list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 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/Harry_Potter_and_the_Sorcerer_s_Stone/201418/default.aspx Title: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Year: 2001
Director: Chris Columbus
Plot: The best-selling novel by J.K. Rowling (titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in England, as was this film adaptation) becomes this hotly anticipated fantasy adventure from Chris Columbus, the winner of a high-stakes search for a director to bring the first in a hoped-for franchise of Potter films to the screen by Warner Bros. Upon his 11th birthday, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), who lives in misery with an aunt and uncle that don't want him, learns from a giant named Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) that he is the orphaned son of powerful wizards. Harry is offered a place at prestigious Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizards that exists in a realm of magic and fantasy outside the dreary existence of normal humans or "Muggles." At Hogwarts, Harry quickly makes new friends and begins piecing together the mystery of his parents' deaths, which appear not to have been accidental after all. The film features alternate-version scenes for every mention of the titular rock. Richard Harris, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, John Cleese, and Fiona Shaw co-star. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 67
Number of Lists: 116
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:14:46 GMTHarry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone2001Chris ColumbusThe best-selling novel by J.K. Rowling (titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in England, as was this film adaptation) becomes this hotly anticipated fantasy adventure from <a href="/players/P____85595/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Chris Columbus</a>, the winner of a high-stakes search for a director to bring the first in a hoped-for franchise of Potter films to the screen by Warner Bros. Upon his 11th birthday, Harry Potter (<a href="/players/P___299899/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Daniel Radcliffe</a>), who lives in misery with an aunt and uncle that don't want him, learns from a giant named Hagrid (<a href="/players/P____14336/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robbie Coltrane</a>) that he is the orphaned son of powerful wizards. Harry is offered a place at prestigious Hogwarts, a boarding school for wizards that exists in a realm of magic and fantasy outside the dreary existence of normal humans or "Muggles." At Hogwarts, Harry quickly makes new friends and begins piecing together the mystery of his parents' deaths, which appear not to have been accidental after all. The film features alternate-version scenes for every mention of the titular rock. <a href="/players/P____93538/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Harris</a>, <a href="/players/P____60157/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alan Rickman</a>, <a href="/players/P____66495/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maggie Smith</a>, <a href="/players/P____85223/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Cleese</a>, and <a href="/players/P____64917/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fiona Shaw</a> co-star. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide67Tag Target (>10)1161113http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u48297q47fm.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Harry_Potter_and_the_Sorcerer_s_Stone/201418/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_August_10_Happy_Birthday/625/43490/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/11/2009 10:14:46 PM
Body: Seeing as how it was my birthday this past weekend I thought this week's theme should be about films featuring characters that are enjoying or hating their own days of birth. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - Amazing film that takes place during a family's matriarchs birthday party on a magnificent antebellum plantation estate. Good Will Hunting - The end of the film in which the main characters birthday leads to a final decision about which direction to take in his life. Boy A - A troubled boy is released from juvenile prison on his 18th birthday and forced to come to terms with the real world that he has been closed off from for so long. The Boys in the Band - A group of men get together to celebrate their friends birthday and it turns into an all out war of words. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - The whole magical world is revealed to young Harry Potter on his birthday and a generation of kids wishing like hell that when their birthdays rolled around that a flying letter from Hogwarts would be flown into their living rooms by an owl. Sixteen Candles - RIP John Hughes. The film that helped launch Molly Ringwald into our hearts and gave hope to every nerd praying to hook up with someone from the cool crowd. Eye for an Eye - The film that made me paranoid about opening the door for strangers; a young girls birthday is disrupted by a demented Keifer Sutherland when he bursts in the door and does all kinds of horrible to her. Harold and Maude - Probably one of the most depressingly heartwarming films about enjoying life and making birthday memorable. What's Eating Gilbert Grape - Probably one of the most just plain depressing depictions of a birthday: a morbidly obese mother bound to a couch in front of the television eating cake and smoking cigarettes. The Hours - Another film about how depressing birthdays are and how so many people feel like marking the day with suicide. Cloverfield - A birthday celebration is interrupted by a giant monster. Nothing cool like that ever happens to me. Old School - An example of probably one of the most amazing birthday parties thanks in large part to Snoop Dogg and Will Ferral. Parenthood - Seeing this is a kid I always wished my dad would have been cool enough to dress up like a demented cowboy and run amuck for one of my birthdays.
]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:14:46 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/11/2009 10:14:46 PM Seeing as how it was my birthday this past weekend I thought this week's theme should be about films featuring characters that are enjoying or hating their own days of birth. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - Amazing film that takes place during a family's matriarchs birthday party on a magnificent antebellum plantation estate. Good Will Hunting - The end of the film in which the main characters birthday leads to a final decision about which direction to take in his life. Boy A - A troubled boy is released from juvenile prison on his 18th birthday and forced to come to terms with the real world that he has been closed off from for so long. The Boys in the Band - A group of men get together to celebrate their friends birthday and it turns into an all out war of words. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - The whole magical world is revealed to young Harry Potter on his birthday and a generation of kids wishing like hell that when their birthdays rolled around that a flying letter from Hogwarts would be flown into their living rooms by an owl. Sixteen Candles - RIP John Hughes. The film that helped launch Molly Ringwald into our hearts and gave hope to every nerd praying to hook up with someone from the cool crowd. Eye for an Eye - The film that made me paranoid about opening the door for strangers; a young girls birthday is disrupted by a demented Keifer Sutherland when he bursts in the door and does all kinds of horrible to her. Harold and Maude - Probably one of the most depressingly heartwarming films about enjoying life and making birthday memorable. What's Eating Gilbert Grape - Probably one of the most just plain depressing depictions of a birthday: a morbidly obese mother bound to a couch in front of the television eating cake and smoking cigarettes. The Hours - Another film about how depressing birthdays are and how so many people feel like marking the day with suicide. Cloverfield - A birthday celebration is interrupted by a giant monster. Nothing cool like that ever happens to me. Old School - An example of probably one of the most amazing birthday parties thanks in large part to Snoop Dogg and Will Ferral. Parenthood - Seeing this is a kid I always wished my dad would have been cool enough to dress up like a demented cowboy and run amuck for one of my birthdays. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40940.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 3:00:28 PM
Body: Last Friday, Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Fox will bring the comic strip Marmaduke to the big screen. One the one hand, this is baffling. The comic, a series of crudely rendered half-jokes, makes very little sense, and has no story whatsoever. The fact that Marmaduke is a mischievous great dane barely even qualifies as a premise. On the other hand, studios have sunk massive amounts of money into comic strip movies like Garfield and Dennis the Menace, and money-making dog movies like Marley & Me, which has earned $166 million worldwide since its Christmas ‘08 release. So Marmaduke might make economic sense, but it makes little sense otherwise. The green-lighting of this project is a peek into the bizarre minds of studio executives. If movies like Wall-E and the Harry Potter series bring home the bacon and earn critical acclaim, why empty the coffers for family tent-pole movies based on the crappiest of source material available? I have a theory. Just as Zack Snyder was goaded on by the allegedly “unfilmable” quality of the Watchmen graphic novel, the executives at Fox must see the production of a Marmaduke film as an act of artistic defiance. Let’s turn and unreadable comic into an unwatchable movie, they say, and laugh all the way to the bank when it destroys the competition at the box office! In that vein, I challenge the major studios to make the following comic strips into movies, just to see if people will pay to see the resulting crap. If they should choose to accept this challenge, may God help us all. Family Circus Bil Keane’s gentile tales of misspoken children and familial bliss have graced the funny pages for decades. They are never funny. At best, the panels hint at a vague Kids Say The Darndest Things kind of cuteness. At worst, they are astoundingly bland statements about how families are generally a good thing. In some ways, a Family Circus movie would be a safer bet than Marmaduke, due to better brand recognition. On second thought, the lack of a slobbering, CGI dog would be a strike against its box office chances. How it could actually work: Family Circus’s dopey simplicity and complete lack of self-awareness has made it the ideal fodder for parody. So far this has mostly existed on the internet, a few examples being Dysfunctional Family Circus, Scott Meets Family Circus, and the hilariously overwrought fake reviews that appeared on Amazon a few years ago. Of course Keane would never allow a vulgar distortion of his work to be made into a movie. If a straight-laced movie were made, however, I’m sure we could look forward to hilarious home-brew commentary tracks and endless trailer mash-ups. Cathy Cathy is a long-running strip about a woman dealing with “the four basic guilt groups,” defined by the strip’s creator, Cathy Guisewite, as Food, Love, Mom, and Work. For most of the comic’s runtime, it chronicled the foibles of being a single woman in the modern world. GoComics.com sums up the strip by saying, “She personifies the young career woman and her typical daily obstacles. Ice cream, panic attacks, stress and love are all in a day’s work.” But alas, Cathy and longtime boyfriend Irving were married in 2004. The wacky hi-jinks continue, however, now with biting commentary on modern relationships, i.e., “AAAACK! Men like iPods!” How it could actually work: While there would be something incredible about watching a frizzy-haried Renée Zellweger arguing with her mom and trying to resist the temptation of fudge for ninety minutes, there’s really only one way a Cathy movie could succeed. Two words: Andy Samberg. Hagar the Horrible A comic about a viking would seem to be ripe for a big-screen, action-packed film adaptation, except for the fact that the comic is mostly about Hagar bickering with his wife Helga and his hapless lieutenant, Lucky Eddie. The movie would be the perfect chance for Brendan Gleeson to squander his first leading role in a big-budget picture. How it could actually work: The world is hungry for a good viking movie, and Hagar the Horrible could provide the brand recognition needed. If Pirates of the Caribbean was able to build an entertaining and financially successful franchise from an amusement park ride, I don’t see why Haggar couldn’t do the same. A few things would be key: First of all, it has to be pretty violent, a PG-13 rating would be best. Also, the film would have to really delve into Hagar and Helga’s tense gender conflicts, which the comic only hints at. How does Hagar behave on long trips away from his overbearing wife, as his men rape and pillage? The Lockhorns There’s no way around it: a Lockhorns movie would be soul-crushingly depressing. The single panel comic satires marriage, showing the various squabbles of middle-aged couple Leroy and Loretta. While some optimistic fan has injected the Lockhorns‘ Wikipedia page with this ray of sunshine –– “Leroy and Loretta show how foolish it is to be unkind to the people we love” –– I don’t buy it. The comic is clearly about the inevitable misery of long-term relationships, and the futility of trying to find something better. Why don’t they get a divorce? They’ve covered that, it’s too expensive. Ugh. How it could actually work: In order to avoid making millions of children cry, the movie would have to spurn the young audience usually associated with comic strip movies. The Lockhorns could work as a dark comedy, with a heavy dose of gut-punching drama. It would delve into the relationship in the least sexy way possible, exposing layer after calloused layer. While I’d like to say that they learn to truly love one another in the end, that wouldn’t be true to the source material. The film would end with the two slowly drifting off to sleep on opposite ends of the couch after yet another petty argument, utterly resigned to their shared fate. Calvin and Hobbes Calvin and Hobbes is the Watchmen of comic strips, except more people have actually read it. The tales of mischievous young Calvin and his toy tiger Hobbes are the definitive love letter to the imagination for an entire generation. This comic makes the list not because it’s dopey and unfunny like the others, rather, it’s here because it’s so good. A movie of Calvin and Hobbes would almost certainly be a total disaster, bitterly offending millions. Why, you ask? Calvin and Hobbes is one of those comics where the genius is in the details. There’s nothing particularly interesting about a boy who pretends his toy tiger is alive. But Bill Watterson wrote a chemistry between the two that could not be replicated in another medium, or by another artist. How it could actually work: The only way a Calvin and Hobbes movie could possibly work is if they did it in the same way they did the Charlie Brown Specials. They would need to do a traditional hand-drawn animation, replicating the look of comic as much as possible. The voices would be hard to nail, but it would be doable. If the movie had too much of a plot, it would feel forced. Instead, it would follow Calvin and Hobbes through a series of small adventures: sledding, killing time in the back yard on a Saturday, making fun of Susie Derkins, all while making smart observations about life. The most important element of a successful Calvin and Hobbes movie would be this: Bill Watterson gets final cut. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:00:28 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 3:00:28 PMLast Friday, Hollywood Reporter broke the news that Fox will bring the comic strip Marmaduke to the big screen. One the one hand, this is baffling. The comic, a series of crudely rendered half-jokes, makes very little sense, and has no story whatsoever. The fact that Marmaduke is a mischievous great dane barely even qualifies as a premise. On the other hand, studios have sunk massive amounts of money into comic strip movies like Garfield and Dennis the Menace, and money-making dog movies like Marley & Me, which has earned $166 million worldwide since its Christmas ‘08 release. So Marmaduke might make economic sense, but it makes little sense otherwise. The green-lighting of this project is a peek into the bizarre minds of studio executives. If movies like Wall-E and the Harry Potter series bring home the bacon and earn critical acclaim, why empty the coffers for family tent-pole movies based on the crappiest of source material available? I have a theory. Just as Zack Snyder was goaded on by the allegedly “unfilmable” quality of the Watchmen graphic novel, the executives at Fox must see the production of a Marmaduke film as an act of artistic defiance. Let’s turn and unreadable comic into an unwatchable movie, they say, and laugh all the way to the bank when it destroys the competition at the box office! In that vein, I challenge the major studios to make the following comic strips into movies, just to see if people will pay to see the resulting crap. If they should choose to accept this challenge, may God help us all. Family Circus Bil Keane’s gentile tales of misspoken children and familial bliss have graced the funny pages for decades. They are never funny. At best, the panels hint at a vague Kids Say The Darndest Things kind of cuteness. At worst, they are astoundingly bland statements about how families are generally a good thing. In some ways, a Family Circus movie would be a safer bet than Marmaduke, due to better brand recognition. On second thought, the lack of a slobbering, CGI dog would be a strike against its box office chances. How it could actually work: Family Circus’s dopey simplicity and complete lack of self-awareness has made it the ideal fodder for parody. So far this has mostly existed on the internet, a few examples being Dysfunctional Family Circus, Scott Meets Family Circus, and the hilariously overwrought fake reviews that appeared on Amazon a few years ago. Of course Keane would never allow a vulgar distortion of his work to be made into a movie. If a straight-laced movie were made, however, I’m sure we could look forward to hilarious home-brew commentary tracks and endless trailer mash-ups. Cathy Cathy is a long-running strip about a woman dealing with “the four basic guilt groups,” defined by the strip’s creator, Cathy Guisewite, as Food, Love, Mom, and Work. For most of the comic’s runtime, it chronicled the foibles of being a single woman in the modern world. GoComics.com sums up the strip by saying, “She personifies the young career woman and her typical daily obstacles. Ice cream, panic attacks, stress and love are all in a day’s work.” But alas, Cathy and longtime boyfriend Irving were married in 2004. The wacky hi-jinks continue, however, now with biting commentary on modern relationships, i.e., “AAAACK! Men like iPods!” How it could actually work: While there would be something incredible about watching a frizzy-haried Renée Zellweger arguing with her mom and trying to resist the temptation of fudge for ninety minutes, there’s really only one way a Cathy movie could succeed. Two words: Andy Samberg. Hagar the Horrible A comic about a viking would seem to be ripe for a big-screen, action-packed film adaptation, except for the fact that the comic is mostly about Hagar bickering with his wife Helga and his hapless lieutenant, Lucky Eddie. The movie would be the perfect chance for Brendan Gleeson to squander his first leading role in a big-budget picture. How it could actually work: The world is hungry for a good viking movie, and Hagar the Horrible could provide the brand recognition needed. If Pirates of the Caribbean was able to build an entertaining and financially successful franchise from an amusement park ride, I don’t see why Haggar couldn’t do the same. A few things would be key: First of all, it has to be pretty violent, a PG-13 rating would be best. Also, the film would have to really delve into Hagar and Helga’s tense gender conflicts, which the comic only hints at. How does Hagar behave on long trips away from his overbearing wife, as his men rape and pillage? The Lockhorns There’s no way around it: a Lockhorns movie would be soul-crushingly depressing. The single panel comic satires marriage, showing the various squabbles of middle-aged couple Leroy and Loretta. While some optimistic fan has injected the Lockhorns‘ Wikipedia page with this ray of sunshine –– “Leroy and Loretta show how foolish it is to be unkind to the people we love” –– I don’t buy it. The comic is clearly about the inevitable misery of long-term relationships, and the futility of trying to find something better. Why don’t they get a divorce? They’ve covered that, it’s too expensive. Ugh. How it could actually work: In order to avoid making millions of children cry, the movie would have to spurn the young audience usually associated with comic strip movies. The Lockhorns could work as a dark comedy, with a heavy dose of gut-punching drama. It would delve into the relationship in the least sexy way possible, exposing layer after calloused layer. While I’d like to say that they learn to truly love one another in the end, that wouldn’t be true to the source material. The film would end with the two slowly drifting off to sleep on opposite ends of the couch after yet another petty argument, utterly resigned to their shared fate. Calvin and Hobbes Calvin and Hobbes is the Watchmen of comic strips, except more people have actually read it. The tales of mischievous young Calvin and his toy tiger Hobbes are the definitive love letter to the imagination for an entire generation. This comic makes the list not because it’s dopey and unfunny like the others, rather, it’s here because it’s so good. A movie of Calvin and Hobbes would almost certainly be a total disaster, bitterly offending millions. Why, you ask? Calvin and Hobbes is one of those comics where the genius is in the details. There’s nothing particularly interesting about a boy who pretends his toy tiger is alive. But Bill Watterson wrote a chemistry between the two that could not be replicated in another medium, or by another artist. How it could actually work: The only way a Calvin and Hobbes movie could possibly work is if they did it in the same way they did the Charlie Brown Specials. They would need to do a traditional hand-drawn animation, replicating the look of comic as much as possible. The voices would be hard to nail, but it would be doable. If the movie had too much of a plot, it would feel forced. Instead, it would follow Calvin and Hobbes through a series of small adventures: sledding, killing time in the back yard on a Saturday, making fun of Susie Derkins, all while making smart observations about life. The most important element of a successful Calvin and Hobbes movie would be this: Bill Watterson gets final cut. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39987.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 5:01:13 PM
Body: Both are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 5:01:13 PMBoth are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/13/39467.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/13/2009 4:02:06 PM
Body: As we crack open fresh calendars for a new year, we’re treated to a predictable rash of blog posts: 2009 technology predictions. I’ve read a number of these, and prognostications about Microsoft buying Yahoo make me want to light my laptop on fire just to cure the boredom. As an anecdote to lame, ‘what’s the next Twitter?’-style tech prediction lists, I’ve decided to make a list 2009 tech predictions entirely inspired by movies. 2008 was the year in which widely available real-world gadgets were just as good as what James Bond had. Sure, Daniel Craig kicked some ass in Quantum of Solace, but his only real piece of tech was a phone with a camera and GPS! (Hope you got a good texting plan with that, James.) I predict this trend will continue in 2009. We’ll see even more real-world gadgets that used to be the sole domain of Hollywood special effects gurus. Sure, some of these technologies will require minor miracles to become a reality in the coming year, but others are closer than you think. Strength-Enhancing Exoskeleton Armor In Iron Man, Tony Stark creates a crude, internally-powered suit of armor to escape his terrorist captors. Once he’s safely at home in his billion-dollar laboratory, he hones the suit into a golden ass-kicking machine, and becomes Iron Man. This story isn’t that far from the truth. Rather than a single billionaire playboy, teams of research scientists are developing robotic suits that significantly increase the wearer’s strength. And the end goal is goal is the same: beating the hell out of terrorists. Almost five years ago, UC Berkley researchers announced a DARPA-funded project called BLEEX, the Berkley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (pictured at left). If you’re thinking that giant backpack is full of the machinery that runs the thing, you’re wrong. That’s the 70 lbs. pack the wearer can hardly feel, thanks to his robot legs. Assuming secret military technology is always ahead of publicized military technology, and considering that the BLEEX is five years old, I think it’s safe to say that in 2009 President Obama will personally don an Iron Man suit and kill Osama bin Laden. Levitation Levitation in movies is usually some sort of magical or paranormal phenomenon, like Yoda using the force to lift Luke Skywalker’s X-Wing out of the swamp. But there are examples of technological levitation in fiction, especially flying saucers and other craft that can stay aloft without forward momentum. A technological version of the Force is still a long way off, but there are plenty of forms of levitation that are quite common. Magnetism can be easily harnessed to levitate certain objects, and just last week, scientists added another method to the growing list of levitation technologies. Harvard physicist Federico Capasso has effectively reversed the Casimir effect, which causes metal objects to become attracted to one another when they’re very close together. As exciting as this sounds, the reversal only works on extremely small pieces of metal. But it’s still a step in the right direction. Invisibility Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak relies on magic rather than technology, but this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to replicate its effects. While one would hope that researchers’ interest in invisibility technology goes beyond their fondness for the boy wizard, they invariably mention Potter’s cloak in every news story about advances in invisibility technology. The development of meta-materials that can redirect lightwaves around an object have made steady progress in recent years. In a National Geographic article from November of last year, researcher Ulf Leonhardt claimed that invisibility cloaks are now “feasible.” Of course there are a few catches. The phenomenon alters visible light slightly while it bends it, and it can only work with specific shapes, meaning that a coat of invisible paint on a spy plane or a stylish cape are still out of reach. With the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July of this year, I’m sure Potter-loving invisibility scientists will pursue their study with renewed fervor. X-Ray Vision The most popular depiction of x-ray vision is of course Superman, but the Man of Steel doesn’t need a gadget to see Louis Lane’s underwear. There are examples of technological x-ray vision in movies, like the all-but-forgotten 1996 Schwarzenegger vehicle, Eraser. The film featured an advanced weapon called a rail-gun, which had a scope that could see through solid objects. X-ray vision, like levitation, has existed in certain forms for long time, but making it as practical as Superman’s vision is another matter. Thermal imaging goggles used by police and military can see through certain objects that block visual light because of their ability to see infrared light. A new technology being employed in security situations is terahertz imagery, which can see through fabrics and plastic. While the mail-order x-ray specs sold out of comic books in the ’60s were a sham, back in 1998 Sony sold thousands of consumer video cameras whose “night shot” feature allowed users to see through clothing, especially swim wear. Time Travel Debating the physical and philosophical effects of time travel is a favorite passtime of sci-fi buffs and people who edit Wikipedia entries. The scientific consensus is that Back to the Future-style DeLorean time travel is not possible, but Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity do allow for certain types of time travel. For example, the phenomenon of time dilation allows for something akin to traveling into the future. If there were twins, and one stayed on Earth while the other went on a long trip on a spaceship at nearly the speed of light, the traveling twin would be younger when he returned. From his perspective, his trip lasted one year, while his twin would insist that he’d been gone for ten years. So this means that the DeLorean would have to travel much faster than 88 miles per hour, and once they traveled to the future, they could never go back. There is another theoretically possible form of time travel, which involves constructing an infinitely long cylinder in space and rotating it on its longitudinal axis. This would bend space time around the cylinder, allowing a spacecraft to essentially fly back in time. But since there are no infinitely long cylinders laying around, time travel in 2009 seems unlikely. Unless a time traveler from the future decides to come back to 2009 and share his knowledge with us. He’d probably kill his own grandfather, too, just to mess with our heads. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:02:06 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/13/2009 4:02:06 PMAs we crack open fresh calendars for a new year, we’re treated to a predictable rash of blog posts: 2009 technology predictions. I’ve read a number of these, and prognostications about Microsoft buying Yahoo make me want to light my laptop on fire just to cure the boredom. As an anecdote to lame, ‘what’s the next Twitter?’-style tech prediction lists, I’ve decided to make a list 2009 tech predictions entirely inspired by movies. 2008 was the year in which widely available real-world gadgets were just as good as what James Bond had. Sure, Daniel Craig kicked some ass in Quantum of Solace, but his only real piece of tech was a phone with a camera and GPS! (Hope you got a good texting plan with that, James.) I predict this trend will continue in 2009. We’ll see even more real-world gadgets that used to be the sole domain of Hollywood special effects gurus. Sure, some of these technologies will require minor miracles to become a reality in the coming year, but others are closer than you think. Strength-Enhancing Exoskeleton Armor In Iron Man, Tony Stark creates a crude, internally-powered suit of armor to escape his terrorist captors. Once he’s safely at home in his billion-dollar laboratory, he hones the suit into a golden ass-kicking machine, and becomes Iron Man. This story isn’t that far from the truth. Rather than a single billionaire playboy, teams of research scientists are developing robotic suits that significantly increase the wearer’s strength. And the end goal is goal is the same: beating the hell out of terrorists. Almost five years ago, UC Berkley researchers announced a DARPA-funded project called BLEEX, the Berkley Lower Extremity Exoskeleton (pictured at left). If you’re thinking that giant backpack is full of the machinery that runs the thing, you’re wrong. That’s the 70 lbs. pack the wearer can hardly feel, thanks to his robot legs. Assuming secret military technology is always ahead of publicized military technology, and considering that the BLEEX is five years old, I think it’s safe to say that in 2009 President Obama will personally don an Iron Man suit and kill Osama bin Laden. Levitation Levitation in movies is usually some sort of magical or paranormal phenomenon, like Yoda using the force to lift Luke Skywalker’s X-Wing out of the swamp. But there are examples of technological levitation in fiction, especially flying saucers and other craft that can stay aloft without forward momentum. A technological version of the Force is still a long way off, but there are plenty of forms of levitation that are quite common. Magnetism can be easily harnessed to levitate certain objects, and just last week, scientists added another method to the growing list of levitation technologies. Harvard physicist Federico Capasso has effectively reversed the Casimir effect, which causes metal objects to become attracted to one another when they’re very close together. As exciting as this sounds, the reversal only works on extremely small pieces of metal. But it’s still a step in the right direction. Invisibility Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak relies on magic rather than technology, but this hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to replicate its effects. While one would hope that researchers’ interest in invisibility technology goes beyond their fondness for the boy wizard, they invariably mention Potter’s cloak in every news story about advances in invisibility technology. The development of meta-materials that can redirect lightwaves around an object have made steady progress in recent years. In a National Geographic article from November of last year, researcher Ulf Leonhardt claimed that invisibility cloaks are now “feasible.” Of course there are a few catches. The phenomenon alters visible light slightly while it bends it, and it can only work with specific shapes, meaning that a coat of invisible paint on a spy plane or a stylish cape are still out of reach. With the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince in July of this year, I’m sure Potter-loving invisibility scientists will pursue their study with renewed fervor. X-Ray Vision The most popular depiction of x-ray vision is of course Superman, but the Man of Steel doesn’t need a gadget to see Louis Lane’s underwear. There are examples of technological x-ray vision in movies, like the all-but-forgotten 1996 Schwarzenegger vehicle, Eraser. The film featured an advanced weapon called a rail-gun, which had a scope that could see through solid objects. X-ray vision, like levitation, has existed in certain forms for long time, but making it as practical as Superman’s vision is another matter. Thermal imaging goggles used by police and military can see through certain objects that block visual light because of their ability to see infrared light. A new technology being employed in security situations is terahertz imagery, which can see through fabrics and plastic. While the mail-order x-ray specs sold out of comic books in the ’60s were a sham, back in 1998 Sony sold thousands of consumer video cameras whose “night shot” feature allowed users to see through clothing, especially swim wear. Time Travel Debating the physical and philosophical effects of time travel is a favorite passtime of sci-fi buffs and people who edit Wikipedia entries. The scientific consensus is that Back to the Future-style DeLorean time travel is not possible, but Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity do allow for certain types of time travel. For example, the phenomenon of time dilation allows for something akin to traveling into the future. If there were twins, and one stayed on Earth while the other went on a long trip on a spaceship at nearly the speed of light, the traveling twin would be younger when he returned. From his perspective, his trip lasted one year, while his twin would insist that he’d been gone for ten years. So this means that the DeLorean would have to travel much faster than 88 miles per hour, and once they traveled to the future, they could never go back. There is another theoretically possible form of time travel, which involves constructing an infinitely long cylinder in space and rotating it on its longitudinal axis. This would bend space time around the cylinder, allowing a spacecraft to essentially fly back in time. But since there are no infinitely long cylinders laying around, time travel in 2009 seems unlikely. Unless a time traveler from the future decides to come back to 2009 and share his knowledge with us. He’d probably kill his own grandfather, too, just to mess with our heads. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/11/7/37094.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 11/7/2008 10:01:26 PM
Body: I had watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone several years ago, shortly after it came out on DVD and found it among the least enjoyable movies I’d watched in quite a while. It wasn’t that it was bad - it was that it was, in my estimation, completely forgettable. I compared it at the time to a fast food value meal: Nothing about it would stick with me for very long. I’ll admit I went into it having not read it or any of the other Harry Potter books, but that didn’t seem to matter. I had no interest in exploring the Potter universe farther. Then my brother-in-law, darn him, convinced me to read the books and I decided to indulge him and give them a shot. He was, after all, the one who had overcome my resistance to “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” and so I’ve come to more or less trust his judgement on these things. I, of course, wound up enjoying all seven books. So I decided to give the movies another shot. While Sorcerer’s Stone still comes off as pretty flavorless - as does Chamber of Secrets, the second in the series, the movies do get progressively better from there. Prisoner of Azkaban is quite a bit darker than the first two and brings with it 150 percent more characterization effort than those two combined. If anything, Goblet of Fire is *too* fast-paced, trying to cram too much into its relatively short running time. The fifth and most recent movie, Order of the Phoenix, is probably my favorite of the bunch as it manages to contain not only some of the best action sequences of the series but also some very good continuation of the characer development Prisoner and Goblet really started in earnest. All in all I’m glad I decided to give the movies a second shot and, much like I was when I was reading the books, I’m now anxious for the next couple movies to come out.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 03:01:26 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog11/7/2008 10:01:26 PMI had watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone several years ago, shortly after it came out on DVD and found it among the least enjoyable movies I’d watched in quite a while. It wasn’t that it was bad - it was that it was, in my estimation, completely forgettable. I compared it at the time to a fast food value meal: Nothing about it would stick with me for very long. I’ll admit I went into it having not read it or any of the other Harry Potter books, but that didn’t seem to matter. I had no interest in exploring the Potter universe farther. Then my brother-in-law, darn him, convinced me to read the books and I decided to indulge him and give them a shot. He was, after all, the one who had overcome my resistance to “Buffy, the Vampire Slayer” and so I’ve come to more or less trust his judgement on these things. I, of course, wound up enjoying all seven books. So I decided to give the movies another shot. While Sorcerer’s Stone still comes off as pretty flavorless - as does Chamber of Secrets, the second in the series, the movies do get progressively better from there. Prisoner of Azkaban is quite a bit darker than the first two and brings with it 150 percent more characterization effort than those two combined. If anything, Goblet of Fire is *too* fast-paced, trying to cram too much into its relatively short running time. The fifth and most recent movie, Order of the Phoenix, is probably my favorite of the bunch as it manages to contain not only some of the best action sequences of the series but also some very good continuation of the characer development Prisoner and Goblet really started in earnest. All in all I’m glad I decided to give the movies a second shot and, much like I was when I was reading the books, I’m now anxious for the next couple movies to come out.        Originally posted on:Chris Thilk 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/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/20/34147.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/20/2008 9:00:59 AM
Body: Warner Bros.’ surprise decision last week to move Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from November to next July caused quite a stir. Fans were upset. Entertainment Weekly was embarrassed. The only people not bothered seemed to be the Twilight crowd, who benefited in the release date jumble when their anticipated adaptation moved up its opening to fill the vacancy. But why did the studio suddenly push back its major fall tent pole? Especially after receiving such favorable buzz surrounding its recently unveiled teaser trailer? Warner’s official statement seemed little more than a “just because” stance. So, ever the skeptic and speculator, I’ve compiled this list of more likely excuses: 10. Equus - My first thought after hearing the news was that Harry Potter’s penis was the cause. And I guess I think like Roger Friedman, who is claiming it’s the truth. Of course, unlike Friedman, I don’t really believe there’s any relation between the date change and the fact that Radcliffe will still be appearing nude on Broadway through the fall movie season (Equus runs from September 25 to February 8). If anything, I think it’d help the release of Half-Blood — what vacationing family in NYC wouldn’t want to make it a double feature over Thanksgiving weekend? First watch your kid march in the Macy’s parade, then head over to the Broadhurst Theatre to see Potter’s wand, and finish up the day with a movie screening at the Ziegfeld. OK, so families are apparently more interested in the Billy Elliot musical. And according to a quote in the new EW, Potter fans might be able to hold out for a nude Radcliffe in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2. 9. Less of a wait for Deathly Hallows - With Half-Blood Prince now opening in 2009, there’s less time between that film and the next installment, the first part of Deathly Hallows, which bows in 2010 (specifically November 19, 2010) Of course, the push has still left fans with a two-year Potter drought, as there has been no new book or movie since July 2007. Will those two years make fans anticipate the film more, or will it lead them to forget about the boy wizard and move on to boy vampires? 8. Twilight madness - One rumor floating around is that Warner Bros. was scared of Twilight, particularly after the Comic-Con panel, which was met with an overwhelming volume of screaming fans. Originally, the vampire movie was slated to open three weeks after Harry Potter, and fantasy favoring teens would have likely moved onto Twilight rather than seeing Half-Blood Prince again. However, it’s just as likely that Warner saw bigger competition from: 7. Disney’s Bolt - Personally, I think Twilight is going to bomb, or at least perform unsatisfactorily. I’d be willing to bet the animated film Bolt, which was originally to open 5 days after Half-Blood, is more successful. And now that both Twilight and Bolt have jointly taken Harry Potter’s spot, I get to actually watch as kids choose the latter, with its Miley Cyrus-voiced character, over the cheesy, mushy vampire movie. I don’t think Bolt could have bettered Harry Potter, though, so Warner likely wasn’t scared away by the little animated dog. 6. Midnight shows - Some kids have pointed out that with a summer release they’re more likely to be able to attend a midnight screening on the eve of Half-Blood’s opening. Other kids have pointed out that their parents are cool enough to allow them to stay up late on a school night for Harry Potter mania. Meanwhile, I’d like to point out that my dad could beat up all those kids’ dads. 5. Re-shooting for Darker content - As its Dark Knight keeps on reeling in the dough, Warner Bros. may be interested in making other tent poles as dark as the highly acclaimed and highly successful Batman sequel. So, rather than appeasing the kiddies with more accessible midnight shows, the studio might want to appease more of the older folk by adding in some harder content (in one new scene, Potter shows us how to make his wand disappear). It would make sense, since most of the original Potter fans are now adults. And like Anne Thompson, I’d be much more interested in seeing an R-rated Potter installment (though she means because Billy Elliot was rated R). Then again, from what I hear, the last two books are plenty dark without need for rewrites and re-shoots. Maybe not enough to get an R-rating, but I doubt any WB execs would honestly think that’s a good idea anyway. 4. After effects of the Writer’s Strike - Although the WGA strike now seems like it happened ages ago, its effects will still be felt next summer, when the blockbuster season is expected to be lacking in big movies that could have been scripted were it not for the writing hiatus. But if you actually look at next summer’s crop of releases, you’ll notice there’s actually some major tent poles, even in July, when Harry Potter will be rounding out the peak of the season against such worthy competitors as Roland Emmerich’s sci-fi flick 2012, which opens the weekend before, and Jerry Bruckheimer’s family film G-Force, which opens the weekend after. Plus, the little kids will still be excited for Ice Age 3 (in 3-D), out two weeks earlier, and the big kids will still be into Transformers 2, arriving three weeks earlier. Warner Bros. head Alan Horn was correct that Half-Blood Prince “perfectly fills the gap for a major tent pole release for mid-summer,” but that’s not a good enough motive to suddenly hold a highly anticipated movie for another eight months, especially when it leaves a similar gap in the holiday season. 3. In-house finances - Then again, Warner Bros. may have seen a tent pole lack in-house rather than in general. Now, in the event that R-rated blockbusters Watchmen and Terminator Salvation aren’t huge moneymakers, the studio has Harry to fall back on. And with The Dark Knight making the company enough dough for 2008, it makes sense for the WB to balance out its expectant profit-makers. I’ve also seen it explained as having to do with not paying as much in taxes for this fiscal year, but whatever the specific reason, it seems probable that it’s an in-house financial strategy. 2. The last Potter was huge in the summer - 2007’s Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had the worst opening weekend of the franchise, yet it went on to earn the second highest gross of the series, with only the first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, performing better domestically and worldwide. Plenty of people have noted that the three fall-opening installments average out better than the two summer openers, but that’s only because of the monumental success of part one. Logically, though, to open the movie in mid July, as Warner Bros. did with Order of the Phoenix, means it will easily have longer legs, able to perform well on weekdays for another 5-6 weeks of vacation before school starts. Opening around Thanksgiving is good for a strong debut, but then within a month the box office drops due to school, a crowded movie season and other holiday-minded priorities. 1. Warner Bros. hates the fans - Obviously the true reason for the delay is to piss off Harry Potter fans. But fortunately, the fans are striking back … with three online petitions (one at iPetitions; two at PetitionSpot). And so far, more than 34,000 outraged Potterheads have signed in protest of the release date change (I’m counting the largest one of the two at PetitionSpot as the only noteworthy). Unfortunately, most of the signers are probably like #34,196, Catherine Blencowe, who adds to the basic “I support this petition” these words: “If I actually thought I could, I would say that I will boycott the movie, but alas I’m too hooked.” Warner Bros. may hate the fans, but the fans will never hate Warner Bros. more than they love Harry. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:00:59 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/20/2008 9:00:59 AMWarner Bros.’ surprise decision last week to move Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from November to next July caused quite a stir. Fans were upset. Entertainment Weekly was embarrassed. The only people not bothered seemed to be the Twilight crowd, who benefited in the release date jumble when their anticipated adaptation moved up its opening to fill the vacancy. But why did the studio suddenly push back its major fall tent pole? Especially after receiving such favorable buzz surrounding its recently unveiled teaser trailer? Warner’s official statement seemed little more than a “just because” stance. So, ever the skeptic and speculator, I’ve compiled this list of more likely excuses: 10. Equus - My first thought after hearing the news was that Harry Potter’s penis was the cause. And I guess I think like Roger Friedman, who is claiming it’s the truth. Of course, unlike Friedman, I don’t really believe there’s any relation between the date change and the fact that Radcliffe will still be appearing nude on Broadway through the fall movie season (Equus runs from September 25 to February 8). If anything, I think it’d help the release of Half-Blood — what vacationing family in NYC wouldn’t want to make it a double feature over Thanksgiving weekend? First watch your kid march in the Macy’s parade, then head over to the Broadhurst Theatre to see Potter’s wand, and finish up the day with a movie screening at the Ziegfeld. OK, so families are apparently more interested in the Billy Elliot musical. And according to a quote in the new EW, Potter fans might be able to hold out for a nude Radcliffe in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2. 9. Less of a wait for Deathly Hallows - With Half-Blood Prince now opening in 2009, there’s less time between that film and the next installment, the first part of Deathly Hallows, which bows in 2010 (specifically November 19, 2010) Of course, the push has still left fans with a two-year Potter drought, as there has been no new book or movie since July 2007. Will those two years make fans anticipate the film more, or will it lead them to forget about the boy wizard and move on to boy vampires? 8. Twilight madness - One rumor floating around is that Warner Bros. was scared of Twilight, particularly after the Comic-Con panel, which was met with an overwhelming volume of screaming fans. Originally, the vampire movie was slated to open three weeks after Harry Potter, and fantasy favoring teens would have likely moved onto Twilight rather than seeing Half-Blood Prince again. However, it’s just as likely that Warner saw bigger competition from: 7. Disney’s Bolt - Personally, I think Twilight is going to bomb, or at least perform unsatisfactorily. I’d be willing to bet the animated film Bolt, which was originally to open 5 days after Half-Blood, is more successful. And now that both Twilight and Bolt have jointly taken Harry Potter’s spot, I get to actually watch as kids choose the latter, with its Miley Cyrus-voiced character, over the cheesy, mushy vampire movie. I don’t think Bolt could have bettered Harry Potter, though, so Warner likely wasn’t scared away by the little animated dog. 6. Midnight shows - Some kids have pointed out that with a summer release they’re more likely to be able to attend a midnight screening on the eve of Half-Blood’s opening. Other kids have pointed out that their parents are cool enough to allow them to stay up late on a school night for Harry Potter mania. Meanwhile, I’d like to point out that my dad could beat up all those kids’ dads. 5. Re-shooting for Darker content - As its Dark Knight keeps on reeling in the dough, Warner Bros. may be interested in making other tent poles as dark as the highly acclaimed and highly successful Batman sequel. So, rather than appeasing the kiddies with more accessible midnight shows, the studio might want to appease more of the older folk by adding in some harder content (in one new scene, Potter shows us how to make his wand disappear). It would make sense, since most of the original Potter fans are now adults. And like Anne Thompson, I’d be much more interested in seeing an R-rated Potter installment (though she means because Billy Elliot was rated R). Then again, from what I hear, the last two books are plenty dark without need for rewrites and re-shoots. Maybe not enough to get an R-rating, but I doubt any WB execs would honestly think that’s a good idea anyway. 4. After effects of the Writer’s Strike - Although the WGA strike now seems like it happened ages ago, its effects will still be felt next summer, when the blockbuster season is expected to be lacking in big movies that could have been scripted were it not for the writing hiatus. But if you actually look at next summer’s crop of releases, you’ll notice there’s actually some major tent poles, even in July, when Harry Potter will be rounding out the peak of the season against such worthy competitors as Roland Emmerich’s sci-fi flick 2012, which opens the weekend before, and Jerry Bruckheimer’s family film G-Force, which opens the weekend after. Plus, the little kids will still be excited for Ice Age 3 (in 3-D), out two weeks earlier, and the big kids will still be into Transformers 2, arriving three weeks earlier. Warner Bros. head Alan Horn was correct that Half-Blood Prince “perfectly fills the gap for a major tent pole release for mid-summer,” but that’s not a good enough motive to suddenly hold a highly anticipated movie for another eight months, especially when it leaves a similar gap in the holiday season. 3. In-house finances - Then again, Warner Bros. may have seen a tent pole lack in-house rather than in general. Now, in the event that R-rated blockbusters Watchmen and Terminator Salvation aren’t huge moneymakers, the studio has Harry to fall back on. And with The Dark Knight making the company enough dough for 2008, it makes sense for the WB to balance out its expectant profit-makers. I’ve also seen it explained as having to do with not paying as much in taxes for this fiscal year, but whatever the specific reason, it seems probable that it’s an in-house financial strategy. 2. The last Potter was huge in the summer - 2007’s Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix had the worst opening weekend of the franchise, yet it went on to earn the second highest gross of the series, with only the first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, performing better domestically and worldwide. Plenty of people have noted that the three fall-opening installments average out better than the two summer openers, but that’s only because of the monumental success of part one. Logically, though, to open the movie in mid July, as Warner Bros. did with Order of the Phoenix, means it will easily have longer legs, able to perform well on weekdays for another 5-6 weeks of vacation before school starts. Opening around Thanksgiving is good for a strong debut, but then within a month the box office drops due to school, a crowded movie season and other holiday-minded priorities. 1. Warner Bros. hates the fans - Obviously the true reason for the delay is to piss off Harry Potter fans. But fortunately, the fans are striking back … with three online petitions (one at iPetitions; two at PetitionSpot). And so far, more than 34,000 outraged Potterheads have signed in protest of the release date change (I’m counting the largest one of the two at PetitionSpot as the only noteworthy). Unfortunately, most of the signers are probably like #34,196, Catherine Blencowe, who adds to the basic “I support this petition” these words: “If I actually thought I could, I would say that I will boycott the movie, but alas I’m too hooked.” Warner Bros. may hate the fans, but the fans will never hate Warner Bros. more than they love Harry. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/5/23/29825.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 5/23/2008 1:17:59 PM
Body: This is not going to be one of those columns that goes into a lengthy diatribe about the influence on Dr. Indiana Jones had on this reviewer’s life as a child. I refuse to prattle on about owning a fedora and a bullwhip used to scare the bejeezus out of the family dog, or the backyard films created as homage to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the countless scars and bruises that serve as a testament to my inexperience and/or stupidity in attempts to replicate the adventures of the intrepid archeologist. It seems that the prerequisite in reviewing this latest installment in the Indiana Jones canon, “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” has almost every critic launching into some wistful rant on its impact of his/her life. And while I am certainly one to appreciate the personal power of cinematic experiences, I think this self-indulgent therapy session approach is a tad tiresome now. Let’s take “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” for what it is, without the nostalgic mist clouding my eyes. I will begin with stating that, as slavish as my devotion was, I do not consider the entire trilogy of Indiana Jones films as the be-all, end-all of adventure films. “Raiders” was, and remains, a masterwork of cinema – thrilling, thoughtful and thorough. Its sequels – “Temple of Doom” and “The Last Crusade” – had their strengths, but rose to levels nowhere near their source. So the thought of another entry two decades later held only slight promise. And there is much wish fulfillment to be found, but there are several critical elements that drag the tale into the catacombs of many Indy Come Lateleys, such as “The Mummy” and “National Treasure.” The film picks up 20 years after “The Last Crusade” in 1957, where Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford, duh!) finds himself in New Mexico searching for the eponymous object located in a government storage warehouse (keep your eyes peeled for flashes of his previous conquests located within). From here, he tangles with old-fashioned cinematic Russkies (headed by a Cate Blanchett, acting as though she stepped out of a “Rocky and Bullwinkle” cartoon), survives a point-blank impact of an atomic bomb, floats down not one, but three, waterfalls, eludes countless natives and soldiers who have apparently all been trained at the Keystone Kops Weaponry Training Academy, killer mutant ants, various auto and motorcycle chases and takes more punches than a speed bag. Honestly, were Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner out of budget range to make a cameo? I know Indy has survived many things – rolling boulders, a pit full of snakes, airplane crashes, Kate Capshaw – but by layering on so many narrow escapes, there was never a moment that felt as though he was honestly in any danger. The problem lies predominately in the script. In these last two decades, there have been countless attempts to jumpstart the series again from names like Chris Columbus (“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”), Jeb Stuart (“Die Hard” and “The Fugitive”), Frank Darabont (“The Shawshank Redemption”), George Lucas. Even M. Night Shyamalan is to have reported to take a stab at the legend. David Koepp (“Spider Man,” Jurassic Park”) was eventually hired to cobble together what feels like the “greatest hits” of all the previous drafts (and trust me, they are all available on the internet for those who snoop hard enough). There are elements, plot devices and characters that pop up for several scenes only to disappear for gaping sections of the film or are never heard from again (what’s up with those groundhogs?). Most notable of these slights is the character of Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen). Looking game for adventure, Allen makes a grand entrance, only to serve as a getaway driver for the majority of her screen time. When Indy professes a still-burning flame for her, we want it to give us chills, but director Steven Spielberg has far too many hoops for his hero to jump through to get bogged down with emotional development of any sort. Shia LaBeouf, here playing a Indy’s young greaser sidekick by the name of Mutt, has been the source of much debate from fans who have not cozied up to the actor’s snarky style (but they were completely content with the whiny musings of Short Round in “Temple of Doom”?). Frankly, it was all for naught, as he is easily one of the few new elements in a film that has many other problems with which to deal. With all that said, there is still a level of comfort that can be found in “Skull,” but it is not in the Rube Goldberg archeological sites set up for the characters. It is more in the iconic shots of Indiana once again picking up his weathered fedora and placing it on his head; or when he and his college’s dean (played by a criminally underused Jim Broadbendt) briefly ruminate over their accelerated age; or the old-school motorcycle chase scene through campus involving more stunt work than pixels. Too often, the film succumbs to its bombastic tendencies, though, that severely diminish Indiana’s humanity and vulnerability that made him so accessible in the first place. He is now no more defenseless than any other CGI-enhanced superhero at the box office. Ironically, it’s all these attempts to stay “new” is what ages “Crystal Skull” the most. For in its seemingly relentless pursuit to appease the current box office action appetites, what true Indiana Jones fans want is less breakneck pace, more of the same old “hat.”
]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 17:17:59 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog5/23/2008 1:17:59 PMThis is not going to be one of those columns that goes into a lengthy diatribe about the influence on Dr. Indiana Jones had on this reviewer&rsquo;s life as a child. I refuse to prattle on about owning a fedora and a bullwhip used to scare the bejeezus out of the family dog, or the backyard films created as homage to &ldquo;Raiders of the Lost Ark&rdquo; and the countless scars and bruises that serve as a testament to my inexperience and/or stupidity in attempts to replicate the adventures of the intrepid archeologist. It seems that the prerequisite in reviewing this latest installment in the Indiana Jones canon, &ldquo;Kingdom of the Crystal Skull&rdquo; has almost every critic launching into some wistful rant on its impact of his/her life. And while I am certainly one to appreciate the personal power of cinematic experiences, I think this self-indulgent therapy session approach is a tad tiresome now. Let&rsquo;s take &ldquo;Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull&rdquo; for what it is, without the nostalgic mist clouding my eyes. I will begin with stating that, as slavish as my devotion was, I do not consider the entire trilogy of Indiana Jones films as the be-all, end-all of adventure films. &ldquo;Raiders&rdquo; was, and remains, a masterwork of cinema &ndash; thrilling, thoughtful and thorough. Its sequels &ndash; &ldquo;Temple of Doom&rdquo; and &ldquo;The Last Crusade&rdquo; &ndash; had their strengths, but rose to levels nowhere near their source. So the thought of another entry two decades later held only slight promise. And there is much wish fulfillment to be found, but there are several critical elements that drag the tale into the catacombs of many Indy Come Lateleys, such as &ldquo;The Mummy&rdquo; and &ldquo;National Treasure.&rdquo; The film picks up 20 years after &ldquo;The Last Crusade&rdquo; in 1957, where Dr. Jones (played by Harrison Ford, duh!) finds himself in New Mexico searching for the eponymous object located in a government storage warehouse (keep your eyes peeled for flashes of his previous conquests located within). From here, he tangles with old-fashioned cinematic Russkies (headed by a Cate Blanchett, acting as though she stepped out of a &ldquo;Rocky and Bullwinkle&rdquo; cartoon), survives a point-blank impact of an atomic bomb, floats down not one, but three, waterfalls, eludes countless natives and soldiers who have apparently all been trained at the Keystone Kops Weaponry Training Academy, killer mutant ants, various auto and motorcycle chases and takes more punches than a speed bag. Honestly, were Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner out of budget range to make a cameo? I know Indy has survived many things &ndash; rolling boulders, a pit full of snakes, airplane crashes, Kate Capshaw &ndash; but by layering on so many narrow escapes, there was never a moment that felt as though he was honestly in any danger. The problem lies predominately in the script. In these last two decades, there have been countless attempts to jumpstart the series again from names like Chris Columbus (&ldquo;Harry Potter and the Sorcerer&rsquo;s Stone&rdquo;), Jeb Stuart (&ldquo;Die Hard&rdquo; and &ldquo;The Fugitive&rdquo;), Frank Darabont (&ldquo;The Shawshank Redemption&rdquo;), George Lucas. Even M. Night Shyamalan is to have reported to take a stab at the legend. David Koepp (&ldquo;Spider Man,&rdquo; Jurassic Park&rdquo;) was eventually hired to cobble together what feels like the &ldquo;greatest hits&rdquo; of all the previous drafts (and trust me, they are all available on the internet for those who snoop hard enough). There are elements, plot devices and characters that pop up for several scenes only to disappear for gaping sections of the film or are never heard from again (what&rsquo;s up with those groundhogs?). Most notable of these slights is the character of Marion Ravenwood (played by Karen Allen). Looking game for adventure, Allen makes a grand entrance, only to serve as a getaway driver for the majority of her screen time. When Indy professes a still-burning flame for her, we want it to give us chills, but director Steven Spielberg has far too many hoops for his hero to jump through to get bogged down with emotional development of any sort. Shia LaBeouf, here playing a Indy&rsquo;s young greaser sidekick by the name of Mutt, has been the source of much debate from fans who have not cozied up to the actor&rsquo;s snarky style (but they were completely content with the whiny musings of Short Round in &ldquo;Temple of Doom&rdquo;?). Frankly, it was all for naught, as he is easily one of the few new elements in a film that has many other problems with which to deal. With all that said, there is still a level of comfort that can be found in &ldquo;Skull,&rdquo; but it is not in the Rube Goldberg archeological sites set up for the characters. It is more in the iconic shots of Indiana once again picking up his weathered fedora and placing it on his head; or when he and his college&rsquo;s dean (played by a criminally underused Jim Broadbendt) briefly ruminate over their accelerated age; or the old-school motorcycle chase scene through campus involving more stunt work than pixels. Too often, the film succumbs to its bombastic tendencies, though, that severely diminish Indiana&rsquo;s humanity and vulnerability that made him so accessible in the first place. He is now no more defenseless than any other CGI-enhanced superhero at the box office. Ironically, it&rsquo;s all these attempts to stay &ldquo;new&rdquo; is what ages &ldquo;Crystal Skull&rdquo; the most. For in its seemingly relentless pursuit to appease the current box office action appetites, what true Indiana Jones fans want is less breakneck pace, more of the same old &ldquo;hat.&rdquo; http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/5/19/29458.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 5/19/2008 11:25:23 AM
Body: Perhaps my review may be dismissed automatically by the fact that I have not revisited Narnia myself since reading them as a child, and even then, the C. S. Lewis books had none of the mental shelf life of “The Lord of the Rings” tomes or Jack London’s excursions into the wild. I approached “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” from a merely cinematic perspective. And, despite its battles and bluster, it’s rather a bore. That’s not to say it does not try to get medieval on your a** -- various armor-clanging clashes punctuate the numerous slow spots of exposition in the picture, vying for credibility in the rather noisy summer blockbuster period. In this installment, the Pevensie siblings – Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy – have busied themselves in the U.K. for a year since their last Narnian vacation, and a return trip to the kingdom reveals a few hundred years have passed in the mystical land. The kingdom is in ruin, under the tyrannical thumb of a group called the Telmarines (they are easily discernable for they all have a certain “ethnic” look to them, shall we say). The exiled Narnians’ one hope, the eponymous prince (played with regal blandness by Ben Barnes) has been banished by the dictatorial Mirza (played by Sergio Castellitto), who wants his newborn son to take the crown and follow in his bootsteps. The rest of the film is essentially a protracted battle sequence (as the Pevensie kids hack, slash and spear their way through thongs of their enemies like some pre-teen version of "Gladiator") that is filmed like countless other recent cinematic battle sequences. This means there must be the prerequisite shots that sweep over the oceans of bad buys readying to attack our rag-tag heroes (a la “Braveheart”), the high-definition climactic battle where we witness every fleck of dirt kicked up by participants ( thank you, “Gladiator”), and acrobatic maneuvers performed by our leads even while wearing about one hundred pounds of armor (“Troy,” “300,” I’m looking at your for that one). There is one diverting exception here, though. As the Narnians are an army of woodland sprites and mythical beasts, it is not uncommon to see a random goat, puma warthog or badger engaged in combat beside their human counterparts, give it a wacky, surrealistic edge. The film is not helped by its milquetoast leads, who possess no discernable range in or out of battle. I would love to see those Hogwart wizards fly in and rap each one of them with their Quidditch sticks. Aslan, the Jesus Lion of the books, again makes an appearance at just the right time to save the day, prompting one of my screening partners to ask upon the film’s conclusion: “So we waited all this time for something the lion could do all by himself anyway?” I realize that the children all had to apparently learn valuable life lessons or something, but director Andrew Adamson never really makes those lessons clear. One thing I can assure you they do not grow to value is human life, as they leave behind a Rambo-sized body count on the battlefield. The film’s attempt at levity – a sword-wielding animated mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard – seems like a reject from the “Shrek” franchise, of which Adamson also served as director. The allegorical elements are present, but serve in a much more awkward dues-ex-machina-kind-of way (gee, I wonder who the man in the tidal wave is supposed to resemble?), which drains the film of much-needed suspense. There are three books left in the “Narnia” series, so there is ample room left for the franchise to grow (and the young leads to enroll in further acting lessons) for future installments. But—and this cannot be emphasized enough – for parents seeking a family-friendly alternative to the PG-13 antics of Iron Man and Indiana Jones, Caspian is not the answer. It was suggested to me by my friend that the PG rating was reached because there was no blood being spilled during battle sequences. Unfortunately, there is also none that pumps through the heart of this film, either.
]]>Mon, 19 May 2008 15:25:23 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog5/19/2008 11:25:23 AMPerhaps my review may be dismissed automatically by the fact that I have not revisited Narnia myself since reading them as a child, and even then, the C. S. Lewis books had none of the mental shelf life of &ldquo;The Lord of the Rings&rdquo; tomes or Jack London&rsquo;s excursions into the wild. I approached &ldquo;The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian&rdquo; from a merely cinematic perspective. And, despite its battles and bluster, it&rsquo;s rather a bore. That&rsquo;s not to say it does not try to get medieval on your a** -- various armor-clanging clashes punctuate the numerous slow spots of exposition in the picture, vying for credibility in the rather noisy summer blockbuster period. In this installment, the Pevensie siblings &ndash; Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy &ndash; have busied themselves in the U.K. for a year since their last Narnian vacation, and a return trip to the kingdom reveals a few hundred years have passed in the mystical land. The kingdom is in ruin, under the tyrannical thumb of a group called the Telmarines (they are easily discernable for they all have a certain &ldquo;ethnic&rdquo; look to them, shall we say). The exiled Narnians&rsquo; one hope, the eponymous prince (played with regal blandness by Ben Barnes) has been banished by the dictatorial Mirza (played by Sergio Castellitto), who wants his newborn son to take the crown and follow in his bootsteps. The rest of the film is essentially a protracted battle sequence (as the Pevensie kids hack, slash and spear their way through thongs of their enemies like some pre-teen version of "Gladiator") that is filmed like countless other recent cinematic battle sequences. This means there must be the prerequisite shots that sweep over the oceans of bad buys readying to attack our rag-tag heroes (a la &ldquo;Braveheart&rdquo;), the high-definition climactic battle where we witness every fleck of dirt kicked up by participants ( thank you, &ldquo;Gladiator&rdquo;), and acrobatic maneuvers performed by our leads even while wearing about one hundred pounds of armor (&ldquo;Troy,&rdquo; &ldquo;300,&rdquo; I&rsquo;m looking at your for that one). There is one diverting exception here, though. As the Narnians are an army of woodland sprites and mythical beasts, it is not uncommon to see a random goat, puma warthog or badger engaged in combat beside their human counterparts, give it a wacky, surrealistic edge. The film is not helped by its milquetoast leads, who possess no discernable range in or out of battle. I would love to see those Hogwart wizards fly in and rap each one of them with their Quidditch sticks. Aslan, the Jesus Lion of the books, again makes an appearance at just the right time to save the day, prompting one of my screening partners to ask upon the film&rsquo;s conclusion: &ldquo;So we waited all this time for something the lion could do all by himself anyway?&rdquo; I realize that the children all had to apparently learn valuable life lessons or something, but director Andrew Adamson never really makes those lessons clear. One thing I can assure you they do not grow to value is human life, as they leave behind a Rambo-sized body count on the battlefield. The film&rsquo;s attempt at levity &ndash; a sword-wielding animated mouse voiced by Eddie Izzard &ndash; seems like a reject from the &ldquo;Shrek&rdquo; franchise, of which Adamson also served as director. The allegorical elements are present, but serve in a much more awkward dues-ex-machina-kind-of way (gee, I wonder who the man in the tidal wave is supposed to resemble?), which drains the film of much-needed suspense. There are three books left in the &ldquo;Narnia&rdquo; series, so there is ample room left for the franchise to grow (and the young leads to enroll in further acting lessons) for future installments. But&mdash;and this cannot be emphasized enough &ndash; for parents seeking a family-friendly alternative to the PG-13 antics of Iron Man and Indiana Jones, Caspian is not the answer. It was suggested to me by my friend that the PG rating was reached because there was no blood being spilled during battle sequences. Unfortunately, there is also none that pumps through the heart of this film, either. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 115

Number of times used: 188

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

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/magic/MemberTagFilms.aspxmagic
Number of films tagged: 818

Number of people who tagged: 69

Number of times used: 173

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:58:47 GMT81869173Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspense/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspense
Number of films tagged: 129

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 189

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT12966189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/school/MemberTagFilms.aspxschool
Number of films tagged: 1231

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 130

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:18 GMT123156130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/based-on-a-book/MemberTagFilms.aspxbased-on-a-book
Number of films tagged: 173

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 278

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:52:06 GMT17337278Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/magical/MemberTagFilms.aspxmagical
Number of films tagged: 45

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 87

]]>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:33:45 GMT453687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courage/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourage
Number of films tagged: 1054

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 80

]]>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:24:48 GMT10542880Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dumb/MemberTagFilms.aspxdumb
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 153

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:20:32 GMT14628153Tag