list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around House of Sand and Fog 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/House_of_Sand_and_Fog/222423/default.aspx Title: House of Sand and Fog
Year: 2003
Director: Vadim Perelman
Plot: Russian filmmaker Vadim Perelman makes his feature-film debut with the psychological drama House of Sand and Fog, based on the novel by Andre Dubus III. Ben Kingsley plays Massoud Amir Behrani, an Iranian immigrant living the United States. Even though he was a high-ranking official in Iran, he works several menial jobs in order to provide his wife, Nadi (Shohreh Aghdashloo), and his son, Esmail (Jonathan Ahdout), with an apartment in California. He buys a California bungalow, thinking he can fix it up, sell it again, and make enough money to send Esmail to college. However, the house is the legal property of former drug addict Kathy (Jennifer Connelly). After losing the house in an unfair legal dispute with the county, she is left with nowhere to go. Wanting her house back, she hires a lawyer (Frances Fisher) and befriends a police officer (Ron Eldard). Neither Kathy nor Behrani have broken the law, so they find themselves involved in a difficult moral dilemma. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 12
Number of Lists: 29
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 03:44:26 GMTHouse of Sand and Fog2003Vadim PerelmanRussian filmmaker Vadim Perelman makes his feature-film debut with the psychological drama House of Sand and Fog, based on the novel by Andre Dubus III. <a href="/players/P____38383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Kingsley</a> plays Massoud Amir Behrani, an Iranian immigrant living the United States. Even though he was a high-ranking official in Iran, he works several menial jobs in order to provide his wife, Nadi (<a href="/players/P___130170/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Shohreh Aghdashloo</a>), and his son, Esmail (Jonathan Ahdout), with an apartment in California. He buys a California bungalow, thinking he can fix it up, sell it again, and make enough money to send Esmail to college. However, the house is the legal property of former drug addict Kathy (<a href="/players/P____14510/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Connelly</a>). After losing the house in an unfair legal dispute with the county, she is left with nowhere to go. Wanting her house back, she hires a lawyer (<a href="/players/P____23637/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Frances Fisher</a>) and befriends a police officer (<a href="/players/P____21476/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ron Eldard</a>). Neither Kathy nor Behrani have broken the law, so they find themselves involved in a difficult moral dilemma. ~ Andrea LeVasseur, All Movie Guide12Tag Target (>10)29483http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t40631pi88d.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/House_of_Sand_and_Fog/222423/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/1/13/39458.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 1/13/2009 12:44:28 PM
Body: I'm told that Üç maymun (Three Monkeys) is Turkey's official submission for consideration of the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. I really have no idea how many films with this level of production are made in Turkey each year. And now that I think about it, I can't think of a single movie I have ever seen that has come out of Turkey. The only movie I can think of that I've seen that is even set substantially in Turkey is Midnight Express, and I believe that was an American produced film that wasn't especially fair in portraying the full Turkish culture for Americans. However there's actually not too much about Three Monkeys that sets it in any particular location. At least there was nothing culturally unusual or alien to me. I'm not saying that there SHOULD be, just an observation from someone who doesn't know too much about Turkey and hasn't seen too much of their artistic exports. What we have here is a film that is well executed in many ways, nice pacing, framing, cinematography, sound, and superb acting. And the dialogue and story are realistic and easy to follow. The film does well with the "show don't tell" rule of story telling. We pick up a lot of things about the feelings of the characters and specific events and background elements without anyone speaking about them explicitly. YET, despite all of this I found the movie to be sorely lacking. Even if everything that a movie is trying to do is done well, if what it's trying to do has no originality or holds no interest then what is the point? This is a tragic drama. People in conflict, anguish, humorless. All of the characters make foolish decisions as people often do. But when we don't see much of the characters apart from their foolish decisions or the ill consequences on them due to the foolish decisions of others, no scenes of them really enjoying themselves or with any real hope or interesting personality traits, then the tragedy is not too affecting. The one key element that the movie is suggesting has played a key role in their backgrounds and how they got to where they are now is the apparent loss of another son in family many years ago. I did find quite a bit of skill and restraint in the way this is revealed. It's virtually never mentioned by any of the characters. The movie lets you as the viewer piece together the history of what happened and how much it has affected everyone through very simple images. But I do not feel as though this element adds enough to make this story particularly worth watching. The insight is too miniscule. One other interesting aspect of this film that I recall is that there is absolutely no non-diegetic music (from what I remember, if there was it must have been quite subtle). The only music in the film is the ringtone from the mother's cell phone which has some extremely sad lyrics about love turning into hate and destruction. The fact that this is the only music ever heard makes the song even more blunt. And it also makes the use of sound in the film even more apparent. Sound stands out in this movie. With your attention brought to the sounds around you more than you would normally notice it, normal things can sound quite strange and startling. There is a tense scene (well pretty much all of them are tense actually) where a man who is rather upset stands up and walks off screen. We hear a very strange noise, and then when the picture cuts back to him we see he is standing in front of an electric fan. The film also makes excessive use of sound bridges where the sounds of the next scene start to play quite long before the image cuts over as well. Sometimes the sound is that of the ringtone so that it sounds at first like non-diegetic music until we realize what is happening. These uses of sound and few realistic indications of the dead son still affecting the lives of the main characters are the moments where the film starts to extend into the surreal but never in a way that really seems unrealistic than our own perceptions of things. I would certainly be willing to watch something else by these same filmmakers in the future if someone were to tell me that their next project was going to feature a little more humor. As it is, as the first Turkish film production I have seen my impression of the country is that it's a place pretty much devoid of life and hope. Of course I know that isn't true. And I realize the filmmakers are also hinting that there was once some joy before the death of the son in this family, but I'd rather take my tragedy with a little more profundity. (At least this movie didn't have any horribly pretentious voice-overs like that other mavens movie I reviewed not too long ago, Summer Palace). Some better straight up tragic dramas that I prefer, that I think you may like if you like this movie: 21 Grams, House of Sand and Fog, In the Bedroom Rating: 5/10
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:44:28 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog1/13/2009 12:44:28 PMI'm told that &Uuml;&ccedil; maymun (Three Monkeys) is Turkey's official submission for consideration of the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. I really have no idea how many films with this level of production are made in Turkey each year. And now that I think about it, I can't think of a single movie I have ever seen that has come out of Turkey. The only movie I can think of that I've seen that is even set substantially in Turkey is Midnight Express, and I believe that was an American produced film that wasn't especially fair in portraying the full Turkish culture for Americans. However there's actually not too much about Three Monkeys that sets it in any particular location. At least there was nothing culturally unusual or alien to me. I'm not saying that there SHOULD be, just an observation from someone who doesn't know too much about Turkey and hasn't seen too much of their artistic exports. What we have here is a film that is well executed in many ways, nice pacing, framing, cinematography, sound, and superb acting. And the dialogue and story are realistic and easy to follow. The film does well with the "show don't tell" rule of story telling. We pick up a lot of things about the feelings of the characters and specific events and background elements without anyone speaking about them explicitly. YET, despite all of this I found the movie to be sorely lacking. Even if everything that a movie is trying to do is done well, if what it's trying to do has no originality or holds no interest then what is the point? This is a tragic drama. People in conflict, anguish, humorless. All of the characters make foolish decisions as people often do. But when we don't see much of the characters apart from their foolish decisions or the ill consequences on them due to the foolish decisions of others, no scenes of them really enjoying themselves or with any real hope or interesting personality traits, then the tragedy is not too affecting. The one key element that the movie is suggesting has played a key role in their backgrounds and how they got to where they are now is the apparent loss of another son in family many years ago. I did find quite a bit of skill and restraint in the way this is revealed. It's virtually never mentioned by any of the characters. The movie lets you as the viewer piece together the history of what happened and how much it has affected everyone through very simple images. But I do not feel as though this element adds enough to make this story particularly worth watching. The insight is too miniscule. One other interesting aspect of this film that I recall is that there is absolutely no non-diegetic music (from what I remember, if there was it must have been quite subtle). The only music in the film is the ringtone from the mother's cell phone which has some extremely sad lyrics about love turning into hate and destruction. The fact that this is the only music ever heard makes the song even more blunt. And it also makes the use of sound in the film even more apparent. Sound stands out in this movie. With your attention brought to the sounds around you more than you would normally notice it, normal things can sound quite strange and startling. There is a tense scene (well pretty much all of them are tense actually) where a man who is rather upset stands up and walks off screen. We hear a very strange noise, and then when the picture cuts back to him we see he is standing in front of an electric fan. The film also makes excessive use of sound bridges where the sounds of the next scene start to play quite long before the image cuts over as well. Sometimes the sound is that of the ringtone so that it sounds at first like non-diegetic music until we realize what is happening. These uses of sound and few realistic indications of the dead son still affecting the lives of the main characters are the moments where the film starts to extend into the surreal but never in a way that really seems unrealistic than our own perceptions of things. I would certainly be willing to watch something else by these same filmmakers in the future if someone were to tell me that their next project was going to feature a little more humor. As it is, as the first Turkish film production I have seen my impression of the country is that it's a place pretty much devoid of life and hope. Of course I know that isn't true. And I realize the filmmakers are also hinting that there was once some joy before the death of the son in this family, but I'd rather take my tragedy with a little more profundity. (At least this movie didn't have any horribly pretentious voice-overs like that other mavens movie I reviewed not too long ago, Summer Palace). Some better straight up tragic dramas that I prefer, that I think you may like if you like this movie: 21 Grams, House of Sand and Fog, In the Bedroom Rating: 5/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30780.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:38:40 PM
Body: Released: December 26, 2003Director: Vadim Perelman*****It is a crime that certain films receive all the limelight while others are rarely, if ever, discovered. Released just in time for the 2003 Oscars, House of Sand and Fog boats a wonderfully talented cast and a gripping, emotional story which somehow went mostly unnoticed by the mass audience.After abandoned wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is evicted from her home, Behrani (Ben Kingsley) and his family move in. Through off screen detective work, it is discovered the eviction is only half Kathy's fault: when her husband walked out on her, she withdrew from the world, neglecting even her mail. In those piled up letters was notice from the county about work taxes...taxes Kathy never owed in the first place. When one attempt after another is fruitless in resolving the situation, Kathy stubbornly refuses to give up her house...and Behrani refuses to give up on the American dream.Based on a novel by Andre Dubus III, House of Sand and Fog is as much about family as it is about pride. Neither Kathy nor Behrani will give up the home-which isn't exactly the Taj Mahal-because it is a safe haven for both of their families. Kathy and her brother inherited it after their father died; Behraini, his wife and son plan on making this house a home. But the pride factor gets in the way for both of them, leading everyone involved to act unnaturally out of character. A cop, Lester, becomes involved with the escalating harassment and, eventually, tries to scare Behrani into a settlement. Predictably, things go from bad to worse from that point on.Kingsley and Connelly ground the film, providing a solid foundation for the rest of the actors around them. Even in the wildly unfocused and unneeded finale, with guns blazing and more action than the rest of the film put together, they work. He commands such presence, exuding calm in every situation he's thrust into...even when he's at his most angry, he appears to stay in complete control. Yes, pride and family clouded both of their judgments, but so did that elusive American dream: to own a home, to have someplace that is yours. To be just like everyone else. Yet, in the end, no one can claim any of those things.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:38:40 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:38:40 PMReleased: December 26, 2003Director: Vadim Perelman*****It is a crime that certain films receive all the limelight while others are rarely, if ever, discovered. Released just in time for the 2003 Oscars, House of Sand and Fog boats a wonderfully talented cast and a gripping, emotional story which somehow went mostly unnoticed by the mass audience.After abandoned wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is evicted from her home, Behrani (Ben Kingsley) and his family move in. Through off screen detective work, it is discovered the eviction is only half Kathy's fault: when her husband walked out on her, she withdrew from the world, neglecting even her mail. In those piled up letters was notice from the county about work taxes...taxes Kathy never owed in the first place. When one attempt after another is fruitless in resolving the situation, Kathy stubbornly refuses to give up her house...and Behrani refuses to give up on the American dream.Based on a novel by Andre Dubus III, House of Sand and Fog is as much about family as it is about pride. Neither Kathy nor Behrani will give up the home-which isn't exactly the Taj Mahal-because it is a safe haven for both of their families. Kathy and her brother inherited it after their father died; Behraini, his wife and son plan on making this house a home. But the pride factor gets in the way for both of them, leading everyone involved to act unnaturally out of character. A cop, Lester, becomes involved with the escalating harassment and, eventually, tries to scare Behrani into a settlement. Predictably, things go from bad to worse from that point on.Kingsley and Connelly ground the film, providing a solid foundation for the rest of the actors around them. Even in the wildly unfocused and unneeded finale, with guns blazing and more action than the rest of the film put together, they work. He commands such presence, exuding calm in every situation he's thrust into...even when he's at his most angry, he appears to stay in complete control. Yes, pride and family clouded both of their judgments, but so did that elusive American dream: to own a home, to have someplace that is yours. To be just like everyone else. Yet, in the end, no one can claim any of those things. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/27044/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/7/2008 3:13:22 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn't find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely's acting & I really don't like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn't really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley's character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren't for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count?? [/quote]Well even if you disagree me with me on those points, there is at least one aspect of the movie that I hope you won't disagree with me about. Roger Deakins's cinematography is superb and adds so much.I'm not sure if there is any straight up porn that's even listed on Spout. I know at one store I worked at all of the porn had star ratings written on the VSH labels in pen. Someone had apparently rented everything we had at one point and added his own personal ratings and little notes.[/quote]Roger Deakins is one of my favorite people in the industry. I think cinemography is typically overlooked as one of the most important aspects of the film and have fallen in love with his work with the Coen Bros and Sam Mendes. As far as the phantom porn rater from your store is concerned, I plead the fifth.
]]>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:13:22 GMTleeroy711Top 54/7/2008 3:13:22 PM[quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn&#39;t find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely&#39;s acting &amp; I really don&#39;t like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn&#39;t really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley&#39;s character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren&#39;t for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count?? [/quote]Well even if you disagree me with me on those points, there is at least one aspect of the movie that I hope you won&#39;t disagree with me about. Roger Deakins&#39;s cinematography is superb and adds so much.I&#39;m not sure if there is any straight up porn that&#39;s even listed on Spout. I know at one store I worked at all of the porn had star ratings written on the VSH labels in pen. Someone had apparently rented everything we had at one point and added his own personal ratings and little notes.[/quote]Roger Deakins is one of my favorite people in the industry. I think cinemography is typically overlooked as one of the most important aspects of the film and have fallen in love with his work with the Coen Bros and Sam Mendes. As far as the phantom porn rater from your store is concerned, I plead the fifth. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/27042/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/7/2008 2:50:53 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn't find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely's acting & I really don't like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn't really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley's character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren't for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count?? [/quote]Well even if you disagree me with me on those points, there is at least one aspect of the movie that I hope you won't disagree with me about. Roger Deakins's cinematography is superb and adds so much.I'm not sure if there is any straight up porn that's even listed on Spout. I know at one store I worked at all of the porn had star ratings written on the VSH labels in pen. Someone had apparently rented everything we had at one point and added his own personal ratings and little notes.
]]>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:50:53 GMTRisseladaTop 54/7/2008 2:50:53 PM[quote user="leeroy711"]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn&#39;t find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely&#39;s acting &amp; I really don&#39;t like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn&#39;t really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley&#39;s character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren&#39;t for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count?? [/quote]Well even if you disagree me with me on those points, there is at least one aspect of the movie that I hope you won&#39;t disagree with me about. Roger Deakins&#39;s cinematography is superb and adds so much.I&#39;m not sure if there is any straight up porn that&#39;s even listed on Spout. I know at one store I worked at all of the porn had star ratings written on the VSH labels in pen. Someone had apparently rented everything we had at one point and added his own personal ratings and little notes. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/26980/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/4/2008 9:30:41 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn't wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn't a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I'll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it? [/quote]Well like you said it may have a lot to do with expectations. You look forward to a Ben Kingsley movie and if it doesn't turn out to be phenomenal, that would be "sub-par" for you. In the case of House of Sand and Fog I can't remember if I knew anything about it before watching it. It was at a time when I worked at a video store and was able to rent new movies for free before they came out, and sometimes I would just take them home and stick them in without knowing much about them. I think that was what happened here, but I can't remember for sure now. Basically I had no expectations, and although I don't think the movie is perfect, I thought it quite better than average. To me the word par means average. So I would not consider this movie "sub-par". I thought the acting was phenomenal, and the story did an amazing job of making you see two sides of a story where two people feel like they have equal right to the same thing, but only one of them can have it. Somehow you care for both sides and see how they could both feel like they deserve it more, and understand how each side could see the other side as being malicious to stand in their way.[/quote]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn't find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely's acting & I really don't like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn't really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley's character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren't for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count??
]]>Sat, 05 Apr 2008 01:30:41 GMTleeroy711Top 54/4/2008 9:30:41 PM[quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn&#39;t wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn&#39;t a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I&#39;ll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it? [/quote]Well like you said it may have a lot to do with expectations. You look forward to a Ben Kingsley movie and if it doesn&#39;t turn out to be phenomenal, that would be "sub-par" for you. In the case of House of Sand and Fog I can&#39;t remember if I knew anything about it before watching it. It was at a time when I worked at a video store and was able to rent new movies for free before they came out, and sometimes I would just take them home and stick them in without knowing much about them. I think that was what happened here, but I can&#39;t remember for sure now. Basically I had no expectations, and although I don&#39;t think the movie is perfect, I thought it quite better than average. To me the word par means average. So I would not consider this movie "sub-par". I thought the acting was phenomenal, and the story did an amazing job of making you see two sides of a story where two people feel like they have equal right to the same thing, but only one of them can have it. Somehow you care for both sides and see how they could both feel like they deserve it more, and understand how each side could see the other side as being malicious to stand in their way.[/quote]I have to say I disagree, I actually didn&#39;t find anything phenomenal about Jennifer Connely&#39;s acting &amp; I really don&#39;t like Ron Eldard. Kingsley was incredible as always but I found that, for whatever reason, I didn&#39;t really care about the other characters. When I think of that movie with Kingsley&#39;s character played by a lessor actor, I would have probably considered to be barely watchable. But I digress, maybe I was just having a bad day. I will have to fit it in my queue and give it a second chance. It is interesting though, to consider all of the movies I think I would have enjoyed more if it weren&#39;t for higher expections.BTW I too worked at a video store, about 8 years ago and took full advantage of the free rental policy. HMMMM........that sounds like another top 5 list in itself: Top 5 video store employee sleeper hits (or something).......... does porn count?? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/26953/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/4/2008 11:26:14 AM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn't wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn't a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I'll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it? [/quote]Well like you said it may have a lot to do with expectations. You look forward to a Ben Kingsley movie and if it doesn't turn out to be phenomenal, that would be "sub-par" for you. In the case of House of Sand and Fog I can't remember if I knew anything about it before watching it. It was at a time when I worked at a video store and was able to rent new movies for free before they came out, and sometimes I would just take them home and stick them in without knowing much about them. I think that was what happened here, but I can't remember for sure now. Basically I had no expectations, and although I don't think the movie is perfect, I thought it quite better than average. To me the word par means average. So I would not consider this movie "sub-par". I thought the acting was phenomenal, and the story did an amazing job of making you see two sides of a story where two people feel like they have equal right to the same thing, but only one of them can have it. Somehow you care for both sides and see how they could both feel like they deserve it more, and understand how each side could see the other side as being malicious to stand in their way.
]]>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:26:14 GMTRisseladaTop 54/4/2008 11:26:14 AM[quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn&#39;t wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn&#39;t a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I&#39;ll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it? [/quote]Well like you said it may have a lot to do with expectations. You look forward to a Ben Kingsley movie and if it doesn&#39;t turn out to be phenomenal, that would be "sub-par" for you. In the case of House of Sand and Fog I can&#39;t remember if I knew anything about it before watching it. It was at a time when I worked at a video store and was able to rent new movies for free before they came out, and sometimes I would just take them home and stick them in without knowing much about them. I think that was what happened here, but I can&#39;t remember for sure now. Basically I had no expectations, and although I don&#39;t think the movie is perfect, I thought it quite better than average. To me the word par means average. So I would not consider this movie "sub-par". I thought the acting was phenomenal, and the story did an amazing job of making you see two sides of a story where two people feel like they have equal right to the same thing, but only one of them can have it. Somehow you care for both sides and see how they could both feel like they deserve it more, and understand how each side could see the other side as being malicious to stand in their way. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/26933/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/3/2008 6:42:20 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn't wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn't a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I'll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it?
]]>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:42:20 GMTleeroy711Top 54/3/2008 6:42:20 PM[quote user="Risselada"][quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?[/quote] I just had a hard time with that film, it started slow and seemed that everytime it began to pick up some momentum, it would go through a lull again. I also tend to look forward to anything Ben Kingsley does so if one of his films doesn&#39;t wow me, I will be a bit more put off than usual. I could see why others might like it but it just wasn&#39;t a movie for me.Of course, if enough people tell me it was a good movie, I&#39;ll be forced to watch it again and possible revise my opinion.The obvious follow-up question to you would be, what did you like about it? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/26927/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/3/2008 5:32:25 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog?
]]>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:32:25 GMTRisseladaTop 54/3/2008 5:32:25 PM[quote user="leeroy711"]2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog[/quote]What did you find Sub-Par about House of Sand and Fog? http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/26886/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/2/2008 3:04:52 PM
Body: Movies that weren't very good but one character's perfromance was the only redeeming quality. 5. Sean Penn in She's So Lovely 4. John Cusack in 1408 3. Kevin Spacey in K-PAX 2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog 1. Will Smith in I Am Legend
]]>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:04:52 GMTleeroy711Top 54/2/2008 3:04:52 PMMovies that weren&#39;t very good but one character&#39;s perfromance was the only redeeming quality. 5. Sean Penn in She&#39;s So Lovely 4. John Cusack in 1408 3. Kevin Spacey in K-PAX 2. Ben Kingsley in House Of Sand And Fog 1. Will Smith in I Am Legend http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/addiction/MemberTagFilms.aspxaddiction
Number of films tagged: 553

Number of people who tagged: 59

Number of times used: 117

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:35 GMT55359117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/depressing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepressing
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 74

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT554574Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awkward-moments/MemberTagFilms.aspxawkward-moments
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 80

]]>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:29:18 GMT462880Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/house/MemberTagFilms.aspxhouse
Number of films tagged: 680

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 50

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:19 GMT6802650Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/immigrant/MemberTagFilms.aspximmigrant
Number of films tagged: 567

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 24

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT5671624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cultureclash/MemberTagFilms.aspxcultureclash
Number of films tagged: 194

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:00 GMT194710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/feel/MemberTagFilms.aspxfeel
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 35

]]>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:16:53 GMT30735Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/policeofficer/MemberTagFilms.aspxpoliceofficer
Number of films tagged: 453

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:37 GMT453710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/americandream/MemberTagFilms.aspxamericandream
Number of films tagged: 111

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:01:56 GMT11144Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/eviction/MemberTagFilms.aspxeviction
Number of films tagged: 100

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 3

]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:22 GMT10023Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/class-status-reality-ouch/MemberTagFilms.aspxclass-status-reality-ouch
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 2

]]>Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:52:17 GMT212Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Oh-the-injustice/MemberTagFilms.aspxOh-the-injustice
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 2

]]>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:42:33 GMT212Tag