list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace 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/Star_Wars_Episode_I_The_Phantom_Menace/133662/default.aspx Title: Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Year: 1999
Director: George Lucas
Plot: In 1977, George Lucas released Star Wars, the ultimate sci-fi popcorn flick-turned-pop-culture myth machine. It quickly became the biggest money-making film of all time and changed the shape of the film industry. After two successful sequels (1980's The Empire Strikes Back and 1983's Return of the Jedi) that extended the story of the first film, Lucas took some time off to produce movies for others, with mixed success. In 1999, Lucas returned to the Star Wars saga with a new approach -- instead of picking up where Return of the Jedi left off, Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace would be the first of a trilogy of stories to trace what happened in the intergalactic saga before the first film began. Here, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) is a young apprentice Jedi knight under the tutelage of Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson); Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), who will later father Luke Skywalker and become known as Darth Vader, is just a nine-year-old boy. When the Trade Federation cuts off all routes to the planet Naboo, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are assigned to settle the matter, but when they arrive on Naboo they are brought to Amidala (Natalie Portman), the Naboo queen, by a friendly but opportunistic Gungan named Jar Jar. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan plan to escort Amidala to a meeting of Republic leaders in Coruscant, but trouble with their spacecraft strands them on the planet Tatooine, where Qui-Gon meets Anakin, the slave of a scrap dealer. Qui-Gon is soon convinced that the boy could be the leader the Jedis have been searching for, and he begins bargaining for his freedom and teaching the boy the lessons of the Force. The supporting cast includes Pernilla August as Anakin's mother, Terence Stamp as Chancellor Valorum, and Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi master Mace Windu. Jackson told a reporter before The Phantom Menace's release that the best part about doing the film was that he got to say "May the Force be with you" onscreen. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 37
Number of Lists: 91
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 14
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:37:22 GMTStar Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace1999George LucasIn 1977, <a href="/players/P___100308/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Lucas</a> released <a href=/films/32762/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star Wars</a>, the ultimate sci-fi popcorn flick-turned-pop-culture myth machine. It quickly became the biggest money-making film of all time and changed the shape of the film industry. After two successful sequels (1980's <a href=/films/10456/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Empire Strikes Back</a> and 1983's <a href=/films/28717/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Return of the Jedi</a>) that extended the story of the first film, Lucas took some time off to produce movies for others, with mixed success. In 1999, Lucas returned to the <a href=/films/32762/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Star Wars</a> saga with a new approach -- instead of picking up where <a href=/films/28717/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Return of the Jedi</a> left off, Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace would be the first of a trilogy of stories to trace what happened in the intergalactic saga before the first film began. Here, Obi-Wan Kenobi (<a href="/players/P___196980/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ewan McGregor</a>) is a young apprentice Jedi knight under the tutelage of Qui-Gon Jinn (<a href="/players/P____52070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liam Neeson</a>); Anakin Skywalker (<a href="/players/P___213658/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jake Lloyd</a>), who will later father Luke Skywalker and become known as Darth Vader, is just a nine-year-old boy. When the Trade Federation cuts off all routes to the planet Naboo, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are assigned to settle the matter, but when they arrive on Naboo they are brought to Amidala (<a href="/players/P___197461/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Natalie Portman</a>), the Naboo queen, by a friendly but opportunistic Gungan named Jar Jar. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan plan to escort Amidala to a meeting of Republic leaders in Coruscant, but trouble with their spacecraft strands them on the planet Tatooine, where Qui-Gon meets Anakin, the slave of a scrap dealer. Qui-Gon is soon convinced that the boy could be the leader the Jedis have been searching for, and he begins bargaining for his freedom and teaching the boy the lessons of the Force. The supporting cast includes <a href="/players/P_____2837/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pernilla August</a> as Anakin's mother, <a href="/players/P____67541/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Terence Stamp</a> as Chancellor Valorum, and Samuel L. Jackson as Jedi master Mace Windu. Jackson told a reporter before The Phantom Menace's release that the best part about doing the film was that he got to say "May the Force be with you" onscreen. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide37Tag Target (>10)9114143http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t57156jjq1n.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Star_Wars_Episode_I_The_Phantom_Menace/133662/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42096.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 3:46:58 PM
Body: This is the beginning of the story which takes place "a long time ago -- in a galaxy far. far away." It is the start of a new trilogy of one of the most beloved science-fiction franchises ever. However, like the rest of this trilogy, this movie is not perfect and doesn't follow the continuity set in the original trilogy many years ago. The galactic government has been weaken, and the planet "Naboo" is the next target to the powerful "Trade Federation." It seems that nobody will step in to protect "Queen Amadala" (Natalie Portman) and her loyal subjects. "Jedi Knight Quin-Gon Jinn" (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice "Obi-Wan Kenobi" (Ewan McGregor) are sent to find a settlement, and find a young boy (Jake Lloyd) "Jinn" believes will bring ballance to "The Force," a mysterious energy that binds everything together that can be controlled after some training. The first thing you will notice is the incredible visuals. It is definitely CGI, but it is absolutely beautiful. I strongly recommend that you see this movie in letterbox format to truly appreciate the visual effects. Another thing that stands out are the incredible battle scenes and "lightsaber" fights. The battle scenes are filled with CGI, but are wonderfully produced, while the "lightsaber" fights are amazingly choreographed and will take your breath away for the speed they are at. There are some weak performances, which improve as this trilogy unfolds. There are also some scenes which seem to lag a bit, and are pretty boring. There are also some problems with the audio mixing, especially when "Anakin" (Lloyd) speaks in some scenes. One big problem is that one of the villains is not only poorly developed, he doesn't get a chance to be a major part of the franchise and only lasts until his death near the end of this film. Personally, I would have liked to have seen him last until some time before "Anakin" is seduced by the "Dark Side" of the "Force" in "Episode 3," which closes this trilogy. In fact, many characters are not well developed in this film. Another problem, but minor one, is that there are just too many CGI characters in this film. To me the live actors aren't even looking "eye-to-eye" with them when they are "looking" at them to "talk" with them. In the original trilogy, all the characters are live-action, thanks to the technology of the time. Those characters that could have been CGI if the original trilogy were made today worked much better than the CGI characters like "Jar Jar Binks" (voiced by Ahmed Best) and "Watto" (voiced by Andrew Secombe). However, the CGI characters are nicely animated into the scenery. On the other hand, the wardrobes and non-CGI sets are wonderful. The clothing looks pretty futuristic, but somehow looks like something we'd see today in some cases. And the buildings are beautiful and quite massive. Some of the sets that standout are the exteriors used for the buildings on "Naboo". Fans of the original trilogy will see some continuity mistakes with the original trilogy. Newer fans may not see these at the first viewing of this film, but will eventually see them. Despite some problems with the CGI, sound mixing and continuity errors, this movie is fun to watch. In my opinion it would be a good addition to any sci-fi fans collection, and a good rental.
]]>Thu, 07 May 2009 19:46:58 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 3:46:58 PMThis is the beginning of the story which takes place "a long time ago -- in a galaxy far. far away." It is the start of a new trilogy of one of the most beloved science-fiction franchises ever. However, like the rest of this trilogy, this movie is not perfect and doesn't follow the continuity set in the original trilogy many years ago. The galactic government has been weaken, and the planet "Naboo" is the next target to the powerful "Trade Federation." It seems that nobody will step in to protect "Queen Amadala" (Natalie Portman) and her loyal subjects. "Jedi Knight Quin-Gon Jinn" (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice "Obi-Wan Kenobi" (Ewan McGregor) are sent to find a settlement, and find a young boy (Jake Lloyd) "Jinn" believes will bring ballance to "The Force," a mysterious energy that binds everything together that can be controlled after some training. The first thing you will notice is the incredible visuals. It is definitely CGI, but it is absolutely beautiful. I strongly recommend that you see this movie in letterbox format to truly appreciate the visual effects. Another thing that stands out are the incredible battle scenes and "lightsaber" fights. The battle scenes are filled with CGI, but are wonderfully produced, while the "lightsaber" fights are amazingly choreographed and will take your breath away for the speed they are at. There are some weak performances, which improve as this trilogy unfolds. There are also some scenes which seem to lag a bit, and are pretty boring. There are also some problems with the audio mixing, especially when "Anakin" (Lloyd) speaks in some scenes. One big problem is that one of the villains is not only poorly developed, he doesn't get a chance to be a major part of the franchise and only lasts until his death near the end of this film. Personally, I would have liked to have seen him last until some time before "Anakin" is seduced by the "Dark Side" of the "Force" in "Episode 3," which closes this trilogy. In fact, many characters are not well developed in this film. Another problem, but minor one, is that there are just too many CGI characters in this film. To me the live actors aren't even looking "eye-to-eye" with them when they are "looking" at them to "talk" with them. In the original trilogy, all the characters are live-action, thanks to the technology of the time. Those characters that could have been CGI if the original trilogy were made today worked much better than the CGI characters like "Jar Jar Binks" (voiced by Ahmed Best) and "Watto" (voiced by Andrew Secombe). However, the CGI characters are nicely animated into the scenery. On the other hand, the wardrobes and non-CGI sets are wonderful. The clothing looks pretty futuristic, but somehow looks like something we'd see today in some cases. And the buildings are beautiful and quite massive. Some of the sets that standout are the exteriors used for the buildings on "Naboo". Fans of the original trilogy will see some continuity mistakes with the original trilogy. Newer fans may not see these at the first viewing of this film, but will eventually see them. Despite some problems with the CGI, sound mixing and continuity errors, this movie is fun to watch. In my opinion it would be a good addition to any sci-fi fans collection, and a good rental. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/13/41014.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/13/2009 3:00:43 PM
Body: Even if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/13/2009 3:00:43 PMEven if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40945.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 6:01:08 PM
Body: If you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 6:01:08 PMIf you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37378.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 4:00:48 PM
Body: After watching the new Star Trek trailer leaked on YouTube and coming away completely confused, I was happy to discover that the spot was receiving a proper, official release this morning. But after also watching the higher-quality version on Apple.com, I’m not any more enthused. It still looks cluttered with too much CG and potentially weak direction — kind of like the first Star Wars prequel, of which I’m also reminded thanks to that lame, child version of James “Siberius” Kirk. And it still lays on the characters and sets up the plot as messily as possible. Worst of all, it doesn’t at all pique the interest of a non-Trekkie like myself. I know, looking at the recent marketing of Twilight and Watchmen has informed me that the first trailer is for the fans and a later spot will be a better introduction to the characters and will feature more appealing elements for newbies. But I figured that teaser trailer we saw way back in January was the one for the followers. There’s not much time left to get me, a guy who has only seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (and only for the whales), fully excited. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that this movie isn’t still arriving this Christmas, and so there’s plenty of time between now and May 2009 for Paramount to release another trailer that will woo me sufficiently. Hopefully presenting me with better views of both Winona Ryder (is that actually her laying down in the white outfit?) and villain Eric Bana (am I the only one who thinks that shot of him too much resembles Zachary Quinto as Spock?), not to mention the principal crew of the Enterprise (more Simon Pegg especially). However, if the trailers keep on seeming directed primarily at the Trekkies, Paramount might want to expect another disappointing box office take from the franchise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:00:48 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 4:00:48 PM After watching the new Star Trek trailer leaked on YouTube and coming away completely confused, I was happy to discover that the spot was receiving a proper, official release this morning. But after also watching the higher-quality version on Apple.com, I’m not any more enthused. It still looks cluttered with too much CG and potentially weak direction — kind of like the first Star Wars prequel, of which I’m also reminded thanks to that lame, child version of James “Siberius” Kirk. And it still lays on the characters and sets up the plot as messily as possible. Worst of all, it doesn’t at all pique the interest of a non-Trekkie like myself. I know, looking at the recent marketing of Twilight and Watchmen has informed me that the first trailer is for the fans and a later spot will be a better introduction to the characters and will feature more appealing elements for newbies. But I figured that teaser trailer we saw way back in January was the one for the followers. There’s not much time left to get me, a guy who has only seen Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (and only for the whales), fully excited. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that this movie isn’t still arriving this Christmas, and so there’s plenty of time between now and May 2009 for Paramount to release another trailer that will woo me sufficiently. Hopefully presenting me with better views of both Winona Ryder (is that actually her laying down in the white outfit?) and villain Eric Bana (am I the only one who thinks that shot of him too much resembles Zachary Quinto as Spock?), not to mention the principal crew of the Enterprise (more Simon Pegg especially). However, if the trailers keep on seeming directed primarily at the Trekkies, Paramount might want to expect another disappointing box office take from the franchise. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/rik_tod/archive/2008/9/2/34638.aspx Post By: rik_tod
Post To: The Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost
Post Date: 9/2/2008 10:00:29 AM
Body: Director: Stig SvendsenNorwegian, 9 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 6A scene that I did not mention the other day in my piece on My Name is Yu Ming was one in which the titular character, a Chinese man who has learned Gaelic in order to seek a new and hopefully more fulfilling existence in Ireland (a course which he has suggested to himself entirely at random), engages in an impersonation of an iconic movie scene. Yu Ming, his face covered by cream as he shaves in front of his bathroom mirror, begins to perform De Niro's "You talkin' to me?" scene from Taxi Driver, repeating the famous lines in his newly learned second language, though after he does four or five bits, he drops the tough guy act and snickers nerdishly at the mirror, handily amused with his lonely antics.I started to wonder then as to whether a character in Yu Ming's circumstances and location would have not only actually had the chance to see Taxi Driver, but whether that sequence has quite the same impact dubbed into another language, where it is no longer De Niro verbally acting the part. My musing then broke down into whether, if Yu Ming had indeed seen Taxi Driver, it was as a bootleg via the black market, or then, if not, if the film were even available legally in his country. In Ireland, where My Name is Yu Ming was made, certainly it is available, and the English version would naturally carry over and play well the same there. It was the inclusion of China into the equation that had me musing.I didn't think much about this film scene that comments on yet another film scene until I watched the sixth film on the Shorts! Volume 3 DVD collection, Loose Ends, a couple of days later. Where Yu Ming only fleetingly (and without real consequence) nodded at American pop culture, this nine-minute comic Norwegian short practically wallows in it. Having recently watched Simon Pegg's Spaced for the first (and second and third) time, I couldn't held but reflect upon it when confronted with Loose Ends' pair of Star Wars-obsessed supergeeks, who start an epic battle (though always of modest proportions) over whether E.T.s belong in the Star Wars universe.Their geekitude is proven by their abilities to delve into such battle not over the better films in the Star Wars series, but over the worst one instead. But I myself shall not continue the debate, nor will I give away much more in the short, as pretty much the entire piece depends on how they play off the various permutations of this running feud. This includes the punchline, which I find personally a little underwhelming, though when I first watched it, the bit did warrant a chuckle on my part, as it did my girlfriend, who is herself a tad obsessive over the series, when I showed it to her later. At that point, though, I was past the chuckling stage over the ending, and had moved on to wondering where the rest of the Clerks-style Norwegian comedy classic, out of which this short seems to have wandered, could be. Two loser geeks rambling smartly but to little positive effect about minor details in Star Wars movies? Sounds like Nordic Kevin Smith to me, especially with a lot of Ås waddling about the place.I am still unsure about whether the title Loose Ends really works for this film, as I really don't see anything in the commonly accepted though ambiguous area of loose ends in it, nor is anything really left unresolved, nor is it Norwegian porn -- gay, straight or transgendered -- so it certainly couldn't stand for anything in the area. The title most definitely didn't prepare me for the fact that I would smacked straight off in the face with jokes about Jar Jar Binks and the slow, careful loading of an E.T. Pez dispenser. But, like the Yu Ming scene, Loose Ends set me immediately into wondering about the prevalence of American pop culture throughout the globe. Not so much about the effects of such prevalence, because I really don't care, and am, in fact, more concerned about the effects on our own country, and only regarding those things for which I hold distaste if not outright disdain.I do not doubt that someone will take me to task for considering the Star Wars films wholly American as they were filmed to a great extent in England, Tunisia and points elsewhere, and with an international cast to boot. But, production-wise and creator-wise, they are just as American as Lucas' Graffiti, though if it helps matters for the nitpickers (with whom I would often fall into rank), we could just speak of this as English-speaking culture and be done with it.In the end, we have a series of science fiction/fantasy films (let's not start that argument here) that are wildly popular throughout the world, are referenced constantly in American culture in all forms of media, and now, apparently, have inspired a Norwegian filmmaker to create his own slacker comedy short built around the incidental appearances of characters from other American films or from films in the same series which take place years in the future apart from the films under discussion (The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith).That this became the subject of the film's dialogue charmed me from the start of Loose Ends, chiefly because I was not expecting it, especially from two guys (one of whom, unsurprisingly, is named Lars) driving through some undefined backstretch of the Norwegian road system in the middle of the night. I doubt if the subject were anything else of actual Scandinavian origin that I would have been drawn so quickly into the film. (Well, any subject except for lutefisk... that is so frightening and noxious a concept, that any film attempting to explain its supposed appeal has got to be fascinating straight through.) Suddenly, I am watching two fellows from a foreign land having a conversation that I could just as easily have with any of my own friends here in the States. And probably have had at some point.But the film, perhaps befitting the shabbiness of its choice of Star Wars flicks, is only an amusing trifle and the initial charm starts to wear off before the conclusion. Even in a home where I am surrounded by Harryhausen posters, Universal Monster models and Bruce Campbell knick-knacks, geek culture grows increasingly thin with me the longer I am exposed to it through the voices or actions of others outside myself. It's the main reason I have yet to actually venture to Comic-Con, even though I live not that far away. It's the main reason I have only been in a comic shop twice in the last three years. And it's also the reason I have yet to attend a film festival down here. Perhaps it stems from a self-loathing, and I don't wish to be reminded of that which I have become, a person who has been sucked into a vortex of comics, music, toys and videos from which I know no reasonable escape. Not to say that I do not enjoy my trappings nor continue to add to my various collections. But I also recognize that perhaps with a little bit of self-restraint, I might have a real home now, instead of a massive pile of what largely boils down to nothing but paper and plastic representing junk culture crammed into an increasingly crowded apartment. Who knows what I might have done with the money I would have saved over the past 25 years? I might have done something bigger than just blowing wads of cash attempting to complete my Fantastic Four collection (which I never actually did) or tracking down those elusive Cowboy Bebop soundtrack import CDs (which were subsequently swiped from me). At least Yu Ming knew enough to cut his geek foray off after a couple of Gaelic-translated Travis Bickle lines.And now you know why I am reluctant to be concerned about how our culture is affecting the rest of the world. Sometimes, I think they can just have it. And the Norwegians can certainly keep The Phantom Menace if they wish...
]]>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:00:29 GMTrik_todThe Cinema 4 Pylon: SpOutpost9/2/2008 10:00:29 AMDirector: Stig SvendsenNorwegian, 9 minutes, colorCinema 4 Rating: 6A scene that I did not mention the other day in my piece on My Name is Yu Ming was one in which the titular character, a Chinese man who has learned Gaelic in order to seek a new and hopefully more fulfilling existence in Ireland (a course which he has suggested to himself entirely at random), engages in an impersonation of an iconic movie scene. Yu Ming, his face covered by cream as he shaves in front of his bathroom mirror, begins to perform De Niro's "You talkin' to me?" scene from Taxi Driver, repeating the famous lines in his newly learned second language, though after he does four or five bits, he drops the tough guy act and snickers nerdishly at the mirror, handily amused with his lonely antics.I started to wonder then as to whether a character in Yu Ming's circumstances and location would have not only actually had the chance to see Taxi Driver, but whether that sequence has quite the same impact dubbed into another language, where it is no longer De Niro verbally acting the part. My musing then broke down into whether, if Yu Ming had indeed seen Taxi Driver, it was as a bootleg via the black market, or then, if not, if the film were even available legally in his country. In Ireland, where My Name is Yu Ming was made, certainly it is available, and the English version would naturally carry over and play well the same there. It was the inclusion of China into the equation that had me musing.I didn't think much about this film scene that comments on yet another film scene until I watched the sixth film on the Shorts! Volume 3 DVD collection, Loose Ends, a couple of days later. Where Yu Ming only fleetingly (and without real consequence) nodded at American pop culture, this nine-minute comic Norwegian short practically wallows in it. Having recently watched Simon Pegg's Spaced for the first (and second and third) time, I couldn't held but reflect upon it when confronted with Loose Ends' pair of Star Wars-obsessed supergeeks, who start an epic battle (though always of modest proportions) over whether E.T.s belong in the Star Wars universe.Their geekitude is proven by their abilities to delve into such battle not over the better films in the Star Wars series, but over the worst one instead. But I myself shall not continue the debate, nor will I give away much more in the short, as pretty much the entire piece depends on how they play off the various permutations of this running feud. This includes the punchline, which I find personally a little underwhelming, though when I first watched it, the bit did warrant a chuckle on my part, as it did my girlfriend, who is herself a tad obsessive over the series, when I showed it to her later. At that point, though, I was past the chuckling stage over the ending, and had moved on to wondering where the rest of the Clerks-style Norwegian comedy classic, out of which this short seems to have wandered, could be. Two loser geeks rambling smartly but to little positive effect about minor details in Star Wars movies? Sounds like Nordic Kevin Smith to me, especially with a lot of &Aring;s waddling about the place.I am still unsure about whether the title Loose Ends really works for this film, as I really don't see anything in the commonly accepted though ambiguous area of loose ends in it, nor is anything really left unresolved, nor is it Norwegian porn -- gay, straight or transgendered -- so it certainly couldn't stand for anything in the area. The title most definitely didn't prepare me for the fact that I would smacked straight off in the face with jokes about Jar Jar Binks and the slow, careful loading of an E.T. Pez dispenser. But, like the Yu Ming scene, Loose Ends set me immediately into wondering about the prevalence of American pop culture throughout the globe. Not so much about the effects of such prevalence, because I really don't care, and am, in fact, more concerned about the effects on our own country, and only regarding those things for which I hold distaste if not outright disdain.I do not doubt that someone will take me to task for considering the Star Wars films wholly American as they were filmed to a great extent in England, Tunisia and points elsewhere, and with an international cast to boot. But, production-wise and creator-wise, they are just as American as Lucas' Graffiti, though if it helps matters for the nitpickers (with whom I would often fall into rank), we could just speak of this as English-speaking culture and be done with it.In the end, we have a series of science fiction/fantasy films (let's not start that argument here) that are wildly popular throughout the world, are referenced constantly in American culture in all forms of media, and now, apparently, have inspired a Norwegian filmmaker to create his own slacker comedy short built around the incidental appearances of characters from other American films or from films in the same series which take place years in the future apart from the films under discussion (The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith).That this became the subject of the film's dialogue charmed me from the start of Loose Ends, chiefly because I was not expecting it, especially from two guys (one of whom, unsurprisingly, is named Lars) driving through some undefined backstretch of the Norwegian road system in the middle of the night. I doubt if the subject were anything else of actual Scandinavian origin that I would have been drawn so quickly into the film. (Well, any subject except for lutefisk... that is so frightening and noxious a concept, that any film attempting to explain its supposed appeal has got to be fascinating straight through.) Suddenly, I am watching two fellows from a foreign land having a conversation that I could just as easily have with any of my own friends here in the States. And probably have had at some point.But the film, perhaps befitting the shabbiness of its choice of Star Wars flicks, is only an amusing trifle and the initial charm starts to wear off before the conclusion. Even in a home where I am surrounded by Harryhausen posters, Universal Monster models and Bruce Campbell knick-knacks, geek culture grows increasingly thin with me the longer I am exposed to it through the voices or actions of others outside myself. It's the main reason I have yet to actually venture to Comic-Con, even though I live not that far away. It's the main reason I have only been in a comic shop twice in the last three years. And it's also the reason I have yet to attend a film festival down here. Perhaps it stems from a self-loathing, and I don't wish to be reminded of that which I have become, a person who has been sucked into a vortex of comics, music, toys and videos from which I know no reasonable escape. Not to say that I do not enjoy my trappings nor continue to add to my various collections. But I also recognize that perhaps with a little bit of self-restraint, I might have a real home now, instead of a massive pile of what largely boils down to nothing but paper and plastic representing junk culture crammed into an increasingly crowded apartment. Who knows what I might have done with the money I would have saved over the past 25 years? I might have done something bigger than just blowing wads of cash attempting to complete my Fantastic Four collection (which I never actually did) or tracking down those elusive Cowboy Bebop soundtrack import CDs (which were subsequently swiped from me). At least Yu Ming knew enough to cut his geek foray off after a couple of Gaelic-translated Travis Bickle lines.And now you know why I am reluctant to be concerned about how our culture is affecting the rest of the world. Sometimes, I think they can just have it. And the Norwegians can certainly keep The Phantom Menace if they wish... http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/27/34476.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/27/2008 6:01:15 PM
Body: With the arrival of Star Wars: The Clone Wars in theaters (which I’ve still yet to see) I thought it a good opportunity to revisit the first part of Lucas’ space epic. As I worked through The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and then Revenge of the Sith (with the first animated Clone Wars series in between the last two) I found the biggest change is a gradual diminishing of unnecessary moments in each consecutive film. Where Menace is filled with shots that serve no discernible purpose, Sith is pretty tight from a story-telling point of view. We aren’t subjected to many useless shots of a character looking from one side of the frame to the next, and the camera doesn’t linger upon the glory of Lucas’ CGI creations as it so often does in the first movie. It’s impossible, even if you’re like me and are willing to forgive a lot as I am, to not be occasionally taken out of the moment by the hammy bits of dialogue and instances of wooden acting that litter the films. But even with those roadblocks in place the trilogy probably isn’t as bad as most people would have you think. It’s simply impossible to feel about a movie at age 30 the same way you did when you were seven. And that reality has done a lot of damage to a set of movies that, really, aren’t as bad as they’ve been made out to be. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:01:15 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/27/2008 6:01:15 PMWith the arrival of Star Wars: The Clone Wars in theaters (which I’ve still yet to see) I thought it a good opportunity to revisit the first part of Lucas’ space epic. As I worked through The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and then Revenge of the Sith (with the first animated Clone Wars series in between the last two) I found the biggest change is a gradual diminishing of unnecessary moments in each consecutive film. Where Menace is filled with shots that serve no discernible purpose, Sith is pretty tight from a story-telling point of view. We aren’t subjected to many useless shots of a character looking from one side of the frame to the next, and the camera doesn’t linger upon the glory of Lucas’ CGI creations as it so often does in the first movie. It’s impossible, even if you’re like me and are willing to forgive a lot as I am, to not be occasionally taken out of the moment by the hammy bits of dialogue and instances of wooden acting that litter the films. But even with those roadblocks in place the trilogy probably isn’t as bad as most people would have you think. It’s simply impossible to feel about a movie at age 30 the same way you did when you were seven. And that reality has done a lot of damage to a set of movies that, really, aren’t as bad as they’ve been made out to be. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/24/33020.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM
Body: Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/24/2008 11:01:19 AM Earlier this year, I thought that it was way too late for a Sex and the City movie. But then it made a ton of cash, so I guess I was wrong. Still, I’m going to continue similarly thinking it’s too late for another X-Files movie. And even if I’m proven wrong and the masses get out to theaters this weekend in search of the truth, I’ll keep on believing that X-Files: I Want to Believe is way past its time. To celebrate Mulder and Scully’s tardiness, here are 10 other movies that came out too late: The Godfather Part III (Released in: 1990; Should have been released in: 1976) - Never mind the fact that had this third installment been made years earlier, Sofia Coppola wouldn’t have been cast and therefore wouldn’t have given her terribly infamous performance. The more important matter is that sequels arriving more than a decade after the previous installment are almost always doomed. The longer the wait, the higher the expectations, and the greater the disappointment. Of course, not everyone agrees that it was also too late for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Live Free or Die Hard, Rambo, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, etc. Snakes on a Plane (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - By the time it finally hit theaters, there was already a major backlash to the hype behind SoaP, and that backlash was apparently well-deserved when audiences saw just how lame the movie ended up being. It was an early indicator that a lot of internet buzz and popular viral marketing does not necessarily equal a lot of money at the box office. More than a year later, though, fears of another SoaP-like disappointment came with the hype behind Cloverfield, yet the monster movie fared much better. Of course, no movie seemed to be more ridiculous a web sensation than The Dark Knight, the record-breaking success of which could still prompt more SoaP-type disasters in the future. Home on the Range (Released in: 2004; Should have been released in: 1994) - When you Google the words “ill-timed” “release” and “film”, this is the first thing that comes up, probably because it’s legendary for marking the (temporary) end of 2-D Disney animation. It actually came out almost a decade after the first Pixar feature signaled the doomed future of these kinds of films, and a number of 2-D animations were actually quite successful in that ten years. But Home on the Range is notable for both having begun preproduction before the release of the first Toy Story and for having been announced as the last traditionally animated Disney feature. Now, of course, the studio has changed its mind, so we’ll just have to see if Home on the Range was indeed too late or simply too bad. Infamous (Released in: 2006; Should have been released in: 2005) - One of many unfortunate movies to come out on the heels of another film dealing with the same subject. Similarly late, similarly redundant efforts include Deep Impact, Mars Attacks!, Volcano, The Forbidden Dance, Red Planet, Wyatt Earp and Valmont. But Infamous seemed more the loser of its race because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Oscar win for Capote. The Simpsons Movie (Released in: 2007; Should have been released in: 1997) - It may be funny enough, but this movie still suffered a bit from being past the TV series’ prime. A lot more people would have been a lot more excited about the spin-off if it had come out ten years earlier. The Onion Movie (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 2003) - Should this not be included because it actually never came out in theaters in the U.S.? Whatever. I’m still accepting it as one of the worst examples of shelving a film for way too long. From the unbearable bits I attempted to watch, the jokes were quite dated, though I have to admit they might not have been all that funny when (mostly) filmed five years ago. As an alternate, in case you don’t accept this title: The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which was also shelved for a few years, but which was probably made too late anyway. Get Smart (Released in 2008; Should have been released in: 1978) - When it opened earlier this summer, I wrote a list about how this movie was obsolete before it was even made. Check out those 10 reasons here. Eyes Wide Shut (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1998) - It may still have been received as poorly, but if this film had been able to be finished and to come out before Stanley Kubrick’s death, it might have at least been a stronger work. Angela’s Ashes (Released in: 1999; Should have been released in: 1995) - How long is too late for a film adaptation of a best-selling book? Considering there are still successful movies based on works such as “The Iliad” and “Beowulf”, there’s apparently no limit. But for some reason this cinematic version of Frank McCourt’s wildly popular memoir bombed at the box office. I guess compared to those early works, “Angela’s Ashes” had been read by everyone in America by the time the movie arrived, and few of its fans needed to go through the depressing events a second time. Glitter (Released in: 2001; Should have been released in: 1991) - Maybe if it had opened before 9/11, as it was supposed to, instead of directly following the tragedy. Or, better yet, maybe if it had opened in the mid ’90s before people stopped giving a damn about Mariah, it wouldn’t have bombed so horribly. Actually, because Mariah eventually became popular again, and thanks to VH1, so did the 1980s, Glitter may also be considered a movie that was too early. Perhaps one day it can find success as a Broadway show, a la Xanadu. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Movies_that_create_yearning_burning_on_a_dese/598/31609/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 6/24/2008 1:09:40 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] A trio of movies that are worse than having no movies. They only succeed in reminding you of the movies you're missing: 1. The Phantom Menace 2. The Lost World: Jurassic Park 3. The Ladykillers [/quote] Don't you put a Coen brothers movie on that list!!! [/quote] I second that. You know Rizzo, just because you edited out the cuss word in your post doesn't mean we didn't get the email showing your true raw unaldulterated emotions.
]]>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:09:40 GMTleeroy711Movie Games6/24/2008 1:09:40 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] A trio of movies that are worse than having no movies. They only succeed in reminding you of the movies you're missing: 1. The Phantom Menace 2. The Lost World: Jurassic Park 3. The Ladykillers [/quote] Don't you put a Coen brothers movie on that list!!! [/quote] I second that. You know Rizzo, just because you edited out the cuss word in your post doesn't mean we didn't get the email showing your true raw unaldulterated emotions. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177179608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Stupid/MemberTagFilms.aspxStupid
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:12:14 GMT837099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 495

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 140

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT49554140Tag 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/fight/MemberTagFilms.aspxfight
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 86

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:14 GMT4904786Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evil/MemberTagFilms.aspxevil
Number of films tagged: 885

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:19:10 GMT8854279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cheesy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcheesy
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 38

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:17:06 GMT313338Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/child/MemberTagFilms.aspxchild
Number of films tagged: 2821

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 99

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:19:37 GMT28213299Tag