list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Godfather Part III 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/The_Godfather_Part_III/13613/default.aspx Title: The Godfather Part III
Year: 1990
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Plot: After a break of more than 15 years, director Francis Ford Coppola and writer Mario Puzo returned to the well for this third and final story of the fictional Corleone crime family. Two decades have passed, and crime kingpin Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), now divorced from his wife Kay (Diane Keaton), has nearly succeeded in keeping his promise that his family would one day be "completely legitimate." A philanthropist devoted to public service, Michael is in the news as the recipient of a special award from the Pope for his good works, a controversial move given his checkered past. Determined to buy redemption, Michael and his lawyer B.J. (George Hamilton) are working on a complicated but legal deal to bail the Vatican out of looming financial troubles that will ultimately reap billions and put Michael on the world stage as a major financial player. However, trouble looms in several forms: The press is hostile to his intentions. Michael is in failing health and suffers a mild diabetic stroke. Stylish mob underling Joey Zaza (Joe Mantegna) is muscling into the Corleone turf. "The Commission" of Mafia families, represented by patriarch Altobello (Eli Wallach) doesn't want to let their cash cow Corleone out of the Mafia, though he has made a generous financial offer in exchange for his release from la cosa nostra. And then there's Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), the illegitimate and equally temperamental son of Michael's long-dead brother Sonny. Vincent desperately wants in to the family (both literally and figuratively), and at the urging of his sister Connie (Talia Shire), Michael welcomes the young man and allows him to adopt the Corleone name. However, a flirtatious attraction between Vincent and his cousin, Michael's naïve daughter Mary (Sofia Coppola) develops, and threatens to develop into a full-fledged romance and undo the godfather's future plans. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 12
Number of Lists: 49
Number of blog posts: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 19:44:39 GMTThe Godfather Part III1990Francis Ford CoppolaAfter a break of more than 15 years, director <a href="/players/P____85868/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Francis Ford Coppola</a> and writer <a href="/players/P___107248/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mario Puzo</a> returned to the well for this third and final story of the fictional Corleone crime family. Two decades have passed, and crime kingpin Michael Corleone (<a href="/players/P____54596/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Al Pacino</a>), now divorced from his wife Kay (<a href="/players/P____96996/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diane Keaton</a>), has nearly succeeded in keeping his promise that his family would one day be "completely legitimate." A philanthropist devoted to public service, Michael is in the news as the recipient of a special award from the Pope for his good works, a controversial move given his checkered past. Determined to buy redemption, Michael and his lawyer B.J. (<a href="/players/P____29952/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Hamilton</a>) are working on a complicated but legal deal to bail the Vatican out of looming financial troubles that will ultimately reap billions and put Michael on the world stage as a major financial player. However, trouble looms in several forms: The press is hostile to his intentions. Michael is in failing health and suffers a mild diabetic stroke. Stylish mob underling Joey Zaza (<a href="/players/P____45196/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joe Mantegna</a>) is muscling into the Corleone turf. "The Commission" of Mafia families, represented by patriarch Altobello (<a href="/players/P____74381/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eli Wallach</a>) doesn't want to let their cash cow Corleone out of the Mafia, though he has made a generous financial offer in exchange for his release from <i>la cosa nostra</i>. And then there's Vincent Mancini (<a href="/players/P___196022/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andy Garcia</a>), the illegitimate and equally temperamental son of Michael's long-dead brother Sonny. Vincent desperately wants in to the family (both literally and figuratively), and at the urging of his sister Connie (<a href="/players/P____65369/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Talia Shire</a>), Michael welcomes the young man and allows him to adopt the Corleone name. However, a flirtatious attraction between Vincent and his cousin, Michael's naïve daughter Mary (<a href="/players/P____85872/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sofia Coppola</a>) develops, and threatens to develop into a full-fledged romance and undo the godfather's future plans. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide12Tag Target (>10)4983http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t57637it0kd.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Godfather_Part_III/13613/default.aspxFilm 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/usesoap/archive/2008/12/9/38160.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 12/9/2008 8:46:01 PM
Body: Folks in the current economy just haven’t warmed to the whole Blu-ray concept just yet. So while they are still commercially viable (even though they are waning in popularity), there are still a number of special edition DVDs funneling into the market. As the holiday approaches, it can be confusing for consumers as they toggle between choosing the “Special Dynamic Super Edition” or the “Ultimate Collectors Shiny Happy Edition” of the same films that have been released, re-released, and re-re-released. I am not going to include the latest films that have perhaps just been released this year in theaters and are receiving their big DVD debuts, but rather the digital roads less traveled, providing a range of options for all to fit every price range for DVD films and box sets released in 2008. As you are striking off names of cinephiles from your holiday gift list, consider some of the following options: For the kids/family: All kids will clamor for the Wall *E and Horton Hears a Who, but do you want your child to be a follower or a leader? Here’s some healthy alternatives: .The Woody Woodpecker and Friends Classic Cartoon Collection, Vol 2 Woody was sort of like the Rodney Dangerfield of cartoon characters for me and my friends growing up. The ubiquitous bird was really just animated padding as we awaited what we perceived to be better cartoons that would come on when we returned home from school. He was the television equivalent to Ziggy. And while there are several valleys in this three-disc collection of shorts produced between 1952 and 1958, there are countless peaks, including Niagara Fools, which could quite possibly be the best of his entire run on the tube. (About $35 at Amazon.com). Classic Caballeros Collection: (The Three Caballeros/ Saludos Amigos): Walt Disney, cash strapped after spiraling budgets of Pinocchio and Fantasia threatened to bankrupt the company, found himself traveling to Central and South America in search of distributing his product and cashing in to new markets. The results are these two (and a few other) shorts that are bouncy enough to satiate the kids in the house (with staples like Donald Duck and Goofy) , but filled with enough behind-the-scenes travelogues to keep the parents entertained long after the tots head off for bed. It’s a time capsule that shows the first footsteps taken in Disney’s now-global stranglehold on all things relating to childhood. (About $15) American Slapstick 2: In this three-disc compilation of shorts, 30 silent-era films are featured, demonstrating the breadth and depths of this oft-chided comic institution whose public recognition of it usually focuses solely on some guy named Chaplin. Harold Lloyd, then-unknown Oliver Hardy, Bebe Daniels, Snub Pollard all share screen time with even lesser-known pioneers. The popularity of the one-half silent slapstick of this year’s Wall*E will perhaps encourage viewers to uncover these long-forgotten pearls. (About $35) The Red Balloon: A lonely Parisian boy befriends a helium-filled titular object that seems to have a mind of its own in this 1956 film that is still as enchanting today and Janus Films has done an impeccable job in its cleanup of the print. The result in a simple, sweet , funny and even moving tale (the balloon’s flirtatious dance with a blue balloon is priceless) that would still be as meaningful for children today as those in post-war France, when it was made. (About $10) Big beefy sets: For those who still have job security and can perhaps shell out a few extra dollars, here are some options that are actually worth the money: The Godfather (Coppola Restoration Giftset): Yes, Coppola and company have returned to this well many a time on DVD, but if even if you have one of the former incarnations, you may want to start using them as coasters, as this is by far the best-looking version of the films you are likely to find. For those film geeks who appreciate the film for its nuances like the chiaroscuro lighting, era-perfect costuming and flawless framing, this is one sweet canoli. (About $45 for the whole set, though films can be purchased separately to avoid that whole Godfather III mistake) The Pink Panther Ultimate Collection: So the series bats about 500, mostly during Peter Sellers’ earliest work as the inept Inspector Clouseau (but this set also includes interpretations of the bumbling detective by Alan Arkin, Roger Moore (in 1983’s Curse of the Pink Panther), Roberto Benigni and, sadly, Steve Martin in the current re-boot of the franchise. But, the shoddy latter film entries are completely forgiven by this box set’s inclusion of all 190 far-superior Pink Panther cartoons. (About $180, but you are getting a total of 18 discs with this) Mystery Science Theater 3000: 20th Anniversary Edition : Unfortunately, it is true: two decades have passed since this fantastic series first aired, meaning you are that much older. Fortunately, the series contains so many laughs you may forget about all how much hair you’ve lost/wrinkles you’ve gained in that time. Films held up for merry mockery include: First Spaceship to Venus (1960), Laserblast (1979), Werewolf (1983) and Future War (1997). In the past, many MST3K discs have been rather sparse on extras, but this set comes loaded with features, including the show’s history, a reunion Q & A, and countless different versions of the theme song. (About $160, but you get a life-size head of Crow T. Robot, people!) The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus - Collector's Edition Megaset: To know it is to love it: Flying Circus and its co-conspiratorial crew calling itself Monty Python have been purveyors of all modern silliness for more than three decades, leaving many sketch-comedy contenders in their wake. Take a look at any “comedy” channel on the internet today and you will no doubt see the influence of these ground-breaking masters of mockery. (About $55) The Budd Boetticher Box Set: What, you’ve never heard of Budd Boetticher? Does the fact that Marin Scorcese, Clint Eastwood and Taylor Hackford all volunteered to introduce films included in this set persuade you at all? The Tall T, Decision at Sundown, Buchanan Rides Alone, Ride Lonesome (1959) and Comanche Station, are but a few contributions to the Western genre from the director, giving James Coburn (in his film debut), Richard Boone, Maureen O'Sullivan, Pernell Roberts, Lee Van Cleef, and Craig Stevens and place to hang their hats, so to speak. (About $45) The Bette Davis Collection, Vol. 3 : Made during the grand dame’s peak of popularity (the non-campy kind) while working with Warner Brothers, this collection includes seldom-seen-but-worthwhile classics as The Old Maid (1939), All This and Heaven Too (1940), The Great Lie (1942), In This Our Life (1942), Watch the Rhine (1943) and Deception (1946). Also tossed into the six-disc set are commentary tracks from film scholars, era-specific film trailers, behind-the-scenes footage, and vintage cartoons. (About $47) The Alfred Hitchcock Premiere Collection: Spanning eight discs, this MGM set highlights some of the more obscure, but no-less interesting, works from the master, including The Lodger (1927), one of his silent pictures, Sabotage (1936), the Oscar-winning Rebecca (1940), Lifeboat (1944) a mini-masterwork that is set entirely on an inflatable raft and still manages to build tension, Spellbound (1945) , Notorious (1946) and The Paradine Case (1946), starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. Included are the famous Hitchock Francois Truffaut interviews, trailers, radio adaptations, and other nuggets of cinema goodness. (About $60) Georges Méliès: First Wizard of Cinema (1896-1913): Melies’s sad ending was criminal compared to his contribution to the world of film (he died penniless and all-but-forgotten), and this posthumous compilation only further proves just how influential this man was. Some of the ways the effects are done today have changed, but the more things change… A total of 173 short films from this movie master are included in this box set, filled with fantastic journeys, interplanetary travel, and fairy tale lands. The set also includes a booklet documenting his life in and out of film, as well as a famous short documentary on him from another French legend, Georges Franju. (About $90) A really, very, super-special, ultimate collector’s edition: Almost every film today is released in rated and “unrated” director’s cuts. But few of them have any negligible differences. Here are a few that merit a purchase: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (20th Anniversary Edition): Visionary director Terry Gilliam has seldom had smooth sailing from sets to screen (the legendary aborted Johnny Depp project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, made for a fascinating documentary of the filmmaking process titled Lost in La Mancha), and this 1988 film is no exception. Budgets and schedules spinning out of control led to one of the more intriguing behind-the-scenes lore of film production, which is recounted rather honestly and thoroughly through its cast and crew in this special edition DVD. For those who have never witnessed this hallucinatory fantasy since it was first released, a repeat viewing after following how it was made is required to gain an entirely new respect for it. (About $20) The Thief of Bagdad (Criterion Collection): If you or your children’s only exposure to bottled genies and flying carpets are limited to either Disney and/or Barbara Eden, you owe it to yourself and your kids to pick up this restored gem that featured at-the-time groundbreaking effects (that even today, while dated, still impress), a thrilling adventure and now packed with bonus material such as the original trailer, several commentaries (including a couple of hacks by the name of Scorsese and Coppola), documentaries on Ray Harryhausen, Dennis Muren and Craig Barron and various other features. (About $25) Dark City (Director’s Cut): Hot off the success of The Crow, in the early 90s, director Alex Proyas was given a bigger budget to create an even larger alternate universe, not unlike the ones created in Blade Runner. And it was perhaps a little too close, as the film was initially met with a shrug from many critics (except Roger Ebert) and quickly disappeared. It has developed a sizeable cult following, allowing a DVD rebirth in the form of a director’s cut, inviting newbies and former haters alike to view the film as originally intended. (About $12) Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains!: Here’s another film that a backstory almost as interesting as the one on the screen. Disowned by its writer, dropped by its studio and abandoned by home video, this rarity stars a young Diane Lane, Ray Winstone, and Laura Dern (as well as members from The Clash and The Sex Pistols). After making the rounds of HBO and late-night USA Network back in the day (late 80s), the film vanished into obscurity. Rhino has lovingly picked it up and polished it off with a number of features, including audio commentaries (from Lane and Dern, no less!). (About $15) The General: The Ultimate Two-Disc Edition: No self-respecting lover of film should be without this one in their collection. Be wary, as since this classic has gone into public domain (meaning almost any rag-tag releasing company can distribute a beat-up print for profit), this comedic classic from Buster Keaton has countless versions clotting bargain bins everywhere. Kino, which has already released a fine dust-off of the film years ago, now present a definitive version, including introductions from Gloria Swanson and Orson Welles, a tour of the filming locations (including the train used in the film) and a choice of musical accompaniments for this silent masterpiece of meticulously calculated mayhem. (About $22)
]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:46:01 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog12/9/2008 8:46:01 PMFolks in the current economy just haven&rsquo;t warmed to the whole Blu-ray concept just yet. So while they are still commercially viable (even though they are waning in popularity), there are still a number of special edition DVDs funneling into the market. As the holiday approaches, it can be confusing for consumers as they toggle between choosing the &ldquo;Special Dynamic Super Edition&rdquo; or the &ldquo;Ultimate Collectors Shiny Happy Edition&rdquo; of the same films that have been released, re-released, and re-re-released. I am not going to include the latest films that have perhaps just been released this year in theaters and are receiving their big DVD debuts, but rather the digital roads less traveled, providing a range of options for all to fit every price range for DVD films and box sets released in 2008. As you are striking off names of cinephiles from your holiday gift list, consider some of the following options: For the kids/family: All kids will clamor for the Wall *E and Horton Hears a Who, but do you want your child to be a follower or a leader? Here&rsquo;s some healthy alternatives: .The Woody Woodpecker and Friends Classic Cartoon Collection, Vol 2 Woody was sort of like the Rodney Dangerfield of cartoon characters for me and my friends growing up. The ubiquitous bird was really just animated padding as we awaited what we perceived to be better cartoons that would come on when we returned home from school. He was the television equivalent to Ziggy. And while there are several valleys in this three-disc collection of shorts produced between 1952 and 1958, there are countless peaks, including Niagara Fools, which could quite possibly be the best of his entire run on the tube. (About $35 at Amazon.com). Classic Caballeros Collection: (The Three Caballeros/ Saludos Amigos): Walt Disney, cash strapped after spiraling budgets of Pinocchio and Fantasia threatened to bankrupt the company, found himself traveling to Central and South America in search of distributing his product and cashing in to new markets. The results are these two (and a few other) shorts that are bouncy enough to satiate the kids in the house (with staples like Donald Duck and Goofy) , but filled with enough behind-the-scenes travelogues to keep the parents entertained long after the tots head off for bed. It&rsquo;s a time capsule that shows the first footsteps taken in Disney&rsquo;s now-global stranglehold on all things relating to childhood. (About $15) American Slapstick 2: In this three-disc compilation of shorts, 30 silent-era films are featured, demonstrating the breadth and depths of this oft-chided comic institution whose public recognition of it usually focuses solely on some guy named Chaplin. Harold Lloyd, then-unknown Oliver Hardy, Bebe Daniels, Snub Pollard all share screen time with even lesser-known pioneers. The popularity of the one-half silent slapstick of this year&rsquo;s Wall*E will perhaps encourage viewers to uncover these long-forgotten pearls. (About $35) The Red Balloon: A lonely Parisian boy befriends a helium-filled titular object that seems to have a mind of its own in this 1956 film that is still as enchanting today and Janus Films has done an impeccable job in its cleanup of the print. The result in a simple, sweet , funny and even moving tale (the balloon&rsquo;s flirtatious dance with a blue balloon is priceless) that would still be as meaningful for children today as those in post-war France, when it was made. (About $10) Big beefy sets: For those who still have job security and can perhaps shell out a few extra dollars, here are some options that are actually worth the money: The Godfather (Coppola Restoration Giftset): Yes, Coppola and company have returned to this well many a time on DVD, but if even if you have one of the former incarnations, you may want to start using them as coasters, as this is by far the best-looking version of the films you are likely to find. For those film geeks who appreciate the film for its nuances like the chiaroscuro lighting, era-perfect costuming and flawless framing, this is one sweet canoli. (About $45 for the whole set, though films can be purchased separately to avoid that whole Godfather III mistake) The Pink Panther Ultimate Collection: So the series bats about 500, mostly during Peter Sellers&rsquo; earliest work as the inept Inspector Clouseau (but this set also includes interpretations of the bumbling detective by Alan Arkin, Roger Moore (in 1983&rsquo;s Curse of the Pink Panther), Roberto Benigni and, sadly, Steve Martin in the current re-boot of the franchise. But, the shoddy latter film entries are completely forgiven by this box set&rsquo;s inclusion of all 190 far-superior Pink Panther cartoons. (About $180, but you are getting a total of 18 discs with this) Mystery Science Theater 3000: 20th Anniversary Edition : Unfortunately, it is true: two decades have passed since this fantastic series first aired, meaning you are that much older. Fortunately, the series contains so many laughs you may forget about all how much hair you&rsquo;ve lost/wrinkles you&rsquo;ve gained in that time. Films held up for merry mockery include: First Spaceship to Venus (1960), Laserblast (1979), Werewolf (1983) and Future War (1997). In the past, many MST3K discs have been rather sparse on extras, but this set comes loaded with features, including the show&rsquo;s history, a reunion Q &amp; A, and countless different versions of the theme song. (About $160, but you get a life-size head of Crow T. Robot, people!) The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus - Collector's Edition Megaset: To know it is to love it: Flying Circus and its co-conspiratorial crew calling itself Monty Python have been purveyors of all modern silliness for more than three decades, leaving many sketch-comedy contenders in their wake. Take a look at any &ldquo;comedy&rdquo; channel on the internet today and you will no doubt see the influence of these ground-breaking masters of mockery. (About $55) The Budd Boetticher Box Set: What, you&rsquo;ve never heard of Budd Boetticher? Does the fact that Marin Scorcese, Clint Eastwood and Taylor Hackford all volunteered to introduce films included in this set persuade you at all? The Tall T, Decision at Sundown, Buchanan Rides Alone, Ride Lonesome (1959) and Comanche Station, are but a few contributions to the Western genre from the director, giving James Coburn (in his film debut), Richard Boone, Maureen O'Sullivan, Pernell Roberts, Lee Van Cleef, and Craig Stevens and place to hang their hats, so to speak. (About $45) The Bette Davis Collection, Vol. 3 : Made during the grand dame&rsquo;s peak of popularity (the non-campy kind) while working with Warner Brothers, this collection includes seldom-seen-but-worthwhile classics as The Old Maid (1939), All This and Heaven Too (1940), The Great Lie (1942), In This Our Life (1942), Watch the Rhine (1943) and Deception (1946). Also tossed into the six-disc set are commentary tracks from film scholars, era-specific film trailers, behind-the-scenes footage, and vintage cartoons. (About $47) The Alfred Hitchcock Premiere Collection: Spanning eight discs, this MGM set highlights some of the more obscure, but no-less interesting, works from the master, including The Lodger (1927), one of his silent pictures, Sabotage (1936), the Oscar-winning Rebecca (1940), Lifeboat (1944) a mini-masterwork that is set entirely on an inflatable raft and still manages to build tension, Spellbound (1945) , Notorious (1946) and The Paradine Case (1946), starring Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck. Included are the famous Hitchock Francois Truffaut interviews, trailers, radio adaptations, and other nuggets of cinema goodness. (About $60) Georges M&eacute;li&egrave;s: First Wizard of Cinema (1896-1913): Melies&rsquo;s sad ending was criminal compared to his contribution to the world of film (he died penniless and all-but-forgotten), and this posthumous compilation only further proves just how influential this man was. Some of the ways the effects are done today have changed, but the more things change&hellip; A total of 173 short films from this movie master are included in this box set, filled with fantastic journeys, interplanetary travel, and fairy tale lands. The set also includes a booklet documenting his life in and out of film, as well as a famous short documentary on him from another French legend, Georges Franju. (About $90) A really, very, super-special, ultimate collector&rsquo;s edition: Almost every film today is released in rated and &ldquo;unrated&rdquo; director&rsquo;s cuts. But few of them have any negligible differences. Here are a few that merit a purchase: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (20th Anniversary Edition): Visionary director Terry Gilliam has seldom had smooth sailing from sets to screen (the legendary aborted Johnny Depp project, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, made for a fascinating documentary of the filmmaking process titled Lost in La Mancha), and this 1988 film is no exception. Budgets and schedules spinning out of control led to one of the more intriguing behind-the-scenes lore of film production, which is recounted rather honestly and thoroughly through its cast and crew in this special edition DVD. For those who have never witnessed this hallucinatory fantasy since it was first released, a repeat viewing after following how it was made is required to gain an entirely new respect for it. (About $20) The Thief of Bagdad (Criterion Collection): If you or your children&rsquo;s only exposure to bottled genies and flying carpets are limited to either Disney and/or Barbara Eden, you owe it to yourself and your kids to pick up this restored gem that featured at-the-time groundbreaking effects (that even today, while dated, still impress), a thrilling adventure and now packed with bonus material such as the original trailer, several commentaries (including a couple of hacks by the name of Scorsese and Coppola), documentaries on Ray Harryhausen, Dennis Muren and Craig Barron and various other features. (About $25) Dark City (Director&rsquo;s Cut): Hot off the success of The Crow, in the early 90s, director Alex Proyas was given a bigger budget to create an even larger alternate universe, not unlike the ones created in Blade Runner. And it was perhaps a little too close, as the film was initially met with a shrug from many critics (except Roger Ebert) and quickly disappeared. It has developed a sizeable cult following, allowing a DVD rebirth in the form of a director&rsquo;s cut, inviting newbies and former haters alike to view the film as originally intended. (About $12) Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains!: Here&rsquo;s another film that a backstory almost as interesting as the one on the screen. Disowned by its writer, dropped by its studio and abandoned by home video, this rarity stars a young Diane Lane, Ray Winstone, and Laura Dern (as well as members from The Clash and The Sex Pistols). After making the rounds of HBO and late-night USA Network back in the day (late 80s), the film vanished into obscurity. Rhino has lovingly picked it up and polished it off with a number of features, including audio commentaries (from Lane and Dern, no less!). (About $15) The General: The Ultimate Two-Disc Edition: No self-respecting lover of film should be without this one in their collection. Be wary, as since this classic has gone into public domain (meaning almost any rag-tag releasing company can distribute a beat-up print for profit), this comedic classic from Buster Keaton has countless versions clotting bargain bins everywhere. Kino, which has already released a fine dust-off of the film years ago, now present a definitive version, including introductions from Gloria Swanson and Orson Welles, a tour of the filming locations (including the train used in the film) and a choice of musical accompaniments for this silent masterpiece of meticulously calculated mayhem. (About $22) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/11/37228.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/11/2008 6:01:24 PM
Body: The holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:01:24 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/11/2008 6:01:24 PMThe holidays are coming, and that either means spending time with your dysfunctional family or escaping them for the movies … where you’re likely to be met by other, fictional dysfunctional families. Already this season, Rachel Getting Married introduced us to the f’ed up faux masala of the Buchman clan, and later this month we get to follow Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon as they’re pulled into their separate quadrants of kin in Four Christmases. Also, for those who think dysfunction is an American tradition, this weekend sees the release of the French film A Christmas Tale (Un conte de Noël), which unites the two major premises of dysfunctional family movies by being set during the holidays and involving an ill family member. With two more weeks left until Thanksgiving, after which we might not want to think about another family, real or cinematic, for the rest of our lives, it’s a perfect time to celebrate those dysfunctional tribes we love the best. Literally thousands of movies feature such families, though, so we’re sure to have left out some of your favorites. Definitely chime in below, and/or join the discussion currently going on over in our Top 5 group. The Corleones in The Godfather, The Godfather Part II and The Godfather Part III Any film about a family business is sure to qualify, but none exhibit more dysfunction than those in which the business is the mafia. Some other good examples include the Tempios of The Funeral and the Russian clan in Eastern Promises. But there’s no doubt that the Corleones take the cake. Maybe it’s Fredo’s fault, because inspiring fratricide is certainly evidence of a failing family. No, the Corleones are dysfunctional from the time Fredo and his siblings are little children, when Vito enters his family into a life of crime, from which none of its members will be able to escape. The “Johnsons” in Pink Flamingos If you only define dysfunctional as non-functioning, you leave out a great number of truly dysfunctional families, the kind that apparently gets along quite fine on their own but which doesn’t function within society. Think the Hewitts in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films and the motley crew made up of Sycamores, Vanderhofs, Carmichaels and others in You Can’t Take it With You. Technically the “Johnsons” are an internally functioning group, and they even have an official place in society as “the filtiest people alive,” but with a shit-eating matriarch, an egg-obsessed granny and a son who likes to have sex employing live chickens, it doesn’t really get much more abnormal, and therefore dysfunctional, than this family. The Lisbons in The Virgin Suicides Both abnormal and non-functioning, it also doesn’t get much more dysfunctional than a family in which the kids commit collective suicide (well, one of them started the trend early). The Tenenbaums in The Royal Tenenbaums They’re clearly born out of Salinger’s Glass family, and their situation is so common that A Christmas Tale almost seems like a French remake of the Wes Anderson’s movie. But the Tenenbaums have come to be one of the most beloved dysfunctional families in cinema, so it’d be a crime to leave them off this list. They’re so popular that many fans probably wouldn’t mind having such an asshole for a father as long as they got to be a member of the family, similar to the dreams of outsider Eli Cash (Owen Wilson). Also, there are probably some guys out there who dream of having Margot (Gwyneth Paltrow) as a non-blood-related sister — as long as she’s really into making out with adopted-family siblings. The Aibellis in Spanking the Monkey Non-blood-related “incest” is one thing, but the Tenenbaums have nothing on the dysfunction of the Aibellis, with their motherloving son, Ray (Jeremy Davies), and the disturbingly consentual — though alcohol-induced — sex that occurs one awkward summer. The only incestuous family that might actually be more dysfunctional is the Cross clan of Chinatown. The Proffitts in Overboard The movie’s tone allows it to seem like such an innocently fun premise, but imagine a family in real life that would kidnap and exploit an amnesiac woman the way Dean Proffitt (Kurt Russell) and his four sons do. And imagine the woman who escapes this situation only to return in a Stockholm syndrome-as-happy-ending decision. Not only is it immoral, illegal and unlikely, it’s highly dysfunctional. The Crumbs in Crumb Dysfunctional families are obviously not limited to fiction, so it’s necessary to cite at least one documentary. Again, it’s difficult to narrow down. There are the scandal-stricken Friedmans of Capturing the Friedmans, the daffy duo in Grey Gardens (and The Beales of Grey Gardens) and the fraternal foursome of Brother’s Keeper. But it’s comic artist R. Crumb’s family that comes off as the most interestingly screwed up. Equally expected and revealing for a man of Crumb’s odd nature, reclusive brother Charles, bowel-cleansing Maxon and uncomfortable mother Beatrice are almost too strange to believe real. The Browns in Buffalo ‘66 Dysfunctional family movies often peak with their respective dinner scenes, in which uncomfortable announcements are made or food is thrown or climactic fights occur. None are funnier, however, than the reunion meal between Billy Brown (Vincent Gallo) and his unloving parents (Angelica Huston and Ben Gazzara). Mom ignores her son in order to watch football while Dad mostly hits on Billy’s pretend wife (Christina Ricci). The Dilwegs in The Pharmacist W.C. Fields has given us a few of the funniest dysfunctional families in film, and many fans would quickly reference the Sousés from The Bank Dick as his greatest tribe. But its this family from Fields’ earlier short The Pharmacist that should come to mind first, if only thanks to the daughter who shakes a martini with a pogo stick and eats the family pet after being denied supper. Radha’s family in Mother India The entire genre of melodrama offers up worthy selections for this list, but Bollywood arguably makes the most dysfunctional family melodramas of all, perhaps because a lot of them are meant as allegories for the dysfunctions of the Indian subcontinent. Mother India is possibly the most significant example from Indian cinema, even more than monumental films like Pather Panchali that aren’t of the Bollywood tradition. The film has all the necessary components: the metaphorically castrated and eventually abandoning patriarch; the desperate yet enduring matriarch; the sons who follow paths on separate side of the law. There’s even a familial sacrifice that’s comparable to the one in The Godfather Part II. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/7/37067.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/7/2008 3:01:08 PM
Body: Opening today, Soul Men features the final performance from Bernie Mac, who died unexpectedly on August 9. The movie also includes a cameo from Isaac Hayes, who died one day later. Both men join a long list of people whose last films were released after their deaths, a list that includes Brad Renfro, whose final performance, in The Informers, can be seen in theaters come next May. Unlike some names on that list, Bernie Mac, whose voice can also be heard in the new animated sequel Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, isn’t likely to receive a posthumous Oscar nomination as a tribute to his final work. But as one of the most underrated comic actors of the past few years, Mac likely gives a great performance as soul singer “Floyd Henderson,” enough to fall in with the crop of posthumously released roles we’ve showcased below: 1. Spencer Tracy in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Tracy died from a heart attack June 10, 1967, a couple weeks after finishing his work on Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, which was released that December. It would end up one of his most distinguished performances, earning him a posthumous ninth Oscar nom for Lead Actor. 2. James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause Dean received two posthumous Oscar nominations, but it’s easy to forget that neither of them were for Rebel Without a Cause, despite the film being Dean’s first posthumous release. Were it possible under the Academy’s rules, Dean could have been nominated for playing iconic teen Jim Stark, but he was instead recognized solely for East of Eden (the first official posthumous Oscar nomination for acting), which had been released a few months prior to Dean’s accidental death. Meanwhile Dean’s costars in Rebel, Sal Mineo and Natalie Wood, were each nominated for this film. 3. James Dean in Giant This film became Dean’s second posthumous release and earned him his second posthumous Oscar nomination (he won neither). The actor had pretty much finished his work on Giant right before his death, though some post-production vocal work had to be performed by a substitute later on, and the film wasn’t to come out in theaters until two months after the first anniversary of Dean’s death. 4. Clark Gable in The Misfits Like the death of Heath Ledger (see below), Gable’s was blamed on the demands of a role. Whether his performance in The Misfits was too physically demanding or he experienced immense tension from lack of things to do or he lost too much weight too quickly to prepare for the film, there may not have been one single thing that led to his having his third heart attack and then ultimately succumbing to coronary thrombosis mere weeks after finishing up principal photography. A few months later, on Gable’s birthday, his performance was unveiled to the world, and while not as historically remembered as his characters in Gone With the Wind and It Happened One Night, nor one of his three Oscar-nominated roles, it is arguably his greatest work. 5. John Cazale in The Deer Hunter Cazale should have been honored with a posthumous Oscar nomination at some point (I can’t believe I left him off that list), if for no other reason than to recognize his achievement of acting solely in features nominated for Best Picture (including The Godfather Part III, in which he’s only shown in archive footage). But an even bigger reason is that Cazale was a damn good supporting actor and he actually would deserve that statue. For all the talent he displays in The Deer Hunter, though, he was easily upstaged by his costar Christopher Walken, who actually took home the Oscar. 6. Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon There are tons of artists who didn’t live long enough to see their work become huge successes. Unlike most of them, though, Lee at least experienced some level of stardom prior to his death on July 20, 1973. Unfortunately, he didn’t get to see his final film, Enter the Dragon, open to huge numbers in the U.S., eventually even topping the box office chart here after a few months in theaters. He also tragically never got to see how iconic, influential and culturally significant his performance would become. 7. Brandon Lee in The Crow Bruce Lee also never got to see his son grow up to have a #1 movie, too. Sadly, neither did the son, Brandon, who died accidentally from a malfunctioned prop gun on the set of The Crow. And while the star’s then-mysterious death may have helped to make the movie more popular than would otherwise have been expected, it’s primarily Lee’s performance, not his legacy, that has allowed the movie to remain worthwhile viewing 15 years later. Even if some of that performance was assisted through a controversial yet groundbreaking use of stunt doubles and digital effects. 8. Richard Harris in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets There have now been more Harry Potter films released in which Michael Gambon portrays Albus Dumbledore, yet Harris will forever be remembered more clearly and favorably in the role. Even those of us who like Gambon as the Hogwarts headmasterhave more vivid memories of Harris’ performances in both Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the latter of which arrived in theaters less than three weeks after the actor’s death on October 25, 2002. Surely some fans would have preferred to see Harris reprise his role in the subsequent films courtesy of effects wizardry similar to that done in The Crow and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (see below). 9. Laurence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow It may have been morally wrong for Kerry Conran to digitally create a villainous performance from Olivier 15 years after the legendary actor’s death, but who doesn’t want to keep getting new performances from such a master thespian, even if it it technically consists of nothing but archive footage? Besides, it’s still better than making him posthumously hawk beer, vacuum cleaners, or McDonalds cheeseburgers. Too bad the film as a whole was such a disappointment. 10. Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight His performance as The Joker is better than anyone ever dreamed it would be, before or after he died suddenly last January. He’ll get an Oscar nomination, at least, and will probably even win. Will his final performance, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, yet to be seen or released, be as remarkable? It’s quite possible that if this list is ever rewritten in the future that Ledger will join Dean as another actor with two slots, for two monumentally great performances released posthumously. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/7/2008 3:01:08 PMOpening today, Soul Men features the final performance from Bernie Mac, who died unexpectedly on August 9. The movie also includes a cameo from Isaac Hayes, who died one day later. Both men join a long list of people whose last films were released after their deaths, a list that includes Brad Renfro, whose final performance, in The Informers, can be seen in theaters come next May. Unlike some names on that list, Bernie Mac, whose voice can also be heard in the new animated sequel Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, isn’t likely to receive a posthumous Oscar nomination as a tribute to his final work. But as one of the most underrated comic actors of the past few years, Mac likely gives a great performance as soul singer “Floyd Henderson,” enough to fall in with the crop of posthumously released roles we’ve showcased below: 1. Spencer Tracy in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Tracy died from a heart attack June 10, 1967, a couple weeks after finishing his work on Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, which was released that December. It would end up one of his most distinguished performances, earning him a posthumous ninth Oscar nom for Lead Actor. 2. James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause Dean received two posthumous Oscar nominations, but it’s easy to forget that neither of them were for Rebel Without a Cause, despite the film being Dean’s first posthumous release. Were it possible under the Academy’s rules, Dean could have been nominated for playing iconic teen Jim Stark, but he was instead recognized solely for East of Eden (the first official posthumous Oscar nomination for acting), which had been released a few months prior to Dean’s accidental death. Meanwhile Dean’s costars in Rebel, Sal Mineo and Natalie Wood, were each nominated for this film. 3. James Dean in Giant This film became Dean’s second posthumous release and earned him his second posthumous Oscar nomination (he won neither). The actor had pretty much finished his work on Giant right before his death, though some post-production vocal work had to be performed by a substitute later on, and the film wasn’t to come out in theaters until two months after the first anniversary of Dean’s death. 4. Clark Gable in The Misfits Like the death of Heath Ledger (see below), Gable’s was blamed on the demands of a role. Whether his performance in The Misfits was too physically demanding or he experienced immense tension from lack of things to do or he lost too much weight too quickly to prepare for the film, there may not have been one single thing that led to his having his third heart attack and then ultimately succumbing to coronary thrombosis mere weeks after finishing up principal photography. A few months later, on Gable’s birthday, his performance was unveiled to the world, and while not as historically remembered as his characters in Gone With the Wind and It Happened One Night, nor one of his three Oscar-nominated roles, it is arguably his greatest work. 5. John Cazale in The Deer Hunter Cazale should have been honored with a posthumous Oscar nomination at some point (I can’t believe I left him off that list), if for no other reason than to recognize his achievement of acting solely in features nominated for Best Picture (including The Godfather Part III, in which he’s only shown in archive footage). But an even bigger reason is that Cazale was a damn good supporting actor and he actually would deserve that statue. For all the talent he displays in The Deer Hunter, though, he was easily upstaged by his costar Christopher Walken, who actually took home the Oscar. 6. Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon There are tons of artists who didn’t live long enough to see their work become huge successes. Unlike most of them, though, Lee at least experienced some level of stardom prior to his death on July 20, 1973. Unfortunately, he didn’t get to see his final film, Enter the Dragon, open to huge numbers in the U.S., eventually even topping the box office chart here after a few months in theaters. He also tragically never got to see how iconic, influential and culturally significant his performance would become. 7. Brandon Lee in The Crow Bruce Lee also never got to see his son grow up to have a #1 movie, too. Sadly, neither did the son, Brandon, who died accidentally from a malfunctioned prop gun on the set of The Crow. And while the star’s then-mysterious death may have helped to make the movie more popular than would otherwise have been expected, it’s primarily Lee’s performance, not his legacy, that has allowed the movie to remain worthwhile viewing 15 years later. Even if some of that performance was assisted through a controversial yet groundbreaking use of stunt doubles and digital effects. 8. Richard Harris in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets There have now been more Harry Potter films released in which Michael Gambon portrays Albus Dumbledore, yet Harris will forever be remembered more clearly and favorably in the role. Even those of us who like Gambon as the Hogwarts headmasterhave more vivid memories of Harris’ performances in both Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the latter of which arrived in theaters less than three weeks after the actor’s death on October 25, 2002. Surely some fans would have preferred to see Harris reprise his role in the subsequent films courtesy of effects wizardry similar to that done in The Crow and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (see below). 9. Laurence Olivier in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow It may have been morally wrong for Kerry Conran to digitally create a villainous performance from Olivier 15 years after the legendary actor’s death, but who doesn’t want to keep getting new performances from such a master thespian, even if it it technically consists of nothing but archive footage? Besides, it’s still better than making him posthumously hawk beer, vacuum cleaners, or McDonalds cheeseburgers. Too bad the film as a whole was such a disappointment. 10. Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight His performance as The Joker is better than anyone ever dreamed it would be, before or after he died suddenly last January. He’ll get an Oscar nomination, at least, and will probably even win. Will his final performance, in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, yet to be seen or released, be as remarkable? It’s quite possible that if this list is ever rewritten in the future that Ledger will join Dean as another actor with two slots, for two monumentally great performances released posthumously. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34428.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:09 PM
Body: At the same time I was revisiting the Marx Brothers early films I felt the need to hit the Godfather films once again and engage in some serious pathos over the notions of what’s right, what’s wrong and how far is too far in your attempts to keep your family - both extended and immediate - safe and provided for. Any criticism, even of Godfather Part III, is at this point going to be redundant of something. It’s enough at this stage in the lives of it, as well as The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, to say that this sweeping epic is one that manages to combine both the grandiose and the intimate. In that way it’s actually sort of the thematic predecessor to movies like There Will Be Blood that present a very small story on a large stage. That later movie also engages in a similar sort of debate about achieving success in life despite that success coming at the expense of any real, lasting human connections. The main problem (OK, I’ll go down this road briefly) with Part III is that everyone involved is just trying to damn hard, from Coppola on down. There’s too much of a conscious effort to bring this in line with the previous installments rather than just letting the story progress naturally. That manages to actually take away from the un-forced story unfolding that went on in the first two films. Still, all three form a necessary arc that completes the saga in, really, the only way it could have possibly turned out. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:09 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:09 PMAt the same time I was revisiting the Marx Brothers early films I felt the need to hit the Godfather films once again and engage in some serious pathos over the notions of what’s right, what’s wrong and how far is too far in your attempts to keep your family - both extended and immediate - safe and provided for. Any criticism, even of Godfather Part III, is at this point going to be redundant of something. It’s enough at this stage in the lives of it, as well as The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, to say that this sweeping epic is one that manages to combine both the grandiose and the intimate. In that way it’s actually sort of the thematic predecessor to movies like There Will Be Blood that present a very small story on a large stage. That later movie also engages in a similar sort of debate about achieving success in life despite that success coming at the expense of any real, lasting human connections. The main problem (OK, I’ll go down this road briefly) with Part III is that everyone involved is just trying to damn hard, from Coppola on down. There’s too much of a conscious effort to bring this in line with the previous installments rather than just letting the story progress naturally. That manages to actually take away from the un-forced story unfolding that went on in the first two films. Still, all three form a necessary arc that completes the saga in, really, the only way it could have possibly turned out. 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/blogs/eagle795/archive/2007/8/23/18614.aspx Post By: eagle795
Post To: eagle795 Blog
Post Date: 8/23/2007 1:40:17 PM
Body: A lot of Godfather fans don’t like the third installment. It certainly doesn’t approach the quality of the first two (after all, there’s no Abe Vigoda), but it’s not that bad. Andy Garcia makes a worthy successor to Al Pacino’s Don Corleone, and I am very surprised there hasn’t been a fourth film. Father Guido Sarducci is in this movie. No, I’m not kidding.
]]>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:40:17 GMTeagle795eagle795 Blog8/23/2007 1:40:17 PMA lot of Godfather fans don&rsquo;t like the third installment. It certainly doesn&rsquo;t approach the quality of the first two (after all, there&rsquo;s no Abe Vigoda), but it&rsquo;s not that bad. Andy Garcia makes a worthy successor to Al Pacino&rsquo;s Don Corleone, and I am very surprised there hasn&rsquo;t been a fourth film. Father Guido Sarducci is in this movie. No, I&rsquo;m not kidding. http://www.spout.com/blogs/chesterfilms/archive/2007/6/4/10079.aspx Post By: chesterfilms
Post To: chesterfilms Blog
Post Date: 6/4/2007 2:19:29 AM
Body: No it's not nearly as good as the first. Yes there are problems with the story, and some of the performances. Still, this is an amazing film, and should not live in the shadow of it's predecessors.
]]>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:19:29 GMTchesterfilmschesterfilms Blog6/4/2007 2:19:29 AMNo it&#39;s not nearly as good as the first. Yes there are problems with the story, and some of the performances. Still, this is an amazing film, and should not live in the shadow of it&#39;s predecessors. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1140

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT62892271140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 831

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:29 GMT8748157831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangster/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangster
Number of films tagged: 4065

Number of people who tagged: 60

Number of times used: 145

]]>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 01:37:08 GMT406560145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/daughter/MemberTagFilms.aspxdaughter
Number of films tagged: 3658

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 138

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT365840138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mafia/MemberTagFilms.aspxmafia
Number of films tagged: 232

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 66

]]>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:01:24 GMT2324066Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/business/MemberTagFilms.aspxbusiness
Number of films tagged: 1747

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 70

]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:05:14 GMT17472770Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/opera/MemberTagFilms.aspxopera
Number of films tagged: 1016

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:16 GMT10162532Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coppola/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoppola
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 12

]]>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:39:53 GMT71212Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/organizedcrime/MemberTagFilms.aspxorganizedcrime
Number of films tagged: 399

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT3991117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nephew/MemberTagFilms.aspxnephew
Number of films tagged: 246

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:49:34 GMT24667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/pope/MemberTagFilms.aspxpope
Number of films tagged: 119

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:59:27 GMT11955Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/gangsta/MemberTagFilms.aspxgangsta
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:02:44 GMT444Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vatican/MemberTagFilms.aspxvatican
Number of films tagged: 64

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:45:44 GMT6433Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/godfather/MemberTagFilms.aspxgodfather
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 01:58:40 GMT222Tag