list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Incredibles on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Incredibles/227710/default.aspx Title: The Incredibles
Year: 2004
Director: Brad Bird
Plot: Directed by Brad Bird, The Incredibles revolves around former high-profile superhero Bob Parr (aka Mr. Incredible), who has not-so-successfully settled into suburban life along with his wife and kids under the watchful eye of the Superhero Protection Program. A far cry from the "glory days" during which "supers" were a welcome addition to society, the Parrs' living situation was brought on after a series of superhero-related lawsuits forced them into hiding. When not trying to fight small-time crime undercover with fellow former superhero Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson), Parr (voice by Craig T. Nelson) is muddling through the corporate world as a paunchy, emotionally unsatisfied insurance claims adjuster. His family is like any other with some notable exceptions -- his daughter has the uncanny ability to become invisible and create impenetrable force fields at will; his son, Dash, can run at incredible speeds; his wife, Helen (Holly Hunter), is known in super circles as Elastigirl, one of the most respected (and pliable) superwomen of her time. Just when it looks as if things can't get any worse for Bob, he gets a summons to show up at a remote island to receive instructions for a highly classified assignment, which he promptly accepts. Thrust back into the world of fighting crime, the Incredible family is back in familiar territory -- saving the world from Syndrome, a jilted former fan of Mr. Incredible. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 142
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:35:53 GMTThe Incredibles2004Brad BirdDirected by <a href="/players/P____81910/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brad Bird</a>, The Incredibles revolves around former high-profile superhero Bob Parr (aka Mr. Incredible), who has not-so-successfully settled into suburban life along with his wife and kids under the watchful eye of the Superhero Protection Program. A far cry from the "glory days" during which "supers" were a welcome addition to society, the Parrs' living situation was brought on after a series of superhero-related lawsuits forced them into hiding. When not trying to fight small-time crime undercover with fellow former superhero Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson), Parr (voice by Craig T. Nelson) is muddling through the corporate world as a paunchy, emotionally unsatisfied insurance claims adjuster. His family is like any other with some notable exceptions -- his daughter has the uncanny ability to become invisible and create impenetrable force fields at will; his son, Dash, can run at incredible speeds; his wife, Helen (<a href="/players/P____34013/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Holly Hunter</a>), is known in super circles as Elastigirl, one of the most respected (and pliable) superwomen of her time. Just when it looks as if things can't get any worse for Bob, he gets a summons to show up at a remote island to receive instructions for a highly classified assignment, which he promptly accepts. Thrust back into the world of fighting crime, the Incredible family is back in familiar territory -- saving the world from Syndrome, a jilted former fan of Mr. Incredible. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide90Tag Target (>10)1421464http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t54653w86la.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Incredibles/227710/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/1/41961.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/1/2009 6:15:54 PM
Body: "Mister Inredible" (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) is a man with unique gifts which he uses to help his fellow man -- even if he is late for his own wedding to "Hellen," (voiced by Holly Hunter) whom the world knows as "Elastigirl". In fact, both were late for their own wedding because they both went after the same criminal. Soon after the wedding, the superheroes were forced by the government to live their lives in their secret identities and not help those in need after a rash of lawsuits were filed against the superheroes. However, the government created a relocation program not unlike the witness relocation program for the superheroes. Years later, the two are now living a "normal" life raising their three children -- two of which have their own powers. "Bob" now works as an insurance man, and hates it. "Helen" now is a stay-at-home mother who raises their children. But "Bob" wanted more, so he and long-time friend "Lucius" (Samuel L. Jackson) would go out and do heroic acts as masked men. But that wasn't enough, and he took an offer to put the superhero outfit back on, and it paid well. But he refused to tell his wife, so she became suspicious of his actions. However, it turns out that he has gotten in serious trouble, and she has to come to her husband's aid -- again. Pixar seriously improved the animation in this movie. At times I thought I was watching those stop-motion animated TV specials around the Christmas season when I was a kid instead of a computer animated movie. In fact, the lead villain in the movie has a striking resemblance to the lead villain in one of the classic "Rudolf, the Red-Nose Reindeer" stop-action animated television special. A lot of the situations depicted in this movie is not for children. It's pretty violent in a lot of scenes and has at least one situation that is pretty adult that children wouldn't understand. I might suggest that parents should watch this movie before allowing their youngest children view this movie. The performances of the cast members were fantastic in this movie. There was a little problem with character development on the supporting cast. One supporting cast member helped with the development of the title characters, but another one only appeared when he was needed as backup for most of the time he was on screen. Another problem is that they seemed to have bunched together the action scenes and the slower scenes that were used to develop the characters. Sadly, there were too few laughs in this film. Most of the laughs were thanks to physical comedy. The few jokes worked well and will get you laughing, but you won't bust a gut. There were many missed spots that could have had a joke inserted. "The Incredibles" is an enjoyable movie that has a lot of fun moments, and the best animation presented by Pixar at the time. The performances by all those who provided voices is great and make the characters enjoyable. This movie would be a very good rental for a family movie night.
]]>Fri, 01 May 2009 22:15:54 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/1/2009 6:15:54 PM"Mister Inredible" (voiced by Craig T. Nelson) is a man with unique gifts which he uses to help his fellow man -- even if he is late for his own wedding to "Hellen," (voiced by Holly Hunter) whom the world knows as "Elastigirl". In fact, both were late for their own wedding because they both went after the same criminal. Soon after the wedding, the superheroes were forced by the government to live their lives in their secret identities and not help those in need after a rash of lawsuits were filed against the superheroes. However, the government created a relocation program not unlike the witness relocation program for the superheroes. Years later, the two are now living a "normal" life raising their three children -- two of which have their own powers. "Bob" now works as an insurance man, and hates it. "Helen" now is a stay-at-home mother who raises their children. But "Bob" wanted more, so he and long-time friend "Lucius" (Samuel L. Jackson) would go out and do heroic acts as masked men. But that wasn't enough, and he took an offer to put the superhero outfit back on, and it paid well. But he refused to tell his wife, so she became suspicious of his actions. However, it turns out that he has gotten in serious trouble, and she has to come to her husband's aid -- again. Pixar seriously improved the animation in this movie. At times I thought I was watching those stop-motion animated TV specials around the Christmas season when I was a kid instead of a computer animated movie. In fact, the lead villain in the movie has a striking resemblance to the lead villain in one of the classic "Rudolf, the Red-Nose Reindeer" stop-action animated television special. A lot of the situations depicted in this movie is not for children. It's pretty violent in a lot of scenes and has at least one situation that is pretty adult that children wouldn't understand. I might suggest that parents should watch this movie before allowing their youngest children view this movie. The performances of the cast members were fantastic in this movie. There was a little problem with character development on the supporting cast. One supporting cast member helped with the development of the title characters, but another one only appeared when he was needed as backup for most of the time he was on screen. Another problem is that they seemed to have bunched together the action scenes and the slower scenes that were used to develop the characters. Sadly, there were too few laughs in this film. Most of the laughs were thanks to physical comedy. The few jokes worked well and will get you laughing, but you won't bust a gut. There were many missed spots that could have had a joke inserted. "The Incredibles" is an enjoyable movie that has a lot of fun moments, and the best animation presented by Pixar at the time. The performances by all those who provided voices is great and make the characters enjoyable. This movie would be a very good rental for a family movie night. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40945.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 6:01:08 PM
Body: If you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 6:01:08 PMIf you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: 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/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_October_6_Revenge/625/35952/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Tizzy
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/6/2008 7:06:19 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] Well since probably my favorite film focusing solely on revenge was mentioned (She-Devil), I'm gonna have to go ahead and list those that pale in comparison. Jaws: The Revenge - The first Jaws is incredible, but not really about revenge. The fourth installment, with revenge blatantly placed in the title, is a great little B-movie that increased my fear of sharks and has made me vow to myself to never get on a floatation device that gets dragged behind a boat: cause you know great white sharks love that shit. I was recently able to see Machine Girl which was insanely gory and loaded with laughs. Premise: a young school girl gets revenge by attaching a Gatling gun to her amputated forearm and killing the bullies that picked on her and her brother. A Nightmare on Elm Street is more or less a revenge flick about Freddy killing the kids of those who killed him. Carrie gave mousy nerds in high school hope of becoming telekinetic and getting revenge on all those snot nosed cheerleaders and jocks. Death Becomes Her is all about revenge between two woman that continues throughout their entire lives. Dick presupposes that Deepthroat was just getting revenge on Nixon. Election is yet another meditation on revenge set in high school. Pick Flick or suffer the wrath of Reese Witherspoon! Friday the 13th. No explanation needed. Gladiator Maximus is all up on getting revenge. Hackers spends half the film getting revenge on those that dare to mess with computer nerds and their porn. Hard Candy was a very twisted revenge thriller. Jawbreaker and Mean Girls focus on big breasted teens plotting each others demise. Overboard has a lowly carpenter getting revenge on a bitchy debutante by surreptitiously making her into his wife and the father of his children when she gets amnesia. Rushmore has fantastic moments of revenge between Max and Mr. Bloom. The "Non-Fiction" part of Storytelling has a great bit of revenge at the end. The First Wives Club is a guilty pleasure about scorned ex-wives getting revenge on their husbands that left them for younger women. The Incredibles centers around Syndrome getting revenge on super-heroes. What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? is some classic screen legend revenge. Lastly, Wild Things. Great B-movie with acts of revenge and lesbian trysts around every corner. [/quote] I see your Jaws: The Revenge, Mercurial, and raise you one Revenge of the Nerds. I'd also like to throw Heathers into the mix of teenage revenge movies, with very dark consequences.
]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:06:19 GMTTizzyWeekly Theme10/6/2008 7:06:19 PM[quote user="mercurial"] Well since probably my favorite film focusing solely on revenge was mentioned (She-Devil), I'm gonna have to go ahead and list those that pale in comparison. Jaws: The Revenge - The first Jaws is incredible, but not really about revenge. The fourth installment, with revenge blatantly placed in the title, is a great little B-movie that increased my fear of sharks and has made me vow to myself to never get on a floatation device that gets dragged behind a boat: cause you know great white sharks love that shit. I was recently able to see Machine Girl which was insanely gory and loaded with laughs. Premise: a young school girl gets revenge by attaching a Gatling gun to her amputated forearm and killing the bullies that picked on her and her brother. A Nightmare on Elm Street is more or less a revenge flick about Freddy killing the kids of those who killed him. Carrie gave mousy nerds in high school hope of becoming telekinetic and getting revenge on all those snot nosed cheerleaders and jocks. Death Becomes Her is all about revenge between two woman that continues throughout their entire lives. Dick presupposes that Deepthroat was just getting revenge on Nixon. Election is yet another meditation on revenge set in high school. Pick Flick or suffer the wrath of Reese Witherspoon! Friday the 13th. No explanation needed. Gladiator Maximus is all up on getting revenge. Hackers spends half the film getting revenge on those that dare to mess with computer nerds and their porn. Hard Candy was a very twisted revenge thriller. Jawbreaker and Mean Girls focus on big breasted teens plotting each others demise. Overboard has a lowly carpenter getting revenge on a bitchy debutante by surreptitiously making her into his wife and the father of his children when she gets amnesia. Rushmore has fantastic moments of revenge between Max and Mr. Bloom. The "Non-Fiction" part of Storytelling has a great bit of revenge at the end. The First Wives Club is a guilty pleasure about scorned ex-wives getting revenge on their husbands that left them for younger women. The Incredibles centers around Syndrome getting revenge on super-heroes. What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? is some classic screen legend revenge. Lastly, Wild Things. Great B-movie with acts of revenge and lesbian trysts around every corner. [/quote] I see your Jaws: The Revenge, Mercurial, and raise you one Revenge of the Nerds. I'd also like to throw Heathers into the mix of teenage revenge movies, with very dark consequences. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_October_6_Revenge/625/35951/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 10/6/2008 6:45:27 PM
Body: Well since probably my favorite film focusing solely on revenge was mentioned (She-Devil), I'm gonna have to go ahead and list those that pale in comparison. Jaws: The Revenge - The first Jaws is incredible, but not really about revenge. The fourth installment, with revenge blatantly placed in the title, is a great little B-movie that increased my fear of sharks and has made me vow to myself to never get on a floatation device that gets dragged behind a boat: cause you know great white sharks love that shit. I was recently able to see Machine Girl which was insanely gory and loaded with laughs. Premise: a young school girl gets revenge by attaching a Gatling gun to her amputated forearm and killing the bullies that picked on her and her brother. A Nightmare on Elm Street is more or less a revenge flick about Freddy killing the kids of those who killed him. Carrie gave mousy nerds in high school hope of becoming telekinetic and getting revenge on all those snot nosed cheerleaders and jocks. Death Becomes Her is all about revenge between two woman that continues throughout their entire lives. Dick presupposes that Deepthroat was just getting revenge on Nixon. Election is yet another meditation on revenge set in high school. Pick Flick or suffer the wrath of Reese Witherspoon! Friday the 13th. No explanation needed. Gladiator Maximus is all up on getting revenge. Hackers spends half the film getting revenge on those that dare to mess with computer nerds and their porn. Hard Candy was a very twisted revenge thriller. Jawbreaker and Mean Girls focus on big breasted teens plotting each others demise. Overboard has a lowly carpenter getting revenge on a bitchy debutante by surreptitiously making her into his wife and the father of his children when she gets amnesia. Rushmore has fantastic moments of revenge between Max and Mr. Bloom. The "Non-Fiction" part of Storytelling has a great bit of revenge at the end. The First Wives Club is a guilty pleasure about scorned ex-wives getting revenge on their husbands that left them for younger women. The Incredibles centers around Syndrome getting revenge on super-heroes. What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? is some classic screen legend revenge. Lastly, Wild Things. Great B-movie with acts of revenge and lesbian trysts around every corner.
]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:45:27 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme10/6/2008 6:45:27 PMWell since probably my favorite film focusing solely on revenge was mentioned (She-Devil), I'm gonna have to go ahead and list those that pale in comparison. Jaws: The Revenge - The first Jaws is incredible, but not really about revenge. The fourth installment, with revenge blatantly placed in the title, is a great little B-movie that increased my fear of sharks and has made me vow to myself to never get on a floatation device that gets dragged behind a boat: cause you know great white sharks love that shit. I was recently able to see Machine Girl which was insanely gory and loaded with laughs. Premise: a young school girl gets revenge by attaching a Gatling gun to her amputated forearm and killing the bullies that picked on her and her brother. A Nightmare on Elm Street is more or less a revenge flick about Freddy killing the kids of those who killed him. Carrie gave mousy nerds in high school hope of becoming telekinetic and getting revenge on all those snot nosed cheerleaders and jocks. Death Becomes Her is all about revenge between two woman that continues throughout their entire lives. Dick presupposes that Deepthroat was just getting revenge on Nixon. Election is yet another meditation on revenge set in high school. Pick Flick or suffer the wrath of Reese Witherspoon! Friday the 13th. No explanation needed. Gladiator Maximus is all up on getting revenge. Hackers spends half the film getting revenge on those that dare to mess with computer nerds and their porn. Hard Candy was a very twisted revenge thriller. Jawbreaker and Mean Girls focus on big breasted teens plotting each others demise. Overboard has a lowly carpenter getting revenge on a bitchy debutante by surreptitiously making her into his wife and the father of his children when she gets amnesia. Rushmore has fantastic moments of revenge between Max and Mr. Bloom. The "Non-Fiction" part of Storytelling has a great bit of revenge at the end. The First Wives Club is a guilty pleasure about scorned ex-wives getting revenge on their husbands that left them for younger women. The Incredibles centers around Syndrome getting revenge on super-heroes. What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? is some classic screen legend revenge. Lastly, Wild Things. Great B-movie with acts of revenge and lesbian trysts around every corner. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_7_Foodie_Heaven/625/32708/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM
Body: [quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job).
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:03:07 GMTpippin06Weekly Theme7/18/2008 8:03:07 AM[quote user="unclefestering"] [quote user="leeroy711"] Also, am I the only one ever that thought Ratatouille was weak? I've liked pretty much all of the Disney/Pixar movies but this just did nothing for me. [/quote] And I thought I was the only person on the planet unmoved by Ratatouille. Thank god, I don't feel so alone any more. [/quote] Oooh. I disagree that Ratatouille was weak. Maybe your hunger pangs at the gourmet food were quashed at the sight of rats, but I think this is one of Pixar's finest. It's got an artistic sensibility to it matched or surpassed only by Wall-E (highly recommend the robot flick), a wonderful and inventive story, great voice performances (Peter O'Toole as the food critic, Come. On.), and beautiful animation. Also, I think it gets better with repeat viewings because you catch more of what you missed the first time. Sure, it's not all razzle dazzle like Lightning McQueen (Cars) or boffo superheroes (the Incredibles) or cute fishies (Finding Nemo) or Tom Hanks (Toy Stories), but it's far from weak. Though I acknowledge that the laughs aren't as instantaneous as in some of those other flicks, but Ellen DeGeneres and Tom Hanks can't be in all of their films (that's John Ratzenberger's job). http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/1/31952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM
Body: Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:00:51 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/1/2008 11:00:51 AM Will Smith’s new superhero movie, Hancock, may be receiving terrible reviews, but it’s sure to make a lot of money. It is a Will Smith movie, after all. The fact that it’s an original superhero title (meaning not adapted from a comic book or other source material), however, means that if it is a success, it will be the rare movie of its kind to be such. Superhero movies may be huge right now, but really only the pre-sold properties, those with a build-in audience, make the big bucks. A number of original superhero movies are just as worthy of your attention as the Spider-Mans, the Iron Mans, the Batmans and the X-Mens. Sure, much of the time, non-adapted superheroes are lame, as in the cases of Blankman and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. But just check out any of the following ten titles and see why it sometimes pays off to put your trust in an unfamiliar hero. The Incredibles - This one did it all: won an Oscar; received favorable reviews across the board; did blockbuster business in theaters and ancillaries (its the sole original superhero movie to break $100 million, domestically, a feat it far surpassed by actually grossing more than $260 million); and featured the single greatest superhero gag (above) ever seen. So there’s proof that a superhero movie can be good and do well without being based on another property. Unbreakable - The only film by M. Night Shyamalan I can enjoy repeatedly and perhaps the only superhero movie besides Batman Begins that audiences can kind of believe might be plausible in the real world. Also, it is perhaps the one origin-story superhero tale that doesn’t necessitate a sequel. The ending may have been anticlimactic, but the scene shown above (I wish the clip began earlier, from the train station scene forward) is one of the greatest superhero fight sequences ever put on film. The Matrix - Meanwhile, this is one origin-story superhero movie that shouldn’t have received a sequel, despite it’s needing one. Or maybe it just shouldn’t have been given the sequels it was given. In a way, the first installment is the perfect superhero movie for the age of video games, because Neo really only has powers in the virtual world. Unfortunately, the subsequent installments ruin this concept. Sky High - It looks really cheesy, but this Harry Potter for the superhero set is actually really clever and consistently entertaining. The common high school plot, in which an unpopular kid becomes popular and ends up screwing over his old friends, is ingeniously lent to the superteen subgenre. It may not hold a candle to the teen metaphors of X2: X-Men United, but it makes those initial Xavier School scenes from the first X-Men look wasteful. Darkman - Long before he sold his soul to the Spider-Man franchise, Sam Raimi created this original superhero tale. I wasn’t really a fan when it came out, but I’d now take it over any of the Spidey movies — even Spider-Man 2. RoboCop - The best superhero tales are really about humanity, not superhumanity, and this satirical sci-fi actioner certainly fits that qualification. It’s not surprising that for the sequel to RoboCop, comic book legend Frank Miller was brought in as a screenwriter, nor is it surprising that the franchise spawned multiple comic book series. Super Fuzz - This one is purely a guilty pleasure, as it was one of my favorite movies as a kid. It’s kind of like Police Academy meets Superman meets Ernest Borgnine. Supah Supah! The Toxic Avenger - Another guilty pleasure, but also a great idea for a superhero movie. These days it’s uncommon to see such a ruthlessly violent superhero, but in his time, Toxie was like a parallel to supervillain protagonists of horror movies, like Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger, for who we continually rooted. Mr. Freedom - Change the communist villains to terrorists, and this would have been ripe for a remake a few years back. The Bush Administration was actually referring to this 1969 superhero farce, about a costumed crusader single-handedly battling the Cold War, whenever it uttered the phrase “enemies of freedom.” Special - I haven’t actually seen this movie, and I’ve been told it’s not quite as great as I expect it to be, but the trailer alone is good enough for me. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/29/31874.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2008 8:19:02 PM
Body: Alright, Pixar. I've had it. I am past the point of being tired trying to find new and creative ways to use superlatives that are as endlessly creative and fresh as your films. Seriously, does everything you do have to be so superiorly textured and nuanced, inviting hours of “rewatchability?” (There, see? I now have to resort to making up words just to keep up. I hope you can sleep well at night in your money-lined pillows.) “WALL*E” is not a film to watch, it is one to consume. Layered with more craft and care than any film released so far this year. Readers of this paper's film column will no doubt attest to the fact that it is on rare occasion that I report to resoundingly glowing praise or hyperbole often (unless, of course, Adam Sandler is involved – kidding!). But time and time again, I find myself overwhelmed with Pixar's ability to take the most simple of concepts – the childhood love of toys (“Toy Story,” “Toy Story 2”) the bond between parent and child (“Finding Nemo” directed by WALL*E's Andrew Stanton, “The Incredibles”), the importance of teamwork (“Monsters Inc.,” “A Bug's Life,” “Ratatouille”) and here, the rudimentary necessity of tactile social interaction – and make it alternately fresh, nostalgic, exciting, comfortable and gloriously rendered both emotionally and graphically. WALL*E is short for Waste Allocation Lift Loader Earth-class, a cuddly little bundle of microchips that is alone in its Earth-bound duty of cleaning up the mountainous waste left behind by a fleeing human race centuries prior. It seems a big conglomerate (imagine Wal-Mart injected with anabolic steroids) made a mess of things after it took over running (and ruining) the globe and jettisoned its population for a little while as it attempted to clean up its mess. Seven hundred years later, WALL*E is the remaining inhabitant, dutifully filling his days with trash duty, but developed enough to find other, more meaningful diversions. For example, he has adopted a pet cockroach (naturally), collects miscellaneous scraps and parts, and settles in from time to time with a Betamax version of “Hello Dolly”). Thematically, the first 40 minutes or so is very similar to last year's “I am Legend,” as a non-speaking WALL*E does just enough to occupy time, but is painfully lonely and just wants a hand (or synthetic replication thereof) to hold. Unlike “I am Legend,” “WALL*E” does not suck royally after that setup. He is visited by an Extraterrestrial Vegitation Evaluator (EVE), which is a sleek new robot model sent to the planet in search of burgeoning life. EVE is like a new iPod to WALL*E's cassette player, but regardless of format, the song remains the same – WALL*E is immediately smitten. After a coy courting period (with lasers), WALL*E tags along on EVE's spaceship, which is housed on a floating Earth, populated with gelatinous mounds of flesh that are the human race. No longer do people rely on such tired traditions as “walking,” they simply jet around their new home in personal Barc-o-loungers, communicate entirely through computer screens and happily subsist on whatever the Big Brother-like corporate owners of the ship (the same ones that spoiled the planet) tell them to. To reveal more would spoil the wonder of “WALL*E.” It's clear that the filmmakers in that coveted Pixar house have a passion for film as well as storytelling. From silent-era slapstick that would make Buster Keaton proud, to space journeys capable of bringing a tear to George Lucas's eye, to nods of golden-age movie musicals, “WALL*E” serves as a loving, guided tour through the coveted vaults of cinematic history. There are scenes within that will induce tears, but not because of maudlin plot contrivances that do everything but old an onion under your eyes. There are moments of ecstatic marvel and whimsy throughout that make this so much more than a just another celluloid babysitter for the kiddos. And you can dispute or politicize the film's dyspeptic world view all you want (though does anyone else see the irony of a film featuring a society of computer-enslaved blobs of humanity created by a computer animation studio that works for years on one project?), but in this increasingly heated political climate, there is a reason the word “change” is bandied about so often. As over-simplified as it may sound, “Wall*E” serves as an animated testament to our ability to do just that. But just as the morbidly obese captain of the human cargo ship in “WALL*E” proves, it is only accomplished by a innate willingness to do so. It may all sound trite, but as the best films in our short cinematic history, “WALL*E” makes you believe that anything is possible. P.S. Don't arrive late or you will miss a wonderful Looney Tunes-era short called “Presto,” featuring a rabbit that could out-wascal Bugs Bunny
]]>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:19:02 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/29/2008 8:19:02 PMAlright, Pixar. I've had it. I am past the point of being tired trying to find new and creative ways to use superlatives that are as endlessly creative and fresh as your films. Seriously, does everything you do have to be so superiorly textured and nuanced, inviting hours of &ldquo;rewatchability?&rdquo; (There, see? I now have to resort to making up words just to keep up. I hope you can sleep well at night in your money-lined pillows.) &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; is not a film to watch, it is one to consume. Layered with more craft and care than any film released so far this year. Readers of this paper's film column will no doubt attest to the fact that it is on rare occasion that I report to resoundingly glowing praise or hyperbole often (unless, of course, Adam Sandler is involved &ndash; kidding!). But time and time again, I find myself overwhelmed with Pixar's ability to take the most simple of concepts &ndash; the childhood love of toys (&ldquo;Toy Story,&rdquo; &ldquo;Toy Story 2&rdquo;) the bond between parent and child (&ldquo;Finding Nemo&rdquo; directed by WALL*E's Andrew Stanton, &ldquo;The Incredibles&rdquo;), the importance of teamwork (&ldquo;Monsters Inc.,&rdquo; &ldquo;A Bug's Life,&rdquo; &ldquo;Ratatouille&rdquo;) and here, the rudimentary necessity of tactile social interaction &ndash; and make it alternately fresh, nostalgic, exciting, comfortable and gloriously rendered both emotionally and graphically. WALL*E is short for Waste Allocation Lift Loader Earth-class, a cuddly little bundle of microchips that is alone in its Earth-bound duty of cleaning up the mountainous waste left behind by a fleeing human race centuries prior. It seems a big conglomerate (imagine Wal-Mart injected with anabolic steroids) made a mess of things after it took over running (and ruining) the globe and jettisoned its population for a little while as it attempted to clean up its mess. Seven hundred years later, WALL*E is the remaining inhabitant, dutifully filling his days with trash duty, but developed enough to find other, more meaningful diversions. For example, he has adopted a pet cockroach (naturally), collects miscellaneous scraps and parts, and settles in from time to time with a Betamax version of &ldquo;Hello Dolly&rdquo;). Thematically, the first 40 minutes or so is very similar to last year's &ldquo;I am Legend,&rdquo; as a non-speaking WALL*E does just enough to occupy time, but is painfully lonely and just wants a hand (or synthetic replication thereof) to hold. Unlike &ldquo;I am Legend,&rdquo; &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; does not suck royally after that setup. He is visited by an Extraterrestrial Vegitation Evaluator (EVE), which is a sleek new robot model sent to the planet in search of burgeoning life. EVE is like a new iPod to WALL*E's cassette player, but regardless of format, the song remains the same &ndash; WALL*E is immediately smitten. After a coy courting period (with lasers), WALL*E tags along on EVE's spaceship, which is housed on a floating Earth, populated with gelatinous mounds of flesh that are the human race. No longer do people rely on such tired traditions as &ldquo;walking,&rdquo; they simply jet around their new home in personal Barc-o-loungers, communicate entirely through computer screens and happily subsist on whatever the Big Brother-like corporate owners of the ship (the same ones that spoiled the planet) tell them to. To reveal more would spoil the wonder of &ldquo;WALL*E.&rdquo; It's clear that the filmmakers in that coveted Pixar house have a passion for film as well as storytelling. From silent-era slapstick that would make Buster Keaton proud, to space journeys capable of bringing a tear to George Lucas's eye, to nods of golden-age movie musicals, &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; serves as a loving, guided tour through the coveted vaults of cinematic history. There are scenes within that will induce tears, but not because of maudlin plot contrivances that do everything but old an onion under your eyes. There are moments of ecstatic marvel and whimsy throughout that make this so much more than a just another celluloid babysitter for the kiddos. And you can dispute or politicize the film's dyspeptic world view all you want (though does anyone else see the irony of a film featuring a society of computer-enslaved blobs of humanity created by a computer animation studio that works for years on one project?), but in this increasingly heated political climate, there is a reason the word &ldquo;change&rdquo; is bandied about so often. As over-simplified as it may sound, &ldquo;Wall*E&rdquo; serves as an animated testament to our ability to do just that. But just as the morbidly obese captain of the human cargo ship in &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; proves, it is only accomplished by a innate willingness to do so. It may all sound trite, but as the best films in our short cinematic history, &ldquo;WALL*E&rdquo; makes you believe that anything is possible. P.S. Don't arrive late or you will miss a wonderful Looney Tunes-era short called &ldquo;Presto,&rdquo; featuring a rabbit that could out-wascal Bugs Bunny http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/25/31666.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM
Body: Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:01:30 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/25/2008 1:01:30 PM Until last year’s brilliantly directed Ratatouille, all of Pixar’s animated features could be summed up with one word (toys, bugs, monsters, fish, superheroes, cars). Then the more complex plot synopsis of “rat functions as a culinary Cyrano in a French restaurant’s kitchen” came along and ruined the studio’s tradition of simplistic scenarios. Fortunately, this year Pixar is back on track with Wall-E, a movie that can be summed up as being about, in a word, robots. But in their pipeline they’ve got a couple sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) and a couple multi-word synopses (2009’s Up and 2011’s The Bear and the Bow are, at the least, each described with two words: old man and fairy tale, respectively. Only 2011’s Newt could have been pitched using a single word: newts. So, while Pixar seems like it currently has enough on their hands, I’d like to suggest a few more single-word pitches for animated films in order to get things back to basics: Birds - They’ve given us a movie featuring a variety of bugs and a movie featuring a variety of sea creatures, so the obvious next place to go is a movie featuring a variety of birds. And since Pixar has already made a short about birds (For the Birds), they already have a starting point to jump off from. Animals - I guess it’s a pretty general word, but Pixar really needs to give us their answer to either (or both) Madagascar or (and) Kung Fu Panda. Maybe since DreamWorks has taken care of the African animals and the Asian animals, Pixar can go with the most interesting animal continent: Australia. Penguins - Yes, they’re birds and they’re animals, but this pitch needs to be separate. Though we’ve already seen Sony’s Surf’s Up and Warner Bros.’ Happy Feet, this still needs to be done, just so Pixar can win an Oscar with it and make up for losing to Happy Feet last year. Dinosaurs - Another one to make up, this time for Disney’s bomb from 2000, Dinosaur. Also, because every non-Pixar movie needs a Pixar equivalent (Antz vs. A Bugs Life; Shrek vs. Monsters, Inc.; Shark Tale vs. Finding Nemo; Robots vs. Wall-E; etc.) and we haven’t yet seen Pixar do a prehistoric pic in response to Fox’s Ice Age franchise. Bees - If DreamWorks can do both Antz and Bee Movie, then Pixar needs another kind of bug movie, too, preferably one with flying insects. Preferably to make us forget Jerry Seinfeld’s obnoxious promotions, also. Band - I think what Brad Bird did for superhero movies (it was both the best of its kind and the best spoof of its kind) should be done for rock bands. Plus, isn’t it about time Pixar made a real musical animated feature? Fruit - Pixar’s answer to VeggieTales, or simply it’s contribution to the long tradition of animated talking foods, from the vegetable cart on Pinwheel to the singing burger in Better Off Dead. Supermarket - If fruit is too specific, here’s a more general idea: anthropomorphic grocery items, from the produce aisle to the whatever is on the opposite side of the store aisle (in my local market it’s meats). This would be a great opportunity for more product suggestion (a la Apple Computers in Wall-E and Trix cereal in Presto), or even pure, blatant product placement. Furniture - A little bit Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, a lot bit Brave Little Toaster. Basically, Pixar needs to give Luxo Jr. a feature already. Disney - Since Pixar is owned by the Walt Disney Company, and since our old friends Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy and Pluto haven’t had a good movie in a long, long time, I think it only makes sense that John Lasseter should produce a computer-animated movie featuring the classic Disney gang. Past attempts to make CG versions of the characters have been disappointing, but if anyone can make it work, Lasseter can. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/18/31392.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/18/2008 9:01:57 PM
Body: The animation top ten was the first list and it got the evening off to a shaky start. The problems with this list run much deeper than its rather uninspired roster of, almost exclusively, Disney “classics”. Most fundamentally, animation is not a genre; it's a medium. However, it is also the case that in Hollywood, animation verges on being a genre, but the American animation genre of the 20th century is not the same as the genre in the 21st century except insofar as animation is treated as a medium for children's, or “family”, films. In the 20th century, as ably shown by the list, animation was more or less the new medium for musicals. In this millenium, music remains an important part of animated films, but they are less often actual musicals. They are, however, characterized by hyperreal computer animation and dialogue rich with “clever” asides and pop culture references. Does that make a genre? Maybe, but not one that has much in common with the prior century. The larger point is that in other parts of the world, and outside of the American corporate mainstream, animation is used to tell all kinds of stories, including those directed at adults. Even if one were to be biased towards older films in this “genre”, shouldn't there have been room for at least one film by someone like Ralph Bakshi? I don't know about anyone else, but seeing Wizards (1977) was, politically and aesthetically, an earth shattering experience for my eight or nine or ten year-old self, more profound, I would say than the original Star Wars. And certainly American Pop (1981) is enough of a cultural document, and marker for the form, to have been seriously considered for inclusion on the AFI's Top 10. I would also have looked to include one of Richard Linklater's forays into animation on the list (indeed, either Waking Life, 2001, or A Scanner Darkly, 2006, would have been nice companions to American Pop). But, staying within the scope of children's or family films, the lack of either of Brad Bird's eligible films, The Iron Giant (1999) and The Incredibles (2004), seems like a critical oversight, and perhaps reflective of the fact that many of the voters were, undoubtedly, simply mining their own childhoods when making their selections. (I'm not going to suggest specific alternate selections here because, as indicated above, I think that this list is inherently misconceived, and because I think most of the selections on the AFI list are more or less interchangeable in any event). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:01:57 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/18/2008 9:01:57 PMThe animation top ten was the first list and it got the evening off to a shaky start. The problems with this list run much deeper than its rather uninspired roster of, almost exclusively, Disney &ldquo;classics&rdquo;. Most fundamentally, animation is not a genre; it's a medium. However, it is also the case that in Hollywood, animation verges on being a genre, but the American animation genre of the 20th century is not the same as the genre in the 21st century except insofar as animation is treated as a medium for children's, or &ldquo;family&rdquo;, films. In the 20th century, as ably shown by the list, animation was more or less the new medium for musicals. In this millenium, music remains an important part of animated films, but they are less often actual musicals. They are, however, characterized by hyperreal computer animation and dialogue rich with &ldquo;clever&rdquo; asides and pop culture references. Does that make a genre? Maybe, but not one that has much in common with the prior century. The larger point is that in other parts of the world, and outside of the American corporate mainstream, animation is used to tell all kinds of stories, including those directed at adults. Even if one were to be biased towards older films in this &ldquo;genre&rdquo;, shouldn't there have been room for at least one film by someone like Ralph Bakshi? I don't know about anyone else, but seeing Wizards (1977) was, politically and aesthetically, an earth shattering experience for my eight or nine or ten year-old self, more profound, I would say than the original Star Wars. And certainly American Pop (1981) is enough of a cultural document, and marker for the form, to have been seriously considered for inclusion on the AFI's Top 10. I would also have looked to include one of Richard Linklater's forays into animation on the list (indeed, either Waking Life, 2001, or A Scanner Darkly, 2006, would have been nice companions to American Pop). But, staying within the scope of children's or family films, the lack of either of Brad Bird's eligible films, The Iron Giant (1999) and The Incredibles (2004), seems like a critical oversight, and perhaps reflective of the fact that many of the voters were, undoubtedly, simply mining their own childhoods when making their selections. (I'm not going to suggest specific alternate selections here because, as indicated above, I think that this list is inherently misconceived, and because I think most of the selections on the AFI list are more or less interchangeable in any event). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12477

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1475

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT124773361475Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 606

Number of people who tagged: 315

Number of times used: 939

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:40:23 GMT606315939Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1084

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1338

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT10842531338Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

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

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1002

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT71601691002Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 978

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

Number of people who tagged: 149

Number of times used: 415

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:06 GMT258149415Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 457

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:35 GMT316111457Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cute/MemberTagFilms.aspxcute
Number of films tagged: 209

Number of people who tagged: 98

Number of times used: 313

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:21 GMT20998313Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag