list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Saving Private Ryan 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/Saving_Private_Ryan/118666/default.aspx Title: Saving Private Ryan
Year: 1998
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Steven Spielberg directed this powerful, realistic re-creation of WWII's D-day invasion and the immediate aftermath. The story opens with a prologue in which a veteran brings his family to the American cemetery at Normandy, and a flashback then joins Capt. John Miller (Tom Hanks) and GIs in a landing craft making the June 6, 1944, approach to Omaha Beach to face devastating German artillery fire. This mass slaughter of American soldiers is depicted in a compelling, unforgettable 24-minute sequence. Miller's men slowly move forward to finally take a concrete pillbox. On the beach littered with bodies is one with the name "Ryan" stenciled on his backpack. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall (Harve Presnell), learning that three Ryan brothers from the same family have all been killed in a single week, requests that the surviving brother, Pvt. James Ryan (Matt Damon), be located and brought back to the United States. Capt. Miller gets the assignment, and he chooses a translator, Cpl. Upham (Jeremy Davis), skilled in language but not in combat, to join his squad of right-hand man Sgt. Horvath (Tom Sizemore), plus privates Mellish (Adam Goldberg), Medic Wade (Giovanni Ribisi), cynical Reiben (Edward Burns) from Brooklyn, Italian-American Caparzo (Vin Diesel), and religious Southerner Jackson (Barry Pepper), an ace sharpshooter who calls on the Lord while taking aim. Having previously experienced action in Italy and North Africa, the close-knit squad sets out through areas still thick with Nazis. After they lose one man in a skirmish at a bombed village, some in the group begin to question the logic of losing more lives to save a single soldier. The film's historical consultant is Stephen E. Ambrose, and the incident is based on a true occurance in Ambrose's 1994 bestseller D-Day: June 6, 1944. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 49
Number of Lists: 102
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:55:49 GMTSaving Private Ryan1998Steven Spielberg<a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a> directed this powerful, realistic re-creation of WWII's D-day invasion and the immediate aftermath. The story opens with a prologue in which a veteran brings his family to the American cemetery at Normandy, and a flashback then joins Capt. John Miller (<a href="/players/P____93341/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Hanks</a>) and GIs in a landing craft making the June 6, 1944, approach to Omaha Beach to face devastating German artillery fire. This mass slaughter of American soldiers is depicted in a compelling, unforgettable 24-minute sequence. Miller's men slowly move forward to finally take a concrete pillbox. On the beach littered with bodies is one with the name "Ryan" stenciled on his backpack. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall (<a href="/players/P____57703/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harve Presnell</a>), learning that three Ryan brothers from the same family have all been killed in a single week, requests that the surviving brother, Pvt. James Ryan (<a href="/players/P____16762/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Matt Damon</a>), be located and brought back to the United States. Capt. Miller gets the assignment, and he chooses a translator, Cpl. Upham (Jeremy Davis), skilled in language but not in combat, to join his squad of right-hand man Sgt. Horvath (<a href="/players/P____66053/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Sizemore</a>), plus privates Mellish (<a href="/players/P____27423/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adam Goldberg</a>), Medic Wade (<a href="/players/P___216061/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Giovanni Ribisi</a>), cynical Reiben (<a href="/players/P_____9698/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edward Burns</a>) from Brooklyn, Italian-American Caparzo (<a href="/players/P___221690/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Vin Diesel</a>), and religious Southerner Jackson (<a href="/players/P___234983/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Barry Pepper</a>), an ace sharpshooter who calls on the Lord while taking aim. Having previously experienced action in Italy and North Africa, the close-knit squad sets out through areas still thick with Nazis. After they lose one man in a skirmish at a bombed village, some in the group begin to question the logic of losing more lives to save a single soldier. The film's historical consultant is Stephen E. Ambrose, and the incident is based on a true occurance in Ambrose's 1994 bestseller D-Day: June 6, 1944. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide49Tag Target (>10)10211114http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t52012fodbr.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Saving_Private_Ryan/118666/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_May_25_The_American_Soldier/625/42398/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 5/25/2009 7:02:17 PM
Body: Happy Memorial Day Y'all. I had something else I decided to go with a more seasonal theme instead. Today is Memorial Day, a day that we're supposed to remember the sacrifices made by those men & women in the armed forces. So, let's all do just that by remembering the way countless films have portrayed them. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan gave a very honorable portrayel of the WWII vets. Most of the characters in this film were a bit too archetypical (is that a word?) But nonetheless, I think it was his way of honoring a generation that will all to soon be lost to us forever. I haven't seen A Bridge Too Far in quite a while, but I do remember liking it a lot. As I recall, this was a film filled with cameos, sort of like another WWII film, The Thin Red Line. This could pretty easily turn into a list of war movies so I'll quit while I'm still ahead. But what I really like to know is: Who is your favorite American soldier. I'm looking for suggestions because as I write this, it is becoming pretty clear that I haven't seen nearly enough of these films. Well, have at it. Emery.
]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 23:02:17 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme5/25/2009 7:02:17 PMHappy Memorial Day Y'all. I had something else I decided to go with a more seasonal theme instead. Today is Memorial Day, a day that we're supposed to remember the sacrifices made by those men &amp; women in the armed forces. So, let's all do just that by remembering the way countless films have portrayed them. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan gave a very honorable portrayel of the WWII vets. Most of the characters in this film were a bit too archetypical (is that a word?) But nonetheless, I think it was his way of honoring a generation that will all to soon be lost to us forever. I haven't seen A Bridge Too Far in quite a while, but I do remember liking it a lot. As I recall, this was a film filled with cameos, sort of like another WWII film, The Thin Red Line. This could pretty easily turn into a list of war movies so I'll quit while I'm still ahead. But what I really like to know is: Who is your favorite American soldier. I'm looking for suggestions because as I write this, it is becoming pretty clear that I haven't seen nearly enough of these films. Well, have at it. Emery. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/32116/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/4/2008 3:59:32 AM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. [/quote] Since this is a contrarian-type group, I'll just say that I put Shakespeare in Love well above Saving Private Ryan (just another war movie) and Life Is Beautiful (comedian tries to get serious about the Holocaust but goes seriously wrong - put if it moved you, then it becomes a worthy movie). The Thin Red Line and Elizabeth are off on some other, orthogonal axes.
]]>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:59:32 GMTjoem18bTop 57/4/2008 3:59:32 AM[quote user="indieabby88"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. [/quote] Since this is a contrarian-type group, I'll just say that I put Shakespeare in Love well above Saving Private Ryan (just another war movie) and Life Is Beautiful (comedian tries to get serious about the Holocaust but goes seriously wrong - put if it moved you, then it becomes a worthy movie). The Thin Red Line and Elizabeth are off on some other, orthogonal axes. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/32099/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 7/3/2008 7:32:53 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise.
]]>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:32:53 GMTindieabby88Top 57/3/2008 7:32:53 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. [/quote] I adore Shakespeare In Love, but yeah...I gotta wonder how people thought it was more worthy of Best Picture than Saving Private Ryan, considering how iconic "Ryan" is now. And I think people are already wondering how Crash managed to snag that statuette. At least when I mention it, I seem to see more eye-rolls than gushing praise. http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_TOP_5_MOVIES_TO_TEACH_AN_ALIEN_ABOUT_EARTH/563/31765/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Labuza
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 6/27/2008 12:26:47 AM
Body: The alien is trying to answer the question "what is life like on Earth," but the greater question is actually "What does it mean to be human?" How do humans interact, what do they wish/dream for in life, what is life on Earth all about for humans. I chose five films that best represent aspects of the human experience Magnolia- No film better shows a better collection of human relationships. This film answers the many ways humans can come together or break off with each other. Although frogs falling from the sky may confuse our intergalatic friend, he will better understand how humans see each other in one another's eyes. The Seventh Seal- Every human tries to answer the big questions in life. What is my purpose? What happens after death? Is there a God? The Seventh Seal will show the alien how humans confront such a bizarre and strange set of questions. Fargo-Humans are not always good. Fargo best shows the corruption of the human soul through greed and desperation. Although there are good people, the alien will see how a good person can go bad, and the dangers of the human psyche. Saving Private Ryan-What does it mean to be a patriot and what is the point of war? These highly ambitious questions cannot be answered by a single film, but Saving Private Ryan attempts to explain why one would be willing to fight and die for our county, and also the utter despair humans can cause on each other. The SPR, the alien will see the best and worst of the human soul. Ikiru-What is important in life? Akira Kurosowa's masterpiece begins to answer this huge question through the sad story of one man and his quest, as the title says, "To Live." This film will teach the alien about what really matters to humans as they approach their final years of life.
]]>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:26:47 GMTLabuzaFilmgaming6/27/2008 12:26:47 AMThe alien is trying to answer the question "what is life like on Earth," but the greater question is actually "What does it mean to be human?" How do humans interact, what do they wish/dream for in life, what is life on Earth all about for humans. I chose five films that best represent aspects of the human experience Magnolia- No film better shows a better collection of human relationships. This film answers the many ways humans can come together or break off with each other. Although frogs falling from the sky may confuse our intergalatic friend, he will better understand how humans see each other in one another's eyes. The Seventh Seal- Every human tries to answer the big questions in life. What is my purpose? What happens after death? Is there a God? The Seventh Seal will show the alien how humans confront such a bizarre and strange set of questions. Fargo-Humans are not always good. Fargo best shows the corruption of the human soul through greed and desperation. Although there are good people, the alien will see how a good person can go bad, and the dangers of the human psyche. Saving Private Ryan-What does it mean to be a patriot and what is the point of war? These highly ambitious questions cannot be answered by a single film, but Saving Private Ryan attempts to explain why one would be willing to fight and die for our county, and also the utter despair humans can cause on each other. The SPR, the alien will see the best and worst of the human soul. Ikiru-What is important in life? Akira Kurosowa's masterpiece begins to answer this huge question through the sad story of one man and his quest, as the title says, "To Live." This film will teach the alien about what really matters to humans as they approach their final years of life. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/31611/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/24/2008 2:02:06 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful.
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:02:06 GMTleeroy711Top 56/24/2008 2:02:06 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="laylor"]Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle.[/quote] I wonder if Crash will be one of those best picture winners that everyone looks back on in 20 years and can't possibly figure out how it could have won. [/quote] I feel the same way about Shakespear in Love 1998. That year it beat Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line and one of my favorites, Life Is Beautiful. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/15/31263.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 11:31:24 PM
Body: FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:24 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/15/2008 11:31:24 PMFORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great clich&eacute;. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28734.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:06:18 PM
Body: Okay, so we all know it's not cool like to Steven Spielberg. Even his worst films are not kitchy enough to like in an "ironic" way, and his best are characterized an honest earnestness. His work is modern, not postmodern, and he is interested in things that film societies generally don't go for. Like Frank Capra, his works are celebrations of the American everyman and basic American values. Worse, he is literally the most popular filmmaker alive, and admitting you are a Spielberg fan may be a bit like admitting you like the literary works of another Stephen- one with the surname of King. But both King and Spielberg are talented artists. I am not sure I would say that either are Great Masters, exactly, but it would be wrong to deny them their obvious attributes because of their popularity. I give this lengthy introduction to this review because I want to be absolutely clear about why I am arguing against a movie that was not only beloved by a LOT of people, but also by 96% of critics according to Rottentomates. My objection to the film is not due to what it tries to do, but how it does it. Saving Private Ryan is essentially a shock picture- it gets its emotional strength by showing lots and lots of acts violence. It is not that different from the previous picture I reviewed- The Magdalene Sisters. Both are about horrific historical events that deserve to be remembered, but both make the critical mistake of thinking that alone is enough to make a great film. The problem with Private Ryan is that it is a brilliantly directed film that has nothing to say, really, aside from the fact that World War Two was horrific. The opening battle scene, of the invasion of Normandy, is among the greatest ever filmed, and it does seem that is what we would have seen had we been there. But then the story starts and we meet with a bunch of stock characters from every WWII movie- the Italian guy, the Jewish guy, the Irish guy, the WASP. They are sent on a mission to find James Ryan (I will not reveal the actors name to avoid spoilers). Ryan has lost his three brothers in battle, and a general sympathetic to his mother wants to spare her the loss of his remaining child. So after a brilliant opening, the rest of the movie becomes essentially a quest- to find Ryan and bring him back. The "adventures" of the men are interspaced with the worst kind of philosophic dialogue- the kind thinks it's deep, but isn't. The men in the company argue over an ethical question that you don't need a PhD in philosophy to answer- is really right to risk the lives of eight men just to ease one women's heartache? If you don't know the answer to that, you probably should see this movie. Most everyone who praises the film does so because of its emotional impact, and some of the reviewers were so moved I wondered whether I was becoming a heartless person to not care more than I did. But no, the key difference is that the men in the movie are not real- I did not believe their cheesy dialogue or faux philosophy for one second. That is why this one fails while another simple film about war, All Quiet on the Western Front, worked- it too was not deep, but merely present people I believed in a near De Sican simplicity. This is the kind of movie you feel bad giving a negative review to. Spielberg's intent- honoring the soldiers who gave their blood so I have the freedom to write what I want this review- is noble, and should be commended. If Spielberg had merely depicted what happened, as he had in the prologue, this really would be a masterpiece. But if you take away the violence, this is just another WWII film- where every character has a standard payoff and story arc. Looking back on it, I find my self more frustrated than anything. Spielberg demonstrated with the prologue that you could make a realistic account of the war. So why didn't he? Saving Private Ryan (1998)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:06:18 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:06:18 PMOkay, so we all know it's not cool like to Steven Spielberg. Even his worst films are not kitchy enough to like in an "ironic" way, and his best are characterized an honest earnestness. His work is modern, not postmodern, and he is interested in things that film societies generally don't go for. Like Frank Capra, his works are celebrations of the American everyman and basic American values. Worse, he is literally the most popular filmmaker alive, and admitting you are a Spielberg fan may be a bit like admitting you like the literary works of another Stephen- one with the surname of King. But both King and Spielberg are talented artists. I am not sure I would say that either are Great Masters, exactly, but it would be wrong to deny them their obvious attributes because of their popularity. I give this lengthy introduction to this review because I want to be absolutely clear about why I am arguing against a movie that was not only beloved by a LOT of people, but also by 96% of critics according to Rottentomates. My objection to the film is not due to what it tries to do, but how it does it. Saving Private Ryan is essentially a shock picture- it gets its emotional strength by showing lots and lots of acts violence. It is not that different from the previous picture I reviewed- The Magdalene Sisters. Both are about horrific historical events that deserve to be remembered, but both make the critical mistake of thinking that alone is enough to make a great film. The problem with Private Ryan is that it is a brilliantly directed film that has nothing to say, really, aside from the fact that World War Two was horrific. The opening battle scene, of the invasion of Normandy, is among the greatest ever filmed, and it does seem that is what we would have seen had we been there. But then the story starts and we meet with a bunch of stock characters from every WWII movie- the Italian guy, the Jewish guy, the Irish guy, the WASP. They are sent on a mission to find James Ryan (I will not reveal the actors name to avoid spoilers). Ryan has lost his three brothers in battle, and a general sympathetic to his mother wants to spare her the loss of his remaining child. So after a brilliant opening, the rest of the movie becomes essentially a quest- to find Ryan and bring him back. The "adventures" of the men are interspaced with the worst kind of philosophic dialogue- the kind thinks it's deep, but isn't. The men in the company argue over an ethical question that you don't need a PhD in philosophy to answer- is really right to risk the lives of eight men just to ease one women's heartache? If you don't know the answer to that, you probably should see this movie. Most everyone who praises the film does so because of its emotional impact, and some of the reviewers were so moved I wondered whether I was becoming a heartless person to not care more than I did. But no, the key difference is that the men in the movie are not real- I did not believe their cheesy dialogue or faux philosophy for one second. That is why this one fails while another simple film about war, All Quiet on the Western Front, worked- it too was not deep, but merely present people I believed in a near De Sican simplicity. This is the kind of movie you feel bad giving a negative review to. Spielberg's intent- honoring the soldiers who gave their blood so I have the freedom to write what I want this review- is noble, and should be commended. If Spielberg had merely depicted what happened, as he had in the prologue, this really would be a masterpiece. But if you take away the violence, this is just another WWII film- where every character has a standard payoff and story arc. Looking back on it, I find my self more frustrated than anything. Spielberg demonstrated with the prologue that you could make a realistic account of the war. So why didn't he? Saving Private Ryan (1998) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/8/28378.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/8/2008 6:00:38 PM
Body: I’ve always been conflicted by my hatred for war and my love for war films. But I can’t help being excited by cinematic combat. As Miguel Ferrer says in Hot Shots! Part Deux, “War … it’s fantastic!” Certainly his character is referring to the real-life action, but in a reflexive way he’s talking about war on film (he does break the diegetic space when he utters the statement, after all). And I have to say, in that context, no war film in recent years has been as fantastic as Nick Broomfield’s Battle for Haditha, which opened in New York yesterday. The difficult thing about war films is that, despite often being exciting action movies, they’re about real, tragic situations, even if they’re fictional stories set in an actual war (the opening of Saving Private Ryan is of course the epitome of war films’ ability to be at the same time both affecting and awesome). Broomfield’s film has the additional difficulty of being about a real battle from a war that is still going on. And of course there’s that whole problem of Iraq War films being box office poison lately. But if the viewer is able to forget all that stuff, there’s a chance he or she will find Battle for Haditha totally exhilarating. The film presents a dramatization of the titular incident, in which a number of Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. marines in a criminally retributive act following an IED attack on a military convoy. In a way, the film’s story parallels the massacre in Platoon, which was also based on a true event, only far more loosely. So, I wonder if Battle would be more popular with the critics (currently it has a low 44% approval on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences if it was similarly more fictionalized. Actually, Battle may be more fictionalized than it seems to be, but as it is shot somewhat like a documentary by a director well known as a documentarian, it’s easy to get the impression that it’s an accurate account of the incident. Of course, the documentary manner in which the film is shot is more relevant to the Iraq War, from which we’ve seen a surplus of great non-fiction films, than a Platoon-style dramatic war film would be. And like those documentaries, Battle smartly addresses the issues relating to the war, such as the damaged psychology of the soldiers and the cause-effect nature of retaliatory incidents like Haditha. Still, despite its difference in discourse and contexts, it may be enjoyed on the same level as fictional war films like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan (and others). And certainly there are other levels on which to appreciate Battle for Haditha. But I figure that people who appreciate war films for the action aren’t really being targeted, and so I feel it must be pointed out that this is indeed an awesome war film and not another depressing Iraq War film. OK, I guess it is both. And therefore it may be too soon to be taken as mere entertainment. But give it a few years (or a lot of years, depending on when the Iraq War ends), and it could be accepted as being as cool as other war film favorites. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 08 May 2008 22:00:38 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/8/2008 6:00:38 PMI’ve always been conflicted by my hatred for war and my love for war films. But I can’t help being excited by cinematic combat. As Miguel Ferrer says in Hot Shots! Part Deux, “War … it’s fantastic!” Certainly his character is referring to the real-life action, but in a reflexive way he’s talking about war on film (he does break the diegetic space when he utters the statement, after all). And I have to say, in that context, no war film in recent years has been as fantastic as Nick Broomfield’s Battle for Haditha, which opened in New York yesterday. The difficult thing about war films is that, despite often being exciting action movies, they’re about real, tragic situations, even if they’re fictional stories set in an actual war (the opening of Saving Private Ryan is of course the epitome of war films’ ability to be at the same time both affecting and awesome). Broomfield’s film has the additional difficulty of being about a real battle from a war that is still going on. And of course there’s that whole problem of Iraq War films being box office poison lately. But if the viewer is able to forget all that stuff, there’s a chance he or she will find Battle for Haditha totally exhilarating. The film presents a dramatization of the titular incident, in which a number of Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. marines in a criminally retributive act following an IED attack on a military convoy. In a way, the film’s story parallels the massacre in Platoon, which was also based on a true event, only far more loosely. So, I wonder if Battle would be more popular with the critics (currently it has a low 44% approval on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences if it was similarly more fictionalized. Actually, Battle may be more fictionalized than it seems to be, but as it is shot somewhat like a documentary by a director well known as a documentarian, it’s easy to get the impression that it’s an accurate account of the incident. Of course, the documentary manner in which the film is shot is more relevant to the Iraq War, from which we’ve seen a surplus of great non-fiction films, than a Platoon-style dramatic war film would be. And like those documentaries, Battle smartly addresses the issues relating to the war, such as the damaged psychology of the soldiers and the cause-effect nature of retaliatory incidents like Haditha. Still, despite its difference in discourse and contexts, it may be enjoyed on the same level as fictional war films like Platoon and Saving Private Ryan (and others). And certainly there are other levels on which to appreciate Battle for Haditha. But I figure that people who appreciate war films for the action aren’t really being targeted, and so I feel it must be pointed out that this is indeed an awesome war film and not another depressing Iraq War film. OK, I guess it is both. And therefore it may be too soon to be taken as mere entertainment. But give it a few years (or a lot of years, depending on when the Iraq War ends), and it could be accepted as being as cool as other war film favorites. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Tear_Jerking_Scenes/190/26259/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 3/15/2008 9:55:02 PM
Body: 1. Forrest Gump The last scene where he's talking at Jenny's grave always gets me...especially once he puts his kid on the bus. One of the only scenes I've ever actually flat out cried to.2. The Fisher King When Robin Williams finally comes face-to-face with the knight and has to face his past. It's really difficult for me to even watch this scene...it's amazing.3. No Country for Old Men Not really a tear-jerker, but Ed Tom Bell's final meditation on his dreams is amazing. His delivery is so quietly emotional...and I cried from the awesomeness of it.4. Saving Private Ryan A couple scenes to mention: the one where Vin Diesel is shot and just wants someone to deliver his letter to his father, and the final scene. Tom Hanks, you get me every time...5. Children of Men There are so many emotional scenes in this movie...I guess I'll just include all of them. Amazing movie.I heartily agree with the last scene of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, as well as Marge's final words in Fargo. I'd also like to include the final scenes of Donnie Darko and the death of Ned Zissou in The Life Aquatic as honorable mention.
]]>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:55:02 GMTSmooth_JTop 53/15/2008 9:55:02 PM1. Forrest Gump The last scene where he&#39;s talking at Jenny&#39;s grave always gets me...especially once he puts his kid on the bus. One of the only scenes I&#39;ve ever actually flat out cried to.2. The Fisher King When Robin Williams finally comes face-to-face with the knight and has to face his past. It&#39;s really difficult for me to even watch this scene...it&#39;s amazing.3. No Country for Old Men Not really a tear-jerker, but Ed Tom Bell&#39;s final meditation on his dreams is amazing. His delivery is so quietly emotional...and I cried from the awesomeness of it.4. Saving Private Ryan A couple scenes to mention: the one where Vin Diesel is shot and just wants someone to deliver his letter to his father, and the final scene. Tom Hanks, you get me every time...5. Children of Men There are so many emotional scenes in this movie...I guess I&#39;ll just include all of them. Amazing movie.I heartily agree with the last scene of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, as well as Marge&#39;s final words in Fargo. I&#39;d also like to include the final scenes of Donnie Darko and the death of Ned Zissou in The Life Aquatic as honorable mention. http://www.spout.com/blogs/minjoe/archive/2008/3/7/25962.aspx Post By: minjoe
Post To: minjoe Blog
Post Date: 3/7/2008 3:31:06 PM
Body: My Grandfather, and all of his brothers, volunteered for the Second World War because they felt it truly was a battle of good vs. evil. They all talk about their fears that one day people will forget what they did over there and the sacrifices they made. Films like "Saving Private Ryan" help ensure that no one will forget about the Greatest Generation. I was only 15 years old when I first saw this movie and I have watched it many times since that day. The opening sequence of this film, which shows soldiers landing in Normandy, is without a doubt one of the greatest scenes of all time. I am not a soldier. I have never been to war. I hope to God that I never have to go to war. But upon seeing this film, I felt for the first time in my gut, the horrors and savageness of battle. No film has ever come close to making a viewer truly understand what battle is like until this movie. Spielberg does an amazing job of showing how the brave and cowardly can fall with equal regularity when a rain of steel is falling on you. To this day I still do not truly have words to describe the emotions that scene evokes within me. However, I feel this movie is judged too much on the opening sequence alone. Hanks, Sizemore, and the rest of the actors do a wonderful job of showing the highs and lows of battle throughout the film. The spirit of the fighting man, the fear and hopelessness of battle, and the voice inside that keeps telling them to go despite how desperate situations may seem are all on display in "Saving Private Ryan." Perhaps Spielbergs greatest victory is in simplifying a war that spanned the entire world, took millions of lives, and changed the world politically for the next generation, into a story about one man. War movies always discuss the big picture and what it all means to the overall effort. While there are times in Saving Private Ryan where such things are discussed, the overwhelming majority of the plot devotes itself to the search for one man in the chaos. They are given a mission to do the impossible, and we in the audience are granted the joy of watching them work toward that goal. The ending of this film can bring a tear to the eye of anyone, and when it concludes, you will sit there trying to wrap your head around everything you just saw and find yourself completely unable to do so. Saving Private Ryan redefines what a "powerful" film is all about. http://movieswithminjoe.blogspot.com
]]>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:31:06 GMTminjoeminjoe Blog3/7/2008 3:31:06 PMMy Grandfather, and all of his brothers, volunteered for the Second World War because they felt it truly was a battle of good vs. evil. They all talk about their fears that one day people will forget what they did over there and the sacrifices they made. Films like "Saving Private Ryan" help ensure that no one will forget about the Greatest Generation. I was only 15 years old when I first saw this movie and I have watched it many times since that day. The opening sequence of this film, which shows soldiers landing in Normandy, is without a doubt one of the greatest scenes of all time. I am not a soldier. I have never been to war. I hope to God that I never have to go to war. But upon seeing this film, I felt for the first time in my gut, the horrors and savageness of battle. No film has ever come close to making a viewer truly understand what battle is like until this movie. Spielberg does an amazing job of showing how the brave and cowardly can fall with equal regularity when a rain of steel is falling on you. To this day I still do not truly have words to describe the emotions that scene evokes within me. However, I feel this movie is judged too much on the opening sequence alone. Hanks, Sizemore, and the rest of the actors do a wonderful job of showing the highs and lows of battle throughout the film. The spirit of the fighting man, the fear and hopelessness of battle, and the voice inside that keeps telling them to go despite how desperate situations may seem are all on display in "Saving Private Ryan." Perhaps Spielbergs greatest victory is in simplifying a war that spanned the entire world, took millions of lives, and changed the world politically for the next generation, into a story about one man. War movies always discuss the big picture and what it all means to the overall effort. While there are times in Saving Private Ryan where such things are discussed, the overwhelming majority of the plot devotes itself to the search for one man in the chaos. They are given a mission to do the impossible, and we in the audience are granted the joy of watching them work toward that goal. The ending of this film can bring a tear to the eye of anyone, and when it concludes, you will sit there trying to wrap your head around everything you just saw and find yourself completely unable to do so. Saving Private Ryan redefines what a "powerful" film is all about. http://movieswithminjoe.blogspot.com http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

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

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176179607Tag 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/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 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag 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/WWII/MemberTagFilms.aspxWWII
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 75

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:49:02 GMT584175Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stunning/MemberTagFilms.aspxstunning
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 44

]]>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:18:04 GMT303244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brother/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrother
Number of films tagged: 2301

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 82

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT23013082Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Changed-My-Life/MemberTagFilms.aspxChanged-My-Life
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 03:22:35 GMT462760Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beach/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeach
Number of films tagged: 391

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 58

]]>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:53:12 GMT3912358Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Didnt-Get-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxDidnt-Get-It
Number of films tagged: 36

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 42

]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:46:38 GMT362242Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Spielberg/MemberTagFilms.aspxSpielberg
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 49

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:14:12 GMT302249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag