list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Vanilla Sky 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/Vanilla_Sky/201795/default.aspx Title: Vanilla Sky
Year: 2001
Director: Cameron Crowe
Plot: A remake of the Spanish film Open Your Eyes (1997), this thriller from director Cameron Crowe bears one of several discarded titles for his previous, Oscar-winning film Almost Famous (2000). Tom Cruise stars as David Ames, a womanizing playboy who finds romantic redemption when he falls in love with his best friend's girlfriend Sofia (Penelope Cruz, reprising her role from the original film). Before that relationship can begin, however, David is coaxed into a car driven by an ex-lover, Julie (Cameron Diaz), who turns out to be suicidal. Driving her car off a bridge, Julie kills herself and horribly disfigures David. Reconstructive surgery and the loving support of Sofia seem to reverse David's luck, but eerie incidents are soon making him question the reality of his existence and his control over his life, even while he is suspected of complicity in Julie's death. Vanilla Sky (2001) bears the expected Crowe trademark of an obsession with recent pop culture and particularly rock music, a more important element of the remake than the original film. That project's writer/director, Alejandro Amenabar, crafted his own supernatural hit the same year with The Others (2001), starring Nicole Kidman, the soon-to-be-ex-wife of Cruise. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 52
Number of Lists: 67
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 7
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 20:13:00 GMTVanilla Sky2001Cameron CroweA remake of the Spanish film <a href=/films/115993/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Open Your Eyes</a> (1997), this thriller from director <a href="/players/P____86281/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cameron Crowe</a> bears one of several discarded titles for his previous, Oscar-winning film <a href=/films/163609/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Almost Famous</a> (2000). <a href="/players/P____86295/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Cruise</a> stars as David Ames, a womanizing playboy who finds romantic redemption when he falls in love with his best friend's girlfriend Sofia (Penelope Cruz, reprising her role from the original film). Before that relationship can begin, however, David is coaxed into a car driven by an ex-lover, Julie (<a href="/players/P___195733/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cameron Diaz</a>), who turns out to be suicidal. Driving her car off a bridge, Julie kills herself and horribly disfigures David. Reconstructive surgery and the loving support of Sofia seem to reverse David's luck, but eerie incidents are soon making him question the reality of his existence and his control over his life, even while he is suspected of complicity in Julie's death. Vanilla Sky (2001) bears the expected Crowe trademark of an obsession with recent pop culture and particularly rock music, a more important element of the remake than the original film. That project's writer/director, Alejandro Amenabar, crafted his own supernatural hit the same year with <a href=/films/192688/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Others</a> (2001), starring <a href="/players/P____38065/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nicole Kidman</a>, the soon-to-be-ex-wife of Cruise. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide52Tag Target (>10)67573http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t19394yl9cz.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Vanilla_Sky/201795/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_WEDNESDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35523/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: RaeRae84
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 1:48:30 AM
Body: [quote user="SkyPilot"] Wednesday Eagle Eye Challenge Hey, you guys are good at this! Eagle Eye (2008) (1) michelle monaghan Mission: Impossible III (2006) (2) tom cruise Vanilla Sky (2001) (3) new york Ghostbusters (1984) (4) ghosts A Christmas Carol (1939) (5) christmas A Christmas Story (1983) (6) narators The Sandlot (1993) (7) omens Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) (8) main character lives with aunt and uncle The Wizard of Oz (1939) (9)melting villans Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 10. In each film besides Eagle Eye and M:I3, a character has a dream. (one word answer) [/quote]
]]>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:48:30 GMTRaeRae84Filmgaming9/25/2008 1:48:30 AM[quote user="SkyPilot"] Wednesday Eagle Eye Challenge Hey, you guys are good at this! Eagle Eye (2008) (1) michelle monaghan Mission: Impossible III (2006) (2) tom cruise Vanilla Sky (2001) (3) new york Ghostbusters (1984) (4) ghosts A Christmas Carol (1939) (5) christmas A Christmas Story (1983) (6) narators The Sandlot (1993) (7) omens Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) (8) main character lives with aunt and uncle The Wizard of Oz (1939) (9)melting villans Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 10. In each film besides Eagle Eye and M:I3, a character has a dream. (one word answer) [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/WEDNESDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35477/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/24/2008 9:50:56 AM
Body: Wednesday Eagle Eye Challenge Hey, you guys are good at this! Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Mission: Impossible III (2006) (2) Vanilla Sky (2001) (3) Hint: watch the Vanilla Sky trailer. Where is Tom Cruise? Ghostbusters (1984) (4) A Christmas Carol (1939) (5) A Christmas Story (1983) (6) Hint: what would Fred Savage notice about these films? The Sandlot (1993) (7) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) (8) The Wizard of Oz (1939) (9) Hint: think about the villains Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 10. In each film besides Eagle Eye and M:I3, a character has a _________ . (one word answer)
]]>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:50:56 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming9/24/2008 9:50:56 AMWednesday Eagle Eye Challenge Hey, you guys are good at this! Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Mission: Impossible III (2006) (2) Vanilla Sky (2001) (3) Hint: watch the Vanilla Sky trailer. Where is Tom Cruise? Ghostbusters (1984) (4) A Christmas Carol (1939) (5) A Christmas Story (1983) (6) Hint: what would Fred Savage notice about these films? The Sandlot (1993) (7) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) (8) The Wizard of Oz (1939) (9) Hint: think about the villains Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991) 10. In each film besides Eagle Eye and M:I3, a character has a _________ . (one word answer) http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Cast_BATMAN_3/563/33806/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: jonnygotham
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 8/9/2008 8:05:19 PM
Body: Hello Everyone: I realize this has been said before, as I'm joining a bit late in the game, but I agree that the next solid and fitting character for the Batman movies would draw from the story arc of HUSH, by Jeph Loeb. Nolan has a knack for cutting and piecing together story elements, which is going to come in handy when the need arises to cut out a great deal of characters from this story line - which is practically Batman versus his entire Rogues Gallery. Further, it's something that would need to be done. Some characters would simply be too fantastic to fit the grit of the world that Nolan took so long to create, and for the sake of creating a strong and enjoyable film, you need to focus on the concentrating things rather than diluting the story with too many characters. That being said, the main villain is HUSH. Thomas Elliot. As it has already been described, Thomas Elliot is an excellent character foil for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. While having several parallels to both sides of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, Elliot also has a small, but powerful set of ties and links to the Dark Knight character that make for a great story. The end of "The Dark Knight" saw the hero finally turn into a villain. Presumably, opinion is now going to be split on the Batman character, with far more of its citizens fearing the hero than begging for his help. This takes the main character away from the previous story push and aim to create a symbol that inspires people, allowing a story shift and pursuance of another avenue that is equally compelling. The hero is locked-in now. No one to pick up the mantle, its just him to save the people... and they don't necessarily want his help. As a now isolated character without aid or allies, it is conceivable that Batman pushes beyond his limits and actually suffers the injuries that introduce the Hush character to the story (Elliot, childhood friend, is a world-renounce surgeon - the best in his field and the only one they can trust to handle the operation and potential questions about the nature of the injuries). There is a very engrossing story that is possible there, between a hero that's been cutoff and the renewing of an old friend. The equalities of the Elliot character to Bruce Wayne in intelligence, success, and discipline provide interactions that were as interesting, if not more, as the love triangle dinner we saw in "The Dark Knight". The fact that he knows the hero's secrets and is smart enough to exploit the weaknesses Batman has in the wake of the last movie make the story less Superhero flick, and more revenge thriller (as the last film capitalized on making a crime drama, rather than the standard superhero movie). The costumes are solid and realistic. For much of the story, the Hush character appears as a face-bandaged, trench-coat figure and shadow. This helps, because with the unknown status of the Two Face character, we have an identity mystery - is the villain Harvey Dent? - Now completely mad and face-fully bandaged similar to the hospital scenes in the Dark Knight, or is it someone completely new? Further, with the relative unknown nature of the Hush villain until very recently, this ambiguity helps, because everyone is going to wonder who the next big costume villain is going to be - and they aren't going to get it. There are a myriad of supporting characters to aid this new story and complementary direction, and I leave their inclusion and exclusion to Nolan. There is something to be said about the possibilities of this new villain though. We gain a friend that the isolated hero needs. We gain a character interaction that is similar to the friendship between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne that was left out of "The Dark Knight", and only slightly exploited in the Love Triangle dinner scene. We have an equal, if not smarter adversary, with a distinct advantage over the hero in that he knows the full playing field and all the players, where Batman does not because of the events at the end of the last movie. Finally, we have a good story that isn't filled with Super-ness. It's a pure revenge-angled crime story. Plenty of options with psychosis, flash-backs, inner struggles, finding control within doing good and dealing with anger and violence, etc. So with the case presented, comes the problem of casting. The character has to match in charisma, acting talent, and needs to be able to switch between friend and foe without the cliches of cinema. He can be the villain without a sinister laugh, vocal change, or costume - the worst villains don't have to LOOK like villains, they're the friends that are trusted and wreak havoc by exploiting their unique positions. Hugh Jackman would be great because of stature and talent - not Wolverine, but more The Fountain and Prestige. Problem is resurrecting the Bale/Jackman duo without reminding the audience of their previous collaboration, similar in revenge aspect. Further, I'm not sure what happens with contracts and acting in multiple superhero franchises. Tom Cruise is great, except for stature. While a lot of people have issues with him, he matches in charisma, looks, and seriousness that would be needed. Unfortunately, he doesn't command the same weight in presence due to his size, especially relative to Bale. He would do well though, given the psyche exploits in Vanilla Sky and other work. I do not like Gerard Butler, as previously noted. I feel like it would become too reminiscent of his previous villain and hero roles and fall victim to the cliches stated before. I had to wrack my brain, and I'm still on the fence a bit (because there might be someone more fitting), but among the many options in Hollywood, perhaps James Caviezel would suit the role well. He has strength in previous roles: Thin Red Line, Count of Monte Cristo, Passion of the Christ, etc. He has similar stature to Bale, if only slightly taller than Bale (according to IMDB), and he evokes a feeling of sympathy for his characters, no matter the act - which helps when crafting a villain. You don't just need Batman to trust him, you need the audience to trust him. There is enough in the HUSH story to bring old characters and villains back to help minimize "noise" in the story, while it also has enough options to introduce new characters to help with transitions and plot development. Hopefully, you'll all see some merits in this, and maybe find a more suitable player to fill the shoes, but either way, the villain of Hush presents a pretty strong case to fill out and end Nolan's work with the Batman franchise. Three films is enough for the current ensemble - enough to be great, and still has potential to leave its fans wanting more. Thanks for the patience in reading. Best. jonny.gotham
]]>Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:05:19 GMTjonnygothamFilmgaming8/9/2008 8:05:19 PM Hello Everyone: I realize this has been said before, as I'm joining a bit late in the game, but I agree that the next solid and fitting character for the Batman movies would draw from the story arc of HUSH, by Jeph Loeb. Nolan has a knack for cutting and piecing together story elements, which is going to come in handy when the need arises to cut out a great deal of characters from this story line - which is practically Batman versus his entire Rogues Gallery. Further, it's something that would need to be done. Some characters would simply be too fantastic to fit the grit of the world that Nolan took so long to create, and for the sake of creating a strong and enjoyable film, you need to focus on the concentrating things rather than diluting the story with too many characters. That being said, the main villain is HUSH. Thomas Elliot. As it has already been described, Thomas Elliot is an excellent character foil for the Batman/Bruce Wayne character. While having several parallels to both sides of the Batman/Bruce Wayne character, Elliot also has a small, but powerful set of ties and links to the Dark Knight character that make for a great story. The end of "The Dark Knight" saw the hero finally turn into a villain. Presumably, opinion is now going to be split on the Batman character, with far more of its citizens fearing the hero than begging for his help. This takes the main character away from the previous story push and aim to create a symbol that inspires people, allowing a story shift and pursuance of another avenue that is equally compelling. The hero is locked-in now. No one to pick up the mantle, its just him to save the people... and they don't necessarily want his help. As a now isolated character without aid or allies, it is conceivable that Batman pushes beyond his limits and actually suffers the injuries that introduce the Hush character to the story (Elliot, childhood friend, is a world-renounce surgeon - the best in his field and the only one they can trust to handle the operation and potential questions about the nature of the injuries). There is a very engrossing story that is possible there, between a hero that's been cutoff and the renewing of an old friend. The equalities of the Elliot character to Bruce Wayne in intelligence, success, and discipline provide interactions that were as interesting, if not more, as the love triangle dinner we saw in "The Dark Knight". The fact that he knows the hero's secrets and is smart enough to exploit the weaknesses Batman has in the wake of the last movie make the story less Superhero flick, and more revenge thriller (as the last film capitalized on making a crime drama, rather than the standard superhero movie). The costumes are solid and realistic. For much of the story, the Hush character appears as a face-bandaged, trench-coat figure and shadow. This helps, because with the unknown status of the Two Face character, we have an identity mystery - is the villain Harvey Dent? - Now completely mad and face-fully bandaged similar to the hospital scenes in the Dark Knight, or is it someone completely new? Further, with the relative unknown nature of the Hush villain until very recently, this ambiguity helps, because everyone is going to wonder who the next big costume villain is going to be - and they aren't going to get it. There are a myriad of supporting characters to aid this new story and complementary direction, and I leave their inclusion and exclusion to Nolan. There is something to be said about the possibilities of this new villain though. We gain a friend that the isolated hero needs. We gain a character interaction that is similar to the friendship between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne that was left out of "The Dark Knight", and only slightly exploited in the Love Triangle dinner scene. We have an equal, if not smarter adversary, with a distinct advantage over the hero in that he knows the full playing field and all the players, where Batman does not because of the events at the end of the last movie. Finally, we have a good story that isn't filled with Super-ness. It's a pure revenge-angled crime story. Plenty of options with psychosis, flash-backs, inner struggles, finding control within doing good and dealing with anger and violence, etc. So with the case presented, comes the problem of casting. The character has to match in charisma, acting talent, and needs to be able to switch between friend and foe without the cliches of cinema. He can be the villain without a sinister laugh, vocal change, or costume - the worst villains don't have to LOOK like villains, they're the friends that are trusted and wreak havoc by exploiting their unique positions. Hugh Jackman would be great because of stature and talent - not Wolverine, but more The Fountain and Prestige. Problem is resurrecting the Bale/Jackman duo without reminding the audience of their previous collaboration, similar in revenge aspect. Further, I'm not sure what happens with contracts and acting in multiple superhero franchises. Tom Cruise is great, except for stature. While a lot of people have issues with him, he matches in charisma, looks, and seriousness that would be needed. Unfortunately, he doesn't command the same weight in presence due to his size, especially relative to Bale. He would do well though, given the psyche exploits in Vanilla Sky and other work. I do not like Gerard Butler, as previously noted. I feel like it would become too reminiscent of his previous villain and hero roles and fall victim to the cliches stated before. I had to wrack my brain, and I'm still on the fence a bit (because there might be someone more fitting), but among the many options in Hollywood, perhaps James Caviezel would suit the role well. He has strength in previous roles: Thin Red Line, Count of Monte Cristo, Passion of the Christ, etc. He has similar stature to Bale, if only slightly taller than Bale (according to IMDB), and he evokes a feeling of sympathy for his characters, no matter the act - which helps when crafting a villain. You don't just need Batman to trust him, you need the audience to trust him. There is enough in the HUSH story to bring old characters and villains back to help minimize "noise" in the story, while it also has enough options to introduce new characters to help with transitions and plot development. Hopefully, you'll all see some merits in this, and maybe find a more suitable player to fill the shoes, but either way, the villain of Hush presents a pretty strong case to fill out and end Nolan's work with the Batman franchise. Three films is enough for the current ensemble - enough to be great, and still has potential to leave its fans wanting more. Thanks for the patience in reading. Best. jonny.gotham http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/4/33522.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/4/2008 3:01:15 PM
Body: It’s funny how out of control a rumor can spin on the web. The Angelina Jolie as Catwoman “news” has to be at the top of the list of most reported unconfirmed rumors ever. And it’s sad that it’s not actually true, because after seeing Jolie in the dominatrix outfit she wears at the beginning of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I’d be perfectly fine seeing her wear another tight black costume for a possible third Christopher Nolan-directed Batman movie. But who instead could play the part, if Jolie is indeed not interested, or not even offered the role (or, obviously, if Catwoman is not in the movie, as screenwriter David Goyer has apparently hinted)? One theory says that Maggie Gyllenhaal will return in the follow-up to The Dark Knight, this time donning a catsuit (Graeme at io9 strongly disputes the idea). Another terrible suggestion is to cast the too-cute Zooey Deschanel as the villainess. A far more interesting recommendation, from Catherine Bray, is Tilda Swinton. But I think the character needs to be a little sexier. Plus, I want to dismiss Bray’s idea on the principle that it’s included in the DenOfGeek list, which consists mostly of the usual hot young actress ideas that probably get thrown around for every casting decision like this. I’m actually shocked that Eva Green wasn’t anyone’s pick, as she’s one of those hot young actresses, and she’s done the “good and bad at the same time” thing in Casino Royale. She was even part of my list until a better candidate edged her out, mostly on the idea that we don’t need to see her replay Vesper Lynd in a Catwoman costume. So, who did make the cut? Check out my 10 favorites, in descending order, after the jump: 10. Halle Berry - She is a good actress, and she was a great sport in accepting her Razzie for playing the character in Catwoman, so wouldn’t it be neat if Nolan gave her a second chance at the part? It certainly fits with the nine lives thing. Plus, with a better script, better direction and, most importantly, a better outfit, the Oscar winner would do a much better job. 9. Cate Blanchett - Another Bob Dylan vs. Bob Dylan showdown! (The Dark Knight’s Christian Bale and Heath Ledger each portrayed Dylan in I’m Not There, as did Blanchett). And Nolan can round out the villain casting with Ben Whishaw as Riddler, Richard Gere as the Penguin and Marcus Carl Franklin as Anarky (or he could be Robin?). Seriously, though, after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m not sure we ever need to see her as another blockbuster villain. Besides, there’s other Oscar-caliber actresses who would be more enjoyable. 8. Penélope Cruz - Like this sexy Spanish lady, who I thought of for the role based on her line from Vanilla Sky, “I’ll see you in another life, when we are both cats.” Wait, would that mean Tom Cruise would have to appear as Catman? Hell, I’d deal with that if I got to see Cruz prance around with a tail attached to a form-fitting bodysuit. 7. Maggie Cheung - It’s been 12 years since Cheung wore a tight black catsuit for Assayas’ Irma Vep, but she’d still be damn hot as Catwoman. Unfortunately, she has retired from acting, last appearing in Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046 and Assayas’ Clean back in 2004. 6. Rachel Weisz - Something about her wonky eyes makes me think she’d be a good Catwoman. I can’t quite explain what I mean by that. She did a fine job as an attractive yet ultimately evil character in Neil LaBute’s The Shape of Things, so there’s another point for her. 5. Emily Blunt - A well-meaning bitch in The Devil Wears Prada, I’d love to see Blunt do more of the same, only in a catsuit. In a way, she’s like my fill-in for the excluded Eva Green, since I continually mix up their names, and Prada costar Anne Hathaway, who too many people think is as good a choice. 4. Emily Mortimer - Basically my choice for the obscure, indie-cred slot, since I don’t agree with the Deschanel suggestion. Plus, I can see her building off her short stint as the two-faced “Phoebe” on 30 Rock in order to play a terrific villainess. 3. Emily Watson - The last of three candidates named Emily, Watson has always been my favorite love interest for Christian Bale (she’s played opposite “Batman” in Metroland and Equilibrium). Third time’s the charm, I say. 2. Marion Cotillard - I know, I’m probably including too many Oscar nominees and winners in this list, but after Ledger’s performance as The Joker, the role of Catwoman requires talent along with beauty. Besides, Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for two Academy Awards prior to playing the part in Batman Returns and Halle Berry won an Oscar before giving her Razzie-winning performance in Catowman. So, as the most recent recipient of the Best Actress trophy, the chameleon-like star of La Vie en Rose seems the most appropriate. Oh, and some guy already did a rendering of what she’d look like. 1. Sean Young - The part she always wanted. And what fun it would be for Catwoman to be an older woman. You know, as in a cougar. Which is a kind of cat. There have been crazier ideas — though maybe not crazier actresses. However, Young’s unstable personality should make for an unpredictable and unbeatable performance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/4/2008 3:01:15 PMIt’s funny how out of control a rumor can spin on the web. The Angelina Jolie as Catwoman “news” has to be at the top of the list of most reported unconfirmed rumors ever. And it’s sad that it’s not actually true, because after seeing Jolie in the dominatrix outfit she wears at the beginning of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I’d be perfectly fine seeing her wear another tight black costume for a possible third Christopher Nolan-directed Batman movie. But who instead could play the part, if Jolie is indeed not interested, or not even offered the role (or, obviously, if Catwoman is not in the movie, as screenwriter David Goyer has apparently hinted)? One theory says that Maggie Gyllenhaal will return in the follow-up to The Dark Knight, this time donning a catsuit (Graeme at io9 strongly disputes the idea). Another terrible suggestion is to cast the too-cute Zooey Deschanel as the villainess. A far more interesting recommendation, from Catherine Bray, is Tilda Swinton. But I think the character needs to be a little sexier. Plus, I want to dismiss Bray’s idea on the principle that it’s included in the DenOfGeek list, which consists mostly of the usual hot young actress ideas that probably get thrown around for every casting decision like this. I’m actually shocked that Eva Green wasn’t anyone’s pick, as she’s one of those hot young actresses, and she’s done the “good and bad at the same time” thing in Casino Royale. She was even part of my list until a better candidate edged her out, mostly on the idea that we don’t need to see her replay Vesper Lynd in a Catwoman costume. So, who did make the cut? Check out my 10 favorites, in descending order, after the jump: 10. Halle Berry - She is a good actress, and she was a great sport in accepting her Razzie for playing the character in Catwoman, so wouldn’t it be neat if Nolan gave her a second chance at the part? It certainly fits with the nine lives thing. Plus, with a better script, better direction and, most importantly, a better outfit, the Oscar winner would do a much better job. 9. Cate Blanchett - Another Bob Dylan vs. Bob Dylan showdown! (The Dark Knight’s Christian Bale and Heath Ledger each portrayed Dylan in I’m Not There, as did Blanchett). And Nolan can round out the villain casting with Ben Whishaw as Riddler, Richard Gere as the Penguin and Marcus Carl Franklin as Anarky (or he could be Robin?). Seriously, though, after Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I’m not sure we ever need to see her as another blockbuster villain. Besides, there’s other Oscar-caliber actresses who would be more enjoyable. 8. Penélope Cruz - Like this sexy Spanish lady, who I thought of for the role based on her line from Vanilla Sky, “I’ll see you in another life, when we are both cats.” Wait, would that mean Tom Cruise would have to appear as Catman? Hell, I’d deal with that if I got to see Cruz prance around with a tail attached to a form-fitting bodysuit. 7. Maggie Cheung - It’s been 12 years since Cheung wore a tight black catsuit for Assayas’ Irma Vep, but she’d still be damn hot as Catwoman. Unfortunately, she has retired from acting, last appearing in Wong Kar-Wai’s 2046 and Assayas’ Clean back in 2004. 6. Rachel Weisz - Something about her wonky eyes makes me think she’d be a good Catwoman. I can’t quite explain what I mean by that. She did a fine job as an attractive yet ultimately evil character in Neil LaBute’s The Shape of Things, so there’s another point for her. 5. Emily Blunt - A well-meaning bitch in The Devil Wears Prada, I’d love to see Blunt do more of the same, only in a catsuit. In a way, she’s like my fill-in for the excluded Eva Green, since I continually mix up their names, and Prada costar Anne Hathaway, who too many people think is as good a choice. 4. Emily Mortimer - Basically my choice for the obscure, indie-cred slot, since I don’t agree with the Deschanel suggestion. Plus, I can see her building off her short stint as the two-faced “Phoebe” on 30 Rock in order to play a terrific villainess. 3. Emily Watson - The last of three candidates named Emily, Watson has always been my favorite love interest for Christian Bale (she’s played opposite “Batman” in Metroland and Equilibrium). Third time’s the charm, I say. 2. Marion Cotillard - I know, I’m probably including too many Oscar nominees and winners in this list, but after Ledger’s performance as The Joker, the role of Catwoman requires talent along with beauty. Besides, Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated for two Academy Awards prior to playing the part in Batman Returns and Halle Berry won an Oscar before giving her Razzie-winning performance in Catowman. So, as the most recent recipient of the Best Actress trophy, the chameleon-like star of La Vie en Rose seems the most appropriate. Oh, and some guy already did a rendering of what she’d look like. 1. Sean Young - The part she always wanted. And what fun it would be for Catwoman to be an older woman. You know, as in a cougar. Which is a kind of cat. There have been crazier ideas — though maybe not crazier actresses. However, Young’s unstable personality should make for an unpredictable and unbeatable performance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Desert_Island/598/31996/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: nickbianco13
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 7/1/2008 9:58:03 PM
Body: The Beach (2000) to inspire some philosophies and a few ideas of living the beach life The Karate Kid (1984) because it's an all time fav that I can never get sick of "cobra kai never die" Vanilla Sky (2001) Love the film makes me feel at home... as far from home is from anything in that film
]]>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:58:03 GMTnickbianco13Movie Games7/1/2008 9:58:03 PMThe Beach (2000) to inspire some philosophies and a few ideas of living the beach life The Karate Kid (1984) because it's an all time fav that I can never get sick of "cobra kai never die" Vanilla Sky (2001) Love the film makes me feel at home... as far from home is from anything in that film http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/9/21548.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/9/2007 8:00:54 AM
Body: Tom Cruise’s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture’s progress or lack there of? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:00:54 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/9/2007 8:00:54 AMTom Cruise’s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture’s progress or lack there of? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/FilmCouch/FilmCouch_45_Tom_Cruise/302/21537/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: FilmCouch
Post Date: 11/8/2007 7:12:36 PM
Body: Tom Cruise's tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky
]]>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 00:12:36 GMTpaulFilmCouch11/8/2007 7:12:36 PMTom Cruise&#39;s tabloid covers have lined a lot of bird cages, however we saw something fascinating behind his orthodontic masterpiece smile. Once a Hollywood boy-wonder, in recent years he has deconstructed his all-american persona. Now, with the release of the political thriller Lions for Lambs, Cruise tries his hand as studio mogul, heading United Artists. Will it work? What does the future hold for Cruise? Most interesting: What does a deep look into Cruise reveal about our culture? FilmCouch 45 Movies mentioned: Risky Business, Taps, Legend, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky http://www.spout.com/blogs/immabohemian/archive/2007/10/14/20831.aspx Post By: immaBOHEMIAN
Post To: immaBOHEMIAN Blog
Post Date: 10/14/2007 4:06:03 PM
Body: Why, Cameron Crowe...why? Why would you ever want to work with Tom Cruise? Come on. The guy is rubbish. Alright, clearly not true because he's in a million billion fans, but in my humble opinion it's all a lotta hype and not much action. Much like this film. You know, my biggest beef with this film was the fact that it had the potential to be so amazing. And it just fizzled out for me. I was interested for a moment, I was there, the attention was grasped and then, poof. It was over and I was sad and confused and pissed off. So it was definitely a roller coaster of emotions...all bad ones, but it did make me feel and allow my dislike of Tom Cruise to grow deeper.
]]>Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:06:03 GMTimmaBOHEMIANimmaBOHEMIAN Blog10/14/2007 4:06:03 PMWhy, Cameron Crowe...why? Why would you ever want to work with Tom Cruise? Come on. The guy is rubbish. Alright, clearly not true because he&#39;s in a million billion fans, but in my humble opinion it&#39;s all a lotta hype and not much action. Much like this film. You know, my biggest beef with this film was the fact that it had the potential to be so amazing. And it just fizzled out for me. I was interested for a moment, I was there, the attention was grasped and then, poof. It was over and I was sad and confused and pissed off. So it was definitely a roller coaster of emotions...all bad ones, but it did make me feel and allow my dislike of Tom Cruise to grow deeper. http://www.spout.com/blogs/applesauce/archive/2007/7/7/13324.aspx Post By: applesauce
Post To: applesauce Blog
Post Date: 7/7/2007 4:33:54 AM
Body: I like the idea, before they started talking about the sleeping/dreaming thing. To me, that killed it for me. And the end was a little too Willie Wonka for me. But it was expected out of Tom Cruise in my opinion.But the movie did give a good vibe though at the begining I must say.
]]>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 08:33:54 GMTapplesauceapplesauce Blog7/7/2007 4:33:54 AMI like the idea, before they started talking about the sleeping/dreaming thing. To me, that killed it for me. And the end was a little too Willie Wonka for me. But it was expected out of Tom Cruise in my opinion.But the movie did give a good vibe though at the begining I must say. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1476

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:17 GMT124773361476Tag 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/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/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 199

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 244

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT19974244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/surreal/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurreal
Number of films tagged: 73

Number of people who tagged: 73

Number of times used: 134

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT7373134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 204

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:44 GMT15671204Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/redemption/MemberTagFilms.aspxredemption
Number of films tagged: 626

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 117

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:18:53 GMT62653117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dreams/MemberTagFilms.aspxdreams
Number of films tagged: 279

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 96

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:25:32 GMT2795096Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/twist/MemberTagFilms.aspxtwist
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 54

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:08:15 GMT324354Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovetriangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovetriangle
Number of films tagged: 2902

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 75

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT29023875Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sucked/MemberTagFilms.aspxsucked
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 39

]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:18 GMT332539Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/technology/MemberTagFilms.aspxtechnology
Number of films tagged: 688

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 54

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT6882354Tag