list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Village 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/The_Village/227100/default.aspx Title: The Village
Year: 2004
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Plot: M. Night Shyamalan, the creative mind behind The Sixth Sense and Signs, wrote and directed this characteristically atmospheric thriller. The rustic village of Covington is a small town in rural Pennsylvania that is home to 60 souls. The citizens of Covington lead a quiet and peaceful life, but not without an unusual caveat -- terrible creatures lurk just outside the borders of the village, and the people of Covington have reached an agreement of sorts with the beasts, in which they are allowed to go about their business as long as they never cross the village's boundaries. However, this precarious balance is upset when a headstrong young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), decides to find out what lies outside Covington, and unwittingly invites the wrath of the creatures upon the town. The Village also stars Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Adrien Brody, Judy Greer, and Bryce Dallas Howard; both Kirsten Dunst and Ashton Kutcher were at one time attached to the project, but both left the cast before filming began. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 50
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 10
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:58:52 GMTThe Village2004M. Night ShyamalanM. Night Shyamalan, the creative mind behind <a href=/films/134478/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Sixth Sense</a> and <a href=/films/208154/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Signs</a>, wrote and directed this characteristically atmospheric thriller. The rustic village of Covington is a small town in rural Pennsylvania that is home to 60 souls. The citizens of Covington lead a quiet and peaceful life, but not without an unusual caveat -- terrible creatures lurk just outside the borders of the village, and the people of Covington have reached an agreement of sorts with the beasts, in which they are allowed to go about their business as long as they never cross the village's boundaries. However, this precarious balance is upset when a headstrong young man, Lucius Hunt (<a href="/players/P___199220/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joaquin Phoenix</a>), decides to find out what lies outside Covington, and unwittingly invites the wrath of the creatures upon the town. The Village also stars <a href="/players/P____75144/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sigourney Weaver</a>, <a href="/players/P____34104/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Hurt</a>, <a href="/players/P_____8639/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adrien Brody</a>, <a href="/players/P___235491/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judy Greer</a>, and <a href="/players/P___367460/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bryce Dallas Howard</a>; both <a href="/players/P____20669/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kirsten Dunst</a> and <a href="/players/P___242492/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ashton Kutcher</a> were at one time attached to the project, but both left the cast before filming began. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide27Tag Target (>10)5011103http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t52347mf41c.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Village/227100/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/M_Night_Shyamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played_Out/222/37021/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/6/2008 12:37:36 PM
Body: After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:37:36 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaHORROR MOVIES 10111/6/2008 12:37:36 PMAfter The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_M_Night_Shayamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played/222/36999/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/5/2008 3:07:09 PM
Body: It's been so hit and miss with him, mostly misses lately. I thought Lady in the Water was atrocious but my best friend who likes a lot of those magical etheral movies just loved it. Now in the Happening I couldn't believe how HORRIBLE the acting was, which I have to blame on the direction - you know, let's be wide eyed and disbelieving and talk really slow throughout the movie...BUT I have to say that I liked a lot of individual scenes in the movie. There were parts of it that were really cool, the ending was a bit cheesey but I thought overall it wasn't too bad. I am going to be the optimist here and say that he has a couple more really good films left in him but I am hoping he will surprise us again with something different. So we will see. I think they are letting him still do what he wants because even when the movies are "bad" they still bring in quite a bit of money. June [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote]
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:07:09 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 10111/5/2008 3:07:09 PMIt's been so hit and miss with him, mostly misses lately. I thought Lady in the Water was atrocious but my best friend who likes a lot of those magical etheral movies just loved it. Now in the Happening I couldn't believe how HORRIBLE the acting was, which I have to blame on the direction - you know, let's be wide eyed and disbelieving and talk really slow throughout the movie...BUT I have to say that I liked a lot of individual scenes in the movie. There were parts of it that were really cool, the ending was a bit cheesey but I thought overall it wasn't too bad. I am going to be the optimist here and say that he has a couple more really good films left in him but I am hoping he will surprise us again with something different. So we will see. I think they are letting him still do what he wants because even when the movies are "bad" they still bring in quite a bit of money. June [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_M_Night_Shayamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played/222/36984/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/5/2008 11:17:22 AM
Body: I feel like Shammy has been living in the wake of popularity generated by The Sixth Sense, which was a legitimately good film. Signs was well greeted, but I've been noticing that there has been a lot of fallout since it was initially released, with a lot of spoofing and derision of the film's many plot flaw, which were initially glossed over. Unbreakable was pretty good, at least a B- effort, so I feel like that helped keep up the Sixth Sense hype factor as well. I recently saw Lady in the Water and I have to say, it was awful. The storyline was terrible, the acting was terrible, there was no development and it was one of the cheesiest 'thriller/suspense' films I have ever seen--apologies to anyone who may have liked it, but it sucked. Shammy should never, ever be allowed to be in one of his own films again. Shammy's films have become very formulaic, with some big reveal/twist that you KNOW is coming. Once you get the Shammy formula down, you sit anticipating the big plot twist, and its no longer fun. I will confess to having not seen his latest, and The Village, but having seen the rest of his films--I don't feel like I really need to. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote]
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:17:22 GMTseelyHORROR MOVIES 10111/5/2008 11:17:22 AMI feel like Shammy has been living in the wake of popularity generated by The Sixth Sense, which was a legitimately good film. Signs was well greeted, but I've been noticing that there has been a lot of fallout since it was initially released, with a lot of spoofing and derision of the film's many plot flaw, which were initially glossed over. Unbreakable was pretty good, at least a B- effort, so I feel like that helped keep up the Sixth Sense hype factor as well. I recently saw Lady in the Water and I have to say, it was awful. The storyline was terrible, the acting was terrible, there was no development and it was one of the cheesiest 'thriller/suspense' films I have ever seen--apologies to anyone who may have liked it, but it sucked. Shammy should never, ever be allowed to be in one of his own films again. Shammy's films have become very formulaic, with some big reveal/twist that you KNOW is coming. Once you get the Shammy formula down, you sit anticipating the big plot twist, and its no longer fun. I will confess to having not seen his latest, and The Village, but having seen the rest of his films--I don't feel like I really need to. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shayamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shayamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he a antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/M_Night_Shyamalan_Relevant_Talent_or_Played_Out/222/36975/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Phantasma-gore-ia
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 11/4/2008 8:40:15 PM
Body: After The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shyamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he an antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture?
]]>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:40:15 GMTPhantasma-gore-iaHORROR MOVIES 10111/4/2008 8:40:15 PMAfter The Sixth Sense, it seems to me that M. Night Shyamalan's popularity star has been progressively and steadily dimming. Unbreakable and Signs and were greeted well but, reception to The Village was notably acrid and vicious, Lady in the Water was largely balked at and now The Happening has been in many viewer's crosshairs. Is M. Night Shyamalan a voice still worth listening to with valuable contemporary insight or is he an antiquated relic who needs to be put out to pasture? http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/15/31258.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 9:29:19 PM
Body: M. Night Shyamalan, coming back from a critical and commercial pummeling for his fairy tale “Lady in the Water” that was nightmarish for all the wrong reasons, has attempted to trumpet his return to tension in a new film called...hmmm...what was that title again? Perhaps I should look at some of the dialogue to help me remember: “There is an event happening.” “...whenever this is happening.” “Whatever is happening is happening in smaller and smaller populations.” “Why is this happening?” “Nothing's happening yet.” “There's something happening in a few states.” Oh well, maybe it will come to me later. Touting its R rating like a badge, the film promises to be a darker Night than we are accustomed to, but a few bloody deaths aside (most are shot at a distance), the proceedings are structurally similar to his 2002 outing “Signs.” The film begins so promisingly creepy, with people committing random acts of suicide in rather horrific ways. Is it a terrorist attack using some strange nerve gas? Is it some cosmic thinning of the herd? Is it pissed-off plants? You won't find the answers in this column (though I long to reveal it to save you the agony). We are only informed of its broader effects though news reports, as we are sequestered with a small group of survivors – high school science teacher Elliott Moore (played by Mark Wahlberg); his estranged wife Alma (played by Zooey Descheanel), whose range spans from lost to befuddled (or, in a small triumph of her limited abilities – both); and Elliott's fellow teach Julian (played by John Leguizamo) with his little girl in tow. But even though they have names, walk, talk and furrow their brow, they are not characters. They are plot expositions and descriptions of characters. They are there to merely read the rather stoic, turgid prose penned by Shyamalan. To wit, before Alma is handed a ticket for a train ride out of town, she proclaims “I'm going to get on the train.” And if you did not pick up that Julian was a math teacher, fear not, for he states “I'll give them percentages, people are comforted by percentages,” and tries to divert everyone's attention as the dead bodies start piling up by giving them equations to solve (given the choice, I say, “Death, where is thy sting?”). Throughout their journey, the group meets up with various loonies reacting to impending doom with the poise and reserve of Chicken Little. One spoiler that I will provide (that is in no way consequential to the film's machinations) is that Alma is repeatedly interrupted by phone calls from a male friend eager to fan the flames of a one-time lunch date. The voice on the other end of the phone? Director/writer/producer Shyamalan, possibly trying to relay stage directions to her -- “Emote! Emote, dammit!” Sadly, Deschanel never got the message. But there is one particular scene in which Wahlberg attempts to earnestly converse with an inanimate object ( no, not Deschanel) that is the not only the film's true low point, but a career one for all involved. Shyamalan has been branded with many a moniker in his short ten years as a director – a one-trick pony, a misunderstood genius, an egoist of the highest order. It may be possible that is is guilty on all accounts. I believe it is long overdue that Shyamalan the director fire Shyamalan the writer and begin to focus his gifts. For he has an obvious affection and understanding of the language of film, and while his films (with the exception of “Lady in the Water”) can be slapped with countless derogatory adjectives, they cannot be faulted for their staging and cinematography. But like his leaden-handed efforts such as “The Village,” “Unbreakable” and “Signs,” his showmanship gets crushed by woefully inept storytelling. And for all its pretty pictures, “The Happening,” his attempt at an environmental thriller, is nothing more than an inconvenient goof.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:29:19 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/15/2008 9:29:19 PM M. Night Shyamalan, coming back from a critical and commercial pummeling for his fairy tale &ldquo;Lady in the Water&rdquo; that was nightmarish for all the wrong reasons, has attempted to trumpet his return to tension in a new film called...hmmm...what was that title again? Perhaps I should look at some of the dialogue to help me remember: &ldquo;There is an event happening.&rdquo; &ldquo;...whenever this is happening.&rdquo; &ldquo;Whatever is happening is happening in smaller and smaller populations.&rdquo; &ldquo;Why is this happening?&rdquo; &ldquo;Nothing's happening yet.&rdquo; &ldquo;There's something happening in a few states.&rdquo; Oh well, maybe it will come to me later. Touting its R rating like a badge, the film promises to be a darker Night than we are accustomed to, but a few bloody deaths aside (most are shot at a distance), the proceedings are structurally similar to his 2002 outing &ldquo;Signs.&rdquo; The film begins so promisingly creepy, with people committing random acts of suicide in rather horrific ways. Is it a terrorist attack using some strange nerve gas? Is it some cosmic thinning of the herd? Is it pissed-off plants? You won't find the answers in this column (though I long to reveal it to save you the agony). We are only informed of its broader effects though news reports, as we are sequestered with a small group of survivors &ndash; high school science teacher Elliott Moore (played by Mark Wahlberg); his estranged wife Alma (played by Zooey Descheanel), whose range spans from lost to befuddled (or, in a small triumph of her limited abilities &ndash; both); and Elliott's fellow teach Julian (played by John Leguizamo) with his little girl in tow. But even though they have names, walk, talk and furrow their brow, they are not characters. They are plot expositions and descriptions of characters. They are there to merely read the rather stoic, turgid prose penned by Shyamalan. To wit, before Alma is handed a ticket for a train ride out of town, she proclaims &ldquo;I'm going to get on the train.&rdquo; And if you did not pick up that Julian was a math teacher, fear not, for he states &ldquo;I'll give them percentages, people are comforted by percentages,&rdquo; and tries to divert everyone's attention as the dead bodies start piling up by giving them equations to solve (given the choice, I say, &ldquo;Death, where is thy sting?&rdquo;). Throughout their journey, the group meets up with various loonies reacting to impending doom with the poise and reserve of Chicken Little. One spoiler that I will provide (that is in no way consequential to the film's machinations) is that Alma is repeatedly interrupted by phone calls from a male friend eager to fan the flames of a one-time lunch date. The voice on the other end of the phone? Director/writer/producer Shyamalan, possibly trying to relay stage directions to her -- &ldquo;Emote! Emote, dammit!&rdquo; Sadly, Deschanel never got the message. But there is one particular scene in which Wahlberg attempts to earnestly converse with an inanimate object ( no, not Deschanel) that is the not only the film's true low point, but a career one for all involved. Shyamalan has been branded with many a moniker in his short ten years as a director &ndash; a one-trick pony, a misunderstood genius, an egoist of the highest order. It may be possible that is is guilty on all accounts. I believe it is long overdue that Shyamalan the director fire Shyamalan the writer and begin to focus his gifts. For he has an obvious affection and understanding of the language of film, and while his films (with the exception of &ldquo;Lady in the Water&rdquo;) can be slapped with countless derogatory adjectives, they cannot be faulted for their staging and cinematography. But like his leaden-handed efforts such as &ldquo;The Village,&rdquo; &ldquo;Unbreakable&rdquo; and &ldquo;Signs,&rdquo; his showmanship gets crushed by woefully inept storytelling. And for all its pretty pictures, &ldquo;The Happening,&rdquo; his attempt at an environmental thriller, is nothing more than an inconvenient goof. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_How_has_horror_scarred_yes_scarred_you/222/31192/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/12/2008 7:27:38 PM
Body: [quote user="csprague"]I wouldn't call mine a scar as much as a slight phobia that lasted for about 2 weeks after viewing the film. While I have a constant fear of the dark anyway, The Village didn't help with all this stuff coming out of the darkness. I guess it was that one side shot where Ivy is holding her hand out of the door for Lucius and you are staring directly at the figure materializing out of the darkness. Not to mention all the shots of trees swaying in the wind. I didn't like walking up my drive way in the woods after dark much after that. Anyway, probably the worst one was with What Lies Beneath, I couldn't go near a bath tub for weeks. I obviously can't handle very scary movies, these weren't even that bad, but I lost sleep nonetheless.[/quote] I am going to talk about this again in another discussion in reply to our 'Divine Ms Junebug'. I actually like the fims of M. Knight Shyamalan. 'Signs' is my favorite but it is not a 'great' movie by any means. As for 'The Village' , I saw that one shortly after it's release and I deliberately didn't read anything about it or the 'surprise ending' ... * SPOILERS HERE >>> ... I saw that ending coming from about 100 miles away. I pretty much had it figured out from the previews and once I started watching it, within about 10 to 15 minutes, I knew how it was going to end. But one thing kept bothering while I was watching this, no matter WHERE in the world you are living, how could it be possible that NO ONE in this village has ever seen an airplane flying overhead !?! ... But that is neatly explained at the end ... I STILL LIKED it and I thought it had a lot of GREAT 'creepy-imagery' and quality production values. ... As for 'What Lies Beneath' ... that one COULD have been a GREAT movie if not for a SERIOUS case of miscasting! I think you all know who I'm talking about (Indiana Jones, Han Solo...). You need to use some talented 'unknowns' in a movie like this to make it more believable and, also, you can save a lot of money on actors and spend more on production values! What a concept, huh? ... You should try watching some scary ones sometimes, Christi...
]]>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:27:38 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1016/12/2008 7:27:38 PM[quote user="csprague"]I wouldn't call mine a scar as much as a slight phobia that lasted for about 2 weeks after viewing the film. While I have a constant fear of the dark anyway, The Village didn't help with all this stuff coming out of the darkness. I guess it was that one side shot where Ivy is holding her hand out of the door for Lucius and you are staring directly at the figure materializing out of the darkness. Not to mention all the shots of trees swaying in the wind. I didn't like walking up my drive way in the woods after dark much after that. Anyway, probably the worst one was with What Lies Beneath, I couldn't go near a bath tub for weeks. I obviously can't handle very scary movies, these weren't even that bad, but I lost sleep nonetheless.[/quote] I am going to talk about this again in another discussion in reply to our 'Divine Ms Junebug'. I actually like the fims of M. Knight Shyamalan. 'Signs' is my favorite but it is not a 'great' movie by any means. As for 'The Village' , I saw that one shortly after it's release and I deliberately didn't read anything about it or the 'surprise ending' ... * SPOILERS HERE >>> ... I saw that ending coming from about 100 miles away. I pretty much had it figured out from the previews and once I started watching it, within about 10 to 15 minutes, I knew how it was going to end. But one thing kept bothering while I was watching this, no matter WHERE in the world you are living, how could it be possible that NO ONE in this village has ever seen an airplane flying overhead !?! ... But that is neatly explained at the end ... I STILL LIKED it and I thought it had a lot of GREAT 'creepy-imagery' and quality production values. ... As for 'What Lies Beneath' ... that one COULD have been a GREAT movie if not for a SERIOUS case of miscasting! I think you all know who I'm talking about (Indiana Jones, Han Solo...). You need to use some talented 'unknowns' in a movie like this to make it more believable and, also, you can save a lot of money on actors and spend more on production values! What a concept, huh? ... You should try watching some scary ones sometimes, Christi... http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_How_has_horror_scarred_yes_scarred_you/222/31177/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 6/12/2008 3:20:19 PM
Body: I wouldn't call mine a scar as much as a slight phobia that lasted for about 2 weeks after viewing the film. While I have a constant fear of the dark anyway, The Village didn't help with all this stuff coming out of the darkness. I guess it was that one side shot where Ivy is holding her hand out of the door for Lucius and you are staring directly at the figure materializing out of the darkness. Not to mention all the shots of trees swaying in the wind. I didn't like walking up my drive way in the woods after dark much after that. Anyway, probably the worst one was with What Lies Beneath, I couldn't go near a bath tub for weeks. I obviously can't handle very scary movies, these weren't even that bad, but I lost sleep nonetheless.
]]>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:20:19 GMTcspragueHORROR MOVIES 1016/12/2008 3:20:19 PMI wouldn't call mine a scar as much as a slight phobia that lasted for about 2 weeks after viewing the film. While I have a constant fear of the dark anyway, The Village didn't help with all this stuff coming out of the darkness. I guess it was that one side shot where Ivy is holding her hand out of the door for Lucius and you are staring directly at the figure materializing out of the darkness. Not to mention all the shots of trees swaying in the wind. I didn't like walking up my drive way in the woods after dark much after that. Anyway, probably the worst one was with What Lies Beneath, I couldn't go near a bath tub for weeks. I obviously can't handle very scary movies, these weren't even that bad, but I lost sleep nonetheless. http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/5/20/29620.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 5/20/2008 11:20:55 PM
Body: M. Night Shyamalan's career is coming to a halt. But before the film community sends the Philadelphia writer/directer off, let's take a look at his works."The Sixth Sense" is masterful; "Unbreakable" is an underrated comic book gem; "Signs" is frustratingly dumb, then kills any chance of lingering suspense by doing the anti-"Jaws" and showing the wimpy water-allergic aliens; and "The Village" is an intriguing experiment that is far deeper that its apparently simple conclusion.Then there's "Lady in the Water." Possibly attempting to switch up his style or be exceedingly philosophical, Shyamalan's latest released film was critically panned and made little money. Disney, who had financed the director's previous four films, passed on the script, and with good reason. Seeing an opportunity to profit off of Shyamalan's name (perhaps despite the quality of the material), Warner Bros. bankrolled the project and attracted an impressive cast.As with any director of great works, it's clear why big-name players were drawn to Shyamalan. Still, it's surprising that so many talented actors were lured by the filmmaker's mystique into lending their chops for such an awful movie with writing that already bears the mark of Cain."The Wendell Baker Story" was the last feature to receive such poor reception in these pages. While buddy, family, and blackmail statuses explained Luke Wilson's cast, only Shyamalan's (quickly-fading) "next Hitchcock" status rationalizes the participation of Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Bob Balaban reciting the writer/director's empty dialogue. "Lady in the Water" elicits the same feelings as "Baker" of witnessing quality actors embarrass themselves. There is nothing else like it. The movie is so bad that it warrants the question, "Do directors intentionally make bad films?" The assemblage of talent combined with the horrible end result suggests that the audience must have missed out on a giant inside joke on overly-critical moviegoers and especially film critics, as hyperbolized in Balaban's loathsome character. Surely there's some deeper meaning that we're missing that goes beyond creatures with names that sound like dialogue from "Pinky and the Brain." This is some kind of metaphysical understanding that comes from an Indian background, growing up in Philly, and making millions of dollars all while "keeping it real." And if audiences don't get it, it's because they're incapable of believing in other worlds and will never be able to recapture the joy of bedtime stories. Yes, that's it exactly.But if it's so deep, why do all of the pieces fall together so easily for Giamatti's Cleveland Heep? Why are an assemblage of apartment tenants who all seem to wish for isolation from one another so willing to unite for a common, fairy tale cause? And if the bad guys are so bent on destroying their enemy, why don't they follow through when they have clear opportunities. These questions are regrettably non-specific, but to attempt to explain and dissect the movie's plot and meaning would only further tarnish what's left of Shyamalan's gift and he should at least be allowed to make home videos of his kids.Worst of all, there is the absence of the kind of twist ending that has defined Shyamalan's career. Though the expectation of such a cinematic device has been heavily criticized, perhaps Shyamalan needs his twist endings. In his past films, when the story appears to drag, the anticipation of the looming "gotcha" keeps the audience guessing all the while, forming an enticing mystery. Though the twist's existence is predictable, without one in "Lady in the Water," he leaves nothing to look forward to except the end credits. What's especially disheartening with this sloppy effort is that at no point does a twist even seem possible, making the release's mysterious intention (the only true mystery) a colossal failure.While Shyamalan's June film "The Happening" has the potential to be environmentally preachy (which could make viewers either increasingly pro or anti-"green"), it thankfully appears to be a return to the who/what-dun-its he does best. However, Mark Wahlberg's comically raised eyebrows show yet another actor "Syamalanized" by the filmmaker's aura and the half-assed delivery of the trailer's wannabe sincere dialogue recalls the writer's greatest consistent weakness. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it seems that Shyamalan is going to ride out his early earnings into a continuing career of pretentious films until every fan of "Sixth Sense" figures him out and the only actor who will work with him is M. Night himself. Once you've seen "Lady in the Water," in which he gives himself an unprecedented major supporting role of staggeringly self-indulgent proportions, you'll understand why that's a likely outcome
]]>Wed, 21 May 2008 03:20:55 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog5/20/2008 11:20:55 PMM. Night Shyamalan's career is coming to a halt. But before the film community sends the Philadelphia writer/directer off, let's take a look at his works."The Sixth Sense" is masterful; "Unbreakable" is an underrated comic book gem; "Signs" is frustratingly dumb, then kills any chance of lingering suspense by doing the anti-"Jaws" and showing the wimpy water-allergic aliens; and "The Village" is an intriguing experiment that is far deeper that its apparently simple conclusion.Then there's "Lady in the Water." Possibly attempting to switch up his style or be exceedingly philosophical, Shyamalan's latest released film was critically panned and made little money. Disney, who had financed the director's previous four films, passed on the script, and with good reason. Seeing an opportunity to profit off of Shyamalan's name (perhaps despite the quality of the material), Warner Bros. bankrolled the project and attracted an impressive cast.As with any director of great works, it's clear why big-name players were drawn to Shyamalan. Still, it's surprising that so many talented actors were lured by the filmmaker's mystique into lending their chops for such an awful movie with writing that already bears the mark of Cain."The Wendell Baker Story" was the last feature to receive such poor reception in these pages. While buddy, family, and blackmail statuses explained Luke Wilson's cast, only Shyamalan's (quickly-fading) "next Hitchcock" status rationalizes the participation of Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Wright, and Bob Balaban reciting the writer/director's empty dialogue. "Lady in the Water" elicits the same feelings as "Baker" of witnessing quality actors embarrass themselves. There is nothing else like it. The movie is so bad that it warrants the question, "Do directors intentionally make bad films?" The assemblage of talent combined with the horrible end result suggests that the audience must have missed out on a giant inside joke on overly-critical moviegoers and especially film critics, as hyperbolized in Balaban's loathsome character. Surely there's some deeper meaning that we're missing that goes beyond creatures with names that sound like dialogue from "Pinky and the Brain." This is some kind of metaphysical understanding that comes from an Indian background, growing up in Philly, and making millions of dollars all while "keeping it real." And if audiences don't get it, it's because they're incapable of believing in other worlds and will never be able to recapture the joy of bedtime stories. Yes, that's it exactly.But if it's so deep, why do all of the pieces fall together so easily for Giamatti's Cleveland Heep? Why are an assemblage of apartment tenants who all seem to wish for isolation from one another so willing to unite for a common, fairy tale cause? And if the bad guys are so bent on destroying their enemy, why don't they follow through when they have clear opportunities. These questions are regrettably non-specific, but to attempt to explain and dissect the movie's plot and meaning would only further tarnish what's left of Shyamalan's gift and he should at least be allowed to make home videos of his kids.Worst of all, there is the absence of the kind of twist ending that has defined Shyamalan's career. Though the expectation of such a cinematic device has been heavily criticized, perhaps Shyamalan needs his twist endings. In his past films, when the story appears to drag, the anticipation of the looming "gotcha" keeps the audience guessing all the while, forming an enticing mystery. Though the twist's existence is predictable, without one in "Lady in the Water," he leaves nothing to look forward to except the end credits. What's especially disheartening with this sloppy effort is that at no point does a twist even seem possible, making the release's mysterious intention (the only true mystery) a colossal failure.While Shyamalan's June film "The Happening" has the potential to be environmentally preachy (which could make viewers either increasingly pro or anti-"green"), it thankfully appears to be a return to the who/what-dun-its he does best. However, Mark Wahlberg's comically raised eyebrows show yet another actor "Syamalanized" by the filmmaker's aura and the half-assed delivery of the trailer's wannabe sincere dialogue recalls the writer's greatest consistent weakness. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but it seems that Shyamalan is going to ride out his early earnings into a continuing career of pretentious films until every fan of "Sixth Sense" figures him out and the only actor who will work with him is M. Night himself. Once you've seen "Lady in the Water," in which he gives himself an unprecedented major supporting role of staggeringly self-indulgent proportions, you'll understand why that's a likely outcome http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/13/29005.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 8:13:25 PM
Body: The Village is a kind of anti-masterpiece, so bad it acheives a kind of transcendence in it's awfulness. In the same way that Citizen Kane is so good that it's hard to belevie a human being made it, The Village is so terrible I wasin awe of how wrong-headed it was. You know a film is in trouble when the opening credits are bad. Now, I am sure you're aware that M. Night Shyamalan's trademark is to give his movies a surprise ending. I'm going to reveal the ending in the review because A.) I am in the only person on these myspace blogs who even kind of likes Shyamalan and B.) it is so obvious that you will probably guess it about a half hour into the movie. Still, you've been warned. The movie concerns a small village around the turn of the century. The inhabitants left "the towns" because they found city life to be wicked and never leave the small, apparently self-sufficient community. They all leave in fear of "Those Of Whom We Do Not Speak", some kind of monsters in the woods. For about an hour the movie is conserned with an excrucatingly boring love story between Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix), who is curious as to what lies out side the village and Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a blind tomboy. When Lucius is stabbed by the town weirdo (Adrian Brody), Ivy leaves the village to get medicine. And when she arrives, the audince finds out- it's modern times. The town is actually a cult founded by Ivy's father (William Hurt) and some friends who were fed up with modern life and violence and tried to build a utopian community in the middle of a Pennsylvaina nature preserve. Those Of Whom We Do Not Speak are actully just the village elders in suits that they wear once in while to freak the kids out. The movie is completly pointless. The secret is so incompetantly handled it's amazing somebody actually green-light the script. The movie opens with a cheat- a funeral with a close-up of a gravestone labled 1897. This becomes worrisome immediatly because Shymalan has the actors dress and speak like they are really from 1797, compelelty destroying the illusion. The actors have a very hard time with the dialouge, too- much of the time it sounds forced and awkward. Anyone with some knowlege of history would no that there is no way that this community could exist at the end of the 19th century. And there are so many plot problems with the movie that when the secret is revealed, it's frustrating. No one went into the preserve for any reason and saw these people? No helicopters or planes flew over? How with such a small community could they expect to keep growing without inbreading? Why, if you want to start what is essentially a commune, would you need to wear old clothes and talk funny anyway? About the only thing I liked the movie was the performance of newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy, I liked the character she came up and her zest for life. The other actors seem like they are on Somminex, except for Brody, who is just plain redicoulous. Although the vast majority of critics deservdly hated the movie, a small minority claimed the movie terribly underrated, and some said it was, get this- a metaphor for the war on terror. I see zero evidence in the movie for this, and even if it was a metaphor- it would still suck. The Village (2004)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 00:13:25 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/13/2008 8:13:25 PMThe Village is a kind of anti-masterpiece, so bad it acheives a kind of transcendence in it's awfulness. In the same way that Citizen Kane is so good that it's hard to belevie a human being made it, The Village is so terrible I wasin awe of how wrong-headed it was. You know a film is in trouble when the opening credits are bad. Now, I am sure you're aware that M. Night Shyamalan's trademark is to give his movies a surprise ending. I'm going to reveal the ending in the review because A.) I am in the only person on these myspace blogs who even kind of likes Shyamalan and B.) it is so obvious that you will probably guess it about a half hour into the movie. Still, you've been warned. The movie concerns a small village around the turn of the century. The inhabitants left "the towns" because they found city life to be wicked and never leave the small, apparently self-sufficient community. They all leave in fear of "Those Of Whom We Do Not Speak", some kind of monsters in the woods. For about an hour the movie is conserned with an excrucatingly boring love story between Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix), who is curious as to what lies out side the village and Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a blind tomboy. When Lucius is stabbed by the town weirdo (Adrian Brody), Ivy leaves the village to get medicine. And when she arrives, the audince finds out- it's modern times. The town is actually a cult founded by Ivy's father (William Hurt) and some friends who were fed up with modern life and violence and tried to build a utopian community in the middle of a Pennsylvaina nature preserve. Those Of Whom We Do Not Speak are actully just the village elders in suits that they wear once in while to freak the kids out. The movie is completly pointless. The secret is so incompetantly handled it's amazing somebody actually green-light the script. The movie opens with a cheat- a funeral with a close-up of a gravestone labled 1897. This becomes worrisome immediatly because Shymalan has the actors dress and speak like they are really from 1797, compelelty destroying the illusion. The actors have a very hard time with the dialouge, too- much of the time it sounds forced and awkward. Anyone with some knowlege of history would no that there is no way that this community could exist at the end of the 19th century. And there are so many plot problems with the movie that when the secret is revealed, it's frustrating. No one went into the preserve for any reason and saw these people? No helicopters or planes flew over? How with such a small community could they expect to keep growing without inbreading? Why, if you want to start what is essentially a commune, would you need to wear old clothes and talk funny anyway? About the only thing I liked the movie was the performance of newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard as Ivy, I liked the character she came up and her zest for life. The other actors seem like they are on Somminex, except for Brody, who is just plain redicoulous. Although the vast majority of critics deservdly hated the movie, a small minority claimed the movie terribly underrated, and some said it was, get this- a metaphor for the war on terror. I see zero evidence in the movie for this, and even if it was a metaphor- it would still suck. The Village (2004) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

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

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/underrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxunderrated
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

]]>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:34:46 GMT13948156Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/twist/MemberTagFilms.aspxtwist
Number of films tagged: 32

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 54

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:08:15 GMT324354Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sucked/MemberTagFilms.aspxsucked
Number of films tagged: 33

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 39

]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:58:18 GMT332539Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/red/MemberTagFilms.aspxred
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 25

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:51 GMT191825Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ending/MemberTagFilms.aspxending
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 17

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:38:15 GMT161617Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/village/MemberTagFilms.aspxvillage
Number of films tagged: 741

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT7411517Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mustsee/MemberTagFilms.aspxmustsee
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 29

]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:38:10 GMT231429Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/creature/MemberTagFilms.aspxcreature
Number of films tagged: 303

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 20

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:55:17 GMT3031320Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beast/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeast
Number of films tagged: 139

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:03:13 GMT13967Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspence/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspence
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:52:27 GMT566Tag