list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Bad Education 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/Bad_Education/229512/default.aspx Title: Bad Education
Year: 2004
Director: Pedro Almodóvar
Plot: Filmmaker Pedro Almodóvar takes a look at his own adolescence as well as confronting the issue of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church in this stylish drama, which was chosen to open the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Enrique Goded (Fele Martínez) is a Spanish filmmaker who is having trouble settling on a new project when he's approached by Ignacio Rodriguez (Gael García Bernal), who was his close friend when they were schoolboys. Goded, who fell in love for the first time with Rodriguez, barely recognizes the man as his former crush, but agrees to read the short story he's written. The tale turns out to be an semi-autobiographical account of their days in a Catholic boarding school, in which a cross-dressing night-club performer named Zahara (also played by Bernal) hooks up with a man named Enrique (Alberto Ferreiro), who turns out to have been his first lover when he was a student. Recalling their school days, Zahara tracks down Father Manolo (Daniel Giménez Cacho), one of his teachers from school with pedophilic tendencies, and threatens to expose the priest's attempts to seduce him and ruin his relationship with Enrique years ago. Goded decides to use the story as the basis for his next film, and Rodriguez, an out-of-work actor, makes it clear he's eager to play Zahara. However, Goded isn't certain if Rodriguez is the right actor for the role, or if he's even the man he claims to be; an angry conflict with Rodriguez leads Goded back to the real Ignacio's mother (Petra Martínez). ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 26
Number of Lists: 32
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:27:18 GMTBad Education2004Pedro AlmodóvarFilmmaker <a href="/players/P____79410/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pedro Almodóvar</a> takes a look at his own adolescence as well as confronting the issue of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church in this stylish drama, which was chosen to open the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Enrique Goded (<a href="/players/P___232717/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fele Martínez</a>) is a Spanish filmmaker who is having trouble settling on a new project when he's approached by Ignacio Rodriguez (<a href="/players/P___294532/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gael García Bernal</a>), who was his close friend when they were schoolboys. Goded, who fell in love for the first time with Rodriguez, barely recognizes the man as his former crush, but agrees to read the short story he's written. The tale turns out to be an semi-autobiographical account of their days in a Catholic boarding school, in which a cross-dressing night-club performer named Zahara (also played by Bernal) hooks up with a man named Enrique (Alberto Ferreiro), who turns out to have been his first lover when he was a student. Recalling their school days, Zahara tracks down Father Manolo (Daniel Giménez Cacho), one of his teachers from school with pedophilic tendencies, and threatens to expose the priest's attempts to seduce him and ruin his relationship with Enrique years ago. Goded decides to use the story as the basis for his next film, and Rodriguez, an out-of-work actor, makes it clear he's eager to play Zahara. However, Goded isn't certain if Rodriguez is the right actor for the role, or if he's even the man he claims to be; an angry conflict with Rodriguez leads Goded back to the real Ignacio's mother (Petra Martínez). ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide26Tag Target (>10)32523http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t57625pgrsw.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Bad_Education/229512/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_June_15_That_s_So_Gay/625/42712/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 6/18/2009 6:27:18 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] I've recently discovered that Al Pacino has played a number of gay characters over the course of his career. He was a cop willing to do ANYTHING to become a detective and went undercover into the gay BDSM subculture of New York in Cruising. He was trying to get money for his boyfriend's operation to become a female in Dog Day Afternoon. And he played a closeted lawyer in Angels In America. [/quote] I may be waaaay off here but I thought that I had heard that Frank Serpico was gay too.... I'm not sure though. As far as gay themed films go, I would put Bad Education up there as probably my favorite.... or maybe Bound. I also thought But I'm A Cheerleader was pretty funny. Oh yeah!!! How about Rope. The undertones were quite prevelaint in that one.
]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:27:18 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme6/18/2009 6:27:18 PM[quote user="mercurial"] I've recently discovered that Al Pacino has played a number of gay characters over the course of his career. He was a cop willing to do ANYTHING to become a detective and went undercover into the gay BDSM subculture of New York in Cruising. He was trying to get money for his boyfriend's operation to become a female in Dog Day Afternoon. And he played a closeted lawyer in Angels In America. [/quote] I may be waaaay off here but I thought that I had heard that Frank Serpico was gay too.... I'm not sure though. As far as gay themed films go, I would put Bad Education up there as probably my favorite.... or maybe Bound. I also thought But I'm A Cheerleader was pretty funny. Oh yeah!!! How about Rope. The undertones were quite prevelaint in that one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/15/38418.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/15/2008 6:00:57 PM
Body: When the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/15/2008 6:00:57 PMWhen the Golden Globe nominations were announced last week, there was one glaring omission from the Best Supporting Actor category: a nod for Milk. Actually, there were four glaring omissions, because Milk still does not have a definite forerunner among its quartet of campaigned-for supporting actors, which includes Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna. Did the Hollywood Foreign Press Association truly snub the film, as has been suggested, or could the organization simply not decide which actor to nominate? Perhaps the two favorites, Brolin and Franco, cancelled each other out. If so, the Academy needs to ensure that such a thing doesn’t happen with its Oscar nominations. And the best way to do this is to get behind Diego Luna for Best Supporting Actor. This will no doubt seem like a ridiculous suggestion this late in the game, particularly to the critics who fail to appreciate Luna’s performance. His character, Jack Lira, has been labeled underwritten and unnecessary –– neither of which is true –– and “annoying,” which is precisely how the real Lira was thought of anyway. Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter called Luna’s performance “looped,” Wesley Morris of The Boston Globe joked that the actor “appears to have wandered over from some drunken college production of Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education,” and A.O. Scott at The New York Times wrote that Lira is played “with an operatic verve that stops just short of camp,” which is a little more polite than the multiple reviews that actually straight-up call it camp. Then, there’s Slant critic Ed Gonzalez, who does the most damage, claiming the performance is “embarrassing, miscalculated.” The easiest way to lash back at these criticisms is to accuse most reviewers as being biased against flamboyancy. Sure, Luna’s portrayal of Lira can be viewed as over the top, but that’s not the fault of the actor. And to otherwise negatively respond to the character as “camp” is to display an issue with such insecure personalities as Lira, who projects a boisterous over-identification with the flamboyancy of homosexuality as a sort of masochistic masquerade. The character of Lira is not so much underwritten as unknown and unwelcome, which was basically the reality of his context within Harvey Milk’s campaign. But then to consider the accuracy of Lira’s character and of Luna’s portrayal is to wrongly think that Milk is concrete in capturing the true story. Rather, Milk is more the familiar tale of any martyr who sacrifices his own happiness for the happiness of the masses, who damages his own relationships in order to make possible others’ relationships. For this, Lira is a necessary narrative device, both in terms of contrasting with Franco’s more reserved love-interest character and in terms of contrasting, as the single-save, with the larger civil rights goal at hand. In this role, Luna certainly goes above and beyond the call for serviceability in his portrait of jealous desperation and the politically dismissed individual. Highlighting the critics’ praises for Luna would unfortunately amount to quoting mostly also-ran notices in which he’s included, by name or not, within celebrations of the whole supporting ensemble (including the one supporting actress contender, Alison Pill). Indeed, it is this recognition of the film’s ensemble that has probably allowed for so much of a split among the film’s kudos, and yet it’s one of Milk’s greater assets that there is such equality and consistency with regards to the characters and the acting. Sean Penn may be the obvious lead, and his performance may be spotlighted above the others as a result, but in group scenes Gus Van Sant places the titular character in a fairly even playing field with the rest, enough that Focus Features may just as well have included Joseph Cross, Victor Garber and other unrecognized cast members on its For Your Consideration posters for Milk. In a perfect world they all could be nominated, and honored, as they will be when the film most assuredly wins the Outstanding Performance by a Cast award at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. But the closest thing for the Academy to do in this fashion would be to name all four campaigned-for supporting actors from Milk. Considering a lack of sure things in the category other than Heath Ledger, who is certain to win the award posthumously, there would be little harm in having the other slots filled by Brolin, Franco, Hirsch and Luna. Plus, it would make Oscar history, as it would be the first time the Academy nominated four actors in this category (three films have had three actors nominated: On the Waterfront; The Godfather and The Godfather Part II). Another idea is to simply shrug away the three most celebrated contenders (Brolin, Franco and Hirsch, respectively #2, #6 and #10 on The Envelope’s Supporting Actor Buzzmeter) and pull out the underdog, the non-registering yet still deserving Luna. The other alternative is to continue the divide, which will lead to a category as follows: Ledger (The Dark Knight); Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt); Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder); Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire). With no love for either Franco, who has been chosen by the Independent Spirit Awards and the Golden Satellite Awards, or Brolin, who has been picked by the National Board of Review and the New York Film Critics. Both actors were actually jointly selected as nominees for the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, but it’s difficult to imagine this compromise happening with the Academy’s voters, who may have a one-or-the-other attitude when considering whose year, Brolin’s or Franco’s, it really was. Both actors equally deserve the recognition for their collective 2008 performances, though that shouldn’t necessarily count towards a nomination for a single role, and both are sure to be cast in more Oscar-worthy parts in the future. Hirsch, likewise, is due for the honor after being ignored last year and will similarly continue to acquire juicy roles in the future. Luna, on the other hand, is less likely to get the kinds of roles that attract Oscar recognition, especially if his negative reviews from Milk follow him in his career. So, in a way, he’s the more deserving supporting actor in the bunch.  Not only did he give as remarkable a performance as his fellow cast members, but also he’s probably the one who’ll most benefit from the honor. And the Oscars needn’t be so much a competition and marking of who is best; it ought to be a general celebration of great talent and also a push for further excellence from such talent. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/kowalski76/archive/2008/10/9/36108.aspx Post By: Kowalski76
Post To: Rebellious Celluloid
Post Date: 10/9/2008 3:45:49 PM
Body: Bad Education2004 (Spain)dir: Pedro AlmodovarGael García Bernal, Daniel Giménez Cacho, Fele MartínezA young man, Enrique (played by Fele Martinez) is working as a film director. He is visited by a childhood friend Ignacio Rodriguez (played by Gael Garcia Bernal), who is looking for work. Before he leaves Ignacio gives Enrique a book that he has written called 'The Visit'. The story centres around the lives of two young boys who attend a Catholic School. Enrique decides to make a film based on the book which is set to resurrect his own childhood.The film visits three time periods. The past features the Catholic School where two young boys come of age and begin to have feelings for one another and the influence their teacher has on their lives, priest Father Manolo (played by Daniel Gimenez Cacho).The director Pedro Almodovar provides a spellbinding insight into how reality is transformed by fantasy as he weaves his story through the 70s and 80s, and pre and post-Franco Spain. He takes a little time to find his stride, but WOW does this film hit you for six when he does.The cinematography on show is equally breath-taking, the use of vibrant colours framed by typical film noir neutrals a now established Almodovar trait. It all provides a perfect backdrop for the talented Gael Garcia-Bernal as he impressively juggles multiple personalities. Watching Pedro and Gael at work is an education on its own. This DVD will never be far from my player.
]]>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:45:49 GMTKowalski76Rebellious Celluloid10/9/2008 3:45:49 PMBad Education2004 (Spain)dir: Pedro AlmodovarGael Garc&iacute;a Bernal, Daniel Gim&eacute;nez Cacho, Fele Mart&iacute;nezA young man, Enrique (played by Fele Martinez) is working as a film director. He is visited by a childhood friend Ignacio Rodriguez (played by Gael Garcia Bernal), who is looking for work. Before he leaves Ignacio gives Enrique a book that he has written called 'The Visit'. The story centres around the lives of two young boys who attend a Catholic School. Enrique decides to make a film based on the book which is set to resurrect his own childhood.The film visits three time periods. The past features the Catholic School where two young boys come of age and begin to have feelings for one another and the influence their teacher has on their lives, priest Father Manolo (played by Daniel Gimenez Cacho).The director Pedro Almodovar provides a spellbinding insight into how reality is transformed by fantasy as he weaves his story through the 70s and 80s, and pre and post-Franco Spain. He takes a little time to find his stride, but WOW does this film hit you for six when he does.The cinematography on show is equally breath-taking, the use of vibrant colours framed by typical film noir neutrals a now established Almodovar trait. It all provides a perfect backdrop for the talented Gael Garcia-Bernal as he impressively juggles multiple personalities. Watching Pedro and Gael at work is an education on its own. This DVD will never be far from my player. http://www.spout.com/groups/Double_Feature/Re_Unlikely_Double_Features/426/17526/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: Double Feature
Post Date: 8/7/2007 2:08:34 PM
Body: [quote user="porcupine"] here's an example of a double feature that i think would bring out aspects of each film that wouldn't surface otherwise:Predator and Kindergarten Cop [/quote]Porcupine, if you put up a pair like that, you need to splain it. My first guess is that you had to help out in a kindergarten class one time and it totally freaked you out? (But no. If you were comparing kindergarten children to predators, like I hoped, you would have put the movies in the opposite order. So I guess this is like Fistful of Dollars and Bronco Billy or Terminator and Junior.)In which case I offer Going My Way and Bad Education.Perspectives on war:Letters from Iwo Jima and We Were SoldiersPaths of Glory and JarheadTimes change:Max and Der Untergang (Downfall)Pan's Labyrinth and L'Auberge Espagnole
]]>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 18:08:34 GMTjoem18bDouble Feature8/7/2007 2:08:34 PM[quote user="porcupine"] here&#39;s an example of a double feature that i think would bring out aspects of each film that wouldn&#39;t surface otherwise:Predator and Kindergarten Cop [/quote]Porcupine, if you put up a pair like that, you need to splain it. My first guess is that you had to help out in a kindergarten class one time and it totally freaked you out? (But no. If you were comparing kindergarten children to predators, like I hoped, you would have put the movies in the opposite order. So I guess this is like Fistful of Dollars and Bronco Billy or Terminator and Junior.)In which case I offer Going My Way and Bad Education.Perspectives on war:Letters from Iwo Jima and We Were SoldiersPaths of Glory and JarheadTimes change:Max and Der Untergang (Downfall)Pan&#39;s Labyrinth and L&#39;Auberge Espagnole http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/13/13942.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/13/2007 5:18:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski Love, anger, joy, sorrow—none of these emotions can be found in Bad Education. In this chilly film noir, the usual Pedro Almodóvar trifecta of passion-grief-hysteria—rendered, of course, with Benjamin Moore brightness—is nowhere to be found. Yes, there’s frequent talk of love in this story of priestly pedophilia and prepubescent gay crushes, but none of it is ever brought to life. Also missing are Almodóvar’s women, though given that the Spanish auteur’s last masterpiece, Talk to Her, was also driven by male characters, this probably isn’t the source of the problem. More likely, Almodóvar just got so caught up orchestrating his refracted plot that he forgot to make the people involved in it all that human. Or maybe he was too busy trying to fit in one more reference to a certain cameo-loving American auteur. In any case, thank God his star is so magnetic: Gael García Bernal, last seen portraying the sunnier side of Che Guevara in The Motorcycle Diaries, again proves he’s not just a pretty face by deftly handling three roles—or, more accurately, three variations on the same character—as the story moves back and forth between times and realities. Though it’s impossible to describe all three personas without giving too much away, suffice it to say that any actor who can convincingly bring Jake Gyllenhaal to mind one minute and Juliette Lewis the next will hold your interest even when the rest of the cast can’t. Bad Education begins in 1980, when Bernal is introduced as Angel, an actor formerly known as Ignacio who 16 years ago was best buds (and a little more) with Enrique (Fele Martínez), now a filmmaker. Angel, an aspiring writer, brings Enrique a script titled The Visit that tells of their experiences at a Catholic boarding school—and then jumps ahead to imagine Enrique unhappily married and Ignacio now a tranny entertainer called Zahara. After the fictionalized grown-ups meet again, Zahara decides to blackmail their grade-school principal, Father Manolo (Daniel Giménez-Cacho), who repeatedly molested Ignacio and, after once finding the 10-year-old boys together in a bathroom stall after bedtime, expelled Enrique to keep him from molesting Ignacio, too. Almodóvar weaves the interactions between Enrique and Angel with the imagined parts of Angel’s story, flashbacks to the late ’60s, and a segment set in the late ’70s that fills in a few blanks pertaining to the movie’s Vertigo-esque twist. This complex (though tidy) telling manages to engage, but only because of its difficulty: The characters are too superficial to be sympathetic in the present, and their story isn’t convincing enough to make you care about what happened to them in the past. The young protagonists’ boy-boy love, for instance, is portrayed by longing stares, a walk to the cinema, and some no-nonsense mutual masturbation. Priest-boy love—and the word “love” is actually used—is also demonstrated by longing stares. But in this case, we also get a shot of bushes that Ignacio runs out of following an unplugged principal-student performance of “Moon River,” as well as a scene in which Ignacio helps Father Manolo remove his vestments and then offers to “do anything” to keep Enrique from being expelled. None of it is very believable. And Zahara’s expressed desire to make Father Manolo “pay” notwithstanding, none of it seems to have been particularly traumatizing, either. Though Almodóvar has exchanged his usual emotional gut-punch for Hitchcockian intricacy, Bad Education does boast his usual visual flair, from Zahara’s sherbet-colored outfits to Enrique’s sunshine-bright house in the hills. Best of all, though, are the opening credits, whose black, white, and red Saul Bass–like graphics are accompanied by Alberto Iglesias’ perfectly Bernard Herrmann– esque score. It’s a brashly old-Hollywood touch—the type of thing that thrillingly seems to signal that you’re about to behold not a movie, but an event. If only the rest of the film were the happenin’ happening we’re promised. Bad Education’s bold style and puzzle-piece story certainly grab your attention, but they can’t conceal the movie’s fundamental problem: If they aren’t made with a little love, even Almodóvar’s most stylish pieces just don’t wear well. There’s plenty of love in writer-director Paul Weitz’s In Good Company—specifically, the back-slapping kind between a senior ad-sales manager and the young whippersnapper who ends up taking his place. Sure, there’s also a traditional romance here, but once the unlikely work partners exchange heartfelt “Listen, [Blank], you’ve really helped me [blank]” speeches after half a film’s worth of resistance, it’s clear where the real connection has occurred. Weitz’s two main characters initially seem dangerously close to cliché: Dan (Dennis Quaid) is a 51-year-old glad-handing ad salesman at Sports America magazine, which has just been taken over by Globecom, a gigundous media conglomerate. Carter (Topher Grace) is the 26-year-old whiz kid from Globecom who, on the basis of his shameless campaign to market cell phones to children, is promoted into Dan’s position and charged with increasing sales and slashing payroll. Though Dan’s longtime colleagues end up fired, Carter, whether out of guilt or common sense, decides to keep Dan on to serve as his “awesome wing man.” Further complicating matters is Carter’s eventual relationship with Alex (Scarlett Johansson), Dan’s college-age eldest daughter. Perhaps not all that surprisingly, however, Weitz—who succeeded in making Hugh Grant’s Peter Pan character sympathetic in About a Boy—so thoroughly rounds out the potential caricatures that you soon forgive his contrived setup. Both men are portrayed as simultaneously enviable and sad: Dan’s career shakeup is made more manageable by a solid home life, and the thrill Carter feels when he’s promoted is dampened by loneliness when his new wife (Selma Blair) unexpectedly leaves him. Weitz also takes care to avoid any schadenfreude inherent in the latter situation by keeping the younger man’s cockiness in check; his terror at entering a situation he suspects is over his head is palpable (a deep breath and some hesitation before stepping into Sports America’s office for the first time), if not spoken outright (“I’m scared shitless. I have no idea what I’m doing”). The two actors are right at home in Weitz’s well-written characters, with Quaid lending a slight dorfiness to Dan—a man not above making a terrible 50 Cent joke in front of his younger colleagues—and Grace easing back on his usually snarky tone to inject genuine sincerity into Carter’s many “awesome!”s. Side-by-side in business suits, the pair look entirely ridiculous together until the story gently shifts their dynamic to where, Weitz seems to argue, it should rightly be: Dan teaching the youngster some old tricks while opening his own mind to change. Thematically, In Good Company is all over the place, with the dominant ideas of the inhumanity of bottom-line thinking and the joys of career vs. home life at times giving way to myriad father issues—Carter never really had one, and Dan not only struggles with letting his two teenage daughters become adults, but also learns that there’s another baby on the way. Aside from a too-happily-ever-after ending, though, Weitz is such a subtle juggler that all of this seems less like overload than, well, the messiness of real life. The film’s depiction of office politics—the murmured gossip, the building-wide chill of a shouted closed-door meeting—is dead-on. And so, it turns out, are its relationships, especially the ones that Carter so desperately seeks out. You’ve gotta love that.
]]>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:18:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/13/2007 5:18:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski Love, anger, joy, sorrow&mdash;none of these emotions can be found in Bad Education. In this chilly film noir, the usual Pedro Almod&oacute;var trifecta of passion-grief-hysteria&mdash;rendered, of course, with Benjamin Moore brightness&mdash;is nowhere to be found. Yes, there&rsquo;s frequent talk of love in this story of priestly pedophilia and prepubescent gay crushes, but none of it is ever brought to life. Also missing are Almod&oacute;var&rsquo;s women, though given that the Spanish auteur&rsquo;s last masterpiece, Talk to Her, was also driven by male characters, this probably isn&rsquo;t the source of the problem. More likely, Almod&oacute;var just got so caught up orchestrating his refracted plot that he forgot to make the people involved in it all that human. Or maybe he was too busy trying to fit in one more reference to a certain cameo-loving American auteur. In any case, thank God his star is so magnetic: Gael Garc&iacute;a Bernal, last seen portraying the sunnier side of Che Guevara in The Motorcycle Diaries, again proves he&rsquo;s not just a pretty face by deftly handling three roles&mdash;or, more accurately, three variations on the same character&mdash;as the story moves back and forth between times and realities. Though it&rsquo;s impossible to describe all three personas without giving too much away, suffice it to say that any actor who can convincingly bring Jake Gyllenhaal to mind one minute and Juliette Lewis the next will hold your interest even when the rest of the cast can&rsquo;t. Bad Education begins in 1980, when Bernal is introduced as Angel, an actor formerly known as Ignacio who 16 years ago was best buds (and a little more) with Enrique (Fele Mart&iacute;nez), now a filmmaker. Angel, an aspiring writer, brings Enrique a script titled The Visit that tells of their experiences at a Catholic boarding school&mdash;and then jumps ahead to imagine Enrique unhappily married and Ignacio now a tranny entertainer called Zahara. After the fictionalized grown-ups meet again, Zahara decides to blackmail their grade-school principal, Father Manolo (Daniel Gim&eacute;nez-Cacho), who repeatedly molested Ignacio and, after once finding the 10-year-old boys together in a bathroom stall after bedtime, expelled Enrique to keep him from molesting Ignacio, too. Almod&oacute;var weaves the interactions between Enrique and Angel with the imagined parts of Angel&rsquo;s story, flashbacks to the late &rsquo;60s, and a segment set in the late &rsquo;70s that fills in a few blanks pertaining to the movie&rsquo;s Vertigo-esque twist. This complex (though tidy) telling manages to engage, but only because of its difficulty: The characters are too superficial to be sympathetic in the present, and their story isn&rsquo;t convincing enough to make you care about what happened to them in the past. The young protagonists&rsquo; boy-boy love, for instance, is portrayed by longing stares, a walk to the cinema, and some no-nonsense mutual masturbation. Priest-boy love&mdash;and the word &ldquo;love&rdquo; is actually used&mdash;is also demonstrated by longing stares. But in this case, we also get a shot of bushes that Ignacio runs out of following an unplugged principal-student performance of &ldquo;Moon River,&rdquo; as well as a scene in which Ignacio helps Father Manolo remove his vestments and then offers to &ldquo;do anything&rdquo; to keep Enrique from being expelled. None of it is very believable. And Zahara&rsquo;s expressed desire to make Father Manolo &ldquo;pay&rdquo; notwithstanding, none of it seems to have been particularly traumatizing, either. Though Almod&oacute;var has exchanged his usual emotional gut-punch for Hitchcockian intricacy, Bad Education does boast his usual visual flair, from Zahara&rsquo;s sherbet-colored outfits to Enrique&rsquo;s sunshine-bright house in the hills. Best of all, though, are the opening credits, whose black, white, and red Saul Bass&ndash;like graphics are accompanied by Alberto Iglesias&rsquo; perfectly Bernard Herrmann&ndash; esque score. It&rsquo;s a brashly old-Hollywood touch&mdash;the type of thing that thrillingly seems to signal that you&rsquo;re about to behold not a movie, but an event. If only the rest of the film were the happenin&rsquo; happening we&rsquo;re promised. Bad Education&rsquo;s bold style and puzzle-piece story certainly grab your attention, but they can&rsquo;t conceal the movie&rsquo;s fundamental problem: If they aren&rsquo;t made with a little love, even Almod&oacute;var&rsquo;s most stylish pieces just don&rsquo;t wear well. There&rsquo;s plenty of love in writer-director Paul Weitz&rsquo;s In Good Company&mdash;specifically, the back-slapping kind between a senior ad-sales manager and the young whippersnapper who ends up taking his place. Sure, there&rsquo;s also a traditional romance here, but once the unlikely work partners exchange heartfelt &ldquo;Listen, [Blank], you&rsquo;ve really helped me [blank]&rdquo; speeches after half a film&rsquo;s worth of resistance, it&rsquo;s clear where the real connection has occurred. Weitz&rsquo;s two main characters initially seem dangerously close to clich&eacute;: Dan (Dennis Quaid) is a 51-year-old glad-handing ad salesman at Sports America magazine, which has just been taken over by Globecom, a gigundous media conglomerate. Carter (Topher Grace) is the 26-year-old whiz kid from Globecom who, on the basis of his shameless campaign to market cell phones to children, is promoted into Dan&rsquo;s position and charged with increasing sales and slashing payroll. Though Dan&rsquo;s longtime colleagues end up fired, Carter, whether out of guilt or common sense, decides to keep Dan on to serve as his &ldquo;awesome wing man.&rdquo; Further complicating matters is Carter&rsquo;s eventual relationship with Alex (Scarlett Johansson), Dan&rsquo;s college-age eldest daughter. Perhaps not all that surprisingly, however, Weitz&mdash;who succeeded in making Hugh Grant&rsquo;s Peter Pan character sympathetic in About a Boy&mdash;so thoroughly rounds out the potential caricatures that you soon forgive his contrived setup. Both men are portrayed as simultaneously enviable and sad: Dan&rsquo;s career shakeup is made more manageable by a solid home life, and the thrill Carter feels when he&rsquo;s promoted is dampened by loneliness when his new wife (Selma Blair) unexpectedly leaves him. Weitz also takes care to avoid any schadenfreude inherent in the latter situation by keeping the younger man&rsquo;s cockiness in check; his terror at entering a situation he suspects is over his head is palpable (a deep breath and some hesitation before stepping into Sports America&rsquo;s office for the first time), if not spoken outright (&ldquo;I&rsquo;m scared shitless. I have no idea what I&rsquo;m doing&rdquo;). The two actors are right at home in Weitz&rsquo;s well-written characters, with Quaid lending a slight dorfiness to Dan&mdash;a man not above making a terrible 50 Cent joke in front of his younger colleagues&mdash;and Grace easing back on his usually snarky tone to inject genuine sincerity into Carter&rsquo;s many &ldquo;awesome!&rdquo;s. Side-by-side in business suits, the pair look entirely ridiculous together until the story gently shifts their dynamic to where, Weitz seems to argue, it should rightly be: Dan teaching the youngster some old tricks while opening his own mind to change. Thematically, In Good Company is all over the place, with the dominant ideas of the inhumanity of bottom-line thinking and the joys of career vs. home life at times giving way to myriad father issues&mdash;Carter never really had one, and Dan not only struggles with letting his two teenage daughters become adults, but also learns that there&rsquo;s another baby on the way. Aside from a too-happily-ever-after ending, though, Weitz is such a subtle juggler that all of this seems less like overload than, well, the messiness of real life. The film&rsquo;s depiction of office politics&mdash;the murmured gossip, the building-wide chill of a shouted closed-door meeting&mdash;is dead-on. And so, it turns out, are its relationships, especially the ones that Carter so desperately seeks out. You&rsquo;ve gotta love that. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/7/1/12745.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 7/1/2007 1:25:00 AM
Body: Proteus is an historical drama, shot directly on video in the style of many past PBS specials, more comparable in experience to theatre than film. In the wrong hands stiff and self-conscious, in the right ones understated and dynamic. Filmmakers John Greyson and Jack Lewis have found in actual records of incidents emerging from Robben Island, a penal colony of Cape Town, South Africa, intriguing metaphors (or barometers) for the politics of masculinity that suffused Amsterdam and South Africa in 1725. What makes Proteus ingenious, is how easily it applies to contemporary culture. Like To Kill a Mockingbird, it says more about the community than the accused. Informs by the questions it raises in the audience’s minds. Questions the characters never ask. A possible theme of Proteus might be grotesque consequences of the unspoken: particular acts that are untranslatable in Christian society. Professions of love that even the subtitles refuse to transmit in English.Proteus opens with a trio of stenographers taking dictation, dressed in attire that I think must place them somewhere between the 1950’s and 60’s. They are struggling to translate phrases without using terms that sound “too contemporary.“ It is not until the end of the film that Greyson and Lewis reveal them as court reporters in the sodomy trial of Claas Blank (Rouxnet Brow) and Rijkhaart Jacobsz (Neil Sandilands). I confess I’ve never seen a device quite like this, radios and relatively modern attire turning up amongst colonials, and no one batting an eye. But when you consider the situation: people behaving in ways inconsistent with the sophisticated reasoning available to them, clinging to the trappings of provincialism while taking enlightenment for granted (or ignoring it altogether) it fits. The film is filled with frank improbabilities, an African man named Blank, a prisoner flogged to death for stealing penguin eggs, male lovers dealing in horse-imagery (“Today I will be the cinnamon mare.”) a tobacco pouch made from a woman’s mammary. What makes these bizarre incidents useful, is that in a world where the “crime” of same-gender sexual attachment has less to do with activity than with protocol and caste, they make perfect sense; without losing their obvious absurdity. Claas and Rijkhaart are executed for their behavior while the botanist who employs them, Virgil Niven (Shaun Smyth) is never made accountable in a court of law.Proteus spends a great deal of time exploring language and the nature of truth. An officer is sacked for interpreting orders inappropriately, even though it is a discretionary blunder. Claas distorts language and folklore to curry favor with Niven. Niven names the strange flower by extrapolating from the same myth. As previously mentioned any words used to denote man-to-man sex is biblical and pejorative at best. Even Claas and Rijkhaart have trouble discussing it. And if either one of them declares his love aloud, it is literally lost in translation. Confession is worse than denial. In the sad, twisted world of Proteus, it is worse to express love for another man than to talk about sex between men. It’s worse that Rijkhaart was penetrated by a black man. The number of films that turn on personal agenda and conflicting versions of reality are numerous (Rashomon, The Lady in Question, Bad Education, Go! ) but this is something else entirely. Like Molina and Valentin in Kiss of the Spider Woman, Blank and Jacobsz keep positing different viewpoints until they find mutual terrain. Claas earns redemption by admitting homoerotic behavior and in doing so, elicits his own execution. If this sounds like a B-Movie just waiting to happen, somehow Greyson and Lewis avoid it. The riveting content supercedes the plot. And it doesn’t have the famished, pedestrian look of many video-dramas. The cinematography goes way beyond aesthetic cloying to imbue shots with vibrance and meaning. Virgil Niven the botanist eventually names the exotic, tropical flower Proteus, for the shape-shifting Greek sea god. At first Claas doesn’t get the connection, but the audience understands only too well. We all know that sex between guys is a fact of life, whether it’s between privileged-class white men in the wharf district of Amsterdam, racially divided prisoners, sailors or circle jerk buddies at summer camp. Proteus is about transforming experience by altering language, removing stigma by shifting connotation. It’s almost too easy to go back to Robert Anderson’s Tea and Sympathy, where the heroine tells her husband he persecutes a sensitive student for what he fears most in himself. Almost 50 years later and “it still is news.“ Whether they want to admit it or not, most men, however they identify, know where to find gay-sex when they want it. And know that discretion will spare them the consequences of civilization’s homophobic mass hysteria.
]]>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 05:25:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun7/1/2007 1:25:00 AMProteus is an historical drama, shot directly on video in the style of many past PBS specials, more comparable in experience to theatre than film. In the wrong hands stiff and self-conscious, in the right ones understated and dynamic. Filmmakers John Greyson and Jack Lewis have found in actual records of incidents emerging from Robben Island, a penal colony of Cape Town, South Africa, intriguing metaphors (or barometers) for the politics of masculinity that suffused Amsterdam and South Africa in 1725. What makes Proteus ingenious, is how easily it applies to contemporary culture. Like To Kill a Mockingbird, it says more about the community than the accused. Informs by the questions it raises in the audience&rsquo;s minds. Questions the characters never ask. A possible theme of Proteus might be grotesque consequences of the unspoken: particular acts that are untranslatable in Christian society. Professions of love that even the subtitles refuse to transmit in English.Proteus opens with a trio of stenographers taking dictation, dressed in attire that I think must place them somewhere between the 1950&rsquo;s and 60&rsquo;s. They are struggling to translate phrases without using terms that sound &ldquo;too contemporary.&ldquo; It is not until the end of the film that Greyson and Lewis reveal them as court reporters in the sodomy trial of Claas Blank (Rouxnet Brow) and Rijkhaart Jacobsz (Neil Sandilands). I confess I&rsquo;ve never seen a device quite like this, radios and relatively modern attire turning up amongst colonials, and no one batting an eye. But when you consider the situation: people behaving in ways inconsistent with the sophisticated reasoning available to them, clinging to the trappings of provincialism while taking enlightenment for granted (or ignoring it altogether) it fits. The film is filled with frank improbabilities, an African man named Blank, a prisoner flogged to death for stealing penguin eggs, male lovers dealing in horse-imagery (&ldquo;Today I will be the cinnamon mare.&rdquo;) a tobacco pouch made from a woman&rsquo;s mammary. What makes these bizarre incidents useful, is that in a world where the &ldquo;crime&rdquo; of same-gender sexual attachment has less to do with activity than with protocol and caste, they make perfect sense; without losing their obvious absurdity. Claas and Rijkhaart are executed for their behavior while the botanist who employs them, Virgil Niven (Shaun Smyth) is never made accountable in a court of law.Proteus spends a great deal of time exploring language and the nature of truth. An officer is sacked for interpreting orders inappropriately, even though it is a discretionary blunder. Claas distorts language and folklore to curry favor with Niven. Niven names the strange flower by extrapolating from the same myth. As previously mentioned any words used to denote man-to-man sex is biblical and pejorative at best. Even Claas and Rijkhaart have trouble discussing it. And if either one of them declares his love aloud, it is literally lost in translation. Confession is worse than denial. In the sad, twisted world of Proteus, it is worse to express love for another man than to talk about sex between men. It&rsquo;s worse that Rijkhaart was penetrated by a black man. The number of films that turn on personal agenda and conflicting versions of reality are numerous (Rashomon, The Lady in Question, Bad Education, Go! ) but this is something else entirely. Like Molina and Valentin in Kiss of the Spider Woman, Blank and Jacobsz keep positing different viewpoints until they find mutual terrain. Claas earns redemption by admitting homoerotic behavior and in doing so, elicits his own execution. If this sounds like a B-Movie just waiting to happen, somehow Greyson and Lewis avoid it. The riveting content supercedes the plot. And it doesn&rsquo;t have the famished, pedestrian look of many video-dramas. The cinematography goes way beyond aesthetic cloying to imbue shots with vibrance and meaning. Virgil Niven the botanist eventually names the exotic, tropical flower Proteus, for the shape-shifting Greek sea god. At first Claas doesn&rsquo;t get the connection, but the audience understands only too well. We all know that sex between guys is a fact of life, whether it&rsquo;s between privileged-class white men in the wharf district of Amsterdam, racially divided prisoners, sailors or circle jerk buddies at summer camp. Proteus is about transforming experience by altering language, removing stigma by shifting connotation. It&rsquo;s almost too easy to go back to Robert Anderson&rsquo;s Tea and Sympathy, where the heroine tells her husband he persecutes a sensitive student for what he fears most in himself. Almost 50 years later and &ldquo;it still is news.&ldquo; Whether they want to admit it or not, most men, however they identify, know where to find gay-sex when they want it. And know that discretion will spare them the consequences of civilization&rsquo;s homophobic mass hysteria. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/3/14/6525.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/14/2007 11:30:08 AM
Body: Our regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:30:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/14/2007 11:30:08 AMOur regular guest writer, Dodd (moviedodd at spout.com), tells us what's the latest in movie rating news, and shares his mixed feelings about the proposed changes. Dodd is finishing up a Master's degree in Film Studies at Ohio University. Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about the current film rating system implemented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Filmmakers have raised hell about it all on their own for the past few years, but now the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated has served as an expose on the selective standards of MPAA members. The film seems to have had an affect already. Since its release, MPAA head honcho Dan Glickman has admitted to the organization's vague guidelines for what sets an R picture apart from an NC-17 one, and that proper actions would be taken to fix that problem. It seems that Glickman was not just throwing words around for publicity purposes. According to a recent Variety article, Dan Glickman has announced that the MPAA is developing a "hard R" rating, which is not to be confused with the original "soft R." In other words, films like Little Miss Sunshine, with its occasional F-bomb and sex joke, will be branded with a regular R. However, movies with blood-spurting decapitations, hardcore sex scenes, and f**k thrown into every sentence will be awarded the new, hard R rating. Not only will there be a new R-rating, but the NC-17 rating may be eliminated. The hardcore rating limits film distribution and advertising on television, so the organization wishes to lump anything that is extremely graphic in nature under the new hard R-rating, with hopes that audiences, exhibitors, and advertisers will embrace it more than the much-feared NC-17. I feel a little torn on this issue. Apparently, the new hard R-rating is the result of parents complaining that their children are being exposed to graphic content in R films. First off, the film is rated R, which means that the content is not appropriate for those under 17. Parents who choose to allow minors to watch these films have been warned to be cautious. Secondly, R-ratings currently contain little descriptions indicting the nature of the content--anything from drug use to angry sex to graphic conversations. Finally, if these descriptors prove to be too vague, there is a wealth of information about the graphic content of movies on the Internet, from movie reviews to the MPAA's website to Yahoo's Movie Mom. Therefore, my question is whether or not a new R-rating will stop parents from complaining. Teens will be teens, and they will always figure out ways to see hardcore content. While the rating system is useful, it will never magically babysit kids. On the other hand, I am happy to see the elimination of the NC-17 system. Yes, it can be affiliated with the cult disaster known only as Showgirls, but the rating has also sunk potential pictures like a rock for miniscule details. It has also locked its sights on unconventional sex rather than violence. It will be nice to see art house gems such as Bad Education not being ostracized like a sleazy snuff film. What do you think? Does the MPAA need a new R categorization, or will people complain about it anyway? Are you ready to see NC-17 get tossed aside, or does it still serve a useful purpose? Syndicated Feed From:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sexy/MemberTagFilms.aspxsexy
Number of films tagged: 117

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 157

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:16:48 GMT11782157Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationships/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationships
Number of films tagged: 204

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 250

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:35 GMT20474250Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/noir/MemberTagFilms.aspxnoir
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 134

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:43 GMT7767134Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 155

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:32 GMT103562155Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/coming-of-age/MemberTagFilms.aspxcoming-of-age
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:47:51 GMT834099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/foreign/MemberTagFilms.aspxforeign
Number of films tagged: 491

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 421

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:41:30 GMT49130421Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/priest/MemberTagFilms.aspxpriest
Number of films tagged: 703

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 35

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:09:32 GMT7032435Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/blackmail/MemberTagFilms.aspxblackmail
Number of films tagged: 1006

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 38

]]>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:51:08 GMT10062338Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmmaker
Number of films tagged: 1675

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT16751730Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/spain/MemberTagFilms.aspxspain
Number of films tagged: 380

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:37:45 GMT3801625Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boardingschool/MemberTagFilms.aspxboardingschool
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT1771525Tag