list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Elizabethtown 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/Elizabethtown/228718/default.aspx Title: Elizabethtown
Year: 2005
Director: Cameron Crowe
Plot: A young man in need of a fresh start gets one under highly unexpected circumstances in this emotionally resonant comedy drama from writer and director Cameron Crowe. Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom) is considered the big success story in his family, having moved away from the small Kentucky town where he was born to California, where he works as a designer for Mercury, the nation's biggest athletic shoe company. But success has begun to elude Drew -- his most recent design was a resounding flop that has cost him his job, and his girlfriend, Ellen (Jessica Biel), has given him his walking papers. Drew is contemplating suicide when he gets word that his father has died, and that he's needed back home in Elizabethtown, KY, to help organize the funeral. With his mother, Hollie (Susan Sarandon), deep in denial about her husband's passing, Drew comes home to discover no one knows about his recent poor fortune, and he's greeted like a conquering hero. As Drew reconnects with his family and helps his sister, Heather (Judy Greer), look after Hollie, Drew gets a new lease on life and is reminded about what's really important to him. Helping him learn these valuable lessons is Claire Colburn (Kirsten Dunst), a pretty and optimistic flight attendant Drew meets on his flight home who has her own philosophies about positive thinking and the curative powers of travel. Elizabethtown also stars Alec Baldwin, Paul Schneider, Bruce McGill, Loudon Wainwright III, and Paula Deen. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 49
Number of Lists: 44
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTElizabethtown2005Cameron CroweA young man in need of a fresh start gets one under highly unexpected circumstances in this emotionally resonant comedy drama from writer and director <a href="/players/P____86281/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cameron Crowe</a>. Drew Baylor (<a href="/players/P___301907/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Orlando Bloom</a>) is considered the big success story in his family, having moved away from the small Kentucky town where he was born to California, where he works as a designer for Mercury, the nation's biggest athletic shoe company. But success has begun to elude Drew -- his most recent design was a resounding flop that has cost him his job, and his girlfriend, Ellen (<a href="/players/P___222949/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jessica Biel</a>), has given him his walking papers. Drew is contemplating suicide when he gets word that his father has died, and that he's needed back home in Elizabethtown, KY, to help organize the funeral. With his mother, Hollie (<a href="/players/P____63158/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Susan Sarandon</a>), deep in denial about her husband's passing, Drew comes home to discover no one knows about his recent poor fortune, and he's greeted like a conquering hero. As Drew reconnects with his family and helps his sister, Heather (<a href="/players/P___235491/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Judy Greer</a>), look after Hollie, Drew gets a new lease on life and is reminded about what's really important to him. Helping him learn these valuable lessons is Claire Colburn (<a href="/players/P____20669/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kirsten Dunst</a>), a pretty and optimistic flight attendant Drew meets on his flight home who has her own philosophies about positive thinking and the curative powers of travel. Elizabethtown also stars <a href="/players/P_____3515/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Alec Baldwin</a>, Paul Schneider, <a href="/players/P____47434/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bruce McGill</a>, Loudon Wainwright III, and <a href="/players/P___394779/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Paula Deen</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide49Tag Target (>10)44912http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t73123uabqm.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Elizabethtown/228718/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/5/40271.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/5/2009 12:01:20 PM
Body: Are you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:01:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/5/2009 12:01:20 PMAre you one of the many sci-fi and comic book geeks who’d be more interested in Push were it not for Dakota Fanning? Sure, the precocious child star is now a teen actress (she’s about to turn 15), yet that probably makes you even more worried about her appearance in the movie. But what can you do? She’s literally everywhere this week – voicing the title character in the animated Coraline and starring in two new video releases, Hounddog and The Secret Life of Bees, both of which were released Tuesday. In the tradition of child actors continuing careers into adolescence, it’s only a matter of time before she ruins a movie that would have been better without her. We’ll have to wait until this weekend to see if that time is now, with Push, but in the meantime let’s take a look at some of the past offenders in this tradition. Most of the following former child actors (our definition: actors that began their career below the age of 13) have done great things in their adulthood, but each has done at least one film that could have been better without him or her. You may disagree with some of these picks, and you may think we’ve forgotten some (was Christian Bale really the worst part of The Dark Knight? did Mary-Kate Olsen’s disturbing kiss with Ben Kingsley take away from The Wackness?), so do share your own thoughts on former child stars below. We just ask that you keep your comments somewhat tasteful and law-abiding. BUtterfield 8 (1960) Elizabeth Taylor won her first Oscar for her performance in this film, and that’s basically the problem. Everyone knew then as they know now that she only won the award because she came down with a near-fatal illness weeks prior to the ceremony. Of course, she was nominated without such sympathy being the reason, so shouldn’t that mean the performance is still great? Well, that’s certainly debatable, but many critics today claim this to be one of the worst best actress wins of all time. So, if you go into BUtterfield 8 expecting an Oscar-worthy film, it’s going to be ruined for you. The Cat’s Meow (2001) Kirsten Dunst, who made her debut at age 7 in Woody Allen’s segment of New York Stories, got to work with another ‘70s cinema great, Peter Bogdanovich, in this comedic telling of an infamous Hollywood scandal. She portrays silent film actress Marion Davies, who becomes the catalyst in the scandal when her boyfriend, newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Edward Herrmann), discovers she’s having an affair with Charlie Chaplin (Eddie Izzard). The irony is that Dunst is so annoying in the role that it’s hard to believe any guys would fight over her. Many Dunst fans continually defend her performance in the film, but if it’s not her acting that ruins The Cat’s Meow, it’s at least her singing, which can be heard during the closing credits. Donnie Darko (2001) Drew Barrymore may be the most adorable thing to happen to romantic comedies since Jean Arthur, but occasionally she tries to make us believe she can do other roles. Unfortunately, she’s just not fit for most jobs, and English teacher is certainly one of them. Somehow in Donnie Darko her awkward speaking voice is even worse than usual, and she comes off sounding like she knows this and is attempting to enunciate as best she can in spite of the problem. Well, Drew, there’s a reason Spielberg hasn’t cast you in a sci-fi flick since E.T., you simply can’t pull off the dialogue. Garden State (2004) Natalie Portman didn’t make her film debut until she was 13 (in Leon, aka The Professional), but she did begin acting three years earlier, so we’re allowing her to make the list. How can we not? There isn’t a Garden State hater out there who doesn’t blame Portman and her obnoxious, flaky love interest character for ruining the film. Yet she was once the young girl that made tons of these cinephiles relate to a questionably friendly Timothy Hutton in Beautiful Girls. A year after Garden State, fellow former child starlet Kirsten Dunst (see above) played a similarly obnoxious and flaky love interest in the similarly plotted Elizabethtown. But at least Dunst had Orlando Bloom to make her seem talented by comparison. Portman is all alone in her ruination here. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966) Ron Howard, child star-turned-Oscar-winning filmmaker, has a special circumstance that warrants his inclusion on this list. Unlike the other nine, he managed to ruin a movie he wasn’t even involved in. Notice both the title and the date above. Or click on the link. That’s the old animated adaptation of the Dr. Seuss holiday classic, which Howard ruined by directing his live-action version. You could also say that he ruined the book, and you could say that he ruined his own movie by making the latter so terribly horrendous. But it’s Chuck Jones’ earlier film that was most adversely affected by the release of 2000’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas (often listed simply as The Grinch), because how many children will now grow up with the ugly Jim Carrey-starring version instead of the wonderful Boris Karloff-narrated one? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Shia LaBeouf, like Natalie Portman, barely makes the child actor cutoff, but he needs to be included because we need to keep chastising him for ruining not only the latest Indiana Jones movie, but also the whole franchise. Maybe there were indeed other faults with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Plenty of people credit the “nuke the fridge” scene as the downturn in both the film and the series, for instance. But most of us were forgiving up until Shia swung through the trees like Tarzan. So, he’s clearly to blame. It’s quite a shame, too, because he’s pretty much the only thing that really saves the Transformers movies. Inside Man (2006) Jodie Foster has often seemed out of place in movies. She doesn’t feel right in period romances, such as Sommersby and Anna and the King, but she’s a good enough actress that she’s forgiven for such casting faults. As for Inside Man, well, even her Oscar-winning talent couldn’t keep her from appearing ill fit for her role. Part of the problem is the character itself, that of a woman who comes off far less intelligent and tough than she should (the same kind of character ruined The Bourne Supremacy a year earlier). You want Foster, a smart and strong woman in real life and typically on screen, to be more and do more. But she hardly contributes to the film and if anything slows it and dumbs it down too much. Hopefully the rumors are correct that her character will not return in Inside Man 2. Monster (2003) Christina Ricci is not really a good actress to begin with, but if you cast her opposite a great performance she comes off as seeming a downright terrible actress. This is what happened with Monster, in which Charlize Theron does her Oscar-winning best at becoming unrecognizable. Next to that transformation, Ricci just looks like Ricci, and a really untalented Ricci at that. For the amount of screen time Ricci’s lesbian love-interest character is allotted, Patty Jenkins really should have gotten someone better. Because not only does the performance end up awful next to Theron’s, it ruins a film that is otherwise worth watching for the acting. Silver Screen Confidential (1996) Scott Schwartz actually won an award for this adult film, in which he gives a non-sex performance. It wasn’t his first porn nor was it his last, but because of the recognition he received for this one, it’s being used as the exemplary title. While creepy people out there tend to count down to the day that female child stars reach the age of 18, probably in the hopes that the girls will quickly appear in their first legal nude scene, it is unlikely that anyone was waiting for the day the kid from The Toy, A Christmas Story and Kidco would enter a career in porn. To be honest, we haven’t actually seen any of Schwartz’s adult titles, but we can imagine his appearance is quite distracting to anybody who recognizes him as “Flick” while otherwise trying to get off watching Jenna Jameson. Still, Schwartz does star in his very own title, Scotty’s X-Rated Adventure, so maybe he’s somehow a draw? X-Men (2000) Anna Paquin is the prime reason why the Academy needs to stop allowing child actors Oscar nominations. Yes, Paquin was terrific in The Piano, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But then look what happened: she grew up to be an irritating starlet who could ruin a film by Spike Lee, Cameron Crowe or Gus Van Sant with just a single whiny-voiced line while playing the same nymphet character over and over and over. So what if she can claim to have confirmed her talent with a recent Golden Globe win (for TV work)? That still doesn’t take back the fact that she stunk up the first X-Men, one of her rare deviations from her typecast Lolita roles, enough to make it a huge disappointment. Fortunately with the sequels, not even her lack of talent could depreciate X2, and she was far from the worst thing about X-Men: The Last Stand. Thankfully she won’t be in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, nor will she likely be given her own spin-off. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/6/37036.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:01:07 PM
Body: While watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:01:07 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/6/2008 5:01:07 PMWhile watching Zack and Miri Make a Porno, it is possible to occasionally forget that you are watching a Kevin Smith movie. Mainly because he doesn’t show up in the film, a rare and appreciated move for the guy who has played “Silent Bob” in 6 out of the 8 theatrical releases he’s directed. Then there’s the cast that is involved, which makes Z&M seem like the offspring of Judd Apatow and John Waters. But there are a number of things that do make it clearly a Smith joint, such as the obligatory employment of Jason Mewes — in the role he was born to play, even moreso than “Jay” — and the potentially pitying use of Jeff Anderson, who may have been the only actor to agree to receiving that accidental Hot Carl. And then there’s the most recognizable element: Smith’s inability let the poop jokes go in order to concentrate on his characters, and the relationships between them. It’s the filmmaker’s Achilles heel, and it’s one of five we at SpoutBlog have noticed are holding back the esteem of five would-be better directors. Director: Kevin Smith Achilles Heel: Interest in sex and shit over character and story Contrast often creates comedy, and in Z&M Smith acquires some of his best, most shock-inspired laughs when two significantly saccharine moments are interrupted by some incredibly foul scenarios. But despite the comedic benefit of pushing the contrived rom-com plot points to the back burner in favor of scat and scrotum, Smith proves that he doesn’t really care about what is going on with his characters, and so neither may his audience. The irony is that one of the major themes in Z&M is the triumph of love over meaningless sex, yet Smith doesn’t love his characters; he simply uses them as tools for his tasteless jokes and gags. And he’s been doing this since the beginning, though he has made two distinct attempts at giving more attention to characters than crudeness (Chasing Amy; Jersey Girl), which resulted in differing effectiveness. After eight features, it seems to actually be best for him to continue concentrating on the sex and shit and leave all his need to be sweet behind. Unfortunately, he’s too nice a guy to go completely balls out (like his friend Mewes), and anyway if he left all care for his characters behind, he’ll just seem like a second-rate John Waters. Director: Michael Moore Achilles Heel: Self-satisfying need to be comedic and important When Michael Moore began making documentaries, his brand of first-person, subjective non-fiction narrative was fresh and satisfying as far as the subject matter of Roger & Me is concerned. And his comedic touch was much appreciated, because he seemed more humorist than activist. But as he kept expanding his scope to more objective issues that are more important or significant to his audience, and as he seemed to become more interested in changing the world, he should have put the jokes up on the shelf, to some extent anyway. Compared to something like The Daily Show, Moore’s films are more intent on presenting an argument than comedy, and they’re sold as more documentary than The Daily Show is sold as actual news. Therefore, Moore should make up his mind. He’s good at humor, and he’s also good at serious documentary — look at a lot of the stuff in Bowling for Columbine in which Moore’s need for self-importance is pulled back. He can keep on mixing the two together, but he’s not going to win any arguments when he’s twisting facts for the benefit of a gag. Director: M. Night Shyamalan Achilles Heel: Last-minute reveals There’s nothing wrong with twist endings, or twists in general. But the way Shyamalan works them, they come off as punch lines to really long jokes. And most of the time, such as with Signs, The Village and The Happening, the whole movie ends up a joke (in the bad sense) in retrospect after knowing. Even The Sixth Sense, which does still have its supporters (and its Oscar nomination clout), is difficult to rewatch once you’re conscious of how it ends. Shyamalan’s best film, Unbreakable, disappointed many for having a relatively anticlimactic ending, but that’s because the twist wasn’t as much of a reveal as it was a logical direction for the story. Shyamalan should go back to that sort of reveal while also learning that a story (and movie) should be more about the road than the destination. Director: Cameron Crowe Achilles Heel: Writing manic, pixie dream girls as female leads Watching a film by Cameron Crowe, it’s possible to wonder just how he sees his own leading lady, rocker Nancy Wilson. Is she a dumb, obnoxiously flaky girl, like most of the female leads in his movies? Does she say cute but idiotic things like “We peaked on the phone,” “You had me at hello,” and “I’ll tell you in another life, when we are both cats”? I doubt she’s anything like those female characters from Elizabethtown, Jerry Maguire and Vanilla Sky, because otherwise Crowe wouldn’t have been married to her for 22 years. He would have realized after a week that she’s only exciting from a distance, or for as long as an interesting story arc that will later be nestled into one’s past, because she’s too insane, too desperate, too irritating, and not dependable enough to stick with. It might be interesting to see a sequel to any one of Crowe’s films, because it’s hard to believe any of the couples he’s written have lasted long past the credits. Director: Uwe Boll Achilles Heel: Doesn’t care what anybody thinks of his movies It’s understandable that true artists don’t need to please anyone but themselves. But even Boll would likely agree that he’s no artist. So, then is he an entertainer? Nope, he’s not that either, because he clearly isn’t interested in pleasing his audience with entertaining movies. It’s doubtful that Boll could be a good let alone great filmmaker if he started listening to his critics and improved on his flaws. However, by learning from his mistakes he could at least make action movies that could pass with the standard of Hollywood fare these days. Maybe that’s not what he wants. It would surely keep him out of the public consciousness to no longer be “the worst living filmmaker in the world.” But one day the money is going to run out for his brand of film production, and if he truly wants to be a movie director, he’ll have to eventually display some kind of talent for the work. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/19/35323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/19/2008 5:01:43 PM
Body: Sometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:01:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/19/2008 5:01:43 PMSometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30754.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:14:54 PM
Body: Released: October 14, 2005Director: Cameron Crowe*****Ravaged by the critics when it premiered, Elizabethtown is more in love with the music which accents the storyline than either of the main characters. Perhaps that's not surprising, coming from the director of a movie about music-Almost Famous-but in any movie, a soundtrack should highlight the people on screen, not overshadow them.When Drew Taylor's (Orlando Bloom) father dies, he must travel from his home in Oregon-where he used to be a high powered shoe designer-to the south, where relatives he hasn't seen in years all have their own ideas about the funeral. He meets a stewardess (Kirsten Dunst) on the plane and forms an unlikely friendship with her. At about the halfway point of the film, the relationship between Drew and his extended family is shunted aside in favor of blonde Claire, whom he has nothing in common with and should have forgotten the minute he stepped off the plane. She has this annoying quality like the person who won't shut up when all you want to do is slink away. Drew's life in Oregon has fallen apart-his girlfriend leaves him, he gets rid of all his possessions, his sister can't boil water without calling him and his mother has gone off the deep end. Maybe that's why he finds himself attracted to Claire: she reminds him of something familiar, something he can manage since he has no control of any other aspect of his life.However, that's no excuse for shunting a family Drew hardly knows whom he begins to form a relationship with. There's no reason for any of the characters-save Drew-to be as completely incompetent in their lives as they are. And there's no reason for a flaming bird at the reception. It should be a very cut and dry affair: dad wanted to be cremated, end of story. Instead, there are protracted conversations about what he wanted. It's this kind of logic which permeates the film. From beginning to end, the only thing saving Elizabethtown is a wonderfully affecting performance from Bloom. The rest of the cast-Dunst and Susan Sarandon as the mother, among others-overplay their parts to such a degree you root for Drew to leave them all behind.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:14:54 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:14:54 PMReleased: October 14, 2005Director: Cameron Crowe*****Ravaged by the critics when it premiered, Elizabethtown is more in love with the music which accents the storyline than either of the main characters. Perhaps that's not surprising, coming from the director of a movie about music-Almost Famous-but in any movie, a soundtrack should highlight the people on screen, not overshadow them.When Drew Taylor's (Orlando Bloom) father dies, he must travel from his home in Oregon-where he used to be a high powered shoe designer-to the south, where relatives he hasn't seen in years all have their own ideas about the funeral. He meets a stewardess (Kirsten Dunst) on the plane and forms an unlikely friendship with her. At about the halfway point of the film, the relationship between Drew and his extended family is shunted aside in favor of blonde Claire, whom he has nothing in common with and should have forgotten the minute he stepped off the plane. She has this annoying quality like the person who won't shut up when all you want to do is slink away. Drew's life in Oregon has fallen apart-his girlfriend leaves him, he gets rid of all his possessions, his sister can't boil water without calling him and his mother has gone off the deep end. Maybe that's why he finds himself attracted to Claire: she reminds him of something familiar, something he can manage since he has no control of any other aspect of his life.However, that's no excuse for shunting a family Drew hardly knows whom he begins to form a relationship with. There's no reason for any of the characters-save Drew-to be as completely incompetent in their lives as they are. And there's no reason for a flaming bird at the reception. It should be a very cut and dry affair: dad wanted to be cremated, end of story. Instead, there are protracted conversations about what he wanted. It's this kind of logic which permeates the film. From beginning to end, the only thing saving Elizabethtown is a wonderfully affecting performance from Bloom. The rest of the cast-Dunst and Susan Sarandon as the mother, among others-overplay their parts to such a degree you root for Drew to leave them all behind. http://www.spout.com/blogs/windbreaker/archive/2008/5/11/28472.aspx Post By: Windbreaker
Post To: Windbreaker!
Post Date: 5/11/2008 6:55:50 PM
Body: Remember a few years back when you got goosebumps after learning the great Cameron Crowe was creating a character-driven family drama inspired (as usual) by events and people close to him, and filmed near his hometown no less? Remember that? Then you watched Elizabethtown in the theater and said "ummm... I liked it okay". Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd brings far worse feelings. It's not his original material, so I can't blame him -- as usual the direction, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter are awesome. The story just isn't fit for the big screen. I'd enjoy it on stage performed by a college drama department. Or in the pages of a short story. But not as a feature film. Avoid it.
]]>Sun, 11 May 2008 22:55:50 GMTWindbreakerWindbreaker!5/11/2008 6:55:50 PMRemember a few years back when you got goosebumps after learning the great Cameron Crowe was creating a character-driven family drama inspired (as usual) by events and people close to him, and filmed near his hometown no less? Remember that? Then you watched Elizabethtown in the theater and said "ummm... I liked it okay". Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd brings far worse feelings. It's not his original material, so I can't blame him -- as usual the direction, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter are awesome. The story just isn't fit for the big screen. I'd enjoy it on stage performed by a college drama department. Or in the pages of a short story. But not as a feature film. Avoid it. http://www.spout.com/groups/Once_Again/Elizabethtown/560/27065/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Once Again
Post Date: 4/7/2008 10:59:42 PM
Body: I still get into heated arguments over my love of this film. For many of the reasons people dislike Elizabethtown I too found myself distracted by them after intially watching it in the theater. I remember eagerly anticipating it after loving the trailer for it and Almost Famous being a film that I instantly fell in love with. Unfortunately when I saw it I couldn't help but go "Eh . . ." The soundtrack was amazing, the cast was great, but somewhere halfway through when the nature of the film does a U-turn and becomes a completely different film, I got distracted. I started ripping to shreds the acting and bemoaning the dialogue as trite and beleagured. It seemed like the film lost itself. Strangely, I didn't really want to see it again. Lucky for me I did and everything was in its right place.
]]>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:59:42 GMTmercurialOnce Again4/7/2008 10:59:42 PM I still get into heated arguments over my love of this film. For many of the reasons people dislike Elizabethtown I too found myself distracted by them after intially watching it in the theater. I remember eagerly anticipating it after loving the trailer for it and Almost Famous being a film that I instantly fell in love with. Unfortunately when I saw it I couldn't help but go "Eh . . ." The soundtrack was amazing, the cast was great, but somewhere halfway through when the nature of the film does a U-turn and becomes a completely different film, I got distracted. I started ripping to shreds the acting and bemoaning the dialogue as trite and beleagured. It seemed like the film lost itself. Strangely, I didn't really want to see it again. Lucky for me I did and everything was in its right place. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pratchettfan/archive/2008/2/18/25250.aspx Post By: pratchettfan
Post To: pratchettfan Blog
Post Date: 2/18/2008 5:43:27 AM
Body: This movie was recommended to me because I'm a huge fan of Amélie. And so I was expecting a sweet and funny romantic comedy. Unfortunately, Elizabethtown couldn't live up to these high expectations. Nevertheless, it is an entertaining movie with a hilarious road-trip at the end, but overall there are too many scenes that just drag along. If you like Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst you might get a kick out of it, for me, I will stick with Amélie for the times I need a dose of sweet romance :).
]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:43:27 GMTpratchettfanpratchettfan Blog2/18/2008 5:43:27 AMThis movie was recommended to me because I&#39;m a huge fan of Am&eacute;lie. And so I was expecting a sweet and funny romantic comedy. Unfortunately, Elizabethtown couldn&#39;t live up to these high expectations. Nevertheless, it is an entertaining movie with a hilarious road-trip at the end, but overall there are too many scenes that just drag along. If you like Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst you might get a kick out of it, for me, I will stick with Am&eacute;lie for the times I need a dose of sweet romance :). http://www.spout.com/blogs/smoothjazzandmore/archive/2007/7/9/13491.aspx Post By: smoothjazzandmore
Post To: smoothjazzandmore Blog
Post Date: 7/9/2007 1:49:14 AM
Body: Director Cameron Crowe, who successfuly did other films in the same formula (Almost Famous, Jerry McGuire) doesn't gel the same magic in this one. This film had potential. The cast was top knotch and entertaining. But, while I thought the musical soundtrack blended exceptionally well with the film, overall, I was left wondering, "why should I care about it?" Possibly the two hour run time may have worked against it. Didn't quite work for me!
]]>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:49:14 GMTsmoothjazzandmoresmoothjazzandmore Blog7/9/2007 1:49:14 AMDirector Cameron Crowe, who successfuly did other films in the same formula (Almost Famous, Jerry McGuire) doesn't gel the same magic in this one. This film had potential. The cast was top knotch and entertaining. But, while I thought the musical soundtrack blended exceptionally well with the film, overall, I was left wondering, &quot;why should I care about it?&quot; Possibly the two hour run time may have worked against it. Didn't quite work for me! http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2006/5/3/1058.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 5/3/2006 3:16:00 PM
Body: A movie with dreamy Orlando Bloom, perky Kirsten Dunst, venerable Susan Sarandon, and king of romance spinning yarns set to great music director Camerown Crowe? How can this go wrong? I borrowed it from my co-worker again. She's got a library of everything. I had medium to high hopes for this movie, but it ended up falling short for me on many levels. First of all, dreamy Orlando (this is what I call him all the time) should work harder on his American accent. And Kirsten Dunst should work harder on her Kentuckian accent. Those are small gripes. The bottom line is that this plot, when it actually manages to connect in places, has been done before, including by Crowe himself. Did Cameron mean for this to flow like a zigzag stream of consciousness because that's what it felt like. Orlando plays Drew, a colossal failure in shoe design, he just finds out, who loses his job. He also loses his father, a man he barely knew thanks to his high hopes for success. The movie first seems to be about living life despite setbacks, and it ends with that feeling too, but the whole of the middle is something else entirely. You see him fail, get fired by Alec Baldwin (ouch), and contemplate suicide or at least a very sharp turn on an exercise bike. Then, he's flying from home to Kentucky to claim his father's remains from his very typically Southern extended relatives, though he meets a unique flight attendant. It then becomes sort of an atypical love story along the lines of Forces of Nature or something. While he's in Kentucky, though, it's about reconciling his roots with his actual memories, though Kirsten's character keeps popping up. It was just extremely disjointed, and that detracted from the purported emotional resonance. I felt nothing for dreamy Orlando's character, and this was supposed to be that character's journey. Sure, Drew takes a road trip in the end, and the soundtrack is simply amazing (Cameron Crowe never fails on the soundtracks to his movies), but everything else feels empty and forced, right down to dreamy Orlando's American accent. It feels like Jerry Maguire without the heart or Say Anything without the passion. I haven't seen Almost Famous, but I'm sure that's in here somewhere. At best, I rate it a 6 out of 10, which in my ratings scale stands for "Cute." That's what it was - cute. Dreamy Orlando and Kirsten have some chemistry, and Dreamy is dreamy. The test: will she be buying it? The answer: I can safely say no. I might watch it on cable. I might buy the soundtrack. Most likely, I will go look for some older Elton John albums on CD.
]]>Wed, 03 May 2006 19:16:00 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts5/3/2006 3:16:00 PMA movie with dreamy Orlando Bloom, perky Kirsten Dunst, venerable Susan Sarandon, and king of romance spinning yarns set to great music director Camerown Crowe? How can this go wrong? I borrowed it from my co-worker again. She's got a library of everything. I had medium to high hopes for this movie, but it ended up falling short for me on many levels. First of all, dreamy Orlando (this is what I call him all the time) should work harder on his American accent. And Kirsten Dunst should work harder on her Kentuckian accent. Those are small gripes. The bottom line is that this plot, when it actually manages to connect in places, has been done before, including by Crowe himself. Did Cameron mean for this to flow like a zigzag stream of consciousness because that's what it felt like. Orlando plays Drew, a colossal failure in shoe design, he just finds out, who loses his job. He also loses his father, a man he barely knew thanks to his high hopes for success. The movie first seems to be about living life despite setbacks, and it ends with that feeling too, but the whole of the middle is something else entirely. You see him fail, get fired by Alec Baldwin (ouch), and contemplate suicide or at least a very sharp turn on an exercise bike. Then, he's flying from home to Kentucky to claim his father's remains from his very typically Southern extended relatives, though he meets a unique flight attendant. It then becomes sort of an atypical love story along the lines of Forces of Nature or something. While he's in Kentucky, though, it's about reconciling his roots with his actual memories, though Kirsten's character keeps popping up. It was just extremely disjointed, and that detracted from the purported emotional resonance. I felt nothing for dreamy Orlando's character, and this was supposed to be that character's journey. Sure, Drew takes a road trip in the end, and the soundtrack is simply amazing (Cameron Crowe never fails on the soundtracks to his movies), but everything else feels empty and forced, right down to dreamy Orlando's American accent. It feels like Jerry Maguire without the heart or Say Anything without the passion. I haven't seen Almost Famous, but I'm sure that's in here somewhere. At best, I rate it a 6 out of 10, which in my ratings scale stands for "Cute." That's what it was - cute. Dreamy Orlando and Kirsten have some chemistry, and Dreamy is dreamy. The test: will she be buying it? The answer: I can safely say no. I might watch it on cable. I might buy the soundtrack. Most likely, I will go look for some older Elton John albums on CD. http://www.spout.com/blogs/grenadine/archive/2006/3/31/739.aspx Post By: grenadine
Post To: grenadine Blog
Post Date: 3/31/2006 7:18:00 PM
Body: I recently rented Elizabethtown and I had high hopes. I love Cameron Crowe. Almost Famous, Singles and Say Anything are favorites of mine. I hate Jerry McGuire (so ingratiating, ugh) and I never saw Vanilla Sky (maybe because of Tom Cruise), but more often than not, I enjoy the introspective, conversational and uplifting spirit of Mr. Crowe’s films. However, Elizabethtown proves that you can have too much of a good thing. There’s a lot of conversation in the film, most of the action between the two main characters occurs over the phone. And yes, there’s a lot of introspection that happens when you fail, as massively as Orlando’s character does. And it’s quite uplifting to meet someone new to love (and how can you not fall in love with Kirsten Dunst in a cute, red hat?), but all of this without a plot is a mishmash of carelessness. You, as a member of the audience don’t care about these hip, attractive people. The whole set up of the movie is flawed, starting with the miscasting of Orlando Bloom as an American. He makes a much more convincing elf. Note to director, Australians make much better Americans than the British. I could believe Heath Ledger as suicidal shoe designer Drew, but I can’t suspend my disbelief enough for pretty boy Orly. The initial premise of the movie is also flimsy. Young man fails spectacularly and intends to commit suicide. The first ten minutes show how Drew’s shoe design causes a massive recall and costs his employer almost a billion dollars, but it’s unclear how Drew’s design affected the recall. You don’t know if anyone got killed or hurt, this leads the viewer to wonder whether Drew is entirely responsible. Even if Drew is the only reason for this corporation’s loss, it doesn’t matter because you get the feeling that the company will probably make it back anyway. This makes Drew’s subsequent suicide attempt laughable, especially the manner in which he tries to kill himself. Attaching a knife to a stationary bicycle is only comical and removes the seriousness from the situation. Drew doesn’t really get anywhere near to killing himself. No blood is spilt. This diminishes the crux of the film, the unexpected death of Drew’s father. The death is supposed to be the impetus behind the whole rest of the movie, but because we never meet the father, nor do we ever see him interacting with the family you don’t get any sense of loss. The father in this film was supposedly very present and close to his family, but we never see that. As such, you can’t really sympathize with Drew’s loss because we haven’t lost anything as the audience. The film isn’t a complete loss in itself. The art direction, the music and the dialog between Dunst and Bloom works well. Every time Dunst comes on screen she brings the film back to life. The cinematography is superb. It’s nice to see other parts of the US on film beside LA and Toronto (ha ha). When the Dunst and Bloom characters finally get together, you feel like the movie’s finally got something going for it, but then they edited a large chunk out of the film and you can tell because the two scenes that they edited together don’t really match. And then the interaction doesn’t really make sense. Then Drew’s mother starts going looney and there’s some sort of situation with a reception and a burning free bird and the film just completely loses it. Fortunately the final sequence with the road trip rounds things out a bit, but the overall effect is an absurd let down. That said, I’m still looking forward to Mr. Crowe’s next film
]]>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 23:18:00 GMTgrenadinegrenadine Blog3/31/2006 7:18:00 PM I recently rented Elizabethtown and I had high hopes. I love Cameron Crowe. Almost Famous, Singles and Say Anything are favorites of mine. I hate Jerry McGuire (so ingratiating, ugh) and I never saw Vanilla Sky (maybe because of Tom Cruise), but more often than not, I enjoy the introspective, conversational and uplifting spirit of Mr. Crowe’s films. However, Elizabethtown proves that you can have too much of a good thing. There’s a lot of conversation in the film, most of the action between the two main characters occurs over the phone. And yes, there’s a lot of introspection that happens when you fail, as massively as Orlando’s character does. And it’s quite uplifting to meet someone new to love (and how can you not fall in love with Kirsten Dunst in a cute, red hat?), but all of this without a plot is a mishmash of carelessness. You, as a member of the audience don’t care about these hip, attractive people. The whole set up of the movie is flawed, starting with the miscasting of Orlando Bloom as an American. He makes a much more convincing elf. Note to director, Australians make much better Americans than the British. I could believe Heath Ledger as suicidal shoe designer Drew, but I can’t suspend my disbelief enough for pretty boy Orly. The initial premise of the movie is also flimsy. Young man fails spectacularly and intends to commit suicide. The first ten minutes show how Drew’s shoe design causes a massive recall and costs his employer almost a billion dollars, but it’s unclear how Drew’s design affected the recall. You don’t know if anyone got killed or hurt, this leads the viewer to wonder whether Drew is entirely responsible. Even if Drew is the only reason for this corporation’s loss, it doesn’t matter because you get the feeling that the company will probably make it back anyway. This makes Drew’s subsequent suicide attempt laughable, especially the manner in which he tries to kill himself. Attaching a knife to a stationary bicycle is only comical and removes the seriousness from the situation. Drew doesn’t really get anywhere near to killing himself. No blood is spilt. This diminishes the crux of the film, the unexpected death of Drew’s father. The death is supposed to be the impetus behind the whole rest of the movie, but because we never meet the father, nor do we ever see him interacting with the family you don’t get any sense of loss. The father in this film was supposedly very present and close to his family, but we never see that. As such, you can’t really sympathize with Drew’s loss because we haven’t lost anything as the audience. The film isn’t a complete loss in itself. The art direction, the music and the dialog between Dunst and Bloom works well. Every time Dunst comes on screen she brings the film back to life. The cinematography is superb. It’s nice to see other parts of the US on film beside LA and Toronto (ha ha). When the Dunst and Bloom characters finally get together, you feel like the movie’s finally got something going for it, but then they edited a large chunk out of the film and you can tell because the two scenes that they edited together don’t really match. And then the interaction doesn’t really make sense. Then Drew’s mother starts going looney and there’s some sort of situation with a reception and a burning free bird and the film just completely loses it. Fortunately the final sequence with the road trip rounds things out a bit, but the overall effect is an absurd let down. That said, I’m still looking forward to Mr. Crowe’s next film 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/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 317

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609317942Tag 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/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/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suicide/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuicide
Number of films tagged: 1828

Number of people who tagged: 80

Number of times used: 185

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:40:50 GMT182880185Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/roadtrip/MemberTagFilms.aspxroadtrip
Number of films tagged: 315

Number of people who tagged: 59

Number of times used: 88

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT3155988Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/inspiring/MemberTagFilms.aspxinspiring
Number of films tagged: 55

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 84

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT555484Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disappointing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisappointing
Number of films tagged: 75

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 101

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:25:18 GMT7553101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/college/MemberTagFilms.aspxcollege
Number of films tagged: 854

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:40:05 GMT85448187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funeral/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuneral
Number of films tagged: 300

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 45

]]>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:36:34 GMT3002845Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/south/MemberTagFilms.aspxsouth
Number of films tagged: 144

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 40

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT1442340Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/grief/MemberTagFilms.aspxgrief
Number of films tagged: 539

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 32

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT5392032Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shoes/MemberTagFilms.aspxshoes
Number of films tagged: 54

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:36:14 GMT541723Tag