list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring/201797/default.aspx Title: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Year: 2001
Director: Peter Jackson
Plot: New Zealand filmmaker Peter Jackson fulfills his lifelong dream of transforming author J.R.R. Tolkien's best-selling fantasy epic into a three-part motion picture that begins with this holiday 2001 release. Elijah Wood stars as Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit resident of the medieval "Middle-earth" who discovers that a ring bequeathed to him by beloved relative and benefactor Bilbo (Ian Holm) is in fact the "One Ring," a device that will allow its master to manipulate dark powers and enslave the world. Frodo is charged by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to return the ring to Mount Doom, the evil site where it was forged millennia ago and the only place where it can be destroyed. Accompanying Frodo is a fellowship of eight others: his Hobbit friends Sam (Sean Astin), Merry (Dominic Monaghan), and Pippin (Billy Boyd); plus Gandalf; the human warriors Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) and Boromir (Sean Bean); Elf archer Legolas (Orlando Bloom); and Dwarf soldier Gimli (John Rhys-Davies). The band's odyssey to the dreaded land of Mordor, where Mount Doom lies, takes them through the Elfish domain of Rivendell and the forest of Lothlorien, where they receive aid and comfort from the Elf princess Arwen (Liv Tyler), her father, Elrond (Hugo Weaving), and Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). In pursuit of the travelers and their ring are Saruman (Christopher Lee) -- a traitorous wizard and kin, of sorts, to Gandalf -- and the Dark Riders, under the control of the evil, mysterious Sauron (Sala Baker). The Fellowship must also do battle with a troll, flying spies, Orcs, and other deadly obstacles both natural and otherwise as they draw closer to Mordor. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand, closely followed by its pair of sequels, The Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King (2003). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 95
Number of Lists: 191
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:19:17 GMTThe Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring2001Peter JacksonNew Zealand filmmaker <a href="/players/P____95689/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Jackson</a> fulfills his lifelong dream of transforming author J.R.R. Tolkien's best-selling fantasy epic into a three-part motion picture that begins with this holiday 2001 release. <a href="/players/P____77309/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elijah Wood</a> stars as Frodo Baggins, a Hobbit resident of the medieval "Middle-earth" who discovers that a ring bequeathed to him by beloved relative and benefactor Bilbo (<a href="/players/P____32962/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ian Holm</a>) is in fact the "One Ring," a device that will allow its master to manipulate dark powers and enslave the world. Frodo is charged by the wizard Gandalf (<a href="/players/P____47684/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ian McKellen</a>) to return the ring to Mount Doom, the evil site where it was forged millennia ago and the only place where it can be destroyed. Accompanying Frodo is a fellowship of eight others: his Hobbit friends Sam (<a href="/players/P_____2649/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sean Astin</a>), Merry (<a href="/players/P___294728/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dominic Monaghan</a>), and Pippin (<a href="/players/P___263293/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Billy Boyd</a>); plus Gandalf; the human warriors Aragorn (<a href="/players/P____50903/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Viggo Mortensen</a>) and Boromir (<a href="/players/P_____4761/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sean Bean</a>); Elf archer Legolas (<a href="/players/P___301907/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Orlando Bloom</a>); and Dwarf soldier Gimli (<a href="/players/P____17257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Rhys-Davies</a>). The band's odyssey to the dreaded land of Mordor, where Mount Doom lies, takes them through the Elfish domain of Rivendell and the forest of Lothlorien, where they receive aid and comfort from the Elf princess Arwen (<a href="/players/P___198152/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liv Tyler</a>), her father, Elrond (<a href="/players/P____75146/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugo Weaving</a>), and Queen Galadriel (<a href="/players/P___215038/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cate Blanchett</a>). In pursuit of the travelers and their ring are Saruman (<a href="/players/P____41362/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Lee</a>) -- a traitorous wizard and kin, of sorts, to Gandalf -- and the Dark Riders, under the control of the evil, mysterious Sauron (Sala Baker). The Fellowship must also do battle with a troll, flying spies, Orcs, and other deadly obstacles both natural and otherwise as they draw closer to Mordor. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was filmed in Jackson's native New Zealand, closely followed by its pair of sequels, The Two Towers (2002) and <a href=/films/28718/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Return of the King</a> (2003). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide95Tag Target (>10)1918114http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s201797.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Lord_of_the_Rings_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring/201797/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/13/41014.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/13/2009 3:00:43 PM
Body: Even if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/13/2009 3:00:43 PMEven if you love the original Escape to Witch Mountain, you have to welcome a remake. The 1975 sci-fi Disney film has some very dated special effects — though the visible wires used to “levitate” a handgun and a harmonica give it a campy charm — and it’s not exactly the well-respected classic that The Black Hole or Old Yeller is, anyway. So, better a remake (or “modern re-imagining”) of a slightly beloved movie, which has already been redone once, to give The Rock another fulfillment of his Disney contract and utilize all the “perfect” digital effects now available. While it seems that eventually all Disney live-action classics will be remade, potentially rendering obsolete the careers of Dean Jones, Kevin Corcoran and those ugly kids from Mary Poppins, there are some that may, like Witch Mountain, deserve to be recycled. Disney has previously erred in reworking films like The Absent-Minded Professor (Robin Williams is no Fred MacMurray) and The Shaggy Dog (Tim Allen is no MacMurray, either, nor even is he Tommy Kirk), and it’s mistakenly producing new versions of Swiss Family Robinson and 20,000 Leauges Under the Sea. But there are so many other films, most forgotten, that would better lend themselves to remakes. Here we’ve selected 10 such classics, all but one live-action features, and we welcome you to suggest any others you may wish to see updated and/or re-imagined. The Apple Dumpling Gang (1975) With the western genre not quite dead anymore, it would be nice for Disney to bring back the comedy western. Of course, The Apple Dumpling Gang could be modernized, too. Either way, the story of three orphan children who enlist two bumbling bank robbers to steal their gold nugget would delight a new generation of kids who might not necessarily appreciate Don Knotts the way we did. Cast Jim Carrey in the Knotts role and Jack Black as his partner (originally played by Tim Conway), have them try to outdo each other’s slapstick performance, and you’ve got a huge family hit. The Black Cauldron (1985) This animated feature was so unpopular that it pretty much ruined the reputation of Walt Disney Pictures for a few years. Rated PG, and way too dark even for the studio that brought us Pinocchio, the adaptation of Lloyd Alexander’s fantasy novel had initially been threatened with a PG-13 or R rating. Nearly 25 years later, kids are a little tougher and could easily tolerate a live-action version that’s somewhere akin to Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean and The Phantom Menace (a CGI “Gurgi” would be very similar to Jar-Jar Binks). Tim Burton should obviously direct the film, because he worked as an artist on the original, and he’s currently working for Disney anyway. The Cat from Outer Space (1978) Few people seem to hold this movie in high regards, despite audience’s apparent favor for talking animals and stupid sci-fi plots. But a modernized telling of a feline alien’s visit to Earth could be a blockbuster by being even worse than the original. Add more slapstick (in an LOLCats sort of way) and more special effects and this could make even more money than E.T., which seriously seemed derivative of The Cat from Outer Space anyway. And after this becomes a hit, Disney should continue digging in its catbox and remake the very strange and very obscure Three Lives of Thomasina. Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) If Hollywood can dare redo Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, then Disney can surely remake Darby O’Gill and the Little People without too much protest. And like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this remake shall retain the source novel’s title. Of course, Darby O’Gill and the Good People does sound a little plain, so maybe getting right to the idea with Darby O’Gill and the Leprechauns as a title would be better. In any event, Sean Connery should come out of retirement to switch roles and play the titular old man who meets a bunch of Leprechauns. And perhaps Daniel Craig for Connery’s original role? Okay, new title: James Bond and the Other James Bond in Little People Are Forever (or Little People Never Die, or some other combo of 007 title referencing Leprechaun’s immortality). If this does well, Disney can also go ahead and redo the little-people-filled The Gnome-Mobile. In Search of the Castaways (1962) Here’s the genius idea Hollywood’s been seeking for almost 50 years: remake the Jules Verne adaptation In Search of the Castaways, a musical adventure with tons of disaster film elements and a perfect role for Miley Cyrus (isn’t she this generation’s Hayley Mills, in a way?), who could sing a new version of “Castaway.” The ice slide scene would be great in 3-D, by the way. Midnight Madness (1980) Remaking this cult classic might upset a few fans, but even those of us who love the original should be able to appreciate an updated version if it’s done right. There could always be more scavenger hunt movies, whether they’re fresh or recycled. And if Disney can find enough good, young character actors to fill the teams, nobody should even miss Eddie Deezen, David Naughton or Stephen Furst. Have Judd Apatow produce the thing and cast all his regulars, for instance. Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman) should reprise his role, though. The Million Dollar Duck (1971) This family comedy about a duck that lays golden eggs is not very good, and it probably didn’t help its box office that a better film featuring golden-egg-laying fowl (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) opened on the very same day. But a good remake of bad movie isn’t a bad idea, and in this economy the story of a struggling family that gets a burst of financial luck (via strange science) might work as a relevant fantasy. Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus (1960) This forgotten Kevin Corcoran + monkey classic is kind of like Coraline, but there’s more circus stuff, the kid’s parents don’t suck (though he’s told they don’t love him), there’s a primate friend instead of a talking cat (though both animals are classic Disney devices) and it’s live-action and not 3-D. Do children still dream of running away to the circus? If not, then a remake of this movie could both reinstate that wish and present it as a terrible substitute for a real family all in the course of 90 minutes. The Ugly Dachshund (1966) Between the success of Marley and Me and news of an upcoming Marmaduke movie, it may just be the perfect time for a remake of a movie about a disastrous Great Dane who thinks he’s a little wiener dog. Put Brad Pitt and Anglina Jolie in the Dean Jones and Suzanne Pleshette roles and you’ll really, really piss off Team Jennifer by out-grossing last Christmas’ biggest hit. The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) The story of an African who is brought to the U.S. to be a college track star may not seem like a big idea for a movie in the 21st century. But make that African a Tarzan-like white kid who can outrun a cheetah (and who isn’t The Flash) and you’ll have people laughing your film out of theaters. Or, you’ll somehow have a monster hit. Either way, we wish Disney would have the balls to remake this unrealistic movie, especially if they can get Usain Bolt to be the protagonist’s main competition. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/20/36531.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/20/2008 5:01:15 PM
Body: Last week, Entertainment Weekly confirmed with Warner Bros. that the studio would be campaigning for a nomination for Heath Ledger specifically in the supporting actor category, putting to rest all the speculation and suggestions that he could contend for the Best Actor Oscar. Now all the awards pundits seem to agree that Ledger is a definite lock for a posthumous nomination. As for The Dark Knight’s hopes for other categories, though, it’s still up in the air as to how many nominations the comic book movie might garner. While its predecessor, Batman Begins, only received one Oscar nomination, for Wally Pfister’s cinematography, there’s at least some likelihood that The Dark Knight could be recognized in as many as a dozen categories. That’s about as many as it’s legitimately eligible for, anyway, and in a year that keeps looking slimmer and slimmer in terms of Oscar-worthy pictures, there’s no reason to completely deny The Dark Knight’s full capability. Unfortunately, it’s a popular genre picture, so regardless of how critically acclaimed it is, and regardless of how the Academy has historically lauded similar titles, there will be a lot of doubt and debate concerning this movie’s prospects all the way up until January 22, when the nominations are announced. Yesterday, John Foote of In Contention, commented on the increasing chances of The Dark Knight in such a lackluster Oscar season. In some ways, though, it’s not just about onetime Oscar hopefuls turning out to be hopeless; it’s also the constant problem of so much Oscar bait being held away from viewers and voters until the last possible second. Even those films that end up being fairly good can be disappointments after so much premature awards season hype. Sure, audiences have short attention spans and typically a film released midyear is easily forgotten by voting time, but a movie as memorable, as successful and as well-made as The Dark Knight can come out in the summer and easily be in the forefront of voters’ minds as an easy and deserving fallback. Therefore so many Oscar bloggers shouldn’t suddenly be surprised to see that The Dark Knight’s hopes for multiple Oscar nominations is “brightening” or “shaping up.” It’s always been a contender. Let’s break down its chances, category by category, after the jump: Best Picture The greatest difference in opinion among the experts so far is with the movie’s chances in the Best Picture race. The majority consensus seems to be that The Dark Knight has little to no shot at the top award (apparently only The Hollywood Reporter’s T.L. Stanley and Rolling Stones‘ Peter Travers are seriously considering it), primarily because it’s a superhero movie. However, deserving or not, there’s really no viable argument against the plausibility of a Best Picture nom. Rather, the movie’s chances for inclusion in the category already outweigh its chances for exclusion. And as more Best Picture hopefuls are either released to underwhelming response or pushed back to 2009, the balance in The Dark Knight’s favor only increases. So what if there’s never before been a superhero comic book movie up for Best Picture (despite Superman being far more deserving than An Unmarried Woman)? The Dark Knight still could fall in with that ever-increasing list of genre flicks, including Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings movies, which have shown us that quality fanboy fodder is also capable of appealing to the Academy. And while it’s true that box office success doesn’t necessarily translate to Oscar contention, The Dark Knight has the right combo of being the biggest moneymaker and one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008, which was hardly the case with another high-grossing blockbuster Best Picture, Titanic. It’s believed that if the Academy does nominate a box office winner with critical acclaim, they’ll go with Wall-E, because they’ve nominated an animated feature for Best Picture in the past. But that thinking goes against the whole present logic of the Oscars. There will never again be an animated feature up for the top award as long as the Best Animated Feature category exists. That award was pretty much conceived for the purpose of sidelining films like Wall-E in order to give them separate recognition. If the Academy isn’t going to nominate something as brilliant as Ratatouille for Best Picture, they’re not going to nominate Wall-E either. On the other side of the argument, there’s just as much of a mistaken defense for why the movie will be nominated. Contrary to some early conjecture, though,The Dark Knight’s chances aren’t improved at all by the fact that the Oscar ceremony needs a ratings boost. Sure, a Best Picture nom for the film would be great for the Academy in terms of telecast viewership, but it’s probably not permitted or likely for the show’s producers to encourage Academy members to vote for more popular fare. Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay: If The Dark Knight does receive a Best Picture nomination, it will be one of those occasional cases where the director is not nominated. Due to a sometimes-problematic issue of having different people voting for different categories, The Dark Knight’s flaws will be clearer to the filmmakers who pick the nominees for Best Director, and so Christopher Nolan will be excluded there (although Awards Daily still has him as a front runner anyway). However, Nolan and his writing partners, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer should have a decent shot at the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for their success at turning a superhero comic into a realistic film with a smart, topical, complex and fairly original story. Acting Categories: As for the acting awards, The Dark Knight can really only count on Ledger’s nomination. The film lacks any substantial female performances, and despite the fact that Christian Bale seriously deserves an Oscar nomination and despite the belief that he puts more into the Bruce Wayne/Batman character than is necessary, it’s simply not his time. If there is any other actor besides Ledger worthy and at all probable to receive a nomination, it’s Gary Oldman, for Best Supporting Actor, but there’s not much likelihood that Academy voters would water down Ledger’s lauds like that. Technical and Craft Categories: Finally, with the tech and craft categories, Pfister should very easily pick up another nomination for his cinematography work, while The Dark Knight is expected to better Batman Begins‘ Oscar glory by turning up in both the sound categories. Score and Editing are total longshots, despite their respective talent’s past Oscar success. And as much as makeup and costumes are significant to the film, The Dark Knight may only be a dark horse in those categories. Still, it’s probably about time the Academy ignored its period piece tradition with the latter category and took notice of Lindy Hemming’s accomplishment of making superhero movie costumes that are more realistic and believable than the typically flashy, costumey costumes of the genre. The film even reflexively addresses the issue of plausible and practical superhero wear in the real world. Then, of course, there’s the other craft categories that could suffer from the film’s efforts to be more natural than most comic book adaptations. Best Art Direction? Not enough obvious design there. Best visual effects? The Dark Knight could be one of the rare genre movies nominated for Best Picture that doesn’t place in the effects category, due to its lack of showy CG work. Like In Contention’s Gerard Kennedy, I won’t be shocked if the film manages an effects nomination simply because it’s so respected, but the odds are mostly against its modestly functional effects spectacle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/20/2008 5:01:15 PMLast week, Entertainment Weekly confirmed with Warner Bros. that the studio would be campaigning for a nomination for Heath Ledger specifically in the supporting actor category, putting to rest all the speculation and suggestions that he could contend for the Best Actor Oscar. Now all the awards pundits seem to agree that Ledger is a definite lock for a posthumous nomination. As for The Dark Knight’s hopes for other categories, though, it’s still up in the air as to how many nominations the comic book movie might garner. While its predecessor, Batman Begins, only received one Oscar nomination, for Wally Pfister’s cinematography, there’s at least some likelihood that The Dark Knight could be recognized in as many as a dozen categories. That’s about as many as it’s legitimately eligible for, anyway, and in a year that keeps looking slimmer and slimmer in terms of Oscar-worthy pictures, there’s no reason to completely deny The Dark Knight’s full capability. Unfortunately, it’s a popular genre picture, so regardless of how critically acclaimed it is, and regardless of how the Academy has historically lauded similar titles, there will be a lot of doubt and debate concerning this movie’s prospects all the way up until January 22, when the nominations are announced. Yesterday, John Foote of In Contention, commented on the increasing chances of The Dark Knight in such a lackluster Oscar season. In some ways, though, it’s not just about onetime Oscar hopefuls turning out to be hopeless; it’s also the constant problem of so much Oscar bait being held away from viewers and voters until the last possible second. Even those films that end up being fairly good can be disappointments after so much premature awards season hype. Sure, audiences have short attention spans and typically a film released midyear is easily forgotten by voting time, but a movie as memorable, as successful and as well-made as The Dark Knight can come out in the summer and easily be in the forefront of voters’ minds as an easy and deserving fallback. Therefore so many Oscar bloggers shouldn’t suddenly be surprised to see that The Dark Knight’s hopes for multiple Oscar nominations is “brightening” or “shaping up.” It’s always been a contender. Let’s break down its chances, category by category, after the jump: Best Picture The greatest difference in opinion among the experts so far is with the movie’s chances in the Best Picture race. The majority consensus seems to be that The Dark Knight has little to no shot at the top award (apparently only The Hollywood Reporter’s T.L. Stanley and Rolling Stones‘ Peter Travers are seriously considering it), primarily because it’s a superhero movie. However, deserving or not, there’s really no viable argument against the plausibility of a Best Picture nom. Rather, the movie’s chances for inclusion in the category already outweigh its chances for exclusion. And as more Best Picture hopefuls are either released to underwhelming response or pushed back to 2009, the balance in The Dark Knight’s favor only increases. So what if there’s never before been a superhero comic book movie up for Best Picture (despite Superman being far more deserving than An Unmarried Woman)? The Dark Knight still could fall in with that ever-increasing list of genre flicks, including Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings movies, which have shown us that quality fanboy fodder is also capable of appealing to the Academy. And while it’s true that box office success doesn’t necessarily translate to Oscar contention, The Dark Knight has the right combo of being the biggest moneymaker and one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2008, which was hardly the case with another high-grossing blockbuster Best Picture, Titanic. It’s believed that if the Academy does nominate a box office winner with critical acclaim, they’ll go with Wall-E, because they’ve nominated an animated feature for Best Picture in the past. But that thinking goes against the whole present logic of the Oscars. There will never again be an animated feature up for the top award as long as the Best Animated Feature category exists. That award was pretty much conceived for the purpose of sidelining films like Wall-E in order to give them separate recognition. If the Academy isn’t going to nominate something as brilliant as Ratatouille for Best Picture, they’re not going to nominate Wall-E either. On the other side of the argument, there’s just as much of a mistaken defense for why the movie will be nominated. Contrary to some early conjecture, though,The Dark Knight’s chances aren’t improved at all by the fact that the Oscar ceremony needs a ratings boost. Sure, a Best Picture nom for the film would be great for the Academy in terms of telecast viewership, but it’s probably not permitted or likely for the show’s producers to encourage Academy members to vote for more popular fare. Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay: If The Dark Knight does receive a Best Picture nomination, it will be one of those occasional cases where the director is not nominated. Due to a sometimes-problematic issue of having different people voting for different categories, The Dark Knight’s flaws will be clearer to the filmmakers who pick the nominees for Best Director, and so Christopher Nolan will be excluded there (although Awards Daily still has him as a front runner anyway). However, Nolan and his writing partners, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer should have a decent shot at the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar for their success at turning a superhero comic into a realistic film with a smart, topical, complex and fairly original story. Acting Categories: As for the acting awards, The Dark Knight can really only count on Ledger’s nomination. The film lacks any substantial female performances, and despite the fact that Christian Bale seriously deserves an Oscar nomination and despite the belief that he puts more into the Bruce Wayne/Batman character than is necessary, it’s simply not his time. If there is any other actor besides Ledger worthy and at all probable to receive a nomination, it’s Gary Oldman, for Best Supporting Actor, but there’s not much likelihood that Academy voters would water down Ledger’s lauds like that. Technical and Craft Categories: Finally, with the tech and craft categories, Pfister should very easily pick up another nomination for his cinematography work, while The Dark Knight is expected to better Batman Begins‘ Oscar glory by turning up in both the sound categories. Score and Editing are total longshots, despite their respective talent’s past Oscar success. And as much as makeup and costumes are significant to the film, The Dark Knight may only be a dark horse in those categories. Still, it’s probably about time the Academy ignored its period piece tradition with the latter category and took notice of Lindy Hemming’s accomplishment of making superhero movie costumes that are more realistic and believable than the typically flashy, costumey costumes of the genre. The film even reflexively addresses the issue of plausible and practical superhero wear in the real world. Then, of course, there’s the other craft categories that could suffer from the film’s efforts to be more natural than most comic book adaptations. Best Art Direction? Not enough obvious design there. Best visual effects? The Dark Knight could be one of the rare genre movies nominated for Best Picture that doesn’t place in the effects category, due to its lack of showy CG work. Like In Contention’s Gerard Kennedy, I won’t be shocked if the film manages an effects nomination simply because it’s so respected, but the odds are mostly against its modestly functional effects spectacle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35566/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: RaeRae84
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/26/2008 2:47:31 AM
Body: [quote user="csprague"] Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) staloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) wesley snipesBlade II (2002)(3) ron pearlmanHellboy (2004)(4) john hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) hugo weavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) viggo mortensonA History of Violence (2005)(7) william hurtThe Hulk (2003)(8) jennifer connellyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) paul sorvinoDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: based on comic books [/quote]
]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:47:31 GMTRaeRae84Filmgaming9/26/2008 2:47:31 AM[quote user="csprague"] Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) staloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) wesley snipesBlade II (2002)(3) ron pearlmanHellboy (2004)(4) john hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) hugo weavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) viggo mortensonA History of Violence (2005)(7) william hurtThe Hulk (2003)(8) jennifer connellyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) paul sorvinoDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: based on comic books [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35557/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 9:27:52 PM
Body: Thursday Eagle Eye Challenge Judge Dredd (2005)(1) StalloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) Wesley SnipesBlade II (2002) (3) Ron Pearlman Hellboy (2004)(4) John Hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Hugo WeavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) Viggo MortinsenA History of Violence (2005)(7) Unexpected bursts of anger/violence/rageThe Hulk (2003)(8) Jennifer ConnollyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) 1930s settingDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: Based on a comic/graphic novel
]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 01:27:52 GMTTenenbaumsFilmgaming9/25/2008 9:27:52 PMThursday Eagle Eye Challenge Judge Dredd (2005)(1) StalloneDemolition Man (1993)(2) Wesley SnipesBlade II (2002) (3) Ron Pearlman Hellboy (2004)(4) John Hurt V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Hugo WeavingLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) Viggo MortinsenA History of Violence (2005)(7) Unexpected bursts of anger/violence/rageThe Hulk (2003)(8) Jennifer ConnollyThe Rocketeer (1991)(9) 1930s settingDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: Based on a comic/graphic novel http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35547/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 3:17:15 PM
Body: Judge Dredd (2005)Two words in the titleDemolition Man (1993)Sci-Fi moviesBlade II (2002)Both movies feature actorsHellboy (2004)Shot in colorV for Vendetta (2006)FictionLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)Feature dialogueA History of Violence (2005)Wide theatrical release in the USAThe Hulk (2003)Released with in the last 17 yearsThe Rocketeer (1991)Movies that actually existDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: vowels in the title
]]>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:17:15 GMTRisseladaFilmgaming9/25/2008 3:17:15 PMJudge Dredd (2005)Two words in the titleDemolition Man (1993)Sci-Fi moviesBlade II (2002)Both movies feature actorsHellboy (2004)Shot in colorV for Vendetta (2006)FictionLord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)Feature dialogueA History of Violence (2005)Wide theatrical release in the USAThe Hulk (2003)Released with in the last 17 yearsThe Rocketeer (1991)Movies that actually existDick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: vowels in the title http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/THURSDAY_Eagle_Eye_Challenge/563/35525/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/25/2008 9:11:08 AM
Body: Thursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) Demolition Man (1993)(2) Blade II (2002)(3) There's more than one connection here, but we're looking for an actor. Hellboy (2004)(4) V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) A History of Violence (2005)(7) The Hulk (2003)(8) The Rocketeer (1991)(9) Dick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common:
]]>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:11:08 GMTcspragueFilmgaming9/25/2008 9:11:08 AMThursday Eagle Eye ChallengeJudge Dredd (2005)(1) Demolition Man (1993)(2) Blade II (2002)(3) There's more than one connection here, but we're looking for an actor. Hellboy (2004)(4) V for Vendetta (2006)(5) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)(6) A History of Violence (2005)(7) The Hulk (2003)(8) The Rocketeer (1991)(9) Dick Tracy (1990)(10) Eight of these movies have this in common: http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_best_sci_fi_hero/4/33714/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 8/7/2008 6:16:02 PM
Body: [quote user="SkyPilot"] [quote user="gambrel83"] Han Solo [/quote] I find Han Solo a lot more compelling than Luke Skywalker. Two things, and I admit the first is just preference: (1) I like heroes that are fun to hang out with. Han Solo and Chewbacca are a lot hipper than Luke. I suppose I get why Luke has to be single-minded and serious; he is the crux of the galaxy's fate, after all. But that's my second thing: (2) Luke's genes make him the chosen one. This motif is sometimes pretty compelling to me (like the gritty but noble Aragorn in LOTR), but in general I'm more interested in normal human beings whose wit and sand make them as formidable as chosen ones -- like Han Solo, and Boba Fett. I love Hellboy too, who is a chosen one, but as cool as Han Solo and tough as Chewbacca. [/quote] I've said this so many times, but the lack of any kind of Han Solo type of character is the missing element from the second Star Wars trilogy that made it feel less enjoyable than the first one. I also remember hearing somewhere that Harrison Ford said that Han Solo's dialogue was originally just as dry as a lot of the other characters but he just changed it without asking and apparently George Lucas didn't notice or say anything. Whereas people who would argue with him over lines would never win, Harrison just changed them without even bothering to ask.
]]>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:16:02 GMTRisseladasci-fi8/7/2008 6:16:02 PM[quote user="SkyPilot"] [quote user="gambrel83"] Han Solo [/quote] I find Han Solo a lot more compelling than Luke Skywalker. Two things, and I admit the first is just preference: (1) I like heroes that are fun to hang out with. Han Solo and Chewbacca are a lot hipper than Luke. I suppose I get why Luke has to be single-minded and serious; he is the crux of the galaxy's fate, after all. But that's my second thing: (2) Luke's genes make him the chosen one. This motif is sometimes pretty compelling to me (like the gritty but noble Aragorn in LOTR), but in general I'm more interested in normal human beings whose wit and sand make them as formidable as chosen ones -- like Han Solo, and Boba Fett. I love Hellboy too, who is a chosen one, but as cool as Han Solo and tough as Chewbacca. [/quote] I've said this so many times, but the lack of any kind of Han Solo type of character is the missing element from the second Star Wars trilogy that made it feel less enjoyable than the first one. I also remember hearing somewhere that Harrison Ford said that Han Solo's dialogue was originally just as dry as a lot of the other characters but he just changed it without asking and apparently George Lucas didn't notice or say anything. Whereas people who would argue with him over lines would never win, Harrison just changed them without even bothering to ask. http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_best_sci_fi_hero/4/33553/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 8/5/2008 10:03:39 AM
Body: [quote user="gambrel83"] Han Solo [/quote] I find Han Solo a lot more compelling than Luke Skywalker. Two things, and I admit the first is just preference: (1) I like heroes that are fun to hang out with. Han Solo and Chewbacca are a lot hipper than Luke. I suppose I get why Luke has to be single-minded and serious; he is the crux of the galaxy's fate, after all. But that's my second thing: (2) Luke's genes make him the chosen one. This motif is sometimes pretty compelling to me (like the gritty but noble Aragorn in LOTR), but in general I'm more interested in normal human beings whose wit and sand make them as formidable as chosen ones -- like Han Solo, and Boba Fett. I love Hellboy too, who is a chosen one, but as cool as Han Solo and tough as Chewbacca.
]]>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:03:39 GMTSkyPilotsci-fi8/5/2008 10:03:39 AM[quote user="gambrel83"] Han Solo [/quote] I find Han Solo a lot more compelling than Luke Skywalker. Two things, and I admit the first is just preference: (1) I like heroes that are fun to hang out with. Han Solo and Chewbacca are a lot hipper than Luke. I suppose I get why Luke has to be single-minded and serious; he is the crux of the galaxy's fate, after all. But that's my second thing: (2) Luke's genes make him the chosen one. This motif is sometimes pretty compelling to me (like the gritty but noble Aragorn in LOTR), but in general I'm more interested in normal human beings whose wit and sand make them as formidable as chosen ones -- like Han Solo, and Boba Fett. I love Hellboy too, who is a chosen one, but as cool as Han Solo and tough as Chewbacca. http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/26/31754.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/26/2008 7:00:44 PM
Body: As with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of “fantasy”, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as “fables”, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are “inhabit” and “experience”. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve “live-action characters” in “imagined settings” or “situations that transcend the rules of the natural world” (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not “actually” happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a “fantasy” does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic “reality” or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the “mystery” category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about “fables” as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about “fantasy,” and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:44 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/26/2008 7:00:44 PMAs with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo;, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as &ldquo;fables&rdquo;, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are &ldquo;inhabit&rdquo; and &ldquo;experience&rdquo;. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve &ldquo;live-action characters&rdquo; in &ldquo;imagined settings&rdquo; or &ldquo;situations that transcend the rules of the natural world&rdquo; (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not &ldquo;actually&rdquo; happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo; does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic &ldquo;reality&rdquo; or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the &ldquo;mystery&rdquo; category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about &ldquo;fables&rdquo; as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about &ldquo;fantasy,&rdquo; and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/31491/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: laylor
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/21/2008 1:41:01 AM
Body: Ok, my first post and here I go: Jacob's Ladder I first watched this film in the early 90's when I was a kid and found it incredibly boring. I watched it again in my mid 20's (so recently) and understood a lot more of the film but still found it boring. Some great performances and imagery but ultimately, unsatisfactory. The ending was a real let down, as well. Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle. Honorable Mentions: The English Patient, American Beauty, Flashdance, and The Lord of the Rings.
]]>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 05:41:01 GMTlaylorTop 56/21/2008 1:41:01 AMOk, my first post and here I go: Jacob's Ladder I first watched this film in the early 90's when I was a kid and found it incredibly boring. I watched it again in my mid 20's (so recently) and understood a lot more of the film but still found it boring. Some great performances and imagery but ultimately, unsatisfactory. The ending was a real let down, as well. Crash I cannot believe in all honesty that this won best picture or was even nominated for that matter. I found it completely cliched, hammy and pretentious. I haven't felt this hit over the head by a film since....oh I don't know, ever probably. During this film I couldn't help but think of The Birth of a Nation and how Crash actually managed to make that movie look subtle. Honorable Mentions: The English Patient, American Beauty, Flashdance, and The Lord of the Rings. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176180607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag 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: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 317

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 458

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT317111458Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 214

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:30:57 GMT226101214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/of/MemberTagFilms.aspxof
Number of films tagged: 96

Number of people who tagged: 87

Number of times used: 105

]]>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:13:39 GMT9687105Tag 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/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag 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/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/epic/MemberTagFilms.aspxepic
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 103

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:03:00 GMT6258103Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/journey/MemberTagFilms.aspxjourney
Number of films tagged: 1175

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 124

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT117550124Tag