list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Titanic 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/Titanic/114746/default.aspx Title: Titanic
Year: 1997
Director: James Cameron
Plot: This spectacular epic re-creates the ill-fated maiden voyage of the White Star Line's $7.5 million R.M.S Titanic and the tragic sea disaster of April 15, 1912. Running over three hours and made with the combined contributions of two major studios (20th Century-Fox, Paramount) at a cost of more than $200 million, Titanic ranked as the most expensive film in Hollywood history at the time of its release, and became the most successful. Writer-director James Cameron employed state-of-the-art digital special effects for this production, realized on a monumental scale and spanning eight decades. Inspired by the 1985 discovery of the Titanic in the North Atlantic, the contemporary storyline involves American treasure-seeker Brock Lovett (Bill Paxton) retrieving artifacts from the submerged ship. Lovett looks for diamonds but finds a drawing of a young woman, nude except for a necklace. When 102-year-old Rose (Gloria Stuart) reveals she's the person in the portrait, she is summoned to the wreckage site to tell her story of the 56-carat diamond necklace and her experiences of 84 years earlier. The scene then shifts to 1912 Southampton where passengers boarding the Titanic include penniless Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) and society girl Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet), returning to Philadelphia with her wealthy fiance Cal Hockley (Billy Zane). After the April 10th launch, Rose develops a passionate interest in Jack, and Cal's reaction is vengeful. At midpoint in the film, the Titanic slides against the iceberg and water rushes into the front compartments. Even engulfed, Cal continues to pursue Jack and Rose as the massive liner begins its descent. Cameron launched the project after seeing Robert Ballard's 1987 National Geographic documentary on the wreckage. Blueprints of the real Titanic were followed during construction at Fox's custom-built Rosarito, Mexico studio, where a hydraulics system moved an immense model in a 17-million-gallon water tank. During three weeks aboard the Russian ship Academik Keldysh, underwater sequences were filmed with a 35mm camera in a titanium case mounted on the Russian submersible Mir 1. When the submersible neared the wreck, a video camera inside a remote-operated vehicle was sent into the Titanic's 400-foot bow, bringing back footage of staterooms, furniture and chandeliers. On November 1, 1997, the film had its world premiere at the 10th Tokyo International Film Festival. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 197
Number of Lists: 97
Number of blog posts: 17
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:15:27 GMTTitanic1997James CameronThis spectacular epic re-creates the ill-fated maiden voyage of the White Star Line's $7.5 million R.M.S Titanic and the tragic sea disaster of April 15, 1912. Running over three hours and made with the combined contributions of two major studios (20th Century-Fox, Paramount) at a cost of more than $200 million, Titanic ranked as the most expensive film in Hollywood history at the time of its release, and became the most successful. Writer-director <a href="/players/P____10397/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Cameron</a> employed state-of-the-art digital special effects for this production, realized on a monumental scale and spanning eight decades. Inspired by the 1985 discovery of the Titanic in the North Atlantic, the contemporary storyline involves American treasure-seeker Brock Lovett (<a href="/players/P____55571/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bill Paxton</a>) retrieving artifacts from the submerged ship. Lovett looks for diamonds but finds a drawing of a young woman, nude except for a necklace. When 102-year-old Rose (<a href="/players/P____68812/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gloria Stuart</a>) reveals she's the person in the portrait, she is summoned to the wreckage site to tell her story of the 56-carat diamond necklace and her experiences of 84 years earlier. The scene then shifts to 1912 Southampton where passengers boarding the Titanic include penniless Jack Dawson (<a href="/players/P____18926/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Leonardo DiCaprio</a>) and society girl Rose DeWitt Bukater (<a href="/players/P___198332/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kate Winslet</a>), returning to Philadelphia with her wealthy fiance Cal Hockley (<a href="/players/P____78411/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Zane</a>). After the April 10th launch, Rose develops a passionate interest in Jack, and Cal's reaction is vengeful. At midpoint in the film, the Titanic slides against the iceberg and water rushes into the front compartments. Even engulfed, Cal continues to pursue Jack and Rose as the massive liner begins its descent. Cameron launched the project after seeing Robert Ballard's 1987 National Geographic documentary on the wreckage. Blueprints of the real Titanic were followed during construction at Fox's custom-built Rosarito, Mexico studio, where a hydraulics system moved an immense model in a 17-million-gallon water tank. During three weeks aboard the Russian ship Academik Keldysh, underwater sequences were filmed with a 35mm camera in a titanium case mounted on the Russian submersible Mir 1. When the submersible neared the wreck, a video camera inside a remote-operated vehicle was sent into the Titanic's 400-foot bow, bringing back footage of staterooms, furniture and chandeliers. On November 1, 1997, the film had its world premiere at the 10th Tokyo International Film Festival. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide197Tag Target (>10)9717163http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u46231upc9a.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Titanic/114746/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/1/41952.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/1/2009 5:07:41 PM
Body: "Rose" (Gloria Stuart, also played in the scenes set at the time of the sinking by Kate Winslet), a woman who claims to be a survivor of the Titanic disaster, comes aboard a ship of researchers who are searching the wreckage for a blue diamond known as the "Heart of the Sea," which she claims to have worn hours before the ship sank after striking an iceberg. She describes an incredible story with facts not publicly known which causes the lead researcher (Bill Paxton) to believe her story. She describes how she met a poor, aspiring artist (Leonardo DiCaprio) whom she falls in love with, despite being engaged to an well-off, arrogant jerk (Billy Zane) who treated her like a piece of property more than the woman he loved. She also describes interacting with such historical figures as "Molly Brown" (Kathy Bates) and "Thomas Andrews" (Victor Garber), the person who built the ship. It takes around two hours before runs into the iceberg in this film. Only after the iceberg strike is when the movie gets interesting. Prior to the iceberg strike, the movie lags on incredibly too much. In my opinion, I've never seen a movie with as many scenes that drag on as in this one. There are scenes which lags during the sinking, as well as after the ship goes down, but there aren't as many as there are in the first two hours of the film. The script, and much of the dialog, is pretty bad. Much of it is hard to listen to. In fact, much of the dialog is dated -- and it's dated in our time, not like the way they spoke in 1912. The only real reason to check this movie out is the special effects -- especially during the sinking. They went all out to make it appear as if the sets were actually a ship as it is sinking. Despite the special effects, there is one scene which pans over the ship showing "people" on the deck walking around that is obviously computer-generated. It is painfully obvious the "people" in this scene are computer-generated figures. Not one of the performances stand out and steals the movie, however Bates performance makes you wish you saw more of "'The Unsinkable' Molly Brown." Zane also does a pretty good job at making you hate his character, but his character, like others in the film, is pretty much one-dimensional. "Titanic" is an incredibly slow, and way too long movie which I only recommend for a second-choice rental. I also recommend that you skip the first two hours of the movie.
]]>Fri, 01 May 2009 21:07:41 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/1/2009 5:07:41 PM"Rose" (Gloria Stuart, also played in the scenes set at the time of the sinking by Kate Winslet), a woman who claims to be a survivor of the Titanic disaster, comes aboard a ship of researchers who are searching the wreckage for a blue diamond known as the "Heart of the Sea," which she claims to have worn hours before the ship sank after striking an iceberg. She describes an incredible story with facts not publicly known which causes the lead researcher (Bill Paxton) to believe her story. She describes how she met a poor, aspiring artist (Leonardo DiCaprio) whom she falls in love with, despite being engaged to an well-off, arrogant jerk (Billy Zane) who treated her like a piece of property more than the woman he loved. She also describes interacting with such historical figures as "Molly Brown" (Kathy Bates) and "Thomas Andrews" (Victor Garber), the person who built the ship. It takes around two hours before runs into the iceberg in this film. Only after the iceberg strike is when the movie gets interesting. Prior to the iceberg strike, the movie lags on incredibly too much. In my opinion, I've never seen a movie with as many scenes that drag on as in this one. There are scenes which lags during the sinking, as well as after the ship goes down, but there aren't as many as there are in the first two hours of the film. The script, and much of the dialog, is pretty bad. Much of it is hard to listen to. In fact, much of the dialog is dated -- and it's dated in our time, not like the way they spoke in 1912. The only real reason to check this movie out is the special effects -- especially during the sinking. They went all out to make it appear as if the sets were actually a ship as it is sinking. Despite the special effects, there is one scene which pans over the ship showing "people" on the deck walking around that is obviously computer-generated. It is painfully obvious the "people" in this scene are computer-generated figures. Not one of the performances stand out and steals the movie, however Bates performance makes you wish you saw more of "'The Unsinkable' Molly Brown." Zane also does a pretty good job at making you hate his character, but his character, like others in the film, is pretty much one-dimensional. "Titanic" is an incredibly slow, and way too long movie which I only recommend for a second-choice rental. I also recommend that you skip the first two hours of the movie. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_April_27_3_Hours/625/41839/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/28/2009 9:30:25 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] WOW! Until seeing that list, I had just assumed that I don't really care for long movies. But I'm actually really surprised at some of the films on that list because I've never really thought of them long-winded or even the least bit taxing to watch. You already mentioned Magnolia, which I pretty much figured on a bit over two hours. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite films, weighing in at 195 minutes.... But on the other hand, there are some on this list I definately think would have benefited from a bit of cutting room floor action. I really think La Dolce Vita could have used about a 20 minute trim or so. (don't kill me).
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:30:25 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme4/28/2009 9:30:25 PM[quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] WOW! Until seeing that list, I had just assumed that I don't really care for long movies. But I'm actually really surprised at some of the films on that list because I've never really thought of them long-winded or even the least bit taxing to watch. You already mentioned Magnolia, which I pretty much figured on a bit over two hours. Schindler's List is one of my all time favorite films, weighing in at 195 minutes.... But on the other hand, there are some on this list I definately think would have benefited from a bit of cutting room floor action. I really think La Dolce Vita could have used about a 20 minute trim or so. (don't kill me). http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_April_27_3_Hours/625/41833/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/28/2009 10:48:27 AM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] I'm kind of the opposite than you Merc. I tend to think shorter films are better. If a filmmaker can fit an amazing film into somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half I think that's a great feat. Of course there are many long films I love. I actually just watched a 201 minute long movie, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles at the Gene Siskel Film Center about a week ago. And let me tell you, the time did not fly by. That three and a half hours felt more like three days. But in actuality, that's how much time actually passes in the film, so I think that was sort of the anticipated effect. Yet despite this, I picked up a the Gene Siskel Film Center publication and saw that in may they will be playing all three parts of Masaki Kobayashi's The Human Condition trilogy. Part I is 208 minutes. Part II is 183 minutes. And Part III is 196 minutes. I'm going to be spending about 10 hours at that place next month it appears. After watching Kobayahi's stunning Harakiri recently, I'm really quite stoked for this!
]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:48:27 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme4/28/2009 10:48:27 AM[quote user="mercurial"] I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. [/quote] I'm kind of the opposite than you Merc. I tend to think shorter films are better. If a filmmaker can fit an amazing film into somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half I think that's a great feat. Of course there are many long films I love. I actually just watched a 201 minute long movie, Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles at the Gene Siskel Film Center about a week ago. And let me tell you, the time did not fly by. That three and a half hours felt more like three days. But in actuality, that's how much time actually passes in the film, so I think that was sort of the anticipated effect. Yet despite this, I picked up a the Gene Siskel Film Center publication and saw that in may they will be playing all three parts of Masaki Kobayashi's The Human Condition trilogy. Part I is 208 minutes. Part II is 183 minutes. And Part III is 196 minutes. I'm going to be spending about 10 hours at that place next month it appears. After watching Kobayahi's stunning Harakiri recently, I'm really quite stoked for this! http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_April_27_3_Hours/625/41829/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/28/2009 3:05:28 AM
Body: I think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list.
]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:05:28 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme4/28/2009 3:05:28 AMI think I've been slacking recently with my regular movie watching schedule due to the inordinate number of 3+ hours films I've seen lately. I'm not sure what it is, but watching such epic films makes me wish that it wasn't such an oddity. I personally think it's a sign of a pretty amazing filmmaker when a film lasts more than 180 minutes and that time goes by without the death knell of feeling the need to check the time on your watch or cell phone. Grindhouse has definitely founds its place among my favorite 3+ hour films. It was so exhausting after watching it for the first time and trying to absorb everything that had happened I thought that it might be a while before I got around to watching it again. However, thanks to the Starz channel I've watched the entire film twice this past week and it has managed to keep my attention both times. Magnolia was just one of those films that I watched at the right time of my life. Every aspect of the film just clicked for me and I have probably watched the 188 minute film more than 20 times. And I am definitely going to get a lot of criticism for this but who cares. Titanic remains the only film I have ever paid to see on the big screen twice. It wasn't entirely my own need that led me to see it twice (not that I'm trying to justify it but my mother did lay a whole guilt trip on me about her going alone to see it and that she really wanted me to go with her even though I had already seen it), but anyways, it was a great film and kept me glued to the screen the entire time. Both times. So Yes or No? Should movies stick to the typical 90 minute standard? Are long movies just that, too long? Let's get talking! If you're having trouble thinking of films, Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40946.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 7:01:14 PM
Body: With all the blockbuster movie trailers that debuted last week (they were officially released to be placed ahead of Watchmen), were you surprised not to see one for James Cameron’s Avatar? I wasn’t, but that’s because the to-be-groundbreaking 3-D sci-fi film won’t be released until this fall, and I’m expecting to see very little from it until at least midsummer. Well, it turns out that the main reason we didn’t see a trailer isn’t because it’s so early in the year; rather, it’s (rumored to be) because Cameron apparently can’t decide on how to market the thing. He’s supposedly passed on eight attempts at a trailer and is now at work on his own cut. Here’s my idea: show as little as possible. You’re James Cameron and you haven’t given us a feature film in 12 years. And this one’s a return to outer-space sci-fi, not another sappy romantic disaster film. You really don’t need to show one second of footage. Because we’ll be there no matter what. However you do it, though, as a result of this rumor you have to give us something. The geeks are restless: “Hate to say this, but now the anticipation and expectation is greater for AVATAR’s trailer than many MOVIES!” claims the rumor’s source, Jim Dorey of MarketSaw. Liam at Filmonic agrees that the delay is only building us up more: Getting to see our first look at Avatar in trailer form has been a desire of mine (and probably lots of other people) for the past year. The cast and crew have been hyping this thing up like crazy, and when the technology is described as 20x more advanced than what we have today I want my retinas to get a glimpse of that ASAP! Coming to Cameron’s defense a bit is Ryan Parsons at CanMag: “With the years of hype around Avatar it comes as no surprise that James Cameron wants everything to be perfect.” “We can only assume,” writes Mark Graham at Vulture, “that it’s pretty difficult to make this boring plot treatment seem interesting: ‘Follow an ex-marine as he is thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.’” Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture wonders if there is truth to the “news” or if it even matters: “Is rejecting eight different trailers really such a big deal? I doubt that the studios keep statistics on this sort of thing, but I’m guessing that if there’s a record for most rejected trailers, David Fincher still has Cameron beat by a mile.” Rod at The Playlist sarcastically hints that it’s not simply Cameron being a perfectionist so much as the eight trailers sucking so much: “Poor guy, it’s hard to find good help these days.” In lieu of a trailer, at least some blogs are handing out descriptions of clips they haven’t yet seen. I won’t bother quoting spoilers, but here’s an interesting bit of info from io9’s Charlie Jane Anders: “MarketSaw’s source says Avatar is ‘like Aliens, but from the POV of the Aliens.’” IGN’s Jim Vejvoda gives us more reason not to worry about the trailer, because he passes on word that in about a year from now, we’ll be able to watch Avatar on 3-D Blu-ray! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:01:14 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 7:01:14 PMWith all the blockbuster movie trailers that debuted last week (they were officially released to be placed ahead of Watchmen), were you surprised not to see one for James Cameron’s Avatar? I wasn’t, but that’s because the to-be-groundbreaking 3-D sci-fi film won’t be released until this fall, and I’m expecting to see very little from it until at least midsummer. Well, it turns out that the main reason we didn’t see a trailer isn’t because it’s so early in the year; rather, it’s (rumored to be) because Cameron apparently can’t decide on how to market the thing. He’s supposedly passed on eight attempts at a trailer and is now at work on his own cut. Here’s my idea: show as little as possible. You’re James Cameron and you haven’t given us a feature film in 12 years. And this one’s a return to outer-space sci-fi, not another sappy romantic disaster film. You really don’t need to show one second of footage. Because we’ll be there no matter what. However you do it, though, as a result of this rumor you have to give us something. The geeks are restless: “Hate to say this, but now the anticipation and expectation is greater for AVATAR’s trailer than many MOVIES!” claims the rumor’s source, Jim Dorey of MarketSaw. Liam at Filmonic agrees that the delay is only building us up more: Getting to see our first look at Avatar in trailer form has been a desire of mine (and probably lots of other people) for the past year. The cast and crew have been hyping this thing up like crazy, and when the technology is described as 20x more advanced than what we have today I want my retinas to get a glimpse of that ASAP! Coming to Cameron’s defense a bit is Ryan Parsons at CanMag: “With the years of hype around Avatar it comes as no surprise that James Cameron wants everything to be perfect.” “We can only assume,” writes Mark Graham at Vulture, “that it’s pretty difficult to make this boring plot treatment seem interesting: ‘Follow an ex-marine as he is thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.’” Patrick Goldstein at The Big Picture wonders if there is truth to the “news” or if it even matters: “Is rejecting eight different trailers really such a big deal? I doubt that the studios keep statistics on this sort of thing, but I’m guessing that if there’s a record for most rejected trailers, David Fincher still has Cameron beat by a mile.” Rod at The Playlist sarcastically hints that it’s not simply Cameron being a perfectionist so much as the eight trailers sucking so much: “Poor guy, it’s hard to find good help these days.” In lieu of a trailer, at least some blogs are handing out descriptions of clips they haven’t yet seen. I won’t bother quoting spoilers, but here’s an interesting bit of info from io9’s Charlie Jane Anders: “MarketSaw’s source says Avatar is ‘like Aliens, but from the POV of the Aliens.’” IGN’s Jim Vejvoda gives us more reason not to worry about the trailer, because he passes on word that in about a year from now, we’ll be able to watch Avatar on 3-D Blu-ray! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/newalternativerock/archive/2009/2/2/40182.aspx Post By: NewAlternativeRock
Post To: NewAlternativeRock Blog
Post Date: 2/2/2009 11:44:36 PM
Body: Director James Cameron takes a historical event, adds a bit of fictional romance to it and ends up giving us a great movie experience. By introducing the story line about a treasure hunter who is searching for a lost diamond aboard the wreckage of the TITANIC, who finds a sketch of a young woman wearing the jewel, and then finding out that the woman is now old and willing to tell her story, Cameron has been able to pretty much recreate the fate that hit the TITANIC while keeping us glued to the screen, because of this fictional woman's story. Cameron wrote and directed this meticulously and the result is very positive. Among a cast of talented actors, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate WInslet make a perfect romantic match fro each other. The photography, the visual effects and the music are outstanding.
]]>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:44:36 GMTNewAlternativeRockNewAlternativeRock Blog2/2/2009 11:44:36 PMDirector James Cameron takes a historical event, adds a bit of fictional romance to it and ends up giving us a great movie experience. By introducing the story line about a treasure hunter who is searching for a lost diamond aboard the wreckage of the TITANIC, who finds a sketch of a young woman wearing the jewel, and then finding out that the woman is now old and willing to tell her story, Cameron has been able to pretty much recreate the fate that hit the TITANIC while keeping us glued to the screen, because of this fictional woman's story. Cameron wrote and directed this meticulously and the result is very positive. Among a cast of talented actors, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate WInslet make a perfect romantic match fro each other. The photography, the visual effects and the music are outstanding. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2009/1/12/39397.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 1/12/2009 11:44:58 AM
Body: Director Sam Mendes does not seem to be a big fan of the suburbs. Between his latest film Revolutionary Road and 1999’s American Beauty, Mendes picks at the scabs of suburbia, allowing viewers to gaze at all that oozes from it. Like Beauty, Road focuses on a couple whose relationship luster is fading fast, as youthful aspirations fall wayside to the compromises of adulthood. But where the former film dealt with the struggles of a modern day, middle-aged couple, Road focuses on a '50s-era husband and wife (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) at the earlier stages of their domesticity. And for those fans looking forward to the romantic pairing of the leads from a certain movie about a big boat, let's just say they had it easy with the iceberg compared to what they put themselves through here. Frank (DiCaprio) and April's (Winslet) life certainly begins storybook enough – meeting at a social event, eyes locking across a crowded, smoky room and soon settling into cookie-cutter suburbia to raise a couple of rugrats. Frank, the breadwinner, dutifully goes to a job in which the only perk for him is that it allows him to “swim” in the secretarial pool from time to time. April, meanwhile, struggles with the fact that her acting dreams have been dashed and puts on a Douglas Sirk-sized smile as she attempts to conform to her role as Happy Housewife. As April grabs at some sort of identity outside the home, Frank half-heartedly goes along for the ride, agreeing to flee to Paris, where she thinks they can start anew and she can be their sole support system. The vision is as childishly executed as it sounds, with no real plan or vision as to what will happen once they arrive (we never see the couple attempt to even learn the language). We spend more time with them telling everyone they're giving their American Dream lifestyle the big kiss-off, rather than actually preparing for their future life. When that dream dies on the vine, their world begins to implode. Revolutionary Road is based on an acclaimed 1961 novel by Richard Yates, which, at the time, might have been seen as groundbreaking, as most domestic images of the time were that of the Cleaver clan. But today, the film seems already dated. Gone is the slightest trace of wit (albeit for one supporting character) that Yates infused in his novel, and it's pretty much a given now that the media-fueled visions of the perfect family were usually anything but. Viewers are thrust into their relationship mid-tempest, and there is hardly any trace of love that was ever shared between the two. Even their children are used as props, both figuratively and literally, as they vanish from the picture for conveniently long stretches. The result is like being invited over to the neighborhood home of a querulous couple, as you sit awkwardly counting the minutes until you can excuse yourself to relieve the babysitter. Under Mendes' direction, the couple never becomes an actual “couple,” just sounding boards for each other's frustrations. The only character who is halfway interesting is John (played by the excellent Michael Shannon), a neighbor's son, fresh from a mental institution, who delights in exposing the couple's flaws and hidden truths to their life together. Also to the film's credit is production designer Kristi Zea who captures the suburban sterility in almost every scene within the home. But despite the effective histrionics of Leo and Kate – which feel more like Oscar-clip reels than part of a cohesive narrative – the film is never the deeply moving, personal character study it wants to by. Directors Douglas Sirk (Imitation of Life, All That Heaven Allows) and Nicholas Ray (Bigger Than Life, Rebel Without a Cause) covered the same dirt-under-the-astroturf territory decades ago, when it felt more dangerous to do so. Hell, even the Brady Bunch got in on it in their 1995 film. Exposing the lack of conformity of '50s wedded bliss today carries none of the same impact. We are closing in on the second decade of the new millennium, and I think it's pretty well established that the image of the “perfect family” was a myth. Viewers can simply tune into AMC's expertly crafted Mad Men each week to witness a much more colorful, developed expose of the era's seamier side instead a dead-end drive down this Road.
]]>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:44:58 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog1/12/2009 11:44:58 AMDirector Sam Mendes does not seem to be a big fan of the suburbs. Between his latest film Revolutionary Road and 1999&rsquo;s American Beauty, Mendes picks at the scabs of suburbia, allowing viewers to gaze at all that oozes from it. Like Beauty, Road focuses on a couple whose relationship luster is fading fast, as youthful aspirations fall wayside to the compromises of adulthood. But where the former film dealt with the struggles of a modern day, middle-aged couple, Road focuses on a '50s-era husband and wife (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) at the earlier stages of their domesticity. And for those fans looking forward to the romantic pairing of the leads from a certain movie about a big boat, let's just say they had it easy with the iceberg compared to what they put themselves through here. Frank (DiCaprio) and April's (Winslet) life certainly begins storybook enough &ndash; meeting at a social event, eyes locking across a crowded, smoky room and soon settling into cookie-cutter suburbia to raise a couple of rugrats. Frank, the breadwinner, dutifully goes to a job in which the only perk for him is that it allows him to &ldquo;swim&rdquo; in the secretarial pool from time to time. April, meanwhile, struggles with the fact that her acting dreams have been dashed and puts on a Douglas Sirk-sized smile as she attempts to conform to her role as Happy Housewife. As April grabs at some sort of identity outside the home, Frank half-heartedly goes along for the ride, agreeing to flee to Paris, where she thinks they can start anew and she can be their sole support system. The vision is as childishly executed as it sounds, with no real plan or vision as to what will happen once they arrive (we never see the couple attempt to even learn the language). We spend more time with them telling everyone they're giving their American Dream lifestyle the big kiss-off, rather than actually preparing for their future life. When that dream dies on the vine, their world begins to implode. Revolutionary Road is based on an acclaimed 1961 novel by Richard Yates, which, at the time, might have been seen as groundbreaking, as most domestic images of the time were that of the Cleaver clan. But today, the film seems already dated. Gone is the slightest trace of wit (albeit for one supporting character) that Yates infused in his novel, and it's pretty much a given now that the media-fueled visions of the perfect family were usually anything but. Viewers are thrust into their relationship mid-tempest, and there is hardly any trace of love that was ever shared between the two. Even their children are used as props, both figuratively and literally, as they vanish from the picture for conveniently long stretches. The result is like being invited over to the neighborhood home of a querulous couple, as you sit awkwardly counting the minutes until you can excuse yourself to relieve the babysitter. Under Mendes' direction, the couple never becomes an actual &ldquo;couple,&rdquo; just sounding boards for each other's frustrations. The only character who is halfway interesting is John (played by the excellent Michael Shannon), a neighbor's son, fresh from a mental institution, who delights in exposing the couple's flaws and hidden truths to their life together. Also to the film's credit is production designer Kristi Zea who captures the suburban sterility in almost every scene within the home. But despite the effective histrionics of Leo and Kate &ndash; which feel more like Oscar-clip reels than part of a cohesive narrative &ndash; the film is never the deeply moving, personal character study it wants to by. Directors Douglas Sirk (Imitation of Life, All That Heaven Allows) and Nicholas Ray (Bigger Than Life, Rebel Without a Cause) covered the same dirt-under-the-astroturf territory decades ago, when it felt more dangerous to do so. Hell, even the Brady Bunch got in on it in their 1995 film. Exposing the lack of conformity of '50s wedded bliss today carries none of the same impact. We are closing in on the second decade of the new millennium, and I think it's pretty well established that the image of the &ldquo;perfect family&rdquo; was a myth. Viewers can simply tune into AMC's expertly crafted Mad Men each week to witness a much more colorful, developed expose of the era's seamier side instead a dead-end drive down this Road. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx 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
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe 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 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/9/38154.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/9/2008 7:02:15 PM
Body: Is romance dead? David Carr seems to think so, at least in American cinema (both Hollywood and “Indiewood,” as he inclusively clarifies). While celebrating the subway station meet-cute from the beginning of Milk, a scene he claims to be of an increasingly rare sort, Carr states that American filmmakers “can do romantic pathology and entropy, but the kind of love for the ages, a big-movie kind of love? Not so much.” If you agree with him, blame the back-to-back Best Picture winners Titanic and Shakespeare in Love for feeding us the kind of romance that’s so cheesy it clogs our arteries and gives us a coronary. Left with a burst heart and a lack of quality Nora Ephron movies, most of us have been cynics when it comes to love stories these past ten years. Yet cynics can still be swept off their feet, and American filmmakers have adequately supplied them with new kinds of love for the ages. Just take a look at these ten films from the past decade. They may be full of cynicism, but they’re also filled with big-movie love, in their own way. If you can’t see the romance, then the problem is with you, not the movies. Love & Basketball (2000) This underrated film has something for everyone: sports for the boys and romance for the girls; and sports for the girls and romance for the boys. See, it’s a love story that avoids clichés and speaks to both sexes equally. And as far as meet-cutes go, it’s hard to top Quincy’s first encounter with Monica: she beats him at basketball, he knocks her to the ground, and they instantly fall in love, at the age of 13. Plenty of recent films have done the whole love-since-childhood thing, including the contrived Love Me if You Dare and this year’s less-sexually-balanced Slumdog Millionaire. But while others treat this kind of story as fairy tale, Love & Basketball is more real, and true love is definitely more romantic than fantastical love. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Who knew that Adam Sandler, as a modern-day Popeye, could be so romantic? Apparently Paul Thomas Anderson did, and he was able to transform the typical Sandler man-boy persona into an old-fashioned man-as-protector sort of romantic hero. A bit sexist and a little creepy, sure, but Sandler’s Barry Egan manages to fall on the right side of the fine line between stalker and sentimentally drastic admirer (kind of like a male “Amelie”). All the Real Girls (2003) The direction this film may seem too ironic and cynical to be considered truly romantic, but then think of how cynical our favorite romantic classics are. Gone With the Wind and Casablanca? Neither is as positive and hopeful as we pretend Hollywood romance to be. And while those films’ dialogue may be memorable after all these years, none of their lines are as simply and sweetly romantic as the stuff said by Paul (Paul Schneider) and Noel (Zooey Deschanel) to each other when they’re still falling in love. Cold Mountain (2003) Nicole Kidman and Jude Law may be the worst actors to play romantic leads, considering how stiff and plastic they are. But forgetting the performances and concentrating on the epic love story, this relatively modernized take on The Odyssey (set during the Civil War) is as classically romantic as it gets, right down to the tragic denouement. Surprisingly, it was not well received by either critics or audiences. The problem may have been the fault of Kidman and Law, whose characters were hardly believable as in love, although their compatibility is beside the point. The romantic quest made by Inman (Law) to get back to his barely-familiar sweetheart is powered by the concept of love more than the certainty of love. 50 First Dates (2004) Another Adam Sandler movie? That’s right, and this one is even sweeter and more thoughtfully romantic than Punch-Drunk Love. The plot, which is like a reciprocal Groundhog Day, is a tad too gimmicky to grab your heartstrings right away, but the final scene (ironically in the Arctic) could warm the center of even the most pragmatic, unemotional viewer. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Two of the best films of 2004 were deconstructions of love. But while Jonathan Glazer’s Birth shattered romance to pieces, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind showed us what it’s made of. The film also somewhat argues that love and romance aren’t necessarily about “happily ever after,” even if the two main characters do seem destined to be together at the end, nor are these concepts limited to good times. The Notebook (2004) It doesn’t get more traditionally romantic than this: forbidden love; correspondence; longing; a World War. But how is this more beloved than either Pearl Harbor or Australia? And why is Nicholas Sparks more respected and read than most romance novelists? Well, if it were that easy to determine, Hollywood wouldn’t keep failing in its attempts to make more films like this. Or, maybe it’s just that The Notebook doesn’t seem to be trying too hard –– it just tells a genuine love story without tugging or overreaching for your presumed romantic buttons. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) If Amelie is the most romantic non-American film of the last ten years, and if Punch-Drunk’s Barry Egan is the male Amelie, then Miranda July’s character is simply the American Amelie. She’s a little weird, a little too forthcoming, but she’s so sweet and creative in her pursuits that she’s not just forgivable; she’s completely lovable. Of course, lovable doesn’t exactly equal romantic, but then there are plenty of oddly romantic scenes in the film, too, such as the metaphoric first walk shared by July and John Hawkes’ characters. It’s frank, it’s harsh, but it’s also the best flirtation seen in American cinema in a long time. Brokeback Mountain (2005) It’s upsetting to think of any story involving adultery as being romantic (though Unfaithful almost made this list for other, spoilerific reasons), but the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain are given an exception because of the society they live in. The unapproved affair also makes for one of the most heartbreaking romances ever put on screen. And of all the films selected, this is easily the one that’s liable to make you lose your cynical perspective, at least for a couple of hours. WALL-E (2008) In a way, this animated film is not romantic at all for humans, who are viewed as plump slugs with no real interaction with other people (seriously, a time when we all just use video chat, even when we’re in the vicinity of one another, is not too far off). But for robots, it’s the most romantic thing to come along since the implied relationship between C-3PO and R2-D2. And it’s gender-equal (or, if you believe the characters are gender-neutral, the film is partner-equal) as far as the pursuing, the rescuing and the responsibility go regarding WALL-E and EVE’s relationship. Hopefully, this most recent film on the list will inspire future romantic films to be so progressive and so lacking in cynicism (such optimism: even two humans seem to fall in love at the end). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:02:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/9/2008 7:02:15 PMIs romance dead? David Carr seems to think so, at least in American cinema (both Hollywood and “Indiewood,” as he inclusively clarifies). While celebrating the subway station meet-cute from the beginning of Milk, a scene he claims to be of an increasingly rare sort, Carr states that American filmmakers “can do romantic pathology and entropy, but the kind of love for the ages, a big-movie kind of love? Not so much.” If you agree with him, blame the back-to-back Best Picture winners Titanic and Shakespeare in Love for feeding us the kind of romance that’s so cheesy it clogs our arteries and gives us a coronary. Left with a burst heart and a lack of quality Nora Ephron movies, most of us have been cynics when it comes to love stories these past ten years. Yet cynics can still be swept off their feet, and American filmmakers have adequately supplied them with new kinds of love for the ages. Just take a look at these ten films from the past decade. They may be full of cynicism, but they’re also filled with big-movie love, in their own way. If you can’t see the romance, then the problem is with you, not the movies. Love & Basketball (2000) This underrated film has something for everyone: sports for the boys and romance for the girls; and sports for the girls and romance for the boys. See, it’s a love story that avoids clichés and speaks to both sexes equally. And as far as meet-cutes go, it’s hard to top Quincy’s first encounter with Monica: she beats him at basketball, he knocks her to the ground, and they instantly fall in love, at the age of 13. Plenty of recent films have done the whole love-since-childhood thing, including the contrived Love Me if You Dare and this year’s less-sexually-balanced Slumdog Millionaire. But while others treat this kind of story as fairy tale, Love & Basketball is more real, and true love is definitely more romantic than fantastical love. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Who knew that Adam Sandler, as a modern-day Popeye, could be so romantic? Apparently Paul Thomas Anderson did, and he was able to transform the typical Sandler man-boy persona into an old-fashioned man-as-protector sort of romantic hero. A bit sexist and a little creepy, sure, but Sandler’s Barry Egan manages to fall on the right side of the fine line between stalker and sentimentally drastic admirer (kind of like a male “Amelie”). All the Real Girls (2003) The direction this film may seem too ironic and cynical to be considered truly romantic, but then think of how cynical our favorite romantic classics are. Gone With the Wind and Casablanca? Neither is as positive and hopeful as we pretend Hollywood romance to be. And while those films’ dialogue may be memorable after all these years, none of their lines are as simply and sweetly romantic as the stuff said by Paul (Paul Schneider) and Noel (Zooey Deschanel) to each other when they’re still falling in love. Cold Mountain (2003) Nicole Kidman and Jude Law may be the worst actors to play romantic leads, considering how stiff and plastic they are. But forgetting the performances and concentrating on the epic love story, this relatively modernized take on The Odyssey (set during the Civil War) is as classically romantic as it gets, right down to the tragic denouement. Surprisingly, it was not well received by either critics or audiences. The problem may have been the fault of Kidman and Law, whose characters were hardly believable as in love, although their compatibility is beside the point. The romantic quest made by Inman (Law) to get back to his barely-familiar sweetheart is powered by the concept of love more than the certainty of love. 50 First Dates (2004) Another Adam Sandler movie? That’s right, and this one is even sweeter and more thoughtfully romantic than Punch-Drunk Love. The plot, which is like a reciprocal Groundhog Day, is a tad too gimmicky to grab your heartstrings right away, but the final scene (ironically in the Arctic) could warm the center of even the most pragmatic, unemotional viewer. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Two of the best films of 2004 were deconstructions of love. But while Jonathan Glazer’s Birth shattered romance to pieces, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind showed us what it’s made of. The film also somewhat argues that love and romance aren’t necessarily about “happily ever after,” even if the two main characters do seem destined to be together at the end, nor are these concepts limited to good times. The Notebook (2004) It doesn’t get more traditionally romantic than this: forbidden love; correspondence; longing; a World War. But how is this more beloved than either Pearl Harbor or Australia? And why is Nicholas Sparks more respected and read than most romance novelists? Well, if it were that easy to determine, Hollywood wouldn’t keep failing in its attempts to make more films like this. Or, maybe it’s just that The Notebook doesn’t seem to be trying too hard –– it just tells a genuine love story without tugging or overreaching for your presumed romantic buttons. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) If Amelie is the most romantic non-American film of the last ten years, and if Punch-Drunk’s Barry Egan is the male Amelie, then Miranda July’s character is simply the American Amelie. She’s a little weird, a little too forthcoming, but she’s so sweet and creative in her pursuits that she’s not just forgivable; she’s completely lovable. Of course, lovable doesn’t exactly equal romantic, but then there are plenty of oddly romantic scenes in the film, too, such as the metaphoric first walk shared by July and John Hawkes’ characters. It’s frank, it’s harsh, but it’s also the best flirtation seen in American cinema in a long time. Brokeback Mountain (2005) It’s upsetting to think of any story involving adultery as being romantic (though Unfaithful almost made this list for other, spoilerific reasons), but the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain are given an exception because of the society they live in. The unapproved affair also makes for one of the most heartbreaking romances ever put on screen. And of all the films selected, this is easily the one that’s liable to make you lose your cynical perspective, at least for a couple of hours. WALL-E (2008) In a way, this animated film is not romantic at all for humans, who are viewed as plump slugs with no real interaction with other people (seriously, a time when we all just use video chat, even when we’re in the vicinity of one another, is not too far off). But for robots, it’s the most romantic thing to come along since the implied relationship between C-3PO and R2-D2. And it’s gender-equal (or, if you believe the characters are gender-neutral, the film is partner-equal) as far as the pursuing, the rescuing and the responsibility go regarding WALL-E and EVE’s relationship. Hopefully, this most recent film on the list will inspire future romantic films to be so progressive and so lacking in cynicism (such optimism: even two humans seem to fall in love at the end). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_17_In_The_Nude/625/37420/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/18/2008 8:43:22 PM
Body: So many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:43:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/18/2008 8:43:22 PMSo many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &amp;#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag 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 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sex/MemberTagFilms.aspxsex
Number of films tagged: 2414

Number of people who tagged: 126

Number of times used: 549

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:22 GMT2414126549Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 115

Number of times used: 188

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:46 GMT364115188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag 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 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 204

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:44 GMT15671204Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag 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/Guilty-Pleasure/MemberTagFilms.aspxGuilty-Pleasure
Number of films tagged: 102

Number of people who tagged: 61

Number of times used: 152

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:55:42 GMT10261152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/travel/MemberTagFilms.aspxtravel
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 91

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT465491Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/slow/MemberTagFilms.aspxslow
Number of films tagged: 92

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:26 GMT9246106Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tragic/MemberTagFilms.aspxtragic
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 68

]]>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:19:35 GMT494168Tag