list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Phone Booth 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/Phone_Booth/211002/default.aspx Title: Phone Booth
Year: 2003
Director: Joel Schumacher
Plot: One man's life is thrown into turmoil by picking up a telephone in this claustrophobic thriller. Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) is a brash, cynical, and self-centered public relations man who juggles a busy career with both a wife, Kelly (Radha Mitchell), and a mistress, Pamela (Katie Holmes). Stu steps into a phone booth on a busy New York street to make a call to Pamela without Kelly being the wiser, but as soon as Stu hangs up, the phone begins to ring. Curious, Stu picks it up -- and a stranger on the other end (voice of Kiefer Sutherland) informs him that if he hangs up the phone, he'll be shot. The red dot of an infrared rifle scope convinces Stu that the caller means business, and when another man tries to make his way into the booth, he's shot mere inches from Stu, calling the attention of the police. Captain Ramey (Forest Whitaker) naturally assumes that Stu was the killer, as Stu struggles to find a way to convince the police of what's happening before more lives are lost, without leaving the booth and putting his own life on the line. At one time proposed as a vehicle for Jim Carrey, Phone Booth was directed by Joel Schumacher, from a screenplay by exploitation icon Larry Cohen. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 28
Number of Lists: 20
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:39:54 GMTPhone Booth2003Joel SchumacherOne man's life is thrown into turmoil by picking up a telephone in this claustrophobic thriller. Stu Shepard (<a href="/players/P____22766/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Colin Farrell</a>) is a brash, cynical, and self-centered public relations man who juggles a busy career with both a wife, Kelly (<a href="/players/P___235577/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Radha Mitchell</a>), and a mistress, Pamela (<a href="/players/P___225994/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Katie Holmes</a>). Stu steps into a phone booth on a busy New York street to make a call to Pamela without Kelly being the wiser, but as soon as Stu hangs up, the phone begins to ring. Curious, Stu picks it up -- and a stranger on the other end (voice of <a href="/players/P____69200/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kiefer Sutherland</a>) informs him that if he hangs up the phone, he'll be shot. The red dot of an infrared rifle scope convinces Stu that the caller means business, and when another man tries to make his way into the booth, he's shot mere inches from Stu, calling the attention of the police. Captain Ramey (<a href="/players/P___116578/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Forest Whitaker</a>) naturally assumes that Stu was the killer, as Stu struggles to find a way to convince the police of what's happening before more lives are lost, without leaving the booth and putting his own life on the line. At one time proposed as a vehicle for <a href="/players/P____11257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jim Carrey</a>, Phone Booth was directed by <a href="/players/P___110432/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joel Schumacher</a>, from a screenplay by exploitation icon <a href="/players/P____85412/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larry Cohen</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide28Tag Target (>10)20333http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t90095jnr9h.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Phone_Booth/211002/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/The_Eagle_Eye_Challenge_Rules_and_Winners/563/35388/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 9/22/2008 2:39:08 PM
Body: Eagle Eye Challenge & Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury.
]]>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:39:08 GMTSkyPilotFilmgaming9/22/2008 2:39:08 PMEagle Eye Challenge &amp; Giveaway Spout's giving away one more Eagle Eye swag package on Monday morning. The winner will get a flash drive that's also a pen, like James Bond spygear! (Sorry, Q screwed up -- the flash drive's still good, but no pen.) You'll also receive a zip-up sweatshirt and t-shirt (see pics at the bottom). How do you play? Each day, Monday through Friday, we'll post a list of ten movies. You must figure out how the movies are connected. For example, you'll see the "FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge" thread in the Filmgaming group. The challenge post will look something like this: Eagle Eye (2008) (1) Phone Booth (2003) (2) The Last King of Scotland (2006) (3) Braveheart (1995) (4) Signs (2002) (5) Alien (1979) (6) Ghostbusters (1984) (7) Space Jam (1996) (8) Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) (9) Chinatown (1974) Add your answers to the challenge post thread. Your list should look something like this: 1. Phones 2. Forest Whitaker 3. Scotland (or Scottish) 4. Mel Gibson 5. Aliens 6. Sigourney Weaver 7. Bill Murray 8. Cartoons (or people and cartoons) 9. Detective (or private detective) Your submissions will be accepted until 9:00 am EST on Monday morning. We'll post the winner 10:00 am. Thanks to everyone for playing! There will only be one winner, so if more than one person gets all the answers right, we decide the winner randomly. How do you know if you've won? The winner will be posted in this thread, so check back here to see if you've won. Just a friendly reminder that the contest isn't happening in this thread-- respond to the Friday thread with your Friday answers. Links FRIDAY Eagle Eye Challenge THURSDAY Eagle Eye Challenge WEDNESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge TUESDAY Eagle Eye Challenge MONDAY Eagle Eye Challenge All ages are welcome to play. An individual can only win once during the week. All residents of US and Canada are eligible. Our contest rules (see fine print below) apply unless otherwise noted in this post. Have fun, and good luck! 1. DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPATION The Promotion will begin on a set date. Spout LLC ("Company") reserves the right to end the Promotion at any time. The Company will post notice at Spout.com when the Promotion has ended. HOW TO PARTICIPATE: If you are an existing member or become a new member, you are eligible to earn the Reward by following the rules of the contest or promotion. 2. REWARD Participant will receive a reward as was outlined in the contest or promotion instructions and rules. In order for participant to be eligible to receive the Reward, the participant must follow the rules and instructions of the contest or promotion. The participants receiving the Reward will be notified by the email address through which they are subscribed to Spout.com. Participants may waive their right to receive the Reward. In the event of such waiver or the disqualification of a participant, such participant will not be entitled to the Reward. Reward has no cash value. If multiple entries for the contest or promotion are received, only the first entry, as determined by Spout.com in its sole discretion, will receive evaluation or reward. 3. ELIGIBILITY AND LIMITATIONS Participants must be at least 18 years old, legal residents of one of the 50 United States or Washington D.C. and members of the Spout.com community. Individuals who use the contest or promotion webpage to enroll themselves in the contest or promotion multiple times using different email addresses will be disqualified. In case of dispute, the authorized account holder of the email address submitted to Spout.com will be considered the participant. The authorized email account subscriber is deemed to be the natural person who is assigned an email address by an Internet-access provider, an online-service provider or another organization that is responsible for assigning email addresses or the domain associated with the submitted email address. Employees of Company and members of the immediate family of any such persons are not eligible to participate and win. The term "immediate family" includes spouses, siblings, parents, children, grandparents, and grandchildren, whether as "in-laws," or by current or past marriage(s), remarriage(s), adoption, co-habitation or other family extension, and any other persons residing at the same household whether or not related. Eligibility regarding the satisfaction of meeting the Reward requirements shall be at the sole discretion of Spout.com. Management reserves the right to refuse a Reward to anyone at anytime. If you have questions regarding your eligibility, please contact us. Promotion is void where prohibited by law. 4. DISCLAIMER Company disclaims all liability for the inability of a participant to complete any information or to deliver the information due to equipment malfunction, busy lines, inadvertent disconnections, acts beyond Company's control, or otherwise. Company disclaims all liability for any delays, misdelivery, loss, or failure in the delivery of any item sent by mail, courier, express, electronic transmission, or other delivery method. 5. PUBLICITY By participating, all participants grant Company exclusive permission to use their names, characters, photographs, voices, and likenesses in connection with this Promotion, including without limitation publishing such information in the Spout.com newsletter, and waive any claims to royalty, right, or remuneration for such use. 6. GENERAL RELEASE By participating in the Promotion participants release Company and each of its respective affiliated companies, directors, officers, employees, representatives, partners and agents from any liability whatsoever for any claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the Promotion or with the acceptance or use of any Reward (including, without limitation, claims, costs, injuries, losses or damages related to personal injuries, death, damage to, loss or destruction of property, rights of publicity or privacy, defamation or portrayal in a false light). COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE PROMOTION AT ANY TIME IF THE WEBSITE IS INFECTED BY A VIRUS, THE WEBSITE IS HACKED OR THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROMOTION IS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY. 7. DECISIONS Company reserves the right to disqualify any participant and may refuse to give or revoke the Rewards to anyone who is ineligible, has violated any of these terms or conditions, gained or sought to gain unfair advantage in participating in the Promotion, or used fraudulent means to earn the Reward. Return of Reward notification as undeliverable may result in disqualification of the participant. Further, Company will resolve any disputes or ambiguities concerning these terms and conditions and Company's decisions concerning such disputes shall be final. All decisions will be made by Company and are final. Company reserves the right in its sole discretion to suspend, modify, or terminate the Promotion. 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION All federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. As a condition to participating in this Promotion, each participant agrees that any and all disputes that cannot be resolved between the parties, and all causes of action arising out of or in connection with this Promotion shall be resolved individually, without resort to any form of class action, exclusively before a court located in the State of Michigan having competent jurisdiction, which court shall apply the laws of the State of Michigan, without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof. By entering the Promotion both parties hereby waive any and all right to trial by jury. http://www.spout.com/blogs/captainryannn/archive/2008/8/8/33738.aspx Post By: CaptainRyannn
Post To: CaptainRyannn Blog
Post Date: 8/8/2008 5:01:23 AM
Body: Since January 1st, 2008, I've been keeping track of all the films I've watched. Because I don't feel like taking the time to highlight each movie up until this point, I will start at the previous week, Week 29 and continue from now on. 328. The Dark Knight (2008) -My second time seeing it. Such a great movie. Although not good enough to be considered 'best film of all time'. 329. Teeth (2007) -The storyline attracted me to it. Within the first 20 minutes I wanted it to be done. I hated this thing so much. 330. Heima (2007) -Such a beautiful documentary for such an amazing band; Sigur Ros. Check them out if you haven't yet. 331. La Haine / Hate (1995) -One of the best French films I've seen. If there's one thing I'll remember about this movie years from now, it'll be the ending and how shocked I was after it was all said and done. 332. À ma soeur! / Fat Girl (2001) -There was something sad in the way that the relationship between Anais and her older sister works out. I can't quite place my finger on it. The whole mood of the story is it's strongest part. Even a week after watching it, it still lingers with me. 333. C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005) -I had heard much about this before but now finally got around to watching it. I enjoyed this quite a bit. It deals with real people and real family issues. 334. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) - When I first saw this when it came out, I really liked it. After viewing it for a second time, I can't remember why. It's filled with unrealistic dialouge and characters I didn't care about. 335. À bout de souffle / Breathless (1960) -What had been hailed to be the 'crown jewel' of the French New Wave was also the last thing I saw before I feel asleep on Thursday. I think I'm going to have to give this another try. 336. Son of Rambow (2007) -After the rave reviews and catchy trailer, I had been looking forward to this. But after finally viewing it, I was left unfulfilled and wanting something more. 337. Phone Booth (2003) -Are there plot holes? Sure. Is the story likely? Nah. I mainly watched this for mere entertainment and nothing more. 338. Dazed and Confused (1993) -Immediately reminded me of American Graffiti except this took place in the 70's. I always fall for the movies that focus on how familar characters interact with one another. Although American Graffiti played this out much better, I thought this was pretty alright. 339. Batoru rowaiaru / Battle Royale (2001) -Although the dialouge seemed kind of cheesy, I can look past that because this was one hell of a ride. A group of 9th. graders put on an island and ordered to kill each other. Man, if only America had the balls to put something like that out. 340. Dazed and Confused (1993) -Yes, I watched it again. 341. Cool Hand Luke (1960) -My dad told me I would like this film. I did more than like it. Although many of us have never worked on a chain gang, the theme and spirit that this movie has is something that we can all relate to. 342. 21 (2008) -The only reason I watched this is so I could have an opinion about it when I hear kids talking about it in the hallways. I thought it was decent. Although it had many cliches, it was a little better than I expected it to be. 343. Vanishing Point (1971) -One of the first movies from the 70's that I fell in love with. Probably one of the best road chase movies out there, it's easy to tell why Quentin Tarantino decided to use it as his inspiration for Death Proof. 344. Casablanca (1942) -Classic, classic, classic. What else can I say? 345. The Breed (2006) -Such a horrible movie. Don't ever watch it.
]]>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:01:23 GMTCaptainRyannnCaptainRyannn Blog8/8/2008 5:01:23 AMSince January 1st, 2008, I've been keeping track of all the films I've watched. Because I don't feel like taking the time to highlight each movie up until this point, I will start at the previous week, Week 29 and continue from now on. 328. The Dark Knight (2008) -My second time seeing it. Such a great movie. Although not good enough to be considered 'best film of all time'. 329. Teeth (2007) -The storyline attracted me to it. Within the first 20 minutes I wanted it to be done. I hated this thing so much. 330. Heima (2007) -Such a beautiful documentary for such an amazing band; Sigur Ros. Check them out if you haven't yet. 331. La Haine / Hate (1995) -One of the best French films I've seen. If there's one thing I'll remember about this movie years from now, it'll be the ending and how shocked I was after it was all said and done. 332. &Agrave; ma soeur! / Fat Girl (2001) -There was something sad in the way that the relationship between Anais and her older sister works out. I can't quite place my finger on it. The whole mood of the story is it's strongest part. Even a week after watching it, it still lingers with me. 333. C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005) -I had heard much about this before but now finally got around to watching it. I enjoyed this quite a bit. It deals with real people and real family issues. 334. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) - When I first saw this when it came out, I really liked it. After viewing it for a second time, I can't remember why. It's filled with unrealistic dialouge and characters I didn't care about. 335. &Agrave; bout de souffle / Breathless (1960) -What had been hailed to be the 'crown jewel' of the French New Wave was also the last thing I saw before I feel asleep on Thursday. I think I'm going to have to give this another try. 336. Son of Rambow (2007) -After the rave reviews and catchy trailer, I had been looking forward to this. But after finally viewing it, I was left unfulfilled and wanting something more. 337. Phone Booth (2003) -Are there plot holes? Sure. Is the story likely? Nah. I mainly watched this for mere entertainment and nothing more. 338. Dazed and Confused (1993) -Immediately reminded me of American Graffiti except this took place in the 70's. I always fall for the movies that focus on how familar characters interact with one another. Although American Graffiti played this out much better, I thought this was pretty alright. 339. Batoru rowaiaru / Battle Royale (2001) -Although the dialouge seemed kind of cheesy, I can look past that because this was one hell of a ride. A group of 9th. graders put on an island and ordered to kill each other. Man, if only America had the balls to put something like that out. 340. Dazed and Confused (1993) -Yes, I watched it again. 341. Cool Hand Luke (1960) -My dad told me I would like this film. I did more than like it. Although many of us have never worked on a chain gang, the theme and spirit that this movie has is something that we can all relate to. 342. 21 (2008) -The only reason I watched this is so I could have an opinion about it when I hear kids talking about it in the hallways. I thought it was decent. Although it had many cliches, it was a little better than I expected it to be. 343. Vanishing Point (1971) -One of the first movies from the 70's that I fell in love with. Probably one of the best road chase movies out there, it's easy to tell why Quentin Tarantino decided to use it as his inspiration for Death Proof. 344. Casablanca (1942) -Classic, classic, classic. What else can I say? 345. The Breed (2006) -Such a horrible movie. Don't ever watch it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/29/24518.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/29/2008 4:01:21 PM
Body: I know star power isn’t what it used to be, but doesn’t it seem like we still give Al Pacino more credit than he’s worth? Despite his receiving an Oscar fifteen years ago, the guy hasn’t been a completely dependable actor in more than two decades. And yet a lot of people write about his upcoming movies as if they could maybe, possibly, hopefully be on par with the actor’s ’70s work. I’m not denying that he’s excellent in a few films of even the past ten years (particularly The Insider), but let’s not forget he was also in Gigli, so it isn’t like he’s making the same smart choices he was making as a younger man. And now here’s 88 Minutes, another movie that attempts to give us a thrilling plot in real time, a la 24. But despite such a gimmick working with old films like High Noon and 12 Angry Men, when it’s presented as a gimmick, and clearly as the only reason a movie is made (as in the cases of Nick of Time, Timecode and Phone Booth), it always comes off as forced and (obviously) gimmicky. But at least Pacino is in it, right? Eh, maybe if American moviegoers still gave a damn about marquee names. Maybe that’s why 88 Minutes was released to many foreign markets six months to a year ago; star power is still marketable in many places outside the U.S. Meanwhile, Sony is finally dropping the thing here on April 18. I can’t say that I would never see a movie just because Pacino is in it (I can’t wait to see him as Salvador Dali in Dali & I: The Surreal Story, only because the idea is half-genius, half-ludicrous), but even my nostalgia for a seemingly real time movie like Dog Day Afternoon (it’s not in real time, but it feels like it) can’t get me to see 88 Minutes just for him. And there doesn’t appear to be much else that’s appealing about the generic frame-job film either. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:01:21 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/29/2008 4:01:21 PM I know star power isn’t what it used to be, but doesn’t it seem like we still give Al Pacino more credit than he’s worth? Despite his receiving an Oscar fifteen years ago, the guy hasn’t been a completely dependable actor in more than two decades. And yet a lot of people write about his upcoming movies as if they could maybe, possibly, hopefully be on par with the actor’s ’70s work. I’m not denying that he’s excellent in a few films of even the past ten years (particularly The Insider), but let’s not forget he was also in Gigli, so it isn’t like he’s making the same smart choices he was making as a younger man. And now here’s 88 Minutes, another movie that attempts to give us a thrilling plot in real time, a la 24. But despite such a gimmick working with old films like High Noon and 12 Angry Men, when it’s presented as a gimmick, and clearly as the only reason a movie is made (as in the cases of Nick of Time, Timecode and Phone Booth), it always comes off as forced and (obviously) gimmicky. But at least Pacino is in it, right? Eh, maybe if American moviegoers still gave a damn about marquee names. Maybe that’s why 88 Minutes was released to many foreign markets six months to a year ago; star power is still marketable in many places outside the U.S. Meanwhile, Sony is finally dropping the thing here on April 18. I can’t say that I would never see a movie just because Pacino is in it (I can’t wait to see him as Salvador Dali in Dali & I: The Surreal Story, only because the idea is half-genius, half-ludicrous), but even my nostalgia for a seemingly real time movie like Dog Day Afternoon (it’s not in real time, but it feels like it) can’t get me to see 88 Minutes just for him. And there doesn’t appear to be much else that’s appealing about the generic frame-job film either. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pratchettfan/archive/2008/1/29/24496.aspx Post By: pratchettfan
Post To: pratchettfan Blog
Post Date: 1/29/2008 8:08:00 AM
Body: In the latest Joel Schuhmacher film Colin Farrell starrs as Stu Shepard a guy working in Public Relations who mainly uses lies and deceit to get things done. After calling a client from a phone booth, the phone rings and Stu answers to what he believes to be a prank call. But the caller first reveals an immense knowledge of Stu's wrongdoings and then, when Stu tries to leave the booth, that he has him pinned down with a sniper rifle. After the death of a man by the booth the police arrive and hold Stu responsible, while the caller continues with his game. Phone Booth has a very fast pace and keeps you on the edge of your seat until the end. Although the main action takes place in the phone booth, the good use of some split screens keeps you up-to-date what is happening elsewhere. The highlights of the movie are surely Colin Farrell, who plays the desperate Stu very convincing, and the caller, who shows very convincing voice acting. Overall a very convincing movie, which I can highly recommend.
]]>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:08:00 GMTpratchettfanpratchettfan Blog1/29/2008 8:08:00 AMIn the latest Joel Schuhmacher film Colin Farrell starrs as Stu Shepard a guy working in Public Relations who mainly uses lies and deceit to get things done. After calling a client from a phone booth, the phone rings and Stu answers to what he believes to be a prank call. But the caller first reveals an immense knowledge of Stu&#39;s wrongdoings and then, when Stu tries to leave the booth, that he has him pinned down with a sniper rifle. After the death of a man by the booth the police arrive and hold Stu responsible, while the caller continues with his game. Phone Booth has a very fast pace and keeps you on the edge of your seat until the end. Although the main action takes place in the phone booth, the good use of some split screens keeps you up-to-date what is happening elsewhere. The highlights of the movie are surely Colin Farrell, who plays the desperate Stu very convincing, and the caller, who shows very convincing voice acting. Overall a very convincing movie, which I can highly recommend. http://www.spout.com/groups/Gorrible/Re_The_meaning_of_violence/242/5668/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: Gorrible
Post Date: 2/21/2007 2:09:42 PM
Body: Thanks for the thoughtful response, taking almost a psychological look at evil. Yes, I agree that evil is a conscious force and that zombies are merely the least that it takes to live. They are no more evil than a bear, say. They just do what...may I say comes naturally? They do what zombies do and since it's against us, namely eating us, we're totally free and inculpable for any action taken toward them.As far as smart people being chilling, take the infamous Ted Bundy, a considerably calculating sort who schemed up and down for years; the fictional psychopath Jigsaw who enacts his sense of morality and vengeance, along with Kevin Spacey's character in Se7en and the Caller in Phone Booth. People who know all the exits and have planned all the angles are nerve-wracking because you never know how it's going to be possible to defeat them.
]]>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:09:42 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaGorrible2/21/2007 2:09:42 PMThanks for the thoughtful response, taking almost a psychological look at evil. Yes, I agree that evil is a conscious force and that zombies are merely the least that it takes to live. They are no more evil than a bear, say. They just do what...may I say comes naturally? They do what zombies do and since it&#39;s against us, namely eating us, we&#39;re totally free and inculpable for any action taken toward them.As far as smart people being chilling, take the infamous Ted Bundy, a considerably calculating sort who schemed up and down for years; the fictional psychopath Jigsaw who enacts his sense of morality and vengeance, along with Kevin Spacey&#39;s character in Se7en and the Caller in Phone Booth. People who know all the exits and have planned all the angles are nerve-wracking because you never know how it&#39;s going to be possible to defeat them. http://www.spout.com/groups/Gorrible/Re_What_s_your_idea_of_terror/242/5232/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: Gorrible
Post Date: 2/2/2007 9:56:23 PM
Body: A good point and a qualified response...my own concept of mortal fear is enclosed, locked-in places. Not because of the claustrophobia so much as the potential of having to stay in there because a couple of desperate men are banging on the door to get in, because you're chained there, because your elevator broke down or because the life of a man depends on you and your decision.It's always been a firm opinion that when you restrict someone to a closed space and limit their options, you create much firmer, visceral tension than chasing them with a power tool. The latter is raw fear, in its basest form. There's obviously nothing wrong with this as I have a website devoted to them: http://www.bloodgutsandgore.com. To the point, however, the raw psychological threat of having not so much your body sought after but rather your mind, you're in deeper trouble than before for this reason: your body conceivably can heal, or at least adjust to, say, lost parts. If someone gets in your head, however, you can't escape them and must take them on if you have any chance to live.Plus, it's narratively leaner than a straight horror flick. When you imprison your cast in a room, or even a house, you limit the number of things you can do, the number of places you can go. Consequently, the setting becomes secondary right fast and the central element, the due focus of the movie becomes the characters and their stories. It's pure storytelling when all you have are 6 or 9 people and four walls that never change (except, maybe, in the case of the Cube series.)
]]>Sat, 03 Feb 2007 02:56:23 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaGorrible2/2/2007 9:56:23 PMA good point and a qualified response...my own concept of mortal fear is enclosed, locked-in places. Not because of the claustrophobia so much as the potential of having to stay in there because a couple of desperate men are banging on the door to get in, because you&#39;re chained there, because your elevator broke down or because the life of a man depends on you and your decision.It&#39;s always been a firm opinion that when you restrict someone to a closed space and limit their options, you create much firmer, visceral tension than chasing them with a power tool. The latter is raw fear, in its basest form. There&#39;s obviously nothing wrong with this as I have a website devoted to them: http://www.bloodgutsandgore.com. To the point, however, the raw psychological threat of having not so much your body sought after but rather your mind, you&#39;re in deeper trouble than before for this reason: your body conceivably can heal, or at least adjust to, say, lost parts. If someone gets in your head, however, you can&#39;t escape them and must take them on if you have any chance to live.Plus, it&#39;s narratively leaner than a straight horror flick. When you imprison your cast in a room, or even a house, you limit the number of things you can do, the number of places you can go. Consequently, the setting becomes secondary right fast and the central element, the due focus of the movie becomes the characters and their stories. It&#39;s pure storytelling when all you have are 6 or 9 people and four walls that never change (except, maybe, in the case of the Cube series.) 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/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/police/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolice
Number of films tagged: 3104

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 172

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:56:49 GMT310437172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/paranoia/MemberTagFilms.aspxparanoia
Number of films tagged: 236

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 52

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT2363252Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspenseful/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspenseful
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 30

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:42:57 GMT231830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tension/MemberTagFilms.aspxtension
Number of films tagged: 183

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 17

]]>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:24:52 GMT1831617Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/morality/MemberTagFilms.aspxmorality
Number of films tagged: 277

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT2771525Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sniper/MemberTagFilms.aspxsniper
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 20

]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:30 GMT741420Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/telephone/MemberTagFilms.aspxtelephone
Number of films tagged: 123

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 24

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:15:40 GMT1231024Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mediocre/MemberTagFilms.aspxmediocre
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:43:18 GMT39941Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jawesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxjawesome
Number of films tagged: 113

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 118

]]>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:03:02 GMT1135118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/caller/MemberTagFilms.aspxcaller
Number of films tagged: 11

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:44:15 GMT1133Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/forestwhitaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxforestwhitaker
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 13

]]>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:00:12 GMT13213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/colin-candy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcolin-candy
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 9

]]>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:36:13 GMT919Tag