list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Harry Potter [Film Series] 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/Harry_Potter_Film_Series/227199/default.aspx Title: Harry Potter [Film Series]
Times Tagged: 2
Number of Lists: 13
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:01:13 GMTHarry Potter [Film Series]2Slightly Tagged (1-5)13654http://www.spout.com/images/no_image.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Harry_Potter_Film_Series/227199/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/27/39987.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/27/2009 5:01:13 PM
Body: Both are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/27/2009 5:01:13 PMBoth are broadly classifiable as science fiction, but Alien is basically a horror flick and Aliens has all the conventions of a war film. That’s a pretty slick transition from one type of movie to another, especially since the switch was so immediate within the series. Most movie franchises don’t play with genre in such a way until they’ve gone through a number of sequels, and even then the series usually just simply takes its characters into outer space, a la Moonraker, Jason X and Leprechaun 4. Genre jumping isn’t that easy, though, unless a franchise inhabits a whole universe in which to expand through. Like Star Wars, for example. Originally a film series, the Star Wars franchise spread out into novels, which has allowed for dips into the romance genre and now horror. That’s right, an upcoming novel by horror author Joe Schreiber, titled Deathtroopers, takes the Star Wars universe into frightening territory described by Schreiber as “in the vein of The Shining and Alien, with a little dose of William Gibson mixed in.” So, if Star Wars can venture into the horror genre, what other movie franchises should attempt a genre jump? To toy with the idea, we’ve selected five film series in need of a change and suggested a possible redirection of genre for each. Franchise: Indiana Jones New Genre: Spy Film With Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the franchise already made a slight genre leap, turning an adventure series with minor fantasy elements into a lame science fiction tale. In a way, George Lucas pretty much did for Indy what past producers did with James Bond, Jason Voorhees and the Leprechaun. Only, this time, the outer space came to the characters instead of the other way around. That installment was quite a disappointment and now the only way to save the series is to head in a more serious direction and cut out all sci-fi/fantasy material altogether. Set in the 1960s, Indiana Jones and the Bay of Pigs will be more C.I.A. thriller than mystical archaeological adventure, but while Harrison Ford will get to bring a piece of his Jack Ryan portrayal into the franchise, it won’t completely abandon the elements that make it an Indiana Jones movie. He’ll still be in search of an ancient object, this one located in the Cuban rain forest, but he’ll also be battling Communists in more of a Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 style. No flying fridges, no swinging Shias and definitely no aliens. Just pure Cold War-era suspense. Franchise: Harry Potter New Genre: Teen Sex Comedy The Harry Potter series has evolved throughout its novels and films to darker and more mature themes, but the next step, if Warner Bros. decides to continue the franchise after the last J.K. Rowling adaptation, is to regress into a lighter and more immature genre. Along the lines of the teen sex classic Zapped!, as well as the hilarious fantasies/screenplays of actor Patrick Stewart (as depicted on Extras), Harry Potter and the Clothes That Magically Fall Off, would involve Harry’s days at university, during which he uses his powers to see female classmates naked and win basketball games (because it’s an American “Muggle” college and so there’s no Quidditch team). But in the end, he realizes that he doesn’t need to use magic to win the girl of his dreams (really just his college fling since he later settles down with someone else) or the championship game. Franchise: Ocean’s Eleven New Genre: Western There aren’t many places left for Steven Soderbergh to go with this series, which kicked off with a remake of the Rat Pack film Ocean’s 11. So, instead of moving ahead with Ocean’s Fourteen, he should move sideways and do a remake of Sergeants 3. Itself a loose remake of Gunga Din, the western comedy was the only other movie to feature all of the Rat Pack guys. Technically, this new version won’t be another sequel to Ocean’s Eleven, but it would surely be considered part of the franchise, as it will still star Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Affleck, Caan, Jemison, Qin, Gould, Reiner and Cheadle (sadly, Bernie Mac can not join them). Who wouldn’t love to see that cast playing tongue-in-cheek in the old west? In any genre those actors together would make an enjoyable piece of blockbuster fluff. Franchise: Die Hard New Genre: Marital Drama Weren’t you disappointed to learn that John and Holly McClane are divorced by the fourth Die Hard installment, Live Free or Die Hard? After all, the original movie wouldn’t have happened were it not for the main character’s attempt to save their marriage. And the events of Die Hard 2 also pretty much revolve around the status of the relationship. So, let’s go back to the beginning and look into the cracks between the four action flicks. We know John can thwart terrorists in any given scenario, but how does he function on a normal day? How does he deal with the threats of separation and divorce when he doesn’t have the distraction of action and the benefit of coming off a hero? This prequel/concurrent drama, titled Die Slowly, would depict marital dysfunction and collapse similar to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Revolutionary Road, except that in this film, whenever the couple goes at it, the husband gets to shout, “I saved you from terrorists. Twice. Give me a f—ing break!” Franchise: Friday the 13th New Genre: Romantic Comedy We’ve seen Freddy Vs. Jason. Now it’s time for Jason , a romantic pairing of Jason Voorhees, of the Friday the 13th series, and Angela Baker, of Sleepaway Camp. The two meet-cute when they both attempt to kill the same camper, accidentally stabbing each other instead. Rather than uniting to kill more kids, the new lovers realize that they’ve only been slashing people because they’ve never been hit with Cupid’s arrow (Jason actually had encountered the little cherub once, but he mistakenly decapitated him, stole his arrow and used it to impale a naked teen). But the movie isn’t all happy lovey-dovey montages. Like all romantic comedies, this one features a misunderstanding, and here it comes about when Jason and Angela first become intimate and the former discovers that the latter is in fact a boy. The result, though, is tragically more Boys Don’t Cry than The Crying Game, and ends with Jason killing Angela and returning to his old murderous ways. It’s a harsh conclusion, sure, but some genre jumps must be expected to be only temporary. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_October_27_I_Put_A_Spell_On_Y/625/36704/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/27/2008 5:41:31 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] I hope no Wiccans are offended by this conversation. After all, witch has become somewhat of an un-PC term nowadays in terms of embracing religions. Be that as it may, in the spirit of the colloquial holiday, a few "witchy" movies that spring to mind that you didn't mention (helped along by the ridiculous number of Halloween marathons on this weekend, the killer flu of 2008, and my penchant for stating the obvious): The Craft That Scottish film features three Teen Witch (awful movie from the 80s) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (many versions) has a white one. any Harry Potter calls a girl wizard a witch Sleeping Beauty features the best Disney villain ever, Maleficent And, of course, in TV world there's always Charmed and Sabrina, the Teenaged Witch. [/quote] Oh, and I forgot the obvious from TV and film: Bewitched!
]]>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:41:31 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme10/27/2008 5:41:31 PM[quote user="pippin06"] I hope no Wiccans are offended by this conversation. After all, witch has become somewhat of an un-PC term nowadays in terms of embracing religions. Be that as it may, in the spirit of the colloquial holiday, a few "witchy" movies that spring to mind that you didn't mention (helped along by the ridiculous number of Halloween marathons on this weekend, the killer flu of 2008, and my penchant for stating the obvious): The Craft That Scottish film features three Teen Witch (awful movie from the 80s) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (many versions) has a white one. any Harry Potter calls a girl wizard a witch Sleeping Beauty features the best Disney villain ever, Maleficent And, of course, in TV world there's always Charmed and Sabrina, the Teenaged Witch. [/quote] Oh, and I forgot the obvious from TV and film: Bewitched! http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_October_27_I_Put_A_Spell_On_Y/625/36703/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/27/2008 5:40:24 PM
Body: I hope no Wiccans are offended by this conversation. After all, witch has become somewhat of an un-PC term nowadays in terms of embracing religions. Be that as it may, in the spirit of the colloquial holiday, a few "witchy" movies that spring to mind that you didn't mention (helped along by the ridiculous number of Halloween marathons on this weekend, the killer flu of 2008, and my penchant for stating the obvious): The Craft That Scottish film features three Teen Witch (awful movie from the 80s) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (many versions) has a white one. any Harry Potter calls a girl wizard a witch Sleeping Beauty features the best Disney villain ever, Maleficent And, of course, in TV world there's always Charmed and Sabrina, the Teenaged Witch.
]]>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:40:24 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme10/27/2008 5:40:24 PMI hope no Wiccans are offended by this conversation. After all, witch has become somewhat of an un-PC term nowadays in terms of embracing religions. Be that as it may, in the spirit of the colloquial holiday, a few "witchy" movies that spring to mind that you didn't mention (helped along by the ridiculous number of Halloween marathons on this weekend, the killer flu of 2008, and my penchant for stating the obvious): The Craft That Scottish film features three Teen Witch (awful movie from the 80s) The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (many versions) has a white one. any Harry Potter calls a girl wizard a witch Sleeping Beauty features the best Disney villain ever, Maleficent And, of course, in TV world there's always Charmed and Sabrina, the Teenaged Witch. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/7/8/32282.aspxPost By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 7/8/2008 12:14:46 PM
Body: The most difficult part for me in actually writing a critique of this movie is figuring out whether or not I actually liked the film. There were surefire moments of brilliance, but there were also long, disturbing stretches where I was tempted to turn the movie off. As mentioned by almost every other review of the film I've read, this movie explores all sorts of depths of depravity and doesn't let up. It seems to have the most fixation upon how almost every sleaze-bag guy that Jeremiah's mother dates is also a closet pedophile. The film also doesn't shy away from the fact that Jeremiah's mother is not only participating in all sorts of debauchery herself, but also knowingly introducing Jeremiah to all of the drugs and alcohol that she consumes on a daily basis. I guess, in a way, this is really the main redeeming quality of the film: it doesn't shy away from anything, especially when it's bizarre and cringe-inducing. I don't think anyone can say that Asia Argento doesn't give an inspired, "tour-de-force" performance, so to speak. She literally becomes this disgusting, wastoid of a human being, and it's a marvel to watch. The scenes in which she begins to convince Jeremiah that his foster parents don't love him are perhaps the highlights of her role; the malice and mischief in her eyes perfectly sum up her function in completely corrupting this poor little kid. Most of the other characters in the film mostly make up bit parts, and I didn't really even take the time to see the names of most of her boyfriends. It's actually pretty unreal seeing Henry Fonda in this movie as Jeremiah's grandfather. He portray's the role effectively but, to be honest, I thought he had better taste than this. It's also pretty weird to see a cameo by Ben Foster as some creepy guy that gives Jeremiah a bath at his grandparents house--I guess maybe you could see that small part as a precursor to his magnificent performance in 3:10 to Yuma. All of the performances are for the most part adequate; even Dylan and Cole Sprouse of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody fame are convincing as Jeremiah, though you can't help but thinking "What sort of parent would let their kid even be in this sort of movie?" You can't really focus on those sort of ethics if you want to effectively view and enjoy a film, but in a film that investigates such turpitude, it's hard not to. Something that this film is also very effective in doing is rousing my interest in the original novel. After viewing something this different and unsettling, one can't help but wonder as to what sort of book would spawn this film, and what sort of book has such a devoted cult following. I researched the book and the film, and found out just how popular the book was in certain circles, and went over the discussions pertaining to "how much the movie left out" and "how much better the book was." In general, any devoted fan of any book that is adapted into a movie typically is unhappy with the finished product and bitches endlessly about how much better the book was. A similar, though significantly less disturbed fanbase may be the most arduous of the Harry Potter fans, who tend to complain no matter how noble the film's attempts are at capturing the essence of the books. A novel similar in subject matter to The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things may be Naked Lunch, which also has a quite prominent cult following that was not all too happy with Cronenberg's valiant attempts to adapt it. Closing out the subject of the book-to-movie adaptations: Books and film are a completely different medium. When the rights to a book are given to a film-maker, the fans of the book just as much as the owners must be aware of this. They must also be aware that the film-makers will express the book creatively onto film, and it is inevitable that certain aspects of the source material will be changed to fit the film-maker's vision. And only in certain instances is this a bad thing. Anyways... Being one of the many viewers of this film that have not read the book, there are several complaints that can be made about the film itself. One is that not enough attempts are made to characterize the young Jeremiah in the beginning, making his descent into madness with his mother not as shocking as it could have been. The kid in beginning seems clean-cut, but it is not really known, since almost right away the mother neglects and he begins to freak out. Also, another discrepancy with the exposition of the film is that it really only displays the bonding of mother and child through a sketchy montage. It's well put together, but not all that effective in what it's trying to show. There are several points of the film that feel this way, as though director Argento almost got it right, but fell miserably short. Some of the surreal imagery of the film is very cool, but once again, not effective; for example, there is a trippy sequence during which the kid is running to a police station. And not only is it trippy, but it is shown from the kid's viewpoint as being trippy. It's interesting, but overall, pretty dumb. The one aspect of that sort of imagery that I enjoyed was the significance of the two red birds. It's a VERY provocative addition to the theme of Jeremiah's loss of innocence and slow plunge into mother-induced madness. In writing this review, I came to realize my true feelings on the film itself: I don't like it, but I don't dislike it. The description of three-stars as given by Spout really describe it perfectly: I'm neutral about it. Which is strange, because it's quite obvious that there's so much to dislike about the film. The best explanation I can think of is that humans are inherently drawn to the most bestial of entertainment, and my subconciously human mind enjoyed seeing a mother giving her son speed pills. But my better nature tells me that this movie is basically just an exercise in degeneracy, and I disliked it immensely. I'm neutral about it.
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:14:46 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog7/8/2008 12:14:46 PMThe most difficult part for me in actually writing a critique of this movie is figuring out whether or not I actually liked the film. There were surefire moments of brilliance, but there were also long, disturbing stretches where I was tempted to turn the movie off. As mentioned by almost every other review of the film I've read, this movie explores all sorts of depths of depravity and doesn't let up. It seems to have the most fixation upon how almost every sleaze-bag guy that Jeremiah's mother dates is also a closet pedophile. The film also doesn't shy away from the fact that Jeremiah's mother is not only participating in all sorts of debauchery herself, but also knowingly introducing Jeremiah to all of the drugs and alcohol that she consumes on a daily basis. I guess, in a way, this is really the main redeeming quality of the film: it doesn't shy away from anything, especially when it's bizarre and cringe-inducing. I don't think anyone can say that Asia Argento doesn't give an inspired, "tour-de-force" performance, so to speak. She literally becomes this disgusting, wastoid of a human being, and it's a marvel to watch. The scenes in which she begins to convince Jeremiah that his foster parents don't love him are perhaps the highlights of her role; the malice and mischief in her eyes perfectly sum up her function in completely corrupting this poor little kid. Most of the other characters in the film mostly make up bit parts, and I didn't really even take the time to see the names of most of her boyfriends. It's actually pretty unreal seeing Henry Fonda in this movie as Jeremiah's grandfather. He portray's the role effectively but, to be honest, I thought he had better taste than this. It's also pretty weird to see a cameo by Ben Foster as some creepy guy that gives Jeremiah a bath at his grandparents house--I guess maybe you could see that small part as a precursor to his magnificent performance in 3:10 to Yuma. All of the performances are for the most part adequate; even Dylan and Cole Sprouse of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody fame are convincing as Jeremiah, though you can't help but thinking "What sort of parent would let their kid even be in this sort of movie?" You can't really focus on those sort of ethics if you want to effectively view and enjoy a film, but in a film that investigates such turpitude, it's hard not to. Something that this film is also very effective in doing is rousing my interest in the original novel. After viewing something this different and unsettling, one can't help but wonder as to what sort of book would spawn this film, and what sort of book has such a devoted cult following. I researched the book and the film, and found out just how popular the book was in certain circles, and went over the discussions pertaining to "how much the movie left out" and "how much better the book was." In general, any devoted fan of any book that is adapted into a movie typically is unhappy with the finished product and bitches endlessly about how much better the book was. A similar, though significantly less disturbed fanbase may be the most arduous of the Harry Potter fans, who tend to complain no matter how noble the film's attempts are at capturing the essence of the books. A novel similar in subject matter to The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things may be Naked Lunch, which also has a quite prominent cult following that was not all too happy with Cronenberg's valiant attempts to adapt it. Closing out the subject of the book-to-movie adaptations: Books and film are a completely different medium. When the rights to a book are given to a film-maker, the fans of the book just as much as the owners must be aware of this. They must also be aware that the film-makers will express the book creatively onto film, and it is inevitable that certain aspects of the source material will be changed to fit the film-maker's vision. And only in certain instances is this a bad thing. Anyways... Being one of the many viewers of this film that have not read the book, there are several complaints that can be made about the film itself. One is that not enough attempts are made to characterize the young Jeremiah in the beginning, making his descent into madness with his mother not as shocking as it could have been. The kid in beginning seems clean-cut, but it is not really known, since almost right away the mother neglects and he begins to freak out. Also, another discrepancy with the exposition of the film is that it really only displays the bonding of mother and child through a sketchy montage. It's well put together, but not all that effective in what it's trying to show. There are several points of the film that feel this way, as though director Argento almost got it right, but fell miserably short. Some of the surreal imagery of the film is very cool, but once again, not effective; for example, there is a trippy sequence during which the kid is running to a police station. And not only is it trippy, but it is shown from the kid's viewpoint as being trippy. It's interesting, but overall, pretty dumb. The one aspect of that sort of imagery that I enjoyed was the significance of the two red birds. It's a VERY provocative addition to the theme of Jeremiah's loss of innocence and slow plunge into mother-induced madness. In writing this review, I came to realize my true feelings on the film itself: I don't like it, but I don't dislike it. The description of three-stars as given by Spout really describe it perfectly: I'm neutral about it. Which is strange, because it's quite obvious that there's so much to dislike about the film. The best explanation I can think of is that humans are inherently drawn to the most bestial of entertainment, and my subconciously human mind enjoyed seeing a mother giving her son speed pills. But my better nature tells me that this movie is basically just an exercise in degeneracy, and I disliked it immensely. I'm neutral about it. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/15/29237.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/15/2008 3:01:22 PM
Body: I hate twist endings, especially those in the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe it’s because I was told the twist of The Sixth Sense prior to seeing it and haven’t been able to appreciate the filmmaker ever since. It’s not so much that I believe films shouldn’t have twist endings, it’s that I believe films that have twist endings should be enjoyable even when you know the secret (Psycho is still great after a thousand viewings, for example). The only one of Shyamalan’s movies to hold up even with the spoilers revealed is Unbreakable. So, I had no problem reading about the big secret of Shyamalan’s latest, The Happening. An early review of a rough cut of the thriller has shown up on Collider, and in addition to claiming the thing is “a terrible, terrible movie,” and that, “Mark Wahlberg might very well give the worst performance I’ve ever seen in anything,” the critic includes a complete plot synopsis, including the big revelation of what is causing people to suddenly kill themselves (surely you’ve seen the trailer). I won’t write out the spoiler here (but here’s a hint: the film has something in common with both The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter), but you’re welcome to head over to Collider (or Vulture blog) to ruin it for yourself. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 19:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/15/2008 3:01:22 PMI hate twist endings, especially those in the films of M. Night Shyamalan. Maybe it’s because I was told the twist of The Sixth Sense prior to seeing it and haven’t been able to appreciate the filmmaker ever since. It’s not so much that I believe films shouldn’t have twist endings, it’s that I believe films that have twist endings should be enjoyable even when you know the secret (Psycho is still great after a thousand viewings, for example). The only one of Shyamalan’s movies to hold up even with the spoilers revealed is Unbreakable. So, I had no problem reading about the big secret of Shyamalan’s latest, The Happening. An early review of a rough cut of the thriller has shown up on Collider, and in addition to claiming the thing is “a terrible, terrible movie,” and that, “Mark Wahlberg might very well give the worst performance I’ve ever seen in anything,” the critic includes a complete plot synopsis, including the big revelation of what is causing people to suddenly kill themselves (surely you’ve seen the trailer). I won’t write out the spoiler here (but here’s a hint: the film has something in common with both The Wizard of Oz and Harry Potter), but you’re welcome to head over to Collider (or Vulture blog) to ruin it for yourself. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Antagonists/190/27157/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: Smooth_J
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/9/2008 7:54:07 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="leeroy711"]I'm quoting myself because I disagree with myself, "self, how could you come up with a list of Antagonists and not include the coin flipping Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men? I am very dissapointedin myself. That should probably #2[/quote]Very good catch...I was about to add that myself before I saw your add-on. I have a few to add myself.-Colonel Walter E. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.-Nurse Fletcher from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. -Jack Nicholson in The Shining (one of his greatest roles).-Voldemort in Harry Potter. That's a given...There's so many more, but these are just the few that really stood out to me.
]]>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:54:07 GMTSmooth_JTop 54/9/2008 7:54:07 PM[quote user="leeroy711"][quote user="leeroy711"]I'm quoting myself because I disagree with myself, "self, how could you come up with a list of Antagonists and not include the coin flipping Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men? I am very dissapointedin myself. That should probably #2[/quote]Very good catch...I was about to add that myself before I saw your add-on. I have a few to add myself.-Colonel Walter E. Kurtz from Apocalypse Now.-Nurse Fletcher from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. -Jack Nicholson in The Shining (one of his greatest roles).-Voldemort in Harry Potter. That's a given...There's so many more, but these are just the few that really stood out to me. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/2/27/25640.aspxPost By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2008 11:00:32 AM
Body: Last Friday, while Karina and I were apparently too Oscar-anxious to notice, MTV posted this news about a scientific study of Harry Potter fans — or as they conclusively label them, addicts — and the post-conclusion depression that’s afflicted them since the final novel arrived in stores last summer. Apparently, 10% of these “addicts” went through a serious period of withdrawal, equivalent to the aftereffects of quitting smoking. This study, the results of which are being submitted to the Journal of General Psychology with the title “Harry Potter and the End of the Line: Parallels with Addiction,” involved the polling of 4,000 fans online and found that a significant number were so obsessed that their “more than four hours a day on Potter-related activities” interfered with things like eating and sleeping. Here, a positively spun quote from the study’s lead researcher, Muhlenberg College psych professor Dr. Jeffrey Rudski: “An addiction is an addiction is an addiction,” Rudski said. “An addiction to a drug is no different than an addiction to Harry Potter or the Internet or pornography. Although it’s not always a bad thing. There’s a community that you get with Harry Potter that you don’t get with heroin.” And despite there being only 10% actual Harry Potter “addicts”, another 20% were considered by Rudski to fall within what he calls a “critical threshold.” They include the person who wrote this: “I had trouble getting out of bed Monday morning. I was depressed and had nightmares all night long. I dreamed I was being attacked by Lucius Malfoy and Fenrir Greyback and didn’t have a wand because I was Muggle-born.” Just imagine what those 400 actual addicts are like (by the way, Rudnick refers to his daughter as one such “addict”). (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:00:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2008 11:00:32 AMLast Friday, while Karina and I were apparently too Oscar-anxious to notice, MTV posted this news about a scientific study of Harry Potter fans — or as they conclusively label them, addicts — and the post-conclusion depression that’s afflicted them since the final novel arrived in stores last summer. Apparently, 10% of these “addicts” went through a serious period of withdrawal, equivalent to the aftereffects of quitting smoking. This study, the results of which are being submitted to the Journal of General Psychology with the title “Harry Potter and the End of the Line: Parallels with Addiction,” involved the polling of 4,000 fans online and found that a significant number were so obsessed that their “more than four hours a day on Potter-related activities” interfered with things like eating and sleeping. Here, a positively spun quote from the study’s lead researcher, Muhlenberg College psych professor Dr. Jeffrey Rudski: “An addiction is an addiction is an addiction,” Rudski said. “An addiction to a drug is no different than an addiction to Harry Potter or the Internet or pornography. Although it’s not always a bad thing. There’s a community that you get with Harry Potter that you don’t get with heroin.” And despite there being only 10% actual Harry Potter “addicts”, another 20% were considered by Rudski to fall within what he calls a “critical threshold.” They include the person who wrote this: “I had trouble getting out of bed Monday morning. I was depressed and had nightmares all night long. I dreamed I was being attacked by Lucius Malfoy and Fenrir Greyback and didn’t have a wand because I was Muggle-born.” Just imagine what those 400 actual addicts are like (by the way, Rudnick refers to his daughter as one such “addict”). (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/gradysghost/archive/2007/5/25/9316.aspxPost By: GradysGhost
Post To: GradysGhost Blog
Post Date: 5/25/2007 8:46:00 AM
Body: I told them. I told them both."We have three free rentals from Blockbuster, " I said. "Yes, it's Tuesday, and that means new releases. But," I concluded, "you do [i]not[/i] want me to get Epic Movie."But I was outnumbered two to one. Overruled. I should have said something. I should have just not wasted a perfectly good free rental. But alas, I care too much about my wife and my brother. So I rented Epic Movie. The "unrated" DVD (more on this subject to come later today) had a 93-minute running time, some six minutes longer than the theatrical release. I hoped it was funny. If not, it was only an hour and a half - a pretty short movie considering some of the epics I've seen.And that was just the first thing wrong with the movie. If you're going to make a spoof (and this one is a spoof, not an homage) about epic movies, you should probably try and mimic the epic movies you're making fun of. The Lord of the Rings trilogy ran about ten hours, and that's not including all the extra scenes you get on the extended cuts. If Epic Movie ran ten hours, I would have shot myself. Or choked on my own vomit.It doen't even make fun of epic movies. Here is a brief list of movies that Epic Movie spoofs:The Chronicles of Narnia (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe); Pirates of the Carribean; Superman Returns; Harry Potter; various MTV shows/styles (i.e. Cribs, rap music videos).And here is a list of movies that might be considered epic:The Chronicles of Narnia; Troy; Lord of the Rings; The New World; Apocalypto; I might even throw in Star Wars.Please note that the only film listed in my Epic Movies list as well as my Epic Movie list is Chronicles of Narnia. So here's the joke from the movie - They stumble through a mysterious wardrobe to find a land called Gnarnia."The G is silent," says Lucy."For legal purposes," says Mr. Tumnus.To follow the pattern here, I'll ape South Park and say, "SIMPSONS DID IT!!!"The movie is rife with these kinds of jokes. Every single one of them falls flat on its face like a skateboarder or a gymnast tyring to perform stunts on a planet with three times Earth's gravitational pull. Only watching skateboarders or gymnasts do that would be the more enjoyable experience.For the first time in my life, I've seen fart jokes fail to make me or my brother laugh. It's because we were expecting them. Other jokes that keel over like a drunken frat boy: vomit gags abound (pun intended); Lucy says everything the black chick says over and over and over again; apparently (and I didn't know this before), rap songs become funny when they are performed by pirates or Crispin Glover.I have a hard time believing anybody read this script before deciding to make the movie. I guess there was enough there to market, enough interest in the movies it parodies, to be given release without much thought as to quality.Don't watch this movie. Even though I said it was only ninety-three minutes, that's still ninety-three minutes I could have spent watching the other two movies I rented - Se7en and Pieces of April. Hopefully, you should be hearing about those two soon, and hopefully they'll be better reviewed.(For the record, I have seen Se7en twice, but it's been a very long time since the last time I watched it. I need to watch it again to be able to give it a fair review.)
]]>Fri, 25 May 2007 12:46:00 GMTGradysGhostGradysGhost Blog5/25/2007 8:46:00 AMI told them. I told them both."We have three free rentals from Blockbuster, " I said. "Yes, it's Tuesday, and that means new releases. But," I concluded, "you do [i]not[/i] want me to get Epic Movie."But I was outnumbered two to one. Overruled. I should have said something. I should have just not wasted a perfectly good free rental. But alas, I care too much about my wife and my brother. So I rented Epic Movie. The "unrated" DVD (more on this subject to come later today) had a 93-minute running time, some six minutes longer than the theatrical release. I hoped it was funny. If not, it was only an hour and a half - a pretty short movie considering some of the epics I've seen.And that was just the first thing wrong with the movie. If you're going to make a spoof (and this one is a spoof, not an homage) about epic movies, you should probably try and mimic the epic movies you're making fun of. The Lord of the Rings trilogy ran about ten hours, and that's not including all the extra scenes you get on the extended cuts. If Epic Movie ran ten hours, I would have shot myself. Or choked on my own vomit.It doen't even make fun of epic movies. Here is a brief list of movies that Epic Movie spoofs:The Chronicles of Narnia (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe); Pirates of the Carribean; Superman Returns; Harry Potter; various MTV shows/styles (i.e. Cribs, rap music videos).And here is a list of movies that might be considered epic:The Chronicles of Narnia; Troy; Lord of the Rings; The New World; Apocalypto; I might even throw in Star Wars.Please note that the only film listed in my Epic Movies list as well as my Epic Movie list is Chronicles of Narnia. So here's the joke from the movie - They stumble through a mysterious wardrobe to find a land called Gnarnia."The G is silent," says Lucy."For legal purposes," says Mr. Tumnus.To follow the pattern here, I'll ape South Park and say, "SIMPSONS DID IT!!!"The movie is rife with these kinds of jokes. Every single one of them falls flat on its face like a skateboarder or a gymnast tyring to perform stunts on a planet with three times Earth's gravitational pull. Only watching skateboarders or gymnasts do that would be the more enjoyable experience.For the first time in my life, I've seen fart jokes fail to make me or my brother laugh. It's because we were expecting them. Other jokes that keel over like a drunken frat boy: vomit gags abound (pun intended); Lucy says everything the black chick says over and over and over again; apparently (and I didn't know this before), rap songs become funny when they are performed by pirates or Crispin Glover.I have a hard time believing anybody read this script before deciding to make the movie. I guess there was enough there to market, enough interest in the movies it parodies, to be given release without much thought as to quality.Don't watch this movie. Even though I said it was only ninety-three minutes, that's still ninety-three minutes I could have spent watching the other two movies I rented - Se7en and Pieces of April. Hopefully, you should be hearing about those two soon, and hopefully they'll be better reviewed.(For the record, I have seen Se7en twice, but it's been a very long time since the last time I watched it. I need to watch it again to be able to give it a fair review.) http://www.spout.com/groups/We_d_buy_these_if_we_could/Harry_Potter_Pulls_Disappering_DVD_Magic_Trick/52/2103/1/ShowPost.aspxPost By: davisfreeberg
Post To: We'd buy these if we could...
Post Date: 7/28/2006 1:28:08 PM
Body: I've always found it pretty frustrating when companies lock up films in their vaults. I understand that they think they can make money by offering only limited times that you can buy a film, but it's not a very customer friendly policy to have. Normally, when a company pulls a film, there isn't a lot of news about it, but when you pull a film like Harry Potter, you are going to get a response. Now to be honest, I wouldn't put this on my films to see list, let alone the we'd buy these if we could list, but someone obviously will want to get these films and I think it's terrible that they are going to pull the film.
]]>Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:28:08 GMTdavisfreebergWe'd buy these if we could...7/28/2006 1:28:08 PMI've always found it pretty frustrating when companies lock up films in their vaults. I understand that they think they can make money by offering only limited times that you can buy a film, but it's not a very customer friendly policy to have. Normally, when a company pulls a film, there isn't a lot of news about it, but when you pull a film like Harry Potter, you are going to get a response. Now to be honest, I wouldn't put this on my films to see list, let alone the we'd buy these if we could list, but someone obviously will want to get these films and I think it's terrible that they are going to pull the film. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/BoxSets/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoxSets
Number of films tagged: 25

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 27

]]>Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:48:13 GMT25327Tag