell. It is far distanced from the harsh realism that soaked “No Country.” Sure, they look like humans we may recognize, but they are more akin to live-action cartoons. John Malkovich plays an uptight C.I.A. Desk monkey named Osbourne Cox who is unceremoniously dumped from his rather slight job within the agency. In a profanity-filled tantrum, he stomps out, threatening to burn things to its foundation with a scathing tell-all. Unfortunately, Cox is but a mere Dilbert-esque drone whose words ring rather hollow to an indifferent employer. Things are no better at home, either. His zamboni of a wife (Tilda Swinton) icily plows over his every statement, paving over it with her own dilemmas, like, did he pick up the right cheese for the evening's dinner party. She wants things picture-perfect, for one of the guests in Harry Pfarrer (played by George Clooney), a married, philandering Treasury employee proud of the fact that he's never fired his gun in 20 years of service and an apparent connoisseur of hardwood floors. As their affair deepens, Cox's wife secretly begins amassing information from her husband's various accounts to hand over to her divorce lawyer. The information is compiled on a compact disc that gets left on the floor of Hardbodies Gym, which had the misfortune of having Chad Feldheimer (played by Brad Pitt) and Linda Lidzke (played by Frances McDormand) as employees. Chad, with hair piled high like an encroaching tidal wave, gets it into his whiffle-ball-like head that this disc's owner must be really important because there are lots of numbers and codes and stuff located within (to Chad, a disc of Sudoku puzzles would be equally confusing). Linda, who longs for a series of expensive plastic surgeries to battle time is more than happy to be his accomplice in trying to extort cash for the found information. The series of events that unfold are, at turns, hysterical, violent (sometimes simultaneously), irreverent and irrelevant. It's the enthusiasm in which each actors attacks his or her role that stokes “Reading's” flames. McDormand is so caught up in her attempts at vanity, she's blind to a fellow employee who not-so-subtly longs for her; Clooney successfully hides his striking features under a number of obnoxious tics and crippling paranoia; Malkovich is at his arrogant best, referring to his self-indulgent musings of life at the agency as his phonetically correct “mem-wah.” But from the moment he bops onto the screen about 20 minutes into the picture, there is no mistaking that this is Pitt's picture. When confined to such dramatic mush as “Seven Years in Tibet,” “Meet Joe Black” and “Legends of the Fall,” the actor can come off as a stilted mannequin, hired more for marquee value. But throughout his career, in smaller roles such as “True Romance,” and “12 Monkeys” when he's able to let his freak flag fly, Pitt's a comedic tsunami. Nowhere is it more evident than in “Reading.” Chad is a man so blissfully unaware of just how over his head he is when he hatches his plot, it's surprising that he even remembers to wear pants in public. What you may not find in “Reading” is something that neatly wraps up it's tale in a traditional fashion. For some, this will be unforgivable, but for those who happily vibe along with the cast until, quite literally, the book is closed on this tale, they will find the eccentric comedy is just the right shade of black. Spout Post: 10 Worst Updates of 1930s Classics http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/9/34950.aspx

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog Spout Post: Re: angelina jolie http://www.spout.com/groups/Dish_Me_Up_Some/Re_angelina_jolie/332/10465/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: Dish Me Up Some
Post Date: 6/9/2007 1:36:42 AM
Body: Yes, I hope those children will be extremely fortunate and grow up with a lot of love (either from them or their nannies...lol). It seems they really love their children and the kids always seem happy when you see pictures of them, so I hope they will grow up well adjusted.You know, I have to say my favorite Angelina Jolie movie is Original Sin with Antonio Bandares (it might have been because of him) but I really thought it was a good movie. Lara Kroft Tomb Raider was a pretty fun movie as well as Mr. and Mrs. Smith too.Brad Pitt - sigh, I just love looking at him. I think he was good in Meet Joe Black and of course A River Runs Through it...
]]>Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:36:42 GMTdivinemsjunebugDish Me Up Some6/9/2007 1:36:42 AMYes, I hope those children will be extremely fortunate and grow up with a lot of love (either from them or their nannies...lol). It seems they really love their children and the kids always seem happy when you see pictures of them, so I hope they will grow up well adjusted.You know, I have to say my favorite Angelina Jolie movie is Original Sin with Antonio Bandares (it might have been because of him) but I really thought it was a good movie. Lara Kroft Tomb Raider was a pretty fun movie as well as Mr. and Mrs. Smith too.Brad Pitt - sigh, I just love looking at him. I think he was good in Meet Joe Black and of course A River Runs Through it... Spout Post: Re: Guess The Movie Quote http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_movie_quotes/Re_Guess_The_Movie_Quote/17/2857/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: squirtel
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 9/7/2006 6:40:45 PM
Body: How about Meet Joe Black?
]]>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:40:45 GMTsquirtelBest movie quotes9/7/2006 6:40:45 PMHow about Meet Joe Black? Spout Post: Re: Guess The Movie Quote http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_movie_quotes/Re_Guess_The_Movie_Quote/17/2578/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: paul
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 8/22/2006 11:57:17 AM
Body: Meet Joe Black.Garsh. Let's try out something more masculine.He went like this. We went like that. He said "Where'd he go?" I said, "Where'd who goooo?"
]]>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:57:17 GMTpaulBest movie quotes8/22/2006 11:57:17 AMMeet Joe Black.Garsh. Let's try out something more masculine.He went like this. We went like that. He said "Where'd he go?" I said, "Where'd who goooo?" Spout Tag:love 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 Spout Tag:Loved-It http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag Spout Tag:death http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag Spout Tag:it http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/it/MemberTagFilms.aspxit
Number of films tagged: 101

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:42:42 GMT101106117Tag Spout Tag:Boring http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag Spout Tag:masterpiece http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag Spout Tag:sad http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag Spout Tag:Best http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag Spout Tag:moving http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag Spout Tag:haunting http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/haunting/MemberTagFilms.aspxhaunting
Number of films tagged: 79

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 103

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:05 GMT7946103Tag Spout Tag:awful http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag Spout Tag:daughter http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/daughter/MemberTagFilms.aspxdaughter
Number of films tagged: 3658

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 138

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT365840138Tag Spout Tag:loved http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loved/MemberTagFilms.aspxloved
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 36

]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:02:53 GMT303136Tag Spout Tag:ever http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ever/MemberTagFilms.aspxever
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 29

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:47:14 GMT252829Tag Spout Tag:vacation http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vacation/MemberTagFilms.aspxvacation
Number of films tagged: 1068

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 52

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:34:39 GMT10681652Tag