list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Finding Nemo 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/Finding_Nemo/219949/default.aspx Title: Finding Nemo
Year: 2003
Director: Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
Plot: Andrew Stanton, who helped write Toy Story and Monsters, Inc., co-wrote and directed this computer-animated comedy-adventure about finding a very small fish in a very large ocean. Marlin (voice of Albert Brooks) is a more-than-slightly paranoid Clown Fish who is extremely devoted to his young son, Nemo (voice of Alexander Gould), the only survivor after a hungry shark swallowed up Nemo's mother and her other offspring. It's not Marlin's nature to explore unfamiliar waters, but when he and Nemo are accidentally separated near the Great Barrier Reef en route to Nemo's first day of fish school, Marlin gathers his courage and sets out to find his son. What Marlin doesn't know, however, is that while Nemo was looking at a boat passing on the surface, he was caught in a net and given a new home in a dentist's aquarium. As Marlin searches for his son, he makes friends with a friendly but absent-minded Regal Blue Tang named Dory (voice of Ellen DeGeneres), a Great White Shark named Bruce (voice of Barry Humphries) who is trying to cut fish out of his diet, a beach-rat Sea Tortoise named Crush (voice of Andrew Stanton), and Nigel (voice of Geoffrey Rush), a Pelican who can take Marlin's search from the ocean to dry land. Finding Nemo's impressive voice cast also includes Willem Dafoe, Allison Janney, Eric Bana, Stephen Root, and Brad Garrett. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 165
Number of Lists: 156
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:43:54 GMTFinding Nemo2003Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich<a href="/players/P___203257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andrew Stanton</a>, who helped write <a href=/films/90113/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Toy Story</a> and Monsters, Inc., co-wrote and directed this computer-animated comedy-adventure about finding a very small fish in a very large ocean. Marlin (voice of <a href="/players/P____83146/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Albert Brooks</a>) is a more-than-slightly paranoid Clown Fish who is extremely devoted to his young son, Nemo (voice of <a href="/players/P___350056/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alexander Gould</a>), the only survivor after a hungry shark swallowed up Nemo's mother and her other offspring. It's not Marlin's nature to explore unfamiliar waters, but when he and Nemo are accidentally separated near the Great Barrier Reef en route to Nemo's first day of fish school, Marlin gathers his courage and sets out to find his son. What Marlin doesn't know, however, is that while Nemo was looking at a boat passing on the surface, he was caught in a net and given a new home in a dentist's aquarium. As Marlin searches for his son, he makes friends with a friendly but absent-minded Regal Blue Tang named Dory (voice of <a href="/players/P____17737/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ellen DeGeneres</a>), a Great White Shark named Bruce (voice of Barry Humphries) who is trying to cut fish out of his diet, a beach-rat Sea Tortoise named Crush (voice of <a href="/players/P___203257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andrew Stanton</a>), and Nigel (voice of <a href="/players/P___151418/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geoffrey Rush</a>), a Pelican who can take Marlin's search from the ocean to dry land. Finding Nemo's impressive voice cast also includes <a href="/players/P____16547/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Willem Dafoe</a>, <a href="/players/P___199091/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Allison Janney</a>, <a href="/players/P___224103/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Bana</a>, <a href="/players/P____61394/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stephen Root</a>, and <a href="/players/P____26021/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brad Garrett</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide165Tag Target (>10)156684http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t33868j6yz0.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Finding_Nemo/219949/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_March_16_Sidekicks/625/41078/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 3/16/2009 8:12:22 PM
Body: Call them what you will: hero support, tag-a-longs, sniveling assistants; sidekicks are an essential archetype throughout the literary and filmic representations of heroes over the course of our history. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Inspector Gadget and Penny, Batman and Robin, sidekicks come in all shapes and sizes. The little blue fish that wouldn't shut up, Cory from Finding Nemo definitely ranks rather high on my list of sidekicks. Straddling the line between ultra-lovable and incredibly annoying, Cory helped catapult Finding Nemo onto countless top ten lists the year it was released. If there is one thing that made Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull not work for me was the replacement of the incredible Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom with the whiny wannabe Mutt. With his constant thieving, lightning fast comebacks and general flare for equaling Indiana Jones screen presence, Short Round deserves a top spot on my list. And lastly Mini-Me. Oh, Mini-Me, so adorable yet so menacing. With his obscene gestures and ability to say so much without saying anything at all, Mini-Me from Austin Powers is truly an indelible sidekick that will not be soon forgotten. So this week, let's give it up for the sidekicks!
]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:12:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme3/16/2009 8:12:22 PMCall them what you will: hero support, tag-a-longs, sniveling assistants; sidekicks are an essential archetype throughout the literary and filmic representations of heroes over the course of our history. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Inspector Gadget and Penny, Batman and Robin, sidekicks come in all shapes and sizes. The little blue fish that wouldn't shut up, Cory from Finding Nemo definitely ranks rather high on my list of sidekicks. Straddling the line between ultra-lovable and incredibly annoying, Cory helped catapult Finding Nemo onto countless top ten lists the year it was released. If there is one thing that made Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull not work for me was the replacement of the incredible Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom with the whiny wannabe Mutt. With his constant thieving, lightning fast comebacks and general flare for equaling Indiana Jones screen presence, Short Round deserves a top spot on my list. And lastly Mini-Me. Oh, Mini-Me, so adorable yet so menacing. With his obscene gestures and ability to say so much without saying anything at all, Mini-Me from Austin Powers is truly an indelible sidekick that will not be soon forgotten. So this week, let's give it up for the sidekicks! http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/8/26/34430.aspx Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 8/26/2008 10:01:11 PM
Body: Much like I’ve engaged in DIY film fests of The Godfather or Marx Brothers or other topics, I decided to watch all the Pixar films I currently own back to back. Starting off withToy Story and its sequel I then moved to Monsters, Inc, Finding Nemo and then Cars. Each film gets a little bit longer but also features a little more in the way of character shading. The characters of Cars are more fully realized than those of Toy Story (no easy task, it’s true) and so are able to inhabit a more fully realized larger world as a result. I think what most sticks out at me about these films is that they’re massively entertaining but in a way that does not require full brain shut-off. You don’t necessarily *need* to be fully engaged to enjoy them but it’s so much more rewarding if you’re paying attention to the breadth of Pixar’s creations. That’s not just in terms of the little visual easter eggs that are dropped into the movies but the character development and real honest-to-goodness story arcs that are created. Pixar does such a better job than any of their animated competitors are doing in creating films that don’t rely on cheap gags to be entertaining for all ages it’s a little sick. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:01:11 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog8/26/2008 10:01:11 PMMuch like I’ve engaged in DIY film fests of The Godfather or Marx Brothers or other topics, I decided to watch all the Pixar films I currently own back to back. Starting off withToy Story and its sequel I then moved to Monsters, Inc, Finding Nemo and then Cars. Each film gets a little bit longer but also features a little more in the way of character shading. The characters of Cars are more fully realized than those of Toy Story (no easy task, it’s true) and so are able to inhabit a more fully realized larger world as a result. I think what most sticks out at me about these films is that they’re massively entertaining but in a way that does not require full brain shut-off. You don’t necessarily *need* to be fully engaged to enjoy them but it’s so much more rewarding if you’re paying attention to the breadth of Pixar’s creations. That’s not just in terms of the little visual easter eggs that are dropped into the movies but the character development and real honest-to-goodness story arcs that are created. Pixar does such a better job than any of their animated competitors are doing in creating films that don’t rely on cheap gags to be entertaining for all ages it’s a little sick. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/23/34294.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/23/2008 6:10:35 AM
Body: From one of America's most creative and inventive studios comes a picture that is packed with intimacy and surprisingly adult themes. Wall-E is a small, trash-compacting robot who has the task of clearing up a world covered in junk. Now on his own, he only has a cockroach for company and has become obsessed with a copy of the film Hello, Dolly! that he has found on a Betamax tape. The first thirty minutes Wall-E is on his own, going about his job and picking up ‘treasures’ that he takes back to his home. This part of the film features lots of slapstick comedy but also really touches the heart as we see that Wall-E has developed a very strong personality and longs to be loved. Into the flick comes a real force of nature, another robot EVE. Appearing from nowhere, this robot is sleek and heavily armed and our shy hero instantly becomes smitten. When this robot disappears Wall-E is devastated and tries to track it down. On his adventure, Wall-E’s infectious personality encourages those he meets to break out of their conformist shells and actually explore and experience the world around them. This is a truly remarkable film that says enormous amounts about what it means to be human and chastises its human characters for not caring enough, either about the planet or about experiencing life. It handles its themes well, never going too far by preaching at its audience. Instead the film focuses on its story, a romance between the robotic odd couple. Wall-E’s courtship is endearingly awkward as he tries to tell EVE how he feels – no easy task given that neither character can really speak. It is one of the most pleasing film romances in years, perfectly capturing those feelings you had the first time you find yourself liking a girl. Wall-E’s shyness and childlike innocence makes him a truly appealing lead character, Pixar’s most interesting to date, and I was rooting for him right to the end. Less successful are some of the incidental robot characters he encounters in a defective robots centre. They serve little purpose other than to be wacky, colourful and possible merchandising tie-ins. Animation fans may be disappointed at the lack of visual wonder in this picture compared to previous Pixar pictures. Certainly I was never amazed by the way the film looks in the way I was by the gorgeous Finding Nemo, yet the more subdued visuals allow the story and its themes to really shine. There were long stretches of this film where it is possible to forget that this film is animated. Sequences look like they were shot with a camera and the result is a film that is more easily compared with its sci-fi or romance film influences than its animated stable mates. Those influences can be seen in frame after frame in this film from Soylent Green to Blade Runner, from Star Wars to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fans of the science fiction genre will find that this film pays homage to many of the classics. For those who are not sci-fi aficionados there is still plenty to enjoy here, from its silent movie influences to the touching love story at the heart of this film. Wall-E and EVE work as a couple because they are robots who long to be something more than they were designed for. The film’s central message is that love is transformative and can bring out the best in us, making us want to be more than we are programmed to be. This film is a joyous celebration of love, humanity and individualism. It is an original, interesting story that strikes a change of tone from Pixar and shows that despite producing nine pictures in thirteen years the studio is more creative than ever.
]]>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:10:35 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/23/2008 6:10:35 AMFrom one of America's most creative and inventive studios comes a picture that is packed with intimacy and surprisingly adult themes. Wall-E is a small, trash-compacting robot who has the task of clearing up a world covered in junk. Now on his own, he only has a cockroach for company and has become obsessed with a copy of the film Hello, Dolly! that he has found on a Betamax tape. The first thirty minutes Wall-E is on his own, going about his job and picking up &lsquo;treasures&rsquo; that he takes back to his home. This part of the film features lots of slapstick comedy but also really touches the heart as we see that Wall-E has developed a very strong personality and longs to be loved. Into the flick comes a real force of nature, another robot EVE. Appearing from nowhere, this robot is sleek and heavily armed and our shy hero instantly becomes smitten. When this robot disappears Wall-E is devastated and tries to track it down. On his adventure, Wall-E&rsquo;s infectious personality encourages those he meets to break out of their conformist shells and actually explore and experience the world around them. This is a truly remarkable film that says enormous amounts about what it means to be human and chastises its human characters for not caring enough, either about the planet or about experiencing life. It handles its themes well, never going too far by preaching at its audience. Instead the film focuses on its story, a romance between the robotic odd couple. Wall-E&rsquo;s courtship is endearingly awkward as he tries to tell EVE how he feels &ndash; no easy task given that neither character can really speak. It is one of the most pleasing film romances in years, perfectly capturing those feelings you had the first time you find yourself liking a girl. Wall-E&rsquo;s shyness and childlike innocence makes him a truly appealing lead character, Pixar&rsquo;s most interesting to date, and I was rooting for him right to the end. Less successful are some of the incidental robot characters he encounters in a defective robots centre. They serve little purpose other than to be wacky, colourful and possible merchandising tie-ins. Animation fans may be disappointed at the lack of visual wonder in this picture compared to previous Pixar pictures. Certainly I was never amazed by the way the film looks in the way I was by the gorgeous Finding Nemo, yet the more subdued visuals allow the story and its themes to really shine. There were long stretches of this film where it is possible to forget that this film is animated. Sequences look like they were shot with a camera and the result is a film that is more easily compared with its sci-fi or romance film influences than its animated stable mates. Those influences can be seen in frame after frame in this film from Soylent Green to Blade Runner, from Star Wars to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fans of the science fiction genre will find that this film pays homage to many of the classics. For those who are not sci-fi aficionados there is still plenty to enjoy here, from its silent movie influences to the touching love story at the heart of this film. Wall-E and EVE work as a couple because they are robots who long to be something more than they were designed for. The film&rsquo;s central message is that love is transformative and can bring out the best in us, making us want to be more than we are programmed to be. This film is a joyous celebration of love, humanity and individualism. It is an original, interesting story that strikes a change of tone from Pixar and shows that despite producing nine pictures in thirteen years the studio is more creative than ever. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_7_Foodie_Heaven/625/32708/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM
Body: [quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job).
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:03:07 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM[quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job). http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/29/31874.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2008 8:19:02 PM
Body: Alright, Pixar. I've had it. I am past the point of being tired trying to find new and creative ways to use superlatives that are as endlessly creative and fresh as your films. Seriously, does everything you do have to be so superiorly textured and nuanced, inviting hours of “rewatchability?” (There, see? I now have to resort to making up words just to keep up. I hope you can sleep well at night in your money-lined pillows.) “WALL*E” is not a film to watch, it is one to consume. Layered with more craft and care than any film released so far this year. Readers of this paper's film column will no doubt attest to the fact that it is on rare occasion that I report to resoundingly glowing praise or hyperbole often (unless, of course, Adam Sandler is involved – kidding!). But time and time again, I find myself overwhelmed with Pixar's ability to take the most simple of concepts – the childhood love of toys (“Toy Story,” “Toy Story 2”) the bond between parent and child (“Finding Nemo” directed by WALL*E's Andrew Stanton, “The Incredibles”), the importance of teamwork (“Monsters Inc.,” “A Bug's Life,” “Ratatouille”) and here, the rudimentary necessity of tactile social interaction – and make it alternately fresh, nostalgic, exciting, comfortable and gloriously rendered both emotionally and graphically. WALL*E is short for Waste Allocation Lift Loader Earth-class, a cuddly little bundle of microchips that is alone in its Earth-bound duty of cleaning up the mountainous waste left behind by a fleeing human race centuries prior. It seems a big conglomerate (imagine Wal-Mart injected with anabolic steroids) made a mess of things after it took over running (and ruining) the globe and jettisoned its population for a little while as it attempted to clean up its mess. Seven hundred years later, WALL*E is the remaining inhabitant, dutifully filling his days with trash duty, but developed enough to find other, more meaningful diversions. For example, he has adopted a pet cockroach (naturally), collects miscellaneous scraps and parts, and settles in from time to time with a Betamax version of “Hello Dolly”). Thematically, the first 40 minutes or so is very similar to last year's “I am Legend,” as a non-speaking WALL*E does just enough to occupy time, but is painfully lonely and just wants a hand (or synthetic replication thereof) to hold. Unlike “I am Legend,” “WALL*E” does not suck royally after that setup. He is visited by an Extraterrestrial Vegitation Evaluator (EVE), which is a sleek new robot model sent to the planet in search of burgeoning life. EVE is like a new iPod to WALL*E's cassette player, but regardless of format, the song remains the same – WALL*E is immediately smitten. After a coy courting period (with lasers), WALL*E tags along on EVE's spaceship, which is housed on a floating Earth, populated with gelatinous mounds of flesh that are the human race. No longer do people rely on such tired traditions as “walking,” they simply jet around their new home in personal Barc-o-loungers, communicate entirely through computer screens and happily subsist on whatever the Big Brother-like corporate owners of the ship (the same ones that spoiled the planet) tell them to. To reveal more would spoil the wonder of “WALL*E.” It's clear that the filmmakers in that coveted Pixar house have a passion for film as well as storytelling. From silent-era slapstick that would make Buster Keaton proud, to space journeys capable of bringing a tear to George Lucas's eye, to nods of golden-age movie musicals, “WALL*E” serves as a loving, guided tour through the coveted vaults of cinematic history. There are scenes within that will induce tears, but not because of maudlin plot contrivances that do everything but old an onion under your eyes. There are moments of ecstatic marvel and whimsy throughout that make this so much more than a just another celluloid babysitter for the kiddos. And you can dispute or politicize the film's dyspeptic world view all you want (though does anyone else see the irony of a film featuring a society of computer-enslaved blobs of humanity created by a computer animation studio that works for years on one project?), but in this increasingly heated political climate, there is a reason the word “change” is bandied about so often. As over-simplified as it may sound, “Wall*E” serves as an animated testament to our ability to do just that. But just as the morbidly obese captain of the human cargo ship in “WALL*E” proves, it is only accomplished by a innate willingness to do so. It may all sound trite, but as the best films in our short cinematic history, “WALL*E” makes you believe that anything is possible. P.S. Don't arrive late or you will miss a wonderful Looney Tunes-era short called “Presto,” featuring a rabbit that could out-wascal Bugs Bunny
]]>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:19:02 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/29/2008 8:19:02 PMAlright, Pixar. I've had it. I am past the point of being tired trying to find new and creative ways to use superlatives that are as endlessly creative and fresh as your films. Seriously, does everything you do have to be so superiorly textured and nuanced, inviting hours of &ldquo;rewatchability?&rdquo; (There, see? I now have to resort to making up words just to keep up. I hope you can sleep well at night in your money-lined pillows.) &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; is not a film to watch, it is one to consume. Layered with more craft and care than any film released so far this year. Readers of this paper's film column will no doubt attest to the fact that it is on rare occasion that I report to resoundingly glowing praise or hyperbole often (unless, of course, Adam Sandler is involved &ndash; kidding!). But time and time again, I find myself overwhelmed with Pixar's ability to take the most simple of concepts &ndash; the childhood love of toys (&ldquo;Toy Story,&rdquo; &ldquo;Toy Story 2&rdquo;) the bond between parent and child (&ldquo;Finding Nemo&rdquo; directed by WALL*E's Andrew Stanton, &ldquo;The Incredibles&rdquo;), the importance of teamwork (&ldquo;Monsters Inc.,&rdquo; &ldquo;A Bug's Life,&rdquo; &ldquo;Ratatouille&rdquo;) and here, the rudimentary necessity of tactile social interaction &ndash; and make it alternately fresh, nostalgic, exciting, comfortable and gloriously rendered both emotionally and graphically. WALL*E is short for Waste Allocation Lift Loader Earth-class, a cuddly little bundle of microchips that is alone in its Earth-bound duty of cleaning up the mountainous waste left behind by a fleeing human race centuries prior. It seems a big conglomerate (imagine Wal-Mart injected with anabolic steroids) made a mess of things after it took over running (and ruining) the globe and jettisoned its population for a little while as it attempted to clean up its mess. Seven hundred years later, WALL*E is the remaining inhabitant, dutifully filling his days with trash duty, but developed enough to find other, more meaningful diversions. For example, he has adopted a pet cockroach (naturally), collects miscellaneous scraps and parts, and settles in from time to time with a Betamax version of &ldquo;Hello Dolly&rdquo;). Thematically, the first 40 minutes or so is very similar to last year's &ldquo;I am Legend,&rdquo; as a non-speaking WALL*E does just enough to occupy time, but is painfully lonely and just wants a hand (or synthetic replication thereof) to hold. Unlike &ldquo;I am Legend,&rdquo; &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; does not suck royally after that setup. He is visited by an Extraterrestrial Vegitation Evaluator (EVE), which is a sleek new robot model sent to the planet in search of burgeoning life. EVE is like a new iPod to WALL*E's cassette player, but regardless of format, the song remains the same &ndash; WALL*E is immediately smitten. After a coy courting period (with lasers), WALL*E tags along on EVE's spaceship, which is housed on a floating Earth, populated with gelatinous mounds of flesh that are the human race. No longer do people rely on such tired traditions as &ldquo;walking,&rdquo; they simply jet around their new home in personal Barc-o-loungers, communicate entirely through computer screens and happily subsist on whatever the Big Brother-like corporate owners of the ship (the same ones that spoiled the planet) tell them to. To reveal more would spoil the wonder of &ldquo;WALL*E.&rdquo; It's clear that the filmmakers in that coveted Pixar house have a passion for film as well as storytelling. From silent-era slapstick that would make Buster Keaton proud, to space journeys capable of bringing a tear to George Lucas's eye, to nods of golden-age movie musicals, &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; serves as a loving, guided tour through the coveted vaults of cinematic history. There are scenes within that will induce tears, but not because of maudlin plot contrivances that do everything but old an onion under your eyes. There are moments of ecstatic marvel and whimsy throughout that make this so much more than a just another celluloid babysitter for the kiddos. And you can dispute or politicize the film's dyspeptic world view all you want (though does anyone else see the irony of a film featuring a society of computer-enslaved blobs of humanity created by a computer animation studio that works for years on one project?), but in this increasingly heated political climate, there is a reason the word &ldquo;change&rdquo; is bandied about so often. As over-simplified as it may sound, &ldquo;Wall*E&rdquo; serves as an animated testament to our ability to do just that. But just as the morbidly obese captain of the human cargo ship in &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; proves, it is only accomplished by a innate willingness to do so. It may all sound trite, but as the best films in our short cinematic history, &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; makes you believe that anything is possible. P.S. Don't arrive late or you will miss a wonderful Looney Tunes-era short called &ldquo;Presto,&rdquo; featuring a rabbit that could out-wascal Bugs Bunny http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/25/31666.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM
Body: Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:01:30 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/7/25/16232.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/25/2007 6:00:46 PM
Body: See that graphic above? According to Armin Vit at the graphic design community blog Speak Up, it’s empirical evidence that in order for a G-rated film to succeed, its poster needs to be predominantly white and blue. In what he describes as “an exercise in color trends,” Vit analyzed the predominant color breakdowns of the theatrical posters representing the five highest grossing films from each MPAA rating. The top grossing NC-17 films (none of which grossed more than about $20 million, due to the restricted release that rating brings) were all advertised via posters predominantly made up of black and red tones. Successful films with more lenient ratings are marketed with lighter colors; blue begins to replace black as the dominant background color, and imagery moves from stark and high-conrast to soft and airy. In terms of color psychology, it all makes sense. While Showgirls (rated NC-17) and Finding Nemo (rated G) are each the highest grossing films in their rating’s rubric, in terms of design elements, their posters could not be more diametrically opposed. I haven’t seen Finding Nemo, but from what I remember of Showgirls, I imagine the films are equally discrepant in terms of content. Unless Nemo is a manipulative, glorified prostitute with a taste for Ver-sayss. Vit’s full, illustrated analysis can be found here, via BoingBoing. Originally posted on:Spoutblog
]]>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:00:46 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/25/2007 6:00:46 PM See that graphic above? According to Armin Vit at the graphic design community blog Speak Up, it’s empirical evidence that in order for a G-rated film to succeed, its poster needs to be predominantly white and blue. In what he describes as “an exercise in color trends,” Vit analyzed the predominant color breakdowns of the theatrical posters representing the five highest grossing films from each MPAA rating. The top grossing NC-17 films (none of which grossed more than about $20 million, due to the restricted release that rating brings) were all advertised via posters predominantly made up of black and red tones. Successful films with more lenient ratings are marketed with lighter colors; blue begins to replace black as the dominant background color, and imagery moves from stark and high-conrast to soft and airy. In terms of color psychology, it all makes sense. While Showgirls (rated NC-17) and Finding Nemo (rated G) are each the highest grossing films in their rating’s rubric, in terms of design elements, their posters could not be more diametrically opposed. I haven’t seen Finding Nemo, but from what I remember of Showgirls, I imagine the films are equally discrepant in terms of content. Unless Nemo is a manipulative, glorified prostitute with a taste for Ver-sayss. Vit’s full, illustrated analysis can be found here, via BoingBoing. Originally posted on:Spoutblog http://www.spout.com/groups/Best_movie_quotes/Re_Most_Quotes/17/13261/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Best movie quotes
Post Date: 7/6/2007 12:43:34 PM
Body: I think it's absolutely no coincidence that Monty Python crops on the lists here as often as they do. And guess what? The Pythons appear on mine too (though I'm more of a mainstream Holy Grailer than Life of Brian, love them both though I do).1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (which part? my favorites: "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" or "let's not go to Camelot, tis a silly place" or "I'm not dead yet" or "She turned me into a newt....well I got better" or or or)2. Bridget Jones' Diary (my personal fount, my favorite is by Shazzer, but she's the one who likes to say f**k a lot so...)3. Clue - ("flies are where men are most vulnerable...that's right!"...."flames, flames on the side of my face...")4. Spaceballs - ("I'm surrounded by ***holes!!" or "you're right, and when you're right you're right, and you - you're always right!")5. Back to the Future - (so many from "Great Scott" to "This is heavy" to "I am your density")My runner ups: I know you said no TV, but I gotta throw Flying Circus in there, because I always say, "And now for something completely different" and Friends (so many so many). In movies: The Princess Bride ("have fun storming the castle!"); Dogma (I like quoting Alan Rickman the most); Finding Nemo (I like quoting Dori most); Field of Dreams (for your inspiration); Forrest Gump (too many)...and probably others, but those were off the top of my head.
]]>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:43:34 GMTpippin06Best movie quotes7/6/2007 12:43:34 PMI think it's absolutely no coincidence that Monty Python crops on the lists here as often as they do. And guess what? The Pythons appear on mine too (though I'm more of a mainstream Holy Grailer than Life of Brian, love them both though I do).1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (which part? my favorites: "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" or "let's not go to Camelot, tis a silly place" or "I'm not dead yet" or "She turned me into a newt....well I got better" or or or)2. Bridget Jones' Diary (my personal fount, my favorite is by Shazzer, but she's the one who likes to say f**k a lot so...)3. Clue - ("flies are where men are most vulnerable...that's right!"...."flames, flames on the side of my face...")4. Spaceballs - ("I'm surrounded by ***holes!!" or "you're right, and when you're right you're right, and you - you're always right!")5. Back to the Future - (so many from "Great Scott" to "This is heavy" to "I am your density")My runner ups: I know you said no TV, but I gotta throw Flying Circus in there, because I always say, "And now for something completely different" and Friends (so many so many). In movies: The Princess Bride ("have fun storming the castle!"); Dogma (I like quoting Alan Rickman the most); Finding Nemo (I like quoting Dori most); Field of Dreams (for your inspiration); Forrest Gump (too many)...and probably others, but those were off the top of my head. http://www.spout.com/blogs/darthvader801/archive/2007/7/4/13039.aspx Post By: darthvader801
Post To: darthvader801 Blog
Post Date: 7/4/2007 12:56:35 AM
Body: the animation is amazing but the story is not that great.
]]>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:56:35 GMTdarthvader801darthvader801 Blog7/4/2007 12:56:35 AMthe animation is amazing but the story is not that great. http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Imagination_of_Fantasy/THOUGHTS_RATATOUILLE/47/12812/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: The Imagination of Fantasy
Post Date: 7/2/2007 8:29:33 AM
Body: What can I say? I have never been disappointed by a Pixar film. Never. There are better ones and worse ones, but even the worst Pixar flick is so much better than so many films, animated or no. I don't know that this is the absolute best, but it's up there. What do you think? I thought that Ratatouille has that "grown up" sensibility like The Incredibles , which is probably because Brad Bird directed and, I think, co-wrote it. It was a little more serious. I do NOT think it's the funniest Pixar movie, as the advertisements would have you believe. There was not an endless degree of laughing in the theater when I went. I still think the funniest Pixar movie has to be Finding Nemo, and that's largely due to the presence of Ellen DeGeneres. There was simply more to laugh at.I don't think it matters, though. There were still quite a few laughs. I think this is a more sophisticated Pixar movie. I kept thinking that some of the language was really advanced, even hoity toity. I mean, the world of fine food in Paris? Peter O'Toole voicing a Vincent Price-like food critic? What child is going to find this funny? Plus, the message behind the movie is something that only older kids will probably relate to.Still, there were enough rats doing silly things to keep children, young and old, happy. I think the best parts were when Remy, the rat who would be cook, marionetted Monsieur Linguini around the kitchen. Oh, and the animation was superb, particularly the frames of Paris sparkling at night. I think they should name the Best Animated Feature Oscar after Pixar, even though they gave the last one to a movie about penguins.I don't want to say too much for fear of spoiling anything, but discuss your thoughts about the picture here! How would you rate it amongst Pixar releases? What were your favorite parts?Also, what did you think of the complimentary animated short before this feature (another reason why I love Pixar movies), Lifted? I thought it was hilarious.Also, what did you think of the little teaser for Wall-E, Pixar's next feature, coming in 2008?Discuss.
]]>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:29:33 GMTpippin06The Imagination of Fantasy7/2/2007 8:29:33 AMWhat can I say? I have never been disappointed by a Pixar film. Never. There are better ones and worse ones, but even the worst Pixar flick is so much better than so many films, animated or no. I don't know that this is the absolute best, but it's up there. What do you think? I thought that Ratatouille has that "grown up" sensibility like The Incredibles , which is probably because Brad Bird directed and, I think, co-wrote it. It was a little more serious. I do NOT think it's the funniest Pixar movie, as the advertisements would have you believe. There was not an endless degree of laughing in the theater when I went. I still think the funniest Pixar movie has to be Finding Nemo, and that's largely due to the presence of Ellen DeGeneres. There was simply more to laugh at.I don't think it matters, though. There were still quite a few laughs. I think this is a more sophisticated Pixar movie. I kept thinking that some of the language was really advanced, even hoity toity. I mean, the world of fine food in Paris? Peter O'Toole voicing a Vincent Price-like food critic? What child is going to find this funny? Plus, the message behind the movie is something that only older kids will probably relate to.Still, there were enough rats doing silly things to keep children, young and old, happy. I think the best parts were when Remy, the rat who would be cook, marionetted Monsieur Linguini around the kitchen. Oh, and the animation was superb, particularly the frames of Paris sparkling at night. I think they should name the Best Animated Feature Oscar after Pixar, even though they gave the last one to a movie about penguins.I don't want to say too much for fear of spoiling anything, but discuss your thoughts about the picture here! How would you rate it amongst Pixar releases? What were your favorite parts?Also, what did you think of the complimentary animated short before this feature (another reason why I love Pixar movies), Lifted? I thought it was hilarious.Also, what did you think of the little teaser for Wall-E, Pixar's next feature, coming in 2008?Discuss. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1085

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1339

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT10852531339Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hilarious/MemberTagFilms.aspxhilarious
Number of films tagged: 222

Number of people who tagged: 165

Number of times used: 331

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:04 GMT222165331Tag 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: 978

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT6791154978Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 258

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 415

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:06 GMT258149415Tag 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/scary/MemberTagFilms.aspxscary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT155104197Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cute/MemberTagFilms.aspxcute
Number of films tagged: 209

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 313

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:21 GMT20998313Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/british/MemberTagFilms.aspxbritish
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 75

Number of times used: 264

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:53:04 GMT61075264Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag 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/animation/MemberTagFilms.aspxanimation
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 209

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:12 GMT29558209Tag