list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Miracle on 34th Street 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/Miracle_on_34th_Street/22831/default.aspx Title: Miracle on 34th Street
Year: 1947
Director: George Seaton
Plot: Edmund Gwenn plays Kris Kringle, a bearded old gent who is the living image of Santa Claus. Serving as a last-minute replacement for the drunken Santa who was to have led Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, Kringle is offered a job as a Macy's toy-department Santa. Supervisor Maureen O'Hara soon begins having second thoughts about hiring Kris: it's bad enough that he is laboring under the delusion that he's the genuine Saint Nick; but when he begins advising customers to shop elsewhere for toys that they can't find at Macy's, he's gone too far! Amazingly, Mr. Macy (Harry Antrim) considers Kris' shopping tips to be an excellent customer-service "gimmick," and insists that the old fellow keep his job. A resident of a Manhattan retirement home, Kris agrees to take a room with lawyer John Payne during the Christmas season. It happens that Payne is sweet on O'Hara, and Kris subliminally hopes he can bring the two together. Kris is also desirous of winning over the divorced O'Hara's little daughter Natalie Wood, who in her few years on earth has lost a lot of the Christmas spirit. Complications ensue when Porter Hall, Macy's nasty in-house psychologist, arranges to have Kris locked up in Bellevue as a lunatic. Payne represents Kris at his sanity hearing, rocking the New York judicial system to its foundations by endeavoring to prove in court that Kris is, indeed, the real Santa Claus! We won't tell you how he does it: suffice to say that there's a joyous ending for Payne and O'Hara, as well as a wonderful faith-affirming denouement for little Natalie Wood. 72-year-old Edmund Gwenn won an Oscar for his portrayal of the "jolly old elf" Kringle; the rest of the cast is populated by such never-fail pros as Gene Lockhart (as the beleaguered sanity-hearing judge), William Frawley (as a crafty political boss), and an unbilled Thelma Ritter and Jack Albertson. Based on the novel by Valentine Davies, Miracle on 34th Street was remade twice: once for TV in 1973, and a second time for a 1994 theatrical release, with Richard Attenborough as Kris Kringle. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 11
Number of Lists: 23
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:35:39 GMTMiracle on 34th Street1947George Seaton<a href="/players/P____29391/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edmund Gwenn</a> plays Kris Kringle, a bearded old gent who is the living image of Santa Claus. Serving as a last-minute replacement for the drunken Santa who was to have led Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, Kringle is offered a job as a Macy's toy-department Santa. Supervisor <a href="/players/P____53476/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maureen O'Hara</a> soon begins having second thoughts about hiring Kris: it's bad enough that he is laboring under the delusion that he's the <I>genuine</I> Saint Nick; but when he begins advising customers to shop elsewhere for toys that they can't find at Macy's, he's gone too far! Amazingly, Mr. Macy (<a href="/players/P_____1908/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harry Antrim</a>) considers Kris' shopping tips to be an excellent customer-service "gimmick," and insists that the old fellow keep his job. A resident of a Manhattan retirement home, Kris agrees to take a room with lawyer <a href="/players/P____55602/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Payne</a> during the Christmas season. It happens that Payne is sweet on O'Hara, and Kris subliminally hopes he can bring the two together. Kris is also desirous of winning over the divorced O'Hara's little daughter <a href="/players/P____77340/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Natalie Wood</a>, who in her few years on earth has lost a lot of the Christmas spirit. Complications ensue when <a href="/players/P____29806/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Porter Hall</a>, Macy's nasty in-house psychologist, arranges to have Kris locked up in Bellevue as a lunatic. Payne represents Kris at his sanity hearing, rocking the New York judicial system to its foundations by endeavoring to prove in court that Kris is, indeed, the real Santa Claus! We won't tell you how he does it: suffice to say that there's a joyous ending for Payne and O'Hara, as well as a wonderful faith-affirming denouement for little <a href="/players/P____77340/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Natalie Wood</a>. 72-year-old <a href="/players/P____29391/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edmund Gwenn</a> won an Oscar for his portrayal of the "jolly old elf" Kringle; the rest of the cast is populated by such never-fail pros as <a href="/players/P____42889/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gene Lockhart</a> (as the beleaguered sanity-hearing judge), <a href="/players/P____24876/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Frawley</a> (as a crafty political boss), and an unbilled <a href="/players/P____60402/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Thelma Ritter</a> and <a href="/players/P______695/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Albertson</a>. Based on the novel by <a href="/players/P____86860/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Valentine Davies</a>, Miracle on 34th Street was remade twice: once for TV in 1973, and a second time for a 1994 theatrical release, with <a href="/players/P____80152/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Attenborough</a> as Kris Kringle. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide11Tag Target (>10)23423http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t88352etlw7.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Miracle_on_34th_Street/22831/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Collaborative_List_Movies_I_Fall_Asleep_to_at/643/38596/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 12/19/2008 12:45:11 PM
Body: Miracle on 34th St. & Its a Wonderful Life are both holiday snoozers for me. Its a Wonderful Life is actually a great film, but the mellow, sleepy nature of the film combined with the fact I have seen it approx. 1,212 times means it puts me right out. Miracle on 34st. just has too many WTF!? moments to keep me engrossed in the plot. [quote user="rjsprague"] I would like to nominate White Christmas as the film to which I inevitably pass out while in a cookie-and-pie-induced-stupor. Usually I am trying to suspend my disfigured midsection so as to provide some relief to my straining digestive system. [/quote]
]]>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:45:11 GMTseelyCommunity Recommendations12/19/2008 12:45:11 PMMiracle on 34th St. &amp; Its a Wonderful Life are both holiday snoozers for me. Its a Wonderful Life is actually a great film, but the mellow, sleepy nature of the film combined with the fact I have seen it approx. 1,212 times means it puts me right out. Miracle on 34st. just has too many WTF!? moments to keep me engrossed in the plot. [quote user="rjsprague"] I would like to nominate White Christmas as the film to which I inevitably pass out while in a cookie-and-pie-induced-stupor. Usually I am trying to suspend my disfigured midsection so as to provide some relief to my straining digestive system. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Grew_up_in_the_80_s/Re_Top_5_Favorites_of_the_80_s/38/35676/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Grew up in the 80's
Post Date: 9/29/2008 11:08:52 AM
Body: I agree with your statement about the 80's lacking that cynical attitude we see in nearly every current film. The last great Christmas film, in my opinion would have been Prancer, as it still seemed to hold onto that notion of 'Christmas Miracles' that we see time and time again in films from the 1930's all the way up to the endnote of the era in 1989. I think we first see the new cynicism appear in Christmas Vacation (1989) and Home Alone (1990) which came out the same year as Prancer. Really, these are the first two Christmas films I can think of that really shatter that Regan-era optimism with a somewhat dismal portrayal of suburban family life and a negative portrayal of the holidays. Granted, in the end, both films reconcile and everything winds up happy, but it lacks that 'perfect ending' we used to see in films like 'Miracle on 34th St.' and 'It's a Wonderful Life'--its more like 'things aren't perfect, but its better than when the movie started'... almost and accepting of the less than perfect reality, which albeit more accurate and true-to-life is a little less fuzzy and heartwarming than the picture-perfect endings of years before. Seperate Christmas film thread, anyone? [quote user="filmgal81"] An 80s films that should receive honorable mention is The Night They Saved Christmas Why would I want to add this? Well, it captures Christmas in a way that just isn't posible anymore. There was a sincerity to it, a gentleness about it that i have not seen in most recent films. if it does exist in recent films, there is usually a certain amount of adult pandoring in it. Sometimes I think we were the last generation to experience the world a certain way, and even when films try to bring back that quality, they can not seem to do it without infusing it with an adult- laced sarcasm and disbelief. This film was a Christmas romance strictly for the children-in same vein as that famous Christmas letter written to a little girl on the verge of disbelief- no facetiousness included. [/quote]
]]>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:08:52 GMTseelyGrew up in the 80's9/29/2008 11:08:52 AMI agree with your statement about the 80's lacking that cynical attitude we see in nearly every current film. The last great Christmas film, in my opinion would have been Prancer, as it still seemed to hold onto that notion of 'Christmas Miracles' that we see time and time again in films from the 1930's all the way up to the endnote of the era in 1989. I think we first see the new cynicism appear in Christmas Vacation (1989) and Home Alone (1990) which came out the same year as Prancer. Really, these are the first two Christmas films I can think of that really shatter that Regan-era optimism with a somewhat dismal portrayal of suburban family life and a negative portrayal of the holidays. Granted, in the end, both films reconcile and everything winds up happy, but it lacks that 'perfect ending' we used to see in films like 'Miracle on 34th St.' and 'It's a Wonderful Life'--its more like 'things aren't perfect, but its better than when the movie started'... almost and accepting of the less than perfect reality, which albeit more accurate and true-to-life is a little less fuzzy and heartwarming than the picture-perfect endings of years before. Seperate Christmas film thread, anyone? [quote user="filmgal81"] An 80s films that should receive honorable mention is The Night They Saved Christmas Why would I want to add this? Well, it captures Christmas in a way that just isn't posible anymore. There was a sincerity to it, a gentleness about it that i have not seen in most recent films. if it does exist in recent films, there is usually a certain amount of adult pandoring in it. Sometimes I think we were the last generation to experience the world a certain way, and even when films try to bring back that quality, they can not seem to do it without infusing it with an adult- laced sarcasm and disbelief. This film was a Christmas romance strictly for the children-in same vein as that famous Christmas letter written to a little girl on the verge of disbelief- no facetiousness included. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/6/26/31754.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 6/26/2008 7:00:44 PM
Body: As with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of “fantasy”, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as “fables”, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are “inhabit” and “experience”. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve “live-action characters” in “imagined settings” or “situations that transcend the rules of the natural world” (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not “actually” happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a “fantasy” does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic “reality” or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the “mystery” category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about “fables” as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about “fantasy,” and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:00:44 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog6/26/2008 7:00:44 PMAs with Moonstruck's appearance on the romantic comedy list, I found myself charmed by many of the selections on the fantasy list, even where I may not have made the choice myself. I was particularly happy to see Groundhog Day (1993) on this Top 10, but, like a number of other films here, the more I thought about the idea of &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo;, the more I began to wonder if some weren't misplaced or mis-categorized. Groundhog Day, alongside Harvey (1950), Miracle on 34th Street (1947), and It's a Wonderful Life (1946), may be fantasies, but they are more accurately described as &ldquo;fables&rdquo;, that is, as stories that are essentially about life lessons rather than the fantastic, though they may use fantasy elements to tell their stories. Where the three older films are concerned, there are questions that clearly can, and are, raised about what the protagonists have experienced or who they actually are. Is George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) actually visited by an angel, or has his subconscious conjured Clarence (Henry Travers) to thwart suicide? Is Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) actually Santa Claus? Does Harvey exist? I think that there are many reasonable answers to these questions. Even the list's top film, The Wizard of Oz (1939), quite explicitly raises the question of whether the heroine's experience was a dream or not. The keywords in the AFI's definition of this genre are &ldquo;inhabit&rdquo; and &ldquo;experience&rdquo;. Of the films on the list, The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), King Kong (1933), Field of Dreams (1989), The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and Big (1988), are the ones that clearly, materially involve &ldquo;live-action characters&rdquo; in &ldquo;imagined settings&rdquo; or &ldquo;situations that transcend the rules of the natural world&rdquo; (although I would certainly pitch Field of Dreams as a fable, probably Big as well, which just goes to show the plasticity of genre). The selections cited above may or may not have their characters actually engaged in these kinds of worlds and circumstances. Do dreams, hallucinations, and what if scenarios count as inhabitable worlds or supernatural situations? If they do, then all of the films are fantasies of one kind or another. On the other hand, if the fantasy elements are not &ldquo;actually&rdquo; happening, maybe they aren't. In other words, for a film to be a &ldquo;fantasy&rdquo; does its storyworld have to be imagined or supernatural in a material sense or is it good enough that the audience is shown fantastic things, whatever their diegetic &ldquo;reality&rdquo; or origin? Not unlike my thinking about the &ldquo;mystery&rdquo; category, I think that the AFI could have invested some time in refining its criteria. The current definition, for example, would seem to make room for superhero films (unless you want to count those as science fiction, or, hey, their own genre on some future special), but I doubt that those were seriously considered, if they were considered at all, for this category (a look at the larger selection lists would obviously answer this question, but I'm not motivated enough to open an AFI account; suffice to say that there are no superhero films on this or the scifi Top 10). More to the point, thinking about &ldquo;fables&rdquo; as a sub or independent genre would give more precision to how you think about &ldquo;fantasy,&rdquo; and maybe draw attention to a wider variety of movies that do, or at least more clearly, present live-action characters in fantastic settings and situations (Pleasantville, 1998, comes to mind). On the other hand, as I stated in the introduction to this post, I think that this list is mostly made up of fine, or at least well loved, films, and maybe there's not much point in pushing arguments over definition (although I would argue for treating The Lord of the Rings movies as a single work; it seems that no matter which installment you pick, it is ultimately just a stand-in for the whole). Link to introduction. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs http://www.spout.com/blogs/chesterfilms/archive/2007/12/30/23324.aspx Post By: chesterfilms
Post To: chesterfilms Blog
Post Date: 12/30/2007 1:04:03 AM
Body: although the 1994 remake is a charming, it lacks the magic of the original. with edmund gwenn as what may be the greatest santa in movie history, miracle's strength lays in it's cast. the beautiful maureen o'hara and the soft and sweet natalie wood. it's very inspirational and still holds up today.
]]>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 06:04:03 GMTchesterfilmschesterfilms Blog12/30/2007 1:04:03 AMalthough the 1994 remake is a charming, it lacks the magic of the original. with edmund gwenn as what may be the greatest santa in movie history, miracle&#39;s strength lays in it&#39;s cast. the beautiful maureen o&#39;hara and the soft and sweet natalie wood. it&#39;s very inspirational and still holds up today. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mythman/archive/2007/12/13/22757.aspx Post By: mythman
Post To: Watch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good
Post Date: 12/13/2007 3:01:04 AM
Body: My memory may be a little slippery in matters of 'television-commercial'-content, but I seem to recall "Progressive Auto Insurance"-commercials claiming that Progressive is 'the only company that quotes competitors' possibly-competitive rates as well as their own.'While I don't doubt that they stay current on the rates they quote, I could quite-easily cast that doubt; because the description-of-singularity there ('only') is a universal lie. (That is to say that--though Progressive Auto may be the only company that has a company-policy of offering other companies' quotes--an insurance-agent who doesn't offer all possible rates is an ineffective, inefficient, unworthy, dumb∀$$ parasite!)How do I know that the idea is not singularly Progressive Auto's? By seeing--as nearly everyone else has--Miracle on 34th Street. In that movie (at least the original version), one of the Macy's-executives' first complaints against using Kris Kringle as Santa Claus was that he would send customers to other stores if Macy's didn't have the exact toy the children sought.So, if Progressive Auto is indeed the originator of the "customer-service that actually serves before purchase," then they are claiming all rights-&-royalties attributed to the producers of Miracle on 34th Street. Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee
]]>Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:01:04 GMTmythmanWatch Everything and Still See ONLY What Is Good12/13/2007 3:01:04 AMMy memory may be a little slippery in matters of 'television-commercial'-content, but I seem to recall "Progressive Auto Insurance"-commercials claiming that Progressive is 'the only company that quotes competitors' possibly-competitive rates as well as their own.'While I don't doubt that they stay current on the rates they quote, I could quite-easily cast that doubt; because the description-of-singularity there ('only') is a universal lie. (That is to say that--though Progressive Auto may be the only company that has a company-policy of offering other companies' quotes--an insurance-agent who doesn't offer all possible rates is an ineffective, inefficient, unworthy, dumb∀$$ parasite!)How do I know that the idea is not singularly Progressive Auto's? By seeing--as nearly everyone else has--Miracle on 34th Street. In that movie (at least the original version), one of the Macy's-executives' first complaints against using Kris Kringle as Santa Claus was that he would send customers to other stores if Macy's didn't have the exact toy the children sought.So, if Progressive Auto is indeed the originator of the "customer-service that actually serves before purchase," then they are claiming all rights-&-royalties attributed to the producers of Miracle on 34th Street. Originally posted on:The Enlightened Xombee http://www.spout.com/blogs/eagle795/archive/2007/8/27/18866.aspx Post By: eagle795
Post To: eagle795 Blog
Post Date: 8/27/2007 2:12:01 AM
Body: I’m referring specifically to the 1947 B&W original, not the 1994 remake (although as far as remakes go it was a pretty decent flick). Any movie centered around Santa Claus and that also criticizes the commercialization of Christmas is okay with me.
]]>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:12:01 GMTeagle795eagle795 Blog8/27/2007 2:12:01 AMI&rsquo;m referring specifically to the 1947 B&amp;W original, not the 1994 remake (although as far as remakes go it was a pretty decent flick). Any movie centered around Santa Claus and that also criticizes the commercialization of Christmas is okay with me. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/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/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7162

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1004

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT71621691004Tag 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/christmas/MemberTagFilms.aspxchristmas
Number of films tagged: 995

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 254

]]>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:31:29 GMT99582254Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/girl/MemberTagFilms.aspxgirl
Number of films tagged: 1805

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 64

]]>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:38:02 GMT18053364Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courtroom/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourtroom
Number of films tagged: 355

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:35 GMT3552542Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/holiday/MemberTagFilms.aspxholiday
Number of films tagged: 731

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 49

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:59:54 GMT7312049Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/santa/MemberTagFilms.aspxsanta
Number of films tagged: 163

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:04:44 GMT1631833Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/departmentstore/MemberTagFilms.aspxdepartmentstore
Number of films tagged: 101

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 11

]]>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:07:10 GMT101911Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/secondchance/MemberTagFilms.aspxsecondchance
Number of films tagged: 132

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:04:44 GMT13258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Supporting-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Supporting-Actor
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 77

]]>Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:21:24 GMT71477Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/employee/MemberTagFilms.aspxemployee
Number of films tagged: 164

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 6

]]>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:22:36 GMT16446Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trial-courtroom/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrial-courtroom
Number of films tagged: 639

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 5

]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:02:15 GMT63945Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/employment/MemberTagFilms.aspxemployment
Number of films tagged: 1237

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:21:41 GMT123733Tag