list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around I Am Sam 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/I_Am_Sam/202985/default.aspx Title: I Am Sam
Year: 2002
Director: Jessie Nelson
Plot: Sean Penn stars in this drama as Sam Dawson, a developmentally disabled adult who has been working at a coffee shop and raising his daughter Lucy (Dakota Fanning) for seven years. Sam receives help in his parenting duties from a circle of trusted confidantes, including his ADD-afflicted best friend Ifty (Doug Hutchison), the paranoid Robert (Stanley DeSantis), an agoraphobic neighbor (Dianne Wiest), and his other disabled pals, Brad and Joe (played by real-life developmentally challenged actors Brad Silverman and Joseph Rosenberg). Although he provides a structured and loving environment for Lucy that includes regular visits to IHOP, video nights, and karaoke, Sam's daughter is beginning to surpass him in mental acuity. When Lucy begins intentionally stunting her own growth so as not to hurt her beloved father, social worker Margaret (Loretta Devine) takes action, removing the girl from her home and placing her in the temporary care of a foster mother, Randy (Laura Dern). As the day of his hearing looms, Sam seeks out the aid of driven, obsessive lawyer Rita Harrison (Michelle Pfeiffer), who takes the case only to prove to her colleagues that she is willing to accept pro bono work. Opposed by county lawyer Turner (Richard Schiff) in court, Rita gradually comes to care for her client and his daughter, even as they force her to consider the limitations of her own abilities as a parent. The soundtrack for I Am Sam (2001) gained considerable critical attention, consisting entirely of Beatles cover songs by such contemporary artists as The Black Crowes, Eddie Vedder, the Wallflowers, and Aimee Mann, among others. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 59
Number of Lists: 51
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:57:13 GMTI Am Sam2002Jessie Nelson<a href="/players/P___106027/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sean Penn</a> stars in this drama as Sam Dawson, a developmentally disabled adult who has been working at a coffee shop and raising his daughter Lucy (<a href="/players/P___301579/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dakota Fanning</a>) for seven years. Sam receives help in his parenting duties from a circle of trusted confidantes, including his ADD-afflicted best friend Ifty (Doug Hutchison), the paranoid Robert (Stanley DeSantis), an agoraphobic neighbor (<a href="/players/P____76163/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dianne Wiest</a>), and his other disabled pals, Brad and Joe (played by real-life developmentally challenged actors Brad Silverman and Joseph Rosenberg). Although he provides a structured and loving environment for Lucy that includes regular visits to IHOP, video nights, and karaoke, Sam's daughter is beginning to surpass him in mental acuity. When Lucy begins intentionally stunting her own growth so as not to hurt her beloved father, social worker Margaret (<a href="/players/P____18847/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Loretta Devine</a>) takes action, removing the girl from her home and placing her in the temporary care of a foster mother, Randy (<a href="/players/P____18704/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laura Dern</a>). As the day of his hearing looms, Sam seeks out the aid of driven, obsessive lawyer Rita Harrison (<a href="/players/P____56469/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michelle Pfeiffer</a>), who takes the case only to prove to her colleagues that she is willing to accept <I>pro bono</I> work. Opposed by county lawyer Turner (<a href="/players/P____63646/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Schiff</a>) in court, Rita gradually comes to care for her client and his daughter, even as they force her to consider the limitations of her own abilities as a parent. The soundtrack for I Am Sam (2001) gained considerable critical attention, consisting entirely of Beatles cover songs by such contemporary artists as The Black Crowes, Eddie Vedder, the Wallflowers, and <a href="/players/P___271469/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Aimee Mann</a>, among others. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide59Tag Target (>10)51383http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t19454ooaje.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/I_Am_Sam/202985/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/11/6/44312.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/6/2009 11:46:58 AM
Body: Search for the Beast I, like my friend joem18b, agree that people way too often use the hyperbolic description of a movie they hate as "the worst movie ever". You will not hear me use this phrase unless I really mean it. For a long time I claimed the my least favorite movie ever was I Am Sam. Now, I haven't seen it in a while, nor would I want to, but I think I have finally found a movie that is so horrible in every single aspect of filmmaking that it surpasses even my disdain for the despicable, manipulative, false sentimentality of that film. Yes, Search for the Beast, the third of the Bigfoot themed films available on the four movie DVD Bigfoot Terror. I'm sure if I were able to go through the VHS collections of enough Americans I would be able to find some shitty movies that people made in their backyard in the 90s with no budget, and a lot of these would be worse than this film. The only difference is that somehow this movie was able to get video distribution through a decent sized distribution company. Something this shitty should not be on Netflix!! Should it? Watching this is torture. It's 82 minutes long but feels more like three hours. I wanted to pull my hair out and punch things. I couldn't believe it. Most of it is just boring though, even the nudie scenes. And the ending will shock you with bad taste, but because it's so absurd how it's inserted into the film. Watch it only if you want a contender for your own personal "worst movie ever" Rating: 1/10
]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:46:58 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/6/2009 11:46:58 AMSearch for the Beast I, like my friend joem18b, agree that people way too often use the hyperbolic description of a movie they hate as "the worst movie ever". You will not hear me use this phrase unless I really mean it. For a long time I claimed the my least favorite movie ever was I Am Sam. Now, I haven't seen it in a while, nor would I want to, but I think I have finally found a movie that is so horrible in every single aspect of filmmaking that it surpasses even my disdain for the despicable, manipulative, false sentimentality of that film. Yes, Search for the Beast, the third of the Bigfoot themed films available on the four movie DVD Bigfoot Terror. I'm sure if I were able to go through the VHS collections of enough Americans I would be able to find some shitty movies that people made in their backyard in the 90s with no budget, and a lot of these would be worse than this film. The only difference is that somehow this movie was able to get video distribution through a decent sized distribution company. Something this shitty should not be on Netflix!! Should it? Watching this is torture. It's 82 minutes long but feels more like three hours. I wanted to pull my hair out and punch things. I couldn't believe it. Most of it is just boring though, even the nudie scenes. And the ending will shock you with bad taste, but because it's so absurd how it's inserted into the film. Watch it only if you want a contender for your own personal "worst movie ever" Rating: 1/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_28_The_Infinite_Sad/625/44211/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/20/2009 10:51:02 AM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] In America is another one by Sheridan that's closing scene is downright impossible to watch with dry eyes. [/quote] I'll agree with that, but I would tend to put it more in the category of the I Am Sam kind of movies. Not really an honest cry. More of a manipulated one from my memory. It aggrivated me to a large extent.
]]>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:51:02 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme10/20/2009 10:51:02 AM[quote user="leeroy711"] In America is another one by Sheridan that's closing scene is downright impossible to watch with dry eyes. [/quote] I'll agree with that, but I would tend to put it more in the category of the I Am Sam kind of movies. Not really an honest cry. More of a manipulated one from my memory. It aggrivated me to a large extent. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_September_28_The_Infinite_Sad/625/44118/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash.
]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:35:33 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme10/5/2009 1:35:33 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Sorry for the delay but I've been in a Six Feet Under k-hole for the past week and haven't been doing much of else. The final episode of the series had me crying like almost never before and it got me thinking about how much I enjoy a good cry. The raw emotion, the circling thoughts of this or that that keep the tears streaming down your face, the feeling of suffocating in your throat: not too much in this life compares to it. [/quote] A good cry is something that can be a cap on a really great movie for me as well. I find myself crying for lots of different reasons in films though. [quote user="mercurial"] And probably the best cry I've ever had in a movie is The Shawshank Redemption. Gets me crying like a baby every time I watch it. [/quote] Dude, there's something about it. I don't know what it is. But even if it's ALL I see, whenever the very last couple minutes of The Shawshank Redemption start playing, the tears just start welling up. Although the one film moment that might get the tears going even stronger and more reliably would be the final big breakdown from Lee J. Cobb's character. I get goosebumps and almost start crying just reading a transcript of it! I think it may be the most perfect moment in cinema for me. I've also had tears of happiness well up in my eyes for strange kind of happy moments too. When the new Star Wars movies came out, I would almost start crying just as the opening theme started playing and the familiar logo and text scroll started running. Sometimes it's a perfect blend of what just seems like overpowering truth. Humor, sadness, reality, absurdity, all perfectly portrayed. The end of Dr. Strangelove for instance. Tears come to my eyes here too. Most of the film of The Seventh Seal hits me too because of the truth of every character's struggle. Oh and I just remembered, what might be the best rival for that monologue in 12 Angry Men would be the monologue in Fargo by Margie in the cop car hauling away Gaear Grimsrud. So that was Mrs. Lundegaard on the floor in there. And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper. And those three people in Brainerd. And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it. Ah! That sums it up so perfectly! You just have to shed a tear for everything it says. Then of course there are times when I really HATE a movie for making me cry. Because it's total manipulation. In other words, it throws up certain images and sounds and music that we already have some emotional attachment to outside of the film and edits them together in a way that makes you cry. But if the actual story of the film is total bullshit, then that's manipulation. The cry doesn't flow freely from the complete work of the film. It's just a psychological trick. One of the biggest examples here would be I Am Sam. People naturally have an immediate strong reaction to cute, innocent and defenseless people being taken advantage of. Who is more stereotypically innocent and defenseless than mentally retarded people and children? And when you throw in a vague oppresive authority system and one dementional villains, the only final blow you really need is Beatles music, the most loved pop music in the world. The tears flow, but not because of any context of the film, because of outside contexts. Paul Haggis pulls this same kind of crap with Million Dollar Baby and Crash. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/6/12/42629.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 6/12/2009 11:39:07 AM
Body: This blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Kid Right up front I'll state that I tend to have an aversion to precocious kids in films. As an example, my stock answer for my least favorite movie ever is I Am Sam. It's hard for me to say why, and maybe it's a fault of my own character. I feel much more sympathetic to pathetic and somewhat dimwitted children like the kid in Bad Santa or Dawn Wiener in Welcome to the Dollhouse. In fact I think I've stated this precisely before in another blog, but I keep finding myself pointing it out. But it's actually really difficult to dislike Jackie Coogan in this film. He is adorable and talented. But I can't help but feel like my predilection here might have knocked my rating down a point or two. Now I was just talking with my friend Jason about Buster Keaton and we noted that his best films are the ones where the plot and comedy/stunts are all great. There are some Keaton films with lesser plots that still have fantastic comedy and stunts. Now I find that Chaplin can sometimes become a bit boring to me when he focuses more on atmosphere and plot than just giving us some good comedy. Not that everything has to be hilarious. City Lights made me cry, but I'm not sure why The Kid just seemed a bit more forced. There's no real reason for me to explain it. Just a personal feeling. Still, Chaplin is quite talented in the bits he does do, so there was no regret in watching this. Rating: 7/10
]]>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:39:07 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog6/12/2009 11:39:07 AMThis blog entry is part of my "movie year countdown round #2". Read more about that here. The Kid Right up front I'll state that I tend to have an aversion to precocious kids in films. As an example, my stock answer for my least favorite movie ever is I Am Sam. It's hard for me to say why, and maybe it's a fault of my own character. I feel much more sympathetic to pathetic and somewhat dimwitted children like the kid in Bad Santa or Dawn Wiener in Welcome to the Dollhouse. In fact I think I've stated this precisely before in another blog, but I keep finding myself pointing it out. But it's actually really difficult to dislike Jackie Coogan in this film. He is adorable and talented. But I can't help but feel like my predilection here might have knocked my rating down a point or two. Now I was just talking with my friend Jason about Buster Keaton and we noted that his best films are the ones where the plot and comedy/stunts are all great. There are some Keaton films with lesser plots that still have fantastic comedy and stunts. Now I find that Chaplin can sometimes become a bit boring to me when he focuses more on atmosphere and plot than just giving us some good comedy. Not that everything has to be hilarious. City Lights made me cry, but I'm not sure why The Kid just seemed a bit more forced. There's no real reason for me to explain it. Just a personal feeling. Still, Chaplin is quite talented in the bits he does do, so there was no regret in watching this. Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Disability_On_Film/Re_Best_disabled_character/677/41224/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Disability On Film
Post Date: 3/24/2009 4:16:02 PM
Body: [quote user="apulrang"] [quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] That's another one I need to see. Though, I have to say that my impression from clips I've seen and reviews I've read is that he film romanticizes the "Sam" character's pure wish to be a Dad, without adequately exploring the real challenges and how they could be solved. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to see it in the actual film. [/quote] You aren't wrong. You are right. And I Am Sam is my least favorite movie of all time. Pure manipulation.
]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:16:02 GMTRisseladaDisability On Film3/24/2009 4:16:02 PM[quote user="apulrang"] [quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] That's another one I need to see. Though, I have to say that my impression from clips I've seen and reviews I've read is that he film romanticizes the "Sam" character's pure wish to be a Dad, without adequately exploring the real challenges and how they could be solved. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to see it in the actual film. [/quote] You aren't wrong. You are right. And I Am Sam is my least favorite movie of all time. Pure manipulation. http://www.spout.com/groups/Disability_On_Film/Re_Best_disabled_character/677/41223/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Disability On Film
Post Date: 3/24/2009 4:15:10 PM
Body: [quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] Wow I didn't know that Tropic Thunder ridiculed my least favorite movie of all time! Now I have to see it.
]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:15:10 GMTRisseladaDisability On Film3/24/2009 4:15:10 PM[quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] Wow I didn't know that Tropic Thunder ridiculed my least favorite movie of all time! Now I have to see it. http://www.spout.com/groups/Disability_On_Film/Re_Best_disabled_character/677/41025/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: apulrang
Post To: Disability On Film
Post Date: 3/13/2009 8:57:59 PM
Body: [quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] That's another one I need to see. Though, I have to say that my impression from clips I've seen and reviews I've read is that he film romanticizes the "Sam" character's pure wish to be a Dad, without adequately exploring the real challenges and how they could be solved. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to see it in the actual film.
]]>Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:57:59 GMTapulrangDisability On Film3/13/2009 8:57:59 PM[quote user="rjsprague"] I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. [/quote] That's another one I need to see. Though, I have to say that my impression from clips I've seen and reviews I've read is that he film romanticizes the "Sam" character's pure wish to be a Dad, without adequately exploring the real challenges and how they could be solved. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be glad to see it in the actual film. http://www.spout.com/groups/Disability_On_Film/Re_Best_disabled_character/677/41018/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Disability On Film
Post Date: 3/13/2009 4:06:13 PM
Body: I'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate.
]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:06:13 GMTrjspragueDisability On Film3/13/2009 4:06:13 PMI'm going to go with Sean Penn in I Am Sam. While the ridiculing of his performance in Tropic Thunder was hilarious, I didn't think it should be a bad thing for an actor to accurately portray a person with disabilities. If anything such an actor should be lauded for helping movie watchers better understand the tough circumstances that can arise for such a person when they are taken advantage of. Most people simply aren't mature enough to handle such realities, which is unfortunate. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/10/37156.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/10/2008 4:01:13 PM
Body: It happened last year for Cate Blanchett. The actress starred in a biopic that critics ripped to shreds, a film that basically bombed at the (American) box office, and yet she managed to score a Best Actress nomination for her reprised performance as the titular monarch of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Additionally, Blanchett earned another nomination for Best Supporting Actress the same year, for her portrayal of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. Now Josh Brolin could achieve a similar feat this year, not just by earning separate nominations for playing the titular president of W. and portraying politician-turned-assassin Dan White in Milk, but also by overcoming the difficulty of earning recognition in a lead category for a film that otherwise is not very well regarded. Are Brolin’s hurdles higher than Blanchett’s, though? With all the praise he’s received for W., he’s still far from being considered a sure thing candidate, regardless of his worthiness or the Academy’s history of oftentimes ignoring the critics and the grosses when nominating dependable, standout actors. And boy, does Brolin stand out. Despite giving a strong, surprisingly grounded performance in W., the actor is almost in a world of his own in the film. The supporting players mostly miss their marks, whether through overshot caricature (Thandie Newton’s stroke-faced, alien-voiced Condoleeza Rice) or an apparent lack of effort (Scott Glenn looks bored and unrecognizable as Rumsfeld, while Toby Jones for some reason offers a Karl Rove who’s more huggable than slimy). Both problems may have been due to an unclear decision on the film’s intended tone, but regardless, the script is way too simpleminded, as if adapted from the sitting president’s Wikipedia page. Brolin is the only person who keeps the film interesting and engrossing by making the character his own rather than going for total impersonation. Some of his movements and inflections consist of outright aping, but his personalization allows for unpredictability in much of his execution. Certainly it’s a performance as good as Joaquin Phoenix’s in Walk the Line and Jamie Foxx’s in Ray. Perhaps if W. were about a musician-turned-president, with Brolin offering his own singing voice, his nomination would be more assured? So far it seems he’s hardly being considered. Sites ranking the actor’s chances in chart form include And the Winner Is…, which places him tenth in the running, Entertainment Weekly, which puts him alphabetically somewhere between ninth and thirteenth while calling him a long shot, Movie City News, which lists him seventh with a comment that he deserves the nom “111%”, and In Contention, which also puts him at seventh place. Hollywood Elsewhere’s Jeff Wells merely includes him as one of eight contenders for the lead actor category, which is at least more of an approval than the others. So what are those hurdles that are keeping him out of the fortunate five? As of this past weekend, W. is down to 17th place in its fourth weekend at the box office, and it hasn’t yet even passed the $25 million mark domestically. Not that a film needs to be a hit with moviegoers to make a difference with the Academy, though, right? This time last year, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was similarly fading from the interests of ticket buyers in its fifth week, having made a meager $16 million. And of the ten Best Actor nominees of the last two years, half came from films that grossed less than W. Then there are the film’s poor reviews, which have earned W. a Metacritic score of 56. Compared to Elizabeth: The Golden Age’s score of 45, that’s not actually too much of a drawback. And if the Academy can nominate Sean Penn for I Am Sam in spite of that movie’s reception (Metacritic score of 28!), it shouldn’t have any problem with a performance from a picture that at least somewhat pleased more than 50% of critics. Of course, Penn was and is an Oscar vet. So was Blanchett, who had already been nominated for the same role in the first Elizabeth. It wouldn’t be surprising if some Academy members voted for her Elizabeth: The Golden Age performance without even having seen the movie. Meanwhile, Brolin’s greatest film honor as of yet is being one-seventh of the SAG Award-winning ensemble cast of No Country for Old Men. Last year he may have deserved a double nomination for his lead performance in that film and his supporting bit in American Gangster, but he failed to garner the Academy’s notice. Though some people see Brolin garnering two nominations this year as a way of making up for his prior snubs, the actor’s lack of past favor shall also be a disadvantage for him. The best way for him to be locked for a nomination is to receive some tremendous love from the early determining critics circle awards. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen, because actors like Penn and Mickey Rourke are bound to fill the hearts of those awards’ voters. Another hurdle seems to be the role Brolin plays, though not necessarily due to the focal figure being so contemporary. The portrait of President Bush is indeed one of the most present-minded biopics in years. However, with a retrospective window of only five years in its most recent setting, W. is hardly any different than The Queen, a not-quite-biopic film that presents an Oscar-winning portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II set only nine years in the past. W. deals with a more touchy subject for Academy members, though, it being about a more disliked and derided leader who has actually been the president of most voters for the past eight years. And the same factors that are keeping audiences away from the film in theaters, regardless of what their politics may be, will probably similarly affect Academy voters’ hesitance to put on that screener DVD. If Academy voters aren’t willing to watch the performance now, though, perhaps they can give it the same twenty years they had between Nixon’s presidency and Oliver Stone’s biopic of that other unlikable president. Maybe in 2028 W. could be the innaugural film nominated in a much-needed future category that retroactively honors should-have-been-awarded performances? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/10/2008 4:01:13 PMIt happened last year for Cate Blanchett. The actress starred in a biopic that critics ripped to shreds, a film that basically bombed at the (American) box office, and yet she managed to score a Best Actress nomination for her reprised performance as the titular monarch of Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Additionally, Blanchett earned another nomination for Best Supporting Actress the same year, for her portrayal of Bob Dylan in I’m Not There. Now Josh Brolin could achieve a similar feat this year, not just by earning separate nominations for playing the titular president of W. and portraying politician-turned-assassin Dan White in Milk, but also by overcoming the difficulty of earning recognition in a lead category for a film that otherwise is not very well regarded. Are Brolin’s hurdles higher than Blanchett’s, though? With all the praise he’s received for W., he’s still far from being considered a sure thing candidate, regardless of his worthiness or the Academy’s history of oftentimes ignoring the critics and the grosses when nominating dependable, standout actors. And boy, does Brolin stand out. Despite giving a strong, surprisingly grounded performance in W., the actor is almost in a world of his own in the film. The supporting players mostly miss their marks, whether through overshot caricature (Thandie Newton’s stroke-faced, alien-voiced Condoleeza Rice) or an apparent lack of effort (Scott Glenn looks bored and unrecognizable as Rumsfeld, while Toby Jones for some reason offers a Karl Rove who’s more huggable than slimy). Both problems may have been due to an unclear decision on the film’s intended tone, but regardless, the script is way too simpleminded, as if adapted from the sitting president’s Wikipedia page. Brolin is the only person who keeps the film interesting and engrossing by making the character his own rather than going for total impersonation. Some of his movements and inflections consist of outright aping, but his personalization allows for unpredictability in much of his execution. Certainly it’s a performance as good as Joaquin Phoenix’s in Walk the Line and Jamie Foxx’s in Ray. Perhaps if W. were about a musician-turned-president, with Brolin offering his own singing voice, his nomination would be more assured? So far it seems he’s hardly being considered. Sites ranking the actor’s chances in chart form include And the Winner Is…, which places him tenth in the running, Entertainment Weekly, which puts him alphabetically somewhere between ninth and thirteenth while calling him a long shot, Movie City News, which lists him seventh with a comment that he deserves the nom “111%”, and In Contention, which also puts him at seventh place. Hollywood Elsewhere’s Jeff Wells merely includes him as one of eight contenders for the lead actor category, which is at least more of an approval than the others. So what are those hurdles that are keeping him out of the fortunate five? As of this past weekend, W. is down to 17th place in its fourth weekend at the box office, and it hasn’t yet even passed the $25 million mark domestically. Not that a film needs to be a hit with moviegoers to make a difference with the Academy, though, right? This time last year, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was similarly fading from the interests of ticket buyers in its fifth week, having made a meager $16 million. And of the ten Best Actor nominees of the last two years, half came from films that grossed less than W. Then there are the film’s poor reviews, which have earned W. a Metacritic score of 56. Compared to Elizabeth: The Golden Age’s score of 45, that’s not actually too much of a drawback. And if the Academy can nominate Sean Penn for I Am Sam in spite of that movie’s reception (Metacritic score of 28!), it shouldn’t have any problem with a performance from a picture that at least somewhat pleased more than 50% of critics. Of course, Penn was and is an Oscar vet. So was Blanchett, who had already been nominated for the same role in the first Elizabeth. It wouldn’t be surprising if some Academy members voted for her Elizabeth: The Golden Age performance without even having seen the movie. Meanwhile, Brolin’s greatest film honor as of yet is being one-seventh of the SAG Award-winning ensemble cast of No Country for Old Men. Last year he may have deserved a double nomination for his lead performance in that film and his supporting bit in American Gangster, but he failed to garner the Academy’s notice. Though some people see Brolin garnering two nominations this year as a way of making up for his prior snubs, the actor’s lack of past favor shall also be a disadvantage for him. The best way for him to be locked for a nomination is to receive some tremendous love from the early determining critics circle awards. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen, because actors like Penn and Mickey Rourke are bound to fill the hearts of those awards’ voters. Another hurdle seems to be the role Brolin plays, though not necessarily due to the focal figure being so contemporary. The portrait of President Bush is indeed one of the most present-minded biopics in years. However, with a retrospective window of only five years in its most recent setting, W. is hardly any different than The Queen, a not-quite-biopic film that presents an Oscar-winning portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II set only nine years in the past. W. deals with a more touchy subject for Academy members, though, it being about a more disliked and derided leader who has actually been the president of most voters for the past eight years. And the same factors that are keeping audiences away from the film in theaters, regardless of what their politics may be, will probably similarly affect Academy voters’ hesitance to put on that screener DVD. If Academy voters aren’t willing to watch the performance now, though, perhaps they can give it the same twenty years they had between Nixon’s presidency and Oliver Stone’s biopic of that other unlikable president. Maybe in 2028 W. could be the innaugural film nominated in a much-needed future category that retroactively honors should-have-been-awarded performances? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/3/25/26596.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/25/2008 4:00:59 PM
Body: MTV asks the question: Who is the next Dakota Fanning? Because now that the Princess of Precociousness is growing older (she recently turned 14), we apparently need to find a little girl to fill her old kid-size shoes. The most obvious suggestion is Dakota’s little sister, Elle, but MTV also mentions Little Miss Sunshine’s Abigail Breslin and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s AnnaSophia Robb as possible contenders. However, considering that Robb is actually a couple months older than Dakota, she makes the least amount of sense. The truth is, the next “Dakota Fanning” (or “Jodie Foster” or “Drew Barrymore” or “Shirley Temple”) will come along when we aren’t necessarily looking, just as Dakota did with I Am Sam. But that is mostly a moot point anyway, because the conclusion of this MTV story is that Dakota hasn’t actually gone away — she is, herself, the new Dakota Fanning, or at least still the same old Dakota Fanning, alive and acting. While she had seemed to disappear after the controversy over her 2007 Sundance film, Hounddog, she’s actually in a bunch of movies coming out this year, including The Secret Life of Bees and Winged Creatures. And she’ll likely continue getting starring roles well through her official exit from childhood (keep on counting down, creeps). (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:00:59 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/25/2008 4:00:59 PM MTV asks the question: Who is the next Dakota Fanning? Because now that the Princess of Precociousness is growing older (she recently turned 14), we apparently need to find a little girl to fill her old kid-size shoes. The most obvious suggestion is Dakota’s little sister, Elle, but MTV also mentions Little Miss Sunshine’s Abigail Breslin and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s AnnaSophia Robb as possible contenders. However, considering that Robb is actually a couple months older than Dakota, she makes the least amount of sense. The truth is, the next “Dakota Fanning” (or “Jodie Foster” or “Drew Barrymore” or “Shirley Temple”) will come along when we aren’t necessarily looking, just as Dakota did with I Am Sam. But that is mostly a moot point anyway, because the conclusion of this MTV story is that Dakota hasn’t actually gone away — she is, herself, the new Dakota Fanning, or at least still the same old Dakota Fanning, alive and acting. While she had seemed to disappear after the controversy over her 2007 Sundance film, Hounddog, she’s actually in a bunch of movies coming out this year, including The Secret Life of Bees and Winged Creatures. And she’ll likely continue getting starring roles well through her official exit from childhood (keep on counting down, creeps). (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

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

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 364

Number of people who tagged: 115

Number of times used: 188

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:46 GMT364115188Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag 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/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/money/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoney
Number of films tagged: 508

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 145

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:03:25 GMT50846145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/powerful/MemberTagFilms.aspxpowerful
Number of films tagged: 48

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 70

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:29:29 GMT484370Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/daughter/MemberTagFilms.aspxdaughter
Number of films tagged: 3658

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 138

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT365840138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/power/MemberTagFilms.aspxpower
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 104

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:55 GMT60639104Tag