list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Hellboy 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/Hellboy/227708/default.aspx Title: Hellboy
Year: 2004
Director: Guillermo del Toro
Plot: Mike Mignola's acclaimed comic book series about a creature from Hades who joins the battle against evil arrives on the screen in vivid form in this adaptation directed by distinctive horror filmmaker Guillermo del Toro. During World War II, the Third Reich has joined forces with the evil Grigori Rasputin (Karel Roden), who has used his occult powers to summon up a young demon from the depth of Hell to be used as the ultimate Axis weapon. However, the demonic creature is captured by American forces, and put in the care of Professor Broom (John Hurt), the founder of a top-secret organization called the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense. Under Broom's tutelage, the creature develops empathy and a desire to do good while his physical powers and paranormal talents are honed to a fine point. Sixty years later, the demon, now known as Hellboy (Ron Perlman), is part of an elite secret defense team alongside Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), a beautiful young woman who can create fire with her mind, and Abe Sapian (Doug Jones), an aquatic humanoid with the power of telepathy. Despite his many years of fighting for right, Hellboy finds himself facing his greatest challenge when the powerful Rasputin returns, determined to bring the demon back to the forces of darkness so that evil may finally rule the world. Hellboy's supporting cast also includes Jeffrey Tambor, Rupert Evans, and Brian Steele. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 41
Number of Lists: 88
Number of blog posts: 19
Number of discussion threads: 26
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 03:44:23 GMTHellboy2004Guillermo del ToroMike Mignola's acclaimed comic book series about a creature from Hades who joins the battle against evil arrives on the screen in vivid form in this adaptation directed by distinctive horror filmmaker <a href="/players/P___166461/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Guillermo del Toro</a>. During World War II, the Third Reich has joined forces with the evil Grigori Rasputin (<a href="/players/P___150974/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Karel Roden</a>), who has used his occult powers to summon up a young demon from the depth of Hell to be used as the ultimate Axis weapon. However, the demonic creature is captured by American forces, and put in the care of Professor Broom (<a href="/players/P____34099/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Hurt</a>), the founder of a top-secret organization called the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense. Under Broom's tutelage, the creature develops empathy and a desire to do good while his physical powers and paranormal talents are honed to a fine point. Sixty years later, the demon, now known as Hellboy (<a href="/players/P____56093/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ron Perlman</a>), is part of an elite secret defense team alongside Liz Sherman (<a href="/players/P___232175/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Selma Blair</a>), a beautiful young woman who can create fire with her mind, and Abe Sapian (<a href="/players/P____36082/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Doug Jones</a>), an aquatic humanoid with the power of telepathy. Despite his many years of fighting for right, Hellboy finds himself facing his greatest challenge when the powerful Rasputin returns, determined to bring the demon back to the forces of darkness so that evil may finally rule the world. Hellboy's supporting cast also includes <a href="/players/P____69733/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jeffrey Tambor</a>, Rupert Evans, and Brian Steele. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide41Tag Target (>10)8819263http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u35585frken.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Hellboy/227708/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/29/41862.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2009 10:17:19 AM
Body: Born to bring hell to Earth, "Hellboy" (Ron Perlman) is saved by "Professor Bruttenholm" (John Hurt), who raised him to be a hero. "Hellboy" leads the "Professor's" secret "Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense" to protect the mankind from what it considers to be the paranormal. Based on the Dark Horse Comics-published comic book of the same title, which is refered to on-screen, the movie is obviously targeted to fans of the comic book. The story, which has the undead "Rasputin" (Karel Roden) trying to convert "Hellboy" back to evil so he can use the hero to bring an end to the world. For those who never read the comic book, like myself, there is little character development. I believe the writer who adapted the comic book for the screen expected that only fans would go see the movie. The characters do appear to play off each other fairly well, but not perfectly. The acting is not the best, especially the actors in somewhat minor roles. Perlman, on the other hand, makes "Hellboy" pretty likeable and fairyly comical. In my opinion, all the performances are below par due to the script. It moves the story along too slowly, and doesn't expand upon any of the subplots, especially the romantic triangle one. The special effects are what stand-out in this film the most. From the CGI, to the makeup, this is what makes the movie worthy of at least renting. If not for the effects, I would pass this one. "Hellboy" is not "Batman" (1989) or "Superman" (1978). In fact, it's one of the weakest comic book adaptations ever released by Hollywood. If your a fan of the Dark Horse Comic title, you would most likely like the movie. However, if you have never read one issue of "Hellboy" you might want to take a pass on this film.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:17:19 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/29/2009 10:17:19 AMBorn to bring hell to Earth, "Hellboy" (Ron Perlman) is saved by "Professor Bruttenholm" (John Hurt), who raised him to be a hero. "Hellboy" leads the "Professor's" secret "Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense" to protect the mankind from what it considers to be the paranormal. Based on the Dark Horse Comics-published comic book of the same title, which is refered to on-screen, the movie is obviously targeted to fans of the comic book. The story, which has the undead "Rasputin" (Karel Roden) trying to convert "Hellboy" back to evil so he can use the hero to bring an end to the world. For those who never read the comic book, like myself, there is little character development. I believe the writer who adapted the comic book for the screen expected that only fans would go see the movie. The characters do appear to play off each other fairly well, but not perfectly. The acting is not the best, especially the actors in somewhat minor roles. Perlman, on the other hand, makes "Hellboy" pretty likeable and fairyly comical. In my opinion, all the performances are below par due to the script. It moves the story along too slowly, and doesn't expand upon any of the subplots, especially the romantic triangle one. The special effects are what stand-out in this film the most. From the CGI, to the makeup, this is what makes the movie worthy of at least renting. If not for the effects, I would pass this one. "Hellboy" is not "Batman" (1989) or "Superman" (1978). In fact, it's one of the weakest comic book adaptations ever released by Hollywood. If your a fan of the Dark Horse Comic title, you would most likely like the movie. However, if you have never read one issue of "Hellboy" you might want to take a pass on this film. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40898.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 10:01:13 AM
Body: There are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 10:01:13 AMThere are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2009/1/15/39567.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 1/15/2009 2:43:40 PM
Body: If you've seen Hellboy and Hellboy II, but never read the comic, I have a comparison of the character in the two media here.
]]>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:43:40 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog1/15/2009 2:43:40 PMIf you've seen Hellboy and Hellboy II, but never read the comic, I have a comparison of the character in the two media here. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/29/38928.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/29/2008 3:00:53 PM
Body: When it comes to lazy film clichés, Nazis are one step above slow-motion gunfights and barely underneath “the hero must get the girl and save the day.” It’s fitting that Nazis manage to encompass everything  from being the symbol for the Big, Bad Guy to perversion, occult beliefs and Holocaust Porn. Pop a swastika on someone and it becomes abundantly clear he’s the bad guy, whether it’s Samuel L. Jackson ripping through shoddy green screen in The Spirit or the lit-deviant prison guard Kate Winslet tackles in The Reader. But sometimes, there are types of films that need to go “Full Nazi.” These select few films embrace the red, black and white because they’d have no other claim to fame otherwise. The eight films below have merit on their own, but it is through their use of the Nazi symbols that they remain on the cultural brain. Apt Pupil The effective start of Bryan Singer’s ode to the Reich involves Arthur Denker (Ian McKellen), a Nazi war criminal masquerading next door to Todd Bowen (Brad Renfro), who discovers his neighbor’s previous life. Being an obsessive sociopath in progress, young Todd demands Arthur (neé Kurt Dussander) regale him with tales of World War II and Nazism in general. He goes so far as taking a uniform from the attic and demands Arthur march for him. Pupil embodies the sadomasochistic nature that the fetish community places on the Nazis along with the concept that only scary, evil people ever want to learn about history. The duo develop a creepy grandparent/child vibe, as Arthur threatens to rat out Todd if his grades don’t improve, and both become encouraged to torture small animals and get some small pleasure out of it. Hellboy Though Mike Mignola’s series owes more to H. P. Lovecraft, he bridges the gap by riding on the occult coattails of Nazis and even Russian historic figures. Set against World War II, an American commando squad raid a secret Nazi location where Rasputin (yes, the same one) intends to awaken a group of inter-dimensional beings to destroy the world. By his side, Karl Kroenen, leader of the Thule Society, personal assassin for Hitler and dressed by a leather fetishist. The U.S. troops foil the portal, Rasputin is sucked into a distant dimension and the film’s titular red ape-demon remains on our side for the U.S. of A. Utterly overshadowed in Guillermo Del Toro’s adaptation for whimsical creature design, the zombie-like Kroenen remains a constant example of Nazi-ism surviing into the modern era. Initially a mere scientist, the film re-imagines him as the Reich’s top assassin—he’s quiet, lethal and horribly deformed underneath the premise of his gas mask. You may also question this video choice. That’s simple: I really like this duet. Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS Perhaps the best known take of “Holocaust Porn,” Ilsa takes the women-in-prison theme and turns it around with its sadistic titular scientist (Dyanne Thorne), who runs a stalag devoted to proving women can endure more than men–thus being better soldiers for the Reich–through torture and campy experiments. She also proves her statement that men are weak by taking a nightly lover and castrating him if he finishes before she can. Her downfall comes once an American soldier (”Wolfe”) arrives, who learns of her kink and proves himself more than capable of his porn star stamina. And hey, Ilsa even gives a Golden Shower while wearing an S.S. Major’s uniform. Of course, there’s a revolt, Ilsa is defeated and shockingly murdered–along with other guards and inmates–by a German commando team. While clearly skirting the “B”-level of film, this remains rather unnerving on the level of “why am I watching this?” Saló o le 120 giornate di Sodoma Mundane title credits aside, Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ‘modern’ retelling of The 120 Days of Sodom occurs in 1944 Italy in the Republic of Saló. Four high-ranking members of the community decide to marry each others’ daughters–and then consummate the event with an incredibly horrid ritual. They kidnap 18 men and women, bring out four prostitutes to “tell of” the events and proceed to create lavish, perverse torture to enact. Jewish women are (literally) consumed; shit is served as a last meal; men and women are raped and/or murdered if they can no longer stand their confinement. And then comes the voyeuristic thrill of watching those slaughtered through the binoculars. But the end does it, as two soldiers gaily dance with one another after the film’s events, questioning just what will happen to those that stand by this. Il Portiere di notte/The Night Porter You may be noticing an S&M theme, but you’ll get one better with Charlotte Rampling’s near-historic cabaret performance.  Dirk Bogarde plays a former Nazi officer who finds himself as a night porter at a Vienna hotel, catering to his guests while conspiring with his former Nazi superiors to prepare for their upcoming trials. While serving at a concentration camp, he entered a twisted relationship with Lucia Atherton (Rampling), who coincidentally returns to his life when she comes to the hotel. Most famous for the twisted cabaret performance where Bogarde presents his lover with the head of a man who gave her trouble. Breathlessly toying with lines like, “’If I could wish something for myself/If could wish for a good time or a bad time - What should I wish? I can’t decide,” Rampling struts in the bare minimum of an officer’s uniform among a crowd of lounging individuals. Then again, Porter evokes the Holocaust while trying to present a sadomasochistic love story that–in context–seems utterly insane without its’ back story. Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Arc/Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Steven Spielberg has such an incredible hard-on for Nazis, killing Nazis and doing god-knows what else to Nazis that it becomes self-parody. Jones (Harrison Ford) is the epitome of a rugged adventurer searching for myths and buried treasure. On his first and third outings, he deals with the Nazis, particularly those at the same Thule Society that relied on the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail to continue the Fürher’s work. But as Indiana knows, you can’t be a Nazi without being thrown off a zeppelin, shot, stabbed, torn up by an airplane propeller or have god knows what other awful fate waiting for you. Jones tried to work out the Nazi angle in Temple of Doom, but ultimately Spielberg came running back to it because it makes for a better villain. Even in the fourth installment, the foil villains are the communist Russians. Hate to say it, but without the Nazis, Herr Doktor Jones wouldn’t be doing a whole lot of whipping. The Boys from Brazil Maybe we just felt like including this because Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck have an epic fight that ends with bloodthirsty Dobermans who react to the command, “Kill.”  Maybe this perfectly embodies the myth that Hitler had thirty some clones from Brazil spread into the world.  Regardless, this pseudo-sci-fi thriller from Franklin J. Schaffner (who also did Lionheart) got an Oscar nod for Olivier’s portrayal of Ezra Lieberman and offers Peck’s hokiest line ever: “A Hitler tailor-made for the 1980s, the 1990s, 2000!” Caligula Reincarnated as Hitler! I assumed it was a joke, but actually this is an Italian “Nazisploitation” film that made a wild gambit on two things: 1)    People would like Tinto Brass’ Caligula. 2)    Imagine how hot it would be to see a naked woman strung up, vomiting, as she’s lowered into a crate of rats. Not a big crate—more like a shoebox or an  ottoman. Released in 1977, there is no parallel to Caligula aside from copious sex, poor plot pacing and a desperate attempt to appeal to the inner philosopher in us all.  Director Cesare Canevari does us one better by having a woman devoured by ‘rats’ (read: they’re gerbils). This may be as shlocky as Nazi films get, but just imagine the looks on your friends faces when you say, “I spent time watching Caligula Reincarnated as Hitler. Well, he wasn’t in the film, but how awesome does that sound!” Worse still is this film literally misses a plot: it has events and actions, but not real structure. At all. It merely stops like a bad home movie that makes everyone who saw it question their own sanity. In fact, the only inspiration this sleaze inspires is to add “Caligula Reincarnated” to a film title as some type of drinking game or mild amusement. Because without Nazis or Hitler, this would just be called Hostel 3. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:00:53 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/29/2008 3:00:53 PMWhen it comes to lazy film clichés, Nazis are one step above slow-motion gunfights and barely underneath “the hero must get the girl and save the day.” It’s fitting that Nazis manage to encompass everything  from being the symbol for the Big, Bad Guy to perversion, occult beliefs and Holocaust Porn. Pop a swastika on someone and it becomes abundantly clear he’s the bad guy, whether it’s Samuel L. Jackson ripping through shoddy green screen in The Spirit or the lit-deviant prison guard Kate Winslet tackles in The Reader. But sometimes, there are types of films that need to go “Full Nazi.” These select few films embrace the red, black and white because they’d have no other claim to fame otherwise. The eight films below have merit on their own, but it is through their use of the Nazi symbols that they remain on the cultural brain. Apt Pupil The effective start of Bryan Singer’s ode to the Reich involves Arthur Denker (Ian McKellen), a Nazi war criminal masquerading next door to Todd Bowen (Brad Renfro), who discovers his neighbor’s previous life. Being an obsessive sociopath in progress, young Todd demands Arthur (neé Kurt Dussander) regale him with tales of World War II and Nazism in general. He goes so far as taking a uniform from the attic and demands Arthur march for him. Pupil embodies the sadomasochistic nature that the fetish community places on the Nazis along with the concept that only scary, evil people ever want to learn about history. The duo develop a creepy grandparent/child vibe, as Arthur threatens to rat out Todd if his grades don’t improve, and both become encouraged to torture small animals and get some small pleasure out of it. Hellboy Though Mike Mignola’s series owes more to H. P. Lovecraft, he bridges the gap by riding on the occult coattails of Nazis and even Russian historic figures. Set against World War II, an American commando squad raid a secret Nazi location where Rasputin (yes, the same one) intends to awaken a group of inter-dimensional beings to destroy the world. By his side, Karl Kroenen, leader of the Thule Society, personal assassin for Hitler and dressed by a leather fetishist. The U.S. troops foil the portal, Rasputin is sucked into a distant dimension and the film’s titular red ape-demon remains on our side for the U.S. of A. Utterly overshadowed in Guillermo Del Toro’s adaptation for whimsical creature design, the zombie-like Kroenen remains a constant example of Nazi-ism surviing into the modern era. Initially a mere scientist, the film re-imagines him as the Reich’s top assassin—he’s quiet, lethal and horribly deformed underneath the premise of his gas mask. You may also question this video choice. That’s simple: I really like this duet. Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS Perhaps the best known take of “Holocaust Porn,” Ilsa takes the women-in-prison theme and turns it around with its sadistic titular scientist (Dyanne Thorne), who runs a stalag devoted to proving women can endure more than men–thus being better soldiers for the Reich–through torture and campy experiments. She also proves her statement that men are weak by taking a nightly lover and castrating him if he finishes before she can. Her downfall comes once an American soldier (”Wolfe”) arrives, who learns of her kink and proves himself more than capable of his porn star stamina. And hey, Ilsa even gives a Golden Shower while wearing an S.S. Major’s uniform. Of course, there’s a revolt, Ilsa is defeated and shockingly murdered–along with other guards and inmates–by a German commando team. While clearly skirting the “B”-level of film, this remains rather unnerving on the level of “why am I watching this?” Saló o le 120 giornate di Sodoma Mundane title credits aside, Pier Paolo Pasolini’s ‘modern’ retelling of The 120 Days of Sodom occurs in 1944 Italy in the Republic of Saló. Four high-ranking members of the community decide to marry each others’ daughters–and then consummate the event with an incredibly horrid ritual. They kidnap 18 men and women, bring out four prostitutes to “tell of” the events and proceed to create lavish, perverse torture to enact. Jewish women are (literally) consumed; shit is served as a last meal; men and women are raped and/or murdered if they can no longer stand their confinement. And then comes the voyeuristic thrill of watching those slaughtered through the binoculars. But the end does it, as two soldiers gaily dance with one another after the film’s events, questioning just what will happen to those that stand by this. Il Portiere di notte/The Night Porter You may be noticing an S&M theme, but you’ll get one better with Charlotte Rampling’s near-historic cabaret performance.  Dirk Bogarde plays a former Nazi officer who finds himself as a night porter at a Vienna hotel, catering to his guests while conspiring with his former Nazi superiors to prepare for their upcoming trials. While serving at a concentration camp, he entered a twisted relationship with Lucia Atherton (Rampling), who coincidentally returns to his life when she comes to the hotel. Most famous for the twisted cabaret performance where Bogarde presents his lover with the head of a man who gave her trouble. Breathlessly toying with lines like, “’If I could wish something for myself/If could wish for a good time or a bad time - What should I wish? I can’t decide,” Rampling struts in the bare minimum of an officer’s uniform among a crowd of lounging individuals. Then again, Porter evokes the Holocaust while trying to present a sadomasochistic love story that–in context–seems utterly insane without its’ back story. Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Arc/Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Steven Spielberg has such an incredible hard-on for Nazis, killing Nazis and doing god-knows what else to Nazis that it becomes self-parody. Jones (Harrison Ford) is the epitome of a rugged adventurer searching for myths and buried treasure. On his first and third outings, he deals with the Nazis, particularly those at the same Thule Society that relied on the Ark of the Covenant or Holy Grail to continue the Fürher’s work. But as Indiana knows, you can’t be a Nazi without being thrown off a zeppelin, shot, stabbed, torn up by an airplane propeller or have god knows what other awful fate waiting for you. Jones tried to work out the Nazi angle in Temple of Doom, but ultimately Spielberg came running back to it because it makes for a better villain. Even in the fourth installment, the foil villains are the communist Russians. Hate to say it, but without the Nazis, Herr Doktor Jones wouldn’t be doing a whole lot of whipping. The Boys from Brazil Maybe we just felt like including this because Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck have an epic fight that ends with bloodthirsty Dobermans who react to the command, “Kill.”  Maybe this perfectly embodies the myth that Hitler had thirty some clones from Brazil spread into the world.  Regardless, this pseudo-sci-fi thriller from Franklin J. Schaffner (who also did Lionheart) got an Oscar nod for Olivier’s portrayal of Ezra Lieberman and offers Peck’s hokiest line ever: “A Hitler tailor-made for the 1980s, the 1990s, 2000!” Caligula Reincarnated as Hitler! I assumed it was a joke, but actually this is an Italian “Nazisploitation” film that made a wild gambit on two things: 1)    People would like Tinto Brass’ Caligula. 2)    Imagine how hot it would be to see a naked woman strung up, vomiting, as she’s lowered into a crate of rats. Not a big crate—more like a shoebox or an  ottoman. Released in 1977, there is no parallel to Caligula aside from copious sex, poor plot pacing and a desperate attempt to appeal to the inner philosopher in us all.  Director Cesare Canevari does us one better by having a woman devoured by ‘rats’ (read: they’re gerbils). This may be as shlocky as Nazi films get, but just imagine the looks on your friends faces when you say, “I spent time watching Caligula Reincarnated as Hitler. Well, he wasn’t in the film, but how awesome does that sound!” Worse still is this film literally misses a plot: it has events and actions, but not real structure. At all. It merely stops like a bad home movie that makes everyone who saw it question their own sanity. In fact, the only inspiration this sleaze inspires is to add “Caligula Reincarnated” to a film title as some type of drinking game or mild amusement. Because without Nazis or Hitler, this would just be called Hostel 3. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Imagination_of_Fantasy/Re_The_Best_Fantasy/47/38868/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: The Imagination of Fantasy
Post Date: 12/26/2008 9:31:00 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad [/quote] Ah, but see in our Fantasy group, it's not all about dragons and magic and elves and unicorns and things. If you'll notice, the other lists include topics like "What If?" movies because, basically, if you're imagining an answer to a "what if?" that could take on many shapes and sizes, you're engaging in fantasy. Case in point: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just released, imagines a what if scenario asking the question "what if a person is born old and grows young?" Maybe that's too obvious, though. Groundhog Day imagines, "What if you were stuck in the same day over and over again, what would happen or what would you do." Similarly, It's a Wonderful Life imagines, "What if you were never born?" Those are all questions that involve flights of imagination, and fantasy. Note dictionary.com's uber-available definition (noun form only): fan⋅ta⋅sy   /ˈfæntəsi, -zi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy⋅ing. –noun 1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained. 2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. 3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy. 4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream. 5. a hallucination. 6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies. 7. caprice; whim. 8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention. 9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror. Besides, the AFI validates Groundhog Day and It's a Wonderful Life on these fronts, if you have any truck with them: http://www.afi.com/10top10/fantasy.html So, yes, this is a long-winded way of saying let's include them, we like it all here, but you did go over 10. Can you limit your list and pick the absolute 10 best fantasy films from your nominations? I know it'll be a challenge, but I'm going to hold myself to that too! If you can't, that's ok, but there's a method to the madness...:-)
]]>Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:31:00 GMTpippin06The Imagination of Fantasy12/26/2008 9:31:00 PM[quote user="Risselada"] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad [/quote] Ah, but see in our Fantasy group, it's not all about dragons and magic and elves and unicorns and things. If you'll notice, the other lists include topics like "What If?" movies because, basically, if you're imagining an answer to a "what if?" that could take on many shapes and sizes, you're engaging in fantasy. Case in point: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, just released, imagines a what if scenario asking the question "what if a person is born old and grows young?" Maybe that's too obvious, though. Groundhog Day imagines, "What if you were stuck in the same day over and over again, what would happen or what would you do." Similarly, It's a Wonderful Life imagines, "What if you were never born?" Those are all questions that involve flights of imagination, and fantasy. Note dictionary.com's uber-available definition (noun form only): fan&sdot;ta&sdot;sy&ensp; &ensp;/ˈf&aelig;ntəsi, -zi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fan-tuh-see, -zee] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -sies, verb, -sied, -sy&sdot;ing. &ndash;noun 1. imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained. 2. the forming of mental images, esp. wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. 3. a mental image, esp. when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy. 4. Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream. 5. a hallucination. 6. a supposition based on no solid foundation; visionary idea; illusion: dreams of Utopias and similar fantasies. 7. caprice; whim. 8. an ingenious or fanciful thought, design, or invention. 9. Also, fantasia. Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters: The stories of Poe are fantasies of horror. Besides, the AFI validates Groundhog Day and It's a Wonderful Life on these fronts, if you have any truck with them: http://www.afi.com/10top10/fantasy.html So, yes, this is a long-winded way of saying let's include them, we like it all here, but you did go over 10. Can you limit your list and pick the absolute 10 best fantasy films from your nominations? I know it'll be a challenge, but I'm going to hold myself to that too! If you can't, that's ok, but there's a method to the madness...:-) http://www.spout.com/groups/The_Imagination_of_Fantasy/Re_The_Best_Fantasy/47/38814/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: The Imagination of Fantasy
Post Date: 12/24/2008 1:01:46 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] Hi fantasy lovers! You may have noticed if you joined the group that there is a list, currently locked, called "The Best Fantasy." I created that list when I created the group, mostly because it was an excuse for a list I could create, but most of the entries are what I think are the best. I locked it because I realized - I think we need a compiled list from the membership. Something a la some of these other groups I belong to...something like a poll, or a Top 5, or a list of collaborative recommendations (and credit to all from whom I am, uh, tweaking the idea). Therefore, it's time for you to weigh in! Pick your favorite fantasy movies. No fewer than one, no more than ten. Tell us why you think they are the best! With enough responses, we can compile our very own Best Fantasy list, and then, perhaps, we can Spout it for all of Spout to hear! Mwa ha! After all, who better to make this list than us? I'll let you get the ball rolling, since I already made that list...give us a start. I'll contribute my faves asap! [/quote] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad
]]>Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:01:46 GMTRisseladaThe Imagination of Fantasy12/24/2008 1:01:46 PM[quote user="pippin06"] Hi fantasy lovers! You may have noticed if you joined the group that there is a list, currently locked, called "The Best Fantasy." I created that list when I created the group, mostly because it was an excuse for a list I could create, but most of the entries are what I think are the best. I locked it because I realized - I think we need a compiled list from the membership. Something a la some of these other groups I belong to...something like a poll, or a Top 5, or a list of collaborative recommendations (and credit to all from whom I am, uh, tweaking the idea). Therefore, it's time for you to weigh in! Pick your favorite fantasy movies. No fewer than one, no more than ten. Tell us why you think they are the best! With enough responses, we can compile our very own Best Fantasy list, and then, perhaps, we can Spout it for all of Spout to hear! Mwa ha! After all, who better to make this list than us? I'll let you get the ball rolling, since I already made that list...give us a start. I'll contribute my faves asap! [/quote] I had to check your list to see how broadly you classified a movie as being fantasy. I see you put Groundhog Day on there which really doesn't have a lot of fantastical elements other than one basic anomaly that causes him to keep reliving the same day over and over. Other than that, each day is actually pretty normal without any magic or strange creatures or fantastical geography. So it's kind of hard for me to determine in my mind which movies that have some fantastical element are fantastic enough to be considered "fantasy" Here are a few good ones though: Ugetsu Monogatari - although ghosts aren't that uncommon in East Asian storytelling. I think more people have historically considered them a part of reality more than in the west. The Devil and Daniel Webster - again, how real this is may depend on your belief in the spritual world, but mostly it's an alegory. Groundhog Day / It's a Wonderful Life - Groundhog Day is a great movie, and if we are going to include that, I think we should inclued It's a Wonderful Life too. The Seventh Seal - I guess it looks like most of my absolute favorites feature spiritual or ghostly elements. Here we have Death personified. Star Wars - the whole first trilogy of course! No Such Thing - kind of an exploration of fantasy and monsters and why the human race needs or no longer needs these characters Who Framed Roger Rabbit All of Miyazaki's movies Stalker - Stunning! Sleepy Hollow / Beetlejuice - some of my favorite Tim Burton fantasy Shoot, I'm going over 10. Let me list a couple more: Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, Pete's Dragon, The Green Mile, Time Bandits, Hellboy, The Thief of Bagdad http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_December_1_The_Anti_Hero/625/37830/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 12/1/2008 9:30:22 PM
Body: Great theme Leeroy! The Silence of the Lambs - Hannibal Lector Sick, perverse yet you can't help rooting for him to get out of prison. A Clockwork Orange - Alex DeLarge Again, sick and perverse but you're still rooting for the bastard. The Professional - Leon Minimalist. Botanist. Cold-blooded killer. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome - Max You thought he wasn't gonna help those aboriginal kids, didn't you! Natural Born Killers - Mickey & Mallory Knox Bring on the arguments, but I loved this cute little couple. Kill Bill - Beatrix Kiddo Trained assassin that shows (almost) no mercy. Great female anti-hero. Pitch Black - Riddick Great role for Vin Diesel. He barely spoke the entire film. Constantine - John Constantine Smoker. Sinner. Blasphemer. Suicidal. But still cool a pretty cool guy. Hellboy - Anung un Rama, The Beast of the Apocalypse Again, smoker, blasphemer, jerk. But really nice to pyrokinetics, cats and the occasional human baby. From Dusk Till Dawn - Seth Gecko Mass murderer. Kidnapper. Bank Robber. But we all still think he's badass. Even if it is George Clooney. Brick - Brenden Frye Loner. Plays rough with the ladies. Blackmailer. Smart little hard-boiled detective. Point of No Return - Maggie Hayward Druggie. Runaway. B*#$h. But really likable towards the end. The Fifth Element - Korben Dallas Complete a*&#@le but does good and gets the alien chick. The Crow - Eric Draven Goth freak vigilante revenant (?) serial killer. But the good kind. Fight Club - Tyler Durden Thief. Terrorist. Womanizer. Soap Maker. Made every straight man just a little gay with his abnormally perfect abdominal muscles. The Boondock Saints - Connor & Murphy McManus Blah. Blah. Murderers. Blah. Blah. Alcoholics. Blah. Blah. Inspirational Vigilantes. Sin City - Marv Brutish ogre with a soft spot for big breasted woman.
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:30:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme12/1/2008 9:30:22 PMGreat theme Leeroy! The Silence of the Lambs - Hannibal Lector Sick, perverse yet you can't help rooting for him to get out of prison. A Clockwork Orange - Alex DeLarge Again, sick and perverse but you're still rooting for the bastard. The Professional - Leon Minimalist. Botanist. Cold-blooded killer. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome - Max You thought he wasn't gonna help those aboriginal kids, didn't you! Natural Born Killers - Mickey &amp; Mallory Knox Bring on the arguments, but I loved this cute little couple. Kill Bill - Beatrix Kiddo Trained assassin that shows (almost) no mercy. Great female anti-hero. Pitch Black - Riddick Great role for Vin Diesel. He barely spoke the entire film. Constantine - John Constantine Smoker. Sinner. Blasphemer. Suicidal. But still cool a pretty cool guy. Hellboy - Anung un Rama, The Beast of the Apocalypse Again, smoker, blasphemer, jerk. But really nice to pyrokinetics, cats and the occasional human baby. From Dusk Till Dawn - Seth Gecko Mass murderer. Kidnapper. Bank Robber. But we all still think he's badass. Even if it is George Clooney. Brick - Brenden Frye Loner. Plays rough with the ladies. Blackmailer. Smart little hard-boiled detective. Point of No Return - Maggie Hayward Druggie. Runaway. B*#$h. But really likable towards the end. The Fifth Element - Korben Dallas Complete a*&amp;#@le but does good and gets the alien chick. The Crow - Eric Draven Goth freak vigilante revenant (?) serial killer. But the good kind. Fight Club - Tyler Durden Thief. Terrorist. Womanizer. Soap Maker. Made every straight man just a little gay with his abnormally perfect abdominal muscles. The Boondock Saints - Connor &amp; Murphy McManus Blah. Blah. Murderers. Blah. Blah. Alcoholics. Blah. Blah. Inspirational Vigilantes. Sin City - Marv Brutish ogre with a soft spot for big breasted woman. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/12/37266.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/12/2008 6:01:08 PM
Body: In 2004’s Hellboy, director Guillermo del Toro introduced us to the cinematic version of Mike Mignola’s popular comic book character, a laconic demon summoned to Earth to destroy it but who winds up working with a team of supernatural characters to save it time and again. Returning to the character in 2008 with Hellboy II: The Golden Army, del Toro brings the emotional journey - yes, there is one in this story of demons and underworlds - of Hellboy to a conclusion whose enjoyment is enhanced by, but not necessarily dependent on, the viewing of the first movie. The Golden Army once again finds Hellboy conflicted between the role he’s reminded he’s destined to play (bringer of Hell to Earth) and the one he’s chosen to play (protector of Earth). This time his adversary is an Elf prince who’s tired of the ancient truce between his people and humans and has vowed to, you, know, destroy the surface dwellers as a result. Monsters need to be pounded by Hellboy’s big red fist, blown apart by his even bigger series of specially-designed guns and ultimately destroyed through, in true Wonder Pets fashion, the power of teamwork. The central plot of Hellboy stopping another apocalypse is entertaining and engaging, thanks in large part to del Toro’s vividly imaginative character design and emphasis on making sure each one has a unique and interesting identity. But even more satisfying than that is the emotional journey, carried over from the first film, that Hellboy is taken on. The stoic hero is a stock character with a long history in film and Hellboy owes a lot to his predecessors, who have saved Nakatomi Tower and performed similar feats. Usually the day is saved in a manner that not only defeats the bad guys but allows the hero to reunite with his estranged wife or disrespectiful children because the experience has taught him about what really matters. In Hellboy’s case, his laconic “Oh crap” is a massive sarcastic understatement when he’s faced with, as in one scene in The Golden Army, a massive flower god that’s spreading itself all over Manhattan. But while he works to betray little in the way of uncertainty in situations like that, the thing that’s causing him the most pain - his relationship with the human fire-starter Liz Sherman played by Selma Blair -  is always at the tip of his tongue. The fact that he can’t figure out her wants and needs continue to be the one problem in his life he can’t punch away, and that’s incredibly frustrating to him. At the end of the first movie the narration intoned that embracing his love of Blair’s Sherman had fully made Hellboy a man. But he continues to act out in a decidedly immature way throughout the second movie. That changes, though, when he finds out that Sherman is pregnant with his child. That knowledge is, quite literally in the story, what gives him the will to live. Even though at that point he still acts first and thinks things through later, he does step up in the final showdown and embrace, if not his role as destroyer of worlds, certainly his role as the leader of the societal subset he and his cohorts inhabit. It’s watching the evolution of the relationships between the characters, especially Hellboy and Sherman, that provides the most satisfying component of Hellboy II. The fantasy adventure is enjoyable and, like most action movies, an essential hook on which to hang that action. But unlike a good deal of those action movies Hellboy II, like the first film and the animated features that have been released in the intervening years, never loses sight of the fact that story is what keeps people engaged. Hellboy II: The Golden Army was released on DVD on Tuesday, 11/11 in both single and three-disc editions. The two-disc release carries with it a ton of value-added content, including behind-the-scenes journeys with del Toro and the production staff, a look into the film’s marketing campaign and much, much more, including a digital copy of the movie you can download to your computer. You can read Adam Forrest’s original review of the movie here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/12/2008 6:01:08 PMIn 2004’s Hellboy, director Guillermo del Toro introduced us to the cinematic version of Mike Mignola’s popular comic book character, a laconic demon summoned to Earth to destroy it but who winds up working with a team of supernatural characters to save it time and again. Returning to the character in 2008 with Hellboy II: The Golden Army, del Toro brings the emotional journey - yes, there is one in this story of demons and underworlds - of Hellboy to a conclusion whose enjoyment is enhanced by, but not necessarily dependent on, the viewing of the first movie. The Golden Army once again finds Hellboy conflicted between the role he’s reminded he’s destined to play (bringer of Hell to Earth) and the one he’s chosen to play (protector of Earth). This time his adversary is an Elf prince who’s tired of the ancient truce between his people and humans and has vowed to, you, know, destroy the surface dwellers as a result. Monsters need to be pounded by Hellboy’s big red fist, blown apart by his even bigger series of specially-designed guns and ultimately destroyed through, in true Wonder Pets fashion, the power of teamwork. The central plot of Hellboy stopping another apocalypse is entertaining and engaging, thanks in large part to del Toro’s vividly imaginative character design and emphasis on making sure each one has a unique and interesting identity. But even more satisfying than that is the emotional journey, carried over from the first film, that Hellboy is taken on. The stoic hero is a stock character with a long history in film and Hellboy owes a lot to his predecessors, who have saved Nakatomi Tower and performed similar feats. Usually the day is saved in a manner that not only defeats the bad guys but allows the hero to reunite with his estranged wife or disrespectiful children because the experience has taught him about what really matters. In Hellboy’s case, his laconic “Oh crap” is a massive sarcastic understatement when he’s faced with, as in one scene in The Golden Army, a massive flower god that’s spreading itself all over Manhattan. But while he works to betray little in the way of uncertainty in situations like that, the thing that’s causing him the most pain - his relationship with the human fire-starter Liz Sherman played by Selma Blair -  is always at the tip of his tongue. The fact that he can’t figure out her wants and needs continue to be the one problem in his life he can’t punch away, and that’s incredibly frustrating to him. At the end of the first movie the narration intoned that embracing his love of Blair’s Sherman had fully made Hellboy a man. But he continues to act out in a decidedly immature way throughout the second movie. That changes, though, when he finds out that Sherman is pregnant with his child. That knowledge is, quite literally in the story, what gives him the will to live. Even though at that point he still acts first and thinks things through later, he does step up in the final showdown and embrace, if not his role as destroyer of worlds, certainly his role as the leader of the societal subset he and his cohorts inhabit. It’s watching the evolution of the relationships between the characters, especially Hellboy and Sherman, that provides the most satisfying component of Hellboy II. The fantasy adventure is enjoyable and, like most action movies, an essential hook on which to hang that action. But unlike a good deal of those action movies Hellboy II, like the first film and the animated features that have been released in the intervening years, never loses sight of the fact that story is what keeps people engaged. Hellboy II: The Golden Army was released on DVD on Tuesday, 11/11 in both single and three-disc editions. The two-disc release carries with it a ton of value-added content, including behind-the-scenes journeys with del Toro and the production staff, a look into the film’s marketing campaign and much, much more, including a digital copy of the movie you can download to your computer. You can read Adam Forrest’s original review of the movie here. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/28/36732.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/28/2008 12:01:16 PM
Body: It seems the Scandinavians know something we don’t: the Nazis are coming back. There are a slew of delicious looking indie features coming out of Northern Europe, three of which share a common antagonist: Nazis. Why this sudden interest in a decades-old threat? What is it about the present day that makes fascism even scarier than usual? Iron Sky, a Finnish film about Nazis escaping to the moon at the end of WWII and returning to destroy Earth in 2018, is currently in pre-production. The filmmakers did a terrific job promoting their last film, Star Wreck, online. For Iron Sky, they are involving fans in every step of the process, including funding. They’ve already produced a killer trailer (see above). The English subtitled version of the trailer for Dead Snow hit the web last week (via Twitch). The film, produced in Norway, follows a group of young people in a secluded cabin, fighting for survival against a horde of zombie Nazis. It looks like classic horror based on a fresh and funny premise. But why Nazis and why now? The third film that comes to mind when thinking about this trend is not a genre film like the other two, but a WWII period piece. Flame & Citron, a Danish film about the true story of resistance fighters in Copenhagen, is a superb blend of action, espionage, and high drama. Nazis have been villains in movies for as long as they’ve been around. In many ways they’re the perfect adversaries. They’ve driven, methodical, and ruthlessly evil. Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer, and Hellboy, among many others, have had success inserting Nazis into fantasy. In the case of these movies, as well as Iron Sky and Dead Snow, the Nazi threat is amped up by a fantastic trump card, a hidden ace that would let the fascists overturn the precarious balance of power. It could be a jet pack, the Ark of the Covenant, a secret moon base, or hunger for brains long after death. So in one sense, the move toward more Nazi villains is obvious: they are scary and evil. But I think there is more to it. This is somewhat speculative, but there is a sense of dread and paranoia that is very palpable, especially in Flame & Citron, which seems more relevant now than ever before. I normally devote this weekly column to post-apocalyptic or dystopian futures, but talking about Flame & Citron seems appropriate here. Although it is set in WWII, it is essentially apocalyptic, the characters are struggling to prevent the end of their world. Without the advantage of hindsight there was no light at the end of the tunnel. While the cost of the War on the United States was tremendous, I imagine the impact of the war on nations that were occupied or otherwise strong-armed by the Nazis was even more dreadful. What Flame & Citron reveals is that fascism is such a sneaky enemy because while it seeks to destroy dissenters, it also rewards the party faithful. In other words, every individual has to choose whether to oppose fascism and face certain doom, or tolerate it and try to play it to their advantage. It’s not unreasonable to say that the renewed interest in the threat of fascism, especially from a part of the world like Northern Europe, is directly linked to current global politics. With the proliferation of terrorist watch lists, warrantless wiretapping, and secret prisons, nations and individuals not directly effected by the conflict are forced to choose: remain complicit, or stand up to a threat you may feel powerless to stop. Either way, these are scary times. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:01:16 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/28/2008 12:01:16 PM It seems the Scandinavians know something we don’t: the Nazis are coming back. There are a slew of delicious looking indie features coming out of Northern Europe, three of which share a common antagonist: Nazis. Why this sudden interest in a decades-old threat? What is it about the present day that makes fascism even scarier than usual? Iron Sky, a Finnish film about Nazis escaping to the moon at the end of WWII and returning to destroy Earth in 2018, is currently in pre-production. The filmmakers did a terrific job promoting their last film, Star Wreck, online. For Iron Sky, they are involving fans in every step of the process, including funding. They’ve already produced a killer trailer (see above). The English subtitled version of the trailer for Dead Snow hit the web last week (via Twitch). The film, produced in Norway, follows a group of young people in a secluded cabin, fighting for survival against a horde of zombie Nazis. It looks like classic horror based on a fresh and funny premise. But why Nazis and why now? The third film that comes to mind when thinking about this trend is not a genre film like the other two, but a WWII period piece. Flame & Citron, a Danish film about the true story of resistance fighters in Copenhagen, is a superb blend of action, espionage, and high drama. Nazis have been villains in movies for as long as they’ve been around. In many ways they’re the perfect adversaries. They’ve driven, methodical, and ruthlessly evil. Indiana Jones, The Rocketeer, and Hellboy, among many others, have had success inserting Nazis into fantasy. In the case of these movies, as well as Iron Sky and Dead Snow, the Nazi threat is amped up by a fantastic trump card, a hidden ace that would let the fascists overturn the precarious balance of power. It could be a jet pack, the Ark of the Covenant, a secret moon base, or hunger for brains long after death. So in one sense, the move toward more Nazi villains is obvious: they are scary and evil. But I think there is more to it. This is somewhat speculative, but there is a sense of dread and paranoia that is very palpable, especially in Flame & Citron, which seems more relevant now than ever before. I normally devote this weekly column to post-apocalyptic or dystopian futures, but talking about Flame & Citron seems appropriate here. Although it is set in WWII, it is essentially apocalyptic, the characters are struggling to prevent the end of their world. Without the advantage of hindsight there was no light at the end of the tunnel. While the cost of the War on the United States was tremendous, I imagine the impact of the war on nations that were occupied or otherwise strong-armed by the Nazis was even more dreadful. What Flame & Citron reveals is that fascism is such a sneaky enemy because while it seeks to destroy dissenters, it also rewards the party faithful. In other words, every individual has to choose whether to oppose fascism and face certain doom, or tolerate it and try to play it to their advantage. It’s not unreasonable to say that the renewed interest in the threat of fascism, especially from a part of the world like Northern Europe, is directly linked to current global politics. With the proliferation of terrorist watch lists, warrantless wiretapping, and secret prisons, nations and individuals not directly effected by the conflict are forced to choose: remain complicit, or stand up to a threat you may feel powerless to stop. Either way, these are scary times. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Guilty-Pleasure/MemberTagFilms.aspxGuilty-Pleasure
Number of films tagged: 102

Number of people who tagged: 61

Number of times used: 152

]]>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:55:42 GMT10261152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/superhero/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuperhero
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 50

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:49:48 GMT86450127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovetriangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovetriangle
Number of films tagged: 2902

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 75

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT29023875Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazi/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazi
Number of films tagged: 428

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 67

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:50:17 GMT4283667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comic/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomic
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 67

]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 07:06:48 GMT443567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/goodvsevil/MemberTagFilms.aspxgoodvsevil
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:42:51 GMT7422567Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hell/MemberTagFilms.aspxhell
Number of films tagged: 118

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 33

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:06:49 GMT1182333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/paranormal/MemberTagFilms.aspxparanormal
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 31

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:29 GMT2122331Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/demon/MemberTagFilms.aspxdemon
Number of films tagged: 532

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:28 GMT5322130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/demons/MemberTagFilms.aspxdemons
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 36

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:59:54 GMT302136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/government/MemberTagFilms.aspxgovernment
Number of films tagged: 1063

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 126

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:36 GMT106321126Tag