list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Batman Begins 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/Batman_Begins/229480/default.aspx Title: Batman Begins
Year: 2005
Director: Christopher Nolan
Plot: The origins of the Caped Crusader of Gotham City are finally brought to the big screen in this new adaptation of the perennially popular comic-book series. The young Bruce Wayne (Gus Lewis) leads a privileged life as the son of wealthy, philanthropist parents, both of whom stress their commitment to improving the lives of the citizens of crime-ridden Gotham City. After his mother and father are murdered by a mugger, however, Wayne grows into an impudent young man (Christian Bale), full of rage and bent on retribution until encouraged by his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), to search for answers beyond his own personal vendettas. Wayne eventually finds discipline in the Far East under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a member of the mysterious League of Shadows who guides him in the study of martial arts -- and the ways in which an ordinary man can hone his senses to an almost superhuman acuity. After seven years away from Gotham, Wayne returns, determined to bring peace and safety back to the city. With the help of his faithful manservant, Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine), and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), a scientist at his late father's corporation, Wayne develops a secret identity as Batman, a masked fighter for justice. But when a shady psychiatrist (Cillian Murphy) joins forces with the criminal underworld, Wayne realizes that putting an end to their nefarious plans will be very difficult indeed. Batman Begins also features Gary Oldman as Lt. James Gordon and Tom Wilkinson as the crime boss Carmine Falcone. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 206
Number of Lists: 193
Number of blog posts: 38
Number of discussion threads: 21
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:46:24 GMTBatman Begins2005Christopher NolanThe origins of the Caped Crusader of Gotham City are finally brought to the big screen in this new adaptation of the perennially popular comic-book series. The young Bruce Wayne (Gus Lewis) leads a privileged life as the son of wealthy, philanthropist parents, both of whom stress their commitment to improving the lives of the citizens of crime-ridden Gotham City. After his mother and father are murdered by a mugger, however, Wayne grows into an impudent young man (<a href="/players/P_____3538/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christian Bale</a>), full of rage and bent on retribution until encouraged by his childhood sweetheart, Rachel Dawes (<a href="/players/P___225994/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Katie Holmes</a>), to search for answers beyond his own personal vendettas. Wayne eventually finds discipline in the Far East under the tutelage of Henri Ducard (<a href="/players/P____52070/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Liam Neeson</a>), a member of the mysterious League of Shadows who guides him in the study of martial arts -- and the ways in which an ordinary man can hone his senses to an almost superhuman acuity. After seven years away from Gotham, Wayne returns, determined to bring peace and safety back to the city. With the help of his faithful manservant, Alfred Pennyworth (<a href="/players/P____10198/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Caine</a>), and Lucius Fox (<a href="/players/P____90514/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Morgan Freeman</a>), a scientist at his late father's corporation, Wayne develops a secret identity as Batman, a masked fighter for justice. But when a shady psychiatrist (<a href="/players/P___271775/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cillian Murphy</a>) joins forces with the criminal underworld, Wayne realizes that putting an end to their nefarious plans will be very difficult indeed. Batman Begins also features <a href="/players/P____53946/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gary Oldman</a> as Lt. James Gordon and <a href="/players/P____76333/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tom Wilkinson</a> as the crime boss Carmine Falcone. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide206Tag Target (>10)19338214http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t87181z9bmr.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Batman_Begins/229480/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42139.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 8:05:40 PM
Body: Scarred for life by being the sole witness to the murder of his parents (Linus Roache and Sara Stewart), "Bruce Wayne" (Christian Bale) finds himself in a foreign prison. He tolerates cruel treatment to observe the ways of how the criminal mind works. When he is placed into solitary confinment, he us visited by the mysterious "Ducard" (Liam Neeson), who offers "Wayne" a chance to join "The League of Shadows", a secret group of vigilantes led by "Ra's Al Ghul" (Ken Watanabe). "Ducard" trains "Wayne" in the ways of the ninja and the ideals of "Al Ghul". He also shows him how to manipulate the fears of his enemy by conquering his own, which, in this case is bats. After refusing to execute an accused murder to show his loyalty to the league, he returns after seven years to "Gotham City". There, "Wayne" secures assistance from his family's loyal butler "Alfred" (the wrongly cast Sir Michael Caine), one of the few good cops in the city named "Jim Gordon" (Gary Oldman), family friend "Lucius Fox" (Morgan Freeman). Together, some unknowing, they first bring down the top crime boss of "Gotham City," "Carmine Falcone" (Tom Wilkinson). With "Falcone" behind bars, "The Batman" goes after a psychologist who specializes in fear by the name of "Dr. Jonathan Crane" (Cillian Murphy), who uses a toxin which induces extreme fear, and a scarecrow mask on his victims -- all of whom worked for "Falcone" and the crime boss himself. "Dr. Crane" plans to put the toxin in the city water supply when Assistant District Attorney "Rachel Dawes" (Katie Holmes) learns of his plans. But what "Batman" doesn't expect is whom "Dr. Crane" is working for. This is not the 1960's TV "Batman", folks! This one is darker, more violent and less campy. Many of the scenes are emersed in dark colors and shadow, as are some characters wardrobes. The performances are pretty good, with many strong performances done by many members of the main cast. Just about every cast member worked well in their roles, with exception of Caine. In my opinion, Caine, who did a good job in his role, was wrongly cast. Having somebody with such an established career as Caine has, he just should not be playing a butler. It was just a bad choice of a role for him in my opinion. Two props that just didn't work well in my opinion were the "throwing bat-stars" that "Batman" used to break lightbulbs before he attacked criminals, and the "Batmobile" itself. The "throwing bat-stars" (for lack of a better name) looked pretty flimsy and weak to me. And that was no "Batmobile"! That car looked like it should have been shipped over to Iraq than given to a comic book superhero. There are some very wild visual effects in this film when the audience is suppose to be seeing through the eyes of the victims of "Dr. Crane's" fear toxin. There are also some horrible edits during fist fights between "Batman" and the criminal elements. Another problem with this film is development of subplots and characters. The only way to fix the problems with character development is to familiarize yourself with the characters, many of which were introduced in the comic books following a reboot of the series by DC Comics. The only character that you would not be able to familiarize yourself with buy reading the comic books is "Dawes," who was created for this film. Despite the flaws, this movie is still enjoyable thanks to some strong performances and a well written story. It could be a good rental
]]>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:05:40 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 8:05:40 PMScarred for life by being the sole witness to the murder of his parents (Linus Roache and Sara Stewart), "Bruce Wayne" (Christian Bale) finds himself in a foreign prison. He tolerates cruel treatment to observe the ways of how the criminal mind works. When he is placed into solitary confinment, he us visited by the mysterious "Ducard" (Liam Neeson), who offers "Wayne" a chance to join "The League of Shadows", a secret group of vigilantes led by "Ra's Al Ghul" (Ken Watanabe). "Ducard" trains "Wayne" in the ways of the ninja and the ideals of "Al Ghul". He also shows him how to manipulate the fears of his enemy by conquering his own, which, in this case is bats. After refusing to execute an accused murder to show his loyalty to the league, he returns after seven years to "Gotham City". There, "Wayne" secures assistance from his family's loyal butler "Alfred" (the wrongly cast Sir Michael Caine), one of the few good cops in the city named "Jim Gordon" (Gary Oldman), family friend "Lucius Fox" (Morgan Freeman). Together, some unknowing, they first bring down the top crime boss of "Gotham City," "Carmine Falcone" (Tom Wilkinson). With "Falcone" behind bars, "The Batman" goes after a psychologist who specializes in fear by the name of "Dr. Jonathan Crane" (Cillian Murphy), who uses a toxin which induces extreme fear, and a scarecrow mask on his victims -- all of whom worked for "Falcone" and the crime boss himself. "Dr. Crane" plans to put the toxin in the city water supply when Assistant District Attorney "Rachel Dawes" (Katie Holmes) learns of his plans. But what "Batman" doesn't expect is whom "Dr. Crane" is working for. This is not the 1960's TV "Batman", folks! This one is darker, more violent and less campy. Many of the scenes are emersed in dark colors and shadow, as are some characters wardrobes. The performances are pretty good, with many strong performances done by many members of the main cast. Just about every cast member worked well in their roles, with exception of Caine. In my opinion, Caine, who did a good job in his role, was wrongly cast. Having somebody with such an established career as Caine has, he just should not be playing a butler. It was just a bad choice of a role for him in my opinion. Two props that just didn't work well in my opinion were the "throwing bat-stars" that "Batman" used to break lightbulbs before he attacked criminals, and the "Batmobile" itself. The "throwing bat-stars" (for lack of a better name) looked pretty flimsy and weak to me. And that was no "Batmobile"! That car looked like it should have been shipped over to Iraq than given to a comic book superhero. There are some very wild visual effects in this film when the audience is suppose to be seeing through the eyes of the victims of "Dr. Crane's" fear toxin. There are also some horrible edits during fist fights between "Batman" and the criminal elements. Another problem with this film is development of subplots and characters. The only way to fix the problems with character development is to familiarize yourself with the characters, many of which were introduced in the comic books following a reboot of the series by DC Comics. The only character that you would not be able to familiarize yourself with buy reading the comic books is "Dawes," who was created for this film. Despite the flaws, this movie is still enjoyable thanks to some strong performances and a well written story. It could be a good rental http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/3/40806.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/3/2009 8:01:06 PM
Body: I have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:01:06 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/3/2009 8:01:06 PMI have always tried to maintain low expectations for Hollywood product in general. But when it comes to highly anticipated movies, particularly blockbuster sequels to popular sci-fi action franchises, my excitement can get the best of me. Whenever I need to calm down my expectations, though, I simply recall all the disappointments of 1997 (Alien Resurrection, The Lost World, the Star Wars Special Edition), and I can get through the hype pretty safely. Considering I’m one of the few who actually loved both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and (yes, even) McG’s Charlie’s Angels movies, it’s hard for me to believe that I’m also one of the few who isn’t now expecting Terminator Salvation to be the second coming of Christ The Terminator after watching the new trailer (embedded below). Sure, Christian Bale could very well be a lucky charm to franchise reboots (though does anyone believe this will be even a tenth as good as Batman Begins?) and T4 could easily be better than rival summer blockbuster Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (though “easily” is an understatement, because Transformer 2 will suck just as bad as Transformers 1). But with two and a half months left until the movie opens, it’s just too early for us to be going so ga-ga over one piece of marketing. The only thing left to happen now is a backlash, which I guess I’m sort of starting right now? Here’s a sample of the most extreme gushing to hit the blogosphere since the trailer’s premiere last night: Vulture gets credit for both the Batman Begins and the Transformers comparisons: From the looks of this trailer [McG] seems as if he’s on the cusp of delivering one of the best franchise reboots since Chris Nolan decided to take on Bruce Wayne…guaranteed to make Michael Bay seethe with jealousy: huge robots, even huger explosions, and, gasp, realistic-seeming human emotion! Sean at FilmJunk adds to the better-than-Transformers discussion: “Not only does Terminator Salvation have giant robots, explosions and impressive special effects, but it also has acting talent, an interesting story, and a sense of style.” While I’m sure (and hoping) she’s at least half-joking, Best Week Ever’s Michelle Collins nicknames the director “McGenius” and believes the trailer is great enough to now ensure people will be lining up days in advance. Note to Warner Bros.: you apparently needn’t spend money on further marketing materials. You’re good. Neil Miller at FIlmSchoolRejects is overly dramatic and overly excited: Even Christian Bale, master of all things badass — a man who has saved Gotham City twice from disaster — cannot stop the elimination in McG’s soon to be awesome Terminator Salvation. Am I being dramatic? Yes. Is this movie going to rock you to your core? Absolutely, yes. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net, on the other hand, still prefers to hate on the director in spite of all his excitement: “Watching this makes me forget that McG is even directing this and makes me believe that we may actually see an awesome Terminator movie. This year’s summer movie season is looking better and better with every new day!” Rob at Topless Robot at least seems to understand the relativity that’s affecting his fanboy salivation: “Am I the only one excirted because my expectations for a McG-directed Terminator were so abyssmally low?” Todd Brown at Twitch nominates the spot as the “Best Trailer of The Year” and claims it’s better than any of the trailers for either of the James Cameron installments: To him, it “comes as near to perfection as I’ve seen in a long, long time.” Meredith Woerner at io9 pumps up the fanboys with screenshots, including some resembling parts of Star Wars and Firefly. Empire (and also Topless Robot) also sees some Battlestar Galactica resemblance. Oh, TMZ, you’re still on the Bale tirade story? Don’t you know today’s a day for positive T4 news? Okay, there is at least one blogger with lower expectations than I have: Rod at ThePlaylist. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/12/19/38590.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 12/19/2008 11:16:45 AM
Body: The Dark Knight I’m finally writing about The Dark Knight. So much has been blogged about this movie since years before it came out, to the massive avalanche of advertising well before the release date of the film, through the record breaking box office attendance, and still in its aftermath and upcoming award season. It’s kind of overwhelming, and I’m not sure I have anything new to say for anyone who really cares about the movie at all. Yeah Heath stole the show. It’s sad that he’s dead since it seemed like there wasn’t much resolution for the Joker character and they were probably originally intending on bringing him back in a sequel. But apart from the Heath’s performance, the rest of the film wasn’t much more impressive to me than Batman Begins which did not blow me out of the water the way it did for many people. But I never expected it to. Christopher Nolan’s take on the world of Batman is a very realistic one. It was extremely strange to see so many familiar parts of Chicago, the city I live in, on the screen with Batman running around, especially since nothing was covered up or glossed over. It basically looked like a real, dirty street without any of this comic book stylizing that has been so popular recently like in Frank Miller’s Sin City or 300 for extreme examples. But I just can’t accept a realistic Batman. I’ve always said Adam West was my favorite Batman and “real comic book fans” usually think I’m joking or are appalled. The producer on that show thought comic books were silly and played up the campy aspects. Well that’s the way I enjoy them too. I was actually at a bar last night celebrating my girlfriend’s birthday with some of our friends, and one of the TVs was playing the old Adam West Batman movie. Now that’s fun! And when they pull out that Bat Shark Repellent you can laugh at it and say boy that’s silly, what fun! But in The Dark Knight when they invent this device that lets them create some kind of remote 3-D model of the real world by somehow using people’s cell phones, they act like you are supposed to believe it!!! I’m not saying that The Dark Knight wasn’t fun, I’m just saying maybe that’s all a Batman movie should try to be (in my opinion)… Rating: 7/10
]]>Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:16:45 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog12/19/2008 11:16:45 AMThe Dark Knight I&rsquo;m finally writing about The Dark Knight. So much has been blogged about this movie since years before it came out, to the massive avalanche of advertising well before the release date of the film, through the record breaking box office attendance, and still in its aftermath and upcoming award season. It&rsquo;s kind of overwhelming, and I&rsquo;m not sure I have anything new to say for anyone who really cares about the movie at all. Yeah Heath stole the show. It&rsquo;s sad that he&rsquo;s dead since it seemed like there wasn&rsquo;t much resolution for the Joker character and they were probably originally intending on bringing him back in a sequel. But apart from the Heath&rsquo;s performance, the rest of the film wasn&rsquo;t much more impressive to me than Batman Begins which did not blow me out of the water the way it did for many people. But I never expected it to. Christopher Nolan&rsquo;s take on the world of Batman is a very realistic one. It was extremely strange to see so many familiar parts of Chicago, the city I live in, on the screen with Batman running around, especially since nothing was covered up or glossed over. It basically looked like a real, dirty street without any of this comic book stylizing that has been so popular recently like in Frank Miller&rsquo;s Sin City or 300 for extreme examples. But I just can&rsquo;t accept a realistic Batman. I&rsquo;ve always said Adam West was my favorite Batman and &ldquo;real comic book fans&rdquo; usually think I&rsquo;m joking or are appalled. The producer on that show thought comic books were silly and played up the campy aspects. Well that&rsquo;s the way I enjoy them too. I was actually at a bar last night celebrating my girlfriend&rsquo;s birthday with some of our friends, and one of the TVs was playing the old Adam West Batman movie. Now that&rsquo;s fun! And when they pull out that Bat Shark Repellent you can laugh at it and say boy that&rsquo;s silly, what fun! But in The Dark Knight when they invent this device that lets them create some kind of remote 3-D model of the real world by somehow using people&rsquo;s cell phones, they act like you are supposed to believe it!!! I&rsquo;m not saying that The Dark Knight wasn&rsquo;t fun, I&rsquo;m just saying maybe that&rsquo;s all a Batman movie should try to be (in my opinion)&hellip; Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Re_Holiday_movies_Cartoon_mice_Jim_Carrey_s_face/216/38540/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: spout
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 12/18/2008 11:59:17 AM
Body: DVD Highlights: Week of 12/19 1. Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy on Blu-Ray (6 disc set) -- I found a list of the special features in this user review. I would be most interested in hearing Johnny Depp's commentary on Curse of the Black Pearl. Curse of the Black Pearl -- Watch the trailer. This was my favorite of the series. Jack Sparrow is so fun that I like to imagine his other adventures. Dead Man's Chest -- My least favorite of the series, but maybe it deserves another try. At World's End -- Watch the trailer. I can't remember much about this one, but I liked it more than Dead Man's Chest. 2. House Bunny -- Is this subversive, making fun of the whole Playhouse Mansion scene? I don't know. I do know that I'm a sucker for movies where an adult and young people learn from each other. I know Scent of a Woman isn't perfect, but I still like it. Role Models was okay too. On the other hand, will anyone ever watch the Mighty Ducks series again? Remember Burt Reynolds in Cop and a Half? 3. Mamma Mia! -- Watch the trailer. A musical with Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Pierce Brosnan, and Stellan Skarsgard. I like those people, but the music is twenty-two ABBA hits, so I don't know what to say. 4. Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor -- Watch the trailer. I didn't see this one, was is better than The Mummy Returns? FYI, it looks like the manufacturer discontinued the Batman Begins/Dark Knight blu-ray double pack. But who knows, you might still be able to find one at a bookstore or something. If not, there's no harm in grabbing the single copies: Batman Begins -- Watch the trailer. My favorite Batman movie until The Dark Knight came along. The Dark Knight -- Watch the trailer. So good, it's hard to imagine Batman 3 being better. Although if any director can do it, it's Christopher Nolan.
]]>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:59:17 GMTspoutComing Soon12/18/2008 11:59:17 AMDVD Highlights: Week of 12/19 1. Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy on Blu-Ray (6 disc set) -- I found a list of the special features in this user review. I would be most interested in hearing Johnny Depp's commentary on Curse of the Black Pearl. Curse of the Black Pearl -- Watch the trailer. This was my favorite of the series. Jack Sparrow is so fun that I like to imagine his other adventures. Dead Man's Chest -- My least favorite of the series, but maybe it deserves another try. At World's End -- Watch the trailer. I can't remember much about this one, but I liked it more than Dead Man's Chest. 2. House Bunny -- Is this subversive, making fun of the whole Playhouse Mansion scene? I don't know. I do know that I'm a sucker for movies where an adult and young people learn from each other. I know Scent of a Woman isn't perfect, but I still like it. Role Models was okay too. On the other hand, will anyone ever watch the Mighty Ducks series again? Remember Burt Reynolds in Cop and a Half? 3. Mamma Mia! -- Watch the trailer. A musical with Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Pierce Brosnan, and Stellan Skarsgard. I like those people, but the music is twenty-two ABBA hits, so I don't know what to say. 4. Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor -- Watch the trailer. I didn't see this one, was is better than The Mummy Returns? FYI, it looks like the manufacturer discontinued the Batman Begins/Dark Knight blu-ray double pack. But who knows, you might still be able to find one at a bookstore or something. If not, there's no harm in grabbing the single copies: Batman Begins -- Watch the trailer. My favorite Batman movie until The Dark Knight came along. The Dark Knight -- Watch the trailer. So good, it's hard to imagine Batman 3 being better. Although if any director can do it, it's Christopher Nolan. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Dark_Knight_DVD_Giveaway_and_What_s_your_favorite/4/38081/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/8/2008 4:15:44 PM
Body: Hey you sci-fi lovers, Spout is doing a giveaway of The Dark Knight over at Filmgaming. So I'm a pathetic person and haven't watched the Dark Knight yet, but I wanted to know what everyone's favorite futuristic gadget is. I really enjoyed the cape that turned into a hang glider from Batman Begins, I need one of those! What's your favorite bat-gadget?
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:15:44 GMTrjspraguesci-fi12/8/2008 4:15:44 PMHey you sci-fi lovers, Spout is doing a giveaway of The Dark Knight over at Filmgaming. So I'm a pathetic person and haven't watched the Dark Knight yet, but I wanted to know what everyone's favorite futuristic gadget is. I really enjoyed the cape that turned into a hang glider from Batman Begins, I need one of those! What's your favorite bat-gadget? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/15/36353.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/15/2008 10:01:17 AM
Body: Forget about Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard as James Rhodes / War Machine in Iron Man II, which smells a lot like the “we’ll threaten to replace Tobey Maguire with Jake Gyllenhaal” tactic that Sony used for Spider-Man II –– Hollywood has been doing this for years. It was bad enough back in the days of television with Dick Sargent replacing Dick York in Bewitched, but now it’s becoming pretty commonplace for producers to replace actors in iconic roles. Although now it’s more common due to monetary concerns, which seems to be what has taken Howard out of the War Machine suit, it’s also common to see an actor ankle a role because they don’t like the source material, or the direction the character is taking. We’ve put together several different re-castings, which all happened for a variety of reasons: money, dissatisfaction with the script, test audience reactions, and actors just growing tired of playing the same character. Check them out after the break. Alec Baldwin –> Harrison Ford –> Ben Affleck –> Ryan Gosling (?) In Tom Clancy’s series of “Ryanverse” books, action politician and former teacher Jack Ryan has dne everything from rescue a rogue Russian submarine to become the President of the United States. Alec Baldwin first played the role in 1990’s The Hunt for Red October, but he was unavailable for the sequel Patriot Games (which in the books is a prequel), due to a stint on Broadway. The producers then approached Harrison Ford, who took over the role for two movies, with Clear and Present Danger being the highest grossing Ryan film to date. Ford decided not to play the role a third time, and for 2002’s The Sum of All Fears they decided to try and jumpstart the franchise with a young Jack Ryan, casting Ben Affleck in the role. At the time, Ford reportedly told Affleck, “Knock yourself out. I don’t want to do these movies anymore.” Which contrasts with what he just told AOL’s Moviefone: “I thought that we hadn’t quite exhausted the potential of the Jack Ryan character. Those films were, I think, very good movies. I wouldn’t mind doing another of those.” Nevertheless, there’s a rumor that Ryan Gosling will become the new Jack Ryan in Without Remorse, which is currently in development. Personally? I thought Baldwin made the best Jack Ryan, but he’s a better Jack Donaghy. Jodie Foster –> Julianne Moore When Foster declined to reprise the Clarice Starling role from Silence of the Lambs in Hannibal, the producers considered a list of actors that ranged from Winona Ryder to Gillian Anderson, who lost the role because her contract at Fox said she couldn’t play another FBI agent. Even though Foster had initially said she’d do it and had specific notes on the script, eventually Julianne Moore won the part, but in the end it wasn’t much of a prize –– it’s hard to remember that Ridley Scott directed this movie, because it just didn’t have a the spark or charisma of the original. Similarly, if you rent the excellent Manhunter, you’ll see William Petersen in a non-CSI role playing FBI agent Will Graham, who actually captured Hannibal Lecter (oddly spelled Lecktor in this movie), played by Brian Cox. Later Hollywood remade this movie as Red Dragon (the name of the book) with Anthony Hopkins reprising his Lecter role, and Ed Norton playing Will Graham. Although if we include remakes on this list, it’ll stretch on far too long. Katie Holmes  –> Maggie Gyllenhaal Katie Holmes turned down a big payday when she decided not to return for the sequel to Batman Begins, and missed out on being in the biggest movie of this year. It’s still unclear if her decision shows Tom Cruise’s influence at work, or if she just didn’t want to do it now that she’s a mommy, but it was one of those head-scratching moments that just makes you wonder what happened. Maybe she bristled at the paltry two million dollars she was being offered for the role, especially since the part was beefed up for The Dark Knight. Claudia Wells –> Elisabeth Shue and Crispin Glover –> Jeffrey Weisman Back to the Future Part II saw two major roles get recast, and in some cases rewritten completely. Claudia Wells, who played Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer in the first film, decided to leave acting since her mother was diagnosed with cancer, and she later took more time off to have children. Her part was recast with Elisabeth Shue stepping in, and they had to re-shoot the ending sequence of the original movie since that’s how Back to the Future II opens. Additionally, Crispin Glover found out that the producers were using his image without his approval for the sequel, and he sued the directors and producers, including Steven Spielberg. The case was settled out of court, and the Screen Actors Guild later implemented rules to prevent this from happening again. As a result, Glover’s part was recast with Jeffrey Weisman playing George McFly, and most of his scenes show the back of his head, or him floating upside down (he’s supposed to be in traction, having hurt his back) and wearing heavy prosthetics. Burt Reynolds –> Jackie Gleason –> Jerry Reed This story is so strange that it makes me want to go back and watch this movie again, even though I remember how terrible it was when I saw it as a kid. This movie was originally titled Smokey and the Bandit III: Smokey IS The Bandit, with Jackie Gleason playing both Buford T. Justice, and the role of the Bandit. We sure would have like to see him as the Bandit, but apparently audiences didn’t and were too confused by the dual roles. So the studio dumped Gleason as the Bandit, and rewrote the film to have Jerry Reed as the Bandit. If you remember from the first two movies (and it’s forgiveable is you don’t have the lore of Smokey and the Bandit memorized at this point), Reed was the Bandit’s best buddy, Cledus Snow, who drove the big truck. However in this third installment, the Enoses (I swear I’m getting dumber by remembering all of this stuff) decided that the Bandit was too egotistical, and hire Snow to do their bidding. In the climactic scene, when Smokey finally catches the Bandit, he seems him as Burt Reynolds, who reprised the role just for that one moment. Now I need to go get a stiff drink. If someone out there can find the footage of Gleason as the Bandit, you’ll make my day. Thank god he made Nothing In Common with Tom Hanks before he died, because this would have a been a terrible film to end a career with. I was going to include Michael Gambon replacing Richard Harris in the role of Dumbledore, which opens up a whole realm of actors who had to be replaced because they died. Then I realized there’s actually quite a lot of those, so look for that in a future post. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:01:17 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/15/2008 10:01:17 AM Forget about Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard as James Rhodes / War Machine in Iron Man II, which smells a lot like the “we’ll threaten to replace Tobey Maguire with Jake Gyllenhaal” tactic that Sony used for Spider-Man II –– Hollywood has been doing this for years. It was bad enough back in the days of television with Dick Sargent replacing Dick York in Bewitched, but now it’s becoming pretty commonplace for producers to replace actors in iconic roles. Although now it’s more common due to monetary concerns, which seems to be what has taken Howard out of the War Machine suit, it’s also common to see an actor ankle a role because they don’t like the source material, or the direction the character is taking. We’ve put together several different re-castings, which all happened for a variety of reasons: money, dissatisfaction with the script, test audience reactions, and actors just growing tired of playing the same character. Check them out after the break. Alec Baldwin –> Harrison Ford –> Ben Affleck –> Ryan Gosling (?) In Tom Clancy’s series of “Ryanverse” books, action politician and former teacher Jack Ryan has dne everything from rescue a rogue Russian submarine to become the President of the United States. Alec Baldwin first played the role in 1990’s The Hunt for Red October, but he was unavailable for the sequel Patriot Games (which in the books is a prequel), due to a stint on Broadway. The producers then approached Harrison Ford, who took over the role for two movies, with Clear and Present Danger being the highest grossing Ryan film to date. Ford decided not to play the role a third time, and for 2002’s The Sum of All Fears they decided to try and jumpstart the franchise with a young Jack Ryan, casting Ben Affleck in the role. At the time, Ford reportedly told Affleck, “Knock yourself out. I don’t want to do these movies anymore.” Which contrasts with what he just told AOL’s Moviefone: “I thought that we hadn’t quite exhausted the potential of the Jack Ryan character. Those films were, I think, very good movies. I wouldn’t mind doing another of those.” Nevertheless, there’s a rumor that Ryan Gosling will become the new Jack Ryan in Without Remorse, which is currently in development. Personally? I thought Baldwin made the best Jack Ryan, but he’s a better Jack Donaghy. Jodie Foster –> Julianne Moore When Foster declined to reprise the Clarice Starling role from Silence of the Lambs in Hannibal, the producers considered a list of actors that ranged from Winona Ryder to Gillian Anderson, who lost the role because her contract at Fox said she couldn’t play another FBI agent. Even though Foster had initially said she’d do it and had specific notes on the script, eventually Julianne Moore won the part, but in the end it wasn’t much of a prize –– it’s hard to remember that Ridley Scott directed this movie, because it just didn’t have a the spark or charisma of the original. Similarly, if you rent the excellent Manhunter, you’ll see William Petersen in a non-CSI role playing FBI agent Will Graham, who actually captured Hannibal Lecter (oddly spelled Lecktor in this movie), played by Brian Cox. Later Hollywood remade this movie as Red Dragon (the name of the book) with Anthony Hopkins reprising his Lecter role, and Ed Norton playing Will Graham. Although if we include remakes on this list, it’ll stretch on far too long. Katie Holmes  –> Maggie Gyllenhaal Katie Holmes turned down a big payday when she decided not to return for the sequel to Batman Begins, and missed out on being in the biggest movie of this year. It’s still unclear if her decision shows Tom Cruise’s influence at work, or if she just didn’t want to do it now that she’s a mommy, but it was one of those head-scratching moments that just makes you wonder what happened. Maybe she bristled at the paltry two million dollars she was being offered for the role, especially since the part was beefed up for The Dark Knight. Claudia Wells –> Elisabeth Shue and Crispin Glover –> Jeffrey Weisman Back to the Future Part II saw two major roles get recast, and in some cases rewritten completely. Claudia Wells, who played Marty’s girlfriend Jennifer in the first film, decided to leave acting since her mother was diagnosed with cancer, and she later took more time off to have children. Her part was recast with Elisabeth Shue stepping in, and they had to re-shoot the ending sequence of the original movie since that’s how Back to the Future II opens. Additionally, Crispin Glover found out that the producers were using his image without his approval for the sequel, and he sued the directors and producers, including Steven Spielberg. The case was settled out of court, and the Screen Actors Guild later implemented rules to prevent this from happening again. As a result, Glover’s part was recast with Jeffrey Weisman playing George McFly, and most of his scenes show the back of his head, or him floating upside down (he’s supposed to be in traction, having hurt his back) and wearing heavy prosthetics. Burt Reynolds –> Jackie Gleason –> Jerry Reed This story is so strange that it makes me want to go back and watch this movie again, even though I remember how terrible it was when I saw it as a kid. This movie was originally titled Smokey and the Bandit III: Smokey IS The Bandit, with Jackie Gleason playing both Buford T. Justice, and the role of the Bandit. We sure would have like to see him as the Bandit, but apparently audiences didn’t and were too confused by the dual roles. So the studio dumped Gleason as the Bandit, and rewrote the film to have Jerry Reed as the Bandit. If you remember from the first two movies (and it’s forgiveable is you don’t have the lore of Smokey and the Bandit memorized at this point), Reed was the Bandit’s best buddy, Cledus Snow, who drove the big truck. However in this third installment, the Enoses (I swear I’m getting dumber by remembering all of this stuff) decided that the Bandit was too egotistical, and hire Snow to do their bidding. In the climactic scene, when Smokey finally catches the Bandit, he seems him as Burt Reynolds, who reprised the role just for that one moment. Now I need to go get a stiff drink. If someone out there can find the footage of Gleason as the Bandit, you’ll make my day. Thank god he made Nothing In Common with Tom Hanks before he died, because this would have a been a terrible film to end a career with. I was going to include Michael Gambon replacing Richard Harris in the role of Dumbledore, which opens up a whole realm of actors who had to be replaced because they died. Then I realized there’s actually quite a lot of those, so look for that in a future post. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/bobhill/archive/2008/8/30/34547.aspx Post By: BobHill
Post To: BobHill Blog
Post Date: 8/30/2008 7:36:34 AM
Body: I would of liked to see more of the movie while the interveiwers talked. Would have been much better since I did not see the movie and don't know the guy that played him at least the way he looks. Which you take for advantage I saw it and know him. I know about him a little from what I been told. But this trailer was nothing to me. Thanks anyway, Sincerley yours, Bob
]]>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:36:34 GMTBobHillBobHill Blog8/30/2008 7:36:34 AM I would of liked to see more of the movie while the interveiwers talked. Would have been much better since I did not see the movie and don't know the guy that played him at least the way he looks. Which you take for advantage I saw it and know him. I know about him a little from what I been told. But this trailer was nothing to me. Thanks anyway, Sincerley yours, Bob http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_August_11_The_Secret_Society/625/34016/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 8/14/2008 5:20:00 PM
Body: Well, my persistent fear of fraternities throughout college started after seeing the amusingly bad The Skulls in which a Yale fraternitiy is cover for a secret group that can pretty much do whatever they want. The Da Vinci Code deals with all those various secret groups like the Prior of Scion and the Knights Templar. I just remember Tom Hanks and his creepy semi-mullet that made him look like a child molester. Tomb Raider mentioned the Illuminati but never really explained too much about it. More mainstream are of course is Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix which probably doesn't need any explanation; Batman Begins had the League of Shadows which again probably needs to explaining; Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events had that group that the children's parents belonged to and were trying to find out about through the movie; The Mummy which had that secret group of nomads that were protecting/guarding the pyramid from crazy morons like Brendan Fraser; and lastly Star Wars which in the newer trilogy introduced the Sith and that whole secret anti-Jedi group. My favorite films with mention of secret socieites are: Eyes Wide Shut which was already mentioned (when Tom Cruise's character gets called out during the ritual and is asked to strip gave me the willies when I first saw it); The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I ended up hating because it was nothing like the graphic novels which are so incredible; and Cruel Intentions. What you ask? Cruel Intentions? Well, the scene in which Sarah Michelle Gellar's character convinces the naive Selma Blair that being a bisexual slut means you are in a "secret society" is just plain hilarious. Other notable mentions are The Beach which was a group of hippie potheads inhabiting an isolated island off of Thailand and starting their own secret society, going to extreme measures to make sure it stays a secret and The Stepford Wives (remake - I didn't see the original) which was horrible but had it's moment of hilarity when the men of the gated community are all together at their secret clubhouse being complete nerds and fighting robots.
]]>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:20:00 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme8/14/2008 5:20:00 PMWell, my persistent fear of fraternities throughout college started after seeing the amusingly bad The Skulls in which a Yale fraternitiy is cover for a secret group that can pretty much do whatever they want. The Da Vinci Code deals with all those various secret groups like the Prior of Scion and the Knights Templar. I just remember Tom Hanks and his creepy semi-mullet that made him look like a child molester. Tomb Raider mentioned the Illuminati but never really explained too much about it. More mainstream are of course is Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix which probably doesn't need any explanation; Batman Begins had the League of Shadows which again probably needs to explaining; Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events had that group that the children's parents belonged to and were trying to find out about through the movie; The Mummy which had that secret group of nomads that were protecting/guarding the pyramid from crazy morons like Brendan Fraser; and lastly Star Wars which in the newer trilogy introduced the Sith and that whole secret anti-Jedi group. My favorite films with mention of secret socieites are: Eyes Wide Shut which was already mentioned (when Tom Cruise's character gets called out during the ritual and is asked to strip gave me the willies when I first saw it); The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen which I ended up hating because it was nothing like the graphic novels which are so incredible; and Cruel Intentions. What you ask? Cruel Intentions? Well, the scene in which Sarah Michelle Gellar's character convinces the naive Selma Blair that being a bisexual slut means you are in a "secret society" is just plain hilarious. Other notable mentions are The Beach which was a group of hippie potheads inhabiting an isolated island off of Thailand and starting their own secret society, going to extreme measures to make sure it stays a secret and The Stepford Wives (remake - I didn't see the original) which was horrible but had it's moment of hilarity when the men of the gated community are all together at their secret clubhouse being complete nerds and fighting robots. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxawesome
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 158

Number of times used: 291

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:23:33 GMT187158291Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag 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/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/the/MemberTagFilms.aspxthe
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 131

Number of times used: 150

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT124131150Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drugs/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrugs
Number of films tagged: 1643

Number of people who tagged: 130

Number of times used: 488

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:36:00 GMT1643130488Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/movie/MemberTagFilms.aspxmovie
Number of films tagged: 363

Number of people who tagged: 114

Number of times used: 187

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:09:46 GMT363114187Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 316

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 457

]]>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:13:35 GMT316111457Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag 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/scary/MemberTagFilms.aspxscary
Number of films tagged: 155

Number of people who tagged: 104

Number of times used: 197

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:07 GMT155104197Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 214

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:30:57 GMT226101214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 91

Number of times used: 122

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:01:38 GMT7891122Tag