list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around X2: X-Men United 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/X2_X_Men_United/219415/default.aspx Title: X2: X-Men United
Year: 2003
Director: Bryan Singer
Plot: When a failed assassination attempt occurs on the President's (Cotter Smith) life by the teleporting mutant Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming), it's Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and his School for Gifted Youngsters who are targeted for the crime. While Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) and Storm (Halle Berry) try and locate the assassin, Cyclops (James Marsden) and Xavier (also known as 'Professor X') seek answers from their old foe Magneto (Ian McKellan) in his glass cell...Little do they know they're walking into a trap set by the villainous William Stryker (Brian Cox), a mysterious governmental figure that figures into Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman) secretive past, along with information about the X-Men's operation, supplied by Magneto through a mind-controlling agent. Meanwhile Wolverine, just home from a failed mission to regain his memory, is in charge of the students when a crack-commando team led by Stryker infiltrates the school by order of the President. With a mansion full of young, powerful mutants and the ferocious Wolverine in babysitter mode, can he defend the school against the one man who can answer his questions? What roles do the sinister Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) and Lady Deathstrike (Kelly Hu) have in all of this? Why does Stryker want Professor X and his Cerebro machine? With the war between humanity and mutants escalating to extremes, can the rest of the X-Men trust their old foes to help them? Director Bryan Singer returns and raises the stakes in this sequel to the highly lauded 2000 adaptation of Marvel Comics' X-Men. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 84
Number of Lists: 113
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMTX2: X-Men United2003Bryan SingerWhen a failed assassination attempt occurs on the President's (<a href="/players/P____66388/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cotter Smith</a>) life by the teleporting mutant Nightcrawler (<a href="/players/P____16130/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alan Cumming</a>), it's Professor Xavier (<a href="/players/P____68265/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Patrick Stewart</a>) and his School for Gifted Youngsters who are targeted for the crime. While Jean Grey (<a href="/players/P____35232/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Famke Janssen</a>) and Storm (<a href="/players/P_____5863/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Halle Berry</a>) try and locate the assassin, Cyclops (<a href="/players/P___232716/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>James Marsden</a>) and Xavier (also known as 'Professor X') seek answers from their old foe Magneto (Ian McKellan) in his glass cell...Little do they know they're walking into a trap set by the villainous William Stryker (<a href="/players/P____86106/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brian Cox</a>), a mysterious governmental figure that figures into Wolverine's (<a href="/players/P___269258/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugh Jackman</a>) secretive past, along with information about the X-Men's operation, supplied by Magneto through a mind-controlling agent. Meanwhile Wolverine, just home from a failed mission to regain his memory, is in charge of the students when a crack-commando team led by Stryker infiltrates the school by order of the President. With a mansion full of young, powerful mutants and the ferocious Wolverine in babysitter mode, can he defend the school against the one man who can answer his questions? What roles do the sinister Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) and Lady Deathstrike (<a href="/players/P____33663/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kelly Hu</a>) have in all of this? Why does Stryker want Professor X and his Cerebro machine? With the war between humanity and mutants escalating to extremes, can the rest of the X-Men trust their old foes to help them? Director <a href="/players/P___193696/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryan Singer</a> returns and raises the stakes in this sequel to the highly lauded 2000 adaptation of Marvel Comics' X-Men. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide84Tag Target (>10)113813http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u34487ybey5.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/X2_X_Men_United/219415/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40271.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 12:01:20 PMAre you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Ryan_s_Sci_Fi_Meme/4/38994/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/31/2008 11:47:12 AM
Body: If you were going to be the villain in a sci-fi movie, which movie would it be? I don't generally consider myself to be villainous, so the only way I could see myself being a villain is if I was, for lack of a better term, an anti-villain. A friend describes this concept thusly: "Basically the opposite of an anti-hero. While the anti-hero often fights on the protagonist's team, but with selfish motives, the anti-villain plays a villain's game, but for what's at least in his eyes a noble cause." So that leaves people like Magneto (does Xmen count as SF?) or The Operative from Serentity. How about sci-fi hero? Ah, that's probably a tougher choice. I guess I'm more of a loner... though I think I'd do fine as part of some sort of crew. If I could choose a book character, I'd definitely be one of the Waterhouse family folks from Cryptonomicon or The Baroque Trilogy (if I had to choose one, it would probably be Randy Waterhouse...) Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time thinking of a character from a movie that is roughly similar to the Waterhouses... Weapon of choice? A lightsaber, obviously! (Don't see the need to change this:p). Woman/Man of choice? (To hook up with etc.): Another difficult one. I'll go with Kaylee from Serenity... Setting of choice: Probably Star Trek. Not my favorite movies, but if I'm going to live somewhere, why not choose something that is practically a utopia. Special Power of Choice (if you had to have one): I'd want some sort of super brain power, including stuff like telekinesis and, uh, I dunno, super-smarts. Perhaps not as extensive as Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen, but maybe more knowledgeable. Mode of Transportation: Some form of spacecraft. Perhaps a Star Destroyer (though a star destroyer not controlled by evil empires:p) How would you die? (If you had to die.): No dying for me! Because of my super braniac powers, I expect to be able to figure out how to embed my intelligence/being/soul into the fabric of existance (perhaps with an intermediate step of embedding myself into sufficiently advanced technology), effectively becoming immortal! Of course, who the hell knows what the subjective experience of transferring consciousness is like, so perhaps that would be like dying...
]]>Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:47:12 GMTmcioccosci-fi12/31/2008 11:47:12 AMIf you were going to be the villain in a sci-fi movie, which movie would it be? I don't generally consider myself to be villainous, so the only way I could see myself being a villain is if I was, for lack of a better term, an anti-villain. A friend describes this concept thusly: "Basically the opposite of an anti-hero. While the anti-hero often fights on the protagonist's team, but with selfish motives, the anti-villain plays a villain's game, but for what's at least in his eyes a noble cause." So that leaves people like Magneto (does Xmen count as SF?) or The Operative from Serentity. How about sci-fi hero? Ah, that's probably a tougher choice. I guess I'm more of a loner... though I think I'd do fine as part of some sort of crew. If I could choose a book character, I'd definitely be one of the Waterhouse family folks from Cryptonomicon or The Baroque Trilogy (if I had to choose one, it would probably be Randy Waterhouse...) Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time thinking of a character from a movie that is roughly similar to the Waterhouses... Weapon of choice? A lightsaber, obviously! (Don't see the need to change this:p). Woman/Man of choice? (To hook up with etc.): Another difficult one. I'll go with Kaylee from Serenity... Setting of choice: Probably Star Trek. Not my favorite movies, but if I'm going to live somewhere, why not choose something that is practically a utopia. Special Power of Choice (if you had to have one): I'd want some sort of super brain power, including stuff like telekinesis and, uh, I dunno, super-smarts. Perhaps not as extensive as Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen, but maybe more knowledgeable. Mode of Transportation: Some form of spacecraft. Perhaps a Star Destroyer (though a star destroyer not controlled by evil empires:p) How would you die? (If you had to die.): No dying for me! Because of my super braniac powers, I expect to be able to figure out how to embed my intelligence/being/soul into the fabric of existance (perhaps with an intermediate step of embedding myself into sufficiently advanced technology), effectively becoming immortal! Of course, who the hell knows what the subjective experience of transferring consciousness is like, so perhaps that would be like dying... http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/7/18/32734.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 7/18/2008 2:44:08 PM
Body: The Dark Knight, the most anticipated picture of the year for myself and innumerable others, has finally arrived following a trail of hype that would crush almost any film. But miraculously, just as Moses wielded his stone tablets, Christopher Nolan has handed us a true gift from the cinematic gods. His second Batman is so visceral, so propulsive, so maddeningly perfect in its execution that it should come with a warning; you do not simply watch The Dark Knight, you surrender your pulse to Christopher Nolan. And even if an intended triptych has been tragically cut short (as Mel Brooks might contend those aforementioned commandments were) what remains is wholly qualified to stand on its own not as a great Batman film, not as a great superhero film, and not as a great action film, but as one of the most distiguished pieces of filmmaking of its generation. This decade, more so than any other, has seen comic-to-film adaptations mature from vacuous thrills to serious art. Sam Raimi gave them their candy colored coming-of-age angst with his Spider-Man series; Jon Favreau gave them their sociopolitical meta-narrative with his first Iron Man; and Bryan Singer has alternately given them their conflicts of appearance/intention and assimilation/assertion (X-men, X2) and their visual and tonal poetry (Superman Returns). But by taking one of the most psychologically rich and practically feasible comic book heroes and stripping him of all remaining contrivance and camp, Nolan has arguably bested them all by instilling his Gotham -- and its inhabitants -- with a gritty realism that absolutely demands as much emotional and technical veracity as an escapist action-adventure will allow. Perhaps Nolan's greatest asset as a filmmaker is his unwavering dedication to making his characters' actions and emotions utterly believable within the constricts of his chosen narrative. One needn't look any farther than Nolan's breakthrough sophomore film, Memento, to see that what sets him apart from almost every other filmmaker working today is his complete command of both the internal and external machinations of his characters. Rarely, if ever, do you see a writer-director working in Nolan's genres with such an assured and astute grasp on human emotion and interaction. His application of binary opposition in both plot and theme is unmatched in today's cinema. There is a constant tug of war in Nolan's films, a philosophical debate between chance and fate, between reason and impulse, between light and dark, etc. Any screenwriter can set up archetypes and let them stand in contrast to one another, but the beauty of a Nolan script is that the true conflict lies inside the characters. Nolan understands that the line between friends and enemies is moveable, based more on circumstance than on the people themselves. And what people they are. Christian Bale's Batman has become beautifully economic in both word and action. Gary Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon is an even stronger edifice of morality and decency. Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes is a noteworthy trade-up from the first film, with composure, confidence, and sexuality in equal measure. Michael Caine's Alfred is humane, silently compassionate, and so much more than the stuffy butler to which he is all too often reduced. But Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm really not sure what I can add to the innumerable accolades already heaped upon this utterly unnerving, raw, feral, fearless, unshakeable performance. Nothing is done out of vanity, nothing for cheap thrills. True, I feel the talk of Oscar gold is both premature and hyperbolic, but I would be surprised to not see Ledger on the list of nominees. The Dark Knight is that rare genre film that changes the vocabulary of its genre -- no small feat given the leaps and bounds comic book films have already taken over the past few years. That The Godfather, Heat, A Clockwork Orange, and Unforgiven have all been cited as influences on the film is no surprise; what all of these exceptional pictures share in common with one another is an intellectual maturity that nonetheless refuses to compromise entertainment for intelligence. Whether or not the few muffled criticisms that the film is too long, too packed with characters and information, too frenetic, or too climactic are valid is up to the viewer to decide on an individual basis. While I will agree that the film is denser and more earnest than its peers, I refuse to accept that this is to its detriment. Nolan has taken a lofty gamble, and we have all walked away from the table with more chips than we can carry.
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:44:08 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog7/18/2008 2:44:08 PMThe Dark Knight, the most anticipated picture of the year for myself and innumerable others, has finally arrived following a trail of hype that would crush almost any film. But miraculously, just as Moses wielded his stone tablets, Christopher Nolan has handed us a true gift from the cinematic gods. His second Batman is so visceral, so propulsive, so maddeningly perfect in its execution that it should come with a warning; you do not simply watch The Dark Knight, you surrender your pulse to Christopher Nolan. And even if an intended triptych has been tragically cut short (as Mel Brooks might contend those aforementioned commandments were) what remains is wholly qualified to stand on its own not as a great Batman film, not as a great superhero film, and not as a great action film, but as one of the most distiguished pieces of filmmaking of its generation. This decade, more so than any other, has seen comic-to-film adaptations mature from vacuous thrills to serious art. Sam Raimi gave them their candy colored coming-of-age angst with his Spider-Man series; Jon Favreau gave them their sociopolitical meta-narrative with his first Iron Man; and Bryan Singer has alternately given them their conflicts of appearance/intention and assimilation/assertion (X-men, X2) and their visual and tonal poetry (Superman Returns). But by taking one of the most psychologically rich and practically feasible comic book heroes and stripping him of all remaining contrivance and camp, Nolan has arguably bested them all by instilling his Gotham -- and its inhabitants -- with a gritty realism that absolutely demands as much emotional and technical veracity as an escapist action-adventure will allow. Perhaps Nolan's greatest asset as a filmmaker is his unwavering dedication to making his characters' actions and emotions utterly believable within the constricts of his chosen narrative. One needn't look any farther than Nolan's breakthrough sophomore film, Memento, to see that what sets him apart from almost every other filmmaker working today is his complete command of both the internal and external machinations of his characters. Rarely, if ever, do you see a writer-director working in Nolan's genres with such an assured and astute grasp on human emotion and interaction. His application of binary opposition in both plot and theme is unmatched in today's cinema. There is a constant tug of war in Nolan's films, a philosophical debate between chance and fate, between reason and impulse, between light and dark, etc. Any screenwriter can set up archetypes and let them stand in contrast to one another, but the beauty of a Nolan script is that the true conflict lies inside the characters. Nolan understands that the line between friends and enemies is moveable, based more on circumstance than on the people themselves. And what people they are. Christian Bale's Batman has become beautifully economic in both word and action. Gary Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon is an even stronger edifice of morality and decency. Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes is a noteworthy trade-up from the first film, with composure, confidence, and sexuality in equal measure. Michael Caine's Alfred is humane, silently compassionate, and so much more than the stuffy butler to which he is all too often reduced. But Heath Ledger's Joker. I'm really not sure what I can add to the innumerable accolades already heaped upon this utterly unnerving, raw, feral, fearless, unshakeable performance. Nothing is done out of vanity, nothing for cheap thrills. True, I feel the talk of Oscar gold is both premature and hyperbolic, but I would be surprised to not see Ledger on the list of nominees. The Dark Knight is that rare genre film that changes the vocabulary of its genre -- no small feat given the leaps and bounds comic book films have already taken over the past few years. That The Godfather, Heat, A Clockwork Orange, and Unforgiven have all been cited as influences on the film is no surprise; what all of these exceptional pictures share in common with one another is an intellectual maturity that nonetheless refuses to compromise entertainment for intelligence. Whether or not the few muffled criticisms that the film is too long, too packed with characters and information, too frenetic, or too climactic are valid is up to the viewer to decide on an individual basis. While I will agree that the film is denser and more earnest than its peers, I refuse to accept that this is to its detriment. Nolan has taken a lofty gamble, and we have all walked away from the table with more chips than we can carry. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/5/20/29621.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 5/20/2008 11:22:56 PM
Body: Being surprised is the best part of watching films.Audiences crave mysteries and find immense pleasure in attempting to unlock a film's secrets, yet enjoy being one step behind the filmmaker's ruses. Solving a mystery creates a vacuum of cinematic fun, draining a film of life, while the act of deduction amidst progressing action is a stimulating treat. Only dramatic irony, an intentional plot device, is capable of deriving joy out of a prematurely knowledgeable audience, and in either case of functional moviemaking, the director (as master storyteller) and audience (as captive intelligent receptors) benefit equally.While superhero films are far from exercises in Hitchcockian suspense, it is nevertheless a joy to be surprised that Robert Downey Jr. makes for an appealing action hero, Jon Favreau (of "Elf" fame) is an effective superhero director, and that their Iron Man is a successful overall film. Though featuring a cast rounded out by Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, and Jeff Bridges, an adaptation of a minor superhero with a director and star both unproven in the genre is a risky move. But Favreau and Downey, with a little help from Industrial Light & Magic, take their enthusiasm and talent and produce a film that is, most importantly, thoroughly entertaining.Downey's wonderboy sarcasm brings ideal depth to his billionaire mechanical genius, Tony Stark. All of Marvel impresario Stan Lee's extraordinary characters exhibit unique dimensions of relatable personal flaws and weaknesses, and Stark is no different. After surviving a near-death abduction by terrorists, Stark uses his ingenuity to escape, yet becomes increasingly vulnerable to mortality as a result. In voicing the error of his arms-dealing ways, Stark is viewed as a lunatic by the money-obsessed public and his greedy company's board of directors, but uses his newfound conscience to avenge evil in a near-impenetrable suit of armor.But as is expected in this genre, the action is the main attraction. Batman Begins set a new standard for superhero films, but the flying scenes of Iron Man are the most satisfying sequences from a Marvel Comics release since the Nightcrawler moments of X2: X-Men United. Burning across the sky and eluding fighter jets in his shiny metal threads, Stark sets the standard for this summer's surplus of action films.However, with all of these notable findings, it is disappointing that Iron Man's central plot twist is easy to decipher. Perhaps the contributions of four writers on the script negated the possibility of a unified concept, but what is intended to be a gasp-inducing moment of unforeseen shock unfortunately gets reduced to a scene of "told you so" simplicity. In the wake of the superior new Batman films, expectations for superhero screenplays have been elevated, and though neither Charlie Kaufman-esque creativity nor David Mamet's precision are audience requirements for this genre, that's still no excuse for lazy plotting.Surprises aplenty are to be found in Iron Man, but, though it's regrettably far from startling, the film's writing is its main weakness. Yet regardless of this relative shortcoming, Favreau's effort is full of merit.Other Notes-Iron Man features the best Stan Lee cameo of all of expected Marvel film appearances.-In a feminist analysis, Pepper Potts (Paltrow)'s hair starts the film in a bun, but after she dresses up at a benefit and her attractiveness is noticed by Stark, her locks remain down for the remainder of the film. In the final sequences, her curled 'do is further beautified with the aid of a flattering straightener. Is Favreau saying that once a woman is identified as being visually appealing by a male superior, only then can she feel comfortable to express her physical loveliness? Or, is Potts using her upper hand over Stark to her advantage, primarily drawing out the sexual tension into sequels while continuing the core of Starks' newfound humanity?-Favreau makes an intelligent nod to hip-hop's Iron Man, featuring a Ghostface Killa video in the background of an airplane party scene.-And please, stay through the credits.
]]>Wed, 21 May 2008 03:22:56 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog5/20/2008 11:22:56 PMBeing surprised is the best part of watching films.Audiences crave mysteries and find immense pleasure in attempting to unlock a film's secrets, yet enjoy being one step behind the filmmaker's ruses. Solving a mystery creates a vacuum of cinematic fun, draining a film of life, while the act of deduction amidst progressing action is a stimulating treat. Only dramatic irony, an intentional plot device, is capable of deriving joy out of a prematurely knowledgeable audience, and in either case of functional moviemaking, the director (as master storyteller) and audience (as captive intelligent receptors) benefit equally.While superhero films are far from exercises in Hitchcockian suspense, it is nevertheless a joy to be surprised that Robert Downey Jr. makes for an appealing action hero, Jon Favreau (of "Elf" fame) is an effective superhero director, and that their Iron Man is a successful overall film. Though featuring a cast rounded out by Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, and Jeff Bridges, an adaptation of a minor superhero with a director and star both unproven in the genre is a risky move. But Favreau and Downey, with a little help from Industrial Light &amp; Magic, take their enthusiasm and talent and produce a film that is, most importantly, thoroughly entertaining.Downey's wonderboy sarcasm brings ideal depth to his billionaire mechanical genius, Tony Stark. All of Marvel impresario Stan Lee's extraordinary characters exhibit unique dimensions of relatable personal flaws and weaknesses, and Stark is no different. After surviving a near-death abduction by terrorists, Stark uses his ingenuity to escape, yet becomes increasingly vulnerable to mortality as a result. In voicing the error of his arms-dealing ways, Stark is viewed as a lunatic by the money-obsessed public and his greedy company's board of directors, but uses his newfound conscience to avenge evil in a near-impenetrable suit of armor.But as is expected in this genre, the action is the main attraction. Batman Begins set a new standard for superhero films, but the flying scenes of Iron Man are the most satisfying sequences from a Marvel Comics release since the Nightcrawler moments of X2: X-Men United. Burning across the sky and eluding fighter jets in his shiny metal threads, Stark sets the standard for this summer's surplus of action films.However, with all of these notable findings, it is disappointing that Iron Man's central plot twist is easy to decipher. Perhaps the contributions of four writers on the script negated the possibility of a unified concept, but what is intended to be a gasp-inducing moment of unforeseen shock unfortunately gets reduced to a scene of "told you so" simplicity. In the wake of the superior new Batman films, expectations for superhero screenplays have been elevated, and though neither Charlie Kaufman-esque creativity nor David Mamet's precision are audience requirements for this genre, that's still no excuse for lazy plotting.Surprises aplenty are to be found in Iron Man, but, though it's regrettably far from startling, the film's writing is its main weakness. Yet regardless of this relative shortcoming, Favreau's effort is full of merit.Other Notes-Iron Man features the best Stan Lee cameo of all of expected Marvel film appearances.-In a feminist analysis, Pepper Potts (Paltrow)'s hair starts the film in a bun, but after she dresses up at a benefit and her attractiveness is noticed by Stark, her locks remain down for the remainder of the film. In the final sequences, her curled 'do is further beautified with the aid of a flattering straightener. Is Favreau saying that once a woman is identified as being visually appealing by a male superior, only then can she feel comfortable to express her physical loveliness? Or, is Potts using her upper hand over Stark to her advantage, primarily drawing out the sexual tension into sequels while continuing the core of Starks' newfound humanity?-Favreau makes an intelligent nod to hip-hop's Iron Man, featuring a Ghostface Killa video in the background of an airplane party scene.-And please, stay through the credits. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/14/29179.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/14/2008 4:00:52 PM
Body: There’s been a lot of talk lately about all the mutant cameos appearing in the X-Men spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but we haven’t heard much about any characters set to show up in the other spin-off, X-Men Origins: Magneto. Until now. According to George “El Guapo” Roush at The Latino Review, the Magneto film will feature either Beast or Nightcrawler. The uncertainty over which lies in the fact that, while on a visit to a creature effects shop, Roush saw a photo (or rendering) of a blue-costumed character who he was told is a young Beast (played by Kelsey Grammar in X-Men: The Last Stand). Yet the character is described by Roush as having a tail, which suggests that the effects person was mistaken and that it’s really a young Nightcrawler (played by Alan Cumming in X2: X-Men United). Roush has printed an update acknowledging the Nightcrawler possibility but doesn’t understand why the effects guy would have had it wrong. Of course, fans of the Marvel comic books should see the greater logic of having Nightcrawler (aka Kurt Wagner) in the film, as he and Magneto both originally come from Germany. Plus, there might then be room for a cameo from Mystique (played by Rebecca Romijn in the film series), who happens to be Nightcrawler’s mom. Featuring a young Beast, on the other hand, has no relevance except for in the whole mutant-human relations aspect. Plus, if he shows up in Magneto, he probably won’t get to show up in The Avengers, as I’ve suggested. After all, Marvel Studios really needs to intro Magneto’s kids, who grow up to be Avengers members Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and there’s really no need to have toooo much crossing-over going on. Anyway, I guess we’ll just have to wait a bit to find out which character is actually appearing in Magneto (if Marvel had wanted the info out already, it would have announced it, right?). For now, we can only damn Marvel for creating so many blue-skinned/furred characters. [via JoBlo] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 20:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/14/2008 4:00:52 PMThere’s been a lot of talk lately about all the mutant cameos appearing in the X-Men spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but we haven’t heard much about any characters set to show up in the other spin-off, X-Men Origins: Magneto. Until now. According to George “El Guapo” Roush at The Latino Review, the Magneto film will feature either Beast or Nightcrawler. The uncertainty over which lies in the fact that, while on a visit to a creature effects shop, Roush saw a photo (or rendering) of a blue-costumed character who he was told is a young Beast (played by Kelsey Grammar in X-Men: The Last Stand). Yet the character is described by Roush as having a tail, which suggests that the effects person was mistaken and that it’s really a young Nightcrawler (played by Alan Cumming in X2: X-Men United). Roush has printed an update acknowledging the Nightcrawler possibility but doesn’t understand why the effects guy would have had it wrong. Of course, fans of the Marvel comic books should see the greater logic of having Nightcrawler (aka Kurt Wagner) in the film, as he and Magneto both originally come from Germany. Plus, there might then be room for a cameo from Mystique (played by Rebecca Romijn in the film series), who happens to be Nightcrawler’s mom. Featuring a young Beast, on the other hand, has no relevance except for in the whole mutant-human relations aspect. Plus, if he shows up in Magneto, he probably won’t get to show up in The Avengers, as I’ve suggested. After all, Marvel Studios really needs to intro Magneto’s kids, who grow up to be Avengers members Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, and there’s really no need to have toooo much crossing-over going on. Anyway, I guess we’ll just have to wait a bit to find out which character is actually appearing in Magneto (if Marvel had wanted the info out already, it would have announced it, right?). For now, we can only damn Marvel for creating so many blue-skinned/furred characters. [via JoBlo] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/14/29099.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 12:55:46 AM
Body: I was with this movie for two thirds of the way. It is a vast improvement over the first installment in the franchise, taking itself a little less seriously than the first film. But in the movie's climax, it the rediculousnes of the premise comes out again, and the movie looses whatever credibility it had. Does anyone who sees this movie going to care about the plot? In brief, a raid on the X-Men school is ordered by William Stryker (Brian Cox) a goverment official who really, really hates mutants, resulting in the dispercal of the X-Men. Proffesor X (Patrick Stewart) and Cyclops (James Marsden) are captured, the rest are forced to team up with the arch-nemesis from the last movie, Magento (Sir Ian McKellen) and his associate, Mystique (Rebecca Romijn). The romantic triangle between Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Jean Grey (Famke Jansen) and Cyclops is developed, as is a burgrioning romance between Rouge (Anna Paquin) and Iceman (Shawn Ashnore). Also, a subplot involves a weird creatures named Nichtcrawler (an unrecognizable Alan Cumming). And Wolverine tries to find out about his past. And...you get the idea. There's a whole lot of story in 135 minuets. For most of the way the movie avoids the flaws of the first film. To begin with, we don't have endless scenes of characters being introduced, luckilly it just assumes that we've seen the first movie and know who the characters are. Another is that throught most of the film there is not much character developement, I thought the attempt at trying to get real drama out of the characters taken in the first film was redicoulus. There also is a really sweet scene where Magneto escapes from his plastic prison by sucking the iron out of his guards blood. That was cool. But in its last act that movie gets stupid again. It seems like a Power Rangers episode. They run around a warehouse trying turn of a machine called Cerebro. Patrick Stewart is hooked up to the machine wearing a stupid hat, where he is brainwashed to try to kill every mutant in the world. Not only we do get a dumb climax, the stupid drama comes out again. This time, however, I found it funny instead of tedius. The "highlight" of these scenes was where Halle Berry as Storm earnestly tries to convince the blue lizard guy that she has faith in him to teleport into another room without killing them both. Aww.... I'm giving the movie three stars because I enjoyed the first two acts outright, and the climax as a sort deadpan comedy whe you wait to see what weird thing is going to taken with utter serioususness next. This defiantley is not a movie for everyone, I have no way of knowing whether fans of the X-Men comic would like it. I do know a surprising number of women who liked it, (most of them told me it was because of Hugh Jackman). I don't want to sound like a snob here, but I would like either SOME ideas in a movie, or some kind aestheic experince. These films provide neither. What if a really good director made a movie that question what it would be like to evolve out of the human genome to a greator plane of being? The David Bowie song "Oh, You Pretty Things" says more about that subject in four mineuts than both of these films put together. _________________________________________________________ Can somebody explain to me why in the first film, Storm had a foriegn accent, but is an American in this one? X2: X-Men United (2003)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 04:55:46 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/14/2008 12:55:46 AMI was with this movie for two thirds of the way. It is a vast improvement over the first installment in the franchise, taking itself a little less seriously than the first film. But in the movie's climax, it the rediculousnes of the premise comes out again, and the movie looses whatever credibility it had. Does anyone who sees this movie going to care about the plot? In brief, a raid on the X-Men school is ordered by William Stryker (Brian Cox) a goverment official who really, really hates mutants, resulting in the dispercal of the X-Men. Proffesor X (Patrick Stewart) and Cyclops (James Marsden) are captured, the rest are forced to team up with the arch-nemesis from the last movie, Magento (Sir Ian McKellen) and his associate, Mystique (Rebecca Romijn). The romantic triangle between Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Jean Grey (Famke Jansen) and Cyclops is developed, as is a burgrioning romance between Rouge (Anna Paquin) and Iceman (Shawn Ashnore). Also, a subplot involves a weird creatures named Nichtcrawler (an unrecognizable Alan Cumming). And Wolverine tries to find out about his past. And...you get the idea. There's a whole lot of story in 135 minuets. For most of the way the movie avoids the flaws of the first film. To begin with, we don't have endless scenes of characters being introduced, luckilly it just assumes that we've seen the first movie and know who the characters are. Another is that throught most of the film there is not much character developement, I thought the attempt at trying to get real drama out of the characters taken in the first film was redicoulus. There also is a really sweet scene where Magneto escapes from his plastic prison by sucking the iron out of his guards blood. That was cool. But in its last act that movie gets stupid again. It seems like a Power Rangers episode. They run around a warehouse trying turn of a machine called Cerebro. Patrick Stewart is hooked up to the machine wearing a stupid hat, where he is brainwashed to try to kill every mutant in the world. Not only we do get a dumb climax, the stupid drama comes out again. This time, however, I found it funny instead of tedius. The "highlight" of these scenes was where Halle Berry as Storm earnestly tries to convince the blue lizard guy that she has faith in him to teleport into another room without killing them both. Aww.... I'm giving the movie three stars because I enjoyed the first two acts outright, and the climax as a sort deadpan comedy whe you wait to see what weird thing is going to taken with utter serioususness next. This defiantley is not a movie for everyone, I have no way of knowing whether fans of the X-Men comic would like it. I do know a surprising number of women who liked it, (most of them told me it was because of Hugh Jackman). I don't want to sound like a snob here, but I would like either SOME ideas in a movie, or some kind aestheic experince. These films provide neither. What if a really good director made a movie that question what it would be like to evolve out of the human genome to a greator plane of being? The David Bowie song "Oh, You Pretty Things" says more about that subject in four mineuts than both of these films put together. _________________________________________________________ Can somebody explain to me why in the first film, Storm had a foriegn accent, but is an American in this one? X2: X-Men United (2003) http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2007/6/29/12608.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2007 2:58:00 PM
Body: I'll admit I have dual biases. Biases which are in direct conflict. On one hand, I grew up loving the Transformers, and to this day consider Optimus Prime a personal hero on par with Atticus Finch or Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, Michael Bay sucks. I mean he really sucks. Excluding The Rock, has he done anything worthwhile? Well, I suppose now that Transformers is out, the answer is, surprisingly, yes. Rather than let Autobots and Decepticons fight to the death with nary a human around to ask "...um, wha?" the film focuses on the military response to a "Non-Biological Extra-Terestrial" invasion. It's a wise choice, lending at least a modicum of credibility to a franchise that is, essentially, the world's longest toy commcercial. (The film was, in fact, co-produced by Hasbro). Still, no one goes to see Transformers -- or, hopefully, any Michael Bay film -- for things like character arcs and plot points. No, we go to Transformers to see big robots kicking the crap out of each other. And on this score, the film delivers. The plot, for what it's worth, basically revolves around Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), the grandson of a little known explorer who went blind and insane after some unpleasantness in Antarctica. This unpleasantness, it turns out, was none other than Megatron, leader of the Decepticons; the easiest analogy for the uninitiated is to say that Megatron is the Devil to Optimus Prime's God, a former comrade who has subsequently fallen from grace and amassed a team of likeminded Decepticons to wage war against Optimus and his Autobots. Megatron came to earth in search of the All Spark, a cube which bestows sentience to any mechanical device, and which is the only remnant of their destroyed planet Cybertron. Optimus and the Autobots have arrived to protect humankind from Megatron and to find the All Spark before he or any of the other Decepticons are able to. The coordinates of the All Spark have somehow been encoded onto the late Witwicky's glasses, which Sam has been trying to sell on eBay to raise money for a car. And so on and so forth. What really matters is whether or not Bay makes good on the Autobot-Decepticon action. For the first half of the film, none of the Transformers are given much onscreen time, save for Bumblebee, Sam's Camaro. But once the entire team of Autobots roll out, the action steadily escalates. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Robert Kurtzman at least make an attempt to characterize the Autobots, giving them qualities not far removed from their previous 1980s cartoon incarnations. But the Decepticons, who are not introduced until the film's final act, are nearly indistinguishable from one another. The new designs and fast action don't help matters much, and you'll probably find yourself taking a couple seconds to orient yourself with each new battle, reminding yourself which robot is the good guy. But like Professor Xavier and Magneto in The X-Men, it's the binary opposition between Optimus and Megatron that gives the film its heart. It does make the same mistake the original 1986 film made (making Optimus noble to a fault, but not a particularly good fighter), which could be more easily forgiven if the characters and backstory had been more fully developed. But then again, I went with someone who had never watched the show and who had relatively low expectations for the film, and she ended up liking it even more than I did. (She is a decent arbiter of good movies, despite her admission that she only came to see "robots and explosions.") Regardless, I still contend that little in-jokes for the faithful (most obviously, a yellow VW Beetle to which Bumblebee doesn't take very kindly) give the film much of its charm. The movie does try a little too hard to explain some of the logical gaps from the original cartoon (the Transformers can adapt to the form of whatever mechanical device they see and analyze, hence the reason alien robots look like earth cars) and does feature a couple too many moments of cheesy action movie humor (and this is cheesy by both action-movie and 80s-kid standards), but is ultimately so damn entertaining that it doesn't really matter. The special effects are phenomenal, and the performances by Shia LaBeouf and especially John Turturro as a special agent on a bit of a power trip are surprisingly strong for a film of this caliber. And after the lackluster Spider-Man and Fantastic Four sequels, it's nice to see a big budget action franchise film that doesn't buckle under its own weight (although, I am in the minority of filmgoers who thought Pirates 3 was excellent). It's very rare that this kind of film truly rises above its genre. X-Men 2 is one example I can think of. Superman Returns, also by Bryan Singer, is another, although that was an entirely different approach to the action film, and was unfairly maligned (much like Ang Lee's underappreciated Hulk) by an audience expecting less visual poetry and more Things Go Boom. Considering that, I can forgive Transformers for its ocassional concessions to cliche and rather cursory (re: half-assed) attempt at characterization and savor it for what it is: just the kind of big, brash, mindless entertainment the summer is known for producing.
]]>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:58:00 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog6/29/2007 2:58:00 PMI'll admit I have dual biases. Biases which are in direct conflict. On one hand, I grew up loving the Transformers, and to this day consider Optimus Prime a personal hero on par with Atticus Finch or Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, Michael Bay sucks. I mean he really sucks. Excluding The Rock, has he done anything worthwhile? Well, I suppose now that Transformers is out, the answer is, surprisingly, yes. Rather than let Autobots and Decepticons fight to the death with nary a human around to ask "...um, wha?" the film focuses on the military response to a "Non-Biological Extra-Terestrial" invasion. It's a wise choice, lending at least a modicum of credibility to a franchise that is, essentially, the world's longest toy commcercial. (The film was, in fact, co-produced by Hasbro). Still, no one goes to see Transformers -- or, hopefully, any Michael Bay film -- for things like character arcs and plot points. No, we go to Transformers to see big robots kicking the crap out of each other. And on this score, the film delivers. The plot, for what it's worth, basically revolves around Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), the grandson of a little known explorer who went blind and insane after some unpleasantness in Antarctica. This unpleasantness, it turns out, was none other than Megatron, leader of the Decepticons; the easiest analogy for the uninitiated is to say that Megatron is the Devil to Optimus Prime's God, a former comrade who has subsequently fallen from grace and amassed a team of likeminded Decepticons to wage war against Optimus and his Autobots. Megatron came to earth in search of the All Spark, a cube which bestows sentience to any mechanical device, and which is the only remnant of their destroyed planet Cybertron. Optimus and the Autobots have arrived to protect humankind from Megatron and to find the All Spark before he or any of the other Decepticons are able to. The coordinates of the All Spark have somehow been encoded onto the late Witwicky's glasses, which Sam has been trying to sell on eBay to raise money for a car. And so on and so forth. What really matters is whether or not Bay makes good on the Autobot-Decepticon action. For the first half of the film, none of the Transformers are given much onscreen time, save for Bumblebee, Sam's Camaro. But once the entire team of Autobots roll out, the action steadily escalates. Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Robert Kurtzman at least make an attempt to characterize the Autobots, giving them qualities not far removed from their previous 1980s cartoon incarnations. But the Decepticons, who are not introduced until the film's final act, are nearly indistinguishable from one another. The new designs and fast action don't help matters much, and you'll probably find yourself taking a couple seconds to orient yourself with each new battle, reminding yourself which robot is the good guy. But like Professor Xavier and Magneto in The X-Men, it's the binary opposition between Optimus and Megatron that gives the film its heart. It does make the same mistake the original 1986 film made (making Optimus noble to a fault, but not a particularly good fighter), which could be more easily forgiven if the characters and backstory had been more fully developed. But then again, I went with someone who had never watched the show and who had relatively low expectations for the film, and she ended up liking it even more than I did. (She is a decent arbiter of good movies, despite her admission that she only came to see "robots and explosions.") Regardless, I still contend that little in-jokes for the faithful (most obviously, a yellow VW Beetle to which Bumblebee doesn't take very kindly) give the film much of its charm. The movie does try a little too hard to explain some of the logical gaps from the original cartoon (the Transformers can adapt to the form of whatever mechanical device they see and analyze, hence the reason alien robots look like earth cars) and does feature a couple too many moments of cheesy action movie humor (and this is cheesy by both action-movie and 80s-kid standards), but is ultimately so damn entertaining that it doesn't really matter. The special effects are phenomenal, and the performances by Shia LaBeouf and especially John Turturro as a special agent on a bit of a power trip are surprisingly strong for a film of this caliber. And after the lackluster Spider-Man and Fantastic Four sequels, it's nice to see a big budget action franchise film that doesn't buckle under its own weight (although, I am in the minority of filmgoers who thought Pirates 3 was excellent). It's very rare that this kind of film truly rises above its genre. X-Men 2 is one example I can think of. Superman Returns, also by Bryan Singer, is another, although that was an entirely different approach to the action film, and was unfairly maligned (much like Ang Lee's underappreciated Hulk) by an audience expecting less visual poetry and more Things Go Boom. Considering that, I can forgive Transformers for its ocassional concessions to cliche and rather cursory (re: half-assed) attempt at characterization and savor it for what it is: just the kind of big, brash, mindless entertainment the summer is known for producing. http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/3/23/6462.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 3/23/2007 10:15:00 PM
Body: Bryan Singer may never work in Hollywood again. X2, his sequel to the flawed but popular X-Men, begins with a spectacular attack on the White House by one politically dissatisfied mutant. The blue-skinned, yellow-eyed Nightcrawler, he of hooved feet and prehensile tail, furiously plows his way through all the president's men en route to the big guy himself, doing much more damage than, say, an offhand expression of shame. But hey, it's summer in Tinseltown, and would-be boycott bellowers will likely be too busy popping Goobers to protest much. X2, like last year's Spider-Man, is a glorious kickoff to the popcorn season, a tightly assembled battle between Good and Evil full of wit and swagger. Whereas the first installment was meek by superhero standards--and, at a slight 104 minutes, too concerned with character introduction to gather momentum for a rip-roarin' yarn--the longer X2 luxuriates in its continuation. With the main players already in place, a smattering of new villains, and a richer story line, X2 presents a confident, in-depth rendering of the near-future mutant universe. Oh yeah, and Wolverine kicks more ass. Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), the world’s most powerful telepath, offers a safe haven and tutelage to mutants, the “next link in the evolutionary chain,” at his School for Gifted Children in upstate New York. With each possessing a genetic mutation that yields itself into a potent and often destructive ability, mutants are feared for their differences and are looked upon as social outcasts who aren’t welcome to walk amongst the humans. As X2’s Star Wars-like intro intones, “sharing the world has never been humanity's defining attribute." After the Oval Office invasion, renewed outcries in support of the Mutant Registration Act put adversaries Xavier and imprisoned bad guy Magneto (Ian McKellen) on alert for trouble, which comes in the form of Gen. William Stryker (Brian Cox). Stryker, fueled by a thirst for revenge for an unexplained mutant slight against his family--and a tasty key to Wolverine’s past--launches an assault on the school. Magneto, who has always believed that a war between mutants and mankind was imminent, escapes from his plastic prison and, along with his sidekick Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), joins forces to fight Stryker with heretofore peaceful Xavier and his crew: Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Storm (Halle Berry), Dr. Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), Cyclops (James Marsden), Rogue (Anna Paquin), Bobby "Iceman" (Shawn Ashmore), Pyro (Aaron Stanford), and good-guy-after-all Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming). Singer presents the wall-to-wall action in clear, artful scenes that never let the audience get confused or, more criminally, bored. Nightcrawler's first-act hell-raising is breathtaking in its suddenness and often beautiful, with his teleporting movements rendered as wisps of blue smoke as he zaps from room to room while his solid self administers balletic wallops. The invasion of Xavier's school is well-orchestrated chaos, with nimble editing cutting between the enclosing troops and panicked students making the spacious building feel suffocating. (The scene also allows as yet unintroduced mutants, such as the armor-morphing Colossus (Daniel Cudmore) and sonic screamer Siryn (Shauna Kain), to tease the audience with brief demonstrations of their powers.) Singer blatantly borrows a trick-focus technique from The Sixth Sense, but even in its unoriginality, the shot still delivers an unexpected, jump-out-of-your-seat scare.The special effects deliver plenty of satisfying big-bang moments that evolve naturally from the script -- in particular, Pyro's blowing up of the police vehicles surrounding Bobby's home with sky-reaching fireballs is a triumph of both CGI and righteous indignation. But more impressive are the seamless, Terminator 2-like ways many of the mutants exercise their powers. Mystique, who has the ability to morph into anyone she touches, may have been the obvious challenge, but details as small as an Iceman-solidified cup of coffee are handled with sleight-of-hand finesse. New villain Deathstrike (Kelly Hu), a Stryker protégé, is a smokin’ kung-fu fighter whose late introduction of her shiny metal claws elicits an understated “holy shit” from twin Wolverine and makes for a battle scene that feels as historic as Yoda whipping around with a light saber. When X2 isn't full of sound and fury, however, it's romantic and funny, mproving on the first movie's greatest strength: the charm and ironic humanity of its mutant characters. The actors are clearly more comfortable in their roles, notably Jackman, whose Wolverine rips with fuck-off bravado. McKellen likewise embraces his senior-mutant dark side with formidable ego and Gandalf-worthy intelligence, making Magneto’s eventual alliance with Xavier a partnership to be secretly cheered. The script allows X-Men’s more minor characters a bit of depth this time around. A grown-up Rogue is paired off with Bobby, a small but satisfying development that allows for tender puppy-love moments as well as ribbing from younger schoolmates (a passed-around doodle shows Rogue kissing her literally electrified paramour). Hotheaded Pyro in particular is a compelling bit player to watch: Clearly struggling with his inner demons at every opposition yet one of the few students with some control over his power, Pyro in the second installment feels groomed to become the next Wolverine. Newcomer Stanford (late of “Tadpole”) plays him as a moody loner whose immaturity still allows him to say things such as "That's a dorky-looking helmet" to the intimidating Magneto. A brief conversation between the weathered, wizened mutant and the gifted whippersnapper, though, yields a conclusion that will stir up each viewer’s inner nerd and sums up the X-Men appeal: "You are a god among insects," Magneto informs him. "Never let anyone tell you different."
]]>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:15:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog3/23/2007 10:15:00 PMBryan Singer may never work in Hollywood again. X2, his sequel to the flawed but popular X-Men, begins with a spectacular attack on the White House by one politically dissatisfied mutant. The blue-skinned, yellow-eyed Nightcrawler, he of hooved feet and prehensile tail, furiously plows his way through all the president&#39;s men en route to the big guy himself, doing much more damage than, say, an offhand expression of shame. But hey, it&#39;s summer in Tinseltown, and would-be boycott bellowers will likely be too busy popping Goobers to protest much. X2, like last year&#39;s Spider-Man, is a glorious kickoff to the popcorn season, a tightly assembled battle between Good and Evil full of wit and swagger. Whereas the first installment was meek by superhero standards--and, at a slight 104 minutes, too concerned with character introduction to gather momentum for a rip-roarin&#39; yarn--the longer X2 luxuriates in its continuation. With the main players already in place, a smattering of new villains, and a richer story line, X2 presents a confident, in-depth rendering of the near-future mutant universe. Oh yeah, and Wolverine kicks more ass. Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), the world&rsquo;s most powerful telepath, offers a safe haven and tutelage to mutants, the &ldquo;next link in the evolutionary chain,&rdquo; at his School for Gifted Children in upstate New York. With each possessing a genetic mutation that yields itself into a potent and often destructive ability, mutants are feared for their differences and are looked upon as social outcasts who aren&rsquo;t welcome to walk amongst the humans. As X2&rsquo;s Star Wars-like intro intones, &ldquo;sharing the world has never been humanity&#39;s defining attribute." After the Oval Office invasion, renewed outcries in support of the Mutant Registration Act put adversaries Xavier and imprisoned bad guy Magneto (Ian McKellen) on alert for trouble, which comes in the form of Gen. William Stryker (Brian Cox). Stryker, fueled by a thirst for revenge for an unexplained mutant slight against his family--and a tasty key to Wolverine&rsquo;s past--launches an assault on the school. Magneto, who has always believed that a war between mutants and mankind was imminent, escapes from his plastic prison and, along with his sidekick Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), joins forces to fight Stryker with heretofore peaceful Xavier and his crew: Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Storm (Halle Berry), Dr. Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), Cyclops (James Marsden), Rogue (Anna Paquin), Bobby "Iceman" (Shawn Ashmore), Pyro (Aaron Stanford), and good-guy-after-all Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming). Singer presents the wall-to-wall action in clear, artful scenes that never let the audience get confused or, more criminally, bored. Nightcrawler&#39;s first-act hell-raising is breathtaking in its suddenness and often beautiful, with his teleporting movements rendered as wisps of blue smoke as he zaps from room to room while his solid self administers balletic wallops. The invasion of Xavier&#39;s school is well-orchestrated chaos, with nimble editing cutting between the enclosing troops and panicked students making the spacious building feel suffocating. (The scene also allows as yet unintroduced mutants, such as the armor-morphing Colossus (Daniel Cudmore) and sonic screamer Siryn (Shauna Kain), to tease the audience with brief demonstrations of their powers.) Singer blatantly borrows a trick-focus technique from The Sixth Sense, but even in its unoriginality, the shot still delivers an unexpected, jump-out-of-your-seat scare.The special effects deliver plenty of satisfying big-bang moments that evolve naturally from the script -- in particular, Pyro&#39;s blowing up of the police vehicles surrounding Bobby&#39;s home with sky-reaching fireballs is a triumph of both CGI and righteous indignation. But more impressive are the seamless, Terminator 2-like ways many of the mutants exercise their powers. Mystique, who has the ability to morph into anyone she touches, may have been the obvious challenge, but details as small as an Iceman-solidified cup of coffee are handled with sleight-of-hand finesse. New villain Deathstrike (Kelly Hu), a Stryker prot&eacute;g&eacute;, is a smokin&rsquo; kung-fu fighter whose late introduction of her shiny metal claws elicits an understated &ldquo;holy shit&rdquo; from twin Wolverine and makes for a battle scene that feels as historic as Yoda whipping around with a light saber. When X2 isn&#39;t full of sound and fury, however, it&#39;s romantic and funny, mproving on the first movie&#39;s greatest strength: the charm and ironic humanity of its mutant characters. The actors are clearly more comfortable in their roles, notably Jackman, whose Wolverine rips with fuck-off bravado. McKellen likewise embraces his senior-mutant dark side with formidable ego and Gandalf-worthy intelligence, making Magneto&rsquo;s eventual alliance with Xavier a partnership to be secretly cheered. The script allows X-Men&rsquo;s more minor characters a bit of depth this time around. A grown-up Rogue is paired off with Bobby, a small but satisfying development that allows for tender puppy-love moments as well as ribbing from younger schoolmates (a passed-around doodle shows Rogue kissing her literally electrified paramour). Hotheaded Pyro in particular is a compelling bit player to watch: Clearly struggling with his inner demons at every opposition yet one of the few students with some control over his power, Pyro in the second installment feels groomed to become the next Wolverine. Newcomer Stanford (late of &ldquo;Tadpole&rdquo;) plays him as a moody loner whose immaturity still allows him to say things such as "That&#39;s a dorky-looking helmet" to the intimidating Magneto. A brief conversation between the weathered, wizened mutant and the gifted whippersnapper, though, yields a conclusion that will stir up each viewer&rsquo;s inner nerd and sums up the X-Men appeal: "You are a god among insects," Magneto informs him. "Never let anyone tell you different." http://www.spout.com/blogs/fitzcarraldo/archive/2006/10/16/3258.aspx Post By: fitzcarraldo
Post To: fitzcarraldo Blog
Post Date: 10/16/2006 8:17:00 AM
Body: Having grown up reading comics (and the X-Men) I have constantly been disappointed with comic translations to real-life actors...starting in the 70's (or was it the 80's) TV's lackluster Lou Ferrigno bodybuilding Incredible Hulk (Hey Lou, your green cake makeup is rubbing off your feet, and why can't you jump a mile? and where's the signature line "Hulk smash!" and couldn't another bodybuilder or defensive lineman basically crush you? I asked to myself)...and the even worse ill-fated tv series, Captain America (featuring the inimitable Reb Brown and his plexiglass frisbee shield) which I think may have been a ploy to capture the male audience who was instead entranced fantasizing about Wonder Woman (a lame DC comic).Ok enough reminiscing...X2 delivers great characterizations of your favorite comic icons. The casting is spot on, from Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier to Wolverine (although isn't he supposed to have a more Australian accent?)...the best example of a great comic translation to the silver screen is the Nightcrawler character. The signature BANFFF and cloud of smoke are awesome.I didn't see the original and started with this film, due to reviews I'd read. It was satisfying and had plenty of action and superhero stuff that makes my wife roll her eyes. Basically, a decent escape film for grown-up comic-lovin' kids.
]]>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:17:00 GMTfitzcarraldofitzcarraldo Blog10/16/2006 8:17:00 AMHaving grown up reading comics (and the X-Men) I have constantly been disappointed with comic translations to real-life actors...starting in the 70's (or was it the 80's) TV's lackluster Lou Ferrigno bodybuilding Incredible Hulk (Hey Lou, your green cake makeup is rubbing off your feet, and why can't you jump a mile? and where's the signature line "Hulk smash!" and couldn't another bodybuilder or defensive lineman basically crush you? I asked to myself)...and the even worse ill-fated tv series, Captain America (featuring the inimitable Reb Brown and his plexiglass frisbee shield) which I think may have been a ploy to capture the male audience who was instead entranced fantasizing about Wonder Woman (a lame DC comic).Ok enough reminiscing...X2 delivers great characterizations of your favorite comic icons. The casting is spot on, from Patrick Stewart as Professor Xavier to Wolverine (although isn't he supposed to have a more Australian accent?)...the best example of a great comic translation to the silver screen is the Nightcrawler character. The signature BANFFF and cloud of smoke are awesome.I didn't see the original and started with this film, due to reviews I'd read. It was satisfying and had plenty of action and superhero stuff that makes my wife roll her eyes. Basically, a decent escape film for grown-up comic-lovin' kids. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177180608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag 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/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/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 228

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 368

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:03 GMT22895368Tag 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/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/school/MemberTagFilms.aspxschool
Number of films tagged: 1231

Number of people who tagged: 56

Number of times used: 130

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:18 GMT123156130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conspiracy/MemberTagFilms.aspxconspiracy
Number of films tagged: 524

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT5244894Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxsequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT12646171Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/assassination/MemberTagFilms.aspxassassination
Number of films tagged: 1052

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 90

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:14 GMT10524490Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/truth/MemberTagFilms.aspxtruth
Number of films tagged: 359

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 63

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:51 GMT3593663Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comic/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 07:06:48 GMT443567Tag